Public 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project 

FERC No. 2042-013 
FERC/FEIS—0152F 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR HYDROPOWER RELICENSING

BOX CANYON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 

FERC Project No. 2042-013 

Washington and Idaho 

Applicant: 

Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County 

P.O. Box 190 

Newport, WA 99156-0190 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

Division of Hydropower Licensing 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

September 2004 
This page intentionally left blank 
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20426 

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS 

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: 

Attached is the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Box Canyon 

Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2042-013), located on the Pend Oreille River in 

Washington and Idaho. 

This EIS documents the views of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(Commission or FERC) staff regarding the relicensing of the hydroelectric project. 

Before the Commission makes a decision on relicensing, it will take into account all 

concerns relevant to the public interest. This final EIS will be part of the record from 

which the Commission will make its decision. The EIS was sent to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and made available to the public on or about 

September 30, 2004. 

Copies of this final EIS are available for review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. An 

electronic copy of the EIS may be viewed on FERC’s website at http://www.ferc.gov

using the “eLibrary” link. Please call (202) 502-8222 or TTY (202) 208-1659 for 

assistance. 

Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Statement 
This page intentionally left blank 
COVER SHEET 

a. Title: Relicensing the Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project, Washington and 

Idaho 

b. Subject: Final Environmental Impact Statement 

c. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

d. Abstract: The Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County (PUD) filed 

an application for a new license for the existing 72-megawatt Box 

Canyon Hydroelectric Project, located on the Pend Oreille River in 

northeastern Washington/Idaho. The Box Canyon Project lies 

between the upstream Albeni Falls dam and downstream Boundary

dam and is operated in a run-of-river mode. Of the 12,077-acre 

project area, more than 700 acres are federal lands, about 500 of 

which are within the Kalispel Indian Reservation and 200 within the 

Colville National Forest. Although not a feature of the previous 

license, the Calispell Creek Pumping Plant (on a major tributary to 

the Box Canyon reservoir) is now included as part of the Box Canyon 

Project because its operation allows the project to operate with 2 feet 

higher head than would otherwise be the case, without causing 

flooding into the Calispell Creek agricultural lands. 

The Pend Oreille River is part of the Columbia River drainage basin. 

Historically, this reach supported native salmonids, including bull 

trout and westslope cutthroat trout. Aquatic habitat in the 55-milelong BCR currently favors warmwater fish species, but state fish and 

wildlife agencies aspire to restore native salmonid populations 

through tributary and mainstem habitat restoration. Land use in the 

project area is mostly rural with large areas of natural forest, open 

pastures, and low density residential development. Development 

includes timber harvesting, grazing, mining, heavy industry, and 

recreational facilities. 

The key issues associated with relicensing this project entail 

restoration of the native fishery, reduction of total dissolved gases 

(TDG) below the project, enhancement of local recreational 

opportunities, protection and enhancement of local vegetation and 

wildlife, including seven federally listed species, and the protection 

of the local economy. 

The staff’s recommendation is to relicense the project as proposed, 

with additional measures to protect and enhance environmental 

iii 
resources, including phased implementation of a TDG-reduction 

program, terrestrial and aquatic (tributary) habitat restoration and 

enhancement, studies to evaluate the need for fish passage facilities,

protective measures for rare plants and animals, recreation 

enhancements, and a plan for protecting cultural resources. 

e. Contact: Environmental Staff Staff Counsel

 

Jon Cofrancesco Keith Brooks 

Federal Energy Regulatory Federal Energy Regulatory 

 Commission Commission

Office of Energy Projects Office of General Counsel 

888 First Street, N.E. 888 First Street, N.E. 

 Washington, DC 20426 Washington, DC 20426 

 (202) 502-8951 (202) 502-8174 

f. Transmittal: This final environmental impact statement, prepared by the 

Commission’s staff on the hydroelectric license application filed by 

Public Utility District No.1 of Pend Oreille County for the existing 

Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project (Project No. 2042-013), is being 

made available to the public on or about September, 2004, as required 

by the National Environmental Policy Act of 19691

 and the 

Commission’s Regulations Implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act (18 CFR Part 380). 

 1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (Pub. L. 91-190. 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 

January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub.

L. 97-258, §4(b), September 13, 1982).

iv 
FOREWORD 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), pursuant to the 

Federal Power Act (FPA)2

 and the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act,3 is 

authorized to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of nonfederal hydroelectric developments subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary 

conditions: 

That the project adopted...shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will 

be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway 

or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the 

improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the adequate 

protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related 

spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including 

irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred 

to in Section 4(e)...4

The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the FPA 

as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the 

project.5

 Compliance with such conditions during the licensing period is required. The 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure allow any person objecting to a licensee’s 

compliance or noncompliance with such conditions to file a complaint noting the basis 

for such objection for the Commission’s consideration.

6

 

 2 6 U.S.C. §§791(a)–825(r), as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, Public Law 

99495 (1986) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 (1992).

3 Public Law 95-91, 91 Stat. 556 (1977).

4 16 U.S.C. §803(a).

5 16 U.S.C. §803(g).

6 18 C.F.R. §385.206 (1987).

v 
This page intentionally left blank 

vi 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COVER SHEET .................................................................................................................iii

FOREWORD....................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xiii

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. xv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................xvii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. xxi

1.0 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER............................................. 1

1.1 PURPOSE OF ACTION................................................................................. 1

1.2 NEED FOR POWER...................................................................................... 1

1.3 INTERVENTIONS......................................................................................... 3

1.4 SCOPING PROCESS..................................................................................... 4

1.5 AGENCY CONSULTATION........................................................................ 5

1.6 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS............................................................. 6

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES..................................................... 7

2.1 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL ......................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Project Description and Operation ..................................................... 7

2.1.2 Proposed Environmental Measures by Resource............................... 8

2.1.2.1 Geology and Soils.............................................................. 9

2.1.2.2 Water Quantity and Quality............................................... 9

2.1.2.3 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources....................................... 9

2.1.2.4 Terrestrial Resources....................................................... 10

2.1.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species............................... 11

2.1.2.6 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources ................................. 11

2.1.2.7 Recreational Resources.................................................... 11

2.1.2.8 Cultural Resources........................................................... 12

2.2 MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSED ACTION ....... 12

2.2.1 Agency and Interested Party Recommendations.............................. 12

2.2.2 Environmental Conditions ............................................................... 13

2.2.2.1 Federal Land Management Conditions ........................... 13

2.2.2.2 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions.................................... 13

2.2.2.3 Water Quality Certifications............................................ 14

2.2.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................... 14

2.2.3.1 General............................................................................. 15

2.2.3.2 Geology and Soils............................................................ 15

2.2.3.3 Water Quantity and Quality............................................. 16

vii 
2.2.3.4 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources..................................... 17

2.2.3.5 Terrestrial Resources....................................................... 17

2.2.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species............................... 18

2.2.3.7 Land Use and Aesthetics................................................. 18

2.2.3.8 Recreational Resources.................................................... 19

2.2.3.9 Cultural Resources........................................................... 19

2.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................................................................... 19

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED STUDY .................................................................................... 19

2.4.1 Federal Government Takeover of the Project .................................. 19

2.4.2 Issuing a Nonpower License ............................................................ 20

2.4.3 Retiring the Project........................................................................... 20

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................................................................... 23

3.1 GENERAL SETTING.................................................................................. 23

3.2 CUMULATIVELY AFFECTED RESOURCES ......................................... 23

3.2.1 Geographic Scope ............................................................................ 24

3.2.2 Temporal Scope................................................................................ 24

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES......................... 24

3.3.1 Geology and Soils ............................................................................ 24

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment ..................................................... 24

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects..................................................... 27

3.3.1.3 Cumulative Effects on Geology and Soils....................... 33

3.3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts......................................... 33

3.3.2 Water Quantity and Quality ............................................................. 33

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment ..................................................... 33

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects..................................................... 53

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects on Water Quantity and Quality........ 78

3.3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts......................................... 84

3.3.3 Aquatic Resources............................................................................ 84

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment ..................................................... 84

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects................................................... 100

3.3.3.3 Cumulative Effects on Aquatic Resources.................... 125

3.3.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts....................................... 126

3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources...................................................................... 126

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................... 126

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects................................................... 144

3.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects on Terrestrial Resources................ 165

3.3.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts....................................... 166

3.3.5 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species .................. 166

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................... 166

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects................................................... 172

viii 
3.3.5.3 Cumulative Effects on Threatened and Endangered 

Species........................................................................... 183

3.3.5.4 Determination of Effects ............................................... 183

3.3.6 Land Use and Aesthetics................................................................ 185

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................... 185

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects................................................... 192

3.3.6.3 Cumulative Effects on Land Use and Aesthetics.......... 194

3.3.6.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts....................................... 195

3.3.7 Recreation....................................................................................... 195

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................... 195

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects................................................... 208

3.3.7.3 Cumulative Effects on Recreation................................. 218

3.3.7.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts....................................... 218

3.3.8 Cultural Resources ......................................................................... 218

3.3.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................... 218

3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects................................................... 227

3.3.8.3 Cumulative Effects on Cultural Resources.................... 235

3.3.8.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts....................................... 235

3.3.9 Socioeconomic Resources.............................................................. 235

3.3.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................... 236

3.3.9.2 Environmental Effects................................................... 249

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................................................................. 258

3.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 258

3.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .............................................................. 258

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 260

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT.................. 260

4.2 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT MEASURES .......... 261

4.2.1 Cost Impacts of Operational Changes............................................ 262

4.2.1.1 3-Inch-Per-Hour Drawdown Limitation........................ 268

4.2.1.2 Four Turbine Upgrades.................................................. 268

4.2.1.3 Two Fish-friendly Turbine Upgrades............................ 268

4.2.1.4 Gates for TDG Abatement Program.............................. 269

4.2.1.5 Cessation of Project Operation from 60,000 to 

90,000 cfs for the TDG Abatement Program ................ 269

4.2.1.6 Fish Passage Facilities................................................... 270

4.2.2 Cost of Other Environmental Measures......................................... 271

4.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES..................................................... 279

4.4 EFFECT ON REGIONAL POWER RESOURCES .................................. 281

5.0 STAFF’S CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 284

ix 
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED 

ALTERNATIVE......................................................................................... 284

5.1.1 Recommended Alternative............................................................. 284

5.1.2 Discussion ...................................................................................... 300

5.1.2.1 Coordination and Reporting .......................................... 300

5.1.2.2 Erosion Control and Remediation ................................. 301

5.1.2.3 Box Canyon Reservoir Water Level.............................. 303

5.1.2.4 Pend Oreille River Water Quality Measures................. 304

5.1.2.5 Calispell Creek Water Quality Measures...................... 305

5.1.2.6 Total Dissolved Gas Abatement.................................... 306

5.1.2.7 Hazardous Material Measures....................................... 308

5.1.2.8 Upstream and Downstream Fish Passage...................... 309

5.1.2.9 BCR Habitat Restoration.............................................. 311

5.1.2.10 Tributary Stream Habitat Restoration ........................... 311

5.1.2.11 Fish Hatchery Funding .................................................. 312

5.1.2.12 Project Effects on Sensitive and Rare Plant Species..... 313

5.1.2.13 Aquatic Plant Management ........................................... 315

5.1.2.14 Terrestrial Weed Management ...................................... 315

5.1.2.15 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement ...................................... 316

5.1.2.16 Effects of Recreation and Residential Development..... 317

5.1.2.17 Waterfowl Habitat ......................................................... 318

5.1.2.18 Great Blue Heron Habitat.............................................. 319

5.1.2.19 Native Amphibian Habitat............................................. 319

5.1.2.20 Bald Eagle Management................................................ 320

5.1.2.21 Recreation...................................................................... 322

5.1.2.22 Land Use and Aesthetics............................................... 324

5.1.2.23 Socioeconomics............................................................. 324

5.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY .................................................. 325

5.2.1 Cumulative Effects on Soils and Geology ..................................... 326

5.2.2 Cumulative Effects on Water Quantity and Quality ...................... 326

5.2.3 Cumulative Effects on Aquatic Resources..................................... 327

5.2.4 Cumulative Effects on Terrestrial Resources................................. 328

5.2.5 Cumulative Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species......... 328

5.2.6 Cumulative Effects on Land Use and Aesthetics........................... 328

5.2.7 Cumulative Effects on Recreation Resources................................ 329

5.2.8 Cumulative Effects on Cultural Resources.................................... 329

5.2.9 Cumulative Effects on Socioeconomic Resources......................... 329

5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY 10(j) RECOMMENDATIONS.......... 330

5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE AND OTHER 

RESOURCE PLANS.................................................................................. 337

5.5 RELATIONSHIP OF LICENSE PROCESS TO LAWS AND 

POLICIES................................................................................................... 338

5.5.1 Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification........... 338

x 
5.5.2 Endangered Species Act................................................................. 339

5.5.3 Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act............. 339

5.5.4 National Historic Preservation Act ................................................ 341

5.5.5 Americans with Disabilities Act .................................................... 341

5.5.6 Federal Power Act, Section 18, Fishway Prescriptions................. 341

6.0 LITERATURE CITED........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS.......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

APPENDIX A 4(e) Terms and Conditions, Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions ........... A-1

 and Section 401 Water Quality Certifications 

APPENDIX B List of Comprehensive Plans...............................................................B-1 

APPENDIX C Staff Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement .................................................................................C-1 

APPENDIX D Maps.....................................................................................................D-1 

xi 
This page intentionally left blank 

xii 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 Location of Box Canyon Project................................................. Appendix D 

Figure 2 Upper Columbia River basin....................................................... Appendix D 

Figure 3. Minimum, maximum, and mean flow in the BCR (Cusick USGS 

Gage No. 1239647) for each day of the year between 1976 and 1995. ......36

Figure 4. Projected reservoir surface elevations over the length of the BCR or

average annual and average flood flows under existing conditions of 

dam operation and unregulated flows .........................................................37

Figure 5. Surface elevations (msl) in the BCR at Pend Oreille RM 70 for current 

(with dam) operations and unregulated (without dam) operations for 

representative dry (1987), normal (1985), and wet years (1981)................39

Figure 6. Relationship between TDG in fully mixed water downstream of the 

powerhouse and river flow for existing conditions, upgraded turbines, 

and 27-foot auxiliary gates with upgraded turbines. (Source: Staff) ........73

Figure 7. Frequency of project-induced TDG levels of greater than the 

110 percent criterion in fully mixed water downstream of the 

powerhouse for existing conditions, upgraded turbines, and 27-foot 

auxiliary gates with upgraded turbines........................................................74

Figure 8. TDG (percent saturation) recorded at various locations in the 

Pend Oreille River in 1999..........................................................................81

Figure 9. Daily average flows (cfs) recorded in the Pend Oreille River below 

Box Canyon near Ione, WA (Gage no. 12396500) from April 17, 1999, 

to July 16, 1999 ...........................................................................................82

Figure 10. Change in June monthly average month flow with and without VAR Q ...84

Figure 11. Location of key BCR recreation sites ......................................... Appendix D 

Figure 12. Age distribution of population in Pend Oreille County and 

Washington, 2000......................................................................................241

Figure 13. Per capita income in Pend Oreille County and Washington State ...........245

Figure 14. On-peak energy values, June 2001 to June 2002 ......................................267

Figure 15. Off-peak energy values, June 2001 to June 2002......................................267

xiii 
This page intentionally left blank 

xiv 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Characteristics of proposed erosion monitoring sites .................................27

Table 2. Idaho numerical water quality criteria and recommended levels................41

Table 3. State of Washington Class A water quality standards for fresh surface 

water............................................................................................................43

Table 4. Kalispel Tribe water quality standards for surface waters of the KIR........44

Table 5. Annual maximum water temperatures (°C) recorded in the Pend Oreille 

River and the difference from the temperature at Albeni Falls...................47

Table 6. Relationship between river flow and TDG at the Box Canyon Project 

with existing conditions...............................................................................52

Table 7. Summary of fully mixed TDG saturation levels (%) at the Box Canyon 

Project with potential TDG abatement alternatives....................................75

Table 8. Summary of fish species found within the lower Pend Oreille River.........90

Table 9. Summary of all fish captured in BCR, 1988 to 1990..................................91

Table 10. Summary of historical creel survey data in BCR........................................95

Table 11. Summary of rainbow trout stocking history in BCR portion of Pend 

Oreille River (1983–1994) ..........................................................................96

Table 12. Cover type acreages, attributes, and common plant species within the 

study area...................................................................................................128

Table 13. Sensitive plant species observed in the study area....................................130

Table 14. FS sensitive plants that may occur in the project area ..............................131

Table 15. Plant species of ethnobotanical importance ..............................................132

Table 16. Noxious weeds known to occur in, or adjacent to, the study area ............135

Table 17. Species in the project area that are considered as management priorities 

based on their state or FS status................................................................137

Table 18. FS MIS with potential to occur in the study area......................................139

Table 19. Priority land bird habitats in the project area ............................................140

Table 20. Potential effects of operations and proposed measures on ESA-listed 

species .......................................................................................................184

Table 21. Land ownership within the project boundary............................................188

Table 22. Estimate of 1998 peak-season visitation at key BCR recreation sites......202

Table 23. Estimated daily use (percent) at selected project area recreation sites 

during 2000 and 2001 peak season ...........................................................205

Table 24. Potentially significant prehistoric and historic sites..................................222

Table 25. PUD’s primary sources of electricity........................................................236

Table 26. Electricity rates in Pend Oreille County and Washington in 

cents/kWh, 2000........................................................................................237

Table 27. Number of bundled customers, revenue, sales, and average revenue 

per kWh, 2000 ...........................................................................................237

Table 28. Primary electricity consumers by class (in 1,000 MWh)..........................238

Table 29. Total population change in Pend Oreille County and Washington, 

1990–2000.................................................................................................240

xv 
Table 30. Labor force and unemployment in Pend Oreille County, 1990–2000 ......242

Table 31. Average monthly employment, total wages, and average annual 

covered wages in Pend Oreille County, 2000 ...........................................243

Table 32. Occupational employment and projections in Ferry, Stevens, and 

Pend Oreille counties, 1995 and 2000.......................................................244

Table 33. Major employers in Pend Oreille County, 1998. ......................................244

Table 34. Poverty statistics in Pend Oreille County in Washington State, 1997 ......246

Table 35. Children in poverty in Washington State, Eastern Region, 1997 .............246

Table 36. Charles River Associates estimates of electricity rate increases to 

general service customers under the four relicensing scenarios ...............247

Table 37. CRA estimated economic impact on Pend Oreille County.......................248

Table 38. Estimated rates and generation changes to Box Canyon Project, by 

alternative ..................................................................................................253

Table 39. Economic analysis parameters..................................................................260

Table 40. Current annual costs..................................................................................261

Table 41. Summary of impacts on energy benefits...................................................263

Table 42. Cost summary of PUD-proposed environmental measures, including 

the cost of the No-action Alternative ........................................................272

Table 43. Cost summary of environmental measures for Staff Alternative, 

including the cost of the No-action Alternative and staff-endorsed 

PUD-proposed measures...........................................................................274

Table 44. Cost summary of environmental measures for the Staff Alternative 

(high range), including the cost of the No-action Alternative, staffendorsed PUD-proposed measures, and staff-recommended measures....275

Table 45. Cost summary of agency mandatory conditions not endorsed by staff ....278

Table 46. Project output and net annual power benefits summary ...........................280

Table 47. Fish and wildlife agency Section 10(j) recommendations........................331

xvi 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

μg/l micrograms per liter 

AAHU average annualized habitat unit 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

Advisory Council Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AIR Additional Information Request 

APC Alabama Power Company 

APE area of potential effects 

BCD Box Canyon dam 

BCR Box Canyon reservoir

BIA U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

ΕC degrees Celsius 

CBA cost-benefit analysis 

CCPP Calispell Creek Pumping Plant 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CNF Colville National Forest 

CNF Plan Colville National Forest Land and Resources Management 

Plan 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CRA Charles River Associates 

CRMG Cultural Resources Management Group 

CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dbh diameter at breast height 

DGMP Dissolved Gas Management Plan 

DO dissolved oxygen 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DPS Distinct Population Segment 

ECPA Electric Consumers Protection Act 

ECPRP Erosion Control, Prevention, and Remediation Plan 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EMP Erosion Monitoring Plan 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ΕF degrees Fahrenheit 

FCR fire-cracked rock 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FPA Federal Power Act 

xvii 
FS U.S. Forest Service 

ft/s feet per second 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GBT gas bubble trauma 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GWh gigawatt-hour 

HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedure 

HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan 

HSI Habitat Suitability Index 

IAVMP Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 

IDEQ Idaho Division of Environmental Quality 

IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game

IDPR Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation 

IMRCP Implementation/Monitoring/Resource Coordination Plan 

Interior U.S. Department of the Interior 

IOU investor-owned utility 

IWMP Integrated Weed Management Plan 

Kalispels Kalispel Tribe of Indians 

KIR Kalispel Indian Reservation 

KNRD Kalispel Natural Resources Department 

kWh kilowatt-hour 

LMZ lynx management zone 

mg/l milligrams per liter 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

ml milliliter 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

msl mean sea level 

MW megawatt 

MWh megawatt-hour 

National Register National Register of Historic Places 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFS National Forest System 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NPPC Northwest Power Planning Council 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resource and Conservation Service 

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit 

OAHP Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 

O&M operation and maintenance 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

pH hydrogen ion concentration 

PLSS Public Land Survey System 

PNC Ponderay Newsprint Company 

xviii 
POCD Pend Oreille Conservation District 

Power Plan Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan 

PPO Plan for Pump Operations 

PUD Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County 

PUVF permanent upstream volitional fishway 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan 

REA Ready for Environmental Analysis 

REMI Model REMI Economic-Demographic Forecasting and Simulation 

Model 

RM river mile 

ROR run-of-river 

RRMP Recreation Resource Management Plan 

RV recreational vehicle 

SCERP Spill Containment and Emergency Response Plan 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

TARP Trout Assessment and Restoration Plan 

TDG total dissolved gas 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

THRP Trout Habitat Restoration Plan 

TMDL total maximum daily load 

TRF Trout Restoration Fund 

Tribe Kalispel Tribe of Indians 

TSS total suspended sediments 

TWQC Tri-state Water Quality Council 

UAA Use Attainability Analysis 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WDOE Washington Department of Ecology 

WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council 

WMA Wildlife Management Area 

WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program 

WQC water quality certification 

WQRMP Water Quality Remediation and Monitoring Plan 

WRIA water resources inventory area 

xix 
This page intentionally left blank 

xx 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In this final environmental impact statement (EIS), we, the staff of the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission), evaluate the potential natural 

resource benefits, economic costs, and the environmental effects associated with 

relicensing the Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County (PUD) Box Canyon 

Project. The Box Canyon Project is located on the Pend Oreille River, in Pend Oreille 

County, Washington, and Bonner County, Idaho, near Ione, Washington. The PUD 

proposes to continue to operate the existing 72-megawatt (MW) hydroelectric run-ofriver project that lies between the upstream Albeni Falls dam (operated by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers) and downstream Boundary dam. Under current conditions, the 

project would be expected to generate an average of 452,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) per 

year.

7

 Of the 12,077-acre project area, more than 700 acres are federal lands, about 500 

of which are within the Kalispel Indian Reservation and 200 within the Colville National 

Forest. 

The PUD filed its application for a new license on January 21, 2000. The PUD 

proposes to upgrade all four turbines with new high-efficiency runners and rewind 

generators, upgrade two of the turbines with fish-friendly minimum gap turbine runners, 

install auxiliary spillway gates for TDG abatement, and limit drawdown to 3 inches per 

hour. Implementing this proposal would increase turbine capacity to 22.5 MW each and 

would yield an additional 20,817 MWh per year of energy. The PUD also proposes 

erosion monitoring, water quality monitoring, tributary habitat restoration, wildlife 

monitoring, purchase of lands to achieve zero net loss of habitat, cottonwood 

enhancement, aquatic plant management, and development of a Recreation Resource 

Management Plan and a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP), along with other 

measures. 

In response to the Commission’s September 4, 2001, Ready for Environmental 

Analysis Notice, the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the U.S. Department of the Interior 

(Interior) filed preliminary conditions under Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act 

(FPA). Also in response to that notice, Interior filed a preliminary prescription for 

fishways at Box Canyon dam and the Calispell Creek Pumping Plant (CCPP) under 

Section 18 of the FPA, and the states of Washington and Idaho and the Kalispel Tribe 

filed recommendations for license provisions under Section 10 of the FPA. On May 21, 

2004, Interior filed modified conditions under Section 4(e) of the FPA and a modified 

prescription for fishways under Section 18 of the FPA. On November 14, 2002, the FS 

filed draft 4(e) conditions. The FS’s draft conditions include provisions for boundary

surveys; shoreline and visual resources management; recreational improvements; erosion 

monitoring; erosion control, prevention, and remediation; bald eagle/osprey/cormorant/ 

 7 The PUD (2000) reported an average annual generation of 431,868 MWh in exhibit A of the final 

license application. However, in the upgrade evaluation study, DES (1999) estimated average annual 

generation to be about 452,000 MWh, based on a 40-year period of record from 1956–1995. 

xxi 
heron monitoring; mitigation for inundation of riparian, upland, and native amphibian 

habitats; fish passage; restoration of resident fish habitat; meeting water quality 

standards; management of non-native aquatic vegetation; integrated weed management; 

and sensitive plant species management. Interior’s modified 4(e) conditions include 

provisions for reservoir drawdown limitations with associated monitoring, compliance 

with water quality standards with associated monitoring, TDG abatement, no-net loss in 

trout production including a trout assessment and remediation fund, no net-loss of 

average annualized habitat units, a CRMP, and enhancement of recreation resources on 

Tribal lands. Interior’s Modified Section 18 prescription included provisions for 

temporary, interim trap-and haul-fishways, and permanent upstream volitional fishways, 

permanent downstream volitional fishways, and plans for effectiveness evaluations. 

In this EIS, we analyze and evaluate the environmental and economic effects of 

continuing to operate the project. The alternatives examined include (1) the PUD 

Proposal, (2) the Staff Alternative, and (3) No-action. The Staff Alternative consists of 

the PUD Proposal with additional or modified environmental measures, which include 

some of the Section 18, 4(e), 10(j), and 10(a) measures, or modifications thereof. In 

addition, the Staff Alternative includes some provisions that may or may not be 

implemented pending the results of monitoring studies. In the FEIS, we present a range 

(low and high) of economic costs and benefits for the Staff Alternative based on the 

results of these studies. 

Staff arrived at our preferred alternative by examining and evaluating all of the 

additional environmental measures put forward by agencies and other interested parties 

both during scoping and in response to our Ready for Environmental Analysis (REA) 

notice, including those measures that were provided as preliminary conditions of license. 

In addition to the PUD Proposal and No-action Alternative, we also evaluate the total of 

all the terms, conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions received from the agencies 

and interested parties in response to the REA (Composite Scenario). 

We developed our preferred alternative by combining those elements from all 

sources, which we considered collectively to best use and promote developmental and 

non-developmental resources and resource interests. The Staff Alternative includes 

provisions for erosion monitoring; an Erosion Control, Prevention, and Remediation 

Plan; a Water Quality Monitoring Plan; a plan for pump operations of the CCPP; 

biological monitoring to evaluate the effects of elevated TDG levels on fish; a Trout 

Habitat Restoration Plan; a Wildlife Management Plan; an Integrated Weed Management 

Plan; an Aquatic Plant Management Plan; a Shoreline Management Plan; a Recreation 

Resource Management Plan; recreation surveys at 6-year intervals; and a Historic 

Properties Management Plan. 

The Staff Alternative includes PUD’s proposed turbine upgrades and spillway gate 

modifications to reduce TDG. Information on the cumulative effects of elevated TDG on 

the environment downstream from the project is still under development by WDOE and 

EPA. When this information becomes available, and pending the results of TDG 

xxii 
monitoring, additional gas abatement measures may be considered, or TDG compliance 

options such as Use Attainability Analysis or site specific TDG criterion specified by 

WDOE, may be warranted. 

The Staff Alternative does not include Interior’s recommendations for fish 

passage. We conclude the information on fisheries provided by the PUD and Interior is 

not sufficient to warrant upstream and downstream passage at this time. Instead, we 

recommend the PUD conduct further studies on fish populations and movements 

upstream and downstream of the project. Final recommendations for fish passage would 

be made based on the results of this study. 

Our preferred alternative does not include some of the conditions filed by the FS 

and Interior under Section 4(e), and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under 

Section 18. We recognize that the Commission may include these conditions in any 

license issued for the Box Canyon Project due to their mandatory nature. 

Under the No-action Alternative (current conditions), the project costs $5,710,000 

annually to operate, has annual power benefits of $16,272,000, and has a net annual 

benefit of $10,561,900. The average annual energy generation is 452,000 MWh. 

Under the PUD Proposal (four upgraded turbines and 3-inch-per-hour drawdown 

constraint), the project would cost $8,218,300 annually to operate ($2,508,200 more than 

under the No-action Alternative), have annual power benefits of $17,026,400 ($754,400 

more than under the No-action Alternative), and have a net annual benefit of $8,808,100 

($1,753,800 less than with no-action). The project’s average annual generation would be 

472,817 MWh (20,817 MWh more than under the No-action Alternative). 

Under the Staff Alternative, the project would cost $8,740,200 annually to operate 

($3,030,100 more than under the No-action Alternative), have annual power benefits of 

$17,026,400 ($754,400 more than under the No-action Alternative), and have a net 

annual benefit of $8,286,200 ($2,275,700 less than under the No-action Alternative). The 

project’s average annual generation would be 472,817 MWh (20,817 MWh more than 

under the No-action Alternative and would be equal to that under the PUD Proposal). 

Under the Staff Alternative (high range), the project would cost $10,354,700 

annually to operate ($4,644,600 more than under the No-action Alternative), have annual 

power benefits of $16,891,300 ($619,300 more than under the No-action Alternative), 

and have a net annual benefit of $6,536,600 ($4,025,300 less than under the No-action 

Alternative). The project’s average annual generation would be 467,917 MWh (15,917 

MWh more than under the No-action Alternative and 4,900 MWh less than under the 

PUD Proposal). 

Under the Composite Scenario, the project would cost $11,170,200 annually to

operate ($5,460,100 more than under the No-action Alternative), have annual power 

benefits of $16,559,100 ($287,100 more than under the No-action Alternative), and have 

a net annual benefit of $5,388,900 ($5,173,000 less than under the No-action 

Alternative). The average annual generation would be 456,170 MWh (4,170 MWh more 

xxiii 
than under the No-action Alternative and 16,648 MWh less than under the PUD 

Proposal). 

In terms of effects on the regional economy, we estimate, from our analysis, that 

the cost of electricity purchased by Ponderay Newsprint would increase 10.5 percent 

under the PUD Proposal, 13.6 percent under the Staff Alternative, 24.0 percent under the 

high range of the Staff Alternative, and 30.9 percent under the Composite Scenario. 

xxiv 
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

Division of Hydropower Licensing 

Washington, DC 

Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project 

FERC No. 2042-013 

On January 21, 2000, Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County (PUD) 

filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) for a new major license for the existing Box Canyon (Hydroelectric) 

Project (FERC Project No. 2042-013). The 72-megawatt (MW) project is located on the 

Pend Oreille River, in Pend Oreille County, Washington, and Bonner County, Idaho, near 

Ione, Washington (figure 1, appendix D).8

 The Box Canyon Project is located at river 

mile (RM) 34.4 from the Pend Oreille River’s confluence with the Columbia River. The 

site is 13 miles from the Canadian border, 14 miles from the Idaho border, and 90 miles 

north of the city of Spokane, Washington. The project occupies 716.57 acres of federal 

lands, including 493 acres within the Kalispel Indian Reservation (KIR); 190.25 acres 

within the Colville National Forest (CNF); 24.14 acres under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA); 2.45 acres under 

the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); 5.29 acres under the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); and 1.44 acres belonging to 

the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The project would be expected to 

generate an average of 452,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) annually under current 

conditions. The PUD proposes to upgrade all four turbines with new high-efficiency 

runners and rewind generators, upgrade two of the turbines with fish-friendly minimum 

gap turbine runners, install auxiliary spillway gates for TDG abatement, and limit 

drawdown to 3 inches per hour. Implementing this proposal would increase turbine 

capacity to 22.5 MW each and would yield an additional 20,817 MWh per year of 

energy. 

 8 When originally licensed in 1952, the project’s upstream boundary was established at Ruby

(RM 57.5). In January 1997, the PUD filed an amendment application to revise the boundary maps 

and requesting that the project boundary be extended further upstream to Albeni Falls dam, which 

better represents actual operating boundaries and backwater effects. The amendment was granted by

Commission order dated February 26, 1999. The amended boundary is the existing project boundary

for this license proceeding.

xxv 
This page intentionally left blank 

xxvi 
1.0 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER 

1.1 PURPOSE OF ACTION 

The Commission must decide whether to issue a new license to the PUD for the 

Box Canyon Project and what conditions, if any, should be placed on that license. 

Issuing a license would allow the PUD to continue generating electricity for the term of 

that license, making electric power from a renewable source available to its customers. 

In this final environmental impact statement (EIS), we assess the effects associated 

with the operation of the project as well as alternatives to the proposed project; make 

recommendations to the Commission about whether to issue a new license; and if so, 

recommend terms and conditions to become a part of any license issued. In deciding 

whether to issue any license, the Commission must determine that the project would be 

best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway. In 

addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are issued 

(e.g., flood control, irrigation, and water supply), the Commission must give equal 

consideration to the purposes of energy conservation; protection of, mitigation of damage 

to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and 

habitat); protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of 

environmental quality. 

In this EIS, we analyze and evaluate the environmental and economic effects of 

continuing to operate the project: (1) as proposed by the PUD and (2) with staffrecommended measures (Staff Alternative). We also consider the effects of the Noaction Alternative and of two additional scenarios which include: (1) measures which 

could be implemented pending the outcome of studies recommended in the Staff 

Alternative (Staff Alternative [high range]); and (2) the total of all the terms, conditions, 

recommendations, and prescriptions received from the agencies and interested parties in 

response to the REA (Composite Scenario). Important issues that we address include 

water quality, erosion, fish passage, aquatic macrophytes, wildlife management, noxious 

weeds, riparian habitat, cultural resources, recreational resources and regional 

socioeconomics. 

1.2 NEED FOR POWER 

The Box Canyon Project is estimated to generate an average of 452,000 MWh per 

year under current conditions. The PUD blends the energy it generates with energy 

obtained from other sources, and distributes it to various commercial and residential 

users. The PUD also obtains power from Seattle City Light’s Boundary dam, Avista 

Corporation, and BPA. The PUD sells this energy to meet its obligations for retail power 

sales to residential, commercial, and industrial users and to meet various contractual 

power sales agreements. A portion, for example, is sold to Seattle City Light under the 

terms of a power sales agreement executed in 1955. A large portion of the energy 

1 
distributed by the PUD within Pend Oreille County is used by the Ponderay Newsprint 

Company (PNC). This large industrial use offsets most of the Box Canyon operating 

costs, allowing the PUD to maintain a policy whereby the lowest-cost energy available to 

the PUD is distributed to the residential ratepayers first. 

Although the PUD does not have any plans to change the operation of the Box 

Canyon Project, it proposes several measures affecting energy generation, resulting in 

20,817 additional MWh per year of regionally available energy. Generator capability 

output would increase from 72 to 90 MW if each unit were rewound to 22.5 MW (DES, 

1999). The PUD does not claim dependable capacity benefits during spring months when 

the powerhouse must be shut down and the gates opened to pass above-average spring 

inflow without diversion. There is a dependable capacity benefit during the peak winter 

demand period. Using the Northwest Power Pool methodology, the dependable capacity 

of the existing project is 31.1 MW during a critical water year such as 1936–1937. It 

would increase to 32.9 MW with the turbine upgrades (letter from J.J. Snyder, Duke 

Engineering & Services, Bothell, WA, to D. Boergers, Secretary, FERC, Washington, 

DC, dated May 15, 2000). 

In the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) reliability region where 

the Box Canyon Project is located, the capacity mix includes a proportionately large 

amount of hydropower, relative to other parts of the region. 

To consider regional power needs, we reviewed a recent demand forecast and 

other information from the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) and other energy 

planning entities including the BPA and WECC. 

In 1980, the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act 

established the NPPC. The NPPC adopted the Northwest Conservation and Electric 

Power Plan (Power Plan) in 1983, amended the Power Plan in 1986, and added to the 

Power Plan in May 1989 and again in May 1991. In March 1996, the NPPC adopted a 

draft electric power plan, which includes a 20-year demand forecast. In 1998, the NPPC 

adopted a Revised Fourth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan, which also 

includes a 20-year demand forecast (NPPC, 1998). 

The plan shows that a need for more power is likely to exist in the Pacific 

Northwest during the 20-year planning horizon (1995 to 2015). Recent electricity 

demand forecast projects growth rates between 0.7 and 1.9 percent per year (NPPC, 

1998). More recent forecasts from WECC suggest that peak demand and annual energy 

will grow in the Northwest Power Pool Area at annual compound rates of 1.6 percent and 

1.7 percent respectively over the period 2003 through 2012. Projected energy load under 

adverse hydro conditions would increase from an estimated 369,195 gigawatt-hour 

(GWh) in 2003 to 429,527 GWh in 20129

 (WECC, 2003). 

 9 Hydro is derated by 15 percent to simulate adverse hydro conditions. 

2 
The western states as a whole are more constrained with respect to capacity during 

the summer months; however, the colder northwest climate results in the winter peak 

being more critical for the Northwest Power Pool. Summer peak load in the Northwest 

Power Pool is forecast to rise from 48,704 MW in 2003 to 56,461 MW in 2012. 

Generation additions totaling 11,863 MW are forecast to come on-line over the same 10-

year period. Winter peak load is estimated to increase from 57,499 MW in winter 2003–

04 to 66,071 MW in winter 2012-13 (WECC, 2003). BPA is forecasting a potential for 

winter capacity deficits in the Pacific Northwest.10 For January (a peak demand month 

for the region), total regional firm load is projected to be 39,477 MW in 2013 and total 

net power resources are expected to be 33,423 MW. The colder winter months are most 

susceptible to deficits and late April and May could also experience deficits (BPA, 2003). 

Firm energy and dependable capacity provided by a relicensed project would be 

useful in meeting part of the projected need for energy and minimizing the potential for 

capacity deficits. 

If the project’s license is issued, the project would meet part of the region’s power 

needs and contribute to system reliability. The project also would displace fossil-fueled 

electric power generation the regional utilities now use, thereby conserving nonrenewable 

fossil fuels and reducing the emission of noxious byproducts that would be caused by the 

fossil fuel combustion. We conclude that the project power contributes to a diversified 

generation mix and helps meet a need for power in the project area. 

1.3 INTERVENTIONS 

On July 14, 2000, the Commission issued a notice that the PUD had filed an 

application to relicense the Box Canyon Project. This notice set September 13, 2000, as 

the deadline for filing protests and motions to intervene. In response to the notice, the 

following entities filed motions to intervene: 

Intervenor Date of Filing

Washington Department of Ecology August 4, 2000

Kalispel Tribe of Indians August 28, 2000

U.S. Department of Agriculture September 6, 2000

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife September 8, 2000

Cominco Ltd. and Cominco American Inc. September 8, 2000

U.S. Department of the Interior September 12, 2000

State of Idaho, Office of the Attorney General October 3, 200011

 10 The BPA Pacific Northwest region is smaller than the WECC Northwest Power Pool area because it 

does not include Alberta or British Columbia and only includes Montana west of the Continental 

Divide and those portions of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming within the Columbia River drainage basin. 

11 The deadline for filing motions to intervene was September 13, 2000. The Commission granted the 

late motion by notice dated April 4, 2002.

3 
Following issuance of the draft EIS in September 2002, three more interventions 

were made: 

Intervenor Date of Filing

American Rivers November 19, 2002 

Ponderay Newsprint Company November 19, 2002 

Rocky Beach November 19, 2002 

1.4 SCOPING PROCESS 

Before preparing the draft EIS, we conducted scoping to determine what issues 

and alternatives should be addressed. A scoping document was distributed to interested 

agencies and others and was noticed in the Federal Register on July 28, 2000. Two 

scoping meetings, both advertised in the local newspaper, were held on August 14, 2000, 

and August 16, 2000, in Spokane and Newport, Washington, respectively, to request oral 

comments on the project. At those meetings, a court reporter recorded all comments. 

The transcripts are part of the Commission’s public record for the project. A third 

meeting, noticed on August 4, 2000, was held on August 17, 2000, in the Council 

Chambers of the Kalispel Tribe of Indians (the Tribe or the Kalispels) in Usk, 

Washington. Notes of that meeting and of the subsequent reservation tour were filed in 

the record on September 27, 2000, along with notes of the project site visit, which took 

place on August 15 and 16, 2000. In addition to the comments received at the scoping 

meetings, the following entities provided written comments: 

Commenting Entity Date of Filing

Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation August 10, 2000

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) September 11, 2000

U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) September 12, 2000

U.S. Forest Service, Colville National Forest September 14, 2000

Kalispel Tribe of Indians September 14, 2000

Washington Department of Ecology September 15, 2000

Idaho Department of Fish and Game September 18, 2000

U.S. Senator Mike Crapo from Idaho September 18, 2000

PUD responding to WDFW comments October 3, 2000

PUD responding to Interior comments November 3, 2000

PUD responding to Kalispel Tribe comments November 8, 2000

PUD responding to U.S. Forest Service comments December 15, 2000

4 
A revised scoping document addressing all of these comments was issued on 

November 15, 2000. Comments on the revised scoping document were received from:

Commenting Entity Date of Filing

U.S. Forest Service December 27, 2000

Idaho Department of Fish and Game February 9, 2001

U.S. Department of the Interior December 19, 2000

PUD January 17, 2001

1.5 AGENCY CONSULTATION 

On September 4, 2001, the Commission issued a Notice of Ready for 

Environmental Analysis (REA) for the Box Canyon Project, soliciting comments, 

recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions. In response to this notice, the 

following entities filed comments: 

Commenting Entity Date of Filing

U.S. Forest Service October 31, 2001

U.S. Department of the Interior November 5, 2001

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife November 2, 2001

Idaho Department of Fish and Game November 2, 2001

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation November 2, 2001

Kalispel Tribe of Indians November 3, 2001 and December 22, 

200112

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency November 5, 2001

U.S. Forest Service April 24, 2002

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife June 25, 2002

In response to the recommendations, terms, and conditions filed by the resource 

agencies and the Tribe, more than 1,000 letters were filed by Pend Oreille County 

ratepayers. Ratepayers expressed disfavor with recommended environmental measures 

that they considered to be unjustified and would cause escalation of power rates. 

The PUD filed its comments replying to the preliminary terms and conditions on 

December 19, 2001. 

In order to clarify resource agency comments, mandatory conditions, and 

recommended environmental measures, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

 12 Original filing of November 3, 2001, was delayed in the mail, and the letter was refiled on December 

22, 2001.

5 
clarification meeting (teleconference) was noticed and held on February 26, 2002. Thirty 

parties participated. Subsequently, a second meeting/teleconference, specifically directed 

toward clarification of costs to implement the measures, was noticed and held on May 16,

2002. Thirty-four parties participated either in person or by telephone. In both cases, 

draft meeting notes were distributed to the participants prior to filing in the administrative 

record. 

1.6 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS 

The Commission issued the draft EIS for the relicensing of the Box Canyon 

Project on September 20, 2002. The Commission requested that comments be filed 

within 60 days from the issuance date (by November 19, 2002, 55 letters, representing 22 

entities and 31 individuals commenting on the draft EIS, were filed with the 

Commission). As appropriate, we have modified the text throughout the EIS in response 

to all of these comments. Appendix C summarizes the written comments that were filed 

and our responses to them. 

In addition, two public meetings were held on October 21 and October 22, 2002, 

in Newport and Spokane, respectively, to gather verbal input on the draft EIS. The 

transcripts and notes from these meetings were filed in the administrative record. All 

comments received are part of the administrative record for the Box Canyon Project 

licensing proceeding and are considered in the staff’s analysis of the proposed action. 

Conditions filed under Sections 4(e) and 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) are detailed 

in section 2.2.2. 

6 
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

In this NEPA analysis, we consider three alternatives in detail: the Applicant’s 

(PUD) Proposal, the Applicant’s Proposal with additional environmental measures (Staff 

Alternative), and the No-action Alternative. Some alternatives were considered, but were 

eliminated from detailed study: federal government takeover, nonpower licensing, and 

project retirement. Staff arrived at our preferred alternative by examining and evaluating 

all of the additional environmental measures put forward by agencies and other interested 

parties both during scoping and in response to our REA notice, including those measures 

that were provided as condition of license. We developed our preferred alternative by 

combining those elements from all sources, which we considered collectively to best use 

and promote developmental and non-developmental resources and resource interests. 

In this section, we briefly describe these three alternatives. In section 3, we 

provide a detailed evaluation of all the individual proposed measures from the 

perspective of each resource. In section 4, we compare the costs of the measures and 

combination of measures (scenarios), and in section 5, we explain our rationale in 

adopting our preferred alternative (combination of environmental measures)—the Staff 

Alternative. 

2.1 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL

2.1.1 Project Description and Operation 

The Box Canyon Project is located in the northeastern corner of Washington State 

and in northern Idaho. The Box Canyon dam (BCD) is located at RM 34.4 from the Pend 

Oreille River’s confluence with the Columbia River (figure 2, appendix D). This site is 

13 miles from the Canadian border, 14 miles from the Idaho border, and 90 miles north of 

Spokane, Washington. The Box Canyon reservoir (BCR) impounds about 55 miles of the 

Pend Oreille River including 2 miles within the state of Idaho, below Albeni Falls dam. 

The existing development consists of: (a) a 46-foot-high, 160-foot-long reinforced 

concrete dam with integral spillway; (b) a 217-foot-long, 35-foot-diameter diversion 

tunnel; (c) a 1,170-foot-long forebay channel; (d) an auxiliary spillway; (e) a powerhouse 

containing four generating units with a combined capacity of 72 MW; (f) an 8,850-acre 

reservoir at maximum operating pool elevation of 2,030.6 feet above mean sea level 

(msl); and (g) the Calispell Creek Pumping Plant (CCPP) and other associated facilities. 

The PUD does not propose to make any physical modifications to these facilities, but 

does intend to upgrade the four turbine/generators to improve efficiency and capacity. 

Of the 12,077-acre project area, more than 700 acres are federal lands, about 500 

of which are within the KIR and 200 within the CNF. Although not a feature of the 

previous 1952 license, the CCPP (on a major tributary to the BCR should be included as 

part of the Box Canyon Project because its operation allows the project to operate with 2 

feet higher head than would otherwise be the case, without causing flooding into the 

Calispell Creek agricultural lands. 

7 
The Box Canyon Project is located downstream of the Corps’ Albeni Falls 

Hydroelectric Project and discharges directly into Seattle City Light’s Boundary 

Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2144) (figure 1, appendix D). The PUD 

operates the project in a run-of-river (ROR) mode using computer controls for the 

turbines. The gates are operated manually, necessitating full-time staffing of the facility. 

The water levels in the Pend Oreille River can be influenced to a limited extent by the 

operation of the turbines and spillway gates within the BCD; however, the river flow rate 

is the main controller. The hydraulic capacity of the turbines is 27,400 cubic feet per 

second (cfs). Spillway gates are raised and lowered correspondingly. At a flow of 

90,000 cfs and with all the gates removed, the power plant is shut down because of a lack 

of hydraulic head, and the river level is controlled by the physical capacity of the narrow 

entrance to Box Canyon, located about 0.5 mile upstream from the dam. 

The PUD operates the Box Canyon Project within two constraints contained in its 

current license: the water surface elevation at Cusick (RM 70.1) must not exceed 2,041.0 

feet msl due to project operations, and the Albeni Falls dam backwater must not exceed 2 

feet. A third operational constraint, which has been in effect since 1953 but not part of 

the license, is proposed: operating the project in accordance with Plan E for the CCPP. 

This has not been a past FERC license constraint because these pumps were not included 

within the existing project boundary. The pumping station, which the PUD currently 

operates in agreement with Diking District No. 2 of Pend Oreille County, although not 

constructed originally as part of the Box Canyon Project, contributes to power generation 

by permitting the BCR to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be 

possible without inducing additional flood impacts. It is considered to be a project 

feature in the current license application. For the new license period, the pumping station 

would continue to be operated in accordance with Plan E13. 

2.1.2 Proposed Environmental Measures by Resource 

The PUD proposes the following measures to protect and enhance environmental 

resources that may be affected by the project. The Technical Committee,14 which was 

established to oversee implementation of the 1999 Settlement Agreement environmental 

measures,15 would be reinstated. 

 13 Plan E is an agreement between the PUD and Diking District No. 2 of Usk pertaining to the operations 

of the Calispell Creek Pumps. The agreed-upon operations are designed to maintain water levels in 

Calispell Creek that approximate conditions that pertained prior to the construction of BCD under high

flow situations. 

14 The current Technical Committee has representatives from the PUD, Interior (FWS), FS, the Tribe, and 

WDFW. Idaho has requested IDFG participation. 

15 The Settlement resolved long-standing issues concerning the PM&E of resources affected by the 

project and provided for amendment of the project boundary to include lands of the KIR and Colville 

National Forest inundated by the project and the establishment and funding of a technical committee 

to undertake a variety of natural, recreational, and cultural resource enhancements (FERC, 1999a). 

8 
2.1.2.1 Geology and Soils 

• Continue to monitor 30 erosion monitoring sites per the 1998 License 

Amendment, plus 13 erosion monitoring transects based on Technical 

Committee direction. 

• Establish project operation criterion to limit rate of project-induced decrease in 

water surface elevation at the dam to a maximum of 3 inches per hour. 

• Make an annual contribution of $10,000 to Pend Oreille Conservation District 

(POCD) to fund public education on erosion and related issues. 

• Prepare an Erosion Monitoring Plan (EMP). 

2.1.2.2 Water Quantity and Quality 

• Provide funding for the Tri-state Water Quality Council (TWQC) for data 

acquisition and distribution. 

• Conduct monthly water quality compliance monitoring (dissolved oxygen 

[DO], pH, temperature) for the Pend Oreille River and monitor water quality, 

pumping rates, water elevations and flows, and weather data necessary to 

model the effects of the project on lower Calispell Creek temperatures. 

• Upgrade turbines to increase capacity to reduce total dissolved gas (TDG). 

• Monitor TDG through the spill period upstream and downstream of the BCD 

and report results. 

• Install auxiliary spillway gates. 

2.1.2.3 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 

• Provide habitat enhancement/restoration in the tributaries of the BCR beyond 

the original license. 

• Provide $20,000 annual funding to the Kalispel Natural Resources Department 

(KNRD) for bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout restoration. 

• Provide annual funding for operation of the Colville fish hatchery for native 

salmonids. 

• Install 100 underwater habitat enhancement structures for rearing habitat for 

salmonids and largemouth bass in the reservoir and sloughs. 

• Provide annual funding for monitoring of these 100 structures for 10 years. 

• Purchase, install, and analyze the effectiveness of two state-of-the-art 

minimum gap (fish-friendly) turbine runners concurrent with the proposed 

9 
upgrade of the existing turbines at the BCD (as a means to reduce mechanical 

injury to fish and improve water quality). 

2.1.2.4 Terrestrial Resources 

Aquatic Vegetation 

• Provide $80,000 annual funding for a rotovation program to control Eurasian 

watermilfoil. 

• Develop and implement an Aquatic Plant Management Plan. 

• Prepare a homeowner brochure for aquatic weed control. 

• Conduct a workshop for waterfront property owners on aquatic weed 

management. 

Vegetation 

• Provide annual funding for a cottonwood enhancement program for 10 years to 

be implemented within Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs). 

• Provide rare plant survey data to the county. 

• Develop and implement a Site Management Plan for the population of 

Hedeoma growing near the BCD.

• Survey, monitor, and manage noxious weeds on all PUD-controlled lands 

within the Integrated Weed Management Plan (IWMP) framework. 

• Fund the preparation or purchase and distribution of a noxious weed field 

guide. 

• Fund educational programs and/or brochures to raise public awareness of 

noxious weed issues. 

• Provide funding to Pend Oreille County Noxious Weed Control Board to 

support noxious weed program.

• Contribute to county’s efforts to eradicate purple loosestrife and leafy spurge 

for 3 years. 

Wildlife 

• Develop and implement Wildlife Management Plans for the Everett Island and 

Tacoma Creek WMAs, including measures such as wetland construction and 

enhancement, plantings to improve riparian habitat, and fencing to control 

grazing. 

• Monitor habitat values in WMAs. 

10 
• Conduct annual surveys of osprey, great blue heron, and double-crested 

cormorant populations in the study area during the breeding season. 

• Manage lands to promote waterfowl nesting, install nest boxes, and provide 

nest box construction materials to interested parties. 

2.1.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 

• Monitor bald eagle nesting and productivity in the project area during breeding 

season and produce annual survey reports. 

2.1.2.6 Land Use and Aesthetic Resources 

• Provide beneficial use maps to the county and other resource agencies. 

• Provide public access per the Recreation Resources Management Plan 

(RRMP). 

• Make annual 10(e) payments for the term of the new license in compensation 

for the inundation of Tribal lands. 

• Make PhotoLink 7 photo archive viewer available to those requesting it along 

with a photo record of the aesthetic character of the project area. 

2.1.2.7 Recreational Resources 

• Prepare an RRMP in year 1 and update it every 6 years in conjunction with 

Form 80 requirements. 

• Provide funding for Oldtown boat launch expansions and ongoing operation 

and maintenance (O&M). 

• Provide $37,000 funding toward improvements to the Cusick boat launch. 

• Provide $5,000 annual funding to city of Ione for O&M of Ione City Park. 

• Install three picnic tables at Campbell Park. 

• Fund signs on Highways 31 and 20 and LeClerc Road to identify recreation 

facilities and boat launches. 

• Develop the Ponderay Shores primitive public boat launch on the east side of 

the river by adding parking, a paved boat launch, and day-use facilities. 

• Fund signs at all public boat launches addressing Eurasian watermilfoil. 

• Provide $15,000 annual funding for O&M of U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service (FS) campgrounds in project area. 

11 
• Either deed the 1.8 acres of PUD land adjacent to the city of Oldtown 

Riverside Park to the city of Oldtown, or provide the city with an easement to 

allow development of the park. 

• Cooperate with the Heritage Scenic Byways Program to coordinate recreation 

improvements in the North Pend Oreille System Byways Program. 

2.1.2.8 Cultural Resources 

• Support and assist coordination of the Tribe’s plans to use Geographic 

Information System (GIS) technology for resource management by providing 

the Tribe with a complete reservoir GIS database. 

• Develop a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP).16

• Complete an inventory of cultural resources within the project’s area of 

potential effects (APE). 

• Include shoreline archaeological sites in the proposed EMP. 

• Design the rotovation program for the control of Eurasian watermilfoil to avoid 

submerged terraces. 

2.2 MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSED ACTION 

2.2.1 Agency and Interested Party Recommendations 

Commission regulations require applicants to consult with the appropriate 

resource agencies and Indian Tribes before filing a hydropower license or relicense 

application. This consultation is required to comply with the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act; the Endangered Species Act (ESA); National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) of 1966, as amended; and other federal statutes. Prefiling consultation must be 

completed and documented in accordance with the Commission’s regulations. 

The following text summarizes the comments received during the scoping process 

for the Box Canyon Project and any specific concerns or recommendations provided by 

intervenors and other commenting parties. 

The Tribe does not support the relicensing of the Box Canyon Project based on its 

treaty rights. It feels the unusual regulatory and legal history of the project warrants the 

assessment of project effects based on pre-project conditions. The Tribe also encourages 

the inclusion of a project decommissioning and dam removal alternative. 

 16 The Commission prefers to use Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) instead of Cultural 

Resources Management Plan. The agencies and all parties agreed to call this plan the HPMP at the 

Cultural Resources Management Group meeting on November 14, 2001. 

12 
Interior, WDFW, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) submitted 

recommendations for fish and wildlife protection measures under Section 10(j) of the 

FPA. We discuss these recommendations in detail in section 5.3, Fish and Wildlife 

Agency 10(j) Recommendations. 

2.2.2 Environmental Conditions 

2.2.2.1 Federal Land Management Conditions 

Section 4(e) of the FPA stipulates that a license can only be issued within public 

lands or in reservations of the United States, after finding that the license will not 

interfere or be inconsistent with the purposes for which such reservation was created or 

acquired, and that the license shall be subject to such conditions as the Secretary of the 

supervising agency deems necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such 

reservation. 

U.S. Forest Service 

Because the project occupies lands within the CNF, the FS filed conditions under 

Section 4(e) of the FPA.17 Section 4(e) of the FPA prohibits the Commission from

licensing a project that interferes or is not consistent with the purposes for which the 

National Forests were created or acquired. FS provided preliminary conditions in a letter 

dated October 31, 2001, revised them on April 24, 2002, and provided draft conditions on 

November 14, 2002. The draft conditions are discussed in the appropriate resource 

section(s) and are provided in detail in appendix A. The FS states that its final terms and 

conditions will be provided within 90 days of publication in the Federal Register that the 

final EIS is available for public comment. 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) filed conditions under Section 4(e) 

arising from the project’s occupancy of 493 acres of the KIR. These preliminary 

conditions were included in a letter dated November 5, 2001, and revised on May 2, 

2002. Subsequently, on May 21, 2004, Interior filed its modified conditions which are 

discussed in the appropriate resource section(s) and are provided in detail in appendix A. 

2.2.2.2 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions 

Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission shall require the construction, 

maintenance, and operation by a licensee at its own expense of such fishways as may be 

prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce or Secretary of Interior, as appropriate. Interior 

 17 16 U.S.C. § 797(e).

13 
provided preliminary fishway prescriptions by letter dated November 5, 2001. In a letter 

dated May 21, 2004, Interior provided modified Section 18 prescriptions. These 

prescriptions are discussed in section 3.3.3.2 and are provided in detail in appendix A. 

2.2.2.3 Water Quality Certifications 

Because the project involves lands within the KIR, the PUD was required to obtain 

certifications under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) from both Washington 

State (WDOE) and the federal government (EPA). 

Washington Department of Ecology 

On January 5, 2000, the PUD applied to the Washington Department of Ecology 

(WDOE) for water quality certification (WQC) for the Box Canyon Project. The PUD 

subsequently withdrew and re-filed the application for WQC several times, most recently 

effective January 5, 2002. On December 30, 2002, WDOE issued WQC for the project, 

which mandated general requirements and specific conditions. On February 21, 2003, 

WDOE issued an order to amend this WQC thereby requiring that the PUD submit a 

Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan, Aquatic Plant Management Plan, Interim 

Temperature Management Plan, and Water Quality Monitoring and Quality Assurance 

Project Plan within 30 days of FERC issuing a new license for the project. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

The PUD also applied to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 

WQC for project waters within the KIR. This application ran concurrent with the WDOE

certification, with an effective date of January 5, 2002. On January 2, 2003, EPA issued 

WQC for the Calispell Creek Pump Works, which discharge waters within the KIR. The 

EPA based its certification on established Washington water quality standards, since the 

Tribe’s standards had not yet been approved by EPA.18 The EPA WQC requires PUD to 

mitigate for water quality impacts of waters discharged from Calispell Creek into the 

KIR. Both WQC conditions are provided in appendix A.

2.2.3 Staff Alternative 

After evaluating the PUD Proposal and recommendations from the resource 

agencies and other interested parties, we considered what, if any, additional protection or 

enhancement measures would be necessary or appropriate with continued operation of 

the project. The Staff Alternative consists of the proposed action (section 2.1.2) with 

these additional or modified environmental measures, which include some Section 18, 

4(e), 10(j), and 10(a) measures, or modifications thereof, as noted. 

 18 EPA approved Water Quality Standards for Kalispel Indian Community on the KIR in accordance 

with the Clean Water Act on June 24, 2004. 

14 
2.2.3.1 General 

• Prepare and file a 4(e) Implementation, Monitoring and Resource Coordination 

Plan (IMRCP)19 for the project and file an annual report. 

• Upon license issuance, re-establish a Technical Committee of similar 

composition and mandate as that established in the 1999 Settlement Agreement 

with participation by all the resource agencies (Interior, FS, WDFW, IDFG, 

and the Tribe) and PUD. 

2.2.3.2 Geology and Soils 

• Prepare, in consultation with FS, Interior, WDFW, and the Tribe, an EMP for 

the entire reservoir as proposed by the PUD and two monitoring sites relocated 

from inactive to active erosion areas on FS lands, and 7 additional monitoring 

sites on Trust lands affected by project activities. The EMP should include 

annual filing of monitoring results. 

• Implement limitation of drawdown, when necessary, to 3 inches per hour. 

Inspect river bank following periods when this rate of drawdown has been 

implemented for more than 12 hours under control by BCD. 

• Prepare, in consultation with the Technical Committee, a phased Erosion 

Control, Prevention, and Remediation Plan (ECPRP) for the entire reservoir, 

which incorporates the use of sensitive species (e.g., prairie cordgrass) as 

biostabilizing components. Prepare the ECPRP in 2 phases: the first phase is 

to address immediate problem areas (within 3 years), and the second phase is 

to be defined as data become available for less active sites (within 5 years). 

• Update and file, after consultation with FS, Interior, WDFW, and the Tribe, the 

Erosion Hazard and Occurrence Map within 3 years of licensing and at no 

greater than 5-year intervals after that, and after every flood with a recurrence 

interval of 20 years or greater to establish categories describing erosion rates 

and hazard risk, based on measured rates. Initiate implementation of the 

ECPRP for areas of high and moderate erosion rate categories 3 years after 

licensing, executing additional remediation/prevention annually, based on need 

(severity of erosion or impending risk). 

• Prepare, in consultation with FS, Interior, the Tribe, and Pend Oreille 

Conservation District, and file with the Commission, a plan to educate private 

landowners on various methods of shoreline protection, including the value of 

riparian vegetation to reduce bank erosion, to support wildlife, to enhance 

sensitive species such as prairie cordgrass, and to discourage colonization by 

nuisance species. 

 19 This measure is an amalgamation of FWS 4(e) 1 and FS 4(e) 3. 

15 
2.2.3.3 Water Quantity and Quality 

• Coordinate with the Corps to develop and follow a plan to eliminate flooding 

caused by project operations. 

• Develop an Interim Temperature Management Plan for the Pend Oreille River 

as required by the amended WDOE WQC that was issued subsequent to the 

draft EIS on February 21, 2003. The plan should determine the frequency and 

timing of project-caused increases of greater than 0.3 degrees Celsius (oC) 

when the Pend Oreille River temperature exceeds 20°C, based on results of 

water temperature modeling. The plan should include all reasonable and 

feasible measures that the PUD could use in the following 3 years to decrease 

warming effects of the project, and the PUD should implement the plan as soon 

as practical after its approval by the Commission. 

• In accordance with the February 21, 2003, amendment to the WDOE WQC, 

develop a monitoring plan designed to document compliance with water 

temperature, DO, turbidity, fecal coliform, and E. coli with applicable 

standards; and determine the effects of the project (including operation of the

Calispell pumps) on water temperature in lower Calispell Creek and discharges 

from the pumps. This plan should identify the monitoring schedule for each of 

the water quality parameters identified above along with pertinent flow, pump 

operations, and weather data. The plan also should describe the water 

temperature model proposed for assessing project effects. Upon approval by 

the Commission, this plan should be implemented by the PUD. Staff added 

this recommendation after the Tribe and EPA clarified that their water quality 

concerns related to the CCPP were about Calispell Creek and its discharges, 

not the Pend Oreille River 

• Develop and implement a plan for pump operations (PPO) for the CCPP in 

consultation with the EPA, Tribe, and WDOE, based on the PUD’s water 

temperature modeling of Calispell Creek. The PPO should be filed with the 

Commission along with comments of the EPA, Tribe, and WDOE. Staff added 

this recommendation after the Tribe and EPA clarified that their water quality 

concerns related to the CCPP were about Calispell Creek and its discharges, 

not the Pend Oreille River 

• Conduct grid monitoring of TDG downstream of the BCD at the end of the 10-

year compliance period since turbine upgrades and other TDG abatement 

measures would alter hydraulics in the mixing zone of the powerhouse and 

spillway discharges. 

• Prepare annual reports that describe the frequency and magnitude of 

exceedances of TDG standards, project-induced effects, and upriver 

cumulative contributions. 

16 
• Monitor TDG in any BCD upstream and downstream fishways constructed 

during any license issued, and subsample fish that use these facilities to 

determine external and internal signs of gas bubble trauma (GBT). 

• If the TDG standard cannot be attained, prepare a Use Attainability Analysis or 

provide sufficient justification for a site-specific TDG criterion to conform to 

WDOE’s WQC, which was issued after the draft EIS. 

• Maintain and update the Spill Containment and Emergency Response Plan 

(SCERP). 

2.2.3.4 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 

• Develop and implement a plan to assess the effects of the recommended 3-

inch-per-hour drawdown rate on aquatic organisms in the BCR. This measure 

was added to the Staff Alternative to ensure that the 3-inch-per-hour drawdown 

rate achieves its biological objective. 

• Develop and implement a Trout Habitat Restoration Plan (THRP) to approach

Interior’s target trout production levels. The THRP should include an initial 

survey, implementation of measures, and subsequent monitoring on an 8-year 

cycle. Monitoring results should be filed with the annual report. 

• As a component of the THRP, establish a Trout Restoration Fund (TRF) at the 

staff recommended funding level. 

• Install a staff gage at Trimble Creek as part of tributary stream enhancement. 

Interior would use the gage to obtain hydrologic information needed to plan 

and implement appropriate riparian habitat restoration measures on Trimble 

Creek. 

• Conduct biological monitoring for signs of GBT in fish concurrent with 

monitoring of fish in Interior’s specified Section 18 fish passage facilities at 

BCD. This measure was added to the Staff Alternative because it would 

require minimal additional effort on the part of the PUD and would be far less 

costly than embarking on an independent program to assess effects of elevated 

TDG concentrations on aquatic life. 

• Prepare and file a plan to develop and implement studies to evaluate the 

numbers and types of fish that are attempting to move upstream and 

downstream past BCD and CCPP. Results should be reported annually. 

2.2.3.5 Terrestrial Resources 

• Include Everett Island and Tacoma Creek WMAs as project features within the 

FERC project boundary and manage as part of the project. 

17 
• Develop and file a Sensitive Species Consultation Plan that includes 

vegetation, fish, and wildlife on National Forest System (NFS) land within the 

project boundary to identify actions that could affect sensitive species. 

• Eliminate grazing on PUD-owned land within the project boundary and 

support the management of livestock grazing on other ownerships within the 

project boundary, through the SMP. 

• Expand Integrated Weed Management Plan to address weed control on lands 

affected by project operation that may be outside PUD ownership. 

• Develop and implement a Rare Plant Management Plan. 

2.2.3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 

• Conduct annual bald eagle surveys during the winter as well as during the 

breeding season. 

• Conduct annual surveys to identify any new bald eagle nests. 

• Conduct 2-year surveys at active nests to provide data needed to develop 

Cooperative Nest Site Management Plans. 

• Work with FWS, Tribe, FS, WDFW, IDFG and landowners to design and 

implement a Bald Eagle Management Plan for the project area and individual 

Cooperative Nest Site Management Plans, as needed. 

• Identify, protect, and manage forest stands to improve potential bald eagle nest 

habitat. 

• Improve bald eagle awareness through signage and pamphlets at recreation 

facilities. 

• Improve grizzly bear awareness through signage and pamphlets at recreation 

facilities. 

• To protect listed plant species, consult with FWS 1 year prior to undertaking 

any ground-disturbing activities. 

2.2.3.7 Land Use and Aesthetics 

• Develop and implement a Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) for 

implementation on all lands within the Box Canyon Project area. 

• Obtain permits for all activities on FS lands. 

18 
2.2.3.8 Recreational Resources 

• Develop and implement a Recreation Resource Management Plan (RRMP) for

all lands, within the project boundary, in consultation with the Tribe, U.S. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and FS. 

• Develop and implement a collaborative process to update the RRMP. 

• Implement recreation use surveys on project lands, in conjunction with Form 

80 submittals, making use of National Visitor Use Monitoring Project data and 

establish trigger points that indicate a need for additional recreation facilities. 

• Implement recreation enhancements should trigger points be reached on public 

FS lands. 

2.2.3.9 Cultural Resources 

• Monitor historic properties in shoreline areas subject to erosion. 

• Coordinate identification of archeological sites with other resource monitoring 

programs. 

• Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, complete a cultural resource survey. 

For each of these measures (and those proposed by the PUD and other entities) 

we: (1) analyze them in the appropriate Environmental Effects and Recommendations 

section(s) (see section 3.3); (2) assess their economic effects in section 4, Developmental 

Analysis; and (3) describe our recommendations in section 5, Staff’s Conclusions. 

2.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No-action Alternative, the project would continue to operate under the 

terms and conditions of the existing license and no new environmental measures would 

be implemented. Any ongoing effects of the project would continue. We use this 

alternative to establish baseline environmental conditions for comparison with other 

alternatives. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 

STUDY 

2.4.1 Federal Government Takeover of the Project 

We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. Federal 

takeover and operation of the project would require Congressional approval. Although 

that fact alone would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, there is no 

evidence to indicate that federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. No party 

19 
has suggested federal takeover would be appropriate, and no federal agency has 

expressed an interest in operating the project. 

2.4.2 Issuing a Nonpower License 

A nonpower license is a temporary license that the Commission terminates when it 

determines that another governmental agency will assume regulatory authority and 

supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the license. At this point, no agency 

has suggested a willingness or ability to do so. No party has sought a nonpower license, 

and we have no basis for concluding that the project should no longer be used to produce 

power. Thus, we do not consider a nonpower license a realistic alternative to relicensing 

in this circumstance. 

2.4.3 Retiring the Project 

Project retirement could be accomplished with or without dam removal. Either 

alternative would involve denial of the relicense application and surrender or termination 

of the existing license with appropriate conditions and cessation of power generation at 

the project, resulting in the following effects: 

• Energy currently generated by the project would be lost. The Box Canyon 

Project is estimated to produce an annual average of 452,000 MWh of 

electrical power. Through this generation and supplemental purchased power, 

the PUD provides about 187,000 MWh of cost-preferential service to local 

residential customers and the remainder to industrial and commercial clients at 

prevailing rates. 

• There would be significant costs involved in retiring the powerhouse and 

appurtenant facilities. 

• The environmental enhancements currently proposed by the PUD would be 

foregone. 

• If the dam and control structures were removed and the original riverine 

shoreline re-established, existing recreational, residential, and commercial 

facilities operated by the PUD, the FS, and municipal interests would be 

compromised.

• The potential for environmental effects such as release of sediments 

accumulated behind the dam to the river downstream, loss of lacustrine 

habitats, and wetlands could occur. 

However, dam removal would restore a free-flowing river and riverine habitat, 

eliminate any fish entrainment mortality that may be occurring, provide unobstructed fish 

passage past the site, provide unobstructed recreational riverine boating, and provide the 

potential for the Tribe to re-establish some of its traditional uses of the river prior to 

impoundment. 

20 
Despite these potential benefits, we do not regard this alternative as reasonable in 

view of the many more potential losses. 

The second project retirement alternative would involve retaining the dam and 

disabling or removing equipment used to generate power. Project works would remain in 

place and could be used for historic or other purposes. This would require us to identify 

another government agency with authority to assume regulatory control and supervision 

of the remaining facilities. No agency has stepped forward, and no participant has 

advocated this alternative, although the Tribe did request that project removal be 

examined as an alternative. We have no basis for recommending this action. Because 

the power supplied by the project is needed, a source of replacement power would have 

to be identified. In these circumstances, we do not consider removal of the electric 

generating equipment to be a reasonable alternative. 

21 
This page intentionally left blank 

22 
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

3.1 GENERAL SETTING 

The Box Canyon Project is located on the Pend Oreille River in northeastern 

Washington State. The dam and powerhouse are located near Ione in Pend Oreille 

County. The BCR extends 55.7 miles up the river to Albeni Falls dam in Bonner County, 

Idaho. The upstream drainage area for the BCR is 24,930 square miles. There are 22 

streams emptying into the BCR, Calispell, and LeClerc creeks being the largest. The 

Pend Oreille River is the second largest river in Washington State. Its headwaters are at 

Pend Oreille Lake in Idaho, from which it flows northwesterly for about 155 miles to the 

Columbia River in British Columbia, Canada (see figure 2, appendix D). 

BCD is located at the downstream end of a narrow rock canyon that extends about 

3,000 feet upstream, at which point the reservoir transitions into a broad valley up to

Albeni Falls dam. Land use in the project area is mostly rural with large areas of forest, 

mountains, valleys, and open pastures with widely dispersed homes and ranches. 

Development consists largely of timber harvesting, grazing, mining, heavy industry, 

urban and rural residential development, and recreation. 

Air from the Pacific Ocean, which has a moderating influence, affects the climate 

of northeastern Washington. Winters are rather long and are influenced by cold air from 

the Canadian Arctic, while summers are generally warm and sunny with light rainfall. 

Daily temperature ranges are about 15 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit (ΕF) in the winter and 46 

to 76ΕF in the summer. Annual precipitation ranges from 15 to 25 inches in the valleys 

to 40 inches or more in the mountains. 

3.2 CUMULATIVELY AFFECTED RESOURCES 

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for 

implementing NEPA (§1508.7), a cumulative effect is the effect on the environment that 

results from the incremental effect of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes 

such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over time to include hydropower and other 

land and water development activities. 

Based on information in the license application, agency comments, other filings, 

comments from the original scoping process, and preliminary staff analysis, we identified 

geology and soils, water quantity and quality, aquatic resources, terrestrial resources 

(riparian, wildlife, wetlands, and sensitive species), recreational use and access, land use 

management and cultural resources as resources that may be cumulatively affected by the 

continued operation of the Box Canyon Project in combination with other activities on 

23 
the Pend Oreille River. We used the resource areas to determine the geographic and 

temporal scope of the EIS analysis. 

3.2.1 Geographic Scope 

The geographic scope of analysis for cumulatively affected resources is defined by 

physical limits or boundaries of: (1) the proposed action’s effect on the resources, and 

(2) contributing effects from other hydropower and non-hydropower activities within the 

Pend Oreille River basin. Because the proposed action would affect the resources 

differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary. 

In this case, the overall scope of analysis encompasses the project boundary (the 

main stem of the Pend Oreille River and adjacent lands from the BCD upstream to Albeni 

Falls dam) and downstream to Boundary dam. We chose this geographic scope because 

this reach of the Pend Oreille River encompasses the entire project facility, plus those 

river reaches and other facilities on the river that affect or are affected by project 

operation. For adfluvial fisheries habitat, we also included major tributaries to the BCR. 

For water quality (TDG) the geographic scope was expanded to include the Pend Oreille 

River from Albeni Falls dam downstream to its confluence with the Columbia River at 

the border of Washington State and British Columbia. 

3.2.2 Temporal Scope 

The temporal scope of our cumulative effects analysis in the EIS includes a 

discussion of past, present, and future actions and their effects on each resource that 

could be cumulatively affected. Based on the term of a new license, the temporal scope 

will look 30 to 50 years into the future, concentrating on the effect on the resources from 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical discussion is, by necessity, limited 

to the amount of available information for each resource. 

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

3.3.1 Geology and Soils 

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment 

Physiographic Setting 

The Pend Oreille River is located within the Okanogan Highlands physiographic 

province. The river flows between the Selkirk and Chewelah Mountains to the east and 

west, respectively. The project lies between RM 34.4 at BCD and RM 90.1 at Albeni 

Falls dam. 

During the last ice age, the valley was covered by the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. 

During the ice retreat, recessional lakes formed in the valley, and extensive 

24 
glaciolacustrine deposits developed. As a result, the southern half of the project area is a 

broad, flat valley. In the northern half of the project area, lakebed deposits also occur, 

along with uplands of glacial deposits and colluvium. Bedrock is exposed, in particular 

in Box Canyon, close to and at the dam as a result of river downcutting, and locally 

elsewhere. 

Bedrock Geology and Tectonics 

Bedrock geology in the project vicinity includes a variety of rock types, including 

sedimentary, volcanic, granitic, and metamorphic rocks. Other than in Box Canyon, 

bedrock exposures are not extensive close to the river. 

BCD is founded within the sedimentary Metaline Formation that forms Box 

Canyon. The rock is a strong, medium to thick bedded dolomite with minor quartz. The 

dam is at the downstream end of a narrow canyon that is approximately 3,000 feet long 

with vertical walls. Granitic rocks are exposed locally on the east side near the river 

between Lost Creek and LeClerc Creek. Metavolcanic rocks are exposed locally along 

the east side of the river. 

The project area is within UBC Seismic Zone 2B, representing a low level of 

seismic activity. Several short faults have been identified near BCD; the Newport Fault, 

a regional fault zone, is exposed along the river near Dalkena. However, none of the 

faults are considered to be active. The area is affected by earthquakes in the more 

seismically active regions of Idaho and Montana, as well as western Washington, but the 

distance from these sources to the dam site results in relatively low levels of shaking. 

Soils 

Soil deposits are predominantly glacial in origin, reflecting the glacial history of 

the area, particularly the last ice age that ended about 10,000 years ago. Most of the 

project area is covered in glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits. The lacustrine 

(lake) deposits resulted in a broad, flat valley development in the southern half of the 

area. These deposits include clay, silt, and sand soils. Terraces of sandier material and 

moraines grading from silt to gravel developed as the glaciers retreated, particularly south 

of Cusick. In the north part of the project area, uplands are mantled with glacial deposits, 

with some local areas of residuum and colluvium developed from underlying granitic 

rocks. 

Several erosion processes are evident along the banks of the Pend Oreille River. 

Undercutting of the banks by wave action and flowing water is the most prevalent cause 

of erosion. It occurs at all reservoir levels. Undercutting occurs most rapidly in 

noncohesive sand and silt soils and less rapidly in clayey soils and in soils with sufficient 

gravel content to resist the action of the water. Bank toppling, which occurs in silty and 

clayey soils when slopes become undercut at the water level, is also common along the 

banks. Other erosion processes were identified, including slumping, earthflows, rill and 

25 
gully development, dry raveling, and piping by groundwater, but these contribute a minor 

amount of the total erosion occurring along the river. 

The PUD reports that from 1975 to the mid-1980s, annual measurements were 

made at seven stations that had originally been experiencing significant erosion. 

Measurements were discontinued because of the very low erosion rates being recorded. 

Qualitative observations are made and recorded annually. 

In 1983, a photogrammetric analysis was performed using aerial photographs 

taken in 1943, 1955, and 1979 at six sites between RM 63.88 and RM 70.09 in the 

vicinity of Cusick and the KIR. The PUD concluded that at four sites, the rates 

(expressed as average annual rates) during project operation were about equal to (at 1 

site) or less than (at 3 sites) pre-project rates, while two sites showed no significant 

change for the entire period of the study. 

The PUD categorized the river banks according to erosion rate and erosion hazard. 

The erosion rate was estimated subjectively, as was the hazard. Rate was judged by the 

presence and severity of erosion features such as bank toppling, raveling, slumps, and 

earthflows. Hazard was assessed by occurrence of active erosion and by existence of 

features (high or steep banks, exposed soil, vicinity to active slumps) similar to those in 

actively eroding areas. The PUD concluded that of the approximately 180 miles of 

shoreline, about 65 percent is not eroding, 25 percent is eroding slowly, 9 percent is 

eroding at a moderate rate, and about 1 percent is experiencing a high erosion rate. The 

PUD (2000; exhibit E, appendix 8.1, figure 8.1) summarizes the soil types exposed along 

the reservoir shoreline. The abundance of relatively erodible sand and silt is evident. 

The areas of moderate and high erosion rates typically coincide with silt and sand soils. 

We conclude that erosion is spatially and temporally distributed. There are few 

areas that are experiencing constant erosion at a significant rate that can be measured 

over a short time or, possibly, over a medium time interval of several years. The 

measurements and observations along the reservoir from 1975 to the mid-1980s reported 

by the PUD suggest that erosion at a particular site might be followed by several years of 

inactivity. Further, the PUD notes that, in addition to reservoir operation and flood 

events, bank erosion results from other influences including natural (pre-project) 

landslides, domestic and wild animals, and shoreline alteration by residents. These are 

local in extent and a relatively minor portion of the total erosion taking place. 

Currently, there are no measurements of erosion rates except for the very recently 

installed monitoring stations described below under PUD Proposal. Monitoring at 18 

stations started in early 2000 and survey results were presented in PUD (2001a). The 

river shoreline is inspected annually and qualitative assessments of erosion rates are 

recorded. 

26 
3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects 

The erosion of soils along the Pend Oreille River banks was identified during 

scoping as an issue of concern with respect to geology and soils. As a result of the 

glacial history of the area, the exposed soils along the river present a wide range of 

erosion potential. 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes to monitor 30 sites along the river, including those established 

in 2000, to characterize where and when erosion is occurring in representative areas with 

varying geomorphic characteristics, and how it is related to hydrologic variability. At 

each monitoring site, three transects that are 20 feet apart would be established, local 

benchmarks would be established for reference, and the transects would be surveyed to 

document changes. Table 1 summarizes the proposed monitoring sites as well as 

characteristics of each location, including erosion rate, bank height, hazard 

classifications, and soil type. The proposed locations represent a wide range of 

conditions. The sites are concentrated in areas of high and moderate erosion. The 

proposed sites would be surveyed twice per year to determine the rate of erosion. The 

PUD believes that monitoring at this frequency would document the influence of project 

operation on shoreline erosion. 

Table 1. Characteristics of proposed erosion monitoring sites. 

River Milea Locationa,b

Erosion 

Ratea,c

Bank Height 

Class (feet)a Hazardd Soil Typed,e

35.5 Left S >24 L GP/SP

36.2 Right N >24 L GP/SP

36.7 Right S >24 L GP/SP

36.9 Right M >24 M SP

38.2 Left N >24 M CH/SC/CH

41.8 Right N <12 L GP/CL

43.1 Right M <12 M SM

43.5 Left M >24 H GM

44.0 Left H >24 H SM-MH

44.4 Right S 12–24 L GP/ML

44.7 Right M 12–24 M GP/ML

47.9 Right N 12–24 L SP

48.0 Left H 12–24 H SM-ML

51.0 Right H >24 H SP/CH

27 
River Milea Locationa,b

Erosion 

Ratea,c

Bank Height 

Class (feet)a Hazardd Soil Typed,e

52.0 Left M >24 M SP/ML

55.1 Right M <12 M SM-ML/SC-CL

55.3 Right S <12 L SM-ML/SC-CL

56.5 Right M 12–24 M ML

56.9 Right S 12–24 M ML

59.2 Right S 12–24 M ML

63.5 Right N <12 L ML

64.5 Right M <12 M ML

70.9 Left N 12–24 L CH/ML

76.2 Right M 12–24 M SM-ML

83.0 Left N 12–24 L SP/MH

86.5 Right S >24 M GP/MH

86.8 Left H 12–24 H SP/MH

87.2 I S <12 L SP/SM

89.2 Left N <12 L ML

89.8 Left S <12 L SP

a Source: PUD (2001a). 

b Location: Left and right are on river banks, looking downstream. I = station on an island. 

c Erosion rate: N = not eroding; S = slow; M = moderate; H = high. 

d Source: PUD (2000). Hazard classification: L = low; M = moderate; H = high. 

e Soil types are identified using Unified Soil Classification System: C = clay; M = silt; S = sand; G 

= gravel; P = poorly graded; H = highly plastic; L = low plastic.

The PUD also proposes to establish an operational criterion limiting the rate of 

reservoir drawdown to a maximum of 3 inches per hour when the flows are in a range 

that can be controlled by the project (i.e., less than 90,000 cfs) except under emergency 

situations. Finally, the PUD would contribute $10,000 per year to the POCD to support 

its public education efforts regarding erosion control and riverbank stabilization issues. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

FS (condition no. 4[e] 12) specifies that: 

• the PUD develop an EMP specific to affected FS lands, including regular, 

periodic monitoring and special monitoring after floods with greater than a 20-

28 
year return period; update the erosion occurrence map after each monitoring 

(FS, in its letter dated May 22, 2002, clarified this measure to include updating 

the erosion occurrence map every 5 years or after floods); and establish three 

additional monitoring sites on FS land; 

• areas of active erosion be monitored, including those identified as moderate 

and high erosion hazard, even if they are not actively eroding; 

• effects of project operations on erosion processes be identified; and 

• the PUD develop, fund, and implement an Erosion Control, Prevention, and 

Remediation Plan (ECPRP) including site-specific procedures, measures, and 

actions to minimize erosion on all FS land with an erosion hazard of Moderate 

or High whether or not they are actively eroding and on sites where recreation 

facilities, heritage resources, sensitive plants, or other forest resources are 

being harmed or are at risk. 

Interior (modified condition no. 4[e] 3) specifies that: 

• the rate of drawdown of the BCR, measured at PUD’s gage at the BCD, not 

exceed 3 inches per hour and be documented in monthly reports, and that the 

gage be consistent with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) standards, which 

would be confirmed annually; 

• exceedances of the 3-inch-per-hour limit be documented and reported within 

7 days of such events, as well as monthly and annually;

• the PUD assess the benefits of the 3-inch-per-hour drawdown limitation on 

erosion processes at KIR by conducting geotechnical studies (installing 

piezometers to monitor groundwater levels, laboratory testing, and seepage and 

stability analyses) and erosion monitoring at eight transects; and 

• the PUD develop an EMP for Trust lands affected by project activities to 

monitor areas of active erosion plus areas with a Moderate or High erosion 

hazard, and identify remedial measures if appropriate. 

Interior repeats the 3-inch-per-hour drawdown limitation as a 10(j) 

recommendation (10[j] 6). The Tribe recommends (Kal 10[a] 1) that: 

• the drawdown rate be limited to a maximum of 3 inches per hour, 12 inches per 

day, and 36 inches per week, as measured at the USGS Gage No. 12396470 at 

Ione; 

• the PUD assess the benefits of the drawdown limitation, including geotechnical 

studies and erosion monitoring that includes an accurate survey of the 

shoreline profile at each transect; monitoring of groundwater levels in the 

bank; determination of soil properties and characteristics; and development of 

a slope stability model to determine how the 3-inch-per-hour drawdown rate 

would affect the shoreline of KIR;

29 
• the PUD develop an EMP for Trust lands affected by project activities, 

incorporating PUD’s proposals for erosion monitoring and identification of 

remedial measures when appropriate; and 

• the PUD contribute $50,000 per year to an erosion stabilization fund for KIR 

lands that would be administered by the Tribe. 

Our Analysis 

It is difficult to assess the level of erosion caused by the presence of BCD. The

soils exposed along the river banks are susceptible to erosion by the various processes 

(wave action, flow velocity, water level drawdown) that are active in the reservoir. 

However, the extent to which aspects of BCD operation contribute to erosion processes 

or influence erosion rates is not apparent from any previous studies, except for the 1983 

photogrammetric analysis, which was confined to the reach between RM 63.88 and RM 

70.09 and concluded that there was no significant difference between pre- and postproject average annual erosion rates. 

Reservoir Drawdown

The PUD proposes to operate the project essentially as it has been operated under 

the current license, with the exception of controlling the rate of reservoir drawdown to a 

maximum of 3 inches per hour. Although not yet proven, the erosion/slope failure 

mechanism, which might be affected by the rate of drawdown, appears to be a relatively 

minor cause of erosion at the project. We therefore anticipate that the net effect of the 

PUD Proposal would be a modest decrease in the amount of erosion. 

The proposal appears reasonable in the absence of documented evidence 

correlating the drawdown rate with the frequency or number of erosion events or slides in 

the BCR. This measure could reduce the potential for piping-type failures of terrace 

deposits through a reduction in the rate of groundwater flow from the terraces to the 

reservoir. The Tribe recommends daily (12 inches per day) and weekly (36 inches per 

week) maximum drawdown rates (10[a] 1), in addition to the hourly maximum proposed 

by the PUD. If indeed the rate of drawdown is linked to erosion in the BCR, even further 

rate reduction should intuitively be positive, although the incremental benefit would be 

expected to be minor. This level of drawdown control is, however, beyond the PUD’s 

capability with its ROR operations. As an ROR project, BCR levels respond to 

operations at the upstream Albeni Falls Project, owned and operated by the Corps. This 

limitation in drawdown, for hydraulic reasons, would not be consistent with flood control 

objectives for Calispell Creek. For these reasons, we cannot support this 

recommendation. For an explanation of the hydraulic and the biological implications of 

this proposal, see sections 3.3.2.2 and 3.3.3.2, respectively. 

30 
Geotechnical Studies 

Both Interior and the Tribe recommend geotechnical studies to determine the 

effects of the maximum 3-inch-per-hour drawdown rate on erosion. Geotechnical 

studies, which include analysis of soil properties and measurement of groundwater 

pressures, would be very site-specific. Although they would provide information on 

properties of the soils and their theoretical susceptibility to erosion, such studies would be 

far less useful than direct measurements of erosion rates at the proposed transects for 

determining both the erosion rate and the effectiveness of limiting the drawdown rate. 

Monitoring 

Under the PUD Proposal, only one monitoring station would monitor the KIR 

lands. The Tribe and Interior recommend that eight stations be installed on the KIR. 

This would provide more representative sampling of erosion types and rates. The 

assessment of historical erosion rates described in appendix E8 of the final license 

application was drawn from a qualitative comparison of aerial photographs from 1943 to 

1979. Little or no measurable change in erosion progression was noted during the period 

from 8 years before the project to 24 years after it was built. This historic comparison 

was made in the vicinity of the KIR and indicated erosion rates ranging from zero to 

about 0.3 foot per year in areas not categorized as eroding or with a slow erosion rate. 

Establishment of additional monitoring stations in these same areas would permit the 

PUD to confirm quantitatively whether this is a continuing trend and to provide some 

context for the future measured rates. 

FS specifies an EMP specific to FS lands (4[e] 12). Interior (4[e] 1) and the Tribe 

(10[a] 1) specify a similar plan for Trust lands. Comparing the PUD’s proposed 

monitoring stations in table 1 with the Shoreline Erosion Hazard and Occurrence Map 

(PUD, 2000, appendix E8-1, figure 8.1) shows that 7 of the 12 areas of FS lands along 

the reservoir would be monitored. The two areas that would not be monitored, both on 

the left bank near RM 62.7 and RM 86.0, are shown as “not eroding - low hazard” and 

“slow rate - low hazard” and would be of little value in any case. Two of the remaining 

stations recommended for monitoring, however, at RM 44.4 and RM 47.9, are also 

characterized as “not eroding.” 

In addition to biannual monitoring, Interior specifies (4[e] 3) additional 

monitoring within 7 days of an exceedance of the 3-inch-per-hour drawdown and within 

7 days after a flood with a recurrence interval of 20 years or greater (measured at the 

USGS gage at Newport), and a report within 14 days of either of those events. The 

monitoring specifications are reasonable to assess the impact of more extreme floods and 

the benefits, if any, of the drawdown rate limitation. However, the benefits of reporting 

very soon after each event occurs are not apparent. 

We conclude that PUD’s proposed monitoring measures are reasonable and 

adequate to assess the level of erosion occurring along the reservoir shoreline, with the 

addition and relocation of monitoring stations as noted above. The monitoring sites have 

31 
been selected to cover the range of soil and slope conditions, with emphasis on those 

apparently experiencing high and moderate erosion rates. The proposed monitoring times 

(twice per year) would permit identification of erosion events due to high flows, and 

those due to typical reservoir operations. Additional monitoring after extreme events and 

after exceeding the drawdown rate limitation would provide information about the effects 

of those events. 

Mapping 

FS and the Tribe recommend that the Erosion Hazard and Occurrence Maps be 

updated after each monitoring. However, we expect that several years of observations 

and measurements would be required to provide a basis for assessment. As data become

available, the erosion rates and hazard classifications shown on the map could be 

reviewed and revised. If possible, qualitative categories of erosion rates should be 

replaced with categories based on actual measured rates of erosion and the basis of the 

hazard classification should be reviewed and revised, if necessary. 

Remediation 

FS recommends an Erosion Control, Prevention, and Remediation Plan (ECPRP) 

be developed within 2 years for all FS lands in the moderate and high erosion rate 

categories, and for all FS lands in the moderate and high hazard categories whether or not 

they are actively eroding. Both the rate and hazard categories are somewhat subjective, 

and it may require several years of data to confirm whether those categories are 

appropriate. We consider it more reasonable to develop a plan within 3 years for areas of 

active erosion (to allow earlier remediation), but permit more time (5 years) to confirm

the categories where erosion is not active and where resources such as recreation 

facilities, heritage resources, and sensitive plants are not at risk. 

We discuss costs for erosion control and remediation further in section 4, 

Developmental Analysis, and present our final recommendations in section 5, Staff’s 

Conclusions.

Education 

The PUD intends to support public education on erosion control and riverbank 

stabilization. We see opportunity for the PUD, through development of an Erosion 

Education Plan, to integrate several aspects of the problem to maximize the contribution 

that riparian landowners can make to developing and implementing solutions. We 

include the costs of such a plan in section 4, Developmental Analysis, and make our final 

recommendations in section 5, Staff Conclusions. 

32 
3.3.1.3 Cumulative Effects on Geology and Soils 

Erosion is an ongoing process that occurs at all water levels. It will continue to 

occur with time. Measures to reduce project-caused erosion, such as controlling the rate 

of reservoir drawdown, and remediation of project caused erosion, will reduce 

cumulative adverse impacts along the reservoir shoreline. Measures to manage shoreline 

development and recreation activities will result in a reduction in the adverse impacts of 

erosion associated with those activities, as will public education efforts by the POCD. 

3.3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Continued operation of the Box Canyon Project contributes to erosion processes 

already occurring along the river banks. The Staff Alternative would somewhat reduce 

the extent of erosion by limiting drawdown rates and providing for erosion control, 

prevention, and remediation in areas where the project has caused or contributed to 

erosion. However, the primary causes of erosion, wave action and flow velocity, would 

not change under the proposed ROR operating conditions of the new license so some 

erosion would continue to occur along the banks of the BCR. 

3.3.2 Water Quantity and Quality 

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment 

This section describes water quantity and quality in the project area and the effects 

of existing project operations on water resources, focusing on issues identified during the 

scoping process. Issues addressed include the effects of project operations on water 

temperature, DO, pH, and TDG in the Box Canyon impoundment and downstream, along 

with shoreline erosion and sedimentation to the degree that they affect water quality. 

Basin Description 

The Pend Oreille River is one of the major tributaries of the Columbia River basin 

(see figure 2, appendix D). Its headwaters are located in the Rocky Mountains in 

northwestern Montana and northern Idaho. After it enters Washington State near the city 

of Newport, the river flows northward into Canada then westward until it joins the upper 

Columbia River at the U.S.-Canadian border near the town of Waneta. 

The Box Canyon Project is one of several water resource developments in the 

Pend Oreille River basin. The Pend Oreille River originates about 120 miles above BCD 

at the Lake Pend Oreille (1.2 million acre-feet of storage) outflow in Idaho and flows 

northwesterly for about 155 miles to the Columbia River in British Columbia, Canada. 

The major tributary to Lake Pend Oreille is the Clark Fork River, whose basin includes 

two other large waterbodies: Flathead Lake (1.2 million acre-feet) and Hungry Horse 

reservoir (3 million acre-feet). Other major impoundments in the basin above the BCR 

33 
include Cabinet Gorge reservoir (0.1 million acre-feet) and Noxon Rapids reservoir 

(0.5 million acre-feet). 

The Corps regulates flow from Lake Pend Oreille at Albeni Falls dam, located on 

the Pend Oreille River at RM 90.1. BCD is located at RM 34.4, and its resulting 

impoundment extends over 55 miles upstream to the tailwater of Albeni Falls dam. The 

total watershed area of the Pend Oreille/Clark Fork River system above BCD is 24,930 

square miles. The area below Albeni Falls dam accounts for less than 3 percent (about 

700 square miles) of this watershed. A total of 22 small tributaries drain into the BCR. 

The largest of these is Calispell Creek, which has a drainage area of 148 square miles. 

The BCR lies between the Selkirk Mountains to the east and the Chewelah 

Mountains to the west, which have a maximum height of about 6,800 feet msl. The area 

surrounding the reservoir is mostly rural with large forested tracts interspersed with small 

communities, individual homesteads, and ranches. The upstream end of the project area 

is characterized by a fairly wide floodplain that narrows to a steep-sided canyon at the 

lower end of the reservoir. 

The BCR is 55.7 miles long and has a surface area of 7,000 to 9,000 acres 

depending on its elevation, which is determined by flow levels. Channel widths are 

typically 1,600 to 2,300 feet in the upper two-thirds of the reservoir, and 700 to 1,000 feet 

in the lower third of the reservoir, within Box Canyon. Average cross-sectional depths 

vary between 9 and 40 feet. The narrowest and deepest sections of the reservoir are 

located between RM 34.7 and RM 34.8 in Box Canyon, whereas the widest section 

(approximately 2,540 feet) is at RM 63.6. 

Water Resources Development History 

Water resources in the Pend Oreille River basin serve a variety of uses and are 

affected by multiple dams, dikes, and diversions. A history of the major developments in 

the basin (see figure 2, appendix D) include: 

1909: Diking Districts No. 1 and 2 were formed west of Pend Oreille River 

near RMs 66 to 72 

1921: Diking District No. 3 was formed west of Pend Oreille River near RMs 

61 to 63 

1952: Cabinet Gorge dam was completed on Clark Fork River just above Lake 

Pend Oreille 

1953: Hungry Horse dam was completed on Flathead River above Flathead 

Lake 

1955: Albeni Falls dam was completed at RM 90.1, 55.7 miles upstream of 

BCD 

1955: BCD was completed at RM 34.4 

34 
1960: Noxon Rapids dam was completed on Clark Fork River above Cabinet 

Gorge reservoir 

1963: Box Canyon license was amended to allow 2 feet of backwater at Albeni 

Falls dam 

1967: Boundary dam was completed at RM 17.0, 17.4 miles downstream of 

BCD 

An extensive lowland area of about 50 square miles, located on the west side of 

the Pend Oreille River near RM 61 to RM 72, provides valuable agricultural and grazing 

land. The construction of a railroad along the western bank of the river in 1909 provided

the primary dike in a system developed to control the flooding and draining of these 

lowland areas to maximize their agricultural use. Waters are prevented from backing up 

from the Pend Oreille River into these lowlands by gated culverts beneath the railroad 

bed and other dikes. In addition, pumps are used to discharge water from the tributaries 

(i.e., areas behind the dikes) into the Pend Oreille River when the gates are closed. 

Because the PUD’s license requires that project operations not add to or cause flooding in 

the diking districts, the PUD agreed to accept responsibility for operation and 

maintenance of many culverts, gates, and pumps throughout the diking districts. The 

largest of these are on Calispell and Trimble creeks. A Board of Commissioners for each 

district still manages general operations (PUD, 1996). 

Water Quantity and Reservoir Levels 

Flow in the BCR depends almost entirely on the operation of upstream 

impoundments. Because the Box Canyon Project is operated as an ROR facility, flow at 

BCD is nearly the same as that released from Albeni Falls dam. The average flow at 

BCD from 1956 to 1995 was 26,243 cfs, with yearly averages ranging from 14,378 to 

39,129 cfs. Average flow during the 20-year period from 1976 to 1995 was 23,500 cfs, 

which is markedly less than the average for the previous 20 years (29,000 cfs). This is 

most likely due to either increased consumption upstream or natural climatic variation. 

For the 40 years of record, the average yearly flood flow (i.e., the average of the yearly 

maximums) was 79,445 cfs, and the highest 1-day flow was 135,787 cfs, which occurred 

in June 1972. The average yearly minimum flow for the 40-year period was 5,764 cfs, 

with a lowest 1-day flow of 1,054 cfs occurring in October 1985. Seasonal variation in 

flow is substantial as illustrated in figure 3; flows peak from mid-May to mid-July and

are the lowest in August and September. Average monthly flows during the 20-year 

period from 1976 to 1995 range from a high of 45,500 cfs in June to a low of 12,100 cfs 

in August. On average, only about 3 percent of the flow in the reservoir is derived from 

the 22 lateral tributaries located between Albeni Falls dam and BCD. 

Although the BCR is operated as an ROR or flow-through reservoir, impoundment 

of the river has reduced water velocities and increased travel times from Albeni Falls to 

the BCD. Based on HEC RAS model results, the average BCR velocity for flows of 

35 
60,000 cfs, which is about the normal June flow, is 2.3 feet per second (ft/s) with the 

impoundment as compared to 3.2 ft/s without the impoundment (i.e., 72 percent of 

without-project conditions). Similarly, average BCR velocity for 10, 000 cfs, which is 

about the normal August flow, is 0.6 foot per second as compared to 2.3 ft/s without the 

impoundment (i.e., 26 percent of without-project conditions) (letter from K. Doughty, 

Senior Scientist, Framatone ANP DE&S, Bellingham, WA, to J. Parodi, Environmental 

Specialist, WDOE, Spokane, WA, dated June 6, 2002). 

2046

40,000

60,000

80,000

2036

2038

2040

2042

J F M A M J J A S O N D

0

20,000 2032

100,000

2030

2034

2044

Daily flo

w (cfs)

. elevati

on (ft above ms

A

pprox l)

Figure 3. Minimum, maximum, and mean flow in the BCR (Cusick USGS Gage No.

1239647) for each day of the year between 1976 and 1995. 

Falter et al. (1991) characterized two-thirds of the reservoir as sluggish riverine 

habitat, based on changes in reservoir volume, retention time, and water velocities. Total

reservoir volume ranges from 150,000 to 250,000 acre-feet, depending on elevation/flow

Reservoir retention time is about 3.5 days at average flow. Average water velocities in 

the reservoir’s main channel range from about 1.9 ft/s below the Albeni Falls dam during

normal spring high flows to 0.1 foot per second near Cusick during normal summer low 

flows (Falter et al., 1991). 

. 

Water travel times from Albeni Falls dam to BCD are 1.7 days for normal spring 

flows and 34 days for normal summer flows (Falter et. al., 1991). 

An important aspect of reservoir operation is the relationship between surface 

elevations and river discharge. Figure 4 shows the reservoir surface elevations at flows 

near the average annual flow (20,000 cfs) and a typical flood flow (75,000 cfs) for both 

current operations with BCD and the unregulated condition. As flow increases, the 

difference between surface elevation under current operating conditions and the 

36 
unregulated conditions diminishes, especially in the upper half of the reservoir. As flows 

exceed 30,000 cfs, the gates at BCD are gradually opened, and at approximately 90,000 

cfs, the gates are opened completely. In this upper range of flows (90,000 cfs), the 

effective hydraulic head on the Box Canyon power plant becomes insufficient for power 

production. Therefore, at flows above 90,000 cfs, there is no difference between current 

and unregulated elevations throughout the reservoir. 

1,990

2,0

2,010

2,020

2,030

2,040

2,050

35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

00

20,000 cfs

unregulated

20,000 cfs

existing

75,000 cfs

unregulated

75,000 cfs

existing

Pend Oreille River Mile

75,000 cfs

20,000 cfs

age

o

s of between

elevations 2,027 and 2,028 feet msl on the creek side of the dike during most of the year; 

Figure 4. Projected reservoir surface elevations over the length of the BCR or aver

annual and average flood flows under existing conditions of dam operation 

and unregulated flows. 

The effect of project operation on reservoir elevation during the course of a year 

can be seen by comparing projected elevations for current (with dam) operations and 

unregulated (without dam) operations. Plots of reservoir elevations at RM 70 are 

displayed for representative dry (1987), wet (1981), and normal (1985) water years 

(figure 5). The difference between existing and unregulated conditions is typically 6 to 8

feet regardless of the water-year type with the exception of the high-flow months of May

to July. During the high-flow months, the difference is lowest during wet years. 

As described above, the PUD accepted responsibility for O&M of many culverts, 

gates, and pumps throughout the diking districts to avoid the project from contributing t

flooding in the diking districts. Two pumping stations along with the railroad dike 

control flow in and out of Calispell Creek. The facilities are operated to maintain the 

creek at water levels that would occur without the BCD as agreed upon by the PUD and 

Diking District No. 2 in Plan E. These operations result in water level

37 
however, higher levels occur during the high flow season. Plan E specifies procedures to 

be followed when the BCR experiences high water levels to minimize the water levels 

pumps at th

flow seaso k occurs at 

slower and irregular rate than would occur under natural processes. 

and length of time that flooding occurs in Calispell Creek. Because the lowest capacity 

e facility are rated at 65 cfs, they are not operated continuously during the low

n and consequently flow through the lower portion of Calispell Cree

a

38 
Figure 5. Surface elevations (msl) in the BCR at Pend Oreille RM 70 for current (w

dam) operations and unregulated (without dam) operations for representa

dry (1987), normal (1985), and wet years (1981). (Source: Staff) 

ith

tive

39 
40 

Water Rights 

The PUD ha non-c ptive water right to use 27,400 cfs for power 

g ration CD a h ber 7, 1952, and was 

recorded as r an additional water 

right of 5,000 cfs on S he proposed project upgrade. The 

application is No. S3- eptember 15, 1999. The point of 

diversion for both the existing and requeste

consumptive water rights for recreational use 

Park in the amount of 0.75 cfs storage. In addition, the 

PU ous domestic water systems that are not 

a t of thi

Over 1,000 surface water rights exist within Washington for the Pend Oreille 

River. These water rights adjudicate the use of 336 cfs primarily for domestic water 

supply, irrigation, and claims without a specific use, along with 27,400 cfs for power 

generation. Irrigation rights serve more than 5,300 acres. In addition, the Tribe has a 

water right for the protection of Tribal fisheries, although this water right has not been 

qua

ater quality management for the Box Canyon Project is complex because the 

project crosses the Idaho-Washington border a

KIR. 

The Idaho Administrative Code (IDPA 58.01.02) has designated the Pend Oreille 

River from eni Falls dam to the Idaho-Washington border for several beneficial uses 

including coldwater communities, primary contact recreation, and domestic water supply. 

Table 2 s ows a summary of Idaho State water quality standards. 

revision to the water quality standards 

provided in Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173-20 on of 

the revision, WDOE filed the revision with the EPA f WA. 

Until this approval process is complete, the newly adopted 

im l actions, hence the previous version of the standards is currently 

s a

. T

di

ons

ter

ber 9, 1999, to 

an

for diversion and 9 acre-feet of

um

 rig

d has

ene

D possesses consum

 par

ntified. 

plem

at B

 perfected on November 26, 19

s procee

hi

eptem

30

ptive water rights for vari

ng

s w

19

. 

t carr

 a pr

ies a priority date of Novem

57. The PUD filed fo

allow for t

iority date of S

d water rights is BCD. The PUD also has 

of Pend Oreille River water at Campbell 

3 

Water Quality Overview 

W

nd a portion of the reservoir is within the 

Alb

h

On June 30, 2003, the WDOE adopted a 

ented on federa

1A). F

revision cannot be 

ollowing adopti

or its approval under the C

applicable for this project (WDOE, 2003a). The a

designates the Pend Oreille River system as Class A (“excellent”) water quality. Class A 

waters must meet or exceed water quality standa ses (table 

3). WDOE assigned water supply (domestic, industrial, and agricultural); stock watering; 

fish and shellfish rearing; salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, spawning, and 

harvesting; wildlife habitat; recreation (primary contact, sport fishing, boating, and 

aesthetic enjoyment); and c merce and navi tion as ch teristic designated uses in 

the Pend Oreille River. 

pplicable version of WA

ds f

C 173-201A 

r or all or substantially all u

om ga arac
Table 2. Idaho numerical water quality criteria and recommended levels. (Source: IDEQ, 2000, as m

Parameter Coldwater biota Primary contact recreation 

Temperature 22ΕC = Max. instantaneous 

19ΕC = Max. daily average

DO 6 milligrams per liter (mg/l) = Min. 

instantaneousa or h

acilities:b

 3.5 mg/l = M 4.7 mg/l = M 6.0 mg/l = M

Total phosphorus EPA Target G

0.025 mg/l = Llakes or reserv0.10 mg/l = Fldischarged int

0.0 mg/l = EP

nitrogen in do

m

pH 6.5 to 9.0 = Acceptable rangeTDG 110% = Max. percent saturation at 

atmospheric pressure

Chlorine residual 19 micrograms per liter (Φg/l) = 1-hour

average concentration 11Φg/l = 4-day average concentration

Turbidity 50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) = 

Max. instantaneous exceedance of background turbidity 25 NTU = Max. exceedance of background turbidity for 10 consecutive days

Downstream oreservoirs,f0.05 mg/l = Ri

Nitrogen 1A moniac

41 
42 

Parameter Coldwater biota Primary contact recreation 

Radioactivity Dom 

not have radi radioact iconcentr ns 58.01.08.

estic wate

o

ivity

atio

Escherichia coli

a

406/100 ml = Max. instantaneous Geometric mean of 126/100 ml E.coli, based on a minimum of 5 

e

ri

 per v s m 

rvoir

une 

x for d so mo n

s Ac

samplover a 

ural lakes

35 meter

ed to the

s t

30-

 an

s. 

aken e

day pe

d reser

urce for

very 3 to 5 days 

od.

oirs where depth

re informatio

 Does not apply to the bottom 20

meters in natural lakes and rese

b

cent 

s wh

15 to

mul

t.

of th

ere 

 Oc

as an

e water 

depth is g

tober 15.

the rea

depth in nat

reater than 

der is referr

 are 35 

. 

eters 

 Supercedes other criteria from J

c Ammonia standards are compled Idaho Administrative Procedure
Table 3. State of Washington Class A water quality standards for fresh surface water. 

(Source: WAC 173-201A) 

Water quality indicator Class A standards

Fecal coliform Shall not exceed both 100 colonies/100 ml geometric mean and 200

colonies/100 ml for 10% of samples.

DO

turation.

by h

20

e receiving w .

sed by point s

), where " issible 

sured at a 

ound temperat he

s r

pH

Turbidity ackg

Toxic, radioactive, or 

deleterious materials

centrations shall be below those that have the potential, either 

es,

Aesthetic values their effects,

criteria exce od.

b Note that tempera d f

Shall exceed 8.0 mg/l.

TDGa Shall not exceed 110% sa

Temperatureb Shall not exceed 20ΕC caused

When natural conditions exceed

that would increase th

Temperature increases cau

uman activities. 

ΕC, no temperatures would be allowed

ater temperature by >0.3ΕC

ource activities shall not at any 

time exceed t = 34/(T + 9

temperature increase mea

represents the backgr

discharge. 

Incremental temperature increase

activities shall not exceed 2.8ΕC.

6.5 to 8.5

Shall not exceed 5 NTU over b

t" represents the maximum perm

mixing zone boundary and "T" 

ure at points unaffected by t

esulting from nonpoint source 

round turbidity when background is 50 

NTU or less. There shall not be more than a 10% increase in turbidity 

when turbidity > 50 NTU.

Con

singularly or cumulatively, to adversely affect characteristic water us

cause acute or chronic conditions to the most sensitive biota dependent 

upon those waters, or adversely affect human health.

Shall not be impaired by the presence of materials or

excluding those of natural origin, which offend the senses of sight, smell, 

touch, or taste.

a The TDG shall not apply when the stream flow

ture standards are specifically designate

eds the 7-day, 10-year frequency flo

or the Pend Oreille River reach.

The Tribe ap s a )

and 401 of the CWA embe ility

for TAS status to the Kalispels to administer the water quality standards program under 

t A. The Kal for Sections 106 and 319 of the 

C alispe

Tribe on M rch 18,

i sta

migration, primary contact recreation, agri

h l etic quality for surface waters of the Pend

Oreille River, Calispell Creek, and Cee Cee Ah Creek within the KIR. In addition, the 

plied to the EPA for treatment a

in November 2000. On Nov

state (TAS), for Sections 303(c

r 4, 2002, EPA granted eligib

he CW ispels had previously received TAS

WA. The K

a

ls developed water quality standards, which were approved by the 

2003, and EPA approved the Tribe’s standards on June 24, 2004. In

ts water quality ndards, the Tribe designates beneficial uses of adult salmonid

cultural water supply, wildlife habitat and 

unting, ceremonia and cultural use, and aesth

43 
Tribe designates the beneficial use of brown trout spawning for Cee Cee Ah Creek. 

T resents a s

t ap

T lispel

Source: )

able 4 p

han one standard

able 4. Ka

(

ummary of the Tribe’s water quality standards. In cases where more 

plies, the more stringent prevails. 

Tribe water quality standards for surface waters of the KIR.

a

 

Kalispel Tribe of Indians, 2003

Parameter Brown Trout Spawning Adult Salmonid Migration

Temperature

moving 7-day a

Shall not exceed 9oC as a Shall not exceed 18

verage of daily

single daily maximum

o

C as a 

moving 7-day average of daily 

temperatures with no

single daily maximum

maximum temperatures with no maximum

temperature greater than 13o

C. 

When natural background 

conditions prevent the 

attainment of the numeric 

temperature criteria, humancaused conditions and activities 

considered cumulatively can 

increase temperature levels by 

only an additional 0.3o

C.

temperature greater than 20.5o

C. 

When natural background 

conditions prevent the 

attainment of the numeric 

temperature criteria, humancaused conditions and activities 

considered cumulatively can 

increase temperature levels by 

only an additional 0.3o

C.

DO Average DO concentrations shall not fall below 8 mg/l in any single 

sample. 

When natural background conditions prevent attainment of the 

numeric DO criteria, no human-caused condition or activity shall 

result in a decrease of more than 0.2 mg/l of DO. 

pH Shall be within 6.5 to 9.0 with a human-caused variation within the

above range of <0.5 units.

Turbidity Shall not exceed 5 NTU over 

background turbidity when 

background turbidity is 50 NTU 

or less, or have more than a 10% 

increase in turbidity when the 

background turbidity is >50 

NTU.

Shall not exceed 5 NTU over 

background turbidity when 

background turbidity is 50 NTU

or less, or have more than a 20% 

increase in turbidity when the 

background turbidity is >50 

NTU.

TDG Shall not exceed 110% saturation.

E. coliformb Shall not exceed a geometric mean of 126 colony forming units/100

ml with no single sample >235 colony forming units/100 ml. 

Conductivityc Shall not exceed 700 ΦS/cm.

Total suspended 

solidsc

Shall not exceed 75 mg/l.

44 
Parameter Brown Trout Spawning Adult Salmonid Migration

Toxic

delete

,

radioactive, or 

Shall be below levels which have the potential either singularly or in 

combination to interfere with use as source water for domestic and 

rious

materialsd

municipal water supplies, or adversely affect public health as 

determined by the department. a EPA approved the Tribe’s water quality standards on June 24, 2004. 

b Primary contact recreation and ceremonial and cultural use standards. 

c Agricultural water supply standard. 

d Agricultural water supply and ceremonial and cultural use standards. 

The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) placed the main stem of the 

Pend Oreille River from Lake Pend Oreille in Idaho to the Washington State border on

the 1998 303(d) list for sediment, temperature, and TDG (IDEQ, 1999). Becau

concerns about nutrient loading in Lake Pend Oreille, the source of the Pend Oreille 

River, IDEQ (2003a) developed a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for nutrients for 

nearshore waters of the lake that was approved by the EPA in October 2002. In May 

2002, IDEQ, EPA, the Idaho Conservation League, and The Lands Council agreed to a 

schedule for completion of TMDLs that included completion of the TMDL for the reach 

of the Pend Oreille River betw

se of

een Lake Pend Oreille and the Washington State border by 

2007 (

s not

ded 

d in

there

cent 

ashington border to the British ColumbiaWashi

IR

FS,

1999b). In addition, WDOE has begun the process of developing TMDLs for 

temperature and TDG, which will lead to development of implementation plans with the 

goal of bringing the Pend Oreille River into compliance with corresponding water quality 

standards of Washington State (WDOE, 2004b). 

IDEQ, 2003b). IDEQ is also concerned about flow modification in the Pend 

Oreille River, but does not view it as a pollutant under the CWA, and, therefore, doe

recommend developing a TMDL for flow modification (IDEQ, 2000). IDEQ 

recommends addressing TDG after the required TMDLs are completed. IDEQ conclu

that the current temperature standard for the river protects coldwater biota that existe

the river on or after November 28, 1975. The agency also concluded that total suspended 

sediments (TSS) are very low and support all designated beneficial uses and that

has been no evidence of further impairment since 1975. 

The WDOE included the main stem of the Pend Oreille River on its most re

(1998) 303(d) list for temperature and pH exceedances (WDOE, 2000). The main stem

of the Pend Oreille River was also listed as impaired by exotic aquatic plants. This 

listing encompasses the river from the Idaho-W

ngton border (WDOE, 2001b). In addition, the WDOE (2004a) placed the Pend 

Oreille River on its 2002/2004 draft 303(d) list for TDG. Several water quality/water 

quantity programs are under way in the basin, including the technical assessment for the 

water resources inventory area (WRIA) (WDOE, 2001a), and other water quality 

management plans such as the Watershed/Water Quality Management Plan for the K

(KNRD, 1994) and the Box Canyon Project Focused Area Watershed Assessment (

45 
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen 

In this section, we describe water temperatures and DO concentrations in the Pend 

Oreille River and its sloughs followed by a description of conditions in Calispell Creek. 

The BCR is a coolwater mesotroph enerally good w

( l., 1991). There is ble tifi t ese

c ause of the reservoi ort retenti me and elati shallow d

D onths, tem ures in the BCR’s main channel exhibit minor 

(appr

and warmest conditions in late a oon. Disc ater te per measurem

r e hot onth, ran om 20 to 2 C during 1989 and 

1990 (Falter et al., 1991). Temperatures of gre an 20 °C w also recor n

July 1989 a D re greater than 20.0°C during 

J ber of 1997 and 1998 , 2000 . Th ximum

temperatures recorded in 1997 and 1998 were 2 nd 25. C, respectively. 

Longitudinal variation in water temperatures ap to be func of water d .

The warmest temperatures were recorded in the broad, shallow reach upstream of River 

Bend, whereas, temperatures begin to cool dow am as e wa eepens. A ge

w for the BCR bay were reported as 22.1ΕC for August 1997 and 

23

When temperatures exceed 20ΕC, Washington State standards stipulate that 

human activity cause no more than a 0.3ΕC temperature rise relative to background 

conditions (see table 3). Disc

ater

temper

m

R,

ic system with g

thermal stra

ater quality 

Falter et a no noticea ca ion in the r rvoir’s main

hannel, bec r’s sh on ti r vely epth.

uring the summer m perat

oximately 1°C or less) diurnal fluctuations with coolest conditions in early morning 

ftern rete w m ature ents

ecorded during August, th test m ged fr .7 2.8Ε

ater th .0 ere ded i

nd 1990. The PU

uly, August, and Septem

ported BCR temperatures of 

(PUD ) e ma

4.9 a 5°

pears a tion epth

nstre th ter d vera

ater temperatures fore

ΕC for August 1998. 

rete measurements of water temperature made by the USGS 

at the present BCD location were as high as 21.7°C during August 1952 (before dam

construction) and as high as 24.4ΕC at Newport in July 1955. Unfortunately, water 

temperatures were not continuously recorded prior to dam construction so it is impossible 

to determine what the river’s thermal regime was at that time, although warmer 

temperatures likely occurred. Therefore, based on historical data alone, it is not possible 

to determine whether human activity caused increases of >0.3ΕC when the w

ature is >20ΕC. Prior to dam construction, native migratory forms of bull trout 

and westslope cutthroat trout would have most likely found thermal refuge in either 

tributaries of the river of in Lake Pend Oreille. 

In recent years, water entering the BCR from Albeni Falls had a temperature of 

greater than 20°C during part or all of July, August, and September. Based on maximu

temperatures recorded by the PUD during 1997 and 1998, water warms within the BC

although temperatures at the dam are not necessarily warmer than at the inflow to the

reservoir (table 5). However, a comparison of the Box Canyon forebay and tailrace 

temperatures indicates that they are nearly identical with no statistical difference. 

46 
Table 5. Annual maximum water temperatures (°C) recorded in the Pend Oreille Riv

and the difference from the temperature at Albeni Falls. (Source: PUD, 

2000) 

1997 1998

er

Location Maximum

Difference from 

Albeni Falls Maximum

Difference from

Albeni Falls

Albeni Falls 23.2 NA 25.1 NA

Upstream Indian Creek 23.6 +0.4 NR NA

Upstream Skookum Creek 23.5 +0.3 25.2 +0.1

Upstream Cee Cee Ah Creek 23.9 +0.7 NR NA

Upstream Tacoma Creek 24.9 +1.7 NR

Upstream LeClerc Creek 24.4 +1.2 NR NA

Upstream Mill Creek 24.3 +1.1 25.5 +0.4

At Ione, upstream Big Muddy

Creek

24.0 +0.8 25.4 

25.3B

+0.3

+0.2

Box Canyon forebay NR NA 25.1 0.0

Box Canyon tailrace NR NA 25.1 0.0

Note: NR = not reported; NA = not applicable; B = near bottom; all other measurements were taken 

near the surface.

NA

B

The PUD (2000) conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis to determine 

the principal factors including discharge and water surface elevation that may aff

temperatures. This analysis showed a strong relationship between the water temperature 

at Albeni Falls and temperatures throughout the BCR. Air temperatures at the BCD were

also strongly related to BCR water temperatures. Discharge and water surface elevations 

were not found to be significantly correlated with BCR water temperatures. 

Since issuance of the draft EIS, staff obtained the results of two modeling effo

used to predict the effects of the BCR on water temperatures. The EPA used RBM10, a 

one-dimensional steady-state model, to predict daily average temperatures for a 30-y

period (1970–1999) (EPA, 2002). Because historical water temperature data were 

limited during 1970–1995, the EPA estimated input water temperatures for this per

using a nonlinear regression

ect BCR

rts 

ear

iod

with air temperature at Spokane, Washington, and input 

these v

or the

e

alues into the RBM10 model. The EPA model predicted average daily 

temperatures for the 30-year record indicate that the BCR increases temperatures on 

27 days and increases the number of days with daily average temperatures of more than 

20o

C from 56 to 59 days. 

The PUD used CE-QUAL-W2, a 2-dimensional (longitudinal and vertical) 

hydrodynamic model, to predict with- and without-project water temperatures f

summer and fall of 1997 and 1998. Based on the PUD’s analysis, water temperatures ar

47 
generally reduced slightly throughout the reservoir as a result of the project. Monthly 

average mean, average maximum, and absolute maximum temperatures predicted for

with-p

n,

o

C 

ber 

ture

A’s RBM10 for the following reasons: (1) the PUD used measured 

temper

t

,

n the

nel

an the

g tributaries, and the effects of aquatic vegetation on 

roject conditions are less than their respective values for without-project 

conditions. With-project average monthly minimum temperatures are greater than the

respective values for without-project conditions, although all of these increases are less

than 0.3o

C. However, there are occasions when predicted with-project temperatures 

exceed predicted without-project temperatures by greater than 0.3o

C. For instance, 

predicted with-project temperatures for August 5 to 7, 1998, were on average 1o

C greater

than predicted without-project temperatures at Ione. These abnormal conditions appear 

to be largely a result of differences in the masses of water that were caused by a relatively 

quick reduction of flows during this period. The results of the two temperature modeling 

efforts are somewhat conflicting. Interior indicates that EPA’s RBM10, a onedimensional steady-state model, predicted that the daily mean temperature would exceed 

the 0.3o

C limit an average of 19 days per year (letter from W.R. Taylor, Director, Office 

of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Interior, Washington, DC, to the Commissio

dated November 19, 2002). In contrast, results of the PUD’s CE-QUAL-W2, twodimensional dynamic-state model, indicates that the state temperature standard is 

typically satisfied. None of the monthly averages of daily maximum, daily mean, daily 

minimum, or absolute maximum temperature predictions exceeded the 0.3o

C limit. 

However, a rapid decrease of inflow to the reservoir resulted in exceedances of the 0.3

limit for at least 3 days. Neither EPA nor PUD presents a direct evaluation of the num

of days that their models predicted exceedances of the 0.3o

C limit when the tempera

is greater than 20.0o

C. 

Staff places a higher level of confidence in the predictions of PUD’s CE-QUALW2 than EP

atures for input, whereas the EPA estimated input water temperature values for 26 

of the 30 years using air temperatures from more than 35 miles from the project; (2) CEQUAL-W2 flow input units were in increments as small as 10 minutes, but RBM10 inpu

units were daily average values; (3) CE-QUAL-W2 was used to predict temperatures at 

numerous times within each day, whereas RBM10 was used to predict daily average 

temperatures; (4) CE-QUAL-W2 only assumes complete mixing laterally (not vertically)

whereas the RBM10 Model assumes complete mixing both laterally and vertically. 

Therefore, staff believes that there is reasonable assurance that the project’s reservoir 

typically does not increase water temperatures by more than the 0.3o

C limit when 

temperatures exceed 20o

C. 

Temperature levels are different in the sloughs than in the main channel, due to 

their different characteristics (i.e., the sloughs are shallower and have slower velocities)

(Falter et al., 1991). During spring, the sloughs generally warm at a faster rate tha

main channel at times the sloughs are as much as 6ΕC warmer than the main chan

(PUD, 2000). However, the sloughs have maximum temperatures that are cooler th

main channel and generally experience thermal stratification in early summer, 

presumably due to cooler inflowin

48 
dampi he

or

s

(2001a) reported

water t

C 

.

rare events in May. Although water temperatures were not reported for the 

July 20

r 100 percent saturation throughout most of 

the year, and other physical and chemical measurements are within ranges expected of a 

reservoir of this type in this location. The PUD (2000) reported DO concentrations 

rangin

tions

um near noon then rise to a 

peak le

ity.

ng vertical and horizontal mixing. Tiger slough, the deepest of the sloughs, has t

strongest stratification and remains strongly stratified through the summer. 

Water temperatures in Calispell Creek downstream of Calispell Lake reach high 

levels during much of the year. The PUD used thermographs to monitor water 

temperatures at three locations in Calispell Creek. For the period from September 1 to 

October 4, 1999, the PUD reported water temperatures ranging from 7.6 to 14.5o

C f

Calispell Lake’s inflow and temperatures ranging from 9.7 to 20.9o

C for Calispell Lake’

outflow. Unfortunately, the thermograph previously deployed near the CCPP could not 

be located in October 1999, and apparently had been stolen before it could be recovered. 

In its response to Additional Information Request (AIR) No. 8, the PUD

emperatures for Calispell Creek at the outlet of Calispell Lake and the CCPP. 

Temperatures for the lake outlet and Calispell pumps ranged from about 0o

C to 27.6o

for the respective periods of January 8 to June 30, 2000, and January 8 to July 31, 2000

Water temperatures of greater than 20.0o

C were reported for the lake outflow for May 

and June and at the Calispell pumps for May, June and July. Temperatures of greater 

than 20.0o

C were common occurrences during June and July; however, they were 

relatively

00 lake outflow, the available data strongly suggest that lake outflow temperatures 

exceeded 20.0o

C during much of this period. Comparison of thermograph records 

reported for June 2000 indicates that both daily minimum and daily maximum water 

temperatures are typically about 0.5 to 2o

C lower at the Calispell pumps than at the 

outflow from Calispell Lake during most of June. In late June, daily minimum

temperatures were somewhat warmer at the pumps than the lake outflow suggesting that

summertime minimum temperatures may typically increase between the lake outlet and

the CCPP. 

DO concentrations in the BCR are nea

g from 7.2 to 12 mg/l for monitoring conducted from 1997 through 1998. Falter et

al. (1991) reported a wider range of DO concentrations, from 5.2 to 13.2 mg/l. DO 

exhibits a marked diurnal cycle during summer months in the BCR. DO concentra

decline overnight and into the morning, reaching their minim

vel after 6 p.m., which persists to around midnight at some locations. Note that 

this cycle indicates that BCR DO levels are highly influenced by primary productiv

The PUD conducted a study in 2000 to assess conditions in BCR’s main channel at RM 

61.9 and a slough macrophyte bed at RM 62.3 during peak productivity (August) and dieoff (November). Results of this study show that DO levels in the main channel remain 

relatively high (96 to 104 percent of saturation in August and 96 to 99 percent of 

saturation in November) and similar throughout the water column (letter from K.

Doughty, Project Manager, Duke Engineering & Services, Bellingham, WA, to D. 

Boergers, Office of the Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, dated July 17, 2001, and

attachment dated July 18, 2001). 

49 
DO concentrations in many sloughs become anoxic near the bottom during the 

summer, although surface waters can become supersaturated by photosynthesis of aqu

plants. Near-bottom anoxic conditions continued in Tiger slough until mid-November in

1998 (PUD, 2000). A study conducted to evaluate effects of the macrophyte bed showed

atic

that ph

attachm

e

at concentrations of less than 8 mg/l occurred 

throughout the water co August. Little data within the 

public record exist to describe DO levels in Calispell Creek. DO concentrations were 

reporte

t

D

els

e

a result of considerable aquatic

macrop

effects

from

ed from June to September 2001. 

Measures of pH in the BCR forebay exceeded Washington’s upper allowable limit of 8.5 

during the months of June through September. However, only 5 to 6 percent of the 

measures exceeded the criterion in June and July. In comparison, 40 percent of the 

August measures and 100 percent of the September measures (recorded between 

otosynthesis produces supersaturated DO levels within the macrophyte bed’s water

column, but can also produce anoxic DO levels near the stream bed (letter from 

K. Doughty, Project Manager, Duke Engineering & Services, Bellingham, WA, to

D. Boergers, Office of the Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, dated July 17, 2001 and 

ent dated July 18, 2001). During November 2000, DO levels remained relatively 

high ranging from 88 to 110 percent of saturation in the water column. 

DO concentrations measured in the Calispell slough between April and October

1990 ranged from 5.4 to 10 mg/l and were typically lower at the bottom than at th

surface. Reported DO levels indicate th

lumn of the slough during July and 

d for September 1989 and September 1999 that ranged from about 9 mg/l to 

11 mg/l. 

Both the PUD and Falter et al. (1991) reported DO concentrations that were below

the Washington State criterion of 8.0 mg/l (PUD, 2000; letter from K. Doughty, Projec

Manager, Duke Engineering & Services, Bellingham, WA, to D. Boergers, Office of the

Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, dated July 17, 2001, and attachment dated July 18, 

2001). The PUD (2000) reported concentrations of less than the 8 mg/l criterion for BCR 

in August and September 1998, and for near bottom slough conditions in August 2000 

(letter from K. Doughty, Project Manager, Duke Engineering & Services, Bellingham,

WA, to D. Boergers, Office of the Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, dated July 17, 

2001, and attachment dated July 18, 2001). 

pH and Total Alkalinity 

Total alkalinity measures the buffering capacity to resist changes in pH. The PU

(2000) reported results ranging from 65 mg/l to 185 mg/l as CaCO3. These lev

indicate a moderate buffering capacity in the project area. 

Measurements of the reservoir’s pH typically ranged from 7.2 to 8.8 units. Th

highest pH levels were recorded in the summer as

hyte growth. The pH also fluctuates diurnally with maximum values reported in 

the afternoon, again a result of photosynthetic activity. The PUD investigated the

of macrophytes on pH in the BCR (DES, 2001a). BCR forebay pH levels ranged

8.1 to 8.8 units during this study, which was conduct

50 
September

also somet stream increases in pH

w aren lin rom ust 2001 indicates 

t was simi s meas rom Newport to the Box Canyon tailrace. 

nal variation of BCR main channel pH is relatively small, based on m

recorded for the Box Canyon forebay an ort in 200 ly fluctuation e

0 nyon foreb 0.1–0.41 ear Newport

easures of pH lough macrophyte bed indicate that photosynthesis results in 

localized increases in pH (DES, 2001a). res of pH gnificantly h in the

m yte bed by an average of 0.4 units relative to the m annel during a study 

conducted in August 2000. No significant differences in p detected fo

monitoring period in November 2000. 

Results of monitoring below BCD show that TDG levels sometimes exceed 110 

p c

gas G

s tu ow, as shown in table 6. Based on the 

PUD D, 2001a), exceedance of the 110 percent criterion is 

l e 5.5 percent of the time immediately below the project’s 

percent of the time (including flows over 90,000 cfs) in 

ater that is mixed with water discharged from the project’s powerhouse tailrace. Use of 

the spi pproximately 25 percent of the time. 

Maxim

and lev

er

7-day, 10-year flood flow, which is approximately 

113,00

n

rther in section 3.3.2.3,

Cumulative Effects on Water Quantity and Quality. 

1 and September 10) exceeded the criterion. Measures of pH near Newport 

imes exceeded the 8.5 criterion. Upstream to down

ere not app

hat pH

t. Monthly samp

lar at the five site

g conducted f

ured f

March to Aug

Diur easures 

d Newp 1. Dai s wer

.02–0.53 units in the Box Ca ay, and units n .

M in a s

Measu were si

ain ch

igher

acroph

H were r a

Total Dissolved Gas

er ent (PUD, 2001a; Framatone ANP DE&S, 2002b). Excessive TDG levels can cause

bubble trauma in fish and other aquatic organisms. Under existing conditions, TD

a ration below the project varies with river fl

’s predictions of TDG (PU

ik ly to occur approximately 2

spillway, and approximately 20.5 

w

llways at BCD elevates TDG levels a

um TDG levels of near 140 percent may occur immediately below the spillway, 

els of near 130 percent are likely to occur in water mixed with discharges from the

powerhouse. Because the powerhouse discharges water with lower TDG levels, wat

along the west (powerhouse) side of the river provides aquatic organisms with refuge 

from the highest TDG levels. Values in mixed water exceed 110 percent at flows of 

greater than 32,400 cfs under current conditions, based on cubic spline interpolation. 

Note that the 110-percent criterion does not apply to TDG levels of more than 

110 percent when flows exceed the

0 cfs (letter from J. J. Snyder, Duke Engineering & Services, Bothell, WA, to 

J. Parodi, WDOE, Spokane, WA, May 1, 2000). 

TDG supersaturation entering the BCR can persist through the project and pass o

downstream through the Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2144), and 

subsequent Canadian hydroprojects. We address TDG fu

51 
Table 6. Relationship between river flow and TDG at the Box Canyon Projec

with existing conditions. (Source: PUD, 2001a) 

River Flow 

(cfs)

% of Time River 

Flow is Exceeded

Turbine Flow 

(cfs)

Spillway Flow 

(cfs)

Mixed Gas 

(% saturation)a

t

27,400 28.1 27,400 0 105.0

30,000 23.0 27,400 2,600 107.7

32,400

b 20.5c 27,400 5,000 110.0c

40,000 15.0 27,400 12,600 116.5

50,000 10.0 27,400 22,600 123.1

60,000 400 32,600 127.3

from the powerhouse provide aquatic organisms with refugia 

fro

mixed

b Ba

c Based on TDG duration curve.

6.5 27,

70,000 4.2 18,000 52,000 129.6

80,000 3.0 8,000 72,000 119.0

90,000 1.5 0 90,000 110.0

a Because low-TDG waters discharged

m high-TDG waters below the spillway, we base our effects analysis on TDG levels of fully

water from the powerhouse and spillways. 

sed on flow duration curve.

Other Water Quality Parameters

BCR is classified as mesotrophic, based on measurements of water transparency, 

total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll a (Falter et al., 1991). The city of 

Newport’s wastewater treatment plant, Calispell Creek, and Trimble Creek contribute 70

to 80 percent of the external loading of phosphorus and nitrogen to the system (Pelletier

and Coots, 1990, as cited in PUD, 1997). However, external loading of nutrients is only

a small portion of the total nutrient load in the BCR and is not recognized as a serious 

threat to the health of the system. 

The sloughs are also classified as mesotrophic, based on several water quality 

measurements (Falter et al., 1991). However, the sloughs generally have higher total 

nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll a levels and lower water transparency than

the main channel. The physical and chemical qualities of the sloughs have resulted in a

proliferation of aquatic macrophytes (see section 3.3.3).

Water Quality Effects of Sediment 

The maximum recorded TSS concentration was 0.015 mg/l, while the maximum

turbidity value reported by the PUD was 6.6 NTU. IDEQ indicated that TSS is very low 

and supports all designated beneficial uses and that there has been no evidence of further 

52 
impairment since 1975. There is an integral relationship between sediment and aquatic

plants, and it has been suggested that aquatic plants may act as a nutrient pump from th

sediment to the water column and encourage higher phytoplankton densities. Sediment 

uptake of nutrients provides nitrogen and phosphorus to aquatic plants. Decaying plant

may in turn settle to the bottom and lead to anaerobic conditions in deep sloughs. Metalcontaminated sediment does not appear to be an issue because most metals appear to 

settle out upstream at Cabinet Gorge and Noxon reservoi

e

s

rs. Effects of shoreline erosion 

were n ted to

produc

d

quality ct

operati ects on

water r r

interes

Box 

lity.

hydraulic 

capaci s would

increas cing

spill. T .

When tally

on the ficient

to use the generators to produce power. When this occurs, the spillway gates are totally 

remov

license requirements on water levels. One re

elevati nt limits 

the bac

coincid a

The g

District N

operation of the Calispell Creek pumps (Plan E). The PUD proposes to continue to 

operate in accordance with Plan E under any new license. Plan E has been approved and 

ot well documented; however, unstable stream banks along sloughs are expec

e temporary localized increases in sediment loads and turbidity. 

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects 

This section describes the environmental effects related to water quantity an

in the project area and the effects of agency-recommended changes to proje

on on water resources. This section focuses on the likely environmental eff

esources that were identified during the scoping process as being of particula

t or concern. These include: 

• the effects of project operations on temperature, DO, pH, and TDG in the

Canyon impoundment and downstream; and 

• shoreline erosion and sedimentation to the degree they affect water qua

Reservoir Levels and Ramping Rates 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes to continue current ROR operations and increase the

ty of each turbine from 6,850 to 8,100 cfs. Because there are four units, thi

e the hydraulic capacity of the plant from 27,400 to 32,400 cfs, thereby redu

he PUD also would continue to operate the project to meet plant constraints

flows exceed 90,000 cfs, the PUD must cease operating the plant and rely to

spillway gates to pass the river’s flow, because the head differential is insuf

ed and the river is no longer hydraulically controlled by the project. 

The PUD also proposes to continue to operate the project to meet the two existing

quirement is to maintain water surface 

ons of 2,041 feet msl or less at Cusick (RM 70.1). The other requireme

kwater effect at the Albeni Falls tailwater to 2 feet or less. These restrictions 

e t Cusick flows of 68,000 cfs.

Box Canyon Project is also constrained by the PUD’s agreement with Dikin

o. 2 of Usk, Washington (Diking District No. 2 and PUD, 2000) regarding the 

53 
is curr l uld

occur with mp station includes two 

pumps ty

e year, the

pumps tain elevations of 2,027 to 2,027.5 feet msl. Plan E specifies the 

mode of operations for high

d.

aho

ent y implemented to maintain water levels that approach conditions that wo

out the BCD under higher flow conditions. The pu

with a 65 cfs capacity and four pumps with a 100 cfs capacity for a total capaci

of 530 cfs. The pumps are set to maintain elevations of 2,027 to 2,028 feet msl on the

creek side of the dike between November 1 and May 31. During the rest of th

are set to main

 flow conditions as follows: 

Whenever the elevation of the Pond Oreille River reaches 2,032.25 feet, the 

natural elevation of the quantity of water flowing in the Pend Oreille shall 

be computed, (the natural elevation of 43,000 cfs being 2,032.25), and 

pumping of Calispell water will be continued at the capacity of the pumps 

until Calispell Creek reaches either 2,032.25, if the Pend Oreille is flowing 

less than 43,000 cfs, or the natural elevation of the Pend Oreille is flowing 

43,000 cfs, or more. The gates at Box Canyon will be opened sufficiently 

in advance of that time so that 2,032.25 elevation or natural elevation above 

2,032.25 will be reached at, or before, Calispell Creek reaches the same 

elevation. The dike gates shall then be opened and Calispell Creek allowed 

to flow out in its natural manner for such periods as it will continue to flow 

out. If the natural elevation of the Pend Oreille becomes such that flow is 

reversed in Calispell Creek, the dike gates shall be again closed and shall 

remain closed with the pumps operating while the natural elevation of the 

Pend Oreille is higher than that of Calispell Creek. ‘Natural elevation’ is 

defined to mean the level at Cusick that the Pend Oreille River would reach 

if there were no gates installed at BCD at any particular flow. After a flood 

condition, when the flow of the Pend Oreille River drops back down to 

approximately 43,000 cfs, which is equivalent to a natural elevation of 

2,032.5 at Cusick, or if the flow in Calispell Creek is such that the pumps 

are able to pump enough to lower Calispell Creek level, the dike gates will 

be closed, and the Calispell Creek water level will be pumped down to 

elevation 2,027.0 and maintained at this elevation as described above with 

respect to low limits and high limits. 

Additionally the agreement defines damages for noncompliance, emergencies, 

deviations from the plan, meeting protocols, and how the agreement can be terminate

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

IDFG recommends that: 

• the PUD lower the elevation of the BCR pool during the fall, winter, and 

spring to a level that provides for free-flowing river conditions in the Id

portion of the BCR due to potential effects on fish and wildlife resources (see

discussion in section 3.3.3); and 

54 
• the PUD develop and follow a plan in coordination with the Corps that 

eliminates flooding caused by project operations. 

Interior and the Tribe propose limits on the BCR drawdown rate. Since this is 

primarily an erosion control measure, we address it in detail in section 3.3.1. 

Our Analysis 

Implementation of the PUD’s proposal to increase the hydraulic capacity of the

plant from 27,400 to 32,400 cfs would increase the flow passing through the turbines and

reduce the amount of spill. The increase in turbine flow would increase the average 

annual energy output by about 8 percent. Operating the project under the PUD’s 

proposed ROR mode in accordance with Plan E described above would not significantl

affect average flows on daily or longer time scales; however, it may affect flows on 

shorter time scales. Increasing the hydraulic capacity of the plant also has the po

increase the ri

y

tential to

sk of entrainment at the project.

ween the PUD’s proposal to operate the 

projec . For example, the Fiber Mill Power Sales 

Contract between the PUD and PNC contains a provision for the PUD to provide firm 

power incl pacity of 77.2 MW. ROR operation implies 

ulation could not be done to peak at 

77.2 M

PUD a hey

assum striction would only occur typically twice a year. Had the PUD intended 

to ope the

lows

Services, Project Manager, Bothell, WA, to 

M.R. S tes that

any future operations related to peaking unless specific waivers were obtained in advance 

We noted an apparent inconsistency bet

t in ROR mode versus the PNC contract

uding a (daily 3-hour) peaking ca

that such peaking activity would no longer be possible except when flows corresponding 

to 77.2 MW were entering the project (i.e. flow reg

W using reservoir storage). This is further evidenced by the way in which the

nalyzed the loss of energy due to the 3-inch per hour down-ramp restriction. T

ed this re

rate the project to provide peaking power, we assume they would have analyzed

value of lost firm power as reflected in the capacity flexibility. Additional clarification 

about the ROR nature of the project was provided in comments by the PUD as fol

“all flows that are released from the Albeni Falls dam pass through BCR and are either 

used to generate power or are spilled over the spillway” (letter from J.J. Snyder, Duke

Engineering & Services, Bothell, WA, to D. Boergers, Secretary, FERC, Washington, 

DC, dated November 7, 2000). The PUD further clarified capacity considerations in 

claiming a 0-MW dependable capacity (letter from J.J. Snyder, Duke Engineering & 

Services, Bothell, WA, to D. Boergers, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, dated May 

15, 2000). The PUD provided further clarification in its comments on the draft EIS 

(letter from J.J. Snyder, Duke Engineering 

alas, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, dated November 15, 2002). It sta

the load from PNC was relatively flat, and it has never been called upon nor does it 

intend to provide peaking power to PNC. The PUD also indicates that a peaking 

provision for 12 MW for Seattle City Light had only been called upon once about 18 

years ago, resulting in severe operational difficulties related to ice. Because this 

provision is so rarely called upon, it reinforces the position that the economic impact is 

insignificant. The PUD would be expected to meet the 3-inch-per-hour down-ramp for 

55 
from Interior in consultation with the Tribe and FS. Therefore, based on the PUD’s 

clarification, our analysis assumes ROR operation as described in the license application. 

l

dropping t

from 15 to 18 feet to 13 to 16 feet or typically about 12 percent. The resulting loss in 

hydrau

in sect

coordinati

miscomm nticipated operational responses at BCD that 

advers easures would 

also af t

3.3.3.1

Analysis, a

Conclusio

prove compliance 

with te

401 WQC for the project with the 

develo DOE

s exceed 20 C and modeling indicates that impounded conditions in the river 

are wa and

ng

is

or its approval and implement the plan upon receipt of 

WDOE

on plan for

the Pen

f an

ze water impoundment behind the dike and pump

station ion

Lowering the elevation of BCR to natural levels in the State of Idaho would entai

he current surcharge level by about 2 feet. This would change river depths 

lic head would result in a significant loss of energy generation which we address 

ion 4, Developmental Analysis. We note that IDFG’s suggestion for improved 

on between the PUD and the Corps would reduce the likelihood of 

unication and lower the risk of una

ely affect the lands along the perimeter of BCR. Because these m

fec aquatic species and project economics, we further analyze them in sections

and 3.3.3.2, and present our economic evaluation in section 4, Developmental 

nd summarize our analysis and recommendations in section 5, Staff’s 

ns. 

Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD does not make any specific operational proposal to im

mperature and DO water quality standards. 

Recommended Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested 

Parties 

The WDOE (2003b) conditioned its Section

pment and implementation of an Interim Temperature Management Plan. W

specifies that the plan address periods of the year when Pend Oreille River water 

temperature o

rmer than unimpounded conditions. The plan is to identify all reasonable

feasible mitigation measures that could be used in the short-term to reduce any warmi

effects that operation of the project has on Pend Oreille River temperatures. The PUD

to submit the plan to WDOE f

’s written approval of the plan. The PUD is to continue implementing the plan 

until WDOE completes a temperature TMDL and its associated implementati

d Oreille River.

In its Section 401 Certification for Calispell Creek Pump Works, the EPA 

conditioned its WQC on several specifications, including preparation and submittal o

approvable PPO by the PUD within 90 days of license issuance by the Commission. The

objectives of the PPO are to: (1) minimi

s; and (2) maintain, to the extent practicable, the natural water surface elevat

and ensure that all inflow is passed through the gates during periods when the 

56 
creek/discharge is at or above the temperature standard. The PPO should include th

following: 

e

along

wit u

• Recom

for the -

stat

• Propos

• Take in reek, pumping

EPA, unle n

of the PPO as data and circumstances warrant; however, the approved PPO should be 

implem

mit a

ssing temperature along 

with, or subsequent to, the PPO described above. 

o

mission revise its 10(j) recommendation 

addres ’s

ll

• An estimate of Calispell Creek’s natural condition for the seasonal elevation 

and flow regime for periods that do not meet the temperature standard

h s pporting information;

mendations and a schedule for alteration of one or more pumps and/or

installation of new pumping equipment in order to achieve the above

ed objectives;

al for modeling the temperature regime; and it should 

to account other requirements for flow in Calispell C

regimes equipment, fish passage measures, or structures to be constructed or 

other measures that are included as final conditions to the license issued by 

FERC. 

The EPA specifies that the PUD implement the PPO within 30 days of approval by

ss additional time is approved by the EPA. The PUD may request modificatio

ented until the EPA approves the request for its modification. 

The EPA specifies that the natural flow of the creek be routed into the BCR by 

either passing water through the pump(s) or gates through the dike whenever the 

temperature exceeds the standard. EPA states that the PUD may prepare and sub

detailed proposal to seek approval of a different method of addre

The EPA and WDOE would reserve the right to apply newly adopted and 

approved water quality standards for the state and Tribe and changes or amendments t

the CWA. 

WDFW requested that the Com

sing water quality standards and defer water quality standards to the WDOE

administration of its WQC. 

FS recommends that the PUD implement operational changes specified by WDOE 

to meet all appropriate water quality standards including water temperature. 

Interior (4[e]4) recommends that the licensee operate the project so that at a

times during the license period it complies with all applicable federal, state, and tribal

water quality standards and all applicable WQCs. It also recommends that the PUD 

conduct a continuous monitoring program for the BCR and Calispell Creek that includes 

monitoring water temperature and DO. 

The Tribe (10[a] 2) recommends that the licensee develop a Water Quality 

Remediation and Monitoring Plan (WQRMP) (in consultation with WDOE, EPA, and the

Tribe) to bring into compliance any project-induced exceedance of any state, federal, or 

57 
tribal water quality standards, specifically temperature. They recommend that the 

WQRMP include the following elements:

ards, project

g

re adopted or TMDLs 

DO

t, and

is

htures

ing limb of temperature conditions. However, 

• Within 5 years after license issuance, the licensee should meet, and be able to 

demonstrate compliance with, the following performance objectives: 

– when background levels for water quality parameters for water entering

BCR are within applicable state, federal, and Tribal standards, project 

operations should not result in exceedance of those standards; and 

– when background levels for water quality parameters are at or above 

that for the applicable state, federal, and Tribal stand

operations should not contribute to increased levels. 

• The plan should include a water quality sampling design capable of discernin

project impacts from background levels, and adequate to represent spatial and 

temporal dimensions, for the term of the project license. 

• In the event that new or revised water quality standards a

are implemented during the license, the licensee should amend the WQRMP 

accordingly. 

The Tribe specifies that the plan should estimate the reduction in the river’s ability

to cool due to the impoundment and reduced velocity; that a minimum of six monitoring 

stations be used, located at Albeni Falls tailrace, mid-reservoir, Box Canyon forebay and

tailrace, and above and below the CCPP; and that hourly monitoring along with 

information processing on a daily, monthly, and seasonal basis. 

Our Analysis 

In this section, we address the project’s effects on water temperatures and

concentrations in the Pend Oreille River and its sloughs followed by an analysis for 

Calispell Creek. 

As was discussed in section 3.3.2.1, the PUD (2000) recorded BCR water 

temperatures that reached as high as 24.9°C in 1997 and 25.5°C in 1998. Temperatures 

of more than 20.0°C were recorded by the PUD during the months of July, Augus

September of 1997 and 1998. Washington State standards stipulate that when

temperatures exceed 20°C, human activity should cause no more than a 0.3°C 

temperature rise relative to background conditions. Analysis of monitored annual 

maximum temperatures indicates that water temperatures can increase by as much as 

1.7°C within the BCR; however, results of water temperature modeling indicate that

these increases are not strongly linked with impounding water upstream of BCD. At th

time, the frequency and conditions that cause increases in the BCR of greater than 0.3°C 

as compared to background conditions are not evident. The EPA’s and PUD’s water 

temperature modeling results are somewhat conflicting. Comparison of predicted wit

project and without-project temperatures at the BCD indicate that generally tempera

are virtually identical on the annual ris

58 
differe

C 

lted in increases of greater than 0.3 C when temperatures exceeded 

20.0 C. Based on m d o

ct

le

lity

e sloughs caused by aquatic

vegeta project

uss further in section 3.3.4.2. At this point, it 

appear ugh a

ions taken and their effects on water quality. We discuss water 

quality monitoring separately below. 

nces between predicted with-project and without-project temperatures do not 

follow a clear trend later in the summer 

EPA’s one-dimensional steady-state model predicted that impounding water with

BCD sometimes results in summer temperature increases and that the occurrence of 

temperatures greater than 20.0o

C is increased, on average, 3 days per year (i.e., from 56 

days for without-project conditions to 59 days with project conditions). Results of the 

PUD’s CE-QUAL-W2 modeling indicate that temperature increases of greater than 0.3o

occur, although they are relatively rare. However, the model predicted that the 

impoundment increased temperatures an average of 1o

C at Ione during an atypical 3-day

period in August 1998 coinciding with a rapid decrease in inflows. 

Neither PUD nor EPA provided the number of days or hours when the 

impoundment resu o

o onthly averages of daily maximum, daily mean, daily minimum, an

instantaneous maximum temperatures, we conclude that increases of greater than 0.3 C 

do occur, although they are rare when temperatures exceed 20o

C. 

However, we note that even on the rare occasions when BCR temperatures may

exceed Washington State’s water quality standards, little latitude exists to substantially 

lower the Pend Oreille River’s summer water temperatures through changes in proje

operations, since the project is operated in ROR mode and minimal vertical stratification

occurs within the reservoir. Measurement of DO concentrations in the BCR and the

project’s tailrace indicate that DO concentrations sometimes fall short of the applicab

Washington State criterion of 8.0 mg/l in BCR’s main channel, the project’s tailrace, and 

near the channel’s bed of some sloughs (see section 3.3.2.1 for details). These lower DO

concentrations appear to be largely due to warm temperatures (which reduces the abi

of water to retain oxygen), decomposition of organic matter (i.e., mostly aquatic 

vegetation) in the sloughs, and limited mixing in th

tion. As with temperature, there is little reason to believe that changing

operations would result in DO concentrations that would meet the applicable criterion.

However, management of aquatic vegetation could possibly improve DO concentrations 

near the water-substrate interface of some sloughs. The PUD has been in the process of 

developing and testing the effectiveness of different strategies to control aquatic 

vegetation in the BCR. Preliminary results of the studies suggested that implementation 

of these strategies (including winter drawdown and using weevils as a biological control

for Eurasian watermilfoil) would have limited success. Nevertheless, in our draft EIS 

(August 2002), we recommended that the PUD complete studies related to control of 

aquatic vegetation and incorporate the results into an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation 

Management Plan (IAVMP), as we disc

s that the plan would recommend limiting aquatic vegetation in the BCR thro

continued rotovation strategy. Based on WDOE’s recommendations (Gibbons et al., 

1994), the IAVMP should include a long-term monitoring program to determine the 

effectiveness of act

59 
The railroad dike and operation of the pumping facilities control the rate of water 

flow through lower Calispell Creek and discharges from the creek. The dike and 

pumping facilities limit the backwater effects of BCD, which results in higher Pend

Oreille River elevations than occurred naturally, and the operation of pumping facilities 

contro uring most of the year. The pumps limit the ability to 

ensure that water is continuously routed through the reach, particularly during periods of 

low flo o not maintain continuous flow through lower Calispell Creek, 

which

00 indicates that

Calispell Creek water temperatures below Calispell Lake exceed 20o

C during May, June, 

and Ju .1). 

Comparison of these thermograph records shows that June creek temperatures near the 

pumps ue

te

outlet and pumps, suggesting that summer creek temperatures may 

typical O data

e

, to Randy Smith,

Directo ttle,

t of

vated groundwater table so as to determine if it is greater than the warming effect 

of pumping operations, if one exists. 

that results of the temperature modeling effort would provide 

adequa sed

ls the outflow of the creek d

w. The pumps d

results in a more irregular rate of flow that is sometimes substantially slower 

through the reach than would occur under natural processes, particularly at flows of less

than the lowest pump capacity (65 cfs). This delay in routing water through the lower 

reach of Calispell Creek has the potential to affect water temperature in the creek and 

other water quality parameters within the reach as well as water discharged from the 

pumps into BCR. 

Evaluation of thermograph data reported by the PUD for 20

ly (refer to the Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen subsection of section 3.3.2

are generally about 0.5 to 2o

C cooler than the outflow from Calispell Lake. D

to the lack of available data for other months, we could not determine whether this 

pattern of cooling typically occurs throughout the summer. However, evaluation of la

June thermograph data indicate that summertime temperatures sometimes increase 

between the lake

ly warm between the lake and pumps. Similarly, the absence of available D

limits our ability to determine the effects of pumping operations on DO concentrations in 

lower Calispell Creek and water discharged from the creek, but we suspect that DO 

concentrations are depressed by the reduced reaeration rate, caused by slower velocities, 

and decomposition of organic matter in the reach. 

Interior hypothesizes that groundwater, which, in part, results from the 

impoundment of the Pend Oreille River, likely reduces summer temperatures in lower

Calispell Creek. The PUD questions this and hypothesizes that cooler conditions may b

due to other factors that are not controlled by the project including water turbulence and

mixing, along with movement along some limited riparian stream bank areas (letter from

J.B. Vasile, Attorney, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, DC

r of Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Sea

Washington, March 7, 2003). We currently have no way to quantify the cooling effec

the ele

We anticipate

te information to identify the seasonal and daily timing of any project-cau

exceedances of the temperature standard and would lead to the PUD’s development of a

PPO, if necessary. 

60 
EPA’s WQC specifies that the PUD submit and implement a PPO if the results of 

temperature modeling indicate that the project (including operation of the Calispell 

pumps) causes exceedances of the applicable temperature standard. 

pH and Total Alkalinity 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD explains that the high densities of aquatic vegetation in the BCR h

noticeable effect on river pH and DO. Therefore, the PUD proposes to fund a study to

establish baseline data on milfoil densities and native weevil populations (weevils are

biological controller of Eurasian watermilfoil) and to provide $80,000 per year to Pend 

Oreille County to continue the rotovation program for the control of Eurasian 

watermilfoil and other aquatic plants. The PUD proposes additional aquatic plant

measures that we describe in section 3.3.4, Terrestrial Resources. 

R

ave a

a

control

ecommended Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested 

Parties 

hat the licensee operate the project so that at all 

times during the license period it complies with all applicable federal, state, and tribal 

water quality standards and all applicable WQCs. It also recommends that the PUD 

conduc des

ter

WDFW specified that river flow should be sufficient to meet 

approp t

that FE dards and defer

water quality standards to the WDOE’s administratio

e D

monito h macrophytes on an annual and seasonal 

basis. 

As described above in section 3.3.2.1, pH was found to exceed the upper 

allowable limit of 8.5 units in the BCR during the months of June through September. 

During the months of June and July, exceedances were relatively infrequent. In contrast, 

pH frequently exceeded the criterion during the months of August and September. 

Interior (4[e]4) recommends t

t a continuous monitoring program for the BCR and Calispell Creek that inclu

monitoring pH. 

The FS recommends that the PUD comply with WDOE’s WQC including 

implementation of operational changes specified by WDOE to meet all appropriate wa

quality standards including pH. The FS specifies monitoring of pH within the reservoir 

and reserves the right to reduce or discontinue such monitoring if the agency determines 

that the water quality standards are being met.

In addition to WDFW recommendations discussed above in Temperature and 

Dissolved Oxygen, 

ria e water quality standards and specifically referenced pH. WDFW requested

RC revise its 10(j) recommendation addressing water quality stan

n of its WQC. 

Th Tribe also recommends including pH in the WQRMP and that the PU

r t e abundance and spread of aquatic

Our Analysis 

61 
Values . It

is also important to note that pH measures of greater than 8.5 units were sometimes 

record

ve some

ticularly in the rotovated corridors. However, we 

conclu in

D 

boat ramp along the left bank (RM 34.3); and 

of greater than 8.5 units occurred throughout the reach affected by the project

ed at the reservoir’s upper end near Newport, and that upstream to downstream

increases in pH were not evident (DES, 2001a). However, pH was determined to be 

significantly higher (by an average of 0.4 units in August 2000) in a slough macrophyte

bed than nearby in the BCR’s main channel, presumably due to photosynthesis. 

Appropriate application of the funding by the PUD of studies to document 

baseline conditions for Eurasian watermilfoil, develop an IAVMP and to fund the 

rotovation program should be beneficial in reducing plant densities. This may ha

positive effects on reducing pH, par

de that rotovation would not substantially lower pH levels in the BCR’s ma

channel, since elevated main channel pH levels do not appear to be strongly linked to

conditions in the sloughs. We address further biological aspects of aquatic weed 

management and pH on aquatic organisms in sections 3.3.4, Terrestrial Resources, and 

3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, respectively. We also address the need for pH monitoring 

below. 

Water Quality Monitoring 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes to continue to conduct monthly water quality monitoring, 

prepare quarterly and annual reports, and to conduct biennial review meetings. The PU

monitoring program is designed to provide long-term consistent water quality data and to

respond to adaptive management goals as defined by the TWQC as part of the overall

water quality management program in the Clark Fork/Pend Oreille watershed. The PUD 

proposes to have the TWQC review the baseline water quality data one year after license

issuance to determine if a continuous water quality monitoring station is warranted to 

augment monthly sampling. The PUD proposes monitoring at the following six 

locations: 

• upper reservoir at Newport along left bank at American Camp (RM 88.3); 

• mid-reservoir at Usk Bridge along the right bank (RM 71.8); 

• upstream of the dam at Ione City Park along the left bank (RM 37.9); 

• Box Canyon forebay (RM 34.4); 

• downstream of the tailrace at the

• USGS station downstream of the dam along the left bank at RM 33.3. 

62 
Recommended Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested 

Parties 

Both the WDOE (2003b) and EPA (2003) included conditions in their WQCs for

the project associated to water quality monitoring. These agencies specify that the PUD 

develop and submit a Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) and Quality Assurance 

Project Plan (QAPP) to the WDOE, EPA, and the Tribe for their review and approval. In

their W E

lan is to track the project’s

progre to

quality a e plan initially address monitoring of

temper es that the plan should include, at a minimum,

a list of parameters to be monitored, a map of sampling locations, and descriptions of the 

purpos f sampling procedures and equipment, 

analyti l At least every 5 years, the PUD should reevalua l

of changes to the plan. The WDOE specifies that the PUD implement the plan upon the 

provisi

nd

 implement the WQMP 

beginn

at the WDOE, EPA, and/or the Tribe may request that 

the PU

results ort to the WDOE’s Eastern Region Office, EPA, and the 

Tribe. In addition, the EPA specifies that the PUD enter all of the data collected under its 

WQC into EP Treival database system (STORET) at least annually. 

The EPA also specifies that at the end of the fifth year, the PUD prepare and submit a 

Fifth Year Water Quality Monitoring Report for the CCPP that supplies and summarizes 

QCs, the WDOE and EPA focus on different aspects of the project. The WDO

focuses on the effects of the project on water quality in the Pend Oreille River, while the

EPA focuses on the effects of the CCPP on water quality in Calispell Creek and 

discharges of the Calispell pumps.

The WDOE specifies that the objective of the p

ss ward meeting and remaining in compliance with Washington State water 

st ndards. WDOE specifies that th

ature, DO, pH, and TDG. It indicat

e o monitoring, sampling frequency,

ca methods, and reporting protocols.

te and propose any needed revisions to the plan to obtain WDOE-written approva

on of its written approval of the plan.

The EPA states the objectives of the WQMP are to measure the water quality in 

order to evaluate compliance with applicable water quality standards and to measure

trends over time. EPA specifies that the WQMP address recording of pumping rates a

monitoring of Calispell Creek, within the KIR, for temperature, DO, turbidity, fecal 

coliform, E. coli, water elevation, and flow. Specific locations to be monitored should be

specified in the WQMP and should include, at a minimum, a site near the pump station 

on the upstream side of the railroad dike, and a site just below the discharge point of the 

pump station(s). The EPA also suggests that the PUD may want to consider monitoring 

at the Calispell Lake outlet. EPA indicates that the PUD should

ing within 30 days of approval of the WQMP by EPA or the Tribe (unless 

additional time is provided by the EPA or Tribe) for a period of at least 5 years. 

The two WQCs indicate th

D revise its WQMP to include additional water quality conditions based on 

monitoring results, new information on violations of water quality standards, regulatory 

changes, or changes in project operations. 

WQCs specify that the PUD annually prepare and submit water quality monitoring 

along with a summary rep

A’s STORage and RE

63 
all data collected over the term of the WQMP and identifies trends and their causes. EPA 

specifi t port include an evaluation of compliance with water quality 

standa ons pertaining to continued monitoring or its cessation. The 

EPA and Tribe would notify the PUD of modification(s) and/or approval of the 

recomm

annual

be

d

downstream fish passage facilities, 

and gri

water

and

anyon tailrace;

es hat the fifth year re

rds and recommendati

endations for continued monitoring or its cessation. If monitoring is to continue, 

the PUD would be expected to submit a new WQMP for the continued actions.

Interior (4[e]4) recommends that the PUD provide to Interior and the Tribe all

plans developed in accordance with the WQCs for the project. It also recommends that 

the PUD monitor water quality and report the results of monitoring water quality in the 

reports. Within 1 year, the PUD should initiate continuous water quality 

monitoring at the following six monitoring locations: 

• Albeni Falls tailrace (RM 88.3); 

• BCR mid-reservoir (RM 71.8); 

• BCR forebay (RM 37.9); 

• Box Canyon tailrace (RM 34.4); 

• Calispell Creek at or near the pump station(s), upstream of the railroad dike;

and 

• Calispell Creek at or near the pump station(s) discharge point(s). 

Hourly measurements of water temperature, DO, pH, turbidity, and TDG would

recorded using fixed automated instruments that are capable of storing at least four 

months of data and downloading the data remotely. Methods used to collect the data 

should be consistent with federal, state, and tribal agencies that regulate water quality an

can discern between project effects and background levels. Interior also recommends 

monitoring TDG during spill periods at shorter intervals in the BCD forebay and tailrace 

associated with the recommended BCD upstream and

d monitoring to evaluate mixing below BCD. 

The FS specifies the monitoring of water temperature within the BCR. It reserves

the right to reduce or discontinue such monitoring if the agency determines that the

quality standards are being met. 

As described above, the Tribe recommends that the licensee develop a WQRMP

that includes a water quality sampling design capable of discerning project impacts,

adequate to represent spatial and temporal dimensions for the term of the license. The 

Tribe states that at a minimum the following six stations should be monitored: 

• Albeni Falls tailrace; 

• BCR mid-reservoir; 

• BCR forebay; 

• Box C

64 
• above the CCPP; and

CPP.

, we present our analysis of the need for water quality 

monitoring. First, we discuss monitoring of the Pend Oreille River, and then we discuss 

monitoring of the water quality in Calispell Creek and the discharge of the Calispell 

pumps

arming effect of the project, ROR operations, and the fact

that lit v stratification occurs in BCR, there appears to be little that the PUD 

could .

d

, to

e Pend Oreille River.

the total 24,930 square mile drainage area at BCD. In its 

comme e,

02), the

total

alkalin

l

xpressed a willingness to implement continuous 

monito QC,

perature; 

• below the C

Our Analysis 

In this subsection

.

Based on the limited w

tle ertical

do to reduce the project’s effect on water temperatures in the Pend Oreille River

Therefore, we conclude that there would be limited usefulness in continuous year-roun

temperature monitoring, as recommended by Interior (4[e] 4) and the Tribe (15 [a] 2)

evaluate conditions in th

In the draft EIS, we questioned the cost effectiveness of adding continuous 

monitoring stations for temperature (per the Tribe’s recommendation) above and below 

the CCPP, because Calispell Creek does not contribute a significant percentage of the 

inflow to the Pend Oreille River, hence it would not be expected to have a measurable 

effect on the mainstem river. The drainage area of Calispell Creek is 68 square miles, 

which is 0.27 percent of

nts on the draft EIS (letter from A.H. Sanders, Attorney for the Tribe, Seattl

WA, to M.R. Salas, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, dated November 13, 20

Tribe clarified that the focus for recommending continuous monitoring stations above 

and below the CCPP was to enable evaluation of conditions in Calispell Creek, not the 

Pend Oreille River. Based on this clarification and other factors, we have revised our 

evaluation to address the need for a water quality monitoring program for lower Calispell 

Creek and the Calispell pump discharge (see below). 

Because non-attainment of water quality standards has been reported for the Pend 

Oreille River, some type of effectiveness monitoring appears desirable for pH and

ity. The time scale for pH improvements is such that implementation of the 

PUD’s proposed monthly monitoring program should be adequate to characterize genera

trends in the water quality of the Pend Oreille River (as long as the time that sampling 

occurs is considered). The proposal is flexible enough to adapt to water quality 

compliance needs. The PUD has e

ring at 1 location 1 year after the new license if so recommended by the TW

which could include seasonal monitoring as a more cost-effective approach. Parameters 

that are included in the monthly monitoring (based on page E2-97 of the final license 

application to continue the monthly monitoring program) include the following: 

• water tem

• DO; 

65 
• pH; 

• alkalinity; 

• free acidity; 

• total acidity; 

• carbon dioxide; 

• total hardness; 

• conductivity; and 

• TDG. 

However, it should be noted that additional monitoring of pH and DO may be 

necessary as part of the IAVMP to evaluate the effectiveness of macrophyte control 

methods implemented. 

It is our understanding that the PUD plans to use the TWQC’s input to determi

whether it is appropriate to conduct a more intensive (continuous versus monthly) level 

of water quality monitoring for compliance evaluations after the first year of the new 

license. We note, however, that any deviations from the PUD-approved water quality 

monitoring plan should be made only after consultation with state and federal resource 

agencies and the Tribe. 

As discussed above in Temperature and Dissolved

ne

Oxygen, a model would 

provid

n

in

ent 

further o

We discuss m r TDG issues below. 

e information to determine the extent, if any, of project effects on water 

temperatures in the lower portion of Calispell Creek and discharges from the CCPP. I

order to develop a reliable model for this purpose, the PUD would need to obtain water 

temperature and hydrology data (including pumping rates) for Calispell Creek at hourly

or shorter increments, and weather data for the vicinity. Currently, it is not clear whether 

available historical data would be sufficient for developing and calibrating such a 

temperature model. Therefore, the PUD would need to identify what data are needed and

develop a monitoring program to acquire these data, as specified in EPA’s WQC. 

The project also has the potential to adversely affect other water quality in the 

lower portion of Calispell Creek and discharges from the CCPP. In its WQC, the EPA

specifies that the PUD would develop and implement a WQMP to facilitate evaluation of

compliance with temperature, DO, turbidity, fecal coliform, and E. coli standards for

Calispell Creek within the KIR. 

Presenting results from the WQMP in annual reports in the year following 

monitoring, the PUD would facilitate determination of any necessary corrective action

a timely manner. By consolidating results for a 5-year period, the PUD could docum

water quality trends over longer periods and evaluate the need (or lack of need) for 

m nitoring.

onitoring TDG along with othe

66 
Total Dissolved Gas

PUD Proposal

spillway b

from J.J. S

Secret ,

capacity a

turbines w f the new license term. Before upgrading the 

turbine i amount 

of time req

out

1.5 yea ch as 2 

years a de, the PUD

plans t

 and downstream of the project 

and to oses

t 1 year

beyond y

The PUD has committed to upgrading the turbines and constructing an auxiliary 

ypass with the goal of complying with the applicable TDG standard (letter 

nyder, Project Manager, EES Consulting, Kirkland, WA, to M.R. Salas, 

ary FERC, Washington, DC, filed August 19, 2004). To increase generating

nd reduce TDG generated during spill, the PUD proposes to upgrade the 

ithin the first 5 to 7 years o

s, t would be necessary to complete the design and acquire the parts. The

uired for this process to occur would depend on when the process was started. 

The estimated time to complete final design is 3 months, delivery of parts is expected to 

take approximately 14 months, and initiation of the physical upgrade would be delayed

until the lowest-flow season of the year (i.e., July, August, and September). Therefore, 

the shortest time possible before installation of the first turbine would begin is ab

rs. The pre-upgrade process could result in the upgrade starting as mu

fter the beginning of the new license period. Following the first upgra

o upgrade one turbine each year until all four are completed. Although the PUD 

has not provided details for its planned auxiliary spillway bypass, it has indicated that it

intends to comply with the TDG standard. However, it also has acknowledged that even 

after all of its proposed TDG abatement measures are implemented it may not be able to 

meet the standard under all operating conditions at BCD.

In addition, the PUD plans to monitor TDG to confirm reductions expected from

the upgrade, and publish the results within 1 year. As part of this proposal, the PUD 

proposes to evaluate fish-friendly turbine runners as described in detail in section 3.3.3.2.

The PUD proposes to continue monitoring TDG upstream

install and operate a new TDG monitoring station at Newport. The PUD prop

to install TDG monitoring stations at these three locations to continuously monitor TDG 

during prolonged periods of spill (defined as persisting for 1 week or longer) during the 

April through October time frame. The stations would be maintained for at leas

the installation of the last turbine upgrade. The tailwater TDG station would onl

be activated after 3 weeks of exceedance of the TDG water quality standard. The 

Newport station would be operated concurrently with the forebay station. The PUD also 

proposes, in response to Interior’s preliminary condition, to install a third TDG 

monitoring station below the project with a mobile sampling strategy (DES, 2001c). The

mobile sampling program would likely be used to augment information provided by a

fixed station located at a suitable distance downstream to monitor overall changes in 

TDG after mixing has occurred. The PUD has identified five objectives for its TDG

Monitoring Plan: 

• detect the presence, levels, and duration of gas supersaturation within BCR and 

below the BCD spill gates over time; 

67 
• distinguish between project-induced TDG and upriver cumulative contr

for the purpose of assisting region-wide dissolved gas abatement plann

efforts; 

• determine the optimum spill configuration that minimizes TDG supersaturation

magnitude and/or frequency while also meeting other operational constraints; 

• establish sufficient baseline data to be able to quantify the duration and 

magnitude [of the] benefits of TDG supersaturation reduction associated with 

the turbine upgrade; and 

• provide temporal and spatial characterization of TDG supersaturation. 

ibution

ing

Group

to

ating procedures to reduce and minimize TDG violations and to address 

the bio

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties

specifies t

TDG Abatement Plan to WDOE 

detaile l

that includ

progress in e plan. The PUD would monitor the effectiveness of 

operati a

Monitorin

discussed

If t liance 

period he

PUD co t

in the Pen

If t d 

after the T

incorp

the PUD 10 years to come

into co to

t

the PUD provide both it and the Tribe with copies of all plans developed pursuant to 

The PUD also proposes to continue participation in the Transboundary Gas

and coordinate its TDG Monitoring Plan with the group. The PUD also proposes

review gate oper

logical components of TDG supersaturation as described in section 3.3.3. 

As a condition to Washington’s WQC for the project (WDOE, 2003b), the WDOE

hat, within 30 days of issuance of a new license by FERC, the PUD submit a 

for its review and approval. The plan would describe a 

d p an for meeting the TDG standard within a 10-year period along with a schedule

es sufficient benchmarks and reporting to permit WDOE to track the PUD’s 

implementing th

on l, structural, and other TDG abatement measures as they are implemented. 

g would be in conformance with procedures described in the approved QAPP, 

above in Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen. 

he TDG standard is met prior to, or at the end of, the 10-year comp

, no further improvements would be needed; however, the WDOE specifies that t

n inue to monitor TDG during the spill season over the range of flows expected 

d Oreille River to ensure that the TDG standard continues to be met. 

he TDG standard is not met by the end of the 10-year compliance period, an

DG Abatement Plan has been implemented, the PUD shall evaluate and 

orate any new reasonable and feasible technologies that have been developed since 

the original abatement plan. If no new reasonable and feasible technologies are 

identified, the PUD would either prepare a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) or provide

scientific justification for a site-specific TDG criterion. 

In its preliminary terms and conditions, Interior recommended that the PUD 

develop a TDG abatement program and defined a three-phased approach for that 

program. Interior now supports WDOE’s approach to allow

mpliance with water quality standards. Its terms and conditions were developed

be consistent with and complement WDOE’s WQC. In (4[e]4B), Interior specifies tha

68 
WQCs r

justificatio

determine

water quality standards is adversely affecting aquatic species, in particular native 

salmon

on add

fter

am

of

at the facilities for external evidence of GBT and killing and 

s

ater quality standard, Interior specifies that the PUD immediately notify it 

and th

will take in the future to prevent exceedance in the future. 

The FS specifies that the PUD comply with WQCs for the project and meet all 

appropriate water quality standards. In (4[e]16), the FS recommends that the PUD: 

fo the project. This includes the TDG Abatement Plan and any UAA or

n for site-specific TDG criterion submitted to the WDOE. If Interior 

s that operation of the project according to terms of an approved variance of 

ids, the PUD would consult with Interior and the Tribe for a period not to exceed 

6 months, to develop additional measures to mitigate for the project’s adverse effect. 

This may include restoration of aquatic habitat, supplementation of native fish species, or

other measures to benefit native fish species. If the PUD, Interior, and Tribe do not agree

itional measures within 6 months, the PUD would implement the additional 

mitigation measures that the Interior believes are necessary to protect the aquatic species

of concern. 

Interior also specifies that the PUD conduct the following five monitoring 

methodologies: 

• Continuous monitoring of various water quality parameters at six stations at 

hourly intervals. This would include monitoring TDG during non-spill 

periods. 

• Continuous monitoring at the BCD forebay and tailrace stations at 15-minute 

intervals during spill periods. 

• Continuous monitoring at 1-hour or shorter intervals at its recommended BCD

upstream and downstream fish passage facilities to evaluate the effectiveness 

of the facilities. 

• Using automated instruments arranged to collect TDG data along lateral and 

longitudinal lines (grid monitoring) throughout the TDG mixing zone below

BCD for the entire range of flows up to 90,000 cfs in the first spill season a

license issuance and at the end of the 10-year compliance period. 

• Conducting biological monitoring of fish in conjunction with monitoring as 

specified under Section 18 fishway prescriptions for upstream and downstre

passage at BCD. This would be done by evaluating a random sub-sample

fish captured

inspecting a percentage of the non-listed fish for internal evidence of GBT. 

The results of each of these monitoring efforts would be reported in annual report

for the year that the monitoring was conducted. In the event of exceedance of any

applicable w

e Tribe, and follow this up with a report that identifies the date(s) of exceedance, 

water quality data documenting the non-compliance event, description of the condition

that led to the event, and measures that the PUD took to satisfy water quality standards or 

69 
• monitor TDG levels in both the forebay and tailrace (approximately 1 mile 

d

h

.

l

eet 

,

s setting a goal for TDG levels below 105 percent, 

which g

s

to levels specified by WDOE.

or WDOE to waive any

TDG w

standards. 

The EPA (2003) does not provide any recommendations for TDG in its WQC for 

the project, which focuses on the Calispell Creek pumping stations. 

downstream along the eastern shoreline in spilled waters) prior to, during, an

after implementation of gas abatement measures for the duration of the new 

license. 

The FS condition includes a provision that further monitoring for compliance wit

these standards may be reduced or discontinued if agency review of monitoring results 

for 3 or more consecutive years indicates that the water quality standards are being met

IDFG recommends that reservoir drawdown be incorporated as part of an overal

program that includes flood control and may reduce downstream TDG saturation while 

providing fish and wildlife mitigation upstream. 

In addition to WDFW recommendations discussed above in Temperature and 

Dissolved Oxygen, the WDFW recommends that river flow should be sufficient to m

appropriate water quality standards and specifically referenced TDG. In its November 2

2001, filing, WDFW recommend

is 5 percent below the Washington State criterion, and requiring TDG monitorin

in the project forebay and tailwater at a location along the right/east river bank in spilled

water, as recommended by WDOE. On November 21, 2002, the WDFW eliminated its 

recommendation that the PUD reduce TDG to less than 105 percent. Instead, the WDFW

recommends, consistent with the WDOE’s WQC that, upon completion of all turbine 

upgrades, the PUD conduct physical modeling of operational and structural alternative

to reduce tailrace TDG during spill periods

WDFW recommends biological monitoring, in order f

ater quality standards. It also recommends inspection of fish for evidence of GBT 

once temporary fish passage commences at BCD. If GBT is observed, the PUD is to 

consult with appropriate agencies and develop a mitigation plan. Finally, WDFW 

recommends that the PUD evaluate all gas abatement technologies prior to 

implementation to ensure that any risk of damage to fish is less than damage from gas 

supersaturation and to incorporate new gas abatement technology that further reduces 

TDG levels and/or exceedance of the state water quality standards into Box Canyon 

operations if feasible. 

The Tribe recommends that TDG be included in the WQRMP described above in 

Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen. The Tribe also recommends that TDG abatement 

measures be developed and implemented to achieve compliance with applicable 

70 
Our Analysis 

Currently, the Box Canyon Project increases TDG levels below the BCD when 

total flows of between 27,400 and somewhere in excess of 80,000 cfs20 result in water

spilling

eral

to

iary

(DES,

lly

levels were estimated

from the relationship between TDG levels in the Box Canyon and Boundary forebays and 

 

over the top of the spillway gates and air is subsequently entrained. 

Measurements show that the turbine discharge does not have significantly higher TDG

levels than the forebay. The highest TDG levels occur in the spillway channel prior to

mixing with water discharged from the powerhouse. Immediately below the spillway 

(where no mixing has occurred), exceedance of the 110 percent criterion occurs 25.5 

percent of the time. However, at flows of greater than 80,000 cfs, the project does not 

increase TDG levels when the upper two spillway gates are removed and the top of the 

lower gate is submerged. Studies show that the spillway and turbine flows do not 

completely mix within the reach for 4 miles downstream of the dam, resulting in a lat

gradient with the highest levels on the spillway side of the channel (DES, 2001b). 

Complete mixing occurs within 4.0 to 5.5 miles downstream of the dam, and appears

be related to bends in the river. 

As described in section 3.3.2.1, TDG levels in mixed water downstream of the 

powerhouse exceed the applicable criterion of 110 percent of saturation when flows are 

greater than 32,400 cfs. Under existing conditions, the project increases TDG levels to 

greater than 110 percent 19 percent of the time when flows are between 27,400 cfs and 

90,000 cfs. When flows are outside of this range (81 percent of the time), the project 

does not affect TDG levels (see table 6). 

Measures to Decrease Total Dissolved Gas Levels 

The PUD evaluated various alternatives to mitigate the project’s effects on TDG at 

the Box Canyon Project. These alternatives included upgrading the turbines, auxil

spillway bypass, structures in the tailrace, replacement of flip buckets with flip lips, lowwater ports, stilling basin modifications, and chemical or gas injection techniques

2001b). Based on results of the evaluation, three options may provide reasonable ways of

limiting the effects of the project on TDG below the project: (1) upgrading the turbines, 

(2) bypassing the spillway using the auxiliary spillway, and (3) constructing a wall to 

deflect spillway flows toward the powerhouse. We discuss these three alternatives 

below. To compare the potential TDG abatement benefits, we based our analysis on fu

mixed TDG levels below the spillway and powerhouse.21 TDG

20 After implementation of proposed turbine upgrades, the project would increase TDG levels below 

BCD at river flows of between 32,400 and 90,000 cfs. The project must be shut down at 90,000 cfs, 

but in practicality, the PUD may cease project operations when flows are in the high 80,000-cfs range.

21 Because fish may avoid areas with the highest TDG levels (Weitkamp et al., 2003), such as the 

spillway-side of the river downstream of BCD, and instead use areas along the powerhouse side of the 

river, we used TDG levels for the area that is fully mixed to evaluate the potential for adverse effects 

on fish. 

71 
flows routed through the BCD spillways and the project’s powerhouse. Because the 

project was not predicted to have a significant effect on TDG at flows of 90,000 cfs, we 

concentrated on predicted TDG levels for river flows of 27,400 cfs to 90,000 cfs. 

The PUD proposes to increase the hydraulic capacity of the turbines from 27,400 

cfs to 32,400 cfs within the first 5 to 7 years of the new license period. The upgrades 

would result in less water being spilled over the BCD so that greater inflow would be 

necessary to elevate TDG to levels greater than 110 percent. Figure 6 shows TDG levels 

with upgraded turbines in comparison with existing conditions. Upgrading the turbines 

would lower TDG levels at river flows from 27,400 cfs to more than 60,000 cfs. This 

upgrade would also increase TDG at river flows between 70,000 cfs and 80,000 plus cfs 

when turbine flows are reduced to maintain a backwater effect of 2 feet or less at the 

Albeni Falls dam, which increases spill flows. However, it is important to note that, 

based on flow frequency curves, upgrading the turbines would decrease the frequency 

that the project contributes to TDG exceeding the 110 percent criterion immediately 

below the spillway from the current 25 percent of the time to 17.5 percent of the time. 

This represents a 30 percent reduction in the frequency that the project would increase 

TDG below the spillway. Analysis of mixed TDG levels affected by the project shows 

that the PUD’s proposed turbine upgrades would result in TDG levels of greater than 110 

percent 15 percent of the time, which is an improvement over the existing condition of 

approximately 19 percent of the time (figure 7). This represents a 21 percent reduction in 

the frequency of mixed TDG levels exceeding the 110 percent criterion. A maximum

mixed TDG level of about 130 percent would occur at flows of approximately 70,000 cfs. 

The PUD evaluated five different gate sizes to use the auxiliary bypass spillway to 

mitigate the project’s effects on TDG. The alternatives were based on three 14-foot-wide 

gates of differing heights ranging from 6.5 to 54 feet and assumed that the PUD’s 

tes.

powerhouse f

ga es, 60,000 ,000 cfs for 

the 54-foot gates. The gates would discharge submerged water, which would prevent 

pth.

The end re

discharged

proposed turbine upgrades would occur prior to installation and operation of the ga

The maximum flow that could be bypassed around the main spillway (including 

lows) would be 40,000 cfs for the 6.5-foot gates, 50,000 cfs for the 16-foot

t cfs for the 27-foot gates, 65,000 cfs for the 35-foot gates, and 70

entrainment of air into the water as currently occurs when surface water plunges to de

sult would be a reduction in TDG levels in the auxiliary spillway and as its

 water mixes with discharge from the powerhouse. 

72 
Figure 6. la ip b TD ul ed do ea e

w e an r flo ex co s, de ine

-fo ilia es w gra rb (S S

Re tionsh etween G in f ly mix water wnstr m of th

po erhous d rive w for isting ndition upgra d turb s, and

27 ot aux ry gat ith up ded tu ines. ource: taff)

73 
Figure 7. Frequency of project-induced TDG levels of greater than the 110 percen

criterion in fully mixed water downstream of the powerhouse for existing 

conditions, upgraded turbin

t

es, and 27-foot auxiliary gates with upgraded 

22

gate sizes. Stepwise improvement in TDG levels are obvious 

with ga

,

turbines. (Source: Staff)

Table 7 shows a summary of the fully mixed TDG levels expected for existing 

conditions and potential mitigation alternatives. The maximum TDG levels tend to 

decrease with increasing

te sizes of 6.5, 16, and 27 feet; but become much smaller with gate sizes larger 

than 27 feet. In addition to smaller improvements with increasing gate sizes, operations

of the larger gates would require larger gantry cranes and structural changes to the dam

which would be costly. Installation and operation of auxiliary spillway bypass gates 

represents improvement relative to current conditions. Figure 6 shows the improvement 

that is expected with 27-foot-tall gates along with the proposed turbine upgrades. Figure

7 shows that these gates along with proposed turbine upgrades would limit projectinduced exceedances of the TDG standard in mixed water downstream of the 

 22 With the 27-foot gates, fully-mixed TDG would exceed 110 percent at the total flows of 50,000 to 

90,000 cfs. However, the high TDG levels for flows of 50,000 to greater than 60,000 cfs would be 

caused by passing elevated TDG levels in the Box Canyon forebay downstream, which would not be 

further increased to the Box Canyon Project. 

74 
powerhouse, to approximately 8.5 percent of the time. The water discharged from th

powerhouse and continuing downstream along the river’s west side would contin

have lower TDG levels, which could be used by fish to avoid elevated TDG level

is a 43 percent reduction (compared with turbine upgrade conditions) in the frequency

the project causing mixed TDG levels to exceed the state standard, and an overall 

reduction of 55 percent (compared with existing conditions). We further discuss the c

of this mea

e

ue to

s. This

of

ost

sure in section 4, Developmental Analysis.

ject

ct.

Wall

Table 7. Summary of fully mixed TDG saturation levels (%) at the Box Canyon Pro

with potential TDG abatement alternatives.

a

 (Source: DES, 2001b) 

River 

Flow 

(cfs)

Time 

Flow is 

Exceed 

(%)

Exist. 

Cond.

Upgraded 

Turbines

6.5-FtHigh 

Gates

16-FtHigh 

Gates

27-FtHigh 

Gates

35-FtHigh 

Gates

54-FtHigh 

Gates

Defle

30,000 23.0 107.7 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0

32,400 0b 20.5 110.0 106.0 106.0b 106.0b 106.0b 106.0b 106.0b 106.

40,000 15.0 116.5 112.2 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 112.2

50,000 10.0 123.1 119.9 114.8 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 119.5

60,000 6.5 127.3 124.3 120.8 115.3 111.0 111.0 111.0 124.3

70,000 4.2 129.6 130.3 129.1 126.5 121.6 118.4 111.0 130.3

80,000 3.0 119.0 121.4 121.4 121.4 121.4 121.4 121.4 121.4

90,000 1.5 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0

a All gate and deflection wall levels assume upgraded turbines. Gate values represent conditions 

with three 14-foot-wide gates of the designated heights. 

b Assumed all flow being routed through upgraded turbines.

The third alternative that shows reasonable potential to mitigate for the project’s 

effect on TDG is construction of the main spillway toward the 

power eptual plan for accomplishing this goal. Its plan 

includes constructing a cellular sheet pile wall downstream from the main spillway on the 

channel’s right side (looking downstream) arranged to direct flow toward the turbine 

discha

h the wall and upgraded 

turbine

may ad levels

curren

n of

 a wall to direct water from 

house. DES has developed a conc

rge. As conceived, the wall would have 35-foot cell diameters and a maximum

height of about 60 feet. Estimated mixed TDG levels wit

s are presented along with other alternatives in table 7. The primary advantage of

promoting mixing of water routed through the main spillway and the powerhouse is that

TDG levels would be mixed sooner and farther upstream. However, mixing the water 

versely affect fish communities that use the refuge areas with low TDG

tly existing along the powerhouse-side of the channel. Under current conditions, 

water routed through the spillway and powerhouse does not become completely mixed 

for at least 4 miles. It is anticipated that the deflection wall would reduce the duratio

75 
TDG l d

within

e

Develo

ures implemented to reduce the effects of the project

on dow

data to a

sufficient (without modification) to adequate

measurement strategy is aime ng a predictive model for TDG levels once 

monito

operating gram proposed by the 

PUD w uire more than 1 year beyond the completion of the final upgrade to 

captur entire range of operation. The PUD acknowledges this and suggests 

that 3

ions

ased on TDG

measu

evels greater than 110 percent by approximately 4 percent from existing mixe

conditions. 

As a condition to the project’s WQC, WDOE specifies that the PUD submit a 

TDG Abatement Plan that identifies a plan and schedule for meeting the TDG standard

a 10-year period. Based on information available at this time, it is questionable 

whether such a goal can be met using known reasonable and feasible technologies. The 

PUD’s analysis of potential alternatives to satisfy the TDG standard indicates that the 

110-percent criterion would continue to be exceeded under normal operations even if th

turbines were upgraded and spillway gates as high as 54 feet were installed (table 7). 

Because measures proposed by the PUD and recommended by the agencies would

affect aquatic resources and project economics, we further discuss biological aspects in 

section 3.3.3, Aquatic Resources; address the cost of TDG measures in section 4,

pmental Analysis; and make our final recommendations in section 5, Staff’s 

Conclusions. 

Total Dissolved Gas Monitoring 

TDG monitoring would document the effectiveness of the turbine upgrades or any 

other structural and operational meas

nstream TDG.

Implementation of the PUD’s proposed monitoring program would provide some

ddress the effectiveness of abatement measures; however, it may not be

ly document project effects. The PUD’s 

d at developi

ring studies have clearly defined the relationships between turbine upgrades, gate 

strategies and other measures. The TDG monitoring pro

ould likely req

e data over the

or more years may be necessary (DES, 2001c). 

Because inflows to BCR can be determined prior to a spill event at BCD, it seems 

reasonable to activate TDG monitoring at all three stations proposed by the PUD based 

on best available forecasts of impending spill at BCD. Since monitoring at these stat

would provide data for the inflow to the BCR reservoir and the BCD forebay and little

dissipation occurs within the BCR, we conclude that there would be little additional 

benefit in monitoring TDG levels near the middle of BCR (RM 71.8) or stations 

associated with Calispell Creek as specified by Interior (4[e] 4). B

res to date, spill has to increase to about 10 percent of total flow before mixed 

TDG levels below the project exceed the 110-percent criterion, thus allowing some 

margin for error in initiating the measurements aimed at detecting exceedance of the 

standard. 

76 
Monitoring TDG within any upstream or downstream fish passage facilities 

constructed for the BCD would document conditions experienced by fishes using the

facilities. Similarly, monitoring TDG at or near the entrance and exit points would 

provid Due to the

well-m

e

lateral

would occur a little closer to the 

powerhouse following turbine upgrades, because a higher percentage of the flow would 

be rout s. Although monitoring conditions below the junction 

would provide additional information on exceedances of the TDG standard, monitoring in 

itself d

to

se and

hat the project comply with all appropriate water quality standards. 

e insight into potential effects on fishes using the passage facilities.

ixed conditions of the BCD forebay, we conclude that monitoring TDG at the 

forebay station proposed by the PUD would likely provide representative data for 

entrances to both upstream and downstream passage facilities. 

Monitoring TDG with automated instruments arranged in a grid pattern, as 

recommended by Interior and the Tribe, would provide the data necessary to evaluate th

lateral and longitudinal gradients of TDG in the river below BCD. Currently, a

gradient persists for at least 4 miles downstream of the junction of waters routed through

the spillway and turbines. We anticipate that mixing

ed through the turbine

oes not resolve elevated TDG levels. Conducting grid monitoring of baseline 

conditions prior to upgrading the turbines would provide little value after completion of

the upgrades. Using a mobile sampling strategy (as proposed by the PUD) to assess 

mixing below the BCD would be of little value as well because it would be necessary

make the spot measurements under varying releases and mixing patterns, and 

consequently they would not be directly comparable. 

Hazardous Material Measures 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD would continue to review and update the PUD’s SCERP following the

required timeline, which is currently once every 5 years. 

The PUD proposes to provide technical review and coordination through u

funding of the TWQC including $12,000 per year for TWQC staffing. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

FS specifies preparation and implementation of a Spill Prevention and Control and

Hazardous Materials Management Plan for activities that include habitat- or grounddisturbing activities undertaken on NFS lands. 

Interior’s condition described above in Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen, 

specifies that monitoring shall also be conducted for any water quality exceedances 

caused wholly or in part by the Box Canyon Project. Other agencies make similar 

recommendations t

In their WQCs for the project, both the EPA and WDOE prohibit discharge of oil, 

fuel, or other chemicals into surface water or groundwater. In the event of a discharge of 

any of these substances into waters or onto land with the potential for entry to surface 

77 
water or groundwater, the WQC specifies that containment and clean-up efforts

begin immediately and be completed as soon as possible, taking precedence over normal

work. Clean-up would include proper disposal of any spilled material and used clean-u

materials. Spills into state or KIR waters or spills onto land with potential for entry in

state or KIR waters would be immediately reported to the appropriate agencies. 

The WDOE also specifies that all development or mitigation projects proposed 

under relicensing meet the applicable state water quality standards. The turbidity 

criterion may be modified to allow a temporary mixing zone during and immediately 

after in-water or shoreline construction activities that disturb in-place sediments. 

In addition, the EPA specifies the following restrictions on the PUD’s construction

at the Calispell Creek Pump Works: 

• Wet concrete must be prevented from entering surface water or groundwater.

• All construction debris and excess excavated material must be disposed of in a 

manner that prevents such material from entering a waterway or degrading 

would

p

to

ntinue to

minimize the risk of spill and ensure minimal effect on the area’s resources. Maintaining 

compl

The Box Canyon Project contributes to the cumulative effects on water quantity 

and quality. However, impacts on water quantity are minimal (i.e., limited to periods 

when the project transitions to meet water level constraints), since the project does not 

waters of the United States. 

• No construction equipment will be operated in buffers or adjacent wetlands or 

open waters outside of an established project footprint. 

Our Analysis 

An existing measure, specified under EPA’s 40 CFR § 112.1, would co

iance with the Spill Prevention and Control and a Hazardous Materials Handling

Plan, implementing the FS’s Spill Prevention and Control and Hazardous Materials 

Management Plan for activities related to FS lands, abiding by the WDOE and EPA 

WQC conditions specifying the PUD to prevent, contain, and clean-up spills of oil, fuel, 

and other potentially hazardous materials, and the WQC conditions that necessitate the 

PUD to conduct construction activities in a responsible manner. 

The PUD’s proposed funding of the TWQC may improve communication and 

coordination addressing water quality measures, given the TWQC’s involvement with the

Clark Fork/Pend Oreille River. Because the PUD and water quality regulatory authorities 

should perform technical review of water quality monitoring results and ongoing water 

quality monitoring plans, the selection of a reviewer is not an integral component of the 

item. We view selection of a technical reviewer as an element of the PUD’s overall 

water quality monitoring program and under the PUD’s discretion. 

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects on Water Quantity and Quality 

78 
store water for seasonal carryover. There are 18 major dams upstream of Box Canyon, 

including major storage facilities such as Flathead Lake, Hungry Horse Reserv

Lake Pend Oreille. The Staff Alte

oir, and

rnative would reduce project-related adverse 

cumulative effects and improve some water quality conditions affecting aquatic species 

inhabiting the BCR and the river below the project. 

Total Dissolved Gas

It is common for TDG to accumulate as water moves through large river systems 

containing numerous dams, such as the Pend Oreille and Columbia Rivers. Dams and 

turbines can elevate TDG levels, and this added gas may not be able to dissipate prior to 

reaching the next dam downstream. This is particularly likely in deep, slow- moving 

impounded reaches that limit the interaction between the air and water interface. 

Upstream sources increase Box Canyon forebay TDG levels to around 105 to 110 percent 

at river flows of more than 32,000 cfs. The Box Canyon Project further increases TDG 

when it spills water over the tops of the spillway gates resulting in higher TDG levels in 

the Boundary Project’s forebay. This project effect is an increase of nearly 20 percent at 

river flows of 60,000 to 90,000 cfs (DES, 2001b). Our evaluation of the need for 

additional TDG abatement measures would be based on two primary factors: (1) the Box 

Canyon Project’s contribution to elevated TDG in reaches downstream of the BCD 

including the input of TDG from the Pend Oreille River to Lake Roosevelt, and (2) the 

effect that elevated TDG has on aquatic organisms in the Pend Oreille River and 

downstream of the project. If the project is a major contributor to elevated TDG levels in 

any critical reaches and elevated TDG has substantial adverse effects on aquatic 

organisms, we believe that there would be substantial need for additional TDG abatement 

measures. However, if the project in combination with other Pend Oreille River Project 

improvements contributes little to elevated TDG levels or if elevated TDG levels result in 

minimal adverse effects on aquatic organisms, we believe that the need for additional 

r

no informa ce that

time, other sources as mentioned below about TDG in the Pend Oreille River have 

become available. 

We summarize information that is presently available on the cumulative effects of 

TDG below Box Canyon. More information on the cumulative effects of the TDG 

contribution from the Box Canyon Project is likely to be developed over the course of the

draft Mid-Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt Total Dissolved Gas TMDL and 

Implementation Plan (EPA et al., 2004) or other TMDLs to be developed by WDOE or 

IDEQ. EPA et al. (2004) specifically identifies the dams on the Pend Oreille River as 

sources of specific impairment to Lake Roosevelt. Dams below Box Canyon include 

Seattle City Light’s Boundary dam (Project 2144) and two Canadian Projects—Seven 

Mile dam and Waneta dam, located just upstream of the confluence of the Pend Oreille 

River with the Columbia River. EPA et al. (2004) excludes the Pend Oreille River from 

its geographic scope, but indicates that separate TMDLs are in the planning stages for the 

TDG abatement measures could be less. In the draft EIS, we stated that we had little o

tion on the cumulative effects of the Box Canyon Project on TDG. Sin

79 
P

over Canadian waters with respect to TDG,

end Oreille River in Washington and Idaho. U.S. officials have no regulatory authority 

 but the issue is being addressed by the 

ransboundary Gas Group and other forums. The Transboundary Gas Group also lacks 

regulatory authority, but has been successful in compiling and sharing information on 

TDG on a watershed basis and promoting international cooperation in resolving water 

quality problems related to TDG. In addition, it is likely that TDG will be an issue 

during the upcoming relicensing process for the Boundary project. Further, the Seattle 

District of the Corps (owner of the Albeni Falls Project) continues to monitor the issue. 

EPA et al. (2004) characterizes TDG levels as exceeding the 110 percent criterion 

135 days per year under existing conditions23 at Waneta dam and 102 days per year at the 

international border monitoring station located in the Columbia River. A TDG level of 

120 percent, which is more harmful to aquatic organisms, would be reached at the same

two locations 62 and 29 days per year, respectively. These values should be viewed with

caution since they are based on a review draft, rather than a final document. 

A major expansion of the Waneta Project (second power plant), scheduled for 

2011, is proposed that would further reduce TDG levels in the Pend Oreille River by an 

unknown amount, although study results from Teck Cominco, the operator of the Waneta

Project, are expected in 2005. We also note that this expansion of the Waneta Project is 

currently in the planning stage, and we do not know if the project is feasible and will be 

for flow pa

rom the fl spillway. Actual measurements from 1999, 

hown

e

T

completed by 2011. Canadian TDG modeling cited by EPA et al. (2004) assumes that 

TDG from upstream projects such as Boundary and Box Canyon is not dissipated except

ssing over Seven Mile dam where field data supports some stripping of TDG 

f ow stream due to a flip-lip style

s in figure 8, illustrate how TDG levels in the Pend Oreille River in the Box Canyon 

forebay, Boundary forebay, and 0.9 mile downstream of the Boundary dam compare with 

levels immediately upstream of Waneta dam, and those ultimately reaching the 

international border just upstream of Lake Roosevelt. Flows in the Pend Oreille River 

(figure 9) were well below the 7-day, 10-year high flow of approximately 113,000 cfs 

(letter from J.J. Snyder, Duke Engineering & Services, Bothell, WA, to J. Parodi, 

WDOE, Spokane, WA, dated May 1, 2000) during this period and therefore the 

110 percent criterion would apply.24 TDG levels would be closer to the standard in th

absence of the Box Canyon Project since the BCD forebay maximum TDG is 

115.6 percent during this period. 

 23 Cond

t down

itions are based on estimates for the improvements resulting from the completion of the Arrow 

Lakes Generating Station in the Canadian portion of the Columbia River basin completed in 2002. 

24 Flows were as high as 75,800 cfs at USGS Gage No. 12396500. The project, however, has no effect 

on TDG levels when flows are exceed 90,000 cfs because at that point, the turbines must be shu

and the gates fully opened. 

80 
95.00

4/17/1999 5/17/1999 6/16/1999 7/16/1999 8/15/1999

100.00

105.00

110.00

5.00

TD

G Perc

11

130

135.

en

00

120.00

125.00

.00

t Saturation

Pend Oreille River at Box Canyon Forebay Pend Oreille River at Boundary Forebay Pend Oreille River at International Border

Waneta Dam Forebay Columbia River at the International Border

Figure 8. TDG (percent saturation) recorded at various locations in the Pend Oreille 

River in 1999. (Source: EPA et al., 2004; PUD, 2000, USGS, 2004) 

81 
82 

0

10000

20000

4/17/1999

4/24/1999

5/1/1999

5/8/1999

5/15/1999

5/22/19995/29/1999

6/5/1999

6/12/1999

6/19/1999

6/26/1999

7/3/1999

7/10/1999

30000

40000

50000

60000

Flow cfs

70000

80000

Figure 9. Daily average flows (cfs) recorded in the Pend Oreille River below Box 

Canyon near Ione, WA (Gage no. 12396500) from April 17, 1999, to July 16

1999. (Source: USGS, 1999) 

We observe that during a period of high flow in 1999, on June 14, maximum TD

readings increase

,

G 

d from 112 percent in Box Canyon forebay to 131 percent in Boundary

foreba

that

ement in levels eventually reaching Lake Roosevelt. 

On the other hand, the continued adverse effects of spill at both the Boundary and 

y. Waters below Boundary dam showed evidence of over 2 percent reduction in 

TDG relative to the Boundary forebay under some flow conditions. Similarly, during the 

periods of highest TDG immediately downstream of Boundary dam, Waneta forebay 

TDG levels were as much as 5 percent lower than below Boundary dam. There is not 

enough gas stripping, however, to reduce the TDG levels down to the 110 percent 

criterion. In 1999, TDG levels in the Pend Oreille River were above the 110 percent 

criterion for more than 2 months and above 120 percent for close to 1.5 months. 

Although flow from the Columbia River upstream of the Pend Oreille River confluence 

provided some reduction of the highest TDG levels contributed by the Pend Oreille 

River, these reductions did not have a large enough effect to reduce TDG levels entering

Lake Roosevelt to satisfy the 110 percent criterion during these periods. 

Based on information presented in EPA et al. (2004), we tentatively conclude

any improvements in TDG levels immediately downstream of the Box Canyon Project 

would likely translate to a net improv
Wanet sult

located

f the

lementation of the VAR Q approach would increase spring flows, which 

would likel

genera

parameters (e.g., increased turbidity from bank erosion). The most severe changes in 

flow w

r

ile

ndations. Because the Box Canyon Project operates in an ROR mode, any 

changes to Albeni Falls operations would likely affect outflows from the BCR. Until 

such ch the

project

a dams and TDG effects from projects upstream of Box Canyon would likely re

in continued exceedances of the 110 percent criterion, albeit at slightly reduced levels.

VAR Q 

The Corps proposes to reduce wintertime drawdown at Hungry Horse dam, 

upstream of Box Canyon, to assure reservoir refill; higher spring flows that would 

more closely approach natural snowmelt runoff conditions in the river; and drafting o

reservoir in the summer. This program is commonly known as the VAR Q approach. 

The action is being taken by federal agencies involved in the recovery of fish species 

listed under ESA (letter from D.M. Holt, Lt. Colonel, Acting District Engineer, Seattle 

District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to Interested Parties, dated March 1, 2002). 

Imp

y result in more inundation in the Box Canyon vicinity, losses in hydroelectric 

tion, and increases in potential negative impacts on TDG and other water quality

ould generally occur in the month of June. Figure 10 illustrates the June average 

monthly flow duration curve with and without VAR Q for a 50-year period, energy yea

1929 through 1978.25

The Corps proposes to modify the operation of Albeni Falls during fall and winter

to have a 90 percent level of confidence of attaining the April 15 flood control level wh

meeting the project and system minimum flow and flood control requirements. Winter 

operations are targeted to vary over the next several years in order to evaluate kokanee 

spawning and production, and the effects on bull trout survival. The Corps proposes to 

operate Lake Pend Oreille at elevation 2,055 feet msl during winter 2002–2003, and 

make further recommendations on target lake levels for the summer of 2003 based on

FWS recomme

anges are announced, we cannot fully evaluate their potential effects on

.

 25 In the Northwest, energy years are similar to water years except they begin in August and end in July.

83 
70000

80000

90000

100000

 cfs

60000

20000

30000

40000

50000

10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%

Percent Exceedence

Flo

w at Newport

Current Conditions With VAR Q

Figure

ates for the auxiliary spillway bypass. 

Howev

n the Grand Coulee dam (Columbia River) was constructed without 

fish pa

Pend Oreille River have further precluded upstream fish 

migration. 

upstream reservoir on the Pend Oreille River in Washington, was 

impou nding on

10. Change in June monthly average month flow with and without VAR Q. 

(Source: E-mail from R.P. Schiewe, BPA, Portland, OR, to M. Killgore, 

Project Engineer, Louis Berger, Bellevue, WA, dated January 24, 2002) 

3.3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

TDG would continue to exceed Washington State standards, even with the 

proposed turbine upgrades and installation of g

er, there would be a significant improvement in TDG levels relative to current 

conditions. 

3.3.3 Aquatic Resources 

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment 

Anadromous salmonid use of the lower Pend Oreille River (below Metaline Falls)

ended in 1939 whe

ssage facilities (Bryant and Parkhurst, 1950). Since then, construction of Chief 

Joseph dam on the Columbia River and Waneta, Seven-Mile, Boundary, Box Canyon, 

and Albeni Falls dams on the

BCR, the most

nded in 1952 with completion of the BCD (Bennet and Liter, 1991). Depe

river flows, BCR has a surface area of 7,000 to 9,000 acres, with mean depths ranging

84 
from about 9 feet to 40 feet. Reservoir widths range from 125 to 2,540 feet. Because of 

its relatively shallow depth and short flushing time (approximately 3.5 days at average 

flow), the reservoir typically remains fully mixed. Water temperatures in the main 

channel and reservoir can often exceed 77ΕF (25 °C) during the summer, making it les

suitable for trout and other coldwater species. In addition, numerous shallow sloughs at 

the confluences of tributary streams to the Pend Oreille River provide potential spawning

areas for warmwater species such as largemouth bass, pumpkinseed, and yellow perc

(Bennet and Liter, 1991). Slough areas are typica

s

h

lly cooler in the summer and warmer 

during the winter in comparison to the main river, offering important thermal protection 

to cold brown trout, brook trout, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, 

and bu

(i.e., 72 percent of without project conditions). Similarly, 

averag t

out

to

ter

f

under t d by resident species such as brown

trout, r

to Calispell Creek is also blocked by a Box Canyon Project facility. 

Pumps

osed

water fish species (e.g.,

ll trout).

Based on HEC RAS model results, average BCR velocity for flows of 60,000 cfs,

which is about the normal June flow, is 2.3 ft/s with the impoundment as compared to 3.2 

ft/s without the impoundment

e BCR velocity for 10, 000 cfs, which is about the normal August flow, is 0.6 foo

per second as compared to 2.3 ft/s without the impoundment (i.e., 26 percent of with

project conditions) (letter from K. Doughty, Framatone ANP DE&S, Bellingham, WA,

J. Parodi, WDOE, Spokane, WA, dated June 6, 2002). These lower velocities may 

contribute to the proliferation of non-native aquatic vegetation, creating beneficial habitat 

conditions for warmwater fish species (e.g., bass, perch, sunfish). Slower flowing wa

during the growing season has dramatically altered the aquatic plant community within 

BCR. Introduced plant species, namely Eurasian watermilfoil and curly pondweed, have

spread throughout the reservoir, severely altering riverine fish habitat to favor those 

warmwater and coolwater fish species that have adapted to habitat with an abundance o

native and non-native macrophytes. 

As discussed previously, BCD was constructed without fish passage facilities, 

he assumption that the BCR was dominate

ainbow trout, cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish (Barber et al., 1989). 

Further, Metaline Falls (RM 27), just downstream of the BCD site, was historically 

considered a natural barrier to upstream migration (PUD, 2000). 

Fish passage in

on Calispell Creek (a project facility) are used to move water from Calispell 

Creek (areas upstream of the dikes) into the Pend Oreille River when the gates are cl

to prevent localized flooding. The facilities were constructed without accommodation for

fish passage when the dike culvert is closed. In Calispell Creek, culvert gates were open

less than 1 week per year during the last 5 years, limiting fish migrations into and out of

the creek. 

85 
Existing Fisheries Resources in the Pend Oreille River Upstream of Albeni

Falls Dam 

Between Albeni Falls dam and Lake Pend Oreille, the Pend Oreille River supports 

23 spe

rown

re stocked in Lake Pend Oreille in an effort to sustain this popular 

fishery there. 

Existing Fisheries Resources within Box Canyon Reservoir and its 

Tributaries 

The tributaries flowing into the BCR are an important resource for resident 

coldwater fish species (i.e., cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, brook trout, brown trout, and 

bull trout) in the project area. Because of the limited amount of coldwater habitat in 

BCR, these tributaries provide essential habitat for salmonid spawning and rearing, and 

also provide thermal refugia during the summer. Some of the larger BCR tributary 

streams and the fish species found within them are described below (see figure 1, 

appendix D). 

Skookum Creek 

The north and south forks of Skookum Creek originate from an elevation of 

approximately 5,800 feet, flowing approximately 8 miles to the confluence with the Pend 

Oreille River (2,040 feet elevation), about 3 miles upstream of the town of Cusick (RM 

72.7). Lower Skookum Creek, up to approximately RM 3.2, meanders across the Pend 

Oreille River valley. The stream channel is relatively low gradient with sand and gravel 

substrates. Land use is largely agricultural, with rangeland and hayfields. Above RM 

3.2, the watershed is forested, with stream gradients increasing up to 5 percent, 

dominated by riffle and run habitat. Brown and brook trout inhabit the lower reaches of 

this system, and cutthroat trout inhabit the cooler, higher gradient sections of the creek. 

Cee Cee Ah Creek 

Cee Cee Ah Creek is approximately 9.5 miles long and drains an area of about 

18.7 square miles. Tributaries include Halfmoon and Browns creeks. Headwaters drain 

from an elevation of about 5,370 feet, where intermittent streams flow through steep 

gradient areas (>6 percent) and a steep bedrock canyon. Flow continues through a lowgradient, forested valley (2 percent), then steepens through another V-shaped canyon area 

cies of fish. Yellow perch, peamouth, and northern pikeminnow were the most 

abundant fish species captured during fish population sampling in this reach in 1991 and 

1992, representing 64 and 59 percent of the catch, respectively. Salmonids represented 

only a small portion (less than 2 percent) of the total catch. Rainbow trout and b

trout were the most common salmonids collected. Non-hatchery cutthroat trout 

represented only 0.53 percent of the catch in 1991 and 0.19 percent of the catch in 1992. 

Bull trout represented 0.01 percent of the catch both in 1991 and 1992. Other gamefish,

such as largemouth bass and black crappie, comprise between 2.5 and 4.5 percent of the 

catch. Kokanee a

86 
(~12 perce

rangelands d smaller substrates, where it joins the Pend

O roximately RM 66.5 ok trout are foun ower

p his system. Cutthr iddle and upper reaches. 

Cr

pell Creek wat ately 36,291 acres (5 quare

miles) above Calispell Lake in Pend Oreille and Stevens Counties. Calispell Creek from 

its confluence with the Pend Oreille River to Lake Calispell (6.1 miles) is a -moving, 

h rridor flo ds. Smalle Creek en Calispell

C ontribut ish habitat. Calispe e is a

large lake situated within a flat h receives flow from Winchester, 

D outh Fork Ca

ey work conducted 001 indicates as much as 21.9 miles 

of stream ay be availabl h D 

(2001a,b) concluded that habita f cover, few pools, low amount of 

l and water high water tempera during

t the lake an pell Creek may limit salmonid 

species’ access to the stream ha e degraded conditions, operation 

o cks upstream f the mainstem Pend Oreill ver into

Calispell Creek. 

t, westslope cutthroat trout, and sculpin were found to reside in Smalle 

C r Creek also pecies, in addition to rainbow trout, 

dace and suckers (FS, 1995). 

rimble Creek wate astward from the Sel

M pumping stati ble Creek pumps the stream

f slough, whic iver at approximat M 66.7. 

Upstream of the pumps, the low of Trimble Creek flows through -gradient 

p le, r habitats, but with little riparian r.

B M 4.2, ood tree canopy cover, w table

banks and diverse instream hab sible fish migration barrier at RM 4.2, 

consisting of a short waterfall a low. FS personne ducted 

an electrofishing survey on Trimble Creek in 1992. Westslope cutthroat trout were 

observed in the upper reaches o

Reservoir

The fish community in the BCR portion of the lower Pend Oreille River is a 

mixture of native and introduced species. The most abundant species are yellow perch, 

nt gradient). The lower Cee Cee Ah Creek flows through low-gradient 

, dominated by beaver ponds an

reille River at app . Brown and bro d in the l

ortions of t oat and sculpin use the m

Calispell/Winchester eeks

The Calis ershed drains approxim 6.7 s

slow

eavily silted river co

reek from the west, c

wing through pasture lan

ing another 7.3 miles of f

ters

ll Lak

, exposed basin, whic

orchester, and S lispell creeks.

Surv by the PUD in April 2

 habitat m e to fish above Calispell Lake, although t

t conditions (e.g., lack o

e PU

arge woody debris) quality problems (due to tures

he summer) within d lower reaches of Calis

bitat. In addition to thes

f the CCPP blo ish migration from e Ri

Brook trou

reek. Wincheste contained these fish s

Trimble Creek 

The T rshed flows generally e kirk

ountains. The

low into Trimble

on near the mouth of Trim

h joins the Pend Oreille R ely R

er 3.6 miles low

asture land, with pool, riff un, and glide cove

etween RM 3.6 and R Trimble Creek has g

itat. There is a pos

ith s

nd shallow plunge pool be l con

f this watershed.

Box Canyon

87 
88 

p pkinse fish, largemouth bass, tench, black crappie, northern pikeminnow, and 

m

a nnett and Liter, 19 nnett and 

G ett,

v ty of s methods to characterize fish species in the BCR from 1988 to1990. 

N ly 82,000 fish were sampled during this period (table 9). The most abundant game 

species was yellow perch (over 30,000 capture

t sample catch. Pumpkinseed sunfish made up about 21 percent, followed by 

tench, largemouth bass, and northern pikeminnow, each about 7 percent. Combined trout 

s he o ll catch sampled. W were the 

m ent of 

t almonids comprise a similar percentage of the catch in the Pend Oreille River 

a b

ative Species in Box Canyon Reservoir 

w efis ty or mmon specie discuss 

t below but provide more detailed information for bull trout and westslope cutthroat 

t in

Bull Trout—Bull trout, federally listed as threatened throughout its range in the 

c mi States (64 CFR 58910), are rarely found in the BCR, t 

p lat

b t o 0,000 fish captured were found within BCR (Ashe and Scholz, 1992; 

B n iter, 1991). More detailed information regarding bull trout in the project 

vicinity is provi

estslope Cutthroat Trout—Both resident and migratory populations of cutthroat 

t ll er basin, although, currently ident 

populations

n tthroat trout distributions in the Pend Oreille River were thought to extend only 

a A hroat trout 

d ibu vermann, 

1894). 

Mountain Whitefish ies 

c ht R, comprising just over 5 percent of the total 

c . Adfluvial populatio f mountain whitefish were found within Cedar and Ruby 

creeks (PUD, 2001a,b), although other tributary streams are also likely used for 

spawning. Preferred habitat is within mainstem d runs of larg ers during the 

s er and bac wate e pson, 1976). Spawning 

occurs in tributaries during the late fall and 

from 48 to 52°F ( r (Ihnat and 

Bulkley, 1984). 

um

ou

arr

arie

ear

he to

pec

ost

otal

bov

hit

hese

rout

oter

opu

ull 

enn

rout

ativ

s fa

istr

aug

atch

umm

ed sun

nta

In

in whitefish (table 8). 

v

 19

est

94

am

iga

) a

ple

tio

nd Eastern Wa

ns by the Uni

shi

ve

ngt

rsity

o

 o

n 

f Id

Un

ho 

rsi

(Be

ty (A

91; Be

ive she and Scholz, 1992) used a 

d), which was approximately 37 percent of 

tal 

ies 

 ab

). S

e Al

N

Native species in the BCR incl

com

und

p

an

ris

t s

ed

alm

 les

o

s t

nid

han

, w

 1

ith

 pe

 4

rc

,38

ent

5 c

 of t

ap

vera

 ov

hit

5.4 

efish

tured er the 3-year period ( perc

eni Falls dam (CES, 1998).

ud

a va

e bu

rie

ll tro

 o

ut, westslope cutthroat trout, mountain 

h, northern pikeminnow, and f m e co s. We

 section 3.3.5.

no

ion

us 

s r

f o

Un

esi

ve

ited

din

r 8

 with mos

g in several tributary streams of the lower Pend Oreille River. Only 6 

trou

ett a

W

 are

e cu

r as 

d L

ded in section 3.3.5. 

 foun

 are more common in the tributarie

d in the lower Pend Orei e Riv , res

s. According to Behnke (1992), historical 

lbe

 m

ni F

ay

a

 h

lls

ave

; h

 ex

ow

te

eve

nde

r,

d 

 th

do

ere

wn

 is 

str

som

eam

e

o

 ev

f A

ide

lb

nc

en

e th

i F

at

alls

 we

 (G

sts

ilb

lop

er

e 

t an

cutt

tion d E

—M

mp

o

li

un

ng 

tai

in 

n w

the

h

 BC

itefish were the dominant salmonid spec

during 3 years of sa

ns o

 riffles an

 (Davies and Thom

e riv

um

k r areas during th winter

winter. Preferred water temperatures range 

9 to 11ΕC) but may be higher during the spring and s me
89 
Table 8. Summary of fish species found within the lower Pend Oreille River.

(Source: Stovall et al., 2001) 

Common Name Genus species Native

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Yes 

Westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi Yes 

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss No 

Eastern brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis No 

Brow

amaychush No 

Small

Black

Pump

Yes 

Long

n trout Salmo trutta No 

Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Yes 

Pygmy whitefish Prosopium coulteri Yes 

Lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis No 

Kokanee Oncorhynchus nerka No 

Lake trout Salvelinus n

mouth bass Micropterus dolomieui No 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides No 

Yellow perch Perca flavescens No 

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum vitreum No 

bullhead Ictalurus melas No 

Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus No 

Northern pike Esox lucius No 

Northern pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis Yes 

Peamouth Mylocheilus caurinus Yes 

Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus Yes 

Tench Tinca tinca No 

Sculpin (various species) Cottus spp. Yes

kinseed sunfish Lepomis gibbosus No 

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus No 

Burbot Lota lota Yes 

Largescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilus

nose sucker Catostomus catostomus Yes 

90 
91 

Table 9. Su d i enn

 an 91

mmary of all fish capture

Ashe

n BCR, 1988 to 1990. (Source: Ashe and Scholz, 1992; B

d Scholz, 1992 Bennett and Liter, 19

Species 1988 % 1989 % 1990 % 1989 % 1990 % Yellow perch 8,484 35.9 7,983 43.3 4,481 42.6 5,827 36.7 3,490 2Pumpkinseed 6,821 28.9 3,401 18.5 1,460 13.9 3,793 23.9 1,774 1

Tench

LM bass

1,949 8.3 1,

1,761 7.5 1,

532 8.3 1,052 10.0 740 4.7 907

777 9.6 912 8.7 1,073 6.8 771

65

N. pikeminno

Lar

w 1,129 4.8 631 3.4 302 2.9 1,864 11.7 1,753 1

gescale sucker 976 4.1 7

efish 872 3.7 1,

95 4.3 592 5.6 720 4.5 1,333 1

059 5.7 709 6.7 434 2.7 1,311

0

9

Mountain whit 

Longnose sucker 741 3.1 532 2.9 363 3.5 102 0.6 122 0

Brown bullhead 20

Black cra

271 1.1 2 1.2 185 1.8 368 2.3 229 1

ppie 47

Peamouth 6

Brown trou

264 1.1 2

178 0.8 7

1.3 156 1.5 479 3.0 662

0.4 137 1.3 309 1.9 233

51

t 18

Cutthroat trou

119 0.5 1 0.6 105 1.0 80 0.5 70 0

t 6

Redside shine

12 0.1 1 0.1 8 0.1 4 0.0 17 0

r 2

Rainbow trou

11 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 32 0.2 112 0

t 3

Rainbow X 3

Scul

6 0.0 1

0 0.0

0.1 10 0.1 28 0.2 55

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

0

0

pin 1

Brook trou

6 0.0 1 0.1 1 0.0 19 0.1 16 0

t 2 0

Bull trou

1 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 5 

t 2 0

Kokanee 2 0

Lake trou

1 0.0

0 0.0 1

0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1

0.1 32 0.3 3 0.0 11

t 2 0

Goldfish 0 0Black bullhea

0 0.0

0 0.0

0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 0

0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 0

d 0 3

Total

0 0.0

23

0.0 0 0.0 10 0.1 454 

,602 18,434 10,514 15,887 13,326 
Nor

Columbia River basin (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979). Habitat is typically within lakes 

and reservoirs, and the northern pikeminnow’s p of a wide array of fish, 

in a ib , de din va ty be an ta y i

when pikeminnow reach and exceed 12 inch Scul s are bably e mo

co nly u prey ish, b orth pikem nnow also prey juve e salm ids 

when available. Their preferred habitat is within deeper waters, pools, and slough areas 

(Beamesderfer, 1992). Spawning occurs in gravelly shallows along lake shores or in the 

lower portions of tributary streams (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Northern pik inno

co ed a roxim ly 7 rcent of the fi sampl in BC uring 1988 to 1990. 

Tributary stream trapping (1998 to 2000) found 11 pikeminnows out of

ca d du the ear s y. P minnows were present in Cee Cee Ah, Indian, 

Skookum, and LeClerc creeks. 

Othe ative h spe s with

in pyg whit h, p outh, redside shiner, sculpin ( ious s cies), rbot,

largescale sucker, and longnose sucker (table 8). Sturgeon have also been reported in the 

reservoir; however, Ashe and Scholz (1992) did not encounte y du extensive 

sa g fro

l fish ecies ribut

st drai g to t BCR, due in rge pa ing e rts by DFW

fr e 19 throu the ly 19 s (Sto ll et al., 2001). is spe es pre s coo

cl adwa r pond sprin s, or cool lakes with high DO concentrations 

(Wydosky a Whit , 1979). Optimum water tem rature nge f 55 6°F

(1 18.9 ). W in w er s ems, BCR brook trout congregate near sources of 

springs or at the mouths of cool tributary streams. 

roo out were the most widely distributed and abun nt sal nid s ies

pr in tr ary s am s eys a were und i ery st y rea Den es w

as as 3 fish p 100 ters i he sam led ar (KNR and FW 95).

V r

Rainbow Trout—Rainbow trout prefer relatively small, fast-moving streams with a 

high pr res range 

from 5 iser, 1991). Tributary streams draining into 

BCR a

the

thern Pikeminnow—Northern pikeminnow are distributed throughout the 

rey consists

sects, nd amph ians pen g on a ilabili . Fish come impor nt pre tem

es. pin pro th st

mmo sed f ut n ern i on nil on

em w

mpris pp ate pe sh ed R d

 a total 1,676 fish 

pture ring 3-y tud ike

Other Species— r n fis cie in the BCR and its tributaries 

clude my efis eam var pe bu

r an ring

mplin m May to July 1988. 

Non-Native Species Within BCR 

Eastern Brook Trout—Eastern brook trout is the principa sp in t ary

reams nin he la rt to extensive stock ffo W

om th 30s gh ear 90 va Th ci fer l,

ear he te

nd

s,

ney

g-fed stream

pe s ra rom to 6

2.8 to ΕC ith arm yst

B k tr da mo pec

esent

high

ibut

0.6

tre

er

urv

me

nd

n t

fo

p

n ev

eas

ud

D

ch.

WD

siti

, 19

ere

e y few brook trout were found to be present within the reservoir. 

oportion of riffles and pools (Barnhart, 1991). Preferred water temperatu

0 to 55°F (10 to 13ΕC) (Bjornn and Re

re not well suited to trout survival, except in the higher gradient areas where water 

temperatures are cooler. In surveys conducted from 1988 to 1990, in 1993, and from

1995 to 1999, rainbow trout were found in LeClerc Creek, Ruby Creek, Lost Creek,

north fork of Calispell Creek, and Cedar Creek (PUD, 2000). Very low numbers of 

rainbow trout were encountered in the reservoir sampling effort. 

92 
Brown Trout—German brown trout, a non-native species originally introduced to 

North America from Europe, occur in most tributaries and the mainstem of the Pend 

Oreille River (POCD, 2001). Brown trout were found to be the most abundant trout 

species encountered in 3 years of BCR sampling, although trout species comprised less

than 1 percent of the overall catch sampled (Ashe and Scholz, 1992). Tributary sampling

indicated Cee Cee Ah and Skookum creeks contained the highest densities of brown 

h,

and LeCler

wn trout can e an thrive in wa er waters (65 to 7 ) 

compared to other species of trout (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979). Their habitat 

preference is within de s or under banks reams, rivers, and lakes. These areas 

are characteristic of the BCR and its tributary streams. Spawning occurs in the fall 

(October to December) with pre-spawning mi early October and 

post-spawning migrations occurring in late December (PUD, 2000). However, adfluvial 

brow t were foun reservoir as water temperatures reached 66 

to 68°F (10 to 20ΕC) during the summer.

s Species—L outh bass are currently the largest-sized game fish in the 

Pend Oreille River with a sufficiently large population to provide a recreational fishery. 

In 3 years of sampling, largemouth bass comprised almost 8 percent of the total fish 

species present in the reservoir. Populations within BCR were estimated at 657,549 in 

1988; 5

ecause body size is a primary factor influencing 

overwi

reduction in releases from Albeni

Falls dam

abando ible to predation. 

m

trout. Adfluvial populations of brown trout were found in Indian, Skookum, Cee Cee A

c creeks (PUD, 2000).

Bro surviv d rm 5°F [18 to 24ΕC]

ep pool of st

grations occurring in

n trou d to migrate out of the

Bas argem

90,906 in 1989; and 570,098 in 1990 (Ashe and Scholz, 1992). 

The optimal temperature for growth of adult bass ranges from 24 to 30ΕC (Ashe 

and Scholz, 1992). The growth of fry is inhibited below a temperature of 15°C (Strawn, 

1961) and is ideal between 27 and 30ΕC. Largemouth bass seldom eat at temperatures 

less than 10°C. Feeding increases from 10 to 20°C, and from 20 to 26.7°C, bass feed 

heavily. Water temperatures of about 26.7°C appear to be optimum; however, at 

temperatures above 26.7°C, feeding behavior declines (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979; 

Oster, 1992). The cool spring and early summer water temperatures encountered in the 

BCR may delay the onset of bass spawning, thus reducing the size of young-of-the-year 

fish entering their first winter season. B

nter survival, water temperatures in the BCR may be limiting bass production. 

Further, the majority of bass spawning in the BCR occurs in the shallow sloughs 

and backwaters of the reservoir, usually in water depths of less than 6.5 feet (Ashe and 

Scholz, 1992). Decreases in water elevation due to

 during this period (June and July) may lead to stranding of the bass nests or 

nment by the male bass, leaving the nests suscept

Other Species—In addition to trout and bass introductions, various non-native fish

species have been introduced into the Pend Oreille River. Northern pike have migrated 

downstream from the Clark Fork River in Montana, and walleye were stocked (500,000 

and 253,000) by the Washington Department of Wildlife (now, the WDFW) in 1983 and

1984 (Bennett and Liter, 1991). A small number of kokanee, thought to be migrants fro

93 
Lake Pend Oreille and its tributaries, are found in BCR. The Lake Pend Oreille 

population first appeared in 1933, likely derived from stock that moved downstream after

their introduction into Flathead Lake. Other non-native fish species found in the BCR 

include yellow perch, lake whitefish, lake trout, smallmouth bass, bullhead, tench, 

pumpkinseed, and black crappie (table 8; Stovall et al., 2001). 

Recreational Sport and Subsistence Fishery 

Prior to the completion of BCD, the BCR reach of Pend Oreille River supporte

coldwater fishery. According to Bennett and Liter (1991), the majority of the fish creel

was rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish (table 10). However, this 

creel composition may have been due, in part, to the stocking of large numbers of 

rainbow trout and cutthroat trout by Washington State (PUD, 2000). In what is now 

BCR, 226,328 rainbow trout were planted from 1935 to 1953. An additional 48,445 

cutthroat trout were also planted during this period, with 32,500 being planted in the Pend 

Oreille River in 1939 (Bennett and Liter, 1991). After dam construction, salmonid plants 

were mostly discontinued, and there was an apparent shift in the composi

d a

ed

tion of the creel

toward sloughs of the BCR, provided

spawn rgemouth bass, pumpkinseed, and 

yellow

sh

hey

do

-

t,

kes throughout

the are a

a

ecies

found within the reservoir. 

warmwater species. The warmer, shallow

ing areas for warmwater species, such as la

perch, and the subsequent proliferation of aquatic macrophytes, provided prime 

habitat for yellow perch, tench, and suckers (Barber et al., 1988). Limited creel survey 

data indicate that prior to BCD operation, whitefish were the most abundant species 

caught in the Pend Oreille River sport fishery (WDFW, unpublished data). Rainbow and 

cutthroat trout were the next most abundant species caught. This trend continued for 8 

years post-construction, but by 1968, largemouth bass became the most popular sportfi

in BCR. Largemouth bass continue to be the principal sportfish in BCR. Although t

are the most abundant fish in BCR, panfish (i.e., yellow perch, crappie, and sunfish)

not reach a quality size for most anglers and thus comprise only a small portion of the 

sport harvest (FERC, 1999). 

Historical subsistence fishing by the Tribe consisted largely of trout fishing year

round in the Pend Oreille River and the Clark Fork, but also included suckers, bull trou

pikeminnow, chub, and whitefish in rivers, streams, sloughs, creeks, and la

a. Principal trout fishing locations included Ruby Creek, LeClerc Creek, Tacom

Creek, Calispell Creek, Cee Cee Ah Creek, and others in and around the Cusick are

(PUD, 2000). A more detailed description of these streams, additional fish locations, and 

the species harvested by the Tribe is available in Smith (1983a) and Smith (1983b). 

Currently, subsistence fishing has shifted toward the harvest of more warmwater sp

94 
Table 10.Summary of historical creel survey data in BCR. (Source: PUD, 

2001a,b) 

Fish Speciesa

Year RB EBT BrnT Perch WhF LMB Cat Cr

No. of 

Anglers CT

1948 55 33 99 -- -- -- 5 -- -- --

1949 53 53 1 2 -- -- -- --

1950 52 39 3 -- -- -- 9 -- -- --

1951 82 27 -- -- 6 -- 294 -- -- --

1952 8 5 3 -- -- -- 65 -- -- --

1953 104 24 3 -- 1 -- 335 -- --

--

--

1954 2 -- -- -- -- -- 30 -- -- --

1955 -- -- 22 -- -- --

-- 29

--

2

1968 33 1 -- -- -- 3 1 75 50 3

1969 -- -- 1 19 5 204 50 39

9 1 2 --

1957 16 -- -- -- -- -- 59 -- -- --

1958 36 1 3 -- -- – 35 19

1959 16 4 2 -- -- -- 18 -- -- --

1960 8 4 – -- -- -- 26 -- -- --

1961 4 1 7 -- -- -- -- -- --

1962 13 1 13 -- -- -- 11 -- -- --

1963 16 -- 6 -- -- -- -- 6 -- --

1965 5 -- -- -- -- -- 4 5 -- 2

1966 8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1967 17 -- -- -- 1 16 -- 4 -- --

93 --

a CT = cutthroat trout, RB = rainbow trout, EBT = E. brook trout, BrnT = brown trout, Perch = 

perch, WhF = whitefish, LMB = largemouth bass, Cat = catfish, Cr = crappie.

Artificial Production/Enhancement 

Supplementation or introduction of native and non-native fish species via ha

plants in the Pend Oreille River and its tributaries have occurred since before the turn

the 20th century. Brown trout were introduced to the Pend Oreille River during th

1890s from an original Scottish strain (Ashe and Scholz, 1992). From 1935 to 1953, 

more than 226,000 rainbow trout and 48,000 cutthroat trout were planted into what is 

now the BCR (Bennett and Liter, 1991). Hatch

tchery

of

e

ery releases were largely discontinued in 

the 1950s because of poor angler success, although intermittent net pen stocking and 

95 
release

to the

e

s have occurred near Ione, Ruby, Metaline, and elsewhere along BCR (table 11).

Brook trout releases into streams, ponds, and lakes have occurred intermittently in

1990s. Kokanee (land-locked sockeye salmon) have also been observed in the reservoir,

but these are presumed to have originated from upstream in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, 

and flushed over Albeni Falls dam (Bennett and Liter, 1991; Ashe and Scholz, 1992).

Table 11. Summary of rainbow trout stocking history in BCR portion of Pend Oreill

River (1983–1994). (Source: PUD, 2000) 

Year Number released Fish/pound Hatchery facility

1988 20,000 4 Metaline Ponds

1989 37,841 4.5 Colville

1990 35,810 3 Colville

1 16–20 Colville

1

991 25,000

991 15,868 2.2 Colville

1992 25,000 7 Colville

1993 57,189 3 Colville

1994 38,760 5 Colville

Other non-native species of fish have been introduced into the reservoir and 

tributaries. Northern pike have migrated downstream from the Clark Fork River, 

Montana. Walleye were planted by WDFW (formerly Washington Department of Game

and Washington Department of Wildlife) in 1983 and 1984 (500,000 and 253,000, 

respectively) (Bennett and Liter, 1991). WDFW also planted 148 tagged adult walleye i

1987 (WDFW, as cited in Ashe and Scholz, 1992). During the course of the studies, 

several anglers reported catching walleye, but there were neither confirmed sightings of 

walleye nor any walleye caught during the fisheries studies conducted (Ashe and Scholz, 

1992; Bennett and Liter, 1991). Recently, a 29-inch walleye was caught downstream of 

BCD near Metaline Falls (PUD, 2000). 

n

y

CR 

1997 found extremely low densities of fish. Extensive live-trapping (over 6,000 trapping 

hours) produced only one pumpkinseed, one yellow perch, two sculpin, a bull trout, and 

three northern pikeminnow. Hydroacoustic surveys also indicated low densities of fish 

within the Boundary reservoir. The steep topography of the banks result in few littoral 

In 1996, BPA provided funds to the Tribe to construct a largemouth bass hatcher

on BCR. Annual production is approximately 150,000 juvenile bass, of which 100,000 

are fry and 50,000 are fingerlings. The goal is to create a productive bass fishery in B

that is available to Tribal members and the public. 

Existing Fisheries Downstream of the Project 

Sampling conducted in the Pend Oreille River downstream of the BCR during 

96 
areas around this reservoir, thus limiting the food base upon which fish species depend 

(PUD, 2000). There is also little available spawning and rearing habitat in the tributaries

to Boundary reservoir (due to impassible falls or dams). High levels of TDG during spill 

period a ay also affect the existing distribution and 

compo

let of Slate Creek by biologists from the FS and 

WDFW during the summer of 1994. The following year, two more bull trout were 

capture trout

was captured (marked with an adipose fin clip) in a live trap in the mouth of Slate Creek. 

Another bull trout was captured near the mouth of Slate Creek in 1999. 

or food

resources. The Kalispels harves

e

the Kalispels fished for salmon at Kettle Falls on the Columbia River, 

and on the lower Pend Oreille, Sa

ces 

s in the w ters downstream of BCD m

sition of fish in the reservoir. Cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, smallmouth bass, 

northern pikeminnow, mountain whitefish, yellow perch, sucker, and largemouth bass 

have also been captured in Boundary reservoir near the mouth of Slate Creek. Tributary 

streams draining into Boundary reservoir were found to contain brook trout, rainbow 

trout, cutthroat, and low numbers of sculpin, sucker, brown trout, and mountain 

whitefish. A more recent summary of fish species presence prepared by Entrix (2002)

reports that bull trout were captured at the mouth of Slate Creek and in Sweet Creek. 

Two bull trout were captured near the out

d in the same vicinity by WDFW staff. In September 1997, a 9-inch bull

Fish Resources of Cultural Importance 

Historical records document that the Kalispels used 24 species of fish f

ted trout, suckers, char (bull trout), pikeminnow, chub, 

and whitefish throughout their traditional hunting and fishing territory. In addition to th

Pend Oreille River, several creeks within the project area supported major fisheries. The 

principal fishing locations for trout in the project area were at Ruby, LeClerc, Tacoma, 

Calispell, and Cee Cee Ah creeks, and other streams in the Cusick area (PUD, 2000). 

Fish were caught with hook and line, with spears and harpoons, with nets of several 

types, and on stranding platforms. But by far the most productive method involved

catching them in basket traps that were set into brush or stick weirs or suspended at creek 

or river falls. Most species were eaten fresh or were dried and stored for later use. 

Although being confined to a reservation restricted the Kalispels’ use of some of their 

most important fishing sites, living members of the Kalispels contend that the resident 

fishery remained an important part of their subsistence until about 1958. 

Salmon were also an important food staple for the Kalispels. Natural barriers 

blocked the upstream migration of anadromous fish in the Pend Oreille River past 

Metaline Falls, but

lmo, Spokane, and Little Spokane rivers. The Kalispels 

also traded for salmon with neighboring groups (Scholz et al., 1985; PUD, 2000). 

Fisheries Management Agencies 

Federal, state, Tribal, and county agencies manage the land and aquatic resour

within the Box Canyon reach of the Pend Oreille River. This section presents a brief

97 
overview of the agencies and Tribes that could influence any proposed project chan

habitat measures co

ges or

nsidered by the PUD.

ies

als and

n

al

in

throug f

he

he rest of the drainage that is within 

Washi e have 

Federal Agenc

The FS is primarily responsible for managing federal land within the project 

vicinity. The Box Canyon watershed resides in both the CNF and Kaniksu National 

Forest. The CNF administers the Kaniksu National Forest. The FS currently has a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with WDFW. The FS is guided by the go

objectives outlined in the Colville National Forest Land and Resources Management Pla

(CNF Plan). The 1988 plan was amended by Inland Fish (INFISH, 1995) and Region

Forester Amendments 1 and 2. Management is also subject to the future Record of 

Decision on the EIS for Interior’s Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project. 

State Management Agencies 

At the state level, WDFW is responsible for managing fishery resources in the

project vicinity, but IDFG is responsible for fishery resources in Idaho. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife—WDFW and the Tribe are 

co-managers of the fisheries resources of BCR and its tributaries. WDFW and the Tribe

have developed a joint management plan for the reservoir and its tributaries (KNRD and 

WDFW, 1995). WDFW currently has separate MOUs with the FS and the Tribe. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game—IDFG has responsibility for management 

of that portion of the BCR located in Idaho. Idaho has no management objectives 

specific to that short portion of the Pend Oreille River downstream of Albeni Falls dam

Idaho. Within Lake Pend Oreille, IDFG is attempting to restore kokanee populations 

h outplanting, eradication of predator species (rainbow and lake trout), reduction o

competitor species (Mysis shrimp), and lake-level modifications designed to improve 

kokanee spawning and rearing habitat. 

Tribal Management 

The Tribe and WDFW have a joint MOU to cooperate in the protection and 

enhancement of natural resources in the BCR and its tributaries in Washington. T

Tribe promulgates regulations for fishing and hunting on the KIR for both Tribal and

non-Tribal members, and WDFW does so for t

ngton. As co-managers of the fisheries resource, WDFW and the Trib

developed a joint management plan for the reservoir and its tributaries and natural 

resources found within the BCR (KNRD and WDFW, 1995). WDFW currently has 

separate MOUs with the FS and the Tribe. Additional biological objectives were 

recommended in the Kalispel Resident Fish Project Annual Report (KNRD and WDFW, 

1995). The overall biological objectives, as adopted by the NPPC, may be modified if 

monitoring and evaluation determines a need.

98 
The Tribe also developed its own Fish and Wildlife Management Plan (KNRD,

1997), which outlines the mission, goals, and objectives of the ceded lands of the 

Kalispels. It is the approach of the Tribe, through watershed management principles, to

manag s

suitabl onnative sh.

Therefore, a goal of the Tribe is to establish successful non-native fisheries where it is 

feasible and that this action will not harm native fish populations. Otherwise exotic 

species would be removed if their presence threatens native fish (KNRD, 1997). 

s

in the county as well as landowners, the Tribe, and the PUD. Coordination 

of the g the Tribe,

FS, the

the

HB 

and

n of the Governor’s 

Salmo B 2496 legislation to form

a singl on State’s salmon

restora n

recent listi

Par

administer

restora n

funding th

enhancem ss will facilitate

Pend Oreille County in accessi

More i

growth an

e sustainable native populations and habitats as a priority. Non-native population

and/or artificial habitat management will be addressed based upon population health, 

habitat condition, and feasibility (KNRD, 1997). The KNRD fisheries division

recognizes that resource use practices have changed habitat conditions that are more 

e for non-native than native fish. It is recognized that the introduction of n

fish may threaten the existence and persistence of locally adapted native fi

County Management and Involvement 

Pend Oreille Watershed Committee—The Pend Oreille Watershed Committee wa

formed in August 1994 and was initially coordinated by the staff of the POCD. The 

Committee now has more than 60 members with representatives from all of the state, 

local, and federal natural resource agencies that have regulatory authority and/or some

representation

Committee is now shared by several natural resource agencies includin

POCD, and others.

Other Watershed Management Activities—Lead Entity - Watershed Planning 

Under 2514 Legislation. In 1998, enactment by the Washington State Legislature of

Salmon Recovery Planning Act (ESHB 2496), the Watershed Management Act (ES

2514), and associated funding laid the foundation for localized watershed planning

salmon recovery throughout Washington State. In 1999, the creatio

n Recovery Funding Board (SB 5595) modified the ESH

e funding entity (state and federal funding) for Washingt

tio efforts. Additional federal dollars are being made available in response to the 

ngs of spring chinook, summer steelhead, and bull trout under the ESA. 

ticular to the Columbia River basin, the Fish and Wildlife Program, 

ed by the NPPC and BPA, allocates additional federal funding for watershed 

tio projects in the Columbia region. Pend Oreille County has received initial 

rough the 2514 process26 and is working on a watershed plan and bull trout 

ent/recovery plan for the WRIA 62. Products from this proce

ng additional funding through these and other programs. 

mportantly, Pend Oreille County will have the tools and knowledge to manage 

d allocate water resources responsibly for the protection and enhancement of

 

ed by the Washington Legislature in 1998, the Watershed Planning Act (ESHB 2514) 

for locally led, cooperative ef

26 Authoriz

provides forts to assess water resource needs and develop comprehensive 

and effective solutions at the watershed scale. 

99 
fisheri r d

to be coor

3.3.

Du

interested onnectivity (fish passage), the effects of project 

operati s

important

following

those mea

and our an

Re

PU

drawdown

Env

Inte

operate th BCR

water surf

gage at the a

study plan

when wate

Interior’s

the first 3 at

3 inch t,

and 100 p 6).

In addition s that the 

PUD notif evious condition. Interior states 

that these measures are designed to enhance fish habitat, reduce fish stranding, increase 

fish ac of largemouth bass nests in sloughs and 

backw

those spec

inches ove

Washingto

IDF rawdown of the reservoir in fall, winter, and spring to 

provide free-flowing river conditions in the upper portion (Idaho) of BCR (10[j] 1). 

IDFG believes that the benefits of this action include a reduction of flood potential, an 

es esources during the coming decades. Watershed planning activities will nee

dinated with activities associated with the relicensing efforts of the PUD. 

3.2 Environmental Effects 

ring the Box Canyon Project scoping process, the resource agencies and other

parties identified fish habitat c

on on fishery resources, and the restoration/enhancement of native salmonids as 

issues to be addressed in the Commission’s environmental analysis. In the 

section, we describe those environmental measures proposed by the PUD, 

sures specified or recommended by the resource agencies and interested parties,

alysis of each these measures. 

servoir Level Restrictions—Ramping Rates, Elevations, Velocities 

D Proposal 

The PUD proposes to operate the Box Canyon Project as an ROR project with a 

rate in BCR not to exceed 3 inches per hour. 

ironmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

rior, in its modified Section 4(e) conditions (4[e] 3), specifies that the PUD 

e Box Canyon Project so that, at all times, the rate of drawdown of the

ace stage does not exceed 3 inches within any 1-hour period as measured at the 

BCD headwater. Interior specifies that the PUD develop and implement

to assess the effects of drawdown on fish after the first 5 drawdown events 

r levels recede for 12 or more consecutive hours at 3 inches per hour. 

condition also specifies that the PUD assess fish stranding following each of

drawdown events when water levels recede for 12 or more consecutive hours

es per hour after trout production levels reach 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percen

ercent of the reservoir target levels specified in Section 4(e) condition (4[e]

, Interior specifies monthly reporting of drawdown rates and specifie

y the Secretary of any deviations from the pr

cess to tributaries, and reduce dewatering

ater areas.

The Tribe recommends similar reservoir ramping rates and stranding studies as 

ified by Interior. It further recommends a cap of 12 inches per day and 36 

r a 7-day time frame, as measured at the USGS gage station at Ione, 

n (10[a] 1). 

G recommends a d

100 
increas

seasonal f

Ou

Rap ,

have the p hs.

As water r

of fish in s

mortality; fish

redds (spa

reduction

organisms

governing often

establi

Wh

reservoir d

minimize

According

was re e

River s r h

species as .

Taylor, Di

2001). Th

drawdown

Alt

to prevent sh

may still e

sloughs. 

The e

would furt , as discussed in section

3.3.1, G o

drawdown

flooding o

Dra all, winter, and spring months, as 

recommended by IDFG, would likely reduce flooding impacts; however, it would not 

have a the Idaho portion of the

reservo rease of 2

feet abo e er is

ever above

license ap

more. Ch

ed potential for spawning by brown trout and rainbow trout, and improved 

isheries.

r Analysis

id changes in reservoir elevation, associated with long periods of drawdown

otential to adversely affect aquatic resources in BCR and its associated sloug

ecedes during reservoir drawdown, potential effects can include the stranding 

hallow areas and off-channel habitat, resulting in immediate or delayed 

temporary loss of habitat or loss of habitat access; and the dewatering of

wning nests), aquatic insects, and plant life (Hunter, 1992). The faster the 

in water surface elevation (or stage), the more likely fish and/or other aquatic 

are to be stranded or adversely affected. To minimize these impacts, limits

the rate, timing, and number of project induced stage changes are

shed to protect aquatic organisms. 

ile there is no specific documentation of fish stranding in the BCR due to 

rawdowns, a drawdown rate of less than 3 inches per hour would likely 

the potential for fish stranding in the BCR, benefiting aquatic resources. 

to Interior and the Tribe, a less conservative 4-inch-per- hour drawdown rate 

cently recommended to avoid fish stranding at the Peace River Project. The Peac

ha es similarities with the Box Canyon reach in terms of both topography and fis

semblage (letter to D. Boergers, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, from W.R

rector, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Interior, November 5, 

erefore, it is reasonable to expect that a more restrictive 3-inch-per-hour 

rate is within an appropriate range to protect aquatic organisms in the BCR.

hough we expect the 3-inch-per-hour drawdown rate to be within a safe range

fish stranding, the potential for drawdown-related mortality or injury to fi

xist within BCR, particularly in the low-gradient off-channel areas and 

caps of 12 inches per day and 36 inches per week recommended by the Trib

her decrease the likelihood of fish stranding. However

e logy and Soils, and section 3.3.2, Water Quantity and Quality, rate of 

limitation must also take into account Plan E and its provisions to reduce 

n farmlands in the Calispell Valley.

wdown of the BCR during the f

substantial effect on aquatic habitat conditions in

ir. The current project is licensed to allow a maximum water level inc

v natural levels on the Pend Oreille at Albeni Falls dam, and the most the riv

natural levels in Idaho is 2 feet (PUD, 2001a,b). According to the PUD’s 

plication, much of the Pend Oreille River in this area is 15 to 18 feet deep or

anging the water level in this reach by 2 feet would have only a minor effect on 

101 
habitat con

conditions

showed hi

Dra

Plan E. T

and make

Pu

PU

The

stating tha

migrat

upstream a

PUD furth

bull trout;

not justifie

Environmental Measures from Agenci

ys

(appendix

upstream v

conditions

fishways (

BC

• license issuance, develop and submit for approval by the 

ain in 

w).

•

trap-and-haul fishway. 

ditions, representing very little benefit to resident salmonids over existing 

. A study on brown trout spawning using actual flows through the reservoir 

gher habitat values with 2 feet of backwater than without (PUD, 2001a,b). 

wdown of the BCR may also affect project economics and the provisions of 

herefore, we discuss this issue further in section 4, Developmental Analysis, 

our final conclusion in section 5, Staff’s Conclusions. 

Upstream Fish Passage—Box Canyon Reservoir and Calispell Creek 

mping Plant 

D Proposal 

PUD does not propose upstream fish passage facilities at BCD or CCPP,

t radio telemetry studies do not indicate that those fish captured in the BCR are

ing below BCD. The PUD also indicates that modifications to BCD to facilitate 

nd downstream passage are difficult, impractical and not cost effective. The 

er states that Calispell Creek is degraded and may be incapable of supporting

therefore, it concludes that construction of fish passage facilities at CCPP is

d.

es and Other Interested Parties 

Interior, in its modified 4(e) conditions and Section 18 prescriptions for fishwa

A), specifies that the PUD implement a phased installation of permanent 

olitional fishways (PUVFs) at the BCD and the CCPP. The following 

are prescribed for the construction, operation and maintenance of these 

see appendix A for a more detailed description).

D temporary upstream (trap-and-haul) fishway: 

Within 6 months after

FWS plans and specifications for installation of a temporary trap-and-haul 

fishway below BCD. The temporary trap-and-haul fishway would rem

operation until replaced by an interim trap-and-haul fishway (described belo

Within 6 months after license issuance, submit for review and approval by the 

FWS an O&M Plan for the temporary trap-and-haul fishway that describes 

anticipated O&M schedules, inspections, and contingencies. 

• Within 6 months after license issuance, develop and submit for the review and 

approval of the FWS a plan for monitoring the temporary trap-and-haul 

fishway at BCD. The monitoring plan would provide for the submission of an 

annual monitoring report for the duration of the operation of the temporary 

102 
• Within 6 months after license issuance, develop a plan for post-installation 

e

he

ul 

n of

itial

y, the PUD would provide to the FWS a 

s

ed that all

•

BC

ystem

evaluations of the temporary trap-and-haul fishway. The plan would provide 

for documentation of the upstream movement of the target fish species, as 

determined by radiotelemetry or other means of accurately tracking fish 

movement upstream from the forebay of BCD, at least as far upstream as th

confluence of Cedar Creek. 

• Within 1 year after approval of the PUD’s design plans and specifications for

design, construction, and operation of the temporary trap-and-haul fishway, t

PUD would install and commence the operation of the temporary trap-and-ha

fishway at BCD, in accordance with FWS-approved plans, to provide effective

(safe and timely) upstream passage for the target fish species. The PUD would

operate the temporary trap-and-haul fishway: (1) until superseded by an 

interim trap-and-haul fishway (see below); and (2) when target fish species are

present in Boundary reservoir, as determined by the FWS using the best 

scientific information available.

• Following installation of the temporary trap-and-haul fishway, the PUD would

commence post-installation effectiveness evaluations in accordance with the 

FWS approved plan (described above). Within 12 months after installatio

temporary trap-and-haul facilities, the PUD would submit the results of in

effectiveness evaluations to the resource managers for review and comment 

prior to being filed with the Commission. If notified by the FWS that 

deficiencies are observed in the fishwa

remediation plan to rectify such deficiencies that includes a schedule for 

repeating the effectiveness evaluation within 60 days after notification. Thi

effectiveness evaluation process would continue until it is demonstrat

reasonable measures necessary and appropriate to maximize upstream fish

passage effectiveness have been performed to the satisfaction of the FWS. 

Within 1 year after the installation and commencement of operation of the 

temporary trap-and-haul fishway, and annually thereafter, the PUD would 

submit to the resource agencies and the Tribe a report summarizing

information obtained through monitoring. 

D interim trap-and-haul fishway:

• Following completion of the four turbine upgrades and the spill bypass s

at BCD (to comply with the WDOE Section 401 certification), or within 10

years after license issuance, whichever occurs first, the PUD would submit 

plans for completing design investigations to collect site-specific biological 

and engineering data needed to site, design, and install interim trap-and-haul 

fishways at BCD. 

103 
• Within 2 years after notification by the FWS that the conceptual design 

investigations have been approved, the PUD would submit for review and 

approval by the FWS the results of all interim trap-and-haul design 

investigations and design plans and specifications for construction and 

operation of interim trap-and-haul fishways at BCD. The PUD would als

submit for review and approval an O&M Plan for the interim trap-and-haul 

fishways; a plan for monitoring the interim trap-and-haul fishways, inc

plans for the submission of an annual monitoring report; and a plan for p

installation evaluations of the interim trap-and-haul fishway. The postinstallation evaluations plan would provide for documentation of the upstr

movement of the target fish species, as determined by radiotelemetry or othe

means of accurately tracking fish m

o

luding 

osteam

r

ovement upstream from the forebay of 

ns

effective (safe and timely) upstream passage for the target fish species. 

installation of the interim trap-and-haul fishway, the PUD would 

e

s

e

g a

gencies and the Tribe

r to

BCD, at least as far upstream as the confluence of Cedar Creek. 

• Within 18 months after approval of the PUD’s design plans and specificatio

for design, construction, and operation of the temporary trap-and-haul fishway,

the PUD would install and commence the operation of the interim trap-andhaul fishway at BCD in accordance with FWS-approved plans, to provide 

• Following

commence post-installation effectiveness evaluations in accordance with the

FWS-approved plan. Within 1 year after installation of interim trap-and-haul 

facilities, the PUD would submit the results of initial effectiveness evaluations 

to the resource managers for review and comment prior to being filed with th

Commission. If notified by the FWS that deficiencies are observed in the 

fishway, the PUD would provide the FWS with a remediation plan to rectify 

such deficiencies that includes a schedule for repeating the effectiveness 

evaluation within 60 days after notification. This effectiveness evaluation 

process would continue until it is demonstrated that all reasonable measure

necessary and appropriate to maximize upstream fish passage effectiveness 

have been performed to the satisfaction of the FWS. 

• Within 1 year after the installation and commencement of operation of th

interim trap-and-haul fishway, and annually thereafter, the PUD would submit 

to the resource agencies and the Tribe a report summarizing information 

obtained through monitoring. 

BCD permanent upstream volitional fishway: 

• Once 97 bull trout or westslope cutthroat trout are observed in the 

trap/collection/sorting device at BCD, in any given calendar year (usin

rolling average), the FWS, working with other resource a

would evaluate the need for upstream volitional fish passage at BCD. If 

notified that volitional fish passage is necessary, the PUD would have 1 yea

104 
provide a conceptual design plan for a PUVF. If the FWS finds that upstream

volitional fish passage is not appropriate after the evaluation described above, 

the issue of volitional upstream fish passage will be revisited, a year later, and 

on an annual basis from the date of that initial finding, for the duration of the

license, or until upstream volitional fish passage is implemented at BCD. T

P

he

UD would continue operation of the interim trap-and-haul fishway until 

.

an for O&M, and a post-installation effectiveness evaluation plan for the 

e

PUVF, the PUD would submit to the resource agencies and 

ion

D 

cies

superseded by a PUVF. 

• Within 1 year after notification by the FWS that the criteria necessary to 

implement a PUVF at BCD have been met, the PUD would, at its own expense 

and in consultation with the resource agencies and the Tribe, develop and 

submit plans for completing design investigations to collect site-specific 

biological and engineering information needed to site, design, and install

permanent, volitional pool and weir, vertical slot, or similar fishway at BCD

• Within 2 years after meeting the criteria to implement a permanent volitional

upstream fishway at BCD, the PUD would submit for the review and approval 

of the FWS, results of all PUVF final design investigations and design plans 

and specifications for construction and operation of a PUVF at BCD. The 

PUD would also submit for review and approval, an O&M plan, a monitoring

pl

PUVF at BCD. 

• Within 2 years after notification of the FWS’s approval of the PUD’s final 

design plans and specifications for construction and operation of a PUVF, the

PUD would, at its own expense, install and operate permanent upstream

volitional pool and weir, vertical slot, or similar fishway at BCD in accordanc

with FWS approved plans to provide for effective (safe and timely) upstream

passage of juvenile, sub-adult, and adult target fish species over the full range 

of river flows for which Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project maintains 

operational control. 

• Upon completion of installation of the PUVF at BCD, the PUD would, at its 

own expense, commence post-installation effectiveness evaluations in 

accordance with the FWS approved plan (described above). Within 1 year 

after installation of

the Tribe the results of initial effectiveness evaluations. Other post-installat

effectiveness evaluation measures are similar to those described for the BC

temporary trap-and-haul and interim trap-and-haul facilities. 

• Within 1 year after the installation and commencement of operation of the 

PUVF, and annually thereafter, the PUD would submit to the resource agen

and the Tribe, a report summarizing information obtained through monitoring.

105 
CCPP interim upstream fishway: 

• Within 7.5 years after license issuance, the PUD would develop and submit for 

d, the PUD would submit for the review 

f

s approval of the PUD’s design plans and 

specifications for construction and operation of the interim upstream fishway, 

lt

• y at CCPP, the PUD 

aluations in accordance

S-approved plan (described above). Within 1 year after 

f temporary trap-and-haul facilities, the PUD would submit the 

w

S 

S

manag

approval by the FWS plans for completing design investigations to collect sitespecific biological and engineering information needed to site, design, and 

install an interim upstream fishway at the CCPP. 

• Within 1 year after notification by the FWS that its conceptual design 

investigation plan has been approve

and approval by the FWS the results of all interim upstream fishway design 

investigations and design plans and specifications for construction and 

operation of the interim upstream fishway at the CCPP. The PUD would also 

submit for review and approval an O&M Plan describing anticipated O&M, 

schedules, inspections and contingencies; a plan for monitoring the interim 

upstream fishway at the CCPP; and a plan for post-installation evaluations o

the interim upstream fishway. 

• Within 1 year of the FWS’

the PUD would install and commence operation of the interim upstream 

fishway at CCPP. The installation and operation of the interim upstream 

fishway would be conducted in accordance with these plans to provide 

effective (safe and timely) upstream passage for juvenile, sub-adult, and adu

target fish species. 

Following installation of the interim trap-and-haul fishwa

would commence post-installation effectiveness ev

with the FW

installation o

results of initial effectiveness evaluations to the resource managers for revie

and comment prior to being filed with the Commission. If notified by the FW

that deficiencies are observed in the fishway, the PUD would provide the FW

a remediation plan to rectify such deficiencies that includes a schedule for 

repeating the effectiveness evaluation within 60 days after notification. This

effectiveness evaluation process would continue until it is demonstrated that all

reasonable measures necessary and appropriate to maximize upstream fish 

passage effectiveness have been performed to the satisfaction of the FWS.

In addition to the above conditions, Interior, through the FWS, reserves the 

authority to modify their prescriptions at any time and retains the right to review and 

approve all final fishway plans prior to construction. Interior also specifies that the PUD

e the BCR to maximize upstream and downstream fish passage effectiveness, keep 

all fishways in proper order and clear of debris, and provide the FWS with access to the 

Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project site and to pertinent project records for the purpose of 

inspecting fishways to determine compliance with the prescription for fishways. 

106 
Similar upstream passage measures were specified by the FS and recommended by 

the Tri

n should

ial

addition of fish passage facilities at Albeni

Fork R

implemen

revised the given 

to the Inte

passage is

FWS. 

His

ESA), we end

Oreille Ri

Oreille Ri ase of migratory bull

trout, t

and McI

Albeni Fa ther

diversions

important

combined

agricultur of

non-native fish species) have all contributed to a decline in the abundance of these 

specie y 

a remnant

Oreille Ri ese

and other

of the NPP

1992), the

(as fisheri

managem .

t trout, and

mountain

be, and WDFW; however, the FS also specifies the placement of tailrace barriers 

and the completion of a permanent trap-and-haul facility for mountain whitefish at both 

BCD and the CCPP (in addition to the permanent fish ladders). FS’s condition also 

differed in the timing requiring the PUD to develop a plan to provide for effective 

volitional upstream passage within 1 year of license issuance. WDFW’s recommendation

also differed in the timing, recommending that the interim upstream facilities be

operational within 5 years of license issuance. The IDFG requested that the PUD

develop a contingency plan and funding to provide fish passage at BCD. The pla

evaluate the benefits of fish passage at the facility in coordination with the potent

 Falls and the Avista Projects on the Clark 

iver, upstream of Lake Pend Oreille. 

Following issuance of the draft EIS, IDFG reiterated its support for the long-term 

tation of volitional fish passage facilities at BCD and CCPP. WDFW also 

ir Section 10(j) recommendation regarding fish passage with deference

rior through the FWS. The revised WDFW 10(j) recommendation for fish

equivalent, in concept, to the final fishway prescriptions developed by the 

Our Analysis 

torically, migratory populations of bull trout (listed as threatened under the 

stslope cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish were found throughout the P

ver basin, and moved freely between Lake Pend Oreille, the mainstem Pend

ver, and its major tributaries (NPPC, 2001c). In the c

his movement was likely critical to the persistence of local populations (Reiman 

ntyre, 1993). The construction and operation of BCD, Boundary dam, and 

lls dam on the mainstem Pend Oreille, the CCPP on Calispell Creek, and o

in the basin, without upstream fish passage facilities, blocked access into

upstream and downstream habitats. This loss of habitat connectivity, 

with habitat degradation resulting from timber harvest practices, mining, 

e, rural and urban development, fire, and other factors (i.e., the introduction

s, particularly bull trout (Reiman and McIntyre, 1993; NPPC, 2001c). Today, onl

population of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout exist in the lower Pend 

ver basin (section 3.3.3.1) (PUD, 2000; Entrix, 2002). The restoration of th

native species in the Pend Oreille River basin is a principal biological objective

C (NPPC, 2001c), the BPA Fish and Wildlife Program (Ashe and Scholz, 

Interior’s Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan, the Tribe (NPPC, 2001c). WDFW

es resource manager for all “waters of the state”) and IDFG also have 

ent plans calling for the restoration of native salmonids

Although the recovery and persistence of bull trout, westslope cutthroa

whitefish within the lower Pend Oreille River likely depends on improved 

107 
habitat con

that substa

migrate up

during rel

site-specif

locations.

We degraded and may 

be inca b

years, eve

FS, some

areas of h

1999a). T

Boergers,

Environm 5,

2001), and

activities,

take sever and

for habitat

salmonids

Bec

design, co

Until basin

and until s

constructi

facilities u

uncertaint age at the project and would provide critical 

technic g it to

the resour

studies co the

constructi ni Falls dam, providing upstream 

passage at BCD at this time would only benefit those fish populations residing in BCR 

and Bo use fish would not be able to migrate to 

and from Lake Pend Oreille. 

i

unprecede

agreemen

step-wise would 

be appropriate for restoring and protecting native salmonids in the lower Clark Fork 

River, its tributaries, and Lake Pend Oreille. As part of the relicensing agreement for the 

Cowlitz River Project, in southwestern Washington, the resource agencies and the city of 

Tacoma agreed to implement an array of new fish passage measures at the project 

facilities only when certain performance criteria (triggers) are met. We address the cost 

ditions within tributary and mainstem waterways, there are no data indicating 

ntial numbers of bull trout, cutthroat trout, or other salmonids are attempting to 

stream past BCD or the CCPP. Radio telemetry studies conducted by the PUD 

icensing were inconclusive regarding movement past BCD, and there are no 

ic data indicating the attempted upstream movement of salmonids at these 

note that existing habitat conditions in Calispell Creek are

pa le of supporting bull trout or adfluvial westslope cutthroat trout for many 

n with the implementation of substantial restoration activities. According to the

areas of the watershed currently experience summer water temperatures and 

igh substrate embeddedness that may exceed tolerances for bull trout (FS, 

hese degraded conditions are also acknowledged by Interior (letter to D. 

Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, from W.R. Taylor, Director, Office of 

ental Policy and Compliance, Interior, Washington, DC, dated November

as a result, Calispell Creek has been targeted for numerous restoration 

including upstream barrier removal and instream habitat improvement. It may 

al years, and possibly decades, for restoration activities to be implemented,

conditions to improve to the point of being capable of supporting migratory 

.

ause of the reasons given above, we question the need for the immediate 

nstruction, and operation of upstream passage facilities at BCD and CCPP. 

-wide habitat restoration activities are undertaken and shown to be beneficial, 

tudies indicate that upstream passage facilities would be effectively used, the

on of these facilities cannot be justified. Evaluating the need for fish passage 

sing additional studies would remove some of the existing scientific 

y surrounding the need for fish pass

al uidance regarding the type of facility that would provide the greatest benef

ce. In addition, efforts conducted at BCD could be coordinated with feasibility

nducted at Albeni Falls dam and at other dams in the basin. Without

on of upstream fish passage facilities at Albe

undary reservoir and their tributaries beca

Us ng long-term studies to determine the need for fish passage facilities is not 

nted at hydroelectric projects in the region. As part of the re-licensing 

t for the Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids facilities, Avista is implementing a 

process to determine if providing fish passage (or some other mitigation)

108 
of our reco final

recommen clusions.

implemen

fishways; f

temporary

indicated a

ly 2

years of f

the issuan

facility. If

for the saf

temporary

passing th

achieve st

Ins rior would be 

approp t s

been comp

fishway de

(trigger).

Fis

In i r”

installing

upgrades a

suppliers w

well as fis ce,

efficiency

costs, time

fish passag

based on b ts,

both econo

PUD did n P. 

Fol the

DOE for s ines

at the BCD. It is our current understanding that two different devices will be tested at the 

project

turbine pe

mmended measures in section 4, Developmental Analysis, and make our

dations in section 5, Staff’s Con

Interior’s Section 18 fishway prescription specifies a three-phased approach to the 

tation of upstream fish passage at BCD: (1) temporary fishways; (2) interim 

and (3) permanent volitional fishways. As previously stated, installation o

fish passage facilities would be appropriate, but only after studies have 

need for upstream fish passage.

Installation of Interior’s interim fish passage facility would occur approximate

a ter the completion of the turbine upgrades or within approximately 13 years of 

ce of any new license. We question the need for this intermediate “interim” 

the temporary upstream fish passage facility is fully operational and provides 

e and timely passage of target species, we see no reason to replace the 

facility with an interim facility. If the temporary facility is not effective at 

e target species, modifications to that facility could be completed as needed to 

ated biological objectives.

tallation of the permanent volitional fishway as prescribed by Inte

ria e only after the turbine upgrades and installation of the new spillway gates ha

leted, the resulting flow fields have been studied to allow for appropriate 

sign, and the temporary fishway has reached a certain performance criteria 

Interior set 97 fish as the trigger in its Section 18 fishway prescription. 

h Protection and Downstream Passage Devices 

PUD Proposal 

ts final license application, the PUD stated that it plans to “fully conside

fish-friendly turbine runners during the selection of the proposed turbine 

t BCD. By this, the PUD meant that in the bid process, turbine vendors and 

ould be allowed to bid on supplying conventional turbine runner designs as 

h-friendly designs. The PUD would then evaluate these bids based on pri

of the machines, delivery times, life-cycle energy production, life-cycle O&M

 required to install the upgraded equipment, and the possible improvement in

e efficiency for each design bid. Selection of the final supplier would be 

oth objective and subjective criteria that would provide the maximum benefi

mic and environmental during the life of the project (PUD, 2001a,b). The 

ot propose any other downstream passage measures at either BCD or CCP

lowing issuance of the draft EIS, the PUD was awarded a partial grant from

tudies that would support the purchase and installation of fish-friendly turb

. The two different systems would be tested in a side-by-side comparison of 

rformance (i.e., tested for environmental and biological benefits). 

109 
Env

Inte ion 18 prescriptions for fishways,

and WDFW in its revised 10(j) recommendation, would have the PUD construct, operate, 

and ma thin the Box Canyon forebay at BCD and at the 

CCPP p

trout, wes

for which

following

maintenan

•

rim

ty to

•

pense 

s

r

•

ironmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

rior, in its modified 4(e) conditions and Sect

intain downstream fishways wi

to rovide effective downstream passage of juvenile, sub-adult, and adult bull 

tslope cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish over the full range of river flows

the Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project maintains operational control. The 

conditions are further prescribed for the construction, operation, and 

ce of these fishways (see appendix A for a more detailed description). 

BCD interim downstream fishway: 

Within 6 months after license issuance, the PUD would, at its own expense and

in consultation with the resource agencies and the Tribe, develop plans for

completing design investigations to collect site-specific biological and 

engineering information needed to site, design, and install an inte

downstream fishway at BCD and to determine the extent of injury/mortali

the target fish species moving through existing or upgraded generating 

turbines, spillway, and spillway gates. 

Within 2 years after notification by the FWS that fish behavior and survival 

investigation plans have been approved, the PUD would, at its own ex

and in consultation with the resource agencies and the Tribe, develop and 

submit for review and approval by the FWS, preliminary design plans for 

completing the interim downstream fishway design. 

• Within 6 months after notification by the FWS that preliminary design plans 

for the interim downstream fishway have been approved, the PUD would 

submit for review and approval by the FWS final design plans and 

specifications for the interim downstream fishway at BCD. The interim 

downstream fishway would be operational during the time frame specified by 

the FWS, based on anticipated presence of target fish species in the Pend 

Oreille River. 

• Within 6 months after notification by the FWS that preliminary design plan

for the interim downstream fishway have been approved, the PUD would, at its 

own expense and in consultation with the resource agencies and the Tribe, 

develop and submit for review and approval by the FWS an O&M plan for the 

interim downstream fishway describing anticipated operation, maintenance, 

schedules, inspections, and contingencies. The PUD would also submit fo

review and approval a monitoring and reporting plan, and a plan for postinstallation evaluations of the downstream fishway. 

Within 1 year of the FWS’s approval of the PUD’s final plans and 

specifications for the interim downstream fishway, the PUD would, at its own

110 
expense, install and commence operation of the interim downstream fishway at

BCD. The installation and operation of the interim downstream fishway would

be conducted in accordance with the prescribed plans to provide effe

and timely) downstream passage for juvenile, sub-adult, and adult target fish

species through B

ctive (safe

CD. In addition, the interim downstream fishway would be 

y

• ,

ce post-installation effectiveness

r

notification. This effectiveness evaluation process would continue until it 

e

CD, and annually thereafter, the PUD would 

he resource agencies and the Tribe, a report summarizing 

operational when target fish species are present in the BCR, as determined b

the FWS using the best scientific information available. 

Upon completing the installation of the interim downstream fishway at BCD

the PUD would, at its own expense, commen

evaluations in accordance with the FWS approved plan. Within 1 year afte

installation of the interim fishway, the PUD would submit to the resource 

agencies and the Tribe the results of initial effectiveness evaluations. If 

notified by the FWS that deficiencies are observed in the fishway, the PUD 

would provide the FWS a remediation plan to rectify such deficiencies, 

including a schedule for repeating the effectiveness evaluation within 60 days 

after

is demonstrated that all reasonable measures necessary and appropriate to 

maximize downstream fish passage effectiveness have been performed to th

satisfaction of the FWS. The PUD would conduct post-construction 

evaluations of the effectiveness of the interim downstream fishway at least 

once every 5 years for the duration of the interim fishway’s operation. If the 

licensee can successfully demonstrate to the FWS that the interim downstream

fishway meets the fish guidance efficiency goal of 95 percent when passing 

fish that are in excess of 10 inches in length through a non-turbine route (see 

below), the FWS would designate the interim downstream fishway as the 

permanent downstream fishway. 

• Within 1 year after the installation and commencement of operation of the 

interim downstream fishway at B

submit to t

information obtained through monitoring. 

BCD permanent downstream fishway: 

• Within 1 year after being notified in writing by the FWS that the criteria 

needed to implement a permanent downstream fishway have been met,27 the 

PUD would, at its own expense and in consultation with the resource agencies 

and the Tribe, develop and submit for review and approval by the FWS, 

 27 The PUD has completed installation and commenced operation of the four modified (upgraded

generating turbines and has completed installation of a spill bypass system at BCD to comply with 

WDOE water quality certification (Section 401 of the Clean Water Act), or within 10 years after 

license issuance, whichever occurs first. 

) 

111 
preliminary plans for completing design investigations for a permanent 

downstream fishway at BCD. 

• Within 1 year after notification by the FWS that its preliminary plans for 

completing the permanent downstream fishway have been approved and withi

1 year of any other approval required by law, the PUD would submit for 

review and approval by the FWS the results of all permanent downstream 

fishway design investigation and design plans and specifications for 

construction and operation of the perm

n

anent downstream fishway at BCD. 

and 

on

lans to provide effective (safe and timely) downstream passage for 

Within 1

n

d

y

• Within 1 year after notification by the FWS that its final design plans and 

specifications for the permanent downstream fishway have been approved

within 1 year of any other approval required by law, the PUD would, at its own 

expense and in consultation with the resource agencies and the Tribe, develop 

and submit for review and approval by the FWS an O&M plan describing 

anticipated operation, maintenance, schedules, inspections, and contingencies

of the permanent downstream fishway. The PUD would also submit for 

review and approval a monitoring and reporting plan and a plan for postinstallation evaluations of the permanent downstream fishway. 

• Within 18 months after notification by the FWS that the PUD’s final design 

plans and specifications for the permanent downstream fishway have been 

approved, the PUD would, at its own expense, install and commence operati

of the permanent downstream fishway at BCD. The installation and operation 

of the permanent downstream fishway would be conducted in accordance with

these p

juvenile, sub-adult, and adult target fish species. 

• Upon completing the installation of the permanent downstream fishway at 

BCD, the PUD would, at its own expense, commence post-installation 

effectiveness evaluations in accordance with the FWS approved plan.

year after installation of the permanent downstream fishway, the PUD would

submit to the resource agencies and the Tribe the results of initial effectiveness

evaluations. If notified by the FWS that deficiencies are observed in the 

fishway, the PUD would provide the FWS a remediation plan to rectify such

deficiencies, including a schedule for repeating the effectiveness evaluatio

within 60 days after notification. This effectiveness evaluation process woul

continue until it is demonstrated that all reasonable measures necessary and 

appropriate to maximize downstream fish passage effectiveness have been 

performed to the satisfaction of the FWS. The PUD would conduct postconstruction evaluations of the effectiveness of the permanent downstream 

fishway at least once every 5 years for the duration of the interim fishwa

operation. 

• Within 1 year after the installation and commencement of operation of the 

BCD permanent downstream fishway, and annually thereafter, the PUD would

112 
submit to the resource agencies and the Tribe, a report summarizing 

information obtained through monitoring. 

CCPP downstream fishway: 

• Within 5 years after license issuance, the PUD would, at its own expense and 

in consultation with the resource agencies and the Tribe, develop and submit 

for approval by the FWS plans for completing design investigations to collect 

site-specific biological and engineering information needed to properly situate,

design, and install a permanent downstream fishway in Calispell Creek

CCPP. 

at the

and the Tribe, develop and

he final design plans and

s for the permanent downstream fishway at CCPP. 

nse

ies and the Tribe, develop and

submit for review and approval by the FWS an O&M plan for the permanent 

e,

,

nducted in accordance with approved plans to 

nent downstream fishway at 

d 

. If notified by the FWS that deficiencies are observed in the 

• Within 1 year after notification by the FWS that conceptual plans for the

downstream fishway have been approved, the PUD would, at its own expense 

and in consultation with the resource agencies

submit for review and approval by the FWS, t

specification

• Within 1 year after notification by the FWS that the conceptual plans for 

downstream fishway have been approved, the PUD would, at its own expe

and in consultation with the resource agenc

downstream fishway describing anticipated operations, maintenanc

schedules, inspections, and contingencies. The PUD would also submit for 

review and approval, a monitoring and reporting plan, and a plan for postinstallation evaluations of the downstream fishway at CCPP. 

• Within 2 years after FWS approval of the PUD’s final plans and specifications 

for design, construction, and operation of the permanent downstream fishway

the PUD would, at its own expense, install and commence operation of the

permanent downstream fishway at CCPP. The installation and operation of the 

downstream fishway would be co

provide effective (safe and timely) downstream passage for juvenile, sub-adult,

and adult target fish species of, or in excess of, 4 inches in length. 

• Upon completing the installation of the perma

CCPP, the PUD would, at its own expense, commence post-installation 

effectiveness evaluations in accordance with the FWS-approved plan. Within

1 year after installation of the permanent downstream fishway, the PUD woul

submit to the resource agencies and the Tribe the results of initial effectiveness 

evaluations

fishway, the PUD would provide the FWS with a remediation plan to rectify 

such deficiencies, including a schedule for repeating the effectiveness 

evaluation within 60 days after notification. This effectiveness evaluation 

process would continue until it is demonstrated that all reasonable measures 

113 
necessary and appropriate to maximize downstream fish passage effectivenes

have been performed to the sa

s

tisfaction of the FWS. The PUD would conduct

e

. FS’s

in the timing requirements, stipulating that the PUD develop a plan to 

provid have

w

(a)

talling

ish

entrain D 

d

ish

are

ing, and

injury or mortality to fish

can be

post-construction evaluations of the effectiveness of the permanent 

downstream fishway at least once every 5 years during the term of any new 

license issued. 

• Within 1 year after the installation and commencement of operation of th

CCPP permanent downstream fishway, and annually thereafter, the PUD

would submit to the resource agencies and the Tribe, a report summarizing

information obtained through monitoring. 

Similar, though more general, recommendations concerning downstream fish 

passage at the two project facilities were made by the Tribe and specified by the FS

condition differed

e for effective downstream passage within 1 year of license issuance and to

downstream fish passage facilities at BCD in place by year 3 during the term of any ne

license issued. 

Interior, in its Section 10(j) recommendations, and the Tribe in its Section 10

recommendations, also recommended the PUD analyze the effectiveness of ins

state-of-the-art minimum gap turbine runners concurrent with the proposed upgrade of 

the existing Kaplan turbines at the BCD as a means to reduce mechanical injury to f

ed in the turbines. If deemed effective, Interior originally recommended the PU

install these devices within 5 years after license issuance concurrent with the propose

upgrade of the existing turbines. However, following issuance of the draft EIS, Interior 

modified its 4(e) conditions and Section 18 prescriptions. Interior no longer recommends

or endorses installing state-of-the-art minimum gap turbine runners at BCD. Interior

based this decision on a review of pertinent literature (not cited) and on a telephone 

conversation between J. Stow, Fishway Engineer, FWS, Portland, OR, and R. Donaldson,

Biologist, FWS, Spokane, WA.

Our Analysis 

The intakes and turbines at BCD have the potential to entrain, and injure or kill,

fish migrating downstream past the dam (when the project is operating). In addition, f

migrating from Calispell Creek and its tributaries into the Pend Oreille River also have

the potential to be entrained and injured or killed by the pumps at the CCPP. These 

impacts can occur when downstream migrating fish enter the intake and turbines and

exposed to extreme pressure changes, strike events, sheer stress, turbulence, grind

cavitations (Cada, 2001). The consequence of this source of

serious, especially among migratory species (Cada and Rhinehart, 2000). 

Although entrainment-related mortality and its effect on migratory fish populations on 

the Pend Oreille River have not been evaluated at BCD or CCPP, vertical Kaplan 

turbines, like those found at BCD, are expected to exhibit turbine passage mortality rates 

of approximately 5.5 percent for fish less that 8 inches in length (Franke et al., 1997, 

114 
Whitney et al., 1997, PUD, 2000). Fish greater than 8 inches in length are rarely used in

studies of turbine mortality, but tend to be killed at higher rates, ranging from 

approximately 10 to 30 percent (Franke et al., 1997; Stone and Webster, 1992; PUD, 

2000). Although the number of fish tagged in the PUD radio telemetry studies to 

evaluate entrainment potential at BCD (in addition to seasonal fish movement) was too

small to develop definitive conclusions, no tagged fish were detected as passing through 

the project powerhouse (PUD, 2001a,b). The Tribe, however, has observed both dead

and injured bullheads downstream of the CCPP. 

Although entrainment-related impacts associated with the operation of BCD are 

currently unknown, mortality among entrained fish at hydroelectric projects may be 

lessened by improving the passage conditions within the turbine itself (Cada and 

Rinehart, 2000). Within the last decade, efforts have been made to redesign conventio

turbines to reduce obstructions and to narrow the g

nal

ap between moveable elements of the 

turbine nes

qual

this,

se. At other projects on the Columbia River, results have 

been mixed and in some cases differences in survival were not significantly different for 

the two

of its modified 4(e) conditions and Section 18 prescriptions for 

fishways, Interior specifies that the PUD operate the existing turbines at an efficiency that 

would throat

vitation can occur. Because these are all 

potential sources of injury to fish, it is expected that survival would be reduced under 

conditi eased

surviva

er,

nt of maximum efficiency (as was required 

by the National Marine Fisheries Service on th

no ben t

In t

WDFW, and the Tribe to determine an approp

turbines to provide the safest possible fish passage conditions at the project. We also 

recommended that the PUD file with the Commission, for approval, a plan to implement 

that are thought to be injurious to fish. These modified or fish-friendly turbi

are designed to pass fish safely, generate power efficiently and cost less to operate and 

maintain than conventional turbines (Odeh, 1999). Although not definitive, recent 

research has demonstrated potential benefits (increased fish passage survival) associated

with fish-friendly turbine designs (Cada, 2001). At Bonneville dam on the Columbia 

River fish survival through a minimum gap runner fish-friendly Kaplan turbine was e

to or better than that through a conventional Kaplan unit (Cada, 2001). Because of

the Corps is planning to install minimum gap turbine runners on all 10 turbines at the 

Bonneville dam first powerhou

designs.

As a component

provide the safest possible passage conditions for bull trout, westslope cut

trout, and mountain whitefish. According to Cada and Rinehart (2000), turbine 

efficiency can influence the survival of fish passing through a turbine, especially at the 

ends of the turbine operating range. At these extremes, pressure changes, shear stresses, 

and turbulence become very severe, and ca

ons of very low operating efficiency. Although data documenting incr

l at increased efficiencies are limited, operating the project’s turbines at higher 

efficiencies may minimize potential entrainment-related mortality at BCD. Howev

operating at an efficiency approaching 1 perce

e Columbia River) appears to have little or 

efi over operating turbines under moderate cavitation conditions (Cada, 2001).

he draft EIS, we recommended that the PUD consult with the FWS, FS, 

riate operating efficiency for the existing 

115 
the recom

Consultin

turbines w e of one turbine per 

year).

friendly m

meet DOE fter

license iss

developin

possible fi

characteri

We address the cost of this measure in section 4, Developmental Analysis, and 

make o

Wa

PU

with state

project’s t

En

Int

WQRMP er

quality standards and comply w

under Section 401 of the CWA. Interior also specifies that the PUD provide Interior and 

the Tri

Similar re

Quantity a

effects of

Int hway prescriptions, also 

specifies that the PUD conduct biological monitoring of fish in conjunction with 

monitoring upstream and downstream passage at BCD. 

FS (4[e] 16) specifies similar measures to help reduce TDG levels below the BCD. 

WDFW requested that the PUD reduce TDG levels to 105 percent saturation as well as 

conduct biological monitoring to evaluate effects of elevated TDG on aquatic life. 

Our Analysis 

Water quality is an important component of ecological health, affecting primary 

productivity, the growth and health of biota, including fish species, and the types and 

quantities of aquatic macrophytes. To avoid stress, disease, injury, and even mortality to 

aquatic species water quality must be within the biological requirements of those species. 

mended operational changes. The PUD’s comments on the draft EIS (EES 

g, 2003) indicate that the PUD intends to upgrade all four of the existing

ithin the first 5 to 7 years of the new license term (at a rat

As previously stated, the PUD proposes to upgrade two of the turbines with fishinimum gap turbine runners and to conduct biological and engineering tests to

program objectives. Because these turbine upgrades would begin shortly a

uance (1 to 2 years), and would be completed within 5 to 7 years of that date, 

g and implementing a plan to operate the existing turbines to provide the safest 

sh passage conditions would be quickly outdated, as the operational 

stics of the new turbines would be different from the existing turbines. 

ur final recommendations in section 5, Staff’s Conclusions. 

ter Quality—Temperature, DO, TDG, pH

D Proposal 

As stated in section 3.3.2.2, the PUD proposes no specific measures to comply 

water quality standards. However, the PUD does propose to upgrade the 

urbines to reduce TDG levels below BCD. 

vironmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

erior, in its modified 4(e) conditions (4[e] 4) specifies that the PUD develop a

to bring the project waters into compliance with state, federal, and Tribal wat

ith all requirements of applicable certifications issued 

be with copies of all plans developed pursuant to the WDOE 401 certification. 

quests were made by the Tribe, WDFW, and FS. See section 3.3.2, Water 

nd Quality, for additional information on these measures and an analysis of the 

these measures on water quality. 

erior, in its modified 4(e) conditions and Section 18 fis

116 
Becaus

biological

As t, water quality conditions in the BCR 

curren

managem

of coldwa

tributaries

Be

exists to d

maintainin

species ac uring the late

summe

Un

tributaries

The lack o

reducing t suitable coolwater habitat for native salmonids. Therefore, 

implem

tempera u

thermal re

Wh

within the BCR, operation of the project increases TDG levels below BCD. The 

reservo i w

densitie o h,

pumpkins

majority o . 

Bull trout are also occasionally observed in

is likely to occur approximately

25.5 pe tely

t may 

occur i

tate standard (110 percent 

saturat

or even fatal to

aquatic organisms, as demonstrated by a number of significant fish kills in the Columbia 

e of this, state and Tribal water quality standards are developed to protect these 

resources (see section 3.3.2).

discussed earlier in the documen

tly favor warmwater fish species (i.e., largemouth bass, perch, and crappie). Draft

ent plans prepared by the Tribe and other entities currently favor the restoration 

ter salmonid species (e.g., cutthroat, rainbow, and bull trout) in the BCR

and slough areas, and a continued warmwater fishery within the BCR. 

cause the Box Canyon Project is operated as an ROR facility, little latitude 

ramatically alter water quality conditions within the BCR. However, 

g access to slough and tributary stream refugia would provide coldwater fish 

cess to more suitable water quality conditions, especially d

r months. 

der existing conditions, the riparian areas in several of the project area 

are fragmented, poorly connected, and provide inadequate stream shading. 

f shading in these streams results in warmer summer water temperatures 

he amount of

entation of riparian enhancement measures would likely reduce water 

t res in the treated streams (due to increased shading), increasing the amount of 

fugia available to bull trout in the BCR reach of the Pend Oreille River. 

ile the Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project has little effect on water quality 

ir mmediately downstream of BCD (Boundary reservoir) supports extremely lo

s f brown trout, cutthroat, mountain whitefish, northern pikeminnow, peamout

eed, rainbow trout, smallmouth bass, sucker, tench, and yellow perch, the 

f which were caught in the lower portion of the reservoir, near Boundary dam

 Boundary reservoir. Samples collected by 

the PUD below BCD have shown TDG levels in excess of the state water quality 

standard of 110 percent (PUD, 2001a,b). Based on the PUD’s predictions (PUD, 

2001a,b), exceedance of the 110 percent criterion

rcent of the time immediately below the project’s spillway, and approxima

20.5 percent of the time (including flows over 90,000 cfs) in water that is mixed with 

discharge from the project powerhouse. Maximum TDG levels near 140 percen

mmediately below the spillway, and levels near 130 percent are likely to occur in

water mixed with discharges from the powerhouse. Exceedance of the 110 percent 

standard is likely 25 percent of the time and maximum TDG values in excess of 

140 percent may occur at certain flows (see section 3.3.2). 

Dissolved gas supersaturation, in excess of the s

ion), can lead to a physiological condition known as GBT in aquatic biota, which 

involves the formation of emphysematous vesicles in various tissues as a result of gassupersaturated waters (Backman and Evans, 2002). GBT can be harmful

117 
and Sn en

n the river reached 139 percent (FWS, 2000). At levels near 

140 pe n

percent h

(FWS, 200 monids in the Columbia River, only 8 

of 5,56

supersatur

Weitkamp River

during

nce and severity of GBT. 

ring would be valuable to 

determine the effects of elevated TDG on aquatic organisms. Biological monitoring 

comple

hin 4 years of license issuance), and would also contribute $20,000 

annual t

ake rivers (Filder and Miller, 1994). For example, fish injury from high nitrog

levels has occurred at Libby dam (Kootenai River, Montana) during past spill events 

when the saturation level i

rce t, GBT may occur in over 3 percent of fish exposed. At levels of up to 120 

, t e incidence of GBT decreases to a minimum of 0.7 percent of fish exposed 

0). In a recent study of GBT in adult sal

4 adults salmonids (0.1 percent) were observed with symptoms of GBT when

ation levels remained below 126 percent (Backman and Evans, 2002). 

et al. (2003) conducted additional GBT studies in the lower Clark Fork

periods of high supersaturation (e.g., mean TDG levels ranging from 104 to 150 

percent) from 1997 through 2000 and found that the vast majority of sampled fish 

(including 7 species of resident salmonids) spent sufficient time at depths to avoid or 

mediate both the incide

Because there is uncertainty surrounding the effects of high TDG on aquatic

organisms below the Box Canyon Project, biological monito

ted in conjunction with monitoring of fish at BCD, as specified under Interior’s 

Section 18 fishway prescriptions, would require minimal additional effort on the part of 

the PUD and would be far less costly than embarking on an independent program to 

assess elevated TDG effects on aquatic life. We address the cost of water quality 

measures in section 4, Developmental Analysis, and make our final recommendations in 

section 5, Staff’s Conclusions. 

Tributary Stream Habitat Restoration 

PUD Proposal 

PUD proposes habitat enhancement/restoration in the tributaries of BCR 

($350,000 wit

ly to the Tribe for staff needed to monitor bull trout and westslope cutthroat trou

restoration efforts. Specific enhancement measures would be determined in consultation 

with the resource agencies and the Tribe. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

Interior, in its modified 4(e) condition (4[e] 6), and the Tribe, in its Section 10(a) 

recommendations (10[a] 4), specify the following measures to achieve target trout 

population levels in BCR and its tributaries. 

• Within 120 days after license issuance, the PUD would develop a Trout 

Assessment and Restoration Plan (TARP) indicating (1) the methods the PUD 

would use to assess trout populations in BCR and its tributaries to demonstrate

118 
progress toward Interior’s target trout population levels;28 and (2) the strategies

and implementation schedule the PUD would use to produce naturally 

sustainable trout populations that achieve these targets. 

• To achieve these target numbers of fish, the PUD, using funds contributed to 

the TRF (see below) would design and implement tributary and reservoir 

and

purchase

tation

n

l the

ould be averaged to estimate trout population levels and 

UD

would

ion

xt 8 

d with updating the TARP and assessing populations 

D without using the TRF. 

 

habitat enhancement measures, including, but not limited to, instream

riparian restoration and maintenance, removal of impassable barriers,

of land or conservation easements, exotic species control, and supplemen

of native trout populations through conservation aquaculture (see discussio

under Fish Hatchery Funding) for the duration of the license term or unti

target levels are met. 

• The PUD would conduct a 3-year baseline trout population assessment survey 

beginning with the first field season after approval of the TARP. Data from 

the 3 survey years w

would be used to calculate the PUD’s TRF contribution.29

• After completion of the baseline trout population assessment survey, the P

would conduct 3-year trout population assessment surveys every 5 years for 

the duration of the license term, or until the target levels are met. Data from 

these 3-year trout population assessment surveys would be averaged and used 

to determine progress toward target levels and to calculate the PUD’s TRF 

contribution until the completion of the next trout population assessment 

survey. The TARP would employ accepted and commonly used methods in 

fisheries science to assess production levels of both migratory and resident 

fish. 

• After completion of each trout population assessment survey, the PUD

update the TARP, identifying strategies for achieving target trout populat

levels and providing a schedule to implement those strategies during the ne

years. Costs associate

would be borne by the PU

 28 Mini re provided in the Interior’s Modified Conditions and Prescriptions for the 

Box Can

W.R , DC, 

f

t for

Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, from W.R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance, Interior, Washington, DC, dated May 20, 2004).

mum target levels a

yon Hydroelectric Project (letter to M.R. Salas, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, from

. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Interior, Washington

May 20, 2004). The target for resident bull trout in the tributaries to BCR (approximately 328 miles o

stream habitat) is 585 fish per mile, the target for migratory bull trout is 65 fish per mile, the targe

resident westslope cutthroat trout is 360 fish per mile, and the target for migratory westslope cutthroat 

trout is 40 fish per mile. The target for resident bull trout in BCR is 435 fish per mile and the target

for westslope cutthroat trout is 870 per mile. 

29 Level of funding shall be calculated in accordance with a formula included in the Interior’s Modified 

Conditions and Prescriptions for the Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project (letter to M.R. Salas, 

119 
• Throughout the term of the license, the PUD would contribute annually to the

n

y date of its first contribution 

line trout population assessment survey. Once 

s are met, the PUD would contribute not less than $50,000 per year

l

eys, a

Interior also recommends that within 1 year of license issuance, the PUD should 

install a staff gage on Trimble Creek within the Cusick Unit of the Little Pend Oreille 

Nation

TRF. The amount pf the PUD’s annual contribution would be determined 

using Interior’s TRF formula. 

• Within 30 days of license issuance, the PUD would contribute $1.462 millio

to the TRF. This amount would constitute the PUD’s entire contribution to the

TRF for the first 4 years of the license. If the baseline trout population

assessment survey were not completed at the end of year 4, the PUD would 

contribute $356,441 each year on the anniversar

until completion of the base

target level

for the maintenance of tributary enhancement structures. 

• The PUD would include the results of the population assessment surveys, a

comparison of existing population levels against target levels, and a record of 

the PUD’s calculations regarding its TRF contribution as part of the annua

report for the year in which the surveys are completed and contributions are

calculated. 

• The PUD would include the results of the population assessment surv

comparison of existing population levels against target levels, and a record of 

the PUD’s calculations regarding its TRF contribution as part of the annual

report for the year in which the surveys are completed and contributions are 

calculated. 

• Finally, Interior reserves authority to modify target levels during the license

period based on results of fisheries assessments, population response to 

tributary enhancement and supplementation measures, fisheries management 

strategy changes, and new information that may become available. 

Interior indicates that the goal of these conditions is focused on increasing trout

productivity levels and native species composition, optimizing size structures and growth

rates, and minimizing project-induced mortality. 

In addition to the conditions and recommendations listed above, the Tribe 

recommends using 10 percent of the restoration funds for the production of largemouth 

bass with the goal of doubling current relative abundance (1,015 fish per mile). 

al Wildlife Refuge. Interior would use the staff gage to obtain hydrologic 

information needed to implement the riparian habitat restoration measures that are part of

the comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge. 

FS, in its draft 4(e) terms and conditions specifies a similar Resident Fish Habitat 

Restoration Plan and funding for tributary streams draining to the BCR. 

120 
The WDFW requested the PUD develop a plan to restore resident fish habitat 

quality and quantity in the part of the Pend Oreille River basin affected by BCD. WDFW

believes the plan should: 

• focus on increasing presently available and potential fish spawning and rearing 

habitat in streams tributary to BCR; and 

• provide for fish passage, instream structure placement to enhance instream

nt

Our Analysis 

draft EIS, Interior made a number of modification to its 

specified TARP. In Interior’s preliminary condition, the PUD’s contribution to the TRF 

was based on comparisons between observed trout densities and target densities for both 

BCR tr

he tributaries from target the densities for the tributaries. However, the 

condition still specifies that the PUD assess tr

those a targets,

they w

st

introdu k to

re

e the historical trout densities in 

cover, riparian vegetation planting (with fencing to exclude livestock), other 

sediment reduction measures, and an Effectiveness Monitoring Plan. 

WDFW believes that all actions included in the PUD’s plan should be 50 perce

complete within 7.5 years after license issuance, and fully implemented within 15 years

of license issuance. 

The IDFG requested it be included on any technical team dealing with fish and 

wildlife resources affected by the operations of the project. 

Following issuance of the

ibutaries and BCR. In its modified condition, the PUD’s TRF contribution would

be based solely on the amount calculated by subtracting the observed species-specific 

trout densities in t

out populations in BCR, but the results of 

ssessments would only be used to determine progress toward reservoir

ould not be used to calculate TRF contributions. This modification would 

eliminate the potential for “double counting” of adfluvial fish that spend part of their life

history in the reservoir and part in the tributaries. This would also reduce the overall co

of the TRF. 

Although the Interior’s TARP and accompanying formula-based funding level

would likely mitigate for nearly 50 years of fishery degradation in the lower Pend Oreille

River basin, the decline of trout in the main stem Pend Oreille and its tributaries is due to 

a number of factors, including hydroelectric power development, residential 

development, timber harvest, mining, roads, agriculture, fire, and non-native species 

ctions (FWS, 2002a; NPPC, 2001c). Interior’s measures and funding level see

compensate for impacts accruing from a wide array of land management actions that a

not necessarily project-related and applied to areas well outside reservation lands. 

In addition, Interior’s target levels for trout restoration and enhancement are based

on a percentage of densities from 10 streams with stable bull trout populations within the

Swan River watershed in Montana. Although we don’t necessarily consider the Swan

River basin to be directly comparable with the Pend Oreille River basin, there are,

unfortunately, no detailed data available to help determin

121 
the BCR and its tributaries. Because of this, we conclude that the use of the Swan River 

to calc time

y

of

pacts.

There continues to be project-related impacts within the BCR and tributary 

stream shoreline

developm

popula asin prior

to dam

getation) 

and instream cover. Loss of riparian vegetation can result in increased summer water 

temperatures creating, in some cases, sub-optimal habitat conditions for salmonids. The 

loss of d

10

as part of

3.3.4). 

ulate target fish densities, although extremely optimistic, is appropriate at this

and could serve as a target or “goal” for the restoration program. We note, however, that 

while Interior’s target densities may be appropriate to strive toward, they are not likely to

be realized with the present land use and landscape conditions in and around the BCR. 

Restoration actions should be focused in those areas that are in the most 

recoverable condition, and that offer the greatest chance of success, rather than 

developing the expectation that nearly every tributary to the BCR should support a 

substantial number of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. Tying the programs’ 

funding level to Interior’s target levels would be inappropriate for two reasons: (1) 

Interior has reserved the authority to modify target levels as described above, potentiall

increasing funding at Interior’s discretion; and (2) to place the entire financial burden

native trout restoration in the BCR and its tributaries on the PUD would go far beyond

the extent of project im

s (e.g., bank erosion, negligible cottonwood recruitment, and

ent associated with the reservoir) that have negatively affected native fish 

tions. Although flooding occurred naturally in the Pend Oreille River b

construction, Interior cites examples of ongoing impacts on the riparian corridor 

in Calispell Creek caused by extended flooding behind the Calispell dike associated with 

project operations (Corps, 1999). Impacts include the loss of shade (riparian ve

instream cover can reduce the productivity and carrying capacity of an affecte

stream reach, reducing the distribution and abundance of native fish populations. 

We address the cost of tributary habitat restoration measures in section 4, 

Developmental Analysis, and make our final recommendations in section 5, Staff’s 

Conclusions. 

BCR Habitat Restoration 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes the placement of 100 underwater habitat enhancement 

structures to improve rearing habitat for salmonids and largemouth bass in the reservoir 

and sloughs. Annual funding is proposed for monitoring these 100 structures for

years. Funding is also proposed to establish baseline data on milfoil densities in the BCR 

and to continue the rotovation program to control invasive aquatic vegetation. In 

addition, the PUD is working with the Water Quality Work Group (established

the relicensing effort) to develop an Aquatic Plant Management Plan (see section

122 
Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

Interior specifies and the Tribe recommends measures to achieve no-net loss in 

trout populations, especially cutthroat and bull trout within the sloughs and main river 

areas of BCR. A TARP is to be developed to achieve target levels of fish production,

including methods to assess fish populations and strategies to meet targets (see prev

discussion of tributary stream habitat restorat

ious

ion). FS, in its draft 4(e) terms and

condit ent

g aggression and territory size (Dolloff, 1986, as cited in Murphy, 

1995). In addition, cover can influence the production of aquatic and terrestrial 

inverte many aquatic systems, the 

availab the

PUD’s own assessment of

aquatic habitat in the BCR also indicated that cover was limited throughout the reservoir 

tures in the BCR, as the PUD proposes, would increase 

the amount of available cover over existing conditions. However, these structures may 

advers ct by improving habitat conditions for predators 

of juve

,

North American lakes. Some effects of macrophytes, particularly Eurasian watermilfoil, 

can be detrimental to fisheries. When macrophyte beds are dense, the plants can 

adversely affect sport fishes by obstructing predation and swimming space, sheltering 

ions, (4[e] 25) would result in the development of an Aquatic Plant Managem

Plan. This measure is discussed in detail in section 3.3.4. 

Our Analysis 

Cover, or instream structure, is a critical component of fish habitat. Submerged 

cover such as large woody debris, boulders, rubble and aquatic vegetation provide 

protection from predators and high flows, while overhead cover such as floating debris, 

undercut banks, turbulence and overhanging vegetation provide shade as well as 

protection from predators (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Abundant cover also visually 

isolates fish, reducin

brates that are important as a food source. In

ility of cover for juvenile fish can be critical to the survival and recruitment to

adult population. Changes in the amount and type of cover in river reaches resulting 

from a variety of resource management activities can sometimes be ameliorated through 

the creation of artificial habitat structures to increase cover. 

Ashe and Scholtz (1992) have indicated that trout production is limited in the 

BCR, and that water temperature, lack of habitat diversity, and possibly food availability

are the major factors contributing to this limited potential. The

(PUD, 2000). Placing 100 struc

ely impa native salmonids in BCR

nile salmonids. An increase in predator abundance could result in impacts to 

native salmonids, negating the objectives of this measure. According to FWS (2002a), 

predatory species such as largemouth bass can affect the survival rates of native 

salmonids including bull trout. 

Aquatic Vegetation Plan

Eurasian watermilfoil and curly pondweed, both non-native aquatic macrophytes

are abundant in the BCR and its associated sloughs (PUD, 2000). Eurasian watermilfoil, 

in particular, is an invasive species that has become a management concern in many 

123 
undesirable species, and covering spawning areas (PUD, 2000). Growth and senescence 

of Eura

f

iate

Further, aquatic vegetation management activities, 

(rotovation, hand-pulling, bottom covers, drawdown activities, etc.), designed to limit 

extremely dense macrophyte growth, would not only improve water quality conditions 

and re

ual funding for operation of the Colville fish hatchery for 

native

and re

WDFW provides clarifications to its revised 10(j) recommendations, filed on 

August 19, 2004. In that clarification letter, WDFW stated that the original $25,000 

funding for the Colville hatchery was intended solely to produce trout for outplanting in 

waters throughout the Pend Oreille River basin to mitigate for lost fishing opportunities. 

WDFW further supported the need for the additional hatchery funding for the existing 

“mothballed” facility (Usk hatchery) stating that the Colville hatchery is not suited for the 

necessary level of production and has an inordinate limitations for expanding the 

production and holding capacity at the Colville facility. 

sian watermilfoil foliage can also impair fish growth and survival by altering the

underwater environment. On the other hand, sparse stands of aquatic vegetation can be 

detrimental to fish populations. When the density of aquatic plants is too low, vegetation

is ineffective as refuge for juvenile fishes causing the predators to deplete the numbers o

juvenile fish. According to the PUD (2001a,b), the literature suggests that intermed

densities of mixed aquatic vegetation would result in the greatest fish production. 

As discussed in detail in section 3.3.4, we recommend the PUD continue meeting

with the Water Quality Work Group to finalize the Aquatic Plant Management Plan 

within 1 year of license issuance.

creation opportunities, but also would likely improve fisheries habitat within the 

main channel and slough areas of the BCR. We address the cost of reservoir habitat 

improvement measures in section 4, Development Analysis.

Fish Hatchery Funding 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes ann

salmonids, as well as funding to the Tribe for bull trout and westslope cutthrout 

trout restoration. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

As part of its TARP, FWS and the Tribe specify the establishment of a fund for 

hatchery supplementation in the BCR and its tributaries based on results of annual trout 

population assessments. WDFW originally recommended annual funding of $25,000, 

similar to the PUD Proposal, for the operation of the Colville fish hatchery for production

lease of native salmonids for release into BCR tributaries. However, after 

reviewing the draft EIS, WDFW revised its original 10(j) recommendation regarding 

hatchery funding to include an additional $100,000 to revitalize an existing “mothballed” 

coldwater hatchery currently located on a tributary to BCR and to provide an additional 

$75,000 annually for O&M of this facility during the term of any new license issued. 

124 
Our

The principal strategy of any salmonid recovery program continues to be the 

ra b s relativ nd

en dep

k. Hatcheries, partially or to tion n

actical short-term solution (Fla e depressed status

of native salmonids in BCR and its tr bu mentation (conservation

re) w like ave r ll trout and westslope 

trout. Funding of hatchery ope lmonids coupled with 

habitat restoration efforts would help to

ortio he watershed. However, we do not agree with the revised level of 

recommended by WDFW. We ery funding in

4, Developmental Analysis, and ations in section 5,

clu

Fish and Wildlife Protection and Enforcement Funding 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

WDFW recommends the PUD provide funding for enforcement officers to better 

a lif ur i ds ,

acquired as p gr

We note that the WDFW recommendation that the PUD provid

ment is spe n d

e as re un ctio j)

and fishing laws are the sole responsibil gton

and operations of the Box Canyon Proje

3.3.3.3 Cumulative Effects on Aquatic Resources 

ver c hy ct t

d construction, reside e

f troductions have all had a cumula r

Pend Oreille River basin. The construct n of Boundary, Box Canyon and 

Albeni Falls dams (and tributary pump stations) have fragmented migr

tions b i ea m fish los t

related entrainment, and severely altered tions in the Pend Oreille 

system e

tures, degraded water quality, an interrupted natural sediment transport 

processes). Non-project related agriculture, timber harvest, road construction, and 

residential development have also degraded tributary habitat reducing the distribution and 

Analysis

protection an

 actions are often nee

d resto tion of aquatic ha itat, but this strategy i ely long-term, a

short-term

species/stoc

offer a pr

ded to sure the persistence of the

tally dedicated to conserva

gg and Nash, 1999). Given th

taries, hatchery supple

ressed

supplementatio

i

aquacultu a majo

cutthroat

ould ly h role in the restoration of bu

rations to produce native sa

restore native trout populations within the Box 

Canyon p

funding

section

n of t

address the cost of fish hatch

make our final recommend

Staff’s Con sions. 

protect fish

restore, and enhance lands 

nd wild e reso ces with n the BCR. FWS recommen

art of the 1998 Settlement A

funding to protect

eement.

Our Analysis 

e funding for

enforce d

wildlif

officers

quired

not a

der Se

cific e

n 10(

vironmental measure designe

of the FPA. The enforcement

ity of the state of Washin

ct does not alter that fact.

to protect fish an

of state hunting

and the existence 

O

and railroa

ish in

the past entury, droele

ntial d

ric development, agriculture,

velopment, mining, flood cont

tive adverse effect on aquatic

ion and operatio

imber harvest, road

rol, and non-native 

esources in the

atory fish

popula y block ng upstr m fish igration, caused direct

instream habitat condi

ses through projec

River

tempera

(i.e., modified th natural flow regime, increased summer water 

d

125 
abunda

cture.

itat for migratory fish populations (i.e., bull 

trout and cutthroat trout). Hourly restrictions on reservoir drawdown rates would have a 

modest stabilizing influence on littoral zone habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. 

Habita tat

y

roup expanded the

terrestr

ture or residential 

aller amounts of federal, state, and local government lands are also present. 

nce of resident fish populations. In addition to these impacts, the introduction of 

non-native fish species for recreation has adversely affected native fish species through 

increased competition and predation, and the introduction of Eurasian watermilfoil into 

BCR has altered historical habitat conditions and changed fish community stru

Together, these impacts have contributed to the decline, and in some cases lack of 

recovery, of native fish species in the basin. 

The Staff Alternative, combined with other federal, state and Tribal fishery 

enhancement/recovery efforts occurring in the basin, would reduce project-related 

adverse effects on aquatic resources. The measures included in the Staff Alternative 

would increase the amount of available hab

t restoration in the tributaries to the BCR would mitigate for project related habi

losses and enhance and protect resident salmonid populations in the basin. Fish hatcher

funding would also contribute to future trout and char restoration activities in the lower 

Pend Oreille River. 

3.3.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Even with the best available fish passage technologies (if deemed appropriate 

based on study results), it is likely that the Box Canyon Project and CCPP would 

continue to impede upstream and downstream fish passage to some extent, and that some

unavoidable mortality or injury of fish would be caused by continued entrainment at 

BCD and the CCPP. Mortality or injury may also occur during the monitoring of these 

facilities. The amount of mortality is not known but would likely be a small percentage

of the existing populations and affects primarily juvenile fish. 

3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources 

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment 

The project boundary encompasses a narrow strip of land along the BCR shoreline 

between elevations 2,028 and 2,041 feet msl. Because of this configuration, terrestrial 

resources are strongly influenced by habitat characteristics and land management on 

adjacent ownerships. For this reason, the Terrestrial Resource Work G

ial resource study area to include lands between the project boundary and major

roads that parallel the reservoir. 

The PUD’s study area encompasses a total of more than 22,000 acres. Most of 

this acreage is in private ownership and has been developed for agricul

use. Sm

126 
Veg

The graphic

P lin and . In the nort rtion, forested stands are a mix 

of western hemlock, western red cedar and s in the n of

the project area are dominated by ponderos ouglas fir, and

reflecting warmer, drier site conditions. Bl and aspen are the most 

common trees in deciduous forest stands an s. Wil

dogwood and spiraea are the dominant shrub species where riparian vegetation persists 

a ir s ch of t en cle ral,

residential, and urba

UD classified existing vegetat area

types, based on interpr phot 95 a

s p butes, a ecie th each

cover type. The table provides a picture of communities within the 

s rli nd H only

shoreline. This survey indicated that about t of the shoreline consists of open 

fields; 53 percent is wooded; 6 percent is d and about 1 percent is 

steep and bare of vegetation. 

e PUD ma 0 acres o within the study area. Almost 90 

percent of these are located between RMs 63 and 78, where the Pen lain

i s table 1 inds of wetlands (emergent/open-water and shoreline 

wetlands) were classified as major cover types. These cover types account for about 6.1 

and 7.7 percent, respectively, tlands m area

o st er type 0 percent of th acreage is

cover-typed as agriculture or non-agricultural field, and about 10 percent is forested, with 

t r includ tree d, an

gton Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) has designated one wetland 

w to

wetl

no h ied

as a

etation

PUD’s study area is located within the Okanogan Highlands Physio

rovince (Frank Dyrness, 1973) hern po

grand fir. Forest

a pine, D

southern portio

lodgepole pine, 

ack cottonwood

d in riparian area lows, red osier 

long the reservo horeline, but mu

n land use. 

he shoreline has be ared for agricultu

Vegetation Cover Types 

The P ion within the study into 10 major cover 

etation of aerial 

e acreages, attri

ographs taken in 19

nd common plant sp

nd 1997. Table 12

hows the cover ty s associated wi

 the mosaic of plant 

all, 1991) focused

40 percen

tudy area. An ea er survey (Reese a on the reservoir

ominated by shrubs;

Th pped over 8,00 f wetlands

d Oreille flood p

s widest. A 2 shows, two k

 of we

every other cov

apped in the study

. About 7

. However, wetlands

ccur within almo e wetland

he remainde ed within riparian and shrub, shrublan d urban cover types.

The Washin

ithin the PUD’s study area as a high quality native wetland. The designation applies

ands with diverse native plant communities, few or no non-native species, and low or

uman disturbance. This site, located on the mainstem of Tacoma Creek, is classif

Low Elevation Riparian Wetland by WNHP. 

127 
Table 12.Cover type acreages, attributes, and common plant species within the 

Common Plant 

study area. (Source: Staff) 

Cover Type Acres Acres Acres Cover Type Attributes Species

Total Upland Wetland 

Emergent/ 

-water

ands

498.7 NA 498.7 Agricultural ponds, excavated 

ponds, and naturally occurring 

ponds in topographic depressions 

Sedges, cattails, 

open bulrushes, rush

wetl

es

(e.g., old river channels) 

Sho

wetl

channels submerged at ordinary

Ripa

tree and 

hawthorn in drier 

areas

7,697.4 3,343.4 4,354.0 Livestock grazing, hay production Pasture grasses

flooded e

bs

ing

1 all, sc

ated b

wood or

Mixed 963. inantly 

fire his

m

managem

fire patte

ole;

characterized by

d 

,104.4 5,754.7 349.7 Predomin due

to fire his

some pat

inaccessi

Douglas fir, grand fir, 

ern red cedar,

lodgepole pine

2,622.1 2,4 High-den

commercial and industrial 

developm

plants 

Total 14,079.7 8,224.6 

reline

ands

631.7 NA 631.7 Portions of sloughs, shorelines 

(bars and shallows) and side 

high water 

rian 501.1 381.9 119.2 Narrow, low-density stands along 

the river and tributaries; affected 

Cottonwood

shrub by residential and agricultural 

land use

Shrublands 358 158 200.0 Along riverbanks, sloughs, 

tributaries, levees and islands and 

in grazed and ungrazed fields

Willows, red-osier

dogwood, spiraea on 

wet sites; black 

Agricultural

Nonagricultural2,303.4 816.4 1,487.0 Old pasture, occasional hay 

production; some are seasonally

Mixed forbs and 

grasses; some shru

fields mergent wetlands establish

Deciduous 470.3

forest

62.8 307.5 Sm attered stands; most Black cotton

loc etween RMs 60 and 80 quaking aspen 

dominate; paper birch

occasionally present

forest

1,117.2 4 153.8 Predom

to

young stands due 

tory and timber harvest. 

Wet stands include 

cottonwood and/or 

Species ix reflects timber

ent, natural succession,

rns.

aspen and lodgep

drier sites 

cottonwood, 

lodgepole, an

ponderosa pine

Conifer 6 antly young stands

forest tory and timber harvest; 

ches of older trees on 

western larch, 

west

ble sites. ponderosa pine, 

Urban 99.1 123.0 sity residential, Mixed native 

ents

and ornamentals

acreage

22,304.3

128 
Black cottonwoo in stands or as individuals, have been identified

a ompon re

found in both the deciduous forest and riparian t uous

f re inant tr

cottonw alder. In the riparian tree and shrub cover 

type, cottonwood occurs in small groves or at low densities as a narrow fringe along the 

r ome l ind

shrub. About 470 acres of deciduous forest

s were dy area

Riverbend (RM 60) and Furport (RM 80).

Plant Speci

Approximately 69 plant species, subspeci

state of Washington, or state of Idaho as having tus could occur in the study 

area. Two of these (water howellia and Ute ladi

t re discussed in more detail in sect

ven species that are considered sensiti

w P 1996

current FS and state status for each species docu eys and the 

habitats in which they a . Th es (shown in the 

ble with a footnote) has changed since the surveys were conducted. Buxbaum’s sedge 

and Ca

ed or

suspec ea. In addition to those identified during the PUD’s 

survey Sanicula marilandica) 

growin

ered a 

s afety n

d trees, growing

s an important c ent of two plant communities in the study area. Cottonwoods a

ree and shrub cover types. In decid

orest, cottonwoods a s,

oods are mixed with aspen, birch, or 

typically the dom ee species, but at some site

iverbank, and at s ocations, as scattered

 and about 501 acres of riparian tree and 

ividuals in willow-dominated scrubhrub cover types mapped in the stu , with the largest stands located between

Rare es

es, or varieties designated by the FS, 

special sta

es’ tresses) are listed as threatened under

he ESA and a ion 3.3.5. 

Ele ve because of their rarity or vulnerability 

ere observed during UD field surveys in , 1997, and 1998. Table 13 shows 

mented during the surv

re most often found e FS status of three speci

ta

nadian St. John’s wort were formerly designated as FS Sensitive species, and

prairie cordgrass has been added to the Regional Forester’s List of Sensitive Species. 

Table 14 shows FS sensitive plant species that may occur in the project area, but which

have not been documented to date (FS letter dated November 14, 2002). 

In information provided with preliminary 4(e) terms and conditions, FS indicates 

that 31 plant species on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list are document

ted to occur in the project ar

s, FS has documented the occurrence of black snake-root (

g on NFS lands in the project area within 50 feet of the ordinary high water mark. 

Black snake-root is listed as sensitive in FS Region 6 and is considered a sensitive 

species in Washington. FS also indicates that the FS Sensitive species, adder’s tongue 

(Ophioglossum pusillum), has been documented in the project area. 

In addition to the rare plants shown in tables 13 and 14, surveyors discov

new species of the genus Hedeoma, a member of the mint family, growing within the 

project area. A vigorous population of about 10,000 plants was observed growing on a 

teep, east-facing slope just downstream of the s et near BCD.

129 
Table 13.Sensitive plant species observed in the study area. (Source: PUD, 

from FS, r 14, 2002, modified by staff) 

Common Statu bitat

2000, letter dated Novembe

Scientific Name Name s

a Typical Ha

Antennaria 

parvifolia Nuttall’s pussy

itive; , moist toes FS Sens

Sensitive 

WA Wetlands

meadows, open woods 

Astragalus 

microcystis

Least bladdery

milkvetch 

Sensitive;

e; ID

 1 

avelly and sandy

as along rivers 

Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum’s sedge sitive

Sensitive 

t

meadows 

Carex Many-headed itive Marshes, lake margins 

Chaffweed eview G t ground around 

Water star-gra Review G -gradient streams, 

s, and lakes 

Canadian St. J eams, moist 

meadows, riverbanks 

Orange balsam WA Review G ady areas, 

reas

Adder’s tongue S Sensitive;

reatened

adows and

Black snakero FS Sensitive nks, flood plains, and 

b Prairie cordgra

6 Sensiti nds, marshes, 

Purple meadow FS Sensitive; WA 

e; ID st woods 

e = Taxon identified b orester in or Region 1 

hich viability is a concern, as eviden significant

or d urre trends in

t capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. 

 = Taxon identified by l Forester as m tened 

ously assumed. 

axon likely dangered in W seeable

egradation or loss continue.

 WA e = Taxon vulnerable or declining and could become Endangered or Threatened in the 

management or removal of threats. 

Sensitiv

FS WA

State

Gr

are Priority

b WA Sen ; Idaho Bogs, marshes, we

synchnocephala sedge FS Sensitive; WA 

Sens

Centunculus 

minimus WA R roup 1 Mois

vernal pools 

Low Heteranthera dubia ss WA roup 1

pond

Hypericum majusb ohn’s FS Watch; W

Sensitive; ID wort 

A

State

Str

Priority 2

Impatiens aurella roup 2 Moist sh

riparian a

Ophioglossum 

pusillum

F WA Moist me

Th woods 

Sanicula

marilandica ot

Bogs, fens, stream

ba

benches 

Spartina pectinata ss

FS R

Sensitive 

ve; WA Ditches, po

riverbanks 

Thalictrum 

dasycarpum -rue Sensitiv Review

Meadows, moi

Status Definitions: 

 FS Sensitiv

(Idaho) for w

y the Regional F

ced by

Region 6 (Washington)

 current or predicted downward 

trends in population numbers

habita

ensity, or significant c nt or predicted downward

 FS Watch the Regiona ore abundant and/or less threa

than previ

 WA Threatened = T to become en ashington within the fore

future if factors contributing to its declin

Sensitiv

e or habitat d

state without active

130 
Table 13 continued

Group 1 = Taxon in l field w gned.

Sensitive = Taxon with small populations or localized distributions within Idaho that presently

do not m

ha

taxa which may be of conservation concern in Idaho but for 

wh exists upon which to base a recommendation regarding appropriate 

cla

b Re

WA Review need of additiona ork before a status can be assi

WA Review Group 2 = Taxon with unresolved taxonomic questions. 

 ID 

eet the criteria for classification as State Priority 1 or 2, but whose populations and 

bitats might be jeopardized without active management or removal of threats. 

ID State Priority 1 = Taxon in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated from Idaho in the 

foreseeable future if identifiable factors contributing to decline continue to operate; these are taxa 

whose populations are present only at critically low levels or whose habitats have been degraded or 

depleted to a significant degree. 

ID State Priority 2 = Taxon likely to be classified as Priority 1 within the foreseeable future in 

Idaho, if factors contributing to population decline or habitat degradation or loss continue. 

ID Global Priority 2 = Taxa that globally rare, imperiled become of rarity or because other factors 

make it demonstrably very vulnerable to extinction (typically 6 to 20 occurrences). 

 ID Review = Global and State rare

ich insufficient data

ssification. 

cent change in FS status (see text). 

Table 14. FS sensitive plants that may occur in the project area. (Source: FS, 2002) 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitat and Potential to Occur

Botrychium ascendens Upswept moonwort Low; dry meadows; 3,000–3,400 feet 

Botrychium crenulatum Crenulate moonwort Low; western red cedar-western hemlock

forests, streambanks, flood plains; 2,030–4,600 

ow; western red cedar-western hemlock 

t

ms;

; fens, bogs, wet meadows and ponds; 

feet 

Botrychium hesperium Western moonwort Low; dry to moist meadows; 3,200– 3,300 feet

Botrychium lineare Skinny moonwort L

forests, stream banks, flood plains; 2,000–

4,000 feet 

Botrychium paradoxum Two-spiked moonwort Low; dry meadows, perennial and intermitten

streams; 2,500–3,600 feet 

Botrychium 

pedunculosum

Stalked moonwort Low; dry to moist meadows, perennial strea

2,500–3,300 feet 

Carex comosa Bristly sedge Low; marshes, lake margins, drainage ditches, 

wet meadows; 30– 2,000 feet 

Carex flava Yellow sedge Low

2,420– 4,300 feet 

Carex foenea Bronze sedge Low; marshes; 2,585 feet 

Carex hystricina Porcupine sedge Low; wet meadows, ponds, marshes, seeps; 

550– 1,500 feet 

Carex saxatilis var. 

major

Russet sedge Low; wet meadows and margins of lakes and 

streams. 

131 
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat and Potential to Occur

Cicuta bulb Bulb-bearing water sedge Low; marshes, bogs, wet meadows, edge of 

ponds, shores of allow

standing water; 2 t

ifera

beaver ponds, sh

,200– 3,500 fee

Cryptogramma stelleri Stellar’s rockbrake Good; cliffs; 3,00

Cypripedium Yellow lady’s slipper ow; perennial st ms on limestone rock

der mixed conifer forest; 2,300– 2,700 feet 

i Yellow m Good; cliffs; 2,00 eet

Crested sh Low; fens, wet m ooded swamps; 

2,150– 4,100 feet

Creeping oist areas in coniferous woods; 2,960– 

3,360 feet 

ve w; wet meadows, fens, bogs, perennial 

treams and shrub 900– 3,700 feet 

Lobelia kalmi Kalm’s Lobelia Low; bogs 

Sisyrinchium Blue-eyed grass to moist eadows, perennial streams; 

0–3,850 feet 

ssp. Woodsage Low; wet margins of lakes and ponds, stream

banks; 1,500–2,3

Velvet-leaf blueberry Low; western red cedar-western hemlock 

0– 3,500 feet 

parviflorum

L rea

un

Dryas drummondi ountain avens 0 f

Dryopteris cristata ield fern eadows and w

Gaultheria hispidula snowberry Low; m

Geum rivale Water a ns Lo

s wetlands; 2,

i

septentrionale

Low; dry m

2,20

Teucrium canadense

viscidum 00 feet 

Vaccinium myrtilloides

forests; 2,000–3,000 feet 

Viola renifolia Kidney-leaved violet Low; moist lowland forests 

Three other plant occurrences of interest were documented during botanical 

surveys for the project. Two species had not been recorded previously in Washington. 

Until i

n 

a

ne,

e 34 species listed in table 15 are those for which 

there is documentary evidence of Kalispel use (Fandrich et al., 2000). The Tribe 

identified 10 plants of particular importance, which are footnoted in table 15. 

Table 1 ;

Common Name Primary Uses

t was observed in the study area, slender sedge (Carex tenera) was documented 

only as far west as Montana, and common marsh bedstraw (Galium palustre) was know

only from the eastern United States. Pigmy-weed (Crassula aquatica) was documented

in Idaho during the surveys, and may be the first record of occurrence in the state. 

Ethnobotanical Resources 

The Interior Salish Indian tribes, a grouping that includes the Kalispels, used

wide variety of vascular plants that were grown in the project area for food, medici

religious ceremony, or technology. Th

5. Plant species of ethnobotanical importance. (Source: Fandrich et al., 2000

PUD, 2000, as modified by staff) 

Scientific Name

Abies grandis Grand fir Medicine, technology, religion

Acer douglasii Douglas’ maple Technology

Allium cernuuma Nodding onion Food

132 
Scientific Name Common Name Primary Uses

Alnus incana, A. sinuata Mountain alder, 

thinleaf alder

Technology

Amelanchier alnifolia Serviceberry Food, medicine, technology

Apocy

e Medicine, technology, religion

rnuta Beaked hazelnut Food, technology

Cratae

Pinus

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir Food, medicine, religion

Ribes ology

num androsaemifoliuma Spreading dogbane Medicine, technology

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick Medicine, food

Berberis aquifolium Tall Oregon grape Food, medicine

Berberis nervosa Dull Oregon grap

Cammasia quamasha Camas Food

Cicuta douglasiia Water hemlock Technology

Corylus co

gus columbiana Columbia hawthorn Food, technology

Crataegus douglasii Black hawthorn Food, technology

Fragaria virginiana Broad-petal strawberry Food, medicine

Goodyera oblongifolia Rattlesnake plantain Medicine

Hierochloe odorataa Sweetgrass Medicine, technology

Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray Medicine, technology

Larix occidentalis Western larch Food, medicine, technology

Lomatium spp.

a Lomatium Food, medicine

contorta Lodgepole pine Food, medicine, technology

Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine Food, medicine, religion

Platanthera dilatataa Bog orchid Religion

Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood Medicine, food, technology

lacustre Swamp currant Medicine, techn

Rosa acicularis, R. nutkana, R. 

woodsii

Prickly rose, Nootka 

rose, Wood’s rose 

Medicine, food, religion

Rubus idaeus Raspberry Medicine, food, technology

Scirpus spp.a Bulrush Food, technology

Shepherdia canadensisa Foamberry Food, medicine, religion

Sium suave Water parsnip Food

Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry Medicine, technology, religion

Thuja plicata Western red cedar Food, medicine, religion, technology

133 
Scientific Name Common Name Primary Uses

Typha latifolia Common cattail Food, medicine, technology

a Identified by the Tribe as a plant of particular importance as an ethnobotanical resource.

on in the project area under current 

conditions. Douglas fir and ponderosa pine are dominant tree species in upland settings. 

S ch a rn, haz ceb

snowberry, Oregon grape, rose and o are com story shrubs. Bulrush 

species and cattails are common in wetlands, but camas is no longer abundant. This 

m f e o orta .

Camas is thought to have supplied 50 percent of the ye es needed to support a

p 0 peopl al.,

abundant in the regi e conversion of wet m ultural land use

following European settlement. 

Noxious Weeds 

f W i s t

species. Noxious weeds are classifie the ntal

resources. Class A weeds are those consider

G ass B i es l

species may be designated (i.e., “Cla ”) l in areas where they are

not yet widespread. Where Class B species 

p lass tho y

programs for control are determined on a local level. 

Based on the PUD’s field surveys, no Class A weeds are known to occur within 

the FERC project boundary (PUD, 2000). Table 16 sh tes, and

Class C weeds known to occur in the

oosestrife and leafy spur ented in onl

s nada on a

while reed canarygrass and spotted k ide

PUD’s rare plant surveys indicated that reed canarygra

populations of purple meadow-rue, prairie cordgrass, a s

also indicated that knapweed species and common St. ersely

affecting least bladdery milk-vetch at some sites. 

sian wat milfoil is the o ly noxious aquatic weed known to occur in the 

BCR. The species was first documented in Washington in 1965. Like native species of 

milfoil, Eurasian watermilfoil grows in the shallow waters of lakes and ponds and slowmoving rivers. Although it can provide benefits to fish and wildlife in some situations, 

dense stands are regarded as a nuisance that complicates the management of water 

quality, fisheries, and recreation. 

Many ethnobotanical resources are comm

maller trees, su s hawtho elnut and servi

ceanspray

erry, are widespread, and 

mon under

ember of the lily amily was on f the most imp nt food resources of the Kalispels

arly calori

opulation of more than 4,00

on, due to th

e (Fandrich et 2000). Camas is no longer 

eadows to agric

The state o ashington def nes noxious weed

d according to

ed the highest priority for control. 

as aggressive non-native plan

risk they pose to environme

enerally, Cl ncludes speci that are presently

ss B-designates

imited in distribution. Class B

for contro

are already abundant, containment is the 

rimary goal. C C weeds are se that are alread widespread, and long-term

ows Class B, B-designa

study area.

Purple l

tudy area. Ca

ge are docum

St. John’s wort,

napweed are w

y a few locations in the 

nd common tansy are scattered, 

spread. In the study area, the 

ss is competing with some

nd many-headed sedge. Survey

John’s wort appear to be adv

thistle, comm

Eura er n

134 
Table 16. Noxious w n to occur in, or adjacent to, the study area. (Source: 

Staff) 

e Com

eeds know

Scientific Nam mon Name Classification

Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle B-designate

Centaurea biebersteinii Spo

Centaurea jacea x nigra Meadow knapweed

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle

esula Lea

ypericum perforatum Com ort

Linaria dalmatica ssp. dalmatica Dalm

Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife

catu Eur

Phalaris arundinacea Ree

Tanacetum vulgare Com

tted knapweed B

B-designate

C

Euphorbia fy spurge

mon St. John’s w

atian toadflax

B-designate

C

B

B-designate

H

Myriophyllum spi m asian watermilfoil

d canarygrass

mon tansy

B

C

C

The abundance of Eurasian watermilfoil in beds

varies considerably. It accounts for less than 10 percen

abundance in 40 percent of the vegetated areas, and over 50 percent of the plant 

community in about 34 percent of the vegetated area. Most aquatic plant beds and, thus, 

areas with the highest abundan il nd.

Currently, the PUD and Pend m

Eurasian watermilfoil, but other species as well, at locations where they constitute a 

nuisance) cooperatively through a re n p

use of a boat-mounted machine to till bottom sediments in the reservoir, with the goal of 

uprooting Eurasian watermilfoil. The program has been underway since 1986. Since 

1995, the rotovator has been used to treat about 200 acres of the reservoir per year. The 

P tly wo c , and

agencies, and local residents to investigat ive

watermilfoil and other aquatic weeds. 

Wildlife 

The mosaic of habitats in the study area supports a variety of wildlife species. 

Some of the more common mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians are briefly 

described below. 

White-tailed deer are the most abundant large mammals in the study area. Mule 

deer, black bear, and Rocky Mountain elk are also occasionally present. The size of the 

elk population is unknown, since small herds and groups are scattered throughout 

northeastern Washington, but it is thought to be expanding and elk are dispersing into 

of aquatic plants in the BCR

t of the total aquatic plant 

ce of Eurasian waterm foil are upstream of River Be

Oreille County anage aquatic weeds (primarily 

gular rotovatio rogram. Rotovation involves the

UD is curren rking with the ounty, federal

e alternat

state resource management 

ways of managing Eurasian 

135 
southern Pend Oreille County (WDFW, 2001a). In 2000, 82 elk were transplanted from 

the vicinity of Hanford to supplement populations in central Pend O unty. Core 

areas are considered to be foothill elevations (i.e., 2000 to 4,000 feet msl) with a mix of 

m habitats. 

gam s during the winter, when deep snow at higher elevations restricts their 

mo ed

as

o

t o

mu

out

a i

f r e

f e

a s

we

ot

lispell Lake, in the Pend Oreille Valley. 

g

garter snak nd western skink, are documented in the study 

area, and rubber boa may als Amphibian species known to occur in the 

study area include the western toad, Pacific chor

t d bull

ty Hab pecies an

has designated several habitat

( ity thin th itat,

wetlands, aspen stands, large-diameter snags and logs, and cliffs. Table 17 shows 

w nown to the area th d

on status as threatened, endangered, sensitive, or candidate species at the state level in 

Washington. The table also presents their sta

sensitive species. This classification include

being in need of special management conside

maintained and do not move toward state or g. We discuss federally listed 

species in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. Although not shown in

table 17, federally listed wildlife species are also considered to be management priorities. 

reille Co

ature forest and shrubby openings adjacent to pasture and meadow

Elevations below 3,500 feet msl are especially important for elk and other big 

e specie

vement and access to forage (WDFW, 2001a). Portions of the study area are mapp

winter range for elk and white-tailed deer. 

Moose populations in the Selkirk Mountains are also expanding, and moose are 

bserved near the project from time to time. Other commonly observed mammals are 

h se strongly associated with lakes, ponds, rivers, and wetlands, such as beaver and 

skrat.

The PUD funded surveys in 1989–1990 and 1992 to provide baseline data ab

v an species diversity and habitat use along the BCR, and supplemented these with

u ther studies in 1998 and 1999. A total of 115 avian species was observed during th

i ld surveys in 1989–1990 (Reese and Hall, 1991), although documented species-habitat

s ociations predict that habitats in the project area probably support many others that 

re not observed (Kauffman et al., 2001; Sallabanks et al., 2001). The project area 

surveys documented the presence of 62 songbird, woodpecker, and game bird species, a 

few shorebird and wading species, 13 raptors, and numerous species of waterfowl. The 

BCR is especially important for waterfowl during spring and fall migrations, but does n

support large numbers of breeding waterfowl in comparison to other extensive wetland

complexes, such as Ca

A few reptiles, including western painted turtle, common garter snake, wanderin

e, northern alligator lizard, a

o be present.

us frog, Columbia spotted frog, longoed salamander, an frog.

State Priori itats and S d FS Sensitive Species 

WDFW s and species as management priorities 

WDFW, 2001b). Prior habitats wi e study area include riparian hab

ildlife species k occur in at have been designated as priorities base

tus in Idaho. Also, table 17 includes FS 

s wildlife the Regional Forester identifies as

ration to ensure that viable populations are

federal listin

136 
Table 17. Species in the project area that are considered as management priorities based 

on their state or F urce: PUD, 2000, letter from FS, dated

r 14, dified

Scientific Name

Common 

Name Stat Habitat

S status. (So

Novembe 2002, as mo by staff)

us

a

Birds

Accipiter gentilis Northern 

oshaw

WA Cand

ID Specia

Concern

nifer and 

Golden eagle WA Cand

Dryocopus pileatus Pileated 

woodpecker

WA Cand

deciduous forest

mbarius Merlin A Cand

ID Protec

game

Falco

Grus canad ensitive; WA

gered

Documented (nesting not confirmed); 

feeds and rests in large tracts of 

und dows; nests in

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’ 

woo

WA Cand ,

Strix nebulosa Grea Sensit

;

pecial C s

andoned raptor nests.

 

g k

idate; Mature or old-growth co

l mixed forest

Aquila chrysaetos idate Open country; grasslands, fields, open

woodlands

idate Mature or old-growth conifer, mixed or

Falco colu W idate;

ted NonOpen country; grasslands, marshes, fields, open woodlands

peregrinus Peregrine falcon FS Sensitive, WA 

Endangered; ID 

Endangered

Cliffs near open water, meadows, 

forests with abundant avian prey

Gavia immer Common loon FS Sensitive, WA Breeds on secluded lakes with abundant 

Sensitive; ID 

Special Concern

vegetation

ensis Sandhill crane FS S

Endan

isturbed marsh or mea

isolated sites with good cover more 

than 0.25 mile from roads

idate Open ponderosa pine forest, old burns

dpecker

t gray owl FS

Monitor

open cottonwood groves

ive; WA

ID

Low; forages in open, grassy habitat

including open forest stands, selective 

S oncern and clear-cut logged areas, meadow

and wetlands; nests in forest stands near 

lakes, wet meadows and pastures in 

large, broken topped snags and 

ab

Mammals

137 
Scientific Name

Common 

Name Statusa Habitat

Coryn

townse

e; WA

ID

Documented in Blueslide train tunnel. 

Hibernates in caves or mine adits close 

dges.

orhinus

ndii

Townsend’s 

big-eared bat

FS Sensitiv

Candidate;

Special Concern to freezing. Nursery colonies in sites 

usually above 50ΕF, often in

abandoned buildings. Roosts in caves, 

mine adits, buildings, and undersides of 

bri

Gulo g tive; WA Low; likely to occur only during

ves,

seclusion from human disturbance.

Marte

r

travel. Dens in large hollow logs or 

marshes, slow-moving 

streams, backwaters, floodwater pools

ulo Wolverine FS Sensi

Candidate; ID 

Special Concern

dispersal. Dens in rock slides, ca

crevices, and glacial cirque basins.

Forages in all habitats but especially

where carrion can be found. Prefers 

s pennanti Pacific fisher FS Sensitive; WA 

Endangered; ID 

Special Concern

Low; likely to occur only during

dispersal; inhabits dense conifer or 

mixed forest with good canopy closure;

prefers late and old structural-stage 

stands. Uses forest adjacent to 

lakeshores, riparian areas and ridges fo

snags, tree cavities, and brush piles.

Amphibians 

Rana pipiens Northern 

leopard frog

FS Sensitive, WA 

Endangered; ID 

Special Concern

Seasonal pools and ponds, lakes, 

reservoir edges, bogs, marshes, slowmoving streams, esp. with herbaceous

vegetation

Rana luteiventris Columbia WA Candidate; Ponds, lakes, 

spotted frog ID Special 

Concern

Invertebrates 

Boloria selene 

atrocostalis

Silver-bordered 

bog fritillary

WA Candidate Wet meadows and bogs; strongly 

associated with northern bog violet

138 
Scientific Name

Common 

Name Statusa Habitat

a Status Definitions: 

FS Sensitive: Species on the Regional Forester’s List of Sensitive Species. 

WA

WA Endangered:

all o

either low in numbers, limited in distribution, or 

have

Candidate: Species the state will review for possible listing as state endangered, threatened or 

sensitive. 

WA Sensitive: Species native to the state that is vulnerable or declining and is likely to become 

endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range within the state without 

cooperative management or removal of threats. 

 Species native to the state that is seriously threatened with extinction throughout

r a significant portion of its range within the state. 

ID Undetermined: Species that might be rare in the state but for which there is little information on 

their population status, distribution, and/or habitat requirements. 

ID Protected Non-game Species: Includes all bird species except rock dove, house sparrow, 

American crow, European starling, game birds, and threatened and endangered species. 

ID Special Concern: Native species which are

suffered significant habitat losses.

ID Endangered: Species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its Idaho

range.

Table 18 lists FS Management Indicator Species (MIS) that could occur in the 

project area. FS selects certain species to monitor as indicators of the effects of planned 

management activities on wildlife populations. MIS do not only represent individual 

species; they are usually chosen because they represent a large number of species with 

similar habitat needs.

Table 18. FS MIS with potential to occur in the study area. (Source: letter from FS, 

dated November 14, 2002) 

Species

Potential for 

Occurrence Range/Essential Habitat

Pileated woodpecker Documented Mature and old-growth forests with at least 40%

canopy closure; large, defective, and dead trees 

Northern three-toed 

 woodpecker 

Very low Subalpine fir and lodgepole pine habitat types, 

areas of burned coniferous forest, abundant snags 

Primary cavity excavators 

(woodpeckers) 

Documented Dead and defective trees, down logs 

Franklin’s grouse Very low Higher elevation areas, typically with abundant 

lodgepole pine

Blue Grouse Very low Park-like timber on or near ridgetops with mature 

fir tees for roosting; mid- to high- elevation forest

meadows and other openings with abundant green 

forage 

139 
Species

Potential for 

Occurrence Range/Essential Habitat

Raptors and g

heron 

reat blue Documented Conifer or deciduous forest stands, open meadows, 

grasslands, wetlands; large live or defective trees, 

snags, cliffs are important to many species; 

abundant prey

Beaver Documented Water bodies with abundant nearby food resources,

such as willow, cottonwood, aspen 

Northe

mammals

Deer, e ing

rn bog lemming Very low High-elevation, boreal remnant wetlands 

Pine marten Very low Mature and old growth forests with 60% or more 

canopy closure preferred; abundant down logs, 

large snags, and defective live trees, mistletoe 

brooms; abundant prey - squirrels and other small 

lk Documented Mosaic of forested habitats is desirable, includ

open areas with abundant browse, green forage, 

and forested hiding and thermal cover 

Table 19 shows FS priority land bird habitats in the project area and vicinity. The 

FS Landbird Strategic Plan requires the FS to evaluate the effects of forest management 

on land birds and protect and enhance habitat for these species or groups of species. 

Table 19. Priority land bird habitats in the project area. (Source: letter from FS, dated 

November 14, 2002)

Priority Land Bird 

Habitat

Focal Species 

Occurring in the 

Project Area Management Goals

Dry forest Chipping sparrow No net loss of ponderosa pine. Maintain 10 trees 

per acre over 21 inches diameter at breast height

(dbh) and at least 2 per acre over 31 inches dbh. 

Mixed mesic forest Townsend’s warbler, 

MacGillivray’s 

No net loss of late and old structural stage stands. 

Retain all trees and snags over 20 inches dbh. 

warbler, varied thrush Manage for connected stands across the lan

Riparian 

woodland/shrubland 

Veery, willow 

flycatcher, red-eyed 

vireo 

No net loss of riparian woodland/shrubland. 

Enhance connectivity, enhance for multiple layers. 

Minimize degradation. Retain all trees over 21 

inches dbh. 

Wetlands None des

dscape.

ignated Protect, restore and enhance wetlands. 

In addition to designations based on federal or state status, WDFW has designated

other species as management priorities based on the vulnerability of aggregations, or on 

their cultural, recreational, or commercial importance. These include big game, nursery

or roosting colonies of bats, concentrations of waterfowl (ducks, geese, and swans) and

140 
cavity-nesting ducks (e.g., wood duck, common goldeneye); and colonial nesting wate

birds (e.g., great blue heron a

r

nd double-crested cormorant). 

fe

tions

PUD conducted nest surveys in 1998 and 1999, focusing on ground-nesting 

specie cated,

islands. Most goose nests were 

found at relatively high elevations on the banks, at levels that would not be affected by 

seasonal high flo

The PUD conducted limited brood surveys in 1998 and more extensive surveys in 

1999. Of a total of 104 broods of 10 waterfowl species observed in 1999, Canada geese 

were m surveys indicate that the most important 

sites in tion are located in protected sloughs and

shallow

The BCR provides suitable habitat for several piscivorous birds, including the 

double prey and bald eagle. All four species are 

federa p ally

protect d

double-cre f

nesting po

All sh as a forage resource. Only the

double e

typical s

A recent status report on double-crested cormorants in North America indicates 

that this species was abundant and widespread prior to European colonization and that 

recent population increases, which have been dramatic in some parts of the country, 

actually represent re-colonization after an absence of 50 to 300 years (Wires et al., 2001). 

Wildlife Resources of Special Interest 

During scoping for the Box Canyon Project, participants identified three wildli

concerns of particular interest in the project area. These include waterfowl productivity, 

interactions between colonial-nesting and piscivorous (fish-eating) birds, and interac

between native frog species and the introduced bullfrog. 

Waterfowl Nesting and Productivity

In the study area, ground-nesting waterfowl species include Canada geese, 

mallards, American wigeon, gadwall, teal and redhead. Cavity-nesting species, such as 

common goldeneye, wood duck, common merganser and hooded merganser, are also 

known to nest in the study area. 

The

s along the BCR shoreline and major islands. Very few duck nests were lo

but 72 Canada goose nests were documented in 1998, and 61 in 1999, with the highest 

numbers in each year located on Indian, Cook’s, and Rat

ws.

ost abundant. The results of the brood

the study area for waterfowl reproduc

s between Riverbend (RM 60) and Furport (RM 80), and in adjacent wetlands, 

although feeding and loafing also occur farther upstream. 

Colonial Nesting and Piscivorous Bird Species 

-crested cormorant, great blue heron, os

lly rotected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The bald eagle is addition

ed under the ESA and by state law. In Washington, both the great blue heron an

sted cormorant are considered priority species because of the vulnerability o

pulations.

four species rely to a great extent on fi

-cr sted cormorant and great blue heron nest in colonies, but all four species 

ly elect nest sites in proximity to large waterbodies where fish are abundant. 

141 
Record ble-crested

cormo t

(Burrou h

watershed

At

Usk was f umber of active nests has grown from 35–40 in 

1996 to 2 ved

near D e n

pilings in

Co ,

1999). Jo from

all levels o fer

small fish face

and pursuing their prey underwater. Feeding flocks often form around concentrations of 

fish, al

Fou

1987, alth

and on Ca

have incre d

from 5-8 n m about 

75 nests in

For allow water and marshy areas,

where y all

mammals

groups, typically within 3 m

Osp

and along

results indicate increases in the number of adu

and the ung produced per nest. A total of 73 active nests was observed in 

1998, w s of the

y

apture. Several studies indicate 

a prefe

ian Island. Six of the nests are constructed 

s of the Lewis and Clark expedition confirm that large numbers of dou

ran s were present along the Columbia River in Washington and in Idaho 

g s, 1995). It is possible that cormorants also occupied the Pend Oreille 

during pre-settlement times. 

present, cormorant colonies are located near Usk and Dalkena. The colony at 

irst documented in 1996. The n

1 8 in 1999. A second colony, containing eight active nests, was first obser

alk na at the mouth of Kent Creek in 1999. In both colonies, cormorants nest o

the river.

rmorants usually fish in water less than about 27 feet deep (Hatch and Weseloh

hnsgard (1993) suggests that, at inland lakes, cormorants likely take prey

f the water column. Cormorants take primarily schooling species. They pre

(i.e., 6 inches in length or less), and capture them by diving from the sur

though birds may also forage alone.

r great blue heron colonies have been documented in the study area since 

ough only 2 may be active at this time. Active colonies are located near Usk

mpbell’s slough near the River Bend Estates. Numbers of nests at these sites

ased since they were first surveyed. The Campbell slough colony increase

ests in 1987 to 23 active nests in 1999. The Usk colony increased fro

1994 to 142 active nests in 1999. 

the most part, great blue herons forage in sh

the capture small fish, crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, and occasionally, sm

(Short and Cooper, 1985). They usually forage alone, but sometimes in small 

iles or less of nest sites. 

rey surveys were conducted in a portion of the study area in 1989 and 1990,

the entire length of the BCR in 1998. Although comparisons are not exact, the

lts present, the number of active nest sites, 

number of yo

ith most of these located between Cusick and Newport. About two-third

nests were constructed on man-made structures (pilings, power poles, goose nest 

platforms). The remaining nests were located in cottonwood trees or conifer snags. 

Osprey generally prey on a variety of fish, diving to capture them in shallow water

or near the surface of deeper water (Johnsgard, 1990). The size of fish taken may var

depending on the abundance of the fish and the ease of c

rence for fish between about 6 and 14 inches (Vana-Miller, 1987). 

Bald eagles are present year-round in the study area. The number of nests in the 

vicinity increased from three prior to 1989 to seven in 1997 and 1998. Nest sites are 

scattered along the BCR between Ione and Ind

142 
in cotto The

l

It is listed as an endangered species 

in Was

nd is

ral

ard frogs were observed during the PUD’s surveys. Until recent 

unconf t

l.,

6 and

turn

st 

riverin

ere

most im

nwoods. Three of these pairs also use ponderosa pine as alternate nest trees.

seventh nest is located in a ponderosa pine tree. 

Bald eagles prey primarily on fish (both live and dead), but also consume a variety

of other items, including waterfowl and carrion. The size of live fish captured in the 

water may be limited by an eagle’s lifting power (about 4 pounds); otherwise, any fish 

swimming near the surface may be considered suitable prey (Johnsgard, 1990). 

Native and Introduced Frog Species 

The PUD conducted amphibian surveys at about 80 sites in the study area. 

Surveys covered a variety of wetland habitats, from narrow ditches and scattered smal

ponds of man-made origin, to palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, to marshes and sloughs

along the Pend Oreille River. Surveys focused on the northern leopard frog, Columbia 

spotted frog, and bullfrog. 

Due to population declines throughout its range, the northern leopard frog is 

considered a species of concern at the federal level.

hington, and is a species of concern in Idaho. The Columbia spotted frog is a 

species of concern at the federal level. It is a candidate for listing in Washington a

considered a species of concern in Idaho. The bullfrog has no special status at the fede

or state level. 

No northern leop

irmed sightings on the KIR (NPPC, 2002), other surveys in the area suggested tha

this species may have been extirpated from northeastern Washington (McAllister et a

1999). Eight specimens were collected from Pend Oreille County between 194

1959, but at the present time, Washington populations are documented only in Grant 

County and at one site in Whitman County. 

Columbia spotted frogs were observed at 13 sites in the study area during the

PUD’s surveys. However, populations appear to be declining on a range-wide basis, due 

to a combination of factors that may include habitat loss and alteration, climate change,

pollutants, and predation by introduced game fish, as well as bullfrogs (WDFW, 1997).

The bullfrog is native to the eastern and mid-western United States, but is 

considered a nuisance in many parts of the west, where it was introduced around the

of the last century. Bullfrogs were observed throughout the study area. They were mo

often observed in or heard calling from ponds and marshes, but were also observed in 

e sloughs and shallows.

Wildlife Species of Cultural Importance 

The Kalispel Indian Cultural History Report (Fandrich et al., 2000) lists 38 

wildlife species for which there is documentation of Kalispel use. White-tailed deer w

portant. Kalispel hunters also took mule deer, elk, moose, black bear, bobcat, 

Canada lynx, gray wolf, and coyote. Smaller mammals, such as river otter, beaver, 

muskrat, mink, raccoon, skunk, and squirrels, were also hunted in the vicinity. Hunting 

143 
groups traveled east of the Rocky Mountains for bison after the acquisition of horses 

made travel more efficient. 

The Pend Oreille valley supported an abundance of waterfowl, and the Kalispels 

hunted ducks, geese, and swans primarily for the meat they provided. The Kalispels als

gathered the eggs of waterfowl. Bones of the Canada goose, tundra swan, great blue 

heron, and ruffed grouse were used as tools. In addition to tool-making materials, ruffed

grouse provided meat and feathers for stuffing pillows. Other birds (e.g., red-tailed 

hawk, bald eagle, northern flicker, pileated woodpecker) were hunted primarily for their

feathers or skins, which the Kalispels used for arrows, ornaments, and medicines. 

o

the

use

and

rn that 

m primarily within the

WMAs (PUD, 2001a), but also including components such as investigation 

and providing financial 

ay wish to improve 

habitat on their property. 

n, and

and margins and riparian areas at Everett 

Most of the mammals that provided meat and hides for the Kalispels prior to 

European settlement are still hunted or trapped in northeastern Washington, although

gray wolf and Canada lynx are protected under the ESA. The Tribe raises bison for

on the reservation and for commercial sale. The herd currently numbers about 100 

animals. 

Under state law, hunting is permitted for most managed game species in 

Washington and Idaho, but federal law prohibits the hunting of raptors, wading birds,

songbirds that once served as ethnobiological resources. 

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects 

Vegetation 

Project Effects on Black Cottonwood 

Several participants in the Box Canyon relicensing process raised the conce

project operations may have reduced the abundance and distribution of cottonwood 

stands along the BCR, and could continue to impair recruitment and survival of 

cottonwoods. 

PUD Proposal 

• Fund a 10-year Cottonwood Enhancement Progra

into the causes of impaired cottonwood recruitment

and technical assistance to other landowners who m

cottonwood

• Manage existing mixed forest to increase cover of cottonwood and aspe

plant additional cottonwood in wetl

Island and Tacoma Creek WMAs. 

144 
Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

• Interior recommends that within 3 years of license issuance, the PUD consult 

ent a 

ustain a 

ridor, in

• WS, the

UD

•

s

reservoir as mitigation for 

s of cottonwood on suitable NFS land 

FS, dated November 14, 2002).

flood plains (Kauffman et al., 2001). Because they 

attain g rch

ood

ver systems, they provide nesting opportunities for a variety of birds 

that use riparian scrub-shrub habitat, help to protect water quality, and support flood plain 

development (Dykaar and Wigington, 2000). 

with FWS, the Tribe, FS, WDFW, and IDFG to develop and implem

Cottonwood Enhancement Program with the objective to increase and s

minimum of 69 acres of cottonwoods within the Pend Oreille River cor

or adjacent to the project area. 

The Tribe concurs with the PUD’s proposal to consult with the F

Tribe, FS, WDFW to develop and implement a Cottonwood Enhancement

Program, and recommends that within 3 years of license issuance, the P

also develop a plan to restore a minimum of 112 acres of cottonwood stands. 

The Tribe revised this recommendation to specify that the PUD should 

enhance or protect 120 acres of existing hardwood stands and introduce an 

additional 120 acres of cottonwood stands (letter from the Tribe, dated 

November 13, 2002). 

FS terms and conditions initially specified that within 3 years of license 

issuance, the PUD acquire (in fee title or via conservation easement) 7.1 acre

of deciduous forest in the northern portion of the

inundation of NFS lands, and within 1 year of acquisition, develop a plan to 

manage this habitat. FS revised this condition and specifies that the PUD

acquire 13.5 acres of cottonwood forest or land capable of producing 

cottonwood forest and restore 3.3 acre

(letter from

• FS recommends the PUD develop a pamphlet and conduct workshops for 

landowners to educate them about the value of riparian vegetation for wildlife. 

• WDFW recommends the PUD evaluate and determine the causes of continuing

decline in cottonwood recruitment and, within 3 years of license issuance, fund

and begin implementation of a plan to assure self-sustaining recruitment. 

Our Analysis 

Black cottonwood stands provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species 

associated with riparian areas and

reat heights and large diameters, mature cottonwoods provide key nest and pe

sites for raptors and other large birds that forage near or in lakes and rivers. Cottonw

trees are not long-lived, however, and recruitment of new individuals is important in

maintaining healthy stands (Mahoney and Rood, 1998).

Young stands of cottonwood also serve important functions. As successional 

habitat in dynamic ri

145 
Cottonwood forests were likely abundant in the Pend Oreille Valley prior to 

European settlement, but conversion of forests to other land uses (timber harvest, 

agricul esidential development) reduced their abundance 

and distribution prior to project construction. The PUD’s comparison of aerial photos 

taken i with photos taken in 1997 indicates that the distribution of 

cottonw 60

years (PU

Characteri

not occurr

BCR. Yo ttonwoods (those described in the cover type summaries as seedling, 

sapling h

where tt

cottonwoo

of them ar . Browse damage by deer, beaver, cattle, or 

other a

ortant to note that the site characterization surveys were not designed to 

assess tt

comple p

applicatio

of existing

Mahone

1998), due

Establishm

establishm

conditions

1998). Inundation reduces the viability of seeds, and drought is one of the primary 

causes of seedling mortality. Cottonwood seeds, dispersed by wind and water, germinate 

best if deposited on suitable substrates (bare, moist soil). Seeds germinating on banks 

and ba

n

d

o the

effects

ture, recreation, and urban and r

n 1943 and 1955

ood stands along the BCR has not changed substantially over the last 50 or

D, 2000). However, site survey data reported in the Cover Type 

zation Summaries of the final license application indicate that recruitment is 

ing in all cottonwood stands that were visited during the surveys along the 

ung co

, s rub-sized, “small,” or sub-canopy trees) were observed at 28 of the 50 sites 

co onwoods were observed during vegetation field surveys. Sites where young 

ds were observed are distributed throughout the study area, but about one-third

e located between Jared and Locke

nimals was noted at only 5 of the 28 sites. 

It is imp

co onwood regeneration or browse effects and, therefore, do not provide a 

te icture of current conditions. However, information included in the license 

n is the only site-specific information available and does serve as an indicator 

conditions.

Recruitment within cottonwood stands occurs primarily by suckering (Rood and 

y, 1995). Recruitment from seed is rare in existing stands (Auble and Scott, 

in large part to competition for soil moisture (Cooper et al., 1999). 

ent of new stands occurs primarily through seed dispersion, germination and 

ent. The germination and survival of seedlings is closely linked to hydrologic

(Auble and Scott, 1998; Rood and Mahoney, 1995; Mahoney and Rood, 

rs below the ordinary high water mark where they may be exposed to high water 

velocities, bedload movement, ice scour, and large variations in moisture regime are 

unlikely to survive beyond the sapling stage; large floods are needed to produce the 

moist, bare-soil conditions necessary for survival and stand success at elevations high

enough above river or reservoir shorelines to protect them from future flood disturbances.

Several studies of regulated river systems in the western United States have show

that alterations of the natural hydrograph can dramatically affect the recruitment and

survival of cottonwood stands (Auble and Scott, 1998; Cooper et al., 1999; Mahoney an

Rood, 1998; Rood and Mahoney, 1995; Rood et al., 1998). These studies point t

of changes in the magnitude, frequency, timing, and duration of flood flows. 

Operation of the Box Canyon Project does not affect the magnitude, frequency, or

timing of large floods, because the project has little storage capacity. Large flood flows 

146 
are regulated by releases at Albeni Falls dam and other upstream hydroelectric projects. 

The project does affect the duration of flood flows; project operations slow the rate at 

which reservoir surface elevations fall after flood flows are released at Albeni Falls dam. 

By hol r than they would otherwise be after floods in May 

and June, suitable substrates may be inundated too late in the season to support seed 

germination or seedling survival. The Tribe filed an assessment by Rood and Braatne 

also in a rine

to rese d recruitment 

becaus y tne, 2002).

for cot w ns contribute to reduced

cottonw o he major ongoing effects on 

cottonw operation of upstream hydro 

project g the BCR 

shoreli hat

at landowner education about protection of riparian habitat 

for wil m of 

t

would cluded in such a program (discussed in section 5, Staff’s 

Conclu

s. 

ensitive and Rare Plant Species 

nts

results of field surveys conducted during 

ding surface elevations highe

dic ting that the conversion of the project reach of the Pend Oreille from rive

rvoir habitat created conditions that are not favorable to cottonwoo

e d namic geomorphic processes no longer occur (Rood and Braa

We agree that construction of the project reduced the amount of habitat suitable 

ton ood and that at the current time, project operatio

o d recruitment. However, we conclude that t

ood abundance and distribution are due to the

s, previous diking and development, and current land use practices alon

ne. We concur with the PUD, resource management agencies, and the Tribe t

the best way to address this important and limited resource is by further investigating the 

causes of impaired recruitment and survival, as well as implementing on-the-ground 

measures to establish new cottonwood stands and enhance existing stands. 

We concur with FS th

dlife would be beneficial. However, development of a pamphlet and progra

workshops specifically for this purpose would duplicate other management measures we

are considering. The PUD proposes to provide funding to the POCD for education abou

methods of preventing and repairing bank erosion; information about riparian habitat 

logically be in

sions). We also discuss the development of a Shoreline Management Plan 

(section 3.3.6.2, Land Use and Aesthetics). The Shoreline Management Plan would

provide information about best management practices for riparian habitat and incorporate 

specific protection measures into planning and permitting on all lands around the BCR. 

We present the costs of these measures in section 4, Developmental Analysi

Because these measures also involve wildlife, we discuss our recommendations for 

cottonwood enhancement in section 5, Staff’s Conclusions. 

Project Effects on S

PUD Proposal 

• Develop and implement a Site Management Plan for the population of 

Hedeoma growing near the BCD. 

• Initially, the PUD proposed to fund production of a brochure about rare pla

in the project area, based on the

relicensing. However, in commenting on the draft EIS, the PUD indicated this 

measure would duplicate a brochure already available through the WNHP. 

147 
• Provide data about documented occurrences to support county efforts to prote

important botanical resources. 

Environmental M

ct

easures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

lands

uation

tigating the feasibility of incorporating 

recommends the PUD implement a plan to protect Hedeoma no 

later than 2003, including publication of information about the Hedeoma

ence, additional searches for the species, and long-term monitoring.

n Project area supports a high level of botanical diversity. Eleven 

rare pl

e sites, biologists

observ ould be

adversely affecting rare plants. FS sensitive 

For thi e

automatic to

protect fed

We portance of protecting rare plants in the project area and 

believe e

coordinati d is

directed to nds.

We discus ion 5,

Staff's Con

• FS specifies that within 1 year of license issuance, the PUD develop a 

Sensitive Species Consultation Plan outlining the PUD’s approach to 

consultation with FS regarding sensitive species on NFS lands. 

• FS specifies that within 6 months of license issuance, the PUD develop a 

Sensitive Plant Species Management Plan, including elements such as 

consultation with the FS to identify sensitive plant populations on NFS

and other lands affected by the project; compiling surveys that have already 

been completed and conducting new surveys for certain species; implementing

noxious weed prevention and control measures to protect sensitive plant 

populations affected by the project; implementing a monitoring and eval

program, annually for 5 years and then biennially, for all sensitive plant 

populations on NFS lands; and inves

prairie cordgrass into erosion control measures. 

• The WNHP

occurr

Our Analysis 

The Box Canyo

ant species and one new species of Hedeoma were observed during the PUD’s field 

surveys (PUD, 2000). During the surveys, biologists identified several sites where rare 

plant populations are growing near the ordinary high water mark of the BCR and would

be exposed to reservoir fluctuations and bank erosion. At some of thes

ed that noxious weeds (reed canarygrass and knapweed, in particular) c

species are not protected under the ESA. 

s r ason, ground-disturbing activities that might affect them would not 

ally be evaluated as part of the PUD’s compliance with ESA requirements

erally listed species. 

recognize the im

th re are two measures to achieve this goal. The first is directed toward 

on with FS on managing FS sensitive plants on NFS lands. The secon

ward protecting FS sensitive and rare plants on PUD-owned or managed la

s our recommendations for the protection of sensitive plant species in sect

clusions. 

148 
Terrestrial and Aquatic Weed Management 

Terrestrial Weed Management

•

3

• s to

Par

• that within 3 years of license issuance, the PUD develop 

•

nes

ent 

No on’s environment because of their 

potential to degrade native plant communities, out-compete rare species, reduce wildlife 

habitat values and reduce productivity of agricultural lands (WSNWCB, 2001). Purple 

loosest

PUD Proposal

Finalize and implement an IWMP for terrestrial weed species, including 

monitoring and management of weeds on land controlled by the PUD (about

percent of land within the project boundary), project-related rights-of-way, and

public boat launches and monitoring and managing knapweed at certain NFS 

sites. 

For a minimum of 3 years, contribute funding to County Weed Board effort

control existing populations of purple loosestrife and leafy spurge documented

on other lands in the project area. 

Recommended Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested 

ties

Interior recommends

an IWMP to survey and monitor noxious weeds on PUD-controlled lands, and 

support the County Weed Board. The Tribe’s recommendations are consistent

with this recommendation. 

FS specifies that within 1 year of license issuance the PUD consult with the FS

in preparing an IWMP consistent with the CNF Weed Prevention Guideli

and the CNF Environmental Assessment for Integrated Noxious Weed 

Treatment, implementation of control measures on NFS lands, as needed, and

coordination with other agencies responsible for noxious weed managem

according to state law. 

Our Analysis 

xious weeds are a growing threat to Washingt

rife, leafy spurge, and spotted knapweed are serious concerns in Pend Oreille 

County. Currently, spotted knapweed is the only noxious weed documented to occur on 

project lands, although small amounts of purple loosestrife and leafy spurge have been 

observed nearby. Meadow knapweed and plumeless thistle are also known to occur 

nearby (letter from S. Sorby, Coordinator, Pend Oreille County Noxious Weed Board, 

WA, to M.R. Salas, Commission, Washington, DC, dated November 18, 2002).

Several federal laws, executive orders, and implementing regulations give land 

managers such as the FS and FWS the responsibility and authority to implement weed 

management measures on their land. Washington and Idaho state law require landowners

149 
to manage some noxious weeds and encourage landowners to manage others. We discus

our recommendations for noxious weed management in section 5, Staff's Conclusions. 

Aquatic Weed Ma

s

nagement

.

M.

e

read

specify that the PUD

comple r

en

ys

PUD Proposal 

• Continue to provide funding to the county’s annual rotovation program

• Finalize and implement the Aquatic Plant Management Plan. 

• Educational signs at boat launches about ways to prevent the spread of EW

• Homeowner brochure for aquatic weed control. 

• Workshop for waterfront property owners. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties

FS specifies that the PUD consult with FWS, the Tribe, WDFW, and BIA in 

developing an Aquatic Plant Management Plan and obtain FS approval of the plan befor

filing it with the Commission. The plan would address control and prevention of sp

of Eurasian watermilfoil and would include rotovation and other supplemental measures,

education, and monitoring. 

Water quality certification conditions for the project

te the Aquatic Plant Management Plan within 30 days of license issuance (lette

from J.M. Bellatty, WDOE, to M. Cauchy, dated February 21, 2003). 

Our Analysis 

Invasive, non-native aquatic weeds can impair water quality, reduce habitat 

suitability for fish and wildlife, interfere with boating, fishing and swimming, and 

degrade aesthetic values. Native aquatic vegetation may also cause adverse effects wh

dense beds or floating mats occur in high-use areas, such as boat launches or swimming

beaches. However, despite their potential for adverse impacts, aquatic vegetation 

(including plants that are designated as noxious weeds) may also provide cover and 

forage for fish, amphibians, turtles and waterfowl, and species, such as Eurasian 

watermilfoil, provide substrate for aquatic macroinvertebrates that serve as forage for 

several species of ducks. 

Eurasian watermilfoil is the only noxious aquatic weed documented to occur in the 

BCR. Although concerns at this time focus on Eurasian watermilfoil, the PUD’s surve

indicate that another introduced species, curly pondweed, is the most abundant aquatic

plant in the BCR. Curly pondweed has not been designated as a noxious species. 

However, like milfoil, curly pondweed may have the potential to outcompete native 

species and reduce native plant diversity. 

The PUD and Pend Oreille County currently manage aquatic weeds cooperatively

through a regular rotovation program. In addition, the PUD has been working with the

150 
Water Quality Work Group (established as part of the relicensing effort) to develop an 

IAVMP. The plan is intended to include a menu of options for preventing and 

controlling aquatic weeds that can be applied on a site-by-site basis, depending on 

stakeholder priorities. 

As part of plan development, the PUD conducted a study, developed and agreed to 

by the work group, of the potential effectiveness of winter drawdowns to control milfoil. 

Two of the three pilot drawdowns at Campbell Pond (located in Campbell Park and 

managed by the PUD) were completed. Results of the aquatic plant surveys following 

the second drawdown indicated the drawdown substantially reduced native plant cove

but did not measurably reduce the cover of Eurasian watermilfoil (D

r,

ES, 2002). 

ss of

a report detailing the results of the 

first 2 years of study. Although successful in rearing large numbers of weevils, biologists 

found n the BCR

survived, reproduced, or had any effect on milfoil abundance or distribution in either 

2001 or 2002 (

management in section 5, 

Staff’s Conclusions. 

l Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

a

be

re

The Water Quality Work Group also developed a plan to study the effectivene

raising and stocking milfoil weevils. The PUD filed

no evidence that the weevils they transplanted into milfoil beds i

Framatone ANP DE&S, 2003). 

We discuss our recommendations for aquatic plant

Wildlife 

Project Effects on Wildlife Habitat 

PUD Proposal 

Consult with the FWS, FS, the Tribe, and WDFW to finalize the Wildlife 

Management Plan outlined in PUD (2001a), including specific enhancement measures, 

expected wildlife benefits, monitoring measures and estimated costs. 

Environmenta

• As part of the Implementation and Monitoring Plan, the PUD would develop

plan to replace the AAHUs lost on the KIR as a result of inundation and 

document progress annually as part of the Implementation and Monitoring Plan

Report. 

• Interior’s initial 4(e) condition no. 7 specifies that the PUD acquire lands to

transferred to BIA to hold in trust for the Tribe, and within 1 year of 

acquisition, develop a plan to improve habitat on these lands for wildlife. 

Interior’s revised 4(e) condition no. 7 specifies enhancement of sandbar, 

deciduous forest, pond, and emergent and/or wet grassland habitat on the KIR 

or other Tribal lands, or if no appropriate sites on the KIR or Tribal lands a

found, to enhance these habitat types on PUD lands. 

151 
• Interior recommends that commencing with license issuance, the PUD assu

continued funding of protection, restoration and enhancement measures on 

lands acquired as part of the Settlement Agreement. 

• Interior recommends that within 6 months of license issuance, the PUD 

re

ts to provide bald eagle habitat. 

D

dry

,

of

oject

d the results of the

HEP, the P d and Tacoma Creek 

that it tive for the two WMAs 

is to re

nd

convene an interdisciplinary team to conduct a Habitat Evaluation Procedure 

(HEP) using the HEP completed in 2000 as a baseline to determine projectrelated losses expected to occur during the upcoming license period and the 

number of Average Annual Habitat Units needed to mitigate for those losses, 

and provide sufficient funding to accomplish the mitigation for anticipated 

future losses. In its August 18, 2004, letter, Interior indicated it would be 

willing to omit this 10(j) recommendation, if the Commission incorporates 

bald eagle nest management guidelines into a required shoreline management 

plan and requires recommended treatmen

• The Tribe recommends that PUD consult with the Tribe, FWS, FS, WDFW,

and IDFG to develop a Grazing Management Plan to maintain suitable habitat 

condition for wildlife on lands associated with the project, e.g., easements and 

PUD-owned lands. 

• The FS initially specified that within 3 years of license issuance, the PU

acquire management control of 7.1 acres of deciduous forest, 17.2 acres of

grassland, 8.8 acres of wet grassland and 11.5 acres of wet shrub habitat. 

between the BCD and Ruby Mountain; and develop site-specific management 

plans and improve specific habitat components on NFS lands, including 

planting hydrophytic shrubs on 3.7 acres and underburning 45 acres to improve

the quality of forage on deer winter range. In its November 14, 2002, letter, 

the FS draft 4(e) conditions specifies that the PUD acquire management 

control of 8.8 acres of wet grassland and 11.5 acres of wet shrub habitat. 

• WDFW recommends the PUD provide the funds necessary to develop, operate

and permanently maintain the wildlife areas, as stipulated under the terms

the Settlement Agreement. 

Our Analysis 

Participants in the relicensing process raised concerns that the project adversely 

affects wildlife by inundating riparian and upland habitat. The 1998 Settlement 

Agreement addresses habitat losses due to inundation on all ownerships within the pr

boundary. Consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement an

UD has purchased over 700 acres of land at Everett Islan

proposes to manage for wildlife. The primary habitat objec

store, protect and enhance existing farmland and pasture to improve riparian and 

wet-meadow habitats. According to HEP calculations agreed to by the signatories to the

1998 Settlement Agreement (PUD, BIA, FWS, the Tribe, FS, WDFW), this land should

be adequate to mitigate for the loss of high priority habitats (identified as deciduous a

152 
mixed forest, emergent grasslands, and ponds) that were inundated as a result of pro

construction. Over time, the WMAs would provide high-quality habitat

ject

for big game,

muskrat and beaver, waterfowl, wading birds, bald eagle, osprey, native amphibians, and 

a varie

implemen purpose of this

recommendation would be to mitigate for 

opport ents to

natural s

contribute

opportunit d

to Tribal m

The

In the draf UD proposes to remove cattle from the 

Everet l

to prevent

would be

wildlife ha

permits co

uncommo

also raised during the relicensing process that the PUD should 

evalua s that could occur during the term of a new license. Interior and the 

Tribe r te

n

sed in section 3.3.1. Information presented in the FLA 

indicat

,

lanting programs, improved 

grazing management, development of individual bald eagle nest site management plans, 

and other protective measures) would result in higher HSIs and larger habitat areas for 

ty of songbirds.

Interior’s revised 4(e) condition no. 7 calls for enhancement measures to be 

ted on KIR lands, in addition to the WMAs. The

inundation of KIR lands and provide 

unities for Tribal access and use. However, we conclude that improvem

re ources within the WMAs would not be limited to the WMAs, but would 

to natural resource benefits throughout the basin. Likewise, increases in 

ies for consumptive and nonconsumptive use of natural resources would exten

embers, as well as other residents and visitors to the Pend Oreille. 

Tribe identifies grazing management as a potential concern in the project area.

t Wildlife Management Plans, the P

t Is and and Tacoma Creek WMAs and to assess and rebuild fences where needed 

future grazing by trespass within the project area. We find that this measure 

beneficial because livestock grazing has the potential to adversely affect 

bitat, bank stability, and water quality. We are unaware of any other grazing 

ntrolled by the PUD within the project boundary, but grazing is not an 

n practice on private lands round the reservoir.

Concerns were

te habitat losse

ecommend the PUD reconvene the HEP team and conduct a new HEP to evalua

such losses. However, the PUD does not propose any changes in project operation or 

facilities that would result in substantial loss of wildlife habitat or reduction in habitat 

quality at this time. We evaluated Staff Alternative (high range) for several recreation

enhancements proposed by FS, Interior, and the Tribe; i.e., certain facilities would be

constructed only if monitoring indicates that certain trigger points are reached (section 

3.3.7, Recreation). There is no information at this time about the size, location, or 

management of these facilities, or any certainty that they would be constructed. If new 

recreation facilities are planned in the future, as a result of monitoring and the FERC 

Form 80 process, conducting a new HEP would be a valuable means of assessing and 

mitigating effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat. We do anticipate that project operatio

would continue to affect riparian habitat along the BCR, because it contributes to 

shoreline erosion, as discus

es that erosion would be likely to occur episodically, at scattered locations, at a 

range of scales, and in various cover types. Because of this variability, it would be 

difficult to accurately predict and quantify changes in wildlife habitat using the HEP. 

The relatively large benefits of the proposed alternative (e.g., land set aside for wildlife

implementation of cottonwood and riparian scrub-shrub p

153 
evalua

ter

nd

also

tions in section 5, Staff’s Conclusions. 

tial

g.

ty

Our Analysis 

and

towns, and the infrastructure (roads, railroads, powerlines) that supports them. While 

some o ent may be associated with the Box Canyon Project in some way, 

much o t

take place as the result of regional growth and would occur even in the absence of the 

project n

The PU

extent through its Shoreline Management Plan (section 3.3.6, Land Use and Aesthetics). 

In deve p hnical

Committe t and

wildlife. In addition to grazing management, described above, these measures should 

include provisions to site new development outside riparian habitat, wetlands and mature 

tion species, while dampening out the calculation of relatively small habitat losses 

that would occur because of erosion (e.g., two or three trees at one site; loss of half an 

acre of grassland at another site 50 miles away). We conclude that implementation of

measures to monitor, control, and remediate project-related erosion would have grea

long-term benefits for wildlife than attempts to quantify and then mitigate for small a

scattered habitat losses by purchasing small and scattered tracts of land which would

be exposed to erosion. Limiting the rate of reservoir drawdown, developing a shoreline 

management plan, and educating landowners about actions they can take to protect and 

improve riparian habitat on their property would also focus on direct management of 

erosion processes in order to minimize their effects. 

We provide costs in section 4, Developmental Analysis, and discuss our final 

recommenda

Effects of Residential Development and Recreation on Wildlife 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes no measures that specifically address the effects of residen

development or recreation on wildlife or wildlife habitat. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

Several participants in the relicensing process raised concerns about indirect 

effects the Box Canyon Project may have on wildlife. These concerns center around 

residential development along the BCR and increases in recreation as growing numbers 

of people visit the project area to enjoy opportunities for swimming, fishing and boatin

Residential development may reduce habitat quality and quantity and interfere with 

wildlife breeding, feeding, resting, and movement. Recreation, especially dispersed 

recreation along the 55-mile reservoir, has the potential to cause disturbance to a varie

of wildlife species. 

Development in the project area consists of farms, ranches, homes, cabins

f this developm

f i occurred long before the project was constructed and is likely continuing to 

. I any case, the PUD owns and controls very little land around the reservoir. 

D does have the authority and responsibility to manage development to some 

lo ing this plan, we anticipate that the PUD would coordinate with the Tec

e to incorporate best management practices to protect wildlife habita

154 
and old ad and

down m t native

plant sp

constructi

The ronmental measures include improvements at 

the Sw t ing for

expans

boat launc

noise distu

been deve

affect botanical resources or wildlife habitat, either during construction or over time, but 

would htly, to overall habitat fragmentation and disturbance in the project 

area as human populations and activities increase. 

s

recreat es

f the

or

on bot n

ection 10(j) recommendations, Interior identified specific concerns about 

peregr

ocument future presence and possible nesting within the project area. 

er forest stands; retain large-diameter live trees, standing snags, and de

a erial; minimize the size of cleared areas; revegetate cleared areas using

ecies; close unnecessary roads, control off-road vehicle use, and schedule 

on outside the breeding season where sensitive species may be involved. 

PUD’s proposed recreation envi

ee Creek Trail site (5 miles north of the reservoir near Metaline Falls), fund

ion of Riverside Park in Oldtown, development of the Ponderay Shores primitive 

h, and signage at several sites. Work at each of these sites would cause minor 

rbance during construction. These sites are located in areas that have already 

loped for residential or recreation use. Additional work would not substantially 

contribute slig

Staff recommendations for recreation enhancements include PUD’s proposals,

with the exception of work at the Sweet Creek Trail, plus installation of new picnic table

at Campbell Park and improvement of the Cusick boat launch. Effects on wildlife would

be similar to those identified under the PUD Proposal. 

FS, Interior, and the Tribe submitted several recommendations regarding 

expansion and improvement of existing recreation sites and development of new 

ion opportunities. These are described in section 3.3.7, Recreation. Measur

such as construction of a shelter or amphitheater at Pioneer Park, improvements of 

parking areas and restrooms at the BCD Viewpoints, and reconstruction of the Kalispel 

boat launch would occur in areas that have already been developed for recreation use and 

would cause little additional impact on wildlife. 

The effects of developing a trail system (including a non-motorized trail along the 

east side of the reservoir and converting the railroad right-of-way on the west side o

reservoir to trail use) cannot be accurately evaluated without detailed information about 

design or management. Most of both trails would be aligned along existing cleared 

rights-of-way, but it is not clear whether new segments of trail would be constructed

whether additional access to the reservoir would be provided at new locations. 

Anticipated levels of various types of activities along the trails and how the trails would 

be managed are also unknown and cannot be evaluated in terms of their potential effects

anical or wildlife resources. Depending on siting and management, impacts o

wildlife could range from minor to severe, affecting a few acres to several thousand

acres. Impacts would be variable from species to species, as well. 

Project Effects on Peregrine Falcon and Great Gray Owl 

In its S

ine falcons and great gray owls. Interior states that peregrine falcon surveys are

necessary to d

155 
Interio

habitat

ns to

the PUD

develop plans for and implement habitat management improvements for 

reater than

ese trees for

termine use and evaluate the need for additional nesting structures. 

ithdrawn this recommendation (letter dated November 21, 2002).

Ou

The PUD conducted surveys for peregrine falcons in 1998 and 1999. No nests 

were fo nd

may breed nearby, the project does not affect nesting habitat (cliffs) and no changes in 

project

t

pport 

pulations, and would benefit foraging peregrines, if present. The 

PUD’s n

cormorant ng

the projec pecifically for peregrine 

falcons e

The

and Logge ounty

(Smith et ervation that has been reported in the 

vicinit f

River, at a

r states that increased human activities, including development, are reducing 

and habitat effectiveness for the great gray owl along the BCR. 

PUD Proposal 

• The PUD proposes no measures that specifically address the effects of the 

project on peregrine falcon and great gray owl. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

• Interior initially recommended that commencing with license issuance the 

PUD should develop survey plans and conduct surveys for peregrine falco

determine if breeding and nesting are occurring in the vicinity. Interior listed 

seven specific sites that should be included in the surveys; however, only one 

of these is within the project area. Interior has withdrawn this recommendation

(letter dated November 21, 2002).

• Interior initially recommended that within 5 years of license issuance

should

great gray owls, including creation of a minimum of 10 nest trees g

16 inches dbh within suitable nesting habitat, and monitoring of th

5 years to de

Interior has w

r Analysis

und. Although individual peregrines have been observed in the project area a

operation are proposed that would affect nesting habitat. Peregrines prey on 

waterfowl and smaller birds that appear to be abundant along the river corridor. 

Implementation of the Wildlife Management Plan for lands at Tacoma Creek and Everet

Island WMAs and other proposals that would improve riparian habitat would su

increased avian prey po

an ual surveys for bald eagle, osprey, great blue heron, and double-crested 

would provide adequate opportunity for detection of peregrine falcons usi

t area. For these reasons, we conclude that surveys s

ar not warranted.

great gray owl is considered extremely rare in northeastern Washington (Vial 

rs, 1998). One record of possible breeding is known from Pend Oreille C

al., 1997). The only great gray owl obs

y o the Box Canyon Project was located about 5 miles west of the Pend Oreille 

n elevation of 3,560 feet msl (PUD, 2001a,b). 

156 
It is possible that the great gray owl is present in the project area, but it is unlike

ecies would breed in the project area, because of the low eleva

ly

that the sp tion of forest

stands st

nesting c

unlogged,

overstory, lose to meadows or 

clearcu w ll

and Henju g,

densely st

widely-sp uld be likely to

provid u

suitabl o

ownership

There is no indication that the Box Canyon Project would directly affect great gray 

owls, if present in the project vicinity. The PUD is not proposing any changes in project 

operati

for

gray

reat gray owls appear to nest

in local concentrations, and management actio

at

rett

d Canada geese and nest boxes for cavityalong the reservoir and the marginal quality of forest stands for nesting. Mo

o curs at elevations above 3,000 feet, in stands that can be characterized as 

mature or older forest stands with a fairly open understory, a fairly dense 

and an abundance of dead, down and leaning trees, c

ts here prey (mainly voles and pocket gophers) is abundant (Franklin, 1988; Bu

m, 1990). Conifer stands in the Box Canyon Project area are primarily youn

ocked second-growth with little dead or down material, or older stands with 

aced individuals and low canopy cover. Neither stand type wo

e s itable nesting habitat. Meadows and pastures in the project area could provide

e f raging habitat, where they are adjacent to older stands on NFS lands or other 

s. 

ons or facilities that would affect forest stand age, structure, or distribution. 

Indirect effects of the project (residential development and recreation) could reduce 

potential recruitment habitat for great gray owls, as young forest stands are converted to

other land uses. However, low elevation would continue to limit habitat suitability

great gray owls, even as stands mature. For these reasons, we do not concur with 

Interior’s recommendation that the PUD create a minimum of 10 nest trees for great

owls. Also, based on a 6-year study conducted in Oregon, g

ns should be focused in areas where owls 

are already known to occur, or in high-quality habitats (Bull and Henjum, 1990). The 

authors of this study also point out that while great gray owls readily nest on artificial 

platforms (rarely in snags), it is unwise to provide suitable nest platforms in habitat th

does not provide suitable cover for juveniles, since juveniles leave the nest about two 

weeks before they can fly, and the risk of predation is high unless stand characteristics 

provide adequate protection from predators. 

Effects of Project Operation on Waterfowl Nesting and Productivity 

PUD Proposal 

• Improve cover for ground-nesting waterfowl at both Tacoma Creek and Eve

Island WMAs. 

• Install nest structures for mallards an

nesting ducks. 

• Contribute materials and training to community groups or landowners 

interested in constructing and installing nest boxes for waterfowl. 

157 
Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

• Interior recommends that within 4 years of license issuance the PUD 

implement a Waterfowl Management Plan to provide more favorable nesti

conditions, including construction of elevated nest st

ng

ructures, mounds, cover,

st at

t

nor. 

-

d

habitat esting

un, we 

and nest boxes in specific areas. 

• The Tribe recommends that within 4 years of license issuance, the PUD 

develop a Waterfowl Management Plan for all suitable PUD-owned lands and 

project-related lands, acquire, and enhance 100 acres of additional waterfowl 

nesting habitat with appropriate cover, and restore 40 acres of riparian fore

sites where nest boxes are used. 

Our Analysis 

The PUD conducted waterfowl surveys in 1997–1999 to evaluate potential project

effects on ground-nesting ducks and geese. Survey results showed that, during some 

years, high flows in the spring can reduce waterfowl productivity in the project area by 

inundating nests or causing delays in nest initiation. Flood flows, which typically occur

between mid-May and mid-July, are regulated primarily by upstream hydroelectric 

facilities (e.g., Albeni Falls). The Box Canyon Project does not affect flood magnitude, 

but does slow the rate at which water surface elevations fall after high flow events. 

During the 1997–1999 nest surveys, no duck nests were observed between 

elevations 2028 and 2041 msl, where they could be affected by project operations. Abou

25 percent of the Canada goose nests observed during the surveys were located between 

elevations 2028 and 2041 msl. Canada geese typically nest early in the year, before peak

spring run-off, and project operations would have a small effect on goose production. 

Our analysis indicates that project effects on ground-nesting waterfowl are mi

However, waterfowl are considered an important wildlife, recreation, and cultural 

resource in the Pend Oreille valley. Protection and enhancement of riparian and wetland 

habitat would help to maintain or increase nesting opportunities for a number of ground

nesting species, including mallards and Canada geese. These two species are more 

abundant in the vicinity than any other species of waterfowl. Riparian and wetlan

improvements would also help to increase nesting opportunities for cavity-n

birds, such as wood duck and goldeneye over the long term, as trees mature and decay. 

The Tribe’s comments on the draft EIS pointed out that while installation of 

artificial structures could help to support larger waterfowl nesting populations, this 

approach would not provide support for other life stages. While broader-based efforts to

improve habitat are generally more effective and more economical in the long r

believe the installation of some nest structures could have immediate benefits in the 

short-term. 

We discuss our recommendations for waterfowl protection in section 5, Staff's 

Conclusions. 

158 
Avian Collision and Electrocution Hazards 

ct

ndation, while continuing to

encourage the PUD to implement measures to minimize risks to wildlife along 

transm Commission has no jurisdiction over power lines associated with 

the Bo

consider d

PUD to co

towers and

is needed. This approach wo

protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protec

o

PU

Rec encies and Other Interested 

Inte ys

for piscivo ions,

terms and

Endanger

•

•

n’s Lake, also located 

FERC project boundary. 

g

Depending on their design and location, transmission lines may pose a risk of 

collision or electrocution to raptors and other birds (APLIC, 1996). Participants in the 

relicensing process identified avian collision and electrocution hazards along proje

transmission lines as a wildlife concern, as evidenced by Interior’s initial Section 10(j) 

recommendations and FS initial Section 10(a) recommendations. In its letter dated 

November 21, 2003, Interior withdrew its recomme

ission lines. The

x Canyon Project, because they are outside the project boundary and are not 

e project features. As a basic conservation measure however, we encourage the

nsult with the agencies to evaluate the siting and design of transmission lines, 

poles, and then determine the most appropriate course of action, if any action 

uld help to ensure the PUD meets the requirements for bird 

tion Act.

Pr ject Effects on Colonial Nesting and Piscivorous Bird Species 

D Proposal 

• Conduct annual surveys until populations appear stable (i.e., less than 10

percent change over a 3-year period), and then every 5 years through the 

license period. 

ommended Environmental Measures from Ag

Parties 

rior, FS, and WDFW submitted several recommendations regarding surve

rous and colonial-nesting waterbirds. We discuss agency recommendat

conditions pertaining to bald eagles in section 3.3.5, Threatened and 

ed Species. 

Interior recommends that commencing with license issuance the PUD conduct

osprey population and nest surveys at least once every 3 years to monitor

population status, activities, and changes in habitat. 

Interior recommends that upon license issuance the PUD conduct annual 

nesting surveys of great blue heron, including sites near Usk, about half a mile

from the reservoir, and at Winchester Lake and Va

outside the

• Interior recommends the PUD, upon license issuance, conduct annual nestin

surveys of double-crested cormorants; if populations are found to increase 

significantly over 1999 numbers, more studies may be warranted. 

159 
• The Tribe recommends the PUD conduct annual nesting surveys of osprey, 

great blue heron, and double-crested cormorant, respectively.

o

e-crested cormorants

t

y

ledicated that interspecific competition for

forage

the

tterns. Surveys on 

the Sna

three species increased between 1996 and 1998 (Pope, 2001). This 

finding

; 

• The Tribe recommends that within 2 years of license issuance, the PUD 

develop a plan to acquire and manage 70 acres of deciduous forest habitat to 

provide nesting opportunities for great blue heron. 

• FS specifies that within 1 year of license issuance the PUD develop a plan t

monitor nests of all four species annually, and if doubl

appear to be competing with other species for nest/perch sites or other habita

components, develop and implement management measures. 

• WDFW recommends the PUD conduct osprey nest surveys at least once ever

3 years during the nesting season and conduct annual nest surveys of doub

crested cormorant and great blue heron. 

Our Analysis 

As described in section 3.3.4.1, a double-crested cormorant colony near Usk was 

first documented in 1996. The number of nests grew from 35 or 40 in 1996 to 128 in

1999. A second colony was observed in 1999 near Dalkena. Some participants in the 

relicensing process raised the concern that growing populations of double-crested 

cormorants could compete with bald eagles and osprey for food resources, and could 

compete with osprey and great blue heron for nest sites. Some concerns regarding 

potential effects on fish populations were also identified. 

Double-crested cormorant populations in the U.S. have exploded over the past 30 

years (Wires et al., 2001). No studies have in

has adversely affected other colonial nesting species, but several studies have 

suggested that cormorants displace other colonial-nesting waterbirds, such as blackcrowned night herons (Shieldcastle and Martin, 1991). Cormorants may directly compete

with other species for nest sites, or may reduce habitat suitability by degrading 

vegetation, including mature trees and understory trees and shrubs. Where doublecrested cormorants nest in the tree canopy, their highly acidic guano drops onto

subcanopy, where it can destroy vegetation or alter stand succession pa

ke River, however, have documented one site where great blue heron, blackcrowned night heron, and double-crested cormorant nest in the same rookery, and where 

nest counts of all

indicates that nesting behavior of waterbirds is likely to vary, depending on

regional habitat opportunities and constraints. 

In some areas, study results indicate that, as cormorant populations have rapidly 

increased, gamefish populations have just as dramatically decreased (NYSDEC, 1999

NYSDEC, 2000). However, no studies have established a direct link that identifies 

cormorant predation as the primary factor in gamefish population declines (Trapp et al., 

1999; Wires et al., 2001). A review of published studies shows that, because they are 

160 
opportunistic feeders that take a wide variety of prey, cormorants generally have only a

minor effect on gamefish populations (Trapp et al., 1999). The exception occurs where

large numbers of fish are concentrated, either spatially (e.g., at spawning beaches or 

aquacu

s,

t

ey

), in addition to the four species of interest, have likely benefited 

from i mated in

to

g

andonment of two colonies in 

recent

ir

ons.

lture facilities) or temporally (e.g., hatchery releases). 

We found no studies that have documented adverse impacts as a result of 

interspecific competition for forage between double-crested cormorants and other bird

but it is possible that direct interactions, including competition for forage, could occur 

among these four species of interest. For example, pirating of captured fish is frequently

observed between bald eagles and osprey. Predation, another example of direct

interaction, could also occur. Bald eagle predation on great blue heron nestlings has

reduced productivity or caused abandonment of several great blue heron rookeries in 

western Washington over the past 10 years. It is also possible that indirect, less easily 

observed interactions could occur, but there is no evidence of any interspecific interaction

in the project area to date. At the current time, double-crested cormorants in the projec

area are nesting on pilings, and their impact on vegetation is not a concern. Since th

focus their foraging efforts on fish less than 6 inches long, and tend to forage in deeper 

water than bald eagles, osprey, or great blue heron, they are not likely to outcompete or

displace them. 

We conclude that a number of piscivorous bird species (e.g., mergansers, grebes,

loons, belted kingfishers

ncreases in the area of foraging habitat and increases in the prey base (esti

terms of fish standing crop) that have occurred as a result of conversion from riverine

reservoir conditions. The double-crested cormorant is a native species that is respondin

well to this habitat type and to protection measures, just as raptors and great blue herons 

are. It would be prudent to monitor populations as double-crested cormorants re-colonize 

their historic range, since it is possible that at some point in the future, management 

actions would be necessary. In many states along the eastern seaboard and southeastern

United States, cormorant populations have reached nuisance levels. The Departments of 

Interior and Agriculture recently cooperated in preparing an EIS to evaluate a range of 

alternatives for managing cormorants where they are causing adverse impacts on water 

quality, vegetation, fisheries, recreation and other resource values (FWS, 2001). 

The Tribe recommends the PUD purchase or manage 70 acres of additional 

deciduous forest to provide habitat for the great blue heron. However, as the Tribe points

out in its recommendations regarding great blue heron, ab

years has likely been due to timber harvest, not project operation. There is no 

evidence that populations are in decline, or that disturbance on the reservoir or reservo

shorelines is affecting great blue heron populations or use of the project area. 

Management of the Everett Island and Tacoma Creek WMAs, wetland enhancement, 

implementation of the cottonwood enhancement program, tributary enhancement, and 

development of a Shoreline Management Plan would help to protect existing habitat, 

establish additional habitat, and improve foraging opportunities for great blue her

161 
Project Effects on Native Amphibians 

Changes in land use and hydrology may affect amphibian populations through 

their impacts on rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and riparian areas. Several participants

the relicensing process raised the concern that changes in land use and hydrology 

associated with the Box Canyon Project adversely affect native amphibians by providing 

conditions that are more suitable for the bullfrog, an introduced species, and less suitab

for native frogs, such as the northern leopard frog. 

PUD Proposal 

• Enhance emergent wetlands and open water/pond habitat at the Tacoma Creek

and Everett Island WMAs, including actions to encourage existing wetland 

vegetation and plant additional emergent and aquatic species; create pond

in

le

s, and

ough

ern

ent

frog tadpoles and fish that might prey 

em.

nge appear to be

declining (Leonard et al., 1993). Until recent unconfirmed reports of sightings on the 

KIR (NPPC, 2002), the species was thought to have been extirpated from Washington, 

maintain water depths in these ponds of 4 to 40 inches from December thr

March. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

• Interior recommends that within 4 years of license issuance the PUD develop 

and implement a management plan for wetland habitats on project lands to

restore or enhance habitat for native amphibians, and in particular, the north

leopard frog, and to control bullfrogs. 

• The Tribe recommends that within 3 years of license issuance the PUD 

develop a plan for increasing the quantity and quality of wetland habitats on

lands associated with the project or owned by the PUD, focusing on habitat 

improvements for the northern leopard frog. 

• FS specifies that within 3 years of license issuance the PUD either purchase 

60.4 acres of emergent grasslands to provide suitable habitat for northern 

leopard frogs and other native amphibians or manage proposed created 

wetlands on the PUD’s land specifically for native amphibians. FS’s

preliminary Section 4(e) condition specified that the PUD should implem

measures to kill off bullfrogs; FS’s draft Section 4(e) condition focuses on the 

use of winter drawdowns to kill off bull

on northern leopard frogs. FS’s preliminary Section 4(e) condition 

recommended focusing monitoring on the northern leopard frog and wetland 

plant species diversity, while the draft Section 4(e) condition is more inclusive 

of all native amphibians and the habitat components needed to support th

Our Analysis 

Northern leopard frog populations throughout the species’ ra

162 
except t C County (McAllister, 1999). The most 

recent

rs,

en-water or permanently flooded 

rmanent water. These

lso abundant before 

project construction, and woul n in the 

absenc pr ver, the project contributes to habitat 

suitabi

e 

o

ess

er,

le in

bullfrog populations (Hayes, 2001). 

northern leopard frogs have similar preferences for warm water and 

open ha rogs require permanent water for successful reproduction. The 

northern leopard frog is largely terrestrial during the summer and fall after breeding, and 

can rep ast

grasses

in Gran ounty and at one site in Whitman

confirmed reports in Pend Oreille County are from 1970. 

Reasons for the species decline are not clear, and may involve a variety of facto

such as climate change, habitat loss and alteration, disease, and predation. Predatory fish

and bullfrogs are thought to have played an important role in the disappearance of the 

northern leopard frog. Predatory fish, including bass, perch, sunfish and crappie, are 

abundant in the BCR. Bullfrogs are common and widespread. 

Suitable bullfrog habitat consists of warm, op

wetlands, or temporarily flooded wetlands that are located near pe

habitat types are abundant in the Pend Oreille valley. They were a

d likely have been colonized by bullfrogs eve

e of the oject (PUD, 2000). Howe

lity for bullfrogs through its effects on water velocity, water temperature, sloughs 

and backwaters, and aquatic macrophyte production. 

Bullfrogs are found in sloughs and shallows along the reservoir shoreline, wher

water velocities are slow and water temperatures are relatively warm. Bullfrogs are

known as voracious predators on anything they can catch, and may directly affect 

populations of other amphibians by preying on them. Introduced warmwater fish are als

known to prey on native frogs; the abundance of species such as yellow perch, crappie, 

and sunfish in the BCR may also adversely affect native frog populations. This may 

occur through direct predation by fish on adult and larval frogs. Warmwater fish are l

likely to prey on bullfrog tadpoles because they are less palatable. Dragonflies, howev

do prey on bullfrog eggs and larvae. Dragonflies are thought to play a significant ro

limiting

Bullfrogs and

bitats, but bullf

roduce in ponds that are only temporarily flooded. Both species require at le

partially ice-free ponds for overwintering. The northern leopard frog generally 

overwinters in larger lakes and streams that do not freeze completely. 

Bullfrog and native frog tadpoles also have similar preferences for warm, shallow

water. Bullfrog tadpoles are aggressive and may displace native frog tadpoles from highquality habitat. 

The PUD proposes to implement several measures at the Everett Island and 

Tacoma Creek WMAs that would improve habitat for pond-breeding amphibians. These 

include elimination of grazing; planting of hydrophytic shrubs and trees along wetland 

margins and riparian areas; and replanting existing pastureland with native forbs and 

. The PUD also proposes to construct 2 half-acre ponds at each WMA. The 

ponds would be operated to maintain about 60 percent of each pond at depths between 4

and 40 inches between December and March. These pond specifications are based on a

163 
Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) model for pond-breeding amphibians that was used to 

conduct the HEP (PUD, 2000). The PUD would monitor these ponds for 3 years, and 

would then construct 7 additional ponds at each WMA. 

Water level management is a valuable method of supporting native pond-breedin

amphibians while reducing the likelihood that bullfrogs would populate the construc

ponds, if water levels are maintained constant during the breeding season and drawn 

down to drain the ponds during late summer or fall. However, as initially advocated by 

Interior and the FS, removal or control (e.g., through application of chemicals) of adult 

bullfrog or larval stages has not proven to be a successful long-term management 

approach in settings where there is a nearby source population of bullfrogs (Hayes, 

2001). Adult bullfrogs easily migrate to other ponds within half a mile of their natal 

ponds (Graves and Anderson, 1987). Telemetry studies in the Willamette Valley indicate 

g

ted

that bu

99). Thus, we would anticipate the possibility of 

exchan thern leopard frogs (if present) between constructed 

wetlan

nd

nd

y or

frog

e model variables and does not necessarily equate 

to high-quality habitat for amphi

llfrogs may travel more than a mile over land, and while most use the connectivity

provided by wetlands, streams, ditches and canals, bullfrogs are also capable of using 

upland habitats as they move between areas of open water (EPA, 2001). Northern 

leopard frogs are also fairly mobile, and after metamorphosis, often emigrate from their 

breeding ponds to more permanent waterbodies, such as lakes, where they congregate 

along the shoreline (McAllister et al., 19

ge of both bullfrogs and nor

ds and the BCR.

The draft Wildlife Management Plans indicate the Technical Committee 

recommended the PUD use HEP methods to measure progress toward target average 

annualized habitat units (AAHUs) on habitat within the WMAs. FS now recommends 

the PUD conduct an effectiveness monitoring program to determine whether the wetla

habitat enhancements are creating habitat components suitable for native amphibians, a

whether pond operation is controlling bullfrogs. Since the breeding biology of northern 

leopard frogs in Washington is not known at this time (McAllister et al., 1999), the HSI

model the HEP team used to define habitat quality for pond-breeding amphibians ma

may not be appropriate for the northern leopard frog, but since the northern leopard

is not known to be present, the Technical Committee’s recommendation to use the pondbreeding amphibian HSI model to evaluate pond habitat may have merit. Because 

wetland plant diversity is not one of th

bians, we conclude it would not be necessary to monitor 

this parameter as an estimate of habitat value for frogs. 

FS recommends that the PUD purchase or restore a minimum of 60.4 acres of 

emergent grasslands. The draft Wildlife Management plans for Everett Island and 

Tacoma Creek contain measures to protect and enhance 416 acres of emergent 

grasslands. We conclude that implementation of these plans would provide adequate 

protection and enhancement for native frogs (including northern leopard frog, if present)

and other amphibian species. It would also improve habitat for big game, small 

mammals, bats, furbearers, songbirds, wading birds, waterfowl, and raptors. 

164 
3.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects on Terrestrial Resources 

Important terrestrial resources in the project area include extensive flood plain

wetlands, valuable stands of cottonwood remaining along the reservoir margin, a rich 

diversi

ubleces. However, the project does contribute to cumulative impacts 

caused by other hydropower developments in the Pend Oreille system (in particular, by 

large storage reservoirs, such as Albeni Falls and Kerr dams, located upstream of Box 

Canyon) through its effects on water velocities, water surface elevations, and shoreline 

erosion. These changes negatively affect natural riverine processes that support riparian 

and we

lopes in the Pend Oreille valley; conversion of 

bottom etlands; 

he

nted with wildlife resources as a primary consideration. 

bute to recovery of bald 

eagle, osprey, double-crested cormorant and great blue heron populations that have 

already responded well to legal protection 

at

se

lbeni Falls

mitigation projects, Pend Oreille

ty of rare plant species, and habitat that supports large numbers of migrant 

waterfowl and a growing population of bald eagles, osprey, great blue heron, and do

crested cormorant. Box Canyon’s operation as an ROR facility minimizes its adverse 

effects on these resour

tland habitats, which in turn support unique plant and wildlife communities. 

Land use patterns have affected terrestrial resources in the project area since 

European settlement began to occur in the 1800s. Activities such as timber harvest, 

grazing, road and railway construction, and residential development resulted in the loss of

old-growth conifer forests along sides

land riparian forests to open agricultural fields; diking and draining of w

and habitat fragmentation. Current land use patterns along the mainstem and lower

reaches of the Pend Oreille tributaries are similar. With anticipated regional growth, 

these land uses would continue to affect terrestrial resources under any relicensing 

alternative. The overall adverse effects of changes in land use can be reduced or 

minimized if the best management practices and recommended measures proposed in t

new license are impleme

In addition to its negative impacts, development of hydropower in the basin may 

also have resulted in cumulative benefits for bald eagles and other piscivorous birds. 

Construction of large reservoirs has created new habitat and abundant forage resources. 

Proposals to protect and enhance deciduous and mixed forests, wetlands and riparian 

habitats associated with the Box Canyon Project would contri

and improved control of DDT and other 

pesticides and metals.

Measures to manage shoreline development and recreation activities; reduce and

repair erosion; control noxious terrestrial and aquatic weeds; and enhance wildlife habit

in the project area would help support cumulative benefits and offset cumulative adver

impacts in the Pend Oreille River basin. Such measures would be consistent with 

projects being implemented by other entities in the basin (e.g., the Tribe’s A

 County’s noxious weed plan; FS efforts to implement 

CNF standards and guidelines and watershed restoration projects). 

165 
3.3.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

As described in section 3.3.7, Recreation, several new recreation facilities 

(campground, parking areas, trail systems) could be constructed in the project area if 

recreation monitoring and the FERC Form 80 process indicate that existing facilities ar

not meeting demand. Construction of new facilities and improved access would be li

to increase the level of hu

e

kely

man activity around and on the reservoir, which could increase 

fragmentation of wildlife habitat and plant communities as well as wildlife disturbance 

from increased contact and interaction with people. 

3.3.5 isted Threatened and Endangered Species 

uatilis) and Ute ladies’-tresses 

(Spiran

lso

ently

isted as a threatened species throughout its range in the 

coterm

BCR, only one bull trout was captured out of a total 1,676 fish sampled. More recently, a 

24-inch adult bull trout was captured near the mouth of Marshall Creek in June 2000 

(letter from FWS, dated November 19, 2002). In this letter, FWS also notes that six were 

captured near the mouth of Slate Creek during surveys conducted in 1994, 1995, 1996, 

1997, and 1999. Slate Creek is a tributary to Boundary reservoir near Boundary dam. 

Bull trout distribution is strongly influenced by water temperature. Optimum

water temperatures for bull trout have been estimated at 36 to 50°F (2 to 10ΕC), while 

temperatures above 59°F (15ΕC) are thought to provide a thermal barrier (64 CFR 

Federally L

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment 

Based on a letter from FWS, one federally listed fish species, two federally listed

plant species, and four federally listed wildlife species may occur in the project area 

(letter from S. Audet, FWS, Spokane, Washington, to D. Boergers, Secretary, FERC, 

Washington, DC, dated November 2, 2001). Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) is 

federally listed as threatened. Water howellia (Howellia aq

thes diluvialis) are listed as threatened. The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is listed as 

endangered. The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) and Canada lynx (Lynx

canadensis) are listed as threatened. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a

listed as threatened, but has been proposed for de-listing because of the success of 

recovery efforts. Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) is curr

designated a “species of concern” by the FWS’ Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife 

Office. 

Fish Species 

Bull Trout 

Bull trout, federally l

inous United States (64 CFR 58910), are rarely found in the BCR, with most 

populations residing in several tributary streams of the lower Pend Oreille River. Only 6

bull trout were found of over 80,000 fish captured within BCR (Ashe and Scholz, 1992; 

Bennett and Liter, 1991). During 1998–2000 trapping studies in tributary streams to the 

166 
58910). Migratory bull trout have been found to be less sensitive to higher temperature

than resident bull trout (WDFW, 1998) and will use thermal refugia to migrate through

corridors with higher than preferred water temperatures. 

Plum Creek Timber Company sampled fish within some tr

s

ibutaries to the BCR

(Cee Cee Ah, LeClerc, Calispell, Tacoma, and Granite creeks) and found bull trout 

present only within the East and West Branches of LeClerc Creek. Ongoing surveys by 

the PU dar

ore

s are

more c

ehnke,

the most abundant trout 

within the Lake Pend Oreille region. 

within the Lower Pend Oreille River basin found the highest 

densiti ek (Ashe

she

,

oted

ks.

cooler reaches, with a lower percentage 

of juveniles. This may indicate poor reproductive success in these areas (FS, 2001). 

D and the Tribe have found bull trout present in low numbers in Mill Creek, Ce

Creek, Indian Creek, and East Branch LeClerc Creek (KNRD and WDFW, 1995). M

recently, during 1998–2000 trapping studies in tributary streams to the BCR, only one 

bull trout was captured out of a total 1,676 fish sampled. A large gravid female was

captured moving downstream in Indian Creek during early September 1999. The fish had 

a damaged or clipped adipose fin, suggesting the fish had been adipose-clipped in Idaho.

Preliminary assessments of tributary streams draining into the BCR completed by 

the Tribe indicate that as much as 210 miles of stream habitat that is free of natural 

barriers may be available to migratory bull trout; however, the PUD notes that actual 

habitat available is likely to be much less as there are numerous anthropogenic barriers to

migration in the tributaries to the BCR. 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout 

Although not listed under the ESA, westslope cutthroat trout is designated a 

“species of concern” by the FWS’ Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office. Both 

resident and adfluvial populations of westslope cutthroat trout are found in the lower 

Pend Oreille basin, though presently, resident populations within tributary stream

ommonly found. Historic native westslope cutthroat distributions in the Pend 

Oreille River were thought to extend downstream only as far as Albeni Falls (B

1992). Williams (1998) believed historical distributions extended as far downstream as

Metaline Falls, suggesting that cutthroat trout populations in the tributaries to the BCR 

were native. Extensive stocking of both westslope cutthroat trout and Yellowstone

cutthroat trout in these tributaries adds doubt as to the origins of these populations 

(Williams, 1998; WDFW unpublished hatchery records; see hatchery outplanting section 

below). Historical accounts relate that cutthroat trout were

Fish sampling

es of westslope cutthroat trout in the middle reaches of Cee Cee Ah Cre

and Scholtz, 1992). Cutthroat were also encountered throughout Tacoma Creek (A

and Scholtz, 1992), Mill and Middle creeks (Bennett and Liter, 1991), Skookum and 

LeClerc creeks (Barber et al., 1990) and some limited areas of Ruby, EF Smalle, SF Lost

and Big Muddy creeks (FS, 2001). In its comments on the draft EIS, the FWS also n

that westslope cutthroat trout have been found in Calispell, Trimble, and Cedar cree

The FS study found the trout in higher gradient,

167 
As discussed in the previous section, the Tribe’s preliminary assessments

tributary streams draining into the BCR indicate that as much as 210 miles of stream 

habitat may be available to migratory westslope cutthroat trout. 

The staff’s alternative, combined with other federal, state, and Tribal fishery 

enhancement/recovery efforts occurring in the basin, would reduce project-related 

adverse effects on aquatic resources, and contribute to the potential recovery of fede

threatened bull trout. 

Plant Species 

of

rally

es in

Washi

emergent plants such as cattails, o

e of the species much farther north and west than had been previously known 

(FWS, 1998). 

Water Howellia 

Water howellia is an aquatic plant that occurs primarily in vernal pools, but is also 

known from the margins of shallow-water ponds that are inundated year-round (59 FR 

134). The species is an annual, reproducing only by seed. Seeds require exposure to air 

for germination. For this reason, populations at a single site may vary from year to year,

depending on hydrologic conditions. 

At one time, water howellia occurred over a large portion of the Pacific 

Northwest, but it has been extirpated from California, Oregon, and several sit

ngton and Idaho (59 FR 134). At the current time, the closest known locations in

Washington are from Spokane County, southwest of the project area (Shelley and 

Moseley, 1988). In Idaho, water howellia is documented in Latah County, about 100 

miles to the southeast. 

Threats to the species include loss and alteration of wetland habitat as a result of

timber harvest, grazing and development. Competition with non-native plant species, 

e.g., reed canarygrass, is also considered a threat. The species is highly vulnerable, due 

to fluctuations in annual numbers, low genetic variability, and specific habitat 

requirements. No critical habitat has been designated. 

Ute Ladies’-tresses 

Ute ladies’-tresses, a terrestrial orchid species, is endemic to wet meadows and 

open riparian habitats that are typically inundated early in the year, with soils remaining

moist throughout the growing season (FWS, 1995). Vegetation at most known sites is 

dominated by grasses and/or forbs, but the species does not successfully compete with

r with aggressive, densely-growing grasses, such as 

reed canarygrass. The reproductive rate is very low; it may take from 5 to 10 years to 

reach reproductive maturity, and mature plants do not flower every year. 

Until 1997, the species had only been documented in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

Nebraska, Utah and Wyoming. The 1997 discovery of a population near Wannacut Lake

in Okanogan County, Washington, about 95 miles northwest of the project area, extended

the rang

168 
Threats to Ute ladies’-tresses include low numbers of individuals, a small number 

of known populations, loss of suitable habitat as a result of urban development, invasion 

of weed species into suitable habitat, stream channelization, water diversions, and other 

activities that alter hydrologic support. Critical habitat has not been designated

draft Recovery Plan has been prepared to address the need for habitat protection and 

enhancement measures. 

, but a

The gray wolf was federally listed as endangered in 1978. Based on the expansion 

of naturally establishing packs in Glacier National Park and the success of reintrodu to

estern Gray Wolf Distinct Population

Segment (DPS), which includes those that may occur in northeastern Washington, to 

threate S was

estima

Aft ray wolf

was limite

habitat and acific Northwest are currently expanding into areas 

characterized by a mix of forests, agricultural lands, and rural residential development 

(65 FR 135). Habitat requirements appear to center around: (1) availability of 

unoccu

ndant.

e

nd elk

gs have been reported near the PUD’s study area since 1990, all 

within ls

aho.

Wildlife Species 

Gray Wolf 

ctions in central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area, FWS is proposing

change the status of some gray wolves in the W

30

ned (65 FR 135). The number of wolves in the Western Gray Wolf DP

ted in 1999 to be about 400 animals (FWS, 2000a). 

er near total eradication in the United States, the distribution of the g

d to remote forests. However, the gray wolf is highly adaptable in its use of 

populations in the P

pied territory with a sufficient prey base, (2) secluded den sites; and (3) human 

tolerance of their presence (FWS, 2000a). 

The study area provides some potential habitat, in terms of its mix of cover types 

and the absence of established wolf territories, but primary prey species are not abu

Although they will take caribou, moose and smaller mammals, such as beaver, snowsho

hare, and mice, wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains feed primarily on deer a

(FWS, 1987; 65 FR 135). 

Six wolf sightin

2 miles of the Pend Oreille River. These occurrences may have been of anima

dispersing from the nearest known territories in Canada, northwestern Montana or Id

 30 FWS may designate DPS of certain species for protection under ESA if they meet three conditions

FR 4722–4725). The first is that the DPS must be discrete (i.e., separated from other populations of 

the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral fac

(61

tors.

Secondly, the population must be significant (i.e., persisting in an ecological setting that is unusual for 

the taxon, loss of the DPS would result in a significant gap in the species’ range, the DPS represents 

the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere, or the DPS 

differs genetically from other populations of the species). Finally, the DPS must meet the criteria for 

listing under the ESA as if it were a species. Non-experimental populations of the gray wolf meet all 

three of these conditions.

169 
During February, 2002, FWS tracked a radio-collared female that had been released in 

northwestern Montana in December, 2001, as she moved through Pend Oreille County 

into British Columbia (Hansen, 2002). Young adults may travel 500 miles or more as 

they di

but

ut 2 miles of the project 

bound

ontana border, numbers from 30 to 40 animals (FWS, 2000b). 

FS ma this

vicinit s a

high pri r

ands

and riparian areas, to dense forests on stee

shrublands (FWS, 1993). Habitat use is seasonal to a large extent, and depends on 

availab

berries, tre

known to scavenge a variety of foods, if an individual has learned this behavior.

use is limited. Habitat is fragmented, and expanding residential development, 

recreat

sightin

unverified ter

data show

Ca

Th

Washi o ts at

relatively high elevations (65 F.R. 58). Most of the dens that have been documented in 

the state have been located in mature or old-growth lodgepole pine, spruce or subalpine 

fir stands (Stinson, 2001). Lynx forage in younger stands, where greater understory 

structure supports higher populations of snowshoe hare. The lynx depends almost 

exclusively on snowshoe hare as its prey base. 

sperse from their natal packs at about age 3 (65 FR 135). 

Grizzly Bear 

The grizzly bear was federally listed as threatened in 1975. In 1999, the FWS 

determined that the status of grizzly bears in the Selkirk Mountains of northeastern 

Washington and northern Idaho should be reclassified from threatened to endangered,

higher priority listing actions have precluded the change (64 F.R. 94). The western 

margin of the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone lies within abo

ary along the east side of the BCR. As of March 2000, the grizzly bear population

in the Selkirks was estimated at about 45 to 50 bears. The Cabinet/Yaak population, 

located along the Idaho-M

nages NFS campgrounds, resorts, and other high human use facilities in

y a “Management Situation 3” where minimizing grizzly bear/human conflict is

o ity (letter from FS, dated November 14, 2002).

The grizzly bear uses a variety of habitats, ranging from low elevation wetl

p sideslopes, to sub-alpine meadows and 

le forage resources. Grizzly bears are omnivorous, feeding on roots, tubers, nuts,

e cambium, insects, fish, small mammals and big game. Grizzly bears are also

The study area provides some potential habitat, but its suitability for grizzly bear 

ional activity and traffic in the vicinity would cause increasing levels of human 

interaction and disturbance. Grizzly bears have rarely been observed in the study area,

but a sub-adult male was killed on the KIR in 1998. Other reports include verified 

gs in the LeClerc Creek and Dry Canyon drainages east of the study area; an 

sighting about half a mile from the Pend Oreille River; and WDFW transmit

ing two river crossings by a radio-collared bear. 

nada Lynx

e Canada lynx was listed as a threatened species in March 2000. In 

ngt n, the Canada lynx occurs in moist Douglas fir and spruce/fir fores

170 
The project area provides no suitable habitat for Canada lynx, due to low 

elevations, young stand ages, and low prey populations. Lynx occupy four of the six 

design d

northe e

Oreille an 000).

Bound e

within abo

Although high-elevation habitats in Idaho would be well within the species’ range, no 

residen o

Bal

s where

e

d a

es suitable forage, nest sites, and perch sites for bald 

eagles, and eagles are present year-round. The number of active nests in the study area 

has increased from three in 1989 to seven in 1998, and Interior reports that, currently, 

there a

01).

4,

ate lynx management zones (LMZs) in Washington. Occupied zones in 

ast rn Washington are located to the west of the project area in the Little Pend

d in the Salmo-Priest Wilderness to the northeast (Ruediger et al., 2

ari s of the LMZs roughly follow the 4,000-foot contour, which brings them

ut 3 to 10 miles of the project boundary at the northern end of the BCR. 

t p pulations have been documented.

d Eagle 

The bald eagle is typically associated with large lakes, rivers, and reservoir

forage resources are abundant. For nesting, the bald eagle generally selects one of th

tallest trees in a forested stand, which provides large limbs that will support the nest an

crown structure that will allow for easy access. Of the seven pairs documented to be 

nesting in the Box Canyon Project area as of 1998, three pairs nest in cottonwoods, one 

pair nests in a ponderosa pine, and three pairs use cottonwoods and ponderosa pine as 

alternate nests (PUD, 2000). Bald eagles in other parts of eastern Washington and 

Montana also use both cottonwoods and ponderosa pines (MBEWG, 1991). 

The PUD study area provid

re nine bald eagle nesting territories located in the riparian corridor of the BCR

(letter from R.J. Torquemada, Supervisor, FWS, Spokane, Washington, to T.J. Welch, 

Commission, Washington, DC, dated August 18, 2004). This increase is consistent with 

trends in the region. In the Pacific Recovery Region (in which the Box Canyon Project is

located), the number of occupied breeding areas exceeded the recovery goal of 800 in 

1990, and by 1998 had increased to 1,480 (64 F.R. 128).

Increases in bald eagle numbers in the project area are also consistent with trends 

in the state. A status review of bald eagles in Washington indicates that subpopulations 

in eastern Washington in particular are increasing at a dramatic rate (Stinson et al., 20

However, the number of occupied nests in western Washington has decreased slightly

since 1980. Together with the number of nests now occurring in developed areas, this

indicates that habitat in western Washington may be saturated (Stinson et al., 2001). 

Bald eagle territories vary in size depending, to a large extent, on forage resources.

Studies conducted in western Washington indicate an average territory size of a 1.6-mile

radius at nest sites (Grubb as cited by FWS, 1986 and letter from FS dated November 1

2002), while Stalmaster (1987) gives an average area for Washington territories as 3.14

square miles. In the upper Columbia River basin of Montana, territories are assumed to 

include land within a 2.5-mile radius of a nest, unless shown to be otherwise (MBEWG, 

1991).

171 
The productivity goal set for the Pacific Region is 1.0 young produced per nestin

area. Based on the PUD’s surveys in 1997–1998 and 1999, nest success in the study area

either met or exceeded this goal in each survey year. Trends in the state have stabilized,

overall, at about 1.0 young per territory. Productivity in some parts of eastern 

Washington (e.g., Lake Roosevelt) averaged 1.69 young per occupied territory between 

1994 and 2000 (Stinson et al., 2001). 

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects 

Pro

g

posed, Threatened, and Endangered Species Consultation

y 

ore

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes no specific measures regarding consultation with FS on 

proposed, threatened, and endangered species. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

• FS specifies that within 1 year of license issuance the PUD develop a 

Proposed, Threatened and Endangered Species Plan to provide for 

conservation of currently listed species and those that may be listed during the

new license period. 

Our Analysis 

FS believes a Proposed, Threatened and Endangered Species Plan would provide

an efficient mechanism for coordination between FERC, the PUD, FS, and the regulator

agencies prior to any changes in project operation, ground-disturbing activities or specific

habitat enhancements that may be implemented within the new license period. FS 

believes this plan is needed to ensure that management of NFS lands is consistent with

the Forest Plan. According to this condition, the PUD would prepare biological 

assessments for project-related activities on NFS lands that would affect species listed or 

proposed for listing. 

We agree with the FS that a mechanism is needed to provide for protection of 

currently listed species and those that may be listed in the future. The Commission 

traditionally has included a license re-opener clause for this purpose, assuming that m

immediate issues would be addressed through the PUD’s compliance with requirements 

of ESA to consult with FWS before implementing any actions that could affect listed 

species. We conclude that development of a separate plan is not warranted. 

172 
Fish Species 

Bull Trout 

Under the No-action Alternative, additional protection measures for bull trout 

would not be implemented, and the potential effects of continued project operation wou

not change from exiting conditions. Therefore, no new project-related effects on bull 

trout would occur. However, federal, state, Tribal, and local entities, including the PU

are currently involved in ongoing habitat restoration activities upstream of the BCD. T

successful implementation of these restoration projects would most likely result in an 

increase in the number of fish that could be adversely affected by continued opera

ld

D,

he

tion of

the project (through the potential for entrainment or high TDG). 

ses several environmental measures that would benefit bull trout 

over existing conditions: 

31, 32

mend

that do not exceed 3 inches within any 1 

at the USGS gage station at Ione, Washington; 

The PUD propo

• upgrade the BCD turbines to reduce TDG levels below BCD;

• implement ramping rates in the BCR that do not exceed 3 inches within any 

one hour period; 

• fund the production of native salmonids earmarked for BCR and/or its 

tributaries; 

• fund additional habitat restoration/enhancement measures in the tributaries of 

the BCR beyond any enhancements completed as part of the original license; 

and 

• fund Tribal staff to monitor bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout restoration

efforts. 

In addition to the PUD’s proposed measures, Interior and the Tribe recom

the following measures that would benefit bull trout: 

• implement ramping rates in the BCR

hour period and develop a study plan to assess the impacts of drawdown on 

fish for the first 5 years after license issuance during drawdown events when

water levels recede for 12 or more consecutive hours at 3 inches per hour. The 

Tribe further recommends a cap of 12 inches per day and 36 inches over a 7-

day time frame, as measured

• implement a phased installation of PUVFs at BCD and the CCPP; 

 31 The PUD also proposes fish-friendly turbine runners to improve survival through the turbines.

32 Increasing the hydraulic capacity of the plant also has the potential to increase the risk of entrainment 

at the project.

173 
• implement a phased approach towards the development of interim and 

passage at BCD and CCPP; 

he

passage, water quality, and habitat 

enhancement measures were specified by the FS, WDFW, and IDFG (see section 

3.3.3.2). In addition, IDFG requested that the PUD develop a contingency plan and 

funding to provide fish passage at BCD. The plan should evaluate the benefits of fish 

passag ssage facilities

at Albeni F

Oreille nd spring to

provid

the effects of the PUD’s proposed measures and those measures 

recommended by the resource agencies and the Tribe in section 3.3.3.2. Based on this 

analys

R

cts. The eventual installation of “fish-friendly” turbine runners would 

likely i bull

prove

at

permanent downstream fish 

• develop and implement a WQRMP designed to bring project waters into 

compliance with state, federal, and Tribal water quality standards; 

• develop a Dissolved Gas Management Plan (DGMP) in consultation with t

Transboundary Gas Group and implement any necessary TDG abatement 

measures; and 

• develop and implement a TARP designed to achieve target levels for trout

production within tributary streams draining to the BCR. 

Similar upstream and downstream 

e at the facility in coordination with the potential addition of fish pa

alls and the Avista projects on the Clark Fork River, upstream of Lake Pend 

. IDFG also recommends a drawdown of the reservoir in fall, winter, a

e free-flowing river conditions in the upper portion (Idaho) of BCR and requested

they be included on any technical team dealing with fish and wildlife resources affected 

by the operations of the project. 

Our Analysis 

We evaluated

is, we conclude that the majority of these measures would likely benefit bull trout

over existing conditions both within and outside of the project area; however, the degree 

of benefit would vary greatly depending on which measures are implemented. 

Although the PUD does not propose specific environmental measures for bull 

trout, several actions proposed by the PUD may benefit bull trout populations in the BC

and its tributaries over existing conditions. The PUD’s proposal to operate the Box 

Canyon Project with a drawdown rate in BCR not to exceed 3 inches per hour would 

minimize the potential for bull trout stranding in BCR, representing a reduction in 

potential impa

ncrease juvenile bull trout passage survival through the project turbines (if

trout are found to be actively migrating downstream past BCD), and potentially improve

TDG conditions downstream of BCD. Improving TDG conditions in the BCD tailrace

over existing conditions may benefit bull trout population below BCD by reducing the 

potential for GBT. The PUD’s proposal to enhance and monitor aquatic habitat in the

BCR tributaries, and to fund an Aquatic Plan Management Plan would serve to im

instream and reservoir habitat conditions for bull trout; however, not to the degree th

has been recommended by the agencies, Tribe and staff. Finally, if deemed appropriate 

174 
by the FWS, the PUD’s proposal to fund the operation of the Colville fish hatchery (or 

other WDFW facility) to produce native salmonids for supplementation would contribute

to ongoing bull trout recovery efforts. Two other measures proposed by the PUD could 

result i

at

conditions for predators of juvenile salmonids. An increase in predator abundance could 

result in direct impacts on bull trout, negating the original objectives of this measure. 

Simila ld

FG, in

fits

mainstem and 

tributary habitat, potentially increasing the distribution and abundance of bull trout in the 

basin ( mended studies determine that bull trout are found to be actively 

migrating upstream nstream past BCD and CCPP). According to FWS (2002), 

habitat fragmentation and entrainment are two major factors that have led to the decline 

of bull

wn

limitat own rate 

was achieving its origi

trout. e

federal, an

Project. M

supersatur major factors leading to the decline 

of bull

Oreille Ri

water qual

resulting i

anticipated t

in a substa in the BCR tributaries (over 

and above the restoration level 

capabl f

restoration

Restoratio to

high water

however, decades, even with the most aggressive 

n adverse impacts on bull trout. The PUD’s proposal to place 100 underwater 

habitat enhancement structures in BCR would also have the potential to improve habit

rly, funding the Tribe’s largemouth bass program through the proposed TRF wou

likely increase the number of largemouth bass in BCR, increasing the risk of predation on

bull trout. 

The measures recommended by the Interior, the Tribe, FS, WDFW, and ID

addition to those proposed by the PUD, would result in a substantial increase in bene

to bull trout (over and above those measures proposed by the PUD). For example, the 

phased installation of temporary and permanent upstream and downstream fish passage

facilities at both sites would allow migratory bull trout to access additional

if our recom

 and dow

trout populations in Washington. The installation of “fish-friendly” turbine 

runners at BCD would also benefit bull trout by increasing the survival of juvenile bull 

trout passing through the project turbines (again, if bull trout are found to be actively 

migrating downstream past BCD). The Interior’s and Tribe’s recommended 5-year

evaluation of the 3 inch per hour drawdown rate in BCR, and the additional drawdo

ions proposed by the PUD, would insure that the 3 inch per hour drawd

nal objective, and provide an increased level of protection for bull 

Th WQRMP and DGMP would require that the PUD meet all applicable state, 

d Tribal water quality standards at locations affected by the Box Canyon 

odified water temperature regimes as a result of dam operation and gas 

ation below dams have been identified as a

trout (FWS, 2002). Improving water quality conditions in BCR and in the Pend 

ver below BCD to the level of meeting all applicable state, federal, and Tribal 

ity standards would improve aquatic habitat conditions in the project area 

n benefits to bull trout. These benefits would likely be greater than those 

under the PUD’s alternative. Lastly, if implemented, the TARP, would resul

ntial improvement to existing aquatic conditions

proposed by the PUD). In the streams that are currently 

e o supporting bull trout, habitat improvement (barrier removal, channel 

, etc,) would likely increase the distribution and abundance of the species. 

n of those streams that are not currently capable of supporting bull trout, due

temperatures or other factors, could eventually be recolonized by bull trout;

this recolonization could take several

175 
restora n

salmonids

We note, however, that even with full implementation of all measures specified by 

the age ox

ge

te

al

ut no

le County, and no occurrences were found 

during s cause of the 

the season (August–September, rather than May–

July) t

ting recreation facilities

or dev p e

habitat en

native am d adversely affect potential habitat. Other 

enhanc

Pro

Ute

was not obs

may n l

whether o

Th onally

inunda g

recreation

wetlands,

those reco ns or waterfowl, could also

advers

tio measures in place. Finally, if deemed appropriate by the FWS native 

would contribute to ongoing bull trout recovery efforts in the basin. 

ncies, the Tribe, and the staff, we conclude that the continued operation of the B

Canyon Project would be likely to adversely affect bull trout because: (1) mortality or

injury could occur when bull trout pass over or through the project dams (or fish passa

facilities); (2) mortality could occur during the implementation or monitoring of the 

proposed measures; (3) mortality or injury could occur when project operations crea

high TDG levels below BCD; and (4) mortality or injury could occur through recreation

fishing that is facilitated by enhanced access site development and maintenance. 

Plant Species 

Project Effects on Water Howellia 

Water howellia may once have been widespread in the Pacific Northwest, b

records exist of its occurrence in Pend Oreil

urveys conducted by the PUD in 1996, 1997, and 1998. However, be

small size of the plant and annual variability in populations, it is difficult to identify the

species, even when surveys are conducted at the proper time of year. Plant surveys in the 

project area were conducted too late in

o make this species readily identifiable. 

The project area contains potential habitat for water howellia in shallow ponds and

palustrine emergent wetlands. Expansion or enhancement of exis

elo ment of new recreation sites would not likely be sited in wetlands, but som

hancement measures, such as those recommended to improve conditions for 

phibians or waterfowl, coul

ement measures, such as grazing control, could improve habitat suitability. 

ject Effects on Ute Ladies’-tresses

ladies’-tresses has not been documented in Pend Oreille County. The species 

erved during the PUD’s field surveys in 1996–1998. However, mature plants 

ot f ower every year, and a single year of survey may be insufficient to determine 

r not the species is present. 

e project area contains potential habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses in seas

ted wet meadows and open riparian areas. Expansion or enhancement of existin

facilities or development of new recreation sites would not likely be sited in 

but could affect riparian areas. Some habitat enhancement measures, such as 

mmended to improve conditions for native amphibia

ely affect potential habitat, while other habitat enhancement measures, such as

control of grazing, could improve habitat suitability. 

176 
Wildlife Species 

Gray Wolf 

y wolves may continue to move through the area from time to time as they 

om established packs in Montana, Idaho and British Columbia in search of 

unoccupied suitable habitat, but would likely avoid areas of concentrated 

ent, traffic, and disturbance. We anticipate that overall levels of disturbance

ould continue to increase with human development in the Pend Oreille Valley.

de that project operations

Gra

disperse fr

mates and

developm to

wildlife w

We conclu and proposed enhancement measures aimed at 

habitat improvem

gray w .

Grizzly Bear 

coordination between local 

homeo

ject, there is a potential

for bea

se

ould function as an attractant to bears that 

occasio tion in

ent or recreation may affect, but would not likely adversely affect, the 

olf

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes no measures for protection of the grizzly bear. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

Interior recommends that within 1 year of license issuance the PUD develop and 

implement a grizzly bear awareness program to provide for

wners organizations, government officials, and the general public to identify 

potential problems and solutions. 

Our Analysis 

Individual grizzly bears can be habituated to look for garbage, camping supplies 

and pet food at recreational sites (FWS, 1993). They are also often attracted to orchards, 

gardens, bird feeders and beehives in residential areas. Although grizzly bears have only 

occasionally been observed in the vicinity of the Box Canyon Pro

rs moving through the project area to habituate to these kinds of attractants. 

Grizzly bears that become accustomed to foraging at recreation sites or residences are 

generally removed, relocated, or destroyed to reduce the risk of direct confrontation with

humans. For this reason, conflict with humans represents a significant threat to the 

grizzly bear. 

Grizzly bear use of the project area is rare at the current time. There is no 

evidence that current project operations affect the grizzly bear. However, food and refu

left at existing or new recreation facilities c

nally move through the project area. In addition, the grizzly bear popula

the Selkirk, Purcell and Cabinet-Yaak mountain ranges northeast of the BCR is

anticipated to expand as a result of habitat protection and management, and bear 

movements through the area may be more frequent in the future. For these reasons, 

177 
providing information and education to the public about what they can do to minimize th

risk of human-grizzly bear conflicts is essential to protect this listed species. 

Specifically, we conclude that measures to reduce the risk of conflicts between 

humans and grizzly bears at PUD-operated recreation facilities would be beneficial. 

Canada Lynx 

As mentioned in section 3.3.4.1, the Canada lynx is typically found at relative

high elevations, in moist forest. In the northern Rocky Mountains, lynx occurrences

most frequent betw

e 

ly

are

een about 5,000 and 6,500 feet msl (Ruediger et al., 2000). 

Lodge

o

prepar

, the

use

pole pine, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce are the primary vegetation 

components of lynx habitat in the western U.S., but cedar and hemlock may also be 

important in northeastern Washington. Dry forest types, such as ponderosa pine, do not 

support lynx. Based on the absence of suitable habitat in the project area, we conclude 

that relicensing the project would not be likely to affect the Canada lynx. 

Bald Eagle 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes to monitor bald eagle populations by conducting annual 

surveys. Surveys for double-crested cormorant, osprey, and great blue heron would als

be conducted to help evaluate interactions between these species. The PUD would 

e annual survey reports and meet with the agencies to review the findings. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

• Interior and the Tribe recommend that commencing with license issuance

PUD conduct annual monitoring of all known nests to determine bald eagle

and nesting productivity and provide an annual monitoring report to the 

agencies, and file it with the Commission. 

• Interior and the Tribe recommend that commencing with license issuance the 

PUD conduct monitoring of actual bald eagle use within each nesting territory 

for two nesting seasons to help identify areas of potential conflict between bald

eagles and human activity or development; and based on this information, 

work with the agencies to develop a site-specific Nest Management Plan or a 

general Breeding Area Plan for the project area. 

• Interior and the Tribe recommend that commencing with license issuance the 

PUD conduct at least two surveys annually during the breeding season and one 

survey annually during the winter to identify any new bald eagle nests or 

communal roost sites; and report the findings of the surveys to the agencies 

and file them with the Commission. 

178 
• Interior recommends the PUD provide information (e.g., signage, brochures) t

promote bald eagle awareness at project-related recreation facilities around the 

BCR. 

In its November 2002 letter, Interior recombined three of its preliminary 10(j) 

recommendations concerning bald eagles. In its August 18, 2004, letter, Interior

provided clarifications and

o

modifications to the recombined 10(j) recommendations. 

While

)

le

d

nes) that may produce larger trees 

ite) and

te

e 

nderburned. According to these revised 

the revised recommendations are fairly consistent with the 4(e) terms and 

conditions that FS submitted in its November 14, 2002, letter, Interior indicates its 

recommendations for habitat treatments are in addition to, not the same as, the FS 4(e

recommendations. 

For nesting habitat, Interior recommends the PUD select four sites for habitat

improvement projects between RM 47 and RM 90, no less than 5 miles apart. At two of 

the sites, the PUD should thin or underburn to accelerate development of mature conifer 

or cottonwood stands. At two of the sites, the PUD should establish 3.3 acres of 

cottonwood and/or plant 100 conifer trees. 

For perching habitat, Interior recommends the PUD select 4 sites for 

improvement, and at each site, should top or girdle five large trees located within 150 feet 

of the water, at least 1,200 feet apart. 

FS recommendations would be implemented downstream of RM 47 to benefit not 

only bald eagles, but other wildlife species, as well, that are associated with cottonwood

habitat. According to FS draft 4(e) conditions, the PUD should: 

• Identify appropriate conifer and cottonwood stands that are either mature 

stands or can be developed over time into mature stands suitable for bald eag

nesting; 

• Develop long-term nesting habitat and perches for bald eagles through forest

stand treatments (underburning or pre-commercial thinning of 24 acres an

pre-commercial thinning around 17 large pi

in a shorter period than if not treated; 

• Establish new stands of conifer (at least 100 native pine trees at one s

cottonwood (at least 3.3 acres of cottonwood at one site) to ensure long-term 

availability of suitable nest trees and perches for bald eagles. ; and 

• Create perch sites along the shore of the reservoir where natural bald eagle

perches are not present, by topping or girdling at least 17 large trees to crea

snags within 150 feet of the shoreline and in view of the water and creating an 

additional 17 snags 15 years after license issuance. 

Interior and FS also recommend monitoring bald eagle use of the snags/perch 

trees; monitoring plantings and protecting them with cages, if needed; and evaluating th

need for retreatment of areas that are thinned or u

179 
terms a g

uate

stlings and number of birds 

at least twice

are not

t

or

ize

t Everett Island and

Tacom

ns

te or

ased

g, perching and roosting habitat and increasing disturbance. We 

agree it will be important for the PUD to implement measures to minimize disturbance 

and lo ita that habitat is limiting and no evidence that 

bald ea

d

e

nesting density figure to the BCR indicates it could support about 6 nests. This 

nd conditions, the PUD would also maintain the measures, as needed, by movin

cages, replanting target tree species, or creating additional snags for perches. 

• FS recommends the PUD develop and implement a monitoring plan to eval

interactions between bald eagles and other piscivorous birds that may compete 

for nest sites or forage, including surveys of active and new bald eagle (and 

double-crested cormorant, osprey and great blue heron) nests on an annual 

basis, recording nesting attempts, number of ne

fledged, and assess the use of potential nest and perch trees created as a result 

of FS’s recommendation. 

• WDFW recommends the PUD conduct bald eagle nest surveys

annually to determine productivity. 

Our Analysis 

As mentioned previously, the only federally listed wildlife species known to

regularly occur in the project area is the bald eagle. Bald eagle populations have 

increased in the project area since 1989, suggesting that current project operations

causing adverse effects on eagles, their prey or habitat. These increases reflect a 

nationwide trend toward recovery. In the project area, increases may be due in large par

to an improved forage base, including fish and waterfowl. 

Although the PUD does not propose any environmental measures specifically f

bald eagles other than annual monitoring, several proposed environmental measures may

help to improve bald eagle habitat over the long term. For example, measures to stabil

banks and reduce shoreline erosion; planting programs implemented a

a Creek WMAs, and investigation into methods for increasing cottonwood

recruitment and survival along the BCR would all contribute to the establishment and/or 

maintenance of riparian vegetation. Measures that increase fish or waterfowl populatio

would indirectly benefit bald eagles by improving the prey base. 

Interior, FS, and the Tribe made several recommendations regarding bald eagles, 

including bald eagle population and productivity surveys, winter use surveys, nest si

reservoir-wide management, and habitat improvement. The recommendations are b

on concerns that development and recreation in the project area are reducing the amount 

and quality of nestin

ss of hab t, but there is little evidence

gles would benefit from the creation of snags from large-diameter live trees, as 

recommended by the agencies and Tribe. 

Using 0.10 nest per mile as an historical average of nesting density, the 

Washington State Status Report estimates that the 865 miles of lake, reservoir, and 

suitable riverine shoreline in eastern Washington could support about 86 nests, compare

to the current number of 70 (Stinson et al., 2001). Application of the same averag

180 
corresponds with an estimate cited in the Montana Habitat Management Guide

Eagles in Northwestern Montana that the average distance between neighboring ne

in the Upper Columbia basin is 10.6 miles. However, Interior’s letter of August 18, 2004

indicated that nesting densities in the upper Pend Oreille between Albeni Falls dam and 

the Clark Fork, including Lake Pend Oreille) are higher; Interior states there are 15 ne

in this reach, or one nest every 3.7 miles, compared to one nest every 6.2 miles b

Albeni Falls and BCD. Using these figures, the BCR could also support about 15 nests.

In comparing the two reaches, however, it is important to point out that Lak

Oreille supports a much more abundant fish population than BCR, including a large 

kokanee fishery. 

Using the average size of nest territories for Washington (8.14 square kilometers,

or 3.14 square miles, cited in Stalmaster, 1987) also indicates the project area could 

support about six nesting pairs, while the larger study area could su

for Bald

st sites

sts

etween

e Pend 

pport about 11 nesting 

pairs.

t of 

enefit other riparian-associated wildlife species, as well. 

es,

0 percent observed in snags (Crenshaw, 1987). For these reasons, 

we con

amount of natural regeneration and natural 

succession, together with improvement of shoreline management, erosion monitoring and 

bald eagle awareness, and implementation of the Cottonwood Enhancement Program

s ould be adequate to a o m tr u se

uated the need for the PUD to address disturbance of bald eagles along the 

BCR. As development and recre increa e risk sturb woul o be

expected to increase. Recreation use is highe mer m nths, ciding 

with the time of year when eagles are feeding young at the nest. Eaglets hatch in mid

April to mid-May and remain in the nest for 10 to 12 weeks, fledging between the end of 

Bald eagles are highly territorial during the breeding season. Since the study area

currently supports nine active nests (based on information provided by Interior in its 

letter dated August 18, 2004), it is likely that density-dependent factors will limit 

substantial expansion of the breeding population. 

In view of this likelihood, silvicultural treatments to accelerate the developmen

large-diameter trees in forested stands around the BCR would not necessarily equate to 

increases in bald eagle populations. We conclude, however, that such treatments (e.g., 

thinning to release canopy dominants, underburning) would improve the potential for 

bald eagle nesting, and would b

We evaluated the need for perch trees separately from the need for nest trees. As 

discussed earlier in this section, mature forest along the reservoir shoreline was identified 

during the relicensing process as an extremely important resource. Current conditions 

suggest a general scarcity of large-diameter trees, apparent low recruitment of new 

shoreline trees, and potential loss to erosion of existing shoreline trees. In addition, a 

study of bald eagles in the Lower Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille showed that 85

percent of the bald eagles that were observed as they perched were observed in live tre

compared to less than 1

clude that retaining large-diameter trees would be preferable to topping or girdling

them to create snags. Even a limited

control, public education about riparian habitat protection, public information to promote 

h llow f r replace ent of perch ees aro nd the re rvoir. 

We eval

ation se, th

st during the sum

of di ance

o

d als

coin

-

181 
June and the middle of August (Johnsgard, 1990). Abundant forage availability dur

this time of year can strongly affect rearing success. Boating and fishing on the res

which reach their peak during the same time of year, could cause disturbance to foraging 

e g breeding season. Studies of interactions between humans and bald 

eagles in the Columbia River estuary indicate that management of disturbance around 

f r in nest success

( c , 1991)

nce can als adversely affect wintering birds, by increasing their energy 

d m ing ph ologic tress (Stalmaster an aiser, 8). H ver,

recreation use of the BCR is relatively low du g the winter, and disturbance is less 

likely to occur. The number of wi

ements are unlikely to affect bald 

eagles, and most sites recommended by the agencies for recreation facility improvements 

are located over 0.25 mile from existing bald eagle nests in the project area. Construction 

of additional recreation facilities in the future ndicate the C For pro

a d nitoring, could have more extensive effects but timing restrictions 

c u vent short-term disturbance due to co

effects of improved access and increases in dispersed recreation would depe n siti

and .

f the ex t of bo ing, water

r io he

need to e. Provision of signs or brochures at 

UD-operated recreation sites would be a direct and economical means of contacting 

age broad-based support for PUD measures. 

Due to the extent of residential and other development around the reservoir, we 

conclu ul ate best management practices for bald eagles 

into a s nagement practices could address siting of 

new de

easures, and individual Nest Site Management Plans for

pairs th

ns

g the BCR population. We recognize that the PUD’s 

manag e,

or negative effects on bald eagles that may nest outside the project 

boundary, but forage inside it. 

ing

ervoir,

a les during the

oraging areas, as well as around nest sites, is an important facto

M Garigal et al.

Disturba

.

o

e ands and caus ysi al s d K 199 owe

rin

ntering birds is also low. 

The PUD’s proposals for recreation enhanc

, if i d by FER m 80 cess

n

o

recreation mo

ld be implemented to pre nstruction. Long-term

nd o ng

management

Because o ten at skiing, fishing, and other water-based 

ecreat n, we conclude it would be beneficial to inform and educate the public about t

protect habitat and minimize disturbanc

P

visitors to promote awareness and encour

de it wo d be beneficial to incorpor

horeline management plan. Best ma

velopment, maintenance of vegetative buffers, and opportunities for habitat 

enhancement that could result in long-term benefits. 

We conclude that an overall Bald Eagle Management Plan for the project area 

would be a useful mechanism for tying together a number of bald eagle habitat 

enhancement and monitoring m

at nest on lands within the project boundary would be an effective means of 

protecting habitat and minimizing disturbance. Individual Nest Site Management Pla

for pairs that nest nearby, but that rely on the BCR as a foraging area, would also be 

important in maintainin

ement authority overlaps with a number of other entities (e.g., the Corps, the Trib

WDFW, Pend Oreille County, Bonner County), but because of the strong relationship 

between bald eagles and reservoir habitat, the PUD’s management decisions could have

substantial positive

182 
Information about bald eagle populations and use of the project area would be 

needed to develop an overall Bald Eagle Management Plan and to develop Individual 

Nest Site Management Plans. This information could be obtained through the use of 

annual surveys during the breeding season and during the winter to monitor nesting 

activity and success and winter use; surveys at existing nest sites to identify any resource

management conflicts; and surveys to investigate the establishment of new nests so that 

new m

t

e that

3.3.5.3 Cumulative Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species 

sident fish species and waterfowl for forage 

in setti

ct

s to bald eagles over the long term. 

nt 

ull

uce project-related

advers

ffect

be would be likely to 

benefit bull trout over existing conditions both within and outside of the project area; 

however, the degree of benefit varies with the alternative. The highest level of benefit 

and the least amount of impact on bull trout would likely be realized through the

anagement plans could be developed, as needed 

With protective measures in place, we conclude that the project would affect, bu

is not likely to adversely affect, the bald eagle. Without such measures, we conclud

relicensing the project would be likely to adversely affect the bald eagle. 

Bald eagles rely to a large extent on re

ngs where salmon do not provide a concentrated food source. The reservoir 

supports an abundance of fish species, and provides resting and foraging habitat for large

numbers of waterfowl. For these reasons, the Box Canyon Project contributes to 

cumulative benefits for bald eagles as regional populations recover. With measures in

place to improve riparian habitat and minimize disturbance to nesting birds, the proje

should continue to provide cumulative benefit

Even as project operations may contribute to the bald eagle prey base, agency

recommendations for recreation enhancement may contribute to disturbance of the bald 

eagle in the project area. Development and implementation of Nest Site Manageme

Plans will be important in minimizing this cumulative adverse effect. 

As discussed in section 3.3.3.3, the operation of BCD and other dams and 

diversion in the basin, in combination with habitat alterations resulting from agriculture,

timber harvest, road and railroad construction, residential development, mining, flood 

control, and non-native fish introductions have all had a cumulative adverse effect on b

trout in the Pend Oreille River basin. The Staff Alternative, including measures to 

enhance aquatic habitat, in combination with other federal, state, and Tribal fishery 

enhancement/recovery efforts occurring in the basin, would red

e effects on aquatic resources and provide cumulative benefits to bull trout over the

term of the license. 

3.3.5.4 Determination of Effects 

In previous sections, we examined those measures that have the potential to a

listed species. We conclude that most, if not all, of the aquatic resources measures 

proposed by the PUD and specified by the agencies and the Tri

183 
implem ns. Staff’s

recomm

be substantially less than that realized 

under t

fit

on

or Ute ladies’-tresses, if appropriate surveys are conducted prior to 

any gr

aff’s recommendations to protect nesting, 

perchi

te

sed measures on

threate d

Table 20. posed measures on ESA-listed species. 

Canada 

nx

Grizzly 

Bear

Bald 

Eagle

entation of the agency’s and the Tribe’s terms and conditio

ended measures represent what we consider to be an intermediate level of 

protection and enhancement for bull trout (between the agency’s and Tribe’s preliminary 

terms and conditions and the PUD’s proposal), and provide a means of eliminating some

of the scientific uncertainty surrounding potential project impacts on bull trout. The 

PUD’s proposed measures represent an enhancement to bull trout over existing 

conditions, however, the degree of benefit would 

he agencies and Tribe’s preliminary terms and condition and staff’s 

recommendations. The No-action Alternative would result in the least amount of bene

and greatest impact to bull trout. We note, however, that even with full implementati

of all measures specified by the agencies, the Tribe, and the staff, we conclude that the 

continued operation of the Box Canyon Project would likely adversely affect bull trout.

The rationale for this determination is discussed in section 3.3.5.2.

We determine that licensing of the Box Canyon Project under the PUD Proposal 

or any of the alternative measures evaluated may affect, but would not likely adversely

affect, water howellia

ound disturbance. We determine that relicensing may affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect, the gray wolf, because it is present only as a transient. Relicensing 

would not likely affect the Canada lynx, because the species does not use any of the 

habitat types that are present in the project area. Relicensing may affect, but would not

likely adversely affect, the grizzly bear with measures in place to minimize the risk of 

grizzly bear-human conflicts. 

We determine that relicensing the project under the PUD’s Proposal may 

adversely affect the bald eagle, since the PUD does not propose any protection measures. 

We determine that with the addition of st

ng, and foraging habitat, relicensing the project may affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect, the bald eagle. The effects of relicensing the project with 

implementation of measures included in the Staff Alternative (high range) or Composi

Scenario are unknown, because no information is available at this time about facility 

siting or management. 

Table 20 summarizes the effects of project operations and propo

ne and endangered species.

Potential effects of operations and pro

(Source: Staff) 

Bull Water Ute Ladies’- Gray

Trout Howellia Tresses Wolf Ly

PUD Proposal

Operation and 

mai n

NE NP NE DI

Aqu c

enh e

NE NE NP NE B

nte ance

A NE NE

ati habitat

anc ments

B U

184 
Bull 

Trout

Water 

Howellia

Ute Ladies’-

Tresses

Gray 

Wolf

Canada 

Lynx

Grizzly 

Bear

Bald 

Eagle

Wildlife habitat 

enhancements

U U U NE NP NE B

Recreation U U U

enhancements

Staff Alternative (PUD Proposal with Staff-recommended Measures)

A

NE NP NE A

NE NE NE NP DI

tic habitat B U N NE NP B

U U U NE NP B

enhancements

U U U DI NP I DI

NE NE NP E DI

B U NE NE NP E B

U U NE NP E B

enhancements

U U DI NP I U

B = beneficial effect; A = adverse effect; DI = discountable or insignificant effect; NE = no 

Operation and 

maintenance

Aqua

NE

enhancements

E NE

Wildlife habitat 

enhancements

NE

Recreation D

Composite Scenario

Operation and A NE

maintenance

Aquatic habitat 

N

enhancements

N

Wildlife habitat 

enhancements

U N

Recreation U D

Note: 

effect; U = unknown effect; NP = not present

3.3.6 

rtion of the

ner County,

Idaho. D

809, the Pend Oreille valley

was oc

Land Use and Aesthetics 

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment 

The Box Canyon Project is located on the Pend Oreille River in the northeastern 

corner of Washington State, near the town of Ione. BCD is located 34.4 miles upstream

of the Pend Oreille River’s confluence with the Columbia River. The dam site is 13 

miles from the Canadian border, 14 miles from the Idaho border, and 90 miles from the 

city of Spokane, Washington. 

The project lies within Pend Oreille County, except for the southern po

boundary between Oldtown and Albeni Falls dam that is located in Bon

The project area includes the Pend Oreille River and adjacent lands between BC

and Albeni Falls dam.

The first Europeans known to have canoed down the Pend Oreille River were in 

David Thompson’s party. Before Thompson’s arrival in 1

cupied exclusively by Native Americans. The Kalispels were skilled fishermen 

and river travelers. 

185 
The Great Northern Railroad reached Newport in 1892, and the following year the 

railroad built its main line through Newport to Puget Sound. From 1896 to 1910, a large

influx of settlers came to the Pend Oreille valley. Newport was a convenient locati

transfers between the steamboats on the Pend Oreille River and the railroad. After the 

settlers began to arrive, the occupational mainstays of the county were logging, m

and other natural resource related industries. 

Albeni Falls dam, built by the Corps in 1954, was th

on for

ining,

e first major hydroelectric

develo

e

er to back up and flood the lowlands. 

unding the Box Canyon Project are mostly rural with large 

areas o

ck

wned by the Calispell Lake Duck Club, includes Calispell Lake and lands 

adjace

0

n border. LeClerc Road parallels most

of the east side of the River south of Ione. A railroad system, managed by the Port of 

Pend Oreille, parallels the west side of the river. Excursion trains also run from Ione to 

Metali

Albeni

Oldtown.

these town rt,

which has of 2,040 (John L. Scott Real Estate, 2000). The 

estima nearly

three-fourt areas.

pment on the Pend Oreille River. BCD began operation in 1955, and Boundary 

dam was built in 1967. Prior to construction of the dams, the river varied in width 

according to the seasons. In spring, the narrow channel was unable to handle the volum

of water, causing the wat

Regional Land Ownership and Use 

Currently, lands surro

f forest, mountains, valleys, and open pastures with widely dispersed homes and 

ranches. Development within the Pend Oreille River drainage area, which encompasses

about 25,000 square miles upstream of the BCR in the states of Montana, Idaho, and 

Washington, includes timber harvesting, grazing, mining, heavy industry, urban and 

residential development, and recreation sites. 

Most of the forest lands in the Pend Oreille River drainage area are publicly 

owned and administered by the CNF, or are owned by large corporations. A private du

refuge, o

nt to the lake, west of the Pend Oreille River, and southwest of the town of Usk. 

Numerous transportation corridors parallel the Pend Oreille River. Highway 2

runs along the west side of the Pend Oreille River from Newport to Tiger. Highway 31

runs parallel to the river from Tiger to the Canadia

ne Falls during several spring, summer, and fall weekends. Train rides from 

Newport to Sandpoint, Idaho, are also offered along the river. 

Towns along the west side of the Pend Oreille River, from the Canadian border to 

Falls dam, include Metaline, Ione, Tiger, Cusick, Usk, Dalkena, Newport, and 

The community of Furport is located along the east side of the river. All of 

s are small with populations under 1,000, with the exception of Newpo

an estimated population

ted population in Pend Oreille County is 11,732 (Census Bureau, 2000) with

hs of the population living in unincorporated

186 
Project Area Land Ownership, Use, and Management 

main features that make up the Box Canyon Project include the dam and

iversion tunnel, forebay channel, auxiliary spillway, powerhouse, switch

oir. The project encompa

The

spillway, d yard,

and reserv sses approximately 3,227 acres of land, while the 

reservo

located just over the Idaho border in Old Town (RM 90.1), a total 

length ct

ood

ight to eminent domain could not be extended to Tribal lands, 

which e 

e

ndian trust lands, including Tribal and allotted lands, pursuant to 

Section nse

es

ntage

);

lly undeveloped); 

ir covers approximately 8,850 acres at a river flow of 30,000 cfs and an elevation

of 2,030.6 feet msl at Cusick gage. 

The project boundary, as licensed by the Commission, encompasses an area along

the Pend Oreille River between the main spillway at BCD (RM 34.4) and the base of 

Albeni Falls dam,

of 55.7 miles. In 1999, the Commission approved an amendment to the proje

license, which established the boundary for the project from approximately RM 57.0 to

RM 90.3 at Albeni Falls dam. This amendment added the Fountain Ranch within the 

project boundary. The project boundary line was established by the License Amendment

at elevation 2,041.0 feet msl (at Cusick), which corresponds to the mean annual fl

elevation at Cusick. 

Because the PUD’s r

consist of approximately 493 acres along the east shore of the BCR and west shor

north of Cusick, a Settlement Agreement was negotiated among the PUD, Interior, th

Tribe, and others. This Settlement Agreement was adopted in the Commission-issued

amendment to the project license. The PUD has been making payments to Interior for the

use and occupancy of I

10(e) of the FPA. The Settlement Agreement applies only to the original lice

term for the project, which expires on January 31, 2002, and during any annual licens

issued after that time. 

Most of the project area consists of privately owned towns, farms, ranches, homes, 

and cabins. The project occupies lands on the KIR, including land of individual Indian 

allotments. Other landowners include the FS, BPA, Corps, FWS, BLM, Pend Oreille 

County, and Washington State. Table 21 shows the property owners and the perce

of the total acreage owned by the various groups within the project boundary. 

Lands within and adjacent to the project boundary are used for: 

• agriculture (includes small grains, hay, scattered houses, and other structures

• open forests (generally undeveloped); 

• open grass land/shrubs (genera

• open riparian trees and shrubs (generally undeveloped); 

• commercial development/dense housing/powerlines/railroad/paved areas; 

• private residences/scattered houses; and 

• recreation and public access. 

187 
Numerous residential developments, public recreation, and public access sites a

located along the Pend Oreille River in the project area. Residential, recreation, and

re

retirement home development along the BCR on forest, agricultural, and open lands 

adjacent to the river has increased in recent years. 

Table 21. Land ownership within the project boundary. (Source: PUD, 2000, as 

modified by staff)

Land Ownership Acres

a Percentage

Private 2,307.86 71.52

Kalispel Tribe of Indians 493.03 15.28

27.57 0.85

U.S. A

Totals 3,227 100.00

a La on of 2,030.6 feet msl.

U.S. Forest Service 190.25 5.90

Pend Oreille County 92.58 2.87

Pend Oreille County PUD 82.39 2.55

U.S. Bonneville Power Administration 24.14 0.75

State of Washington

rmy Corps of Engineers 5.29 0.16

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2.45 0.08

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1.44 0.04

nd acreage based on river water surface elevati

of isolated residential development, grazing, some 

timber

n

being implemented by the Tribe to reproduce lost riparian forests 

and we

re managed under local 

plans administered by Pend Or

KIR lands are located along approximately 10 miles of the east side of the Pend 

Oreille River. KIR land uses consists

harvesting, hay production, and collection of camas plant. North of the KIR, 

along the east side of the river, are lands known as the Flying Goose Ranch. The Flying 

Goose Ranch was purchased by the BPA in 1992 for transfer to the Tribe as mitigatio

for the loss of land from the construction and operation of the Albeni Falls dam. A 10-

year restoration plan is

tlands, and to enhance existing uplands. A small section of KIR land is also 

located on the west side of the river just north of Cusick. This area consists of 

approximately 160 acres and is occupied by a small industrial development. 

Approximately 493 acres of KIR land lie within the project boundary. 

Box Canyon Project lands are administered under Tribal, federal, and local land 

management plans. KIR lands are administered by the Tribe and BIA. Other federal 

lands are managed by the FS under the CNF Plan. Private lands a

eille and Bonner counties. 

The Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) and the National Park 

Service (NPS), in collaboration with the Tribe and Upper Columbia Resource 

188 
Conservation and Development have been developing concepts for the protection and

of a variety of resources within the KIR since late 1993. A report titled “Managing the 

Landscape of the Kalispels” presents a concept plan for use of the KIR along with 

recommendations for its implementation (FS et al., 1995). The plan includes a recr

development concept and an interpretation development concept. In addition, a 

use

eation

conser

ion,

ian,

rces.

The 1988 (revised 1995) CNF Plan provides for allocation of lands within the 

CNF i rds and guidelines for 

manag

ent code, and the county’s Shoreline 

Master

in

ty

ild and Scenic River System. No trails in the 

project area or vicinity area are part of the National Recreation Trail System nor is the 

area lo th aries.

The existing Pend Oreille County Shoreline Master Plan places the shoreline 

environment into one of four classifications (Pend Oreille County, 1974): 

nsure

an influence. 

vation concept is presented that includes a program of actions that should be 

implemented regardless of which concept is implemented. 

The Tribe also has a Fish and Wildlife Management Plan that outlines the miss

goals and objectives for sound resource management on the ceded lands (KNRD, 1997). 

The plan addresses management of fisheries, water quality, wildlife, wetland, ripar

and botanical resou

nto various management areas, along with standa

ement of those areas. 

Future land use in Pend Oreille County will be guided by the Pend Oreille County

Comprehensive Plan and accompanying developm

Plan, which are currently under development. The draft Comprehensive Plan 

indicates that Pend Oreille County will continue to be a mix of large expanses of public 

land, small towns, a limited acreage of agricultural lands, lake resorts, and rural lands

which small-scale residential developments and resorts are patches within a matrix of 

forest lands of varying productivity and economic significance (Pend Oreille County, 

1995). 

Neither the Pend Oreille River nor any other streams in the project area or vicini

are in or designated for study in the W

cated wi in Wilderness Area bound

Shoreline Management 

• Conservancy Environment—The objective is to protect, conserve and manage 

existing natural resources and valuable cultural/historic areas in order to e

a continuous flow of recreational benefits to the public and to achieve 

sustained resource use. 

• Natural Environment—The objective is to preserve and restore systems 

existing relatively free of hum

• Urban Environment—The objective is to ensure optimum use of shorelines 

within urbanizing areas to provide for intensive public use. 

189 
• Rural Environment—The objective is to protect agricultural land from urban 

d shorelines, 

Ion

“Urban.” These urban areas ar onservancy” 

and “R a t

side of the lide Resort, and along several of the islands

south of F

The County, 1978) provides a 

genera re development based on existing social and physical conditions 

and the desires of county residents. Lands within and adjacent to the BCR are classified 

as “Su rhood 

d

d other structures are found along the project 

shorelines. On the 3 percent of project lands owned by the PUD, public access is 

promo es

4

s

public has

opport es

The project is located on the Pend Oreille River in northeastern Washington in the 

river valley between the Selkirk Mountains to the east and the Chewelah Mountains to 

the west. The area is characterized by forested hills and mountains, scattered meadows, 

rock outcroppings rising above broad valleys, and open pasture with widely dispersed 

homes and ranches. Conifer forests occur on most of the slopes. Deciduous trees are 

expansion, restrict intensive development along undevelope

function as a buffer between urban areas, and maintain open spaces and 

recreation opportunities. 

e and numerous other towns and subdivisions along the BCR are classified as 

e interspersed with shorelines classified as “C

ur l.” Shorelines classified as “Natural Environment” are located along the wes

reservoir, just north of the Blue S

urport. 

Bonner County Comprehensive Plan (Bonner

l guide for futu

burban” and “Recreation.” The Suburban classification encourages neighbo

businesses, home occupations, and a residential density of one unit per acre. The 

Recreation classification is intended to allow for urban residential densities in remote an

scenic areas of the county. 

As described above, the majority of lands along the BCR are privately owned or 

within the KIR. As a result, the PUD states that it is unable to provide a buffer zone 

around the BCR to protect public access, recreation, or aesthetics. Within the project

boundary, the PUD has flowage easements that provide the level of authorization needed

to operate the project. 

Numerous private boat docks an

ted. The PUD states that it does not have the authority to control private land us

along the project shoreline. Pend Oreille County, WDFW, and Corps (under Section 40

of the CWA) have the authority and regulations in place for permitting shoreline facilitie

along the BCR. Approvals required to develop structures along the shoreline of the BCR 

include a County Shoreline Exemption or Permit and a WDFW Hydraulic Project 

Approval. A Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application covers both permits. Through 

notices and review processes associated with these programs, the PUD

unities to review and provide input on BCR shoreline activities. The PUD believ

that this existing regulatory structure is adequate to control land use within the project

boundary and that no additional or overlapping regulatory system is warranted. 

Aesthetic Setting and Features 

190 
found mostly in the river valley. Sections of flat agricultural land are found along the 

river and the Calispell Creek valley. The overall character of the landscape is rural.

ong concrete dam, the top of the underground powerhouse, the main 

spillway (which contains four gated openings that are 40 feet wide and 60 feet high), 540-

foot-lo

t darkly colored railroad trestle. 

ural

flood p

ated

s

py the background portion of views from the BCR. 

Some of these hills appear natural, while others have been extensively altered by timber 

harves trates, forests,

shrubs, grasslands, and m iddle ground of 

views from the BCR.

ds

,

along the west side of the reservoir and adjacent to the shoreline. 

BCD, powerhouse, switchyard, transmission lines, visitor center, campground, and 

swimming pond can be seen from Highway 31. BCD and the river downstream of the 

dam can be seen from the PUD owned and operated visitor center. The Box Canyon 

The 225-foot-l

ng gravity wall and access roads are visible from surrounding areas. These project

facilities, which are light gray in color and fairly low in profile, are not dominant visual 

elements. More prominent are the large and lightly colored crane used to open and close 

the main spillway gates, the project’s rectangular visitor Center, the project switchyard, 

and an adjacen

The project reservoir, located between BCD and Albeni Falls dam, is 55.7 miles

long. The BCD and powerhouse are set at the downstream end of a 3,000-foot-long, 

narrow canyon. Upstream of the canyon, the reservoir is moderately confined by nat

topography until Riverbend. From Riverbend upstream, the valley widens to a broad 

lain before becoming moderately confined again near Newport. The minimum

width of the reservoir is approximately 125 feet at RM 34.8. The maximum width is 

2,540 feet at RM 63.6. 

Numerous residential, recreation and retirement home developments are loc

along the BCR, as are boat launches, parks, and public access sites. Throughout the 

project area, vegetation types range from agricultural, coniferous and deciduous forests, 

grasslands, shrubs, and riparian forests and shrubs. 

Viewpoints and Viewing Conditions 

Local residents make up the majority of people that view the project area. Visitors 

to the area can view the project area from the BCR, nearby State Highways, local road

and from recreation sites and towns.

Forested hills typically occu

t. The flat and reflective water surface, exposed shoreline subs

an made features form the foreground and m

Highways 20 and 31 on the west side of the Pend Oreille River and project area, 

and LeClerc Road on the east, carry both local and regional traffic. Highway 31 exten

across the Canadian border and receives heavy, recreational traffic during summer 

months. Highway 31 from the junction of Highway 20 at Tiger to the Canadian border

was designated as a scenic byway in 1998. LeClerc Road, which passes through the KIR

runs along the east side of the BCR from Newport to the Usk Bridge. Railroad tracks run

191 
Viewpoint, also owned and operated by the PUD, is located off of Highway 31, just 

upstream of BCD. This viewpoint, on a cliff above the canyon, offers spectacular view

of the canyon, dam, and associated structures. A railroad trestle crosses Box Can

above the dam. A tour train crosses the trestle on selected week

s

yon

ends in the spring,

summer, and fall, offering spectacular views of the reservoir and surrounding area. 

e viewpoints have been established 

along Highway 20. The BCR can also be viewed from the Ione Bridge, Usk Bridge, and 

Newpo ublic recreation sites, some of which are managed by the FS, and 

towns

urce Management 

The FS assigns scenic integrity levels to federal lands under its management. The 

nic integrity levels by combining factors of variety class, sensitivity 

level, and distance zone. The scenic integrity levels are standards to which proposed 

changes in character of the landscape can be compared to determine acceptability of the 

change

at

tion

survey

interse

pose a boundary survey at the Box Canyon Project. 

On the west side of the BCR, several roadsid

rt Bridge. P

along the river also provide views of the reservoir. Additionally, local roads on the

west and east sides of the reservoir provide spectacular views of the reservoir and 

surrounding area. 

Visual Reso

The FS, which owns approximately 190 acres (5.9 percent) of lands within the 

project area, is the only jurisdiction that provides specific directives for managing visual

resources on lands within the project boundaries. 

system establishes sce

. Five scenic integrity levels (Very High, High, Moderate, Low, and Very Low)

describe different degrees of allowable alteration of the natural landscape. 

FS lands along the BCR and just south of BCD have scenic integrity levels th

range from Very Low to Moderate. 

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects 

Land Use and Aesthetics 

Boundary Survey 

Meander corners are typically established at points where a Township line, Sec

line, Land Grant, Homestead Entry Survey, Donation Land Claim, or other

cts the bank of a navigable stream or other meandering body of water. The FS 

believes that the BCR’s inundation of Meander Corners, without properly witnessing 

these corners, has resulted in the loss of an important component of the Public Land 

Survey System (PLSS). 

PUD Proposal

The PUD does not pro

192 
Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties

The FS specifies in condition 4[e] 4 (see appendix A) that: 

• within 3 years of license issuance, the PUD re-establish the Public Land 

Survey Meander Corners, or establish witness corners governing NFS 

properties within and adjacent to the project area; 

• the PUD survey, mark, and post to FS standards and specifications all NFS 

t

ds.

The PUD proposes to continue to support and develop public access within the 

projec uating potential erosion and

land u with

the entire Box Canyon Project area. The plan should not only 

clarify

nt 

lands adjacent to the project; and 

• the PUD be responsible for all FS administrative costs associated with 

surveying, marking and posting of NFS lands. 

Our Analysis

Relicensing of the project would have no effect on the existing PLSS. We 

therefore, do not think it is necessary to re-establish lost corners as specified in FS’ 

condition 4(e) 4. The PUD has stated that it recently surveyed and monumented some 

portions of the project boundary between BCD and Ruby. Upstream of Ruby, the projec

is defined by a contour elevation and is not monumented. During survey of the area for 

project map production, the PUD established a variety of temporary monuments to assist

as reference points in the survey. The PUD states that some of this monument data has 

already been provided to the FS in the Pioneer Park area. The PUD says that other 

monument location data are available, if the FS wishes to use it to monument its lan

Shoreline Management Plan 

PUD Proposal

t boundary. The PUD also proposes to continue eval

se concerns along the BCR shoreline. The PUD states that it is comfortable

the existing planning and permitting process and agreements in place along project 

shorelines, and that it has limited ability to regulate FS and other project area shorelines.

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties

The FS recommends (10[a] 2) that the PUD prepare and implement a Shoreline 

Management Plan for

measures that the PUD would take to support and enhance the Pend Oreille

County shoreline planning effort, but should also synthesize the related studies and 

planning efforts ongoing or proposed within the project area. The Shoreline Manageme

193 
plan should follow the guidelines set forth in the Guidance for Shoreline Management 

Planning at Hydropower Projects (FERC, 2001).33

Our Analysis 

Commission Regulation 18 CFR, part 4.51 (f)(6) requires an analysis of the costs 

and other constraints of a licensee’s ability to provide a buffer zone around all or any part 

of the s

oject

impou

y (APC) application to amend a license article that required it to purchase a 50-

foot bu cle

ommission 

denied

related

by coordinating and guiding the shoreline 

activit

3.3.6.3 Cumulative Effects on Land Use and Aesthetics 

coordinated shoreline management approach, some poorly planned shoreline 

develo

project impoundment, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the project land

and waters and protecting the recreational and aesthetic values of the impoundment and

its shoreline. 

The Commission has long since determined that local zoning ordinances are an 

inadequate substitute for a licensee’s control of land use surrounding a pr

ndment to fulfill project purposes (see Alabama Power Co., 12 FERC 61,060 

[1980]; Public Service Company of New Hampshire, 75 FERC 61,111 n.65 [1996]). 

In 1980, the Commission affirmed a previous decision on an Alabama Power 

Compan

ffer around the unconstructed R.L. Harris Project. APC requested that the arti

be amended to only require the buffer on the land they already owned. APC also 

requested that they not be required to acquire or place within the project boundary, any 

shore lands that would be subject to local zoning rules and regulations. The C

APC’s requests, but did permit the alternative of a properly conditioned easement.

Numerous residential developments, public recreation and public access sites are 

located along the BCR. Residential, recreation and retirement home development has 

increased in recent years. As development and use of BCR shorelines continues to grow,

the PUD and other land management agencies would likely face increase challenges 

to the effects of such developments on project lands and waters. A Shoreline 

Management Plan would meet these challenges

ies of the various owners. 

Land Use 

Over the period of the new license, small-scale residential developments and 

resorts would be expected to increase in number within the Box Canyon Project area. 

Under the No-action Alternative and the PUD Proposal, both of which include the 

existing un

pment may occur. This poorly planned development may have adverse effects on

 33 This guidebook has been written to assist both licensees and stakeholders. It is intended to prov

general guidance on developing a Shoreline Management Plan including potential pitfalls and how to

avoid them, what to expect from FERC and other involved agencies, ways to involve the public in the 

process, and how to implement, monitor and enforce the plan once it is in place. 

ide

194 
water quality, wildlife, recreation, scenery and other resources. Our recommendation 

includes the development of a Shoreline Management Plan that would coordinate and 

guide the shoreline activities of the various owners, minimizing poorly planned 

development and its effects on Box Canyon Project resources. 

3.3.6.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Land Use 

There would be no unavoidable adverse impacts on land use from operation of the 

Box Canyon Project. 

Aesthetics 

Recreation and other developments to take place under the PUD Proposal and 

Staff A e amount of disturbance, relative to existing 

conditi

ffer

many o or

Recrea itionally important parts of the local economy, 

have been increasing in recent years. 

clude camping, picnicking, swimming and 

waterp

e,

the fall and early winter. Northeast Washington is rated as one of the more popular 

white-tailed deer hunting areas in the state (FS, 1988). WDFW figures indicate that more 

black bear and cougar are harvested from northeastern Washington than from any other 

part of e

s is very popular in the area and attracts visitors from 

Washi o Cross-country skiing has become increasingly popular 

lternative would slightly increase th

ons, visible from the BCR and surrounding areas. The No-action Alternative 

would result in no change in visual disturbance. 

3.3.7 Recreation 

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment 

The project is located in a predominantly rural area. Large areas of forest o

pportunities for outdoor recreation. The Pend Oreille River is a popular site f

fishing, boating, and other water-related recreational activities. Private year-round 

residences and vacation homes/cabins are located on and near the banks of the river. 

Commercial establishments adjacent to the river offer recreation-related services.

tion and tourism, which are trad

The region offers recreation opportunities in all seasons. The many lakes and 

streams in Pend Oreille County offer diverse water-oriented recreation activities. 

Summer recreation activities in the region in

lay, waterskiing/tubing, jetskiing, fishing and boating, scenic driving, wildlife 

viewing, horseback riding, mountain biking, and off-road vehicle riding. 

Hunting is the predominant recreational activity in the fall and winter. Big gam

waterfowl and upland game seasons begin in September or October and continue through 

th state (FS, 1988).

Di persed winter recreation

ngt n and parts of Canada.

195 
with sk and designated groomed trails. FS roads, 

groom

dentified recreation sites in Pend Oreille County 

are loc

n

faciliti

reille County. One Washington State Park, Gardner Cave/Crawford State 

Park, i

ille River. The FS lands provide numerous trails 

and fis County. Tribal lands offer buffalo 

viewin picnicking and swimming facilities

on the

ther

t

swimm

bicycle touring, is growing in

popula e

n Ione in late July. This

event o

iers taking advantage of FS roads

ed trails, and open terrain are also used for snowmobiling and wildlife viewing in 

the winter months (FS, 1988). 

Numerous developed and undeveloped recreation sites exist throughout the region.

Approximately two-thirds of the 159 i

ated along the Pend Oreille River, with the remaining one-third located away from

the river. 

Several government agencies, as well as numerous private owners, manage and

maintain the recreation facilities in Pend Oreille County. The PUD owns recreatio

es at the BCD and powerhouse site. The PUD has also contributed funds for 

recreation enhancement throughout the county. The WDFW maintains one campground

east of the BCR, one public fishing site on the BCR, and several other fishing sites on 

lakes in Pend O

s located near the Canadian border. Pend Oreille County public access areas are 

located on the river and on the many surrounding lakes. Several towns in Pend Oreille

County operate their own recreation facilities. The FS has several fee campgrounds on 

the Pend Oreille River and throughout the county. In addition, the FS has several fee and

non-fee boat launches on the Pend Ore

hing access to the many lakes in Pend Oreille

g off LeClerc Road, and the Tribe maintains

reservation. Seattle City Light owns recreation facilities at Boundary dam. 

Several privately owned recreation facilities exist on the Pend Oreille River and on o

lakes and streams in the county. Lake Pend Oreille, upstream of the Box Canyon Projec

in Idaho, is a major recreational destination. 

Existing Project Area Recreation Opportunities 

The Pend Oreille River, in the project area, is used for motorized and nonmotorized boating, waterskiing, jetskiing, tubing, fishing, and swimming. Fishing for 

bass, trout, perch, crappie, whitefish, and bullhead are popular. Along the shores of the

river and developed sites, and at undeveloped shores and islands, camping, picnicking, 

ing, fishing, sightseeing, wildlife viewing, sunbathing, waterfowl hunting, and big 

game hunting occur. 

Recreational bicycling, including formalized

rity in Pend Oreille County (Pend Oreille County, 2000). Safe trails and paths ar

needed within the county to accommodate growth in bicycling and formalized bicycle 

touring. 

A variety of local community events focused on the Pend Oreille River are held 

during late spring and summer. The Down River Days are held i

riginated in 1952 as a celebration of the completion of BCD and includes 

hydroplane races, a fishing derby, entertainment, and a crafts fair. The Poker Paddle is a 

196 
canoeing event that begins in Usk. This event is held in mid-July. As previously noted

two bass fishing tournaments are held on the BCR in May and June. 

The FS, Tribe, state, county, towns, the PUD, or private interests own and opera

recreation sites in the project area (figure 11, appendix D). 

Federal Recreation Facilities 

The FS manages three campgrounds and several other recreation sites within t

Box Canyon Project area. All three campgrounds are in forested settings and of

, 

te

he

fer 

camping, picnicking, boating, fishing, swimming, and other water related activities. As 

part of

ground is located on the east bank of the river, about 1.5 miles 

north o

Old Ruby Ferry (east shore) boat launch is on FS lands. This site has a rustic, 

gravel

 are 

for dispersed recreation.

r the Pow Wow Grounds (Kalispel boat 

launch

area. The Tribe and settlers 

have used the caves on the east side of LeClerc Road for religious ceremonies. A stone 

altar and pews can be seen in the cave overlooking the valley. On the west side of 

LeClerc Road, a dirt road provides access to the east shore of the BCR. This rustic site 

has several picnic tables; a sandy shoreline area for swimming; a swimming dock; and at 

times, an outhouse. The Tribal Pow Wow Grounds are located along the east bank of the 

the Settlement Agreement made in 1998, the FS received nearly $1 million from

the PUD. These funds were used to upgrade the three FS campgrounds. 

Edgewater Campground is located north of Ione on the east side of the river, off of 

Box Canyon-LeClerc Road. There are 21 fee campsites, 1 campsite used by the 

campground host, 4 picnic sites, vault toilets, water supply, and a concrete public boat 

launch. 

Panhandle Campground is located on the east bank of the Pend Oreille River, 

north of Usk and off of LeClerc Road. This fee campground has 12 campsites, 1 used by

the campground host, vault toilets, water, and a concrete public boat launch. 

Pioneer Park Camp

f the Oldtown ridge. This park has 16 fee campsites, 1 campsite used by the 

campground host, 10 picnic sites, vault toilets, water supply, and a concrete boat launch.

The Heritage Interpretive Trail is also located at Pioneer Park. This trail is 0.3 mile long, 

partially wheelchair accessible, and has Tribal history interpretive displays. 

The

public boat launch and limited parking 

Several undeveloped parcels of FS land exist along the river. Although they

not signed as public access sites, they can be used

Kalispel Tribal Recreation Facilities 

The majority of Tribal lands are located on the east bank of the BCR, although 240

acres are located on the west bank just north of Cusick. Tribal recreation facilities, which

are open to the public with restrictions, include Manresa Grotto, the Tribal Pow Wow 

Grounds, and a boat launch on the river nea

).

Manresa Grotto is located on KIR within the project

197 
BCR w uth of Manresa Grotto. The Pow Wow Grounds include a 

ceremo

l

n the river near

the Pow c

ch. 

nd over the next several years include Pow Wow Grounds 

improvements, boat launch improvements and a new bass fishing tournament facility, a 

new bi layground, a new interpretive

center,

.

approx

f

uth

h,

• Gregg’s Addition; and 

• Sandy Shores Estates. 

ithin the project area, so

nial park built on the site of the Tribe’s historical main camp and later permanent

village. Ballfields are located along the road leading to the Pow Wow Grounds. A grave

parking area and concrete boat launch (Kalispel boat launch) is located o

Wow Grounds. The Tribe sells approximately 10 permits per year to the publi

for waterfowl hunting on lower Calispell Creek. In the fall of 1999, the Tribe began 

offering guided waterfowl hunting at the Flying Goose Ran

The Tribe is currently planning several recreational improvements and projects to 

promote recreational opportunities for Tribal members and, where appropriate, for no

Tribal members. Projects planne

ke trail, improvements to the baseball facility and p

and improvements to Manresa Grotto. 

State Recreation Facilities 

The WDFW manages a site off old Ruby Ferry Road on the west side of the river

The site, which is within the project area, has a concrete boat launch and toilets. A 

WDFW “Public Fishing” sign adjacent to Highway 20 directs people to this site. 

The WDFW also manages the Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Recreation Area. This

area is located on the east side of the BCR and within the project boundaries, 

imately 5 miles north of the KIR boundary along LeClerc Road. This area is 

undeveloped and is generally used for hunting mule deer, black bear, and grouse. 

The Washington Department of Transportation maintains a roadside park of

Highway 20, south of the Blue Slide Resort. The site, located within the project area, has

a sign explaining the history of the explorer David Thompson and a picnic table. 

Pend Oreille County Facilities 

The County public access site, located within the project area about 4 miles so

of Ione and on the east side of the river off of LeClerc Road, has a swimming beac

picnic tables and barbeques. 

Pend Oreille County requires that subdivisions of five lots or more dedicate land 

for public access to waterbodies. Adjacent to the BCR, the majority of these project area

parcels are undeveloped, unsigned, and difficult to locate. Several of the subdivision 

public access lots have public boat launches. Launches are known to occur at: 

• Lazy River Farmettes; 

• Davis Estates; 

• Ponderay Shores; 

198 
Municipal Recreation Facilities 

Ione City Park is located within the project area, in the town of Ione. The park has

picnic areas, a covered food pavilion, children’s play equipment, a covered public

restrooms, water supply, and a public boat launch. The boat launch was reconstructed at

the southern end of the park in 1996. 

The town of Cusick

pool,

operates a project area boat launch facility on the west shore 

of the t

between the towns of Cusick and Usk. 

area.

Pend

O

 Club operates an excursion train between Ione and 

Metaline Falls on six weekends from Memorial Day through mid-October. The train 

travels within the project area and over a bridge directly above the BCD spillway. Train 

rides from Newport to Sandpoint, Idaho, are also available. These rides follow the BCR 

shoreline f ney. 

Recreation Facilities

project area, the PUD owns and operates Campbell Park, Box Canyon 

Dam Visitor Center, and Box Canyon Viewpoint. These sites provide facilities for 

cam imming, sightseeing, boating, and fishing. C ll Park and 

the visitor center are located on the west side of the Pend Oreille River just below BCD, 

o l Park has eight campsites with barbeque pits in a forest 

setting, vault toilets, and water supply. A lined, 2-acre pond is located adjacent to the 

campsites. The pond is filled with water pumped from the dam forebay and contains a 

f al picnic tables are provided within the campground area 

and on a large grassy area that unch, which provides access 

to the Pend Oreille River below BCD, is across the access road from Campbell Park. 

er is located just south of the boat launch. The visitor center 

provides photographs and historical displays of the Box Canyon Project. Tours of the 

powerhouse m d at the visitor center. 

point, reached via Highway 31, is located just upstream from 

BCD on a rock outcrop on the west side of the river. The site has a chain link fence that 

s a om the cliff above the river and spillway. The site provides a 

picnic table and spectacular views of Box Canyon, the dam and project facilities, and the 

railroad trestle that traverses the river just upstream of the dam.

ties owned and operated by the PUD, the P

contributed funding toward the new boat launch and dock at Ione City Park. This launch 

bega n 1996. The PUD also contributed funding for the n sick boat 

Pend Oreille River. The facility was completed in 1997 and includes a public boa

launch, day-use moorage floats, restrooms, and pedestrian pathways. Included in this 

facility is a wheelchair accessible pathway

Oldtown, Idaho, operates a public boat launch and dock within the project

Completed in 1997, this facility is located south of the Highway 2 Bridge over the

reille River.

The North Pend Oreille Lions

or a portion of the jour

Public Utility District

Within the

ping, picnicking, sw ampbe

ff Highway 31. Campbel

loating swimming dock. Sever

 surrounds the pond. A boat la

The BCD Visitor Cent

ay be arrange

Box Canyon View

ep rates the public fr

In addition to the facili UD has 

n operation i ew Cu

199 
launch, which began operation in the summer of 1997.

funded ongoing improvements to the Oldtown boat launch. As part of the 1999 FERCapproved Settlement Agreement to resolve long-standing issues concerning the 

p te hancement of resources affected by the project, the PUD 

p v IT for upgrading recreational facilities at Manresa Grotto, the 

Pow W h. Under the same agreement, the PUD 

p an interpretive center on Tribal lands and funded 

impr pgrounds along the BCR.

d Recreation Facilities

rea, five privately owned recreation facilities are open to the 

p bl

recreational vehicle (RV) park is located in Ione, next to Ione 

C y CR. The 

RV

This V camping sites, a motel and cabins, 

and a dock for access to the river. The dock is the only location where boats may refuel 

on the t

t.

,

ee

shing

at launch, fee campsites, and picnic tables. The store 

provid

he

en

s; and

Since 1997, the PUD has also 

ro ction, mitigation, and en

ro ided $100,000 to the K

ow Grounds, and the Kalispel boat launc

rovided the KIT with $80,000 for

ovements to three FS cam

Privately Owne

Within the project a

u ic.

The Ione Motel and

it Park. The RV park provides fee camping for RVs and tents along the B

park has 26 RV sites, 4 tent sites, and a boat dock. 

The Blue Slide Resort is located on the west side of the BCR, off Highway 20.

resort offers a public fee boat launch, 46 fee R

reservoir. Blue Slide Resort also has a net pen operation for raising rainbow trou

for release into the BCR. 

Upstream of the Blue Slide Resort and the town of Ruby is the Outpost Resor

This facility offers a variety of water-based recreational opportunities, including fishing

boat rentals, and pontoon river boat tours during summer. It has a fee boat launch, ten f

tent sites, 3 cabins, 11 RV sites, a dock, and a café that sells limited hunting and fi

supplies. 

Keo’s Corner and General Store, in the town of Usk, is a privately operated 

facility that provides a fee bo

es camping and fishing supplies, and fuel. 

A membership RV campground (Old American) is located in Newport on the 

southwest shore of the BCR. The area has 79 RV campsites and a boat launch/dock. T

campground is generally for members only, but the public can camp here for a fee wh

space is available. The boat launch may be used by the public with permission. Hunters

often use the facility in the fall and winter. 

Private community boat launches are located along the BCR. These launches, 

which are not for use by the general public, are located at: 

• Riveredge Estates; 

• Holiday Shores; 

• Riverbend Estate

200 
• Greenwater Estates. 

The Pend Oreille Inn motel, located in the town of Ione, upstream of BCD, has a 

dock a

urch group camp located on the west 

side of

s, a swimming pool, 

game c

, and motorized travel. Approximately two-thirds of recreation 

use wi

rts

oth a local and a regional

base (M

anadians 

he year. Boating, jetskiing, and other water-related 

activiti

nd offers boat rental and boat rides on the reservoir to customers. 

The Riverview Bible Camp is a private ch

the reservoir just north of Jared. The camp, which is off of Highway 20, has 

cabins, a private boat launch, dock, and swimming beach. 

The Bear Paw Camp is located on the northeast side of the river just northwest of

Furport. This is a group reservation-only camp that offers cabin

ourts, and river boating.

Existing Recreational Use and Identified Needs 

Recreation activities that receive the most use in the CNF are camping and 

picnicking, winter sports

thin the CNF occurs at dispersed sites and one-third at developed sites. The 

average occupancy rate for campgrounds in the CNF is 41 percent; however, in certain 

areas and during selected summer weekends, campgrounds may be used at or above 

capacity. Forest management objectives for the CNF include upgrading developed 

recreation facilities, especially fee campgrounds and trailheads, providing winter spo

opportunities; and monitoring visitors to identify their needs and expectations. 

Recreation users in the project vicinity are drawn from b

cLaughlin and Sanyal, 1992). Both local residents and residents from the 

Spokane and Coeur d’Alene areas use the area for recreational purposes (personal 

communication, K. Soenke, FS, September 20, 1996, as cited in PUD, 2000). C

and tourists from throughout the United States traveling to northern Idaho, Spokane, and 

Canada also use developed recreation sites in the project area. 

Recreation use in the project area is heaviest in the summer months, but also 

occurs during other seasons of t

es along the BCR are very popular during warm, summer days. Camping, 

picnicking, sunbathing, and sightseeing are popular activities along the shorelines of the 

BCR and on some of the larger islands. Sightseeing is popular in spring, as visitors come

from the Spokane area to watch swans migrate through the area. Fishing is popular in 

late spring, summer, and fall. Because the river does not always freeze over in winter, ice

fishing is rare. Duck and goose hunting are popular in the fall months. People hunt and 

fish by boat and from the BCR shorelines. Winter use along the river is minimal, 

although snowmobiling and cross-country skiing are very popular in the surrounding 

upland areas. Some of these snowmobiling and cross-country skiing trails extend down

towards the BCR. 

201 
Recreation Use and Identified Needs at Developed Project Area Recreation Sites

The PUD recently completed a multi-y ar (1997, 1998, 200 , and 20

o . Monitoring effo 99 p dic te

recreationists spent an estimated 93,500 vis y (d d a per o ing

site for all or part of one day) at developed recreation sites and boat launches within the 

Box Canyon Project area. 

taneous counts and tra coun 19 s ed t

Pioneer Park and Campbell Park were the bu t pu li creati ites n t roje

a gure 11, appendix D). 

T b timate of 1998 peak-s on visitation at key BCR recreation sites. 

ource: PUD, 2000)

e

d ring th

0

k season i

01) analysis

f recreation use rts u e 1 d th t

itor-da

8 ea -

efine

n

s one

a a

s s n visit one

Instan ffic ter data collected during 98 how hat

sies b c re on s i he p ct

rea (table 22 and fi

a le 22. Es eas

(S

Recreation Site Total Peak Season Visitor Daysa

Federal (FS) Facilities

Edgewater CG/BL/PA 1, 3

le CG/BL/PA 2, 8

/PA 10 14

ry(East)BL 814 

r ies

Grotto SB 1,340 

aunch 113 

Old Ruby (West) boat launch 361 

Pend

Ponderay Shores BL 

Cu

32

Panhand 05

Pioneer CG/BL ,0

Old Ruby Fer

T ibe Facilit

Manresa

Kalispel boat l

State (WDFW) Facilities

Oreille County Facilities

 County SB/PA 430 

Lazy River Farmettes BL 291 

Davis Estates BL 418 

160 

Gregg’s Addition BL 199 

Sandy Shores BL 559 

Municipal Facilities

Ione City Park/BL 5,671 

sick BL 3,706 

 Oldtown BL 7,818 

202 
Recreation Site Total Peak Season Visitor Days

a

PUD Facilities

 Ca

Bo C 8,950 

Priva

Io R 1,842 

Bl S 10,005 

Ou

er CG/BL/PA 6,000 

Ol

a Peak s

campg

as one

lau h

mpbell CG/BL/PA/SB 9,674 

x anyon Viewpoint

te Facilities (open to public) 

ne V Park CG/BL/PA

ue lide CG/BL 

tpost Resort CG/BL 2,764 

Keo’s Corn

d American CG/BL 18,857 

eason is May through September, except for Edgewater and Panhandle 

rounds, which are open from mid-May to mid-September. A visitor day is defined 

person visiting one site for all or part of one day. CG = campground, BL = boat 

nc , PA = picnic area, SB = swimming beach.

The

fee-receip

Campgrou

Campgrou

PUD recreation m

Park b

monitorin t or

near capac

very low d

Bas determined

to be 1

dated Nov to be 11 percent 

used on Su

Pioneer

weekend a t

used on Su

or abov c

•

•

FS facilities on the BCR are open from mid-May until mid-September. FS

t data for campgrounds showed a 4 percent occupancy rate for Edgewater 

nd during the 1998 season. The 1998 occupancy rates for the Panhandle 

nd and Pioneer Campground were 11 percent and 19 percent, respectively.

onitoring showed that use of the Edgewater, Panhandle, and Pioneer 

oat launches and picnic areas did not exceed capacity during 1997 or 1998 

g dates. FS personnel, however, stated that visitor use at all three areas is a

ity during several late summer weekends and most holidays, but that use is 

uring weekdays.

ed on 2001 paid site occupancy data, Panhandle Campground was

6 percent used between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day (letter from FS, 

ember 14, 2002). Panhandle Campground was determined

ndays through Thursdays and 30 percent used on Fridays and Saturdays. 

Campground was determined to be 41 percent used between Memorial Day 

nd Labor Day 2001. Pioneer Campground was determined to be 29 percen

ndays through Thursdays and 70 percent used on Fridays and Saturdays. 

The following state, county, municipal, and PUD facilities were regularly used at 

e apacity during peak summer weekends during 1997 and/or 1998: 

Davis Estates boat launch; 

Sandy Shores boat launch; 

• Ione City Park; 

203 
• Cusick boat launch; and 

• Campbell Park. 

Use of the facilities listed above was found to be well below capacity during no

peak summer weekends and weekdays in 1998. 

Off-season boat and car observations found little use at boat launches. Camping

areas that were open in the project area during the off-season appeared to have

activity during waterfowl season. Motels and hotels in the project area were fairly full 

during the hunting season, but mainly from big game hunters. 

According to WDFW personnel, the BCR receives significant waterfowl hunting 

activity. Waterfowl hunters use public and community boat launches, and many hunt 

from their homes or cabins and have their own boat launches. The use at boat launche

does not exceed capacity (personal communication, B. Coleman, WDFW, February 199

as cited in PUD, 2000). 

Most 1998 survey respondents visited the project area more than twice a year. 

Survey respondents rated public access along the Pend Oreille River an average of 4.1 on 

a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being the best). Survey respondents liked the area’s beautiful

scenery, fishing, and boating opportunities. Respondents disliked the abundance of 

milfoil, fluctuations in water level, and shallow areas on the river. Respondents

recommended providing more information about recreation in the area, more public 

nlittle

s

9,

fishing piers, more playgrounds, and more parks (PUD, 2000). 

98 was highest during 

July. A 7, 36,

t Manresa Grotto on July 14, 18, and 20, 

respec ch on

rk

River. The

ding

y during the 

peak-s

Observed Manresa Grotto and Kalispel boat launch use in 19

n average (combining car and boat observations for a particular day) of 6

and 33 people per day was observed a

tively. An average of 6 people per day was observed at the Kalispel boat laun

July 14. Based on 1998 monitoring data, PUD (2000) estimates that 11 people and 0 

people, on average, use Manresa Grotto beach and the Kalispel boat launch, respectively,

per peak season weekend day. 

Following filing of the final license application, the PUD conducted additional 

peak-season recreational monitoring in 2000 and 2001 at the PUD-owned Campbell Pa

Campground and the three FS campgrounds located along the Pend Oreille

purpose of the 2000 and 2001 monitoring was to obtain additional information regar

recreation use at these sites. During monitoring conducted during the peak-season of

2000, Pioneer Park was closed for improvements. All three FS campgrounds, as well as 

the PUD-owned Campbell Park, were monitored during the peak-season of 2001. During 

the 2000 and 2001 monitoring effort, visual observations were made every da

eason, except for a few days that were missed during the month of June and one 

day that was missed during July 2001. With the exception of only a couple of days, 

visual observations were conducted in the mornings and also in the afternoons at each 

site. Table 23 shows PUD estimates of average daily use for selected project area 

recreation sites during 2000 and 2001. 

204 
Table 23. Estimated daily use (percent) at selected project area recreation sites during 

2000 and 2001 peak season.

a

 (Source: PUD, 2001a,b) 

Weekday Weekend Average Daily

Recreation Site 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001

PUD Campbell Park

Camping 28 44 63 78 38 55

Day use 25 27 28 25 25 26

Total daily use 25 30 35 36 27 32

FS Edgewater Park

Ca 1 29 31 15 18

Day

16

Camping 8 10 28 28 15 17

Da 7 20 17 13 11

36

– 19 – 11

To – 11 – 32 – 18

a Us

mping 9 1

 use 5 10 26 20 10 13

Total daily use 7 11 27 26 13

FS Panhandle Park

y use 10

Total daily use 9 8 24 22 14 13

FS Pioneer Park

Camping – 24 – 63 –

Day use – 6

tal daily use

e is based on estimated average number of people per day divided by estimated daily capacity.

According to the FS’s CNF Plan, campgrounds and day-use areas are popu

with most use occurring on weekends. Developed recreation sites are expected to meet 

the anticipated short-term demand. T

lar,

he FS expects additional day-use and overnight 

sites to eet long-term demand. Long-term FS management objectives 

include upgrading developed recreation facilities, especially fee campgrounds and 

trailhe

setting on are those

that ta and

deman

port fishing, and picnicking (IAC, 1995b). 

The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR, 1997) conducted a survey 

of registered boaters in 1994. The results showed that boaters wanted to see the 

be needed to m

ads, and monitoring visitors to meet their needs and expectations. 

Washington State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (IAC, 1995a) surveys

indicated a demand for settings that include water access more than any other type of 

. The most popular and rapidly growing outdoor activities in Washingt

ke advantage of trails. Activities expected to exhibit the highest growth

d in Washington are walking, bicycling, participating in field sports, golfing, 

camping, mountain biking, running/jogging, s

205 
develo

parking ne

The ified demand for: 

•

•

•

A r ing

(PUD, 200

•

d utilization is relatively low, although 

ties,

.

ct

d at day-use sites. 

ak

rking

• y

• the project 

•

Fol

improvem

pment of new docks and launch facilities on reservoirs, as well as more boat 

ar boat ramps. 

1998 project area recreation surveys (PUD,2000) ident

• more picnic tables; 

better swimming areas; 

fishing piers/docks; and 

playgrounds/parks. 

ecreation resource analysis for the Box Canyon Project, revealed the follow

0):

Additional campgrounds are not needed to meet overall peak season needs, but 

the quality of camping facilities should be improved over the time. Projected 

year 2030 average daily campgroun

projected year 2030 weekend campground utilization is more than 80 percent. 

• Additional (non-boating) day-use facilities are not needed to meet the overall 

average peak season demand prior to year 2030. Additional day-use facili

especially picnic tables, should be considered at the PUD’s Campbell Park, the

FS’s Pioneer Park, and possibly other public access and boat launch sites

Signs posting the location of these recreation sites and public access areas 

should be considered. Maintenance items and Americans with Disabilities A

(ADA)-compliance projects should also be considere

• Additional boating facilities are not needed to meet the overall average pe

season use in the project area. However, public awareness of boat launch 

facilities in the area is needed, and additional boating facilities are needed to 

meet the needs during busy days in July and August. Additional pa

spaces should be considered at the city of Oldtown’s boat launch. 

Current and future dispersed recreation activity is not expected to significantl

affect the BCR shorelines or require developed facilities. 

The need for interpretive (“information and education”) facilities in

area was not indicated; however, interpretive facilities are in high demand 

regionally. Additional interpretive facilities should be considered when 

making improvements to existing facilities. 

Currently, the only ADA-accessible facilities in the project area are the town of

Cusick’s boat launch restrooms/pathway and the FS’s Pioneer Park Heritage 

Trail. All other recreation facilities in the project area need modifications to 

meet expected new requirements. 

lowing PUD’s completion of the recreation resource analysis, major 

ents were made to the FS camping, day-use, and boat launching facilities at 

206 
Edgewate wn

boat launc

A s

recreation

improvem

swimming

percent of R expressed an interest in boat launch 

improvem

the same i

activity (n

60 percent off the

KIR expre

respondents living on the KIR expressed an interest in swimming area improvements, 

while nearly 60 percent of respondents living off the KIR expressed the same interest. 

Nearly king

e

206 water craft was observed along the entire length of the BCR 

during run was

e most

on private docks, 531 were observed on the shorelines of developed 

recreation sites, 105 were observed on islands in the BCR, and 253 were observed on 

r, Panhandle, and Pioneer Park. A visitor center was constructed at Oldto

h, and improvements were made to this site’s parking area.

urvey conducted by the PUD indicated that Tribal members felt that Tribal 

facilities/areas, which are rustic and generally receive little use, needed 

ent (PUD, 2001c). Tribal members indicated the need for improvements to

beaches, trails and paths, picnic areas, and other play areas. More than 70

respondents living on the KI

ents, while more than 40 percent of respondents living off the KIR expressed

nterest. Fishing was identified by respondents as the most popular recreational 

early 90 percent of respondents said that their household participates). Nearly

of respondents living on the KIR and nearly 40 percent of those living

ssed an interest in fishing area improvements. More than 60 percent of 

40 percent of respondents living on the KIR expressed an interest in picnic

improvements, while more than 40 percent of respondents living off the IR expressed th

same interest. Swimming was identified as the second most popular recreational activity 

(more than 80 percent of respondents said that their household participates), while 

picnicking ranked fifth (over 60 percent of households participate). Lastly, nearly 50 

percent of survey respondents stated that they do not recreate off the KIR when recreating 

in the project area. 

Recreation Use at Dispersed Project Area Recreation Sites 

Dispersed recreation occurs throughout the BCR in watercraft and along 

undeveloped shorelines and islands. 

A total of 1,

nine boat runs in 1998. The average number of water craft observed per

134. The busiest observation day was July 25 with 436 water craft observed. July 18 

was the second busiest observation day with 383 water craft observed. July 25 was a 

weekend day and the Down River Days event. July 18 was a weekend day and the Poker 

Paddle event. During the other seven “non-event” days combined, 386 water craft (an 

average of 55 per day) were observed. The State Organization of Boating 

Administrators’ conservative recommendation for a waterbody the size of the BCR 

(approximately 10,000 acres) is a maximum of 303 boats at one time (PUD, 2000). 

Therefore, BCR water craft use appears to be less than capacity, except during the Down

River Days and the Poker Paddle events. Projected daily BCR watercraft use in year 

2030 is 215, which is also below the recommended capacity of the reservoir. 

Of the water craft activities observed, motorboating and waterskiing were th

popular, followed by canoeing/kayaking and jetskiing. A total of 1,194 recreationists 

was observed

207 
private

r

al levels. Water craft activity observed during other observation 

period

creation

y

go to other recreation sites in the project area. 

e analyze the project’s effects on recreational resources, the 

PUD’s cements, and recommendations from agencies and interested 

parties ur

ress issues pertaining to planning, O&M, construction of new 

enhanc

Recreation Management 

te

recreation

Managem

Agencies

plan developm

ddressed. 

es and Other Interested Parties 

property or at undeveloped public access sites. Popular BCR shoreline and island

activities observed during the surveys were swimming, sunbathing, picnicking, and tent 

camping. 

Most recreationists observed on the shoreline and private docks were spread 

throughout the reservoir. Island activity was concentrated on the islands north of 

Newport. The majority of water craft activity occurred between Ione City Park and Lazy

River Farmettes boat launch, and between Panhandle Campground and Manresa Grotto 

Beach. The Poker Paddle and Down River Days events significantly increased the wate

craft activity above norm

s was well below the capacity of the reservoir.

Displaced Project-related Re

As indicated by survey results (PUD, 2000), relatively few visitors are generall

displaced even at the busiest recreation sites in the project area. Of those that are 

displaced, about one-half

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects 

In this section, w

proposed enhan

for recreational enhancements in relation to recreational needs and use. In o

analysis, we add

ements, and upgrades to existing facilities.

As described above, the Box Canyon Project offers numerous public and priva

facilities. The PUD proposes to fund and develop a Recreation Resources 

ent Plan (RRMP) that includes several additional recreation facilities. 

and interested parties have also made recommendations relevant to recreation 

ent and management. 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes a RRMP for the Box Canyon Project. The PUD proposes to 

create the plan in year 1 and update it every 6 years in conjunction with FERC Form 80

requirements to ensure that the recreation needs of the project area are being a

Environmental Measures from Agenci

The FS specifies the following recreation management conditions (condition 4[e]

6) (see appendix A for detailed description). 

208 
• Within one year of license issuance, the PUD would develop an RRMP in 

consultation with and approved by the FS. The RRMP would include an

implementation schedule and coordination procedures. 

• Provide for future recreation opportunities related to the project and affecting 

UM survey data (4[e] 6.3.a). Trigger points that 

re and/or different recreation facilities would be 

ly, the process would provide for appropriate 

existing and/or development of new facilities on NFS lands, or as 

manag e

• the PUD would deposit in an interestive use of such

ction of

alispel

amount of 

r daily O&M to sustain the facilities in good service and repair over 

 and any subsequent annual licenses (13.B). 

ill

786 

d any subsequent annual licenses (13.C). 

dollars and

ies

nce

PUD would conduct recreation use surveys at the Pow Wow Grounds and 

the associated Kalispel Boat Launch, and at Manresa Grotto Beach, every 6 

years during the term of the license any subsequent annual licenses (13.E). 

The PUD would complete surveys in sufficient time to include the prior year’s 

peak season recreation data in the Form 80 submission to FERC (13.E.1). The 

NFS lands (4[e] 6.3) by developing and implementing an ongoing process for

evaluation of recreation use, preferences, and trends. This process would

incorporate results the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Project and 

start in year 1 of the new license, with baselines related to NFS lands 

established using the previous three years of site visitation, information from 

concessionaires, and NV

indicate a need to develop mo

established (4[e] 6.3.b). Last

expansion of

agreed to with the FS (4[e] 6.3.c). 

Interior (condition 4[e] 13) specifies the PUD implement the following recreation 

em nt conditions (see appendix A for greater detail).

Within 60 days of license issuance, 

bearing account held by the PUD and managed by a fiduciary of its choosing 

pursuant to an escrow agreement that provides for exclus

monies by the Tribe, funding in the amount of $457,800 for constru

recreational facilities at the Pow Wow Grounds and the associated K

Boat Launch and at Manresa Grotto Beach (13.A). 

• Each year on or before the anniversary date of license issuance, the PUD 

would deposit in the account (described in 13.A) funding in the

$38,000 fo

the term of the license

• Each year on or before the anniversary date of license issuance, the PUD w

deposit in the account (described in 13.A) funding in the amount of $19,

for major maintenance to sustain facilities in good service and repair over the 

term of the license an

• All PUD funding amounts in 4(e) condition 13 are stated in 2002

would be adjusted at time of payment using the Consumer Price Index for the

appropriate year. The PUD would make all interest earned on these mon

available to the Tribe for purposes of construction, operation, and maintena

of the recreation facilities in accordance with this condition (13.D). 

• The

209 
PUD would use on-site observations and interviews to ascertain facility

occupancy, use trends, and visitor preference information at the above-named 

es, and would include in its surveys a minimum of two nonin

st (13.E.2). Lastly, the PUD would report results of recreation use 

• ed in 13.E) results indicate that use levels at the Pow Wow 

Ou

Be g and potential

recreat and FS’s

specification (FS 4[e]

ear

(1997, 9 t

these data, when comb n

its draf e

existin ittle

nal needs at all project facilities every 6 years over the term of the new license. 

As part of the FERC Form 80 requirement, the PUD should develop and implement an 

ongoin valuation of recreation use, preferences, and trends. This recreation 

evalua which

onal

assist with federal land management planning efforts. 

User d ges

for pea s

development of additional appropriate facilitie

exceeding 90 percent of capacity, visitors may feel crowded, vegetation may be damaged, 

and so m

improvem

new fa

recreation sit

holiday weekend days, two weekdays in July, and two of the same weekdays

Augu

surveys in annual reports for the years in which the surveys are completed 

(13.E.3). 

If survey (describ

Grounds exceed 90 percent of capacity, as determined by the higher of the two 

averages for weekdays or weekend days surveyed, the PUD would deposit in 

the account (described in 13.A) funding in the amount of $49,000 for 

expansion of facilities at the Pow Wow Grounds (13.F). 

r Analysis

cause of the availability of significant and varied existin

ional opportunities in the project area, we concur with PUD’s proposal

 6) for development and implementation of an RRMP. As specified 

by the FS, the RRMP should include an implementation schedule and coordination 

procedures. The RRMP should be prepared in consultation with the FS, Tribe, Interior, 

and other interested parties. 

As described in section 3.3.7.1, the PUD has recently completed a multi-y

19 8, 2000, and 2001) analysis of recreational use. Our analysis indicates tha

ined with the campground occupancy data provided by the FS i

t EIS comment letter dated November 14, 2002, are adequate to describe th

g recreational use and that an additional recreation evaluation would yield l

new information. 

The FERC Form 80 requirement provides a means to evaluate changing 

recreatio

g process for e

tion effort should make use of National Visitor Use Monitoring Project data,

provide statistically reliable estimates of visitor use within the CNF and other nati

forests. These data are intended to

ata exceeding 90 percent of capacity (measured as the higher of the two avera

k eason weekdays or weekend days surveyed) should be used to trigger PUD 

s within the project area. At use levels 

ils ay be compacted or eroded. These effects can be mitigated by making 

ents to the existing facility, shifting use to a similar facility, or developing a 

cility.

210 
The Tribe intends to provide limited public access to the Pow Wow Grounds a

associated Kalispel boat launch site and no public access to Manresa Grotto. While our 

analysis indicates that PUD funding (adjusted annually using the CPI, with interest m

available to the Tribe for recreational purposes [13.D]) for construction (13.A), daily

O&M (13.B), and major maintenance (13.C) of boating and day-use recreational facilities 

nd

ade

at the K

nd costs associated with them are presented in section 5, 

Developmental Analysis. 

sociated Recreation Facilities

ility

enhanc

the town of Cusick, Washington, boat 

•

Env Interested Parties

ies the PUD establish a fund for construction, operation, and 

mainte

s

l

; and

alispel boat launch site at Manressa Grotto would meet needs identified during

relicensing, regulations contained in Section 10(2) of the FPA and 18 CFR (2)(7) require

greater public access to recreational enhancements funded by a licensee than that to be 

provided by the Tribe. 

Interior’s specification that the PUD fund construction, O&M, and possible 

expansion at the Pow Wow Grounds (4[e] 13) is analyzed in Campgrounds and 

Associated Recreation Facilities. 

Our final recommendations regarding recreation management are presented in 

section 4, Staff’s Conclusions, a

Boating and As

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes the following boating and associated recreation fac

ements:

• contribute $37,000 following issuance of a new license and an additional 

$5,000 annually for improvements to 

launch; and 

develop the existing Pend Oreille County, Ponderay Shores primitive boat 

launch site located on the east side of the Pend Oreille River. The existing 

gravel boat launch would be paved and a new dock for boating and swimming 

provided at the end of the launch. 

ironmental Measures from Agencies and Other

Interior specif

nance of recreational boating facilities at the Kalispel Boat Launch (4[e] 13). This

fund is described and analyzed above as part of Recreation Management. 

Our Analysis 

The following PUD-proposed boating enhancements would meet identified need

for additional boating facilities during busy days in July and August: 

• contribute $37,000 following issuance of a new license and an additiona

$5,000 annually for improvements to the town of Cusick boat launch

211 
• develop the existing Pend Oreille County Ponderay Shores primitive boat 

launch site located on the east side of the Pend Oreille River. The existing

gravel boat launch would be paved and a new dock for boating and swimming 

aunch. 

ed needs for boating facilities generated by the project would be 

addressed during the corresponding RRMP update (see Recreation Management).

nts

in sect tion 5,

Staff’s Conclusions

l

ark, following issuance of 

•

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

eration, and

mainte

se they would meet identified 

needs for day-use facility maintenance and additional picnic tables. 

,000 annually for O&M of Ione City Park, following issuance of 

Develo

provided at the end of the l

Any unanticipat

We address the cost of boating and associated recreational facility enhanceme

ion 4, Developmental Analysis, and make final recommendations in sec

. 

Day-Use Recreation Facilities

PUD Proposa

The PUD proposes the following day-use recreation facility requirements: 

• contribute $5,000 annually for O&M of Ione City P

the new license; and 

install and maintain 3 additional picnic tables at Campbell Park following 

issuance of a new license for the Box Canyon Project. 

Interior specifies the PUD establish a fund for construction, op

nance of day-use recreation facilities at Manresa Grotto Beach (4[e] 13). This 

fund is described and analyzed above as part of Recreation Management. 

Our Analysis 

The following PUD’s day-use proposals, becau

• contribute $5

the new license; and 

• install and maintain 3 additional picnic tables at Campbell Park. 

Any unanticipated needs for day-use facilities generated by the project would be 

addressed during the corresponding RRMP update (see Recreation Management).

We address the cost of day-use recreation facility enhancements in section 4, 

pmental Analysis, and make final recommendations in section 5, Staff’s 

Conclusions.

212 
Campground and Associated Recreation Facilities 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes the following campground and associated recreation facility

ents:

contribute $15,000 per year for O&M of FS managed campgrounds

enhancem

• (i.e.,

Pioneer, Panhandle, and Edgewater) in the project area following issuance of a 

e; and

ation, and maintenance of the park. 

e

FS

rds are met (see appendix A for greater detail): 

• Edgewater Campground overnight and associated day-use facilities; 

round overnight and associated day-use facilities; and 

Campground overnight and associated day-use facilities. 

ion and

mainte n 13).

Funding f d

below. 

Ou

improv g

campgrou

• (i.e.,

Pioneer, Panhandle, and Edgewater) in the project area following issuance of a 

g area.

S campgrounds, which were developed and are managed by the FS for 

public recreation, are in adequate condition and currently experiencing low to moderate 

new licens

• a portion of the 1.8 acres of undeveloped lands purchased by the PUD adjacent 

to the city of Oldtown-owned Riverside Park may be used for an RV camping 

area (PUD, 2001a). The PUD plans to either deed the land to the city of 

Oldtown or to provide the city with an easement to allow development of the 

park. The city and Rotary have agreed to be mutually responsible for 

construction, oper

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

The FS (condition 4[e] 6.2) specifies the PUD develop an O&M schedule to b

approved annually by the FS and provide the level of O&M necessary to ensure that

developed recreation site standa

• Panhandle Campg

• Pioneer Park

Interior specifies the PUD establish a fund for construction, operat

na ce, and expansion of recreation facilities at the Pow Wow Grounds (4[e]

or potential campgrounds and associated facilities at this location is analyze

r Analysis

The following PUD campground proposals would meet identified needs for 

in the quality of campgrounds over time and help offset any increases in 

nd use in the near term: 

contribute $15,000 per year for O&M of FS managed campgrounds

new license; and 

• use a portion of the 1.8 acres of undeveloped lands purchased by the PUD 

adjacent to the city of Oldtown-owned Riverside Park for an RV campin

Existing F

213 
levels es range from 28 to 70 percent of capacity used on peak season 

weeke

nt.

construction, daily O&M,

major O&M, and expansion of a campground and associated facilities at the Pow Wow 

Groun S campgrounds are experiencing

low to h

f

ach

a would have a vault toilet, bear-proof garbage container, bulletin 

ject, that preserving the operation of the Box Canyon 

Projec

of use (estimat

nds). Use of FS campgrounds over the next license period is not estimated to reach

levels that would trigger expansion of existing campgrounds or development of new 

campgrounds. Projected year 2030 average daily campground utilization would be 

relatively low, although weekend campground utilization would be more than 80 perce

Interior’s condition 4(e) 13 specifies the PUD fund

ds. As described above, existing project area F

moderate levels of use, and use of these campgrounds is not estimated to reac

levels that would trigger expansion or new development. We are not aware of any 

demand data that supports the need for a campground or associated facilities at the Pow 

Wow Grounds. We address the cost of campground and associated recreation facility 

enhancements in section 4, Developmental Analysis, and make final recommendations in 

section 5, Staff’s Conclusions.

Dispersed Recreation Facilities 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD does not make any proposals regarding dispersed recreation facilities. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

The FS specifies that the PUD implement the following dispersed recreation 

measures (see appendix A for greater detail): 

• develop and maintain parking areas for dispersed recreation use on each o

three NFS parcels between the reservoir and County roads 9325 or 9305. E

parking are

board, and parking for at least five vehicles. The PUD would provide the level

of maintenance necessary to ensure O&M to standards set forth by the FS. The 

PUD would also rehabilitate disturbed areas and closed roads between the

county roads and the BCR (condition 4[e]6.1). 

Our Analysis 

FS condition (4 [e] 6.1) specifies the PUD develop and maintain parking areas for

dispersed recreation and to rehabilitate disturbed areas. Our analysis indicates that 

dispersed recreation would occur on NFS parcels within and adjacent to the project 

boundary with or without the pro

t would not change the recreational opportunities available at these parcels, and 

that available recreation data do not demonstrate a need for these facilities. Our analysis 

also indicates that the continued operation of the project would have no effect on 

disturbed areas and closed roads between the county roads and the BCR. Any 

214 
unantic ee enerated by the project could be 

addres

The PUD does not make any proposals regarding information and education. 

Several existing and planned information and education facilities are located 

ct area. These facilities include: 

• the PUD’s Box Canyon Visitor Center, which offers interpretive information 

D; 

Pioneer Park Heritage Trail, which includes interpretive displays 

Tribe; and

e of a

maintenance work per year at the FS Sweet Creek Trail site for a 

period

ed

does not own the property where the trail is located, and it is not proposing or

recommending maintenance of this trail. 

ipated n ds for dispersed recreation facilities g

sed during the corresponding RRMP update (see Recreation Management). 

Information and Education 

PUD Proposal 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

The FS recommends (10[a] 1.4) that the PUD develop and implement a 

comprehensive information and education package to be used to complement efforts 

underway locally (e.g., Selkirk Loop, Lions train, and other recreation/tourism efforts). 

Our Analysis 

within the Box Canyon Proje

regarding the project area and BC

• the FS’s

about the

• interpretive signage at the PUD’s Box Canyon Viewpoint. 

We are not aware of any recreation demand data that indicate a need for the PUD

to develop a comprehensive information and education package. Existing facilities 

appear adequate. 

Recreation Trails and Associated Facilities 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes to work cooperatively with the Heritage Scenic Byways 

Program to coordinate recreation improvements with the North Pend Oreille Scenic 

Byways Program. The PUD would provide $10,000 to the program after issuanc

new license and contribute an additional $5,000 annually. In particular, the PUD would

perform up to $5,000 in

of up to 20 years. This trail is located approximately 5 miles north of BCD. 

However, in its comments on the draft EIS dated November 14, 2002, FS stat

that the Sweet Creek Trail is not an FS-conditioned trail, and, according to its records, FS

215 
Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

The FS specifies that the PUD: 

• develop and maintain trails, interpretive signage, and trailhead facilities on 

NFS lands adjacent to Box Canyon. The FS also specifies that the PUD 

provide the level of maintenance necessary to ensure that FS trail and dis

site standards are met (4[e] 6.3)(see appendix A for greater detail). 

persed

ille

d for additional trails and/or associated facilities is documented during 

the nex

anhandle Park and Old Ruby Ferry) that 

onths

d

Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

Measures). 

Our Analysis 

The FS Sweet Creek Trail site, which is located 5 miles north of the BCD, is not a 

project-related facility. Similarly, PUD’s associated proposal to work with the Heritage

Byways Program in coordinating recreation improvements with the North Pend Ore

Scenic Byways Program is not project related. Further, the PUD’s recreation analysis did

not demonstrate a need for trails on NFS lands adjacent to Box Canyon. Existing

facilities appear adequate. 

If the nee

t license period, and this need is shown to be project-related, it could be addressed

during the corresponding RRMP update (see Recreation Management). The cost of 

recreation trails is provided in section 4, Developmental Analysis, and discussed in 

section 5, Staff’s Conclusions.

Recreation Signage 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes the following recreational signage measures: 

• fund signs at FS (and other) public boat launches within the project area 

(Pioneer Park, Edgewater Park, P

address Eurasian watermilfoil and the importance of removing this noxious 

aquatic weed from water craft. These signs would be installed within 6 m

following issuance of the new license for the Box Canyon Project; and 

• fund signs on Highway 20, Highway 31 and LeClerc Road that identify the

location of currently unsigned FS (along with other) recreation facilities an

boat launches. The signs would be purchased and installed within 6 months 

following issuance of the new license for the Box Canyon Project. 

Environmental Measures from

The FS includes signage as part of its specification 4(e) 6.3. We describe and 

analyze signs as part of the larger measure (see Recreation Trails and Associated 

216 
Our Analysis 

The PUD-proposed recreational signage measures would meet needs identified

the PUD analysis and improve milfoil awareness, improve access to currently unsigne

FS (and other) recreation facilities and boat launches, and improve utilization of the

facilities. The cost of recreation signage is provided in section 4, Developmental 

Analysis and discussed in section 5, Staff's Conclusions.

Public Availability of Recreation Facilities 

in

d

se

r

by

ic

launch es

nhancements contained in licenses issued by 

the Co (7) 

at

d

recreat ,

d

Tribal recreation facilities are generally rustic and receive little use. Interior 

specifies that (see earlier sections and appendix A for greater detail) the PUD establish a

fund for construction, O&M, and potential expansion of recreational facilities at the Pow

Wow Grounds and associated Kalispel Boat Launch, and at Manresa Grotto Beach. Ou

analysis indicates that some enhancements at these locations would meet needs identified

during relicensing. 

Information provided by the Tribe as follow up to the February 26, 2002, NEPA

Clarification Conference revealed that the Tribe considers operations, maintenance, and

improvements to Tribal facilities as steps to address and mitigate impacts on their use

the Tribe and individual Indians. The Tribe feels that a license condition could not 

properly impose requirements on the use of Indian trust lands as a means of mitigating 

impacts on public recreation in general. The Tribe has however, allowed limited publ

access to the Kalispel boat launch and Pow Wow Grounds. It has not provided public 

access to Manresa Grotto and intends to continue this practice. While the Kalispel boat

and Pow Wow Grounds would generally be open to the public, the Tribe believ

it is not possible to pre-set the number of days these facilities would be open to the 

public. The Tribe believes that this will vary based on a variety of factors, including 

Tribal cultural uses. 

Section 10(a) of the FPA states that e

mmission must address beneficial public uses, including recreation. 18 CFR (2)

states that the Commission will evaluate recreational resources at all projects under 

FERC license, or applications therefore, and seek, within its authority, the ultimate 

development of these resources, consistent with the needs of the area to the extent th

such development is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of the project. The 

Commission expects the licensee to develop suitable, public recreational facilities upon 

project lands and waters. Further, the licensee is expected to ensure public access an

ional use of the project lands and waters without regard to race, color, creed, sex

religious creed, or nation origin. 

Although our analysis indicates that the need exists for some of Interior’s specifie

funding of recreational enhancements on Tribal lands, regulations contained in Section 

10(a) of the FPA and 18 CFR (2)(7) require greater public access to recreational 

enhancements funded by a licensee than that provided by the Tribe. 

217 
3.3.7.3 Cumulative Effects on Recreation 

We have identified significant positive effects on recreational resources and

opportunities from the Staff Alternative compared with the PUD Proposal or the Noaction Alternative for the Box Canyon Project. The staff-recommended new recreation 

facilities would increase recreational opportunities over the license term in the basin and

enhance recreationists’ experience of the natural resources. 

3.3.8 Cultural Resources 

r

Colum

otenai) to the north, the

Colvill

3.3.7.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Construction of recreation facilities and implementation of other resource 

enhancements could create dust, noise, and traffic congestion and pose safety risks to 

recreationists in the short term. These unavoidable adverse effects would be greater 

under the Staff Alternative than under the PUD Proposal, because the Staff Alternative 

includes more recreation developments and resource enhancements during the next 

license period. 

3.3.8.1 Affected Environment 

Prehistory 

The project area occupies aboriginal territory of the Kalispels. The Kalispels 

spoke Salish, a near universal tongue in the interior northwest (Fahey, 1986). The Lowe

Kalispels occupied lands along the Pend Oreille River stretching about 230 miles from

below Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, to the confluence with the Salmon River in British 

bia. Their name, “Kalispel,” is derived from a Salish place name “Kalispelm,” 

which some say means “camas”34 (Fahey, 1986). Legend has it that they came from the 

north and were attracted to the Pend Oreille valley to the west by what they thought to be 

a large blue lake, but which was in reality camas fields in full bloom. 

The primary defining attributes of the Pend Oreille drainage basin are the barrier 

falls which block migration of anadromous fish to the Pend Oreille River, the relatively 

high density of significant camas grounds supported by extensive wetlands along the 

river, and the relatively low gradient waters that allow for two-way canoe travel 

(Fandrich et al., 2000). This later feature allowed the Pend Oreille River to serve as an 

important trade route. 

The Kalispels were hunters, gatherers, and fishermen who practiced peaceful 

coexistence with neighboring tribes, the Lower Kutenai (Ko

es to the west, the Pend Oreille to the east, and the Spokane and Coeur d’Alene to 

 34 Camas is a small, white, onion-like root of the lily family that the Kalispels removed from the earth 

with special long, crooked sticks (Carriker, 1973).

218 
the south. They shared their camas fields with neighboring tribes, and in turn, went to 

Spokane territory to fish and collect flora, and to Kettle Falls, in Colville territory to the 

west, to fish and trade (Lahren, 1998). Life for the Kalispels before the introduction of 

and berryin ive hunting and fishing in September to prepare 

for the coming winter, and collecting in am to spring 

(Fa 6). Wi able th as f

Missouri to hunt bison in the winters. 

torica caugh ar nd Orei nd Clark

Fork rivers and their tributaries including Ruby, LeClerc, Tacoma, Calispell, and Cee Cee 

“Paddlers,” the Kalispels built swift, light 

canoes of bark and cedar with rounded snouts whic od visibility and

stability on the water (NRCS and NPS, 1995). They also constructed numerous weirs at 

s of t ish.

History 

Euro-Am ontact began as early as 18 David Thompson 

traveled through the area and traded with the Kalispels. Jesuit missionaries appeared in 

DeSmet trav ed thr lle v his

way to Hudson Bay’s Company trading post at For the el

to Ch tized Trib l mem d

ear, e “Loyola In 1 o

established the ission on the present KIR, and Father DeSmet celebrated a 

ss n the Selkirk Mo ntains e Ne nresa

Grotto35 e St. Ignatius Mission to Montana in 1854 

and the majority of the Kalispels, under Ch f Victor, went with the priest, only to return 

to the Pend Oreille valley within 2 years. 

Steve d a treaty, known as the 

Hell Gate Treaty of 1855, with the Flathead, Kootenai, and Pend d’Oreille for the 

cessation of over 12 million acres of aborig nal lan f th lathead

R n (al servation) in Mission Valley, Montana. Efforts to 

conclude a treaty with the Kalispels the following year were not successful as Chief 

V resen s, declined o sign reaty, ind ng a

preference for a reservation in the Pend Oreille Valley. Further efforts by Stevens to 

negotiate a treaty with the Kalispels took a back bu ediate need to 

deal with the Yakima Indian wars. 

e disc cer gold in 1855 broug ctors to Metali lls, but

the mining was short-lived. The discovery 

the horse involved annual cycles of digging camas in May and early June, salmon fishing

g in July and August, intens

winter c

after 1770,

ps from mid-October

hey, 198 th horses avail e Kalispels traveled ar east as

His lly, the Kalispels t trout ye -round in the Pe lle a

Ah creeks in the Cusick area. Known as 

h provided go

the mouth ributaries to catch f

erican c 09 when fur trader

1841 when Father Pierre Jean el ough the Pend Orei

t Colvil

alley on

le. He found

bers including the Hea

Kalisp

receptive ristianity, and bap a Chief,

Standing B who took the nam

St. Ignatius M

.” 844, Father Andrew H ecken 

Christmas ma in a cave i u which he named th w Ma

 (Cotes, 1996). The Jesuits relocated th

ie

In 1855, the territorial governor Isaac ns conclude

i ds and the creation o e F

eservatio so called Jocko Re

ictor, rep ting the Kalispel t the proposed t

rner to

icati

 the more imm

Th overy of pla ht prospe ne Fa

of gold in Wild Horse Creek in British 

 

d in honor of the

35

name rn outside Catalonia, Spain, w ola 

nt a ye nce (Carrik r, 1973

This was

once spe

cave

ar in fasting and pena

here Jesuit founder, Ignatius Loy

e ).

219 
Columbia in 1863 brought more prospectors over the Indian paths until an east-route

through British Columbia was created in 1865 (Carriker, 1973). During this time,

h esteaders co inued to cross he valley on their ay to the Pacific oas , but ew

stayed. With no interest in participating in Indian wars to the west, and with their 

seasonal sojourns away from their homelan to hu s f

themselves in the 1860s as th

1 e BIA that the Kalispel e of n tribes in

the Washington and Idaho territories without a res

ntinue cate the Kal spels t on were dire related to

t g of anent settl homesteaders. The 

lands in 1883 and brought the first major 

influx of permanent settlers to the area (Fandrich et al., 2000). Pressure to relocate the 

increa ught prime lands i le as the

lead boom at Metaline Falls in 1885 attracted more miners. The government maintained 

s on Kalispe lands b e ded 

treaty . In 1887, e Nor

another treaty that would relocate the two bands of the Lower Kalispels to the Flathead 

o bands signed the treaty and mov the

n. Th ther band, Victor, d ign the treaty an ained in 

the Pend Oreille valley. Victor indicated once again that the Kalispels would cede their 

territory to the south in exchange for a reservation along the river in the Pend Oreille 

valley. That same year, with membership down to 160, the Kalispels abandoned land on 

the west side of the Pend Oreille River and concentrated settlement on the east bank. 

The completion of the Great Northern Railr in 2 gave 

new impetus to homesteading in the valley. The General Land Office in Spokane had 

surv Oreille vall in 1886. Stevens County had built a 20-

mile road from the Spokane County boundary to just sout

valley was opened to settlement by 1890. 

With electric service in place by 1903, lumber mills began to prolif

valley using the river for transport of logs from mills and logging camps to lumber yards 

rt. By Idaho and Washington Northern Railroad extended from 

r, e grow the railroad an

industry prompted the establishment of Pend Oreille County in 1911 with a population of 

rly 10 tion of th valley (Fandrich et al.

1905, ster, stat ned at okane, visited t pels

the p earing land title that w for c of the

KIR. As part of this process, the Northern Pacific Railroad took 2,500 acres in 

alternative lands in exchange for Kalispel lands ac

lly created the KIR on March 23, 1914, setting aside 4,692 acres located “at 

the usual place of residence of the Kalispel” and “where they prefer to live and die” 

(Fandrich et al., 2000). Our Lady of Sorrows Church was constructed on the reservation 

om nt t w c t f

d nt bison, the Kalispel ound

e forgotten, non-treaty tribe 

reported in 1872

of the northwest (Carriker, 

s were the only on

ervation.

o a reservati

973). Th ine

Co

he openin

d efforts to relo

the west for perm

i

ement by miners and 

ctly

Northern Pacific Railroad entered the Kalispel 

Kalispels sed as settlers so n the Pend Oreille val y and

a policy of denying land claim l ecause they had not b en ce

through a (Chance, 1993) th thwest Indian Commission proposed 

Reservation. The leader of one of the tw ed to

reservatio e leader of the o id not s d rem

oad through Newport 189

completed eys in the Pend ey

h of the Calispell Lake, and the 

erate in the

in Newpo 1910, the

Newport to Metaline Falls. Within a yea th th from d lumber 

6,325, nea times the popula e in 1885 , 2000).

In Captain John Web io Fort Sp he Kalis

and began rocess of cl s ould pave the way

quired in 1879. President Woodrow 

reation

Wilson fina

220 
in 1914 and later moved in the 1940s. wa al members 

received 40-acre allotments in 24 and n th els,

a were suc ic dis

community life style (Cotes, 1996). As required b aniza ct, the

Tribe ratified its constitution in 1938. Under the Indian Claims Commission created in 

1946, the Tribe was awarded $2.7 million but the disbursement required a plan. 

1955, onstructed the first hydropower facility on the Pend Oreille 

River at Box Canyon, after acquiring flowage easements from the Tribe. However, 

s t floo ights af rded u m A

settlement and Commission order issued in 1999, p for the past trespass

vation n of th settle the Trib versee

sin e project.

 phases of the survey would be onduc o ltural

Man oup (CRMG) including shi Office of

Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP), CNF, BIA, BLM and Commission staff. 

ltura Survey Results

The APE for the Box Canyon Hydroelectric

the Pend Oreille River for approximately 55.7 mile Falls dam and BCD

1, ap The APE rough

project boundary between elevations 2,028 and 2,0 ox Canyon 

Hydroelectric Project area is principally managed ment zone by 

and a ly 70 percent of e APE lies within private lands. The APE 

also includes 493 acre KIR and 90 ac

A locational (Phase I) cultural resources sur y the Tribe in 1999

and 2000 identified 72 sites within or immediately adjacent to the project area (Fandrich 

0). T y identified ously ded sites.

The 72 sites include 48 prehistoric sites, 19 histori 5 sites that have

both prehistoric and historic components. Thirty-three of the 48 prehistoric sites consist 

ltur Th eyed area

included 512 acres of lands located between elevat d 2,041 feet msl along 

43. ners ha ed

eter r the 1 r than 30 

degrees. The survey included surface inspection only, with no nce. 

000, th ducted locational surve o creation 

the 430 ey Ranch, ident ying 0 and 5 sites, respectively (personal 

ication er, dated November 21

vey of the Bryant property, a 

rcel D for abitat 20 . This

d not b in August 2000 beca l access.

The sur ey, which did not include any subsurface shovel te

A school

1933. I

cessful agr

s built in 1915. Trib

e view of the Kalisp

ture and served to

19

o small to allow

these

llotments to ul pt he

y the Indian Reorg

ru t

tion A

In the PUD c

ubsequen ding exceeded the r fo nder the flowage ease

rovided remedies

ents.

onto reser lands. One conditio e ment called for e to o

Phase I of the cultural resource surveys conducted 

Subsequent

as part of the relicen

ted under the purview

g of th

c f a Cu

Resources agement Gr the Tribe, PUD, Wa ngton

Cu l Resource

Project encompasses both banks of 

s between Albeni

(see figure pendix D). ly corresponds to the established FERC 

41 feet msl. The B

through a flowage ease

the PUD, pproximate th

s within the 1 res within the CNF.

vey conducted b

et al., 200 he sites include 43 newl sites and 29 previ

c period sites, and

recor

of fire-cracked rock (FCR) and 15 consist of cu al material scatters.

ion 2,028 feet an

permission

e surv

1 miles of shoreline where 

set at 30 m

ow

intervals except fo

d grant

.6 miles of shoreline with slopes greate

to survey. Transects were 

 subsurface disturba

Also in 2 e Tribe con ys on the 2-acre Old T wn Re

Site and

commun

-acre Reisl

, T. Bacheld

if

, 2001). 

In summer 2001, the Tribe conducted a locational sur

241-acre pa purchased by the PU

ed

h enhancement (Lyons, 01)

parcel ha

v

een survey use the owner did not a

sting, identified 16 sites, 

low

221 
including 14 prehistoric sites and 2 hist . T rmation on the 

88 potentially significant sites identifie hes

Potentially significant prehistor and h F rich et al.,

2000, as modified by staff) 

FS No. Site Attributes

National 

Register 

Eligibility

Potential Effects And 

Interim Management 

Recommendations Land Owner

oric sites

d during t

able 24 provides info

e surveys.

Table 24. ic istoric sites. (Source: and

Prehistoric Sitesa

45PO150 Prehistoric cultural 

material scatter 

Eligible Erosion; logging FS

45PO153 Prehistoric habitation 

and cultural material 

scatter 

Erosion; recreational; 

artifact looting

KIR

45PO164 FCR concentrations 

and charcoal features

Erosion; artifact looting KIR

45PO165 FCR scatter and FCR 

concentrations

Erosion; artifact looting KIR

45PO166 Prehistoric cultural 

material 

scatter 

Erosion; artifact looting; 

recreational hunting

Private

45PO167 FCR scatter Erosion; recreational 

hunting

Private

45PO168 Prehistoric cultural 

material center

Erosion; artifact looting; 

hunting

Private

45PO170 Prehistoric cultural 

material sector

Erosion; artifact looting Private

45PO171/172 Processing/ 

habitation 

Erosion; stabilization PUD

45PO174 FCR scatter Erosion control work 

and irrigation activities

KIR

45PO176 FCR scatter Erosion; human 

disturbances

KIR

45PO185 FCR concentrations Erosion FS

45PO190 FCR scatter Erosion; recreation use FS

45PO191 FCR concentrations Erosion; residential 

construction activities

Private

45PO194 Prehistoric cultural 

material center

Erosion; bridge 

construction; artifact 

looting

KIR

45PO195 FCR scatter Erosion; artifact looting KIR

45PO197 FCR scatter Erosion KIR

45PO198 FCR scatter Erosion; artifact looting KIR

45PO301 Prehistoric cultural 

material center

Erosion; trash dumping KIR

45PO349 FCR concentrations Erosion; recreation use Private

222 
FS No. Site Attributes

National 

Register 

Eligibility

Potential Effects And 

Interim Management 

Recommendations Land Owner

45PO359 FCR concentrations Erosion; recreation use Private

45PO391 FCR concentrations Erosion; installation of 

riprap

KIR

45PO405 Prehistoric cultural 

material center

Erosion, irrigation 

activities and beach 

development; residential 

construction

FS

45PO412 Cultural material 

scatter

Erosion KIR

45PO425 Cultural material 

scatter

Erosion KIR

45PO426 FCR and charcoal 

features

Erosion; artifact looting KIR

45PO427 FCR scatter Erosion; trash dumping KIR

45PO428 FCR and charcoal 

features

Erosion; riparian bushes KIR

45PO430 Cultural material 

scatter

Erosion KIR

45PO431 Cultural material 

scatter

Erosion KIR

45PO432 FCR scatter Erosion KIR

45PO434 FCR concentrations Erosion KIR

45PO435 Cultural material 

scatter

Erosion; trash dumping; 

artifact looting; erosion 

control work

KIR

45PO436 Cultural material 

scatter

Erosion KIR

45PO437 FCR scatter Erosion; uprooted trees State of 

Washington

45PO438 FCR scatter Erosion Pend Oreille 

County

45PO439 FCR scatter Erosion Private

45PO440 FCR concentrations Erosion State of 

Washington

45PO441 FCR concentrations Erosion State of 

Washington

45PO442 FCR concentrations Erosion Private

45PO443 FCR scatter Erosion; residential 

construction; 

recreational use

Private

45PO451 FCR scatter Livestock grazing; 

discontinue grazing; 

avoidance

PUD

223 
FS No. Site Attributes

National 

Register 

Eligibility

Potential Effects And 

Interim Management 

Recommendations Land Owner

45PO453 FCR scatter Livestock grazing; 

discontinue grazing; 

avoidance and weed 

control

PUD

45PO454 Earth oven Livestock grazing; 

discontinue grazing; 

avoidance

PUD

45PO455 FCR and lithic scatter Wildlife grazing; natural 

erosion; avoidance 

PUD

45PO456 FCR scatter; possibly

the Tacoma Creek weir

Natural erosion; 

avoidance

PUD

45PO457 FCR scatter Seasonal fluctuations; 

avoidance

PUD

45PO458 FCR scatter Livestock grazing and 

seasonal fluctuations; 

avoidance and weed 

control

PUD

45PO459 FCR scatter Seasonal fluctuations; 

livestock grazing; 

discontinue grazing; 

avoidance

PUD

45PO460 FCR scatter Livestock grazing; 

discontinue grazing; 

Coyote willow plantings

PUD

45PO461 FCR scatter Seasonal fluctuations; 

livestock; avoidance

PUD

45PO463 FCR scatter Seasonal fluctuations; 

livestock grazing; 

avoidance

PUD

45PO464 FCR and lithic scatter Erosion; livestock; 

discontinue grazing; 

avoidance and weed 

control

PUD

45PO465 FCR scatter and tool 

cache

Seasonal fluctuations; 

livestock grazing; 

avoidance

PUD

CNF-517 FCR concentrations Eligible Erosion; historic logging 

and recreational use 

(Ferry)

FS

FS 2070 FCR scatter Residential construction FS

FS 2071 FCR scatter Erosion FS

FS 2072 FCR concentrations Erosion FS

FS 2073 Prehistoric cultural 

material scatter

Erosion; trash dumping FS

FS 2076 FCR scatter Erosion; recreational use FS

224 
FS No. Site Attributes

National 

Register 

Eligibility

Potential Effects And 

Interim Management 

Recommendations Land Owner

FS 2078 FCR concentrations Erosion; recreational use FS

FS 2079 FCR scatter Erosion; recreational use FS

Prehistoric/Historic Sites

b

45PO169 Prehistoric and historic 

cultural material 

scatter

Not eligible Erosion; human 

disturbance

Private

45PO429 Prehistoric and historic 

cultural material 

scatter

Not eligible Erosion; artifact looting; 

recreational use

KIR

45PO433 Prehistoric and historic 

cultural material 

scatter

Not eligible Erosion; human 

disturbance

KIR

45PO444 FCR scatter, historic 

pumphouse and 

historic cultural 

material

Not eligible Erosion Private

CNF-754 Prehistoric and historic 

cultural material 

scatter

Not eligible Erosion FS

Historic Sites

26-40 Log boom Not eligible State of 

Washington

26-41 PUD pumphouse and 

irrigation pumphouse

Pending KIR

26-42 Log boom Not eligible State of 

Washington

26-43 Wooden pilings Not eligible State of 

Washington

26-44 Irrigation system Not eligible KIR

26-45 Box Canyon Project Potentially

eligible

PUD

26-46 Transmission line Not eligible Private

26-47 Wooden pilings Not eligible State of 

Washington

26-48 Wooden pilings Not eligible FS

26-49 Log boom Not eligible State of 

Washington

26-50 Ione Bridge Eligible Pend Oreille 

County

45PO132h Idaho and Washington 

Northern railroad 

bridge

Listed in 

National 

Register

Pend Oreille 

Valley Railroad

45PO425 Log boom Not eligible FS

225 
FS No. Site Attributes

National 

Register 

Eligibility

Potential Effects And 

Interim Management 

Recommendations Land Owner

CNF-518 Ferry dock Not eligible FS

FS 2074 Prospect pit Not eligible FS

FS 2075 Log boom Not eligible FS and State of 

Washington 

17-17817 Concrete culvert Not eligible Private

10BR957 Historic cultural 

material scatter

Not eligible Bonner County

17-17816 Log boom and sawmill 

structure

Not eligible State of Idaho 

and Private

45PO452 Bridge piers No effects; evaluate PUD

45PO462 Bridge piers Rotting due to

abandonment; evaluate

PUD

a Prehistoric sites are defined as sites having any cultural features and/or two artifacts within a 50-

square-meter area. 

b Historic sites are defined as sites 50 years old and/or having five artifacts from 2 different material 

types. 

c Isolates are defined as single prehistoric artifacts or less than five historic artifacts.

The Tribe also conducted locational surveys on three other parcels of land 

acquired for habitat enhancements that had not been previously surveyed. The surveys 

identified 7 sites (3 within the project boundary) on the 441-acre Scheibel Property, 8 

sites on the 187-acre North Everett Island, and 9 sites on the South Everett Island 

(personal communication, T. Bachelder, dated November 21, 2001). 

Based on information available at OAHP, two identified prehistoric sites, 

45PO150 and CNF-517, are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places (National Register). The FS considers site CNF-518 eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register, but the OAHP did not concur. The survey report also concludes that 

the Box Canyon Project may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. 

The CNF requested that the PUD complete the evaluation of the nine potentially 

eligible sites located on CNF lands (45P0185,45P0190, FS2071, FS2072, FS 2073, 

FS2076, FS2078, FS 2079, and CNF754) prior to any relicensing decision. The CRMG 

approved the Tribe’s scope of work for this evaluation at its meeting on May 22, 2002. 

The PUD has authorized the Tribe to proceed with the evaluation of the nine potentially 

eligible sites located in the CNF during the 2002 field season. The PUD indicates that 

the preliminary findings on their eligibility would be available in October 2002. 

The Idaho and Washington Northern railroad bridge (45PO132h) is the only 

historic structure in the project vicinity listed in the National Register. Fandrich (2000), 

the survey report, concluded that the Box Canyon Project (FS-26-45) may be eligible for 

226 
inclusion in the National Register. PUD completed an evaluation of 23 historic sites 

located between the Albeni Falls dam and BCD. This evaluation included sites in Idaho 

(17-17816, 17-17817, and 10BR057) and Washington (26-40, 26-41, 26-42, 26-43, 26-

44, 26- 46, 26-47, 26-48, 26-49, 26-50, 45PO132h, 45PO169, 45PO429, 45PO433, 

45PO444, 45PO518, CNF754, FS2074, FS2075, and FS2077. Fandrich (2002), the 

evaluation report, concluded that the Ione Bridge (26-50) and the Calispel Pumping 

Station (26-41) may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The eligibility of 

the Calispel Pumping Station is pending consideration by the CRMG. 

3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects 

The NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) requires federal agencies to manage cultural 

resources under their jurisdiction and authorizes the Secretary of Interior to maintain the 

National Register. Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 

800) require federal agencies to take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking 

on properties listed or included for listing in the National Register (defined as historic 

properties). If an agency official determines that an undertaking may have adverse 

effects on historic properties, the agency official must afford an opportunity for the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) to comment on the 

undertaking. 

The law also provides for the appointment of State Historic Preservation Officers 

(SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) to facilitate the 

implementation of federal cultural resource policy at the state level, and for the 

responsible federal agency to consult with Native American tribes who attach religious or

cultural significance to cultural resources under their jurisdiction. The relicensing of the 

Box Canyon Project is considered an undertaking for which the Commission acts as 

agency official. While the Tribe is a federally recognized tribe, it has not assumed the 

responsibilities of the SHPO for Section 106 compliance on Tribal lands, as provided 

under Section 101(d)(2) of the NHPA. Therefore, the Commission must consult with a 

representative of the Tribe and the Washington and Idaho SHPOs regarding the effects of 

the relicensing of the Box Canyon Project on any historic properties located on Tribal 

lands. 

The Commission would execute a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the SHPO 

and the Advisory Council (if it wishes to participate), inviting the PUD, FS, Tribe, and 

other consulting parties to concur with the stipulations of the PA. The PA would require 

the licensee to implement an HPMP for the term of any new license issued for this 

project. Execution of the PA and implementation of the HPMP would demonstrate the 

Commission’s compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. 

227 
Completion of Cultural Resource Surveys 

PUD’s Proposal 

The PUD proposes to complete an inventory and evaluation of cultural resources 

in the project’s APE. The PUD also proposes to assist the Tribe in implementing GIS 

technologies to improve the management of resources of the reservation by providing 

them with a complete reservoir GIS database for use in cultural studies. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

The FS, in the justification for its preliminary Section 4(e) conditions (4[e] 9), 

indicates that the PUD should conduct cultural resource surveys before proceeding with 

any ground-disturbing activities consistent with an existing PA among the FS, Advisory 

Council, and OAHP for the management of cultural resources in the CNF; and protect, 

restore or recover data from archaeological sites as provided in site-specific treatment 

plans approved by the SHPO and FS to take into account the effects of the undertaking 

(relicensing) on historic properties. 

Interior and the Tribe both recommend under the provisions of the modified 

Section 4(e) and Section 10(a), that the PUD identify, evaluate, and determine 

appropriate treatment for historic and traditional cultural properties on trust lands located 

on the KIR and curate and store in an appropriate repository artifacts recovered as a result 

of cultural resource surveys or excavations on trust lands on the KIR. Interior also 

specifies in its modified 4(e) conditions that upon the discovery of human remains, the 

licensee cease work, protect the remains from public view and exposure to weather, and 

notify the Tribe, and consult with the Tribe concerning appropriate measures to protect 

the remains. Interior also specifies that the PUD retain a qualified archaeologist to 

determine if any additional remains exist in the vicinity of the discovery. 

Our Analysis 

The continued operation of the project with the enhancements proposed by PUD 

could adversely affect identified and as yet unidentified historic properties located within 

the project’s APE. We have reviewed the cultural resources survey report prepared by 

Fandrich et al. (2000), comments provided by Interior and FS on the survey report, 

summaries of the CRMG meetings, and PUD’s revised schedule for completion of the 

cultural resource surveys and the HPMP filed with the Commission on June 1, 2001. 

FS indicates that the PUD has failed to provide sufficient information regarding 

the project’s effects on cultural resources on NFS lands. FS states that without

completion of inventory and evaluation surveys, it would be unable to find the project 

consistent with the Forest Plan. However, FS indicates that it expects that this matter 

would be resolved through on-going surveys and that sufficient data would be presented 

in the Commission’s final EIS for FS to provide a term and condition for the protection of 

historic properties on NFS lands. The PUD agrees that it has not as yet completed the 

228 
inventory and evaluation of potential historic properties within the project’s entire APE. 

Additional inventory and evaluation surveys are on-going. 

FS, Interior, and the Tribe all raised concerns about the percentage of land 

included in the survey conducted by Fandrich et al. The locational survey included 38.7

percent of the shoreline (Fandrich et al., 2000) where permission had been granted to 

conduct the survey. Lack of owner permission precluded survey of the remaining 61.3 

percent of the shoreline. The PUD indicated in its June 2001 filing, that it would 

continue to seek owner permission to survey additional shoreline during both the 2001 

and 2002 field seasons. The OAHP, by letter dated August 29, 2001, concurred with the 

PUD’s revised schedule for completion of the inventory and evaluation surveys and 

PUD’s estimated cost of environmental measures related to the protection of cultural 

resources. 

The Commission requires that an applicant for license make a good faith effort to 

secure permission to conduct cultural resource surveys on private lands. However, the 

Commission cannot force owners to grant permission to the applicant. In this case, we 

are satisfied that the PUD has worked diligently to obtain permission. The additional 

locational surveys would be conducted simultaneously with evaluation surveys. In 

addition, the PUD has surveyed the parcels acquired for habitat mitigation. The results of 

the additional locational survey and the evaluation surveys would be provided following 

completion of the surveys and addressed in the HPMP. The information about cultural 

resources provided by both previous and project-specific cultural resources surveys 

reveals a relatively high density of cultural material along the project shorelines. The 

project-specific surveys provide assessments of potential effects and management 

recommendations sufficient for us to assess the potential effects of the project on historic 

properties. 

We agree with the agencies that the PUD should properly curate artifacts obtained 

during the inventory. Accordingly, the PUD has included a provision for curation of 

artifacts obtained during surveys related to this proceeding in its proposed HPMP 

discussed below. PUD’s proposal to assist the Tribe with GIS applications to better 

manage cultural resources on the KIR would promote the continuing use of survey data to 

avoid unnecessary harm to historic properties that might result from ground-disturbing 

activities on the KIR. 

Implementation of environmental enhancement measures involving ground 

disturbance could result in the discovery of human remains. We agree with Interior that 

the PUD should take appropriate measures to protect and secure any such discoveries 

within the project boundary. 

229 
Historic Properties Management Plan 

PUD Proposal 

To address the need for the mitigation of any potential adverse effects onto 

historic properties, the PUD proposes to develop an HPMP in consultation with members 

of the CRMG, which includes representatives of the OAHP36 and the Tribe. The PUD 

filed an outline of the proposed HPMP in June 2001, which indicates that the HPMP 

would include: 

• a schedule for the completion of the inventory and evaluation of cultural 

resources and the determination of effects on historic properties in the project’s 

APE; 

• site-specific treatment plans for historic properties identified in the APE; 

• provision to conduct cultural resource surveys prior to any ground-disturbing 

activities associated with proposed environmental measures; 

• a long-term monitoring plan to evaluate treatment options for historic 

properties; 

• a plan for evaluating newly identified or new qualified historic properties; 

• a public outreach program for both Tribal and non-Tribal communities; 

• a provision for exclusionary zones to be considered when planning new 

projects; and 

• procedures to deal with unanticipated discoveries and discoveries of human 

burials and the curation and disposition of artifacts and human remains. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

The FS, in the justification for condition 4(e)-9 indicates that the PUD should 

implement, within 2 years of license issuance, an HPMP that defines and describes the 

manner in which historic properties would be protected and how effects on historic 

properties would be mitigated over the term of the license. 

Interior and the Tribe, in the modified Section 4(e) conditions and Section 10(a) 

recommendations, indicate that the PUD should prepare an HPMP to address the 

identification, evaluation, assessment, and treatment of historic and traditional cultural 

properties on trust lands located on the KIR within the project boundary as part of the 

Implementation and Monitoring Plan. Interior specifies that the PUD consult with the 

Secretary of the Interior when applying the criteria of adverse effects and determining 

appropriate treatment and protection. The HPMP would also include a program of 

ongoing monitoring of historic and traditional cultural properties by qualified personnel 

 36 In the state of Washington, the Director of the OAHP acts as the SHPO. 

230 
on trust lands located on the KIR, including periodic reconnaissance at no less than 5 year 

intervals of the impoundment shorelines to assess damage to known sites and to identify 

and avoid effects on previously unknown sites exposed by erosion, and monitoring of all 

ground-disturbing activities. Interior specifies the cultural resource monitoring activities 

be reported in the annual reports. 

Our Analysis 

An HPMP developed in consultation with the SHPO, Tribe, FS, Interior, and 

Advisory Council (if it chooses to participate) would ensure that any adverse effects on 

historic properties arising from project operations or project-related enhancement 

measures over the term of any new license that the Commission might issue would be 

avoided or satisfactorily resolved. 

We interpret the PUD’s proposed HPMP to include a determination of effect 

following the National Register evaluation of identified sites. The HPMP would include 

measures to evaluate and assess the potential adverse effects on the remaining 

archaeological sites that have not already been evaluated for National Register eligibility. 

OAHP provided comments on the draft outline of the HPMP in its letter dated 

August 29, 2001. Specifically, OAHP requested clarification on the geographic scope of 

the plan, the coordination of the HPMP with other plans, the full set of environmental 

measures that have the potential to affect historic properties, the need for research 

questions to guide future research and investigations, and the protocol for project review. 

OAHP further expressed some concerns about the concept of evaluating Tribally 

affiliated sites and Euro-American sites separately, in the context of multi-components 

sites. 

The clarifications and additional information requested by OAHP are reasonable 

and generally consistent with the types of information one would typically include in an

HPMP and we agree that the PUD should include this information in the final HPMP. 

We note in the following discussions, other information concerning the effects of 

proposed enhancements measures on the project’s historic properties that should be 

included in the HPMP. We reviewed the draft outline for the HPMP filed with the 

Commission in June 2001, and find that, when revised to incorporate information 

suggested by Commission staff and OAHP, it would address the recommendations of 

Interior and the Tribe, and would be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that any 

unnecessary harm to historic properties would be avoided over the term of the license. 

We interpret the PUD’s proposed HPMP to include a determination of effect following 

the National Register evaluation of identified sites. The HPMP would include measures 

to evaluate and assess the potential adverse effects on the remaining archeological sites 

that have not already been evaluated for National Register eligibility. 

We would include a requirement in the PA executed for this proceeding, that the 

PUD develop a final HPMP in consultation with the SHPOs, FS, Tribe, Interior, and 

231 
Advisory Council and file the final HPMP with the Commission, for approval within 1 

year after a new license has been issued for this project. 

Ethnobotanical Surveys 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD has already provided the Tribe with catalogued voucher samples of 

ethnobotanical species that it has collected to be used for educational purposes. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

Interior and the Tribe, in both the modified Section 4(e) conditions and Section 

10(a) recommendations, indicate that the PUD should provide funding to the Tribe to 

perform an ethnobiological study to salvage native knowledge about plant and animal 

species affected by the project. 

Our Analysis 

The PUD already has collected and provided to the Tribe, voucher samples of 

ethnobotanical plants of special interest for educational purposes. We discuss these 

plants of special concern to the Kalispels in section 3.3.4, Terrestrial Resources. 

Impoundment Fluctuation 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD proposes to include shoreline archaeological sites in the proposed 

erosion monitoring described in section 3.3.1.2 and to establish an operational criterion 

limiting the rate of impoundment decrease when flows are in a range that can be 

controlled by the PUD.

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

The FS, Interior, and the Tribe all indicate that the PUD should monitor shoreline 

erosion sites. Interior and the Tribe, in both Section 4(e) conditions, and in their Section 

10(a) recommendations, indicate that the PUD should limit the rate of drawdown of the 

impoundment. We discuss the details of these alternative measures in section 3.3.1.2. 

Our Analysis 

Continued shoreline erosion resulting from the operation of the project in the ROR 

mode at the current water surface elevation could cause further disturbance and possible 

destruction of known and as yet unknown historic properties along the shoreline. In 

section 3.3.1.2, we conclude that several areas of the project shoreline exhibit moderate 

to high erosion rates, primarily in areas of silt and sandy soils. The major causes of 

erosion are likely a combination of natural conditions, livestock grazing, and high flows 

232 
in excess of 90,000 cfs over which the PUD has no control. However, PUD 

acknowledges that the project is likely contributing to shoreline erosion even at low 

flows. We also conclude in section 3.3.1.2 that controlling the rate of change in water 

surface elevation, when flows are less than 90,000 cfs, would result in a relatively minor 

decrease in the amount of erosion. 

During the site visit on August 15 and 16, 2000, we viewed shoreline locations 

where erosion activity over the prior year (since the completion of the locational survey 

in 1999) had exposed artifacts from previously buried archaeological sites. Cultural 

material is clearly at risk. Therefore, we agree with the PUD, Interior, and the Tribe that 

both site-specific treatment plans and a long-term monitoring program would be 

warranted. We recommend that the proposed monitoring program focus initially on 

historic properties in shoreline areas subject to moderate or high erosion. The sitespecific treatment plans for all historic properties that PUD intends to include in the 

HPMP would enable the PUD to immediately identify and include historic properties at 

risk in the monitoring program. 

Aquatic Plant Management and Fisheries Enhancements 

PUD Proposal 

PUD proposes to reconfigure the rotovation program for the control of aquatic 

plants to avoid known submerged archaeological sites. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

FS, Interior, and the Tribe all indicate that the PUD should assist in the control of 

aquatic plants, as discussed in section 3.3.4.2. As described in section 3.3.3.2, Interior 

and the Tribe’s alternative enhancement measures could include instream modifications 

to increase trout production in the tributaries. 

Our Analysis 

Habitat restoration at the mouths of tributaries and continued rotovation to control 

aquatic plants in the Pend Oreille River could affect potentially significant submerged 

archaeological sites. Previous surveys have identified 37 submerged sites on the shores of 

the project reservoir (Salo, 1988). Of these sites, four were located on inundated 

landforms (river terraces) connected to known prehistoric sites by gentle gradient and 

could be affected by rotovation to control the spread of aquatic plants (Salo, 1988). 

Depending on the equipment and method, rotovation could affect sites located on 

terraces located within 2 feet of the water surface. We agree with PUD’s proposal to 

avoid known submerged sites because rotovation could disturb potential intact deposits of 

cultural material in submerged terraces located within several feet of the water surface. 

Submerged sites also could be affected by the proposed habitat enhancement and habitat 

restoration measures at the confluences of and in tributaries to the Pend Oreille River and 

233 
the placement of the 100 underwater habitat enhancement structures in the river and 

sloughs. The HPMP section containing principles of management should include explicit 

management strategies for the protection of submerged terraces and the sites they may 

contain. Implementation of the aquatic plant control and habitat enhancement measures 

should be coordinated with implementation of the HPMP to avoid any unnecessary harm

to potentially significant submerged sites. 

Habitat Management 

PUD Proposal 

PUD’s proposals for the enhancement of wildlife, as described in section 3.3.4.2, 

include cottonwood plantings, creation of ponds for waterfowl, acquisition of new land 

for habitat, and integrated weed management. 

Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

Interior, FS, and the Tribe all indicate that the PUD should implement habitat 

management measures, as described in section 3.3.4.2. 

Our Analysis 

Some of the PUD’s proposed measures to enhance habitat for wildlife would 

involve ground disturbance. Excavations for ponds, tree planting, removal of small trees 

around perch trees (ponderosa pine), and planting cottonwood along the shoreline all 

have the potential to disturb cultural material in archaeological sites. The PUD has 

surveyed the parcel acquired for habitat enhancement and conservation and has identified 

the location of potential historic properties. After the cultural resource evaluation 

surveys are completed and reports are received by PUD, the PUD would be able to 

identify culturally sensitive and significant areas that should be avoided when

implementing the proposed wildlife enhancement measures. We assume that the 

exclusionary zones included in the HPMP outline are intended to encompass 

archaeologically sensitive areas in the WMAs. Therefore, the HPMP would need to be 

available to PUD staff charged with implementing the wildlife habitat enhancements and 

activity monitored to ensure that the intent of the HPMP is carried out. 

Recreational Enhancements 

PUD Proposal 

The PUD’s proposed recreational enhancements, as described in section 3.3.7.2, 

include improvements to the existing facilities, potential development of new facilities, 

and improved signage. 

234 
Environmental Measures from Agencies and Other Interested Parties 

Alternative recreational enhancement measures, as described in section 3.3.7.2,

also include improvements at the existing FS facilities and on the KIR. 

Our Analysis 

Ground disturbance associated with the expansion of existing recreational 

facilities and construction of new recreational facilities could affect historic properties. 

The recreational enhancements proposed by the PUD also involve ground-disturbing 

activities. In particular the addition of parking, a paved boat launch, and day-use 

facilities at the primitive boat launch on the east side of the river, as well as the expansion 

of the Oldtown and Cusick boat launches could disturb potential historic properties. As 

recommended by the FS, Interior, and the Tribe, cultural resource surveys, if not already 

completed, should be completed prior to any ground-disturbing activities and the results 

shared with the staff responsible for implementing the recreational enhancements. The 

new signage proposed by the PUD would help to direct the public to recreational 

opportunities within the project’s APE and on the reservation that would be available for 

use by the public. 

3.3.8.3 Cumulative Effects on Cultural Resources 

As discussed in section 3.3.6.3, Cumulative Effects on Land Use and Aesthetics, 

we would expect future development and increased informal recreational use along the 

BCR shoreline. To the extent that these activities involve ground disturbance, they could 

affect cultural resources. Under the No-action Alternative, new development could harm

archaeological sites. The PUD’s proposed HPMP would provide an opportunity to 

identify exclusionary zones as well as a mechanism to review ground-disturbing activities 

to ensure that archaeological sites are not unnecessarily harmed. These mechanisms 

would minimize the effects on future development and increased recreational use on 

archaeological sites located along the shoreline. 

3.3.8.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

There would be no unavoidable adverse impacts on cultural resources as a result 

of the operation of the Box Canyon Project under the Staff Alternative. 

3.3.9 Socioeconomic Resources 

In this section, we review current demographic and market conditions in the 

county and profile market characteristics of the PUD’s electricity generation and its 

primary consumers to establish a baseline from which to consider the economic effects of 

changes in electricity rates. We then use baseline conditions to consider how changes in 

the electricity rate structure could directly and indirectly affect socioeconomic resources. 

235 
3.3.9.1 Affected Environment 

Pend Oreille County is in the rural, northeastern corner of Washington, and the 

economy depends on natural resource extraction and processing. The economic 

performance of Pend Oreille County is generally below the state average. While 

manufacturing, services, and government jobs have grown over the past decade, annual 

average wages and per capita income in the county are well below the state average. 

Many county residents are retired and on fixed incomes, and unemployment and poverty 

levels are about twice that of the state averages. 

Economists recognize the effects of energy prices on local and regional economic 

growth, and the economic conditions in Pend Oreille County have benefited from the 

second lowest electricity rates in the United States. Low electricity rates can attract 

private investment, leading to jobs, increased demand for goods and services, more 

disposable income, and eventually a growing local and regional economy. In areas of 

economic depression, with high poverty levels and many residents on fixed incomes, 

increased energy prices can have negative effects that ripple through the economy. 

Effects include increased poverty from increased living expenses, reduced number of 

jobs, reduced discretionary spending, and inflation. The extent of these effects depends 

on the level of electricity rate increase and the underlying economic conditions.

To understand underlying economic conditions, we provide a profile of the PUD’s 

electricity rates and its primary customers, and then we review existing economic and 

demographic statistics for Pend Oreille County. We use this baseline to explore how 

increased electricity rates associated with implementing agencies’ terms and conditions 

and staff-recommended measures in a new license could affect the socioeconomic 

resources in the county. 

Electricity Rates in Pend Oreille County 

The electricity generated at Box Canyon is mixed with energy purchased from

other sources and then distributed to industrial, commercial, and residential customers. 

Table 25 shows PUD’s primary sources of electricity. 

Table 25. PUD’s primary sources of electricity in 1,000 MWh. (Source: Arthur 

Anderson, 2002) 

Year

Generated at 

Box Canyon

Purchased from 

Boundary Dam

Purchased from

Avista

Purchased 

from BPA Total

1996 455 245 29 283 1,011 

1997 485 243 102 220 1,049 

1998 499 251 53 242 1,045 

Electricity rates in Pend Oreille County are among the lowest in the United States. 

Table 26 compares electricity rates in the county to state and U.S. averages. In 1999, 

236 
Pend Oreille County had the second lowest average rates in the country after Douglas 

County PUD, approximately 3 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) below the state average, 

and 5 cents per kWh below the national average. In May 2000, electricity prices in the 

region started to rise in response to increasing demands in California, causing many 

utilities in the Northwest to increase rates. In 2001, PUD rates for residential, 

commercial, and industrial sectors were 3.29, 2.96, and 2.52 cents per kWh, respectively. 

Table 26. Electricity rates in Pend Oreille County and Washington in cents/kWh, 2000. 

(Source: Arthur Anderson, 2002) 

Pend 

Oreillea

Washington 

Averageb

Washington 

Lowest 

Ratesb

Washington 

Highest 

Ratesb

U.S. 

Averageb

Residential 

sector 

3.39 6.2 2.98 7.56 8.50 

Commercial 

sector 

2.96 6.0 2.20 6.41 7.73 

Industrial sector 2.52 4.0 1.88 6.27 4.81 

a Source: PUD (2001a,b). 

b Source: EIA (2001).

The PUD was able to maintain low rates as regional rates started to rise in part 

because of its long-term contracts with suppliers and buyers and in part because of its rate 

setting program. PUD rates for the commercial and residential sectors are determined 

through a rate schedule, which is based on 10-year forecasts, assessments of cash 

requirements, and adjustments for known capital projects. Rates for industrial customers 

are typically set through cost-plus contracts. The PUD tries to maintain cash reserves to 

cover unforeseen shortfalls and cut costs before initiating a rate increase. However, in 

the event that cash shortages are unavoidable, the PUD must cover shortfalls by raising 

rates. 

Table 27 summarizes the number of PUD customers, total revenue and sales, and 

average revenue per kWh for Pend Oreille County in 2000. Approximately 80 percent of 

sales are to industrial customers, the majority of which goes to PNC. 

Table 27. Number of bundled customers, revenue, sales, and average revenue per kWh, 

2000. (Source: EIA, 2001) 

Number of 

Customers

Revenue 

($1,000)

Sales 

($1,000)

Average 

Revenue per 

kWh 

(cents)

Total all sectors 7,590 22,368 927,420 2.41 

Residential sector 6,878 3,929 126,843 3.1 

237 
Number of 

Customers

Revenue 

($1,000)

Sales 

($1,000)

Average 

Revenue per 

kWh 

(cents)

Commercial sector 673 1,241 43,709 2.84 

Industrial sector 7 17,105 754,118 2.27 

Table 28 shows the primary consumers of PUD’s electricity. Over 70 percent of 

all electricity sold is to PNC on a cost-plus contractual arrangement that expires in 2027. 

Approximately 18 percent is sold to small commercial operations and residential 

consumers in less than 1-MW blocks. 

Table 28. Primary electricity consumers by class (in 1,000 MWh). (Source: Arthur 

Anderson, 2002) 

Year

Sold to Seattle 

City Light

Delivered To 

Residential and 

Commercial 

Customers

Sold to

Avista Sold to PNC Total

1996 107 186 3 717 1,014 

1997 153 189 0 703 1,045 

1998 87 186 34 742 1,049 

Electricity-Dependent Industries in Pend Oreille County 

The economic conditions in Pend Oreille County have benefited from the PUD’s 

low electricity rates, which are the second lowest in the United States. The low rates 

have attracted, and continue to attract, private firms with large energy requirements, 

including mining and manufacturing firms, and these firms contribute substantially to the 

local economy. A recent study suggests that Pend Oreille County’s future economic 

conditions will depend on traditional industries, including pulp and paper and mining 

(Barrier et al., 1998). The study points out that, when these industries are healthy, they

contribute large payrolls to the community. Yet, employment in these industries is 

generally unstable. The mining industry depends on the market prices of minerals. As 

prices change, the level of employment in these industries changes. Like the mining 

industry, the wood products industry has seasonal characteristics that can also lead to 

seasonal changes in employment. An important requirement of both of these capitalintensive industries is low and stable electricity rates. Low, stable rates reduce the risk of 

cost fluctuations in the face of regional, national, and international competition and 

improve the economic conditions for the community in which they occur. 

238 
PNC is the largest private employer in the county, with more than 200 employees 

and approximately $19 million in payroll annually, with electricity and wood chips 

making up about 50 percent of the company’s operating costs.37 The company started 

operations in the county in 1989 and chose Pend Oreille for its access to fresh water, raw 

materials, and low-cost hydroelectric power. The company has invested in one of the 

fastest and most energy-efficient paper machines in the world, producing more than 

240,000 metric tons of newsprint per year (Washington CEO, 2001). Customers include 

USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Oregonian, Seattle Times, and the Yakima HeraldRepublic. In 2001, PNC purchased about 80 percent of the power produced at the BCD 

and 77 percent of all electricity sold by the PUD. 

The PUD offers inexpensive electricity as an economic development tool and an 

incentive for new industrial clients to relocate to the county. The PUD offers a program 

to provide up to 5 MW of its lowest cost power to any business that moves to the county. 

To date, none of the firms that have participated in the program are operational, but at 

least one mining firm, Teck Cominco, Inc., plans to begin mining operations in 2003 and 

employ 170 people. 

In 1996, Teck Cominco purchased rights to a zinc and lead mine near Metaline 

Falls. Aside from the high level of mineral reserves found in the county, the company 

decided to locate in Pend Oreille County because of its proximity to the firm’s smelter in 

Trail, British Columbia, and because of the low cost of electricity.38 In recent years, the 

company has concentrated on delineating the mineral reserves, and, in 2000, additional 

resources were discovered that enabled Teck Cominco to make a decision to proceed 

with mine development (Teck Cominco, 2001). 

Economic History of Pend Oreille County 

Pend Oreille County was formed on March 1, 1911, when the eastern half of 

Stevens County was partitioned (Barrier et al., 1998). From the 1850s to the 1880s, 

much of the population in the area was transient, associated with prospecting and 

trapping throughout the mountainous watershed. Ranchers, who were attracted to the 

productive hay and grazing opportunities in the Kalispel Valley, led the initial wave of 

permanent settlement in the 1880s. Ranchers were followed by homesteaders, permanent 

lumber operations and sawmills, and permanent mining operations. Blasting of the 

Metaline Falls area in 1906 created a navigable waterway from the Columbia River to 

Newport, which helped to expand mining operations. Mining for limestone, lead, and 

 37 Comments of B. Meany, Representative, Ponderay Newsprint, Usk, WA, during December 4, 5, and 6, 

2001, public meeting for the Box Canyon Project, Newport, Metaline Falls, and Cusick, WA, p. 3, p. 

9, and p. 5, of the transcripts, respectively.

38 Comments of M. Brown, Representative, Teck Cominco, Pend Oreille, WA, during December 4, 5, 

and 6, 2001, during public meeting for the Box Canyon Project, Newport, Metaline Falls, and Cusick, 

WA, p. 8, p. 8, and p. 6 of transcripts, respectively.

239 
zinc peaked in the 1930s and created the largest cement industry in Washington State. 

Mining and lumber steadily declined after the 1930s, but remained the dominant 

economic activities in the county through the 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, large 

manufacturing, primarily associated with the lumber and wood processing industries, 

gained importance, while mining and logging further declined. The last saw mill in the 

county was closed in 1995, and only small-scale mining operations exist within the 

county today. 

Population and Demographic Trends 

A growing population is often used as an indicator of a community’s economic 

health, as new jobs can attract people from outside of the region, and the increased 

consumer spending leads to community-wide economic growth. Table 29 summarizes 

population changes in Pend Oreille County and demonstrates that the county has grown 

at a rapid rate over the last two decades. Between 1990 and 2000, the population in the 

county grew 32 percent, which was above the state average, and represented the fifth 

most rapidly growing county in Washington. Stevens County, which borders Pend 

Oreille County to the west and has similar demographic and economic characteristics, 

was the eighth fastest growing county in the state. 

Table 29. Total population change in Pend Oreille County and Washington, 1990–2000. 

(Source: WOFM, 2001a) 

Census 

1980

Census 

1990

Census 

2000

Natural 

Increase 

1990–2000

Migration

1990–2000

Percent 

Change 

1990–

2000

Pend Oreille 

County 

8,580 8,915 11,732 346 2,471 31.60 

Washington 

State 

-- 4,866,669 5,894,121 382,074 645,378 21.11 

Most of the population change has resulted from net migration into the county. 

Between 1990 and 2000, migration into the county increased the population by 2,471, 

while natural increases (the difference between births and deaths) accounted for 346 

people. 

Migration to and from a county is often the result of the underlying economic 

conditions. In general, an increase in net migration into a county reflects new job 

opportunities. Since the early 1970s, net migration into Pend Oreille County has been 

increasing while unemployment has been decreasing, which indicates that total jobs in 

the county are increasing. However, some of the migration into the county appears to be 

explained by retirees and other non-working people moving to the county, rather than a 

steadily growing employment base attracting new residents. As figure 12 shows, 

compared to the state average, Pend Oreille County has both an older population and a 

240 
smaller working population. The median age in the county is 42; the median age in the 

state is 35. The age cohort 65 and older, which is 15 percent of the Pend Oreille County 

population, is above the state average of 11 percent. The percentage of population in the 

primary working-age groups (25 to 34 and 35 to 44) is 23 percent, well below the state 

average of 30 percent. 

The demographic data, which show a higher percentage of the county’s population 

in cohorts older than the state average, and the population data, which show a net 

migration into the county, suggest that many of the people moving to the county are 

either approaching retirement or are already retired. 























	
	


 	
  	
 	 	 	 	 	
 	 	
 
	 

	





Figure 12. Age distribution of population in Pend Oreille County and Washington, 2000. 

(Source: Census, 2000a) 

Labor Market and Unemployment Trends

As with changes in population, the total labor force and the level of unemployment 

are considered important indicators of economic health. Gross state production statistics 

are not collected on the county level, so patterns of growth and decline of the civilian 

labor force are used as a proxy measure of a county’s economic performance. The 

resident civilian labor force is defined as all people, age 16 or above, that are currently 

employed, or actively seeking work within a defined geographical area, excluding those 

people in the armed forces. The level of unemployment in each county is estimated 

through monthly household surveys, unemployment claims, and business surveys. The 

state makes an effort to separate retirees, students, and those people who are not actively 

seeking work from the unemployment statistics. 

Table 30 shows the total civilian labor force and level of unemployment in Pend 

Oreille County and the state. Between 1990 and 2000, the labor force increased in Pend 

241 
Oreille County by 730 people, or 21 percent. However, during that time, annual change 

in the labor pool ranged from a 23 percent increase in 1 year, to a 28 percent decrease in 

another year. These large annual changes in the employment picture are associated with 

a recession in the early 1990s and large construction projects in the mid-1990s, and are 

indicative of employment in resource-based economies (Barrier et al., 1998). 

Table 30. Labor force and unemployment in Pend Oreille County, 1990–2000. (Source: 

Census, 2000a) 

Civilian Labor Force Unemployment

Unemployment 

Rate

1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000

Washington State 2,538,000 3,045,200 125,100 157,700 4.9 5.2 

Pend Oreille 

County 

3,450 4,180 480 400 13.9 9.6 

During the 1990s, the unemployment rate in Pend Oreille County fell from 13.9 to 

9.6 percent. However, the unemployment rate in the county remains one of the highest in 

the state. During the 10 years from 1990 to 2000, the unemployment rate was 

approximately twice as high as the state average, and during the recession of the mid1990s, unemployment reached a high of 27 percent. 

Covered Wages and Industry Sector Employment 

Covered wages are used by economists as one indicator of how well jobs pay. 

Covered wages are those wages paid to employees that are covered by the state 

unemployment insurance program, divided by the average number of employees in the 

county. Covered wages do not include income from other sources, such as rentals, 

interest, and dividends, and they are not adjusted to account for part-time and full-time 

employment. 

Table 31 summarizes annual average covered wages by industry in Pend Oreille 

County. Covered wages for 2000 were $26,507, which is below the state average of 

$37,063. Since 1995, covered wages have risen approximately 11 percent in Pend Oreille 

County, compared to 35 percent for the state. Much of the growth in state wages, 

particularly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, is explained by the relatively rapid growth

and high wages associated with the aerospace and high tech industries in the Puget Sound 

area. In contrast, Pend Oreille County has a fairly high concentration of employees in 

services, manufacturing, and government sectors, industries that have experienced 

relatively slow growth in wages (Barrier et al., 1998). Compared to neighboring counties 

with similar industrial characteristics, including Stevens ($24,641) and Ferry ($24,279), 

Pend Oreille County has a slightly higher average covered wage. 

242 
Table 31. Average monthly employment, total wages, and average annual covered 

wages in Pend Oreille County, 2000. (Source: WOFM, 2001b)

Industry

Average 

No. of 

Employees

Percent 

of Total Wages Paid

Percent 

of Total

Average 

Annual 

Wages

Agriculture, forestry, 

fishing 

13 0.048 $82,301 0.012 $6,331 

Mining -- 0.00 -- 0.00 -- 

Construction 70 2.61 $1,247,965 1.75 $17,828 

Manufacturing 513 19.12 $26,029,783 36.60 $50,740 

Transport, 

communication, 

utilities 

112 4.17 $2,031,908 2.86 $18,142 

Wholesale trade -- 0.00 -- 0.00 -- 

Retail trade 389 14.50 $4,992,850 7.02 $12,835 

Finance, insurance, 

real estate 

67 2.50 $1,494,863 2.10 $22,311 

Services 575 21.43 $8,066,416 11.34 $14,029 

Government 927 34.55 $26,610,808 37.42 $28,706 

Other 17 0.63 $562,722 0.79 $33,101 

Total 2,683 100 $71,119,616 100 $26,507 

Table 31 also summarizes employment by industry. In the county, government 

and service industries are the largest employers, accounting for more than 55 percent of 

all employees. Manufacturing, primarily associated with PNC, accounted for 

approximately 19 percent of total county employment and almost 37 percent of county 

wages, indicating that the manufacturing sector pays higher than average wages in the 

county. This suggests that any losses in manufacturing employment would have a 

disproportionate effect on the local economy.

Table 32 provides another perspective on employment in Pend Oreille County by 

aggregating employment data into job categories. In the tri-county area, which includes 

Pend Oreille, Ferry, and Stevens counties in northeastern Washington, the largest 

occupational category (about 20 percent) is professional, paraprofessional, and technical. 

Service occupations are the second largest grouping, including food and beverage, fire, 

police, and health care. Many occupational categories are reflected in the large 

percentage of people (56 percent) employed in government and service jobs listed in 

table 32. 

243 
Table 32. Occupational employment and projections in Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille 

counties, 1995 and 2000. (Source: Barrier et al., 1998) 

1995 2000

Occupation Employment % Employment

% 

change

Total 19,150 10

0 

21,239 11 

Managerial and administrative 1,327 7 1,508 14 

Professional, paraprofessional, technical 3,797 20 4,558 20 

Marketing and sales 1,431 7 1,660 16 

Clerical and administrative support 2,553 13 2,633 3 

Services 3,191 17 3,627 14 

Agricultural, forestry, fishing, and 

related 

1,450 8 1,452 0 

Precision production, crafts, and repairs 2,521 13 2,860 13 

Operators, fabricators, and laborers 2,880 15 2,941 2 

Table 33 summarizes major employers in Pend Oreille County at the time the Box 

Canyon license application was written in 1998. PNC was the largest individual 

employer and the largest private employer in the county. 

Table 33. Major employers in Pend Oreille County, 1998. (Source: Barrier et al., 1998) 

Employer Product/Service

No. of Employees 

(approximate)

PNC Newsprint mill 246 

Newport School District Education 225 

Pend Oreille County Government 152 

Newport Community Hospital Health care 145 

Selkirk School District Education 72 

CNF Government 72 

Kalispel Tribe of Indians Government 62a

PUD Electric power and water 56 

Ponderay Valley Fiber, Inc. Wood chips 50 

Seattle City Light Electric power 32 

a Kalispel Tribe of Indians (2000). 

244 
Personal Income 

Personal income is a broad-based measure of a county’s economic vitality. As a 

category, personal income includes all forms of income to individuals, including wages, 

interest and dividend income, retirement and social security income, self-employment 

and farm income, transfer payments, and rent. 

In 1999, total personal income in Pend Oreille County was $219,445,000, an 

increase of $14,238 over the previous year. Since 1970, the growth rate of personal 

income in the county has averaged approximately 3.8 percent per year. Figure 13 shows 

per capita income, or total income divided by the county population, for Pend Oreille 

County and Washington State. Per capita income in Pend Oreille County has historically 

grown at a slower rate and has been lower than the state average. Per capita income in 

Pend Oreille County increased from $2,938 in 1969 to $18,911 in 1999, and the county 

was ranked 36th (out of 39 counties) in the state. The state per capita income increased 

from $4,097 in 1969 to $30,380 in 1999. 


































































	













Figure 13. Per capita income in Pend Oreille County and Washington 

State. (Source: Smith, 2000) 

The differences between per capita, wage, and median income for Pend Oreille 

County are partly explained by the small number of workers relative to the total county 

population. Average wage statistics include only people working in the county, while the 

per capita statistics are for the entire county population. In 2000, about 32 percent of the 

county population was employed in the labor force, compared to 52 percent of the state 

population. Such a profile helps confirm other statistics that suggest the county has a 

small work force for a population of its size. 

245 
Poverty in Pend Oreille County 

Poverty statistics provide insight into how reductions in economic output and job 

losses can be absorbed by the county. Communities with high levels of poverty are 

typically less able to absorb reductions in economic output, reductions in wages, or job 

losses. Table 34 summarizes poverty statistics in Pend Oreille County. The U.S. Bureau

of the Census defined the poverty level in 1997 for a family of three as income less than 

$1,077 per month (Census, 2000b). Approximately 18 percent of the county’s population 

has income below the poverty level, which is nearly twice that of the state average. 

Table 34. Poverty statistics in Pend Oreille County in Washington State, 1997. (Source: 

Census, 2002a) 

Pend Oreille County Washington

Persons below poverty level 2,059 579,789 

Percent of total population 18 10 

Table 35 summarizes the results of a study by the University of Washington, 

Human Services Policy Center, in 1999. The study found that children represent a higher 

portion of the population in poverty in the eastern region of the state, which includes 

Pend Oreille County, as compared to the state average. On the state level, wages 

increased between 1990 and 1998, and the percentage of children (0 to 17 years old) in 

Washington’s families with inadequate income (defined as 0 to 199 percent of official 

poverty level) remained the same. In contrast, the eastern region experienced more than a 

5 percent increase in the percentage of children in families of poverty, and the total 

percent of children in poverty was nearly double the state average. 

Table 35. Children in poverty in Washington State, Eastern Region, 1997. (Source: 

University of Washington, 1999) 

Official 

(0–99% of official 

level)

Hidden

(100–200% of 

official level)

Total Inadequate 

Income (0–200% of 

official level)

1990 1998 1990 1998 1990 1998

Pend Oreille County 22.7 28.3 26.9 25.8 49.6 54.1 

Washington State 14.5 13.7 19.9 20.6 34.4 34.3 

In summary, the economic statistics for Pend Oreille County show a rural 

community with unstable employment, high poverty levels, and an older population. 

Manufacturing sector jobs are among the highest paying in the county, accounting for 

almost 37 percent of wages. 

PUD Economic Impact Study 

As part of its comments on the draft EIS, PUD commissioned an economic impact 

study from Charles River Associates (CRA) to estimate the economic effects of higher 

246 
electricity rates associated with the proposed and alternative actions on three groups: 

general service customers, PNC, and the regional economy (EES Consulting (PUD) letter 

dated November 19, 2002). Although CRA estimated the effects of an electricity rate 

increase on PNC, that portion of the study is not included in the report in order to protect 

the private interests of the firm. However, the report does provide estimates of changes 

in electricity rates and effects on the regional economy if PNC continues to operate or if 

the firm closes. 

Table 36, reproduced from CRA (2002), summarizes CRA’s estimate of the

change in electricity rates for the PUD general service customers. CRA uses the data in 

table 36 as a basis for estimating the effects of rate increases on PNC’s operations, and 

for the study’s estimates of regional changes in employment, population, personal 

income, and taxes. 

Table 36. Charles River Associates estimates of electricity rate increases to general 

service customers under the four relicensing scenarios. (Source: CRA, 2002) 

With PNC Without PNC

2004–2005 2009–2010 2004–2005 2009–2010

Rates (mills/kWh, $2001)a

No Action 4.62 3.5 15.93 6.62

PUD 5.28 3.65 22.81 14.51

FERC 5.41 3.67 24.18 30.28

Adaptive 6.60 3.93 36.56 30.28

Composite 7.65 4.15 47.56 42.90

Change in Rates (mills/kWh)a

PUD 0.66 0.14 6.87 7.89

FERC 0.79 0.17 8.25 9.47

Adaptive 1.98 0.42 20.62 23.66

Composite 3.03 0.65 31.62 36.28

Percentage Increase

PUD 14.3% 4.0% 43.1% 119.2%

FERC 17.1% 4.8% 51.8% 143.0%

Adaptive 42.8% 12.1% 129.4% 357.6%

Composite 65.6% 18.5% 198.5% 548.3%

a Staff concludes that the units represented here are cents/kWh, not mills/kWh as stated in the original 

document.

247 
In order to estimate regional effects of electricity rate increases associated with the 

EIS alternatives, CRA used the REMI Economic-Demographic Forecasting and 

Simulation Model (REMI Model). CRA reported its findings for the years 2004–2005 

and 2009–2010. By the year 2010, CRA estimates that, with PNC in operation, job 

losses in the county would range from 7 to 28 people, population loss would range from

29 to 117 people, and total personal income would decline by $464,000 to $1,860,000. 

Table 37, reproduced from CRA (2002), summarizes these findings. 

Table 37. CRA estimated economic impact on Pend Oreille County. (Source: CRA, 

2002) 

With PNC Without PNC

2004–2005 2009–2010 2004–2005 2009–2010

Employment in Baseline 4,495 4,757 4,495 4,757

Change in Employment 

 PUD (13) (7) (542) (607)

 FERC (16) (8) (547) (616)

 Adaptive (34) (19) (584) (671)

 Composite (47) (28) (608) (700)

Population in Baseline 12,538 13,166 12,538 13,166

Change in Population 

 PUD (18) (29) (68) (1,827)

 FERC (22) (34) (616) (1,864)

 Adaptive (49) (80) (673) (2,089)

 Composite (70) (117) (710) (2,213)

Personal Income in 

Baseline ($1,000)

287,000 376,000 287,000 376,000

Change in Personal 

Income ($1,000)

 

 PUD (360) (464) (27,670) (43,870)

 FERC (426) (552) (27,820) (44,390)

 Adaptive (942) (1,283) (28,810) (47,500)

 Composite (1,317) (1,860) (29,410) (49,170)

248 
3.3.9.2 Environmental Effects 

Analysis of PUD Economic Impact Study 

As part of its comments on the draft EIS, the PUD recommends that staff rework 

the qualitative socioeconomic assessment and include the results from its Economic 

Impact Study in the final EIS. PUD’s study estimates the economic effects of higher 

electricity rates associated with the proposed and alternative actions on three groups: 

general service customers, PNC, and the regional economy using the REMI EconomicDemographic Forecasting and Simulation Model (EES Consulting (PUD) letter, dated 

November 19, 2002). 

Our Analysis 

Several factors preclude us from using the PUD’s study, including a lack of 

information about those underlying assumptions that are highlighted in the report; a lack 

of discussion of other assumptions underlying the analysis that are necessary to fully 

understand the results; staff concern about weaknesses with the REMI Model when 

applied to small areas, such as Pend Oreille County; and the absence of a quantitative 

evaluation of the other benefits and costs associated with project operations and the 

mitigation measures. Although we discuss these issues in more detail below, our 

concerns about the PUD study are illustrative of general concerns and problems with 

partial quantitative models of social and economic conditions. 

First, the study is not explicit in its assumptions or its calculations. For example, 

table 2, Increase in Electricity Rates to GS Customers under Different Relicensing 

Scenarios, shows mills/kWh estimates of rates, change in rates, and percent increase for 

the alternatives under two scenarios, with PNC continuing in business and without PNC 

in business. For the No-action Alternative, the study estimates rates to be 4.62 mills/kWh 

(0.46 cents/kWh) in year 2004. We assume that the table is mislabeled, and the rates data 

are actually in cents/kWh. However, we have not been able to reproduce the rates in 

table 2 using any of the data and assumptions presented in the study, and cannot compare 

these estimates to those cited elsewhere in the EIS. 

The PUD study uses inputs to the model that are based on assumptions about the 

cost of electricity, the composition of source electricity, and how those costs would be 

allocated across rate-payers if PNC closes. The study assumes that, if the fiber mill 

closes, then all of the costs of the mitigation measures would be absorbed by the existing 

pool of rate-payers. The Box Canyon Project produces more power than needed by the 

county if PNC no longer consumes district electricity, such that excess electricity could 

be sold outside of the district. Also, the contracts between the PUD and Boundary do not 

necessarily preclude continued purchase arrangements, which would further reduce the 

total cost of the mitigation measures. As such, the electricity rates paid by the general 

services pool would be offset by sales to other customers, possibly outside of the district. 

It is unclear if or how the study accounted for sales of power beyond the existing general 

249 
services group and what rates were assumed. In addition, the analysis does not appear to 

consider allocation of costs at different rate bases, including industrial and residential 

rates. 

Given that these assumptions are not transparent, and, to the extent that these 

assumptions and calculations are described, they are not consistent with those in the EIS, 

and we cannot support or include rate information from the study in our socioeconomic 

analysis. Also given that the PUD study presumably uses its assumed costs of electricity 

as a primary input into the REMI Model, we cannot verify the results of the REMI Model

or include those results in our analysis. 

The staff is familiar with the REMI Model and is concerned with using the 

computer simulation to forecast future economic and demographic conditions on the 

county level. The REMI Model uses a top-down approach, based on national and 

regional input-output tables, to simulate changes in economic and demographic 

conditions. As such, the simulation forecasts are most accurate at the national level and 

successively poorer at regional and sub-regional levels. Application of the REMI Model, 

with its use of highly aggregated input-output data, to Pend Oreille County could lead to 

distorted results. 

Although it is clear that the PUD adjusted the REMI Model in an effort to capture 

some of the unique economic conditions of Pend Oreille County, the report does not 

provide adequate information about the assumptions and inputs used in the model. In 

addition, it does not appear that the PUD conducted any type of sensitivity analysis on 

these assumptions. Because the REMI Model uses a large number of variables for the 

complex linkages between production, consumption, and investment, staff has no means 

to determine the accuracy and reliability of the interrelationships or the simulation output. 

To summarize, we do not include the results of the PUD Economic Impact Study 

for the following reasons: the lack of transparency in the PUD’s assumptions, the lack of 

detail about the specific inputs into the REMI Model, and staff concerns about applying a 

regional model to a local area. 

Staff’s Qualitative Impact Assessment 

The purpose of this socioeconomic section is to describe basic social and 

economic conditions in the county and to consider qualitative effects on socioeconomic 

resources from rate changes. We use economic theory to discuss the range of possible 

effects associated with changes in electricity rates. Although we recognize that there 

would be secondary and induced economic effects associated with changes in electricity 

rates, as there would be with any changes in primary utility costs, we do not attempt to 

quantify secondary and induced economic effects of the alternatives. 

The Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA), which amended the FPA in 1986, 

requires the Commission to give equal consideration to developmental values (power, 

navigation, irrigation, flood control, and water supply) and non-developmental values 

250 
(energy conservation; protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and 

wildlife, related spawning grounds and habitat; protection of recreational opportunities; 

and other aspects of environmental quality). The Commission uses engineering and 

economic analysis to estimate how proposed and recommended environmental measures 

would affect the value of power. To the extent that a proposed measure reduces power 

values, the Commission considers these alternatives and decides which alternative gives 

the greatest benefit to the public. 

Following the logic of equal consideration, any quantitative model of 

socioeconomic impacts would have to consider the costs and the benefits of the 

developmental and non-developmental values of each alternative using a cost-benefit 

analysis (CBA). A CBA model for the Box Canyon Project would use a common metric 

(dollars) to estimate positive benefits over time from implementation of the proposed 

mitigation measures, as well as the direct and indirect costs of the measures. This would 

provide a basis estimating the net social benefits of each alternative. 

However, the ability of a CBA study to reflect future economic and social 

conditions is limited by the scope of the analysis, the accuracy of the underlying 

assumptions, and the quality and quantity of data. While economic estimates of 

developmental values can be based on market prices, assigning economic values for nondevelopmental resources is a more difficult task and would require estimating the price 

people would pay for a resource now and in the future. Although numerous studies have 

been done to estimate the dollar value of resources, such as dollars per fish or dollars per 

recreation-day, these studies tend to be site- and resource-specific and do not lend 

themselves to widespread application. Executing a fair and comprehensive CBA would 

require many months of data collection, survey work, and modeling to capture both the 

economic benefits and costs of implementing the proposed environmental mitigation 

measures. 

Given the necessary expenditure of resources to develop a fair CBA, we 

concluded that the cost of developing a model outweighed the benefits that such a model 

could provide in this proceeding in which agencies can prescribe license terms and 

conditions. Rather than rely on partial quantitative models, we created a qualitative 

profile of the effects on socioeconomic resources associated with each alternative. 

Implementing the environmental measures associated with each alternative would 

lead to increased electricity rates, which in turn would affect socioeconomic resources in 

Pend Oreille County. From an industrial and commercial perspective, low electricity 

rates facilitate growth and improve a firm’s cost competitiveness. From a residential 

perspective, low rates allow households to spend more of their money in other ways, 

possibly contributing to economic growth. 

As discussed in the Affected Environment section, PNC is the primary industrial 

consumer of electricity in the county, purchasing the majority of electricity produced by 

the PUD to run its fiber mill. Under the current contractual arrangement, the PUD sells 

approximately 80 percent of the power generated at Box Canyon Project to PNC on a 

251 
cost-plus basis. Box Canyon Project electricity represents approximately one-half of the 

total electricity purchased by the fiber mill. In 2001, the fiber mill accounted for 77 

percent of total PUD energy sales, or 669,647 MWh. The contract allows the PUD to 

pass on all Box Canyon Project operating costs directly to PNC, as long as the cost of 

Box Canyon Project electricity is cheaper than otherwise available in the market. Within 

a limited amount of cost inflation, the arrangement appears to shelter other PUD rate 

payers from new costs associated with operational changes at the project. In this case, 

the costs associated with implementing the environmental measures associated with 

relicensing would be borne primarily by PNC, unless the fiber mill either purchases lower 

cost power elsewhere or goes out of business. We have insufficient data to fully 

understand the ability of the fiber mill to absorb costs increases, but testimony from the 

December 4, 2001, public meeting held by the PUD to discuss agencies’ terms and 

conditions indicated that a 50 percent cost of power increase would significantly affect 

the mill.39

Given the large percentage of total PUD electricity purchased by the fiber mill, 

and the contractual arrangement that requires the fiber mill to bear the operating costs of 

Box Canyon Project, PNC is our primary target for assessing socioeconomic effects in 

the county. As long as the fiber mill is able to internalize additional costs of electricity, 

maintain employment at a similar level, and continue to sell newsprint at its current 

volume, the socioeconomic effects on Pend Oreille County would be minimal. However, 

if costs of the proposed and recommended measures could not be internalized by the fiber 

mill, and the PUD increases residential and commercial rates, then effects on 

socioeconomic resources could occur countywide. Effects could include reductions in 

employment if the fiber mill downsized, reductions in household disposable income and 

spending, increased taxes, and other factors that could affect the economic conditions of 

the county. A cutback or closure of the fiber mill would affect its suppliers, including 

Louisiana-Pacific, Vaggen Brother Lumber, and Intermountain Forest Associates, as 

demand for wood chips and other products declined. 

In the following sections, we consider the socioeconomic effects of the PUD 

Proposal, the Staff Alternative, the Staff Alternative (high range) (which would be 

triggered if ecological monitoring indicated the need for measures in addition to the Staff 

Alternative), and the Composite Scenario (the agencies’ terms and conditions). Table 38 

summarizes our estimate of rates and generation changes to Box Canyon power under 

each alternative. To assess socioeconomic effects associated with the PUD Proposal, the 

Staff Alternative, the Staff Alternative (high range), and the Composite Scenario, we 

distinguish between direct, indirect, and induced effects of the proposed and 

recommended environmental measures. For this analysis, we define direct effects as the 

changes in industrial activity that would result from changes in the availability and cost 

of electricity. Indirect effects are those changes in output of primary industries that 

 39 Testimony from Bill Meany, Ponderay Newsprint Representative, Usk, WA, at the Box Canyon 

Hydroelectric Project Relicensing Public Informational Meeting, December 4, 5, and 6, 2001.

252 
would come about in the face of increased electricity rates. Induced effects are those 

changes in industrial output that would result from a change in household spending. 

Induced effects are broad reaching and difficult to track, but range from changes in 

spending on retail and service items to changes in local and state tax receipts. 

Table 38. Estimated rates and generation changes to Box Canyon Project, by alternative. 

(Source: Staff) 

No-Action 

Alternative

Net Annual 

Cost of the 

Alternative 

(millions of 

dollars)

Adjusted Net 

Annual 

Generation 

(MWh)

Average 

Changes in 

PNC Rates 

Paid to PUD 

(cents/kWh) 

Change in 

PNC Block of 

Power 

Purchases 

from PUD 

(%) 

Average 

PNC Rates 

(cents/kWh) 

PUD 1.75 472,817 0.26 10.5 2.76 

Staff 2.28 472,817 0.34 13.6 2.84 

Staff 

Alternative 

(high range) 

4.03 467,917 0.60 24.0 3.10 

Composite 5.17 456,170 0.77 30.9 3.27 

PUD Proposal 

In section 4.3, Developmental Analysis, and table 46, we summarize the change in 

net annual benefits (net costs) associated with the Staff Alternative, the PUD Proposal, 

the Staff Alternative (high range), and the Composite Scenario. Using our economic 

model, we estimate the annual cost of the PUD Proposal would be approximately 

$916,600 with an annual average generation from the Box Canyon Project of 472,817 

MWh after rehabilitation of the existing turbines and generators. Dividing our net cost 

estimate into the estimated annual average generation, we find that the additional cost for 

Box Canyon Project electricity would be approximately 0.19 cent per kWh. 

In 2001, Ponderay Newsprint purchased about 669,647 MWh in 2001, at a cost of 

$16,272,000, with Box Canyon Project electricity accounting for approximately 43 

percent of the total. The remainder was wheeled in from other sources. The existing 

contract, which would be active into the new license, gives the fiber mill access to 80 

percent of electricity generated by the Box Canyon Project. Dividing the net cost for the 

PUD Proposal ($1,570,900) into 80 percent of the total amount of electricity that could be 

generated under the PUD Proposal (378,254 MWh), we estimate that Ponderay

Newsprint would experience a 0.46-cent-per-kWh increase in the cost of electricity 

generated at the Box Canyon Project, equaling an estimated 18.55 percent increase in the 

fiber mill’s Box Canyon electricity costs. For the total block of power purchased from 

the PUD by the fiber mill (669,647 MWh in 2001), the average rate would increase about 

253 
0.26 cent per kWh, raising industrial rates from 2.5 to 2.76 cents per kWh, a 10.48 

percent increase in rates. 

It is unlikely that a 10.48-percent increase in the fiber mill’s annual electricity 

costs would have significant direct effects on the mill and reduce the industrial output of 

the plant. The plant has other large operating costs, including payroll ($19 million), taxes 

($2.5 million), and wood chips, suggesting that the cost increase would represent a small 

portion of total operating costs. If PNC were to absorb all of the direct costs of the 

relatively small rate increase associated with the PUD Proposal, there would be 

negligible indirect or induced effects on the socioeconomic resources of the county. 

Staff Alternative 

The Staff Alternative includes most of the PUD-proposed measures and some of 

the agencies’ recommendations, terms, and conditions. We estimate that the net annual 

cost of the Staff Alternative over the No-action Alternative would be $2.28 million, and 

the adjusted annual average generation would be 472,817 MWh. Using the same analysis 

as described above, dividing the cost of the alternative by 80 percent of annual average 

generation, the additional cost of the Staff Alternative would be 0.60 cent per kWh, a 

24.07 percent increase in the cost of Box Canyon Project electricity for Ponderay 

Newsprint. Average rates for the total block of power purchased from the PUD by the 

mill (669,647 MWh in 2001) would increase about 0.34 cent per kWh, raising industrial 

rates from 2.5 to 2.84 cents per kWh, a 13.59 percent increase in rates overall. 

The increased costs of the Staff Alternative would represent a relatively small 

percentage increase in the mill’s operating costs, and it appears likely that the mill could 

absorb the cost of the environmental measures without any obvious direct effects on 

employment or materials purchases. We find that the Staff Alternative would have small 

negative direct effects on Pend Oreille County’s socioeconomic resources and 

insignificant indirect and induced effects. 

Staff Alternative (High Range) 

Ecological monitoring, particularly of the effects of TDG on downstream aquatic 

resources, indicates the need for additional environmental measures. The Staff 

Alternative (high range) presented includes the staff-recommended measures discussed 

above, TDG abatement measures, fish passage measures, and operational changes. If the 

Staff Alternative (high range) were to be implemented with the Staff Alternative, we 

estimate the net cost would be $4.03 million, and the adjusted annual average generation 

would be 467,917 MWh. If the additional cost were spread across the total Box Canyon 

generation, the additional cost of Box Canyon Project electricity would be approximately 

0.86 cents per kWh, which would raise average industrial rates from 2.5 to 3.36 cents per 

kWh, a 34.41 percent increase. 

254 
If, however, PNC were to pay the entire cost of the Staff Alternative High under 

the terms of the current contract, and the fiber mill continued to purchase 80 percent of 

Box Canyon Project electricity (approximately 374,334 MWh), average rates for the Box 

Canyon Project block of power purchased by PNC would increase approximately 1.08 

cents per kWh, raising industrial rates from 2.5 cents per kWh to 3.58 cents per kWh, a 

43.01 percent increase. Average rates for the total block of power purchased by the fiber 

mill (669,647 MWh in 2001) would increase 0.60 cent per kWh to 3.10 cents per kWh, 

an approximate 24.04 percent increase in the fiber mill’s total cost of electricity. At 3.10 

cents per kWh, the fiber mill would be paying approximately 0.50 cent less than its 3.6 

cents per kWh cost of electricity from alternative sources. 

Although a 24 percent increase in the cost of electricity would be substantial, it is

possible that PNC could absorb a 0.52-cent-per-kWh increase in its cost of electricity 

without undermining the firm’s profitability or total industrial output. The combined rate 

of all of PNC’s electricity purchased from the PUD would be still be well below the cost 

of alternative power (3.6 cents per kWh). This suggests that the fiber mill might not be 

able to find better industrial rates if it terminated its contract with the PUD. 

If the fiber mill were able to absorb the costs associated with the Staff Alternative 

(high range) without affecting production and employment, there would be a limited 

direct effect on socioeconomic resources and little or no indirect or induced effect. If, 

however, PNC reduced its output, laid off some of its employees, or reduced wages, then 

some socioeconomic effects would be felt outside of the plant in increased 

unemployment and reduced disposable income along with the associated indirect and 

induced socioeconomic effects. As long as the mill absorbed the costs, there would be no 

direct effect on residential and commercial rates. 

Another alternative for passing on the costs of the Staff Alternative (high range) 

would be for the PUD to change its rate structure policy and pass a portion of the Box 

Canyon Project costs on to commercial and residential customers. Currently, rates in 

Pend Oreille County are the second lowest in the country and well below the Washington 

State average, which suggests that there is some room for a reasonable residential and 

commercial rate increase. For example, if costs of the Staff Alternative (high range) were 

allocated to all of PUD’s industrial, residential, and commercial rate payers (869,672 

MWh), the incremental increase in rates would be 0.46 cent per kWh, raising year 2001 

residential rates from 3.29 to 3.75 cents per kWh. Although this would represent a 14.07 

percent increase in rates, the 3.75 cents per kWh is well below the state average of 6.02 

cents per kWh for the residential sector. For many residents of Pend Oreille County, a 

small increase of 0.46 cent per kWh would not be significant. However, the rate increase 

would have disproportionate adverse effects on low-income and fixed-income residents. 

We find that the Staff Alternative (high range) would have moderate adverse 

effects on socioeconomic resources in Pend Oreille County. While it may be possible for 

the PUD to pass on the costs of adaptive measures without unduly burdening one class of 

rate payers, some socioeconomic impacts would occur. These impacts would include 

255 
higher rates paid by PNC and possibly other customers, and possibly reduced industrial 

output, reduced industrial purchases, and reduced employment. Nonetheless, even if the 

entire value of the Staff Alternative (high range) were allocated to PNC, the PUD’s 

industrial rates would remain below the alternative cost of power. 

Composite Scenario 

Interior, the FS, the Tribe, IDFG, and WDFW recommend a number of 

environmental measures that constitute the Composite Scenario. In section 4, 

Developmental Analysis, we estimate that, as a group, all of the agencies’ terms and 

conditions have a net annual cost of approximately $5.17 million. Using the estimated 

annual average generation from Box Canyon Project under the Composite Scenario 

(456,170 MWh), the incremental cost of electricity generated by the Box Canyon Project 

would be approximately 1.13 cents per kWh. Industrial rates for the Box Canyon Project 

block of power purchased by PNC (364,936 MWh), which is 80 percent of the total 

electricity generated at Box Canyon Project, would increase 1.42 cents per kWh. The 

fiber mill’s industrial rates for the Box Canyon Project block of electricity would rise 

from 2.5 cents in 2001 to 3.92 cents, which would be approximately 8.9 percent higher 

than our 3.6-cents/kWh estimate of the cost of alternative power. 

If PNC were to absorb the costs of the Composite Scenario ($5.17 million) in the 

total block of electricity (669,647 MWh in 2001) purchased from the PUD, we estimate 

that the fiber mill would pay an additional 0.77 cents per kWh. Average industrial rates 

would rise from 2.5 cents in 2001 to 3.27 cents, representing a 30.90 percent increase in 

total electricity costs over 2001 purchases. This cost would be higher than the fiber 

mill’s cost of alternative electricity. 

Faced with substantially higher electricity costs, PNC could consider passing on 

the cost to customers, reducing its electricity needs, reducing profits, or taking other 

actions. Fiber mills, which are known to be particularly sensitive to changes in electricity 

rates, typically compete in national and international markets with tight operating 

margins. It could be difficult for the fiber mills to pass on costs to customers by raising 

prices, because in highly competitive markets increased costs often result in reduced 

sales. 

Reducing electricity use may also be difficult for PNC. As discussed previously, 

PNC has already invested in energy efficient machinery to reduce the total electricity 

consumption, so improvements in energy efficiency may not significantly reduce current 

costs. We have insufficient data to comment on other cost-reduction opportunities 

available to PNC. 

When options to reduce electricity consumption, operating costs, and profits are 

no longer available, the mill could reduce output, purchase alternative sources of 

electricity, move to another location with lower electricity rates, or close operations. If 

PNC remains within the PUD service area and is required to absorb the full cost of the 

Composite Scenario, a likely result would be reduced industrial output. Declines in a 

256 
firm’s output typically lead to reduced spending on local raw materials, such as wood 

chips, and reduced levels of employment. Because the fiber mill is the largest private 

employer in the county, job losses and reduced material purchases would be felt on a 

number of levels throughout the community, including timber harvest and trucking. This 

would exacerbate the high levels of unemployment in the county. 

If PNC terminated its existing contract with the PUD, the cost of the 

environmental measures would spread across the remaining PUD customers. In the short 

term, PUD rates could rise from current levels to more than 8 cents per kWh. However, 

with adequate planning time, some opportunities would exist for the PUD to minimize 

effects from PNC terminating its contract. For example, the PUD could spread the costs 

of the Composite Scenario across some or all electricity sold by the PUD, essentially 

using cheaper electricity purchased outside the PUD to subsidize the cost of the more 

expensive Box Canyon Project electricity. 

In a worst-case event, PNC would be forced to close operations and the costs of 

the Composite Scenario would be passed onto the remaining rate payers. Closure of the 

fiber mill would have substantial direct, indirect, and induced socioeconomic effects as 

hundreds of jobs would be lost, and consumer spending would be reduced. Many 

working-aged residents would likely move out of the county in search of employment. In 

addition, the indirect and induced socioeconomic effects associated with mill closure 

would be compounded by an associated electricity rate increase as the costs of the 

Composite Scenario are borne by the remaining residential, commercial, and industrial 

rate payers. 

An important consideration is how a large increase in residential electricity rates 

would affect the county's low-income and fixed-income households. The demographic 

profile in the Affected Environment section indicates that the county has larger than 

average elderly (age 65+) and low-income populations (less than $10,000) on fixed or 

limited incomes. For these populations, increased household expenses typically require 

commensurate deceases in spending on other items, such as clothing, transportation, and 

food. In Washington, low-income households spend approximately 3.3 percent of total 

household expenditures on electricity and natural gas. During the energy price escalation 

in 2001, the state predicted that increased rates would raise the average low-income and 

elderly household expenditures on electricity and natural gas to 5.2 and 4.9 percent, 

respectively, of total household expenditures (WSOTD, 2001). If the direct costs of the 

Composite Scenario environmental measures were borne by residential rate payers, then 

low income and elderly residents would be especially hard hit. 

In summary, the we find that the electricity rate increase associated with 

implementing the Composite Scenario could have moderate adverse effects on 

socioeconomic resources if PUD and PNC work to protect the profitability of the mill and 

minimize effects on other ratepayers. The Composite Scenario could have large adverse 

effects on the socioeconomic resources in Pend Oreille County if rate increases force 

PNC to close operations of the mill with disproportional adverse effects on low-income 

257 
and elderly populations in Pend Oreille County. Even modest job losses, reduced 

disposable income and consumer spending, and reduced industrial output would further 

depress the already depressed economic conditions of the county. 

We discuss the detailed economic costs of the approaches in section 4, 

Developmental Analysis, and present our final recommendations in section 5, Staff’s 

Conclusions.

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No-action Alternative, the PUD would continue to operate the project 

under the terms and conditions of the existing license. Environmental measures that the 

PUD proposes and we recommend (discussed in previous sections) would be foregone. 

There would be no change in the native aquatic species community that currently exists 

with no provision for fish passage or habitat enhancement. There would continue to be 

the potential for adverse effects on rare or sensitive plants through encroachment by 

noxious weed species and shoreline erosion. Cultural resources on the KIR exposed

through erosion processes would continue to be affected at the same rate. Areas of 

erosion would continue to invite the spread of noxious weeds that would continue to 

compete with rare plants occurring along the shoreline. Exceedances of Washington 

State water quality guidelines for TDG would continue to occur at the same level and 

frequency as is currently the case. The restoration and enhancement of currently limited 

cottonwood habitat and associated wildlife would not occur, and aquatic weeds would 

remain at current problem levels or possibly increase. 

3.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF

RESOURCES 

Continued operation of the Box Canyon Project under any of the alternatives 

considered but not eliminated from detailed study would continue to commit the lands 

and water previously developed for energy generation to their current use. Although this 

commitment would be irretrievable, its duration would be limited to the length of any 

new license issued. Removal of the dam and restoration of disturbed areas, though 

unlikely could eventually return the project areas to near pre-project conditions. 

3.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

Our recommendation for the project is expected to provide an average of about 

467,917to 472,817 MWh of energy each year to the region. This long-term energy 

productivity would extend as long as the duration of the new license. Our 

recommendations are designed to minimize or avoid long-term decreases in biological 

258 
259 

productivity of the system, as well as enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat and local and 

regional recreational opportunities. 
260 

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS 

In this section, we look at the Box Canyon Project’s use of the Pend Oreille River 

for hydropower purposes to see what effect various environmental and developmental 

measures would have on the project’s costs and power benefits. 

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT 

We base our economic studies on a 30-year period of analysis and current price 

levels. A 30-year period is used regardless of the duration of the new license. We base 

the energy value on BPA new resource addition energy values (most likely to be 

combustion turbines). This energy value reflects a capacity component associated with 

average generation. Because the project is operated ROR and the PUD has advised the 

Commission that it does not rely on the Box Canyon Project for critical year capacity due 

to operational constraints, which cause the project to shut down under high flow 

conditions, we do not make a separate computation for dependable capacity. Table 39 

summarizes the assumptions we use in our analysis. 

Table 39. Economic analysis parameters. (Source: Staff) 

Parameter Value Source

Energy value ($/MWh) 36a Staff 

Capacity value ($/kW) Included in energy value Staff 

Period of analysis 30 years Staff 

Term of financing 20 years Staff 

Federal and state tax rate 0.0% Staff 

Local tax rateb

 0.825% Staff 

Insurance rate on new capital 

measures 

0.25% Staff 

Discount rate 6.0% Staff 

Cost of capital ratec

 6.0% Staff 

a

 The actual value is $36.1/MWh, which we round to $36/MWh. This value is consistent with recent 

FERC western region EISs in which we applied a $40/MWh value for investor-owned utilities 

(IOUs). Because municipal utilities have lower financing costs, the rate would be somewhat less 

than for an IOU. The value also compares favorably with the BPA 2002 priority firm exchange 

program rate. 

b

 The local tax was computed by dividing the local tax information provided by the PUD by the net 

investment. 

c

 The PUD assumed 5 percent interest rate with about 2 percent bond subscription cost in the final 

license application resulting in slightly lower annualized costs.
261 

Under current conditions, and in the absence of any new environmental measures, 

we estimate annual project costs as shown in table 40. 

Table 40. Current annual costs. (Source: Staff) 

Capital Cost ($) Annual Cost ($) Annualized Cost ($)

Total net investmenta 14,838,000 1,354,900 

Total relicensing costb 7,753,400 563,300 

Total net investmentc

 22,591,400 1,918,200 

O&Mb 3,791,900 3,791,900 

Total 5,710,100 a

 Basic project net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes, 

including applicant’s costs summarized in 2001 (PUD, 2002). 

b

 From PUD (2001a), as modified in letter from J. Snyder, Project Manager, EES Consulting, 

Kirkland, WA, to M.R. Salas, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, dated April 26, 2002. We 

removed the weevil baseline studies and pilot studies from the cost of PUD’s environmental 

measures to total relicensing cost because these studies were completed. 

c

 Sum of basic project net investment and applicant’s relicensing costs.

4.2 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT MEASURES 

In this section, we estimate the annualized costs of the various environmental 

measures proposed by the PUD and of those recommended by agencies, other interested 

parties, and staff. First, we address the impact of potential operational changes in terms 

of energy and capacity replacement costs. Then, we estimate the cost of other protection, 

mitigation, and enhancement measures. The Staff Alternative includes measures 

presented in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, 

and other supplementary measures presented in section 4.2.2, Cost of Other 

Environmental Measures. To address all measures, and the full range of approaches to 

implement them, we developed, in addition to the Staff Alternative, two other scenarios, 

representing: 

• measures which could be implemented pending the outcome of studies 

recommended in the Staff Alternative (Staff Alternative [high range]); and 

• the total of all the mandatory conditions received from the agencies and 

interested parties in response to the REA, but not endorsed by staff (Composite 

Scenario).40

We present these scenarios in section 4.3, Comparison of Alternatives. 

 

40 The Composite Scenario no longer includes Section 10(a) or 10(j) measures not recommended by staff 

as compared with the draft EIS, which included such measures. 
262 

4.2.1 Cost Impacts of Operational Changes 

Currently, the PUD generally operates the Box Canyon Project in an ROR mode. 

With all four units operating, the project’s maximum hydraulic capacity is 27,400 cfs. 

Two major existing operational constraints include no project induced exceedances of 

elevation 2,041 feet msl at Cusick (RM 70.1) and a backwater effect at the Albeni Falls 

dam tailwater of no more than 2 feet above natural conditions. To meet these objectives, 

the PUD proposes to include its adoption of Plan E as an operating constraint under its 

new license. Plan E was described in detail in section 3.3.2.2, Environmental Effects and 

Recommendations. Because this plan is already included in the PUD’s modeling of 

current conditions and was adopted in the year 2000, we include it as part of current 

conditions for purposes of the developmental analysis.

Under current conditions, the project provides average annual generation of 

452,000 MWh based on the Duke Engineering CHEOPSTM model, a hydropower 

operations simulation computer model (PUD, 2001a). Operational changes, if 

implemented, would affect energy generation. We based our estimates of energy impacts 

on analysis by the PUD using the Duke Engineering CHEOPSTM model, and other PUD 

estimates made in response to the NEPA clarification meetings. We evaluate several 

operational measures that influence energy production (the first three are proposed by the 

PUD): (1) implementation of a 3-inch per hour reservoir drawdown rate; (2) increase in 

hydraulic capacity of the plant to 32,400-cfs in a phased 4-year period; (3) upgrade two 

of the turbines with fish-friendly minimum gap turbine runners; (4) operational 

restrictions in year 1 to benefit downstream fish passage; (5) implementation of TDG 

abatement measures; (6) loss of generation due to implementation of the TDG abatement 

measures proposed by Interior and others if achieved by shutting down the project under 

high flow conditions; (7) operation of fish passage facilities; and (8) reservoir drawdown 

for non-native vegetation. We summarize the measures that affect energy production as 

they apply to all of the alternatives in table 41. 

The applicant has provided a variety of numbers for the value of energy for 

evaluating measures including a range of $21.50 to $26 per MWh in exhibit H of the final 

license application, $65 in the June 2001 reply to an AIR (PUD, 2001a), and $48 per 

MWh in response to the NEPA cost clarification meeting (letter from J.J. Snyder, Duke 

Engineering & Services, Bothell, WA, to M.R. Salas, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, 

May 20, 2002). Responding to the PUD’s concern about the value of energy, we 

reviewed recent wholesale prices in the Mid-Columbia spot market. Figure 14 illustrates 

the variation in on-peak energy values in a recent year. Although prices were in excess 

of $50 per MWh last summer and as high as $100, we find prices generally have 

fluctuated around $25 per MWh since September 2001. As shown in figure 15, off-peak 

prices have been lower, ranging from $4 to $76 per MWh (refer to www.platts.com). We 

find that power prices in the past have demonstrated market volatility, and we find that 

our alternative cost of power approach offers a more stable basis for evaluating 

hydropower economics in the context of relicensing. 
263 

Table 41. Summary of impacts on energy benefits. (Source: Staff) 

Staff Alternative

No-action PUD Proposal Low High 

Annualized 

$ MWh

Annualized 

$ MWh

Annualized 

$ MWh

Annualized 

$ MWh

A

Benefit Reduction Measures3-inch/hour drawdown 

– – (6,800) (190) (6,800) (190) (6,800) (190) 

Auxiliary spillway gates for TDG abatement (years 10–30)a

-- -- (79,500) (3,055) (79,500) (3,055) (79,500) (3,055) 

Cessation of project operations between 60,000 and 90,000 cfs for TDG abatement (years 10–30)b,c

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- (

Trap-and-haul facility at BCD (staff phase 1; years 6–17)d

-- -- -- -- -- -- (48,100) (1,174) 

Temporary trap-and-haul facility at BCD (Section 18; years 2–13)d

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
264 

Staff Alternative

No-action PUD Proposal Low High 

Annualized 

$ MWh

Annualized 

$ MWh

Annualized 

$ MWh

Annualized 

$ MWh

A

Interim upstream fishway at Calispell Creek (Section 18; years 10–21)d

-- -- -- -- -- -- (4,400) (104) 

Interim trapand-haul at BCD (Section 18; 13–17)d

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Permanent upstream volitional fish passage at BCD (Section 18; years 18–30)d

-- -- -- -- -- -- (31,900) (1,443) 

Permanent upstream passage at Calispell Creek (Section 18; years 22–30)d

-- -- -- -- -- -- (1,400) (78) 

Permanent downstream fish passage at BCD (Section 18; years 13–30)d, e

-- -- -- -- -- -- (49,300) (2,100) 
265 

Staff Alternative

No-action PUD Proposal Low High 

Annualized 

$ MWh

Annualized 

$ MWh

Annualized 

$ MWh

Annualized 

$ MWh

A

Energy Benefit Gains PUD-endorsed turbine upgradesf

-- -- 800,500 22,967 800,500 22,967 800,500 22,967 

Upgrade two of the turbines with fishfriendly minimum gap turbine runnersg 

-- -- 40,200 1,095 40,200 1,095 40,200 1,095 

Total benefits changeh 

-- -- 754,400 20,817 754,400 20,817 619,300 15,917 
266 

Staff Alternative

No-action PUD Proposal Low High 

Annualized 

$ MWh

Annualized 

$ MWh

Annualized 

$ MWh

Annualized 

$ MWh

A

a Energy loss is prorated so 21/30ths of energy here reflects installation of auxiliary spillway gates. Actual energy loss b Energy loss is prorated so 21/30ths of energy here reflects cessation of project operations between 60,000, and 90,000 

loss is 14,658 MWh. 

c We have increased the energy loss by 20 percent with respect to PUD’s estimate to account for losses between 80,000 d Energy loss is prorated so the years the measure is in effect out of 30 years are computed. Actual losses are consisten

reply, current staff recommendations, and/or agency mandatory conditions. 

e If the first two PUD fish-friendly turbine runner upgrades were found to provide safe and effective downstream passag

need for downstream passage had been determined based on study results, we would support the upgrade of the two reinclude fish-friendly runners that would be operational in years 5 and 6 in lieu of the permanent downstream fishway. of upgrading the two additional units incorporating fish-friendly runners would be $33,400 and produce an average of 

years. The actual incremental energy gain would be 1,195 MWh if two additional units were to be upgraded. 

f Energy gains are prorated such that unit 1 is multiplied by 28/30ths of the actual yearly amount, unit 2 is multiplied by 

multiplied by 26/30ths, and unit 4 is multiplied by 25/30ths, reflecting the phased installation of turbine upgrades. Ac26,000 MWh when all four units are installed. 

g Energy gains are prorated such that unit 1 is multiplied by 28/30ths of the actual yearly amount, and unit 2 is multiplie

reflecting the incremental energy gain of phased installation of fish-friendly turbine runner upgrades. Actual increme

2,390 MWh when all four units are installed. 

h Round-off errors of $100 or 1 MWh may carry forward. 
Figure 14. On-peak energy values, June 2001 to June 2002. (Source: Platts, 2002)

C-267 

Figure 15. Off-peak energy values, June 2001 to June 2002. (Source: Platts, 2002) 
4.2.1.1 3-Inch-Per-Hour Drawdown Limitation 

The PUD proposes a reservoir drawdown constraint of 3 inches per hour. 

According to the PUD (PUD, 2001a,b), this restriction is expected to force the start of 

drawdown to begin approximately 12 hours sooner than otherwise would be the case with 

no downramping constraint. This constraint is anticipated to result in an average head 

loss of 4 feet for 12 hours twice a year, which is equivalent to 190 MWh of energy 

generation on an average annual basis, or about $6,800 per year in replacement energy 

costs. 

The PUD has agreed to limit drawdown to 3 inches per hour. This implies a 

drawdown of 36 inches over 12 hours. The Tribe proposes limiting this drawdown to 12 

inches per day, which would result in having to conduct the drawdown over a 3-day 

period (with no further drawdowns the following 4 days to meet the Kalispels-proposed 

weekly drawdown constraint of 36 inches per week) or six times longer than proposed by 

the PUD (i.e., the effective rate would be 0.5 inch per hour over 72 hours). The loss of 

head would last six times as long, so the incremental cost would be $34,200 per year and 

result in an additional energy loss of 950 MWh. We make our final conclusions

regarding drawdown limitations in section 5, Staff’s Conclusions.

4.2.1.2 Four Turbine Upgrades 

The PUD proposes to install four turbine upgrades over a 4-year period at a rate of 

one unit per year. We assume the first unit would come on line in year 3 of the new 

license. Implementation of the upgrades would increase the project’s maximum capacity 

from 72 MW to 88 MW (a gain of 16 MW). Additionally, the total average annual 

generation would increase 26,000 MWh41 (from 452,000 MWh to 478,000 MWh) after 

all four units are installed. We estimate the total levelized cost of installing the four 

upgrades at approximately $1,223,200 annually. The levelized benefits would be about 

$800,500 per year, resulting in a net cost of $422,700. We make our final conclusions on 

turbine upgrades in section 5, Staff’s Conclusions.

4.2.1.3 Two Fish-friendly Turbine Upgrades 

We assume that upgrading two of the turbines with fish-friendly minimum gap 

turbine runners would occur over a 2-year period at a rate of one unit per year under the 

PUD’s Proposal. We assume the first unit would come on line in year 3 of the new 

license. Implementation of the upgrades would increase the project’s typical efficiency 

by about 0.5 percent (PUD, 2001a). This would result in a total average annual 

 41 This value is then prorated to 22,967 MWh because these benefits are not available starting in year 1 

of any new license issued. 

C-268 
generation increase of 1,195 MWh42 (from 478,000 MWh to 479,195 MWh) after both 

units are upgraded. We estimate the total levelized cost of installing the two upgrades at 

approximately $223,100 annually. The levelized benefits would be about $40,200 per 

year, resulting in a net benefit of -$182,900. We make our final conclusions on fishfriendly turbines in section 5, Staff’s Conclusions.

4.2.1.4 Gates for TDG Abatement Program 

Interior has agreed with WDOE’s Water Quality Certification with respect to TDG 

reduction in year 10 of any new license (described in detail in section 3.3.2.2, 

Environmental Effects under Total Dissolved Gas), and the PUD completed a study of 

TDG abatement measures and subsequently agreed to WDOE’s proposal to install the 

gates if necessary (letter from J. Snyder, Project Manager, EES Consulting, Kirkland, 

WA, to M. Salas, FERC Secretary, Washington, DC, dated August 13, 2004). Interior 

stated that the option of installing three, 27-foot-high gates as described in the PUD study 

appeared to meet the performance objectives it recommends for years 8 through 20 of the 

new license (part of what Interior describes as Phase 2 of the TDG abatement program). 

The gates reduce TDG by providing a submerged passage for spill rather than directing 

the water over the main dam and spillway where air is entrained. There is an energy loss 

of 4,364 MWh43 associated with head losses for the 27-foot gates designed for the 

abatement program. This loss would occur from year 10 onwards. 

4.2.1.5 Cessation of Project Operation from 60,000 to 90,000 cfs for the 

TDG Abatement Program 

Although submerged gates will control TDG up to flows of 60,000 cfs, full 

compliance with WDOE’s WQC specifications could necessitate shutting the project 

down over a range of 60,000 to 90,000 cfs. 

There are energy losses of 14,658 MWh44

 associated with shutting the plant down 

over this range of flow (corresponding to the compliance phase of the TDG abatement 

program proposed by Interior and others). These losses would occur from year 10 of any 

new license onwards. 

 42 This value is then prorated to 2,111 MWh because these benefits are not available starting in year 1 of 

any new license issued. 

43 This value is then prorated to 3,055 MWh because this benefit reduction is not available starting in 

year 1 of any new license issued. 

44 This value is then prorated to 10,261 MWh because this benefit reduction is not available starting in 

year 1 of any new license issued. 

C-269 
4.2.1.6 Fish Passage Facilities 

Energy losses associated with fish passage facilities include both flow required for 

the operation of the passage facilities that can no longer be used for generation, 

headlosses to meet hydraulic requirements, and energy associated with providing 

pumping energy. 

Under the Composite Scenario, a temporary trap-and-haul facility could provide 

upstream fish passage for BCD from year 2 through year 13 of any new license issued. 

At BCD, the trap-and-haul facility would require 2,936 MWh45 per year. Under the 

Composite Scenario, a temporary trap-and-haul facility would end in year 13 of any new 

license, being replaced by an interim trap-and-haul facility adapted to the new project 

configuration from years 14 through 17 with similar energy requirements to the 

temporary one. Under the Staff Alternative (high range), a trap-and-haul facility (staff 

phase 1—similar to Interior’s temporary fish passage facility) could provide upstream 

fish passage for BCD from year 6 through 17 of any new license issued. At BCD, the 

phase 1 trap-and-haul facility would also require 2,936 MWh46 per year. 

Under both the Staff Alternative (high range) and the Composite Scenario, an 

interim upstream fishway at CCPP is assumed operational from years 10 through 21 of 

any new license. At CCPP, it would typically require 261 MWh47 per year to operate 

such a facility. 

Under the Staff Alternative (high range) and the Composite Scenario, upstream 

volitional fish passage facilities could replace any trap-and-haul facility from year 18 

until the end of the license at BCD and from year 22 until the end of the license at CCCP. 

At CCPP, energy required to operate the facility would amount to 261 MWh48 per year. 

At BCD, pumping would consume 2,800 MWh per year and lost generation from water 

diverted to the ladder would add an additional energy loss of 530 MWh per year for a 

total of 3,330 MWh49 per year. 

 45 This value is then prorated to 1,174 MWh because this benefit reduction is not available starting in 

year 1 of any new license issued. 

46 This value is then prorated to 1,174 MWh because this benefit reduction is not available starting in 

year 1 of any new license issued. 

47 This value is then prorated to 104 MWh because this benefit reduction is not available starting in year 

1 of any new license issued. 

48 This value is then prorated to 78 MWh because this benefit reduction is not available starting in year 1 

of any new license issued. 

49 This value is then prorated to 1,443 MWh because this benefit reduction is not available starting in 

year 1 of any new license issued. 

C-270 
Downstream passage at BCD could occur under the Staff Alternative (high range) 

and the Composite Scenario from year 13 until the end of any new license issued and 

result in an energy loss of 3,500 MWh50 per year due to operational head loss. 

4.2.2 Cost of Other Environmental Measures 

The PUD, staff, agencies, and other interested parties propose various 

environmental measures that would not directly affect project operations or energy 

generation, but would affect project costs. In the following tables, we summarize the 

costs associated with each of our four action alternatives: 

• PUD Proposal; 

• Staff Alternative; 

• Staff Alternative (high range); and 

• Composite Scenario. 

To determine the comparative costs of the alternatives, we calculated the grand 

total cost for each alternative using the following approach. We first totaled the sum of 

the incremental costs of the measures associated with each alternative and then added the 

cost of the No-action Alternative. Next, we incrementally added the environmental 

measures from other alternatives, as appropriate, to the alternative under consideration. 

Finally, we deducted the sum of individual measures that do not apply to the alternative 

under consideration. The result of this calculation produces the grand total annual cost 

associated with any given alternative. For example, the Staff Alternative incorporates all 

but four of the PUD-proposed environmental measures, while the Composite Scenario 

incorporates all but four of the PUD-proposed environmental measures, all but three of 

the staff-recommended environmental measures, the Staff Alternative (high range) 

measures, and additional agency measures. 

Table 42 summarizes the annual costs of the non-operational measures included in 

the PUD Proposal. The annual costs represent the present value of both up-front 

planning and capital costs, as well as ongoing implementation costs, levelized over the 

30-year period of analysis. Please note that the PUD modified its cost estimates for 

measures provided in the final license application in its response to our AIR (PUD, 

2001a; PUD, 2001b) and over the course of the NEPA clarification process during the 

spring of 2002 (letter from J. Snyder, Project Manager, EES Consulting, Kirkland, WA, 

to M. Salas, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, filed May 21, 2002). As a result of these 

changes, staff integrated the various information sources in table 42.

 50 This value is then prorated to 2,100 MWh because this benefit reduction is not available starting in 

year 1 of any new license issued. 

C-271 
Table 42. Cost summary of PUD-proposed environmental measures, including the cost 

of the No-action Alternative. (Source: Staff) 

Measure Total annualized cost ($)

Soils and geology resources

Conduct erosion survey 1,600 

 Develop and implement an EMP 15,500 

Prepare and implement an Erosion Education Plan 10,000 

Water resources

Upgrade 4 turbines for higher flow capacity and TDG reductiona 1,223,200 

Monitor water quality 12,000

Conduct water quality information acquisition and dissemination 5,000 

Perform water quality technical review 9,000 

Install auxiliary spillway gatesa 533,300 

Monitor TDG 22,700 

Aquatic resources

Incorporate fish-friendly runners in two turbine upgradesa,b 223,100 

Enhance/restore aquatic habitat in BCD tributaries 26,300 

Contribute funds for KNRD trout restoration 20,000

Provide funds to operate Colville fish hatcheryc 25,000

Install 100 underwater habitat structuresc 7,500 

Monitor 100 underwater habitat structuresc 20,000 

Terrestrial resources

Fund aquatic plant rotovation program 80,000 

Develop and implement Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan 6,700 

Prepare homeowners brochure on aquatic plant control 1,400 

Conduct workshop on aquatic plant management 1,300 

Develop and implement Wildlife Management Plans 1,400 

Conduct annual bald eagle, osprey, great blue heron, doublecrested cormorant surveys during the breeding season and prepare 

annual report 9,600 

Manage lands to promote waterfowl nesting, install nest boxes, 

provide funding to other interested parties 1,800 

Monitor wildlife habitat values in WMAs 5,600 

Manage and enhance habitat in WMAs, including 10-year 

Cottonwood Enhancement Plan

102,200 

Provide rare plant survey data to county 200 

Develop and implement Site Management Plan to protect 

Hedeoma population near BCD 7,000 

Develop and implement Integrated Weed Management Plan 13,200 

Fund preparation or purchase and distribution of noxious weed 

field guide 

200

Fund noxious weed educational program 2,500

Provide funding to county for noxious weed program 5,000

Contribute to county’s purple loosestrife eradication program 2,000

Contribute to county’s leafy spurge eradication program 2,000

Land Use

Provide beneficial use maps 1,100 

C-272 
Measure Total annualized cost ($)

Recreation

Fund Oldtown Riverside Park and boat launch expansion and 

future O&M 

7,700 

Install three additional picnic tables at Campbell Park 100 

Provide funds for improvements to Cusick boat launch 8,000 

Provide funds for signs at unsigned public recreation facilities and 

boat launches 400 

Develop primitive boat launch on east side of river at Ponderay

Shores

17,500 

Provide funds for Eurasian watermilfoil signage at public boat 

launches 400 

Provide funds for O&M at FS campgrounds in project area 15,000 

Coordinate North Pend Oreille System Byways Program

recreation improvementc

5,800 

Provide funds for O&M at Ione City Park 5,000 

Create and update RRMP 4,400 

Cultural resources 

Develop and implement HPMP, including the identification, 

evaluation, assessment and treatment of resourcesd

 44,000 

Monitor cultural resourcesd 2,500 

Subtotal 2,508,200 

Cost of No-action Alternative 5,710,100 

Grand Total of PUD Proposal 8,218,300 

a Local taxes and insurance are applied to this measure.

b This is not a mandatory agency condition. 

c This measure is not required by staff. 

d These estimates will be re-evaluated after initial surveys are completed. 

Table 43 provides cost estimates for the additional measures that we recommend. 

Many of them supplement or modify the PUD Proposal. Measures may have been 

suggested by resource agencies, other interested parties, or represent a modification to 

agency recommendations by staff. 

C-273 
Table 43.Cost summary of environmental measures for Staff Alternative, 

including the cost of the No-action Alternative and staff-endorsed PUDproposed measures. (Source: Staff) 

Measure Total annualized cost ($)

Develop Box Canyon Section 4(e) IMRCP and conduct annual 

reporting

8,400

Re-establish and support Technical Committee 60,000

Geology and soils resources

Limit drawdown in BCR, excluding lost energy benefits 2,600

Erosion monitoring after 3-inch-per-hour drawdown events 6,000 

Develop and implement an EMP for KIR lands 22,300

Develop a plan to educate landowners of the value of erosion 

prevention and remediation 300 

Provide FS EMP and survey 7,800 

Develop and implement an ECPRP and update erosion hazard and 

occurrence map

51,700 

Water resources

Pend Oreille Temperature Management Plan 400 

Continuous water quality compliance monitoring at Calispell Creek 16,800 

Assess Box Canyon effect on TDG in the Lower Pend Oreille 

Rivera 

5,100

Conduct initial TDG monitoring and TDG grid monitoring after 

turbine upgrades 9,400 

Implement spill prevention and control, and manage hazardous 

materials 400 

Improve coordination with Corps for flood protection 1,000 

Aquatic resources

Conduct fish stranding studies 20,500 

Conduct additional studies to evaluate upstream and downstream

fish passage facility needsa 41,800

Develop and implement a THRP, including TRFa 179,300 

Install staff gage at Trimble Creek 100 

Terrestrial resources

Monitor bald eagle nest activity for 2 years 2,000 

Monitor wintering bald eagle populations 2,000 

Develop Bald Eagle Management Plan and Individual Nest Site 

Plans

2,900 

Conduct surveys for new bald eagle nests 3,200 

Manage selected mature forest stands for bald eagles 500 

Treat selected forest stands to improve potential bald eagle nest 

habitat 

1,800 

Promote bald eagle awareness (signs, brochures at recreation sites) 1,300 

Promote grizzly bear awareness (signs, brochures at recreation sites) 1,300 

Implement supplemental cottonwood enhancement program 16,500 

Expanded Integrated Weed Management Plan 6,200 

Develop Sensitive Species Consultation Plan to coordinate with FS 2,600 

Develop Rare Plant Management Plan 5,000 

Land use

C-274 
Measure Total annualized cost ($)

Obtain permits for all activities on NFS lands 18,200 

Prepare and implement a Shoreline Management Plan for entire Box 

Canyon Project area

21,800 

Recreation

Develop recreation survey and analyze current use patterns 12,900

Develop RRMP 44,800 

Update RRMP every 6 years 3,300 

Subtotal 580,200 

Cost of No-action Alternative 5,710,100 

Subtotal of PUD Proposal 2,508,200 

Deduction for PUD environmental measures not endorsed by staffc 58,300 

Grand Total of Staff Alternative 8,740,200 a This measure is strictly a staff measure and not an agency recommendation. 

b These estimates will be re-evaluated after initial surveys are completed. 

c These environmental measures are identified in table 42 with a footnote c.

Table 44 provides cost estimates for additional measures that are subject to 

adaptive management or future demand triggers. Many supplement or modify the PUD 

Proposal. Measures may have been suggested by resource agencies, other interested 

parties, or represent a modification to agency recommendations by staff. 

Table 44. Cost summary of environmental measures for the Staff Alternative (high 

range), including the cost of the No-action Alternative, staff-endorsed PUDproposed measures, and staff-recommended measures. (Source: Staff) 

Measure Total annualized cost ($)

Water Resources

Perform alternatives study, assess fish passage impact on TDG, 

develop physical model, prepare schedule and cost estimate, and 

develop reports for the TDG Abatement Program, including

reporting on on-going biological monitoring

65,800 

Plan for Pump Operations (PPO)a 700 

Aquatic resources

BCD phase 1 upstream trap-and-haul fishway conceptual design, 

final design plans, and specifications 11,500 

BCD Phase 1 Upstream Trap-and-Haul Fishway O&M Planb 1,700 

BCD Phase 1 Upstream Trap-and-Haul Fishway Monitoring 

Plansb 1,700

BCD Phase 1 Upstream Trap-and-Haul Post Installation 

Effectiveness Evaluation Planb 1,700

BCD phase 1 upstream trap-and-haul installation and operation 

and monitoring (years 6–17)b, c 212,200

BCD phase 1 upstream trap-and-haul post-installation 

effectiveness evaluationb 29,500

C-275 
Measure Total annualized cost ($)

BCD PUVF (staff phase 2) consultation, conceptual, and final 

design investigation 13,900 

BCD PUVF (staff phase 2) O&M Plan 900 

BCD PUVF (staff phase 2) Monitoring and Reporting Plan 600 

BCD PUVF (staff phase 2) Post-Installation Effective Evaluation 

Plan 600 

BCD PUVF (staff phase 2) installation, operation, and monitoringc 210,500 

BCD post-construction PUVF (staff phase 2) effectiveness 

evaluations 24,200 

CCPP interim upstream fishway conceptual design, final design, 

and specifications 7,700 

CCPP Interim Upstream Fishway O&M Plan 1,000 

CCPP Interim Upstream Fishway Monitoring and Reporting Plan 1,300 

CCPP interim upstream fishway installation, operation, and 

monitoringc 76,500 

CCPP Interim Upstream Fishway Post-Installation Effectiveness

Evaluation Plan 1,000 

CCPP interim upstream fishway post-installation effectiveness 

evaluation 15,800 

CCPP PUVF consultation, conceptual, and final design

investigation 3,600 

CCPP PUVF O&M Plan 500

CCPP PUVF Monitoring and Reporting Plan 500 

CCPP PUVF post-installation effective evaluation plan 500 

CCPP PUVF installation, operation, and monitoringc 21,600 

CCPP PUVF post-construction effectiveness evaluations 5,300 

BCD interim downstream fishway—fish behavior, survival, 

preliminary design, final design plans, and specifications 17,400 

BCD Interim Downstream Fishway O&M Plan 1,300 

BCD Interim Downstream Fishway Monitoring Plans 1,300 

BCD Interim Downstream Fishway Post-Installation Effectiveness

Evaluation Plan 1,900 

BCD interim downstream fishway installation, operation, and 

monitoring (years 5–12)c 235,900 

BCD interim downstream fishway post-installation effectiveness 

evaluation 15,100 

BCD permanent downstream fishway preliminary design and final 

design and specifications 3,900 

BCD Permanent Downstream Fishway O&M Plan 800 

BCD Permanent Downstream Fishway Monitoring and Reporting 

Plan 800 

BCD Permanent Downstream Fishway Post-Installation 

Effectiveness Evaluation Plan 800 

BCD permanent downstream fishway installation, operation, and 

monitoring (years 13–30)c, d 397,000 

BCD permanent downstream fishway post-installation 

effectiveness evaluation 14,700

C-276 
Measure Total annualized cost ($)

CCPP downstream fishway preliminary design and final design 

and specifications 12,700

CCPP Downstream Fishway O&M Plan 1,100

CCPP Downstream Fishway Monitoring and Reporting Plan 1,100

CCPP Downstream Fishway Post-Installation Effectiveness 

Evaluation Plan 1,100

CCPP downstream fishway installation, operation and monitoringc 138,000

CCPP downstream fishway post-installation effectiveness 

evaluation 13,800

Terrestrial resources

Mitigate for wildlife habitat losses anticipated to occur during the 

term of the new license as a result of new recreation facility

construction

20,200

Recreation

Provide for expansion of existing or development of new facilities 

on NFS lands

24,800

Subtotal 1,614,500 

Cost of No-action Alternative 5,710,100 

Subtotal of PUD Proposal 2,508,200 

Deduction for PUD environmental measures not endorsed by staff e 58,300 

Subtotal of Staff Alternative 580,200 

Grand Total of Staff Alternative (high range) 10,354,700 a We assume the PPO would likely affect the pumping pattern, rather than the total quantity 

pumped; therefore, we have assumed no energy effects in table 41. If changes in quantity are 

required, they would not be known until the completion of the PPO.

b This measure is strictly a staff measure and not an agency recommendation. c Local taxes and insurance are applied to this measure.

d If the first two PUD fish-friendly turbine runner upgrades were found to provide safe and 

effective downstream passage at BCD and the need for downstream passage had been determined 

based on study results, we would support the upgrade of the two remaining units to include fishfriendly runners that would be operational in years 5 and 6 in lieu of the permanent downstream

fishway. The levelized cost of upgrading the two additional units incorporating fish-friendly

runners would be $197,900. e These environmental measures are identified in table 42 with a footnote c. 

Table 45 provides cost estimates for additional measures that various agencies and 

the Tribe recommend, but we do not endorse. We explain why certain measures were not 

adopted in our preceding analysis and provide additional details in section 5, Staff’s 

Conclusions.

C-277 
Table 45. Cost summary of agency mandatory conditions not endorsed by staff,

including the cost of the No-action Alternative, staff-endorsed PUD-proposed 

measures, and agency-endorsed staff-recommended and Staff Alternative 

(high range) measures. (Source: Staff) 

Measure Total annualized cost ($)

Soils and geology resources

Assess the benefits of the drawdown limitation on soil erosion 

processes on the KIR 36,900

Implement incremental ECPRP on FS lands 50,000

Water resources

Conduct continuous water quality monitoring 126,600

Conduct TDG grid monitoring initially 11,200 

Conduct water quality compliance monitoring 13,200

Aquatic resources

No-net loss in fish production, including largemouth bass 62,300

BCD temporary upstream trap-and-haul plans and specifications 14,500 

BCD Temporary Upstream Trap-and-Haul O&M Plan 2,200 

BCD Temporary Upstream Trap-and-Haul Monitoring and 

Reporting Plan 2,200 

BCD Temporary Upstream Trap-and-Haul Post-Installation 

Effectiveness Evaluation Plan 2,200 

BCD temporary upstream trap-and-haul installation, operation, and 

monitoring (years 2–13)b

 284,200 

BCD temporary upstream trap-and-haul post-installation 

effectiveness evaluation 37,300 

BCD interim upstream trap-and-haul fishway conceptual design, 

final design plans, and specifications 17,200 

BCD Interim Upstream Trap-and-Haul Fishway O&M Plan 1,100 

BCD Interim Upstream Trap-and-Haul Fishway Monitoring Plans 2,900 

BCD Interim Upstream Trap-and-Haul Post Installation 

Effectiveness Evaluation Plan 1,100 

BCD interim upstream trap-and-haul installation and operation and 

monitoring (years 14–17)a

 205,900 

BCD interim upstream trap-and-haul post-installation effectiveness 

evaluation 15,100 

Undertake supplementary measures to achieve no-net loss in trout

production: TARP 24,400

Implement trout assessment strategy 63,300

Contribute into the TRFc 243,900 

Terrestrial resources

Implement bald eagle perch and snag management 6,300

Support native amphibian managemente 54,400

Enhance sandbars, deciduous forest, emergent/wet grassland and 

ponds on KIR 11,600 

Acquire land for bald eagle habitat 29,100 

Identify bald eagle habitats for treatment 1,200 

Monitor bald eagles, ospreys, cormorants, heronse 16,000 

Enhance riparian and upland habitats 20,700 

C-278 
Measure Total annualized cost ($)

Develop Sensitive Species Management Plan 13,000 

Land Use

Survey boundary 7,300 

Recreation

O&M and escrow agreement for the Manresa Grotto Beach, the 

Kalispel Boat Launch, and the Pow Wow Grounds 73,000 

Major future O&M for the Manresa Grotto Beach, the Kalispel Boat

Launch, and the Pow Wow Grounds 20,300 

Expansion of Pow Wow Grounds facilities 50,200 

Collect baseline data for recreation use 2,300 

Subtotal 1,523,100 

Cost of No-action Alternative 5,710,100 

Subtotal of PUD Proposal 2,508,200 

Deduction for PUD environmental measures not endorsed by stafff 58,300 

Subtotal of Staff Alternative 580,200 

Deduction for PUD environmental measures not mandated by 

agenciesg

 

223,100 

Deduction for staff-recommended environmental measures not 

mandated by agenciesh 226,200 

Subtotal of Staff Alternative (high range) 1,614,500 

Deduction for Staff Alternative (high range) recommended 

environmental measures not mandated by agenciesi

258,300 

Grand Total of Composite Scenario 11,170,200 a The PUD has received a DOE grant that is not reflected in the cost of this measure. Although staff 

supports the PUD’s efforts in this area, we are not recommending this measure at this time. 

b Local taxes and insurance are applied to this measure.

c We have assumed a 10 percent reduction in contribution after year 5 and leveling out at $50,000. 

d The scope of this measure is currently under discussion. 

e We endorse a portion of this measure as shown in table 43. 

f These environmental measures are identified in table 42 with a footnote c. 

g These environmental measures are identified in table 42 with a footnote b. 

h These environmental measures are identified in table 43 with a footnote a. 

i These environmental measures are identified in table 44 with a footnote b. 

4.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

In this section, we summarize project output, annual power benefits, and annual 

costs for the project, including the No-action Alternative, Staff Alternative, Staff 

Alternative (high range), and the Composite Scenario. We also compare the change in 

annual costs and net annual benefits relative to the No-action Alternative. We summarize 

these values for comparison in table 46. 

C-279 
Table 46. Project output and net annual power benefits summary. (Source: Staff) 

Alternative

Staff Alternative No-action 

Alternative

PUD 

Proposal Low High 

Composite 

Scenario

Average annual 

energy (MWh)a

452,000 472,817 472,817 467,917 456,170 

Change in average 

annual energy 

(MWh)

-- 20,817 20,817 15,917 4,170 

Change of energy

relative to no 

action (%)

-- 4.6% 4.6% 3.5% 0.9%

Annual benefit 

($)b

16,272,000 17,026,400 17,026,400 16,891,300 16,559,100 

Change in annual 

benefit from Noaction Alternative 

-- 754,400 754,400 619,300 287,100 

Annual cost ($) 5,710,100 8,218,300c

 8,740,200d 10,354,700e 11,170,200f

Change in annual 

cost from Noaction Alternative 

-- 2,508,200 3,030,100 4,644,600 5,460,100 

Net annual benefit 

($)

10,561,900 8,808,100 8,286,200 6,536,600 5,388,900 

Change in net

annual benefit 

from No-action 

Alternative

-- –1,753,800 –2,275,700 –4,025,300 –5,173,000 

Change in net

annual benefit 

from No-action 

Alternative (%) 

-- –16.6 –21.5 –38.1 –49.0 

a Effects on energy are prorated over 30 years. Hence, a measure that begins in year 11, would 

affect average annual energy by 2/3 of its actual annual loss (i.e., the last 20 years). 

b Annual benefits are equal to the No-action benefit of $16,272,000 plus the corresponding change in 

benefit from table 41. 

c This annual cost is the grand total from table 42. 

d This annual cost is the grand total from table 43. 

e This annual cost is the grand total from table 44. 

f This annual cost is the grand total from table 45. 

C-280 
Under the No-action Alternative (current conditions), the project costs $5,710,000 

annually to operate, has annual power benefits of $16,272,000, and has a net annual 

benefit of $10,561,900. The average annual energy generation is 452,000 MWh. 

Under the PUD Proposal (four upgraded turbines and 3-inch-per-hour drawdown 

constraint), the project would cost $8,218,300 annually to operate ($2,508,200 more than 

under the No-action Alternative), have annual power benefits of $17,026,400 ($754,400 

more than under the No-action Alternative), and have a net annual benefit of $8,808,100 

($1,753,800 less than with no-action). The project’s average annual generation would be 

472,817 MWh (20,817 MWh more than under the No-action Alternative). 

Under the Staff Alternative, the project would cost $8,740,200 annually to operate 

($3,030,100 more than under the No-action Alternative), have annual power benefits of 

$17,026,400 ($754,400 more than under the No-action Alternative), and have a net 

annual benefit of $8,286,200 ($2,275,700 less than under the No-action Alternative). The 

project’s average annual generation would be 472,817 MWh (20,817 MWh more than 

under the No-action Alternative and would be equal to that under the PUD Proposal). 

Under the Staff Alternative (high range), the project would cost $10,354,700 

annually to operate ($4,644,600 more than under the No-action Alternative), have annual 

power benefits of $16,891,300 ($619,300 more than under the No-action Alternative), 

and have a net annual benefit of $6,536,600 ($4,025,300 less than under the No-action 

Alternative). The project’s average annual generation would be 467,917 MWh (15,917 

MWh more than under the No-action Alternative and 4,900 MWh less than under the 

PUD Proposal). 

Under the Composite Scenario, the project would cost $11,170,200 annually to

operate ($5,460,100 more than under the No-action Alternative), have annual power 

benefits of $16,559,100 ($287,100 more than under the No-action Alternative), and have 

a net annual benefit of $5,388,900 ($5,173,000 less than under the No-action 

Alternative). The average annual generation would be 456,170 MWh (4,170 MWh more 

than under the No-action Alternative and 16,648 MWh less than under the PUD 

Proposal). 

4.4 EFFECT ON REGIONAL POWER RESOURCES 

By changing from current operation to the Staff Alternative (adoption of the staffrecommended measures that reduce generation and the operational elements of the PUD 

Proposal, which includes a 3-inch-per-hour drawdown restriction and four upgraded 

units, including two fish-friendly runners), the PUD would gain 16 MW of capacity when 

flows were close to the maximum hydraulic capacity. The PUD would avoid having to 

purchase such capability on the open market. Total average energy generation over 30 

years would increase by 20,817 MWh over the No-action Alternative or about 4.6 percent 

of the current average annual generation of the project (452,000 MWh). If the Staff 

Alternative (high range) components were fully implemented, total energy generation 

C-281 
over 30 years would increase by 15,917 MWh over the No-action Alternative or about 

3.5 percent of the current average annual generation. If the Composite Scenario 

components were fully implemented, total energy generation over 30 years would 

increase by 4,170 MWh over the No-action Alternative or about 0.9 percent of the current 

average annual generation. 

C-282 
This page intentionally left blank 

C-283 
5.0 STAFF’S CONCLUSIONS 

Section 4(e) of the FPA directs the Commission to consider equally a broad range 

of developmental and environmental purposes in licensing decisions. Section 10(a)

directs the Commission to license projects that are best adapted to a comprehensive plan 

for improving or developing a waterway, including all relevant public considerations. 

Based on our independent review and evaluation of PUD-proposed actions, staff’s 

modifications of PUD’s proposed actions, and the No-action Alternative, we recommend 

licensing the project for continued operation with some additions and modifications to the 

PUD Proposal. This alternative includes the PUD’s proposed environmental measures 

(section 2.1.2, Proposed Environmental Measures by Resource), and additional or 

modified measures listed in section 2.2.3, Staff Alternative. We developed the Staff 

Alternative after evaluating the PUD Proposal and recommendations and comments from 

resource agencies and other interested parties. 

5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED 

ALTERNATIVE 

5.1.1 Recommended Alternative 

Based on our independent review and evaluation of the proposed actions with the 

additional staff-recommended measures (the Staff Alternative), and no action, we select 

the Staff Alternative as the preferred alternative. 

We recommend the Staff Alternative because: (1) issuance of a license would 

allow the PUD to continue to operate the project as a dependable source of electrical 

energy; (2) continued operation of the project would avoid the need for an equivalent 

amount of fossil-fueled electric generation and capacity, continuing to help conserve 

these non- renewable energy resources and reduce atmospheric pollution; and (3) the 

recommended environmental protection and enhancement measures would improve water 

quality, protect and enhance fish and terrestrial resources, improve public use of 

recreational facilities and resources, and maintain and protect historic and archaeological 

resources within the area affected by the operations of the project. In addition to all of 

the above considerations, we also evaluated the socioeconomic effects of the various 

alternatives. We determined the staff-recommended measures to best represent the 

overall socioeconomic interests of Pend Oreille County and the states of Washington and 

Idaho. 

We note that our preferred alternative does not include some of the conditions 

filed by the FS under FPA Section 4(e) and by Interior under FPA Sections 4(e) and 18. 

We recognize that the Commission may include these conditions in any license issued for 

the Box Canyon Project due to their mandatory nature. 

Nevertheless, we recommend including the following environmental measures in 

any license issued for this project for the reasons outlined throughout this document. In 

C-284 
staff’s opinion, this combination of measures would ensure that the project is best 

adapted to the comprehensive development of the river basin.51

We evaluated the numerous recommendations in the resource sections and given 

the environmental benefits, we recommend the following measures that the PUD 

proposes should be included in staff's alternative for any license issued by the 

Commission for the Box Canyon Project. 

1. Establish a project operational criterion to limit the rate of project-induced

drawdown to a rate of 3 inches per hour. 

2. Contribute $10,000 per year to the Pend Oreille Conservation District to fund 

public education on erosion and related issues. 

3. Prepare and implement an EMP. 

4. Provide funding for water quality data acquisition and distribution. 

5. Conduct monthly water quality compliance monitoring (DO, pH, temperature) for 

the Pend Oreille River and monitor pumping rates, water elevations and flows and 

weather data necessary to model the effects of the project on temperature. 

6. Upgrade turbines to increase capacity and to reduce TDG. 

7. Incorporate fish-friendly runners in two of the turbine upgrades. 

8. Construct auxiliary spillway gates to reduce TDG. 

9. Monitor TDG through the spill period upstream and downstream of the BCD and 

report the results. 

10. Provide habitat enhancement/restoration in the tributaries of the BCR. 

11. Provide payment for KNRD trout restoration. 

12. Provide $80,000 annual funding for a rotovation program to control EWM. 

13. Develop an Aquatic Plant Management Plan 

14. Prepare a homeowner brochure for aquatic weed control. 

15. Conduct a workshop for waterfront property owners on aquatic weed 

management. 

 51 These include elements or modifications, thereof, from the PUD Proposal, agency and Tribal 

recommendations under Sections 4(e), 10(j), 10(a), and 18 of the FPA, and staff-generated measures.

C-285 
16. Provide rare plant survey data to the county. 

17. Develop and implement a Site Management Plan to protect Hedeoma growing 

near the BCD. 

18. Provide, for 10 years, annual funding for a cottonwood enhancement program as 

part of the WMA management. 

19. Survey, monitor, and manage noxious weeds on all PUD-controlled lands within 

the Integrated Weed Management Plan framework and monitor and manage 

knapweed at certain NFS sites. 

20. Fund the preparation or purchase and distribution of a noxious weed field guide. 

21. Fund educational programs and/or brochures to raise public awareness of noxious 

weed issues. 

22. Support Pend Oreille County Noxious Weed Control Board, including efforts to 

eradicate purple loosestrife and leafy spurge. 

23. Develop and implement Wildlife Management Plans for the WMAs, including 

measures such as wetland construction and enhancement, plantings to improve 

riparian habitat, and fencing to control grazing. 

24. Conduct annual monitoring of bald eagle, osprey, great blue heron, and doublecrested cormorant populations in the study area. 

25. Manage lands to promote waterfowl nesting, install nest boxes, and provide nest 

box construction materials to interested parties. 

6. Monitor habitat values of WMAs. 

7. Monitor bald eagle populations in the project area during breeding season and 

produce annual survey reports 

28. Provide beneficial use maps to the county and other resource agencies. 

29. Prepare a Recreation Resources Management Plan in year 1 and update it every 6 

years in conjunction with Form 80 requirements. 

30. Provide funding for Oldtown boat launch expansion and ongoing O&M. 

31. Provide funding toward improvements to the Cusick boat launch. 

32. Provide $5,000 annual funding to the city of Ione for O&M of Ione City Park. 

C-286 
33. Install three picnic tables at Campbell Park. 

34. Fund signs on Highways 31 and 20 and LeClerc Road to identify recreation 

facilities and boat launches. 

35. Develop the Ponderay Shores Primitive public boat launch on the east side of the 

river by adding parking, a paved boat launch and day-use facilities. 

36. Fund signs at all public boat launches addressing EWM. 

37. Provide $15,000 annual funding for O&M of FS campgrounds in project area. 

38. Either deed the 1.8 acres of PUD land adjacent to the city of Oldtown Riverside 

Park to the city of Oldtown, or provide the city with an easement to allow 

development of the park. 

39. Cooperate with the Heritage Scenic Byways Program to coordinate recreation 

improvements in the North Pend Oreille System Byways Program. 

40. Provide the Tribe with a complete reservoir GIS database. Note that the PUD has 

given a copy of the GIS database to the Tribe free of charge or obligation; 

therefore, no cost for this measure is included in section 4, Developmental 

Analysis. 

41. Develop a HRMP (Historical Properties Management Plan). 

42. Complete an inventory of cultural resources within the project's area of potential 

effect. 

43. Design the rotovation program for EWM control to avoid submerged terraces. 

In addition to the PUD’s 43 measures that we and other entities are in agreement 

with, we recommend the following measures that either modify a measure proposed by 

PUD or are in addition to measures proposed by PUD. 

1. Re-establish a Technical Committee of similar composition and mandate as that 

established in the 1999 Settlement Agreement. 

2. Prepare, in consultation with Interior, the Tribe, FS, WDFW and other resource 

agencies a 4(e) IMRCP for the project. Within one year of licensing this IMRCP 

should be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior and to the FS for review and 

approval prior to submission to the Commission. Subsequently, on the 

anniversary date of the acceptance of the plan, the licensee shall submit to the 

Secretary and the FS, and subsequently to the Commission, an annual report 

documenting the work accomplished the previous year, progress made toward 

C-287 
program goals and objectives, work proposed for the coming year and 

documentation of consultation with the Tribe and resource agencies. 

3. Prepare and file a phased EMP for the entire reservoir area including Trust lands 

and NFS lands. The plan should be developed in consultation with FS, Interior, 

WDFW, and the Tribe and be submitted to the Commission within 1 year of 

license issuance for approval within 3 years. Sampling sites are to be established 

in consultation with FS, Tribe, WDFW and Interior but should include the 9 

erosion monitoring sites from the 1998 License Amendment plus an additional 13 

sites recommended by the PUD. It should also include an additional 7 sites on 

KIR lands and relocation of some sites to better represent the KIR and FS lands. 

The erosion monitoring results should be filed annually with the Commission. 

These reports should be filed after consultation with FS, Interior, WDFW and the 

Tribe. An annual reporting frequency would permit a comparison of data and 

observations from the twice-yearly measurements and observations. In addition to 

presenting the data and observations, the reports should include an assessment of 

erosion rates, an assessment of the process(es) causing erosion at the various 

monitoring sites, and an assessment of whether, and to what extent, erosion can be 

attributed to project operation. Sites of significant new or recurring erosion should 

be identified. 

Monitoring should also be performed after floods with a 20-year or greater 

recurrence interval. Monitoring should also be performed after drawdown rates in 

excess of 3 inches per hour; the actual maximum or sustained drawdown rate for 

which monitoring is performed, could be reviewed and adjusted on the basis of the 

initial observations. 

4. Develop, after consultation with FS, WDFW, Interior, and the Tribe, an ECPRP 

for areas of high and moderate erosion rate categories within 3 years of license 

issuance. The 3-year period would provide time to accumulate data from the 

erosion monitoring program; identify areas of active erosion; identify the degree to 

which the project causes or exacerbates erosion; and develop plans for 

implementing necessary measures to control, prevent, and repair those areas. A 

plan should be developed for the entire reservoir within 5 years of license renewal. 

This plan should be filed with the Commission after consultation with FS, Interior, 

WDFW, and the Tribe Prepare, in consultation with the Technical Committee, a 

phased ECPRP for the entire reservoir area. 

5. Update and file the Erosion Hazard and Occurrence Map within 3 years of 

licensing and at not greater than 5-year intervals after that, and after every flood 

with a recurrence interval of 20 years or greater. 

C-288 
6. Prepare an Erosion Education Plan, which integrates aesthetic, biological, safety, 

land use and cultural components, to assist with public education on erosion 

prevention, control, and remediation. 

7. Improve coordination with the Corps to reduce the risk of flooding caused by 

project operations. 

8. Conduct a detailed analysis of the results of temperature modeling efforts to 

determine the frequency and timing of increases of greater than 0.3o

C when 

temperatures exceed 20o

C in the Pend Oreille River along with the influence of 

project operations on temperatures during these periods. We support WDOE’s 

WQC condition that the PUD develop an Interim Temperature Management Plan

for the Pend Oreille River. For periods of the year when modeling indicates that 

project effects cause exceedance of the applicable state temperature standard, the 

PUD should identify practicable measures that could be used in the short-term to 

reduce warming effects of the project, if such measures exist. We note however, 

that little latitude exists to dramatically lower the Pend Oreille River’s summer 

water temperatures through changes in project operations, since the project is 

operated in ROR mode and minimal vertical stratification occurs within the 

reservoir. We recommend that the PUD consult with the WDOE to obtain its 

agreement on any measures to be taken to reduce the project’s effects on water 

temperatures in the Pend Oreille River and file documentation of the agreement 

along with supporting information with the Commission. 

9. Monitor water quality and develop and conduct a water temperature modeling 

study to evaluate compliance with water quality standards applicable to Calispell 

Creek and discharges from the Calispell pumps, and to determine the effects of the 

project (including operation of the pumps) on water temperature in the lower 

Calispell Creek and its discharge. In order to support the goal for the temperature 

modeling effort and provide data to evaluate compliance with other applicable 

water quality standards, we support EPA’s WQC condition that the PUD develop 

and implement a monitoring plan. At a minimum, we recommend that the PUD 

develop a monitoring plan that is designed to collect water quality data including 

water temperature, DO, turbidity, fecal coliform, and E. coli; water elevation and 

flow; weather data necessary for water temperature modeling; and rates of 

pumping at the Calispell pumps. All of these data should be monitored at intervals 

that would be appropriate for determining the effects of the project on them. We 

expect hourly monitoring for temperature, DO, and pumping rates, at a minimum. 

We recommend that the PUD monitor water quality immediately downstream of 

the CCPP discharge, on the upstream side of the railroad dike near the CCPP, and 

any other locations necessary to enable determination of the effects of the 

pumping operations on water quality (e.g., in Calispell Creek upstream of the 

backwater effect of the railroad dike, elevated groundwater levels, and CCPP). 

C-289 
The PUD should specify the reporting procedures and schedule in its plan; submit 

the monitoring plan to the EPA, Tribe, and WDOE for their approval; and file the 

plan along with comments received from the agencies, with the Commission. The 

PUD should implement the plan as soon as practical after its approval and file all 

reports with the Commission in a timely manner. We suggest that the PUD 

consult with the EPA, Tribe, and WDOE, at least every 5 years, to determine if 

and how it is appropriate to modify the approved monitoring plan.

10. Develop and implement an approvable PPO for the CCPP. If the EPA, Tribe, and 

WDOE determine that there is not a need to develop a PPO, we recommend that 

the PUD file documentation of this fact with the Commission. Otherwise, we 

recommend that the PUD develop a PPO, based on results of water temperature 

modeling to determine the effects of the project, and submit it to these agencies. 

Note that we do not support the timing of EPA’s WQC condition to develop a 

PPO within 90 days of license issuance, since it would not be possible to 

determine whether the project is causing exceedances of the water temperature 

standard prior to modeling Calispell Creek temperatures. We recommend that the 

PPO include, at a minimum, a description of the PUD’s temperature modeling 

efforts and results; comments received by the EPA, Tribe, and WDOE on the 

temperature modeling effort; an assessment of the effects of the project (including 

operation of the Calispell pumps) on water temperatures in lower Calispell Creek 

and its discharge; and recommendations for meeting temperature standards 

(e.g., variable speed pumps) along with a schedule for implementing the 

recommendations. The PPO should be filed with the Commission along with 

comments from the EPA, Tribe, and WDOE. 

11. Continue TDG Monitoring Program upstream and downstream from BCD. 

Within 30 days of new license issuance, the PUD should prepare and submit a 

TDG Abatement Plan and schedule for implementing reasonable and feasible 

technologies to reduce the adverse effects of the project on TDG levels with the 

goal of meeting the TDG standard within a 10-year period. While the PUD may 

choose to include its proposed turbine upgrades in the plan, it should also consider 

including other technologies for reducing the project’s influence on elevating 

TDG. The plan should include sufficient detail to describe each proposed measure 

along with a description of the model(s) used and the results of how effective the 

implementation of the measures would be in reducing the effects of the project on 

TDG. If the PUD determines that implementing all reasonable and feasible 

technologies would not result in the TDG standard being met, it should include a 

detailed description of all technologies considered, an estimate of the effects of 

implementing each technology, the cost of implementing the technology, and any 

other factors that affect the decision as to why it is impractical to implement the 

technology. The TDG Abatement Plan should be filed with the Commission along 

with comments received by WDOE and other agencies. 

C-290 
12. Conduct grid monitoring of TDG in the runoff season at the end of the 10-year 

compliance period allowed by WDOE in its WQC. For this monitoring, the period 

monitored should target a wide range of flows up to approximately 90,000 cfs. 

13. Prepare annual reports that describe the frequency and magnitude of exceedances 

of TDG standards, project-induced effects, and upriver cumulative contributions. 

The PUD should provide the reports to the WDOE, FS, and Interior for their 

review, and file the reports, along with the agency comments, with the 

Commission.

14. In addition to monitoring TDG in the Pend Oreille River, we recommend that the 

PUD monitor TDG in upstream and downstream fishways constructed during the 

term of any new license issued and implement a biological monitoring program to 

evaluate the effects of elevated TDG levels on fish. We discuss this program in 

section 5.1.2.5. 

15. If the TDG standard cannot be met within 10 years and reasonable and feasible 

technologies do not exist to meet the standard, prepare a Use Attainability 

Analysis or provide sufficient justification for a site-specific TDG criterion. 

16. Maintain and update the SCERP. 

17. Develop and implement a plan to assess the effects of the recommended 3-inchper-hour drawdown rate on aquatic organisms in the BCR. To ensure the 3-inchper-hour drawdown rate achieves its biological objective, we recommend the PUD 

consult with the resource agencies and the Tribe to develop a plan to assess the 

effects of the recommended drawdown rate on aquatic organisms. Evaluations 

should be conducted after the first 5 drawdown events when water levels recede 

for 12 or more consecutive hours at 3 inches per hour (as measured at the gage at 

the BCD headwater). We recommend that the results of these evaluations be 

documented in annual reports to be filed with the Commission. We also 

recommend the implementation of additional stranding studies after trout 

production levels reach 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, and 100 percent of the 

reservoir target levels specified in Section 4(e) condition (4[e] 6). Additional 

evaluations when trout populations reach these target levels should be adequate to 

determine the potential effects of the proposed ramping rate on aquatic organisms 

and allow the PUD and the resource agencies to further adjust drawdown rates, if 

necessary. We recommend the PUD, on a 6-month basis, for the term of the 

license, produce and submit a report documenting hourly stage and change in 

stage monitoring data for the previous 6 months. This report should include any 

deviations from the recommended ramping rate criteria, and detailed explanation 

for any deviations. 

C-291 
18. Consult with the FWS, FS, the Tribe, WDFW, and IDFG to develop a THRP with 

the goal of achieving the modified target levels recommended by Interior 

(recognizing that these goals may need to be adjusted). We also recommend the 

THRP include a description of how the PUD would assess trout populations and 

remediation strategies recommended to help achieve Interior’s target population 

levels. These strategies should include, but not be limited to, barrier removal, 

instream and riparian restoration and maintenance activities, purchase of land or 

conservation easements, exotic species control, and native trout supplementation 

in those tributaries that have the highest potential to support self-sustaining 

populations of native trout. 

The THRP should include an initial survey effort to characterize existing fish 

populations in representative reaches of those areas targeted for restoration 

followed by periodic monitoring in those same reaches (following an 8-year cycle) 

to determine the effectiveness of the restoration measures. We assume 3 years of 

assessment work within the 8-year cycle (i.e., assessment studies would occur in 

years 1–3, 9–11, 17–19, and 25–27). The 5 years between each assessment would 

allow the PUD and resource agencies to implement restoration measures. This 5-

year period would also allow fish populations to colonize and become established 

in the treated stream reaches. Annual updates to the THRP, per adaptive 

management, could incorporate any future changes in management direction or 

restoration strategies. If it becomes apparent that Interior’s target levels cannot be 

reached in a selected stream reach or study area, for reasons beyond the PUD’s 

control (i.e., due to impacts accruing from land management activities not 

necessarily related to the project), the PUD should consult with the Interior, FS, 

the Tribe, and WDFW to determine if different, more appropriate target levels, or 

more appropriate mitigation measures should be implemented. It is staff’s belief 

that habitat restoration efforts and native trout supplementation should incorporate 

principles of adaptive management. Adaptive management involves adjusting 

management direction as new information becomes available (FISRWG, 1998). If 

long-term monitoring indicates that the tributary restoration effort is not 

progressing toward the original goals, but is progressing toward a desired 

outcome, the Interior, FS, Tribe WDFW and the PUD would free to modify the 

original restoration goals (targets) rather than to “chase” what may be an 

unattainable target(s). The process used for this determination should be 

developed by the PUD, in consultation with the FS, Interior, the Tribe, and 

WDFW and incorporated into the THRP prior to filing with the Commission. 

As part of the THRP, we recommend the PUD install a staff gage on Trimble 

Creek within the Cusick Unit of the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge. 

Interior would use the gage to obtain hydrologic information needed to plan and 

implement appropriate riparian habitat restoration measures on Trimble Creek. 

Stabilizing banks and establishing riparian vegetation along Trimble Creek would 

help to improve habitat quality for fish in tributaries to the BCR. 

C-292 
19. Annual funding for restoration measures included in our recommended THRP (the 

staff-recommended TRF) should be tied to the continued loss of spawning and 

rearing habitat through the restoration of existing tributary habitat, the removal of 

non-native species, or other measures, and should not be based on the TRF 

formula developed by the Interior (4[e] 6) (see appendix A for more detail). 

20. Prepare and file a plan for the development and implementation of studies 

designed to evaluate the numbers and types of fish attempting to move past BCD 

and CCPP (both upstream and downstream). The PUD should consult with the 

resource agencies and the Tribe, and file with the Commission (within 1 year of 

license issuance) a plan outlining the development and implementation of 

additional studies needed to evaluate the numbers and types of fish that are 

attempting to move past BCD and CCPP. The plan should include a detailed 

description of study objectives, study methods, study duration, and any comments 

received from the resource agencies and the Tribe. Potential methods for 

evaluating downstream movement and/or entrainment could include intake 

netting, hydroacoustic evaluations, additional radio telemetry studies, or other 

methods recommended by the agencies and the Tribe. The results of these future 

studies, reported annually, can then be used to determine the need for downstream 

fish passage facilities. The plan should include a detailed description of study 

objectives, study methods, study duration, and any comments received from the 

resource agencies and the Tribe. 

21. Consult with the FWS, FS, the Tribe, WDFW, and IDFG to develop a Cottonwood 

Enhancement Program emphasizing enhancement of cottonwood habitat outside 

the WMAs and file the plan with the Commission. The program should include 

components such as investigation into the causes of impaired cottonwood 

recruitment, providing financial and technical assistance to other landowners 

around the reservoir who may wish to improve cottonwood habitat on their 

property, and a schedule for implementation beginning within 2 years of license 

issuance. The plan should also include a schedule for monitoring and reporting. 

22. Consult with the FS to develop and implement a Sensitive Species Consultation 

Plan and file the plan with the Commission for approval. The plan should explain 

how the PUD would consult with the FS to address the potential effects of PUD 

activities on sensitive plants, fish and wildlife species. To minimize the need for 

consultation with the FS for every action the PUD would implement during the 

new license period, the plan should be based on a programmatic approach, 

including a step-wise program to help determine when biological evaluations, field 

surveys, and/or monitoring are needed and when they are unnecessary. The plan 

should also provide for review and updating to reflect possible changes in 

environmental conditions or listing status of species. As part of this plan, we 

recommend the PUD ensure reports of all rare plant surveys the PUD has 

C-293 
conducted in the project area are provided to the FS, and provide a mechanism for 

continuing to share this information. 

23. To protect Hedeoma and other rare plants (e.g., chaffweed, Canadian St. John’s

wort) growing on PUD-owned or managed land within the project boundary, we 

recommend that within 1 year of license issuance, the PUD consult with FWS, FS, 

WDFW, WNHP and IDFG to develop a Rare Plant Management Plan and file the 

plan with the Commission for approval. The PUD has already collected the field 

data necessary to develop such a plan, and has compiled and mapped the 

information. This plan should include a mechanism to incorporate protection 

measures into routine operations, maintenance programs, and any other programs

that may involve activities that would affect soils, hydrology, or vegetation, and 

preparing any site-specific management plans that may be needed. The plan 

should include objectives; methods for monitoring, tracking, and mapping rare 

plant populations; identification of protection measures; and a schedule for 

reporting. 

24. Investigate the feasibility of incorporating prairie cordgrass into biostabilization 

projects as this could be beneficial, both in terms of erosion control and in helping 

to expand rare and sensitive plant populations. Two other measures would also 

help to protect rare and sensitive plants. These include limiting the rate of 

reservoir drawdown, which is anticipated to reduce future erosion that may 

promote establishment or spread of noxious weed populations; and provision of 

annual funding (to the POCD) to support public education about the causes of 

erosion and about bank protection and stabilization techniques. 

25. Since the planning process is essentially complete, we recommend the PUD 

finalize the Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan consistent with the 

conditions of WDOE’s Water Quality Certification for the project, and submit the 

plan to WDOE, EPA, FWS, FS, the Tribe, WDFW and IDFG for their review and 

comment before filing the plan with the Commission for approval. Consistent 

with guidelines developed by WDOE (Gibbons et al., 1994), the plan should (1) 

describe the project area; (2) explain the problem; (3) identify management 

responsibilities and goals; (4) discuss land use, water quality, and beneficial use 

areas; (5) quantify and map the distribution and abundance of aquatic vegetation; 

(6) display management strategies; (7) define control intensities that meet 

management objectives; (8) present an integrated treatment scenario, including 

plans for long-term monitoring; and (9) detail a plan for action, showing a 

schedule for implementation, funding requirements, and a mechanism for annual 

review and revision of the plan to incorporate information collected during 

monitoring efforts. 

The Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan should include a discussion 

of the final results of the weevil study and the winter drawdown study. However, 

C-294 
the PUD should not implement winter drawdowns as a regular management 

practice if the final results of the study show this approach is not effective in 

meeting control objectives or that it has unacceptable adverse effects on other 

natural resources. 

In addition to management of milfoil and other aquatic weeds within the project 

area, we recommend the Aquatic Plant Management Plan also include measures to 

help prevent the spread of milfoil to other water bodies outside the project area. 

We support the PUD’s proposal to install and maintain informational signs at 

PUD-operated boat launches. 

26. Within 1 year of issuance of any new license, the PUD should consult with the 

FWS, FS, the Tribe, WDFW, IDFG, and Pend Oreille County Noxious Weed 

Control Board to complete the IWMP outlined in the PUD’s response to the AIR 

(PUD, 2001a,b) and file the plan with the Commission for approval. Because we 

anticipate that successful weed control would require a cooperative effort by all 

landowners and land managers around the reservoir, we also recommend including 

local landowners in development of this plan. We recommend this plan be 

implemented within 2 years of license issuance. The IWMP should provide for 

noxious weed surveys and management on all PUD lands, PUD-operated 

campgrounds, at reservoir boat launches, and on NFS lands affected by project 

operation where noxious weeds have been documented as posing a threat to rare 

plant populations, including the seven sites identified to date. Ensure that the 

weed control measures taken on NFS lands are consistent with CNF requirements. 

Because reservoir fluctuations can affect erosion rates and may create conditions 

that encourage the establishment and spread of noxious weeds, the IWMP should 

also explain how the PUD would contribute to weed management efforts that 

would be implemented on other lands around the BCR, e.g., participation in 

County Weed Board control and education programs. For example, noxious weed 

monitoring should be included as an element within the erosion monitoring 

program, since eroding soils are considered high-probability areas for the 

establishment of non-native, invasive plants. 

27. To ensure that the lands acquired under the terms of the Settlement Agreement 

continue to benefit wildlife resources through the new license period, we 

recommend these lands be included in the project boundary. We recommend that 

within 1 year of license issuance the PUD consult with the Technical Committee 

to finalize the draft Wildlife Management plans and combine them into a single, 

comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan. Upon completion of the plan, we 

recommend the PUD submit the plan to FWS, FS, the Tribe, WDFW and IDFG 

for their review and comment before filing it with the Commission for approval. 

The Wildlife Management Plan should include detailed methods for protection, 

mitigation, and enhancement of upland, wetland, and riparian habitat; monitoring 

C-295 
and maintenance; a schedule and budget for implementation; and provisions for 

review and reporting. 

Include in the final Wildlife Management Plan the cottonwood enhancement 

measures identified in the draft Wildlife Management plans for the Everett Island 

and Tacoma Creek WMAs (PUD, 2001d). The draft plans, which were developed 

by the PUD in consultation with the Box Canyon Resource Technical Committee 

(Technical Committee),52 include planting and stand treatments to improve 

cottonwood and aspen cover in 36 acres of existing mixed forest and 51 acres of 

deciduous forest, plus planting of at least 15 acres of cottonwood along the 

reservoir margin. 

28. We recognize the PUD would be expected to compensate for loss or degradation 

of wildlife habitat that might result from construction of certain recreation 

facilities in the future, e.g., additional dispersed camping sites or new 

campgrounds. If these facilities are to be constructed, we recommend the PUD 

consult with the FWS, FS, Tribe, WDFW and IDFG to develop a plan to evaluate 

effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat and provide mitigation, and file the plan 

with the Commission for approval. The plan should identify the most appropriate 

methods of evaluation (whether HEP or other analytical techniques accepted by 

the scientific community) and appropriate types, amounts, and locations of any 

mitigation measures that are needed. 

29. Eliminate livestock grazing on PUD-owned lands within the project boundary and 

address grazing management through (1) shoreline management planning and (2) 

funding of POCD public education programs on the causes of erosion and methods 

of bank stabilization, and through specific measures that would be incorporated 

into the final Wildlife Management Plan (construction and maintenance of 

fencing). 

30. Develop and implement a Waterfowl Management Plan focused on habitat 

protection and enhancement on suitable lands owned by PUD within the project 

boundary, including Everett Island and Tacoma Creek WMAs. To maximize the 

opportunity for developing an integrated approach and to minimize the number of

 52 The Technical Committee was established in 1998 to implement the terms and requirements of the 

Settlement Agreement in several resource areas, including recreation, cultural resources, erosion 

control, fish and wildlife. The Technical Committee was comprised of representatives of the PUD, 

BIA, FWS, FS, and WDFW. Its primary task was to identify appropriate methods, monitoring plans, 

schedules, and budgets for implementing protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. The 

PUD initially proposed to re-establish the Technical Committee to serve in a similar role in 

implementing the PM&Es through the new license period; the Tribe concurred with this proposal. 

However, since a Settlement Agreement for the relicense proceeding was not reached, the PUD 

withdrew this proposal by letter dated August 13, 2004. 

C-296 
individual plans to be prepared, we recommend the PUD incorporate the 

Waterfowl Management Plan as one element of the Comprehensive Wildlife 

Management Plan. The draft Wildlife Management plans for Everett Island and 

Tacoma Creek WMAs include measures that would improve habitat for 

waterfowl, such as grazing control, replanting of degraded pastureland with native 

grasses, and re-establishment of hydrophytic shrubs and trees on wetland margins 

and river shorelines; the final plan should include these elements. The WMAs 

contain over 400 acres of emergent grassland habitat, plus riparian tree and shrub 

habitats along sloughs and shorelines. With enhancement measures in place, these 

areas could provide high-quality habitat for ground-nesting waterfowl. The 

purchase of additional land (100 acres of habitat for waterfowl and restore 40 

acres of riparian forest) as proposed by the Tribe is not warranted. 

As part of the Waterfowl Management Plan, provide funding to support the efforts 

of local conservation groups, school groups, or landowners to improve waterfowl 

nesting habitat on property outside the PUD’s ownership. The funding should be

directed to habitat protection and enhancement measures, such as fencing to 

protect existing forested wetlands and planting of cottonwoods, which would 

eventually provide suitable habitat for cavity nesting ducks. The plan should also 

provide for construction and installation of some artificial nest structures, 

consistent with Interior’s 10(j) recommendation regarding waterfowl management. 

This approach would provide immediate benefits, and help to distribute long-term

benefits throughout the project area, in addition to the improvements proposed at 

Everett Island and Tacoma Creek WMAs. The PUD should include a schedule for 

implementation and funding to other entities within its Wildlife Management Plan. 

31. Conduct annual nesting and population surveys for osprey, double-crested 

cormorant, and great blue heron. Consult with the FWS, FS, the Tribe, WDFW, 

and IDFG to develop a plan to monitor population trends of osprey, double-crested 

cormorant and great blue heron within the project area and file the plan with the 

Commission for approval. The plan should identify objectives, monitoring 

methods and a schedule and budget. At a minimum, the plan should provide for 

conducting annual nesting surveys until a threshold is reached. Determination of 

an appropriate threshold should be determined as part of plan development 

(e.g., less than 10 percent change over a 3-year period). The plan should also 

include provisions for reporting and regular meetings with the agencies and Tribe 

to review monitoring results and determine whether additional study or 

management action is needed. We do not make a specific recommendation that 

the plan should include measures to offset impacts if monitoring indicates that 

double-crested cormorants appear to be competing with other species for 

nest/perch sites or for other habitat components, as FS proposes. In our view, 

impacts on the bald eagle, osprey or great blue heron would not likely be the first 

evidence of double-crested cormorant populations reaching pest levels in the 

C-297 
project area, would not necessarily constitute a trigger for compensation, and 

would not be the sole responsibility of the PUD. 

32. Work with the Technical Committee to finalize the wetland creation and 

enhancement measures described in the draft Wildlife Management plans for the 

Everett Island and Tacoma Creek WMAs, and incorporate them into the 

Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan described above. This would allow 

for an integrated approach to management and would minimize duplication of 

planning and implementation efforts. Sections of the Wildlife Management Plan 

dealing with the constructed wetlands should include detailed topographic maps; 

hydrologic information and design drawings showing the water control features; 

the consideration of complete or nearly complete drawdowns to impair bullfrog 

production in the ponds; proposed vegetation plantings in plan view and crosssection; and detailed information about operation, maintenance, monitoring 

methods, schedules and budgets. 

Focus open water pond monitoring efforts on ensuring that the ponds are 

maintained and operated as planned, e.g., maintaining desired proportions of open 

water and floating and emergent plant cover, desired seasonal water depths, and 

shrub cover on pond margins. For other wetland habitats in the WMAs, we 

recommend the PUD focus monitoring efforts on the variables the Technical 

Committee had agreed on previously and described in the draft Wildlife 

Management plans. 

33. For both water howellia and Ute ladies’-tresses, we recommend the PUD consult 

with FWS at least 1 year in advance of conducting any ground-disturbing activities 

in potential habitat, to allow adequate time to determine whether additional field 

surveys would be needed, and, if so, to conduct them. 

34. Improve grizzly bear awareness through signage and pamphlets at recreation 

facilities to minimize bear-human interaction. The PUD should consult with 

FWS, FS, the Tribe, WDFW and IDFG to develop a plan and schedule for 

providing public information and file the plan with the Commission for approval. 

The plan should include provisions for the PUD to post or provide signs and/or 

educational pamphlets at each of its recreation facilities to inform visitors of steps 

they can take to prevent human-grizzly bear conflicts, i.e., proper sanitation and 

food storage consistent with the approach FS is currently using at recreational sites 

in the area. In addition to consulting with the agencies and Tribe, we suggest the 

PUD also consult with non-governmental organizations that support grizzly bear

conservation (e.g., Wind River Bear Institute, Brown Bear Resources) to identify 

materials that are already available, and determine which are most appropriate for 

the project area. Resupply of informational materials, such as posters and 

pamphlets, should be incorporated into the regular maintenance program. These 

C-298 
measures would be consistent with Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 

guidelines for grizzly bear recovery (FWS, 1993). 

35. Consult with the FWS, FS, the Tribe, WDFW, and IDFG to develop a Bald Eagle 

Management Plan for the project and file the plan with the Commission for 

approval. The plan should include implementation of surveys to monitor bald 

eagle nesting, productivity, and winter use of the reservoir annually through the 

license period, surveys to investigate the establishment of new nests, 2-year 

surveys of active nests, and coordination with the agencies, the Tribe, and affected 

landowners to develop individual Cooperative Nest Site Management Plans. We 

recommend 2-year surveys at existing nests to help define potential resource 

management conflicts and protection needed at each site. We also recommend the 

PUD work with the agencies and the Tribe to provide information about bald eagle 

protection (e.g., signage and pamphlets) at PUD-operated recreational sites as part 

of the efforts to educate homeowners about riparian habitat protection. The plan 

should include schedules and budgets for implementation and provisions for 

reporting. The plan should also show how the bald eagle protection measures 

would be coordinated with the PUD’s routine O&M and with the Shoreline 

Management Plan. 

Consistent with FS 4(e)-11, items 3a, 3b and 3c, we recommend silvicultural 

treatments to improve potential bald eagle nesting habitat on NFS lands adjacent 

to the project. Consistent with Interior’s consolidated 10(j) 12, 13 and 16, we 

recommend silvicultural treatments to improve potential bald eagle nesting habitat 

on PUD, KIR, public or private lands along the reservoir between RM 47 and RM 

90. 

36. Prepare and implement a Shoreline Management Plan for the entire Box Canyon 

Project area including FS lands. The plan, which should be filed with the 

Commission within 1 year and implemented within 2 years of license issuance, 

should clarify measures that the PUD will take to support and enhance the Pend 

Oreille County shoreline planning effort. The plan should also synthesize the 

related studies and planning efforts, including FS scenery objectives (as 

recommended in FS condition 4[e] 10), ongoing or proposed within the project 

area.

37. Prepare and file an RRMP for the entire project area in consultation with the 

Tribe, Interior, FS, and other interested parties. We recommend that a RRMP be 

created in year 1, filed with the Commission within 1 year, and address all lands 

within the project boundary while focusing on those lands managed by federal 

agencies, the Tribe, Pend Oreille County, and local municipalities. We also 

recommend beginning implementation of the RRMP within 2 years of license 

issuance. To help ensure that the plan is an effective management tool, we 

recommend that it be developed in consultation with the Tribe, Interior, FS and 

C-299 
other interested parties. The plan should include PUD’s proposal and staffrecommended recreation enhancements for the project and the schedule for filing 

the annual report, as described in subsequent sections of this EIS. We also 

recommend using the results of the recreation surveys to update the RRMP every 

6 years, in conjunction with the Form 80. Establish a collaborative process to 

update the RRMP. 

38. Implement recreation use surveys starting in year 5 after licensing and continuing 

thereafter at 6-year intervals, making use of National Visitor Use Monitoring 

Project data and establish trigger points that indicate a need for additional 

recreation facilities. 

39. Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, complete a cultural resource survey. 

Implementation of these measures in addition to the measures proposed by the 

PUD, would protect and enhance water quality, fisheries, terrestrial, cultural, and 

recreational resources in the project area and provide for the best use of the waterway. 

We present our rationale for some of our recommended measures in the following 

sections. 

5.1.2 Discussion

The costs of some of our measures would reduce the net benefit of the project. 

Others require consolidation of several components for cost-effective implementation, 

and others are being considered under Staff Alternative (high range). We present our 

costs as levelized annual values which include both up front capital costs and O&M costs 

(both types of costs levelized over 30 years). Our rationale for recommending some of 

these measures is presented below. 

5.1.2.1 Coordination and Reporting 

In its final license application, the PUD proposed to re-establish the Technical 

Committee53 that is currently performing the monitoring/implementation/oversight of the 

environmental measures resulting from the 1998 Settlement Agreement and License 

Amendment. This body has proven to be very effective in this capacity. However, failing 

to reach a new Settlement Agreement for this relicensing process, the PUD withdrew its 

support for the Technical Committee (response 2A to Interior's modified Conditions and 

Prescriptions, dated August 13, 2004). Because of the committee's proven success; 

however, we recommend that the PUD invite the relevant agencies to participate once 

again in a cooperative effort to develop and implement the recommended environmental 

measures. 

 53 The current Technical Committee has representatives from the PUD, FWS, FS, the Tribe, and WDFW. 

Idaho has requested IDFG participation which should be accommodated when Committee 

decisions/recommendations could affect lands or resources in that state.

C-300 
Interior would have the PUD prepare, in consultation with the Tribe, WDFW, 

Interior, and FS, a 4(e) Implementation and Monitoring Plan that would govern oversight 

and implementation of the environmental measures it has proposed. It also specifies that 

the progress of each of these plans and activities be reported annually. FS likewise would 

have the PUD prepare, in consultation and with approval by the FS, a Resource 

Coordination Plan (RCP) that would govern oversight and implementation of the 

environmental measures it (FS) has proposed. We recommend that these two plans be 

combined into a single IMRCP and that the PUD establish a mechanism for regular 

communication with the Interior and the FS. The PUD should prepare the IMRCP in 

consultation with the Technical Committee. We estimate the annual levelized cost of the 

IMRCP including higher Technical Committee costs (beyond those estimated by the 

PUD) and annual progress report production costs to be $66,200. 

As part of this item, the PUD should file an Annual Progress Report, describing 

the activities undertaken in support of the environmental measures, the summary results 

of any studies or sampling, and the agenda proposed for the upcoming year. The details 

of ongoing programs would be reported in specific topical reports. 

5.1.2.2 Erosion Control and Remediation 

Erosion Monitoring 

In order to identify where soils are being eroded around the reservoir and to 

confirm the processes at work, we recommend the PUD prepare an EMP that 

incorporates their current 31 sites representing a wide range of conditions and an

additional 7 within the KIR. The sites should be surveyed twice per year to assess 

erosion rates. 

Erosion Control, Prevention, and Remediation Plan 

Although erosion, resulting from a variety of causes, is visible around the reservoir 

shoreline, the degree to which project operations contribute to any of it has not yet been 

established. It is expected however, that the proposed erosion monitoring program will 

clarify this issue and we therefore recommend that the PUD prepare an ECPRP that 

addresses the types of preventive and remedial measures applicable to the various types 

and severity of erosion being monitored. This plan, which will apply to the whole 

reservoir shoreline (including visual resource component), is estimated to cost $22,500 

(on a levelized basis) to prepare, and it should be developed in consultation with the 

Technical Committee and approved by all parties before filing with the Commission. 

The Tribe proposes that PUD provide $50,000 per year for it to apply, at its 

discretion, to erosion control and mitigation on KIR lands. We consider it to be in the 

better interest of the whole reservoir, its water quality and riparian habitat, to identify 

C-301 
those areas most in need of treatment, regardless of ownership, and deal with them first, 

eventually eliminating severe or frequent soil loss around the whole reservoir perimeter. 

Therefore, it is recommended that the Erosion Control Prevention and 

Remediation Plan (ECPRP) be developed in two phases. The first phase, to be developed 

within 3 years of licensing, should be directed toward remediation of those areas 

undergoing active erosion and which is attributable to project operation. Within 8 years 

of licensing, the plan should be expanded to include areas where erosion rates are low 

and where erosion is not currently active, but likely to occur. 

To estimate a cost for possible erosion control, prevention, and remediation, it 

would be necessary to assume both the amount of shoreline that would require future 

protection and the amount of shoreline that has eroded due to project operations. We 

assumed that: 

• 100 percent of areas of high erosion rate would require treatment, of which 75 

percent requires riprap or similar protection and 25 percent requires 

bioremediation; 

• 50 percent of areas of moderate erosion rate would require treatment, of which 

12.5 percent requires riprap and 37.5 percent requires bioremediation; and 

• 15 percent of areas of slow erosion rate would require treatment with 

bioremediation. 

With these assumptions, costs would be in the order of $100 and $20 per linear

foot of shoreline for riprap and bioremediation, respectively, resulting in total costs in the 

order of $3 million. If project operation were responsible for 25 percent of that erosion, 

the PUD would be required to spend $750,000 over the life of the project. However, the 

more highly eroding areas would require protection early in the license, at 3 or 4 years 

when the initial monitoring period is completed, and it is likely that riprap or similar 

protection would be required for much of that protection. If 50 percent of the area of 

high erosion rate required treatment after 3 years and project operation was found to be 

responsible for 25 percent of that, the cost would be $100,000. Ongoing costs might then

be $25,000 per year, again assuming an arbitrary 25 percent responsibility. 

The cost of this treatment and other combined erosion measures would thus be 

$81,800 on an annualized basis ($87,800 with monitoring following drawdown). 

Additionally, this measure would also affect energy generation as detailed in table 41. 

Erosion Education Program 

The erosion in evidence around the BCR shoreline, from whichever sources, 

contributes to a reduction in aesthetics, water quality, safety, and habitat quality. The 

PUD indicated in the application that it was committed to supporting education of the 

local public in erosion and related issues. We agree that through education, riparian 

landowners and conservationists could be engaged in protecting and enhancing their own 

C-302 
properties for overall benefit. We therefore recommend that the PUD, within 2 years of 

license issuance, develop an Erosion Education Plan, in consultation with FS, Interior, the 

Tribe, and the POCD. This plan could include distribution materials, workshops, and 

funding for ongoing or new education programs. 

The Erosion Education Plan should include an explanation of the factors 

contributing to erosion around BCR and tributary banks, such as natural forces, poor land 

use practices, animal grazing, vegetation removal, and poor drainage, as well as the 

protection and enhancement methods available to deal with these problems. For 

example, the benefits (over and above erosion prevention and soil stabilization) from the 

judicious selection and application of bioremedial measures could emphasize use of 

native plant species to: 

• restore riparian habitat; 

• enhance habitat for specific wildlife species in the short term and long term; 

• increase populations of sensitive (e.g., prairie cordgrass) or rare 

(e.g., chaffweed) plant populations; 

• discourage invasion by nuisance/unwanted species (e.g., reed canarygrass, 

knapweed); 

• provide shaded aquatic habitat; or 

• enhance visual aesthetics. 

The development and implementation of this plan should be achievable within the 

funding level already proposed by the PUD, with a minor increment of $300 annualized 

costs per year to report progress in the annual report submitted to the Commission. 

5.1.2.3 Box Canyon Reservoir Water Level 

The IDFG recommends lowering the water level of the BCR during fall, winter, 

and spring to a level that provides for free-flowing river conditions in the Idaho portion 

of the pool, with the understanding that this would improve kokanee production upstream

in Lake Pend Oreille and improve brown trout spawning downstream of Albeni Falls. 

Lowering the BCR by 2 feet for three seasons each year would forfeit energy benefits of 

$2,800,000 (80,000 MWh) per year through head loss. A study of brown trout spawning 

using actual flows through the BCR demonstrated lesser habitat value at the lower 

elevation. Given the limited fisheries benefit, the nearly $3 million of energy disbenefits 

of three-season drawdown cannot be justified. 

We concur with PUD’s proposal to limit project-controlled rates of water level 

decrease to 3 inches per hour, which should lessen any erosion generated as a result of 

drawdown at a modest cost of $6,800 per year in lost energy benefits. We do not 

recommend the Tribe’s proposal to limit daily and weekly drawdown rates to 12 inches 

and 36 inches, respectively. The incremental environmental benefits of these drawdown

C-303 
limitations in reducing erosion or fish stranding would be of only minor value in 

comparison with a rate of 3 inches per hour. These more restrictive drawdown rates 

would prevent the Box Canyon Project from meeting its operational obligations to the 

Corps and would result in a loss of 950 MWh of energy each year at a cost of $34,200. 

The PUD plans to honor its agreement with Diking District No. 2 (Plan E) under 

any new license. Plan E is designed to maintain Calispell Creek water levels that 

approach conditions that would occur without the BCD under high-flow conditions. In 

addition to the operational and energy constraints and limited environmental benefits 

listed above, implementation of the Tribe’s restrictive drawdown rates would preclude 

continued compliance with Plan E. 

5.1.2.4 Pend Oreille River Water Quality Measures 

The state of Washington included the Pend Oreille River on its 303(d) list of water 

quality limited waterbodies for temperature, pH, and aquatic vegetation. BCR 

temperatures exceed 20°C throughout much of the summer, although water temperature 

modeling indicates that warming of more than the allowable 0.3ΕC is uncommon when 

water temperatures exceed 20ΕC. The upper allowable limit for pH, 8.5 units, is 

exceeded throughout the BCR and tailrace during the months of June through September. 

Although the state did not include the reach on the 303(d) list for DO, DO concentrations 

less than the applicable criterion of 8 mg/l occasionally occur in the main channel of the 

BCR during the months of August and September. The low DO levels coincide with 

warm temperatures, which limit the ability of water to retain oxygen. Data collected by 

the PUD indicate that DO levels are generally near saturation during these periods. 

We believe that little latitude exists to dramatically alter the Pend Oreille River’s 

water quality through changes in project operations, there may be other means by which 

the PUD may mitigate for project-induced effects on water quality. Therefore, we 

support the PUD’s proposed monthly water quality compliance monitoring, and 

recommend that the PUD consult with the WDOE, EPA, and the Tribe to develop an

Interim Temperature Management Plan based on the results of existing monitoring and 

water temperature modeling results. Objectives for the water quality monitoring program 

are to: (1) confirm compliance with other applicable water quality standards that project 

operations are likely to affect; (2) characterize general trends in water quality; and 

(3) evaluate the effectiveness of macrophyte-control methods in providing DO and pH 

levels that meet applicable water quality standards. The Interim Temperature 

Management Plan should address periods of the year when modeling (including the 

PUD’s CE-QUAL-W2 model, EPA’s RBM10 model, and WDOE’s modeling for the 

TMDL, if available) indicates that the Project causes violation of the water temperature 

standard for the Pend Oreille River. The plan should be filed within 30 days of license 

issuance and implemented upon notification of its approval by the Commission. 

C-304 
5.1.2.5 Calispell Creek Water Quality Measures 

The rate that water is transported through lower Calispell Creek has been altered 

by the railroad dike and the Calispell Creek pumping operations. Currently, operation of 

the CCPP is constrained by the physical limits of the pumps and requirements of Plan E. 

Operations result in an irregular transport rate and periods when water is transported 

through this reach at a substantially slower rate than would occur naturally. Stagnant 

conditions that may occur during low-flow periods have the potential to degrade water 

quality within the reach and discharges into the BCR. Based on available data, water 

temperature and DO do not satisfy applicable water quality standards in lower Calispell 

Creek. 

We concur with the EPA that it would be appropriate for the PUD to develop and 

implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program that identifies sampling locations, 

methodologies to be implemented for a compliance evaluation with the water quality 

standards, and incorporates the data needs for development and calibration of an 

appropriate water temperature model. Additionally, we encourage the adoption of 

flexible measures within the WQMP, such as FS 4(e) 24, that provide for the 

discontinuation or reduction of monitoring if water quality goals are met. The annualized 

cost for this monitoring is estimated to be $16,800. 

In order to adequately evaluate the effects of the project on water temperatures of 

lower Calispell Creek and discharges from the creek, we support the EPA’s specification 

that the PUD submit a proposal for modeling the temperature regime of lower Calispell 

Creek and its discharge. We recognize that sufficient data may not currently exist to 

conduct such an analysis; therefore, we recommend that the PUD incorporate any data 

needs to complete this evaluation into the water quality monitoring program mentioned 

above. Since available studies have not documented project effects on water quality in 

lower Calispell Creek and discharges from the Calispell pumps, we believe that the PUD 

should conduct such a study. Monitoring water quality and modeling water temperature 

in the project-affected reach of Calispell Creek and its discharge in a manner consistent 

with EPA’s WQC would provide an assessment of compliance with applicable water 

quality standards and documentation of project effects. Therefore, we support these 

WQC conditions. Further, we support EPA’s proposed pump operational plan for the 

purpose of improving water temperatures if it is determined that operation of the pumps 

or other project effects cause the temperature standard to be exceeded. 

Until it has been demonstrated the project is causing violation of the applicable 

water quality standards, we do not believe that it is appropriate to require the PUD to 

operate the Calispell pumps in a manner that minimizes impoundment behind the dike 

and pump stations. However, we conclude that the PUD should consult with the EPA, 

Tribe, and WDOE to determine the need for and subsequently develop a PPO if modeling 

results indicate that the project operation of the CCPP is causing a violation of the 

applicable water quality standards. The PUD should file a record of this consultation and 

the position of each party with the Commission. If the record demonstrates the need for 

C-305 
the PUD to develop a PPO, then the PUD should do so, and file it along with comments 

of these parties with the Commission. The cost of this measure is included in section 4, 

Developmental Analysis, under the Staff Alternative (high range) and is estimated to be 

$700. 

5.1.2.6 Total Dissolved Gas Abatement 

The PUD is currently monitoring TDG upstream and downstream of the BCD and 

is working with the Transboundary Gas Group to determine means of reducing TDG 

below the project. The PUD intends to upgrade the project turbines, largely as a TDG 

reduction measure (increased generating capacity is insufficient to recoup the cost of 

installation, and construct auxiliary spillway bypass gates (letter from J.J. Snyder, Project 

Manager, EES Consulting, to M.R. Salas, Secretary, FERC, Washington, DC, filed 

August 19, 2004). We note that the PUD does not describe the auxiliary bypass gates 

that it plans to install, although the PUD indicates that it has the goal of complying with 

the TDG standard. Therefore, we have assumed that the PUD intends to install 27-foothigh gates similar to those discussed in its response to AIRs (PUD, 2001b). We endorse 

the upgrade of project turbines, which has an annualized cost of $1, 223,200, a benefit of 

$800,500, and a net cost of $422,700. Additionally, installation of 27-foot-high gates 

would have an annualized cost of $533,300. WDOE, Interior, and the Tribe defined a gas 

abatement program (described in section 3.3.2.2), which includes the development of a 

DGMP and implementation of abatement measures to ultimately bring TDG into 

compliance with water quality standards. 

We agree that high levels of TDG can be biologically problematic. The literature 

describes GBT in aquatic biota exposed to high TDG levels. However, we note that, 

based on the limited data available, there are extremely low fish populations in the Pend 

Oreille River below the BCR. Fish populations between the BCD and Boundary dam 

appear to be concentrated in the lower Boundary reservoir and are dominated by northern 

pikeminnow (PUD, 2000). We recognize the PUD's proposal to upgrade the turbines and 

construct an auxiliary spillway bypass are steps that can be taken in the near future to 

help reduce the project's effects on TDG levels. Therefore, we recommend that the 

turbine upgrades be completed within 5 to 7 years as proposed by the PUD and that the 

PUD construct 27-foot-high gates into BCD within 10 years if necessary. We currently 

cannot justify recommending that the PUD implement additional TDG abatement 

measures (such as ceasing to operate the project when flows are in the range of 60,000 to 

90,000 cfs), without reasonable assurance that there would be a substantial improvement 

to the beneficial use that the standard is set to protect (i.e., aquatic organisms. The annual 

cost of ceasing to operate the project when flows in the range of 60,000 to 90,000 cfs 

would otherwise result in violation of the 110-percent criterion ($266,900) far outweighs 

the associated benefits to aquatic resources. 

In addition, we recommend that the PUD conduct a study using existing 

information to determine the role of the Box Canyon Project in TDG accumulations in 

C-306 
the Pend Oreille River down to its mouth. The PUD should conduct this analysis and file 

with the Commission, the report developed, along with comments of the WDOE, EPA, 

and Transboundary Gas Group, within 1 year of the completion of the turbine upgrades 

and construction of the proposed auxiliary spillway bypass or 11 years after license 

issuance, whichever comes first. We estimate the annualized cost of this study to be 

$5,100.

We also recommend that the PUD continuously monitor TDG and other relevant 

parameters, including temperature (as specified by Interior and others), in the Pend 

Oreille River at three stations on an hourly increment for all periods with projected flows 

of more than the turbine capacity at the BCD after the completion of the turbine upgrades 

and installation of the proposed spillway gates and for the remainder of the license term. 

The three monitoring stations should include the Pend Oreille River near Newport, Box 

Canyon forebay, and the Box Canyon tailrace area. Data collected would facilitate 

evaluation of compliance with applicable TDG standards, quantify the effect of the 

project on TDG levels, and provide information that can be used to assess conditions in 

the basin to better determine the most cost-effective means of improving TDG

conditions. By activating the TDG monitoring program whenever spill is forecasted for 

the dam, costs would be lower and monitoring would still be conducted to determine the 

effectiveness of the measures undertaken by the applicant to reduce TDG. 

Further, the PUD should conduct a single monitoring event to evaluate TDG 

conditions within 10 years of license issuance and after the turbines have been upgraded 

and any other abatement measures deemed necessary within this period have been 

implemented. TDG and other pertinent parameters should be monitored below BCD 

using a grid-system that would facilitate evaluation of the altered lateral and longitudinal 

dispersion of TDG near the confluence of spillway and powerhouse waters. The gridstyle monitoring should cover a wide range of spillway flows and project operations. It is 

anticipated that a sufficient level of effort for the grid-style monitoring would involve the 

use of 8 to 10 instruments to record levels every 15 minutes over a maximum period of 2 

weeks. The PUD should prepare annual reports that characterize temporal and spatial 

TDG conditions, project-induced effects, and benefits of turbine upgrades. The reports 

should be circulated to resource agencies and filed with the Commission along with 

comments provided by the agencies. We estimate the cost of monitoring this event as 

well as the hardware cost associated with the set up of two continuous monitoring 

stations in year 1 to be $9,400. 

We agree with the agencies that biological monitoring to determine the effects of 

elevated TDG on aquatic organisms would be valuable. As described in section 5.1.2.8, 

Upstream and Downstream Fish Passage, we recommend that the need for BCD passage 

facilities be determined by developing and implementing a plan to evaluate the number 

and types of fish attempting to move past BCD. If the results of this study indicate that 

there is sufficient justification for constructing BCD fish passage facilities or if facilities 

are constructed as a result of Interior’s Section 18 prescription for fishways, the PUD 

should construct facilities to enable fish passage at BCD and subsequently sample fish 

C-307 
using these passage facilities to determine if they have internal and external signs of 

GBT. The need for additional TDG abatement measures should be based on results of 

this biomonitoring study. The PUD should file annual reports documenting conditions 

observed along with comments of the agencies and the Tribe. 

Information collected during this study would provide an understanding of the 

extent of adverse effects of TDG on aquatic organisms downstream of the Box Canyon 

Project. This evaluation along with results of our recommended TDG monitoring would 

provide data necessary to evaluate whether additional TDG abatement measures would 

be warranted. We recommend that the Commission base its decision on the need for 

additional TDG abatement measures on the Box Canyon Project’s contribution to 

elevated TDG in reaches downstream of the BCD, and the effect that elevated TDG 

concentrations has on aquatic organisms in those reaches. The cost of these measures is 

included in section 4, Developmental Analysis, under the Staff Alternative (high range) 

and is estimated to be $65,800. 

We support WDOE’s WQC condition that if it is determined that reasonable and 

feasible technologies do not exist to ensure compliance with the TDG standard then the 

PUD should prepare the necessary background studies to support changing the applicable 

TDG standard. The PUD may be able to accomplish this by preparing a Use Attainability 

Analysis to evaluate the existing and achievable beneficial uses in the BCD tailwater or 

assessing the effects of TDG on aquatic organisms to provide sufficient justification for a

site-specific TDG criterion. If the PUD develops a UAA or justification of a site-specific 

criterion, we support Interior’s recommendation that the PUD consult with Interior and 

the Tribe for a period of up to 6 months to develop any additional measures needed to 

compensate for adverse project effects of elevated TDG on aquatic organisms. 

However, given the well-established fact that the TDG frequently exceeds the 

applicable water quality standard under current conditions, we do not support Interior’s 

recommendation to require the PUD to immediately notify Interior and the Tribe or 

provide non-compliance reports until after the turbine upgrades are complete and 

auxiliary spill gates are installed. Following completion of the turbine upgrades and 

installation of the spill gates, it would be appropriate for such reporting measures to be 

implemented. Benefits of habitat restoration are discussed in Tributary Stream Habitat 

Restoration in section 3.3.3.2.

5.1.2.7 Hazardous Material Measures 

We recommend that the PUD continue to maintain compliance with Spill 

Prevention and Control and a Hazardous Materials Handling Plan and implement the 

FS’s Spill Prevention and Control and Hazardous Materials Management Plan for 

activities related to FS lands. In addition, we support the WDOE and EPA WQC 

conditions requiring the PUD to prevent, contain, and clean-up spills of oil, fuel, and 

other potentially hazardous materials. We also support the WQC conditions that require 

the PUD to conduct construction activities in a responsible manner.

C-308 
5.1.2.8 Upstream and Downstream Fish Passage 

We conclude that the immediate implementation of upstream and downstream fish 

passage facilities at BCD and CCPP would be inappropriate because of (1) the lack of 

data indicating that substantial numbers of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout are 

attempting to migrate past BCD and CCPP; (2) the low number of these fish found above 

and below the structures; and (3) the changing management scene in the lower Pend 

Oreille basin. Given the substantial estimated cost of upstream and downstream 

fishways, it does not make biological or practical sense to require the construction of 

these facilities until the need for passage has been clearly demonstrated. This is 

particularly valid in the case of Calispell Creek, where degraded conditions may preclude 

bull trout utilization despite future rehabilitation efforts. We therefore recommend that 

the PUD consult with Interior, FS, WDFW, and the Tribe and file with the Commission, 

within 1 year of license issuance, a plan for developing and implementing studies to 

evaluate the numbers and types of fish that are attempting to move past BCD and CCPP. 

The results of these studies, reported annually, can then be evaluated by the resource 

agencies, the Tribe, and the Commission to determine whether upstream and downstream

fish passage facilities are needed at each location. 

Our cost estimate for these studies assumes a year 1 cost of $75,000 and an annual 

cost of $200,000 a year for 3 years (years 2 through 4 of a new license) to develop and 

implement a plan to assess attempted upstream and downstream fish movement including 

the number of fish attempting to move past BCD and CCPP. The total cost of this 

measure is estimated to be $675,000. The annualized cost of this plan is estimated to be 

$41,800. This measure would also affect energy generation as detailed in table 41. 

If the need for upstream and/or downstream fish passage facilities at CCPP were 

ultimately determined (based on study results), the installation of fish passage facilities 

consistent with those described in Interior’s Section 18 fishway prescription would be 

appropriate at this site. 

If the need for upstream fish passage at BCD were ultimately determined (based 

on study results), we recommend installation of a trap-and-haul facility (staff’s phase 1) 

for upstream passage at the BCD, along with associated monitoring. This phase 1 trapand-haul facility would be similar to the temporary fish passage facility described in 

Interior’s Section 18 fishway prescription and may be operational as early as year 6 of a 

new license if study results indicate the need for upstream fish passage facilities early on. 

If the BCD trap-and-haul facility (phase 1) monitoring results indicate that a 

substantial number (Interior suggests 97) of bull trout and other native salmonid species 

are attempting to move upstream past the project, the PUD should consult with Interior, 

the Tribe, and other resource agencies to determine the most effective design for an 

upstream permanent volitional fishway (Staff’s phase 2) at BCD. However, a permanent 

upstream volitional fishway should not be installed at BCD before the turbine upgrades 

and installation of the spillway gates are completed. Once these project modifications are 

completed, the design and construction of the permanent upstream volitional fishway 

C-309 
may commence. Proper study of the flow fields resulting from project’s modifications 

should be completed to aid in the design of a permanent volitional fishway that will be 

best suited for the project and its site-specific flow configurations. Given this, we

estimate that if upstream fish passage is needed, a permanent volitional fish passage 

facility could become operational by year 18 of a new license. 

Interior’s approach to upstream fish passage at BCD is slightly different from 

staff’s approach. Interior, in its Section 18 fishway prescription, uses a three-phased 

approach. Under Interior’s prescription, a temporary upstream fish passage facility 

would be installed and operate between years 2 and 13 of the new license. At which time 

it would be replaced by an interim fish passage facility, which will operate between years 

14 and 17. The interim facility would then be replaced by a permanent volitional 

upstream fish passage facility that would be operated from year 18 through the remainder 

of the license term. 

Staff concludes that if the need for an upstream fish passage facility has been 

established at BCD (as a result of the staff recommended fish movement study), the 

installation of interior’s interim fish passage facility would be an unnecessary and costly 

step and that it would be more appropriate to utilize staff’s recommended two-phased 

approach to upstream fish passage at BCD as described above. 

The PUD proposes to upgrade the project’s turbines with turbines of higher 

hydraulic capacity and/or fish-friendly minimum gap turbines within 5 to 7 years of a 

license issuance. As a result of this proposal, we no longer recommend (as recommended 

in the draft EIS) that the PUD consult with the FWS, FS, WDFW, and the Tribe to 

determine an appropriate operating efficiency for the existing turbines to provide the 

safest possible downstream fish passage conditions at the project. Developing and 

implementing a plan to operate the existing turbines to provide the safest possible 

downstream fish passage conditions would be quickly outdated and an unnecessary 

expense, as the operational characteristics of the new turbines would be different from the 

existing turbines. 

The PUD has received some funding from the Department of Energy to purchase, 

install, and analyze the effectiveness of two state-of-the-art minimum gap (fish-friendly) 

turbine runners concurrent with the proposed upgrade of the existing turbines at the BCD 

(as a means to reduce mechanical injury to fish and improve water quality). We 

encourage the PUD in its participation in this investigation and to share with the resource 

agencies the results of its minimum gap (fish-friendly) turbine runner effectiveness 

analysis. We also encourage the PUD to develop a plan to operate the newly upgraded

turbines at an efficiency that would provide the safest possible downstream fish passage 

conditions. 

If our recommended fish movement study indicates that a substantial number of 

bull trout or westslope cutthroat trout are attempting to migrate downstream past BCD, it 

may be appropriate to install permanent downstream fish passage facilities. However, if 

favorable results are obtained during the PUD’s fish-friendly turbine runner effectiveness 

C-310 
analysis and the PUD decides to replace all four of its turbines using fish-friendly 

runners, downstream fish passage facilities should not be necessary as the fish-friendly 

turbines would provide a safe and effective means of downstream fish passage. 

Consequently, if the need for downstream fish passage facilities is ultimately 

established and the PUD does not choose to upgrade all four of its turbines with the fishfriendly replacements or if effectiveness evaluations of the fish-friendly turbines are not 

favorable, the PUD should consult with Interior, the Tribe, and other resource agencies to 

determine the most effective design for a permanent downstream volitional fishway at 

BCD. 

Interior’s approach to downstream fish passage at BCD is slightly different from 

staff’s approach. Interior, in its Section 18 fishway prescription, specifies the installation 

of an interim downstream fish passage facility at BCD that would operate between year 2 

and approximately year 10 of the new license. This interim facility would eventually be 

replaced by a permanent downstream volitional fishway (if Interior’s Fish Guidance 

Efficiency [FGE] goal of 95 percent is not met by the interim facility). 

Staff concludes that if the need for a downstream fish passage facility has been 

demonstrated at BCD as a result of the staff-recommended fish movement study, the 

installation of an interim downstream fish passage facility would be an unnecessary and 

costly step and that it would be more appropriate to install a permanent volitional 

downstream fishway at that time. 

The costs associated with the fishways are complex; therefore, we refer the reader 

to table 44 for the cost estimate. 

5.1.2.9 BCR Habitat Restoration 

In the draft EIS staff originally supported the PUD’s proposal to fund the 

placement of 100 habitat structures within the reservoir, and recommended that within 1 

year of license issuance, the PUD consult with the FWS, FS, the Tribe, WDFW, and 

IDFG and file a plan for Commission approval to implement this environmental measure. 

However, after receiving comments on the draft EIS regarding the placement of 

these structures in BCR, we no longer support this measure because these structures also 

have the potential to improve habitat conditions for predators of juvenile salmonids.

5.1.2.10 Tributary Stream Habitat Restoration 

We agree with Interior that there continue to be project-related effects within the 

BCR and tributary streams that have negatively affected native fish populations. We 

therefore recommend the PUD consult with the FWS, FS, the Tribe, WDFW, and IDFG 

to develop and file with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance, a THRP with 

the goal of approaching the target levels recommended by the Interior with a more 

modest program. We recommend the THRP include a description of: 

C-311 
• the streams or stream reaches targeted for restoration; 

• how the PUD would assess trout populations in these streams or stream

reaches; 

• the enhancement strategies recommended to help approach the Interior’s target 

population levels (i.e., barrier removal, instream and riparian restoration and 

maintenance activities, purchase of land or conservation easements, exotic 

species control, and conservation aquaculture for supplementation); 

• the methods that would be used to monitor trout populations (assess trout 

production levels) on an 8-year cycle for the duration of the license; and 

• an implementation schedule. 

As part of the THRP, we recommend the PUD install a staff gage on Trimble 

Creek within the Cusick Unit of the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge. 

Interior would use the gage as a means of obtaining information needed to implement 

riparian habitat restoration measures that would improve habitat quality for fish in 

Trimble Creek. 

Immediately following approval of the plan by the Commission, and continuing 

for the duration of the license, the PUD would implement the trout assessment and 

habitat restoration strategies included in the THRP. We agree with the Interior’s plan to 

achieve target levels for trout production; however, we disagree with tying the program’s 

funding level to Interior’s target levels and as a result, we recommend an alternate 

funding level (section 4.2, Cost of Environmental Enhancement Measures). Our estimate 

to complete the THRP would add $154,300 in levelized costs to the PUD’s upfront 

budgeted amount of $350,000 (within 4 years of licensing, i.e. annualized cost of 

$20,000) for habitat enhancement/restoration in the BCR tributaries. In addition, we 

recommend that the monies that were to be used to fund the Colville hatchery ($25,000 

annually as identified in the draft EIS) would be more appropriately applied to the THRP

as discussed below under fish hatchery funding, bringing the total to $179,300. This 

increase in THRP funding should not be earmarked for conservation aquaculture nor 

should the funding for conservation aquaculture through the THRP be limited to $25,000. 

Resource managers should have the flexibility to apply the funds as needed to meet the 

goals of the THRP. 

5.1.2.11 Fish Hatchery Funding 

In the draft EIS, we supported the PUD’s proposal and WDFW’s preliminary 10(j) 

recommendation to provide $25,000 to the Colville hatchery for the production and 

release of native salmonids to the BCR and its tributaries. That support was largely 

determined based on the understanding that the fish produced at the hatchery would be 

used in the restoration of native salmonids. However, WDFW in its August 18, 2004, 

clarification letter clearly state that the Colville hatchery is fully utilized and production 

C-312 
is at capacity and that the genetic character of the cutthroat trout being produced at the 

facility would not be appropriate for use in meeting Interior’s restoration goals covering 

24 tributaries. WDFW further states that, “For the purpose of supplementing specific 

stocks of cutthroat and bull trout in rehabilitated streams throughout the basin, a separate 

conservation hatchery facility, other than the Colville facility, would be required.” 

Because the Colville hatchery is not capable of producing native salmonids and 

maintaining the genetic integrity of the various stocks necessary for restoration activities 

occur, we no longer support funding of the Colville hatchery. 

In addition, WDFW revised their recommendation to include funding for the Usk 

hatchery. WDFW funding recommendation included a $100,000 for the reconditioning 

of the Usk hatchery and $75,000 annually from the license issuance. WDFW proposes 

that the facility would start production between year 5 and 7 of the license and that 

annual funds accumulated between year 1 and the start of production, along with the 

initial $100,000 would be used to bring the Usk hatchery back on-line, at a total cost we 

estimate to be up to $625,000. WDFW recommends that funding for the Usk hatchery be

in addition to the annual funding of Colville hatchery with $25,000.

We continue to recognize the need for funding to be provided for the rearing of

native salmonids to be used in restoration activities, and that staff’s recommended THRP 

has a provision which allows for funds from the THRP to be used for supplementation of 

native trout population through conservation aquaculture but we do not agree with the 

revised level of funding recommended by WDFW for the Usk hatchery. 

Rather than rely on WDFW’s estimate of what it would cost to rehabilitate the 

existing Usk hatchery and to produce the target level of native salmonids, it would be 

more appropriate to determine the number of fish that the existing habitat can support and 

how much natural reproduction is occurring. Further, other non-WDFW hatcheries 

capable of rearing native salmonids may exist that have not been considered. Therefore, 

staff does not recommend the direct funding of any specific hatchery. Rather, we 

recommend increasing the funding level of the staff recommended THRP by $25,000 

annually, the previously recommended funding for the Colville hatchery in the draft EIS. 

This will allow resource managers greater flexibility in their restoration efforts of native 

salmonids in the BCR and its tributaries.

5.1.2.12 Project Effects on Sensitive and Rare Plant Species 

In section 3.3.4, we recognized the importance of protecting rare and sensitive 

plant species in the project area and how noxious weeds could adversely affect these 

species. We identified two measures that would protect these species. These include 

coordination with the FS on managing FS sensitive and rare plants on FS lands and the 

protection and management such plants on PUD owned or managed lands. In accordance 

with our findings, we make the following recommendations. 

C-313 
We recommend that within 1 year of license issuance the PUD consult with the FS 

to develop and implement a Sensitive Species Consultation Plan and file the plan with the 

Commission for approval. The plan should explain how the PUD would consult with the 

FS to address the potential effects of PUD activities on sensitive plants (and on sensitive 

fish and wildlife species). To minimize the need for consultation with the FS for every 

action the PUD would implement during the new license period, the plan should be based 

on a programmatic approach, including a step-wise program to help determine when 

biological evaluations, field surveys, and/or monitoring are needed and when they are 

unnecessary. The plan should also provide for review and updating to reflect possible 

changes in environmental conditions or listing status of species. As part of this plan, we 

recommend the PUD ensure reports of all rare plant surveys the PUD has conducted in 

the project area are provided to the FS, and provide a mechanism for continuing to share 

this information. 

To protect Hedeoma and other rare plants (e.g., chaffweed, Canadian St. John’s

wort) growing on PUD-owned or managed land within the project boundary, we 

recommend that within 1 year of license issuance, the PUD consult with FWS, FS, 

WDFW, WNHP and IDFG to develop a Rare Plant Management Plan and file the plan 

with the Commission for approval. The PUD has already collected the field data 

necessary to develop such a plan, and has compiled and mapped the information. This 

plan should include a mechanism to incorporate protection measures into routine 

operations, maintenance programs, and any other programs that may involve activities 

that would affect soils, hydrology, or vegetation, and preparing any site-specific 

management plans that may be needed. The plan should include objectives; methods for 

monitoring, tracking, and mapping rare plant populations; identification of protection 

measures; and a schedule for reporting. The annual cost of these measures to protect 

sensitive and rare plants is estimated to be $7,600. 

We do not recommend the PUD develop or implement a Sensitive Plant Species 

Management Plan to the degree that the FS recommends be applied to NFS lands. A 

wide variety of environmental conditions and human activities can affect the survival and 

health of rare plant populations on FS lands, such as clearing, mowing, grazing, 

application of herbicides, off-road vehicles, or foot traffic. The FS is responsible for 

management of non-project-related factors it considers a threat to rare plants on NFS 

lands. 

Finally, we concur that the FS recommendation for investigating the feasibility of 

incorporating prairie cordgrass into biostabilization projects could be beneficial, both in 

terms of erosion control and in helping to expand rare and sensitive plant populations. 

C-314 
5.1.2.13 Aquatic Plant Management 

In section 3.3.4, we noted how specific invasive, non-native aquatic plants can 

have adverse effects on the BCR and the ongoing measures of the PUD and Pend Oreille 

County to manage aquatic weeds in the BCR and PUD’s work with the Water Quality 

Work Group to study the issue. Based on our findings, we make the following 

recommendations. 

We recommend the PUD complete the drawdown and weevil studies currently 

underway and continue to meet with the Water Quality Work Group to finalize the 

Aquatic Plant Management Plan. In our view, consultation with the stakeholders who 

have been participating in the planning process to date will be critical, since the success 

of the plan will depend on broad-based acceptance and active involvement. Since the 

planning process is essentially complete, we recommend the PUD finalize the plan within 

30 days of issuance of any new license, consistent with the conditions of WDOE’s Water 

Quality Certification for the project, and submit the plan to WDOE, EPA, FWS, FS, the 

Tribe, WDFW and IDFG for their review and comment before filing the plan with the 

Commission for approval. The plan should be filed with the Commission within 6 

months of license issuance. Consistent with guidelines developed by WDOE (Gibbons et 

al., 1994), the plan should (1) describe the project area; (2) explain the problem; (3) 

identify management responsibilities and goals; (4) discuss land use, water quality, and 

beneficial use areas; (5) quantify and map the distribution and abundance of aquatic 

vegetation; (6) display management strategies; (7) define control intensities that meet 

management objectives; (8) present an integrated treatment scenario, including plans for 

long-term monitoring; and (9) detail a plan for action, showing a schedule for

implementation, funding requirements, and a mechanism for annual review and revision 

of the plan to incorporate information collected during monitoring efforts. 

The Aquatic Plant Management Plan should include a discussion of the final 

results of the winter drawdown study. However, the PUD should not implement winter 

drawdowns as a regular management practice if the final results of the study show this 

approach is not effective in meeting control objectives or that it has unacceptable adverse

effects on other natural resources. 

In addition to management of milfoil and other aquatic weeds within the project 

area, we recommend the Aquatic Plant Management Plan also include measures to help 

prevent the spread of milfoil to other water bodies outside the project area. We support 

the PUD’s proposal to install and maintain informational signs at PUD-operated boat 

launches. 

5.1.2.14 Terrestrial Weed Management 

In section 3.3.4, we noted that noxious weeds are a growing threat to 

Washington’s environment because of their potential to degrade native plant 

C-315 
communities, out-compete rare species, reduce wildlife habitat values, and reduce 

productivity of agricultural lands. Given this information, we recommend that within 1 

year of license issuance the PUD consult with the FWS, FS, the Tribe, WDFW, IDFG, 

and Pend Oreille County Noxious Weed Control Board to complete the IWMP outlined 

in the PUD’s response to the AIR (PUD, 2001a,b) and file the plan with the Commission 

for approval. Because we anticipate that successful weed control would require a 

cooperative effort by all landowners and land managers around the reservoir, we also 

recommend including local landowners in development of this plan. We recommend this 

plan be implemented within 2 years of license issuance. 

The IWMP should provide for noxious weed surveys and management on all PUD 

lands, PUD-operated campgrounds, at reservoir boat launches, and on NFS lands affected 

by project operation where noxious weeds have been documented as posing a threat to 

rare plant populations, including the seven sites identified to date. In concurrence with 

FS recommendations, we recommend the PUD ensure that the weed control measures to 

be taken on NFS lands are consistent with CNF requirements. 

In contrast with FS recommendations, we recommend the PUD focus 

implementation of weed monitoring and control measures on its own property. However, 

because reservoir fluctuations do affect erosion rates and may create conditions that 

encourage the establishment and spread of noxious weeds, the IWMP should also explain 

how the PUD would contribute to weed management efforts that would be implemented 

on other lands around the BCR, e.g., participation in County Weed Board control and 

education programs. Finally, we recommend the PUD incorporate noxious weed 

monitoring into other programs it will be implementing, where possible, to maximize the 

potential for detection and early treatment. For example, noxious weed monitoring 

should be included as an element within the erosion monitoring program, since eroding 

soils are considered high-probability areas for the establishment of non-native, invasive 

plants. 

5.1.2.15 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement 

Interior, FS, and the Tribe make several recommendations regarding purchase and 

management of land for wildlife habitat mitigation. We conclude in our resource analysis 

that the agencies’ and Tribe’s objectives for improving habitat for waterfowl, native 

amphibians, great blue herons, and other wildlife species could be met at a lower cost 

through the PUD’s management of land already in its ownership at the Everett Island and 

Tacoma Creek WMAs, and through measures that would be implemented at other 

locations around the BCR. 

As part of its management of the WMAs, we recommend the PUD implement 

specific measures to improve habitat for waterfowl and pond-breeding amphibians. 

Other proposed enhancement measures, such as grazing management, wetland plantings,

enhancement of existing deciduous forest stands and planting of additional cottonwood to 

C-316 
improve riparian habitat, would improve habitat for big game, furbearers, great blue 

herons, osprey, and a variety of songbird species, including those designated by FS as 

sensitive or MIS. We conclude that benefits occurring as a result of these measures 

would extend to wildlife using habitat on other lands (including NFS and KIR lands) in 

the Pend Oreille basin. To further ensure that habitat benefits would not be limited to the 

WMAs, we also recommend the PUD integrate guidelines for habitat protection into 

several new resource management plans that would be developed as part of the new 

license, such as erosion, shoreline management, and recreation. In addition, we 

recommend the PUD participate in cooperative projects with the FS, County, private 

landowners, and conservation groups to implement measures to protect rare plants, 

control weeds, retain riparian habitat, and improve nesting opportunities for waterfowl. 

We also recommend the PUD implement a supplemental Cottonwood Enhancement Plan 

to investigate ways to improve cottonwood recruitment around the BCR, and provide 

funding for cottonwood planting (annualized cost $16,500). 

As discussed in section 3.3.4, Interior and the Tribe recommend that the PUD 

reconvene the HEP team and conduct a new HEP to evaluate and mitigate habitat losses 

resulting from project operation during any new license period. We noted that the PUD 

does not propose any changes in project operation or facilities that would result in 

substantial loss of wildlife habitat or reduction in habitat quality at this time. We also 

noted that the types of effects we would anticipate as a result of operation (small, 

scattered in location and time, occurring in a variety of habitats) could not be accurately 

evaluated through the use of a HEP, and would be more effectively addressed through 

erosion control, protection of riparian vegetation, and recreation and shoreline 

management, i.e., by targeting the mechanisms that cause such impacts. However, if the 

FERC Form 80 process and recreation monitoring indicate new recreation facilities 

should be constructed in the future, the PUD should consult with the FWS, FS, Tribe, 

WDFW, and IDFG to develop a plan for evaluation and mitigation of effects (possibly 

through use of HEP) on wildlife and wildlife habitat and file the plan with the 

Commission for approval. The cost of this measure is included in section 4, 

Developmental Analysis, under the Staff Alternative (high range) and is estimated to be 

$20,200. 

With our recommended combination of measures in place, we conclude that 

purchase of additional land, management of NFS lands, or enhancement of KIR lands, is 

not warranted in order to mitigate for project effects on wildlife or wildlife habitat. 

Below, we discuss our specific recommendations for enhancement of bald eagle habitat 

on PUD, NFS, and KIR lands, or other ownerships around the BCR.

5.1.2.16 Effects of Recreation and Residential Development 

As noted in section 3.3.4, growing residential development and increasing 

recreation levels in the project area can have an adverse impact on wildlife and its habitat. 

While the PUD owns and controls very little land around the reservoir, it does have the 

C-317 
authority and responsibility to manage development to some extent through its Shoreline 

Management Plan (section 3.3.6, Land Use and Aesthetics). In developing this plan, we 

anticipate that the PUD would coordinate with the Technical Committee to incorporate 

best management practices to protect wildlife habitat and wildlife. We support the use of 

the shoreline management plan to implement various protective measures for wildlife. In 

addition to best management practices, we recommend the shoreline management plan 

include provisions regarding grazing management, as well as provisions to restrict new 

site development that could affect riparian habitat, wetlands and mature and older forest 

stands; retain large-diameter live trees, standing snags, and dead and down material; 

minimize the size of cleared areas; revegetate cleared areas using native plant species; 

close unnecessary roads, control off-road vehicle use, and schedule construction outside 

the breeding season where sensitive species may be involved. 

Protection of sensitive habitats may also require measures to address potential 

disturbance caused by boaters, waterskiiers, and anglers in the vicinity of bald eagle nests 

during the breeding season. We recommend the PUD work closely with other entities 

having authority over recreation activity on the BCR to coordinate implementation of any 

restrictions that may be needed to support Bald Eagle Nest Site Management Plans. 

5.1.2.17 Waterfowl Habitat 

As discussed in section 3.3.4, our analysis indicates that project effects on groundnesting waterfowl are minor. However, waterfowl are considered an important wildlife, 

recreation, and cultural resource in the Pend Oreille valley. Protection and enhancement 

of riparian and wetland habitat would help to maintain or increase nesting opportunities 

for a number of ground-nesting species, including mallards and Canada geese. 

Therefore, we recommend that the PUD develop and implement a Waterfowl 

Management Plan. To maximize the opportunity for developing an integrated approach 

and to minimize the number of individual plans to be prepared, we recommend the PUD 

incorporate the Waterfowl Management Plan as one element of the Comprehensive 

Wildlife Management Plan. 

The draft Wildlife Management plans for Everett Island and Tacoma Creek 

WMAs include measures that would improve habitat for waterfowl, such as grazing 

control, replanting of degraded pastureland with native grasses, and re-establishment of 

hydrophytic shrubs and trees on wetland margins and river shorelines; the final plan 

should include these elements. The WMAs contain over 400 acres of emergent grassland 

habitat, plus riparian tree and shrub habitats along sloughs and shorelines. With 

enhancement measures in place, these areas could provide high-quality habitat for 

ground-nesting waterfowl. Therefore, we conclude that the Tribe’s recommendation for 

the PUD to purchase an additional 100 acres of habitat for waterfowl and restore 40 acres 

of riparian forest is not warranted. 

C-318 
We concur with the PUD’s proposal to provide funding to support the efforts of 

local conservation groups, school groups, or landowners to design, construct and install 

some nest boxes, but recommend the PUD direct most of the funding originally identified 

for this measure, to habitat protection and enhancement, such as fencing to protect 

existing forested wetlands and planting of cottonwoods, that would eventually provide 

suitable habitat for cavity nesting ducks. This approach would provide some immediate 

benefits, and would help to distribute long-term benefits throughout the project area. The 

PUD should include a schedule for implementation and funding to other entities within 

its Wildlife Management Plan. 

5.1.2.18 Great Blue Heron Habitat 

We noted in section 3.3.4 that the Tribe recommends the PUD purchase or manage 

70 acres of deciduous forest for great blue heron. However, because the fairly recent 

abandonment of two colonies near the BCR appears to have been related to timber 

harvest, not project operation, we do not concur with the Tribe’s recommendation. We 

anticipate that enhancement of at least 87 acres of deciduous and mixed forest within the 

WMAs, cottonwood plantings at other locations around the reservoir, and measures to 

help control shoreline erosion and disturbance at sensitive sites, would meet habitat 

objectives for this species. 

5.1.2.19 Native Amphibian Habitat 

As part of managing the WMAs, the PUD proposes to enhance over 400 acres of 

emergent and wet grassland habitats and construct 16 half-acre ponds to support native 

pond-breeding amphibians, including, in particular, the northern leopard frog. The PUD 

would construct 2 half-acre ponds at each WMA and monitor their operation for 3 years 

before constructing the remaining ponds. The ponds would be designed to maintain 

about 60 percent of each pond at depths between 4 and 40 inches between December and 

March. 

FS, Interior and the Tribe concur with the PUD’s proposals. Interior’s 10(j) 

recommendation and FS’ draft 4(e) recommendation specify that the PUD should control 

water levels in the ponds to eradicate bullfrogs and non-native fish that prey on native 

amphibians. We agree that water level management may be an effective means of 

minimizing bullfrog and non-native fish populations, because bullfrogs and fish require 

year-round water for successful breeding, while northern leopard frogs can reproduce in 

ponds that are temporarily flooded, and are largely terrestrial through late summer and 

fall. It is important to note, however, that well-established bullfrog populations in the 

BCR represent a nearby source of colonization. As discussed in section 3.3.4, removal or 

control of adult or larval stages of bullfrogs has not proven to be successful as a longterm strategy in settings where there is a nearby source population of bullfrogs; 

modification of habitat (i.e., seasonal pond drawdown) is likely to be more effective at 

C-319 
controlling bullfrogs, with fewer unintended effects on other species, than chemical 

controls would be. 

In our view, 3 years of monitoring after the first four ponds are constructed should 

be sufficient to indicate whether the ponds are operating as planned or whether design 

modifications are needed before constructing the remaining ponds. Three years of 

monitoring should also provide information needed to outline a long-term monitoring 

plan for the ponds. We recommend the PUD consult with the Technical Committee to 

develop the plan. The plan should identify specific monitoring methods, performance 

standards, survey and reporting schedules, and provisions for adapting the plan as 

needed. 

5.1.2.20 Bald Eagle Management 

As discussed in section 3.3.5, our analysis indicates that project construction and 

operation have improved foraging opportunities for bald eagles by providing an 

abundance of fish and attracting large numbers of waterfowl, and that these changes in 

the prey base are contributing to increases in the bald eagle population along the BCR. 

The agencies and Tribe expressed concern that while habitat may be adequate at the 

current time, project operations, low cottonwood recruitment, and increases in recreation 

and shoreline development could reduce the number of suitable nest stands and perch 

sites and prevent the establishment of replacement habitat needed to support bald eagle 

populations in the future. 

To address these concerns, we are recommending the PUD consult with the 

agencies and Tribe to develop an overall Bald Eagle Management Plan for the Box 

Canyon Project to provide a comprehensive approach for several measures related to bald 

eagles. The following should be included as part of the overall Bald Eagle Management 

Plan: 

• Consultation with the agencies and affected landowners in developing 

individual Nest Site Management Plans for established nest stands, preferred 

perches, winter roosts, and foraging areas for bald eagle pairs that nest on lands

within the project boundary and for pairs that nest nearby, but that rely on the 

BCR as a foraging areas. Cooperative management plans should identify 

which entities are responsible for managing various aspects of disturbance, 

because management authority may overlap to a great degree between entities 

(e.g., the PUD, the Corps, WDFW, Pend Oreille County or Bonner County). 

• Two years of survey at each known nest site within the project boundary to 

provide data needed to develop Nest Site Management Plans. 

• Annual surveys during the breeding season to monitor both nesting and nest 

productivity; annual surveys in winter to document winter use; and surveys to 

investigate establishment of new nests. Annual reports should be prepared to 

C-320 
track changes in bald eagle populations and productivity; compare results with 

survey information collected on osprey, great blue heron, and double-crested 

cormorant populations; identify areas of resource conflict; and define any 

necessary changes in management. 

• Incorporation of protection measures (i.e., best management practices) into the 

Shoreline Management Plan, the Recreation Management Plan, the Erosion 

Control Plan, and emphasis on bald eagle habitat as part of landowner 

education about protection of riparian habitat. 

• Provision of signage and brochures at project-related recreation sites to educate 

visitors about the need to protect bald eagles from disturbance. 

In addition to these measures, we evaluated agency and Tribal recommendations 

that were aimed at providing additional nest and perch habitat in the project area through 

any new license period. As discussed in section 3.3.5, we reviewed current nest densities 

in the project area and compared them to data presented in the literature (Stalmaster, 

1987; Grubb, as cited in USDI, 1986; MBEWG, 1991), estimates of nesting densities for 

eastern Washington (Stinson et al., 2001), and more locally, estimates for the Pend 

Oreille between the Clark Fork and Albeni Falls dam (FWS letter dated August 18, 

2004). Based on this information, we concluded that the likelihood of the project area 

supporting any additional nesting pairs is low; bald eagles are highly territorial during the 

breeding season, and density-dependent factors may limit populations, regardless of 

habitat abundance. However, because this is a listed species, because there is some 

potential to support additional pairs, and because habitat management may also improve 

habitat quality for other wildlife species of importance in the project area, we recommend 

implementation of certain silvicultural treatments that are intended to establish new 

habitat or to accelerate the development of suitable characteristics in existing, mature 

stands. 

We do not recommend creation of snags or installation of artificial snags. We 

have seen no evidence that snags are necessary for bald eagle perching. As discussed in 

section 3.3.5, a study of bald eagles in the Lower Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille 

showed that 85 percent of the bald eagles observed as they perched were documented to 

be using live trees, while less than 10 percent were observed in snags (Crenshaw, 1987). 

Also as discussed in section 3.3.4 and 3.3.5, large-diameter live trees are not overly 

abundant along the shoreline; recruitment of new shoreline trees is apparently low; and 

there is a potential to lose existing shoreline trees to erosion. We recommend protection 

of riparian habitat, including, in particular, large-diameter live trees. We also recommend 

protection of existing snags, because of their importance to a multitude of wildlife species 

that use them for foraging, roosting, nesting, and denning. We conclude that natural 

regeneration, natural succession, improvement of shoreline management, erosion control, 

public education about riparian habitat protection, public information to promote bald 

C-321 
eagle awareness, and implementation of the Cottonwood Enhancement Program should 

provide an adequate number of perch trees (live trees or snags) in the future. 

We concur with FS draft 4(e) condition no. 11, items 3a, 3b, and 3c that would be 

implemented on NFS lands adjacent to the project. We do not concur with item 3d, 

which calls for creation of additional snags by chainsaw topping or top-girdling selected 

conifer trees. 

We do not concur with FS draft 4(e) condition no. 11, items 1 or 2. Item 1 would 

require the PUD to acquire management control of lands providing or capable of 

providing 13.5 acres of cottonwood forest along the northern half of the reservoir, with 

the highest priority being to protect an existing nest stand at the mouth of Lost Creek. 

Item 2 would require the PUD to consult with FS in developing a habitat management 

plan for the property(s). We conclude that these items would duplicate measures we are 

already recommending, which call for the PUD to consult with the agencies and Tribe to 

develop an overall Bald Eagle Management Plan for the project, and to work with local 

landowners to develop individual Nest Site Management Plans. 

We concur with Interior’s consolidated 10(j) measures no. 12, 13, and 16, with the 

exception of the recommendation to create perch sites. Interior’s recommended measures 

would be implemented on tribal, public or private land along the reservoir between RM 

47 and RM 90, through acquisition in fee title, through conservation easements, or 

through management agreements. 

Finally, we recommend incorporating bald eagle protection measures into the 

Shoreline Management Plan. FWS indicates these protection measures should be 

consistent with guidelines contained in the Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan 

(MBEWG, 1994) that are commonly applied in northeastern Washington and northern 

Idaho (letter from the FWS, dated August 18, 2004). 

With these measures in place, which total $13,700 per year, we conclude that the 

project would affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the bald eagle. 

5.1.2.21 Recreation 

We agree with the majority of recreational enhancements proposed by the PUD, as 

they would meet identified needs and/or enhance recreation within the project area. 

Additionally, we endorse a limited number of agency recommendations that total $61,000 

in annualized cost. 

Recreation Resource Management Plan 

As noted in section 3.3.7.2, we find that an RRMP for the project would provide 

public recreational benefits. For this reason, we recommend adoption of PUD’s proposed 

RRMP with FS’s specification (FS 4[e] 6) for development and implementation of the 

C-322 
RRMP. As specified by the FS, the RRMP should include an implementation schedule 

and coordination procedures. The RRMP should be prepared in consultation with the FS, 

Tribe, and Interior. The total annualized cost of RRMP measures is estimated to be 

$61,000. 

We concur with the remaining portion of FS conditions 4(e) 6.3, with 4(e) 6.3.b, 

and with 4(e) 6.3.c. The FERC Form 80 requirement provides a means to evaluate 

changing recreational needs at all project facilities every 6 years over the term of the new 

license. As part of the FERC Form 80 requirement, the PUD should develop and 

implement an ongoing process for evaluation of recreation use, preferences, and trends. 

This recreation evaluation effort should make use of National Visitor Use Monitoring 

Project data, which provide statistically reliable estimates of visitor use within the CNF 

and other national forests. These data are intended to assist with federal land 

management planning efforts. User data exceeding 90 percent of capacity (measured as 

the higher of the two averages for peak season weekdays or weekend days surveyed) 

should be used to trigger PUD development of additional appropriate facilities within the 

project area. At use levels exceeding 90 percent of capacity, visitors may feel crowded, 

vegetation may be damaged, and soils may be compacted/eroded. These effects can be 

mitigated by making improvements to the existing facility, shifting use to a similar 

facility, or developing a new facility. 

The FERC Form 80 requirement provides a means to evaluate changing 

recreational needs at all project facilities every 6 years over the term of the new license. 

Therefore, we agree with Interior (4[e] 13.E) that the PUD should conduct recreation 

surveys at the Pow Wow Grounds, Kalispel Boat Launch, Manresa Grotto Beach, and 

other Project-related recreation facilities during the term of the license and any 

subsequent annual licenses. The PUD should complete the surveys in sufficient time to 

include the prior year’s peak season recreation data in the Form 80 submission to FERC 

(Interior 4[e] 13.E.1). The PUD should use on-site observations and interviews to 

ascertain facility occupancy, use trends, and visitor preference information at the abovenamed recreation sites, and should include in its surveys a minimum of two non-holiday

weekend days, two weekdays in July, and two of the same weekdays in August (Interior 

4[e] 13.E.2). Lastly, the incorporation of recreation use survey data into that year’s 

Annual Report as specified by Interior would allow the public easy access to recreation 

survey information. Because the Annual Report is already being published, we find that 

no additional costs should result from implementation of Interior condition 4(e) 13.E.3. 

Recreation Enhancement Measures 

PUD-proposed boating, day-use, and camping enhancements would meet 

identified needs for such facilities. We conclude that these measures are reasonable and 

recommend that they be adopted in any new license issued for the project. 

As noted in section 3.3.7.2, existing FS campgrounds are in adequate condition,

currently experiencing low to moderate levels of use, and not expected to be used at 

C-323 
levels requiring expansions or new development. Therefore, we do not support FS 

condition 4(e) 6.2, which specifies that the PUD provide the level of O&M necessary to 

ensure that FS developed recreation site standards are met and that the PUD develop an 

O&M schedule for Edgewater, Panhandle, and Pioneer Park campgrounds. However, if 

trigger points that indicate a need to develop more and/or different recreation facilities 

are reached at these FS recreation sites during the next license period, we recommend 

that the PUD provide for appropriate expansion of and/or development of new facilities 

on NFS lands, or as agreed to with the FS. The annualized cost of these facilities is 

included in section 4, Developmental Analysis, under the Staff Alternative (high range) 

and is estimated to be $24,800. 

We are not aware of any demand data that supports the need for a campground or 

associated facilities at the Pow Wow Grounds. In addition, public access to the Pow 

Wow Grounds is limited. Therefore, we do not support Interior 4(e) condition no. 13 

regarding funding for the construction (13.A), daily O&M (13.B), major O&M (13.C), or 

potential expansion (13.F) of these facilities. 

5.1.2.22 Land Use and Aesthetics 

Permits for NFS Lands 

We endorse obtaining permits for all activities on NFS lands because such permits 

are required (annualized cost $18,200). 

Shoreline Management Plan 

As noted in section 3.3.6.2, PUD has a responsibility to control the lands 

surrounding the BCR and that shoreline development and use is expected to increase over 

time. A Shoreline Management Plan would meet these challenges by coordinating and 

guiding the shoreline activities of the various owners. Therefore, we agree with the FS 

(recommendation 10[a] 2) that the PUD prepare and implement a Shoreline Management 

Plan for all lands, including those managed by the FS, within the Box Canyon Project 

boundaries. The annualized cost of this measure is estimated to be $21,800. 

5.1.2.23 Socioeconomics 

The proposed and recommended measures would have some effect on 

socioeconomic resources in Pend Oreille County. Based on the existing contractual 

agreements between PUD and PNC, the costs of the proposed and recommended 

measures would be borne by the fiber mill up to the point at which it would purchase 

alternative power or close. From our analysis of available data, we estimate that the cost 

of electricity purchased by PNC would increase approximately 10.5 percent under the 

PUD Proposal, 13.6 percent under the Staff Alternative, 24.0 percent under the Staff 

Alternative (high range), and 30.9 percent under the Composite Scenario. 

C-324 
It is unlikely that a 10.5 to 13.6 percent increase in the fiber mill’s annual 

electricity costs associated with either the PUD Proposal or the Staff Alternative would 

have significant direct effects on the mill. If PNC were to absorb all of the costs of the 

relatively small rate increase associated with these alternatives, then there would be 

negligible direct, indirect, or induced effects on the socioeconomic resources of the 

county. 

The Staff Alternative (high range) would have small to moderate effects on 

socioeconomic resources in Pend Oreille County. It may be possible for PUD to pass on 

the costs of our recommended environmental measures without unduly burdening one 

class of rate payers. While it is possible that the entire value of the Staff Alternative 

(high range) could be absorbed by PNC, and PUD’s industrial rates would remain below 

the alternative cost of power, a 24.0 percent increase in the cost of electricity could affect 

the firm’s output, profitability, purchases, and, possibly, employment. Starting with the 

fiber mill, these impacts could move through the local and regional economy with 

disproportionate effects on low-income and fixed-income residents. 

The electricity rate increase associated with implementing the Composite Scenario 

could have moderate to large adverse effects on the socioeconomic resources in Pend 

Oreille County. If PNC were unable to absorb the additional costs of the agencies’ 

specified measures, and residential rates increase, the effects could be disproportionately 

felt by low-income and fixed income populations. Measurements of the quantitative 

extent of these effects are beyond the scope of this analysis, but even modest job losses, 

reduced disposable income and consumer spending, and reduced industrial output would 

further depress the already depressed economic conditions of the county. 

After considering the tradeoffs between adverse effects on socioeconomic 

resources and environmental resource enhancements, we conclude that our recommended 

measures represent a balance between competing interests. Our recommended measures 

would have an insignificant to small effect on socioeconomic resources, while protecting 

aquatic, terrestrial, and recreational environmental resource values. In the short term, the 

costs of our recommendation would increase industrial rates. However, the county’s 

industrial rates would remain well below the cost of alternative power, and the additional 

costs borne by PNC would represent a relatively small percentage of its annual operating 

budget. Given the environmental benefits that would accrue from our recommended 

measures, the cost for these measures is reasonable. Over time, we believe that 

improvements to environmental resources would be somewhat advantageous to 

socioeconomic resources as additional dollars from angling, recreation and tourism are 

spent within the county. 

5.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY 

We identified soils and geology, water quantity and quality, aquatic resources, 

recreational use and access, land use management, terrestrial resources (riparian, wildlife, 

wetlands, sensitive plants), cultural resources and socioeconomics, as resources that may 

C-325 
be affected in a cumulative manner by the proposed relicensing of the Box Canyon 

Project. 

The Box Canyon Project is located in a system that has been intensively developed 

for hydropower, with seven dams on the main stem or tributaries upstream of Box 

Canyon, and three dams downstream before the Pend Oreille River reaches the Columbia. 

Each of these developments contributes to cumulative changes in geomorphology, 

hydrology, aquatic macrophyte abundance, and fish species diversity. Many of these 

changes negatively affect natural riverine processes that support riparian and wetland 

habitats, and which in turn support unique plant and wildlife communities. 

5.2.1 Cumulative Effects on Soils and Geology 

Erosion is an ongoing process that occurs at all water levels and will continue to 

occur with time. Measures to reduce project-caused erosion, such as controlling the rate 

of reservoir drawdown, and remediation of project-caused erosion, would reduce 

cumulative adverse effects along the reservoir shoreline. Measures to manage shoreline 

development and recreation activities would result in a reduction in the adverse effects of 

erosion associated with those activities, as would public education efforts by the POCD. 

5.2.2 Cumulative Effects on Water Quantity and Quality 

There are numerous dams in the Pend Oreille River basin that elevate TDG levels 

throughout the river’s course. In many cases, the morphology of the channel does not 

allow the river to dissipate all of the supersaturated gas prior to reaching the next dam

downstream, and TDG levels accumulate as the water flows downstream. The BCD is 

one such situation. Water flowing over Albeni Falls dam and into the BCR during flows 

of 50,000 to 70,000 cfs has elevated TDG levels, which are as high as 115 percent when

they reach the Box Canyon forebay. When water overtops the Box Canyon spillway, it 

forces even more gas into solution resulting in even higher levels downstream of the dam

and in the Boundary forebay. Although our recommended measures would reduce the 

frequency that TDG exceeds 110 percent, elevated TDG levels would still occur 

downstream of the BCD and in the Boundary forebay. Depending on TDG abatement 

measures implemented at the three dams downstream of the BCD (i.e., Boundary, Seven 

Mile, and Waneta), TDG levels may further increase prior to reaching the Columbia 

River. Currently, Seven Mile dam strips some of the gas from the water flowing through 

its spillway, although TDG levels in water passed through its turbines remain virtually 

unchanged. 

At Hungry Horse dam, located on a tributary upstream of Box Canyon, the Corps 

recommends reducing wintertime drawdown to ensure reservoir refill and to provide 

higher spring flows, which would come closer to natural snowmelt runoff conditions in 

the river. If implemented, the recommendation would likely result in more inundation in 

the Box Canyon vicinity, losses in hydroelectric generation, and potential adverse effects 

on TDG and other water quality parameters (e.g., increased turbidity from bank erosion). 

These effects are predicted to be the most noticeable in the month of June. 

C-326 
The PUD proposes some operational and structural changes during the new 

licensing period related to the installation of upgraded, higher capacity turbines and 

auxiliary spillway gates. These turbines would reduce spillage and increase generation 

flows delivered downstream and should result in a beneficial change in TDG. Use of 

auxiliary spillway gates that release submerged flow would reduce the amount of water 

overtopping the BCD and thereby reduce the addition of gases into the water column. 

However, these abatement measures may not be sufficient to overcome the changes 

induced by VAR Q (see section 3.3.3.2). 

We conclude that there would be value in the PUD consulting the WDOE, EPA, 

Tribe, and Transboundary Gas Group to assess the role that the Box Canyon Project 

continues to have on cumulative TDG effects in the Pend Oreille River basin after the 

proposed TDG abatement measures have been completed (i.e., turbine upgrades and spill 

gate installation). Following consultation with the agencies, the PUD should develop a 

detailed report on the fate of TDG from the Box Canyon Project to Lake Roosevelt and 

file it with the Commission. The report should evaluate the need for additional TDG 

abatement measures, describe the possible measures to be implemented and evaluate the 

cost effectiveness of those measures. The report should be kept up to date as major new 

TDG measures are implemented in the basin or as improved TDG data or new 

technologies for TDG abatement become available. 

5.2.3 Cumulative Effects on Aquatic Resources 

During the past century, hydroelectric development, agriculture, timber harvest, 

road construction, residential development, mining, and flood control have all had a 

cumulative adverse effect on aquatic resources in the Pend Oreille River basin. These 

activities have resulted in the fragmentation of migratory fish populations, increased 

summer water temperatures, and degraded water quality. Combined with the 

introduction of non-native species of fish and aquatic plants, they have contributed to the 

decline, and in some cases lack of recovery, of native fish species in the basin. 

The Staff Alternative, combined with other federal, state, and Tribal fishery 

enhancement/recovery efforts occurring in the basin, would reduce project-related 

adverse effects on aquatic resources and contribute to the potential recovery of federally 

threatened and candidate fish species. The additional fish movement and/or entrainment 

studies included in the Staff Alternative would contribute to a better understanding of fish 

movement in the basin and may eventually lead to the implementation of permanent fish 

passage facilities at BCD and CCPP. If deemed appropriate based on study results, fish 

passage facilities would re-establish habitat connectivity in the project area, increase the 

amount of available habitat for migratory fish populations (i.e., bull trout and cutthroat 

trout), and decrease entrainment related mortality. Habitat restoration and the funding of 

other recovery measures would contribute to future native salmonid restoration in the 

lower Pend Oreille River. 

C-327 
5.2.4 Cumulative Effects on Terrestrial Resources 

Important terrestrial resources in the project area include extensive flood plain 

wetlands, valuable stands of cottonwood remaining along the reservoir margin, a rich 

diversity of sensitive and rare plant species, and habitat that supports large numbers of 

migrant waterfowl and a growing population of bald eagles, osprey, great blue heron and 

double-crested cormorant. Box Canyon’s operation as an ROR facility minimizes its 

adverse effects on these resources. 

Activities, such as timber harvest, grazing, road and railway construction and 

residential development since first settlement in 1800s, have resulted in the loss of oldgrowth conifer forests along sideslopes in the Pend Oreille valley, conversion of 

bottomland riparian forests to open agricultural fields, diking and draining of wetlands, 

and habitat fragmentation. 

In addition to its negative effects, development of hydropower in the basin has 

likely resulted in cumulative benefits to bald eagles and other piscivorous birds by 

creating new habitat and abundant forage resources. 

Measures to manage shoreline development and recreation activities, reduce and 

repair erosion, control noxious terrestrial and aquatic weeds, and enhance wildlife habitat 

in the project area would help support cumulative benefits and offset cumulative adverse 

impacts in the Pend Oreille River basin. Such measures would be consistent with 

projects being implemented by other entities in the basin. 

5.2.5 Cumulative Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species 

The Staff Alternative, including measures to enhance aquatic habitat, in 

combination with federal, state, and Tribal fishery enhancement/recovery efforts 

occurring in the basin, would reduce project-related adverse effects on aquatic resources 

and provide cumulative benefits to bull trout during the term of the license. Bald eagles 

rely to a large extent on warmwater fish species and waterfowl for forage in settings 

where salmon do not provide a concentrated food source. The reservoir supports an 

abundance of fish species and provides resting and foraging habitat for large numbers of 

waterfowl. For these reasons, the Box Canyon Project contributes to cumulative benefits 

for bald eagles as regional populations recover. With measures in place to improve 

riparian habitat and minimize disturbance to nesting birds, the project should continue to 

provide cumulative benefits to bald eagles over the long term. 

5.2.6 Cumulative Effects on Land Use and Aesthetics 

Over the period of the new license, small-scale residential developments and 

resorts would be expected to increase in number within the Box Canyon Project area. 

The Staff Alternative includes the development of a Coordinated Shoreline Management 

Plan that would minimize poorly planned development and its effects on Box Canyon 

Project resources. 

C-328 
Recreation and other developments to take place under the Staff Alternative would 

slightly increase the amount of disturbance (relative to existing conditions) visible from 

the BCR and surrounding areas. 

5.2.7 Cumulative Effects on Recreation Resources 

We have identified significant positive effects on recreational resources and 

opportunities from staff-recommended actions compared with the PUD Proposal or the 

No-action Alternative for the Box Canyon Project. The staff-recommended new 

recreation facilities would increase recreational opportunities in the basin and enhance 

recreationists experience of the natural resources. 

5.2.8 Cumulative Effects on Cultural Resources 

As discussed in section 3.3.6.3, Cumulative Effects on Land Use and Aesthetics, 

we would expect future development and increased informal recreational use along the 

BCR shoreline. To the extent that these activities involve ground disturbance, they could 

affect cultural resources. Under the No-action Alternative, new development could harm

archaeological sites. PUD’s proposed HPMP would provide an opportunity to identify 

exclusionary zones as well as a mechanism to review ground-disturbing activities to 

ensure that archaeological sites are not unnecessarily harmed. 

5.2.9 Cumulative Effects on Socioeconomic Resources 

The socioeconomic conditions in Pend Oreille County are similar to other rural 

counties in Washington and neighboring states. The economy is based on service and 

natural resource extraction and processing. Job opportunities tend to be fewer than in 

urban areas and tend to fluctuate with the economic conditions of regional and national 

resources markets. Unemployment and poverty tend to be higher than state averages. 

Socioeconomic resources in Pend Oreille County have benefited from low-cost electricity 

generated at Box Canyon and sold to both private and industrial consumers. PNC and 

other manufacturing and mining facilities take advantage of the low-cost power and are 

able to provide jobs and to purchase supplies from the region. Employment and 

purchases at these private firms have improved the socioeconomic conditions of the 

county. Residents of the county benefit from low cost power by having additional 

financial resources to spend on other goods and services. 

The PUD Proposal and the Staff Alternative would raise the cost of Box Canyon 

electricity marginally. The socioeconomic conditions in the county would continue to 

benefit from low-cost power. 

The Staff Alternative (high range) and the Composite Scenario would have 

moderate to large adverse effects on socioeconomic conditions in the county. As 

industrial electricity rates increase, industrial output and the firm’s profitability and 

employment would decline. Socioeconomic effects on the county would be magnified if 

both industrial and residential rates increase. County residents, already affected by job 

C-329 
losses associated with changes in employment at the fiber mill, would experience a 

decrease in disposable income, which would decrease purchases of goods and services in 

the county. Over time, it is possible that some of these impacts would be offset by 

recreational benefits gained from proposed measures. For example, improvements to 

camping areas and improvements to the fishery could attract tourists, anglers, and other 

recreationists from outside of Pend Oreille County. Increases in tourism as a result of 

environmental enhancements may increase purchases made in the county and could 

benefit socioeconomic conditions. 

5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY 10(j) RECOMMENDATIONS 

Under the provisions of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the 

Commission would include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal 

and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection of, mitigation of damage to, and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. 

Section 10(j) of the FPA states that whenever the Commission finds that any fish 

and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and requirements 

of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall attempt to 

resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and 

statutory responsibilities of such agency. This is usually achieved at a 10(j) dispute 

resolution meeting, which in this case was held June 29, 2004, with representatives from 

the PUD, FWS, WDFW, BIA, PNC, Washington’s Attorney General’s Office, and the 

Commission staff participating. 

In response to our REA notice, issued September 4, 2001, WDFW and IDFG, and 

Interior (FWS) filed recommendations under Section 10(j) of the FPA, for the Box 

Canyon Project. These are summarized in table 47. In addition, the table displays our 

conclusion as to whether each recommendation is within the scope of Section 10(j), our 

estimate of the annual cost of each of these recommendations, and our decision about 

whether or not to adopt each recommendation under the Staff Alternative. When we do 

not adopt a recommendation, we explain our rationale. Recommendations that we 

consider outside the scope of Section 10(j) have been considered under Section 10(a) of 

the FPA and are addressed in the specific resource sections of this document. 

C-330 
Table 47. Fish and wildlife agency Section 10(j) recommendations. (Source: Staff) 

No. Recommendation Agency

Within 

the 

scope of 

10(j) ?

Annualized 

cost Staff recommending?

1 Lower the elevation of BCR 

pool during fall, winter, and 

spring to provide riverine 

conditions in the Idaho 

portion of the BCR for 

fisheries enhancement.

IDFG-1 Yes $2.9 million 

(energy)

No. This portion of the 

Pend Oreille runs in a 

deep channel with low 

gradient, which would 

not yield much freeflowing habitat if 

lowered. Also the 

brown trout study

indicates that lower 

levels would be of little 

benefit to fishery

resources. Therefore 

this measure is not 

justifiable.

2 Limit rate of drawdown of 

BCR to 3 inches per hour as 

measured at BCDa

Interior-6 Yes $6,800 

(energy)

$2,600 

(other)

Yes. A drawdown rate 

of 3 inches per hour is 

consistent with Interior 

4(e) condition.

3 Compliance with applicable 

federal, state, and Tribal 

WQ standards

Interior-1 

and 

WDFW8c

No $1,369,300 Partial.c Not fully

supported at this time 

since benefits not 

demonstrable. Do not

support project 

shutdown to eliminate 

project-caused 

violations of the TDG 

standard. Instead, 

support development of 

UAA if violations of 

the TDG standard 

continue.

4 Water quality monitoring 

program: establish annual 

WQ monitoring within 1 

year

Interior-2 Yes $212,700 Yes.c Partially 

duplicative of Interior 

4(e) 4 and proposed by

PUD. See item 3.

5 Use modeling to upgrade 

technology

WDFW-8 Nob $0 Yes. Adopt under 

10(a). Partially 

duplicative of 4(e) 4

C-331 
No. Recommendation Agency

Within 

the 

scope of 

10(j) ?

Annualized 

cost Staff recommending?

6 Trimble Creek riparian 

habitat management: within 

1 year, install a staff gage in 

Trimble Creek within the 

Cusick Unit of the Little 

Pend Oreille National 

Wildlife Refuge

Interior-3 Yes $100 Yes. 

7 Aquatic habitat restoration: 

within 5 years quantify and 

provide funding for 

mainstem Pend Oreille 

River and tributary

restoration (below elevation 

2041.0 feet msl)

Interior-4 Yes $154,300 Partially. (See item 8 

below). Duplicative of 

Interior 4(e) 6 (TARP). 

We recommend a lower 

level of funding.

8 Within 1 year, develop and

implement plans for 

restoration of resident fish 

habitat in that portion of the 

Pend Oreille river and 

tributaries affected by BCD

WDFW-7 Yes Yes. Duplicative of 

Interior 4(e)-6. See 

item 7 above.

9 Fish passage: phased 

installation of 

upstream/downstream fish 

passage at BCD and CCPP

WDFW-9 Yes Partial.c Not 

recommended at this 

time because need is 

not demonstrable.

10 Analyze effectiveness of 

fish-friendly turbines

Interior-5 Yes $0 Resolved. Withdrawn 

June 20, 2004.

11 Establish funding for 

contingency plan and for 

development of fish passage 

at BCD

IDFG-3 Yes $259,300 No. 

12 Fund $25,000 annually for 

operation of the Colville fish 

hatchery for production of

native salmonids

WDFW10Yes $25,000 No. Instead will 

increase funding for the 

THRP (Interior 4(e)-6).

13 Provide $100,000 to

revitalize an existing cold 

water hatchery and $75,000

annually for the production

of native salmonids 

WDFW10 

New 

No $76,700 No. This is a 

completely new 

recommendation made 

August 18, 2004 

(untimely). 

14 Bald eagle nest monitoring: 

annual monitoring of all 

known nests

Interior-9 

and 

WDFW-3

Yes $2,000 Yes.

15 Bald Eagle Nest 

Management Plan: monitor 

actual use for 2 seasons

Interior10Yes $2,900 Yes.

16 Conduct surveys for new 

bald eagle nests

Interior11Yes $3,200 Yes.

C-332 
No. Recommendation Agency

Within 

the 

scope of 

10(j) ?

Annualized 

cost Staff recommending?

17 Mature forest stand 

management for bald eagles

Interior12 (now 

combined 

with 

Interior 

13 and 

16)

Yes $500 Partial. Recommend 

identification and 

management of 

potential nest stands. 

18 Forest stand treatment for 

bald eagles: within 5 years 

evaluate potential nesting 

habitat and develop plan to

improve

Interior13 (now 

combined 

with 

Interior 

12 and 

16)

Yes $1,800 Partial. Recommend 

identification and 

management of 

potential nest stands. 

19 Bald eagle awareness 

program: within 1 year 

develop and implement 

education program

Interior14Yes $6,500 Partial. Signage or 

materials at existing 

recreation sites 

sufficient. Separate 

program not justified.

20 Forest stand expansion to

improve bald eagle habitat

Interior15Yes $0 Yes. Covered by

proposed planting in

PUD’s WMAs.

21 Bald eagle perch and snag 

management: within 3 years 

install artificial perches or 

snags where not already 

present

Interior16 (now 

combined 

with 

Interior 

12 and 

13)

Yes $6,300 No. No evidence perch 

habitat is limiting or 

that snags are needed.

22 Grizzly bear awareness 

program: within 1 year 

develop and implement 

grizzly bear information and 

education program.

Interior24Yes $1,300 Partial. Limited to 

posters and brochures 

for distribution at 

recreation sites.

23 Commencing at license 

issuance, provide funds to 

develop, operate and 

maintain wildlife area lands 

designated under Term No. 

9 of Settlement Agreement

Interior-7 

and 

WDFW-1

Yes $102,200 Yes. Consistent with 

PUD’s WMAs.

24 Reconvene HEP team to 

analyze habitat losses 

anticipated to occur during 

the term of any new license

issued and mitigate for 

losses

Interior-8 Yes $108,000 No. No actions 

proposed that would 

alter or degrade habitat, 

and HEP not 

appropriate for 

analyzing anticipated 

types of effects.

C-333 
No. Recommendation Agency

Within 

the 

scope of 

10(j) ?

Annualized 

cost Staff recommending?

25 Peregrine falcon habitat 

management: commencing

with license issuance 

develop plans and conduct 

breeding surveys for 

peregrine falcon

Interior17 (W)Yes $700 Resolved. Withdrawn 

November 21, 2002.

26 Osprey monitoring: conduct 

population and nest surveys

Interior18 and 

WDFW-4

Yes $16,000 Yes. Duplicative of 

4(e) 19.

27 Great gray owl habitat 

management: within 5 years 

develop and implement a 

plan to improve habitat, 

including creation of at least 

10 nest trees for great gray 

owl

Interior19 (W)Yes $8,200 Resolved. Withdrawn 

June 29, 2004.

28 Great blue heron 

monitoring: conduct annual 

nest counts

Interior20 and 

WDFW-6

Yes $3,200 Yes.

29 Double-crested cormorant 

monitoring: conduct annual 

nest counts

Interior21 and 

WDFW-5

Yes $0 Yes. Duplicative 

FS 4(e)-19 and 

proposed by PUD.

30 Waterfowl management: 

within 4 years implement a 

management program to 

provide more favorable 

nesting conditions for 

waterfowl

Interior22Yes $0 Yes. Covered by

PUD’s WMAs and 

funding to interested 

participants. 

31 Minimize avian collision 

and electrocution hazards

Interior23Nob $1,000 Resolved. Withdrawn 

November 21, 2002.

32 Native amphibian habitat 

management: within 4 years 

develop and implement a 

management plan for 

wetlands to restore or 

enhance habitat for native 

amphibians 

Interior25Yes $0 Yes. Covered by

PUD’s WMAs and 

cottonwood

enhancement program.

33 Cottonwood management: 

within 3 years develop and

implement a cottonwood

program to increase and 

sustain at least 69 acres of 

cottonwood

Interior26 and 

WDFW-2

Yes $0 Yes. Covered by

PUD’s WMAs and 

Cottonwood

Enhancement Program. 

C-334 
No. Recommendation Agency

Within 

the 

scope of 

10(j) ?

Annualized 

cost Staff recommending?

34 Noxious weed management

program: within 3 years 

develop and implement an 

Integrated Noxious Weed 

Management Plan

Interior27Yes $0 Yes. Consistent with 

PUD Proposal.

35 Fund 225 labor hours per 

year to patrol BCR for 

enforcement and protection 

of fish and wildlife

WDFW11Nob $9,200 Resolved. Withdrawn 

November 21, 2002.

36 Establish technical 

committee dealing with 

environmental issues

IDFG-4 Nob $66,200 Yes. 

a FWS 4(e) stipulated a drawdown rate of 3 inches per hour as measured at the USGS gage near Ione 

(headwater). 

b Not a specific measure to mitigate, protect or enhance fish and wildlife resources considered under 

Section 10(a) of the FPA. 

c This measure is subject to adaptive management. The Commission’s endorsement and 

implementation of the measure(s) depends on additional supporting information such as species 

population recovery and/or additional monitoring and/or study results. 

d PUD proposes to re-establish the Technical Committee to review, monitor and adaptively manage 

proposed environmental measures (not exclusively those pertaining to fish and wildlife) under new 

license. It did not propose to include IDFG. 

In the draft EIS, we made a preliminary determination under Section 10(j) of the 

FPA that our recommendations in this assessment are not consistent with three of those 

filed by the WDFW as shown in table 47. We did not consider the funding of a person to

patrol BCR to be a fish and wildlife measure, nor the need for enforcement to be solely 

attributable to project operations. We were, therefore, unable to recommend adoption of 

WDFW’s recommendation no. 11. Subsequently, by letter dated November 21, 2002, 

WDFW withdrew this recommendation. 

We did not recommend fish passage at BCD or CCPP (WDFW 10(j) 9) at that 

time because not only had the need not been demonstrated but also the costs were very 

high both in expenditure and lost energy for unproven environmental benefits. We have 

not altered this position. 

In the draft EIS, we supported the PUD providing $25,000 per year to the Colville 

fish hatchery. However, subsequent to the release of the draft EIS, WDFW 

recommended additional funding for fish hatchery revitalization ($100,000) and annual 

funding ($75,000) for the production of native salmonids. We feel the PUD’s proposal to 

fund the Colville fish hatchery (or other appropriate facility) on an annual basis, in 

combination with funds generated from the TRF should be adequate to produce the 

C-335 
number of salmonids needed for supplementation in BCR and its tributaries. 

Subsequently, following the June 29, 2004, conference call and WDFW’s letter of 

August 18, 2004, staff concluded that additional funding was not warranted. 

We also could not adopt WDFW’s original 10(j) 8, which would have had the 

PUD maintain TDG at 105 percent, a level below the state water quality standard of 110 

percent and outside the scope of 10(j). Subsequently, by letter dated November 21, 2002, 

WDFW revised its recommendation to conform to the WDOE water quality standard. 

In the draft EIS, staff’s recommendations were consistent with those filed by the 

IDFG with two exceptions: its proposal to draw down the BCR for three seasons of the 

year to restore free-flow (riverine) conditions in the Idaho portion of the reach to enhance 

trout spawning was not recommended for adoption. The annual cost of this measure 

would be about $3 million per year in lost energy, not justified by the modest and 

unconfirmed habitat improvement. This recommendation was inconsistent with the 

comprehensive planning standard of Section 10(a) of the FPA. We still feel this is the 

case, and IDFG has provided no additional support for its position. 

We also did not endorse IDFG 10(j) 3 because the need for fish passage has not 

yet been demonstrated as described above. We did, however, recommend that the need 

be investigated through monitoring and, if confirmed, consideration then be given to the 

installation of fish passage. 

In the draft EIS, we did not recommend adopting several of Interior’s

recommendations relating to bald eagle. As Interior pointed out, bald eagle populations 

have increased in the project area over the past 10 years. We could see no evidence that 

the number of suitable nest stands, perch trees and snags along the BCR shoreline is 

limiting bald eagle populations or that specific habitat improvements would be beneficial. 

By letter dated November 21, 2002, FWS consolidated its Section 10(j) recommendation 

nos. 12, 13, and 16. We still felt these measures were unjustified and did not recommend 

adopting them. Following a telephone discussion in June 2004, FWS continued to 

recommend these measures (letter dated August 18, 2004), but with some modifications 

(i.e., increasing the creation of perch sites from two to four and reducing the number of 

snag trees from 17 to five at each site selected. FWS also provided new information 

about the current number of nest territories in the BCR corridor (nine, rather than seven), 

and data regarding the density of nests in the BCR reach in comparison to an upstream 

reach. Based on this information, we revised our recommendations to reflect our 

concurrence with Interior’s recommended silvicultural treatments to improve potential 

nest habitat, but we did not adopt Interior’s recommendations regarding snag creation. In 

the draft EIS, we did not recommend the development and implementation of an 

education program specific to bald eagles (Interior 10(j) 14) because ongoing programs at 

existing recreation sites could be modified at a nominal cost to provide information to 

promote protection of bald eagles. Although we did not feel an additional program was 

justified, we supported the inclusion of bald eagle information at existing recreation sites. 

In its August 18, 2004, letter, FWS found this to be an acceptable approach. 

C-336 
Interior’s preliminary recommendation 23 to develop and implement a plan to 

prevent or minimize adverse interactions between the Box Canyon Project transmission 

and distribution lines and birds was not adopted because the transmission lines are not 

project features. Interior withdrew this recommendation, but continues to encourage, as a 

basic conservation measure, that the PUD be aware of this issue in the siting, design, and 

O&M of project transmission lines throughout the term of any new license. 

We did not consider specific surveys for peregrine falcon (Interior’s preliminary 

recommendation 17) to be justified. Only one site within the project area was identified 

by Interior as being potential peregrine habitat and surveys in 1998 and 1999 did not 

reveal any nests. Since peregrine nesting habitat (cliffs) is not being affected by the 

project, we suggested observation for this species be incorporated into the annual surveys 

being proposed for bald eagle, osprey, great blue heron, and double-crested cormorant. 

Interior withdrew this recommendation on November 21, 2002. 

Interior’s recommendation 8 calls for the PUD to predict, using HEP analysis, 

project-related habitat losses expected to occur during the new license period and the 

number of AAHUs required to mitigate for those losses, and to provide monetary 

compensation. The PUD does not propose any new project facilities that would remove, 

alter, or degrade substantial areas of wildlife habitat. For these reasons, no substantial 

loss of wildlife habitat is expected to occur during the upcoming license period, and no 

HEP or other habitat analysis or compensation is warranted. We did not adopt this 

recommendation in the draft EIS, but Interior requested we reconsider. In its August 18, 

2004 letter, Interior suggested a willingness to drop its recommendation for futures 

analysis, providing that stringent bald eagle protection measures could be incorporated 

into the shoreline management plan we are recommending. However, we have retained 

the original wording of Interior’s 10(j) 8 in the table above, because the issue cannot be 

resolved with certainty until the Shoreline Management Plan is developed. 

Interior’s preliminary recommendation 19 would have had the PUD topping a 

minimum of 10 trees greater than 16 inches dbh to generate nesting trees for great gray 

owls. Although it is possible that the great gray owl could be present in the project area, 

there is no indication that the Box Canyon Project affects this species’ habitat or that the 

sacrifice of live trees to generate large-diameter snags, would increase either habitat 

suitability or owl populations. For these reasons, we did not recommend the PUD modify 

habitat specifically for this species. Interior withdrew this recommendation November 

21, 2002. 

5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE AND OTHER RESOURCE 

PLANS 

Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the extent to 

which a project is consistent with comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or 

conserving a waterway or waterways affected by a project. Consistency with 

comprehensive plans is one of several factors considered by the Commission in its 

C-337 
C-338 

licensing decision. Under Section 10 (a)(2), federal and state agencies have filed 113 

qualifying comprehensive plans, of which we identified 30 Washington/Idaho and 10 

federal to be potentially applicable. We did not find any conflicts. In addition, we 

considered four other relevant plans provided by the Tribe.T

54T We found no 

inconsistencies with these plans. 

5.5 RELATIONSHIP OF LICENSE PROCESS TO LAWS AND POLICIES 

5.5.1 Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification 

Under Section 401 (a)(1) of the CWA, license applicants must obtain either state 

certification that any discharge from a project would comply with applicable provisions 

of the CWA or a waiver of certification by the appropriate state agency. Section 

401(a)(1) states that certification is deemed waived if the certifying agency fails to act on 

a water quality certification request within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 1 

year. 

On January 5, 2000, PUD applied to the WDOE for WQC for the Box Canyon 

Project. PUD subsequently withdrew and refiled this application several times, most 

recently effective January 5, 2002, making January 5, 2003 the date by which the 

certification from the WDOE would be due. On December 30, 2002, WDOE issued 

WQC to the PUD for the project that is subject to conditions identified. On February 21, 

2003, the WDOE amended this certification to require that four plans be filed within 30 

days of license issuance, which will enable better coordination with the EPA’s WQC 

discussed below. 

The project includes lands of the Tribe within the project boundary. In fall 2000, 

the PUD applied to the EPA for WQC for the Box Canyon Project. The PUD withdrew 

and resubmitted this application several times. This application ran concurrently with the 

WDOE certification with January 5, 2003, as the term for completion of the WQC. 

On January 2, 2003, EPA issued a conditioned WQC for the project that was based 

on Washington State water quality standards since the Tribe’s standards had not been 

adopted at that time. One of the conditions of the EPA’s WQC was that future action(s) 

undertaken should be coordinated with the Tribe, if the Tribe were to be approved to 

administer the Section 401. To date, EPA has not authorized the Tribe to administer the 

Section 401 WQC. On June 24, 2004, subsequent to EPA’s issuance of its WQC, EPA 

approved water quality standards for the Kalispel Indian Community on the KIR in 

 

TP

54PT (1) Kalispel Tribe of Indians Natural Resources Department. 1997. Fish and Wildlife Management 

Plan. n.p. (2) Kalispel Tribe of Indians. 1993. Memorandum of Understanding with Washington 

Dept. Wildlife for Fish Management. (3) Kalispel Tribe of Indians. 1994. Memorandum of 

Understanding with Washington Dept. Fish & Wildlife for Fishing Licensing and Access Permitting. 

(4) KNRD, 1994. Watershed/Water Quality Management Plan for the KIR. 
C-339 

accordance with the CWA. These standards are now applicable to waters within the 

exterior boundaries of the KIR. 

5.5.2 Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 of the ESA requires that federal agencies consult with the FWS when a 

proposed action may adversely affect federally listed, threatened, or endangered species. 

By letter dated November 2, 2001, FWS responded to our request (September 24, 2001) 

for the status of threatened or endangered species in the project area. Seven federally 

listed threatened species of plants and animals could potentially occur within the area 

affected by project operations: water howellia, Ute ladies’-tresses, bull trout, gray wolf, 

grizzly bear, Canada lynx and bald eagle. 

The project is not likely to affect the Canada lynx. The project is not likely to 

adversely affect water howellia, Ute ladies’-tresses, gray wolf, or grizzly bear. The 

recreation measures we recommend at this time could cause small increases in 

disturbance to bald eagles, but such effects would be offset by implementation of the 

project-wide Bald Eagle Management Plan and individual Nest Site Management Plans. 

We conclude the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the bald eagle. 

We concluded that the recommended relicensing of the project is likely to have an 

adverse effect on bull trout. Even though the project, including its proposed 

enhancement measures, would be beneficial to bull trout in the lower Pend Oreille River 

basin, individual bull trout are likely to be adversely affected due to mortality or injury 

that could occur when bull trout pass over the spillways or through the proposed turbines 

or fish passage facilities (if deemed appropriate based on study results), or when project 

operations result in elevated TDG levels below BCD. These adverse effects cannot be 

avoided; however, they are believed to be minor when compared to the benefits 

associated with the proposed enhancement measures. 

Following issuance of the draft EIS, the Commission requested formal 

consultation under the ESA using the EIS as our biological assessment for the project. In 

November 2002, the FWS proposed the designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the 

Columbia River basin and by letter dated May 21, 2003, FWS requested we conduct an 

evaluation of the effects of the Box Canyon Project on proposed bull trout critical habitat 

using their nine primary constituent elements. In our report, filed December 12, 2003, we 

concluded that although the project, with our recommended measures is likely to 

adversely affect bull trout, it would not likely result in adverse modification or 

destruction of the critical habitat. FWS declared, in a letter filed November 19, 2003, 

that it would issue a Biological Opinion 45 days following conclusion of the 10(j) dispute 

process (upon the notice of availability of the final EIS). 

5.5.3 Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act 

Under Section 4(h) of the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation 

Act, the NPPC developed the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 
C-340 

(Program) to protect, mitigate, and enhance the fish and wildlife resources associated 

with development and operation of hydroelectric projects within the Columbia River 

basin. Section 4(h) states that responsible federal and state agencies should provide 

equitable treatment for fish and wildlife resources, in addition to other purposes for which 

hydropower is developed, and that these agencies should take the Program into account, 

to the fullest extent possible. 

The Program directs agencies to consult with fish and wildlife managers and the 

NPPC during the study, design, construction and operation of any hydroelectric 

development in the basin (sections 12.1A.1 and 12.1A.2). The Commission’s regulations 

require applicants to initiate prefiling consultation with the appropriate federal and state 

fish and wildlife agencies and Indian tribes and to provide these groups with post-filing 

opportunities to review and to comment on the application. This consultation has 

occurred. 

The Program states that authorization for new hydroelectric projects should 

include conditions to mitigate the effects of the project on fish and wildlife resources 

(Sections 12.1A.1 and 12.1a.2). The specific provisions of Sections 12.1A.1 and 12.1A.2 

that apply to the project calls for: (1) consultation with fish and wildlife managers and the 

NPPC throughout the study, design, construction, and operation of the project; (2) the 

best available means for aiding downstream and upstream passage of anadromous and 

resident fish; (3) flows of specific quantity to protect spawning, incubation, rearing, and 

migration; (4) full compensation for unavoidable fish losses or fish habitat losses 

consistent with the provisions of this program; (5) the collection of data needed to 

monitor and evaluate the results of fish protection efforts; (6) assurance that the project 

will not degrade water quality beyond the point necessary to sustain sensitive fish species 

(as designated in consultation with the fish managers); (7) providing artificial nest 

structures when appropriate; (8) creating sub impoundments by diking backwater slough 

areas, creating islands, and creating nesting areas; (9) avoiding critical riparian habitat (as 

designated in consultation with the wildlife managers) when clearing, riprapping, 

dredging, disposing of spoils and wastes, constructing diversions, and relocating 

structures and facilities; and (10) collecting data needed to monitor and evaluate the 

results of the wildlife protection efforts. 

Our recommendations, including studies to determine the need for fish passage 

facilities; an evaluation of fish-friendly turbines; Water Quality Protection and 

Monitoring Plan; gas supersaturation monitoring and mitigation; erosion monitoring and 

mitigation; trout habitat restoration; placement of underwater habitat structures; 

management plans for aquatic plants, wildlife, osprey, noxious weeds, bald eagle nests, 

waterfowl, native amphibians, sensitive species and great blue heron; cottonwood 

enhancement; aquatic habitat enhancement/restoration and funding for a variety of 

educational and awareness activities are consistent with the applicable provisions of the 

program listed above. 
C-341 

5.5.4 National Historic Preservation Act 

Relicensing is considered an undertaking within Section 106 of the NHPA of 

1966, as amended (P.L.89-665; 16 U.S.C.470). Section 106 requires that every federal 

agency “take into account” how each of its undertakings could affect historic properties. 

Historic properties are districts, sites, buildings, structures, traditional cultural properties, 

and objects significant in American history, architecture, engineering, and culture that are 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register. As the lead federal agency for issuing a 

license, the Commission is responsible for insuring that the licensee will take all 

necessary steps to “evaluate alternatives or modifications” that “would avoid, minimize, 

or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties” for the term of the new license 

involving the project. The lead agency must also consult with the SHPO(s), as well as 

with other land management agencies where the undertaking may have an effect, and 

with Indian tribes who may have cultural affiliations with affected properties involving 

the undertaking. The overall review process involving Section 106 is administered by the 

Advisory Council, an independent federal agency. 

To meet the requirements of Section 106, the Commission will execute a PA for 

the protection of historic properties from the effects of the continued operation of the Box 

Canyon Project. The terms of the PA would ensure that the PUD would address and treat 

all historic properties identified within the project area through an HPMP. The HPMP 

entails ongoing consultation involving historic properties for the license term. 

5.5.5 Americans with Disabilities Act 

Public recreation facilities must comply with the ADA of 1990 (P.L. 101-336) to 

the extent possible. The Commission however, has no statutory role in implementing or 

enforcing the ADA as it applies to its licenses. A licensee's obligation to comply with the 

ADA exists independent of its project license. We suggest however, that any Recreation 

Plans developed by the PUD for project recreation facilities include a discussion of how 

the licensee considered the needs of the physically handicapped in the design and 

construction of the facilities. 

5.5.6 Federal Power Act, Section 18, Fishway Prescriptions 

Section 18 of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 811) states that the Commission shall require a 

licensee to construct, operate, and maintain such fishways as may be prescribed by the 

Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate. Under Section 

18, Interior filed with the Commission, by letter dated November 5, 2001, preliminary 

prescriptions. By letter dated May 20, 2004, Interior filed modified prescriptions. These 

prescriptions are described in appendix A and are discussed in the appropriate resource 

sections.