SPOKANE RIVER AND POST FALLS 

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS

States of Washington and Idaho

FERC Project Nos. 2545 and 12606

888 First Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20426

Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

July 2007 

FERC/FEIS – 0204F

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
SPOKANE RIVER AND POST FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS 

FERC Project Nos. 2545 and 12606 

FEIS 

July 

2007 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR HYDROPOWER RELICENSING 

SPOKANE RIVER AND POST FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS 

States of Washington and Idaho 

FERC Project Nos. 2545 and 12606 

Avista Corporation 

1411 East Mission 

PO Box 3727 

Spokane, WA 99220-3727 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

Division of Hydropower Licensing 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

July 2007 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
i

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20426 

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS 

To the Agency or Individual Addressed: 

Reference: Final Environmental Impact Statement

Attached is the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Post 

Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 12606, located on the Spokane River in Kootenai 

and Benewah Counties, Idaho, and the Spokane River Developments No. 2545, 

located on the Spokane River in Spokane, Lincoln, and Stevens Counties, 

Washington.

This FEIS documents the views of governmental agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license 

applicant, and Commission staff. It contains staff evaluations on the applicant’s 

proposal and the alternatives for relicensing the Post Falls and Spokane River 

Projects.

Before the Commission makes a licensing decision, it will take into account 

all concerns relevant to the public interest. The FEIS will be part of the record 

from which the Commission will make its decision. The FEIS was sent to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and made available to the public in July 

2007.

A copy of the FEIS is available for review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC, 

20426. The FEIS also may be viewed on the Commission’s web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov under the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding 

the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For 

assistance, contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or 

toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ii

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
iii

COVER SHEET 

a. Title: Final Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower 

Relicensing, Spokane River and Post Falls Hydroelectric 

Projects, States of Washington and Idaho, FERC Project Nos. 

2545 and 12606 

b. Subject: Final Environmental Impact Statement 

c. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

d. Abstract: Avista Corporation (Avista) filed two applications for new 

licenses for the existing 14.75-megawatt (MW) Post Falls 

Hydroelectric Project (Post Falls Project) and the 122.9-MW 

Spokane River Developments located on the Spokane River in 

Kootenai and Benewah Counties, Idaho and Spokane, Lincoln, 

and Stevens Counties, Washington. The nearest city is 

Spokane, Washington, and the Upper Falls and Monroe Street 

Developments are located within Spokane city limits. The 

Projects occupy about 44,556 acres of land, of which 

approximately 7,044 acres are within the Coeur d’Alene Indian 

Reservation; 54 acres are submerged lands administered by the 

U.S. Forest Service; and 308 acres are submerged lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management. 

The power generated at the 137.65-MW Projects provides 

approximately 6 percent of the current generating resources 

used to meet loads by Avista’s 325,000 electrical customers in 

the region. 

Native fish species in the Spokane River and Coeur d’Alene 

Lake include westslope cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, 

mountain whitefish, and bull trout. Additionally, six federally 

listed species occur in the Project vicinity.

Key issues associated with relicensing this Project are erosion 

and sedimentation control; water quality and quantity; fish 

resource and habitat protection and enhancement; wetland and 

riparian area protection and enhancement; local recreational 

opportunities enhancement; land use and socioeconomics; 

aesthetic resources; and cultural resource protection.

The staff’s recommendation is to relicense the Project as 

proposed, with additional measures recommended by agencies 

and the staff to protect and enhance environmental resources.

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
iv

e. Contact: Environmental Staff 

John Blair 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

888 First Street, N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-6092 

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

Commission’s staff on the hydroelectric license application filed 

by Avista Corporation, Spokane, Washington, for the existing 

Post Falls Hydroelectric Project (No. 12606) and Spokane River 

Developments (No. 2545) is being made available to the public in 

July 2007, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 19691

1

 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 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). 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
v

FOREWORD

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

Federal Power Act (FPA)2

 and the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act3

is authorized to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation 

of non-federal 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 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

2

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

99-495 (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). 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
vi

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. ES-1 

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

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

1.2 NEED FOR POWER...................................................................... 1-4

1.3 INTERVENTIONS......................................................................... 1-7

1.4 SCOPING PROCESS..................................................................... 1-8

1.5 AGENCY CONSULTATIONS...................................................... 1-9

1.6 ALTERNATIVES TO AGENCY MANDATORY TERMS 

AND CONDITIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

JUDGE FINDINGS ...................................................................... 1-10

1.7 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SINCE 

RELEASE OF THE DEIS ............................................................ 1-13

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .................................. 2-1

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 General Description of the Existing Facilities and 

Operations............................................................................ 2-1

2.1.2 Post Falls Project ................................................................. 2-2

2.1.3 Spokane River Developments ............................................. 2-3

2.1.3.1 Upper Falls Development ...................................... 2-3

2.1.3.2 Monroe Street Development.................................. 2-4

2.1.3.3 Nine Mile Development ........................................ 2-4

2.1.3.4 Long Lake Development ....................................... 2-5

2.1.4 Current Project Operations .................................................. 2-6

2.1.4.1 Post Falls Project ................................................... 2-7

2.1.4.2 Upper Falls Development ...................................... 2-8

2.1.4.3 Monroe Street Development.................................. 2-9

2.1.4.4 Nine Mile Development ........................................ 2-9

2.1.4.5 Long Lake Development ....................................... 2-9

2.1.4.6 Flood Control Operations .................................... 2-10

2.1.4.7 Fishery Management Operations......................... 2-10

2.1.4.8 Project Safety....................................................... 2-11

2.1.5 Current Environmental Measures...................................... 2-11

2.2 PROPOSED ACTION – APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL............... 2-14

2.2.1 Project Facilities ................................................................ 2-14

2.2.2 Project Boundary ............................................................... 2-14

2.2.3 Project Operations ............................................................. 2-15

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
viii 

2.2.4 Project Environmental Measures....................................... 2-16

2.3 MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .................. 2-16

2.3.1 Staff’s Modification to the Proposed Action..................... 2-40

2.3.2 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions...................................... 2-40

2.3.3 Section 4(e) Conditions ..................................................... 2-40

2.3.4 Section 401 Water Quality Certificate Conditions............ 2-44

2.3.5 Section 10(j) Recommendations........................................ 2-44

2.3.6 Avista Alternative Section 4(e) Conditions under the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 ................................................ 2-44

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED 

FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION ...................................... 2-45

2.4.1 Federal Takeover ............................................................... 2-45

2.4.2 Issuance of a Nonpower License ....................................... 2-45

2.4.3 Retirement of the Projects ................................................. 2-45

2.4.4 Natural Hydrograph Alternative........................................ 2-46

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.......................................................... 3-1

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIN............................... 3-1

3.2 CUMULATIVELY AFFECTED RESOURCES ........................... 3-2

3.2.1 Geographic Scope................................................................ 3-2

3.2.1.1 Water Quantity....................................................... 3-3

3.2.1.2 Water Quality......................................................... 3-3

3.2.1.3 Sediment Supply and Transport............................. 3-4

3.2.1.4 Aquatic Resources ................................................. 3-5

3.2.1.5 Terrestrial Resources ............................................. 3-6

3.2.1.6 Recreational Resources.......................................... 3-7

3.2.1.7 Cultural Resources................................................. 3-7

3.2.2 Temporal Scope................................................................... 3-8

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES........... 3-8

3.3.1 Geology and Soils................................................................ 3-8

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment............................................ 3-8

3.3.1.1.1 Geology .............................................. 3-8

3.3.1.1.2 Soils .................................................. 3-13

3.3.1.1.3 Existing Geologic Hazards............... 3-16

3.3.1.1.4 Sediment Supply and Transport ....... 3-16

3.3.1.1.5 Erosion.............................................. 3-25

3.3.1.1.6 Turbidity........................................... 3-31

3.3.1.1.7 Hazardous Materials......................... 3-32

3.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences.............................. 3-33

3.3.1.2.1 Effects of Lake Level 

Management ..................................... 3-33

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ix 

3.3.1.2.2 Project Flow Releases ...................... 3-40

3.3.1.2.3 Effects of Sediment Transport.......... 3-41

3.3.1.2.4 Effects of Erosion............................. 3-47

3.3.1.2.5 Effects of Turbidity .......................... 3-52

3.3.1.2.6 Secondary Effects of 

Environmental Measures.................. 3-53

3.3.1.2.7 Administrative Law Judge 

Findings............................................ 3-54

3.3.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects .............................. 3-57

3.3.1.4 Cumulative Effects .............................................. 3-57

3.3.2 Water Quantity................................................................... 3-58

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment.......................................... 3-58

3.3.2.1.1 Surface Water ................................... 3-58

3.3.2.1.2 Groundwater..................................... 3-78

3.3.2.1.3 Water Rights..................................... 3-83

3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences.............................. 3-84

3.3.2.2.1 Lake Level Management and 

Flow Releases................................... 3-84

3.3.2.2.2 Groundwater..................................... 3-95

3.3.2.2.3 Water Rights..................................... 3-96

3.3.2.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects .............................. 3-97

3.3.2.4 Cumulative Effects .............................................. 3-97

3.3.3 Water Quality..................................................................... 3-98

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment.......................................... 3-98

3.3.3.1.1 Water Quality Standards .................. 3-98

3.3.3.1.2 Temperature...................................... 3-99

3.3.3.1.3 Biological Productivity and 

Related Water Quality 

Parameters ...................................... 3-112

3.3.3.1.4 Metals ............................................. 3-116

3.3.3.1.5 Total Dissolved Gas ....................... 3-121

3.3.3.2 Environmental Consequences............................ 3-124

3.3.3.2.1 Effects of Lake Level 

Management on Water Quality ...... 3-124

3.3.3.2.2 Effect of Project Flow Releases 

on Temperature............................... 3-132

3.3.3.2.3 Effect of Flows on Biological 

Productivity, DO, and Other 

Water Quality Parameters .............. 3-139

3.3.3.2.4 Metals ............................................. 3-144

3.3.3.2.5 Total Dissolved Gas ....................... 3-145

3.3.3.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring.............. 3-150

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
x 

3.3.3.2.7 Secondary Effects of Proposed 

Measures......................................... 3-153

3.3.3.2.8 Administrative Law Judge 

Findings.......................................... 3-155

3.3.3.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ............................ 3-160

3.3.3.4 Cumulative Effects ............................................ 3-160

3.3.4 Aquatic Resources ........................................................... 3-163

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment........................................ 3-163

3.3.4.1.1 Coeur d’Alene Lake Basin ............. 3-163

3.3.4.1.2 Post Falls Dam................................ 3-170

3.3.4.1.3 Upper Falls and Monroe Street 

Dams............................................... 3-173

3.3.4.1.4 Nine Mile Dam............................... 3-175

3.3.4.1.5 Long Lake Dam.............................. 3-176

3.3.4.2 Environmental Consequences............................ 3-179

3.3.4.2.1 Ramping Rates, Spawning and 

Emergence Flows, and Instream 

Flows .............................................. 3-180

3.3.4.2.2 Fish Passage and Entrainment........ 3-196

3.3.4.2.3 Aquatic Habitat Alteration ............. 3-202

3.3.4.2.4 Other Aquatic Resource 

Measures......................................... 3-215

3.3.4.2.5 Secondary Effects of Proposed 

Measures......................................... 3-239

3.3.4.2.6 Administrative Law Judge 

Findings.......................................... 3-241

3.3.4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ............................ 3-245

3.3.4.4 Cumulative Effects ............................................ 3-246

3.3.5 Terrestrial Resources ....................................................... 3-248

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment........................................ 3-248

3.3.5.1.1 Plant Communities ......................... 3-249

3.3.5.1.2 Plant Species of Special Concern... 3-254

3.3.5.1.3 Invasive Non-native Plant 

Species............................................ 3-258

3.3.5.1.4 Wildlife Species ............................. 3-260

3.3.5.1.5 Special Status Wildlife Species...... 3-262

3.3.5.1.6 Contaminant Levels in Wildlife ..... 3-264

3.3.5.2 Environmental Consequences............................ 3-265

3.3.5.2.1 Project Operations .......................... 3-265

3.3.5.2.2 Plant Communities and 

Wetlands......................................... 3-268

3.3.5.2.3 Plant Species of Special Concern... 3-276

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
xi 

3.3.5.2.4 Invasive Non-native Plant 

Species............................................ 3-279

3.3.5.2.5 Wildlife Species and Habitat.......... 3-287

3.3.5.2.6 Special-Status Wildlife Species ..... 3-291

3.3.5.2.7 Secondary Effects of Proposed 

Measures......................................... 3-292

3.3.5.2.8 Administrative Law Judge 

Findings.......................................... 3-293

3.3.5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ............................ 3-297

3.3.5.4 Cumulative Effects ............................................ 3-298

3.3.6 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species.... 3-299

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment........................................ 3-299

3.3.6.1.1 Bull Trout ....................................... 3-299

3.3.6.1.2 Water Howellia............................... 3-304

3.3.6.1.3 Ute Ladies’-tresses ......................... 3-304

3.3.6.1.4 Spalding’s Catchfly ........................ 3-304

3.3.6.1.5 Gray Wolf....................................... 3-305

3.3.6.1.6 Bald Eagle ...................................... 3-305

3.3.6.2 Environmental Consequences............................ 3-306

3.3.6.2.1 Bull Trout ....................................... 3-306

3.3.6.2.2 Water Howellia............................... 3-308

3.3.6.2.3 Ute Ladies’-tresses ......................... 3-308

3.3.6.2.4 Spalding’s Catchfly ........................ 3-309

3.3.6.2.5 Gray Wolf....................................... 3-309

3.3.6.2.6 Bald Eagle ...................................... 3-309

3.3.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts........................... 3-316

3.3.6.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................... 3-316

3.3.7 Cultural Resources........................................................... 3-317

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment........................................ 3-317

3.3.7.1.1 The Projects’ Area of Potential 

Effects............................................. 3-318

3.3.7.1.2 Cultural and Historic Context 

Involving the Region in and 

Around the Projects........................ 3-320

3.3.7.1.3 Pre-Project Relicensing-Related 

Cultural Resource Investigations 

Associated with the Projects .......... 3-326

3.3.7.1.4 Cultural Resource Investigations 

Related to the Projects’ 

Relicensing Process........................ 3-328

3.3.7.1.5 Cultural Resources Identified in 

the Projects’ APE ........................... 3-329

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
xii 

3.3.7.2 Environmental Consequences............................ 3-342

3.3.7.2.1 Post Falls Project............................ 3-342

3.3.7.2.2 Spokane River Developments ........ 3-353

3.3.7.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ............................ 3-361

3.3.7.4 Cumulative Effects ............................................ 3-362

3.3.8 Recreational Resources.................................................... 3-362

3.3.8.1 Affected Environment........................................ 3-362

3.3.8.1.1 Regional Recreational 

Opportunities.................................. 3-363

3.3.8.1.2 Project Area Recreational 

Opportunities and Uses .................. 3-363

3.3.8.1.3 Recreational Needs......................... 3-369

3.3.8.2 Environmental Consequences............................ 3-369

3.3.8.2.1 Project Operations and Lake 

Management ................................... 3-370

3.3.8.2.2 Post Falls Project Whitewater 

Boating Effects............................... 3-373

3.3.8.2.3 Post Falls Project Recreation 

Plan................................................. 3-375

3.3.8.2.4 Spokane River Developments 

Recreation Plan............................... 3-376

3.3.8.2.5 Post Falls Project and Spokane 

River Developments 

Interpretation and Education 

Plans ............................................... 3-378

3.3.8.2.6 Post Falls Project Recreation 

Resource Measures......................... 3-380

3.3.8.2.7 Spokane River Developments 

Recreation Resource Measures ...... 3-384

3.3.8.3 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act ........... 3-388

3.3.8.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ............................ 3-389

3.3.8.5 Cumulative Effects ............................................ 3-389

3.3.9 Land Management and Use ............................................. 3-389

3.3.9.1 Affected Environment........................................ 3-390

3.3.9.1.1 Post Falls ........................................ 3-391

3.3.9.1.2 Upper Falls and Monroe Street ...... 3-392

3.3.9.1.3 Nine Mile and Long Lake .............. 3-393

3.3.9.2 Environmental Consequences............................ 3-394

3.3.9.2.1 Post Falls Project and Spokane 

River Developments Land Use 

Management Plans ......................... 3-394

3.3.9.2.2 Project Boundary Changes ............. 3-396

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
xiii 

3.3.9.2.3 Other Measures............................... 3-400

3.3.9.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ............................ 3-401

3.3.10 Aesthetic Resources......................................................... 3-401

3.3.10.1 Affected Environment........................................ 3-401

3.3.10.2 Environmental Consequences............................ 3-403

3.3.10.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ............................ 3-408

3.3.11 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................... 3-408

3.3.11.1 Affected Environment........................................ 3-408

3.3.11.2 Environmental Consequences............................ 3-413

3.3.11.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts........................... 3-416

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................................................. 3-416

3.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT 

OF RESOURCES ....................................................................... 3-416

3.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .............................................. 3-416

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................... 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 4-1

4.2 BASIS FOR POWER AND COSTS OF THE PROJECTS........... 4-2

4.3 COSTS ............................................................................................ 4-2

4.3.1 Cost of Environmental Measures ........................................ 4-2

4.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES....................................... 4-28

4.4.1 No-Action Alternative ....................................................... 4-28

4.4.2 Proposed Action................................................................. 4-28

4.4.3 Staff-Recommended Alternative ....................................... 4-30

4.4.4 Staff-Recommended Alternative with Mandatory 

Conditions.......................................................................... 4-30

4.4.5 Summary of Alternatives................................................... 4-31

5.0 STAFF’S CONCLUSIONS..................................................................... 5-1

5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND 

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ............................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Post Falls Project Recommendations .................................. 5-1

5.1.1.1 Measures Proposed by Avista................................ 5-1

5.1.1.2 Staff-Recommended Measures.............................. 5-4

5.1.1.3 Discussion of Key Issues and Measures 

Proposed by Stakeholders...................................... 5-6

5.1.1.4 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions ..... 5-43

5.1.2 Spokane River Developments ........................................... 5-45

5.1.2.1 Measures Proposed by Avista.............................. 5-45

5.1.2.2 Staff-Recommended Measures............................ 5-47

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
xiv 

5.1.2.3 Discussion of Key Issues and Measures 

Proposed by Stakeholders.................................... 5-49

5.2 SUMMARY OF SECTION 10(j) RECOMMENDATIONS 

AND 4(E) CONDITIONS ............................................................ 5-72

5.2.1 Recommendations Pursuant to Section 10(j) of the FPA.. 5-72

5.2.2 Recommendations Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FPA . 5-86

5.2.3 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, and USDA Forest Service Section 4(e) 

Conditions.......................................................................... 5-86

5.3 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS............... 5-87

5.4 RELATIONSHIP OF LICENSE PROCESS TO LAWS AND 

POLICIES..................................................................................... 5-90

5.4.1 Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification ....................................................................... 5-90

5.4.2 Endangered Species Act .................................................... 5-90

5.4.3 National Historic Preservation Act.................................... 5-91

5.4.4 FPA Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions ............................. 5-92

5.4.5 LWCF Act ......................................................................... 5-93

5.4.6 Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program...................... 5-94

6.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................... 6-1

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS........................................................................... 7-1

APPENDIX A STAFF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)....... A-1

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
xv 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure No. Figure Name Page 

Figure 1.0-1. Location map - Spokane River and Post Falls 

Hydroelectric Projects ......................................................... 1-2

Figure 1.2-1. Regional firm monthly capacity surplus/deficit 

projections............................................................................ 1-5

Figure 3.3.1.1-1. St. Joe River features ......................................................... 3-10

Figure 3.3.1.1-2. Coeur d’Alene River features ............................................ 3-11

Figure 3.3.1.1-3. Conceptual model of sediment erosion, transport, and 

deposition in the lower Coeur d’Alene River.................... 3-18

Figure 3.3.2.2-1. Flow duration curve for Spokane River near Post 

Falls, Idaho (August 1978 through July 2002).................. 3-88

Figure 3.3.2.2-2. Flow duration curve for Spokane River at Upper 

Falls/Monroe Street Developments (August 1978 

through July 2002)............................................................. 3-92

Figure 3.3.4.2-1. General movement patterns of bull trout and 

westslope cutthroat trout in the Coeur d’Alene Basin 

in relation to Post Falls Dam operations.......................... 3-206

Figure 3.3.5.1-1. Plant survey sites in the Spokane River Projects area..... 3-256

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
xvi 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table No. Table Name Page 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives 

measures ............................................................................ 2-17

Table 3.3.2.1-1. Streamflow surface water and reservoir station 

information near the Spokane River Project...................... 3-59

Table 3.3.2.1-2. Daily mean lake level elevation statistics (feet) for 

Coeur d’Alene Lake (August 1978 through July 

2002) .................................................................................. 3-65

Table 3.3.2.1-3. Daily mean elevation and corresponding surface area 

of Coeur d’Alene Lake (August 1978 through July 

2002) .................................................................................. 3-66

Table 3.3.2.1-4. Daily mean flow statistics (cfs) for Spokane River 

near Post Falls, Idaho (August 1978 through July 

2002) .................................................................................. 3-67

Table 3.3.2.1-5. Spokane River near Post Falls, Idaho, regulated 3-day 

maximum flow (cfs) .......................................................... 3-68

Table 3.3.2.1-6. Spokane River near Post Falls, Washington, 

regulated 7-day minimum flow (cfs)................................. 3-69

Table 3.3.2.1-7. Daily mean flow statistics (cfs) for Spokane River at 

Upper Falls/Monroe Street (August 1978 through 

July 2002) .......................................................................... 3-71

Table 3.3.2.1-8. Spokane River at Upper Falls/Monroe Street 

regulated 3-day maximum flow (cfs) (August 1978 

through July 2002)............................................................. 3-72

Table 3.3.2.1-9. Spokane River at Upper Falls/Monroe Street, 

Washington, regulated 7-day minimum flow (cfs)............ 3-73

Table 3.3.2.1-10. Daily mean flow statistics (cfs) for Spokane River at 

Nine Mile........................................................................... 3-75

Table 3.3.2.1-11. Spokane River at Nine Mile regulated 3-day 

maximum flow (cfs) (August 1978 through July 

2002) .................................................................................. 3-76

Table 3.3.2.1-12. Spokane River at Nine Mile regulated 7-day 

minimum flow (cfs) ........................................................... 3-77

Table 3.3.2.1-13. Daily mean flow statistics (cfs) for the Spokane River 

downstream of Long Lake Development .......................... 3-79

Table 3.3.2.1-14. Spokane River downstream of Long Lake regulated 

3-day maximum flow (cfs) ................................................ 3-80

Table 3.3.2.1-15. Spokane River downstream of Long Lake 

Development regulated 7-day minimum flow (cfs) .......... 3-81

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
xvii 

Table 3.3.2.1-16. Daily mean simulated lake level elevation statistics 

(feet) for Lake Spokane (August 1978 through July 

2002) .................................................................................. 3-82

Table 3.3.2.2-1. Change in daily mean elevation statistics (feet) 

(Proposed Action minus current Project operations) 

for Coeur d’Alene Lake (August 1978 through July 

2002) .................................................................................. 3-87

Table 3.3.3.1-1. Designated beneficial uses of surface waters .................. 3-100

Table 3.3.3.1-2. Existing and proposed water quality criteria for 

surface waters in the Project area .................................... 3-102

Table 3.3.3.1-3. EPA-approved 1998 303(d) listings and status of 

corresponding TMDLs..................................................... 3-106

Table 3.3.4.1-1. Fish of the Coeur d’Alene Lake Basin ............................ 3-166

Table 3.3.4.1-2. Fish species collected in Lake Spokane in 2001 ............. 3-178

Table 3.3.4.2-1. Potential for fish entrainment at Spokane River 

Projects ............................................................................ 3-197

Table 3.3.4.2-2. Entrainment and mortality risk for fish at Post Falls 

Dam.................................................................................. 3-199

Table 3.3.4.2-3. Entrainment and mortality risk for fish at Spokane 

River Developments ........................................................ 3-201

Table 3.3.4.2-4. Approximate distance of inundation in Coeur 

d’Alene Lake major tributaries at various lake 

elevations ......................................................................... 3-205

Table 3.3.5.1-1. Habitat types mapped in 2003 in study area (acres)........ 3-250

Table 3.3.5.1-2. Culturally important species observed during field 

surveys, July and August 2003 ........................................ 3-257

Table 3.3.5.1-3. Noxious weeds observed during field surveys in July 

and August 2003.............................................................. 3-259

Table 3.3.5.1-4. Federally and state-listed endangered, threatened, and 

special concern wildlife species potentially occurring 

within the Project area in the Coeur d’Alene and 

Spokane subbasins........................................................... 3-263

Table 3.3.7.1-1. National Register-eligible archaeological resources 

located within the Project APE in Idaho and 

Washington...................................................................... 3-330

Table 3.3.7.1-2. National Register evaluation of historic buildings and 

structures located within the APE or within 100 feet 

of the APE in Idaho and Washington .............................. 3-335

Table 3.3.8.1-1. Project recreational sites owned by Avista and within 

Project boundaries ........................................................... 3-365

Table 3.3.8.1-2. Recreation use at developed sites within or adjacent 

to the Project boundaries ................................................. 3-368

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
xviii 

Table 3.3.9.2-1. Summary of land ownership within Post Falls Project 

boundaries........................................................................ 3-396

Table 3.3.9.2-2. Summary of land ownership within Spokane River 

Developments boundaries................................................ 3-398

Table 3.3.10.2-1. Annual energy costs and lost generation from 

potential flow releases, total costs, and annualized 

costs ................................................................................. 3-407

Table 3.3.11.1-1. Population density for the five counties within the 

Project area ...................................................................... 3-409

Table 3.3.11.1-2. Percent share of each industry to total employment in 

the five Spokane River study area counties..................... 3-410

Table 3.3.11.1-3. Per capita income in the five counties within the 

Project area, 2002 ............................................................ 3-412

Table 4.2-1. Assumptions for economic analysis of the Post Falls 

Project and Spokane River Developments .......................... 4-3

Table 4.2-2. Current capital and annual costs for Post Falls Project ....... 4-4

Table 4.2-3. Current capital and annual costs for Spokane River 

Developments ...................................................................... 4-5

Table 4.3-1. Summary of costs of environmental measures for 

Post Falls Project ................................................................. 4-6

Table 4.3-2. Summary of costs of environmental measures for 

Spokane River Developments ........................................... 4-19

Table 4.4-1. Summary of costs, power benefits, and net benefits of 

the Post Falls Project alternatives...................................... 4-29

Table 4.4-2. Summary of costs, power benefits, and net benefits of 

the Spokane River Developments alternatives .................. 4-29

Table 5.2-1. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations ...................... 5-74

Table 5.2-2. BIA modified 4(e) conditions for Post Falls Project ......... 5-88

Table 5.3-1. Comprehensive plans relevant to Post Falls Project 

and Spokane River Developments..................................... 5-89

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
xix 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ALJ Administrative Law Judge 

ALP alternative licensing process 

aMW average megawatt 

aMWh average megawatt -hour 

APE area of potential effects 

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

Avista Avista Corporation 

AWTP advanced wastewater treatment plant 

BA biological assessment 

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

B.P. before the present 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

oC degrees Celsius 

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps 

CaCO3 Calcium carbonate 

CELP Center for Environmental Law and Policy 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan 

CRWG Cultural Resources Work Group 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DEIS draft environmental impact statement 

DO dissolved oxygen 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

DPS distinct population segment 

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality 

EAP Emergency Action Plan 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPAct Energy Power Act 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
xx 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

EWU Eastern Washington University 

oF degrees Fahrenheit 

FEIS final environmental impact statement 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FPA Federal Power Act 

fps feet per second 

FR Federal Register 

FWG Fisheries Work Group 

GIS geographic information system 

HDI Hardin Davis, Inc 

HDR HDR Engineering, Inc. 

HED hydroelectric development 

HEC-RAS Hydrology Engineering Center-River Analysis System 

(Corps of Engineers) 

HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan 

HRA Historical Research Associates 

IDAPA Idaho Administrative Procedures Act 

IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

IDHW Idaho Department of Health and Welfare 

IDOH Idaho Division of Health 

IDPR Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation 

IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources 

IMP Intermountain Province 

ITD Idaho Transportation Department 

IWTP industrial wastewater treatment plant 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

kW kilowatt 

MBEWG Montana Bald Eagle Working Group 

MC modified condition 

mg/kg milligrams per kilogram 

mg/l milligrams per liter 

ml milliliter 

MOA memorandum of agreement 

MW megawatt 

MWh megawatt-hour 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

National Register National Register of Historic Places 

NEA Northwest Economic Associates 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NGO non-governmental organization 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
xxi 

NHC Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

NPCC Northwest Power and Conservation Council (formerly 

Northwest Power Planning Council) 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPPC Northwest Power Planning Council (now Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council) 

NPS National Park Service 

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit 

NWA Northwest Whitewater Association 

O&M operation and maintenance 

OU Operable Unit 

PA programmatic agreement 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

PBDE polybrominated diphenyl ether 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

PDEA preliminary draft environmental assessment 

PFO1 palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous 

pH potential hydrogen (a measure of acidity and alkalinity) 

PME protection, mitigation, and enhancement 

PNCA Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement 

POTW publicly owned treatment work 

Post Falls Project Post Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12606) 

Projects Spokane River Developments and Post Falls 

Hydroelectric Projects 

PSS palustrine scrub-shrub 

RCW Revised Code of Washington 

RLUAWG Recreation, Land Use & Aesthetics Work Group 

ROD Record of Decision 

SAJB Spokane Aquifer Joint Board 

SCCD Spokane County Conservation District 

SD1 Scoping Document 1 

SD2 Scoping Document 2 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

Spokane River 

Developments Spokane River Development of the Spokane River 

(FERC No. 2545) 

Staff Commission staff 

TCDD tetrochlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

TCP traditional cultural property 

TDG total dissolved gas 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
xxii 

TMDL total maximum daily load 

TRWG Terrestrial Resources Work Group 

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority 

g microgram 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WAC Washington Administrative Code 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources 

WDOE Washington Department of Ecology 

WDOH Washington Department of Health 

WRIA water resources inventory area 

WRWG Water Resources Work Group 

WSPRC Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission

WUA weighted usable area 

WWTP wastewater treatment plant 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) evaluates the potential 

effects on the environment associated with the relicensing of the five hydroelectric 

developments that make up the 137.65-megawatt (MW) Spokane River 

Hydroelectric Project No. 2545. Currently, the licensed Project consists of these 

five hydroelectric developments, with one located in Kootenai and Benewah 

counties, Idaho, and the other four located in Spokane, Lincoln, and Stevens 

counties, Washington. The current license will expire on August 1, 2007. 

On July 28, 2005, Avista Corporation (Avista) filed two separate 

applications with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission or 

FERC) for new licenses for the five hydroelectric developments. One application 

was filed for the upstream Idaho development, the 14.75 MW Post Falls 

Hydroelectric Project No. 12606. The other application was filed for the four 

Washington hydroelectric developments, the 122.9 MW Spokane Hydroelectric 

Project No. 2545 (referred to as the “Spokane River Developments,” with both 

collectively referred to as “the Projects”). 

This FEIS has been prepared by the staff of the Commission to fulfill the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the 

Commission’s implementing regulations under Title 18, Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), Part 380; and the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). The purpose of 

this document is to inform the Commission, the public, and the various federal and 

state agencies, tribes, and non-governmental organizations about the potential 

adverse and beneficial environmental effects of the proposed Project and of 

reasonable alternatives. 

The principal issues that we address for the Post Falls Hydroelectric Project 

include the influence of Project operations on Coeur d’Alene Lake levels; water 

quality both in Coeur d’Alene Lake and downstream of Post Falls Dam; fishery 

resources below the dam and in the Coeur d’Alene Lake drainage; cultural 

resources in and around Coeur d’Alene Lake; and shoreline erosion, wetlands, and 

riparian areas in the backwater areas of Coeur d’Alene Lake. The principal issues 

that we address for the Spokane River Developments include the influence of 

Project operations on total dissolved gas (TDG) levels, dissolved oxygen (DO) 

levels, sediment transport, fish habitat, and wetlands. Other issues involve 

determining the appropriate level of enhancements for aesthetic flows in 

downtown Spokane, protection of bald eagles, and control of noxious and exotic 

weeds in the reservoirs and on the shorelands. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-2 

NO-ACTION ALTERNATVE 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Projects would continue to operate 

under the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental 

protection or enhancement measures would be implemented. We use this 

alternative to establish baseline conditions against which we evaluate other 

alternatives and judge the benefits and costs of any measures that might be 

required under new licenses. 

AVISTA’S PROPOSED ACTION 

The Proposed Action would involve no changes to Project facilities other 

than replacing the flashboards at Nine Mile Development with a more permanent 

feature such as a pneumatically operated spillway gate (rubber dam). Any other 

facility changes would consist of generally minor and independent elements 

identified and constructed pursuant to specific protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement (PME) measures. Replacing the flashboards with a rubber dam 

would not change the pool level, nor would operations change at Nine Mile 

Development except that the flashboards would no longer be released downstream 

and Avista would have the ability to restore the pool elevation somewhat more 

quickly after spill events. Periodic maintenance of the entire facility would 

continue through the term of a new license. 

The Proposed Action would not involve significant changes to Project 

operations other than to extend the time Coeur d’Alene Lake is at its maximum 

elevation (2,128 feet above mean sea level) by about 7 to 14 days each year (until 

September 15). This proposed change would enhance recreation at the Project. 

The existing Project boundary encompassing the Post Falls Project is 

defined by the 2,128-foot elevation contour, as shown in a 1980 FERC license 

amendment. Recent fieldwork led Avista to make corrections to the 2,128-foot 

contour maps. Avista therefore is proposing to amend the Project boundary maps 

to correspond with the more recent data, consistent with retaining the current 

2,128-foot boundary. Other proposed changes to the Project boundary include the 

following: 

Post Falls Project 

• At the Post Falls Project, adding 2,352 acres (now within the 2,128-foot 

contour) and removing 0.5 acre east of the abandoned Corbin Ditch. 

Spokane River Developments 

• At Upper Falls and Monroe Street Developments, removing 2.8 acres that 

serve no Project purpose; 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-3 

• At Nine Mile Development, removing 66 acres that serve no Project purpose; 

and 

• At Long Lake Development, adding 350.1 acres associated with a proposed 

shoreline buffer, the Nine Mile Resort (day use area), and two short sections of 

primary transmission line. 

Avista proposes to operate the Projects in a manner similar to past 

operations with a set of comprehensive environmental measures. These primary 

measures are: 

Post Falls Project 

• Maintaining a 600-cubic-foot-per-second (cfs) minimum discharge flow at Post 

Falls Dam, with the option to maintain a 500-cfs flow under low-flow 

conditions. 

• Maintaining a maximum downramping flow rate of no more than a 4-inch drop 

per hour. 

• Equipping the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage no. 12419000 on the 

Spokane River downstream of Post Falls Dam to provide real-time flow 

information. 

• Providing flows in the spring to protect rainbow trout spawning and fry 

emergence. 

• Implementing TDG Control and Mitigation Programs along with other water 

quality monitoring provisions. 

• Implementing a Fish Population and Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan 

for westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout in the Coeur d’Alene Lake Basin 

and native rainbow trout in the free-flowing reach of the Spokane River. 

• Implementing aquatic weed management measures in Coeur d’Alene Lake. 

• Implementing a comprehensive Erosion Control and Wetland and Riparian 

Habitat Protection and Enhancement Program for Coeur d’Alene Lake and its 

tributaries. 

• Providing aesthetic flows through the north channel at Post Falls Dam on 

weekends during the summer season. 

• Preparing and implementing a Recreation Plan for the Post Falls Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-4 

• Developing and implementing an Interpretation and Education Plan. 

• Conducting recreational use surveys every 6 years. 

• Developing and implementing a Land Use Management Plan. 

• Implementing a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP). 

• Monitoring bald eagles, surveying for new eagle nests, and developing Bald 

Eagle Nest Management Plans on Project lands. 

Spokane River Developments 

• Limiting the drawdown of Lake Spokane to no more than 14 feet except to 

periodically expose the lake bottom to freezing temperatures to help control 

aquatic weeds. 

• Providing year-round aesthetic flows at Monroe Street Development and 

summer season flows at Upper Falls Development. 

• Implementing TDG Control and Mitigation Programs along with other water 

quality monitoring provisions. 

• Implementing a Fish Population and Habitat Protection and Enhancement 

Program for the Spokane River. 

• Implementing aquatic weed management measures at Nine Mile Development 

and Lake Spokane. 

• Implementing a comprehensive Riparian and Wetland Habitat Protection and 

Enhancement Program at Lake Spokane and Nine Mile Reservoir. 

• Preparing and implementing a Recreation Plan for the Spokane River 

Developments. 

• Developing and implementing an Interpretation and Education Plan 

• Conducting recreational use surveys every 6 years. 

• Developing and implementing a Land Use Management Plan. 

• Implementing a HPMP. 

• Managing Project transmission lines to minimize injuries/mortality to raptors 

and to control vegetation using non-chemical approaches. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-5 

• Monitoring bald eagles, surveying for new eagle nests, and developing Bald 

Eagle Nest Management Plans for Project lands. 

STAFF ALTERNATIVE 

The Staff Alternative generally consists of the Proposed Action with 

additional or modified environmental measures recommended by staff to be 

performed by Avista. These measures include agency recommendations made 

pursuant to sections 4(e), 10(j), and 10(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). Staff 

recommendations include the following additions or modifications to Avista’s 

proposal: 

Post Falls Project 

• Developing and implementing a plan to monitor water temperature and DO in 

Coeur d’Alene Lake. 

• Developing and implementing a plan to monitor water temperature and DO 

from Post Falls Dam to river mile 84. 

• Developing and implementing a Post Falls Fisheries Public Education and 

Outreach Program Plan specific to native fish species upstream of the Post 

Falls Project. 

• Preparing and filing a Post Falls Project Ramping Rate Report after 

implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of the 4-inch-per-hour 

downramping rate. 

• Using annual meetings with agencies and interested parties to determine 

priorities and projects slated for fisheries and aquatic habitat enhancement. 

• Developing and implementing plans for identifying and protecting bald eagle 

nests. 

• Developing and implementing a Land Use Management Plan for the Post Falls 

Project; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Noxious Weed 

Management Program would be a component of the plan. 

• Developing and implementing a Coeur d’Alene Lake Aquatic Weed 

Management Plan. 

• Developing and implementing an Interpretation and Education Plan; a Bald 

Eagle Educational and Interpretive Program would be a component of the plan. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-6 

• Developing and implementing a final Post Falls Recreation Plan to include 

certain recreation facilities within the Project boundary. 

• Addressing potential indirect effects of the Proposed Action on traditional 

cultural properties that may not be located within the predefined area of 

potential effects (APE). 

• Providing a schedule in the HPMP to evaluate all remaining cultural resources 

for National Register eligibility and resolve all adverse effects to historic 

properties. 

• Including programs in the HPMP to: (1) monitor tribally sensitive cultural 

sites; (2) expand the APE where there are erosional effects occurring on 

cultural resources above the 2,128-foot line; (3) safeguard against vandalism 

on archaeological sites; and (4) curate cultural resource materials in a fashion 

that is suitable to the Coeur d’Alene Tribe. 

Spokane River Developments 

• Developing and implementing a Long Lake Oxygen Monitoring and 

Enhancement Plan. 

• Stocking 6,000 catchable-sized sterile rainbow trout (6 to 8 inches) in Upper 

Falls Reservoir and 9,000 catchable-sized sterile rainbow trout in Nine Mile 

Reservoir. 

• Developing and implementing a Lake Spokane Trout Stocking and Creel 

Survey Plan to guide the stocking of 155,000 catchable-sized sterile rainbow 

trout in Lake Spokane (Long Lake Reservoir) annually for the first 5 years 

following license issuance and to monitor the success of the fish stocking 

program. 

• Developing and implementing a Spokane River Fisheries Public Education and 

Outreach Program Plan specific to native rainbow trout populations in the 

Spokane River downstream of the Post Falls Project. 

• Preparing a Sediment Management Plan for Lake Spokane and Nine Mile 

Reservoir. 

• Developing and implementing a Spokane River Developments Recreation 

Plan. 

• Developing and implementing a Land Use Management Plan for the Spokane 

River Developments; the USFWS Noxious Weed Management Program would 

be a component of the plan. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-7 

• Developing and implementing a Lake Spokane Aquatic Weed Management 

Plan. 

• Conducting even-year monitoring of Nine Mile Reservoir for early detection of 

noxious aquatic weeds. 

• Developing and implementing an Interpretation and Education Plan; a Bald 

Eagle Educational and Interpretive Program would be a component of the plan. 

• Monitoring wetlands in Lake Spokane after installation of a rubber dam and 

mitigating any net loss of vegetated wetlands. 

• Providing a schedule in the HPMP to evaluate all remaining cultural resources 

for National Register eligibility and resolve all adverse effects to historic 

properties. 

• Including programs in the HPMP to: (1) monitor tribally sensitive cultural 

sites; (2) safeguard against vandalism on archaeological sites; and (3) curate 

cultural resource materials in a fashion that is suitable to both the Coeur 

d’Alene Tribe and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. 

STAFF ALTERNATIVE WITH MANDATORY CONDITIONS 

Section 4(e) of the FPA gives the Secretary of Interior (the 

U.S. Department of the Interior [DOI]) and the Secretary of Agriculture (the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]) authority to impose conditions on a 

license issued by the Commission for hydropower projects located on 

“reservations” under the Secretary’s supervision (16 U.S.C §§796[2], 797[e]). 

In a July 18, 2006, filing with the Commission, DOI submitted preliminary 

section 4(e) conditions on behalf of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the 

Post Falls Project. On May 17, 2007, DOI filed with the Commission modified 

terms, conditions, and prescriptions for the Post Falls Project. We analyze them in 

this FEIS. 

On July 14, 2006, and August 21, 2006, the USDA Forest Service 

submitted preliminary section 4(e) conditions for the Post Falls Project. On May 3, 

2007, the USDA Forest Service filed a letter with the Commission stating that its 

August 18, 2006, modified terms, conditions, and prescriptions for the Post Falls 

Project are its final terms, conditions and prescriptions for the Project. The 

modified conditions are administrative conditions, not environmental measures. 

We do not analyze them in this FEIS. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-8 

Pursuant to section 18 of the FPA, DOI also included in its July 18, 2006, 

filing on behalf of the USFWS, reservation of authority to prescribe the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of fishways in the future during the term 

of the license. The final 4(e) conditions and the reserved authority for fishway 

prescriptions must be included in any new license that may be issued for this 

Project. Incorporation of these mandatory conditions into a new license would 

cause us to modify or eliminate some of the environmental measures that we 

include in the Staff Alternative, including staff-recommended plans for water 

quality monitoring, shoreline and erosion control, and aquatic weed management 

at Coeur d’Alene Lake. 

PROJECT EFFECTS AND CONCLUSION 

Table ES-1 summarizes the substantive differences between Avista’s 

Proposal, the Staff Alternative, and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory 

Conditions. Based on our detailed analysis of the environmental benefits and costs 

associated with the four alternatives considered in detail in this FEIS, we conclude 

that the best alternative for the Projects would be to issue a new license(s) 

consistent with the environmental measures specified in the Staff Alternative. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-9 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

POST FALLS PROJECT Annual generation (megawatt-hour [MWh]) 77,262 77,262 77,262 

Net annual power benefits -$3,025,400 -$1,980,600 -$3,688,600 Hydrologic Resources 

Instream Flows Minimum instream flow releases 

of 600 cfs year-round from Post Falls Dam, with ability to lower releases to 500 cfs between July 1 and September 15 of each year if the level of Coeur d’Alene Lake drops 3 inches or more below fullpool elevation 2,128 feet (PF-AR-1, Part 1). 

Upgrade USGS gage no. 12419000 to real-time capability (PF-REC-3). 

Adopt Avista’s proposal. No specific conditio

Ramping Rates Follow a downramping rate that 

corresponds to no more than a 4-inch drop per hour in downstream water levels (PF-AR-1, Part 3). 

Adopt Avista’s proposal, but also evaluate the effectiveness of the ramping rate and prepare and file a Post Falls Project Ramping Rate Report after implementation of the 4-inch-per-hour ramping rate. 

No specific conditio

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-10 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Water Quality Water Quality Monitoring Develop and implement a plan to 

monitor discharge and water temperature in the Spokane River from Post Falls Dam to the Idaho/Washington state line. Fund the Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s water quality monitoring program in Coeur d’Alene Lake and fund the purchase and installation of two meteorological stations (PF-WQ-2). 

Develop and implement a plan to monitor water temperature and DO in Coeur d’Alene Lake. Develop and implement a plan to monitor water temperature and DO from the Post Falls Dam to river mile 84. 

Require licensee to comprehensive WaMonitoring Program d’Alene Lake, whicsampling water temorganic parameters, phytoplankton. Alsquality modeling efand installation of a station on the CoeuReservation. 

Total Dissolved Gas Monitor, evaluate, and control the 

production of elevated TDG levels in discharges from Post Falls Project (PF-WQ-1). 

Adopt Avista’s proposed measures. 

No specific conditio

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-11 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Geologic Resources Erosion Control, Wetland, and Riparian Habitat Plan (PF-TR-1) 

Erosion control component: control erosion on the shorelines of Coeur d’Alene Lake and tributaries. 

Adopt Avista’s erosion control program component included in PF-TR-1. 

DOI’s modified conwould require Avisshoreline erosion on Joe River and on 30d’Alene Lake on thincluded in the licencondition, this alterreplace our recommfor erosion control 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-12 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Aquatic Resources Fisheries Enhancement Provide for a Population and 

Habitat Protection Program for westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout in the Coeur d’Alene Lake Basin. Include rainbow trout spawning and fry emergence protection, and provide for assessments and monitoring of native salmonids. Additionally, include assistance and support for a Public Information and Education Program specific to bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout in the Coeur d’Alene Lake Basin (PF-AR-1, Parts 4, 5 and 6). 

Provide spring flows for upper Spokane River rainbow trout for spawning and fry emergence protection (PF-AR-1, Part 2). 

No comparable fish population and aquatic habitat protection and enhancement measures recommended. Staff’s alternative includes some provisions for fisheries public outreach and education in the Coeur d’Alene Lake basin and the Spokane River. Staff’s alternative also includes Avista’s proposed measures for protecting spawning and emerging rainbow trout. 

No specific conditio

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-13 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Aquatic Resources (cont) Aquatic Weeds Provide assistance and financial 

support for public education, monitoring, and weed management measures associated with exotic/noxious weeds in Coeur d’Alene Lake (PF-AR-2). 

Adopt Avista’s proposed measures but require Avista to be fully responsible for lake weed management by filing a plan for Commission approval and implementing all measures included in the plan. 

Add to Avista and Smeasures (as scaled include duplicative Coeur d’Alene Indilands) to develop anAquatic Weed Mancontrol exotic and nweeds in the waters Project that are withd’Alene Indian Res

Terrestrial Resources Bald Eagles Annually survey for new bald 

eagle nests; annually monitor bald eagle nests for occupancy and productivity; and prepare bald eagle nest management plans—all for lands within the Project boundary. 

In addition to Avista’s proposals, do not limit bald eagle surveys, monitoring, and nest management plans to Project lands (except on-theground enhancements) and add a requirement to develop a Bald Eagle Educational and Interpretive Program for the Projects. 

No specific conditio

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-14 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Terrestrial Resources (cont) Erosion Control, Wetland, and Riparian Habitat Plan (PF-TR-1) 

Wetland component: restore and/or acquire wetlands at Coeur d’Alene Lake and tributaries. 

Adopt Avista’s proposed measures. 

DOI modified condrequire Avista to rereplace 3,488 acres off the reservation. condition, this alterinclude Avista’s profor wetlands under 

Noxious Weeds Manage noxious weeds on its 

lands through a Land Use Management Plan (PF-LU-1) and educate the public about eradicating noxious weeds through its public outreach measure (PFLU-1 and PF-REC-4). 

In addition to Avista’s proposed measures, implement a Noxious Weed Management Program that includes surveys. 

No specific conditio

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-15 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff Alternative, and Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectric Project and Spokane River Developments (

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Recreation Resources Recreation Plan Implement recreational 

enhancements in accordance with a proposed Recreation Plan. Establish a Recreation Enhancement Fund (PF-REC-1). Implement measures for recreational facilities on USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Coeur d’Alene Tribe lands (PF-REC-2). 

Adopt in part; develop a final Recreation Plan to include certain recreation facilities within the Project boundary. 

USDA Forest Servisection 4(e) conditiadministration and Avista’s proposal. 

Whitewater Boating Coordinate late spring and fall 

flow releases to extend whitewater boating opportunities and provide boating flows during one or two weekends in August while minimizing adverse effects on fish and aquatic resources. Includes provisions for improving downstream access (PF-REC-3). 

Adopt in part; coordinate measure with Aquatic Resources, Fisheries Enhancement measures (PF-AR-1, Part 2). 

No specific conditio

Interpretation and Education Plan 

Provide for educational and interpretive media about the Project and related resources (PF-REC-4); conduct recreational use surveys every 6 years. 

Adopt in part; add a Bald Eagle Educational and Interpretive Program component. 

No specific conditio

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-16 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Management 

Develop and implement the HPMP. The plan would include treatment and management recommendations for National Register of Historic Placeseligible archaeological sites located along the shorelines of Coeur d’Alene Lake and its tributaries and would address ongoing cultural resources protection and management (PF-CR-1). Additionally, develop a specific plan for cultural resources located on the reservation and develop treatment options for National Registereligible resources located on the reservation that have not already been completed by previous studies. 

Similar to Avista’s proposal, except the HPMP should also include: (1) a detailed schedule to evaluate all remaining cultural resources for National Register eligibility and resolve all adverse effects to historic properties, and (2) programs to monitor tribally sensitive cultural sites, expand the APE where there are erosional effects occurring on cultural resources above the 2,128-foot line, safeguard against vandalism on archaeological sites, and curate cultural resource materials. 

Add to Avista and Smeasures (as scaled include duplicative Coeur d’Alene Indilands) to include fuprotection, and trearesource sites on thIndian Reservation boundary and on la2,128-foot elevation effects are occurrinthe future. Include pprevent vandalism. monitoring, traditioproperty inventory education programsan emergency recovinadvertent discoveand management of and records recoverreservation. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-17 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

SPOKANE RIVER DEVELOPMENTS Annual generation (MWh) 795,903 795,903 No mandatory cond

Net annual power benefits $18,554,400 $19,160,000 Hydrologic Resources 

Aesthetic Flows Provide a 200-cfs minimum daily 

aesthetic flow through Upper Falls Development bypass reach (north and middle channels) from 10 a.m. to one-half hour after sunset, Memorial Day weekend through September 30 (SRP-AES-1). 

Continue the current 200-cfs minimum daily aesthetic flow from 10 a.m. to one-half hour after sunset daily, year-round, at Monroe Street Development (SRP-AES-1). 

Adopt Avista’s proposed measures. 

No mandatory cond

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-18 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Hydrologic Resources (cont) Lake Levels Limit the drawdown of Lake 

Spokane to 14 feet, except under certain emergency conditions. Periodically lower Lake Spokane during the winter to expose the lake bed to freezing temperatures to reduce the occurrence of aquatic weeds such as Eurasian watermilfoil. 

Adopt Avista’s proposed measures. 

No mandatory cond

Water Quality 

Total Dissolved Gas Develop and implement a TDG 

Control and Mitigation Program, including spill gate operating protocols, monitoring, and a comprehensive Long Lake Development TDG Abatement Plan (SRP-WQ-1). 

Adopt Avista’s proposed measures. 

No mandatory cond

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-19 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Water Quality(cont) Water Quality Monitoring Develop and implement a Water 

Quality Monitoring Program upstream of the Spokane River Developments and initiate and implement a Long Lake DO Enhancement Plan (SRP-WQ-2). 

Develop and implement a Long Lake Oxygen Monitoring and Enhancement Plan. 

No mandatory cond

Geologic Resources 

Sediment Management Support regional efforts to reduce 

erosion and downstream sedimentation in the Hangman Creek watershed (SRP-TR-1). 

In addition to Avista’s erosion control measure (SRP-TR-1), include the preparation and implementation of a Sediment Management Plan for Nine Mile and Long Lake Developments. 

No mandatory cond

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-20 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Aquatic Resources Fish Protection Provide for fish population and 

aquatic habitat protection and enhancement efforts on the Spokane River and Lake Spokane. Also support the development and implementation of enhanced fish population and related aquatic habitat assessments and monitoring programs associated with the Upper Falls, Monroe Street, Nine Mile, and Long Lake Developments (SRP-AR-1). 

Annually stock 6,000 rainbow trout in Upper Falls and 9,000 rainbow trout in Nine Mile Reservoir. Also annually stock 155,000 rainbow trout and conduct creel surveys in Lake Spokane for 5 years following license issuance. No other comparable fish population and aquatic habitat protection and enhancement efforts recommended. 

No mandatory cond

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-21 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Aquatic Resources (cont) Aquatic Weeds Implement site-specific and 

general weed control measures in Lake Spokane, including potential use of bottom barriers to maintain public access sites (SRP-AR-2). 

Adopt Avista’s measure but require Avista to be fully responsible for lake weed management by filing a plan for Commission approval. Also, conduct even-year monitoring for early detection of aquatic weeds in Nine Mile Reservoir. 

No mandatory cond

Terrestrial Resources 

Wetland and Riparian Area Enhancement 

Secure property protection for, and implement, new wetland enhancement or restoration efforts adjacent to or near the Nine Mile or Long Lake Developments (SRP-TR-1) 

In addition to Avista’s proposal, add a requirement to monitor wetlands affected by a new rubber dam at Nine Mile Development and mitigate any net loss of vegetated wetlands at the Project. 

No mandatory cond

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-22 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Terrestrial Resources (cont) Transmission Line Corridor Provide raptor protection and 

non-chemical vegetation management, as appropriate, on approximately 2.1 miles of existing Project transmission lines, as well as any new transmission lines that may become part of the Project in the future (SRP-TR-2). 

Adopt Avista’s measures. No mandatory cond

Noxious Weeds Manage noxious weeds on its 

lands through a Land Use Management Plan (SRP-LU-1) and Transmission Line Management Plan (SRP-TR-2). 

In addition to Avista’s proposed measures, implement a Noxious Weed Management Program that includes surveys. 

No mandatory cond

Bald Eagles Annually survey for new bald 

eagle nests; annually monitor bald eagle nests for occupancy and productivity; and prepare bald eagle nest management plans—all for lands within the Project boundary. 

In addition to Avista’s proposals, do not limit bald eagle surveys, monitoring, and nest management plans to Project lands (except on-theground enhancements) and add a requirement to develop a Bald Eagle Educational and Interpretive Program for the Projects. 

No mandatory cond

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-23 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Recreation ResourcesRecreation Plan Implement recreational 

enhancements in accordance with a proposed Recreation Plan (SRP-REC-1 and SRP-REC-2). 

Adopt in part; develop final Recreation Plan to include certain recreation facilities within the Project boundary. 

No mandatory cond

Interpretation and Education Plan 

Provide for educational and interpretive media about the Project and related resources (SRP-REC-3); conduct recreational use surveys every 6 years. 

Adopt in part; add a Bald Eagle Educational and Interpretive Program component. 

No specific conditio

Aesthetic Resources 

Aesthetic Flows Provide a 200-cfs minimum daily 

flow through Upper Falls bypass reach (north and middle channels) from 10 a.m. to one-half hour before sunset from Memorial Day through September 30 and continue year-round 200-cfs flow over Monroe Street Dam. 

Adopt Avista’s measures. No mandatory cond

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
ES-24 

Table ES-1. Summary of key differences and components of Avista’s Proposed Action, the Staff 

and the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions for the Post Falls Hydroelectr

Spokane River Developments (continued) 

Resource Avista’s Proposal Staff Alternative Staff Alternativ

Modified Manda

Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Management 

Develop and implement the HPMP. 

Adopt Avista’s measures, including mandatory conditions; adopt all but one of the measures in DOI condition 4, which include expanding the APE, monitoring, anti-vandalism, and curation programs. 

Adopt Avista’s meamandatory conditioexpanded APE, movandalism, and curaaddition, Avista wofor upgrading and eCoeur d’Alene Trib

Source: Staff 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-1 

1.0 

1.0 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER 

On July 28, 2005, Avista Corporation (Avista) filed two applications with 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission or FERC) for new 

licenses for its five hydroelectric developments on the Spokane River in 

Washington and Idaho. The applications are for the Spokane River Hydroelectric 

Project (referred to as the “Spokane River Developments”) and the Post Falls 

Hydroelectric Project (referred to as the “Post Falls Project”), with both 

collectively referred to as “the Projects.” The Projects consist of five hydroelectric 

developments located in Kootenai and Benewah counties, Idaho, and in Spokane, 

Lincoln, and Stevens counties, Washington, in and near the city of Spokane, 

Washington (Figure 1.0-1). The Post Falls Project, the farthest upstream 

development, is located in Idaho; it has an installed capacity of 14.75 megawatts 

(MW). The Post Falls Project, as proposed by Avista, has an annual generation of 

77,262 megawatt-hours (MWh). The Spokane River Developments consist of the 

four lower river developments, which are located in Washington; they have an 

installed capacity of 122.9 MW. The Spokane River Developments, as proposed 

by Avista, have an annual generation of 795,903 MWh. Avista proposes no new 

capacity. 

The Post Falls Project occupies approximately 308 acres of submerged land 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 54 acres of land 

administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, 

Coeur d’Alene National Forest. Within the Post Falls Project boundary are 

5,996 acres of lands owned by the United States and held in trust for the Coeur 

d’Alene Indian Tribe. However, establishment of exact ownership acreage has 

never been settled because of ordinary high-water mark disputes that have yet to 

be settled in court. Also within the Project boundary, approximately 1,593 acres 

are owned by the State of Idaho as part of Heyburn State Park. The Spokane River 

Developments do not occupy any federal or tribal lands. Currently, all five 

hydroelectric developments are operating under a single combined license issued 

by the Commission on August 17, 1972. That license will expire on August 1, 

2007. 

1.1 PURPOSE OF ACTION 

The Commission, under the authority of the Federal Power Act (FPA), may 

issue licenses with terms from 30 to 50 years for the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of jurisdictional hydroelectric projects. The Commission is 

considering whether to issue new licenses to Avista for the Projects. The purpose 

of the proposed projects is to provide continued, uninterrupted, low-cost electrical 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-2 

Figure 1.0-1. Location map - Spokane River and Post Falls Hydroelectric Projects 

Post Falls Project 

Nine Mile Development 

Upper Falls and Monroe Street Developments 

Long Lake Development 

PUBLIC

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-3 

energy generation for the benefit of governmental, industrial, and residential 

customers in the region, while balancing the needs of resources and other public 

interests in the area. 

The Commission must decide whether to issue a new license and what 

conditions to place on any license issued. In deciding whether to authorize the 

continued operation of the Project and related facilities in compliance with the 

FPA and other applicable laws, the Commission must determine that the Project 

will 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; the protection of, 

mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related 

spawning grounds and habitat); the protection of recreational opportunities; and 

the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. 

Commission staff (staff) prepared this final environmental impact statement 

(FEIS) to ensure that the Commission makes an informed licensing decision and to 

comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines implementing NEPA, and 

the Commission’s regulations. 

In this FEIS, we assess the effects of operating the Projects (1) with no 

changes or enhancements to the current facilities or operations (No-Action 

Alternative); (2) as proposed by Avista (Proposed Action); (3) as proposed by 

Avista with additional modified environmental measures (Avista’s proposal with 

modifications, or the Staff Alternative); and (4) as proposed under the Staff 

Alternative with Mandatory Conditions. The No-Action Alternative represents 

baseline environmental and economic conditions for comparison with other 

alternatives. Other alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis 

include (1) federal governmental takeover and operation of the Projects; 

(2) issuance of a non-power license upon expiration of the current Project license; 

(3) retirement of the Projects; and (4) implementation of a natural hydrograph 

alternative for the Post Falls Project. 

The principal issues addressed in the FEIS involve (1) reservoir operations 

related to power generation and other purposes; (2) Project releases for protection 

of native fish populations and other purposes; (3) water quality; (4) fishery 

management and protection needs; (5) protection and enhancement of wildlife 

habitat; (6) potential effects on threatened and endangered species; (7) recreational 

access and facility improvements; (8) protection of cultural and historic resources; 

(9) waterway bank erosion; and (10) aesthetic flows and aesthetic resources. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-4 

1.2 NEED FOR POWER 

Avista, an investor-owned utility supplying electricity to residential, 

wholesale, commercial, and industrial users, owns and operates the 14.75-MW 

Post Falls Project and the 122.9-MW Spokane River Developments. Avista 

provides energy to more than 325,000 electric and 300,000 natural gas customers 

in a 30,000-square-mile service area that covers parts of four western states 

(Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and Montana) with a variety of energy resources. 

The Projects include developments that operate both in run-of-river mode 

and with regulated reservoirs. The Projects are operated in a coordinated manner 

to contribute to Avista’s electric generating resources. 

Avista also operates the Clark Fork Hydroelectric Project facilities, 

including the 466-MW Noxon Development and the 257-MW Cabinet Gorge 

Development, totaling 723 MW of licensed nameplate capacity. On the Spokane 

River, Avista also operates the Little Falls Hydroelectric Project, which has a 

nameplate rating of 32 MW. These three Avista hydroelectric facilities, together 

with Avista’s five Spokane River Projects, provide about 892 MW of hydro 

capacity (Avista, 1999). Energy from the eight developments accounts for 

451 average MW (aMW)1

, or about 36 percent of Avista’s 1,270-aMW resource 

portfolio in 2004. 

The balance of Avista’s firm generation resources are coal-fired thermal 

plants, gas-fired combustion turbine plants, purchases from independent power 

producers, and wholesale power purchases. Additionally, Avista participates in the 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, a non-profit consortium of energy 

providers and related industries involved in developing markets for energyefficiency products and services, and in several regional energy conservation, 

audit, and weatherization programs. Avista’s energy conservation and efficiency 

programs serve residential, commercial, and industrial customers by providing 

technical assistance, incentives, and education about the wise use of energy. 

Generally, its programs have been divided into three local portfolios: 

commercial/industrial, limited income, and residential. Avista continues to work to 

provide cost-effective conservation programs to customers. During the last 

26 years, Avista has acquired 111 aMW of energy through the implementation of 

its conservation programs (Avista, 2005). 

The Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA’s) 2006 Pacific Northwest 

Loads and Resources Study (the 2006 White Book) is a snapshot of overall Pacific 

Northwest regional conditions as of March 31, 2006, and incorporates load, 

 

1

 An average megawatt (aMW) is a unit of electrical consumption or production over a year. It is 

equivalent to the energy produced by the continuous use of 1 MW of capacity served over a period of 

1 year. One aMW is equivalent to 8,760 MWh, or 8.76 gigawatt-hours (BPA, 2005). 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-5 

contract, and resource estimates provided by BPA, federal agencies, public 

utilities, cooperatives, and investor-owned utilities (BPA, 2006). Figure 1.2-1 

illustrates how the monthly peak firm MW deficit could grow to as much as 

5,085 MW by operating year 2016.2

 For the month of January (a peak-demand 

month for the region), the total regional firm load is projected to be 38,205 MW in 

2016, and total net power resources are expected to be 33,148 MW. The colder 

winter months are most susceptible to deficits; April and May also may experience 

deficits. 

Figure 1.2-1. Regional firm monthly capacity surplus/deficit projections 

Source: BPA, 2006

 

2

 An operating or energy year begins August 1 and ends July 31. 

PUBLIC

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-6 

The average annual regional firm load is expected to rise from 20,637 aMW in 

2007 to 23,418 aMW in 2016, excluding the load associated with exports. 

Additionally, energy exports are expected to decrease from 1,002 aMW in 2007 

to691 aMW in 2016. In general, the regional firm load is projected to be 

21,650 aMW in 2007 and 24,119 aMW in 2016. Total net power resources are 

expected to grow from 23,667 aMW in 2007 to 24,114 aMW in 2016, resulting in 

a surplus of firm power of 2,017 aMW in 2007 and a deficit of 5.6 aMW in 2016. 

These BPA projections indicate a continued need for power in the Pacific 

Northwest. 

The Projects are part of the 250 developments in the Columbia River 

system. The amount and timing of water released from the Columbia River system 

projects substantially affect both hydroelectric generation and the other benefits 

provided by the system (e.g., transportation, irrigation, and natural resource 

protection). The efficient management of this complex hydroelectric and water 

resource system is facilitated by the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement 

(PNCA). Most public and private utilities and federal generators in the region, 

including Avista, are parties to the PNCA. The PNCA provides for the 

coordination of water releases from the participating hydroelectric projects to 

optimize energy production and other benefits. 

The Projects fall under the purview of the PNCA and operates in 

coordination with other developments in the system. The amount of storage water 

provided by the Projects, however, is very small compared to the many other, 

much larger storage reservoirs in the Columbia River system, including Flathead 

Lake on the Flathead River, Lake Pend Oreille on the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille 

River system, the Canadian storage reservoirs on the upper Columbia River, Lake 

Roosevelt (formed by Grand Coulee Dam) on the main stem of the Columbia 

River, and the Snake River storage reservoirs. 

Avista, through its resource planning process for the states of Washington 

and Idaho, regularly prepares comprehensive forecasted energy requirements and 

files integrated resource plans to the Washington (state) Utilities and 

Transportation Commission and Idaho Public Utilities Commission. Through this 

planning process, Avista anticipates that the overall growth in electricity sales will 

average 3.4 percent per year between now and 2023. By 2013, an energy shortfall 

of 411 aMW is projected for the year, and an energy shortfall of as much as 

556 aMW could occur in January—the month with the largest energy shortfall.3

 

3

 Avista uses an 80-percent confidence level for energy planning to account for abnormal monthly 

weather patterns and below-average monthly hydroelectric capability. Avista also maintains operating 

reserves in accordance with industry standards. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-7 

Similarly, on an annual basis, Avista forecasts surplus capacity through 

2009. By 2013, a capacity shortfall of as much as 432 aMW is expected for the 

year, and a 547-aMW shortfall could occur in December—the month with the 

largest capacity shortfall. 

Avista operates the Projects in concert with its other facilities and programs 

to minimize the overall cost of power production. Without these Projects, Avista 

would be faced with replacing the Project’s energy and capacity at costs reflecting 

the value of new resource acquisition. 

In summary, if licensed, the power from the Projects would continue to be 

useful in meeting Avista’s needs as well as part of the local and regional need for 

power. The Projects help displace fossil-fueled electric power generation that the 

region now uses, thereby conserving non-renewable fossil fuels and reducing the 

emission of noxious byproducts caused by fossil-fuel combustion. 

1.3 INTERVENTIONS 

On January 13, 2006, the Commission issued a notice accepting Avista’s 

applications to relicense the Post Falls Project and Spokane River Developments. 

This notice set a 60-day period, which ended on March 14, 2006, during which 

interventions and protests could be filed. In response to that notice, the following 

entities filed motions to either intervene or intervene and protest: 

Entity Type4

 Filed Date

American Whitewater I March 1, 2006 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW) 

I March 3, 2006 

Sierra Club I/P March 7, 2006 

USDA Forest Service (Post Falls only) I March 8, 2006 

Center for Environmental Law and Policy (CELP) I/P March 9, 2006 

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) I March 9, 2006 

State of Idaho I March 10, 2006 

Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club and Northwest 

Whitewater Association (NWA) 

I March 13, 2006 

Friends of the Centennial Trail I March 13, 2006 

City of Post Falls, Idaho I March 13, 2006 

Hagadone Hospitality Co. I March 14, 2006 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) I March 14, 2006 

The Lands Council I/P March 14, 2006 

Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Indians I/P March 14, 2006 

 

4

 “I” filings were Motions to Intervene; “I/P” filings were Motions to Intervene and Protest. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-8 

Entity Type4 Filed Date

Spokane River Association I March 14, 2006 

Idaho Rivers United I March 15, 2006 

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 

(WSPRC) 

I March 15, 2006 

Kootenai County, Idaho I March 15, 2006 

Washington Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) 

I March 15, 2006 

Washington Interagency Committee on Outdoor 

Recreation 

I March 15, 2006 

Spokane Mountaineers, Inc. I March 15, 2006 

Lake Spokane Protection Association I March 15, 2006 

City of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho I March 20, 2006 

On May 5, 2006, the Commission published a notice granting late 

intervention status to the eight entities listed above that filed after March 14. 

1.4 SCOPING PROCESS 

Avista conducted the NEPA scoping process as part of the Alternative 

Licensing Process (ALP) and formally initiated public scoping on May 6, 2003, 

with the release of Scoping Document 1 (SD1). SD1 invited the public to provide 

comments on the Projects either through written or oral testimony. Two public 

scoping meetings were held in Spokane, Washington, on June 3, 2003. A court 

reporter recorded all comments and statements made at the scoping meetings. All 

comments and statements have been made part of the Commission’s public record 

for the Projects. 

In addition to the comments received at the scoping meetings, 

67 individuals provided written comments during the 60-day comment period 

concluding July 6, 2003. The following entities also provided written comments: 

Commenting Entity Date of Letter

Coeur d’Alene Lakeshore Owner’s Association May 27, 2003 

Idaho Nature Conservancy May 28, 2003 

Coeur d’Alene Chamber of Commerce May 28, 2003 

Kootenai County Assessor May 29. 2003 

Post Falls Area Chamber of Commerce May 30, 2003 

Kidd Island Bay Restoration and Conservation Project May 30, 2003 

Rivermill Investments, LLC. June 2, 2003 

The Greater Squaw Bay Association June 11, 2003 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-9 

Commenting Entity Date of Letter

City of Coeur d’Alene June 25, 2003 

Rockford Bay Terrace Community, Inc. June 26, 2003 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) June 27, 2003 

Leisurehaven Floathouses Inc. June 28, 2003 

The Hagadone Corporation July 1, 2003 

WDOE July 1, 2003 

BLM July 1, 2003 

USDA Forest Service July 2, 2003 

Kootenai County Sheriff’s Department July 3, 2003 

Department of the Army July 3, 2003 

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) July 3, 2003 

The Lands Council July 6, 2003 

WDFW July 6, 2003 

Coeur d’Alene Tribe July 7, 2003 

Sierra Club, Upper Columbia River Group July 7, 2003 

Idaho Rivers United July 7, 2003 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) July 8, 2003 

Written and oral comments were summarized and addressed in Scoping 

Document 2 (SD2) issued on June 14, 2004. SD2 presented an expanded list of 

resource issues and alternatives to be examined in the NEPA analysis. The issues 

included potential effects on (1) geology and soils; (2) water quality and quantity; 

(3) aquatic resources; (4) terrestrial resources; (5) threatened and endangered 

species; (6) cultural resources; (7) recreation and aesthetics; and 

(8) socioeconomics. The alternatives included (1) Avista’s preliminary proposed 

action, (2) no action, and (3) other alternatives that may be proposed by agencies, 

tribes, other governmental or non-governmental organizations (NGOs), or other 

parties. 

1.5 AGENCY CONSULTATIONS 

In addition to the formal NEPA scoping described in the previous section, 

significant opportunities for public involvement were integrated into the Projects’ 

relicensing process. Opportunities began upon commencement of the ALP 

process, when a Plenary Group of stakeholder organizations was formed to 

participate in and generally oversee the ALP and the desired development of a 

settlement agreement. The Plenary Group held its first meeting on May 21, 2002, 

and at that time established five additional work groups to focus on issues within 

major resource areas: water resources; fisheries; terrestrial resources; recreation, 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-10 

land use, and aesthetic resources; and cultural resources. The work groups met 

approximately monthly for almost 3 years to define issues, review and approve 

study plans and results, and recommend environmental measures to be included 

into the intended Settlement Agreement and incorporated into Avista’s Proposed 

Action. Some, but not all, of the work groups’ recommendations are included in 

Avista’s Proposed Action presented in this FEIS. 

On May 18, 2006, the Commission issued a notice soliciting 

recommendations, terms, conditions, and prescriptions for the Projects. This notice 

set July 17, 2006, as the deadline for these filings. In response to the notice, the 

following entities filed recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and 

preliminary prescriptions: 

Commenting Entities Type Dated Filed

Kootenai County 10(a) July 14, 2006 

USDA Forest Service 10(a), 4(e) July 14, 20065

Center for Justice (Sierra Club) 10(a) July 17, 2006 

City of Post Falls, Idaho 10(a) July 17, 2006 

WDOE 10(a) July 17, 2006 

CELP 10(a) July 17, 2006 

NWA 10(a) July 17, 2006 

State of Idaho 10(a), 10(j) July 17, 2006 

The Lands Council 10(a) July 17, 2006 

WDFW 10(j) July 18, 2006 

Department of Interior (BIA, USFWS, 

BLM, National Park Service [NPS]) 

4(e), 10(j), 10(a), 

section 18 

July 18, 20066

City of Coeur d’Alene 10(a) July 19, 2006 

1.6 ALTERNATIVES TO AGENCY MANDATORY TERMS AND 

CONDITIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FINDINGS 

In DOI’s July 18, 2006 filing, the BIA filed 15 preliminary 4(e) conditions 

applicable to the Post Falls Project. In a filing of August 17, 2006, to DOI’s Office 

of Environmental Policy and Compliance and the Commission, Avista filed 

12 alternative conditions to DOI’s preliminary section 4(e) conditions. Of the 

12 alternative conditions, only four involved Avista proposing any new measures; 

 

5

 The USDA Forest Service also provided modified preliminary recommendations, terms, and 

conditions in a letter filed on August 21, 2006. On May 3, 2007, the USDA Forest Service stated that its 

filing of August 21, 2006, contains its final recommendations, terms, and conditions. 

6

 DOI requested an extension on its filing and was granted a 1-day extension. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-11 

the other eight alternative conditions requested DOI to delete the corresponding 

BIA condition in its entirety with the alternative asking that no condition be 

imposed at all. There were no alternatives proposed by Avista regarding the 

USDA preliminary 4(e) conditions. On September 1, 2006, Avista filed reply 

comments to recommendations, terms, and conditions filed by all parties, 

including DOI, on the Projects (Avista, 2006a). 

On August 17, 2006, Avista also filed a request with DOI for a hearing on 

disputed issues of material fact with respect to six of the preliminary conditions 

filed by DOI with FERC under section 4(e) conditions. Pursuant to section 241 of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 241, 119 Stat. 594, 674-75 

(Aug. 8, 2005) (EPAct), codified at 16 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 797(e), 

811, and the underlying procedural regulations published in 70 Federal Register 

(FR) 69804 (November 17, 2005) (promulgated in 43 CFR Part 45), “[t]he license 

applicant and any party to the proceeding shall be entitled to a determination on 

the record, after opportunity for an agency trial-type hearing of no more than 

90 days, on any disputed issues of material fact with respect to such conditions.” 

16 U.S.C. § 797(e). 

In its request for hearing, Avista identified 38 proposed issues of disputed 

material fact for hearing. Notices of intervention and responses to Avista’s hearing 

request were then filed by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, the State of Idaho, and the 

Upper Columbia River Group of the Sierra Club. 

On October 2, 2006, BIA filed an answer responding to Avista’s hearing 

request. In its answer, BIA contended that most of Avista’s proposed issues of 

disputed material fact were inappropriate for hearing because they failed to meet 

the 43 CFR 45.1(a)(1) requirement that each hearing issue be disputed, material, 

and factual. BIA also argued that several of Avista’s proposed issues were actually 

questions of policy and/or alternative conditions, and therefore beyond the scope 

of the proceeding. The Coeur d’Alene Tribe and the Sierra Club also took the 

position that most of Avista’s proposed issues did not meet the requirements to be 

identified for hearing. 

On October 10, 2006, DOI’s Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance referred the matter to the DOI Office of Hearings and Appeals, 

Departmental Cases Hearings Division, pursuant to 43 CFR 45.25(a). The case 

was then assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Andrew S. Pearlstein. 

Between October 13, 2006, and December 3, 2006 the ALJ, Avista, BIA, 

Coeur d’Alene Tribe, and Sierra Club participated in several pre-hearing activities, 

including a prehearing teleconference, a period of discovery and direct testimony 

of witnesses, and a scheduled site visit. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-12 

The hearing convened in Spokane, Washington, on December 4, 2006, and 

continued through December 8, 2006. Avista, BIA and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe 

jointly, and the Sierra Club filed post-hearing briefs, including proposed 

supporting and ultimate findings of fact, on December 22, 2006, and reply briefs 

on December 29, 2006. 

On January 8, 2007, the ALJ filed his final findings of fact in the case. His 

findings focused on alleged environmental effects and impacts of the continued 

operation of the Post Falls Project on the Coeur d’Alene Reservation, where the 

parties have raised disputed issues of material fact relating to conditions proposed 

by the BIA to monitor and mitigate those alleged impacts. Those effects include 

impacts or alleged impacts on water quality, fisheries, aquatic vegetation, 

wetlands, erosion, and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s cultural resources. Avista 

generally denied that the Project causes adverse impacts to the reservation, while 

BIA and the tribe generally alleged that the Project does cause such impacts. 

An abbreviated summary of the ALJ’s findings of fact with respect to each 

of the issues identified for hearing follows. 

Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Shoreline Erosion Control: (a). The 

Project is responsible for about 50 percent of erosion in the lower tributaries, and 

30 percent in the lake. (b). The Project increases boating activity on the 

reservation. 

Water Quality Standards and Water Quality Monitoring: (a). The Project 

affects plant growth and distribution in the shallow southern end of the lake; and 

increases temperature and reduces dissolved oxygen (DO) in that area. (b). The 

Project does not significantly increase eutrophication in the lake as a whole. 

(c). The Project has no effect, or a negligible effect, on the amount of metals that 

dissolve in the lake. (d). The Project does not have potential effects on the metal 

parameters listed, but may have effects on the organic parameters in the southern 

end of the lake. 

Protection of Cultural Resources: (a). The Project has caused an increase 

in pothunting of cultural resources on the reservation. (b). Avista's survey of 

cultural resources was adequate to identify those resources for the intended 

purposes. (c). The Project may affect cultural resources within the 100-foot buffer 

zone. 

Salmonid Fisheries: The Project has had only minor impacts on the decline 

of native salmonid fish in the lake, which are dwarfed by the devastating impacts 

of non-Project factors, primarily the introduction of non-native species and the 

degradation of tributary spawning habitat. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-13 

Aquatic Weed Management: (a). The Project is a cause of the increase in 

growth and spread of Eurasian watermilfoil in the lake. (b). It is not feasible to 

totally eradicate Eurasian watermilfoil from the lake, but it is feasible to control it 

in a limited area such as the south end of the lake on the reservation. 

Wetland and Riparian Habitat Replacement and Maintenance: (a)(l). The 

Project has reduced the total acreage of wetlands on the reservation and has 

impaired the functioning of those wetlands. (2). The Project has reduced the 

occurrence of certain culturally important plants. (3). Human activities unrelated 

to the Project have not reduced wetlands on the reservation. (4). The wetlands on 

the Project are in equilibrium with the summer lake level, but not with natural 

ecological processes. 

Specifics of the ALJ findings can be found in Chapter 3.0, under relevant 

resource areas, titled “Environmental Consequences,” subheading “Administrative 

Law Judge Findings.” 

1.7 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT SINCE RELEASE OF 

THE DEIS 

The Commission issued and distributed the draft environmental impact 

statement (DEIS) to the public on December 28, 2006. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Notice of Availability was published in the Federal 

Register on January 5, 2007. The notice stated that the DEIS was available for a 

60-day public comment period ending March 6, 2007. Based on requests from the 

public, FERC held two public meetings in Spokane, Washington, on February 8, 

2007, to collect comments on the DEIS. 

During the public comment period, over 225 written public comments were 

received from the general public. During this same period, the Commission also 

received comments from the following federal and state agencies, tribes, and 

NGOs: 

Commenting Entity Date Filed

Washington Department of Archaeology & Historic 

Preservation 

January 30, 2007 

WSPRC February 21, 2007

USDA Forest Service February 22, 2007

WDOE February 23, 2007

Coeur d’Alene Lakeshore Property Owner’s February 28, 2007

Spokane Mountaineers February 28, 2007

NWA March 4, 2007 

Spokane Tribal Natural Resources March 5, 2007 

BIA March 5, 2007 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
1-14 

Commenting Entity Date Filed

Avista Utilities March 6, 2007 

Center for Justice / Sierra Club / CELP March 6, 2007 

City of Post Falls March 6, 2007 

IDPR March 6, 2007 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) March 6, 2007 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) March 6, 2007 

Inland Northwest Water Resources March 6, 2007 

Lake Spokane Protection Association March 6, 2007 

The Lands Council March 6, 2007 

WDFW March 6, 2007 

EPA March 6, 2007 

City of Spokane March 6, 2007 

Coeur d’Alene Tribe March 6, 2007 

Cave Bay Community Services, Inc. March 13, 2007 

Whitworth Water District No. 2 March 13, 2007 

Spokane County Water Quality Advisory Committee March 14, 2007 

City of Coeur d’Alene March 19, 2007 

Avista Utilities March 29, 2007 

Center for Justice / Sierra Club / CELP April 19, 2007 

Avista Utilities April 23, 2007 

Avista Utilities April 26, 2007 

The Commission has summarized in Appendix A the comments received 

from these entities and the general public, has provided responses to those 

comments, and has indicated whether (and how) we have modified the text of the 

EIS. 

In addition to receiving agency comments on the DEIS, the Commission 

also conducted a teleconference on March 20, 2007, to discuss the preliminary 

10(j) provisions submitted by each agency. Based on the findings of the ALJ and 

the results of the teleconference, additional information and modified 10(j) and 

4(e) conditions were submitted by various agencies for consideration in the FEIS. 

These final conditions have been discussed in the appropriate sections of this EIS. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-1 

2.0 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

This section describes the Proposed Action and alternatives considered in 

this FEIS. Section 2.1 describes the No-Action Alternative, under which the 

Projects would continue Project operations under the terms and conditions of the 

existing license. This alternative provides the current conditions against which 

other alternatives are compared. Section 2.2 describes the Proposed Action, which 

is operation of the Project in accordance with Avista’s proposal. Section 2.3 

describes modifications to the Proposed Action based on agency and stakeholder 

terms, conditions, and recommendations as well as staff modifications. Section 2.4 

discusses other alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed 

evaluation. 

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Projects would continue to operate 

under the terms and conditions of the existing license. No new environmental 

measures would be implemented. We use this alternative to establish baseline 

environmental conditions for comparison with the Proposed Action. 

2.1.1 General Description of the Existing Facilities and Operations 

The currently licensed Spokane River Project includes five hydroelectric 

developments and associated reservoirs located on the Spokane River in northern 

Idaho (Kootenai and Benewah counties) and eastern Washington (Spokane, 

Stevens, and Lincoln counties). The Spokane River originates at the outlet of 

Coeur d’Alene Lake in Idaho and flows westerly approximately 111 miles to its 

confluence with the Columbia River in eastern Washington (which is now within 

Lake Roosevelt, the impoundment created by Grand Coulee Dam). In downstream 

order, the Spokane River Project includes the Post Falls Project, which is in Idaho 

(river mile 102), and Upper Falls Development (river mile 74.2), Monroe Street 

Development (river mile 74), Nine Mile Development (river mile 58), and Long 

Lake Development (river mile 34), all four of which are located in Washington 

(see Figure 1.0-1). 

Two other hydroelectric developments located on the Spokane River are the 

Upriver Project, owned by the City of Spokane (river mile 80; FERC Project No. 

3074), and the Little Falls Project (river mile 29), which is owned by Avista but is 

not part of the Commission-licensed Spokane River Project. The Project boundary, 

as defined in the current FERC license, is depicted in Exhibit G of the license 

applications and encompasses approximately 44,556 acres. As these exhibits 

show, the current Project boundary encompasses four distinct areas: one each for 

the Post Falls Project, Nine Mile Development, and Long Lake Development, and 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-2 

one that encompasses both the Upper Falls and Monroe Street Developments. The 

Project boundary generally follows the normal high-water line of the Project 

reservoirs, with some additional areas included around the Project dams, 

powerhouses, and tailraces. At Long Lake, Nine Mile, and Post Falls 

Developments, the Project boundary also encompasses some additional, relatively 

small parcels of company-owned lands. 

2.1.2 Post Falls Project 

The Post Falls Project is located on the Spokane River at river mile 102, in 

Post Falls, Idaho, approximately 9 miles downstream of the river headwaters at 

Coeur d’Alene Lake. This development impounds the 9 miles of the Spokane 

River upstream of the Post Falls Project. It influences the water levels in Coeur 

d’Alene Lake and the lower reaches of lake tributaries, depending on the volume 

of tributary inflow and time of year. 

The Post Falls Project includes three dams (north channel, middle channel, 

and south channel, with natural islands connecting the three structures), spillways 

along the top of the north and south channel dams, a powerhouse integral to the 

middle channel dam, and various appurtenant structures. The operating reservoir 

for the Post Falls Project encompasses Coeur d’Alene Lake, the lower portions of 

the St. Joe, St. Maries, and Coeur d’Alene Rivers, and the portion of the Spokane 

River between the lake outlet and the dam. Development dimensions and 

specifications associated with the Post Falls Project include: 

• a reservoir that covers the uppermost 9 miles of the Spokane River, Coeur 

d’Alene Lake, and lower portions of lake tributaries, having a normal full-pool 

elevation of 2,128 feet; 

• Coeur d’Alene Lake (including lateral lakes and affected river reaches of the 

Coeur d’Alene, St. Joe, St. Maries, and Spokane Rivers), having a surface area 

of approximately 40,600 acres, a maximum depth of more than 200 feet, and 

usable storage of approximately 223,100 acre-feet (equating to a 9-foot 

drawdown at the development and a 7.5-foot drawdown in the lake); 

• a 431-foot-long, 31-foot-tall north channel dam, with a top-of-dam elevation of 

2,133 feet and incorporating the north channel spillway (spillway crest 

elevation of 2,114 feet), which includes a 100-foot-wide, 14-foot-high rolling 

sector gate, seven 21-foot-wide, 12-foot-high radial gates, and one 12-footwide, 12-foot-high radial gate; 

• a 215-foot-long, 64-foot-tall middle channel dam, with a top-of-dam elevation 

of 2,135 feet; 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-3 

• a 127-foot-long, 25-foot-tall south channel dam, with a top-of-dam elevation of 

2,135 feet and incorporating the 37-foot-long south channel spillway (spillway 

crest elevation of 2,128.5 feet), which is controlled by six 6-foot-wide, 13-foothigh vertical sluice gates; 

• six 56-foot-long, 11.25-foot-diameter intakes and steel penstocks, integral to 

the middle channel dam, with top of intake openings at 2,113.75 feet; and 

• a six-turbine powerhouse, integral to the middle channel dam, with a total 

nameplate capacity of 14.75 MW and a total hydraulic capacity of 5,400 cubic 

feet per second (cfs). 

2.1.3 Spokane River Developments 

The Spokane River Developments—Upper Falls Development (river 

mile 74.2), Monroe Street Development (river mile 74), Nine Mile Development 

(river mile 58), and Long Lake Development (river mile 34)—are located in 

Washington (see Figure 1.0-1). 

2.1.3.1 Upper Falls Development 

Upper Falls Development is located on the Spokane River (river mile 74.2) 

in downtown Spokane, Washington, 28 miles downstream of the Post Falls 

Project. Upper Falls Development creates a relatively small reservoir. 

Upper Falls Development includes two dams located on either side of a 

natural island (Havermale Island) in the Spokane River. A dam and headgate 

structure (i.e., for the intakes to the penstocks) is located on the south channel 

(river mile 74.2), and a dam and control works structure (for water level and spill 

control) is located on the north channel (river mile 74.7). 

Some of the features, structures, and specifications associated with Upper 

Falls Development include: 

• a 4-mile-long reservoir upstream of the south channel dam, having an 

impounded surface area of 150 acres and a volume of 800 acre-feet at normal 

full-pool elevation of 1,870.5 feet; 

• a 366-foot-long, 35.5-foot-tall north channel dam with a top-of-dam elevation 

of 1,876.9 feet and incorporating the north channel spillway (spillway crest 

elevation of 1,854.9 feet), which includes two 60-foot-wide, 16-foot-high 

rolling sector gates and four approximately 42-foot-wide, 13-foot-high vertical 

lift gates; 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-4 

• a 70-foot-long, 30-foot-tall south channel dam with a top-of-dam elevation of 

1,876.9 feet; 

• three 15-foot-high, 12-foot-wide intakes with headgates, with the top of the 

intake opening at 1,861.4 feet; 

• one 350-foot-long, 18-foot-diameter, reinforced concrete penstock; and 

• one powerhouse, located along the south shore of the river, containing one 

vertical turbine with a total nameplate capacity of 10 MW and a total hydraulic 

capacity of 2,500 cfs. 

2.1.3.2 Monroe Street Development 

Monroe Street Development, which creates a very small reservoir, is also 

located in downtown Spokane, Washington, at river mile 74, about 1,000 feet 

downstream of Upper Falls Development. Monroe Street Development includes a 

single concrete gravity dam spanning the river, with an intake structure located 

adjacent to the south abutment of the dam. The powerhouse is located 

underground on the south shore of the Spokane River a short distance downstream 

of the dam. A small public park area, Huntington Park, surrounds Monroe Street 

Development. Some of the features, structures, and specifications associated with 

Monroe Street Development include: 

• a 0.2-mile-long reservoir with a normal full-pool elevation of 1,806 or 

1,806.3 feet (the additional 0.3 foot of elevation is maintained during viewing 

hours to provide a required 200-cfs minimum flow over the spillway), 5 acres 

of impounded surface area, and 30 acre-feet of storage; 

• a 24-foot-tall, 240-foot-long dam with a top-of-dam elevation of 1,806 feet; 

• a 217-foot-wide concrete overflow spillway; 

• a single intake with a 332-foot-long, 14-foot-diameter steel penstock; and 

• a powerhouse (largely underground and completed during a 1992 

redevelopment) containing one vertical, Kaplan-style turbine with a total 

nameplate capacity of 14.82 MW and a total hydraulic capacity of 2,850 cfs.

2.1.3.3 Nine Mile Development 

Nine Mile Development is located on the Spokane River at river mile 58. 

Nine Mile Development lies 16 miles downstream of Monroe Street Development 

and 24 miles upstream of Long Lake Development. A single dam and associated 

powerhouse comprise this development. Some unique features associated with 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-5 

Nine Mile Development include a sediment bypass tunnel (or diversion tunnel) 

that was installed at the dam in 1996 and the Nine Mile cottages, originally built 

for facility operators at the dam and now leased to Washington State Parks. Some 

of the features, structures, and specifications associated with Nine Mile 

Development include: 

• an approximately 6-mile-long reservoir (Nine Mile Reservoir) with normal 

full-pool elevation of 1,606.6 feet, an impounded surface area of 440 acres at 

full pool and storage of 3,130 acre-feet under a 16.6-foot maximum drawdown; 

• a 364-foot-long, 58-foot-tall dam; 

• a 225-foot-long concrete overflow spillway, with a spillway crest elevation of 

1,596.6 feet, plus two rows of 5-foot-high flashboards; 

• four intakes integral to the face of the dam where water is fed to the turbines 

via steel and concrete bulkhead chambers called a “wet pit;” and 

• a powerhouse integral to the dam containing four horizontal Francis turbines 

(including an indoor substation) with a total nameplate capacity of 26.4 MW 

and a total hydraulic capacity of 6,500 cfs. 

2.1.3.4 Long Lake Development 

Long Lake Development is located on the Spokane River (river mile 34), 

approximately 25 to 30 miles northwest of Spokane, Washington, and 24 miles 

downstream of Nine Mile Development. Long Lake Development includes an 

L-shaped, concrete gravity main dam and adjacent intake structure, a concrete arch 

cutoff dam located along the western shoreline approximately 700 to 800 feet 

upstream of the main dam, a gated spillway along the top of the main dam, and a 

powerhouse. Some of the features, structures, and specifications associated with 

Long Lake Development include: 

• a 23.5-mile-long reservoir (Lake Spokane) with a maximum width of about 

0.7 mile, a maximum depth of 180 feet, and approximately 5,060 acres of 

impounded surface area and 105,080 acre-feet of storage at normal full-pool 

elevation of 1,536 feet; 

• a 213-foot-tall, 593-foot-long main channel dam, with a top-of-dam elevation 

of 1,537 feet; 

• a 108-foot-tall, 247-foot-long cutoff dam; 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-6 

• a 213-foot-long, gated ogee spillway with a crest elevation of 1,508 feet; eight 

29-foot-tall, 25-foot-wide lift gates; and a capacity of 115,000 cfs at a normal 

full-pool elevation of 1,536 feet; 

• four intake structures integral to the main dam, with three 16-foot-diameter and 

one 14-foot-diameter, 236-foot-long steel penstocks that traverse the 

downstream face of the dam, and the top of each penstock at elevation 

1,507 feet; and 

• a powerhouse, including an indoor substation, located at the base of the dam 

containing four turbines with a total nameplate capacity of 71 MW and a total 

hydraulic capacity of 6,300 cfs. 

2.1.4 Current Project Operations 

Generally, the five hydroelectric developments that make up the current 

Spokane River Project are operated to maximize power generation to meet local 

and regional electricity demands, with consideration given to flood management, 

natural resource protection, recreation, and other river-water associated needs. The 

Post Falls Project and the four Spokane River Developments are part of the 

regional coordination effort expressed in the PNCA. During extreme weather 

events or regional power shortages, normal operating conditions on the Spokane 

River Project may be modified, but still remain consistent with constraints 

imposed by the existing license. Operational changes may also occur in emergency 

situations, such as accidents or other conditions that pose a threat to life or 

property, or in the event of equipment failures. Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) 

are updated annually for Post Falls Project and for Nine Mile and Long Lake 

Developments. The EAPs provide operators with detailed instructions of 

procedures to follow during emergency situations, including separate flowcharts 

for various situations with phone numbers of all pertinent local, state, and federal 

agencies, as well as the order in which the phone calls should be made. Specific 

examples of emergency situations would include, but would not necessarily be 

limited to, a spill gate motor being destroyed by lightning, or law enforcement 

personnel requesting that Avista close spill gates to conduct a search for a missing 

person. Under these types of situations, Avista would likely have to modify 

Project operations. The Upper Falls and Monroe Street Developments are 

classified as low hazard-potential dams. Therefore, they are granted exemption 

status from filing an EAP. 

The Spokane River Developments and the Post Falls Project are operated in 

a coordinated manner. The Post Falls Project is used to “regulate” flows in the 

Spokane River at certain times and in accordance with minimum flow 

requirements and other lake level or downstream flow considerations. 

Downstream of the Post Falls Project, the Upper Falls and Monroe Street 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-7 

Developments are operated as run-of-river 

facilities. Farther downstream, Nine Mile 

Development is generally operated as a run-ofriver facility, with relatively minor pool level 

fluctuations. 

At Long Lake Development, the most 

downstream of the five current Project 

developments, there is significant storage. The 

storage capacity at Long Lake Development is used 

primarily to respond to the energy demands of 

Avista’s customers during the winter months, with 

the pool level lowering over a period of several weeks to several months, 

depending on energy needs and water inflow. During the summer, Avista attempts 

to maintain Lake Spokane at a level near full pool, generally using the top foot of 

storage for responding to daily changes in energy demand. 

More detail on the operation of the individual Project hydroelectric 

developments, the associated water levels and Project discharges, and specific 

limitations and requirements of the current FERC license is provided below. 

2.1.4.1 Post Falls Project 

The Post Falls Project is currently operated to meet several interests, 

including: 

• minimum-flow requirements of the FERC license; 

• customer energy demands; 

• consideration of the need to maximize the amount of storage available in Coeur 

d’Alene Lake for absorbing spring runoff flows; and 

• consideration of upstream recreational, residential, and commercial interests 

for a stable water level along with downstream resource needs. 

The current FERC license for the Spokane River Project requires a 

minimum instantaneous discharge at the Post Falls Project of at least 300 cfs, or an 

amount equal to the inflow to Coeur d’Alene Lake, whichever is less. This 

minimum flow is normally provided through powerhouse discharge into the river 

immediately below the middle channel dam. Seepage flows also provide some 

water into the downstream channels. These seepage flows are estimated as high as 

30 cfs or more into the north channel when the upstream pool is at 2,128 feet. 

Considerably less seepage flows into the south channel (10 cfs or less), but it is 

“Run-of-river” means that 

water flowing into the 

reservoir is essentially equal to 

the water being discharged 

from the hydroelectric 

development, and the reservoir 

water levels change little 

unless under flood conditions, 

operation and maintenance 

(O&M) activities, or some 

other unusual circumstance. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-8 

still enough to maintain several wetted pools in the incised bedrock below this 

dam. 

Beyond meeting the minimum flow requirements of the license, operations 

of the Post Falls Project vary from year to year due to weather conditions and 

energy demands. The operations of the Post Falls Project have also evolved over 

time in response to a range of community interests. The Post Falls Project 

typically controls water levels in the Spokane River and Coeur d’Alene Lake 

about 6 months a year. Many factors, including weather forecasts, snowpack 

conditions, runoff predictions, resource interests, and energy demand, are 

considered in determining when to begin controlling the lake’s water level with 

the Post Falls Project. More importantly, Avista cannot begin controlling the lake 

level until after spring runoff flows have peaked and largely subsided. This 

typically occurs in late June or early July, and allows Avista to then maintain 

Coeur d’Alene Lake at or near elevation 2,128 feet throughout the summer 

recreation season. 

In the fall, Avista begins to release water at the Post Falls Project, resulting 

in a gradual drawdown of the Coeur d’Alene Lake water level. The drawdown, 

typically 1 to 2 feet per month, generally begins the week following Labor Day. 

The timing of the drawdown varies because of the annual variations in flow 

conditions, weather forecasts, and energy demands. This release of water achieves 

several ends: optimizing energy production, adding storage capacity in Coeur 

d’Alene Lake for fall and winter precipitation to help minimize upstream flooding, 

and increasing flow in the Spokane River. 

2.1.4.2 Upper Falls Development 

Upper Falls Development operates near elevation 1,870.5 feet with a fullpool elevation of 1,871 feet, and does not include any discharge requirements or 

other limitations under the current FERC license. Upper Falls Development has 

very little storage (800 acre-feet) and is operated as a run-of-river facility. Because 

the City of Spokane’s Upriver Project, located upstream of Upper Falls 

Development, is also operated as a run-of-river facility, the operation and 

subsequent electric generation at Upper Falls Development is driven primarily by 

Spokane River flows. 

When river flow is less than the 2,500-cfs turbine capacity of Upper Falls 

Development, all flows are typically routed into the south channel through the 

intake structures and to the powerhouse. During these times, the north channel 

around Havermale Island receives only minimal leakage flows of about 30 cfs 

through the control works and a small amount of groundwater inflow. When river 

flow exceeds the turbine capacity, excess water is passed through the north 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-9 

channel control works while maintaining a relatively stable water level in the 

reservoir. 

2.1.4.3 Monroe Street Development 

Monroe Street Development is operated as a run-of-river facility with a 

pool elevation of 1,806 feet, with almost no storage (30 acre-feet). Therefore, as at 

Upper Falls, Spokane River flows from Coeur d’Alene Lake drive the operation of 

Monroe Street Development. The current FERC license for the Spokane River 

Project requires Avista to maintain an aesthetic flow of at least 200 cfs over the 

Monroe Street Dam and downstream ledges during viewing hours (10 a.m. to onehalf hour after sunset) each day, year-round. 

2.1.4.4 Nine Mile Development 

The Nine Mile forebay has an operating full-pool elevation of 1,606.6 feet. 

The FERC license for the Project does not include any minimum flow, water level, 

or other limitations specific to Nine Mile Development. However, flow below the 

dam generally mirrors inflow into the reservoir. There is no bypass reach at Nine 

Mile Development, since the powerhouse is integral to the dam. Powerhouse 

discharge and/or spill over the dam flows directly into the downstream river 

channel. 

Nine Mile Development has 3,130 acre-feet of storage and, while capable 

of limited storage-and-release operations, is operated as a run-of-river facility. 

Therefore, operation of Nine Mile Development is driven primarily by Spokane 

River flows from Coeur d’Alene Lake. Two rows of 5-foot-high boards are 

installed on the spillway to maintain the full-pool level. During high-flow periods, 

sections of the flashboards are removed to allow the water to pass, resulting in a 

temporary drop and subsequent restoration of the reservoir surface elevation of up 

to 10 feet in those years when flashboard removal is required. The flashboards are 

replaced once river flow allows for safe access to the crest of the dam. 

2.1.4.5 Long Lake Development 

The normal full-pool elevation at Long Lake Development is 1,536 feet. 

The current FERC license for the Project allows for a 24-foot drawdown of Lake 

Spokane to elevation 1,512 feet. No other water level or discharge requirements or 

limitations in the FERC license pertain to Long Lake Development. 

With more than 100,000 acre-feet of storage, Long Lake Development is 

operated as a storage-and-release facility for power generation purposes. 

Historically, Lake Spokane was lowered to the 24-foot limit during certain winter 

periods. In recent years, depending on river flows and several other considerations, 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-10 

Lake Spokane has rarely been lowered more than 14 feet during the winter, and is 

typically held within 3 feet of full pool during most of the year. During the 

summer recreation season, the reservoir is normally within 1 foot of the full-pool 

elevation. 

2.1.4.6 Flood Control Operations 

The five developments of the currently licensed Spokane River Project play 

an annual role in managing upstream flood potential. This role is limited by the 

Project’s storage capacity (confined to the 7.5-foot depth between the low pool 

elevation of 2,120.5 feet and the full-pool elevation of 2,128 feet) and by the 

outflow capacity of the natural outlet restriction of Coeur d’Alene Lake relative to 

flood flows in the Spokane River Basin. This same feature, the lake’s natural 

outlet restriction, provides downstream flood protection. Based on USGS gage 

historical records, inflow to the lake can be more than twice as high as outflow, 

which has led to a recorded lake elevation as high as 2,139 feet (Kootenai County, 

1998). 

Avista draws Coeur d’Alene Lake down during the fall (to as low as 

elevation 2,120.5 feet), which increases the storage capacity in Coeur d’Alene 

Lake to accommodate fall-through-spring precipitation and spring snowmelt. 

Nonetheless, spring rain and snowmelt can result in high flows into Coeur d’Alene 

Lake such that the lake level rises above elevation 2,128 feet, even though spill 

gates are open at the Post Falls Project and all water reaching the development is 

immediately passed downstream. Because of the natural Coeur d’Alene Lake 

outlet characteristics, there is little the Post Falls Project can do to alter a flood 

event once flows reach flood stage. 

When consistent with operational objectives, Avista voluntarily seeks to 

maintain certain reservoir levels favorable for recreational activities during the 

recreation season, although the current FERC license contains no related 

requirements. At Coeur d’Alene Lake, Avista typically maintains reservoir 

elevations at or near 2,128 feet from late June or early July through the week after 

Labor Day. At Lake Spokane, Avista tries to maintain reservoir elevations within 

1 foot of full pool (1,536 feet) throughout the summer recreation season. 

2.1.4.7 Fishery Management Operations 

In cooperation with the WDFW and IDFG, Avista monitors flows and 

rainbow trout spawning and emergence in the free-flowing reach of the Spokane 

River downstream of the Post Falls Project each year (Avista, 2000). Based on the 

annual variability in river flow and the monitoring results, Avista voluntarily 

operates the Post Falls Project in a manner that attempts to maintain downstream 

river flows that are sufficient to keep the majority of the rainbow trout spawning 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-11 

redds wetted through the fry emergence period. This operation, including the 

monitoring and agency consultation, often requires either no substantial change in 

operations or only a minor delay or lessening in spill and/or discharge at the Post 

Falls Project, with an associated minor delay in reaching the desired Coeur 

d’Alene Lake summer water level near 2,128 feet (Avista, 2000). The current 

FERC license contains no specific requirements for this operation. 

2.1.4.8 Project Safety 

The Post Falls Project and the Spokane River Developments have been 

operating for over 50 years under the existing license. During that time, the 

Commission staff has conducted operational inspections focusing on the continued 

safety of the structures, identification of unauthorized modifications, efficiency 

and safety of operations, compliance with the terms of the license, and proper 

maintenance. In addition, the Projects have been inspected and evaluated every 

5 years by an independent consultant, and a consultant’s safety report has been 

submitted for Commission review. The Commission staff would continue to 

inspect the Projects during the new license terms to ensure continued adherence to 

Commission-approved plans and specifications, special license articles relating to 

construction (if any), operation and maintenance (O&M), and accepted 

engineering practices and procedures. 

2.1.5 Current Environmental Measures 

Avista currently provides facilities and programs related to river flows, 

fisheries, wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic resources, either as required by the 

current FERC license or other regulations or on a voluntary basis. 

The current FERC license for the Spokane River Project includes several 

specific terms and conditions providing for the protection and enhancement of 

environmental resources. These terms and conditions include: 

• maintaining a minimum discharge from the Post Falls Project of 300 cfs or an 

amount equal to the inflow to Coeur d’Alene Lake, whichever is less; 

• maintaining an aesthetic scenic flow of at least 200 cfs over the Monroe Street 

Dam during normal viewing hours from 10 a.m. to one-half hour after sunset 

each day; 

• limiting the maximum drawdown of Long Lake Development operating 

reservoir (Lake Spokane) to no more than 24 feet (elevation 1,512 feet, 

compared to a normal full-pool elevation of 1,536 feet); 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-12 

• maintaining Huntington Park, located in downtown Spokane and adjacent to 

Monroe Street Development, as a publicly accessible park and open space; and 

• stocking catchable-size rainbow trout in the Spokane River each year both 

upstream of Monroe Street Development and in the Nine Mile Reservoir. 

In addition to the specific environmental measures called for in the existing 

FERC license for the Project, Avista has also implemented environmental and 

resource-protection measures to ensure compliance with other applicable 

regulatory requirements. Avista has also entered into a number of voluntary 

cooperative agreements with agencies, organizations, and individuals, or otherwise 

supported a variety of measures to enhance and conserve environmental resources. 

Examples of these regulatory actions and voluntary measures (as noted in 

parentheses below) that are specifically designed to protect and enhance Projectassociated resources include the following: 

• Maintenance of the Coeur d’Alene Lake level at or close to 2,128 feet from 

late June or early July past Labor Day. 

• Maintenance of the Lake Spokane elevation within 1 foot of full pool 

(1,536 feet) throughout the summer recreation season. 

• Maintenance of public access at the Nine Mile Resort on Lake Spokane. The 

facility, which is owned by Avista and operated by concessionaires, offers 

boating, camping, and swimming opportunities. 

• Appropriate preservation, protection, and maintenance of historic properties 

and features associated with the Project, pursuant to the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and as listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places (the National Register). Past and ongoing 

activities include maintenance of the Nine Mile cottages and ongoing 

consideration of the historic significance of various features of Post Falls, 

Upper Falls, Nine Mile, and Long Lake Developments whenever considering 

or proposing any significant facility modifications or alterations. Avista also 

donated a turbine unit removed from Monroe Street Development to the Henry 

Ford Museum. 

• Development and implementation of appropriate guidelines and requirements 

for addressing interactions between migratory birds and/or bird nests and 

Project-associated facilities (pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or 

Endangered Species Act [ESA]). Activities have included relocating nests 

(primarily osprey nests), providing alternative nesting platforms, and 

modifying transmission line spacing (increasing the spacing between “hot” 

wires and grounding wires or surfaces). These activities are intended to protect 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-13 

birds from electrocution as well as to prevent power outages and damage to 

power poles. 

• Monitoring of rainbow trout spawning and fry emergence each year in the freeflowing reach of the Spokane River, located downstream of the Post Falls 

Project, and coordination of the operation of the development with fisheries 

agencies to keep the majority of the redds wetted through the fry emergence 

period. 

• When possible, limitation of the winter drawdown of Long Lake Development 

operating reservoir (Lake Spokane) to no more than 14 feet in consideration of 

local domestic water supplies. 

• Implementation of a Bald Eagle Nest Territory Management Plan for a nest site 

associated with Long Lake Development. 

• Lease of approximately 20 acres of property at Falls Park and 78 additional 

acres of Avista land for Q’emiln Park to the City of Post Falls, at no cost. 

• Support for the development and implementation of an Aquatic Weed 

Management Plan for Lake Spokane. 

• Provision of financial support to the WDNR for O&M of the Lake Spokane 

boat launch and campground and the Avista-owned boat-in overnight camping 

sites. 

• Support of numerous other public parks, water access, and recreational sites 

and features. Specific examples include land donations and other support for 

the Cougar Bay conservation area; financial support for Falls Park, Riverfront 

Park, Riverside State Park, Plese Flats, and the Centennial Trail; and 

development and/or maintenance of the Nine Mile Resort and the North Shore 

campsites (Lake Spokane). 

• Permitting of limited private recreational uses of Project-associated property 

through annual permits. 

• Support of numerous resource agency, academic, and Avista studies and 

resource evaluations concerning Project-associated environmental resources. 

These have included water quality studies and evaluations, erosion inventories 

and studies, wetlands inventories, several wildlife and recreation studies, and a 

variety of fisheries-related studies and investigations undertaken in years prior 

to the relicensing process. 

• Support of local watershed restoration efforts in Hangman Creek Watershed. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-14 

2.2 PROPOSED ACTION – APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL 

Under the Proposed Action, Avista would continue to operate the Projects 

in a manner similar to current Project operation, but with a slightly modified 

reservoir management approach and flow release regimes. Additionally, Avista 

would implement numerous protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PME) 

measures at each development. 

2.2.1 Project Facilities 

The Proposed Action would involve no changes to Project facilities, other 

than replacing the flashboards at Nine Mile Development with a more permanent 

feature such as a pneumatically operated spillway gate (rubber dam). Any other 

facility charges would consist of generally minor and independent elements 

identified and constructed pursuant to specific PME measures. Replacing the 

flashboards with a rubber dam would not change the pool level, nor would 

operations change at Nine Mile Development except that the flashboards would no 

longer be released downstream, and Avista would have the ability to restore the 

pool elevation somewhat more quickly after spill events. Periodic maintenance of 

the entire facility would continue through the term of a new license. 

2.2.2 Project Boundary 

The current Project boundary for the Post Falls Project is defined by the 

2,128-foot elevation contour, as shown in a 1980 FERC license amendment. 

Recent fieldwork led Avista to make corrections to the 2,128-foot contour maps. 

Avista therefore is proposing to amend the Project boundary maps to correspond 

with the more recent data, consistent with retaining the current 2,128-foot 

boundary. Other proposed changes to the Project boundary include the following: 

Post Falls Project 

• At the Post Falls Project, add 2,352 acres (currently within the 2,128-foot 

contour) and remove 0.5 acre of private land east of the abandoned Corbin 

Ditch. 

Spokane River Developments 

• At Upper Falls and Monroe Street Developments, remove 2.8 acres that serve 

no Project purpose; 

• at Nine Mile Development, remove 66 acres that serve no Project purpose; 

• at Nine Mile Development, remove the land occupied by the Nine Mile 

Cottages that serve no Project purpose; and 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-15 

• at Long Lake Development, add 350.1 acres associated with a proposed 

shoreline buffer, the Nine Mile Resort, a dredged boat area, and a section of 

primary transmission line. 

2.2.3 Project Operations 

Under the Proposed Action, Avista would operate the Post Falls Project and 

the four Spokane River Developments in a manner generally similar to current 

Project operations but with several operational changes intended to address 

stakeholder concerns. Proposed operational changes include the following: 

Post Falls Project 

• The minimum discharge from the Post Falls Project would be set at 600 cfs 

year-round under normal operations, as measured at USGS gage 12419000 

(Spokane River near Post Falls). Between July 1 and September 15 of each 

year, Avista would reduce the minimum discharge to 500 cfs if the level of 

Coeur d’Alene Lake dropped below 2,127.75 feet (3 inches below full pool) as 

recorded at the USGS gage at Coeur d’Alene Lake (station no. 12415500). 

• Operations at the Post Falls Project would be managed to comply with the 

discharge approaches outlined in the Upper Spokane River Rainbow Trout 

Spawning and Fry Emergence Protection Plan (Avista, 2004). 

• The summer recreational elevation of Coeur d’Alene Lake, at or near 

2,128 feet, would start as soon as practicable each summer (the same as current 

Project operations) and would be maintained until September 15. Exceptions 

would occur to maintain the minimum discharge flow from the Post Falls 

Project and to ensure that spring flows for trout are provided according to the 

Upper Spokane River Rainbow Trout Spawning and Fry Emergence Protection 

Plan. 

• Operations at the Post Falls Project would follow a downramping rate that 

corresponds to no more than a 4-inch drop per hour in downstream water levels 

at the USGS gage no. 12419000 (Spokane River near Post Falls). 

• Flows from the Post Falls Project would be adjusted when possible in late 

spring and in the fall to maintain preferred whitewater paddling flows for an 

extended time, and, when possible, increased flows for open-water boating 

would be scheduled for one or more weekends in August. Enhancement 

measures for fisheries resources would take precedence over any whitewater 

paddling flow releases. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-16 

Spokane River Developments 

• Aesthetic flows would continue to be provided year-round at Monroe Street 

Development and also would be initiated seasonally at the Post Falls Project 

and Upper Falls Development.

• Avista would limit the drawdown of Lake Spokane to 14 feet, except under 

certain emergency conditions. This would constitute a change from current 

license conditions, which allow for a 24-foot maximum drawdown, but would 

not deviate from the way the Project has been operated in recent years. 

• Avista would attempt to periodically draw down Lake Spokane during the 

winter to expose the lake bed to freezing temperatures to reduce the occurrence 

of aquatic weeds such as Eurasian watermilfoil. 

2.2.4 Project Environmental Measures 

Avista’s Proposed Action consists of numerous PME measures at the 

Projects. We summarize the primary components of the Proposed Action PMEs in 

Table 2.2.4-1 and compare them, where applicable, with any alternative measures 

provided by stakeholders groups and agencies subsequent to the filing of the 

application. 

2.3 MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 

After evaluating the Proposed Action and recommendations from the 

resource agencies and other interested parties, we considered what, if any, 

additional PME measures would be necessary or appropriate with continued 

operation of the Projects. These additional measures include the preliminary 

recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions for the Projects 

submitted in response to the Commission’s notice of May 18, 2006 (see 

section 1.5). 

Federal and state resource agencies, local governmental entities, and other 

stakeholder groups submitted their comments, recommendations, terms and 

conditions, and prescriptions to the Commission in July 2006. These comments, 

recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions often have several 

components and can generally be characterized as variations to Avista’s PME 

measures considered as part of the Proposed Action. These modified measures are 

analyzed in this FEIS and summarized alongside Avista’s measures in 

Table 2.2.4-1. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-17 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

POST FALLS PROJECT Operational Measures Flow Regime/Lake Levels: 

Set the minimum discharge from Post Falls Project at 600 cfs year-round under normal operations, as measured at the USGS 

gage 12419000 (Spokane River near Post Falls). Between July 1 and September 15 of each year, reduce the minimum discharge to 500 cfs if the level of Coeur d’Alene Lake drops below 2,127.75 feet (3 inches below full pool) as recorded at the USGS gage at Coeur d’Alene Lake (station no. 12415500). Manage operations at Post Falls Project to comply with the discharge approaches outlined in the Upper Spokane River Rainbow Trout Spawning and Fry Emergence Protection Plan (Avista, 2004). Conduct operations at Post Falls Project to follow a 

downramping rate that corresponds to no more than a 4-inch drop per hour in downstream water levels at the USGS gage 12419000 (Spokane River near Post Falls). Start the summer recreational elevation of Coeur d’Alene Lake, at or near 2,128 feet, as soon as practicable each 

summer (the same as current Project operations) and maintain that elevation until September 15. Exceptions would occur, if needed, to maintain the minimum discharge flow from Post Falls Project and to meet fisheries resource needs, as noted 

above. Adjust flows from Post Falls Project when possible in late spring and in the fall to maintain preferred whitewater paddling flows for an extended time, and, when possible, schedule increased flows for open-water boating for one or more weekends in August. 

Flow Regime/Lake Levels: Provide a 600-cfs year-round minimum iFalls discharges within the context of a 5management program (WDOE, filed 7/17Provide a 500-/600-cfs minimum flow reof an adaptive management program, witset between 500 and 800 cfs (WDFW, filProvide spring flows for incubation and eSpokane River April 15 through June 7 oDam. Flow shall be at a level of 60 percerunning average (consecutive days) of daPost Falls Project for the period of April flow, whichever is less (WDFW 10(j), filRelease approximately 770 cfs minimum Falls to provide 500 cfs at Barker Road (7/17/2006; CELP, filed 7/17/2006). Release sufficient water from Post Falls D500 cfs at Barker Road. Collect and compat Barker Road for flows below 800 cfs didentify the loss of flow and calculate the for Post Falls to protect fish habitat. The over the first 5 years of the license (The L7/17/2006). Maintain Coeur d’Alene Lake at 2,128 feeach summer and maintain that level untito the proposed minimum discharge flowproviding appropriate measures for impacreated by the extended summer pool elefiled 07/17/2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-18 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Maintain Coeur d’Alene Lake at 2,128 feOctober 31, unless there is an actual dangRiver Association, filed 03/14/2006). Maintain Coeur d’Alene Lake at 2,128 fethrough September, subject to variations (Hagadone Hospitality Co., filed 03/14/2Board of Commissioners, dated 07/13/20Recommend not having a 500-cfs minimFalls when Coeur d’Alene Lake drops 0.2generally higher releases of 700 to 800 cfflow of 500 cfs at Barker Road (NWA, fiProvide ramping rates from Post Falls of per hour as measured at the USGS gage 1filed 7/18/2006).

Operational Measures (cont) 

Provide aesthetic flows at Post Falls Project through the North Channel spill gates (approximately 46 cfs) on Saturdays and Sundays from 12 noon until 6 p.m., Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day (PF-AES-1).

Endorse no more than 2-inch-per-hour raor ramping rates suggested by WDOE an7/17/2006). Mandate ramping rate of no more than 1 Falls Dam from June 16 to October 31 anNovember 1 to February 15 (Sierra ClubLands Council, filed 7/17/2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-19 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Geology and Soils Measures 

Erosion Control Program (First Component of the Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Erosion Control and Wetland and Riparian Habitat Protection and Enhancement [PF-TR-1]): Identify and prioritize specific areas of particular interest for protection needs and specific erosion control activities and projects. Potential sites and erosion control measures that may be included in the initial plan are in the erosion study (Earth Systems and Parametrix, 2004). Sites likely to be prioritized based on presence and condition of National Register-eligible archaeological sites. Sites also to include appropriate monitoring and evaluation of biological and physical effectiveness of the specific erosion-control measures to be 

implemented, and projects to be implemented within the first 5 years of the license term with updates on a 5-year cycle. 

Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Erwith riparian measures): Make some modifications to the Coeur dErosion Control and Habitat Protection ain terms of priorities and jurisdictional coIdaho, IDFG 10(j), filed 7/17/2006) (also Prepare, fund, and implement a Coeur d’Shoreline Erosion Control Plan (DOI 4(eInclude identifying and prioritizing all excompletely describing these sites, mappindesign of erosion control measures for eaimplementing monitoring and maintenanplan in two parts with implementation sctribal approval and providing annual repoImplement measures to prevent or reduce d’Alene Lake (Sierra Club, filed 7/17/20filed 7/17/2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-20 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Water Resource Measures 

Total Dissolved Gas (TDG) Control and Mitigation Program (PF-WQ-1): Develop and implement a TDG Control and Mitigation Program, including spill gate operating protocols and ongoing TDG monitoring and evaluation. Idaho Water Quality PME (PF-WQ-2): Develop and implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program.

Water Quality PME: Prepare, fund, and implement a Water Qudocument the influence of the Project on Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation (DOI, 4(e) conditions filed 7/18/2006, modified 5/7/2007). Undertake a Water Rights Protection Pro7/17/2006). Undertake measures to minimize TDG do(Sierra Club, filed 7/17/2006). Obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elim(NPDES) permits for dams (Sierra Club, Lands Council, filed 7/17/2006). Install and operate water quality monitorof Post Falls and Long Lake Dams (Sierr

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-21 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Aquatic Resource Measures 

Post Falls Project Fish PME Program (PF-AR-1): 

Maintain a 600-cfs minimum discharge flow at Post Falls Project under normal operating conditions, with a defined trigger for reducing the minimum flow to 500 cfs. Comply with Post Falls Project discharge levels as outlined in the Upper Spokane River Rainbow Trout Spawning and Fry Emergence Protection Plan. Maintain a maximum allowable per hour discharge downramping rate at Post Falls Project that corresponds to no more than a 4-inch drop per hour in downstream water levels. Provide for a Population and Habitat Protection and Enhancement Program for westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout in the Coeur d’Alene Lake Basin and native rainbow trout in the free-flowing reach of the Spokane River downstream of Post Falls Project. This component may also support wild salmonid protection by providing for alternative angling and harvest opportunities through recreational and fishery enhancement and supplementation. Support population and habitat assessments and monitoring for westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout in the Coeur d’Alene Lake Basin and/or native rainbow trout in the freeflowing reach of the Spokane River downstream of Post Falls Project. 

Fish PME Program: Conduct a Post Falls Project Fish PME Pprovisions for tributary habitat restorationmonitoring, recreational and fishery habifisheries public outreach program (IDFG 3/6/2007). Encourage Avista’s “commitment for comeducation, and enforcement to try and dimof fish” at Post Falls Project. Provide annevery 5 years) on Post Falls Fishery ProteProgram (CELP, filed 7/17/2006). Develop a Salmonid Fisheries Plan (Coeusupport of BIA, preliminary 4(e), filed 7/Restore 6.6 miles of tributary habitats upzone of Coeur d’Alene Lake (USFWS m3/5/2007). Fund and implement population and habispecifically directed at bull trout and westhe Coeur d’Alene Basin (The Lands CouDevelop a mitigation program to address benthic community in the Spokane River 7/17/2006). 

Provide assistance and support for a Public Information, Education, and Law Enforcement Program specific to bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout in the Coeur d’Alene Lake Basin and native rainbow trout in the free-flowing reach of the Spokane River downstream of Post Falls Project.

Establish a habitat restoration/mitigation filed 7/17/2006; The Lands Council, filed Conduct a Trout Stock Status Monitoring modified 10(j), filed 3/6/2007).

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-22 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Aquatic Resource Measures (cont) 

Coeur d’Alene Lake Aquatic Weed Management Program (PF-AR-2): Provide assistance and financial support for public education, monitoring, and weed management measures associated with exotic/noxious weeds in Coeur d’Alene Lake.

Coeur d’Alene Lake Aquatic Weed MaConduct an Aquatic Weed Management and noxious aquatic weeds in the waters that are within and adjacent to the Coeur Reservation (DOI modified 4(e), filed 5/5

Terrestrial Resource Measures 

Wetlands Program (Second Component of the Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary Erosion Control and Wetland and Riparian Habitat Protection and Enhancement [PF-TR-1]): Identify and evaluate agreed-upon wetland and riparian habitat sites associated with Coeur d’Alene Lake or its tributaries in order to protect, enhance, or restore them. Appropriate access would need to be obtained prior to implementing this measure. 

Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary ErWetlands and Riparian Habitat ProtecImplement PF-TR-1 (Coeur d’Alene LakControl and Wetland and Riparian HabitaEnhancement Plan) with modifications: (PFO1 (palustrine, forested, broad-leaved (2) restore 250 acres of PSS (palustrine, s(USFWS section 10(j), filed 7/17/06; rev

indicates that PF-TR-1 will satisfy this reImplement PF-TR-1 (Coeur d’Alene LakControl and Wetland and Riparian HabitaEnhancement Plan) with modifications: (accumulate, (2) projects should not be secultural resource values , (3) funds shoulvs. wetlands, and (4) the project selection modified (IDFG section 10(j), filed 7/17/

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-23 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Terrestrial Resource Measures (cont) 

Implement PF-TR-1 (Coeur d’Alene LakControl and Wetland and Riparian HabitaEnhancement Plan) with modifications: (natural levees in lower St. Joe River exclother USFWS recommendations (USFWDevelop and implement a Coeur d’Alene Wetland and Riparian Habitat Plan to res3,488 acres of emergent, scrub-shrub, anor off the reservation (DOI, 4(e), filed 7/Implement measures to protect and restord’Alene Lake (Sierra Club, filed 7/17/20filed 7/17/2006). Bald Eagles: Develop a Bald Eagle Educational InterpFalls Project and Spokane River Developfiled 7/18/2006) Annually monitor bald eagle nests for ocproductivity on Project lands (both Post FRiver Developments) (USFWS 10(j), fileAnnually survey for new bald eagle nests Post Falls Project and Spokane River Dev10(j), filed 7/18/06).Develop Bald Eagle Nest Management Pbald eagle use on Project lands (USFWS Noxious Weeds: Develop a management plan to control nlands (DOI, USFWS 10(j), filed 7/18/200

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-24 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Cultural Resource Measures 

Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) 

(PF-CR-1): Develop and implement the HPMP. Avista’s proposed alternative to DOI’s (BIA) cultural resources measure—Have Avista prepare and implement an HPMP for NHPA-eligible cultural resources within the existing and expanded area of potential effects (APE) of Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation and other parts of the Project.

Cultural Resources Plan: Identify cultural sites and properties and located on the reservation (DOI 4(e), filePrepare, fund, and implement a Cultural Plan (CRMP) (DOI 4(e), filed 5/7/2007). 

Recreation Resource Measures 

Post Falls Project Recreation Plan (PF-REC-1): Develop and implement a Project Recreation Plan that encompasses the various recreation PME measures and consult with the appropriate recreation management entities. Provide 25 percent of funds for the recreation measures. 

Establish a Recreation Enhancement Fund. 

Post Falls Project Recreation Plan: Implement the proposed Post Falls Projec(PF-REC-1 through PF-REC-4), providewhitewater flow releases are demonstrateresources (State of Idaho, filed 3/6/2007)Within 1 year of new license, develop a rto PF-REC-1 in the license application. Pfunds for the recreation measures (USDA 10(a), filed 8/18/2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-25 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Recreation Resource Measures (cont)

Coeur d’Alene Recreation PME (PF-REC-2): Provide funds (not to exceed $27,750) for improvements at City of Coeur d’Alene Park. Enter into a separate agreement with the City of Coeur d’Alene to provide $3,500 annual O&M costs. Improve existing recreation facilities at Falls Park. Provide funds (not to exceed $75,000) for project development and provide $20,000 annual O&M costs. Improve existing recreation facilities at Q’emiln Park. Provide funds (not to exceed $75,000) for project development and provide $30,000 annual O&M costs. Partially fund seven Coeur d’Alene Lake and tributary boat ramp extensions. Provide funds (not to exceed $75,000) for all of the boat ramp extensions. Install private aids to navigation on Coeur d’Alene Lake and along the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe Rivers as they enter the lake. Provide funds (not to exceed $20,000) for new or enhanced navigational aids and provide $1,000 annual O&M costs. 

Coeur d’Alene Recreation PME: Implement the Coeur d’Alene Lake recrefiled 3/12/2007; DOI, filed 3/5/2007). Obtain prior written approval from the Fodesign plans at Bell Bay Campground, MArea, and Rainey Hill Recreation Area (Umodified 4(e), filed 8/18/2006).

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-26 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Recreation Resource Measures (cont) 

Provide funds (not to exceed $200,000) to the BLM for development or enhancement of water-based recreational facilities on Coeur d’Alene Lake and its tributaries. Enter into a separate agreement with BLM to provide $33,000 annual O&M costs. Cooperate with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe to develop or enhance water-based recreational facilities on Coeur d’Alene Lake and its tributaries. Provide funds (not to exceed $200,000) to develop an undetermined recreational site. Enter into a separate agreement with the tribe to provide $30,000 annual O&M costs. Partially fund abandoned dock and debris removal from Coeur d’Alene Lake Partially fund (not to exceed $100,000) the Higgens Point breakwater and shoreline stabilization project. Enter into a separate agreement with the IDPR to provide $10,000 annual O&M costs. Partially fund (not to exceed $54,000) water-based facilities at the Forest Service Bell Bay Campground, Medimont Recreation Area, and Rainey Hill Recreation Area. Enter into a separate agreement with the Forest Service to provide $15,000 annual O&M costs. Provide funds (not to exceed $1,500) for mooring buoys and related O&M costs ($3,400 annually) at Mowry State Park. Provide funds (not to exceed $60,000) for three Coeur d’Alenes trail spurs that would provide access for people with 

disabilities and development of a pedestrian pullout along the trail at the Plummer Trailhead. Enter into a separate agreement with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe to provide $7,500 annual O&M costs.

Indemnify, defend, and hold the Forest Sdamages or claims sustained by the Foresconstruction of improvements at Bell Bay Medimont Recreation Area, and Rainey H(DOI, USDA Forest Service modified 4(Within 6 months of license issuance begiimplementation of site-specific recreation Bay Campground, Medimont Recreation Recreation Area as defined under PF-REapplication. Provide approximately 25 peexceed $54,000) for Forest Service recre$15,000 annual O&M costs (USDA Fore10(a), filed 8/18/2006). Public Outreach: Within 1 year of new license, develop an Education Plan as specified in PF-REC-4 (USDA Forest Service modified 10(a), fi

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-27 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Recreation Resource Measures (cont)

Provide funds (not to exceed $4,000) for Hawley’s Landing boat dock improvements. Provide funds (not to exceed $2,000) for sand at Plummer and Rocky Point beaches. Provide funds (not to exceed $60,000 per year) to ensure continued public access and development of new and/or reconstructed recreation facilities on or adjacent to the Project 

waters. Post Falls/Spokane River Recreation PME (PF-REC-3): Coordinate the late-spring and fall flow releases from Post 

Falls Project to extend whitewater boating opportunities on the Spokane River and provide scheduled boating flow releases up to two weekends in August. Provide funds (not to exceed $15,000) for upgrading the USGS Post Falls gage (gage no. 12419000) and provide realtime flow information system. Enter into a separate agreement with the USGS to provide $2,500 annual O&M costs. Cooperate in the acquisition, development, and related O&M for the Trailer Park Wave access site. Provide funds (not to exceed $150,000) for site acquisition and/or project 

development and provide $15,000 annual O&M costs. Provide funds (not to exceed $50,000) for the improvement 

and/or reconstruction of the boat ramp at Corbin Park. Post Falls Project Public Outreach (PF-REC-4): Prepare and implement an Interpretation and Education Plan. Conduct recreational use surveys at the Project every 6 years.

Post Falls/Spokane River Recreation PDevelop the Trailer Park Wave access sitboat ramp (IDPR, filed 3/6/2007).

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-28 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Land Use Measures Post Falls Project Land Use Management Plan 

Implementation PME (PF-LU-1): Implement the Project Land Use Management Plan as stipulated under PF-LU-1 in the license application. 

On and adjacent to the Project, provide assistance and financial support for enforcement of land- and water-based 

laws and regulations administered by federal, state, local, and tribal governments. Project Boundary Modifications: At Post Falls Project, add 2,352 acres (currently within the 2,128-foot contour) and remove 0.5 acre of private land east of the abandoned Corbin Ditch. 

Post Falls Project Land Use ManagemImplementation PME: Implement the Land Use Management Plfiled 03/12/2007). Determine Avista’s liability for fire and oForest System Lands in accordance with 22 and 24 of the license (USDA Forest Sfiled 8/18/2006). Identify Avista as responsible for identifyForest Service all known or observed hazdirectly affecting Forest Service lands (Umodified 4(e), filed 8/18/2006). Project Boundary Modifications: N/A 

Aesthetic Resource Measures 

Post Falls Project Aesthetic Flows (PF-AES-1): Provide aesthetic flows at Post Falls Project through the North Channel spill gates (approximately 46 cfs) on Saturdays and Sundays from 12 noon until 6 p.m., Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day. 

Other Project-Wide Measures 

Facilities and Administrative Support: 

Purchase and maintain a boat for PME measures at Post Falls Project (total cost shared 50/50 with Spokane River Developments). Provide for administrative overhead costs for new PME measures; provide support office staff time and expenses. 

License Terms: Issue one 30-year license for the Post FalRiver Developments (Coeur d’Alene Tribfiled 3/4/2007). 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-29 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

SPOKANE RIVER PROJECT Operational Measures Flow Regime/Lake Levels: 

Continue to provide aesthetic flows year-round at Monroe Street Development and initiate aesthetic flows seasonally at Post Falls Project and Upper Falls Development. Limit the drawdown of Lake Spokane to 14 feet, except under certain emergency conditions. This would constitute a change from current license conditions, which allow for a 24-foot maximum drawdown, but would not deviate from the way the Project has been operated in recent years. Attempt to periodically draw down Lake Spokane during the winter to expose the lake bed to freezing temperatures to reduce the occurrence of aquatic weeds such as Eurasian watermilfoil. Provide a 200-cfs minimum daily aesthetic flow through Upper Falls Development bypass reach (north and middle channels) from 10 a.m. to one-half hour after sunset, Memorial Day weekend through September 30, and implement channel restoration as feasible to enhance visual 

conditions (SRP-AES-1). Continue to provide the current 200-cfs minimum daily aesthetic flow from 10 a.m. to one-half hour after sunset daily, year-round, at Monroe Street Development (SRP-AES-1).

Flow Regime/Lake LevelsRelease a minimum instream flow of at l

Falls Dam for aesthetic viewing at downtmidnight and modify channel to spread f(Sierra Club, filed 7/17/2006). Provide a minimum instream flow sufficiaesthetic values for waterfall viewing (CE

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-30 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Erosion Control: Prepare, fund, and implement an Erosion Restoration Program for Lake Spokane (TLands Council, filed 7/17/2006). Prepare, fund, and implement an Erosion Restoration Program for Lake Spokane a(WDFW 10(j), filed 7/18/2006). Sedimentation: Develop a Sediment Management Plan foLake Reservoirs (WDOE, filed 7/17/200Develop a Sediment Management Plan foand Lake Spokane (WDFW 10(j), filed 7Study reservoir sedimentation and develoreduce sedimentation problems for Nine (Sierra Club, filed 7/17/2006; The Lands 7/17/2006).

Geology and Soils Measures 

Erosion: Support additional habitat management and enhancement activities on new Project lands as well as on existing Project land that may include erosion control (Lake Spokane/Nine Mile Terrestrial, Riparian and Wetland Habitat Protection and Enhancement PME (SRP-TR-1). Sedimentation: Support regional efforts to reduce erosion (and downstream sedimentation) in the Hangman Creek Watershed (SRP-TR-1).

Implement measures to prevent or reduce Spokane (Long Lake Reservoir) (Sierra CLands Council, filed 7/17/2006). 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-31 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Water Resource Measures 

TDG Control and Mitigation Program (SRP-WQ-1): Develop and implement a TDG Control and Mitigation Program, including spill gate operating protocols, ongoing TDG monitoring and evaluation, and a comprehensive Long Lake Development TDG Abatement Plan. Washington Water Quality PME (SRP-WQ-2): Develop and implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program. 

Washington Water Quality PME: 

Undertake a Water Rights Protection Pro7/17/2006). Undertake projects to improved DO in Ldownstream (Sierra Club, filed 7/17/2006filed 7/17/2006). Require Avista to undertake measures to downstream of dams (Sierra Club, filed 7Council, filed 7/17/2006). Continue the DO Enhancement Plan for L10 years instead of 5 years and submit th5 years of license issuance. $50,000 is inadequate funding for a feasibility study to downstream of Long Lake Development Obtain NPDES permits for dams (Sierra The Lands Council, filed 7/17/2006). Study, identify, and implement remedies standards for temperature (Sierra Club, fiInstall and operate water quality monitorof Post Falls and Long Lake Dams (Sierr

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-32 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Aquatic Resource Measures 

Spokane River Fish PME Program (SRP-AR-1): Provide for fish population and aquatic habitat protection and enhancement efforts on the Spokane River and Lake Spokane. Support the development and implementation of enhanced fish population and related aquatic habitat assessments and monitoring programs associated with the Upper Falls, Monroe Street, Nine Mile, and Long Lake Developments. Lake Spokane Aquatic Weed Management Program PME (SRP-AR-2): Implement site-specific and general weed control measures in Lake Spokane, including potential use of bottom barriers to maintain public access sites. Attempt periodic winter drawdowns of 10 to 14 feet to assist in managing weeds in Lake Spokane. 

Spokane River Fish PME Program: Salmonid Fisheries Management Plan (W7/18/2006). Fund and implement population and habinative resident trout in the Spokane Rivelicense (Sierra Club, filed 7/17/2006, The 7/17/2006). Conduct a Spawning Gravel Managemenmodified 10(j), filed 3/6/2007). 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-33 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Aquatic Resource Measures (cont) 

Conduct a Fishery Enhancement/Supplem(WDFW modified 10(j), filed 3/6/2007). Conduct a Fisheries Public Outreach and specific to the protection of wild trout in (WDFW modified 10(j), filed 3/6/2007) Implement a Native Resident Trout EnhaCoeur d’Alene Lake and the Spokane Riv7/17/2006). Develop a mitigation program to address benthic community in the Spokane River 7/17/2006). Establish a habitat restoration/mitigation filed 7/17/2006; The Lands Council, filed Spokane River Aquatic Weed ControlConduct an Aquatic Weed Management monitoring and control of invasive plant and Lake Spokane areas (WDFW modifi

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-34 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Lake Spokane/Nine Mile Terrestrial, RHabitat Protection and Enhancement P

Enhance and restore 42.51 acres of wetlaLittle Spokane River, or Hangman Creek 7/17/2006). 

Terrestrial Resource Measures 

Lake Spokane/Nine Mile Terrestrial, Riparian and Wetlands Habitat Protection and Enhancement PME (SRP-TR-1): Secure appropriate property protection for, and implement, new wetland enhancement or restoration efforts adjacent to or near the Nine Mile or Long Lake Developments. Project Transmission Line Management Program PME (SRP-TR-2): Provide raptor protection and non-chemical vegetation management, as appropriate, on approximately 2.1 miles of existing Project transmission lines, as well as any new transmission lines that may become part of the Project in the 

future. 

Protect and manage all Avista-owned lanSpokane for the purposes of preserving winclude these lands in the Project boundaacres) (WDFW 10(j), filed 7/18/2006; reProvide funds to purchase 300 acres of shwetland habitat contiguous with Lake Spowned property that is to be managed for (WDFW 10(j), filed 7/18/2006; revised 3Prepare an Upland Habitat Protection/EnLake Reservoir (USFWS (10(j), filed 7/1

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-35 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Terrestrial Resource Measures (cont)

 Bald Eagles: 

Develop and implement an Education aninform the public about bald eagle use (U7/18/2006). Annually monitor bald eagle nests for ocproductivity (USFWS 10(j), filed 7/18/20Annually survey for new bald eagle nests Projects (USFWS 10(j), filed 7/18/2006)Develop Bald Eagle Nest Management Pbald eagle use (USFWS 10(j), filed 7/18/Noxious Weeds: Develop a management plan to control nlands (DOI, USFWS, 10(j), filed 7/18/20

Cultural Resource Measures 

HPMP (SRP-CR-1): Develop and implement the HPMP. 

Recreation Resource Measures 

Spokane River Project Recreation Plan (SRP-REC-1): 

Develop and implement a Project Recreation Plan that encompasses the various recreation PME measures and consult with appropriate parties. Spokane River Recreation PME (SRP-REC-2): Continue to manage Huntington Park at Monroe Street Development as a natural area/buffer. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-36 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Recreation Resource Measures (cont) 

Provide funds (not to exceed $20,000) for developing the Water Avenue access site. Enter into a separate agreement with the City of Spokane to provide $5,000 annual O&M costs. Spokane River Public Outreach PME (SRP-REC-3): Prepare and implement an Interpretation and Education Plan. Conduct recreational use surveys at the Project every 6 years. Lake Spokane/Nine Mile Reservoir Recreation PME (SRP-REC-4): Enter into a separate agreement with Washington State Parks or transfer ownership of the Nine Mile Cottages. Remove the cottage compound from the Project area because it does not 

serve Project purposes. Provide funds (not to exceed $150,000) to develop an interpretative center at Nine Mile Development and relocate the existing Nine Mile overlook. Provide $20,000 annual O&M costs. Provide funds (not to exceed $25,000) to redevelop the interpretive displays at the Spokane House. Develop and identify the Nine Mile portage, including parking and signs. Provide funds (not to exceed $15,000) for 

developing the measure and provide $5,000 annual O&M costs.

If the intent of the Commission staff recoAvista should be responsible for costs asthe Centennial Trail, the WSPRC would lands, upon which the trail would be locathe Project boundary (WSPRC, filed 2/21Implement the Spokane River Developm(DOI, filed 3/5/2007).

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-37 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Recreation Resource Measures (cont)

Provide funds (not to exceed $100,000) to extend the Centennial Trail from Sontag Park to Nine Mile Resort. Provide funds (not to exceed $250,000) to reconfigure Nine Mile Resort as a day-use area to complement Washington State Parks’ proposed new campground at Riverside State Park. Provide funds (not to exceed $140,000) to WDNR to expand its Lake Spokane Campground. Provide $30,000 annual O&M costs. Provide funds (not to exceed $50,000) to identify and develop up to 10 boat-in-only semi-primitive campsites on Lake Spokane. Provide $10,000 annual O&M costs. Provide funds (not to exceed $50,000) to redevelop, operate, and maintain the Long Lake Dam overlook. Provide $10,000 annual O&M costs. Provide funds (not to exceed $10,000) to develop a carry-in boat launch immediately downstream from the Long Lake Dam picnic area. Provide $5,000 annual O&M costs. Provide parking, hiking, and watchable-wildlife opportunities at the Devil’s Gap Trailhead and surrounding area; provide $5,000 annual O&M costs. Provide funds (not to exceed $300,000 every 10 years after the initial projects are completed) to ensure continued public access and development of new and/or reconstructed 

recreation facilities at the Project.

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-38 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Land Use Measures Project Land Use Management Plan Implementation PME 

(SRP-LU-1): Implement the Project Land Use Management Plan, as stipulated under SRP-LU-1 in the license application. On and adjacent to the Project, provide assistance and 

financial support for enforcement of land- and water-based 

laws and regulations administered by governments within their jurisdictions. Project Boundary Modifications: At Upper Falls and Monroe Street Developments, remove 2.8 acres that serve no Project purpose. At Nine Mile Development, remove 66 acres that serve no Project purpose. At Long Lake Development, add 350.1 acres associated with a proposed shoreline buffer, the Nine Mile Resort, a dredged boat area, and a section of primary transmission line. 

Seek to acquire a portion of property within 300 feet of Lake Spokane shoreline (approximately 47 acres) and manage for habitat protection (SRP-TR-1). Incorporate into the Project boundary Avista-owned lands 

within 200 feet of the Lake Spokane shoreline (approximately 320 acres) and manage as appropriate under the Land Use Management Plan (SRP-TR-1). 

Project Boundary Modifications: N/A 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-39 

Table 2.2.4-1. Proposed Action and stakeholder alternatives measures (continued)

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternate Agency/Stakeholder 

Aesthetic Resource Measures 

Spokane River Project Aesthetic Flows PME (SRP-AES-1): 

Provide a 200-cfs minimum daily aesthetic flow through Upper Falls Development bypass reach (north and middle channels) from 10 a.m. to one-half hour after sunset, Memorial Day weekend through September 30, and implement channel restoration as feasible to enhance visual 

conditions. 

Continue to provide the current 200-cfs minimum daily aesthetic flow from 10 a.m. to one-half hour after sunset daily, year-round, at Monroe Street Development.

Spokane River Project Aesthetic Flows Release a minimum instream flow of at lFalls Dam for aesthetic viewing at downtuntil midnight, year-round and modify chacross riverbed (Sierra Club, CELP, filed 

Other Project Wide Measures 

Facilities and Administrative Support: 

Purchase and maintain a boat for PME measures (total cost 50/50 with Post Falls Project). Provide for administrative overhead costs for new PME measures; support office staff time and expenses associated 

with new PME measures. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-40 

2.3.1 Staff’s Modification to the Proposed Action 

After evaluating the Proposed Action, including mandatory conditions filed 

pursuant to sections 4(e) and 18 of the FPA, and other recommendations from 

resource agencies and interested entities under sections 10(a) and 10(j) of the FPA, 

we considered what, if any, additional measures would be necessary or appropriate 

for continued operation of the Projects. The Staff Alternative consists of the 

Proposed Action (section 2.2) with the adoption of other environmental measures 

recommended by agencies and stakeholders as well as staff. In section 5.1 of 

Chapter 5.0, we summarize measures proposed by Avista that we recommend and 

these new measures, as well as our rationale. 

2.3.2 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions 

Pursuant to section 18 of the FPA, DOI filed its proposal to reserve the 

authority to prescribe the construction, operation, and maintenance of fishways in 

the future during the term of the license in its July 18, 2006, submittal. 

2.3.3 Section 4(e) Conditions 

Section 4(e) of the FPA provides that any license issued by the Commission 

for a project within a federal reservation should be subject to and contain such 

conditions as the Secretary of the responsible federal land management agency 

deems necessary for the adequate protection and use of the reservation. The 

existing Post Falls Project occupies lands owned by the United States and held in 

trust for the Coeur d’Alene Indian Tribe. 

In a July 18, 2006, filing with the Commission, DOI, on behalf of the BIA, 

submitted preliminary terms and conditions pursuant to section 4(e) of the FPA. 

On May 17, 2007, Interior filed with the Commission modified terms, conditions, 

and prescriptions for the Project. The conditions consist of specific environmental 

measures, summarized below, as well as administrative conditions that pertain to 

aspects of Avista’s use of BIA-managed reservation lands. Because the 

administrative conditions are not environmental measures, we do not analyze them 

in this FEIS. 

The USDA Forest Service submitted its preliminary section 4(e) conditions 

in its July 14, 2006, filing, but later modified those conditions in its August 18, 

2006, filing. On May 3, 2007, the USDA Forest Service filed a letter with the 

Commission stating that its August 18, 2006, modified terms, conditions, and 

prescriptions for the Project are its final terms, conditions, and prescriptions. All 

of the August 18, 2006, conditions were determined to be administrative and legal 

conditions. Because the administrative conditions are not environmental measures, 

we do not analyze them in this FEIS. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-41 

Environmental Measures 

The DOI-modified 4(e) environmental conditions are summarized below: 

Modified Condition (MC) 2: Coeur d’Alene Lake and Tributary 

Shoreline Erosion Control—Avista should conduct an Erosion Inventory and 

Assessment, which would include an inventory of all erosion sites on the St. Joe 

River and reservation. Based on the inventory and assessment, Avista should 

develop for approval by the Secretary of the Interior an Erosion Control Design 

Plan outlining how Avista would control 50 percent of erosion on reservation 

shorelines on the St. Joe River and 30 percent of erosion on reservation shorelines 

on Coeur d’Alene Lake. In addition, Avista should prepare an Erosion Control 

Implementation Plan for approval by the Secretary of the Interior. Upon approval, 

Avista should then implement construction of all erosion control designs within 

4 years. Avista should also conduct additional erosion inventories over the course 

of the license term to document whether additional erosion sites develop in the 

future. 

MC 3: Water Quality Standards and Water Quality Monitoring—

Avista should conduct the water monitoring and modeling program designed by 

BIA to adequately identify and assess Project effects on water quality in the 

southern portion of the lake within the reservation. Included in the water 

monitoring program are seven parameters (total nitrogen; nitrite + nitrate; 

ammonia; total, dissolved, and ortho phosphorus; and chlorophyll-a) to be 

measured at five sites, including one site in Benewah Lake and one in Round 

Lake, following specifics outlined by BIA. In addition, continuous monitoring of 

temperature, specific conductance, potential hydrogen (pH), and DO; twicemonthly water column profiles; continuous meteorological station data; and 

monitoring of other limnological data should be measured at specified sites. Avista 

should then report the data collected within 30 working days after collection or 

laboratory analysis and should promptly respond to tribal requests regarding such 

data. Every 5 years, Avista should update the water quality models of the Projectaffected waters above Post Falls Dam to access the Project’s contribution to 

exceedance of water quality standards.

MC 4: Protection of Cultural Resources—Avista should conduct 

ongoing monitoring to ensure that impacts to cultural properties on the reservation 

within the area of potential effects (APE) are identified and addressed throughout 

the license term. Avista should protect cultural sites and properties on the 

reservation within the APE from illegal scavenging and collecting as defined in 

the Initial Cultural Resource Response Program and the Cultural Resource 

Management Plan, of which BIA retains the authority to approve. Avista should 

fund the long-term storage and curation of cultural resources in the tribe’s facility, 

including any necessary upgrade and expansion of that facility.

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-42 

MC 5: Aquatic Weed Management—Avista, in collaboration with the 

Coeur d’Alene Tribe, should prepare for approval by the Secretary of the Interior a 

Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation Aquatic Weed Management Plan to control 

exotic and noxious aquatic weeds in waters affected by the Project that are within 

and adjoining the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation. The plan should include: 

(1) annual fall surveys to assess and map infestation and distribution of exotic and 

noxious aquatic weeds, (2) management actions, based on the annual survey 

results, specific to each identified weed for implementation the following spring, 

(3) a survey and implementation schedule, (4) coordination with management of 

other resources, and (5) criteria to measure progress of control of each identified 

weed. 

MC 6: Wetland and Riparian Habitat Replacement and 

Maintenance—Avista should restore and/or replace 3,488 acres of emergent 

scrub-shrub and/or forested wetlands on or off the reservation within the first 

10 years of the license. 

Administrative / Legal Measures 

MCs filed by DOI that we consider administrative or legal in nature include 

the following: 

• MC 1: Avista should prepare an Implementation and Monitoring Plan for the 

Secretary of the Interior’s approval for Avista activities required by the license 

regarding how it intends to comply with the DOI’s section 4(e) conditions 2 

through 6. The Implementation and Monitoring Plan should include: (1) an 

Erosion Inventory and Assessment Plan, (2) a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, 

and (3) an Aquatic Weed Management Plan. Avista should prepare annual 

reports of information relating to implementation and monitoring requirements, 

including (a) progress reports on shoreline erosion control, (b) results of water 

quality monitoring and reviews of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan, 

(c) results of water quality modeling, (d) a summary of activities conducted for 

Protection of Cultural Resources Condition, (e) results of an annual survey of 

aquatic weeds, and (f) an Annual Work Plan detailing the coming year’s 

expected activities as applicable to activities related to DOI section 4(e) 

conditions 2 through 6.

• MC 7: Avista will collaborate with the tribe to formulate plans and actions and 

resolve disputes in a manner that is acceptable to both parties. 

• MC 8: For plans requiring approval of the Secretary of the Interior, such 

approval will be obtained before the plan is filed with FERC. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-43 

• MC 9: When written notice is required, Avista will provide written notice to 

the Secretary (or designee), the tribe, the chairman of the tribal council, the 

administrative director of the tribe, and the director of the tribe’s Natural 

Resources Department; in emergencies, a phone call should be made to the 

parties, followed by written notice. 

• MC 10: Avista will allow a representative of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe and DOI 

access to, through, and across Project lands and works for inspection after 

proper credentials have been shown, advance notice given, and safety measures 

followed. 

• MC 11: The Secretary of the Interior can accept or reject, in whole or in part, 

Avista’s submissions; upon rejection, Avista shall have 45 days to resubmit the 

rejected portion. 

• MC 12: Avista’s performance of all requirements of these conditions shall be 

consistent with the purposes of section 4(e) of the FPA to ensure that the 

reservation is adequately protected and utilized and that the Project does not 

interfere with, or is not inconsistent with, the purposes for which the 

reservation was established. 

• MC 13: These conditions are not intended to modify/alter any rights held by 

the Coeur d’Alene Tribe under applicable federal or tribal law. 

• MC 14: the Secretary of the Interior reserves the authority to review Avista’s 

compliance with any requirement of these conditions and may seek permissible 

remedies under the FPA or other laws if Avista is found to be noncompliant. 

Avista would implement, upon order of FERC, additional measures identified 

by the Secretary pursuant to section 4(e) authority, as necessary to ensure 

adequate protection and utilization of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation. 

Conditions filed by the USDA Forest Service that we consider 

administrative or legal in nature include the following: 

• MC 1: Avista shall obtain written approval from the USDA Forest Service for 

all final design plans for recreational improvements specified in PF-REC-2 

before such improvements are implemented on National Forest System lands. 

• MC 2: Avista shall indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless for 

any damages or losses sustained by the United States during construction of the 

recreational improvements specified in PF-REC-2 and for judgments, claims, 

or demands assessed against the United States in connection with the 

construction of such improvements. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-44 

• MC 3: Avista’s liability for fire and other damages to National Forest System 

lands shall be determined in accordance with L-Form Articles 22 and 24 of the 

license. 

• MC 4: During construction, Avista is responsible for identifying and reporting 

to the USDA Forest Service all known or observed hazardous conditions 

affecting such lands, recreational improvements, or resources, or any 

conditions that pose a risk of injury to individuals. 

2.3.4 Section 401 Water Quality Certificate Conditions 

Avista filed an application for Water Quality Certification to the 

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) and Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) for the Projects on July 12, 2006, as required under 

section 401(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act 

[CWA]). Neither WDOE nor IDEQ responded to the applications or submitted 

section 401 conditions. Therefore, Avista withdrew its July 12, 2006, applications 

and reapplied for 401 certification with IDEQ on June 5, 2007, and WDOE on 

June 13, 2007. Certifications are pending. 

2.3.5 Section 10(j) Recommendations 

Under section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the 

Commission must include conditions based on recommendations provided by 

federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the PME of fish and wildlife 

resources affected by the Project. The Commission is required to include these 

conditions unless it determines that they are inconsistent with the purposes and 

requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. The USFWS, WDFW, and IDFG 

filed recommendations pursuant to section 10(j) in July 2006. In March 2007, the 

USFWS, WDFW, and IDFG filed modifications to their original section 10(j) 

recommendations. 

2.3.6 Avista Alternative Section 4(e) Conditions under the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 

In accordance with the EPAct of 2005, Avista filed a request for a trial-type 

hearing with DOI on August 17, 2006. As part of that request, Avista filed a series 

of 12 alternative conditions, or countermeasures, to DOI’s (4)(e) preliminary 

conditions filed July 18, 2006. The DOI referred the matter to an ALJ on 

October 6, 2006. On January 8, 2007, the ALJ issued his opinion on disputed 

factual issues. DOI considered the judge’s opinion in formulating its modified 

4(e) conditions filed with the Commission on May 7, 2007. These modified 

4(e) conditions are analyzed in this FEIS. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-45 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

We also considered other alternatives to the Proposed Action, but 

eliminated them from detailed study because they are not considered reasonable 

under the circumstances of this case. These alternatives include: (1) federal 

takeover; (2) issuance of a non-power license; (3) retirement of the Project; and 

(4) implementation of a natural hydrograph alternative at the Post Falls Project. 

We discuss the rationale for eliminating these alternatives from detailed study in 

the following sections. 

2.4.1 Federal Takeover 

In accordance with section 16.14 of the Commission’s regulations, a federal 

department or agency may file a recommendation that the United States exercise 

its right to take over a hydroelectric project with a license that is subject to 

sections 14 and 15 of the FPA (16 U.S.C. sections 791(a) – 825(r)). Federal 

takeover and operation of the Projects would require Congressional approval. No 

party has suggested that federal takeover would be appropriate, and no federal 

agency has expressed interest in operating the Project. In this case, we do not 

consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. 

2.4.2 Issuance of a Nonpower License 

A nonpower license is a temporary license that the Commission would 

terminate whenever it determines that another governmental agency is authorized 

and willing to assume regulatory authority and supervision over the lands and 

facilities covered by the nonpower license. At this time, no government agency 

has suggested a willingness or ability to take over the Projects. No party has 

sought a nonpower license, and we have no basis for concluding that the Projects 

should no longer be used to produce power. Thus, we do not consider a nonpower 

license to be a reasonable alternative. 

2.4.3 Retirement of the Projects 

Retiring the Projects would involve denying the relicense application and 

surrendering or terminating the existing license with appropriate conditions. 

Termination or surrender of the existing license would entail one of two Project 

retirement alternatives—without dam removal or with dam removal. 

Project Retirement Without Dam Removal 

Project retirement without dam removal would involve retaining the dams 

and reservoirs, while disabling or removing equipment used to generate electricity. 

This option would result in the loss of the Project’s energy production, system 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-46 

operating benefits, tax revenues, and operation-related employment and would 

require the Commission to identify another government agency willing and able to 

assume regulatory control and supervision of the remaining facilities. The changes 

to Project operations and the additional measures proposed by Avista and any 

required by the Commission at relicensing would not occur. This retirement option 

avoids the temporary adverse impacts of dam removal, but it also precludes the 

long-term benefits of the additional measures proposed by Avista or required by 

the Commission at relicensing. No agency or other party has recommended this 

alternative. Moreover, Avista customers and the Spokane metropolitan region rely, 

in part, on the power generated by the Projects, and decommissioning the Projects 

would require a source of replacement power, which has not been identified. 

Because decommissioning in-place provides no incremental benefits to any 

resource area different from other alternatives we examine in detail, eliminates the 

power benefit, and still continues a maintenance cost burden, we do not consider 

this decommissioning alternative further. 

Project Retirement With Dam Removal 

Removal of the Project works would also provide no significant benefits 

over other alternatives we evaluate in detail. This alternative would also involve 

several significant adverse effects in addition to the loss of generation capacity. 

Most significantly, it would involve management of accumulated sediment behind 

Nine Mile Dam and at the upper end of Lake Spokane by either dredging or 

release downstream. Sediment management alternatives would involve potentially 

significant adverse environmental and economic impacts. Potential environmental 

effects include mobilization of stored and immobilized contaminants behind the 

dams, increased turbidity and sedimentation, and lowered water quality in the 

Spokane River. It would also involve conversion of flatwater resources to riverine 

resources. Because Project retirement with removal of the Project facilities would 

induce a significantly higher economic and environmental cost than other 

alternatives and has not been recommended by any of the resource agencies, we do 

not evaluate this alternative further. 

2.4.4 Natural Hydrograph Alternative 

Several stakeholders participating in the ALP expressed an interest in 

demonstrating how the river and environment would be different if the Post Falls 

Project ceased operating in the manner it does and Coeur d’Alene Lake and the 

Spokane River were allowed to function under natural flow conditions. In 

response, Avista used the same modeling that was used to evaluate lake levels and 

river flows under current Project operations (No Action) and under the Proposed 

Action to make a preliminary evaluation of the effects of a scenario commonly 

referred to as the Natural Hydrograph Alternative at the Post Falls Project. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-47 

Under this alternative, the Post Falls Project would continue to operate and 

produce power, but under a significantly revised operating regime. The 

development would be operated in a manner that allowed Coeur d’Alene Lake 

levels and Spokane River flows to be determined solely by inflows and the lake’s 

natural outlet restriction. No minimum flow would be provided by the Post Falls 

Project. The other four Spokane River developments would operate as they would 

under the No-Action Alternative, although this operation would be predicated 

upon the modified flow regime. 

Under typical hydrologic conditions (i.e., in most years), flows under the 

natural hydrograph in the Spokane River downstream of Post Falls would be 

noticeably lower between September and January relative to current Project 

operations. From February through May, flows under the natural hydrograph 

alternative would be similar to current Project operations. From June through 

August, flows would be higher under the natural hydrograph in most years. 

The Natural Hydrograph Alternative would have both beneficial and 

adverse effects on fish populations downstream of Post Falls Project as compared 

to current and proposed operations. In wet years, sufficient water would likely be 

available to provide higher flows downstream of Post Falls Project from spring 

through summer, providing a benefit to spawning, rearing, and foraging rainbow 

trout. In warm, low-water years, however, flows downstream of Post Falls under 

the natural hydrograph could potentially be significantly less than under current 

and proposed operations. Storing water in Coeur d’Alene Lake allows Avista to 

release water slowly through the Post Falls Project throughout the summer 

months. Under a natural hydrograph, less water would be stored in the lake, and 

the Spokane River downstream of Post Falls Dam would have significantly less 

water in some years than under existing conditions. Adverse flow and temperature 

effects on native fish populations could be substantial in the Spokane River 

between the Post Falls Project and Sullivan Road—notably in the vicinity of 

Barker Road, where stream flows would likely be very low during some warm, 

low-water years. 

Under typical hydrologic conditions, Coeur d’Alene Lake would be 

significantly lower than under current Project operations (more than 1 foot) from 

June through January. From February through May, lake levels under the natural 

hydrograph alternative would be much more similar to current Project operations. 

The greatest difference would occur during August and September, when the lake 

level under current typical hydrologic conditions would be approximately 8 feet 

higher than under the Natural Hydrograph Alternative. 

The loss of storage and head would lead to a loss of generation. Under the 

Natural Hydrograph Alternative, average annual energy at the Post Falls Project 

would drop approximately 6,800 MWh. This is equivalent to an average drop in 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
2-48 

energy of less than 1 MW. Average annual energy production at the four 

downstream developments would also drop, by approximately an additional 

3 MW. Avista would need to make up these losses from other energy sources. 

Staff evaluated the Natural Hydrograph Alternative within the context of 

the current collaborative process and concluded that this alternative is not 

reasonable for the following reasons: 

• The majority of stakeholders participating in the ALP did not view it as a 

reasonable alternative. 

• This alternative would have adverse socioeconomic effects that would more 

than offset any gains to some resources. 

• The shoreline of Coeur d’Alene Lake would be lowered by 2 to 8 vertical feet 

in the summer period, and these dewatered areas would adversely affect 

residential, recreational, and commercial users whose development and use 

patterns are designed around the current lake level regime. 

For these reasons, we do not consider a Natural Hydrograph Alternative at 

the Post Falls Project to be a reasonable alternative. 

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007
Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007

File [Section_3_Environmental_Analysis.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007

File [Section_4_Developmental Analysis.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007

File [Section_5_Staff_Conclusions.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007

File [Section_6_Literature_Cited.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007

File [Section_7_List_of_Preparers.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007

File [Appendix_A_.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Content(s)

Report_Cover_and_Spine.PDF................................................1

Title_Page.PDF............................................................3

Letter_to_the_Parties_Foreword.PDF........................................5

Table_of_Contents.PDF....................................................11

Executive_summary.PDF....................................................27

Section_1_Purpose_of_Action.PDF..........................................51

Section_2_Proposed_Action_and_Alternatives.PDF ..........................65

Section_3_Environmental_Analysis.PDF ...................................113

Section_4_Developmental Analysis.PDF ...................................114

Section_5_Staff_Conclusions.PDF.........................................115

Section_6_Literature_Cited.PDF..........................................116

Section_7_List_of_Preparers.PDF.........................................117

Appendix_A_.PDF.........................................................118

Document Accession #: 20070720-4000 Filed Date: 07/20/2007