Final Environmental Impact Statement

Application for Hydropower License for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project

FERC Project No. 2144-038, Washington

And

Application for Surrender of Hydropower License for the Sullivan Creek Project

FERC Project No. 2225-015, Washington

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

Boundary Dam

Sullivan Lake Dam

Mill Pond Dam

Federal Energy

Regulatory

Commission

Office of Energy Projects

September 2011

FERC/FEIS – 0239F

FERC/F-0239

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Application for Hydropower License for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project

FERC Project No. 2144-038, Washington

And

Application for Surrender of Hydropower License for the Sullivan Creek Project

FERC Project No. 2225-015, Washington

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Division of Hydropower Licensing

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

September 2011
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 (final EIS) for the relicensing 

of the City of Seattle, Washington’s Boundary Hydroelectric Project No. 2144-038 and 

the surrender of Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, Washington’s, 

Sullivan Creek Project No. 2225-015. The Boundary Project is located on the Pend 

Oreille River in Pend Oreille County, Washington. The Sullivan Creek Project is located 

on Sullivan Lake, and Sullivan Creek and Outlet Creeks, tributaries to the Pend Oreille 

River that empty into the Boundary Project reservoir. Both projects occupy lands within 

the Colville National Forest.

This final EIS documents the view of governmental agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicants, and Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff. It contains staff evaluations on the 

applicants’ proposals and alternatives for relicensing the Boundary Project and 

surrendering the Sullivan Creek Project.

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

relevant to the public interest. The final EIS will be part of the record from which the 

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

Protection Agency and made available to the public on or about April 18, 2011.

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

Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington DC 20426. The EIS also 

may be viewed on the Internet at http://elibrary.ferc.gov. For assistance, contact FERC 

Online Support at FERCOnlineSuppor@ferc.gov or toll-free at 1-866-208-3372, or for 

TTY, (202) 502-8659.

Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Statement
COVER SHEET

a. Title: Application for hydropower license for the Boundary Hydroelectric 

Project, FERC Project No. 2144-038; and Application for surrender of 

license for the Sullivan Creek Project, FERC Project No. 2225-015

b. Subject: Final Environmental Impact Statement

c. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)

d. Abstract: On September 29, 2009, the City of Seattle, Washington (Seattle) filed 

application to relicense its 1,003-megawatt (MW) Boundary 

Hydroelectric Project, located on the Pend Oreille River in Pend Oreille 

County, Washington. The project produces an average of 3,572.8 

gigawatt-hours (GWh) of energy annually. The project occupies 

609.24 acres of federal lands managed by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) on the Colville National 

Forest, and 329.35 acres of federal lands managed by the U.S. Bureau 

of Land Management.

On March 29, 2010, Seattle and the Public Utility District No. 1 of 

Pend Oreille County (District) jointly filed an offer of settlement,

consisting of two comprehensive settlement agreements, a joint

explanatory statement and a request to consolidate the processing of 

Seattle’s relicensing of the Boundary Project with the District’s 

surrender of its license for the Sullivan Creek Project. Subsequently, 

on April 2, 2010, the District filed an application to surrender its 

license for the Sullivan Creek Project, located on Sullivan Lake and 

Sullivan and Outlet Creeks in Pend Oreille County, Washington. The 

District operates the Sullivan Creek Project as a storage facility for 

downstream generation; it does not generate electricity. The project 

occupies 522 acres of federal lands managed by the Forest Service.

The two separate, but interdependent settlement agreements detail the 

measures that Seattle would implement to address the effects of 

continued load-following operations of the Boundary Project and the 

District’s orderly disposition of the Sullivan Creek Project. The 

Boundary settlement agreement includes obligations for addressing 

water quality issues, evaluating and providing fish passage for resident 

salmonids, reducing fish entrainment, improving aquatic habitat, 

stocking fish for recreational purposes, conserving native fish, 

groundwater well-decommissioning, acquiring and managing land for 

wildlife, and other measures for recreation and cultural resource 

enhancement and protection. Under the Sullivan Creek settlement

agreement, the District would retain and operate under a Forest Service 

Special Use Authorization the Sullivan Lake dam and lake; install a 
new cold-water release intake at Sullivan Lake dam; remove Mill Pond 

dam, restore the site and the stream channel, and conduct short-term 

monitoring and maintenance in accordance with its Mill Pond 

Decommissioning Plan to ensure the restored channel is functioning as 

designed. These settlement agreements, and the measures contained 

therein, are intended to provide significant benefits to resources within 

the Pend Oreille River and its tributaries, while retaining Seattle’s 

operational flexibility and reducing costs of the Sullivan Lake Project 

surrender on Pend Oreille rate payers.

This final EIS assesses the effects of the approval and implementation 

of both settlement agreements and staff modifications to those 

agreements. The staff’s recommendation is to relicense the Boundary 

Project as proposed, with certain modifications and additional measures 

to improve administration of the license. The staff also recommends 

approval of the surrender application as proposed, with certain 

modifications to mitigate adverse effects to cultural resources and 

improve Commission oversight and administration of the surrender.

e. Contact: David Turner

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-6091

f. Transmittal: This final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the relicense of 

the Boundary Project and the surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project is 

being made available to the public on or about September 15, 2011, as 

required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

1

 

1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (Public Law [Pub. L.] 

91-190, 42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321-4347, January 1, 1970.
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 nonfederal hydroelectric development subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary conditions:

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

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

waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign 

commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power 

development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of 

fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for 

other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water 

supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in Section 4(e)...4

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

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

project.5

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

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

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

for such objection for the Commission’s consideration.6

Likewise, in considering the surrender of one of its licenses, the Commission must 

ensure that, in the Commission's judgment, the decision and disposition of the license 

will adequately protect the public interest.

 

2

16 U.S.C. §791(a)-825r, as amended (2006).

3

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

4

16 U.S.C. §803(a) (2006).

5

16 U.S.C. §803(g) (2006).

6

18 C.F.R. §385.206 (2010).
ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xiv

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

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................xviii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... xx

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1

1.1 APPLICATIONS........................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Boundary Hydroelectric Project License ........................................ 1

1.1.2 Surrender of Sullivan Creek Project License .................................. 2

1.1.3 Boundary and Sullivan Creek Settlement Agreements................... 3

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR POWER ........................................................ 4

1.2.1 Boundary Project............................................................................. 4

1.2.1.1 Purpose of Action ........................................................... 4

1.2.1.2 Need for Power............................................................... 5

1.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project..................................................................... 5

1.2.2.1 Purpose of Action ........................................................... 5

1.2.2.2 Need for Action .............................................................. 6

1.3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 6

1.3.1 Boundary Project............................................................................. 6

1.3.1.1 Federal Power Act .......................................................... 8

1.3.1.2 Clean Water Act.............................................................. 9

1.3.1.3 Endangered Species Act ................................................. 9

1.3.1.4 Coastal Zone Management Act .................................... 10

1.3.1.5 National Historic Preservation Act............................... 11

1.3.1.6 Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation 

Act................................................................................. 11

1.3.2 Sullivan Creek Project................................................................... 12

1.3.2.1 Clean Water Act............................................................ 12

1.3.2.2 Endangered Species Act ............................................... 13

1.3.2.3 Coastal Zone Management Act .................................... 13

1.3.2.4 National Historic Preservation Act............................... 14

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION............................................. 14

1.4.1 Scoping .......................................................................................... 14

1.4.2 Interventions.................................................................................. 15

1.4.2.1 Boundary Project .......................................................... 15

1.4.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project .................................................. 16

1.4.3 Comments on the License Application ......................................... 16

1.4.4 Settlement Agreements.................................................................. 17

1.4.5 Draft EIS........................................................................................ 17
x

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES................................................... 19

2.1 BOUNDARY PROJECT ............................................................................ 19

2.1.1 No-Action Alternative................................................................... 19

2.1.1.1 Existing Project Facilities............................................. 19

2.1.1.2 Project Safety................................................................ 21

2.1.1.3 Existing Project Operation............................................ 21

2.1.1.4 Existing Project Boundary............................................ 23

2.1.1.5 Existing Environmental Measures................................ 23

2.1.2 Seattle’s Proposal .......................................................................... 24

2.1.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities ........................................... 24

2.1.2.2 Proposed Project Operation .......................................... 24

2.1.2.3 Proposed Project Environmental Measures.................. 25

2.1.2.4 Proposed Project Boundary Modifications................... 28

2.1.2.5 Modifications to Seattle’s Proposal—Mandatory 

Conditions..................................................................... 29

2.1.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................ 33

2.1.4 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions............................... 33

2.1.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study...... 33

2.1.5.1 Federal Government Takeover of the Project............... 33

2.1.5.2 Issuing a Non-power License ....................................... 33

2.1.5.3 Retiring the Boundary Project ...................................... 34

2.2 SULLIVAN CREEK PROJECT................................................................. 34

2.2.1 No-Action Alternative................................................................... 34

2.2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities............................................. 34

2.2.1.2 Project Safety................................................................ 35

2.2.1.3 Existing Project Operation............................................ 35

2.2.1.4 Existing Project Boundary............................................ 37

2.2.1.5 Existing Environmental Measures................................ 37

2.2.2 The District’s Proposal.................................................................. 37

2.2.2.1 Sullivan Lake Dam—Operations and Environmental 

Measures....................................................................... 38

2.2.2.2 Mill Pond Dam Removal and Restoration of Sullivan 

Creek............................................................................. 43

2.2.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................ 44

2.2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study...... 45

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................................................................... 46

3.1 GENERAL SETTING................................................................................. 46

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ................................ 48

3.2.1 Geographic Scope.......................................................................... 50

3.2.2 Temporal Scope............................................................................. 51

3.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS............................................................................ 51

3.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 51
xi

3.3.1.1 Boundary Project .......................................................... 51

3.3.1.2 Sullivan Creek Project .................................................. 52

3.3.2 Environmental Effects................................................................... 53

3.3.2.1 Boundary Project .......................................................... 53

3.3.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project .................................................. 57

3.4 WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY..................................................... 61

3.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 61

3.4.1.1 Boundary Project .......................................................... 61

3.4.1.2 Sullivan Creek Project .................................................. 72

3.4.2 Environmental Effects................................................................... 77

3.4.2.1 Boundary Project .......................................................... 77

3.4.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project .................................................. 93

3.4.3 Cumulative Effects...................................................................... 110

3.5 AQUATIC RESOURCES......................................................................... 111

3.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 111

3.5.1.1 Boundary Project ........................................................ 111

3.5.1.2 Sullivan Creek Project ................................................ 128

3.5.1.3 Bull Trout and Habitat................................................ 130

3.5.2 Environmental Effects................................................................. 130

3.5.2.1 Boundary Project ........................................................ 130

3.5.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project ................................................ 160

3.5.2.3 Cumulative Effects ..................................................... 170

3.6 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES ................................................................ 173

3.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 173

3.6.1.1 Boundary Project ........................................................ 173

3.6.1.2 Sullivan Creek Project ................................................ 180

3.6.2 Environmental Effects................................................................. 182

3.6.2.1 Boundary Project ........................................................ 182

3.6.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project ................................................ 194

3.6.2.3 Cumulative Effects ..................................................... 197

3.7 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.................................. 198

3.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 199

3.7.1.1 Action Area................................................................. 199

3.7.1.2 Bull Trout.................................................................... 199

3.7.1.3 Canada Lynx............................................................... 223

3.7.1.4 Woodland Caribou...................................................... 224

3.7.1.5 Grizzly Bear................................................................ 224

3.7.1.6 Gray Wolf ................................................................... 225

3.7.2 Environmental Effects................................................................. 225

3.7.2.1 Boundary Project ........................................................ 225

3.7.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project ................................................ 247

3.7.3 Cumulative Effects...................................................................... 252

3.8 RECREATION.......................................................................................... 255
xii

3.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 255

3.8.1.1 Boundary Project ........................................................ 255

3.8.1.2 Sullivan Creek Project ................................................ 258

3.8.2 Environmental Effects................................................................. 258

3.8.2.1 Boundary Project ........................................................ 258

3.8.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project ................................................ 269

3.9 LAND USE AND AESTHETICS............................................................. 271

3.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 271

3.9.1.1 Boundary Project ........................................................ 271

3.9.1.2 Sullivan Creek Project ................................................ 273

3.9.2 Environmental Effects................................................................. 274

3.9.2.1 Boundary Project ........................................................ 274

3.9.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project Surrender ............................... 282

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... 282

3.10.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 283

3.10.1.1 Cultural History of the Boundary and Sullivan Creek 

Project Areas............................................................... 283

3.10.1.2 Boundary Project Cultural Resources......................... 286

3.10.1.3 Sullivan Creek Project Cultural Resources................. 289

3.10.2 Environmental Effects................................................................. 292

3.10.2.1 Boundary Project ........................................................ 292

3.10.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project ................................................ 292

3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS ............................................................................... 294

3.11.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 294

3.11.2 Environmental Effects................................................................. 295

3.11.2.1 Boundary Project ........................................................ 295

3.11.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project ................................................ 296

3.12 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE................................................................ 296

3.12.1 Boundary Project......................................................................... 296

3.12.2 Sullivan Creek Project................................................................. 296

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 297

4.1 BOUNDARY PROJECT .......................................................................... 297

4.1.1 Power And Developmental Benefits of The Project ................... 297

4.1.2 Comparison of Alternatives......................................................... 299

4.1.3 No-action Alternative .................................................................. 299

4.1.4 Seattle’s Proposal ........................................................................ 300

4.1.5 Staff Alternative .......................................................................... 300

4.1.6 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions............................. 300

4.1.7 Cost of Environmental Measures................................................ 301

4.2 SULLIVAN CREEK PROJECT............................................................... 307

4.2.1 Costs Associated with the District’s Proposal............................. 307

4.2.2 Costs Associated with Staff Recommendations.......................... 308
xiii

4.2.3 Cost of Environmental Measures................................................ 308

5.0 STAFF’S CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................... 311

5.1 BOUNDARY PROJECT .......................................................................... 311

5.1.1 Comparison of Alternatives......................................................... 311

5.1.2 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative .. 323

5.1.2.1 Environmental Measures Proposed by Seattle ........... 323

5.1.2.2 Staff Recommended Changes to Seattle’s Proposal... 326

5.1.2.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff ....................... 328

5.1.2.4 Project Boundary Modifications................................. 330

5.1.2.5 Conclusion .................................................................. 331

5.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects...................................................... 331

5.1.4 Summary of Section 10(j) Recommendations and 4(e) 

Conditions.................................................................................... 333

5.1.4.1 Fish and Wildlife Recommendations.......................... 333

5.1.4.2 Land Management Agencies’ Section 4(e) 

Conditions................................................................... 337

5.1.5 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans..................................... 338

5.2 SULLIVAN CREEK PROJECT............................................................... 339

5.2.1 Comparison of Alternatives......................................................... 339

5.2.2 Recommended Alternative .......................................................... 347

5.2.2.1 Measures Proposed by District ................................... 347

5.2.2.2 Additional Staff Recommended Measures................. 351

5.1.2.3 Measures not Recommended by Staff........................ 354

5.2.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects...................................................... 355

6.0 LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................... 357

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS........................................................................................ 372

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS........................................................................................ 373

APPENDIX A Draft Boundary License Articles Recommended by Staff..........A-1

APPENDIX B Draft Sullivan Creek License Surrender Conditions 

Recommended by Staff ...............................................................B-1

APPENDIX C Response to Comments...............................................................C-1
xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Location of the Boundary and Sullivan Creek Projects .................................. 2

Figure 2-1. Location of existing and proposed project features in the vicinity of 

Boundary dam for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2144, 

Washington................................................................................................................ 20

Figure 2-2. Location of project features for the Sullivan Creek Project. ......................... 36

Figure 3-1. Measured TDG just downstream of Boundary dam from 1999–2005 (Gage # 

12398550).................................................................................................................. 68

Figure 3-2. Sullivan and Outlet Creek average annual flow ............................................ 73

Figure 3-3. Sullivan Lake Water temperatures (C) at various depths May through 

November, 2009 ........................................................................................................ 76

Figure 3-4. Harvey, Outlet and Sullivan Creek temperatures at various locations, July 1 

to November 15, 2009. .............................................................................................. 76

Figure 3–5. Sullivan Lake levels in average, wettest, and driest years.......................... 100

Figure 3-6. Sullivan Lake temperatures by depth in 2009. ............................................ 103

Figure 3-7. Temperatures in Outlet and Sullivan Creeks and mixed temperatures June 16 

through November 17, 2009.................................................................................... 104

Figure 3–8. Pend Oreille River from Box Canyon dam to Red Bird Creek, British 

Columbia ................................................................................................................. 113

Figure 3–9. Monthly WUA minima for juvenile bull trout in Boundary Reservoir during 

an average flow year under existing conditions. ..................................................... 208

Figure 3–10. Monthly WUA minima for adult bull trout in Boundary Reservoir during 

an average flow year under existing conditions...................................................... 209

Figure 3-11. Average lacustrine and riverine HQR values. HQR values for Slate and 

Flume creeks are for delta conditions expected during Years 1-17 of the 50-year 

evaluation period. .................................................................................................... 211
xv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Major statutory requirements for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project. ........... 7

Table 1-2. Major statutory requirements for the Sullivan Creek Project. ........................ 12

Table 2-1. Summary of proposed license articles. ........................................................... 25

Table 2–2. Water Supply Program discharge flows for June through the first week in 

September pursuant to settlement agreement............................................................ 41

Table 2–3. Water Supply Program discharge flows for June through September pursuant 

to Ecology memorandum of agreement. ................................................................... 43

Table 3-1. Inflow into Boundary reservoir and releases from the project from 1987 to 

2005 in cfs. ................................................................................................................ 62

Table 3-2. Applicable Washington surface water quality standards for designated uses in 

the Pend Oreille River and tributaries between the Idaho and Canada borders........ 63

Table 3-3. Water bodies in the project area (and Box Canyon dam forebay) identified as 

not meeting applicable Washington water quality standards. ................................... 64

Table 3-4. Boundary Project spill influence on TDG. ..................................................... 68

Table 3-5. Toxics screen and inventory qualitative assessment summary....................... 71

Table 3-6. Washington DFW Water Temperature Monitoring Stations.......................... 74

Table 3-7. Dissolved oxygen sampling sites from proposed DO monitoring plan .......... 80

Table 3-8. Water Supply Discharge Flows from Sullivan Lake. ..................................... 95

Table 3-9. Proposed flow releases (cfs) from Sullivan Lake compared to historical flows 

measured at Outlet Creek .......................................................................................... 96

Table 3-10. Average inflow/outflow into Mill Pond during proposed emptying 

timeframe................................................................................................................. 108

Table 3-11. Species composition, distribution, and abundance of fish within Seven Mile 

and Boundary reservoirs.......................................................................................... 116

Table 3–12. Periodicity, life history, and spawning and rearing habitat of fish species in 

the Boundary Project area. ...................................................................................... 118

Table 3–13. Large woody debris in the Boundary reservoir by reach. .......................... 124
xvi

Table 3–14. Macrophyte beds in Boundary reservoir.................................................... 125

Table 3–15. List of tributaries, their calculated habitat suitability indices, and their 

relative ranking for salmonid adult, juvenile, and fry life stages in the tributary delta 

areas of Boundary Reservoir, as derived from the Hickman and Raleigh (1982) 

riverine model.......................................................................................................... 136

Table 3–16. Boundary Reservoir average monthly temperatures, their associated 

suitability, and final reservoir Habitat Suitability Index using Hickman and 

Raleigh’s (1982) lacustrine model........................................................................... 137

Table 3–17. Estimated mortality through the Boundary Project turbines, based on a 

predictive equation developed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Hydro 

Turbine System Program......................................................................................... 144

Table 3–18. Estimated mortality of fish using spillway and sluiceway downstream 

passage routes.......................................................................................................... 145

Table 3-19. Recreation use by project area .................................................................... 257

Table 3-20. Primary recreation activity for visitors and area residents at Boundary 

reservoir................................................................................................................... 257

Table 3-21. Project recreation site capital improvements.............................................. 261

Table 3-22. Project-related roads. .................................................................................. 279

Table 3-23. Cultural resources found at the Boundary Project. ..................................... 287

Table 3-24. Cultural resources found at the Sullivan Creek Project.............................. 289

Table 4-1. Parameters for economic analysis of the Boundary Project ......................... 298

Table 4-2. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost for 

four alternatives for the Boundary project............................................................... 299

Table 4-3. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered in 

assessing the environmental effects of continuing to operate the Boundary 

Project ................................................................................................................... 302

Table 4-4. Estimated costs associated with project decommissioning and removal...... 307

Table 4-5. Estimated costs associated with project decommissioning and removal...... 309

Table 5-1. Comparison of alternatives for the Boundary Project................................... 312
xvii

Table 5-2. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the Boundary Project......... 333

Table 5-3. Forest Service 4(e) conditions considered environmental measures, their 

annualized cost, and staff recommendations........................................................... 338

Table 5-4. Comparison of alternatives for the Sullivan Creek Project. ......................... 340
xviii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ac-ft acre-feet

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

Advisory Council Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

APE area of potential effects

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practice

BPA Bonneville Power Administration

°C degrees Celsius

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

County Pend Oreille County

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

District Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille Co.

DO dissolved oxygen

draft EIS draft environmental impact statement

Ecology Washington Department of Ecology

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FAMP Fish and Aquatic Habitat Management Plan

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

final EIS final environmental impact statement

Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture − Forest 

Service

FPA Federal Power Act

FR Forest Road

ft foot or feet

ft msl feet above mean sea level

FWS U.S. Department of the Interior − Fish and 

Wildlife Service

GIS geographic information system

GWh gigawatt-hour(s) (equals one million kilowatthours)

hp horsepower

HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan

ILP Integrated Licensing Process

in. inch

Interior U.S. Department of the Interior
xix

Kalispel Tribe Kalispel Tribe of Indians

KOP key observation point

kV kilovolt(s)

kW kilowatt(s)

kWh kilowatt hour(s)

LWD large woody debris

m meter(s)

mg/kg milligram(s) per kilogram

mg/l milligram(s) per liter

ml milliliter(s)

mm millimeter(s)

MVA megavolt-ampere

MW megawatt

MWh megawatt-hours

NA not applicable

National Register National Register of Historic Places

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERC North American Electric Reliability Council

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit(s)

O&M operation and maintenance

OHV off-highway vehicle

PA Programmatic Agreement

QA/QC quality assurance / quality control

RRMP Recreation Resources Management Plan

Seattle City of Seattle, Seattle City Light Department

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SPCC plan spill prevention, control, and countermeasures 

plan

TCP Traditional Cultural Property

TDG total dissolved oxygen

TMDL total maximum daily load

TRMP Terrestrial Resources Management Plan

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

U.S.C. United States Code

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Washington DFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Washington DOH Washington Department of Health
xx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On September 29, 2009, the City of Seattle, Washington (Seattle) filed an 

application to relicense its 1,003-megawatt (MW) Boundary Hydroelectric Project

No. 2144, located on the Pend Oreille River in Pend Oreille County, Washington. The 

project produces an average of 3,572.8 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of energy annually. The 

project occupies about 609 acres of federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service 

(Forest Service) on the Colville National Forest, and about 329 acres of federal lands 

managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

On March 29, 2010, Seattle and the Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille 

County (District) jointly filed an offer of settlement, consisting of two comprehensive 

settlement agreements, a joint explanatory statement, and a request to consolidate the 

processing of Seattle’s relicensing of the Boundary Project with the District’s surrender 

of its license for the Sullivan Creek Project No. 2225. The agreements describe the 

measures that Seattle would implement to address the effects of continued load-following 

operations of the Boundary Project and the District’s orderly disposition of the Sullivan 

Creek Project license.

On April 2, 2010, the District filed an application to surrender its license for the 

Sullivan Creek Project, including Sullivan Lake dam and Mill Pond dam. Sullivan Lake 

dam is located at the terminus of Sullivan Lake. The discharges from Sullivan Lake flow 

into Outlet Creek, which joins Sullivan Creek about one-half of a mile downstream from

the dam. Mill Pond dam is located on Sullivan Creek about 1.5 miles downstream from 

Sullivan Lake dam. Sullivan Creek flows into the Boundary reservoir. The District

operates the Sullivan Creek Project as a storage project for downstream generation in 

accordance with the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement, but not for its own 

production of energy. The Sullivan Creek Project occupies 522 acres of federal lands on 

the Colville National Forest.

Signatories to the settlement agreements include Seattle, the District, Forest 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. National Park Service, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Washington DFW), 

Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), Kalispel Tribe of Indians (Kalispel 

Tribe), Selkirk Conservation Alliance, The Lands Council, American Whitewater, Town 

of Cusick, Washington, Rick Larsen, and Al Six. The settlement agreements include a 

suite of measures intended to significantly improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat 

conditions in the portion of the Pend Oreille River impounded by the Boundary Project 

and its tributaries, particularly Sullivan Creek, while retaining Seattle’s operational 

flexibility and reducing costs of the Sullivan Lake Project surrender on Pend Oreille 

County rate payers.

Through an off-license agreement between Seattle and the District, Seattle, on 

behalf of the District, would remove Mill Pond dam and restore Sullivan Creek from Mill 

Pond dam to Outlet Creek, and share equally with the District in the cost to install a cold-
xxi

water release structure at Sullivan Lake dam. Both measures are integral to the settling 

parties’ objectives of improving aquatic habitat in Sullivan Creek, the largest tributary to 

the Pend Oreille River at the Boundary Project. Nonetheless, as a condition of the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission) approval of the 

District’s surrender, the District ultimately would be responsible for implementing these 

measures, which are expected to be completed within eight years of the Commission’s 

order approving the surrender. The surrender would become effective and the 

Commission’s oversight of the Sullivan Creek Project would cease when the Commission 

issues a letter stating that all of the conditions of the surrender have been fulfilled. As a 

component of its comprehensive Fish and Aquatic Management Plan (FAMP), Seattle 

would continue to monitor and maintain the restored channel through the term of the 

Boundary license, along with the other enhancement measures it would put in place in 

Sullivan Creek, to ensure the effectiveness and continued benefits to aquatic resources in 

the watershed. 

Public Involvement and Areas of Concern

Before filing its license application, Seattle conducted pre-filing consultation using

the integrated licensing process. Commission staff conducted scoping as part of the prefiling process to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed. We 

distributed a scoping document to interested parties on June 19, 2006, soliciting 

comments, recommendations, and information on the project. Based on the comments 

received, we issued a revised scoping document on September 28, 2006. The District 

consulted with various resource agencies, tribes, and non-governmental organizations to 

develop its surrender application and the settlement agreement. 

On May 11, 2010, following the filing of Seattle’s and the District’s settlement 

agreements and motion to consolidate the proceedings, the Commission solicited scoping 

comments on the surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project and issued notice of a 

June 10, 2010, technical conference to be held in Spokane, Washington, to discuss the 

joint settlement agreements and the scope of issues to be addressed in a combined 

environmental assessment for both projects. Based on the comments received at the 

technical conference and in response to the Commission’s July 6, 2010 Notice of 

Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, 

Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway 

Prescriptions (REA notice) for both projects (to the extent applicable), Commission staff 

determined that relicensing of the Boundary Project may constitute a major federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On September 16, 2010, 

the Commission noticed its intent to prepare an EIS; the notice was published in the 

Federal Register on September 22, 2010. 

Commission staff issued its draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS) for 

the proposed relicensing of the Boundary Project and the proposed surrender of license 

for the Sullivan Creek Project on April 8, 2011. Staff held public meetings in Metaline 

Falls and Spokane, Washington on May 10 and 11, 2011 to solicit comments on the draft 
xxii

EIS. Staff requested written comments on the draft EIS be filed by May 31, 2011. Staff 

received comments from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture – Forest Service, Washington Depart of Fish and Wildlife, Seattle City Light 

Department, Pend Oreille County Public Utility District, Washington Department of 

Ecology, U.S. Department of the Interior, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Ms. Carol Jean 

Merrill, Sweet Creek Ranch Residents, Mr. Larry Gragg, et al., and National Marine 

Fisheries Service. In appendix C of this final EIS, we summarize the written and oral 

comments received; provide responses to those comments; and indicate, where 

appropriate, how we have modified the text for the final EIS.

The primary issues associated with the relicensing of the Boundary Project are the 

effects of reservoir fluctuations on aquatic and terrestrial habitats and the fish and 

wildlife they support, erosion associated with project-related operations and recreation, 

the influence of project operations on reservoir temperatures and total dissolved gas 

(TDG) levels in the tailrace, upstream fish passage, fish entrainment and mortality, 

improvements to recreation facilities, and protection of cultural resources. The primary 

issues associated with the surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project are: (1) erosion and

sedimentation; (2) site restoration related to removal of Mill Pond dam; (3) recreational, 

aesthetic, and cultural effects associated with the loss of Mill Pond; and (4) Sullivan Lake 

operational influences on elevated water temperatures in Sullivan Creek, available 

aquatic habitat in Outlet and Sullivan Creeks, and kokanee spawning habitat and access 

to that habitat in Sullivan Lake and its tributaries.

This EIS assesses the effects of both settlement agreements, staff modifications to 

those agreements, and other alternatives for relicensing the Boundary Project and 

surrendering the license for the Sullivan Creek Project. Those alternatives are 

summarized below.

Boundary Project

Project Description

The Boundary dam impounds the Pend Oreille River to create a 1,794-acre 

reservoir at a normal full pool elevation of 1,994 feet North American Vertical Datum 

(NAVD) 88. The project directs flow from the forebay through six penstocks leading to 

an underground power plant containing six Francis turbine/generator units, numbered 51 

through 56. Six draft tubes discharge water from the turbines into the tailrace 

immediately below the dam. When the reservoir is at full pool and inflow exceeds the 

hydraulic capacity of the project (56,000 cubic feet per second—cfs), flows are spilled 

through two spillways and six low level sluice gates. To reduce TDG under normal, nonspill operations, Seattle voluntarily implements a practice of operating Units 55 and 56

above 125 MW and sequencing their startup and shutdown so that Units 55 and 56 are the 

last units to be brought on line and the first units to be shut down. Electricity produced at 

the project is carried through six three-phase, 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to a 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) substation immediately adjacent to the project. 
xxiii

The project operates in a load-following mode, generating electricity during peakload hours from available water. The project typically begins generating in the early 

morning hours and continues to generate throughout the day, rising and falling in 

response to customer demand, with peaks experienced in the morning and evening. 

Power produced at the project serves the District’s and Seattle’s retail load, with any 

excess power produced sold on the secondary market.

The reservoir has an active storage of 40,843 acre-feet between elevations 1,994 

feet and 1,954 feet, which are the elevation operating constraints of the current license. 

However, the project primarily operates between the elevations of 1,994 feet and 1,974 

feet (using 27,000 acre-feet of storage), with the additional storage between 1,974 feet 

and 1,954 feet reserved for extreme load requirements. To improve recreation access 

from Memorial Day through Labor Day, Seattle voluntarily limits the forebay pool to a 

water surface elevation of no lower than 1,984 feet from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and a 

water surface elevation of no lower than 1,982 feet from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

The existing project boundary encloses about 2,720 acres that includes three 

project recreational facilities Seattle maintains and operates: the Forebay Recreation 

Area, the Tailrace Recreation Area/Machine Hall Visitor’s gallery, and the Visa House.

Proposed Facilities 

Seattle proposes to upgrade the turbine runners, rewind the generators, and replace 

the step-up transformers in Units 55 and 56 within the first four years following issuance 

of a new license. Seattle estimates that the upgrades would increase project generation 

by 39,838 MWh, but would not increase the authorized installed capacity beyond what is 

currently authorized. Under the settlement agreement, Seattle would continue to operate 

the project as it currently does. Seattle also proposes revisions to the project boundary to 

re-establish the buffer zone in the portion of the Boundary reservoir downstream of 

Metaline Falls, incorporate lands owned and managed by Seattle for the benefit of 

wildlife, recreation and project operations, and to include portions of some roads that are 

used primarily or solely for the project purposes of operation or access to project 

recreation facilities. Seattle’s revisions would enlarge the project boundary to about 

3,263 acres, 966 acres of which would be federal lands.

Proposed Environmental Measures

In accordance with the settlement agreement, and as stipulated by Forest Service’s 

4(e) conditions and U.S. Department of Interior’s (Interior)’s section 18 prescriptions, 

Seattle would implement the following measures to protect, mitigate and enhance water 

quality, and aquatic, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources:

• Implement a Fish and Aquatics Management Plan (FAMP), which includes the 

following components to improve water quality and fish habitat, provide passage 

of resident fish and bull trout, reduce entrainment, and foster the recovery of bull 

trout and conservation of native resident fishes: (A) mainstem fish community 

and aquatic habitat measures, (B) upstream fish passage, (C) measures to reduce 
xxiv

project related entrainment mortality, (D) tributary non-native trout suppression 

and eradication, (E) tributary fish community and aquatic habitat measures, (F) 

Mill Pond dam site monitoring and maintenance, (G) native salmonid conservation 

program, (H) recreational fish stocking program, and (I) a fund for habitat 

improvements in tributaries to Sullivan Lake. 

• Implement the following plans to improve and monitor water quality: (A) Aquatic 

Invasive Species Control and Prevention Plan, (B) Dissolved Oxygen Attainment 

Plan, (C) Fish Tissue Sampling Plan, (D) Temperature Attainment Plan, and (E) 

TDG Attainment Plan.

• Establish a Boundary Resource Coordinating Committee and the following work 

groups as needed to consult on the implementation and long-term monitoring and 

maintenance of environmental measures: Fish and Aquatics Work Group, Water 

Quality Working Group, Terrestrial Resources Work Group, Recreation Resources 

Work Group, and Cultural Resources Work Group.

• Implement a Terrestrial Resource Management Plan (TRMP), which consists of 

the following programs to improve terrestrial habitats for wildlife: (A) Erosion 

program, (B) Habitat Management, Enhancement, and Protection Program, (C) 

Integrated Weed Management Program, (D) Rare, Threatened or Endangered 

Plant Species Program, (E) Wildlife Program, and (F) Shoreline Management 

Program.

• Within 5 years of license issuance, acquire and manage approximately 158 acres, 

consisting of highly diverse riparian and upland habitat and about 13,022 lineal 

feet of varying habitats immediately adjacent to water features for the benefit of 

federally listed wildlife, big game, and other area wildlife.

• Implement a Recreation Resource Management Plan (RRMP), which consists of 

the following programs to enhance recreational opportunities: (A) Recreation 

Facility Capital Improvements Program, (B) Recreation Facility Operations and 

Maintenance Program, (C) Shoreline Dispersed Recreation Management Program, 

(D) Recreation Monitoring Program, (E) Travel And Public Access Management 

Plan, and (F) Multi-Resource Interpretation and Education Program. Capital 

improvements include upgrading existing project facilities, extending the boat 

launch and adding a vault toilet at the City of Metaline’s waterfront park, adding 

two overlooks and a trail connecting the overlooks, and adding a Metaline Falls 

portage trail and boater access.

• Implement a Groundwater Monitoring Well and Road Decommissioning Plan to 

close groundwater monitoring wells and roads to wells no longer needed to serve 

project purposes.
xxv

• Implement a programmatic agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan 

(HPMP) to protect cultural resources.

Alternatives Considered

This EIS considers the following alternatives: (1) Seattle’s proposal as outlined 

above, (2) Seattle’s proposal with staff modifications (staff alternative), (3) the staff 

alternative with mandatory conditions, and (4) no-action alternative.

The staff alternative includes all of Seattle’s proposed measures, except for 

conducting fish tissue sampling, implementing the recreational fish stocking program,

and establishing a fund for habitat improvements in tributaries to Sullivan Lake. The 

staff alternative also includes a recommendation for Seattle to prepare and implement an 

operation compliance monitoring plan to document compliance with proposed reservoir 

limits and to modify the RRMP to include a more definitive schedule for completing the 

proposed capital improvement recreation projects. The staff alternative with mandatory 

conditions is identical to Seattle’s proposal with staff’s recommended operation 

compliance monitoring plan and modifications to the recreation plan. Under the noaction alternative, the project would continue to operate under the terms and conditions of 

its existing license, and no new environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement 

measures would be implemented.

Project Effects

Staff Alternative

Aquatic Resources —Reservoir fluctuations would continue to affect the quality 

of aquatic habitat. Implementing the FAMP would improve aquatic habitat in the project 

reservoir and in its tributaries. For example, adding 1,500 cubic yards of gravel in the 

upper reservoir just below the District’s Box Canyon (FERC Project No. 2042) dam 

would enhance native mountain whitefish spawning habitat; excavating a 1,800-foot-long 

channel would connect mainstem flow with several isolated pools in the “Cobble Sisters’ 

area of the Boundary reservoir to reduce trapping of fish as reservoir elevations drop;

adding 1,700 cubic feet of large woody debris (LWD) to tributary deltas would increase 

habitat complexity in these areas; and adding LWD, stabilizing channels, replacing 

culverts, and planting riparian vegetation in Sullivan, Linton, and Sweet Creeks and other 

tributaries to the reservoir would improve native salmonid habitat. Restoration and 

conservation of native resident fish would be promoted through the eradication of nonnative trout from the tributaries and planting of native fish species raised at a new 

hatchery constructed, operated, and maintained by Seattle. 

Further, adding a trap-and-haul facility at the Boundary Project, in conjunction 

with the fishways that are expected to be built within the next decade at the upstream Box 

Canyon Project and at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Albeni Falls dam, would 

reconnect habitats and the migratory pathways of bull trout and other native salmonids 

from Boundary dam upstream to Lake Pend Oreille in Idaho. Given the complexity of 
xxvi

flows in the tailrace, Seattle would gather additional information to appropriately site and 

design the facility, with installation occurring by year 14 of the license. Measures to 

reduce entrainment would also benefit the fishery.

Sequencing the operation of Units 55 and 56 and structural modifications to the 

project would reduce TDG levels, which is expected to benefit resident fish and bull trout 

downstream of the project. Implementation of the aquatic invasive species monitoring 

plan would help prevent zebra mussels and other invasive species from colonizing the 

reservoir and reducing the quality of existing habitats. The program would also result in 

the removal of macrophyte beds that could entrap fish when reservoir elevations drop. 

Monitoring of dissolved oxygen and temperature would allow Seattle to document 

compliance with water quality conditions, evaluate the benefits of the tributary habitat 

improvement measures at reducing mainstem temperatures, and determine if other 

measures are needed to achieve compliance with water quality standards. 

Implementation of an operation and compliance monitoring plan would provide a 

mechanism to document compliance with Seattle’s proposed summer impoundment 

levels and assist the Commission in it’s oversight of the license.

Terrestrial Resources — Reservoir fluctuations associated with load following 

operations would continue to influence the development, distribution, and species 

composition of riparian and upland habitats within and adjacent to the fluctuation zone; 

would continue to result in the loss of wildlife habitats through erosion; and would 

continue to influence habitats occupied by rare plant species. Implementation of the

TRMP would offset these effects by actively managing 749 acres of Seattle-owned lands 

within the project boundary for the benefit of wildlife and plant communities; monitoring

and controlling noxious weeds on all project lands to protect existing habitats; monitoring

populations and distribution of rare plants to determine if specific management actions

are warranted; monitoring nesting bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and bank swallows to 

evaluate project-related recreation disturbance and to determine the need for management 

actions; and acquiring and managing about 158 acres of riparian and upland habitat and 

about 13,022 lineal feet of various habitats adjacent to stream channels to benefit 

federally listed species and big game. The shoreline management program would protect 

terrestrial resources from shoreline land uses incompatible with management objectives.

Threatened and Endangered Species —The suite of proposed measures 

proposed in the TRMP could have long-term benefits for the grizzly bear, Canada lynx, 

and woodland caribou.

Recreation Resources — Implementation of the RRMP would enhance 

recreational opportunities at the project through upgrading the Vista House and Tailrace 

Recreation Area with accessible vault toilets and pathways, and updated signage in the 

Visitor’s Gallery near the Tailrace Recreation Area; developing a new trailhead, trail and 

viewpoint at Peewee Falls and Riverside Mine Canyon; constructing a new trail 

connecting Peewee Falls and Riverside Mine Canyon viewpoints (Eastside Trail); 

developing Metaline Falls Portage Trail and boater access; extending Metaline 
xxvii

Waterfront Park boat launch and adding accessible parking, toilets, and paths to the park; 

adding, as appropriate, fire rings, picnic tables, tent pads, watercraft landing sites, bulletin 

boards, and primitive sanitation systems to six dispersed recreation sites. Boating would 

be improved in the reservoir through the control of aquatic macrophytes. Through staff’s 

modification to the plan, these measures would be completed under a defined schedule.

Land Use — The proposed boundary modifications would bring in lands that are,

and would continue to be, used to meet project purposes of operation and maintenance,

recreation access, and wildlife management; would adjust the project boundaries to 

include a buffer zone consistent with Commission policies and provide greater protection 

of environmental resources under the new license; and would include roads used 

primarily or solely for project purposes. Removal of groundwater monitoring wells and 

spur roads used to access the wells that are no longer needed for project purposes would 

reduce in a small way the number of roads in the area which would benefit wildlife and 

conform to Forest Service land management guidelines.

Cultural Resources — Implementation of the HPMP would ensure protection of 

cultural resources.

No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, the project 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 the other alternatives and judge the benefits and costs that 

might be required under a new license.

Conclusions

Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the project as proposed by Seattle 

with staff’s modifications (i.e., staff’s alternative). 

In section 4.2 of the EIS, we estimate the likely cost of alternative power for each 

of the four alternatives identified above. Our analysis shows that during the first year of 

operation under the no-action alternative, project power would cost $97.2 million, or 

$20.20 per megawatt-hour (MWh) less than the likely alternative cost of power. Under 

the proposed action, project power would cost $68.7 million, or $19.24/MWh less than 

the likely alternative cost of power. Under the staff alternative, project power would cost 

$68.9 million, or $19.30/MWh less than the likely alternative cost of power. Under the 

staff alternative with mandatory conditions, project power would cost $68.7 million, or 

$19.22/MWh less than the likely alternative cost of power. 

We chose the staff alternative, as the preferred alternative because: (1) the project 

would provide a dependable source of electrical energy for the region (3,612,588 MWh 

annually); (2) the project could save an equivalent amount of fossil-fueled generation and 

capacity, which may help conserve non-renewable energy resources and reduce 

atmospheric pollution, including greenhouse gases; (3) the recommended environmental 

measures proposed by Seattle, as modified by staff, would adequately protect and 
xxviii

enhance environmental resources affected by the project. The overall benefits of the staff 

alternative would be worth the cost of the proposed and recommended environmental 

measures.

Sullivan Creek Project

Project Description

The Sullivan Creek Project was constructed in 1909 by the Inland Portland 

Cement Company to supply electricity to Metaline Falls. It consisted of Sullivan Lake 

dam, Sullivan Lake, Mill Pond dam, Mill Pond, an intake structure on Mill Pond, a 

wooden flume, a canal, a tunnel, and powerhouse. The project, which operated to 

generate power under a Forest Service permit, was decommissioned in 1956 after a 

portion of the project’s wooden flume collapsed. The turbines were removed from the 

powerhouse in 1958 and the turbine bays filled with rocks and gravel; the intake on Mill 

Pond was removed; and the remaining facilities were abandoned in place. The Federal 

Power Commission (now the FERC) issued a license for the project to the District in 

1958 as a storage project benefiting generation at downstream projects, with the 

possibility of restoring generation at the site if it were economically feasible to do so. 

The District did not restore the project’s generating facilities during the term of the 

license. The District’s license for the Sullivan Creek Project expired on October 1, 2008, 

and the project is currently under an annual license.

Sullivan Lake is fed by Harvey, Noisy, and Hall creeks; flow from Sullivan Lake 

discharges into Outlet Creek, which joins Sullivan Creek about one-half of a mile 

downstream from Sullivan Lake dam. The District maintains Sullivan Lake at full pool 

(elevation 2,588.66 feet) from June 1 through September for recreation. Starting on 

October 1, the District begins lowering Sullivan Lake to reach an elevation of 2,565 feet, 

typically by December 31, at which time outflow to Outlet Creek is equal to inflow. 

About 31,000 acre-feet of water is released to provide storage for spring run-off and 

downstream generation. The lake is maintained at about 2,565 feet until April 1, when 

the spillway gates are closed and the reservoir is slowly raised to full pool, typically by 

May 31. A minimum flow of 10 cfs is maintained in Outlet Creek from discharges and 

leakage year-round.

Mill Pond dam consists of a 134-foot-long, 55-foot-high concrete dam, with an 

850-foot-long earthen dike. Mill Pond dam has an uncontrolled spillway located in the 

center of the dam that passes all flow captured from Sullivan Creek and Outlet Creek.

Project Proposal and Environmental Measures

The District proposes to remove Mill Pond dam, and retain and operate Sullivan 

Lake dam under a special use authorization (SUA) from the Forest Service. The 

inoperable wooden flume, canal, tunnel, and powerhouse would be left in place. Once 

the FERC license is terminated, which would occur following the removal of Mill Pond 

dam and restoration of Sullivan Creek (about 8 years after the Commission’s order 

authorizing the surrender), the Sullivan Lake dam would come under the authority of the
xxix

Washington State Dam Safety Office and the Forest Service. The District would 

continue to be responsible for all dam operations and maintenance under the terms of the 

Forest Service special use authorization.

Within three years of the Commission’s surrender order, the District would install 

and maintain a cold water release structure on Sullivan Lake dam to lower summer and 

fall temperatures in Sullivan Creek; the District would screen the intake to prevent fish 

entrainment. The District would increase instream flows to improve aquatic habitat and 

provide whitewater boating opportunities in Outlet and Sullivan Creeks; manage 

operations to control maximum discharge rates, up-ramping (no more than 80 cfs per 

day) and down-ramping rates (limited to 10 cfs per hour), and achieve temperatures in 

Sullivan Creek below the confluence of Outlet Creek that do not exceed 14 oC or change

average daily temperatures by more than 2 oC when flows are less than 14 oC to protect 

and improve aquatic habitat in Sullivan Creek; begin lowering Sullivan Lake the day 

after Labor Day (about one month sooner) to improve kokanee spawning habitat in 

Harvey Creek; and install gages and temperature monitoring devices to document 

compliance with lake elevation targets, discharge flows, ramping rates, and temperatures.

To help ensure that there is adequate water to refill Sullivan Lake in the spring and 

provide for minimum discharge requirements, the District would maintain a minimum 

winter pool elevation of 2,570 (five feet higher than currently operated); then, as it does

now, it would begin refilling the reservoir by April 1 to reach full pool by May 31, 

subject to hydrologic conditions, discharge constraints, and operating emergencies 

beyond the control of the licensee. During high run-off years (120% of long-term 

average); Sullivan Lake would be held at elevation of no higher than 2,575 feet until May 

20 to facilitate mobilization of sediment at the confluence of Harvey Creek and Sullivan 

Lake to improve fish access in Harvey Creek (Harvey Creek bedload mobilization 

project). If the District releases storage from Sullivan Lake from June through September 

to support the Department of Ecology’s Columbia River Supply Program, as proposed, it 

would manage the releases so as not to exceed two-times the minimum flow requirement, 

ensure flows are released at a steady rate, and conform to temperature and ramping rate 

constraints to protect aquatic habitat in Sullivan Creek. 

The District would remove Mill Pond dam and restore Sullivan Creek from Mill 

Pond dam up to its confluence with Outlet Creek. Restoration would include stabilizing 

sediments left in place, revegetating the inundated area to native plant communities, 

controlling noxious weeds, and restoring the stream channel and adjacent uplands to a 

natural riverine environment consistent with the Sullivan Creek channel upstream of, and 

downstream from, Mill Pond. The restored stream channel, floodplain, and upland area 

would be designed to function up to, and including a flood event having a 100-year flood 

recurrence interval. The newly constructed stream channel banks would be stabilized 

with keyed-in logs, root wads and large boulders, and then planted with native 

herbaceous and woody riparian species. The District would complete a Department of 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Level II mitigation documentation report
xxx

of Mill Pond dam facilities prior to removing the dam to mitigate the long-term loss of 

historic structures eligible for listing on the Natural Register.

Alternatives Considered

This EIS considers the following alternatives: (1) the District’s proposal, as 

described above, (2) the District’s proposal with staff modifications (staff alternative), 

and (3) no-action, meaning that the project would continue to operate with no changes.

The staff alternative includes all of the District’s proposed measures, except that 

there would not be a requirement to release flows to support Ecology’s Columbia River 

Basin Water Supply Program as contemplated by the settlement. While we do not object 

to the water supply program releases so long as they conform to the discharge constraints 

described above, we do not contemplate the need to authorize the releases. The staff 

alternative also slightly modifies the characterization of Sullivan Lake operations to 

include specific lake elevation requirements, subject to hydrologic conditions, discharge 

requirements, and operating emergencies beyond the licensee’s control. In addition, the 

staff alternative includes the following additional measures: the development of a 

Sullivan Lake Operation Compliance Monitoring Program; development of a more 

detailed revegetation plan to be filed with the final Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan; 

and completion of DAHP Level II mitigation documentation of all elements of the 

Sullivan Creek Historic District (in addition to Mill Pond dam) found on District-owned 

lands, within the project boundary. The Commission would retain jurisdiction over the 

Sullivan Creek Project until the Commission has determined that the District’s work 

required by the Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan has been completed; however, once the 

Commission ends it jurisdiction over the Sullivan Creek Project, the Commission can no 

longer ensure that the District would operate the Sullivan Lake dam in a manner that 

complies with the lake level and flow requirements of the settlement.

Project Effects

Staff Alternative

Aquatic Resources — Water temperatures in Sullivan Creek would be enhanced 

by installing and managing discharges through the cold water release structure at Sullivan 

Lake dam; managed flow releases would prevent temperatures from exceeding state 

water quality standards and help achieve temperatures closer to those preferred by native 

salmonids, including bull trout. Screening the cold water release structure would reduce 

entrainment loss from the lake. Constraints on maximum flow discharges and ramping 

rates would reduce scour, prevent rapid changes in flows, reduce the potential for 

stranding, prevent thermal shock, and decrease energy demands on fish that occupy 

Outlet and Sullivan Creeks. Higher and more consistent minimum flows would increase 

available fish habitat, reduce adverse effects of dewatering spawning substrate, and 

enhance the forage base for fish. Lowering Sullivan Lake earlier in the fall would make 

Harvey Creek kokanee spawning beds available sooner, potentially increasing kokanee 

spawning success and reducing redd superimposition. The Harvey Creek bedload 
xxxi

mobilization project may reduce sediment buildup at the head of Sullivan Lake, 

improving access for kokanee and cutthroat trout to habitats in Harvey Creek. Based on 

the draft Forest Service special use authorization conditions contained in the settlement 

agreement, the above benefits would likely continue after the license surrender becomes 

effective; however, because the Commission would no longer have any authority over the 

District, it could not guarantee that the measures would continue to be implemented or 

maintained.

An operation compliance monitoring plan would provide a mechanism to 

document compliance with the various flows, reservoir levels, and temperature 

requirements, facilitating the Commission’s oversight of the operations until the 

surrender becomes effective.

Removing Mill Pond dam and restoring Sullivan Creek from the dam to the 

confluence with Outlet Creek would remove a fish passage barrier in the vicinity of the 

Boundary Project, providing potential access to 16 miles of spawning, rearing, 

overwintering, and foraging habitat. This action would also restore sediment and LWD 

transport to the lower portion of Sullivan Creek, increasing habitat complexity and 

available spawning gravels for resident trout, including bull trout. These measures would 

help promote recovery of bull trout in the lower Pend Oreille River.

Terrestrial Resources — Construction activities would result in minor, shortterm disturbances of wildlife and the loss of about one-half of an acre of upland 

coniferous forest. Removal of Mill Pond would result in the conversion of a 63-acre lake 

preferred by waterfowl and other lake-oriented wildlife to a natural stream preferred by 

riparian obligate and dependant species. The District’s Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan 

contained a general description of the types of plantings that would be used in different 

hydrologic zones around Sullivan Creek, and a commitment to control noxious weeds. 

Staff’s recommendation to develop a detailed revegetation plan would ensure that the 

final Mill Pond dam removal plan contains sufficient information to ensure the efficacy 

of the planting program. 

Threatened and Endangered Species — Removal of Mill Pond dam and 

restoration of Sullivan Creek would remove a fish passage barrier in the vicinity of the 

Boundary Project, providing potential access for bull trout to 16 miles of spawning, 

rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitat. Deconstruction activities may disturb 

woodland caribou, grizzly bear, and lynx, but effects would be short-term, minor and not 

detectable because of limited use of the area. 

Recreation — Because Sullivan Lake would begin to be lowered about one month 

earlier, recreational access to Sullivan Lake would be reduced from the day after Labor 

Day to October 1, relative to existing operations. Effects would be minor because the 

drawdown would occur after the primary recreation season and because the District 

would repair the existing docks and ramps to ensure they continue to function under the 

new operations; the repairs would be made prior to implementing the new operations. 

Whitewater boating on Sullivan Creek would be enhanced by providing flows between 
xxxii

180 and 220 cubic feet per second (cfs) on at least three weekends in September or 

October, subject to available water; flows would be posted online one week in advance. 

Removal of Mill Pond would eliminate a lake fishing opportunity.

Cultural Resources — All cultural resources associated with the Sullivan Creek 

Historic District on District-owned lands within the project boundary would be properly 

recorded before removing Mill Pond dam and before federal oversight is terminated. 

No Action Alternative

The District would continue to operate the Sullivan Creek Project as it does now. 

Mill Pond dam would not be removed. Environmental conditions would remain the same 

and no enhancement of environmental conditions would occur. 

Conclusions

Based on our analysis, we recommend surrendering the project as proposed by the 

District with staff’s modifications (i.e., staff’s alternative). 

In section 4.2 of the EIS, we compare the cost of the District’s proposal with that 

proposed by staff. Surrendering the license as proposed by the District would cost 

$18,180,920 ($1,034,720 annualized over 30 years, including annual operations and 

maintenance). Staff’s operation compliance monitoring plan would cost about $20,000 

(or $1,020 annualized over 30 years) to develop and implement. DAHP Level II 

mitigation documentation of the remaining contributing elements to the Sullivan Lake 

Historic District would cost $50,000 ($2,550 annualized over 30 years). These two 

measures would bring the total cost for the surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project to 

$18,258,420 ($1,038,670 per year). Staff’s revegetation plan would not increase the cost 

of dam removal because the District contemplated developing more detail than provided

in its draft plan. 

We chose the staff alternative as the preferred alternative because: (1) the 

District’s proposal would foster the orderly disposition of the District’s license; (2) 

removal of Mill Pond dam and restoration of Sullivan Creek would help promote the 

recovery of the listed bull trout and enhance conditions for native salmonids; (3) 

installation of the cold water intake and changes in operation of Sullivan Lake would 

improve aquatic habitat in Sullivan Creek and complement Seattle’s and the state’s 

efforts to reduce temperatures in the Pend Oreille River; (4) continued operation of 

Sullivan Lake would continue to provide for established recreation; (5) DAHP Level II 

mitigation documentation would mitigate adverse effects on cultural resources; (6) the 

proposal would restore federal lands; and (7) additional staff measures would assist the 

Commission with its oversight of the license until the surrender becomes effective and 

would further protect environmental resources.
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As described further below, the Commission received an application to relicense 

the City of Seattle’s (Seattle) Boundary Hydroelectric Project No. 2144 (Boundary 

Project) and an application to surrender the Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille 

County’s (District) Sullivan Creek Project No. 2225 (Sullivan Creek Project). Seattle and 

the District also jointly filed settlement agreements resolving issues in their respective 

proceedings. While these are separate actions before the Commission, the measures 

proposed in the interdependent settlement agreements are intended to provide significant 

benefits to resources within the Pend Oreille River and its tributaries, while retaining 

Seattle’s operational flexibility for the Boundary Project and reducing costs of the 

Sullivan Lake Project surrender on Pend Oreille rate payers. This Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) assesses the effects of the actions associated with implementing the 

settlement agreements, as well as staff’s modifications and recommendations related to 

both agreements.

1.1 APPLICATIONS

1.1.1 Boundary Hydroelectric Project License

On September 29, 2009, Seattle filed an application to relicense its 1,003.253-

megawatt (MW) Boundary Hydroelectric Project, located on the Pend Oreille River in 

Pend Oreille County, Washington (figure 1-1). The Boundary Project is operated in a 

load-following mode that shapes available water to deliver power during peak-load hours. 

The project produces an average of 3,572.8 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of energy annually. 

The project currently occupies 938.59 acres of federal lands, 609.24 acres managed by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) on the Colville

National Forest, and 329.35 acres managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management

(BLM).

Seattle proposes to continue to operate the project in a load-following manner, but 

with formalization of currently voluntary measures, including water surface elevation 

restrictions from Memorial Day to Labor Day for recreation enhancement, and turbine 

unit sequencing to reduce total dissolved gas (TDG) production associated with non-spill 

operations.

The project has six turbine generating units numbered Unit 51 through 56. Seattle 

proposes to upgrade the turbine runners in Units 55 and 56 to increase turbine efficiency. 

The turbine runner upgrades would be performed concurrently with planned electrical 

generator rewinds and step-up transformer replacements. Seattle estimates that the 

project generation would increase by 39,838 MWh after completion of the upgrades. 

Seattle also plans to rewind the generators and replace the runners and transformers for 

Units 51 through 54 during the new license term; however, maintenance activities for 

these turbines are not anticipated to result in an increase in capacity or generation.
2

Figure 1-1. Location of the Boundary and Sullivan Creek Projects (Source: 

application, as modified by staff).

1.1.2 Surrender of Sullivan Creek Project License

On April 2, 2010, the District filed an application to surrender its license for the 

Sullivan Creek Project, located on Sullivan Lake, and Sullivan and Outlet Creeks in Pend 

Oreille County, Washington (figure 1-1). Sullivan Lake was a natural glacial lake that is

fed by Harvey, Noisy, and Hall Creeks. Construction of the Sullivan Lake dam raised the 

natural elevation of Sullivan Lake. Outlet Creek flows from Sullivan Lake and joins 

Sullivan Creek approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the dam. Sullivan Creek joins the 

Pend Oreille River within the Boundary reservoir and is the largest tributary to the 
3

Boundary reservoir. The Sullivan Creek Project occupies 522 acres of federal lands 

managed by the Forest Service.

The District obtained a license from the Federal Power Commission, the FERC’s 

predecessor, in 1958 to operate the Sullivan Creek Project as a storage project for the 

benefit of generation at downstream projects. The conditions of the license included the 

possibility of restoring the project’s generating capabilities later if it were economically 

feasible to do so, but it was later determined that resuming generation at the project 

would not be economic, and plans to rebuild the project were never implemented. The 

District continues to operate the Sullivan Creek Project as a storage facility for 

downstream generation in accordance with the Pacific Northwest Coordination 

Agreement. The District’s license for the Sullivan Creek Project expired on October 1, 

2008. It is currently operating under annual licenses.

A detailed description of the District’s proposal is provided later. In brief, the 

District proposes to remove Mill Pond dam, and retain and operate Sullivan Lake dam 

under a SUA from the Forest Service. Other components of the project would be left in 

place after appropriate cultural resource documentation. Once the FERC license is 

terminated, the Sullivan Lake dam would come under the authority of the Washington 

State Dam Safety Office and the Forest Service for regulation of dam safety.

1.1.3 Boundary and Sullivan Creek Settlement Agreements

On March 29, 2010, Seattle and the District jointly filed an offer of settlement, 

two comprehensive settlement agreements, a joint explanatory statement, and a request to 

consolidate the processing of Seattle’s relicensing of the Boundary Project with the 

District’s surrender of its license for the Sullivan Creek Project. The offer consists of two 

separate, but interdependent settlement agreements detailing the measures that Seattle 

would implement to address the effects of continued load-following operations of the 

Boundary Project and the District’s orderly disposition of the Sullivan Creek Project. 

The settlement agreements were reached among Seattle, the District, Forest Service, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. National 

Park Service, Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (Washington DFW), Selkirk Conservation Alliance, Kalispel Tribe, 

Town of Cusick, Washington, the Lands Council, American Whitewater, Allan Six, and 

Richard Larsen (Settlement Parties). 

The Boundary settlement agreement includes obligations for evaluating and 

providing fish passage for resident salmonids, reducing fish entrainment, improving 

aquatic habitat, stocking fish for recreational purposes, conserving native fish, 

groundwater well-decommissioning, acquiring and managing land for wildlife, and other 

measures for recreation and cultural resource enhancement and protection.

Under the Sullivan Creek settlement agreement, the District would retain and 

operate under a Forest Service SUA the Sullivan Lake dam and lake; install a new coldwater release facility at Sullivan Lake dam; and remove Mill Pond dam and restore the 
4

site and downstream stream channel and conduct short-term monitoring and maintenance 

in accordance with its filed Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan. The Boundary and 

Sullivan Creek agreements are linked in that the removal of Mill Pond dam would be 

carried out by Seattle through an off-license, inter-local agreement with the District; both 

the District and Seattle would share equally the responsibility for installing cold-water 

release facility at Sullivan Lake dam, and Seattle would continue to monitor and maintain 

the restored Mill Pond dam site and stream channel following the termination of the 

District’s license to ensure that restored stream channel is functioning as designed. 

Linking of these settlement agreements, and the measures contained therein, is intended 

to provide significant benefits to resources within the Pend Oreille River and its 

tributaries to the Boundary Project, while retaining Seattle’s operational flexibility and 

reducing costs of the Sullivan Lake Project surrender on Pend Oreille rate payers. 

Additional detail on Seattle and the District’s proposals are provided below.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR POWER

1.2.1 Boundary Project

1.2.1.1 Purpose of Action

The purpose of the action is to authorize the continue operation and production of 

1,003 MW hydroelectric power. The Commission must decide whether to issue a license 

to Seattle for the project and what conditions should be placed in any license issued. In 

deciding whether to issue a license for a hydroelectric project, 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, 

mitigation, 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.

Issuing a new license for the Boundary Project would allow Seattle to generate 

electricity at the project for the term of a new license, making electric power from a 

renewable resource available to its customers. 

This EIS assesses the environmental and economic effects associated with 

continued operation of the project and alternatives to proposed project. Important issues 

assessed in the EIS include water quality (dissolved oxygen and total dissolved gas), fish 

passage, fish habitat improvements, wildlife habitat enhancements, recreation facility 

improvements, land and shoreline management, and cultural resource protection 

measures. Based on the analysis, the EIS also includes recommendations to the 

Commission on whether to issue a new license, and if so, recommends terms and 

conditions to become a part of any license issued. 
5

1.2.1.2 Need for Power

The Boundary Project would provide hydroelectric generation to meet part of 

Washington’s power requirements, resource diversity, and capacity needs. Following the 

proposed turbine runner upgrades in Units 55 and 56 and rewinding of the generators, the 

project would have an installed capacity of 1,003 MW and generate an average of 

approximately 3,612,588 megawatt-hours (MWh) per year.7

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) annually forecasts 

electrical supply and demand nationally and regionally for a 10-year period. The 

Boundary Project is located in the Northwest subregion of the Western Electricity 

Coordinating Council region of the NERC. According to NERC’s 2010 forecast, winter 

peak demands and annual energy requirements for the Northwest subregion are projected 

to grow at rates of 1.1 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively, from 2010 through 2019 

(NERC, 2010). NERC projects resource capacity margins (generating capacity in excess 

of demand) will remain above the target reserve margins of 18.6 percent for summer and 

20.0 percent for winter during the 10-year forecast period, including estimated new 

capacity additions. Over the next 10 years, the Northwest subregion estimates that 1,158 

MW of future planned capacity will be brought on line.

We conclude that power from the Boundary Project would help meet a need for 

power in the Northwest subregion in both the short and long term. The project provides 

low-cost power that displaces non-renewable, fossil-fired generation and contributes to a 

diversified generation mix. Displacing the operation of fossil-fueled facilities may avoid 

some power plant emissions and creates an environmental benefit.

1.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project

1.2.2.1 Purpose of Action

The purpose of the proposed action is the surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project 

license and removal of certain project facilities. The Commission must decide under

what conditions the license for the Sullivan Creek Project, including the removal of 

project facilities, can be appropriately surrendered to ensure the protection of the natural 

and human environment and the restoration of occupied federal lands. 

This EIS assesses the effects associated with the approval and implementation of 

the Sullivan Creek settlement agreement, including removing Mill Pond dam. The 

principal issues addressed in the EIS include erosion and sedimentation, water quantity 

 

7 The generation presented here includes the average generation based on the 

average gross amount of annual generation reported by Seattle to the Commission for 

October, 1999, through September, 2010 (3,572,750 MWh), plus the anticipated increase 

of 39,838 MWh from the increased efficiency to turbines 55 and 56 following their 

upgrades.
6

and quality, bull trout restoration, resident salmonid habitat improvements, recreation, 

and cultural and historic resource protections.

1.2.2.2 Need for Action

The Sullivan Creek Project was constructed by the Inland Portland Cement 

Company in 1909 to provide electricity to the city of Metaline. The project operated 

under a Forest Service permit until it was damaged in 1956. The District subsequently 

acquired the project and obtained a license in 1958 to operate the Sullivan Creek Project 

as a storage project for the benefit of generation at downstream projects, with the 

possibility of restoring generation at the site. Although the District made several attempts 

to restore generation at the site, each attempt was abandoned because the proposals 

proved uneconomic. In 2003, the District informed the Commission of its intent not to 

seek a new license. The Commission issued a notice seeking applications from other 

interested entities, but no such applications were filed. On July 18, 2007, the 

Commission determined that a license was not required to continue to operate the project 

as a storage project because its effect on downstream generation was not significant,

8 but 

that a surrender application was required for the orderly disposition of project facilities. 

Thereafter, the District filed a proposal for the surrender of the license and removal of 

project facilities.

The District proposes to remove Mill Pond dam and restore the natural channel of 

Sullivan Creek previously inundated by Mill Pond to provide for fish passage and 

suitable fish habitat through the entire length of Sullivan Creek. The District also 

proposes to add a cold water release facility to Sullivan Lake dam to further enhance fish 

habitat downstream of the convergence of Outlet Creek and Sullivan Creek. Removal of 

Mill Pond dam and habitat enhancements within Sullivan Creek would enhance habitat 

critical to the recovery of the bull trout, as well as improve habitat conditions for resident 

salmonids. 

1.3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

1.3.1 Boundary Project

The license for the Boundary Project is subject to numerous requirements under 

the Federal Power Act (FPA) and other applicable statutes. Major statutory requirements 

are summarized in table 1-1 and described below.

 

8 See Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Orielle County. 120 FERC ¶62,045 

(July 18, 2007). Also see Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Orielle County. 124 FERC 

¶ 61,064 (July 18, 2008); and Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Orielle County. 122 

FERC ¶ 61,249 (March 20, 2008) for a detailed review of the procedural history of the 

surrender of the license
7

Table 1-1. Major statutory requirements for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project.

Requirement Agency Status

Section 18 of the FPA 

(fishway prescriptions)

U.S. Department of the 

Interior (Interior) – Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

(FWS); 

FWS prescribed upstream and 

downstream fishway measures 

for bull trout, westslope 

cutthroat trout, and mountain 

whitefish and reserved its 

authority to prescribe fishways 

on September 2, 2010; it

amended its prescriptions to be 

consistent with the Boundary 

settlement agreement on October 

5, 2010. Interior filed modified 

prescriptions on August 1, 2011.

Section 4(e) of the FPA 

(land management 

conditions)

Forest Service

The Forest Service provided 

preliminary conditions on 

August 24, 2010.

Section 10(j) of the FPA

Washington Department

of Fish and Wildlife 

(Washington DFW); 

FWS

Washington DFW filed section 

10(j) recommendations on 

September 3, 2010; FWS on 

September 2, 2010 and amended 

its recommendations on October 

5, 2010 to be consistent with the 

Boundary settlement agreement.

Clean Water Act water 

quality certification

Washington Department 

of Ecology (Washington 

Ecology)

Application for water quality 

certification was filed with, and 

received by, Washington 

Ecology on July 25, 2011. 

Certification is due by July 25, 

2012.

Coastal Zone 

Management Act Ecology Coastal consistency review not required.
8

Requirement Agency Status

Endangered Species Act 

consultation FWS

On April 11, 2011, we requested 

concurrence from FWS on our 

“not likely to adversely affect”

determinations for bull trout and 

its critical habitat, Canada lynx, 

grizzly bear, gray wolf, and 

woodland caribou. In a letter 

filed June 6, 2011, FWS did not 

concur with the finding for bull 

trout. By letter dated June 8, 

2011 we initiated formal 

consultation with FWS.

National Historic 

Preservation Act

Washington State 

Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO)

Commission staff will execute 

programmatic agreement with 

the SHPO requiring 

implementation of Historic 

Properties Management Plan. 

Pacific Northwest Power 

Planning and 

Conservation Act

Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council

Recommendations in this EIS 

are consistent with the 

applicable provisions of the 

program.

1.3.1.1 Federal Power Act

Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions

Section 18 of the FPA provides that the Commission shall require the 

construction, operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways as may be 

prescribed by the Secretaries of Commerce or Interior, as appropriate. On September 2, 

2010, Interior timely filed preliminary fishway prescriptions for the Boundary Project. 

Interior amended its preliminary prescriptions on October 5, 2010, to conform them to 

proposed license articles 9(B) and 9(C) contained in the Boundary settlement agreement. 

Interior filed modified prescriptions on August 1, 2011, acknowledging that their October 

5, 2010 prescriptions were unchanged and should be considered final. These conditions 

are described in section 2.1.2, Seattle’s Proposal.

Each of Interior’s filings requests that a reservation of authority to prescribe 

fishways for bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, and any other fish 

to be managed, enhanced, protected, or restored to the Pend Oreille River Basin during 

the license term be included in any license issued for the project.
9

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 shall 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 Forest Service filed 9 

preliminary conditions on August 24, 2010. These conditions are described under section 

2.1.2.5, Modifications to the Seattle’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions. 

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 protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish 

and wildlife resources affected by the project, unless the Commission determines that the

recommendations are inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or 

other applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an agency recommendation, the 

Commission is required to attempt to resolve any such inconsistency with the agency, 

giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of 

such agency.

Washington DFW and FWS timely filed on September 3, 2010 and September 4, 

2010 (amended on October 5, 2010), respectively, recommendations under section 10(j). 

FWS amended its recommendations on October 5, 2010 to be consistent with the terms of 

the Boundary settlement agreement. We summarize these recommendations in table 5-2, 

analyze them in the appropriate resource sections in section 3, and present our 

conclusions in section 5.1.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended 

Alternative. We also discuss and address the agency recommendations in section 5.1.4, 

Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

1.3.1.2 Clean Water Act

Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Commission may not issue 

a license authorizing the construction or operation of a hydroelectric project unless the 

state water quality certifying agency has either issued a water quality certification for the 

project or has waived certification by failing to act within a reasonable period of time, not 

to exceed one year. On September 2, 2010, Seattle applied to Washington Ecology for 

401 water quality certification. Ecology received the letter on September 3, 2010. On 

July 25, 2011, Seattle withdrew and refiled its request for certification. Ecology received 

the certification application on July 25, 2011. Ecology has not acted on the request. The 

certification is due by July 25, 2012.

1.3.1.3 Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure 

that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or 

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical 
10

habitat of such species. Three wildlife species and one fish species listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA may occur in the project vicinity: Canada lynx, grizzly bear, 

woodland caribou, and bull trout.9 Critical habitat has been designated for bull trout that 

includes project waters and tributaries to project waters. No federally listed or proposed 

threatened or endangered plant species are known to occur in the project vicinity. Our 

analyses of project effects on threatened and endangered species are presented in section 

3.7, Threatened and Endangered Species, and our recommendations in section 5.1.2, 

Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. 

In the draft EIS, we concluded that relicensing of the Boundary Project may affect 

but is not likely to adversely affect the bull trout and its critical habitat, Canada lynx, 

grizzly bear, and woodland caribou. On April 11, 2011, we requested FWS’ concurrence 

with our determinations. On June 6, 2011, FWS responded by indicating that it did not 

concur with our finding for bull trout. FWS cited a lack of information on the project and 

its effects on the species. FWS also determined that, while not having completed a 

thorough review of the EIS, three activities would adversely affect bull trout, including 

trap-and-haul operation, operation of the turbines, and fish surveys. Moreover, FWS says 

that it has not reviewed the draft EIS to determine whether there is sufficient information 

in the record to concur on staff’s finding for bull trout critical habitat, Canada lynx, 

grizzly bear, gray wolf (which are no longer subject to section 7 consultation), and 

woodland caribou. FWS indicates that it will coordinate with Seattle and the District to 

obtain the necessary information to complete an accurate biological assessment. On June 

8, 2011, we initiated formal consultation with FWS.

1.3.1.4 Coastal Zone Management Act

Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the 

Commission cannot issue a license for a project within or affecting a state’s coastal zone 

unless the state CZMA agency concurs with the license applicant’s certification of 

consistency with the state’s CZMA program, or the agency’s concurrence is conclusively 

presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of its receipt of the applicant’s 

certification.

The project is not located within the boundary of a designated Coastal Zone 

Management Program, which includes the nine coastal counties in Washington.10 On 

 

9 The draft EIS also considered project effects on the gray wolf. On May 5, 2011, 

after issuance of the draft EIS, FWS removed the Northern Rocky Mountain distinct 

population segment of the gray wolf, which includes eastern Washington, from the list of 

threatened and endangered species. Thus, consultation on the gray wolf is no longer 

necessary.

10 Washington’s Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) defines the State’s 

coastal zone to include the 15 counties with marine shorelines: Clallam, Grays Harbor, 

Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, 
11

January 13, 2011, Ecology notified Seattle that a CZMA certification will not be required 

for the Boundary Project (email from Marcie Mangold, Ecology to Barbara Greene, City 

of Seattle, Seattle City Light Department).

1.3.1.5 National Historic Preservation Act

Under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its 

implementing regulations, federal agencies must take into account the effect of any 

proposed undertaking on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (Advisory Council) a reasonable opportunity to comment on the 

undertaking. Historic properties are districts, sites, buildings, structures, traditional 

cultural properties (TCPs), and objects significant in American history, architecture, 

engineering, and culture that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places (National Register).

To meet the requirements of section 106, the Commission intends to execute a 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the protection of historic properties from the effects of 

the operation of the Boundary Hydroelectric Project. The terms of the PA would ensure 

that Seattle addresses any effects on historic properties identified within the project’s area 

of potential effects through the implementation of Seattle’s Historic Properties 

Management Plan (HPMP).

1.3.1.6 Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act

Under section 4(h) of the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation 

Act, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council developed the Columbia River 

Basin Fish and Wildlife Program to protect, mitigate, and enhance the operation of the 

hydroelectric projects within the Columbia River Basin. Section 4(h) states that 

responsible federal and state agencies should provide equitable treatment for fish and 

wildlife resources, in addition to other purposes for which hydropower is developed, and 

that these agencies shall take into account, to the fullest extent practicable, the program 

adopted under the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act.

To mitigate harm to fish and wildlife resources, the Council has adopted specific 

provisions to be considered in the licensing or relicensing of non-federal hydropower 

projects (Appendix B of the Program). The provisions that apply to the proposed project 

call for specific plans for: improving fish passage and aquatic habitat, decreasing TDG 

and improving water temperatures, reducing fish entrainment, building fish hatchery 

 

Thurston, Wahkiakum, and Whatcom counties. The CZMP applies to activities within 

the 15 counties as well as activities outside these counties, which may impact 

Washington's coastal resources. Most, but not all, activities and development outside the 

coastal zone are presumed to NOT impact coastal resources (see: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/czm/fed-consist.html).
12

facilities, and acquiring and managing wildlife habitats. Our recommendations in this 

EIS are consistent with the applicable provisions of the program, listed above.

1.3.2 Sullivan Creek Project

Major regulatory and statutory requirements associated with the surrender of the 

Sullivan Creek Project are summarized in table 1-2 and described below.

Table 1-2. Major statutory requirements for the Sullivan Creek Project.

Requirement Agency Status

Clean Water Act water 

quality certification

Washington Department 

of Ecology (Washington 

Ecology)

The District withdrew and 

refiled its original application for 

water quality certification on 

April 1, 2011. Certification is 

due by April 1, 2012.

Endangered Species Act 

consultation

U.S. Department of the 

Interior − Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS)

On April 11, 2011, we requested 

concurrence from FWS on our 

“not likely to adversely affect”

determinations for bull trout and 

its critical habitat, Canada lynx, 

grizzly bear, gray wolf, and 

woodland caribou. In a letter 

filed June 6, 2011, FWS did not 

concur with the finding for bull 

trout. By letter dated June 8, 

2011, we initiated formal 

consultation with FWS..

Coastal Zone 

Management Act Ecology Coastal consistency review not required.

National Historic 

Preservation Act

Washington State 

Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO)

Commission staff will execute 

memorandum of agreement with 

the SHPO requiring 

implementation of a treatment 

plan for all contributing 

elements of Sullivan Creek

Historic District. 

1.3.2.1 Clean Water Act

If a surrender application involves an activity that may result in a discharge, the 

applicant must request water quality certification from the water quality certifying agency 

that the proposed action will comply with applicable requirements of the CWA. The 
13

District submitted its request for certification on April 2, 2010 and Ecology received the 

request on April 6, 2010. On April 1, 2011, the District withdrew and resubmitted its 

request for certification. Ecology has not acted on the request. The certification is due 

by April 1, 2012.

1.3.2.2 Endangered Species Act

As noted above for the Boundary Project, three wildlife species and one fish 

species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA may occur in the project 

vicinity: Canada lynx, grizzly bear, woodland caribou, and bull trout. Critical habitat has 

been designated for bull trout that includes project waters and tributaries to project 

waters. No federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered plant species are known 

to occur in the project vicinity. Our analyses of the effects of the proposed surrender on 

threatened and endangered species are presented in section 3.7, Threatened and 

Endangered Species, and our recommendations in section 5.2.2, Recommended 

Alternative. 

In the draft EIS, we concluded that the proposed actions to be taken in connection 

with surrendering the Sullivan Creek Project may affect, but are not likely to adversely 

affect, the bull trout and its critical habitat, Canada lynx, grizzly bear, and woodland 

caribou. On April 11, 2011, we requested FWS’ concurrence with our determinations. 

On June 6, 2011, FWS responded by indicating that it did not concur with our finding for 

bull trout. FWS cited a lack of information on the project and its effects on the species. 

FWS also determined that, while not having completed a thorough review of the EIS, 

three activities would adversely affect bull trout, including trap-and-haul operation, 

operation of the turbines, and fish surveys.

11 Moreover, FWS says that it has not 

reviewed the draft EIS to determine whether there is sufficient information in the record 

to concur on staff’s findings for bull trout critical habitat, Canada lynx, grizzly bear, gray 

wolf (which are no longer subject to section 7 consultation), and woodland caribou. FWS 

indicates that it will coordinate with Seattle and the District to obtain the necessary 

information to complete an accurate biological assessment. On June 8, 2011, we initiated 

formal consultation with FWS.

1.3.2.3 Coastal Zone Management Act

As noted above for the Boundary Project, the Sullivan Creek Project is not located 

within the boundary of a designated Coastal Zone Management Program and actions 

taken in connection with surrendering the license would not directly affect resources 

within the boundary of a designated coastal zone. Under the terms of the settlement 

 

11 In finding that it did not concur with our not likely to adversely affect 

determination, FWS did not distinguish between the actions of relicensing the Boundary 

Project and the surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project, noting without elaboration that 

additional information would be needed to initiate formal consultation. 
14

agreement and the terms of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with Ecology’s Office 

of the Columbia River, the District may sell or lease at least 5,000 acre-feet (ac-ft) of 

water from storage in Sullivan Lake for use during the summer months (June 1 to August 

31) outside the Sullivan Creek drainage. This water would be used for the benefit of 

downstream resources all the way to the ocean. However, Ecology already considered 

the beneficial effects in its Columbia River Programmatic EIS12 and Lake Roosevelt 

Supplemental EIS;

13 and relative to the volume of water (millions of acre-feet) 

considered under the Columbia River Program, the effects the District’s discharges on 

coastal resources would be small and difficult to quantify. Therefore, we find that 

surrendering the project license would not affect coastal resources, and thus are not 

subject to Washington coastal zone program review. As a result, no consistency 

certification is needed.

1.3.2.4 National Historic Preservation Act

To meet the requirements of section 106, the Commission intends to execute a 

MOA for the protection of historic properties from the effects of surrendering the license 

for the Sullivan Creek Project. The MOA would provide for a treatment plan to address

any potential adverse effects to historic properties that might result from the license 

surrender.

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION

The Commission’s regulations (18 CFR, sections 5.1–5.16) require that applicants 

consult with appropriate resource agencies, tribes, and other entities before filing an 

application for a license or to surrender its existing license (18 CFR 16.8). This 

consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 

the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other federal 

statutes. Pre-filing consultation must be complete and documented according to the 

Commission's regulations.

1.4.1 Scoping

Under the Commission’s regulations, issuing a licensing decision for a 

hydroelectric project generally requires preparation of either an environmental 

assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS), in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Before preparing this EIS, we conducted 

scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed in the 

Commission’s environmental analysis. On June 19, 2006, the Commission issued a

 

12 The EIS can be found on Ecology’s web page at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/eis.html. 13 The EIS can be found on Ecology’s web page at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/cr_lkroos.html.
15

scoping document (SD1) to interested agencies and others regarding the relicensing of 

Seattle’s Boundary Project. The Commission issued notice of SD1 in the Federal 

Register on June 29, 2006. Two scoping meetings, both advertised in The SpokesmanReview (Chronicle)-Pend Oreille, were held on July 18 and 19, 2006, in Spokane and 

Metaline Falls, Washington, respectively, to request oral comments on the project. A 

court reporter recorded all comments and statements made at the scoping meetings, and 

these are part of the Commission’s public record for the project. In addition to comments 

provided at the scoping meetings, we received written comments from Ecology (filed 

August 29, 2006), the Selkirk Consolidated School District (September 1, 2006), FWS 

(September 6, 2006), Colville Confederated Tribes (September 1, 2006), and Forest 

Service (September 7, 2006). A revised scoping document addressing these comments 

was issued on September 28, 2006.

On May 11, 2010, following the filing of Seattle’s and the District’s settlement 

agreements and motion to consolidate the proceedings, the Commission solicited scoping 

comments on the surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project and issued notice of a June 10, 

2010, technical conference to be held in Spokane, Washington, to discuss the joint 

settlement agreements and the scope of issues to be addressed in a combined 

environmental assessment for both projects. The Commission published notice of the

scoping meeting and technical conference in the Federal Register on May 18, 2010, and 

in The Spokesman-Review (Chronicle)-Pend Oreille. The meeting was transcribed by a 

court reporter and the comments are part of the record. In addition to the oral comments, 

written comments were filed by Pend Oreille County on June 25, 2010, but were latter 

withdrawn on October 4, 2010, after reaching a off-license agreement on payments in

lieu of taxes with Seattle. Comments were also filed by Ecology on June 30, 2010. This 

EIS addresses Ecology’s comments.

Based on the comments received at the technical conference and in response to the 

Commission’s July 6, 2010, Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and 

Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and 

Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions (REA notice) for both projects, Commission staff has 

determined that relicensing of the Boundary Project may constitute a major federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On September 16, 2010, 

the Commission issued notice of its intent to prepare an EIS; the notice was published in 

the Federal Register on September 22, 2010. No additional comments were received.

1.4.2 Interventions

1.4.2.1 Boundary Project

On October 28, 2009, the Commission issued a notice that Seattle had filed an 

application to relicense the Boundary Project. This notice set December 28, 2009, as the 

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

entities identified below filed motions to intervene; none filed in opposition to the 

project. Pend Oreille County filed a protest to relicensing the Boundary Project on 
16

December 24, 2009, but withdrew the protest on October 4, 2010, and now supports the 

relicensing of the Boundary Project.

Intervener Date of Filing

Kalispel Tribe of Indians January 22, 2010

Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille 

County

January 20, 2010

Pend Oreille County December 24, 2009

U.S. Department of the Interior December 22, 2009

Washington Department of Ecology December 1, 2009

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife November 25, 2009

U.S. Forest Service November 20, 2009

1.4.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project

On July 6, 2010, the Commission issued a notice that the District had filed an 

application to surrender its license for the Sullivan Creek Project. This notice set 

September 6, 2010, as the deadline for filing protests and motions to intervene. In 

response to the notice, the following entities filed motions to intervene; none filed in 

opposition to the project:

Intervener Date of Filing

American Whitewater July 19, 2010

Ecology July 21, 2010

Washington DFW July 21, 2010

Kalispel Tribe of Indians July 22, 2010

Seattle City Light July 27, 2010

The Lands Council July 29, 2010

Selkirk Conservation Alliance August 3, 2010

Forest Service August 26, 2010

Interior September 1, 2010

1.4.3 Comments on the License Application

A ready for environmental analysis notice soliciting comments, recommendations, 

preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions for the 

Boundary Project was issued on July 6, 2010. The following entities filed comments: 

Sweet Creek residents (on August 9 and September 3, 2010), Forest Service 

(August 24, 2010), Interior (September 2, 2010), and Washington DFW 

(September 3, 2010). On October 5, 2010, Interior filed revised conditions consistent 

with the proposed settlement agreement. On October 19, 2010, Seattle filed reply 

comments to Forest Service, Interior, Washington DFW, and Sweet Creek resident’s 

comments.
17

On July 6, 2010, the Commission also issued a ready for environmental analysis 

notice for the surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project, soliciting comments and 

recommendations on the surrender. The following entities filed comments and 

recommendations: Forest Service (on August 26, 2010), Interior (September 2, 2010), 

and Washington DFW (September 3, 2010).

1.4.4 Settlement Agreements

As stated previously, on March 29, 2010, Seattle and the District filed settlement 

agreements for the relicensing of the Boundary Hydroelectric Project and the surrender of 

the Sullivan Creek Hydroelectric Project and a motion to consolidate the application 

processes. The Commission issued notice of the filing of the settlement agreements on 

April 1, 2010, requesting comments on the settlement agreements to be filed by 

April 19, 2010. Although no comments were filed in response to the notice, the 

settlement parties supported the settlement agreement in their comments in response to 

the ready for environmental analysis notice described in section 1.4.3, Comments on the 

License Applications.

1.4.5 Draft EIS

Commission staff issued its draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS) for 

the proposed relicensing of the Boundary Project and the proposed surrender of license 

for the Sullivan Creek Project on April 8, 2011. Staff held public meetings in Metaline 

Falls and Spokane, Washington on May 10 and 11, 2011, respectively, to solicit 

comments on the draft EIS. Staff requested written comments on the draft EIS be filed 

by May 31, 2011.

The following entities and individuals filed comments on the draft EIS.

Commenting Entity Date Filed

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) May 20, 2011

Forest Service May 27, 2011

Washington DFW May 27, 2011

Seattle May 27, 2011

The District May 27, 2011

Ecology May 31, 2011

U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) May 31, 2011

Kalispel Tribe May 31, 2011

Ms. Carol Jean Merrill May 31, 2011

Sweet Creek Ranch Residents (Sweet Creek residents) June 6, 2011
18

Mr. Larry Gragg, et al. June 6, 2011

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) June 8, 2011

We also received comments from several residents and agency representatives 

during the May 10 and 11, 2011 meetings. We summarize the substance of the 

comments received, provide responses to those comments, and explain how the text of 

the draft EIS was modified, as appropriate, to address the comments in appendix C. 
19

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 BOUNDARY PROJECT

2.1.1 No-Action Alternative

The no-action alternative is the baseline from which to compare the proposed 

action and all action alternatives assessed in the EIS. Under the no-action alternative, the 

project would continue to operate under the current terms and conditions of its existing 

license. The no-action alternative also assumes continued implementation of any existing

voluntary environmental measures.

2.1.1.1 Existing Project Facilities

The Boundary Project includes: the 340-foot-high, 740-foot-long concrete arch 

Boundary dam impounding a 1,794-acre reservoir at a normal full pool elevation of 1,994 

feet14 with 40,843 acre-feet of active storage between elevations 1,994 feet and 1,954 

feet; two 50-foot-wide, 45-foot-high spillways fitted with radial gates, one on each 

abutment; a 26-foot-wide, 9-foot-high hinged-leaf skimmer gate adjacent to the left 

spillway (no longer in service); seven 21-foot-high, 17-foot-wide, low-level vertical 

fixed-wheel sluice gates15 in the dam; a 35-foot-wide, 57-foot-high sluice maintenance 

gate on the upstream face of the dam; power intake facilities excavated on the left 

abutment area of the dam, which consist of an approximately 800-foot-long, 300-footwide forebay, a trashrack structure across the entrance to the forebay, and the portal face 

with six 30-foot-wide, 34-foot-high horseshoe-shaped tunnels extending to intake gate 

chambers; six penstocks, each of which has a 165-foot-long, 24-foot-wide, 34-foot-high 

section at the intake to a 26-foot-diameter concrete-lined section, and a 150-foot-long, 26 

to 20-foot-diameter steel-lined section; an underground power plant containing a 477-

foot-long, 76-foot-wide, 172-foot-high machine hall with six Francis turbine/generator 

units with a total authorized generating capacity of 1,003.253 megawatts (MW); six draft 

tubes that discharge water from the turbines into the tailrace immediately below the dam; 

six horseshoe-shaped transformer bays for six three-phase, 230-kilovolt (kV) 

transmission lines; and appurtenant facilities.

Three Seattle-owned and -managed recreation areas are within the project 

boundary: the Forebay Recreation Area, the Tailrace Recreation Area/Machine Hall 

Visitors’ Gallery, and the Vista House. The existing generating features, recreation 

facilities, and proposed additions to the project boundary in the vicinity of the dam and 

powerhouse are shown on figure 2-1.

 

14 All elevations that refer to the Boundary Project in this document are listed as 

North American Vertical Datum 88 (NAVD 88) unless otherwise noted. 

15 The sluice gates have a crest elevation of 1,795.5 feet.
20

Figure 2-1. Location of existing and proposed project features in the vicinity of 

Boundary dam for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2144, Washington 

(Source: staff).
21

2.1.1.2 Project Safety

The project has been operating for about 50 years under the existing license, and

during this time, 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 project has been inspected and evaluated every 5 years by 

an independent consultant, and a consultant’s safety report has been submitted for 

Commission review. As part of the relicensing process, the Commission staff would 

evaluate the continued adequacy of the proposed project facilities under a new license. 

Special articles would be included in any issued license, as appropriate. Commission 

staff would continue to inspect the project during the new license term to assure 

continued adherence to Commission-approved plans and specifications, special license 

articles relating to construction (if any), operation and maintenance, and accepted 

engineering practices and procedures.

2.1.1.3 Existing Project Operation

Dams within the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille River system are highly regulated with 

flows controlled by upstream hydroelectric and storage projects. The Boundary Project is 

the eighth project of eleven hydroelectric and storage projects in this river system, and is 

located immediately downstream of Box Canyon dam. The Boundary Project has a small 

active storage capacity relative to average daily river flow, and has no control or 

influence over the flow releases that it receives from upstream hydroelectric and storage 

projects. Therefore, releases from the Boundary Project for downstream users are heavily 

influenced by upstream project operations. The project is not operated for flood storage.

The project diverts water from the forebay through the power intake facilities 

excavated on the left abutment area of the dam. At the intake, flows pass into the 

concrete- and steel-lined penstocks, which bring the flows to the turbine/generator units 

in the power plant. The total hydraulic capacity of the turbine/generators is 56,000 cfs. 

The draft tubes discharge the water from the turbines into the tailrace immediately below 

the dam.

When inflows exceed the hydraulic capacity of the project and the water surface 

elevation is at or near the maximum surface water elevation of 1,994 feet, the spillway 

gates are opened until half of their discharge capacity-- about 54,000 cfs--is reached. If 

additional flows need to be passed through the project, the sluice gates--each with a 

discharge capacity of 36,000 cfs--are opened one at a time, with the gates in the center of 

the dam opened first to avoid eroding the abutments on either side of the dam. The total 

discharge capacity of the two spillways and the seven sluice gates is 360,000 cfs. The 

sluice gates are also available to quickly draw down the reservoir to elevation 1,974 feet 

if needed.

Under the current license, the project operates in a load-following mode, 

generating electricity during peak-load hours from available water. Through an 
22

agreement with the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), power produced at the 

Boundary Project enters the grid at a BPA substation immediately adjacent to the project, 

and BPA provides an equivalent amount of power to Seattle, which satisfies between 35 

and 45 percent of Seattle’s electricity requirements. The project typically begins 

generating in the early morning hours and continues to generate throughout the day, 

rising and falling in response to customer demand, with peaks experienced in the morning 

and evening. The average amount of electricity generated at the project is 3,572.8

gigawatt-hours. Power produced at the project serves the Pend Oreille PUD and Seattle 

retail load, with any excess power produced sold on the secondary market.

The inflow to the Boundary reservoir averages 13,000 cfs in August and averages 

49,700 cfs in June, with minimum and maximum inflows recorded between 6,400 cfs and 

118,800 cfs, respectively. The project can operate between elevations 1,994 feet and 

1,954 feet; however it primarily operates between the elevations of 1,994 feet and 1,974 

feet (with a storage capacity of approximately 27,000 acre-feet), with the additional 

storage between 1,974 feet and 1,954 feet reserved for extreme load requirements. Any 

storage capacity left vacant in the reservoir is filled on a voluntary basis if there is 

adequate water available from upstream releases. During the summer recreation 

season,16 Seattle voluntarily limits the forebay pool to a water surface elevation of no 

lower than 1,984 feet from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and a water surface elevation of no 

lower than 1,982 feet from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

Seattle makes 48,000 kilowatts of energy available to the District from the 

Boundary Project at cost to meet the District’s load requirements of its present or 

potential customers. Seattle also compensates the District for encroachment of the 

Boundary reservoir on the tailrace of the District’s Box Canyon Hydroelectric Project 

No. 2042.17

 

16 The summer recreation season is described as running from Memorial Day 

weekend through Labor Day weekend.

17 The degree of encroachment of the Boundary reservoir on the Box Canyon 

Project varies depending on reservoir elevations, inflow, and operation of the projects. 

According to the District’s May 27, 2011 filing, Seattle and the District entered into an 

agreement on December 20, 1965, relating to encroachment compensation. 

Subsequently, Seattle and the District entered into the Tailwater Encroachment Losses 

Compensation Delivery Agreement as of October 31, 2005, to simplify the encroachment 

calculation methodology. According the District’s filing, the agreement is to remain in 

effect until the earlier of (a) the date on which the operating license for the Boundary 

expires (including annual licenses), without renewal or extension; or (b) the license is 

transferred to an entity other than Seattle.
23

2.1.1.4 Existing Project Boundary

The current project boundary, as shown in Seattle’s revised exhibit K drawings, 

was approved in 1968 by the Federal Power Commission (FPC, now FERC),18 The FPC 

established land charges based on a total of 938.59 acres of federal lands, which include 

609.24 acres within the Colville National Forest and 329.35 acres of other lands of the 

United States in 1969.19 

From the upstream (south) end of the project boundary, the current project 

boundary generally follows the ordinary high surface water elevation of the Pend Oreille 

River from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage no. 12396500, which is approximately 

1,400 feet downstream of Box Canyon dam, to immediately upstream of Metaline Falls. 

The project boundary is generally expanded by a 200-foot-wide horizontal buffer from 

the original ordinary high water surface elevation20 from immediately upstream of 

Metaline Falls to about 3,000 feet upstream of the Boundary dam. At the north 

(downstream) end of the project boundary, beginning 3,000 feet upstream of the 

Boundary dam, the project boundary expands to encompass the Vista House, the tailrace 

recreation area, the dam and powerhouse, the forebay recreation area, the West Side 

Access Road, and the transmission lines leading from the powerhouse to the BPA 

substation. 

2.1.1.5 Existing Environmental Measures

As noted above, from Memorial Day to Labor Day, Seattle voluntarily restricts 

water surface fluctuations by maintaining water surface elevation above 1,984 from 6:00 

a.m. through 8:00 p.m. from Memorial Day weekend (starting Friday evening) through 

Labor Day weekend (on Monday evening. At night under the voluntary summer 

restriction, the forebay pool elevation is maintained above elevation 1,982 feet from 8:00 

p.m. through 6:00 a.m. 

Seattle determined that operation of turbine Units 55 and 56 at or below 125 MWs 

can increase TDG in the Boundary dam tailrace during non-spill conditions. To reduce

TDG under normal, non-spill operations, Seattle voluntarily implements a practice of 

operating these units above 125 MW and sequencing their startup and shutdown so that 

Units 55 and 56 are the last units to be brought on line and the first units to be shut down.

In accordance with its license (Article 51), Seattle acquired 149 acres of land 

adjacent to the upper reservoir, and established the Boundary Wildlife Preserve (BWP). 

 

18 40 F.P.C. 1,515 (1968).

19 41 F.P.C. 577 (1969). Seattle reported in its March 2010 addendum to Exhibit 

A that by their calculations the current and proposed project boundary includes 920.87 

and 931.36 acres, respectively. 

20 The original project boundary was established by a 200-foot buffer from the 

ordinary high water mark as measured in 1967. 
24

Seattle developed a Wildlife Management Plan for the BWP, with the primary goal of 

protecting wetland, riparian, and slough habitats from development and to maintain 

populations of native terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species.

Seattle has funded the annual planting of catchable-size triploid rainbow trout in 

the reservoir as a voluntary measure to increase sport-fish harvest. However, this 

practice was discontinued after the spring 2009 planting because of Washington DFW 

concerns that the program may hamper native fish recovery efforts.

2.1.2 Seattle’s Proposal

2.1.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities

The project has six turbine/generator units, numbered Unit 51 through Unit 56. 

Seattle proposes to upgrade the turbine runners in Units 55 and 56 within the first four 

years following issuance of a new license. The turbine runner upgrades would increase 

efficiency; i.e., they would use the same flow to produce a greater amount of energy and 

would have a higher total generation capacity. The turbine runner efficiency upgrades 

would be performed concurrently with planned electrical generator rewinds and step-up 

transformer replacements. Seattle estimates that the project generation would increase by 

39,838 MWh after completion of the upgrades. Seattle also proposes new facilities and 

upgrades to existing facilities, including: a new upstream fish passage trap-and-haul 

facility; upgrades at the existing forebay recreation area, the tailrace recreation 

area/Machine Hall visitors’ gallery, the Vista House, and the Metaline Waterfront Park 

boat launch; new trailheads and trails; new portage trail and boater access near Metaline 

Falls; and improvements at six designated dispersed shoreline recreation site.

2.1.2.2 Proposed Project Operation

Seattle proposes to continue to operate the project as it does under the current 

license conditions, but with the formalization of two currently voluntary operational 

measures described above in section 2.1.1.5, Existing Environmental Measures: forebay 

water surface elevation restrictions for summer recreation enhancement, and turbine unit 

sequencing to reduce TDG production during non-spill conditions. 

Seattle also proposes to continue to assign 48,000 kilowatts of power to the 

District from the Boundary Project at the District’s weekly system load factor, any part or 

all of which shall be available to the District at cost upon two years’ notice by the 

District, to meet the load requirements of the present or potential customers. Seattle also 

proposes to continue to compensate the District for the encroachment of the Boundary 

reservoir on the tailrace of the District’s Box Canyon Project No. 2042. These proposals

do not result in environmental effects; therefore we do not analyze them further in the 

EIS. The applicability of the Commission’s policy on issues related to power allocation 

to the facts of this proceeding is a matter for Commission consideration in any order 

acting on the license application. Likewise, the Commission’s policy as it relates to 
25

encroachment is a matter for the Commission consideration in any order acting on the 

license application.

2.1.2.3 Proposed Project Environmental Measures

Seattle proposes a comprehensive set of measures covering the full range of 

resources in the Pend Oreille River associated with the Boundary Project. Table 2-1 

summarizes those measures proposed under the settlement agreement; details of the 

environmental measures are provided in section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, by resource 

area. 

Table 2-1. Summary of proposed license articles (Source: Seattle 2010).

Article Measure Elements

1 Operations • From Memorial Day weekend (starting Friday 

evening) through Labor Day weekend (ending on 

Monday evening), maintain forebay water surface 

elevations at or above 1,984 feet NAVD 88 from 

6:00 am through 8:00 pm, to facilitate recreational 

access and use. From 8:00 pm through 6:00 

maintain forebay water surface elevations at or 

above 1,982 feet NAVD 88.

• Operate Units 55 and 56 above 125 MW and 

sequence their startup and shutdown so that they are 

the last units to be brought on line and the first units 

to be shut down to reduce total dissolved gas (TDG) 

under normal, non-spill operations. Revaluate unit 

sequencing following other Unit upgrades.

2 Boundary 

Resource 

Committee and 

Work Groups

• Establish a Boundary Resource Coordinating 

Committee and the following work groups as 

needed to meet consultation requirements: Fish and 

Aquatics Work Group, Water Quality Work Group 

(with TDG subgroup), Terrestrial Resources Work 
26

Article Measure Elements

Group, Recreation Resources Work Group, and 

Cultural Resources Work Group.

21

3 Terrestrial 

Resource 

Management Plan

• Implement the Terrestrial Resource Management 

Plan which consists of the following programs: 

(i) Erosion Program, (ii) Habitat Management, 

Enhancement, and Protection Program, (iii) 

Integrated Weed Management Program, (iv) Rare, 

Threatened or Endangered Plant Species Program, 

(v) Wildlife Program, (vi) Shoreline Management 

Program..

4 Land Acquisition • Within 5 years of license issuance acquire and 

manage approximately 158 acres, consisting of 

highly diverse riparian and upland habitat and about

13,022 lineal feet of varying habitats immediately 

adjacent to water features for the benefits of rare 

and threatened wildlife and other area wildlife. The 

targeted 158 acres of riparian and upland habitats 

and the 13,022 lineal feet of varying habitats could 

be provided on the same parcel of land, provided 

that the parcel meets the habitat criteria.

5 Recreation • Implement the Recreation Resource Management 

Plan, which consists of the following programs: 

following programs: (i) Recreation Facility Capital 

Improvements Program, (ii) Recreation Facility 

Operations and Maintenance Program, (iii) 

Shoreline Dispersed Recreation Management 

 

21 Seattle would convene the coordinating committee to oversee on a broad scale 

the integrated and efficient implementation of the various environmental measures and 

the work groups to further the collaboration already established during the pre-filing 

stages of the license application to the development, refinement, and implementation of 

the plans described in the settlement agreement. These actions would maintain the 

established processes for technical review of the various measures and ensure appropriate 

consultation among interested parties. Supporting the committee and work groups do not 

result in a direct environmental effect; therefore, we do not discuss further in the EIS. 

We do consider the cost of implementing this measure in section 4.2 and recommend its 

implementation in section 5.
27

Article Measure Elements

Program, (iv) Recreation Monitoring Program, 

(v) Travel And Public Access Management Plan, 

and (vi) Multi-Resource Interpretation and 

Education Program.

6 Groundwater Well 

Decommissioning

and Road Closure 

Plan

• Implement the Groundwater Monitoring Well and 

Road Decommissioning Plan to close groundwater 

wells and roads to the wells that are no longer 

needed for project purposes.

7 Programmatic 

Agreement

• Implement a programmatic agreement and Historic 

Properties Management Plan (HPMP) to protect 

cultural resources.

8 Water Quality 

Plans

• Implement the following plans to improve and 

monitor water quality: (i) Aquatic Invasive Species 

Control and Prevention Plan, (ii) Dissolved Oxygen 

Attainment Plan, (iii) Fish Tissue Sampling Plan, 

(iv) Temperature Attainment Plan, and (v) Total 

Dissolved Gas Attainment Plan.

9 Fish and Aquatic 

Resources

• Implement the Fish and Aquatics Management Plan 

(FAMP), which includes the following programs to 

improve fish habitat, provide passage of resident 

fish, and foster recovery of bull trout and native 

resident fishes: (A) Mainstem Fish Community and 

Aquatic Habitat Measures, (B) Upstream Fish 

Passage, (C) Reduction of Project Related 

Entrainment Mortality, (D) Tributary Non-native 

Trout Suppression and Eradication, (E) Tributary 

Fish Community and Aquatic Habitat Measures, 

(F) Mill Pond Dam Site Monitoring and 

Maintenance, (G) Native Salmonid Conservation 

Program, (H) Recreational Fish Stocking Program, 
28

Article Measure Elements

and (I) Fund for Habitat Improvements in 

Tributaries to Sullivan Lake.22

10 Escalation • Annually escalate all costs and funding amounts 

specified in the various resource plans described 

above beginning January 1, 2012, or in the year 

preceding the Commission License issuance, 

whichever is later.

2.1.2.4 Proposed Project Boundary Modifications

Seattle proposes to change the project boundary to refine the buffer around the 

lower and upper reservoir, bring lands needed for project purposes into the project 

boundary, and bring roads needed for project purposes into the project boundary. 

Seattle proposes to expand the project boundary to include the following features: 

(i) the approximately 100-acre Operations and Maintenance Support Area, (ii) the 149-

acre Boundary Wildlife Preserve (BWP) and adjacent 89-acre parcel (the BWP 

Addition); (iii) the portions of the Tailrace East (86.9 acres), Everett Creek (82.7 acres), 

and Sullivan Creek (17.7 acres) parcels that currently reside outside the Project boundary;

and the Metaline Falls Portage Trail. Seattle also proposes to include the following 

roads, all of which are used exclusively or primarily for project purposes: the 0.28-milelong portion of the West Side Access Road not already in the boundary, approximately 

1.7 miles of roads within the Operations and Maintenance Support Area road network, 

the 0.23-mile-long Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) substation road, the 0.15-

mile-long portion of the spur off of BPA substation road not already in the boundary, the 

0.08-mile-long section of south end of National Forest road (FR) 6200-348 not already in 

the boundary, the 0.08-mile-long section of FR 3165-350 not already in the boundary, a

0.3-mile-long section of FR 3100-325, the 0.4-mile-long FR 3165-315 (for East Peewee 

 

22 These funds would be used to implement measures for improving connectivity 

in Harvey Creek, as well as reducing sediment input, increasing riparian and instream 

habitat complexity, streambank stabilization, and large woody debris placement in three 

tributaries to Harvey Creek (see comments filed by Interior, Washington DFW, and the 

Forest Service on the draft EIS). 
29

Falls Trail and Viewpoint), a 1.07-mile-long section of FR 3100-172, and the 0.2-milelong FR 3100-178 (for Riverside Mine Canyon Viewpoint).23

Seattle also proposes to revise the project boundary in the upper reservoir to match 

the ordinary high water line observed during the 2009 survey.24 Seattle also proposes to 

align the project boundary in the vicinity of the District’s Campbell Park boat ramp with 

the project boundary of the Box Canyon Project to eliminate an overlap of project 

boundaries.

In the lower reservoir, Seattle proposes to revise the project boundary to reestablish an approximate 200-foot buffer zone by extending the project boundary in areas 

where it is less than 180 feet from the high water level observed in 2009. The existing 

boundary would not be modified where it falls 180 feet or more from the observed high 

water line.

Staff estimates that Seattle’s revisions would increase the total acreage within the 

project boundary by approximately 543 acres, as well as increase the amount of federal 

lands to about 966 acres.25

2.1.2.5 Modifications to Seattle’s Proposal—Mandatory Conditions

The following mandatory conditions would be made part of any issued license, 

unless modified by the conditioning agency, and are evaluated as part of Seattle’s 

proposal. Seattle has not objected to the inclusion of any of these conditions.

 

23 Lengths for road sections within the project boundary were obtained from the 

license application, Table E. 4-4 on page E-82 of the license application, or estimated by 

staff from the exhibit G maps filed with the Commission on March 29, 2010.

24 The new boundaries are expressed as level foot contours between 2,004 feet and 

2,007 feet except in those areas where the vegetation lines better reflect the ordinary high 

water level.

25 Seattle’s proposed revisions respond to concerns raised by the Forest Service. 

Seattle has not filed a complete set of exhibit G drawings depicting the current proposed 

modifications to address the Forest Service’s concerns. The new acreages for the project 

boundary presented here are staff’s estimates based on a comparison of the existing 

project boundary and the proposed project boundary in all areas where the boundary 

downstream of Metaline falls is greater than 180 feet from the project reservoir; however, 

we expect Seattle in the preparation of their revised exhibit G drawings to calculate the 

new acreages for the project boundary and federal lands within the project boundary. 

Until revised exhibit G drawings are filed with the total federal lands defined and 

approved by the Commission, federal land use charges would continue to be based on the 

currently approved exhibit K drawings and identified federal land acres. 
30

Section 18 Prescriptions

Interior filed section 18 fishway prescriptions for fish passage identical to 

proposed license article 9B and 9C of the settlement agreement. Interior’s fishway 

prescription requires Seattle to install, operate, and maintain a single upstream trap and 

haul fishway facility (upstream fishway or fishway) in the Boundary Project tailrace as 

described in Section 5.2 of the Fish and Aquatics Management Plan within 12 years of 

license issuance (two planning years, eight research years and two design years). The 

purpose of this fishway is to provide safe, timely and effective passage for bull trout, 

cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish (target fish species) in the project area for the 

license term and any subsequent annual licenses.

Interior’s section 18 prescription also includes measures to reduce project-related 

entrainment mortality. These include developing and implementing studies sufficient to 

quantify the effects of entrainment on target species (bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout 

and mountain whitefish) and to determine whether any population of target fish species 

(i.e., a unique population that constitutes a substantial percentage of fish in the project 

area or that has a unique evolutionary niche that requires special protection) or a 

substantial number of target fish are affected by project entrainment. Based on the results 

of these studies, Seattle would either build facilities at the project to improve survival of 

target species past Boundary dam, or implement appropriate non-operational measures to 

improve survival of target species pursuant to the provisions of this program as described 

in Section 5.3 of the Fish and Aquatics Management Plan. Successful implementation of 

this program would fully mitigate for the effects of entrainment on target species by 

either: (1) preventing entrainment at the project, (2) reducing entrainment at the project 

and mitigating for the remaining effects, or (3) fully mitigating for the effects of 

entrainment through other measures. Design and implementation of these entrainment 

reduction measures would occur in three phases: (1) an initial entrainment assessment 

and evaluation phase would occur from the first through the 18th year following license 

issuance at a cost not to exceed $23,000,000; (2) implementation of entrainment 

reduction measures (if needed) scheduled for the 19th through the 33rd year following 

license issuance at a cost not to exceed an additional $47,000,000, plus any unexpended 

funds from the $23,000,000 allocated during phase 1; and (3) reevaluation of entrainment 

related mortality and adaptive management from the 34th year following license issuance 

through the end of the license term with no funding limitations.

Interior also requested the Commission reserve its authority under section 18 of 

the FPA to prescribe fishways for bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, mountain 

whitefish, and any other fish to be managed, enhanced, protected, or restored to the Pend 

Oreille River Basin during the term of the license.

Section 4(e) Land Management Conditions

The preliminary conditions provided by the Forest Service under section 4(e) of 

the FPA consist of one general condition (to include the license articles contained in the 
31

Commission’s Standard Form L-5 issued by Order No. 540, dated October 31, 1975) and 

nine specific conditions described below:

• Condition 1 stipulates that Seattle must comply with all provisions of the 

Boundary settlement agreement relating to: (1) all protection, mitigation and 

enhancement measures and other obligations identified in the settlement 

agreement and Exhibits which are on or affect National Forest System (NFS) lands 

and resources; and (2) all commitments in each and every plan referenced in the 

settlement agreement, and exhibits which implement activities which are on or 

affect NFS lands and resources; provided, however, that this Condition No. 1 

excludes those measures and other obligations, and those provisions of the 

settlement agreement and Exhibits, relating to decommissioning of the Mill Pond 

dam and implementation of the cold water release from Sullivan Lake (including, 

the settlement agreement §§ 7.14 and 7.15, and settlement agreement Exhibit 9, 

(Temperature Attainment Plan)).

• Condition 2 reserves the Forest Service’s authority to modify its conditions if the 

settlement agreement is materially modified or not adopted by the Commission, or 

if Seattle does not implement the conditions as required.

• Condition 3 stipulates that Seattle is to implement proposed license articles 1 

through 10 of the settlement agreement.

• Condition 4 would require: (1) Forest Service approval of site-specific project 

designs and a authorization to proceed before implementing any ground-disturbing 

activities on NFS lands; (2) obtaining a special use authorization if long term 

occupancy of NFS lands is required for project related purposes and such 

occupancy is not authorized by including such lands within the FERC Project 

boundary; (3) Forest Service written approval prior to making changes in the 

location of any constructed project features or facilities on NFS lands; (4) Seattle 

to consult with the Forest Service to coordinate any activity with any other 

federally authorized uses; (5) Seattle to develop site-specific plans prior to 

implementing habitat and ground-disturbing activities on NFS lands that includes 

(i) a map depicting the location of the proposed activity and GPS coordinates, 

(ii) a description of the Forest Service land management area designation and 

applicable standards and guidelines, (iii) where required by regulatory procedures, 

a description of alternative locations, designs and mitigation measures considered 

including erosion control and implementation and effectiveness monitoring 

designed to meet applicable standards and guidelines, (iv) draft biological 

evaluations or assessments including survey data, (v) an environmental analysis of 

the proposed action, (vi) a Spill Prevention and Control, and Hazardous Materials 

Plan for hazardous materials storage, spill prevention and cleanup on NFS lands, 

as needed, before work commences; (6) avoidance and replacement of disturbed

public land survey monuments, private property corners, and forest boundary 

markers; and (7) reimbursing the Forest Service for costs associated with 
32

implementation of a new license on NFS lands in accordance with a provided 

schedule.

26

• Condition 5 provides that Seattle must prepare a restoration plan to restore NFS 

lands prior to surrendering its license.

• Condition 6 indemnifies and holds the United States harmless for any costs, 

damages, claims, liabilities, and judgments arising from past, present, and future 

acts or omissions of Seattle in connection with the use and/or occupancy of NFS 

lands.

• Condition 7 reserves the Forest Service’s authority to require additional 4(e) 

conditions if the settlement is not accepted or materially modified by the 

Commission.

• Condition 8 authorizes Seattle to construct, reconstruct, use and maintain specific 

roads across NFS lands. 

• Condition 9 stipulates that Seattle must relocate three specific Public Land Survey 

System Corners, and survey, mark and post NFS property boundaries associated 

with those corners in order to facilitate survey efforts and public access to NFS 

lands.

Conditions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are standard, administrative, or legal in nature and are 

not specific environmental measures. Condition 4 contemplates measures for future 

actions that may not have been considered in this EIS.27 We view Conditions 2, 4, 5, 6, 

and 7 as measures to assist in the Forest Service’s administration of its lands. We 

therefore do not analyze these conditions in detail in the EIS.

 

26 Condition 4 includes a reimbursement schedule for Forest Service to recover its 

administrative costs associated with implementing the license directly from Seattle over 

the license term. However, section 10(e)(1) of the Federal Power Act requires the 

Commission to collect from licensees annual charges to reimburse federal and state 

natural and cultural resource agencies their administrative costs incurred in administering 

their responsibilities under Part 1 of the Federal Power Act. Because the reimbursement 

scheme outlined in Condition 4 may be inconsistent with the Federal Power Act, staff has 

not included this cost in the Staff Alternative, but we have included it in the Staff 

Alternative with Mandatory Conditions. 27 Implementation of condition 4 would also ensure that appropriate environmental 

protections are identified, as applicable, prior to implementation of the action; therefore, 

we have no objection to including this condition in any license issued for the project. 

This EIS address the measures contemplated by the applicant’s proposal and 

recommended alternatives. 
33

2.1.3 Staff Alternative

The staff alternative includes all of Seattle’s proposed measures in the settlement 

agreement except for proposed Articles 8(iii) (conducting fish tissue sampling), 9(H) 

(Recreational Fish Stocking Program), and 9(I) (establishing a fund for habitat 

improvements in tributaries to Sullivan Lake). The staff alternative also includes a 

recommendation for Seattle to prepare and implement an Operation Compliance 

Monitoring Plan to document compliance with proposed reservoir limits, and to modify 

the Recreation Resources Management Plan to include a more definitive schedule for 

completing the capital improvement projects. 

2.1.4 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions

Because the Commission is required to include a land managing agency’s section 

4(e) conditions in any license issued for the project, the staff alternative with mandatory 

conditions includes staff-recommended measures along with the Forest Service’s

4(e)conditions that we did not include in the staff alternative.

2.1.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

We considered several alternatives to the applicant’s proposal, but eliminated 

them from further analysis because they are not reasonable in the circumstances of this 

case. They are: (1) issuing a non-power license; (2) federal government takeover of the 

project; and (3) retiring the project.

2.1.5.1 Federal Government Takeover of the Project

We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. Federal 

takeover and operation of the project would require Congressional approval. While that 

fact alone would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, there is no 

evidence to indicate that federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. No party 

has suggested federal takeover would be appropriate, and no federal agency has 

expressed an interest in operating the project.

2.1.5.2 Issuing a Non-power License

A non-power license is a temporary license that the Commission would terminate 

when it determines that another governmental agency will assume regulatory authority 

and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the non-power license. At this 

point, no agency has suggested a willingness or ability to do so. No party has sought a 

non-power license and we have no basis for concluding that the project should no longer 

be used to produce power. Thus, we do not consider issuing a non-power license a 

realistic alternative to relicensing in this circumstance.
34

2.1.5.3 Retiring the Boundary Project

Project retirement could be accomplished with or without dam removal. Either 

alterative would involve denial of the relicense application and surrender or termination 

of the existing license with appropriate conditions. No participant has suggested that dam 

removal would be appropriate in this case, and we have no basis for recommending it. 

Removal of Boundary dam would eliminate a significant portion of the City of Seattle’s 

power supply and eliminate flat-water recreational opportunities associated with the 

project reservoir. Dam removal would restore fish passage for native resident fish and 

bull trout. However, we do not consider dam removal to be a reasonable alternative to 

relicensing the project with appropriate protection and enhancement measures. 

The second project retirement alternative would involve retaining the dam and 

disabling or removing equipment used to generate power. Project works would remain in 

place and could be used for historic or other purposes. This would require us to identify 

another government agency with authority to assume regulatory control and supervision 

of the remaining facilities. No agency has stepped forward, and no participant has 

advocated this alternative. Nor have we any basis for recommending it. As proposed in 

the settlement agreement, the project would generate an estimated 3,572,750 MWh of 

electricity per year. Because the power supplied by the project is needed, a source of 

replacement power would have to be identified. In these circumstances, we do not 

consider removal of the electric generating equipment to be a reasonable alternative.

2.2 SULLIVAN CREEK PROJECT

2.2.1 No-Action Alternative

The no-action alternative represents the environmental status quo, in this case the 

continued operation of the project under its existing license with no new environmental 

protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures.

2.2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities

The Sullivan Creek Project works includes Sullivan Lake dam and reservoir and 

Mill Pond dam and reservoir. Sullivan Lake dam is a 210-foot-long, 34-foot-high 

concrete and earth-filed dam; with six 5-foot-wide, 4-foot-high timber crest spillway 

gates,

28 and three 4-foot-wide, 4-foot-high lower-level steel gates.

29 The dam impounded 

the existing Sullivan Lake, increasing its surface area to 1,240 acres. The Mill Pond dam

consists of a 134-foot-long, 55-foot-high concrete dam, constructed 100 feet downstream 

 

28 The gates are manually operated from the walkway and can regulate the lake

elevation between elevation 2,584.66 and 2,588.66 feet. 29 The steel gates have a bottom elevation of 2,563.66 feet.
35

of an inundated log crib dam; with an 850-foot-long, 10-foot-high earthen dike; and the 

63-acre Mill Pond.30

Other project works, not used for power generation since 1956, include a 0.8-milelong Sullivan Creek diversion conduit; a 12,500-foot-long wooden flume; a 2,200-footlong earthen canal; a 1,150-foot-long, 8-foot diameter horseshoe tunnel; and a 100-foot 

by 38-foot masonry brick powerhouse. The turbines were removed from the powerhouse 

in 1958 and the turbine bays were filled with rocks and gravel.

2.2.1.2 Project Safety

The project has been operating as a storage reservoir to benefit downstream 

generation for about 52 years under the existing license, and during this time, 

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 project has been inspected and evaluated every 5 years by an independent 

consultant, and a consultant’s safety report has been submitted for Commission review. 

As part of the surrender process, the Commission staff evaluates the adequacy of the 

existing project facilities that would be turned over to the state and Forest Service under a 

Forest Service SUA. Special conditions would be included in the surrender, as 

appropriate, to ensure that the project facilities are in good condition when turned over to 

the state and Forest Service.

2.2.1.3 Existing Project Operation

The District operates the Sullivan Creek Project as a storage project; it releases 

about 31,000 acre-feet (ac-ft) of water annually in accordance with the Pacific Northwest 

Coordination Agreement. Sullivan Lake dam captures flows principally from Harvey

Creek (figure 2-2). Water from Sullivan Lake is released through the Sullivan Lake dam, 

and flows into Outlet Creek. Outlet Creek converges with Sullivan Creek approximately 

0.5 mile downstream of the Sullivan Lake dam. Sullivan Creek then flows into Mill 

Pond. Flows spill over Mill Pond dam to Sullivan Creek at the rate of inflow.

 

30 The surface acreage of Mill Pond was reported as 80.5 acres and 63 acres in 

varying places in the Surrender Application and Appendices. Based on data presented in 

the Mill Pond Dam Decommissioning Plan, the Mill Pond Bathymetry and Sediment 

Evaluation Final Report, the GIS data supplied by the District, satellite imagery, and the 

Commission’s dam safety records, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the 

surface area at elevation 2,505.7 feet msl (full pool) is 63 acres.
36

Sullivan Creek Dam

The District maintains Sullivan Lake at full pool (elevation 2,588.66 feet31), to the 

extent possible, during the months of May through September for recreation. Lake 

elevation is controlled during these months by regulating the flow through the timber 

crest spillway gates. Starting on October 1, the reservoir is drawn down by opening the 

lower-level steel gates. With all three low-level steel gates fully open, the reservoir level 

typically stabilizes at elevation 2,565 feet. Once the elevation level of 2,565 feet is 

reached, the gates remain open so that outflows from Sullivan Lake dam equal the 

inflows to Sullivan Lake until April 1. Beginning April 1, the elevation of the reservoir is 

gradually raised so that the reservoir is returned to elevation 2,588.66 feet by May 1. 

During dry years, the elevation level may not be achieved until after May 1. The District 

provides a minimum flow of 10 cfs in Outlet Creek from dam releases and groundwater 

seepage flow downstream of the dam.

Figure 2-2. Location of project features for the Sullivan Creek Project (Source: staff).

 

31 All elevations that refer to the Sullivan Lake Project are referenced to mean sea 

level.
37

Mill Pond Dam

When originally constructed in 1909, Mill Pond was impounded by a log crib dam 

on Sullivan Creek and had an approximate elevation of 2,500 feet. Water from Mill Pond 

was diverted through a three-mile wooden flume to a powerhouse on Sullivan Creek to 

create electricity for the town of Metaline Falls. In 1921, a concrete dam was constructed 

100 feet downstream of the log crib dam, which raised the elevation of Mill Pond to 

2,520 feet. Power generation at the powerhouse was discontinued in 1958 after failure of 

the project’s wooden flume. The District began maintaining the project in 1958 under a 

FERC license and purchased the project in 1959. The project has not generated power 

while under a Commission license.

In 1973, the dam was modified to create a new open spillway, lowering the 

elevation of Mill Pond to 2,505.7 feet. Mill Pond dam has an open, unregulated spillway 

and no storage, so flow out of the project is approximately equal to inflow and the 

elevation level remains constant. Outflow from Mill Pond is highest between May 1 and 

June 30, when inflows from Sullivan Creek are heavily influenced by snow melt runoff.

2.2.1.4 Existing Project Boundary

The project boundary includes the Sullivan Lake dam and Sullivan Lake; Mill 

Pond dam and Mill Pond; and the former power-generating facilities, including the 

wooden flume, the earthen canal, the horseshoe tunnel, and the masonry brick 

powerhouse. The existing project boundary encompasses about 1,873 acres, of which 

522 acres of land fall within the Colville National Forest. The remaining lands within the 

project boundary are owned by the District or are privately owned. The District does not 

operate or maintain any project recreation facilities. However, recreation facilities 

including private boat docks and various Forest Service campgrounds; boat ramps; trails; 

and picnic areas are found around both Sullivan Lake and Mill Pond dams. 

2.2.1.5 Existing Environmental Measures

As noted above, the District operates the Sullivan Lake Project to maintain 

Sullivan Lake at full pool for the summer recreation season and to release a minimum 

instream flow of 10 cfs in Outlet Creek, or inflow if less. 

2.2.2 The District’s Proposal

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the District would continue to 

maintain and operate the Sullivan Lake dam and reservoir; install a cold-water release 

structure to improve temperatures in Sullivan Creek; modify reservoir operations to 

provide 5,000 ac-ft of water to downstream users on the Columbia River during June 1 to 

August 31; increase instream flows to improve aquatic habitat and provide whitewater 

boating opportunities in Outlet and Sullivan Creeks; install gages to document 

compliance with lake elevation targets and instream flow requirements; and remove Mill 

Pond dam and restore Sullivan Creek to improve aquatic habitat. The Commission would 
38

terminate the license after the installation of the cold-water release structure, removal of 

Mill Pond dam, and a short-term monitoring period to ensure restoration of Sullivan 

Creek was successful. Sullivan Creek reservoir operations would continue pursuant to a 

Forest Service SUA. Details of the above measures are summarized below.

2.2.2.1 Sullivan Lake Dam—Operations and Environmental Measures

Cold-water Release Structure

Within three years of issuance of the order on surrender, the District would install 

a cold-water release facility at Sullivan Lake dam. The facility would act as gravity-feed 

system to discharge cold water from the bottom of Sullivan Lake into Outlet Creek to 

maintain adequate instream temperatures in Outlet Creek and Sullivan Creek during 

warm-weather months (discussed below). The intake for the cold water release facility 

would be installed at a minimum depth of 120 feet and would be fitted with fish screens. 

From the intake, a 4-foot-diameter high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe would extend 

between 800 and 1,000 feet along the bottom of the reservoir to immediately upstream of 

the existing bridge over the lake. The pipe would be buried from the bridge to the dam. 

As the pipeline approaches the dam, the pipe would extend up onto the existing concrete 

apron upstream from the dam and connect via a bolted flange to a steel pipe section, 

which extends through one of the low-level outlet gates of the dam. A control gate would

be installed on the downstream end of the pipeline to control the flow released from the 

dam during the cold water release periods.

Sullivan Lake Dam Operations

The District proposes to modify the seasonal operation of Sullivan Lake to

increase minimum instream flows and improve summer and fall water temperatures in 

Sullivan Creek. Proposed changes are summarized below.

• Within three years of a surrender order, install a cold water release structure at 

the Sullivan Lake dam and fit it with fish screens to improve temperatures in 

Outlet and Sullivan Creeks and prevent entrainment of fish.

• Until the surrender becomes effective, manage discharges from Sullivan Lake to 

provide the following minimum flows in Outlet Creek (as measured by the 

existing gage on Outlet Creek):

o June 1 through June 30: 30 cubic feet per second (cfs).

o July 1 through the end of fall drawdown (when elevation of Sullivan Lake 

reaches 2,570 feet mean sea level—by December 31): 20 cfs.

o From the date that Lake Sullivan reaches an elevation of 2,570 feet above 

mean sea level (msl) (expected January 1) until the beginning of spring 

filling per ordering paragraph (L) (by May 31): outflow shall equal inflow.

o From April 1 through May 31: 10 cfs or inflow, whichever is less.
39

• Until the surrender becomes effective, and prior to installing the cold water 

release structure, operate Sullivan Lake as follows:

Spring Operations: Start refilling Sullivan Lake on or before April 1 and seek to

achieve and maintain a full pool elevation of 2,588.6 ft msl (as measured at 

Sullivan Lake dam) by May 31, subject to hydrologic conditions, water 

availability32, and dam discharge flow requirements. Refilling rates would be 

adjusted as necessary to accommodate the Harvey Creek Bedload Mobilization 

activities. 

Summer Operations: From June 1 through Labor Day of each year, the District 

would use its best efforts to reach and maintain Sullivan Lake at a target of 

elevation 2,588.6 feet (full pool) for recreation purposes 

Fall Operations: Starting the day following Labor Day, begin drawing down 

Sullivan Lake in a manner that reaches the maximum flow target of 200 cfs during 

periods of normal or below normal precipitation and 225 cfs during periods of 

higher than normal precipitation as quickly as possible, given the following 

constraints: (1) maintain discharge flows to meet state water temperature 

standards (WAC 173-201A-200) and would not cause the combined waters of 

Outlet and Sullivan Creeks as measured at the “below confluence water 

temperature gage” to exceed 16 °C; (2) drawdown would strive to reach a water 

surface elevation of 2,577 feet by no later than November 15 and a water surface 

elevation of 2,570 by December 31; (3) ramp up discharge flows no more than 80 

cfs per day but not to exceed a change of more than 2 °C in average daily 

temperature per day as measured at the below confluence water temperature gage; 

.and (4) maintain a down-ramping rate not exceed 10 cfs per hour.

• Until the surrender becomes effective and after installing the cold water intake, 

operate Sullivan Lake as follows:

Spring Operations: Same as described above. 

Summer Operations: Same as above, but in addition, manage the discharges from 

the cold water pipe and the Sullivan Lake dam low-level outlet gates: (1) to meet 

state water temperature standards (WAC 173-201A-200); (2) with the goal of 

preventing the daily average “below confluence water temperature” from 

exceeding 14 °C; and (3) with the goal of preventing the daily average “below 

confluence water temperature” from deviating from the daily average Sullivan 

Creek “above confluence water temperature” by more than 1 °C, when daily 

average “above confluence water temperature” is less than 14 °C.

 

32 We assume that the terms “hydrologic conditions” and “water availability” are 

synonymous and refer to the amount of inflow coming into Sullivan Lake on a given 

year.
40

Fall Operations: Starting the day following Labor Day begin, drawdown Sullivan 

Lake in the manner described below.

(1) Manage the discharges from the cold water pipe and the Sullivan Lake dam 

gates to meet state water temperature standards, with the goal of (a) preventing 

the daily average “below confluence water temperature” from exceeding 14 

°C, and (b) preventing the daily average “below confluence water temperature” 

from deviating from the daily average Sullivan Creek “above confluence water 

temperature” by more than 1 °C, when the daily average “above confluence 

water temperature” is less than 14 °C. To prevent thermal shock of the 

downstream system, flows would be up-ramped or down-ramped to prevent 

waters below the confluence from changing daily average temperature more 

than 2 °C per day.

(2) Maintain the operation described in item (1) above until fall turnover 

(typically mid-October), when Sullivan Creek temperatures may fall below 

Outlet Creek temperatures by several degrees, and it may not be possible to 

maintain a 1 °C water temperature difference.

(3) Subject to the temperature constraints in item 1 above, maximize discharge 

flows through the cold water pipe and minimize the use of the low-level gates 

at the dam during fall drawdown. When low level gates are used, releases 

would be made from two gates simultaneously.

(4) Ramp up discharge flows no more than 80 cfs per day and down-ramp at a 

rate not to exceed 10 cfs per hour at the Outlet Creek gage.

(5) Manage drawdown to reach a lake water surface elevation of 2,577 feet by 

no later than November 15 and a 2,570 by December 31.

(6) After November 15, all releases from Sullivan Dam up to the capacity of 

the cold water pipe, would be made through the pipe. (7) Forecast

discharge flows and post online one week in advance to support recreational 

use.

• When forecasts predict runoff to exceed 120 percent of the long-term average, 

operate Sullivan Lake to facilitate the mobilization of Harvey Creek bedload at 

the head of Sullivan Lake by holding Sullivan Lake level at no more than 

elevation 2,575 feet until May 20 of that year.

• To document compliance with the above discharge flows, ramping rates, 

temperature limits and lake elevations, the District would install, operate and 

maintain a flow gage and recording device at Sullivan dam; maintain the USGS

gage on Outlet Creek if discontinued by the USGS; maintain a gage and 

recording device on Harvey Creek; and install, maintain, and monitor a 

continuous water temperature gage on Sullivan Creek at least 300 feet 

downstream of the confluence with Outlet Creek, and a continuous water 
41

temperature gage on Sullivan Creek upstream of its confluence with Outlet 

Creek and Sullivan Creek.

• Subject to the above temperature and flow constraints, the District would 

manage fall drawdown to provide discharge flows between 180 and 220 cfs on at 

least 3 weekends in September or October to support whitewater paddling; the 

District would post available flows at least one week prior to their release.

• Before implementing the new operating regime, the District would repair 

existing docks and ramps to ensure that they would continue to function under 

new operations.

Water Supply Program Flow Releases

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the District would be able to sell or 

lease up to 5,000 acre-feet of the usable storage in Sullivan Lake annually for use outside 

the Sullivan Creek drainage between June 1 and August 31, with priority given to the 

Columbia River Water Supply Program. This water includes all flows over the existing 

minimum instream flow of 10 cfs. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, 

for the purposes of the water supply program, the District would release water at a rate 

shown in table 2-2, not to exceed two times the minimum discharge flow requirement 

described above. Water is to be released at as steady a rate as possible, as measured by 

the day-to-day change in daily average cfs. The lower number represents the amount of 

water that can be released in dry years, and the larger number represents the amount that 

can be released in average and wet years. The determination of wet, average, or dry 

years would be made by the Resource Committee by May 20 of each year.

Table 2–2. Water Supply Program discharge flows for June through the first week in 

September pursuant to settlement agreement (Source: District, 2010, as modified by 

staff).

Time Frame Discharge Flow (cfs)

June Week 1 50-60

June Week 2 50-60

June Week 3 50-60

June Week 4 50-60

July Week 1 40-45

July Week 2 35-40

July Week 3 30-35

July Week 4 30-35

August Week 1 30-35

August Week 2 30-35

August Week 3 30-35

August Week 4 30-35

September Week 1 30-35
42

To ensure that adequate water is available in Sullivan Lake to meet the new water 

supply flows, the District proposes to raise the minimum elevation of Sullivan Lake from 

2,565 feet to 2,570 feet from December 31 to April 1, which would decrease the amount 

of water required to fill the reservoir to 2,588.66 feet in the spring, and would allow more 

outflows to be available for downstream users.

After the settlement agreement was reached and filed with the Commission, 

Ecology filed on October 26, 2010, a separate Memorandum of Agreement it reached 

with the District to deliver 14,000 ac-ft of water to the Columbia River Basin Water 

Supply Program according to the schedule in table 2-3; this water includes the 5,000 ac-ft 

that would be provided between June and the first week in September as identified in the 

agreement filed with the Commission, and 9,000 ac-ft that would be provided during 

September. Table 2-2 shows total flows available (i.e., the flow includes the existing 

10 cfs to Outlet Creek), whereas table 2-3 below reflects increased water available above 

the 10-cfs historic flow release in June through September. Projected late-September 

flows are based on model runs using the settlement agreement criteria for wet, dry and 

average years. All the releases to supply the flows to the Columbia River Program would 

be governed by the terms of the settlement agreement, including temperature constraints, 

minimum flow discharges,33 and maximizing the use of the cold water intake. The 

delivery of water to the Columbia River program would begin only after all permitting, 

but before all of the construction activities are completed, provided that the provisions for 

interim operations are met. A tentative delivery schedule included in the memorandum 

of agreement is 2,500 ac-ft in 2012, 5,000 ac-ft in 2013, and 14,000 ac-ft in 2014. 

However, the District did not file the agreement for Commission approval or amend its 

license surrender application to accommodate the agreement. We analyze the effects of 

this agreement in the cumulative effects analysis, but do not include it as part of the 

District’s license surrender proposal.34

 

33 We assume that the requirement not to exceed 2.0 times the minimum discharge 

flow would only apply to the June through the first week in September as indicated in 

table 2-3.

34 The District has not requested to amend its surrender application to include the 

lease or sale of the 9,000 ac-ft to the Columbia River Basin Program in September. 

Therefore, this EIS examines the effects of these releases, but from the perspective of an 

off-license agreement with Ecology. 
43

Table 2–3. Water Supply Program discharge flows for June through September pursuant 

to Ecology memorandum of agreement (Source: District MOA).

Period Dry Year Flow 

Increase

Average/Wet Year 

Flow Increase

Monthly Total

cfs ac-ft cfs ac-ft Dry 

(ac-ft)

Wet 

(ac-ft)

June Week 1 40 560 50 700

June Week 2 40 560 50 700

June Week 3 40 560 50 700

June Week 4 40 720 50 900 2,400 3,000

July Week 1 30 420 30 420

July Week 2 25 350 25 350

July Week 3 20 280 20 280

July Week 4 20 400 20 400 1,450 1,450

August Week 1 20 280 20 280

August Week 2 20 280 20 280

August Week 3 20 280 20 280

August Week 4 20 400 20 400 1,240 1,240

September Week 1 20 280 20 280

September Week 2 170 2,380 190 2,660

September Week 3 210 2,940 210 2,940

September Week 4 210 3,780 210 3,780 9,380 9,660

Total (June – Aug) 5,090 5,690

Total (June – Sept) 14,470 15,350

2.2.2.2 Mill Pond Dam Removal and Restoration of Sullivan Creek

Within five years of the Commission’s order on the application to surrender the 

license, the District would remove Mill Pond dam and the original log-crib dam, manage 

sediment, restore the Sullivan Creek stream channel, implement site restoration measures 

for the affected area (defined as stream channel, floodplain, and upland areas from 

immediately downstream of Mill Pond dam to Outlet Creek), and conduct short-term 

monitoring and maintenance to ensure restoration was successful. Other project 

facilities, including the diversion conduit, wooden flume, earthen canal, and horseshoe 

tunnel, that were not used after the project ceased power production in 1956 would not be 

removed.

The District filed a draft Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan with the settlement 

agreement, and proposes to file a final plan within two years of the Commission’s order 

on surrender containing detailed engineering plans. In short, to remove Mill Pond dam 

and restore Sullivan Creek, the District would: install a 4-foot-diameter main siphon pipe 

through the dike on the west side of the dam and lower the reservoir 20 to 25 feet; install 
44

a cofferdam upstream of the log-crib dam and a decanting tower upstream of the coffer 

dam, with a low level pipe through the bottom of the cofferdam; drain the water in 

between the concrete dam, log crib dam and cofferdam areas; after the reservoir is 

lowered and stabilized, remove the concrete dam and log-crib dam using a crane and 

excavator, and dispose of concrete off-site and either use log materials for stream channel 

restoration or dispose of it; reconstruct the stream channel through the dam removal area;

as the reservoir level drops, excavate and stabilize the streambed; and remove the 

cofferdam.

The District would complete DAHP Level II mitigation documentation35 of the 

Mill Pond structures prior to their removal. The District would replace the existing 

bridge to the heritage interpretative site, if possible, or construct a new one.

To control sediment, the District would install erosion control measures, monitor

them and implement corrective measures in accordance with an approved Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan. The stream channel and floodplain restoration would require 

excavation and grading of about 40,000 cubic yards of material, which would be 

deposited and graded into defined fill areas. The remaining 360,000 to 380,000 cubic 

yards of sediment would be stabilized in place and planted with native herbaceous seeds 

and trees. The stream channel would be restored to a self-functioning system, designed 

to function up to a 100-year flood event.

2.2.3 Staff Alternative

The staff alternative includes all of the proposed surrender conditions (except the 

requirement to release 5,000 acre-feet to support the Columbia River Basin Program);

modifies the characterization of the District’s proposed Sullivan Lake operating rules to 

impose specific reservoir elevations, subject to hydrologic conditions, discharge flow 

requirements, and operating emergencies beyond the control of the licensee; and adds the 

development of an operation compliance monitoring plan to document compliance with 

Sullivan Lake operations; the development of a more detailed Mill Pond revegetation 

plan, and completion of a DAHP Level II mitigation documentation report of all 

contributing elements of the Sullivan Creek Historic District that would remain on 

District lands within the project boundary following the surrender. While we do not 

object to the District releasing storage from Sullivan Lake to support the Columbia River 

Basin Program, as contemplated by the settlement parties, we do not contemplate the 

need to authorize such releases so long as they conform to the proposed flow, 

temperature, and ramping rate constraints to protect aquatic habitat in Sullivan Creek 

(i.e., the aforementioned limitations on maximum flows and cause no other inconsistency 

with the requirements of any surrender approved by the Commission). 

 

35 DAHP Level II mitigation documentation has replaced Historic American 

Building Survey (HABS) and Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), but is 

essentially the same effort proposed by the District.
45

2.2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

As noted above, project retirement could be accomplished with or without dam 

removal. Either option would involve surrender or termination of the existing license 

with appropriate conditions. No participant has suggested that removal of Sullivan Lake 

dam would be appropriate, and we have no basis for recommending it. Leaving Mill 

Pond dam in place would continue to provide a lake-based recreational fishery and scenic 

values, and the dam could continue to be used for historic purposes. However, this action 

would not improve bull trout passage, improve bull trout and other native resident fish 

habitat, restore federal lands, or be consistent with Colville National Forest land 

management policies. This action would require us to identify another government 

agency with authority to assume regulatory control and supervision of Mill Pond dam. 

Although the Forest Service is willing to assume control of Sullivan Lake dam, it 

supports the removal of Mill Pond dam. No agency has stepped forward, and no 

participant has advocated this alternative. Nor have we any basis for recommending it. 

The project provides very little storage for power purposes, and Mill Pond is not needed 

for power production. We do not consider leaving Mill Pond in place to be a reasonable 

alternative.
46

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Below we analyze the effects of relicensing the Boundary Project and 

surrendering the license for the Sullivan Creek Project. Readers should understand that 

once the surrender of the license for Sullivan Creek becomes effective, the Commission 

would no longer maintain oversight of the District and the operations of the Sullivan 

Lake. Such oversight would fall to the Forest Service and the state of Washington. 

Because the draft conditions of the Forest Service’s special use authorization are 

essentially identical to the Forest Service’s recommendations for surrendering the 

project, it is reasonable to assume, and we have done so herein, that the effects of 

surrendering the license would continue into the foreseeable future (i.e., 30 years). 

Therefore the analysis does not make the distinction of the effects before or after the 

Commission’s jurisdiction ends. Nonetheless, the Commission can not guarantee 

continued implementation of the measures and operations with respect to the District as 

recommended by the staff after the Commission’s jurisdiction ends. 

3.1 GENERAL SETTING 

The Boundary Project is located in the northeast corner of Washington on the 

Pend Oreille River. With a total drainage area of 26,260 square miles (25,090 square 

miles in the United States and 1,170 square miles in Canada), the Pend Oreille River is 

one of the two main tributaries to the Columbia River, contributing approximately 10 

percent of the Columbia River’s flow on an annual basis (Muckleston 2003). The Pend 

Oreille River is approximately 120 miles long from its head at the outlet of Lake Pend 

Oreille to its confluence with the Columbia River.

The Pend Oreille River system is highly regulated, with flows controlled by 

dams associated with several energy production and/or storage projects. Boundary dam

is one of eleven dams on the mainstem and major tributaries in the Pend Oreille River 

basin. The dams and corresponding locations (River Mile (RM) upstream of the 

Columbia River, except for Priest Lake, where RM refers to distance upstream of the 

Pend Oreille River) are as follows:

• Hungry Horse (South Fork Flathead River) - RM 390.3

• Kerr Project (Flathead River) - RM 318.0

• Thompson Falls (Clark Fork River) - RM 208.0

• Noxon Rapids (Clark Fork River) - RM 169.7

• Cabinet Gorge (Clark Fork River) - RM 149.9

• Priest Lake (Priest River) - RM 42.0

• Albeni Falls (Pend Oreille River) - RM 90.1

• Box Canyon (Pend Oreille River) - RM 34.5

• Boundary (Pend Oreille River) - RM 17.0
47

• Seven Mile (Pend Oreille River) - RM 6.0

• Waneta (Pend Oreille River) - RM 0.5

Because of the basin size and corresponding annual flow, typically no single

project has an overriding influence on flows in the river. In addition to the dams listed 

above, the Sullivan Creek Hydroelectric Project dam and Mill Pond dam are located in 

the Sullivan Creek drainage, the main tributary to Boundary Reservoir. Between the 

outlet of Lake Pend Oreille and its confluence with the Columbia River, the Pend

Oreille River is fed by numerous tributaries. The mean annual flow in the Pend Oreille

River at the Boundary Project between 1913 and 2006 was 26,370 cfs. Annual runoff is 

produced primarily by melting snow upstream of the project, with peak flows typically 

occurring from April through June. 

Both the Boundary and Sullivan Creek Projects are located in the Selkirk 

Mountains, a western extension of the Rocky Mountains. The topography surrounding 

the Project is relatively rugged, with nearby mountains rising more than 6,500 feet in 

elevation and intervening valleys ranging from approximately 2,000 to 2,400 feet. The 

Pend Oreille River bisects the Selkirk Mountains and cuts through the Metaline

Limestone and Ledbetter Slate formations. These two formations predominate along 

Boundary Reservoir downstream of Metaline Falls and confine the reservoir to a narrow 

canyon. The adjacent area is characterized by cliffs, rock talus, and steep slopes 

(Seattle 2006). In contrast, the area upstream of Metaline Falls consists predominantly 

of unconsolidated glacial sediments and river alluvial deposits. The river channel in this 

area is broader and the surrounding topography more moderate (Seattle 2006). 

The climate has both maritime and continental influences. The influence of the 

continental air masses generally results in summers that are warmer and winters that are

colder than in coastal areas. The majority of precipitation in the area falls in winter and 

spring, with the highest totals occurring from November through January. Within the 

Pend Oreille River valley, mean annual precipitation is approximately 27 inches. 

December and January account for about 25 to 35 percent of the annual precipitation, 

whereas July and August account for only 6 percent. On average, approximately 30 

days each year have rainfall of at least 0.1 inches and approximately 73 days each year 

receive at least 1.0 inch of snow. Winters are typically cold, and the snowpack 

normally covers all but the lowest elevations continuously from November through May 

(ENTRIX 2001).

Major land uses in the area include undeveloped uses (forested land, wetlands, 

and water bodies) as well as developed uses (timber production and residential, 

commercial, and industrial uses). Based on information on file with Ecology’s Water

Resources Section, uses of surface and groundwater within approximately 1 mile of the 

Boundary Project include industrial cooling, commercial and industrial manufacturing, 

general domestic use, fire protection, irrigation, mining, domestic municipal, power 

generation, and stock watering (Ecology 2005a). Lands surrounding the Sullivan Creek 
48

Project are predominantly National Forest and BLM lands and used for multiple use 

purposes.

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS

According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for 

implementing NEPA (50 C.F.R. 1508.7), a cumulative effect is the effect on the 

environment that results from the incremental effect of the action when added to other 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects 

can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over 

a period of time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities.

Based on our review of Seattle’s license application and the District’s application 

to surrender the Sullivan Creek Project, we have identified the following resources that 

may be cumulatively affected by the proposed operation of the project: aquatic 

(including water quality and fishery resources), terrestrial, and recreation resources.

Aquatic Resources

Hydroelectric projects on the Pend Oreille River have resulted in the conversion 

of a substantial amount of lotic (river-type) habitats in the basin to lentic (lake-type) 

habitats, which may have led to higher summer water temperatures and changes in the 

structure of fish communities. The dams have also impeded sediment and large woody 

debris transport, which are important elements of fish habitat. The establishment of 

some of the reservoirs has provided environmental conditions conducive to non-native 

macrophyte growth, which in turn may be responsible for occasionally elevated levels 

of pH and decreased levels of dissolved oxygen (DO), particularly in the Pend Oreille 

River. Accumulation of river sediments and attached toxic compounds in the reservoirs 

may have degraded water quality and caused acute or chronic effects on fish and other 

aquatic life. The dams associated with the projects increased the number of barriers to 

fish movements in the basin and currently contribute to occasionally elevated levels of 

total dissolved gas (TDG), especially during high flow periods. Elevated levels of TDG 

continue downstream out of the Pend Oreille River basin and into the Columbia River at 

least as far downstream as Lake Roosevelt, which is formed by Grand Coulee dam

(Pickett et al., 2004). Load following operations at a number of the projects on the Pend 

Oreille River may be causing disruption of fish spawning in shallower reservoir areas 

and river habitats, erosion along reservoir and river banks, and decreased abundance and 

diversity of macroinvertebrates. Other contributors to adverse effects on aquatic 

resources in the basin include introductions of non-native fish species, some 

urbanization, road and railroad construction, timber harvest, and mining operations.

Ecology’s Columbia River Basin Water Management Program, also referred to 

as Columbia River Basin Water Supply Development Program, directs Ecology to 

aggressively pursue development of water supplies to benefit both instream and out-ofstream uses through storage, conservation, and voluntary regional water management 
49

agreements. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the District my sell or lease 

up to 5,000 ac-ft of useable storage in Sullivan Lake annually for use outside the 

Sullivan Creek drainage between June 1 and August 31. The District would give 

priority to the Columbia River Basin Water Supply Program.

After the settlement agreement was reached, the District entered into a 

Memorandum of Agreement with Ecology to deliver 14,000 ac-ft of water to the 

Columbia River Basin Water Supply Program. The District’s proposed operations

represent a net increase in flows during the months of June through September to 

Sullivan Creek, the Pend Oreille River and the Columbia River compared to historic 

dam operations (October through December), and a shift in the hydrograph toward a 

more natural condition. The Columbia River Basin Water Supply Program would 

allocate 9,333 ac-ft of the 14,000 ac-ft for out-of-stream water right permits in Pend 

Oreille, Stevens, Ferry, Lincoln, Douglas, and Okanogan counties. The remaining 

4,667 ac-ft would be used for instream flows and protected to the confluence of the 

Columbia River and the Pacific Ocean. The water supplied by the District could 

contribute to aquatic habitat improvements for salmon. Because of the imperfect 

matching of the seasonal releases with new year-round water rights permits, there could 

be adverse environmental effects to salmon. Ecology considered these effects in its 

Columbia River Programmatic EIS36 and Lake Roosevelt Supplemental EIS;

37 and the 

analysis included in those documents is incorporated by reference in this EIS. The 

additional water rights could also result in increased growth with concomitant land use 

effects in the above counties. According to Ecology, projected growth has been 

considered by the counties in their land use planning and if conducted accordingly 

should not result in significant impacts; any further consideration of the cumulative 

effects of the Sullivan Creek water supplies toward this growth is too speculative. 

Ecology expects that adverse effects would be addressed as specific projects are 

identified and water rights permits issued by Ecology. Therefore, no additional analysis 

is provided in this EIS.

Moreover, authorization from the Commission is not required to sell or lease the 

water supply program flows as long as the releases are provided in accordance with the 

surrender conditions. Following the surrender of the license, the Commission could not 

ensure their continued release. Further, Ecology’s allocation of future water rights and 

the subsequent effects of those actions are beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction, and 

more appropriately considered by the state and the counties as they implement their 

individual projects.

 

36 The EIS can be found on Ecology’s web page at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/eis.html. 37 The EIS can be found on Ecology’s web page at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/cr_lkroos.html.
50

Terrestrial Resources

Regulation of flows by the Boundary Project and upstream dams causes daily 

and seasonal changes in surface water fluctuations that may have led to shoreline 

erosion, upslope bank collapse, spread of invasive species, alteration of habitats 

supporting threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species (including 

Astragalus microcystis, Cryptogramma stelleri, Dryas drummondii, Sanicula 

marilandica, thalictrum dasycarpum, and Viola reniflora), alteration of big game 

movement corridors, and alteration of riparian and wetland habitats. Boundary Project 

facilities and operations, mines, timber harvest, transmission line right-of-way 

maintenance, roads, and urban, commercial, and industrial development have 

collectively contributed to the loss and alteration of wildlife habitat. Seattle says that 

many of these non-project developments have not occurred within the project boundary, 

but are close enough to have an effect on resources within the project area. Upstream 

and upslope development, and land clearing and timber management activities, in 

combination with project operations, may contribute to establishment and spread of 

invasive species throughout the Pend Oreille River basin. Road construction, vehicular 

traffic, and foot traffic associated with recreational pursuits may also contribute to the 

degradation and loss of sensitive habitats and displacement of wildlife.

Recreation Resources

Fluctuations in reservoir pool levels caused by Boundary Project operations, 

other upstream hydroelectric and storage project operations, and natural seasonal river 

flow fluctuations may affect the ability of the public to access the reservoir at times. 

The incremental increase in the presence of human activity in the river corridor – due to 

project operations and associated recreation and interpretive facilities, land development 

in the river corridor, scenic byway and other roadway traffic, timber and mining 

operations, and undeveloped dispersed recreational use of the reservoir and adjoining 

areas – may affect the public’s use and enjoyment of recreation resources in the project 

area.

3.2.1 Geographic Scope

Our geographic scope of analysis for cumulatively affected resources is defined 

by the physical limits or boundaries of: (1) the proposed action's effect on the 

resources, and (2) contributing effects from other hydropower and non-hydropower 

activities within the Pend Oreille River basin. Because the proposed action would affect 

the resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary.

We have identified the portion of the Columbia River basin upstream of Grand 

Coulee dam as our geographic scope of analysis for aquatic resources; however, we will 

particularly focus our cumulative effects analysis for aquatic resources in the Pend 

Oreille River basin. The Pend Oreille River basin will be our geographic scope of 

analysis for terrestrial resources. For recreational resources, a northwest Washington 

regional scope will be considered that includes the greater Spokane and Coeur d’Alene 
51

area, as well as the small communities, both Canadian and U.S., along the western 

portion of the International Selkirk Loop Byway.

3.2.2 Temporal Scope

The temporal scope of our cumulative effects analysis in the EIS will include a 

discussion of past, present, and future actions and their effects on each resource that 

could be cumulatively affected. Based on the potential term of a new license for the 

Boundary Project, the temporal scope will look 30-50 years into the future, 

concentrating on the effect to the resources from reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Likewise, cumulative effects for the surrender of the Sullivan Creek license will focus 

on the short-term when the Commission’s jurisdiction ends, but will look to the extent,

possible 30 years into the future, to include the term under the Forest Service SUA. The 

historical discussions will, by necessity, be limited to the amount of available 

information for each resource. The quality and quantity of information, however, 

diminishes as we analyze resources further away in time from the present.

3.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.3.1 Affected Environment

3.3.1.1 Boundary Project

The Boundary Project is located in the Selkirk Mountains within the Okanogan 

Highlands physiographic province. The geology of this area results from volcanism, 

intrusion of granitic rock, and deformation and metamorphism of accreted marine 

sediments (Williams et al. 1995, Alt and Hyndman 1984). 

During approximately the last 20,000 to 10,000 years, continental glaciation 

deeply eroded the bedrock and left areas of thick glacial and postglacial sediments

(Stoffel et al. 1991). Predominate geological formations in the project area are: (1) 

Metaline Limestone; (2) Ledbetter Slate; (3) Talus; (4) quaternary lacustrine/alluvium; 

and (5) quaternary glacial deposits. Fill, mining deposits, and rip rap are also located in 

the project area. Metaline Limestone is approximately 1,500 feet thick, forms vertical 

cliffs up to 500 feet high along sections of the canyon, and is resistant to erosion. 

Ledbetter Slate overlies the Metaline Limestone, and has variable composition and 

erosion qualities. Talus cones consisting of unconsolidated cobble, gravel, and sand 

have formed in several locations along the base of cliffs in both the Metaline Limestone 

and the Ledbetter Slate. Unconsolidated fine deposits are located throughout the 

project, such as the quaternary lacustrine/alluvium downstream of Metaline Falls and 

the quaternary glacial deposits upstream of Metaline Falls. 

The Z Canyon Fault crosses the Pend Oreille River at the downstream toe of the 

spillway and offsets the Metaline Limestone and the overlying Ledbetter Slate (Seattle, 

2006). The area around Boundary dam contains exposed Metaline Limestone. Between 

Boundary dam and Metaline Falls, the Pend Oreille River cuts through the Metaline 
52

Limestone and Ledbetter Slate, with pockets of glacial sediments between the rock 

outcrops. 

The upper reservoir reach of the Boundary reservoir extends from Metaline Falls

to Box Canyon dam. The geology of the upper reservoir reach is predominantly 

unconsolidated glacial sediments and side stream and mainstem river alluvial deposits, 

with a few outcrops of Ledbetter Slate (Seattle, 2007). Sullivan Creek is the largest 

tributary that drains into the upper reservoir reach of the Boundary Reservoir, just 

upstream of Metaline Falls. Other tributaries that drain into the Upper Reservoir Reach 

include Linton Creek, Pocahontas Creek, Wolf Creek, Lunch Creek/Sweet Creek, Sand 

Creek, and Lost Creek.

Soils in the project vicinity are relatively undeveloped due to geologically recent 

volcanic and glacial activities (Seattle, 2006). Most of the sediments are silty sands and 

gravels in terrace deposits on both sides of the valley formed by glaciofluvial processes 

(associated with meltwater from retreating ice). Soils found in the broad valley bottoms 

are glaciolacustrine deposits (derived from lakes associated with glacial movement). 

Concentrations of sands and clays are scattered throughout the project vicinity (Seattle, 

2006). Post-glacial sediments of any appreciable thickness primarily consist of 

boulders, sand, and gravel, and occur in and near the Pend Oreille River, particularly 

downstream of Boundary dam (NRCS, 1992). 

Mining is present and contributes a small amount of erodible deposits in the 

project area. The Pend Oreille mine is a lead and zinc mine with surface facilities on 

the east side of the river approximately two miles north of Metaline Falls. Mine-related 

surface sediments include fine-grained sediments that are easily erodible, coarse-grained 

sediments that are somewhat erodible, and large, angular rock fragments that are 

resistant to erosion. 

Bank erosion occurs on project lands upstream and downstream of the project 

and on non-project lands. Upstream of the project, erosion is related to erodible soils, 

impoundment fluctuations, trampling by people or animals, and surface runoff from 

non-project roads adjacent to the reservoir. Soils in the forebay reach have a high 

erosion potential, while soils in the canyon reach and above Metaline Falls are less 

prone to erosion.

3.3.1.2 Sullivan Creek Project

Sullivan Lake is a natural lake formed by glacial action. The dam is located on 

an unconsolidated sand, gravel, and cobble moraine on the north end of the lake. The 

east and west sides of Sullivan Lake are characterized by steep, rocky slopes. The 

bedrock on the west side is Maitlen Phyllite, and on the east side the bedrock is 

dominated by both Maitlen Phyllite and Gypsy Quartzite. Soil series found along the 

sides of the reservoir are generally formed in residuum and colluvium, and include 

Rufus, Belzar, Rasio, Hartill, Newbell, and Inkler. 
53

Sullivan Lake is fed by Harvey, Noisy, and Hall creeks, with Harvey Creek being 

the only perennial stream of the three. Harvey Creek, which enters Sullivan Lake at its

southwest corner, has a history of landslides. The landslide material includes both 

rounded cobbles and boulders (glacial), and angular material (meta-sedimentary). 

These landslides have provided bedload material into Harvey Creek before it enters 

Sullivan Lake. Along Harvey Creek, the deposited material is coarse cobbles mixed 

with some sand. The deposited materials have formed a gravel bar along each side of 

the creek consisting of fine-textured sand and silt more than 30 inches deep.

Sullivan Lake discharges into Outlet Creek, which then converges with Sullivan 

Creek. It is anticipated that the outlet channel from Sullivan Lake dam consists of 

glacial outwash and gravel deposits. Outlet Creek flows in a channel bounded by 

glacial terraces, in a canyon formed by the moraine on one side and the mountain slope 

on the other. The geology of the mountain slope is Maitlen Phyllite; the soil formed on 

those slopes includes both Hartill-rock outcrop complex and Smackout loam, with 

glacial outwash on the east and north side of the creek.

Mill Pond is an impoundment of Sullivan Creek about 3,500 feet below the 

confluence of Outlet Creek and Sullivan Creek. Mill Pond has a large depositional area 

at the inlet end, where Sullivan Creek drops its bedload. The materials in the 

depositional area appear to originate from a series of landslides and road failures in the 

1960s and 1970s. This 30-acre depositional area has been well vegetated with alder and 

brush. 

Mill Pond discharges into Sullivan Creek, which flows to the Pend Oreille River. 

Soils in this section are Bonner silt loam and Kiehl loam, found on the low floodplain, 

and Newbell silt loam, Aits loam, Three-mile silt loam and Waits loam, which are found 

on the upland slopes. As the gradient increases, the canyon becomes incised, and the 

stream straightens. In this segment, the channel is bedrock controlled. The lower 

slopes are dominated by rock outcrops, while the upper slopes are composed of rock 

outcrops and glacial till deposits. 

3.3.2 Environmental Effects

3.3.2.1 Boundary Project

The greatest potential for erosion associated with the Boundary Project is from 

the reservoir shorelines and roads in the project area. Project-related factors affecting 

erosion include wave action, reservoir fluctuations, stream flow variations downstream 

of Boundary dam, and recreation around the reservoir. Project and non-project erosion 

has resulted in the loss of approximately 14 to 15 acres of land adjacent to the shoreline 

since project operations began 40 years ago based on historical aerial photographs and 

direct cross-sectional analysis. 

To address project-related erosion, Seattle, in consultation with state and federal 

agencies, tribes, and non-government organization, proposes to implement an Erosion 
54

Program (a component of the Terrestrial Resources Management Plan (TRMP)) to 

control erosion at the three recreational sites, and to monitor shoreline erosion to 

determine if additional measures may be warranted in the future. Seattle also proposes 

to bring four Seattle-owned parcels38 into the project boundary to be managed as part of 

a comprehensive mitigation and enhancement package,39 and to acquire additional 

property, with a target area of approximately 158 acres of riparian and upland habitat 

and about 13,022 lineal feet of land immediately adjacent to water features, which is 

defined as “perennial flat-water bodies, streams, wetlands or seeps.”

Although the measures are directed at improving aquatic habitat, measures 

proposed by Seattle in the Fish and Aquatics Management Plan would include stream

bank stabilization measures that could reduce erosion into and along the banks of 

Sullivan Creek, Linton Creek, and Sweet Creek, tributaries to the project reservoir.

Forest Service condition 3 stipulates that Seattle implement the Settlement 

Agreement license articles, including the Erosion Program, the acquisition of the 

additional habitat lands, and the Fish and Aquatics Management Plan. Forest Service 

condition 8 stipulates that Seattle is to construct, reconstruct, use, and maintain 

identified roads across National Forest System lands that are necessary for the 

operation, maintenance, and recreational use of the project. Interior and Washington 

DFW recommend, pursuant to section 10(j) of the FPA, that Seattle implement its 

proposed plans. 

Staff Analysis

Approximately 11 miles of project roads were inventoried as part of the Erosion 

Study. All roads and drainage structures are generally maintained to a standard 

compatible with the current level of use and Forest Service management objectives, 

where applicable. Minor surface erosion would likely continue on unvegetated areas 

adjacent to project roads and facilities, but no substantial effects to high value resources 

were observed.

The reservoir shoreline erosion inventory, conducted as part of the Erosion 

Study, identified a total of 15.5 miles, or 32 percent, of the 48.8-mile long shoreline of 

the Boundary reservoir, as showing evidence of past or ongoing erosion. Normal 

project operations cause the reservoir to fluctuate between elevations 1,974 and 1,994, 

depending on the time of year. These fluctuations and resulting wave action work to 

 

38 The parcels to be brought into the boundary include the BWP Addition (89 

acres), the portion of the Tailrace East parcel not currently included in the boundary 

(86.9 acres), the portion of the Everett Creek parcel not currently included in the 

boundary (82.7 acres), and the portion of the Sullivan Creek parcel not currently

included in the boundary (17.7 acres).

39 As described in the Habitat Management, Enhancement and Protection 

Program of the TRMP.
55

erode reservoir shorelines and mouths of stream channels. Based on Seattle’s analysis, 

the project is responsible for 5.7 miles of the eroding length of the reservoir shoreline

and a combination of project and non-project related factors is responsible for another 

7.6 miles of the eroding length of the reservoir shoreline. Project operations have 

contributed to a loss of 14 to 15 acres of shoreline over the term of the previous license.

Seattle determined that on Forest Service lands, eroding shorelines and landslides occur 

along 13,305 feet of shoreline (16 percent of the total length of erosion sites 

documented in the study), with over half of the eroding shorelines rated as having a high 

potential for future erosion. The sites were evaluated by the stakeholders to determine 

if the following resources were present at a high value: recreation use, wildlife habitat 

and use, presence or absence of heritage resources, rare/threatened/endangered plants, 

and condition of fish habitat. The Forest Service independently calculated that 24,193 

total lineal feet (6.1 acres) of federal lands in the project boundary exhibit some degree 

of shoreline erosion.40 

No changes in project operations are proposed that would alter existing erosion 

rates. However, shoreline erosion is expected to continue in some areas until the 

shoreline stabilizes, and in other areas may continue into the foreseeable future. How 

quickly that would occur is unknown, but erosion rates should be slower than historical 

rates. 

Erosion Program

The Erosion Program defines two primary objectives for lands within the project 

boundary or affected by project operations: (1) erosion control at three recreation sites 

identified in the Erosion Study Final Report; and (2) long-term erosion monitoring for 

lands adjacent to the Boundary reservoir to determine if additional high value sites 

experience erosion in the future, and if so, what if any measures would be appropriate to 

implement. 

The following three sites were identified as having important recreation resource 

values: (1) the Forebay Recreation Area; (2) the BLM Boundary Recreation Area; and 

(3) the Dispersed Recreation Day Use/Overnight Campsite on BLM-Managed Land. 

Seattle would implement site-specific erosion control measures at these sites, consistent 

with the schedule and design of recreation improvements at the sites. Erosion control at 

the identified recreation sites would be accomplished by a combination of biotechnical 

stabilization techniques, drainage swale modifications, toe protection,41 and 

 

40 Total includes 17,132 total lineal feet (4.7 acres) of National Forest Service 

lands and 7,061 linear feet (1.4 acres) of BLM lands. The Forest Service seeks to 

mitigate for the continued effects of reservoir shoreline erosion for all of the shoreline 

identified as having past or ongoing erosion, regardless of the value of the resources. 41 Toe protection refers to stabilizing the lower portion of the streambank where 

the weight of the bank is supported.
56

constructing public access to the sites. The sites would be monitored annually for three 

years following implementation to ensure that actions are meeting the stated objectives. 

The sites would continue to be monitored as part of the long-term monitoring plan, and 

any engineered structures would be repaired as needed to maintain the intended erosion 

control function.

While site-specific measures still need to be developed for each site, Seattle’s 

proposed measures would hold the existing soil and shoreline in place, ensure that water 

is routed to the reservoir through a defined path to reduce erosion in non-protected 

areas, prevent continued degradation of the stream bank where the erosion effects from 

wave action and reservoir fluctuations are most likely to occur, and would minimize 

disturbed areas, which are more susceptible to erosion. The measures proposed in the 

Erosion Program would reduce erosion at the identified recreation sites. 

Seattle’s monitoring program would monitor and quantify the shoreline erosion 

rates every 10 years at 16 representative sites.42 Every 10 years, the entire shoreline 

would be inspected to determine if any changes have occurred since the previous study. 

If erosion is shown by monitoring to be occurring at a high value resource area, Seattle 

and the TRWG would determine the need for and feasibility of additional mitigation. 

Seattle’s proposed periodic monitoring would enable it, in consultation with the 

TRWG, to evaluate the rate of erosion and severity of the threat to the resources and 

determine whether additional erosion measures would be feasible, or appropriate. 

Habitat Management, Enhancement, and Protection Program

As part of the Habitat Management, Enhancement and Protection Program, 

Seattle would bring the Tailrace East parcel, the Everett Creek parcel, and the Sullivan 

Creek parcel into the project boundary and manage them as part of a comprehensive 

mitigation and enhancement package, which would include in part, monitoring for 

erosion as well as habitat protection. The Tailrace East parcel is located downstream of 

Boundary dam on the east shore of the Pend Oreille River; the Everett Creek parcel is 

located between Metaline Falls and the Boundary dam, adjacent to the west side of the 

Pend Oreille River, along Everett Creek; and the Sullivan Creek parcel is located 

immediately upstream of Metaline Falls on the east side of the Pend Oreille River. 

These lands would add approximately 11,171 lineal feet of riparian-dependent or 

associated habitat to the project. In addition to bringing these lands into the project 

boundary, Seattle has agreed to acquire about 158 acres of upland and riparian habitat

and 13,022 lineal feet of varying habitats, to provide mitigation for continued shoreline 

erosion impacts on federal lands. 

Seattle’s proposed protection and management of project lands via the measures 

included in the Habitat Management, Enhancement and Protection Program, including 

 

42 Sites are to be identified by the Terrestrial Resources Working Group 

(TRWG).
57

the acquisition and management of about 158 acres of project habitat lands, would 

offset the estimated future loss of habitats from project-related effects, including 

erosion.43 Because the lands that would be acquired have not yet been identified, the 

exact measures that would be put in place and the benefits of those measures for erosion 

control and mitigation are as yet unknown. The area may be miles from the project and 

include lands that are unaffected by project operations. 

Tributary Fish Community and Aquatic Habitat Measures

As part of the Tributary Fish Community and Aquatic Habitat Measures 

(contained in the Fish and Aquatics Management Plan), Seattle proposes to implement 

riparian improvement along the banks of Sullivan Creek, Linton Creek, and Sweet 

Creek, with the objective of improving riparian functions. While the primary goal of 

the plan is improve habitat in these streams, the measures would also provide erosion 

control. Current riparian conditions in the tributaries are variable, with some portions in 

need of habitat improvements because they are devoid of riparian trees or brush. 

Stream banks with little to no vegetation do not provide the erosion control that mature 

riparian zones provide. Increasing the density of riparian vegetation around the stream 

banks of Sullivan Creek, Linton Creek, and Sweet Creek would likely result in reduced 

erosion losses in these streams. Seattle’s proposed measure would improve over 3,000 

linear feet of stream banks along Sullivan Creek, 655 linear feet along Linton Creek, 

and 3.3 acres of riparian land around Sweet Creek. These measures may reduce erosion 

in the tributaries leading to the project reservoir and provide additional habitat lost due 

to erosion associated with project operations. 

3.3.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project 

The greatest potential for erosion associated with the proposed surrender is from 

the short-term disturbance of sediments during construction of the cold water release 

structure at Sullivan Creek dam, the short-term erosion potential during deconstruction 

activities associated with the removal of Mill Pond dam, and the longer-term 

mobilization and redistribution of the sediment accumulated upstream of Mill Pond dam 

after the dam is removed. 

Under current operations, the Sullivan Creek project controls the Sullivan Lake

elevation between 2,565 feet and 2,588 feet. In general, fines and topsoil that may have 

existed in the reservoir fluctuation zone have been eroded away, resulting in a lakeshore 

that is rocky and largely immune to the effects of further water erosion. 

 

43 Seattle’s proposal to acquire about 158 acres of habitat and 13,022 lineal feet 

of varying habitats is intended to be a comprehensive package to offset all projectrelated effects, including erosion. 
58

Cold Water Release Facility at Sullivan Creek Dam

To address aquatic habitat concerns, the District, in consultation with state and 

federal agencies, tribes, and non-governmental organizations, proposes to add a coldwater release facility to Sullivan Creek dam. The installation of this facility may result 

in a short-term disturbance of sediments around the Sullivan Lake dam. The final 

design plans and drawings will be developed after the issuance of any order approving 

the surrender of the license. The draft design plans44 propose to elevate the intake off of 

the reservoir bottom to prevent transport of any sediment from the lake bottom 

downstream through the intake and the pipeline; and provide specific turbidity control 

measures based on the final construction scenario chosen. 

The applicant has proposed construction scenarios that would vary in the season 

of construction, the final installation position of the downstream release pipe and the 

sediment control measures for the installation of the cold water release facility. These

measures may include cofferdams and/or turbidity curtains. The exact measures 

proposed for reducing turbidity downstream of the construction site are not yet known. 

Turbidity upstream of the dam during installation activities may be controlled by 

a turbidity curtain or a cofferdam. If the turbidity curtain is chosen, it would be 

installed around the entire installation site. Water outflow would be pumped around the 

dam to provide instream flows, and a small cofferdam would be constructed around the 

dam for the concrete work. The turbidity curtain would be left in place until sediments 

disturbed by the construction activities have settled out. Washington DFW provided 

comments to the applicant45 stating that they are concerned with the effectiveness of the 

turbidity curtains, the ability of the applicant to remove all of the fish from between the 

turbidity curtain and the dam, and that there would be an accidental release of turbid 

water. Alternately, the District may use cofferdams to dewater the construction site. 

The cofferdam would be installed upstream of the outlet channel, then the area between 

the cofferdam and the dam would be dewatered, and all excavation and installation 

work on the pipe would be done in the dry. The water from behind the cofferdam may 

be pumped into settling basins to allows sediments to settle out before the water is 

released downstream of the construction area, or waivers may be sought to allow the 

water to pass without treatment. 

Turbidity downstream of the dam will be influenced by the disturbance of 

sediments from the installation of the outlet pipe. Specific measures for controlling 

erosion in the construction area immediately downstream of the dam were not provided 

 

44 Sullivan Lake Cold Water Intake 95% Draft Design Documentation Report, 

filed with the Commission January 27, 2011. 

45 Memorandum documenting phone conference between the applicant and the 

WDFW on December 10, 2010, provided as part of the Sullivan Lake Cold Water Intake 

95% Draft Design Documentation Report, filed with the Commission January 27, 2011.
59

in the 95% Draft Design Documentation Report. A final design plan would provide a 

more thorough evaluation of the alternative selected and the measures that would be put 

in place to control erosion and sedimentation during the construction of the cold water 

release structure.

Mill Pond Dam Removal

The District proposes to remove Mill Pond dam and restore the formerly 

inundated area, which will disturb sediments during deconstruction activities, mobilize 

sediments deposited behind the dam, and expose shoreline that could experience 

erosion. The District proposes the following measures for sediment and erosion control 

at Mill Pond: (1) draw down the reservoir behind a cofferdam at a rate that the 

suspension of sediments in the reservoir will be held to acceptable levels; (2) sequence 

the lowering of the reservoir with upstream streambed construction to minimize 

mobilization of sediment into the lowering reservoir; (3) prepare and implement a Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plan with measures to control erosion in the affected area, 

monitor the affected area for erosion, and implement corrective measures when needed; 

(4) when possible, work in the dry when excavating the proposed streambed and 

floodplain, including using bypass channels to route flow around work areas; (5) restore 

the Mill Pond reservoir inundated area, which shall include revegetation of the 

inundated area to plant communities consistent with the site and surrounding vegetation; 

(6) stabilize approximately 360,000 to 380,000 cubic yards of sediment left in place 

within the affected area; (7) deposit approximately 40,000 cubic yards of sediment 

material removed during site restoration in locations and at elevations to avoid 

mobilization and transport into the restored stream channel during flows up to, and 

including a flood event having a 100-year flood recurrence interval; (8) armor the 

bottom of the Sullivan Creek stream channel and any side channels to minimize erosion 

of the stream bottom; (9) implement floodplain and upland area restoration measures to 

prevent erosion and run-off of sediment materials into the restored stream channel 

during large rain events; and (10) restore the affected area, including any wetland areas 

receiving temporary direct impacts from equipment trampling. 

The District would deposit excavated sediment materials in fills of minimum 

depth on terraces with low gradient slopes, away from the proposed floodplain. Fill 

areas would be compacted to the maximum density for geotechnical stability, yet still 

suitable for supporting plant growth. Erosion protection would be provided by seeding, 

mulch, fabric application, sediment traps, or other measures as appropriate. A second 

phase of revegetation would be implemented the following spring after restoration 

efforts are implemented. 
60

Staff Analysis

Cold Water Release Facility

While site-specific measures for erosion control need to be developed for the 

project installation, the District’s proposed measures would control the migration of 

sediments downstream that would be disturbed by the installation of the facility. 

Turbidity curtains provide a physical buffer to contain the sediments within a 

confined area. While the efficacy of the potential curtain that would be installed is 

unknown, the curtain would be expected to contain the bulk of the sediments in the 

installation area and prevent sediments mobilized from migrating downstream. Keeping 

the curtain installed until the disturbed sediments have settled on the reservoir bottom 

would further prevent the migration of sediments downstream, protecting downstream 

resources. 

The use of a cofferdam would block flowing water from the installation site, 

which would prevent disturbed sediments from being washed downstream. Pumping 

the water between the cofferdam and the dam into settling basins to allow suspended 

particles to fall out of suspension before the water is pumped downstream would protect 

downstream resources. 

Erosion control measures downstream would need to be put in place to protect 

downstream resources. It is anticipated that the outlet channel consists of glacial 

outwash and gravel deposits. Based on historic records the depth of these deposits 

appears to be very deep. It is anticipated that the depth of the deposits are well below 

the bottom of the anticipated excavations. Final specifications should indicate measures 

that would be used to prevent erosion around the outlet channel.

The District’s proposed measures are consistent with standard practices and 

should prevent any long-term erosion problems.

Mill Pond Dam Removal

Mill Pond dam has altered the natural sediment transport processes in Sullivan 

Creek by trapping all bedload material behind the dam. The amount of fine-grained 

sediment behind the dam at Mill Pond has an estimated volume of 465,800 cubic yards, 

an average depth of 4.8 feet, and a maximum depth of 12.4 feet (District, 2010). The 

core logs show that in most cores the upper 3.8 to 6.5 feet consist of silt, underlain by 

poorly graded sand, well graded sand, or gravels. 

The fine-grained sediment materials present behind the dam and on the bottom of 

the reservoir are highly erodible. As such, the sediment would be easily mobilized into 

Sullivan Creek if effective control measures are not put into place. The District 

proposes the following measures to minimize the release of suspended sediments and 

prevent stream bank erosion from particle scouring: (1) draw down the reservoir at a 

rate that minimizes the suspension of sediments; and (2) sequence the lowering of the 

reservoir with upstream streambed construction to minimize mobilization of sediment 
61

into the lowering reservoir. By preventing a rapid drawdown in the reservoir, the 

District can also minimize diversions from the proposed stream alignment and prevent 

suspension of alluvial deposits upstream of Mill Pond. The McMillan report referenced 

in the Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan indicates that sediment would be removed from 

the restored stream channel using a combination of mechanical removal and natural 

removal, and that the final Mill Pond dam removal and channel restoration design 

would determine how much of the 20,000 to 40,000 cubic yards of sediment present in 

the restored Sullivan Creek channel would be excavated. Those sediments that are 

excavated would be screened, the gravels removed and redistributed within the channel

confines, and the fine sediments graded into the restored upland areas. However, the 

sediments not excavated from the stream channel are expected to be mobilized by 

stream flow, with ultimate deposition in Boundary reservoir. The final design phase for 

the Mill Pond dam removal is expected to provide further information on sequence of 

steps and measures that would be applied to control erosion.

The restoration of the inundated area around Mill Pond dam would provide a 

defined stream channel for Sullivan Creek and stabilized stream banks that would be 

resistant to erosion once full stream flow is restored. The District proposes measures 

that would help protect project resources by minimizing sediment losses to stormwater 

runoff or creek flow, create a defined stream channel that would provide aquatic habitat, 

and create riparian habitat along stabilized stream banks. Revegetation and sediment 

stabilization would protect downstream resources while providing habitat. 

Compacting the excavated materials on terraces above the floodplain and 

installing a vegetative cover would limit erosion of these sediments. The erosion 

protection measures that would be installed along the new habitat created by the 

restoration activities would limit erosion of the restored inundated area and constructed 

habitat until permanent vegetation cover is in place. The second phase of revegetation 

would ensure site stabilization and long-term successful restoration. 

The District’s proposal to monitor the site during dam removal, during 

restoration activities, and after the restoration of the free flow of Sullivan Creek through 

the formerly inundated area would allow the District to evaluate if additional measures 

are required to protect project resources. 

3.4 WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY

3.4.1 Affected Environment

3.4.1.1 Boundary Project

Water Quantity

The portion of the Pend Oreille River basin upstream of Boundary dam has a 

drainage area of more than 25,200 square miles. The average flow during the period of 

1987 to 2005 above the dam was 24,100 cfs (Seattle 2008). Snowmelt upstream of the 
62

project creates the majority of annual runoff, with peak flows typically occurring from 

April through June. The highest average flows are in June and average 49,700 cfs, 

while the lowest flows occur in August and average 13,000 cfs. 

Because of the large volume of water flowing through the system and the limited 

amount of storage capacity in Boundary Reservoir, the hydraulic retention time 

(residence time of water) of Boundary Reservoir is very short. Maximum retention time 

is less than four days, but more typically retention time is less than two days (Seattle

2009).

Table 3-1 shows the average maximum, mean, and minimum flows that entered 

the Boundary reservoir and that were released from the project’s powerhouse from 1987 

to 2005. Inflow to the reservoir roughly equaled outflow from the project for all months 

and flows for this time period. 

Table 3-1. Inflow into Boundary reservoir and releases from the project from 1987 to 

2005 in cfs (Source: staff).

Flow into reservoir Flow released from project Difference

Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min

Jan 27,800 16,900 10,100 28,300 16,900 10,200 500 0 100

Feb 41,600 17,200 7,600 42,300 17,100 7,900 700 -100 300

Mar 43,400 20,600 8000 44,400 20,600 8,600 1,000 0 600

Apr 54,600 29,000 11,400 55,700 29,000 12,000 1,100 0 600

May 99,000 43,000 22,500 99,200 42,400 22,000 200 -600 -500

Jun 118,800 49,700 15,900 116,200 49,200 16,100 -2,600 -500 200

Jul 39,300 24,900 11,400 39,100 24,800 10,700 -200 -100 -700

Aug 20,800 13,000 6,400 20,000 12,600 6,100 -800 -400 -300

Sep 21,500 14,600 8,300 21,200 14,300 8,200 -300 -300 -100

Oct 26,300 21,500 16,300 26,000 21,300 16,000 -300 -200 -300

Nov 28,000 20,700 15,000 28,600 20,800 14,800 600 100 -200

Dec 37,500 18,100 12,000 37,900 18,100 12,100 400 0 100

The primary non-consumptive use of water in the project area is for hydroelectric 

power. Seattle holds several active water rights on file with Ecology’s Water Resources 

Section. Seattle’s water rights authorize use of Pend Oreille River water for the purpose 

of hydropower generation for up to 53,700 cfs at anytime and for 94,500 acre-feet 

annually. Seattle has applied for a water right for an additional 4,400 cfs for 

hydropower generation. Seattle also holds consumptive water rights on a small amount 

of water. These include a right of 5.34 cfs for seasonal irrigation and fire protection and 

2.17 cfs for domestic supply and power plant cooling.

Water Quality

Water quality in the project area is largely influenced by the project’s location 

within the highly regulated Pend Oreille-Clark Fork system. The Pend Oreille River is 
63

considered to have good water quality overall (Seattle 2009); however, Ecology has

identified exceedances of temperature, TDG, and pH in the mainstem Pend Oreille 

River and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue samples. Toxics and 

macrophyte growth have also been identified by Ecology as parameters of interest in the 

Pend Oreille-Clark Fork system. In addition, based on its investigation of potential 

contaminant sources from 21 mines and mills along the lower reach of the Pend Oreille 

River, EPA (2002) identified potential toxics contamination from historical mining 

activities as an issue in the Project vicinity.

Applicable state water quality standards for the Pend Oreille River and its 

tributaries are summarized in table 3-2. Water bodies in the project area that deviate 

from these water quality standards are identified in table 3-3.

Table 3-2. Applicable Washington surface water quality standards for designated uses 

in the Pend Oreille River and tributaries between the Idaho and Canada borders (Source: 

Seattle, 2009).

Parameter Water Quality Standard 

Fecal 

Coliform 

Pend Oreille River: Not to exceed a mean value of 100 colonies/100 ml 

with not more than 10 percent of all samples (or any single sample 

when less than ten sample points exist) obtained for calculating the 

geometric mean value exceeding 200 colonies/100 ml 

Sullivan Creek (above Harvey Creek and its tributaries) and Slate 

Creek and its tributaries: Not to exceed a mean value of 50 

colonies/100 ml with not more than 10 percent of all samples (or any 

single sample when less than ten sample points exist) obtained for 

calculating the geometric mean value exceeding 100 colonies/100 ml

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Pend Oreille River: Levels shall exceed 8.0 mg/l 

Sullivan Creek (above Harvey Creek and its tributaries) and Slate 

Creek and its tributaries: Levels shall exceed 9.5 mg/l

Temperature Pend Oreille River: Not to exceed 1-day maximum temperature 

(DMax) of 20.0°C due to human activities. When natural conditions 

exceed 1-DMax of 20.0°C, no temperature increase will be allowed 

which will raise the receiving water temperature by greater than 0.3°C; 

nor shall such temperature increases, at any time, exceed t=34/(T+9) 

Sullivan Creek (above Harvey Creek & its tributaries) and Slate Creek 

and its tributaries (Char spawning/rearing): 12°C Highest 7-day 

average daily maximum

Sullivan Creek below Sullivan dam (summer salmon habitat): 16o C 

Highest 7-day average daily maximum

Total 

Dissolved 

Not to exceed 110 percent of saturation at any point of sample 

collection; this criterion shall not apply when flow exceeds the seven-
64

Gas day, ten-year frequency flood (108,342 cfs). 

pH Within 6.5-8.5 with human caused variation within the above range of 

less than 0.5 units 

Turbidity Should not exceed either a 5 NTU increase over background when the 

background is 50 NTU or less; or a 10 percent increase in turbidity 

when the background is more than 50 NTU 

Table 3-3. Water bodies in the project area (and Box Canyon dam forebay) identified as 

not meeting applicable Washington water quality standards (Source: Seattle, 2009).

Water Body 

Name 

Listing 

ID 

Location Description 

(Township; Range; 

Section)

2008 Washington State 

Impaired Waters 

Classificationa

Water Quality Parameter: Temperature

Pend Oreille River 43539 Boundary Dam tailrace 

(40N;43E;03)

5

Pend Oreille River 42515 Boundary Dam forebay 

(40N;43E;10)

5

Pend Oreille River 11452 Above Boundary Dam 

near Metaline Falls 

(39N;43E;21)

5

Pend Oreille River 42512 Box Canyon dam tailrace 

(38N;43E;19)

5

Pend Oreille River 42513 Box Canyon dam forebay 

(38N;43E;19)

5

Water Quality Parameter: Total Dissolved Gas

Pend Oreille River 42516 Boundary Dam tailrace 

(40N;43E;03)

4A

Pend Oreille River 6287 Box Canyon Dam tailrace 

(38N; 43E; 19)

4A

Water Quality Parameter: pH

Pend Oreille River 11451 Above Boundary Dam 

near Metaline Falls (39N; 

43E; 21)

5

Water Quality Parameter: PCBs (fish tissue)

Pend Oreille River 52935 Above Boundary Dam 5
65

near Metaline Falls (39N; 

43E; 21) a The state of Washington uses five water quality assessment categories. Category 1: 

Meets tested standards for clean water; Category 2: Waters of concern – for waters 

where there is some evidence of a water quality problem, but not enough for a TMDL to 

be required; Category 3: No data; Category 4: Polluted waters that have water quality 

improvement plans in place (Category 4a is for water bodies that have an approved 

TMDL); Category 5: Polluted waters that require a TMDL (commonly referred to as the 

“303(d) list”). There are numerous sites in the Project area reported in Category 1; only 

those waters currently (2008) listed for Category 4A or 5 are included in this table

Temperature

Temperatures in the Pend Oreille River upstream of the project area (i.e., water 

entering the project from Box Canyon Reservoir) at times exceed the applicable 

numeric water quality standard of 20 °C daily maximum temperature. Temperatures 

throughout the Pend Oreille River can reach 25 oC in the summer months. Field 

measurements show that water temperatures are consistent along the length of Boundary 

Reservoir. Little vertical variation in temperatures exists, with temperatures at the 

deepest point in the reservoir being similar to those measured at the surface.

Several water quality studies measured water temperature in the Pend Oreille 

River prior to the construction of Boundary Dam in 1962. The USGS collected 58 

water temperature spot measurements at an international gaging station located in Z 

Canyon (approximately RM 17.5) from 1952 to 1961 (Seattle, 2006). These records 

showed water temperatures that ranged between 0°C and 22.8°C. Temperatures 

exceeding 20°C were recorded in four out of eight years. Temperatures measured 

during the same period at another USGS gaging station at Box Canyon dam

documented water temperatures that ranged from 0.5°C to 23.9°C, with spot 

measurements exceeding 20°C in five out of eight years. Additional pre-project data are 

also available for the Pend Oreille River near Ione (USGS gage #12396500) from 

USGS’s National Water Information System (NWIS) webpage. This dataset has 

monthly temperature measurements between November 1959 and September 1962. 

Water temperatures ranged from 0.5°C to 21°C. Three out of 12 spot measurements 

taken between June and September exceeded the current standard of 20°C. Seattle 

collected bi-weekly water temperature measurements in 1962. Of the 15 spot 

measurements collected between June and September, four exceeded 20°C and showed 

a maximum value of 22.7°C. Lastly, spot measurements collected in 1963 show 

temperatures reaching 23.9°C in August at RM 25.5, located between Metaline and 

Metaline Falls. These four sets of data show that temperatures often exceeded the 

current water quality standard prior to construction of the project. Both Albeni Falls 

dam and Box Canyon dam were operational by 1952. No water temperature data 

collected prior to construction of these two projects was identified.
66

Water temperature data are also available for Boundary Reservoir since project 

construction (Seattle, 2006). During a bull trout field investigation study, water 

temperatures were measured at two locations in Boundary Reservoir from August 20 

through October 27, 1996. Temperature was monitored immediately upstream of 

Boundary dam and in Boundary reservoir at the mouth of Slate Creek. Three 

thermographs were installed at each location to record temperatures at different depths. 

Water temperature showed a decreasing trend over the monitoring period with 

temperatures recorded as high as 21.5°C at the beginning of the sampling period to as 

low as 8.8°C at the end. These data combined with the data from the Slate Creek site 

show that, in general, Boundary Reservoir is isothermal both with depth and 

longitudinally. Variation in water temperature with depth was infrequent and minimal, 

generally less than 0.5°C. No differences were observed between water temperatures 

measured at the two stations. Data collected in 1997 for the same study had similar 

results with no evidence of thermal stratification and little difference in longitudinal 

temperature variations. The 1996 data showed diel fluctuations of less than 0.2°C.

USGS also reported daily water temperature data collected between 1999 and 

2003 for Boundary Reservoir near Metaline Falls (#12398550) and Pend Oreille River 

at the International Boundary (#12398600) (Seattle, 2006). Similar to other water 

temperature data collected in the project vicinity, temperatures ranged between 0°C and 

25°C at the two sites depending on the season. Temperature was consistent between the 

two stations. Some diel fluctuation was observed when comparing the minimum and 

maximum daily values. This fluctuation was on average 0.38°C, but was as great as 

1.9°C. Water temperatures consistently exceeded the 20°C standard for two months in 

the summer.

Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen in the Pend Oreille River has been found to range between 7 

mg/L and 14.3 mg/L (Seattle, 2006). DO data were collected in Boundary Reservoir in 

1998 and 2004, and these two studies indicated little variation in DO concentrations 

with depth and little variation between downstream and upstream monitoring stations.

Seattle also collected DO measurements from the reservoir in 2007 and 2008 

(Seattle, 2009). Most DO measurements were at or above the 8.0 mg/L water quality 

standard. On occasion in July and August, DO measurements at a few sites were 

between 7.0 - 8.0 mg/L (most of them between 7.6 - 7.9 mg/L), mostly occurring in the 

lower depths of the reservoir. Monthly DO levels measured at Ecology’s Metaline Falls 

long-term monitoring station were typically at or above 8.0 mg/L, with two recorded 

measurements below the water quality standard since 1996 (7.9 and 7.8 mg/L).

Total Dissolved Gases

Total dissolved gas is a water quality constituent of concern because past 

monitoring has shown that TDG measurements downstream of Boundary dam exceeded 

the state standard (110 percent saturation). This standard is designed for the protection 
67

of fish and other aquatic organisms. TDG in excess of 110 percent saturation has been 

shown to cause gas bubble trauma in fish. Symptoms of this trauma vary from 

blistering beneath the skin when fish are exposed to low TDG exceedances to mortality 

when fish are exposed to extreme exceedances. Increased levels of TDG may be caused 

naturally through high biological primary productivity, changes in barometric pressure 

or water temperatures, and waterfalls and cascades. However, monitoring data along 

the Pend Oreille River show that elevated TDG levels are associated with spill at 

hydroelectric projects. TDG supersaturation typically occurs where spill flow plunges 

into deep water at the base of a dam. When flow passes over the spillway, air entrained 

in the falling water plunges to depth, and there, under elevated hydrostatic pressure, the 

air (in the form of bubbles) is forced into solution at pressures up to several 

atmospheres. This can result in supersaturation of water with dissolved nitrogen, 

oxygen, and other constituents of air. Supersaturation can also be caused by the 

introduction of air at the turbines as water passes through the powerhouse. 

Exceedances of state (Idaho and Washington) TDG standards have been 

measured at a number of hydropower facilities in the Pend Oreille River basin upstream 

of the Boundary Project (Seattle, 2009). TDG levels in the Clark Fork/Pend Oreille 

system at times exceed the applicable water quality standard of 110 percent saturation. 

TDG data have been gathered at the project since 1998; TDG levels are measured at 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stations in the forebay (USGS Gage No. 1238550) and 

in the tailrace (USGS Gage No. 12398600). Exceedances of Ecology’s TDG standard 

typically occur during high spring flows, when flows exceed the power plant capacity of 

approximately 56,000 cfs and significant spill occurs. Average incoming TDG levels in 

the Boundary dam forebay range from 103 to 128 percent. Average tailrace TDG levels 

range from 106 to 131 percent, with the average TDG contributed by the Project 

ranging from 0 to 4 percent between the forebay and the tailrace.

Daily TDG values, estimated assuming a barometric pressure of 760 mm Hg, are 

presented in figure 3-1. This figure shows exceedances of the 110 percent standard in 

five of the six years. Over that period, TDG exceedances occurred during 5.3 percent of 

the total number of days monitored (primarily from April through the beginning of 

July).
68

Figure 3-1. Measured TDG just downstream of Boundary dam from 1999–2005 (Gage 

# 12398550) (Source: Seattle, 2006).

Data collected between 1999 and 2008 indicate that when the project is spilling 

water, the project reduces river TDG an average of nine days per year (Seattle 2009). 

Data also indicate that the project adds TDG to the river an average of 7.4 days per year. 

On average, river flows are greater than the 7-day, 10-year (7Q10) river flow two days 

per year, during which time Ecology's TDG standard of 110 percent is not applicable. 

Table 3-4 summarizes the effects of project spill on Pend Oreille River TDG levels 

below the project. 

Table 3-4. Boundary Project spill influence on TDG (Source: Seattle, 2009).

Spill (CFS) Days Per Year % TDG Removed or Added

0-5,000 3.7 7 to 5% reduced

5,000-10,000 3.0 5 to 2% reduced

10,000-15,000 2.2 2% reduced to pass through

15,000-53,300 7.4 pass through to 24% added

53,000+ 1.9 110% TDG standard not

applicable > 7Q10 flow

EPA approved the TDG TMDL for the Pend Oreille River in Washington in 

March 2008. The TMDL outlines TDG reduction goals for each hydroelectric project 

on the Pend Oreille River in Washington, recognizing that incoming TDG levels often 

exceed the 110 percent standard. There is a TMDL goal for each project to manage its 
69

spill (and reduce its contribution to TDG levels) to create TDG conditions in the 

downstream effectiveness monitoring location that are no worse than forebay 

conditions, only if conditions upstream of the dam exceed allocations and prevent 

meeting allocations downstream. The TMDL set the TDG allocation for the Boundary 

tailrace for 69 mm of mercury above saturation.

pH

An investigation of the water quality in the lower Pend Oreille River in 1962–

1963 (pre-Project), found the pH to range between 7.6 and 8.2 (Seattle, 2006). The pH 

in the Pend Oreille River is, on average, slightly basic with peak median values 

occurring in July and August. Ecology has been collecting pH measurements at the 

Newport and Metaline stations since 1949 (WDOE, 2005a). Of the 395 readings taken 

at Newport during that period, 12 (3 percent) exceeded the state water quality standard 

of 8.5 pH units. Of the 149 readings collected at the Metaline station, 9 (6 percent) 

exceeded the state water quality standard of 8.5 pH units. 

During 2007 and 2008 sampling, pH in the project area ranged from 7.6 to 9.1 

across all monitoring stations (Seattle, 2009). No consistent longitudinal pattern was 

observed for pH in the reservoir, although from June through October 2007, the pH of 

water entering the reservoir from Box Canyon dam was higher than the pH measured in 

the Boundary dam forebay. pH exceeded Ecology's water quality criterion of 8.5 at 

several sampling stations from June through October 2007. However, as noted above, 

during these times the pH of water entering the project area from Box Canyon Reservoir 

also exceeded the 8.5 standard and was higher than the pH of the water being released 

from Boundary Reservoir. Monthly pH data from Ecology’s monitoring stations at 

Metaline Falls and Newport, Washington (the latter upstream of the project Area and 

Box Canyon dam) reflect a similar pH range to that observed in the project area during 

2007 and 2008 (i.e., 7.0 – 9.0), with one to three exceedances of the water quality 

standard recorded annually since 2001 at the Metaline Falls station.

Aquatic invasive macrophytes (primarily Eurasian watermilfoil and curly 

pondweed) have been identified by Ecology as an impairment in Box Canyon Reservoir 

upstream of the project area, and dense populations of macrophytes have been found to 

influence pH in Box Canyon Reservoir (Seattle, 2009). In Box Canyon Reservoir, 31 

percent of all measurements collected between July and November 1998, exceeded 

Washington water quality standards for pH. The pH of water can be raised as a result of 

macrophyte photosynthesis. Because reservoirs may promote macrophyte growth, 

Ecology identified the effects of macrophyte growth on pH in Boundary Reservoir as an 

area of interest. Studies in the Pend Oreille River have found that pH measurements are 

on average 0.4 units higher in macrophyte beds than in the main channel of the Pend 

Oreille River.
70

Aquatic Macrophytes

Dense beds of vegetation in the project area can negatively affect recreation by 

restricting boat traffic, and interfering with angling opportunities. Invasive aquatic 

macrophytes have also been known to affect power generation by clogging intake 

structures.

Invasive populations of Eurasian watermilfoil and curly pondweed were 

surveyed by Seattle in 2007 (Seattle, 2009). The entire project area both upstream and 

downstream of Boundary dam was surveyed. Surveyors found seventy-two macrophyte 

beds between Boundary dam and the Box Canyon tailrace covering 223.2 acres. Ninety 

percent of observed beds occurred between Metaline Falls and the Box Canyon dam, 

mostly near the town of Metaline. There were no beds observed below the Boundary 

dam.

Invasive Invertebrates

During pre-licensing consultation, the state of Washington identified three 

invasive species of concern for the project area: zebra mussel, quagga mussel, and New 

Zealand mudsnail. Currently, none of these species are found in the project area. 

The nearest known occurrences of zebra and quagga mussels are in Utah. 

However, these species have spread to many parts of the country from their introduction 

into the Great Lakes in the 1980s. The most common method of dispersal into new 

basins is transport on recreational boats or trailers. Once dispersed, both species have 

very high fecundity and can spread through a system very rapidly. Both zebra and 

quagga mussels can clog water intake structures such as pipes and screens, thereby 

interfering with hydropower generation (Seattle, 2010).

New Zealand mudsnails are widely distributed in the western United States. 

First found in the Snake River in Idaho in 1987, they have spread rapidly into many 

stream basins. The nearest documented occurrences to the proposed project are in the 

Columbia River and Kalispell Creek, Washington (Seattle, 2010) less than 50 miles 

from the project. New Zealand mudsnails are a very successful invasive species due to 

their asexual reproduction, ability to tolerate very harsh conditions, and lack of any 

natural predators or parasites in the United States. They are commonly introduced to 

new systems by boats and trailers that have not been thoroughly cleaned. Resource 

agencies are concerned about their proliferation because their presence could adversely 

affect macroinvertebrate populations utilized by native trout as food.

Toxics

Due to historic mining practices in the local area, as well as throughout the Pend 

Oreille-Clark Fork system, toxics were identified by Ecology as a potential water 

quality issue in the project area. The only recently active mine in the project vicinity is 

the Pend Oreille Mine, a lead and zinc mine with surface facilities located on the east 

side of the river approximately 2 miles north of Metaline Falls. This mine began 

operation in 1952, operated intermittently until it was shut down in 1977, and was then 
71

reopened from January 2004 to January 2009. Treated water discharged from the Pend 

Oreille Mine into the Pend Oreille River at RM 25 is monitored by Ecology under the 

mine’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit.

Seattle conducted a Toxics Inventory and Screen Review for the Boundary 

Project vicinity (Seattle, 2006). The qualitative assessment identified 20 toxic 

substances with potential to be present in the project vicinity. Of those 20 toxics, 16 

were determined to be of low concern and four—cadmium, lead, mercury, and PCBs—

were determined to be of medium concern. The inventory and screen review identified 

no toxics of high concern in the project vicinity.

Based on a screening of existing information, Seattle, in consultation with 

resource agencies, broadened their scope to include six toxics of concern for the project 

area: arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, PCBs, and zinc. Historical and current 

information about these contaminants in the project area is found in table 3-5.

Table 3-5. Toxics screen and inventory qualitative assessment summary (Source:

Seattle, 2006 & 2009).

Toxic 

Substance

Exceedance of 

Water Quality 

Standard? 

Exceedance 

of Aquatic 

or Human 

Health 

Guidelines? 

Potential 

Mechanism for 

Boundary 

Operation to Affect

Fate and Transport 

of the Toxic 

Substance? 

Current Source 

in Boundary 

Watershed? Concern 

Historical 

(before 

2000) 

Current 

(after 

2000) 

Arsenic No No No

Accumulation/

erosion 

Grandview 

Mine, Pend 

Oreille Mine Low 

Cadmium Yes No No 

Accumulation/

erosion and leaching/ 

precipitation 

Josephine Mine, 

Oreille Mine, 

Grandview 

Mine, Pend 

Oreille Mine Medium 

Lead Yes Yes No 

Accumulation/

erosion 

Pend Oreille 

Mine, Josephine 

Mine, 

Grandview Mine Medium 

Mercury No No

Accumulation/

bioaccumulation 

Grandview 

Mine, Pend 

Oreille Mine Medium 

PCBs Yes

Accumulation/

erosion No Medium 

Zinc Yes Yes No 

Accumulation 

/erosion 

Pend Oreille 

Mine, Josephine 

Mine, 

Grandview Mine Low 
72

3.4.1.2 Sullivan Creek Project

Water Quantity

Sullivan Creek and Outlet Creek

The hydrology of the Sullivan Creek Project is affected by two main tributaries, 

Sullivan Creek and Harvey Creek (District, 2010). Sullivan Creek and Harvey Creek 

originate at the peaks of Salmo and Monumental Mountains at elevation 6,400 ft and 

5,711 ft, respectively. Sullivan Creek drains the area east and northeast of Sullivan 

Lake and has a total drainage basin area of approximately 70.0 square miles. Harvey 

Creek drains the area to the south and southeast of Sullivan Lake and has a total 

drainage area of about 52 square miles. 

Sullivan Lake was a natural lake prior to the construction of the Sullivan Lake 

dam. The lake is fed by Harvey, Noisy and Hall creeks. The Sullivan Lake dam raised 

the natural lake elevation by 26 feet above historical levels. Outlet Creek flows from 

Sullivan Lake and joins Sullivan Creek approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the 

dam. The confluence of the North Fork Sullivan Creek into Sullivan Creek is 

approximately 2,500 ft. downstream of the Mill Pond dam and adds flow to Sullivan 

Creek. The drainage basin of the North Fork Sullivan Creek is approximately 9.5 sq. 

mi. The District currently holds three water rights on Sullivan Creek. Two are for 

power production purposes (110 cfs and 550 cfs) and one is for municipal water supply 

from the North Fork Sullivan Creek for the Town of Metaline Falls (2.5 cfs). 

USGS Gage #12397100, Outlet Creek Near Metaline Falls, located about 0.4 

miles downstream of Sullivan Lake dam on Outlet Creek, collects stream flow data,

with a period of record from 1959 to present. A USGS gage (#12396900) located on 

Sullivan Creek above the confluence with Outlet Creek has been discontinued but had a 

period of record from 1959 to 1972, and 1991 to 1995. Another USGS gage 

(#12398000) is located one-half mile upstream of the mouth of Sullivan Creek, with a 

period of record 1953-1968, and 1994 to present. Average annual flows in Sullivan and 

Outlet Creek are shown in figure 3-2.

Sullivan Creek flow averaged 122 cfs for the 19 years of record with a high flow 

of 191 cfs and a low of 53 cfs. Outlet Creek flow averaged 77 cfs for the 19 years on

record with a high flow of 120 cfs and a low of 38 cfs.
73

Figure 3-2. Sullivan and Outlet Creek average annual flow (Source: District, 2010).

Outlet Creek flow data are measured downstream of the dam, so they are 

“regulated flows,” meaning they do not represent the daily inflow to the reservoir, but 

rather the regulated flow releases from Sullivan Lake. On an annual basis, because the 

reservoir portion of Sullivan Lake is brought down to elevation 2,565 feet each year and 

then refilled to elevation 2,588.66 feet in the spring, the total run-off in a year obtained 

by adding up all the daily flows for a year from Outlet Creek data is the same as the 

total would be if the lake were unregulated by a dam.

Sullivan Lake

Present project operations store approximately 31,000 acre-feet of water at 

Sullivan Lake during the summer recreation season. This water is released in October 

every year for the benefit of downstream power production under the Pacific Northwest 

Coordination Agreement. 

The District’s water right for 110 cfs has no minimum instream flow 

requirements from Sullivan Lake into Outlet Creek. Their other water right of 550 cfs 

requires a minimum instream flow of 10 cfs from Sullivan Lake to Outlet Creek, as 

recorded at the Highway 31 bridge near the old Sullivan powerhouse. The minimum 

flow is to be maintained from April 1 to September 30.

EES (2009b) reviewed historical water surface elevations of Sullivan Lake 

between 1999 and 2008; lake elevations were not available on a daily basis, but only on 
74

a somewhat periodic basis, with several days to a week between observations (980 

observations over a 10 year period). During that 10-year period, hydrologic conditions 

caused Sullivan Lake to fill to full pool 7 out of the 10 years. The average date of 

reaching full pool was June 20 (with a range of June 1 to July 13). The average 

maximum elevation in years not filled was 2583.88 (range of 2581.76 to 2585.06). 

Mill Pond

Mill Pond is formed by a man-made impoundment on Sullivan Creek. It is 

downstream of the confluence of Sullivan Creek and Outlet Creek. Mill Pond dam has 

a capacity of about 1,962 acre-ft and covers approximately 63 acres at its normal pool

elevation of approximately 2,505.7 feet (District, 2010). Maximum inflows into Mill 

Pond typically occur in May or June, with minimum inflows occurring in September. 

Average monthly flow just downstream of the confluence of Sullivan Creek and Outlet 

Creek is approximately 200 cfs, and can vary from a low of about 62 cfs in February to 

about 533 cfs in June. Mill Pond has no capacity to store water, therefore its inflow and 

outflow are considered to be equal.

Water Quality

All water quality data were taken from the District’s license for project 

surrender, unless otherwise noted. 

Temperature

Washington DFW installed temperature recording devices in several locations, as 

described below, and collected simultaneous water temperature data in Sullivan Lake (at 

various levels), in Outlet Creek, Sullivan Creek above the confluence with Outlet Creek, 

Sullivan Creek below Outlet Creek, Mill Pond, and downstream of Mill Pond. The 

station in Sullivan Lake had sensors deployed at various depths, from 20 meters deep to 

the surface, in two meter increments. Several other stations (but not all) had duplicate 

instruments at the same site to insure that accurate and complete records would be 

recorded. The recording instruments were located as shown in table 3-6:

Table 3-6. Washington DFW Water Temperature Monitoring Stations (Source:

District, 2010).

Recorder # Location Date 

Installed 

Date 

Removed 

1

Sullivan Lake- with sensors at depths from 

20m to the surface in 2m increments 5/8/2009 11/16/09 

2

Sullivan Creek- 50m Upstream of 

Confluence with Outlet Creek- Unit 1 7/1/2009 11/16/09 

3

Sullivan Creek- 50m Upstream of 

Confluence with Outlet Creek- Unit 2 7/1/2009 11/16/09 
75

4

Sullivan Creek- 75m downstream of 

confluence with Outlet Creek- Unit 4 7/1/2009 11/16/09 

5

Sullivan Creek- 1.5 km downstream of 

Mill Pond Dam-Unit 5 7/1/2009 11/16/09 

6

Sullivan Creek- 1.5 km downstream of 

Mill Pond Dam-Unit 6 7/1/2009 11/16/09 

7

Outlet Creek-75m downstream of Dam 

outlet- Unit 1 7/1/2009 11/16/2009

8

Outlet Creek-75m downstream of Dam 

outlet- Unit 2 7/1/2009 11/16/2009

9

Mill Pond 15m upstream of Mill Pond 

Dam- Unit 1 7/1/2009 11/16/2009

10

Mill Pond 15m upstream of Mill Pond 

Dam- Unit 1 7/1/2009 11/16/2009

11 Harvey Creek- Unit 1 7/1/2009 11/16/2009

12 Harvey Creek Unit 2 7/1/2009 11/16/2009

The data from these recorders consisted of 24 daily readings, taken once per 

hour, for the period the recorders were deployed. All temperature data for Sullivan 

Lake are shown in figure 3-3, while all data for Harvey, Outlet and Sullivan creeks are 

shown in figure 3-4.

In early May and again in mid-November, monitoring found little temperature 

change with depth; Sullivan Lake was basically isothermal. Temperatures from the 

surface to 20 meters deep ranged between about 7.5o and 5o C. This temperature profile 

would have remained consistent throughout the winter and spring while the lake was not 

stratified. Water temperatures in Sullivan Lake consistently decreased with depth most 

of the summer as the lake stratified. At its peak of stratification (early August), 

temperatures at the surface of the lake were about 24o C, while temperatures near the 

bottom at 20 meters deep were around 6.5o C.

Based on the temperature monitoring of Harvey, Outlet, and Sullivan creeks in 

2009, Harvey Creek and Sullivan Creek (upstream of confluence) temperatures (green 

and dark blue lines) are the coolest of all creek waters, and are similar. Outlet Creek 

water temperatures are the warmest of the creeks, mainly due to release of the water 

warmed in Sullivan Lake. Mill Pond near its outlet has considerably warmer water than 

Sullivan Creek upstream of the confluence with Outlet Creek during the summer. 

Water temperature in the combined flow of Outlet and Sullivan Creeks increases rapidly 

as Sullivan Lake begins to drain in the fall. The combined Sullivan Creek and Outlet 

Creek waters are warmed up quickly by the warm Sullivan Lake water. This warm 
76

water is moderated by Mill Pond, however, because Mill Pond temperature does not 

show any jump when Sullivan Lake began to drain. Water temperature in Sullivan 

Figure 3-3. Sullivan Lake Water temperatures (C) at various depths May through 

November, 2009 (Source: District, 2010).

Figure 3-4. Harvey, Outlet and Sullivan Creek temperatures at various locations, July 1 

to November 15, 2009 (Source: District, 2010).
77

Creek about 1 mile downstream of Mill Pond dam appears to be almost the same as the 

temperature in Mill Pond. Data gathered in 1996 for the District’s license amendment 

process showed that 1 to 2o C of change was typical between Mill Pond and the 

confluence of Sullivan Creek with the Pend Oreille River (about 4 miles or 6.5 km 

downstream).

Other Water Quality Parameters

The District took monthly water samples in Sullivan Lake and Outlet Creek from 

July to November of 2009, and measured DO, pH, and turbidity. All results were 

within state water quality standards (table 3-2). 

Sullivan Lake is not listed on the state’s Clean Water Action Section 303(d) list. 

However, a portion of Harvey Creek, upstream of Sullivan Lake, appears on the 303d 

list, as does a section of Sullivan Creek upstream of its confluence with Outlet Creek 

and into Mill Pond. A section of the North Fork of Sullivan Creek, which enters 

Sullivan Creek below Mill Pond, also appears on the 303(d) list. All of these stream 

segments are listed as Category 5 Waters, which means they have been determined to be 

impaired for one or more of the water quality criteria. These criteria include fecal 

coliform, pH, temperature, and/or DO, depending on the reach.

3.4.2 Environmental Effects

3.4.2.1 Boundary Project

Operation Compliance Monitoring

Seattle’s proposed operating regime is identical to the manner in which the 

project is currently operating (see section 2.1.2.2, Proposed Operations). Therefore, 

there would be no change in water quantity from current conditions either upstream or 

downstream of the project under this proposal.

Seattle’s proposed operating regime contains a number of water surface 

elevations that must be met at certain times during the year, as well as certain times of 

the day during the summer recreation season. Seattle does not explain how it would 

monitor compliance with these operational requirements.

Staff Analysis

The current license does not limit daily reservoir fluctuations. However, Seattle 

has voluntarily done so during the summer to benefit recreation access and proposes to 

continue to do so over the next license. Operation compliance monitoring would assist 

the Commission in its administration and oversight of the license where there are such 

operational limits. 

Water Quality

To address water quality concerns at the project, Seattle, in consultation with 

state and federal agencies, tribes, and others, developed five water quality plans: 
78

Temperature Attainment Plan; Dissolved Oxygen Attainment Plan; Fish Tissue 

Sampling Plan; Total Dissolved Gas Attainment Plan; and Aquatic Invasive Species 

Control and Prevention Plan. Forest Service 4(e) condition 3 requires Seattle to 

implement each of the plans. Interior recommends their implementation pursuant to 

section 10(j) of the FPA. Each plan is discussed below.

Temperature Attainment Plan

The Pend Oreille River is listed on Ecology's 303(d) list as being impaired for 

temperature and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is being prepared. Ecology’s 

(2007) analysis for the Temperature TMDL indicates that areas of the Pend Oreille 

River in the Boundary Project area are not in compliance with the water quality standard 

for temperature (see table 3.2) and that, at times, the Boundary Project contributes to 

impaired temperature conditions.

Modeled daily maximum temperatures in the project area are within water 

quality standards (Seattle, 2009). Seattle’s (2009) analysis found that under certain 

conditions, the project has a slight warming effect on surface daily maximum 

temperatures at the forebay, but has no effect at Metaline pool and has a cooling effect 

at the tailrace that is greater than the warming effect at the Boundary forebay.

Following an analysis of potential operational changes to reduce temperature 

effects, Seattle and stakeholders to the licensing process concluded that a suite of 

aquatic habitat improvement measures (contained in the Fish and Aquatic Management 

Plan—FAMP) in a number of tributaries to the reservoir and along the mainstem in 

tributary delta areas would help meet Ecology’s temperature improvement goals for the 

Pend Oreille River. Seattle’s proposed Temperature Attainment Plan summarizes the 

habitat measures that would be implemented as part of the FAMP (discussed later);

defines a mainstem temperature monitoring plan; includes a Temperature Monitoring 

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP); includes a provision to monitor temperature in 

the deltas of Sullivan, Sweet, and Linton Creeks; and provides an implementation 

schedule designed to achieve compliance with state water quality standards within 10 

years.

Seattle’s proposed monitoring program includes collecting continuous 

temperature data from June to September from four sites on the mainstem: Metaline 

pool (PRM 28.4), Slate Creek pool (PRM 22.5), Boundary dam forebay (PRM 17), and 

Boundary dam tailrace (PRM 16.1). Additionally, Seattle proposes to conduct 

continuous temperature monitoring in the deltas of Sullivan Creek, Sweet Creek, and 

Linton Creek from June through October annually. Seattle also proposed to monitor 

water and air temperatures at a single location in lower Sullivan Creek downstream of 

Mill Pond dam from June through October annually.

Staff Analysis

Seattle modeled expected temperatures if the project were to be operated under 

“run-of-river” conditions and at a constant forebay elevation of 1,974 during summer 
79

months. The 1,974-foot Run-of-River Condition is the most extreme variant on current 

operations possible given the physical constraints of the project (i.e., it maintains the 

forebay level as low as possible without causing cavitation damage to the units from 

continued operation). It therefore provides an important outer bound to compare to 

current operations. The 1,974-foot Run-of-River Condition was designed to evaluate 

whether temperature benefits would be provided by reducing the surface area of the 

reservoir and reducing warm water accumulation in the forebay. No significant 

difference between the existing condition and run-of-river operation was found for 

modeled surface daily maximum temperatures at Metaline pool or Boundary tailrace. 

The only difference between the two conditions was warming of surface daily

maximum temperatures at the Boundary forebay station under run-of-river operation 

relative to the existing operations. The modeling results indicate that surface daily 

maximum temperatures in the Boundary Reservoir cannot be lowered using operational 

changes.

Seattle’s habitat improvements in Sullivan, Linton, and Sweet creeks and in the 

tributary deltas on the mainstem46 are likely to improve water temperatures for native 

salmonids and help achieve temperature attainment goals for the Pend Oreille River.

Seattle’s temperature monitoring would feed into the information on the effectiveness of 

the tributary enhancement measures at reducing temperatures in tributary deltas and 

achieving water quality standards.

Dissolved Oxygen Attainment Plan

The state of Washington’s water quality criteria for the Pend Oreille River 

dictates that the lowest one-day minimum concentration of DO shall be 8 mg/L. This 

criterion was established to ensure waters can support salmonid spawning, rearing, and 

migration. DO monitoring conducted by Seattle in 2007 and 2008, showed that DO fell 

below the 8 mg/L minimum during July and August in the project area. To better define 

the magnitude and spatial and temporal extent of DO concentrations in the project area 

below 8 mg/L, Seattle proposes a 5-year DO monitoring plan to be implemented 

following the issuance of any new license issued by the Commission. 

The DO monitoring plan would consist of monitoring at five sites in the project 

area, as shown in table 3-7. DO, temperature, and pH would be monitored every 15

minutes from June 15 to September 15 for each of the five years, as these are the 

warmest months of the year when exceedances would be most likely. DO 

measurements would be taken from 10, 30, 45, and 60-meter depths at each site.

 

46 The suite of actions, as part of the FAMP, include riparian plantings, stream 

channel modifications, large woody debris (LWD) supplementation, bank 

improvements, and culvert replacements in Sullivan, Linton, and Sweet Creeks. The 

effects of these measures are discussed in section 3.5.2.1.
80

Table 3-7. Dissolved oxygen sampling sites from proposed DO monitoring plan 

(Source: Seattle, 2010b).

Sample Site Location Description

Box Canyon Tailrace In Boundary reservoir just downstream of Box Canyon 

Dam

Metaline Old Old Channel of Pend Oreille River across from Metaline

Everett Creek Island Upstream of Everett Creek Island (below Metaline Falls)

Boundary Forebay Boundary forebay

Boundary Tailrace Downstream of Boundary dam

Seattle proposes to submit a DO QAPP to Ecology within 6 months of license 

issuance. The QAPP would document the quality control and assurance measures that 

would be undertaken in the DO monitoring program. Seattle would also provide

Ecology with annual reports, after license issuance, detailing the results of the annual 

data collection effort.

Staff Analysis

Although a few measured DO concentrations exceeded the state criteria in July 

and August, Seattle found no correlation between DO levels and water surface elevation 

fluctuations in Boundary reservoir related to project operation based on limited 

sampling. Seattle’s proposed monitoring program, however, would provide a more 

robust dataset in which to characterize DO levels at the project under the natural range 

of water years and most hydraulic conditions. Monitoring would provide a means to 

verify that DO concentrations in Boundary Reservoir comply with Ecology standards 

under most conditions. Monitoring also would provide a way to detect if Seattle’s 

proposed aquatic habitat improvement measures in the tributaries to the reservoir are 

having a beneficial effect on DO concentrations. If the habitat improvement measures 

were successful in lowering water temperatures in the reservoir, higher DO 

concentrations could follow, as the water’s capacity to hold DO increases at lower 

temperatures. If it is determined that project operation is having a negative effect on 

DO levels in the Pend Oreille River, the monitoring program provides a mechanism to

implement future measures should they be needed to improve DO levels.

Total Dissolved Gas Attainment Plan

Total dissolved gas (TDG) monitoring has shown that TDG levels downstream 

of Boundary dam exceed the state standard (110 percent saturation). Currently when 

water exits the project’s sluice gates at full gate opening, the flow forms jets that result 

in high TDG due to plunging action of the jet into the plunge pool. Similarly, at the 

highest flows, flow over the spillways contributes to the energy and plunging action in 

the plunge pool. 
81

In 2003, Seattle implemented voluntary operational changes to decrease TDG in 

the project tailrace. Turbine units 55 and 56 do not run efficiently at a capacity of less 

than 125 MW. To allow them to do so, Seattle utilized an air admission system, which 

injected air into the turbine system, resulting in increased TDG levels in the water 

exiting those turbines. To avoid the elevated TDG levels, Seattle stopped operating 

these turbines at a capacity of less than 125 MW. Additionally, Seattle changed their 

startup and shutdown sequences, so that these two units were the last units to be brought 

on line and the first units to be shutdown. This ensured that the water released from 

units 55 and 56 that contained high TDG levels as they started up and shut down would 

be mixed with water from the other four units that released water with lower TDG 

levels, reducing the elevated TDG levels. Seattle proposes to continue to operate in this 

manner under normal, non-spill operations. Seattle also proposes to upgrade the runners 

on units 55 and 56 within four years of license issuance which would eliminate the need 

for air admission47 and likely the need to for sequencing their operations to reduce TDG 

levels.

Seattle filed a TDG Attainment Plan designed to attain TDG compliance with 

state standards at the project within 10 years of license issuance. Seattle proposes to

evaluate and implement, as appropriate, the following measures: throttle sluice gates, 

which involves operation of sluice gates in partially open positions;48 roughen sluice 

flow, which entails modification of the sluice gate outlets to add steel flip buckets on the 

downstream side of the sluice gates49 to break up and spread flow; and installing a 

spillway flow splitter/aerator, which entails modifying the spillways to add deflectors to 

the end of the existing spillway structure and/or air vents to the spillway chute to aerate, 

break up, and spread the flow.50 The three gate alternatives all involve spilling flow 

through existing outlets (the seven sluice gates and two spillway gates) into the tailwater 

plunge pool and rely on reduction in TDG production by spreading the flow and 

limiting plunging effects of the confined water jets. In 2010, Seattle would use physical 

and computational hydraulic models to help clarify the preferred configuration of the 

 

47 When Units 51 to 54 were upgraded with new runners, it was found that there 

was no longer a need to for air admission to smooth operation. It is reasonable to 

assume that this would be case following upgrading Units 55 and 56. 48 Throttling the sluice gates (opening them only partially), would lower the 

energy of the released water. 49 These buckets would direct the flow more horizontally than presently occurs 

and would also break up and spread out the jet as a spray within the plunge pool. 50 Adding deflectors to the end of the existing spillway structure would increase 

the turbulence in the flow by roughening the spillway surface. Adding air vents to the 

spillway chute would allow for aeration of the base of the spillway jet. This would 

make the jet area at the impact point as large as possible, thereby, reducing the energy 

per unit surface area and the depth to which the jet would plunge. The air added to the 

flow on the spillway would assist in this process. 
82

TDG abatement alternative or alternatives for construction in 2012, including the 

sequence of alternatives and their incremental plan of development. The first 

alternative selected for construction may consist of one of the three gate alternatives 

identified above, but more likely it would consist of a combination of two or more of 

these alternatives.

Following implementation of each set of TDG improvement measures, Seattle 

proposes to conduct biological sampling in the project tailrace area within two days of a 

spill event. Seattle would use boat electrofishing to sample along five 200-meter 

transects in the tailrace during each sampling period, once per year in years following 

installation of a new TDG abatement measure or measures. Fish captured would be 

examined for injury and indications of gas bubble trauma. Sampling would not be 

conducted during spill due to safety concerns for field crews in the tailrace. 

The prioritization of evaluation of the three alternatives would be determined in 

the first year of plan implementation. The three alternatives would be evaluated using 

the following steps:

• Develop engineering plans to identify possible structural and operational 

improvements to meet state water quality standards.

• Identify improvement and implementation schedule.

• Implement prototype modifications.

• Monitor and test alternatives to assess success based on predicted TDG 

performance and dam safety goals.

• Refine ability to predict TDG performance through modeling.

• Evaluate and implement additional structural and operational measures, if 

necessary, until the state water quality TDG standard is met, or until all 

reasonable and feasible alternatives have been tested and implemented. 

This evaluation would also include other factors that would be considered in the 

decision of which alternative to choose. These factors include (in order of importance): 

projected TDG reduction performance based upon testing, safety considerations, design 

and construction cost, constructability, flow capacity, compatibility, affect on existing 

project operations, prototype testability, performance based adjustability, risk of injury 

to fishes passing through the gates, and permitting and schedule.

Seattle proposes to submit annual reports to Ecology for review and approval in 

December. The reports would contain TDG monitoring data, engineering analysis and 

prototype design for alternatives, modeling results of predicted TDG performance of 

alternatives, and a schedule for the following year’s activity.

Staff Analysis

Seattle’s operational changes implemented in 2003 for its largest generating units 

(Unit 55 and 56) have resulted in significant improvements in TDG levels in the project 
83

tailrace (Seattle, 2009b) under normal, non-spill operations. With these changes, TDG 

exceeds the state standard in the tailrace for flows between about 70,000 cfs and 

108,300 cfs (which correspond to spill flows of about 15,000 to 53,300 cfs). These 

conditions correspond to an occurrence of about 7.4 days a year based on the flow 

record between 1987 and 2005. Continuation of its current operations would be 

expected to result in similar TDG levels, if no further TDG mitigation measures were 

implemented. However, Seattle’s proposal to upgrade the runners on Units 55 and 56

may reduce or eliminate the conditions that in the past have led to TDG production 

during non-spill operations.

Seattle completed a qualitative evaluation of structural TDG abatement 

alternatives (Seattle, 2009b) that identified three alternatives likely to reduce TDG 

levels. All three TDG abatement measures proposed by Seattle have the potential to 

reduce TDG levels of water passing through the project by spreading the flow, lowering 

the energy of the released water, and limiting plunging effects of the confined jets. 

Given the number of potential TDG abatement alternatives involving operational 

changes and structural abatement alternatives, including implementing combinations of 

alternatives, a measured, incremental, adaptive management approach to abatement 

alternatives is prudent. Seattle’s strategy employs a combination of engineering 

analysis to develop predicted improvement over current TDG conditions, followed by 

incremental prototype evaluations. This is an iterative process of partially developing 

and implementing a preferred alternative, followed by field testing to confirm that the

modification has the desired TDG reduction. Preliminary results from 2009 efforts,

which included baseline tests and calibration of the physical and computational 

hydraulic models, suggest that all three alternatives would spread spill flow and/or limit 

the plunging effects of spill jets for the purposes of reducing TDG concentrations 

downstream of the project. Nonetheless, additional physical and computational 

hydraulic analysis and field testing are required to select the preferred alternative or 

combination of alternatives.

Seattle is actively pursuing the identification of a preferred alternative and 

prototype development. Seattle has already completed permanent structural 

modifications to three of the seven sluice gates by installing stainless steel seal plates 

that will reduce the likelihood of damage to the project facilities during throttled flow. 

Testing of prototype designs has been further complicated by the fact that the sluice 

maintenance gate was removed for routine maintenance in 2010; it is scheduled to be

reinstalled in 2011. Nonetheless, Seattle proposes to continue to evaluate the safety 

associated with sluice gate throttling. During the period from 2010 through 2011, 

Seattle would also look at the benefits of sluice gate throttling in tandem with assessing 

the two remaining TDG alternatives, both individually and in combination, using the 

physical and numerical hydraulic modeling. 

Implementation of the preferred alternative would be completed within one year 

of license issuance. Seattle proposes to recommend a prototype design in the 2010 
84

TDG Annual Report to Ecology and file it with the Commission in July 2011 for review 

and approval; submit the construction quality control inspection program (QCIP) to the 

Commission in early 2012 for review and approval, including obtaining other applicable 

permits; and, construct the prototype design in 2012 (or Year 1 of the new license) when 

the sluice maintenance gate is back in service. Seattle’s proposed schedule would 

ensure that pragmatic and diligent actions are occurring to reduce adverse effects on 

aquatic resources downstream of the project.

Aquatic Invasive Species Control Plan.

Invasive macrophyte beds have the potential to influence localized pH levels as a 

result of photosynthesis. Studies in the Pend Oreille River have found that pH 

measurements are on average 0.4 units higher in macrophyte beds than in the main 

channel of the Pend Oreille River. Dense aquatic macrophyte beds can also impede 

boat traffic, reduce angling opportunities, and, during reservoir surface fluctuations, trap 

and strand fish in pools. New Zealand mudsnails are becoming an increasing ecological 

threat to water bodies in northeast Washington, and zebra and quagga mussels, although 

not present in the northwest U.S., have the potential to become a problem in northeast 

Washington. 

Invasive Aquatic Macrophyte Control— Bottom barriers prevent the growth of 

aquatic macrophytes by compressing them and reducing or eliminating their supply of 

light. When properly installed, bottom barriers can eliminate up to 100 percent of 

aquatic macrophytes in the area covered. To control aquatic macrophytes, Seattle 

proposes to install bottom barriers at four locations where invasive macrophytes are 

abundant to reduce the risk of macrophyte-related fish stranding and trapping, benefit 

recreational use by creating boat lanes free of macrophytes, and reduce boat contact 

with invasive macrophytes to lower the risk of their dispersal to other locations (within 

and outside the project area). The four proposed locations are:

• Everett Island side channel- A 30-foot-wide, 650-foot-long barrier would be 

placed from an informal shoreline recreation site through the side channel until 

it joins with the Pend Oreille River main channel.

• Metaline Pool, across from the town of Metaline- A 200-foot by 100-foot barrier 

would be placed adjacent to the open channel in an area of dense macrophyte 

growth.

• Fish Stranding and Trapping Region 9- A 20-foot-wide, 700-foot-long barrier 

would be placed downstream of the midpoint of a side channel, adjacent to the 

shoreline and extending downstream through the main channel.

• Fish Stranding and Trapping Region 11- A 20-foot-wide, 400-foot-long barrier 

would be placed from the southern shoreline through the middle of a pool 

known to trap fish to the upper end of the channel that drains the pool.
85

Seattle proposes to evaluate the effectiveness of the bottom barriers from the first 

year they are installed and every year thereafter for the term of any license that may be 

granted. Success would be defined as a 70 percent reduction in the abundance of 

macrophytes and appropriate suppression so that localized pH levels improve and fish 

may escape to the main river channel.

Seattle also would evaluate the need for macrophyte suppression at the Forebay 

Recreation Area and/or the Metaline Waterfront Park boat launches, as outlined in their 

Recreation Resources Management Plan (RRMP). In the third year after the completion 

of the boat launch modifications (i.e. extending the boat launches), Seattle would begin 

annual surveys to determine if macrophytes have established to a degree requiring 

suppression. If macrophytes have become established at the Metaline Waterfront Park 

boat launch, suppression would be achieved through the placement of bottom barriers. 

If macrophytes have become established at the Forebay recreation area boat launch, 

suppression would be achieved through hand pulling or mechanical harvest and 

removal. The effectiveness of this measure would be measured annually, with success 

being defined as 100 percent reduction in the abundance of non-native macrophytes.

In addition to the four main target areas outlined above and at the Forebay 

Recreation Area and/or the Metaline Waterfront Park boat launches, Seattle proposes to 

suppress aquatic macrophyte growth through the deployment of bottom barriers at three 

additional locations that have yet to be determined. The locations would be chosen in 

areas where fish stranding and trapping and interference with boating are known to 

occur and would be chosen by the FAWG and WQWG. 

Seattle proposes to meet annually with the FAWG and WQWG to assess the 

performance of the macrophyte suppression effort. If it is determined that macrophyte 

suppression could be achieved in a more effective way by changing the control 

technologies or their placement in the project area, Seattle and the work groups would 

propose changes to the program.

Seattle would submit a QAPP to Ecology within 6 months of license issuance for 

approval. The QAPP would document the quality control and assurance measures

Seattle proposes to undertake in the macrophyte suppression program.

Aquatic Invasive Invertebrate Monitoring and Control—Seattle’s Aquatic 

Invasive Species Control Plan includes a monitoring program for Zebra mussels, quagga 

mussels, and New Zealand mudsnails. It consists of three components:

• Substrate sampling for zebra and quagga mussels- Seattle would deploy artificial 

substrate samplers51 at the Forebay Recreation Area and the Metaline 

 

51 Artificial substrate samplers can consist of any number of hard surfaces that 

invertebrates could colonize that are deployed in situ for a period of time. Examples 

include rocks or bricks suspended in a wire basket or hardwood plates which are 

suspended in the water column.
86

Waterfront Park boat launches. Seattle would consult with the WQWG, the 

FAWG, and the Centers for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University to 

ensure that the proposed number of substrates, design, placement, and 

monitoring regime are appropriate. Artificial substrates would be deployed in 

April and retrieved in October of each year of license issuance. Substrates 

would be checked monthly for any bivalve colonization and any attached 

bivalves would be collected and sent to Portland State University for

identification. Additionally, field crews would opportunistically inspect any 

hard structures in the vicinity of substrates during substrate inspection for 

attached bivalves. Again, any attached bivalves would be collected and sent to 

Portland State University for identification.

• Tow sampling for zebra and quagga mussel larvae- Seattle would conduct 

horizontal and vertical zooplankton tow net sampling for zebra and quagga 

mussel larvae. Seattle would pull a plankton net through the water horizontally 

at two sites above the project dam and one below for a distance of 40-100 feet at 

a depth of 20 feet. Seattle would also drag this same net vertically through the 

water column from three feet above the river bottom to the surface at the same 

three sites. Samples would be taken once each in June, July, and August every 

year for the length of any license that may be granted. After towing, the net 

would be thoroughly rinsed and all sample material transferred to a sampling 

bottle and preserved with alcohol. All samples would be shipped to a certified 

laboratory for analysis and determination of larvae presence or absence.

• Monitoring for New Zealand mudsnails- Seattle would conduct surveys to detect 

the presence of New Zealand mudsnails in the vicinities of the Forebay 

Recreation Area and the Metaline Waterfront Park boat launch. Surveys would 

take place concurrently with the zebra and quagga mussel sampling described 

above. During each survey, a trained field person would wade a 100-foot 

transect at a depth of two feet. Every ten feet, the surveyor would pick up five 

rocks ranging in size from 6 to 12 inches. All snails that appear to be New 

Zealand mudsnails would be removed and preserved in a jar with alcohol. 

Additionally, three grab samples would be taken from sandy/silty substrate areas 

near the boat launches. All snails that appear to be New Zealand mudsnails 

would be collected in a jar and preserved. All collected snails would be sent to a 

laboratory approved by Ecology for identification.

At annual meetings between the WQWG and the FAWG, participants would be 

able to discuss new invasive species which may be identified to be an issue and to 

propose monitoring. If Ecology believes that monitoring of new invasive species is 

warranted, Seattle proposes to do so, as long as the measures are safe, cost effective, 

logistically feasible, and do not have the potential to jeopardize fish and aquatic 

resources and water quality.
87

In the event of identification of new invasive species within the project area, 

Seattle would conduct the following response activities:

• Immediate notification to Ecology (for plants) or Washington DFW (for animals) 

of possible new invasive species identified during monitoring. Digital 

photographs would be taken and sent to Ecology or Washington DFW for 

assistance in identification.

• Seattle would coordinate with Ecology or Washington DFW to confirm aquatic 

invasive species identification.

• Seattle would immediately notify upstream (Box Canyon dam) and downstream 

(Seven Mile dam) operators if aquatic invasive species not previously identified 

in the Pend Oreille River system (e.g., zebra or quagga mussels) are found.

• If zebra or quagga mussels or New Zealand mudsnails are discovered in the 

project area, Seattle would evaluate potential control methods in coordination 

with regional invasive species control programs and in consultation with the 

WQWG and FAWG.

• Seattle would coordinate with Ecology and Washington DFW to develop 

appropriate press releases to alert the public of any new aquatic invasive species.

• Seattle would take reasonable and feasible steps, as determined in consultation 

with the WQWG and FAWG, to manage and/or contain the new aquatic 

invasive species, including providing assistance as needed for Ecology or 

Washington DFW site visits to confirm presence and determine extent of 

infestation, and coordinating with Ecology and Washington DFW to develop a 

further response.

• Seattle would conduct effectiveness monitoring to determine the success of 

aquatic invasive species management/containment actions implemented; would 

coordinate with the WQWG and FAWG on monitoring results; and would 

discuss appropriate next steps to determine long-term monitoring and reasonable 

and feasible control efforts in coordination with the WQWG and FAWG during 

the annual workgroup meeting. 

Seattle would also implement an interpretation and education program aimed at 

recreational boaters and anglers to help control the spread of invasive aquatic 

invertebrates. 

Staff Analysis

Aquatic Macrophyte Control—The proposed bottom barriers would cover 61, 

500 square feet. The pH in these areas would be lower than current conditions because 

the cause (photosynthesis) of localized exceedences of pH would be eliminated. Recent 

pH monitoring showed that exceedences of pH were limited to areas inside of 

macrophtye beds and these increases did not spread to water outside of the beds 
88

(Seattle, 2009). This suggests that the proposed bottom barriers would not appreciably 

lower pH in the entire project area, but would improve localized pH levels in areas that 

provide important habitat.

Bottom barriers at the Everett Island side channel and in the Metaline pool would 

provide more open channels for boat traffic than under current conditions. 

Under current project operations, reservoir fluctuations can result in the stranding 

and trapping of fish within large macrophyte beds. Fish that were able to freely move in 

and out of the macrophyte infested area at higher water levels find themselves unable to 

escape them when water levels recede. Trapped fish are subject to a lack of egress, and 

potentially low DO levels as a result of macrophyte respiration. Seattle’s proposal to 

deploy bottom barriers, in up to seven areas, would create channels for fish that are 

occupying areas where they would become stranded under current conditions. Under 

Seattle’s proposal, the fish would be able to escape macrophyte beds during reservoir 

drawdown and they would not be subject to low DO conditions.

Seattle proposes to modify both the Forebay Recreation Area and the Metaline 

Waterfront Park boat launches. For these boat launches to be useable, the areas need to 

be relatively clear of aquatic macrophytes that hinder the use of motorized boats. While 

they are not yet a problem, nearby macrophyte beds may eventually encroach on the 

launches and hinder their use. Seattle’s annual surveys would provide a means to 

determine when macrophytes have established themselves to a degree requiring 

suppression. 

Seattle’s proposal to monitor all deployed bottom barriers monthly from the end 

of spring runoff until the macrophyte beds annual die-off for the term of any license 

granted would ensure that the deployment of bottom barriers are having the desired 

effect on macrophyte populations. Depending on the area, success would be defined as 

either 70 or 100 percent suppression of aquatic macrophyte abundance. Reductions of 

this magnitude would be sufficient to preserve the goals of preventing fish stranding and 

allowing for motorized boat usage, as well as locally improving water quality. 

Techniques for controlling aquatic macrophytes are continually changing and 

progressing as new information develops. Annual meetings with the FAWG and the 

WQWG to assess the performance of the macrophyte suppression effort, would provide 

a forum to discuss new methods and techniques within the constraints of project 

operations and other aquatic measures. 

Invasive Invertebrates—One of the keys to controlling the spread of invasive 

invertebrate species is early detection. Many invertebrate species display high 

fecundities and can rapidly colonize new areas, often out-competing native species. To 

detect the early presence of zebra or quagga mussels, it is necessary to understand their 

life-cycle. Zebra and quagga mussels reproduce through the release of gametes into 

the water column when water temperatures rise in the spring (USACE, 2010). 

Fertilization takes place in the water column when egg and sperm combine, ultimately 
89

resulting in a free floating larval form called a veliger. Veliger densities typically peak 

in midsummer in North America, with lower densities present in spring and autumn. 

Veligers are rarely found in winter. Veligers form a shell between 18 and 90 days after 

fertilization, eventually dropping out of the water column and settling on substrate. 

Juvenile zebra and quagga mussels attach to substrate at this point (referred to as 

becoming sessile) where they begin filter feeding and growing towards sexual maturity.

The earliest stage where zebra and quagga mussels could be detected in the 

project area would be during their veliger stage. Seattle’s proposal to tow a plankton 

net both horizontally and vertically through the water column during the summer 

months is intended to determine the presence or absence of the veliger stages. This 

proposal would utilize methods and sampling equipment approved by Washington DFW 

and Ecology during the time when peak presence of veligers would be expected. This 

sampling, along with proper identification of any collected larval bivalves, would be an 

efficient and effective method to detect invasive bivalves in the project area.

Because veligers can form shells and become sessile animals within 18 days of 

fertilization, additional sampling would be necessary to detect the presence of zebra and 

quagga mussels. Seattle’s proposed substrate sampling for young, sessile bivalves 

would be an effective tool in determining their presence in the project area during later 

life stages. Placement of sampling substrates near boat launches would be an 

appropriate location as these are the areas that would likely be first colonized due to the 

fact that these species would likely be introduced through boats and trailers that have 

not been properly cleaned. 

Uncleaned boats and trailers would also likely be the method of introduction for 

the New Zealand mudsnail, if it were to be introduced to the project area. New Zealand 

mudsnails have shown a capacity to withstand a very large range of environmental 

conditions (New Zealand Mudsnail Management and Control Plan Working Group,

2007). They can successfully colonize habitats over a wide range of depths, 

temperatures, flows, and disturbance patterns. Seattle proposes to conduct New Zealand 

mudsnail monitoring by collecting rocks from a two-foot depth every ten feet near the 

Forebay Recreation Area and the Metaline Waterfront Park boat launch and examining 

them for the presence of snails. Any snails that are suspected to be New Zealand 

mudsnails would be shipped to a laboratory for confirmation. This sampling strategy 

would be sufficient to detect the early colonization of the New Zealand mudsnail in the 

project area because it would focus on a habitat that the mudsnail would likely occupy 

early on in its development.

Seattle’s proposal also includes annual meetings with the FAWG and WQWG to 

assess the performance of the invasive invertebrate monitoring effort. These meetings 

would facilitate the adaptive management aspects of the program. If it is determined 

that monitoring could be achieved in a more effective way by changing the sampling 

regime, Seattle and the work groups could propose changes to the program. This would 
90

ensure that the program continues to be effective in the future when conditions and the 

presence of invasive invertebrates in the project area change from current conditions.

If zebra mussels, quagga mussels, New Zealand mudsnails, or any other invasive 

invertebrate were to be discovered in the project during the term of any license that may 

be granted, Seattle proposes a protocol to respond to their colonization. This protocol 

would ensure that state and federal agencies, the operators of hydroelectric facilities 

upstream and downstream of the Boundary Project, and the public would be notified. 

The protocol would identify, and facilitate the deployment of possible control measures 

that could be used to control and possibly eradicate invasive invertebrate species. The 

development and deployment of these measures in consultation with the state agencies, 

the WQWG, and the FAWG would ensure that they would be appropriate and best 

suited to achieve their desired response. Seattle’s proposed effectiveness monitoring of 

these measures would provide for adaptive management and would ensure that water 

quality in the project area is not affected.

Fish Tissue Sampling Plan

Due to historic mining practices in the local area, as well as throughout the Pend 

Oreille-Clark Fork system, toxics in fish tissues were identified as a potential water 

quality issue in the project area. Although a number of toxics have been found in the 

reservoir (see section 3.4.1.1), Ecology has focused on lead and zinc concentrations in 

the project area because the only recently active mine in the project vicinity is the Pend 

Oreille Mine, a lead and zinc mine with surface facilities located on the east side of the 

river approximately 2 miles north of Metaline Falls. This mine began operation in 

1952, operated intermittently until it was shut down in 1977, and was then re-opened 

from January 2004 to January 2009. As mentioned before, Ecology monitors the 

discharge from this mine as part of the NPDES program.

In response, Seattle proposes to implement a Fish Tissue Sampling Plan. Seattle 

would collect fish tissue samples from four sites in the project area. Fish tissue 

collection would occur once during the first summer (July-August) following the 

approval of the QAPP by Ecology. One proposed site is located to represent the inflow 

to the reservoir, another to represent outflow from the reservoir, and the other two were 

selected to correspond to areas where exceedences of zinc and lead in fish tissues have 

been observed in the past. At each site, Seattle would collect three game fish52 and 

three suckers53 greater than seven inches in total length. All collected fish would be 

handled in a manner that would eliminate contamination and shipped to a Ecologyaccredited laboratory for tissue analysis. Seattle would provide a report detailing the 

results of the tissue sampling to Ecology and Washington DOH within 90 days of 

 

52 Species could include smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, black crappie, 

pumpkinseed, or any salmonid besides bull trout.

53 Catostomous spp.
91

receipt of data. The purpose of this information is to assist Ecology and Washington 

DOH in developing fish consumption advisories for those fishing in the project area. 

Staff Analysis

Seattle conducted a toxics assessment study in 2007 and 2008 which measured 

the levels of six toxins of concern (arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, zinc, and PCBs) in 

water, sediment, and pore water54 (Seattle, 2009c). Based on sampling conducted in 

March 2008, overall concentrations of toxics were either low or absent in media 

sampled from throughout the reservoir. Isolated exceedences were detected from two 

surface water sites for lead and from two pore water sites for zinc and lead, but these did 

not suggest sources originating from within the reservoir. Re-sampling in October 

2008 showed that no concentrations of zinc in pore water exceeded the chronic surface 

water criterion, but lead in pore water samples exceeded the chronic surface water 

quality criterion in four of nine replicates. Linkages that would indicate withinreservoir sources for these toxics did not exist (e.g., sediment-pore water-surface water 

associations), and water chemistry factors that would promote transfer of these toxics 

into bioavailable forms were absent. 

Multiple lines of evidence were examined to assess any transfer of toxics that 

might indicate bioavailability attributable to project operations. This information was 

used to evaluate potential origins, such as mobilization of toxics from reservoir banks, 

or movement of toxics from the permanently wetted area in a downstream direction. 

There were no detectable concentrations of toxics in the upper portion of the water 

column. This indicates that project operations are not attracting additional toxics-laden 

material into the reservoir because they were not found either in the active water 

fluctuation zone (surface to 10-foot depth) or laterally across the reservoir.

The goal of the toxics assessment was to determine whether the toxics of concern 

(arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, zinc, and PCBs) were present in the reservoir, and, if 

so, whether project operations increased their bioavailability. Based on the combined 

results of sampling conducted in November 2007 and in March and October 2008, 

multiple lines of evidence, including a variety of analytical techniques, indicated that 

project operations do not influence the bioavailability or mobility of toxics, most 

importantly lead and zinc.

Seattle’s proposed fish tissue sampling plan would provide a mechanism to 

detect levels of zinc and lead in fish tissues from resident fish in the project area. 

However, the proposed plan would not be able to determine the source of lead or zinc in 

the fish tissues. Additionally, Seattle’s toxics assessment showed no link between 

project operations and the presence or bioavailability of lead or zinc in the project area. 

 

54 Pore water is the water filling the spaces between grains of sediment. 
92

The proposed fish tissue sampling plan would not detect a causal relationship between 

lead and zinc levels in resident fish tissues and project operation or existence. 
93

3.4.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project

Sullivan Lake Surface Elevations and Discharges

The current FERC license contains one operational condition: the District is 

required to raise the level of Sullivan Lake as high as spring runoff allows, not to

exceed 2,588.66 feet annually. The District must then maintain that elevation until 

September 20 of each year. 

Under the District’s proposal to surrender the Sullivan Creek license, the 

Sullivan Lake dam would remain in place and would be operated to provide minimum 

instream flows to benefit aquatic resources, maintain Sullivan Lake elevations for 

summer recreation, and provide storage water for downstream users. To achieve these 

benefits the District proposes to operate the project as detailed below.

Interim Operations (Prior to construction of the cold water release facility)

• Start refilling Sullivan Lake on or before April 1st and seek to achieve and 

maintain a full Sullivan Lake elevation of 2,588.66 feet (as measured at Sullivan 

Lake dam), subject to hydrologic conditions, water availability, and dam 

discharge flow requirements.

• During the summer period, defined as June 1 through Labor Day each year, 

maintain the lake level at 2588.66 ft (full pool) to protect recreation 

opportunities. 

• Initiate drawdown the day following Labor Day each fall and in the manner 

described below:

1. Ramp up discharge flows no more than 80 cfs per day as measured at the 

Outlet Creek gage to protect aquatic resources.

2. Draw down lake water surface elevation to 2,577 feet by no later than 

November 15.

3. Discharge maximum flow of 200 cfs, except during periods of higher than 

average precipitation when the maximum flow target shall be 225 cfs.

4. Do not exceed down-ramping rates of 10 cfs per hour when changing 

release flows as measured at the Outlet Creek gage.

5. Draw down lake water surface elevation to 2,570.0 feet by December 31.

Reservoir Level Operations and Requirements (once construction of the cold 

water release facility is complete)

• Start refilling Sullivan Lake on or before April 1st and seek to achieve and 

maintain a full Sullivan Lake elevation of 2,588.66 feet (as measured at Sullivan 

Lake dam), subject to hydrologic conditions, water availability and dam 

discharge flow requirements. 
94

• During the summer period, defined as June 1 through Labor Day each year, 

maintain the lake level at 2,588.66 feet (full pool). 

• Initiate drawdown the day following Labor Day each fall and in the manner 

described below:

1. Ramp up discharge flows no more than 80 cfs per day as measured at the

Outlet Creek gage.

2. Draw down lake water surface elevation to 2,577 feet by no later than 

November 15. 

3. Do not exceed down-ramping rate of 10 cfs per hour when changing 

release flows as measured at the Outlet Creek gage.

4. Drawdown the lake water surface elevation to 2,570.0 feet by December 

31.

Sullivan Lake Dam Minimum Discharge Flows 

• Maintain minimum discharge flows in Outlet Creek, measured by the Outlet 

Creek USGS gaging station, as follows:

1. 30 cfs from June 1 through June 30.

2. 20 cfs from July 1 through the end of fall drawdown (when elevation 

reaches 2,570.0 ft).

3. Inflow from Harvey Creek from the date Sullivan Lake reaches elevation 

2,570.0 ft until the beginning of spring filling (April 1).

4. 10 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, from April 1 through May 31.

• Comply with the Sullivan Lake water surface elevations and discharge flow 

requirements at all times, subject to short term deviations due to equipment 

failures, maintenance activities, electric and mechanical device limitations, 

safety inspections, testing, natural disasters (floods), and the Harvey Creek 

Bedload Mobilization activities.

• Use the existing USGS stream gage on Outlet Creek and install a new Sullivan 

Lake level recording gage at the Sullivan dam to record data to demonstrate 

compliance with discharge flow requirements and water surface elevations. 

Water Supply Program

• Sell or lease up to 5,000 acre feet (AF) of the useable storage in Sullivan Lake 

annually for use outside the Sullivan Creek drainage between June 1 and August 

31. Give priority consideration to the Columbia River Basin Water Supply 

Management Program.
95

• For the purposes of this water supply program, release water at a rate described 

in table 3-8, not to exceed 2.0 times the minimum discharge flow requirement. 

Table 3-8 shows the range of water supply discharge flows.

Table 3-8. Water Supply Discharge Flows from Sullivan Lake (Source: District, 2010).

Period* Discharge Flow (cfs)

June Week 1 50-60

June Week 2 50-60

June Week 3 50-60

June Week 4 50-60

July Week 1 40-45

July Week 2 35-40

July Week 3 30-35

July Week 4 30-35

Aug Week 1 30-35

Aug Week 2 30-35

Aug Week 3 30-35

Aug Week 4 30-35

Sept Week 1 30-35

* Week 1 of each calendar month begins on the first day of that month. Week 4 of each 

calendar month in the table above maybe longer than seven days. 

The District’s proposed operating regime is part of the settlement agreement filed 

for the Sullivan Creek Project on March 29, 2010. American Whitewater, Interior, and 

Washington DFW filed letters (on July 19, September 2, and September 3, 2010, 

respectively) stressing their support for all conditions contained in the settlement

agreement. The Forest Service, in its letter filed August 24, 2010, requires that the 

District implement its proposed Sullivan Lake operating regime. 

Staff Analysis

Sullivan Lake Dam Discharge Flows

Proposed annual Sullivan Lake operations would follow the same basic pattern 

as current operations in that Sullivan Lake would be filled and held at full pool in the 

summer, emptied to a target elevation in the fall, and allowed to re-fill back to full pool 

during the spring run-off period. Under the District’s proposed operations, however, the 

District would provide higher minimum discharge flows from June through August, and 

then gradually ramp up discharges starting the day after Labor Day, instead of releasing 

a large quantity of water starting October 1. This operation would cause changes in the 

hydrology in Outlet and Sullivan Creek.

To understand the differences, we compared the proposed flows to historical 

monthly flows measured in Outlet Creek from 1959-2004 (USGS, 2010) (table 3-9). 
96

The flows shown in table 3-9 represent the proposed minimum flow for each month, 

two times the minimum flow from June 1 through Labor Day (which is the maximum 

discharge flow proposed to meet water supply requirements), and the minimum flow up 

to the targeted flow to meet the water supply requirements and drain the reservoir in the 

fall months. 

Table 3-9. Proposed flow releases (cfs) from Sullivan Lake compared to historical 

flows measured at Outlet Creek (Source: staff).

Month Proposed 

discharge flow

Historical 

monthly 

mean flow

Historical 

monthly 

minimum flow

Historical 

monthly 

maximum flow

Jan Inflow 42 13 201

Feb Inflow 30 8 130

Mar Inflow 32 2 323

April Week 1 10a 23 2 132

April Week 2 10a 23 2 132

April Week 3 10a 23 2 132

April Week 4 10a 23 2 132

May Week 1 10a 38 4 239

May Week 2 10a 38 4 239

May Week 3 10a 38 4 239

May Week 4 10a 38 4 239

Jun Week 1 30-60 143 6 437

Jun Week 2 30-60 143 6 437

Jun Week 3 30-60 143 6 437

Jun Week 4 30-60 143 6 437

Jul Week 1 20-45 44 7 133

Jul Week 2 20-40 44 7 133

Jul Week 3 20-35 44 7 133

Jul Week 4 20-35 44 7 133

Aug Week 1 20-35 24 7 63

Aug Week 2 20-35 24 7 63

Aug Week 3 20-35 24 7 63

Aug Week 4 20-35 24 7 63

Sept Week 1 20-35 26 7 157

Sept Week 2 20-110 26 7 157

Sept Week 3 20-225 26 7 157

Sept Week 4 20-225 26 7 157

Oct Week 1 20-225 207 16 395

Oct Week 2 20-200 207 16 395

Oct Week 3 20-200 207 16 395
97

Oct Week 4 20-200 207 16 395

Nov Week 1 20-140 203 18 343

Nov Week 2 20-120 203 18 343

Nov Week 3 20-100 203 18 343

Nov Week 4 20-90 203 18 343

Dec inflow 82 16 382

a The proposed discharge flow of 10 cfs in April and May is a minimum flow. Actual 

discharge flows typically would be higher.

As table 3-9 shows, from April 1 until Labor Day, the proposed releases to Outlet 

Creek essentially would be the same flow that historically has been released from the 

project. This would also be true for December, January, February, and March.

In the fall months, discharges would be released earlier and more gradually 

relative to current operations, until the reservoir reaches an elevation of 2,570 feet 

(target is by December 31), which is five feet higher than the current winter elevation. 

Until the cold water release structure is installed, the discharges would continue to be 

made through the low level gates. Discharges from the low level gates would be 

managed to reach a targeted maximum flow of 200 cfs during dry years and 225 cfs in 

normal and wet years. Although the purpose of this flow restriction is not clearly 

explained, we suspect that it is to help the District maintain the desired temperatures in 

Sullivan Creek. Once the cold water release facility is built, there would be no 

maximum flow release limit. Again, we suspect the maximum flow restriction is 

removed because the District would have greater control over flows and maintaining 

cooler temperatures in Sullivan Creek (discussed later). Regardless, proposed flows in 

the fall are similar to historical average annual flows from the third week of September 

through the final week of October; flows higher than this may still occur during wet 

years, but the likelihood, exact amount, duration, or timing of these flows is not known. 

Flows greater than 225 cfs occurred in Sullivan Creek in the fall under current 

operations. Nonetheless, these high flows could wash out aquatic habitat in Outlet 

Creek and Sullivan Creek. 

As discussed in more detail in section 3.5.2.2, Aquatic Resources, Environmental 

Effects- Sullivan Creek Project, the District’s operating regime also includes a number 

of measures that would be protective of the fishery in the project area. The District’s 

proposal to ramp up releases by no more than 80 cfs per day should ensure that 

spawning areas or other useful aquatic habitats downstream of Sullivan Lake are not 

washed out due to high flows and that they retain their function. The proposal that 

down-ramping rates do not exceed 10 cfs would minimize the risk of fish stranding in 

Outlet Creek and Sullivan Creek due to flow reductions.

The District’s ability to comply with the Sullivan Lake water surface elevations

(discussed below), and minimum flow releases at all times is subject to a number of 
98

considerations, including hydrologic conditions and operating emergencies. Deviations 

from required flows and lake elevations would most likely be rare occurrences, such as 

short term deviations due to equipment failures, maintenance activities, electric and 

mechanical device limitations, safety inspections, testing, and natural disasters (floods). 

Their minimum discharge and water surface proposals are also subject to flow needs for 

Harvey Creek Bedload Mobilization activities. The record suggests that maintaining 

summer lake levels is less important than maintaining instream flows and temperatures 

in Sullivan Creek. 

The District’s proposal to use the existing USGS stream gage on Outlet Creek 

and to install a new Sullivan Lake level recording gage at Sullivan dam to record data 

would be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with any flow conditions included in any 

surrender order for the project.

Water Supply Program

The District and Ecology’s Office of the Columbia River (OCR) have entered 

into a Memorandum of Agreement that could result in releases of water from Sullivan 

Lake at specific times of the year. These releases include 5,000 acre-feet of water from 

June to August and 9,000 acre-feet in September. Currently, this water is part of the 

31,000 acre-feet released starting at the beginning of October as part of the annual lake 

drawdown. The 14,000 acre-feet of water that would be released from June through 

September would be appropriated by OCR to provide new water rights in six 

Washington counties.

In wet and average years, the water supply program would release 60, 45, 40, or 

35 cfs from Sullivan Lake to Outlet Creek, depending on the week (table 3-8) between 

the start of June and the first week of September. During dry water years, these 

amounts would be reduced to 50, 40, 35, and 30 cfs, respectively. Under current 

operations, this water is released from Sullivan Lake starting at the beginning of 

October. Releasing this water earlier than it is currently would provide additional fish 

habitat above what is currently available and would benefit the fishery in Outlet Creek 

and Sullivan Creek during the summer months. The District’s proposal to release the 

water at no more than two times the rate of the minimum flows and at as constant a rate 

as possible would provide stability to the aquatic habitat in Outlet and Sullivan creeks.

Sullivan Lake holds approximately 31,000 acre-feet of water at full pool. The 

release of 5,000 acre feet of water above the historic minimum flow releases of 10 cfs

from Sullivan Lake during the summer season would likely have negligible effects on

the fishery in Sullivan Lake and would not interfere with the management goals set by 

the settlement agreement parties for the lake. In addition, shifting the release of 9,000 

acre-feet from after October to the month of September does not appear to be a concern 

for the settlement parties, and, in fact, seems to be viewed as an acceptable tradeoff 

between resources in Sullivan Lake versus those in Outlet and Sullivan creeks.
99

As noted by Ecology in a letter filed with the Commission on October 25, 2010, 

there is a potential for environmental effects associated with new water rights that could 

be granted by the state in light of the change in the timing of releases from Sullivan 

Lake. OCR has previously analyzed these effects it its Columbia River Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement55 and its Lake Roosevelt Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement.

56 Both of these analyses concluded that impacts resulting from this 

action would not be significant, and could provide an overall public benefit. In the 

same letter, Ecology also noted that any new water rights granted as a result of this 

proposal could potentially cause environmental effects associated with increased 

development and growth in northeast Washington. These indirect effects certainly 

could occur; however, as stated by Ecology, they have been considered not only in 

environmental review documents prepared by OCR, but also in city and county 

planning documents. Therefore, we do not include a more detailed analysis of such 

effects in this document.

Sullivan Lake Elevations

During discussions about surrender of the project license, the District and the 

various stakeholders realized that an understanding of lake levels in Sullivan Lake was 

paramount in evaluating any flow release regime that could be implemented for the 

project. To determine what level the lake would be under a variety of water years, the 

District modeled the effect of its proposed minimum discharge flows and holding the 

reservoir at elevation 2,570 during the winter months over an 11-year time frame that 

included three average years, six dry years, and two wet years (District, 2010). The 

results of the model are shown below in figure 3-5.

 

55 Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/eis.html

56 Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/cr_lkroos.html
100

Figure 3–5. Sullivan Lake levels in average, wettest, and driest years (Source: District,

2010)

The model predicted that during an average water year, the lake level elevation 

of Sullivan Lake would fluctuate between 2,569 feet and 2,589 feet depending on the 

time of year. During the wettest water year on record, the lake level of Sullivan Lake 

would fluctuate between 2,570 feet and 2,589 feet depending on the time of year. 

During the driest water year on record, the lake level of Sullivan Lake would fluctuate 

between 2,563 feet and 2,582 feet depending on the time of year.

The modeling analysis also shows that under the proposed higher minimum 

discharge flows, the reservoir reaches full pool by June 1 in 3 out of the 11 years 

modeled; and it reaches full pool no later than June 28. The average date for attaining 

full pool is June 9. Holding the reservoir five feet higher in the winter substantially 

improves the District’s ability to attain a full pool by June 1. The District did not model 

the effect of the water supply flows.

Temperature

The continued operation of the Sullivan Lake dam could be used to enhance

stream temperatures in the project area downstream of the Sullivan Lake dam. To 

achieve this goal, the District proposes the following measures.
101

Cold Water Release from Sullivan Lake

• Complete construction of the cold water release facility within three years of 

issuance of the License Surrender Order.

Interim Operations (Prior to construction of the cold water release facility)

• Initiate drawdown the day following Labor Day each fall in a way that manages

discharge flows to meet state water temperature standards (WAC 173-201A200) so that the combined waters of Outlet Creek and Sullivan Creek as 

measured at “below confluence water temperature gage” do not exceed 16 oC.

Reservoir Level Operations and Requirements (once construction of the cold 

water release facility is complete)

• Manage the discharges from the cold water release structure and the Sullivan 

Lake dam gates: (1) to meet state water temperature standards (WAC 173-

201A-200); (2) with the goal of preventing the daily average “below confluence 

water temperature” from exceeding 14 oC; and (3) with the goal of preventing

the daily average “below confluence water temperature” from deviating from the

daily average Sullivan Creek “above confluence water temperature” by more 

than 1 oC, when daily average “above confluence water temperature” is less than

14 oC.

• Initiate drawdown the day following Labor Day each fall, and in the manner 

described below:

1. Manage the discharges from the cold water pipe and the Sullivan Lake 

dam gates: (1) to meet state water temperature standards (WAC 173-201A-200); 

(2) with the goal of preventing the daily average “below confluence water 

temperature” from exceeding 14 oC; and (3) with the goal of preventing the daily 

average “below confluence water temperature” from deviating from the daily 

average Sullivan Creek “above confluence water temperature” by more than 1

oC, when daily average “above confluence water temperature” is less than 14 oC.

2. Maintain the operation described in item (3) immediately above until fall 

turnover. 

3. Maximize discharge flows through the cold water release structure and 

minimize the use of the low-level gates at the dam during fall drawdown. 

4. After November 15, make all releases from Sullivan dam, up to the 

capacity of the cold water pipe, through the pipe.

5. Do not allow the daily average temperature to vary more than 2oC per day.

Water Supply Program

• Manage the discharges shown in Table 3.9 above: (1) to meet state water

temperature standards (WAC 173-201A-200); (2) with the goal of preventing 
102

the daily average “below confluence water temperature” from exceeding 14 oC; 

and (3) with the goal of preventing the daily average “below confluence water 

temperature” from deviating from the daily average Sullivan Creek “above 

confluence water temperature” by more than 1 oC, when daily average “above 

confluence water temperature” is less than 14oC.

Staff Analysis

Cold Water Release from Sullivan Lake

The District’s proposed cold water release facility would consist of a 48-inch 

diameter pipe fitted with fish exclusion screens on the intake that would sit on the 

bottom of Sullivan Lake at a depth of 36.5 meters (about 120 feet). The pipe would be 

routed down the lake outlet channel to Sullivan Lake dam and then through one of the 

three existing low-level outlet gates at the dam. 

Sullivan Lake is similar to many lakes in temperate climates in that it stratifies in 

the summer. As solar radiation warms the surface water, colder water sinks to the 

bottom of the lake because it has a higher density. This results in situation where a 

layer of warmer water (epilimnion) floats on top of a colder layer (hypolimnion). The 

District’s proposed cold water release facility would take advantage of this natural 

condition by withdrawing water from a depth of 36.5 meters where the water 

temperature would be lower than water they currently spill which is from 6 meters (19.7 

feet) of depth. In 2009, Washington DFW installed temperature sensors in Sullivan 

Lake from the surface to a depth of 20 meters (65.6 feet), at two meter (6.6 feet) 

intervals, to characterize water temperatures in Sullivan Lake from May through 

November. Results are shown in Figure 3-6.
103

Figure 3-6. Sullivan Lake temperatures by depth in 2009 (Source: Seattle, 2010).

These data show that water temperature in Sullivan Lake at 6 meters of depth 

ranges from 14 oC in June, peaking around 21 oC in late summer, and falling back down 

to approximately 7o C in the late fall when the lake un-stratifies. In comparison, the 

temperature of water at 20 meters stayed constant just above 6 oC for the entire time 

period. Water from 20 meters was between 8 oC and 15 oC cooler than water from 6 

meters for the majority of the time period. 

To further explore the effects of this proposed measure, the District under took a 

modeling effort to determine if these releases of colder water would noticeably reduce 

the water temperature below Sullivan Lake dam (District, 2010). Under current project 

operations, the water released from Sullivan Lake into Outlet Creek is the warmest 

water in the project area. Sullivan Creek upstream of the confluence with Outlet Creek 

tends to contain some of the coolest water in the project area, until it mixes with the 

warmer Outlet Creek water. This results in the temperatures in Sullivan Creek 

downstream of the confluence being appreciably warmer than those upstream (figure 3-

7). The water released from the cold water release facility into Outlet Creek would be 8

oC to 15 oC cooler than what is currently released. The mixing of this water with 

Sullivan Creek water, which rarely exceeds 14 oC upstream from the confluence with 

Outlet Creek, would result in temperatures downstream of the confluence below 14 oC. 

The results of the modeling indicate that using cold water releases from approximately 

20 meters of depth or deeper would improve the downstream temperature regime 
104

measurably, cooling the summer and fall water temperatures in Outlet and Sullivan 

creeks such that it would be possible to meet and even go below state water quality 

standards for temperature. The District’s modeling suggests that with appropriate 

management of the discharge flows, the daily average temperature in Sullivan Creek 

downstream from its confluence with Outlet Creek should not exceed 14 oC and the 7-

day average of the daily maximum temperature should not exceed 16.0 oC. 

Figure 3-7. Temperatures in Outlet and Sullivan Creeks and mixed temperatures June 

16 through November 17, 2009 (Source: Seattle, 2010).

To capitalize on the maximum water cooling effect that the cold water release 

facility could provide, it would be appropriate to release as much of the required 

releases from Sullivan Lake via the cold water release structure, as opposed to the lowlevel gates on the dam when the lake is stratified. The District’s proposal would 

achieve this by maximizing discharge flows through the cold water release structure at 

all times during the fall drawdown (the day after Labor Day until November 14) when 

the lake is stratified for the majority of that period. The Districts modeling also shows 

that in an average water year about 93 percent of all flows could be released through the 

cold water release structure; thereby better controlling temperatures and minimizing 

entrainment of fish through the low level gates. However, after the lake mixes in the 
105

fall, there would likely be no additional water quality benefit because the temperature of 

water at 36.5 m (the cold water intake) and 6 m (the low-level gates) would be almost 

identical. 

The District also utilized models to help determine if the facility would have 

negative biological effects in Sullivan Lake. The area of concern which was examined 

related to lake productivity. The productivity study attempted to characterize both 

primary and secondary productivity in Sullivan Lake and to determine if the proposed 

changes in releases would have an effect on them. Primary productivity is defined as 

the production of organic compounds through the process of photosynthesis (i.e. the 

growth of algae and plants in a water body). Secondary productivity is the biomass 

formation or energy fixation by heterotrophic organisms, such as grazers and 

decomposers, deriving their energy from photosynthetic plants or autotrophs (i.e. the 

growth of zooplankton in a water body that feed on the algal or plant material). The 

results of the productivity modeling effort show that Sullivan Lake has very low 

productivity overall. Additionally the study found that the majority of both the primary 

and secondary productivity of Sullivan Lake occur in the epilimnion of the lake during 

the months when the lake was stratified. These results support the conclusion that 

releasing water from hypolimnion into Outlet Creek would have no noticeable effect on 

lake productivity.

The construction of the cold water release facility could result in some adverse 

affect on water quality in Sullivan Lake. The laying of the pipe that would withdraw 

water from 36.5 meters would result in disturbance and stirring up of the sediment of 

Sullivan Lake. This disturbance would locally increase turbidity in the lake, however 

we expect such effects would minor in nature and short lived, as the sediment would 

settle fairly quickly.

Interim Operations (Prior to construction of the cold water release facility)

Until the cold water release structure is installed, careful management of 

discharge flows would be required to meet state water quality standards, and prevent 

dramatic changes in temperature. Ramping up flows slowly in the fall and targeting 

maximum flows of no more than 225 cfs in the fall should allow the District to 

adequately manage discharges to meet state water quality standards. 

The District also proposes to manage discharges from Sullivan Lake so that 

average daily temperature downstream from the confluence of Outlet and Sullivan 

creeks would not deviate by more than 1 oC from the average daily temperature of water 

upstream of the confluence when that water is less than 14 oC. This would benefit the 

water quality in Sullivan Creek by ensuring that no drastic temperature shift would 

occur in Sullivan Creek between water above and below the confluence with Outlet 

Creek. The District does not propose to meet this criterion after fall turnover when 

Sullivan Lake un-stratifies because it would often not be possible.
106

During the fall drawdown, the District proposes to manage Sullivan dam 

discharges so that the daily average temperature would not vary more than 2o C per day. 

This would enhance water quality in both Outlet and Sullivan creeks in that there would 

be no sudden water temperature shifts over a short period of time. These shifts could 

occur if the project were operated such that discharges from the dam were alternated 

from the cold water release structure to the low-level gates in an a “one or the other” 

manner without a more gradual shift between the two sources. This proposal would 

also be beneficial in that it would help the District manage discharges from Sullivan 

Lake so that average daily temperature below the confluence of Outlet and Sullivan 

creeks would not deviate by more than 1o C from the average daily temperature of water 

upstream of the confluence when that water is less than 14o C. Overall, managing the 

project so that water temperatures are cooler, without creating any abrupt thermal 

changes, would be beneficial to water quality in the project area when compared to 

existing conditions.

Water Supply Program

Under the settlement agreement, the District may release water from the Sullivan 

Lake dam for the purposes of satisfying water use needs downstream from the project. 

The District would implement the same measures as it proposes for normal operation 

after construction of the cold water release facility. Namely, the District proposes to: 

(1) manage releases from Sullivan Lake after construction of the cold water release 

facility so that daily average temperature in Sullivan Creek downstream from its 

confluence with Outlet Creek would not exceed 14o C and so that the 7-day average of 

the daily maximum temperature would not exceed 16.0oC; and (2) manage discharges 

from Sullivan Lake so that average daily temperature downstream from the confluence 

of Outlet and Sullivan creeks would not deviate by more than 1o C from the average 

daily temperature of water upstream of the confluence when that water is less than 14o 

C. The effects on water quality would be the same as we previously described for 

normal operations once the cold water facility is constructed and are discussed in the 

previous section.

Mill Pond Dam Decommissioning

As a part of the Sullivan Creek license surrender, the District filed a Mill Pond 

Decommissioning Plan. This plan would entail the removal of the Mill Pond dam and 

the associated log crib dam to return Sullivan Creek to a natural, free-flowing stream 

environment. This plan would be finalized after consultation with Seattle, the Kalispel 

Tribe, Ecology, and Forest Service and would be submitted to the Commission for 

approval within 24 months of license surrender order.

The District proposes to implement a dam bypass and gradual flow release 

approach for removal of the concrete and log-crib dams. Mill Pond would be lowered 

20 to 25 feet with the water being diverted around the dam into Sullivan Creek through 

a siphon pipe. All dam removal work would be done in the dry, and during this time, all 

Sullivan Creek flow would be diverted around the construction area via the siphon pipe. 
107

Once the concrete and the log crib dam are removed, the District would empty Mill 

Pond completely (approximately 15 more feet) using a decanting tower which would be 

built into the cofferdam. The District then proposed to restore the original channel of 

Sullivan Creek that is currently inundated by Mill Pond. Restoration of the original 

channel would be accomplished in three segments.

57 After this restoration, all Sullivan 

Creek flow would be retuned to its original channel.

The plan would include a number of mitigative measures to reduce the impacts 

of this action on water quality in the project area. They include:

• Utilize the existing stream channel alignment as the new stream channel 

wherever it shows on the Mill Pond bathymetry map in Reach 2, and where it is 

determined that the existing stream channel is in a stable condition.

• Design Reach 3 with a hydrologically connected streambed and floodplain.

• Design the bankfull channel to carry the effective discharge and highest 

frequency flood levels (2-year flood events). In Reach 1, where the channel is 

the steepest, there would be no floodplain because it is confined in bedrock. In 

Reaches 2 and 3, there would be a floodplain to provide riparian habitat and 

wood species recruitment.

• Install and anchor logs, branches and root wads (LWD) in the stream channel and 

floodplain to provide flow resistance under various flow conditions, habitat 

complexity, bank protection, sediment filtering, and mimic natural floodplain 

dynamics. Engineered LWD jams would be anchored in appropriate locations to 

provide roughness and flow dissipation.

• Place rock weir structures and appropriately-sized stream bed material in the 

stream channel for hydraulic stability, increased roughness, increased habitat 

complexity, fish passage, and to provide fish resting locations. The weirs would 

be used to dissipate energy and create pools. They would be spaced 

approximately five to seven channel widths apart to avoid backwatering effects 

and allow for the existence of intervening riffles or shallows between structures.

The District’s proposed Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan is part of its settlement 

agreement filed on March 29, 2010. American Whitewater, Interior, and Washington 

DFW filed letters (on July 19, September 2, and September 3, 2010, respectively) 

stressing their support for all the conditions of the settlement agreement. The Forest 

 

57 Reach 1 would consist of the channel from just behind the current dam to 

approximately 300 feet downstream from the dam. Reach 2 would consist of 

approximately 500 feet of channel currently under the middle of Mill Pond. Reach 3 

would consist of approximately 400 feet of channel just upstream of Reach 2, to nearly 

the current confluence of Sullivan Creek and Mill Pond.
108

Service, in its letter filed August 24, 2010, recommends that the District implement the 

proposed Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan. 

Staff Analysis

Water Quantity

Under current conditions, inflow into Mill Pond roughly equals outflow. The 

flow and amount of water in Sullivan Creek above and below the Mill Pond dam under 

the District’s proposal would not change from current conditions. The only difference 

would be that where currently Sullivan Creek contains an impoundment, the proposal 

would result in Sullivan Creek being returned to a natural, uninterrupted stream. 

Overall, hydrology in the project area would not be affected once Sullivan Creek was 

restored to its natural state. However, the hydrology of the project area would be 

affected during the process of dam removal. The District proposes to drain Mill Pond 

so that it may remove the dams in the dry. To achieve this dry condition, the first 20 to 

25 feet of water which is currently stored in Mill Pond would be routed via a 48-inch 

siphon pipe around the dam and into Sullivan Creek.

58 This water from Mill Pond 

would be drained sometime between July and October. To understand the effects of 

this, we compared the proposed flows in Sullivan Creek during pond drawdown with 

the average flows that currently exist during that time period. Current natural inflow 

into Mill Pond varies by month, as shown in table 3-10.

Table 3-10. Average inflow/outflow into Mill Pond during proposed emptying 

timeframe (Source: District, 2010). 

Month Average Inflow/Outflow in cfs

July 144

August 72

September 65

October 250

According to the rating curve for a 48-inch siphon pipe provided as part of the 

Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan, the amount of extra water placed into Sullivan Creek 

below Mill Pond dam during the initial 20 to 25 foot drawdown would range from 200 

to 87 cfs, depending on the head in the pond. At full pond (2,505 feet), the siphon 

would carry 200 cfs around the dam and return it to Sullivan Creek. As the pond 

drained, the siphon would carry approximately 4-8 cfs less for every foot of drawdown,

due to decreased head. Once the pond was lowered 24 feet, the last foot would be 

drained at a rate of 87 cfs.

 

58 See telephone memo of 12/15/10 between Commission staff and the District.
109

During a 2-year flood event, the estimated streamflow at the Mill Pond dam is

approximately 986 cfs. Under the District’s proposal, the maximum amount of water 

discharged into lower Sullivan Creek would be 450 cfs (250 cfs outflow if they started 

in October plus 200 cfs from the siphon). Thus, draining the Mill Pond dam during the 

proposed time frame would not create flooding downstream in Sullivan Creek.

The draining of Mill Pond would increase the amount of water in lower Sullivan 

Creek above natural levels for a period of time. This increase in flow would create 

more aquatic habitat than is currently available in Sullivan Creek. This would likely 

provide some benefit to aquatic organisms in Sullivan Creek. This benefit would be 

short-lived, however, as flows would return to their natural quantities upon completion 

of drawdown. The amount of time it would take to draw down Mill Pond this amount is 

not exactly known, but is likely to range from days to a few weeks.

At some point after the initial 20-25 feet drawdown of Mill Pond, both the 

concrete and the log-crib dams would be removed. Once this was accomplished, the 

District proposes to lower Mill Pond an additional 15 feet (or until the pond is fully 

empty) through the decanting tower that would be a part of the constructed cofferdam. 

The timing and amount of these emptying flows is not known, however, their effects are

expected to be minor. Similar to the initial 20-25 feet draw down, the draining of the 

final 15 feet of water would not lead to flooding in Sullivan Creek and would provide a 

short-lived environmental benefit through an increase in the amount of aquatic habitat. 

The District proposes to restore the natural channel of Sullivan Creek, which is 

currently inundated by Mill Pond, to be able to carry the amount of water that 

corresponds to the 2-year flood level. This measure would protect the project area from 

repetitive flood events, while still allowing the creek to be connected to its floodplain.

Water Quality

Mill Pond currently impounds water in Sullivan Creek which has a number of 

effects on water quality, the most notable of which is increased temperature. 

Impounded water is exposed to radiant heat that it would not be if were flowing down 

Sullivan Creek. This water absorbs the radiant heat which results in increased 

temperature. The water in Mill Pond is then eventually discharged to Sullivan Creek at 

a temperature which is higher than it would have been naturally. A recent study showed 

that the Mill Pond dam increased the temperature of Sullivan Creek water by 2.0 to 2.4o 

C (District, 2010). This increase in temperature can lead to exceedences of state water 

quality standards and decrease the quality of Sullivan Creek’s aquatic habitat. The 

impoundment of Sullivan Creek water also could decrease DO levels in the stream by 

reducing aeration opportunities that would occur naturally.

The removal of Mill Pond dam would allow flows in Lower Sullivan Creek to 

pass through the former pond area without becoming impounded. This new flow 

regime would reduce the amount of time that radiant heat is allowed to penetrate the 

surface layer of water in the pond. This permanent direct effect on the flow regime of 
110

Lower Sullivan Creek would reduce temperatures by as much as 2.4o C, potentially 

improving aquatic habitat. Revegetation of stream banks within the former pond reach 

with native riparian, wetland, and upland plant species would provide shading and 

cover, which would result in a cooling effect. Permanent indirect effects of temperature 

reduction would include the potential to attract more fish species into Sullivan Creek 

from Boundary Reservoir due to its colder water temperatures.

The restoration of Sullivan Creek water into its historical stream bed may 

increase DO levels through a return to natural flows that are not present in the 

impounded condition. The installation of LWD, boulders and riffles would increase 

aeration opportunities and cause greater amounts of oxygen to diffuse in the water 

column when compared to current conditions.

One of the goals of the restoration effort is to return Sullivan Creek to its natural 

state, which in part would include restoration of the original stream channel where 

possible. The District proposes a number of measures to ensure that when Sullivan 

Creek is restored it would function in a hydrologic manner that would replicate preproject conditions. The proposal to ensure that Reaches 2 and 3 would be 

hydrologically connected to their floodplain would help to achieve this. The health of a 

stream is largely a function on its connectivity to its floodplain. Streams are often 

dependent on their floodplain for provision of nutrients and structure. When a stream 

overflows its channel into its floodplain and eventually recedes back, the water contains 

nutrients in the form of organic matter that are deposited into the stream and become an 

important trophic link in the system. The water can also contain woody debris, gravels, 

and other physical constituents of aquatic habitat that are beneficial to aquatic 

organisms. The District’s proposal to restore the inundated Sullivan Creek channel in a 

manner such that it would be hydrologically connected to its floodplain would be 

beneficial to Sullivan Creek. 

Placement of LWD and rock weirs in the restored channel would create varied 

flow conditions which would result in habitat complexity. Directly behind these 

structures, pool habitat would be created and their proposal to space out the structures 

would create run and riffle areas between pools. These structures would also provide 

erosion control and would mimic natural floodplain dynamics. Overall, these measures 

would help to return Sullivan Creek to a natural state and would be beneficial for the 

creek and the aquatic organisms that inhabit it.

3.4.3 Cumulative Effects

The Pend Oreille river basin contains a number of hydroelectric dams and other 

developments, such as mines and human settlements. Effects of these actions combined 

with effects from the Boundary Project likely result in negative cumulative effects on 

aquatic resources in the river basin. Negative aquatic effects due to cumulative actions 

in the basin include higher water temperatures, lower DO levels, higher TDG levels, 

higher pH levels, higher levels of macrophyte colonization, higher probability of 
111

invasion by aquatic invertebrates, and increased level of toxins in the water column and 

sediments that could be available for uptake by aquatic species.

Under Seattle’s proposed action, water temperatures in the project are expected 

to be lower, TDG in the project tailrace would be lower, pH in localized areas would be 

lower, the areas of macrophyte colonization would be reduced, and the project area 

would be monitored for the presence of invasive aquatic invertebrates. All of these 

effects of the proposed action would reduce the Boundary project’s cumulative effects 

on aquatic resources in the river basin.

Under Seattle’s proposed action, there would be no change in hydrology in the 

project area, DO levels would not be affected, and there would be no change in the 

bioavailability of toxins to aquatic species. Construction of the Boundary Project likely 

contributed to some adverse cumulative effects on these resources, but the proposed 

action would not further contribute to the bioavailability and uptake of toxins.

Construction and operation of the Sullivan Creek Project likely contributed to 

cumulative effects in the project area. The Pend Oreille river basin contains a number 

of other hydroelectric dams and other developments, such as mines and human 

settlements. Effects of these actions, combined with effects from the Sullivan Creek 

Project, likely resulted in adverse cumulative effects on aquatic resources in the river 

basin, most notably resulting in higher water temperatures and fragmented habitat.

The District’s proposed action would have a positive contribution to cumulative 

effects in the project area when compared to current conditions. Under the District’s 

proposal, water temperatures in Sullivan Creek would be lower and habitat connectivity 

would be improved. Therefore, the effects of the proposed action would reduce the 

project’s contribution to cumulative effects on aquatic resources in the river basin.

3.5 AQUATIC RESOURCES

3.5.1 Affected Environment

3.5.1.1 Boundary Project

Boundary Reservoir has a small active storage capacity relative to mean daily

river flow, and project operations, therefore, have little effect on the annual, seasonal, or 

monthly storage and release of water to the Pend Oreille River. Retention time of water 

in Boundary Reservoir averages less than 2 days; consequently, the reservoir more 

closely resembles a riverine system.59 The project is operated as a daily load-following 

facility, which primarily affects instream flow releases on a daily or hourly basis. Water 

surface elevations in Boundary Reservoir fluctuate in response to inflow variation, 

 

59 Washington State defines lacustrine systems as those with retention times 

greater than 15 days (see WAC 173-201A).
112

project operations, and wind-induced waves. Daily water surface elevation fluctuations 

range from 1.15 to just over 18 feet in the Boundary dam forebay, and from 0.42 to 4.8 

feet in the Box Canyon dam tailrace (based on data from 1987 to 2005).

Aquatic Habitat

In summer, water temperatures in Boundary Reservoir often exceed 68 °F

(20 oC). Vertical temperature profile measurements indicate that the reservoir is largely 

vertically mixed throughout the year, although limited surface warming occurs in the 

forebay during summer and early fall. There are no substantial longitudinal trends in 

temperature at any time during the year. Summer pH values at times exceed 8.5, and 

some spatial variability in pH occurs as a result of localized geochemistry. DO 

concentrations are typically at, or above, saturation. Turbidity, conductivity, and 

nutrient concentrations are low, with phosphorus and nitrogen concentration often 

below detection limits. Water quality in the project area is discussed in greater detail in 

section 3.4.1.1, Water Quantity and Quality, Affected Environment – Boundary Project.

For analysis of project effects, as presented in section 3.5.2.1, we describe the 

aquatic resources from a geographic point 3.9 miles downstream from the Boundary 

dam (confluence of Red Bird Creek in Seven Mile Reservoir), upstream to the Box 

Canyon dam. The project area is delineated into four distinct reaches, based on habitat 

characteristics that result from reservoir physiography: the Tailrace/Seven Mile 

Reservoir Reach, the Forebay Reach, the Canyon Reach, and the Upper Reservoir 

Reach (figure 3-8).60

The Tailrace Reach extends from the Boundary dam downstream to the 

confluence with Red Bird Creek (RM 13.1 – 17.0). At low Seven Mile Reservoir water 

surface elevations, riverine habitat is present in the Pend Oreille River downstream to 

the confluence of Red Bird Creek. At high reservoir levels, the riverine habitat 

upstream of the Red Bird Creek confluence becomes reservoir habitat. The Boundary 

dam tailrace area is characterized by deep pools (greater than 75 feet) in the spillway 

and turbine afterbays, but is generally less than 30 feet deep elsewhere. Downstream of 

the spillway and afterbay pools, the tailrace is relatively swift, with cobble and boulder 

substrates. Habitat diversity is provided primarily by instream boulders and alcoves 

along the channel margins. Varial habitat61 (≤ 10 feet) makes up between 12.9 and 33.3 

percent of the total area of the Tailrace Reach, depending on flow.

 

60 We describe the physical habitat conditions in these four reaches later in our 

discussion of the existing environment.

61 The varial zone is the area beside a river channel that is subject to rapid 

wetting and drying as the flow rate changes.
113

Figure 3–8. Pend Oreille River from Box Canyon dam to Red Bird Creek, British 

Columbia (Source: Seattle, 2010).
114

The Forebay Reach, which extends from the Boundary dam upstream to the 

lower end of Z Canyon (RM 17.0 – 18.0), is wide and deep, with steep-sided banks and 

water depths to about 270 feet. There is little shallow, littoral habitat in this reach. A 

small island near the center of this reach provides some habitat complexity, although the 

shores of the island are also steep. Varial zone habitat makes up between 3.4 and 4.4 

percent of the total area of the Forebay Reach, depending on flow and reservoir water 

surface elevation. Pewee Creek drains into this section of the Boundary Reservoir at 

RM 17.9. The mouth of Pewee Creek is a vertical 164-foot waterfall (McLellan, 2001).

The Canyon Reach, which extends from the downstream end of Z Canyon to 

Metaline Falls (RM 18.0 – 26.8), is predominantly narrow, with steep rock walls. A 

few large embayment and backwater channels provide localized shallow habitats with 

aquatic macrophyte beds, and areas of rock outcroppings provide habitat complexity. 

Downstream of Slate Creek, the canyon is more constricted, and water depths exceed 

100 feet, whereas depths upstream of Slate Creek are typically 80 to 100 feet. Varial 

zone habitat makes up between 6.4 and 8.4 percent of the total area of the Canyon 

Reach, depending on flow and reservoir water surface elevation. In addition to Slate 

Creek, there are six other tributaries that drain into the Canyon Reach, including Lime 

Creek (RM 19.0), Everett Creek (RM 21.9), Whiskey Gulch (RM 21.9), Beaver Creek 

(RM 24.3; west side), Threemile Creek (RM 24.3; east side), and Flume Creek (RM 

25.8). The upstream end of the Canyon Reach is inundated by Boundary Reservoir 

when flows/water surface elevations are high.

Slate Creek has four main tributaries and two forks: Slumber Creek,62 Uncas 

Gulch,63 Styx Creek,64 and North and South Fork Slate creeks. Westslope cutthroat and 

eastern brook trout are found in Slumber, Styx, and South Fork Slate creeks, as well as 

Uncas Gulch (Forest Service, 1998a). Slumber Creek supports a self-sustaining 

population of brook trout.

 

62 Slumber Creek runs through a steep-sided valley and has an average channel 

gradient ranging from 3 to 4 percent (Forest Service, 1998a). Channel sinuosity is low, 

and instream cover consists primarily of large wood. Dominant substrates types include 

sand, gravel, and cobble, and substrate embeddedness is greater than 35 percent.

63 Uncas Gulch is contained in a steep-sided valley, and the channel has an 

average gradient ranging from 4 to 6 percent (Forest Service, 1998a). Channel sinuosity 

is generally low, and instream cover consists primarily of large wood. Dominant 

substrate includes sand, gravel, and cobble, and substrate embeddedness is less than 35 

percent.

64 Styx Creek flows through a moderately steep-sided valley, and has an average 

channel gradient ranging from 3 to 6 percent (Forest Service, 1998a). Channel sinuosity 

is generally low, and instream cover consists mainly of large wood. Dominant substrate 

includes sand, gravel, and cobble, and substrate embeddedness is less than 35 percent.
115

The Upper Reservoir Reach, which extends from Metaline Falls to the Box 

Canyon dam (RM 26.8 – 34.5), is relatively wide and shallow, with a combination of 

silt, sand, and hard substrates, and water depths typically ranging from 10 to 25 feet. 

Habitat diversity is provided primarily by islands, back channels, and near-shore aquatic 

vegetation. Varial zone habitat makes up between 14.8 and 52.5 percent of the total 

area of the Upper Reservoir Reach, depending on flow and reservoir water surface 

elevation. Sullivan Creek, the largest tributary that drains into Boundary Reservoir, is 

located in this reach just upstream of Metaline Falls at RM 26.9. Other tributaries that 

drain into the Upper Reservoir Reach include Linton Creek (RM 28.1), Pocahontas 

Creek (RM 29.4), Wolf Creek (RM 30.3), Lunch Creek/Sweet Creek (RM 30.9), Sand 

Creek (RM 31.7), and Lost Creek (RM 32.2). 

There are many named and unnamed tributaries that flow into Sullivan Creek, 

not including water that enters Sullivan Creek from Sullivan Lake via Outlet Creek. 

The named tributaries include Cascade, Copper, Deemer, Fireline, Gypsy, Johns, 

Kinyon, Leola, Lookout, Mankato, North Fork Sullivan, Pass, Rainy, Stony, Thor, 

Thunder, and Totem creeks. According to Forest Service (1996), the fish-bearing 

drainages include Cooper, Deemer, Fireline, Gypsy, Kinyon, Leola, Mankato, North 

Fork Sullivan, and Stony creeks. Westslope cutthroat trout are known to occur in all 

fish bearing drainages, except Cooper, Fireline, and Stony creeks. Eastern brook trout 

and brown trout, both introduced species, occur in many locations in the Sullivan Creek 

watershed, and rainbow trout are thought to occur mostly in the mainstem of Sullivan 

Creek. 

Habitat conditions vary among Sullivan Creek’s tributaries. Cascade, Copper, 

Kinyon, Rainy, and Totem creeks have the V-shape that is characteristic of a history of 

debris torrents, and Cascade, Kinyon, and Totem creeks have landslide deposits at their 

mouths (Forest Service, 1996). At the time of the Sullivan Creek watershed assessment 

(Forest Service, 1996), riparian management objectives, with the exception of water 

temperature, were not being met in Deemer, Kinyon, Leola, and Stony creeks. As the 

result of historic timber harvest, Leola and Deemer creeks did not meet INFISH65

guidelines for LWD and bankfull width-depth ratio objectives. In addition, dispersed 

recreation had adverse affects (“heavy” to “extreme” ratings under the “impact of 

previous use” characterization) at some locations on Deemer Creek. The North Fork 

Sullivan Creek dam, located 0.25 miles upstream of the creek’s mouth, is a barrier to 

upstream fish passage.

 

65 INFISH. 1995. Inland native fish strategy: Interim strategies for managing 

fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana 

and portions of Nevada. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 

Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions.
116

Fish Communities

At least 28 species of fish occur in the Project area (table 3-11). Table 3-12

provides a summary of the periodicity, life history, and spawning and rearing habitat for 

fish species in the project area. No anadromous fish are found in Boundary Reservoir or 

the tailrace. Some fish species found in the reservoir may have adfluvial life histories. 

Fish abundance and species diversity in Boundary Reservoir differ from that found in 

the reservoir’s tributaries, and densities of all fish species are low in the deep water of 

the reservoir, most of which occurs in the Forebay and Canyon reaches.

Table 3-11. Species composition, distribution, and abundance of fish within Seven Mile 

and Boundary reservoirs (Source: Seattle, 2009).

Boundary Reservoir

Species Type

Seven Mile 

to 

Boundary

Forebay 

Reach

Canyon 

Reach

Upper 

Reach

Longnose sucker Native nonsport O O O C

Bridgelip sucker Native nonsport P N N N

Largescale sucker Native nonsport A A A A

Brown bullhead Non-native sport N O P C

Pumpkinseed Non-native sport O C C A

Smallmouth bass Non-native sport A A A A

Largemouth bass Non-native sport P O O O

Black crappie Non-native sport O O O C

Sculpin spp. Native nonsport P P P O

Peamouth Native nonsport A A A A

Northern pikeminnow Native sport A A A A

Longnose dace Native nonsport P N N N

Redside shiner Native nonsport A C A C

Tench Non-native, 

nonsport

P O C C

Northern pike Non-native sport O N N O

Burbot Native sport P O O O

Yellow perch Non-native sport O A A A

Walleye Non-native sport O O O O

Cutthroat trout Native sport O O O O

Redband trout Native sport O P P P

Hatchery rainbow 

trout

Non-native sport C C C C

Kokanee Non-native sport O O O O

Mountain whitefish Native sport C O O C
117

Boundary Reservoir

Species Type

Seven Mile 

to 

Boundary

Forebay 

Reach

Canyon 

Reach

Upper 

Reach

Lake whitefish Native sport N N O N

Brown trout Non-native sport O O O O

Bull trout Native sport 

RTE

O P P P

Eastern brook trout Non-native sport O O O O

Lake trout Non-native sport O O O O

Abundance Codes: A = abundant, C = common, O = occasional, P = present, status 

unknown, N = not recorded in past or present studies (likely absent or rare).

Fish sampling by several entities (Forest Service, 1998a, b; R2 Resource 

Consultants, 1998a); McLellan, 2001; and Seattle 2009d) provide the following general 

characterizations of fish communities in Boundary Reservoir. The Forebay Reach fish 

community is dominated by largescale suckers, northern pikeminnow, peamouth, 

yellow perch, and smallmouth bass. Hatchery-reared rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, 

burbot, walleye also exist in this reach. Rainbow trout, yellow perch, smallmouth bass, 

and largescale sucker are relatively abundant in the Forebay Reach varial zone, and 

smallmouth bass, lake trout, rainbow trout, and largescale sucker are also captured in 

open waters of the Forebay Reach.

The Canyon Reach is dominated by minnows and suckers, including northern 

pikeminnow, largescale sucker, redside shiner, and peamouth. Mountain whitefish is 

occasionally observed, and hatchery-reared rainbow trout is commonly observed. 

Yellow perch, pumpkinseed, suckers, and northern pikeminnow are abundant in the 

varial zone, and tench have been captured in the varial zone. Similar to the Forebay 

Reach, smallmouth bass, lake trout, largescale suckers, and rainbow trout have been 

captured in open waters of the Canyon Reach.
118

Table 3–12. Periodicity, life history, and spawning and rearing habitat of fish species in the Boundary Project area (Source: 

Seattle, 2009).

Species Spawning 

Habitat

Spawn 

Period 

(month/day)

Time to Hatch 

or Emergence 

(days)

Optimal/Max 

Spawning 

Temperature

Juvenile Rearing 

Habitat

Optimal/Max 

Rearing 

Temperature

Typical 

Lifespan 

(yr)

Max Size 

(inches)

Native Species

Longnose 

sucker

rivers: swift 

riffles, gravel 

substrates

4/15 – 7/15 

(peak from 

4/30 – 6/24)

8 at 59 °F; 11 

at 50 °F; 1-2 

weeks before 

emergence

41 – 48 °F lakes & streams; 

weedy shallows by 

day, deeper offshore 

by night

Max: 80.6 

°F

8 – 19 20.2

Largescale 

sucker

riverine; pool 

tailouts with 

fine gravel 

and sand 

substrate; 

occasionally 

along 

shoreline of 

lakes

4/10 – 7/15 

(peak from 

4/30 – 6/24)

14 46 – 55 °F lakes & streams; 

weedy shallows by 

day, deeper offshore 

by night

Max: 85 °F 8 – 15 22.2

Sculpin spp. under rocks mottled: 

Feb. – June

slimy: 

spring

mottled: 

20 – 30 at 50 

°F slimy: 

28 at 46 °F

41 - 50 °F lakes & streams; 

benthic; rubble, 

gravel, or rocky 

substrates

55 – 65 °F/

70 °F

4- 5 mottled: 5 

slimy: 2-3

Peamouth streams and 

shorelines 

with gravel 

or rubble 

substrate

May – June 7 – 8 at 54 °F 54 - 59 °F lakes & streams; 

young very shallow 

during spring to fall; 

over-winter in deep 

water

13 11.1
119

Species Spawning 

Habitat

Spawn 

Period 

(month/day)

Time to Hatch 

or Emergence 

(days)

Optimal/Max 

Spawning 

Temperature

Juvenile Rearing 

Habitat

Optimal/Max 

Rearing 

Temperature

Typical 

Lifespan 

(yr)

Max Size 

(inches)

Redside shiner gravel stream 

bottoms or 

vegetation 

along lake 

shorelines

April – July 3-7 at 

70 - 73 °F

58 - 64 °F Rivers & lakes, slow 

to moderate current; 

aquatic vegetation; in 

stratified waters at 

depth during 

summer; over-winter 

in deep water

Summer 

55 - 68 °F/

75 °F

4 – 5 5.7

Northern 

pikeminnow

broadcast 

spawn over 

gravel, 

cobble, 

rubble in 

streams & 

lakes

May – June 7 at 65 °F; free 

swimming in 

14

57 - 65 °F lakes & streams, slow 

to moderate currents; 

shallows or surface 

of pelagic zone in 

summer; benthic 

during winter; YOY 

mud to rubble 

substrate then move 

to vegetated areas

68 - 73 °F 10 + 22.9

Westslope 

cutthroat trout

riverine; 

redds dug in 

gravel 

substrates 

found in pool 

tailouts

3/15 – 6/15 

(peak from 

4/1 – 5/31

49 – 63 50 °F/ 

43 - 63 °F

Resident: stream 

pools, gravel, rubble, 

boulder, overhead 

cover.

Adfluvial: same as 

resident for 1 to 4 yr; 

older fish lake 

habitats

60 °F/70 °F 4 -5 12.6 in Box 

Canyon

10.9 in 

Pend 

Oreille 

tributaries

Redband trout rivers; redds 

in gravel, 

pool tailouts

3/1 – 6/30 

(peak from 

4/1 – 5/31)

50 at 50 °F 36 - 68 °F lakes & streams < 70 °F/ 

32 - 80 °F

6 22.2
120

Species Spawning 

Habitat

Spawn 

Period 

(month/day)

Time to Hatch 

or Emergence 

(days)

Optimal/Max 

Spawning 

Temperature

Juvenile Rearing 

Habitat

Optimal/Max 

Rearing 

Temperature

Typical 

Lifespan 

(yr)

Max Size 

(inches)

Mountain 

whitefish

gravel; riffles 

and runs in 

streams; 

shoals along 

lake 

shorelines

10/15 – 1/15 

(peak from 

11/1 – 12/31)

30 at 48 °F 40 - 45 °F riffles in summer, 

large pools or runs in 

winter in streams; 

gravel bars at mouths 

of tributaries for Box 

Canyon

48 – 52 °F 8 17.1 in Box 

Canyon

Bull trout riverine; 

redds in 

gravel, pool 

tailouts

9/15 – 12/30 

(peak from 

10/1 – 11/30)

165 – 235 35.6 – 39.2 

°F

small fish - benthic 

with cover; large fish 

– large pools and 

lakes

< 59 °F 5 – 7 Resident: 

6-12

Adfluvial: 

23.8

Burbot lakes & 

rivers under 

ice; 1-9 ft of 

water, over 

sand and 

gravel

winter –

early spring

71 at 34 °F 

28–35 at 39 °F

30 at 43 °F

33 - 35 °F shallows and stream 

channels

up to 15 45

Non-Native species

Brown 

bullhead

lake 

shallows, 

depression in 

mud or sand 

near aquatic 

vegetation or 

woody debris

April to June 5 at 77 °F; 

7 at 69 °F

70 °F shallow vegetation; 

benthic; lakes, ponds, 

sluggish areas of 

streams

5 12 -14

Pumpkinseed lake 

shallows, 

5/15 – 6/31 

(peak from 

3 at 82 °F 60 °F clear water; dense 

vegetation; sloughs, 

> 70 °F 6 5
121

Species Spawning 

Habitat

Spawn 

Period 

(month/day)

Time to Hatch 

or Emergence 

(days)

Optimal/Max 

Spawning 

Temperature

Juvenile Rearing 

Habitat

Optimal/Max 

Rearing 

Temperature

Typical 

Lifespan 

(yr)

Max Size 

(inches)

depression in 

gravel, mud, 

or sand near 

aquatic 

vegetation

6/15 – 7/31) backwaters, slow 

moving rivers

Smallmouth 

bass

lakes 

shallows, 

depressions

5/15 – 7/31 

(peak from 

6/1 – 7/15)

4 – 10 55 – 65 °F clear streams and 

lakes; coarse 

substrate, boulders 

and rocky reefs

70 – 80 °F 10 17 - 19

Largemouth 

bass

lakes; sand, 

gravel, 

rubble 1-4 ft 

deep, max 8 

ft deep

5/15 – 7/31 

(peak from 

6/1 – 7/15)

3 – 7 60 – 65 °F shallow vegetation 

and woody debris; 

lakes and backwaters 

of rivers

68 °F/75 °F 8 17.2

Black crappie lakes; 

shallow 

depressions 

in mud, < 8 

ft

5/15 – 8/31 

(peak from 

6/15 – 7/31)

2 – 3 at 65 °F 58 – 64 °F clear water; dense 

vegetation; large 

streams, lakes and 

reservoirs; sand, 

muck or organic

8 8.4

Yellow Perch lakes; egg 

mass laid on 

vegetation, 

submerged 

brush, or 

sand, gravel, 

or rubble

3/15 – 5/31 

(peak from 

4/5 – 5/15)

8 – 10 45 – 52 °F lakes with vegetation; 

clear water

70 °F 8 8.3
122

Species Spawning 

Habitat

Spawn 

Period 

(month/day)

Time to Hatch 

or Emergence 

(days)

Optimal/Max 

Spawning 

Temperature

Juvenile Rearing 

Habitat

Optimal/Max 

Rearing 

Temperature

Typical 

Lifespan 

(yr)

Max Size 

(inches)

Walleye 2 – 30 feet, 

shoreline 

areas, shoals

March – May 14 at 46 °F 43 – 48 °F associated with cover 

in depths < 50 ft

54 – 84 °F 7 – 10 30

Northern Pike vegetated 

littoral areas

April – May 31 at 42 °F 40 – 59 °F vegetated littoral 

areas

10 -12 59

Rainbow trout rivers; redds 

in gravel, 

pool tailouts

February –

June

50 at 50 °F 36 – 68 °F lakes & streams < 70 °F/ 

32 – 80 °F

6 22.2

Brown trout rivers; redds 

in gravel, 

pool tailouts

October –

December

50 at 50 °F 45 – 55 °F lakes & streams 65 – 75 °F/

81 °F

9 in Box 

Canyon; 

5 in Pend 

Oreille 

tribs.

20.4 in Box 

Canyon; 

13.6 in 

Pend 

Oreille 

tribs.

Eastern brook 

trout

rivers; redds 

in gravel, 

pool tailouts

August –

December

144 at 35 °F 40 – 50 °F spring fed headwater 

ponds and streams

55 - 66 °F/ 

< 77.5 °F

3 7.1

Kokanee riverine; 

redds in 

gravel, pool 

tailouts

September –

December

56 – 84 41 – 55 °F lake pelagic zone 50 °F 4 16.7 – 17.7

Lake trout lakes; gravel, 

boulders, 

rubble on 

clean shoals

October –

December

105 – 147 at 

32.5–33.8 °F

48 – 57 °F lakes 60 – 300 ft 

deep

50 °F 10 – 17 26.9 – 35.5
123

Fish species diversity is higher in the Upper Reservoir Reach than downstream 

from Metaline Falls, as the result of increased habitat diversity. The fish community in 

the Upper Reservoir Reach is dominated by minnows, suckers, tench, and smallmouth 

bass; brown bullhead is common and burbot is occasionally observed in this reach. In 

addition, yellow perch, mountain whitefish, and pumpkinseed can be found in this 

reach, and non-native northern pike and walleye are captured in this reach with 

increasing frequency. The varial zone in the Upper Reservoir Reach provides extensive, 

gently sloping to flat off-channel and slough habitat, often with dense aquatic 

macrophyte beds in the summer. These areas provide important spawning and youngof-the-year (YOY) fish rearing habitat for a variety of species. YOY sunfish, minnows, 

perch, and suckers are locally abundant. The presence of suckers and sunfish in the 

varial zone increases in summer, likely due to increased water temperatures. YOY 

mountain whitefish have been observed in the varial zone during May and June, and 

adult whitefish are found in the varial zone in November (likely due to spawning). 

Northern pikeminnow and peamouth are present in the open water of the Upper 

Reservoir Reach.

As discussed in section 3.4.1.1, Water Quantity and Quality, Affected 

Environment – Boundary Project, summer water temperatures in Boundary Reservoir at 

times exceed 68 °F (20 oC), which is too warm to provide optimum summer habitat for 

trout species (i.e., generally less than 60.8 °F (16 oC) (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). 

Triploid rainbow trout planted by Seattle66 are by far the most numerous trout species 

present in Boundary Reservoir, accounting for 64 to 90 percent of the salmonid 

observations during relicensing surveys, depending on the reach. Wild rainbow trout 

(redband and hatchery origin) and brown trout are the next most common trout species 

in the reservoir, and cutthroat trout are uncommonly observed in the reservoir. No 

cutthroat trout, bull trout, or rainbow trout spawning, and no bull trout rearing, occurs in 

the reservoir. Cutthroat and rainbow trout YOY are captured exclusively in tributary 

streams near their confluences with the reservoir, whereas mountain whitefish, 

smallmouth bass, and cyprinid species YOY inhabit the reservoir. Although not 

abundant, trout species in the reservoir show a summertime preference for habitat in 

tributary deltas, because the relatively low temperatures of the tributary inflows provide 

thermal refugia from warmer water in the mainstem reservoir (Seattle, 2009b).

The larger tributaries to Boundary Reservoir contain a variety of fish species, and 

most salmonids in the vicinity of the project occur in the tributaries. The dominant 

sport fish in the tributaries are westslope cutthroat trout, eastern brook trout, rainbow 

 

66 The Washington DFW no longer provides permits for triploid rainbow trout 

stocking into Boundary Reservoir due to concern over potential competition with native 

salmonids, low catch rates, poor salmonid habitat conditions, and low survival and 

retention in the reservoir.
124

trout, and to a lesser extent brown trout and mountain whitefish. Bull trout, kokanee, 

and burbot have been found in Sullivan Creek.

The fish community in the Tailrace Reach is dominated by minnows and suckers, 

including northern pikeminnow, largescale sucker, redside shiner, and peamouth. 

Smallmouth bass are the most abundant sport fish. Mountain whitefish and both wild 

and hatchery-reared rainbow trout are common in the reach. Walleye, a non-native 

species, was caught in the Tailrace Reach in 2007. Data collected in 2007 – 08 indicate 

that little trout spawning occurs in the project tailrace (Seattle, 2009b). Suckers, 

smallmouth bass, and triploid rainbow trout accounted for nearly 85 percent of the

varial zone catch in 2007 – 08 sampling. Fish abundance in the varial zone is highest in 

July. Suckers and triploid rainbow trout dominated the open water catch. Large 

northern pikeminnow are commonly encountered in the deep waters of the spillway 

pools and afterbay. Walleye are occasionally found at depths of 10 to 20 feet. Aside 

from suckers and northern pikeminnow, no YOY have been caught in the Tailrace 

Reach, due to the fact that highly variable and often swift flows over coarse substrates 

likely limit the spawning habitat for many species in the reach.

Physical Habitat

Physical habitat varies by reach in Boundary Reservoir, but the project area 

provides limited habitat for adult and juvenile salmonids. The Forebay Reach has little 

shallow, littoral habitat. Habitat complexity is provided by a single island. The Canyon 

Reach has a few embayment and backwater channels that provide localized shallow 

habitat with macrophyte beds, and areas of rock outcroppings provide some habitat 

complexity. The Upper Reservoir Reach exhibits the greatest amount of physical 

habitat of the reservoir reaches, with habitat diversity provided by islands, back 

channels, and near-shore aquatic vegetation.

Large wood debris (LWD) was mapped along the Boundary Reservoir shoreline 

in 2007. The mapping showed that LWD is distributed in concentrated areas throughout 

the reservoir (table 3-13). Abundance is greatest in the Canyon Reach, followed by the 

Upper Reservoir Reach. The Forebay Reach has very little LWD.

Table 3–13. Large woody debris in the Boundary reservoir by reach (Source: Seattle,

2009).

Large Wood

Reach Reach Length (miles) Total Count 

(no./mile)

Total Volume (ft3/mile)

Forebay 1.0 80 2.881

Canyon 8.9 118 4,706

Upper 

Reservoir 7.6 53 2,881
125

Macrophyte beds are much less extensive downstream from Metaline Falls (18.6 

acres) than in the Upper Reservoir Reach (137.6 acres). Eurasian watermilfoil and 

coontail are the dominant plant species found in Boundary Reservoir (table 3-14. 

Macrophytes can provide habitat and food for benthic macroinvertebrates and fish 

(Engel, 1995), particularly spawning fish, fry, and juveniles.

Table 3–14. Macrophyte beds in Boundary reservoir (Source: Seattle, 2009)

Reach

Number of Macrophyte 

Beds

Macrophyte Bed Size Range 

(acres)

Forebay 12 0.001 - 8.4

Canyon 27 0.001 – 7.9

Upper Reservoir 33 0.02 – 61.7

Tailrace 0 0

Many Boundary Reservoir tributaries have natural upstream fish migration 

barriers close to the reservoir (Seattle, 2006). Some tributaries have no potential 

adfluvial habitat, whereas Sullivan Creek has nearly 22,000 linear feet of adfluvial 

habitat.

Physical habitat at the mouths of the tributaries varies by tributary. A detailed 

characterization of the tributary deltas in Boundary Reservoir can by found in Seattle 

(2009a), and is summarized in section 3.7.1.1, Threatened and Endangered Species, 

Affected Environment – Boundary Project. For tributaries where flow was present at the 

mouth during September, stream temperatures ranged from 46.4 – 59 °F (8 – 15 oC), 

and flows ranged from 0.001 – 40.5 cfs (40.5 cfs in Sullivan Creek).

Seasonality of Fish Distribution and Abundance

Fish use of the shallow near-shore margins and off-channel areas of Boundary 

Reservoir is low during February through early May, compared to the summer months. 

From June through August, there is an increase in the relative abundances of juvenile 

suckers and minnows in near-shore areas. Large numbers of YOY fish are present in 

the Upper Reservoir Reach during this period, and small YOY fish, swim-up fry, and 

larval fish are found near the shorelines throughout the Canyon and Forebay reaches 

(Seattle, 2009b).

Wild rainbow trout capture rates are highest during the early spring and late fall, 

likely related to reduced water temperatures. Adult walleye are found in the Tailrace 

Reach primarily during April, when the species would be expected to spawn. The catch 

rate of adult smallmouth bass also increased during the spawning period of May and 

June in the Upper Reservoir Reach.
126

Target Fish Species

The following species were identified as important species relative to potential 

project effects:

• Target Species

 bull trout67

 westslope cutthroat trout

 mountain whitefish

• Species of Interest

 smallmouth bass

 minnows, suckers, and perch fry and juveniles

Westslope Cutthroat Trout – Westslope cutthroat trout are found in Boundary 

Reservoir, but their abundance is low. In contrast, cutthroat trout are found in nearly all 

of the larger tributaries that drain into Boundary Reservoir, the major exception being 

Flume Creek (Forest Service, 2005). Genetically pure strains are known to occur in 

North Fork Sullivan Creek (upstream of the town of Metaline Falls water supply 

diversion dam) and Harvey Creek (upstream of Sullivan Lake) (Small and Von Bargen, 

2008), as well as in Sweet, Slate, and Peewee creeks. FWS (1999) indicates that 

cutthroat trout are usually found in the cooler, upper reaches of the tributaries, but 

suggested this was due to competition with other trout species (e.g., rainbow and brook 

trout).

Of the cutthroat trout captured or observed in or adjacent to Boundary Reservoir 

during 2007 – 08, the majority were observed in the lower reaches or deltas of 

tributaries to the reservoir. During the spring and summer, cutthroat trout are more 

frequently found in the Box Canyon tailrace (spring primarily) and in association with 

stream mouths, including Sweet, Sullivan, and Russian (in Canada) Creeks, potentially 

using these areas for feeding or as thermal refugia. During the winter, cutthroat trout 

use the Boundary tailrace and the area immediately downstream from the Box Canyon 

tailrace.

Mountain Whitefish – Mountain whitefish are the most frequently observed or 

captured native salmonid in Boundary Reservoir, but represent less than 1 percent of the 

fish community in the project area. Tributary surveys indicate that mountain whitefish 

are only present in Sullivan and Sweet creeks (McLellan, 2001; R2 Resource 

Consultants, 1998a; Seattle, 2009b). Most of the mountain whitefish population in the 

project area resides in the Upper Reservoir Reach.

 

67 We discuss bull trout in section 3.7, Threatened and Endangered Species, 

Affected Environment.
127

Adult whitefish in spawning condition occur in the 1–mile reach downstream 

from the Box Canyon dam, and eggs have been collected on egg mats in the reach. 

Mature whitefish have also been observed in the Boundary dam tailrace. Whitefish 

eggs have been collected on egg mats at the mouth of Sullivan Creek. Biotelemetry 

studies show that mountain whitefish use habitat in the Boundary and Box Canyon 

tailraces during the spring through fall period, then move to deeper water areas 

downstream of the tailraces to overwinter.

Smallmouth Bass – Smallmouth bass is a non-native species that has become a 

popular sport fish in Boundary Reservoir. Largemouth bass are also present, but in 

much lower abundance. Smallmouth bass generally have a small home range during 

most of the year, but may move distances up to about 1 mile (Todd and Rabeni, 1989; 

Wydoski and Whitney, 2003).

Smallmouth bass occupy all reservoir reaches, but are most abundant in the 

Upper Reservoir Reach, least abundant in the Forebay Reach, and of intermediate 

abundance in the Canyon Reach. Smallmouth bass are most frequently found in the 

Box Canyon tailrace, near Sand, Sweet, and Pocahontas creeks, and in the Boundary 

Forebay Reach throughout the year. However, during spring and summer, they are 

widely distributed throughout Boundary Reservoir. Smallmouth bass feed over a large 

range of depths, and during high flow conditions, bass are routinely found in shallow 

water, inundated creek deltas, and inundated terrestrial habitat.

Minnows, Suckers, and Perch – Minnows are sufficiently abundant in Boundary

Reservoir to be important prey for predatory fish; northern pikeminnow and peamouth 

being the most abundant (6.3 and 7.3 percent of the catch, respectively). Suckers (28.1 

percent of the catch) and yellow perch (13.3 percent of the catch) also are available in 

sufficient abundance to be important prey species. Non-salmonid fry are observed 

beginning in July along the reservoir shoreline, and in backwaters and trapping pools.

Recreational fishery

Access to Boundary Reservoir for recreational fishery occurs primarily from 

three boat ramps: one each at the Forebay Recreation Area, in Metaline, and near the 

Box Canyon dam. Creel surveys in 1997 indicated the Upper Reservoir Reach is the 

most heavily fished area of the reservoir (R2 Resource Consultants, 1998a). Northern 

pikeminnow and rainbow trout are the two most commonly caught sport fish during the 

summer recreation season, although rainbow trout are caught at a much lower frequency 

than pikeminnow. Rainbow trout and smallmouth bass are the most commonly targeted 

species by anglers.

Reservoir Productivity

Productivity in Boundary Reservoir is low. Phosphorous and nitrogen 

concentrations are low throughout the year, with soluble reactive phosphorous and total 

kjeldahl nitrogen often below detection limits. Nitrogen-phosphorus rations indicate 

that the reservoir is phosphorus limited. Phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations (at 
128

times < 2.8 μg/l) also indicate that the system is oligotrophic. The zooplankton 

community is limited by food availability in the project area. Because zooplankton 

densities are low, McLellan (2001) suggests that benthic macroinvertebrates are likely 

the primary food source for many fish in Boundary Reservoir.

3.5.1.2 Sullivan Creek Project

Habitat

As part of the 1994 license amendment, the District undertook an instream flow 

study that evaluated the effects of the proposed Sullivan Creek Project, at that time, on 

salmonid fisheries within the proposed diversion reach. Additional information was 

collected and analyzed in 1996. This data, which included water temperature, substrate, 

and spawn timing, is presented in FERC (1998), and summarized in sections 3.4.1.2, 

Water Quantity and Quality, Affected Environment – Sullivan Creek Surrender and 

3.7.1.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Affected Environment – Sullivan Creek 

Surrender.

Previous evaluation of project effects on fishery resources emphasized resident 

fish species, because no anadromous fish are able to reach the project area due to many 

impassable dams in the Columbia and Pend Oreille River systems. The waters of lower 

Harvey Creek, which is the largest tributary flowing into Sullivan Lake, transitions from 

surface to subsurface flows in most years during late summer through the winter. This 

area blocks upstream passage of fish from Sullivan Lake to over 95 percent of the 

aquatic habitat in Harvey Creek and downstream access to Sullivan Lake and beyond 

during this same period.

Spawning habitat in Harvey Creek is limited, in relation to the escapement in all 

of the study years. Individual redds are rarely observed, which indicates superimposition, and the amount and effect on egg survival likely varies with differences in 

escapement. Dead eggs were observed during the spawning period in all years, with 

substantially more dead eggs in 2004 when escapement was highest. This said, it is 

reasonable to conclude that redd super-imposition occurs in Harvey Creek, since 

escapement exceeds available habitat (McLellan, 2009).

In the 500-foot reach from the non-operational powerhouse, upstream to the 

natural falls in the lower canyon (see discussion in section 3.7.1.2, Threatened and 

Endangered Species, Affected Environment – Sullivan Creek Surrender, little spawning 

habitat for any species exists (Powers, 2008). Pools available in this reach would still 

be available after surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project license, and would provide 

holding areas for any fish that might migrate up Sullivan Creek to escape warm 

temperatures in the Pend Oreille River.
129

Fish Resources

Information on fish species composition and distribution in the project area was 

obtained through agency consultation, agency document review, and field studies. The 

fish species present, or potentially present, downstream from Sullivan Lake in Outlet 

and Sullivan Creeks include bull trout, brook trout, brown trout, kokanee, rainbow trout, 

westslope cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, tiger trout, burbot, and pygmy whitefish.

The most abundant salmonid species downstream from Mill Pond is resident 

rainbow trout. Brown trout are known to exist in, and above, Sullivan Lake,68 and 

brook trout exist throughout the drainage. Westslope cutthroat trout have been observed 

in lower Sullivan Creek, downstream from the Mill Pond dam. Although data on 

population size and density was not collected, the abundance of trout species appears to 

be relatively low.

According to the Washington DFW, the kokanee population in Sullivan Lake is 

being considered as a potential brood source for stocking several lakes in eastern 

Washington. Sullivan Lake has a self-sustaining population of kokanee that was first 

introduced in 1913 (Nine and Scholz, 2005). Kokanee were planted with regularity 

until the mid-1940s, but Sullivan Lake has only received three plants since then (1976, 

2003, and 2004). The fish survey by Nine and Scholz (2005) found that the fish 

assemblage of Sullivan Lake, in addition to kokanee, includes speckled dace, redside 

shiner, tench, longnose sucker, westslope cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, 

mountain whitefish, pygmy whitefish, burbot, and slimy sculpin. With the exception of 

kokanee, salmonids occur in low densities.

Sullivan Lake has three tributaries; Harvey, Hall, and Noisy creeks. These 

tributaries drain a total of about 32,769 acres. Sullivan Lake dam is a barrier to fish 

moving upstream in the system, which limits Harvey Creek and Sullivan Lake’s other 

tributaries to resident fish production (i.e., these streams provide no habitat for adfluvial 

fish populations in the Pend Oreille River). Hall Creek is not fish bearing. Noisy Creek 

is intermittent in certain locations and is occupied by a very small population of 

westslope cutthroat trout. Hall and Noisy creeks are small streams that are not used by 

kokanee. However, significant spawning of kokanee occurs in limited areas of Harvey 

Creek, and redd superimposition likely occurs in the creek, because escapement exceeds 

available habitat (McLellan, 2009). In addition to kokanee, cutthroat trout and 

mountain whitefish, both native salmonids, use Harvey Creek. Harvey Creek is 

considered high priority habitat for cutthroat trout.

Sullivan Lake has a long stocking history of rainbow and cutthroat trout by the 

Washington DFW; however, regular stocking was discontinued in the early 1990s. 

According to Washington DFW hatchery planting records, 29 releases of hatchery 

 

68 The Washington State record brown trout was taken from Sullivan Lake.
130

rainbow and westslope cutthroat trout have occurred since 1981.69 There are no records 

of trout releases into Sullivan Creek during this same period.

License Surrender Studies

As part of its preparation of a license surrender application for the Sullivan Creek 

Project, the District undertook several studies to help define the existing environmental 

conditions in the Sullivan Creek drainage. The District also summarized fisheries data 

provided by the Forest Service. The studies included: (1) a fish-barrier assessment; (2) 

a Harvey Creek habitat survey; (3) an entrainment investigation and fish presence study; 

(4) a Sullivan Creek instream flow study; (5) a lake fertilization review; (6) a species 

review of water temperature requirements; and (7) a bull trout spawning and incubation 

analysis. The information derived from these efforts is described in detail in section 

3.7.1.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Affected Environment – Sullivan Creek 

Surrender.

3.5.1.3 Bull Trout and Habitat

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) was listed as threatened under the ESA on 

June 10, 1998 (68 FR 31647-31674). Boundary Reservoir, Sullivan Creek for most of 

its length, and Slate Creek were designated as critical habitat for bull trout on October 

18, 2010 (75 FR 63898-64070). In addition, POSRT (2005) identified several Sullivan 

Creek tributaries (i.e., Deemer, Gypsy, Leola and some of its tributaries, North Fork 

Sullivan, Outlet, and Pass Creeks), as well as Harvey Creek and some of its tributaries, 

as containing bull trout habitat.

Large bull trout are known to migrate up tributary streams from the Pend Oreille 

River when temperatures increase in the main river (FWS, 2002).70 Bull trout have 

been observed in lower Sullivan Creek. In addition, bull trout have been observed at the 

mouth of Slate Creek (Andonaegui, 2003), but there are no documented observations of 

bull trout farther upstream in Slate Creek or its tributaries. Bull trout, as well as the 

effects of relicensing the Boundary Project and surrendering the Sullivan Creek license, 

are described in section 3.7, Threatened and Endangered Species.

3.5.2 Environmental Effects

3.5.2.1 Boundary Project

The Boundary Project is operated in a load-following mode that shapes available 

water to deliver power during peak-load hours and reduces generation during off-peak 

hours. Daily water surface elevation fluctuations range from 1.15 feet to 18.02 feet in 

 

69 From 1981 through 1986, plantings of 292,946 and 282,883 rainbow trout and 

westslope cutthroat trout, respectively, occurred in Sullivan Lake.

70 In September 1994, a dead adult female bull trout was found in Sullivan Creek 

downstream from the Mill Pond dam (FWS, 2002).
131

the forebay, and from 0.42 feet to 4.80 feet in the Box Canyon dam tailrace. The 

normal maximum reservoir water surface varies from elevation 1,994 feet at the forebay 

to 1,999 feet at the Box Canyon tailrace. The Boundary Reservoir has a small active 

storage capacity (about 40,843 acre-feet) relative to mean daily flow; retention time of 

water in reservoir averages less than 2 days. The project is operated within the 

maximum drawdown of 40 vertical feet of active storage authorized under the current 

license. From Labor Day weekend to Memorial Day weekend, the project is operated 

with forebay water surface elevations generally fluctuating within 20 feet of full pool 

(1,994 feet to 1,974 feet) and only occasionally below 1,974 feet. The magnitude of 

water surface elevation fluctuations in the Boundary forebay are replicated up through 

the base of the hydraulic control at Metaline Falls. Metaline Falls attenuates or 

dampens water surface elevation fluctuations for the upper reservoir area, upstream of 

Metaline Falls.

Seattle maintains the summer forebay water surface elevations to facilitate 

recreational access and use. From Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day 

weekend, forebay water surface elevations are maintained at or above 1,984 feet from 

6:00 am through 8:00 pm. During nighttime hours, forebay water surface elevations are 

maintained at or above elevation 1,982 feet.

Under the settlement, Seattle proposes to formalize what are currently voluntary 

summertime forebay water surface elevation restrictions, as described above. Seattle 

also proposes a suite of non-operational measures related to fish and aquatic resources 

that are described in subsequent portions of this section. The Washington DFW, 

Interior (on behalf of FWS, BIA, and the Park Service), and the Forest Service

recommend that Seattle implement its proposed operational and non-operational 

environmental enhancements measures, as described herein.

Project Effects on Mainstem Reservoir Habitats

Aquatic biota and habitats immediately upstream and downstream of the 

Boundary dam are influenced by project operations,71 hydrologic conditions, and 

releases from upstream hydroelectric and water storage projects. The effects of project 

operations on aquatic habitat were assessed using a Physical Habitat Model to generate 

indices reflecting habitat conditions within Boundary Reservoir, the Boundary dam 

tailrace, and select tributary deltas.

Seattle developed a suite of models and analyses to support the evaluation of 

existing conditions and alternative operations. These models and analyses included the 

Scenario Tool, Hydraulic Routing Model (HRM), mainstem habitat model, trapping and 

 

71 The varial zone is defined as the area of the channel alternately inundated 

(wetted) and dewatered (dried) by water surface elevation fluctuations. The upper limit 

of the analysis was the top of the varial zone, and the lower limit extended to 50 feet 

below the lowest typical extent of the euphotic zone.
132

stranding models, a mainstem sediment transport model, and tributary delta habitat 

models (see Mainstem Aquatic Habitat Modeling Report, Study No. 7; Seattle, 2009a). 

The Scenario Tool optimized project energy production using historic hydrologic data 

and resource criteria input to provide a consistent foundation for the comparison of 

resource effects or benefits. Use of the Scenario Tool provided the mechanism to 

develop information (i.e., water surface elevation and flows) that was used as input to 

the HRM. The HRM was used to translate hourly changes in forebay water surface 

elevations to locations upstream of, and downstream from, the Boundary dam. The 

HRM computes water surface elevations, average velocities, and timing of water 

surface fluctuations at locations throughout Boundary Reservoir and the Boundary dam 

tailrace.

The mainstem habitat model used water surface elevations and average velocities 

from the HRM, along with specific velocity measurements within habitat cells at 

various habitat transects, to determine depths and velocities for each habitat cell for 

each hour of simulated operation. In addition to depth and velocity, substrate and cover 

were incorporated into the habitat model and compared to Habitat Suitability 

Indices/Criteria for life stages and fish species of interest (native salmonids, smallmouth 

bass, and forage species) and other aquatic organisms (macrophytes, periphyton, and 

benthic macroinvertebrates. The integration of hydraulic, channel morphology and 

biological response data was used to calculate the relative amount of potential habitat 

(weighted useable area; WUA) at each transect for life stages and species of interest for 

each hour of simulated project operation. The mainstem habitat model was also used to 

track the effect of fluctuating water surface elevations on potential mountain whitefish 

and smallmouth bass spawning areas to evaluate which cells of potential spawning 

habitat remain inundated through the subsequent incubation period.

The mainstem habitat model was applied to the four mainstem reaches in the 

project area. The four reaches are briefly described below.

Tailrace Reach – The 3.1-mile-long Tailrace Reach is situated downstream from 

the Boundary dam, extending into Canada to the confluence with Redbird Creek. The 

reservoir behind Seven Mile dam in Canada, at times, inundates the entire reach to the 

base of the Boundary dam, depending on its forebay elevation. This creates complex 

hydraulic conditions in the Tailrace Reach, and the reach can exhibit both reservoir-like 

and riverine-like conditions depending on the releases from the Boundary dam and the 

forebay elevation of Seven Mile dam.

Forebay Reach – The Forebay Reach is the most lacustrine of the four reaches. 

Depths reach 270 feet, and because the channel is wide (nearly 2,000 feet) average 

water velocities are generally a few tenths of a foot per second or less, except during 

high flows. Shallow water habitat (0 to 20 feet at median pool and flow) is 2,553 x 104

ft2

, about 4 percent of the shallow water habitat in Boundary Reservoir. Shallow water 

habitat generally occurs as a narrow strip along the edge of the reservoir, equivalent to 

an average of 204 feet (about 10 percent) of the overall wetted width of the Forebay 
133

Reach. The low water velocities and lack of shallow habitat in the Forebay Reach are 

conducive to a fish community dominated by suckers, yellow perch, triploid rainbow 

trout, and northern pikeminnow.

Canyon Reach – The Canyon Reach is generally reservoir-like, but because it is 

much narrower than the Forebay Reach, velocities are higher, especially near the 

upstream end of the reach. The steep canyon walls in this reach limit the amount of 

shallow water habitat. Within the 8.8-mile length of the Canyon Reach, there are 302 x 

104 ft2 (average width of 68 feet) of shallow water habitat at the median pool and flow 

condition, which is about one-third of the values for the Forebay and Tailrace reaches

and about one-tenth of the Upper Reservoir Reach value. 

Upper Reservoir Reach –The Upper Reservoir Reach is the most riverine of all 

the reaches and at times experiences little influence from project operations on 

hydraulic conditions and resulting habitat indices. The gradient is relatively low in the 

downstream 4 miles of the reach, but then increases farther upstream. The different 

gradients in the Upper Reservoir Reach are reflected in the hydraulics. The lowest 

mean channel velocities occur in the wide section adjacent to the Town of Metaline, 

where they range from about 0.5 to 1 fps at the median flow of 19,500 cfs. For most of 

the remainder of the reach, the velocities at the median flow vary between 1 to 3 fps, 

depending on the location and forebay elevation. In the uppermost mile of the reach, 

the steepest section, the velocities range between about 2 and 5 fps.

Aquatic habitat modeling of the four reaches was supported by field studies of 

fish, macrophyte, periphyton, and benthic macroinvertebrates. The Upper Reservoir 

Reach generally has a higher diversity and abundance of these fauna because it contains 

more shallow and complex habitat, a wider variety of substrate types, and isles affected 

by fluctuations in water surface elevation.72 In contrast, the Canyon and Forebay 

reaches are deep, with narrow strips of shallow water habitat adjacent to the shorelines, 

relatively coarse substrates, and fluctuations in water surface elevation that occur 

frequently and can be substantially larger than those in the Upper Reservoir Reach. 

Mountain whitefish fry and adult WUA in the Upper Reservoir Reach is higher 

than in any of the other three reaches for all hydrologic conditions.73 The Canyon 

Reach affords smallmouth bass a variety of habitat conditions in the form of boulders, 

bedrock ledges, and attendant velocity shear conditions. The amount of WUA for 

forage fish is fairly low in the Forebay and Canyon reaches as a result of the scarcity of 

 

72 The Upper Reservoir Reach provides nearly 80 percent of the macrophyte 

WUA, about 65 percent of the periphyton WUA, and just over 70 percent of the benthic 

macroinvertebrate WUA available within the four reaches.

73 The Upper Reservoir Reach provides more than 60 percent of the mountain 

whitefish WUA in the project area.
134

shallow depths and low water velocities preferred by the smaller fish. Habitat in the 

Tailrace Reach is similar to the upper 1 miles of the Upper Reservoir Reach (i.e., Box 

Canyon tailrace), except that that tailrace habitat is more affected by fluctuations in 

water surface elevations resulting from the operation of Boundary dam and BC Hydro’s 

downstream Seven Mile dam.

WUA values for adult cutthroat trout in the Upper Reservoir Reach are similar to 

the Canyon Reach, totaling over 75 percent of the available WUA for the species in the 

project area. The individual estimates of WUA for the two reaches are about 3 times 

higher than in the Tailrace and Forebay reaches. Similar to the Canyon Reach, the 

Upper Reservoir Reach has tributaries that appear to provide a source of cutthroat trout 

production, as evidence by the capture of juvenile cutthroat trout moving downstream in 

Sweet and Sand creeks. However, as is the case elsewhere in the project area, few 

native trout have been observed using mainstem Upper Reservoir Reach habitats, which 

could be due, at least in part, to the high water temperatures that typically occur during 

the summer months in the mainstem Pend Oreille River.

The Upper Reservoir Reach is the most physically diverse reach within the 

project area. This reach has over 86 percent of the shallow water habitat in the 

Boundary Reservoir. Within this 7.7-mile reach, variable habitat conditions are 

provided by several islands, back channels, and near-shore aquatic vegetation. Many of 

the off-channel areas away from the mainstem currents contain widespread and 

seasonally dense concentrations of submerged aquatic vegetation. These areas serve as 

both spawning and rearing habitat for various fish species present in the reach. Nearshore areas within the more confined, steeper portions of the reach provide gravel and 

cobble bed habitats, often in conjunction with velocities that are more representative of 

riverine systems supportive of native salmonids. The shallow water zone is quite 

extensive under most flow conditions.

The Upper Reservoir Reach provides substantial spawning habitat for a variety 

of fish species, including mountain whitefish and smallmouth bass. The spawning 

index for mountain whitefish is similar for all three representative years, with the 

highest value of 343 feet for the wet year and the lowest value of 259 feet for the dry 

year.74 In contrast, the spawning index for smallmouth bass exhibits a higher degree of 

variability, with a high of 24 feet for the dry year and a low of 13 feet for the average 

year.75 Spawning smallmouth bass, as well as other centrarchids, has been documented 

 

74 The small range is the result of similar water level fluctuations that occur 

during the potential spawning and incubation period for mountain whitefish, which 

occurs during the late fall and winter.

75 The smallmouth bass spawning and incubation period typically carries into the 

spring freshet. The higher index value for a dry year reflects the lack of increased water 

surface elevations associated with periods of runoff. During the wet and average years, 

potential spawning nests are exposed when the high flows recede.
135

in off-channel areas or on the downstream ends of cobble bars in the Upper Reservoir 

Reach during the spring and summer months. In addition, mountain whitefish are 

known to spawn in the upper 0.5 mile of the Upper Reservoir Reach downstream from 

the Box Canyon dam and in the vicinity of Sullivan Creek.

Due to the presence of low-gradient bars and side channels, Boundary Project 

operations have the greatest stranding and trapping effect in the Upper Reservoir

Reach.76 The Upper Reservoir Reach also has about 90 percent of the submerged 

aquatic macrophyte cover, which increases the potential for stranding and trapping of 

juvenile fish. Trapping indices are substantially higher during dry years when loadfollowing operations increase the frequency and magnitude of pool level fluctuations. 

Field studies conducted in 2007 and 2008 confirm that the Upper Reservoir Reach poses 

the greatest risk of trapping and stranding in the project area. Large numbers of 

minnow fry were observed stranded during major down-ramping events during the 

summer. Because of their habitat preferences, smallmouth bass and northern 

pikeminnow are the sport fish species most at risk of trapping and stranding in the 

Upper Reservoir Reach (see table 3.5-2). Few fish were observed in areas prone to 

trapping and stranding during the winter months.

The results of aquatic habitat modeling are best used as a relative index of 

potentially suitable fish habitat. Abundance of native salmonids and other target species 

in the project area are limited by factors other than microhabitat variables (see Exhibit E 

of the License Application, Section 4.5.3.2.1). For example, during an average year, 

there is about 33 percent more WUA for adult cutthroat trout in Boundary Reservoir 

(3,257 x 104 ft2

) than WUA for adult smallmouth bass (2,489 x 104 ft2). However, 

smallmouth bass represented about 10.5 percent of the fish community during surveys 

conducted in 2007 and 2008, while cutthroat trout represented less than 0.1 percent.

Project Effects on Tributary Delta Habitats 

Tributary deltas are transition areas between the tributaries and reservoir that 

provide a variety of ecological functions. Fish may congregate at the tributary 

confluence to feed on organisms transported in the tributary flow, may use the deltas as 

temperature refugia, or may stage in delta habitats prior to spawning. Because of the 

nature of the processes that form the tributary deltas, much of a delta’s surface lies 

within the range of elevations that are subjected to water level fluctuations resulting 

from project operations. Our analysis of project effects on tributary delta habitats 

focuses on the distribution and quality of physical habitat conditions (e.g., water depth, 

cover) and the presence and persistence of thermal plumes at the seven largest tributary 

 

76 The three reaches in the project area downstream from Metaline Falls (i.e., 

Canyon, Forebay, and Tailrace reaches) account for approximately 23 percent of the 

total Trapping or Stranding Index area, indicating the relatively high importance of the 

Upper Reservoir Reach with regard to the risk of trapping.
136

deltas (see Sediment Transport and Boundary Reservoir Tributary Delta Habitat Report, 

Study No. 8; Seattle, 2009a).77

Physical habitat modeling of major tributary deltas translated hourly fluctuations 

in Boundary Reservoir water surface elevations from the hydraulic routing model into 

estimates of a habitat quality rating (HQR) for native salmonids. The HQR model was 

applied to three historical river flow conditions to evaluate representative tributary delta 

habitat for wet, dry, and average years. 

The HQR (measured in ft2

) was calculated as the product of the areas of 

lacustrine and riverine habitat and weighted by their respective riverine or lacustrine 

Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) scores. HSI values were calculated for individual 

representative tributary delta areas for three life stages (i.e., adult, juvenile, and fry) of 

native salmonids using the species-habitat relationships developed for cutthroat trout by 

Hickman and Raleigh (1982). The riverine HSI model uses three or four of the 

following parameters, depending on life stage: thalweg depth, percent cover, percent 

cobble/boulder substrate, percent pool, pool quality (size and depth), and percent fines. 

The lacustrine HSI model relies on three water quality parameters: water temperature, 

DO, and pH. Details of the HQR modeling are provided in the Sediment Transport and 

Boundary Reservoir Tributary Delta Habitats Final Report (Seattle, 2009a).

The effect of historic project operations on tributary delta habitat quality varied 

in relation to whether the delta was located upstream or downstream of the Metaline 

Falls hydraulic control (table 3-15). Below Metaline Falls, the Slate and Flume Creek 

tributary deltas experience the full range of water level fluctuations associated with 

load-following operations, and consequently exhibited low HSI scores. The five 

tributary deltas upstream from the Metaline Falls hydraulic control do not experience 

the full range of water surface elevation fluctuations associated with project operations, 

and had high HSI scores. The Pocahontas and Sand creek deltas were rated as 

unsuitable during some periods because of their dry channel beds (and associated zero 

depth of thalweg). 

Table 3–15. List of tributaries, their calculated habitat suitability indices, and their 

relative ranking for salmonid adult, juvenile, and fry life stages in the tributary delta 

areas of Boundary Reservoir, as derived from the Hickman and Raleigh (1982) riverine 

model (Source: Seattle, 2009).

Tributary Name Adult Salmonid Juvenile Salmonid Salmonid Fry

HSI Rank HSI Rank HSI Rank

Slate Cr. 0.924 1 0.923 1 0.877 1

 

77 Based on a screening process that included both desktop GIS and field 

assessments, delta habitat modeling was done for those tributary deltas with substantial 

potential for salmonid habitat, including Slate, Flume, Sullivan, Linton, Pocahontas, 

Sweet, and Sand creeks.
137

Flume Cr. 0.820 3 0.900 2 0.739 2

Sullivan Cr. (low 

flow)

0.703 4 0.340 6 0.340 6

Sullivan Cr. 

(regulated flow)

0.840 2 0.823 3 0.673 3

Linton Cr. 0.300 5 0.300 7 0.000 8

Pocahontas Cr. 

(dry)

0.000 9 0.000 9 0.000 8

Pocahontas Cr. 

(low flow)

0.100 6 0.300 7 0.589 5

Sweet Cr. 0.100 6 0.577 5 0.600 4

Sand Cr. (dry) 0.000 9 0.000 9 0.000 8

Sand Cr. (low 

flow)

0.100 6 0.703 4 0.160 7

Note: HSI – Habitat Suitability Index, 0 indicates unsuitable habitat and 1 indicates 

optimal habitat

The Hickman and Raleigh (1982) lacustrine model for salmonid habitat in the 

shallow water areas of the deltas during periods of inundation suggests a range of 

habitat quality throughout the year (table 3-16). The model results are driven primarily 

by the variability in average monthly water temperature (range 34.2 to 72.7 oF) (1.2 to 

22.6 oC). During the month with the greatest average water temperature (August), the 

HSI was zero (unsuitable habitat) because the water temperature (72.7 oF) exceeds the 

maximum suitable temperature (71.6 oF, 22 oC). Conversely, in May and October, when 

the average monthly water temperature is between 52.7 and 59.0 oF (11.5 and 15 oC), 

pH becomes the limiting factor and the HSI approaches 0.90. As temperature fluctuates 

between the unsuitable values in August78 and the near optimal values in May, June, 

and October, the HSI values change accordingly.

Table 3–16. Boundary Reservoir average monthly temperatures, their associated 

suitability, and final reservoir Habitat Suitability Index using Hickman and Raleigh’s 

(1982) lacustrine model (Source: Seattle, 2009; modified by Staff).

Temperature (oF)

Month Value Suitability HSI

January 34.2 0.15 0.15

 

78 Because of the influence of the potential presence of thermal plumes at the 

tributary mouths, the suitability for a portion of the lacustrine area may be greater than 0 

during times when water temperatures are unsuitable for salmonids. The HSI models, 

however, do not reflect these small-scale thermal characteristics.
138

February 35.4 0.24 0.24

March 39.0 0.48 0.67

April 45.5 0.83 0.81

May 53.1 1.00 0.86

June 59.5 0.99 0.86

July 70.3 0.16 0.16

August 72.7 0.00 0.00

September 66.0 0.66 0.75

October 55.4 1.00 0.86

November 44.1 0.77 0.79

December 36.3 0.30 0.30

A number of patterns are apparent from the results of the HQR modeling. These 

are described as follows.

1. Each of the modeled tributary deltas has minimum lacustrine HQRs of 0 because 

water temperatures during August are considered unsuitable.

2. Average lacustrine HQR values increased from dry, to average, to wet 

hydrologic conditions, although differences among years were small for Flume 

and Slate Creeks.

3. Under the modeled historic conditions, the lacustrine HQR results followed the 

same general temporal pattern for all tributaries, which is a function of water 

temperature.79 Under the proposed operations for any new license, we would 

expect that the trends would be similar to the historic conditions.

4. The Sullivan Creek delta supplies substantially more lacustrine and riverine 

habitat than any of the other tributaries, with average HQRs of 20.4 x 104 ft2 and 

2.0 x 104 ft2 for lacustrine and riverine juvenile habitat, respectively. For all 

tributaries, average lacustrine HQR values are about an order of magnitude or 

higher than riverine HQR values.80

 

79 In the months of April and October, when temperature is within the optimal 

range, the HQR values peak. Between these two maximums, HQR values rise and fall 

as water temperatures warm (prior to April), become unsuitably hot (August), and then 

cool (after October).

80 From highest to lowest, the ranking of tributaries based on lacustrine HQR 

values is as follows: Sullivan, Flume, Slate, Sand, Sweet, Linton, and Pocahontas 

creeks. From highest to lowest, the ranking of tributaries based on riverine HQR values 

is as follows: Sullivan, Sweet, Slate, and Sand creeks. Flume, Linton, and Pocahontas 

creeks have negligible suitability, with riverine HQR values all less than 600 ft2

. (see

figure 3-11)
139

Physical habitat conditions in the inundated portion of the deltas are of low 

quality; however, salmonids from the reservoir seek out the cold-water inflow from the 

tributaries. Thermal plumes at the tributary deltas provide refugia during the summer 

when mainstem water temperatures rise above the levels suitable for salmonids. 

Thermographs installed along the thalweg of the stream channels flowing across the 

seven tributary deltas indicate that thermal plumes persist throughout the rising and 

falling of the pool levels.81 The thermographs at all seven tributary deltas show a 

gradient in temperature progressing from the warmer mainstem water to cooler water 

across the delta to the coldest water in the upstream tributary inflow. Project operations 

that maintain low reservoir water surface elevations would expose riverine habitat area 

on the tributary deltas. The quality of this riverine habitat in the delta is lower than 

riverine habitat in the tributary channels upstream of the deltas. The lower habitat 

quality of the delta channels is due to the lack of stable bedforms, small substrate 

particle sizes, sparse cover (e.g., boulders, LWD), few pools, and shallow channel 

depths.

Fish passage can become an issue at tributary deltas if the mainstem water 

surface exposes the steep leading edge or face of the delta deposits, referred to as the 

foreset slope. On this slope, fish passage can be jeopardized because water drains into 

the loose delta sediment deposits, the stream becomes too steep and/or shallow, or the 

stream divides into multiple small channels that become impassable. Within the 

tributary deltas, no barriers exists that would affect fish passage to upstream tributaries. 

Even where potential barriers exist (e.g., the Pocahontas Creek foreset slope), they are 

not exposed for a long enough duration (typically, no longer than a single day) to 

substantially affect upstream fish movement.

Project Effects on LWD Recruitment and Transport

LWD can be an important component of aquatic habitat in both riverine and 

reservoir habitats (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991; Northcote and Atagi, 1997). LWD 

provides habitat complexity, cover, and substrate for fish and macroinvertebrates. As 

LWD decomposes, it may also provide nutrients to the water column and sediments 

(Harmon et al, 1986). LWD in reservoirs can be divided into three categories, each 

with distinct biological functions, based upon location: (1) submerged LWD; (2) 

floating LWD; and (3) shoreline LWD.

 

81 The thermal plume mapping and the analysis of the results indicate that at all 

the tributary deltas except Slate Creek, the size of the thermal plume at the tributary 

delta increases with an increase in mainstem water surface elevation adjacent to the 

tributary delta. In addition, over the long term, lower mainstem water surface elevations 

is expected to result in smaller average thermal plume areas than higher mainstem water 

surface elevation.
140

No generally recognized criteria for LWD size and distribution in Pacific 

Northwest reservoirs are available. Nevertheless, LWD that remains in place on the 

shoreline has the potential to create water velocity breaks, fish cover, complex habitat 

structure, and surface area for the production of periphyton and macroinvertebrates that 

prefer woody substrate over rock substrate.

The project affects the abundance, distribution, and quality of LWD as a 

component of aquatic habitat within the reservoir and downstream of the project. Water 

surface elevation fluctuations in Boundary Reservoir may affect wood recruitment 

indirectly by affecting the development of riparian trees adjacent to the varial zone, or 

fluctuation zone. Wood recruitment mechanisms adjacent to lakes or reservoirs are 

primarily windthrow, senescence, or mass wasting events. Recruitment may also occur 

by transport from tributaries or passage over the Box Canyon dam during periods of 

spill, but the size of most of the tributaries draining to Boundary Reservoir is too small 

to transport large wood pieces that could provide substantial habitat structure. LWD 

that collects in the Boundary Forebay is currently removed from the river and used as 

firewood, sold as commercial timber, or disposed of in other ways.

Based on data collected in 2007 and 2008, high flow events are important for the 

redistribution of LWD in the Pend Oreille River, and tend to increase the amount of 

LWD collected at the project’s trashrack. If LWD is delivered to Boundary Reservoir 

from tributaries or Box Canyon Reservoir, a portion could eventually become stranded 

on the floodplain or gravel bars and, when inundated during high pool conditions, serve 

as littoral habitat for aquatic invertebrates and fish. As reservoir levels recede, some of 

the non-anchored pieces could float off of these areas and into the main portion of the 

reservoir.

Reservoir fluctuations can affect the portion of time that a given piece of LWD 

provides habitat. LWD that is stranded on mid-channel bars or along the shoreline 

during peak runoff periods may be at elevations above the water surface during other 

parts of the year. Other pieces of LWD may be located within the varial zone affected 

by project operations and may intermittently provide aquatic habitat.

Removal of LWD at the Boundary Forebay trashrack results in the potential 

depletion of shoreline wood farther downstream in the Boundary tailrace or within 

Seven Mile or Waneta Reservoirs. Similarly, removal of LWD at the Albeni Falls and 

Box Canyon dams depletes the amount that enters Boundary Reservoir.

According to LWD mapping at the project, LWD in the largest diameter category 

(i.e., greater than 32 inches) is extremely rare (about 0.4 percent if the numerical total 

and 1.3 percent of the volume) and LWD in the largest length category is numerically 

low (399 pieces, 26 percent of total) but provides the most wood volume (40,717 cubic 

feet, 64 percent of total). Records of LWD removal at the Boundary dam indicate the 

proportion of wood in the largest length and diameter categories transported during 
141

2007 and 2008 is also very low, so its removal reduces the amount of a limited resource 

that could potentially benefit aquatic habitat in the Pend Oreille River.82

Mass wasting events along the reservoir shoreline can result in the recruitment of 

new LWD to the system. However, areas with chronic erosion problems do not provide 

an environment conducive to the growth of new trees. Within the project area, 132 

erosion sites along 15.5 miles of reservoir shoreline were inventoried using GIS and 

aerial photos (LWD Management Study; Seattle, 2009a). Trees and LWD were 

observed at only a few locations. Consequently, little high value potential LWD is 

available for recruitment and project-related mass wasting along the reservoir shoreline 

would likely have a minor effect on LWD that could contribute to aquatic habitat in the 

reservoir or downstream.

Project Effects on Aquatic Productivity in Boundary Reservoir

The physical characteristics and chemical constituents of the water, such as water 

temperature, DO, pH, and nutrients (nitrogenous and phosphorus compounds), in 

Boundary Reservoir can affect fish and aquatic productivity. For example, water 

temperatures in Boundary Reservoir are cold in the winter and warm in the summer. 

The wide range of temperatures in the reservoir tends to limit the productivity of both 

cold water fish (e.g., trout) and warm water fish (e.g. pumpkinseed), which prefer 

summer temperatures less than 65o F and greater than 75 oF, respectively (Holton 1990). 

Cool water fish species, such as smallmouth bass, that prefer intermediate temperatures 

and tolerate relatively wide extremes are not limited by the temperatures present in 

Boundary Reservoir.

DO is strongly influenced by, and inversely related to, water temperature and can 

be affected by plant83 and animal respiration and the amount of mixing in the water 

column. DO monitoring conducted in 2007 and 2008 indicates that Boundary Reservoir 

is generally above the state standard of 8.0 mg/L. However, several exceedances were 

recorded for July and August of 2008 within deeper portions of the Canyon and Forebay 

reaches, and at a shallow water site near the Town of Metaline. In addition, data 

showed that DO decreased about 1.0 mg/L from the surface to the deepest measurement 

between July and October 2008, and these decreases were more prevalent at the Forebay 

Reach.

 

82 164 pieces of LWD greater than 12 inches in diameter were removed at the 

Boundary dam during 2008, which is about 29 percent of the LWD standing crop of 

those size categories that was counted along the shoreline during 2007.

83 Macrophyte beds can have a localized diurnal effect on DO levels as a result 

of photosynthesis and respiration. During periods of high photosynthesis/respiration, 

monitoring demonstrates that DO levels at night frequently drop below 8 mg/L in the 

macrophyte bed, with the lowest DO concentration being 2.7 mg/L (Seattle, 2009a).
142

DO levels less than 8 mg/L in the Boundary Reservoir could adversely affect 

pelagic and demersal fish species living in deeper waters during the late summer. EPA 

(1986) reports that DO levels less than 8 mg/L for salmonids, other than embryos, 

results in some level of impairment, with severe impairment occurring below 4 mg/L 

and the limit to avoid acute mortality at 3 mg/L. Levels are somewhat lower for nonsalmonids, with impairment starting at levels less than 6.5 to 6.0 mg/L and acute levels 

occurring below 3 to 4 mg/L for early life stages and older fish, respectively. 

Monitoring data suggest that, at times and locations, DO levels may result in temporary 

stress to fish and invertebrates in Boundary Reservoir. Some fish may be able to avoid 

stressful conditions by moving to more suitable conditions, for example from the 

interior of a macrophyte bed to its edge, but such movements, particularly for young-ofthe-year fish, may also expose them to predators that typically inhabit areas outside of 

or at the fringe of macrophyte beds.

Primary production in the form of macrophytes can be important to the aquatic 

ecosystem by providing food, substrate, cover, and habitat structure. However, the vast 

majority of macrophytes in Boundary Reservoir are fast-growing non-native species, 

primarily Eurasian watermilfoil and curly pondweed, which tend to out-compete native 

macrophyte species. Many of the fish species that inhabit Boundary Reservoir use 

macrophyte beds during one or more of their life history stages, but these are primarily 

the non-salmonid or non-native fish species.

Macrophytes can be affected by water surface elevation during spring and 

fluctuations in water surface due to project operations. Pool elevations during early 

spring control macrophyte bed distribution. If young plants are exposed to air for more 

than 72 hours, they are likely to die (Seattle, 2009c). In contrast, if water levels rise, 

young plants that colonize lower elevations may receive insufficient light for adequate 

growth. These effects are related more to the magnitude of the spring runoff than to 

project operations. Exposure to air during hot summer periods may also affect 

macrophytes; however established macrophytes are relatively hardy during these 

periods and the short dewatering periods associated with project operations appear to 

have little effect on them. Project-related effects on macrophytes are expected to be less 

in the Upper Reservoir Reach than in the Canyon and Forebay Reaches, owing to the 

affect of the channel constriction at Metaline Falls.

Periphyton and benthic macroinvertebrates require appropriate substrate for 

production. Periphyton biomass is primarily controlled by nutrient availability and 

secondarily by light levels, while macroinvertebrates biomass is controlled by food 

availability (periphyton production). Fluctuations in reservoir water surface elevation 

affect periphyton and macroinvertebrate production through desiccation, influencing 

light penetration, and substrate availability. Repeated exposure to air and inundation 

associated with changes in water surface elevation result in alternating periods of 

impaired conditions and recovery/recolonization. The decline in suitability of habitat 

for periphyton and macroinvertebrate communities occurs rapidly and at about the same 

rate during desiccation periods, with nearly all periphyton and macroinvertebrate habitat 
143

becoming unsuitable in about 24 hours. Habitat suitability curves developed for the 

habitat model suggest that suitability remains relatively high (0.8 or greater) for 

desiccation periods of 10 hours or less. The time required for complete recovery of 

periphyton and macroinvertebrate communities is also about the same, or 56 days, but 

the rate of periphyton recovery is initially somewhat higher than for macroinvertebrates 

(Seattle, 2009a). In either case, rates of decline in habitat suitability are substantially 

higher than rates of recovery. Thus, project operations that frequently dewater shallow 

areas of the reservoir reduce the potential for periphyton and the macroinvertebrate 

community to achieve maximum biomass.

Project Effects on Fish Entrainment and Habitat Connectivity

Fish Entrainment and Mortality – The Boundary dam is situated in a narrow 

canyon at RM 17.0 on the Pend Oreille River. Although anadromous fish no longer 

have access to the Pend Oreille River, potential injury or mortality of fish that may be 

entrained in project facilities, and potential fish connectivity between habitats upstream 

of, and downstream from, the Boundary dam, were identified as issues.

There are three pathways through which fish pass downstream of the Boundary 

dam: turbines, spillways, and, possibly, sluiceways. The likelihood that fish would 

pass through one of these pathways is related to the percentage of the river flow moving 

through a given pathway, the relative depth of the pathway entrance, the time of year, 

and the habitat use and periodicity of particular fish species that places them in the 

vicinity of the pathways and at risk of entrainment. The risk of injury or mortality 

associated with each pathway is a function of fish occurrence in the vicinity of the 

pathway and hydraulic conditions experienced by the fish during passage and upon 

reintroduction to the tailrace.

Fish experience injury or mortality when exposed to a variety of hydraulic or 

physical conditions when passing through hydroelectric facilities. These include: 

(1) physically contacting solid structures at high velocity (strike); (2) exposure to 

shearing water velocities; (3) grinding between moving and stationary mechanical 

components of a turbine; (4) exposure to turbulent conditions that can result in 

disorientation of the fish and, as a result, a greater risk of predation; (5) exposure to 

cavitation from the rapid formation and collapse of small air bubbles at extremely high 

water velocities; (6) exposure to rapid pressure changes that can result in bursting of the 

swim bladder or blood embolisms; and (7) exposure to supersaturated TDG levels. 

Each of these mechanisms was considered in the evaluation of entrainment mortality 

rates at the Boundary dam.

When inflow to the project is less than the total powerhouse capacity 

(approximately 56,000 cfs), the project is operated as a load-following facility. Because 

of the large total powerhouse capacity relative to normal flows in the Pend Oreille 

River, spill generally occurs only during spring runoff. During the period 1987 through 

2006, spill conditions averaged 578 hours a year. Infrequent spill conditions results in 
144

turbine passage being the primary pathway for fish to move downstream through the 

project.

Seattle conducted hydroacoustic and fyke net sampling at the Boundary dam to 

estimate the number, size, species, and timing of fish that may be entrained within the 

project turbine intakes and spillways (see Fish Entrainment and Habitat Connectivity 

Report, Study No. 12; Seattle, 2009c). Hydroacoustic target entrainment data were 

collected and analyzed using split-beam target tracking techniques, and fyke nets were 

deployed in the Unit 54 draft tube gatewell downstream of the turbine unit. Results of 

the two techniques were combined using statistical methods derived by Dr. John Skalski 

at the University of Washington. The hydroacoustic sampling, which provided a 

continuous measure of relative entrainment at all operating turbines and spill gates, was 

used to scale the fish entrainment rates measured by the fyke net sampling at Unit 54. A 

total of 54,597 ±5,176 fish (90 percent confidence interval) was estimated to have been 

entrained through all operating turbines and spill gates at the project over the one-year 

period between March 2008 and February 2009. Suckers, pumpkinseed, and yellow 

perch dominated the fyke net catch in the draft tube of turbine Unit 54.

Under the settlement, Seattle developed estimated mortality rates for fish passing 

through the turbines and spillways at the Boundary dam. Based on a review of available 

literature and office-based, turbine survival modeling,84 fish passage mortality through 

the existing turbines at the Boundary dam was estimated to vary with the turbine units 

and fish size.85 In general, smaller fish are expected to have the lowest turbine mortality 

(5% to 15%), while turbine mortality is expected to increase with fish size (i.e., 23% to 

65% for larger fish) (table 3-17).

Table 3–17. Estimated mortality through the Boundary Project turbines, based on a 

predictive equation developed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Hydro 

Turbine System Program (Source: Seattle, 2009).

Turbine Units

Percent Mortality by Fish Length

3.9 inches 9.8 inches 23.6 inches

51 – 54 6 - 15 13 – 33 26 – 65

 

84 Seattle used a predictive equation for mortality through Francis turbines 

developed by Franke et al. (1997) to estimate the likely mortality rate for fish passing 

through the turbines at the project. 

85 The analysis considered three sizes of salmonids: 3.9 inches to represent 

juveniles; 9.8 inches to represent moderate-sized adult trout and whitefish; and 23.6 

inches to represent large trout. One consideration with respect to fish size is that the 

trashrack bars have a spacing of 5.5 inches, and the mortality analysis assumes that this 

spacing would not physically preclude any of the target sizes of fish from being 

entrained in the turbine flow.
145

55 and 56 5 – 12 11 - 28 23 - 59

The Boundary dam has two spillways, one on either side of the main arch dam 

section. The spillway chutes do not extend to the tailwater; consequently, water is 

released into open air and plunges into a pool in the tailrace. Of the seven potentially 

damaging conditions listed above, the two that are major considerations associated with 

spill flow are shear and strike.86 

The greatest effect on fish passing through spill is expected to occur upon 

entrance of the plunging flow into the tailrace. Based on the height of the spillways 

above the tailrace (155 to 170 feet from the point of flow release from the spillway 

chute to the plunge pool, depending upon tailwater level), the velocity of the plunging 

flow immediately downstream of the Boundary dam is estimated to exceed 100 fps 

upon impact with the tailrace plunge pool.

We reviewed the results of studies conducted at other dams concerning the 

effects of shear forces on fish. Based on that review, we determined that at low spill 

flow rates there would be near 100 percent mortality of fish that plunged onto rock 

instead of falling into the open water of the Boundary tailrace. At spill rates where the 

flow directly reaches the tailrace pool, the mortality rate will depend on the size of fish 

and whether the fish remains entrained in the flow jet or freefalls in the air before 

reaching the tailrace pool (R2 Resource Consultants 2006). Estimated mortality ranges 

for spillway downstream passage routes are shown in table 3-18.

Table 3–18. Estimated mortality of fish using spillway and sluiceway downstream 

passage routes (Source: Seattle, 2009).

Passage Routes

Range of Estimated Mortality by Fish Length

3.9 inches 9.8 inches 23.6 inches

Spillways 40 – 80 percent 35 – 65 percent 20 – 50 percent

Sluiceways 40 – 70 percent 25 -55 percent 10 – 40 percent

As proposed in the settlement, Seattle would evaluate and implement, as 

appropriate, measures designed to attain TDG compliance at the project, including: (1) 

throttle sluice gates, which involves operation of sluice gates in partially open positions; 

(2) roughen sluice flow, which entails modification of the sluice gate outlets to break up 

 

86 Damaging shear occurs when the plunging spill flow enters the tailrace and 

there is a substantial difference in velocities where the two flows come together. Strike 

can occur if the spill flow comes in contact at high velocity with projections within the 

spillway chute, or with rock along the bank or the bottom of the plunge pool.
146

and spread flow; and (3) spillway flow splitter/aerator, which entails modifying the 

spillways to aerate, break up, and spread flow. The three gate alternatives all involve 

spilling flow through existing outlets into the tailwater plunge pool and rely on reducing 

TDG production by spreading the flow and limiting plunging effects of the confined 

water jets.

Each of the proposed measures may have both beneficial and adverse effects on 

fish. The beneficial effects would involve achieving a higher likelihood of attaining 

TDG compliance levels in the Boundary dam tailrace, with a concomitant reduction in 

potential gas bubble trauma in fish. Nonetheless, the measures could also result in 

increased injury or mortality to fish entrained through the spillways or sluiceways87 due 

to the increased risk of fish strikes on the added roughening elements. Spreading the 

flow and reducing the size of water jets could be beneficial for small fish and adversely 

affect large fish upon contact with the tailrace water surface. Small fish (about 4 

inches) that leave a water jet and free fall to the tailrace should survive at a higher rate 

than small fish that experience strong shear forces while plunging in a water jet. In 

contrast, large fish (about 24 inches) have low survival if they leave a water jet. There 

is substantial uncertainty regarding the magnitude of both the potential beneficial and 

adverse effects of the proposed TDG measures, which leads to uncertainty regarding the 

overall net effect to fish.

Habitat Connectivity – Habitat fragmentation has been cited as an important 

concern to the maintenance and recovery of bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout 

populations (69 FR 59996; USFWS, 1999; Rieman and McIntyre, 1993; Rieman et al., 

1997; McIntyre and Rieman, 1995). The available survey information reviewed by 

Rieman et al. (1997) and McIntyre and Rieman (1995) indicates that in most regions 

bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout distribution is discontinuous or patchy. A 

variety of biological and anthropogenic factors has been suggested as contributing to the 

patchy distribution of bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout. The most important of 

these are the species’ narrow habitat requirements, habitat degradation, exotic fish 

introductions, and passage barriers (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993; McIntyre and Rieman, 

1995).

Passage barriers are clearly an isolating mechanism for local populations. Types 

of barriers include waterfalls, landslides, water withdrawals, road crossings, and dams. 

A local population that lives above a barrier can only contribute individuals (and their 

genes) in a downstream direction. If a local population upstream of a passage barrier is 

extirpated, there is virtually no opportunity for the local population to become reestablished in the near future, unless other local populations are present farther upstream 

or there is human intervention. The likelihood of re-establishing local populations is 

 

87 The depth of the sluiceways likely makes them a route through which few fish 

would pass.
147

greatly enhanced if upstream populations include migratory life history forms, which 

are more likely to disperse. Nelson et al. (2002) suggested that the loss of the migratory 

form in some areas increases the risk that local populations could go extinct.

Passage barriers may isolate local populations, but they can also prevent the 

spread of non-native species such as brook trout, which are also considered a threat to 

native salmonids (Andonaegui, 2003). Most of the tributaries to Boundary Reservoir 

and the Pend Oreille River have been stocked with non-native salmonid species such as 

brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout. In addition, populations of cool-water fish 

species such as smallmouth bass, walleye, and northern pike, which are highly 

predatory, have become established in Boundary Reservoir and could compete with 

large bull trout or cutthroat trout for prey or could forage on fry and juvenile trout.

Currently none of the hydroelectric projects on the Pend Oreille River, including 

the Boundary dam, has upstream or downstream passage facilities. Consequently, any 

potential gene flow by native salmonids can only occur in a downstream direction by 

fish that survive entrainment and successfully reproduce in non-natal streams.

Tributary Habitat Productivity

Tributary streams are a source of nutrients, sediment, LWD, and water. In 

addition, they support biological processes by potentially providing spawning, rearing, 

and over-wintering habitat to resident fish residing in the tributaries year-round, as well 

as to adfluvial fish that may migrate between the reservoir and tributary streams during 

their life cycle. As such, some fish species found in Boundary Reservoir are directly 

dependent upon tributary productivity for a part of their life cycle. In addition, some 

predatory fish species living in the reservoir, such as smallmouth bass or northern pike, 

may partially rely on tributary productivity for forage fish that either actively emigrate 

from tributaries or are flushed out during high flow periods.

At a broad scale, Boundary Reservoir tributaries provide a relatively small 

amount of habitat for salmonid populations that exhibit either adfluvial or fluvial life 

history traits compared to tributaries to other reservoirs in the region, such as the Priest 

River and the Salmo River. Sullivan Creek is the third largest tributary draining into the 

Pend Oreille River, but at 143 mi2 is substantially smaller than the Priest River drainage 

at 979 mi2 and Salmo River drainage at 502 mi2

. The relatively small watershed sizes 

(except Sullivan Creek), presence of natural barriers, high stream gradients, and basin 

hydrology in these tributaries all contribute to the limited amount of habitat available 

for salmonid populations. Nevertheless, salmonid populations reside in the majority of 

Boundary Reservoir tributaries.

A number of physical and biological factors are important to explaining the 

generally low production of native salmonids in the region, such as habitat degradation, 

fish passage barriers, and competition with non-native species of fish (Andonaegui, 

2003). The presence of brook trout is considered a threat to native salmonids as a result 

of interbreeding and competition for habitat and food resources (Andonaegui, 2003). In 
148

addition, other non-native salmonids (e.g., brown and rainbow trout; kokanee) have a 

documented presence in one or more tributaries to Boundary Reservoir.

The project does not affect any limiting physical factors in the tributaries (see 

Exhibit E of License Application, pp. 216 – 218; Seattle, 2009). However, there could 

potentially be indirect biological effects on native salmonid life stages that exhibit an 

adfluvial life history pattern and use Boundary Reservoir during a portion of their lives. 

Potential adverse effects include (a) fishing pressure on out-migrant and non-native fish 

species such as smallmouth bass, northern pike, and northern pikeminnow, (b) 

entrainment past the Boundary dam and potential mortality, and (c) exposure to warm 

mainstem summer water temperatures. The magnitude of these potential ecological 

interactions is difficult to determine; however, genetic information does indicate that 

tributaries supply at least some of the native salmonids inhabiting Boundary Reservoir.

Staff’s Analysis of Proposed and Recommended Environmental Measures

The Fish and Aquatics Management Plan (FAMP) establishes the goals, program 

objectives, tasks, and schedule for implementing the non-operational aquatic 

enhancement measures proposed by Seattle in the settlement. The FAMP provides 

information about how Seattle would implement the proposed enhancement measures, 

conduct monitoring, and report on the progress of their implementation. Information 

regarding the estimated costs for implementing the measures is provided in section 

4.1.3, Development Analysis, Cost of Environmental Measures.

The aquatic enhancement measures, as described in the FAMP filed on March 

29, 2010, are an integrated package of non-operational mainstem and tributary measures 

designed to benefit native salmonid populations and their habitat.88 The FAMP is 

divided into the following elements:

• Mainstem Fish Community and Aquatic Habitat Measures (proposed License 

Article 9(A))

 gravel augmentation downstream from the Box Canyon dam

 channel modifications of mainstream trapping pools at RM 30.3

 mainstem LWD placement at tributary deltas

 

88 The settlement parties agree that changes to Boundary Project operations 

would be costly and provide limited improvement in reservoir habitat conditions. In 

addition, warm summer water temperatures, low primary productivity, and the presence 

of non-native predatory sport fish would limit the ability of changes in project operation 

to facilitate the restoration of native salmonid populations. Therefore, the majority of 

measures included in the FAMP are focused in the tributaries where opportunities to 

protect and recover native fishes have the greatest likelihood of success. 
149

 Boundary Reservoir fish community monitoring and evaluation of 

salmonid predation at select tributary deltas

• Upstream Fish Passage (proposed License Article 9(B))

• Reduction of Project-Related Entrainment Mortality (proposed License Article 

9(C))

• Tributary Non-Native Trout Suppression and Eradication (License Article 9(D))

• Tributary Fish Community and Aquatic Habitat Measures (proposed License 

Article 9(E))

 riparian improvement and stream channel enhancement in Sullivan Creek 

from RM 0.30 to RM 0.54

 stream and riparian improvements in Sullivan Creek from RM 2.3 to RM 

3.0, and North Fork Sullivan Creek

 LWD placement and road improvements in Sullivan Creek and selected 

tributaries upstream of the confluence with Outlet Creek

 culvert replacements and LWD placement in tributaries to Boundary 

Reservoir

 riparian planting, culvert replacement, and channel reconstruction in 

Linton Creek from RM 0.00 to RM 0.24

 riparian and channel improvements in Sweet Creek from RM 0.0 to RM 

0.6

 habitat improvements in Tier-2 tributaries to Boundary Reservoir

 closure and restoration of Sullivan Creek dispersed recreation sites

• Mill Pond Dam Site Monitoring and Maintenance (proposed License Article 

9(F))

• Native Salmonid Conservation Program (proposed License Article 9(G))

• Recreational Fish Stocking Program (proposed License Article 9(H))

In addition to the measures that Seattle includes in its proposed FAMP, Seattle 

also proposes, under the settlement, to establish a $2.5 million fund to help pay for 

activities to enhance habitat conditions in Harvey, Noisy, and Jungle creeks that flow 

into Sullivan Lake. The fund would be administered by the Fish and Aquatics Working 

Group (FAWG).

Mainstem Aquatic Habitat Measures – Relicensing studies indicate that 

production of native salmonids in Boundary reservoir is limited by warm water 

temperatures during the summer, low primary and secondary productivity, and the 

presence of non-native predatory sport fish species (Seattle, 2009a). Non-native 

predators of particular concern include smallmouth and largemouth bass, walleye and a 
150

small, but expanding population of northern pike. Because of the limitations in 

Boundary reservoir and the low likelihood that operational measures could improve 

environmental conditions sufficiently to address the continuing effects of the project on 

aquatic resources, Seattle proposes to implement a variety of restoration and 

enhancement measures, primarily in tributaries to Boundary Reservoir. However, prelicensing studies did identify several non-operational measures to benefit mainstem 

habitats.

Mountain whitefish are a native salmonid species thought to spawn in the Upper 

Reservoir Reach, immediately downstream from the Box Canyon dam. Gravid and 

milt-flowing mountain whitefish were captured by boat electrofishing during surveys in 

the Upper Reservoir Reach and egg mats were used to successfully collect several eggs 

believed to be mountain whitefish. The area immediately downstream from the Box 

Canyon dam has water depths and velocities appropriate for use by spawning whitefish, 

but much of the substrate is larger than the gravel size preferred by the species. Seattle 

proposes to place 1,500 yd3 of gravel among boulder groupings near suspected 

mountain whitefish spawning areas.

89 This would increase the amount and quality of 

potential spawning habitat for mountain whitefish in this area.

Project operations can cause pool levels to rise and fall on a daily basis, causing 

fish to become stranded or trapped as pool levels decline. Depressions and pools along 

the shoreline may become exposed as pool levels drop causing juvenile fish to become 

trapped and subject to injury and mortality. During the wet, average and dry modeled 

hydrologic years, 90 percent of exposed trapping area within the project area occurs in 

the Upper Reservoir Reach. While nearly all of the trapped fish observed during 2007 

and 2008 were suckers, perch, or smallmouth bass fry, these trapping mechanisms could 

also potentially adversely affect native salmonids if they are present in the trapping 

areas when water surface elevations decline. 

The area referred to as the “Cobble Sisters” at RM 30.3 within the Upper 

Reservoir Reach is an area with a high occurrence of trapping. The pools and 

depressions at the site are the result of aggregate mining that occurred prior to 

completion of the project and represent about 21 percent of the trapping area within the 

upper reservoir. The excavated depressions have persisted since construction of the 

project, which suggests that the area is geomorphically stable. Seattle’s proposal to 

excavate a channel connecting the pools with the mainstem flow would reduce the 

incidence of fish becoming trapped or stranded in isolated pools at the site.

 

89 Placement of gravel in the headwaters of the Boundary Reservoir to enhance 

spawning habitat for mountain whitefish would constitute a discharge to waters of the 

United States. Seattle would be required to obtain a dredge and fill permit under section 

404 of the CWA for the activity prior to placement of the gravel. 
151

The tributary deltas are important transition zones between mainstem and 

tributary habitats and coldwater tributary plumes that offer thermal refugia to native 

salmonids during warm summer months. The tributary deltas are characterized as 

containing poor habitat features due to the lack of stable bedforms, small substrate 

particle sizes, sparse cover (e.g., boulders, LWD) and few pools. To address these 

limitations for the delta areas, Seattle proposes to place and maintain LWD jams within 

the thalweg in the upper delta regions of four tributaries to Boundary Reservoir, 

including the delta regions of Sullivan and Slate creeks. This proposal would enhance 

tributary delta habitat by providing additional cover for salmonids holding in the 

coldwater refugia at tributary mouths.

Both salmonids and predatory sport fish have been observed holding at the 

confluence of tributaries to Boundary Reservoir, and the influence of introduced sport 

fish predators on salmonid populations is unclear. Seattle proposes to conduct fish 

community surveys in Boundary Reservoir to monitor changes in salmonid and 

predatory sport fish population abundance and size structure.90 Seattle also proposes to 

conduct a study to evaluate predation on out-migrating native salmonids at select 

tributary deltas.91 Monitoring and evaluation of salmonid and predatory sport fish

populations would help guide future native salmonid recovery efforts.

Upstream Fish Passage – The Boundary dam was built without fish passage 

facilities because downstream power and water storage projects, such as Grand Coulee 

and Chief Joseph dams, blocked anadromous fish migrations to the Upper Columbia 

Basin. Without upstream fish passage facilities, any potential gene flow by native 

salmonids can only occur in a downstream direction by fish that survive entrainment. 

However, declines in populations of native salmonids have increased attention on 

protecting resident fish movements. The FWS Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan, for 

example, calls for upstream passage at the Corps’ Albeni Falls dam, the District’s Box 

Canyon dam, and Seattle’s Boundary dam. The District is currently planning to 

construct upstream fish passage facilities at its Box Canyon dam, targeting upstream 

passage of bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish.

As part of relicensing activities, Seattle and a team of fish passage experts 

evaluated options for bypassing upstream migrating fish around the Boundary dam

(McMillen, 2009). As part of the settlement, Seattle proposes to address upstream fish 

passage with a traditional trap and haul fishway based on NMFS criteria. A trap and 

haul facility would be appropriate in this case due to comparatively low population sizes 

 

90 The goal of the mainstem reservoir fish community monitoring is to provide

federal, state, and tribal agencies with demographic and population information on fish 

species inhabiting the Project area to inform future management decisions.

91 The objective of the study would be to quantify the proportion of outmigrating 

native salmonids that are being consumed by predatory fish within selected tributary 

deltas.
152

of native salmonids and physical site constraints in the tailrace. While agreement has 

been reached on the preferred alternative, there is uncertainty regarding an appropriate 

site within the tailrace for the fixed trap-and-haul facility. In addition, because of the 

low numbers of native salmonids captured or observed in the Boundary dam tailrace, 

there is little direct information regarding movement patterns of bull trout, cutthroat 

trout, or mountain whitefish in the Boundary tailrace.

Consistent with the settlement, the process for developing the trap and haul 

fishway includes a 2-year study design and planning effort and an 8-year research and 

development phase to evaluate site specific conditions and biological traits of the target 

species in the project area. Details of the research and development phase would be 

confirmed after license issuance in consultation with the FAWG, but a conceptual plan 

was developed that includes multi-year biotelemetry studies and attraction flow tests in 

multiple tailrace locations (see tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 in the FAMP filed March 29, 

2010).

Because few target fish were captured in the tailrace during pre-licensing studies, 

Seattle proposes to evaluate fishway attraction effectiveness using target species from 

upstream sources or that demonstrate upstream migration behavior. For instance, 

Seattle, in consultation with the FAWG and appropriate agencies, may collect bull trout 

from Lake Pend Oreille, insert radio and/or acoustic tags, release the fish into the 

Boundary tailrace, and use micro-telemetry studies of those fish to identify an effective 

fishway entrance location and design.

Seattle proposes to use a proven technology, such as trap-and-haul, for upstream 

fish passage facilities at the project. Providing fish passage at the Boundary dam would 

eliminate a substantial barrier to fish movement in the Pend Oreille River. In fact, with 

the fish passage measures planned for the upstream Box Canyon and Albeni Falls dams, 

adding fish passage at the Boundary dam would re-establish a migration corridor that 

would be accessible to native salmonids, including bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, 

and mountain whitefish, from Lake Pend Oreille, downstream to Boundary dam. In 

addition, any uninjured fish entrained over or through the Boundary dam and generating 

units would have an avenue to move back upstream. 

The proposed research and development activities would allow Seattle and the 

resource agencies to evaluate site-specific conditions and the behavioral traits of the 

target species. This information would help support the design of a fish passage 

program that complements native salmonid recovery efforts in the Pend Oreille River 

Basin. The post-construction monitoring component would help inform decisions 

regarding the effectiveness of the facilities and the need for modifications to the passage 

facilities.

Finally, installing fish passage facilities at the Boundary dam would be consistent 

with FWS’ draft recovery plan for bull trout (FWS, 2002). Provision of fish passage at 

the Boundary dam, as well as at Albeni Falls and Box Canyon dams, is a primary 

recovery measure of the plan.
153

Fish Entrainment and Mortality – The Boundary dam was built without 

entrainment reduction facilities. As fish pass downstream through the Boundary dam

facilities, they are exposed to potential injury and mortality, with the level of mortality 

depending on the pathway, flow rate, and size of fish. A total of about 55,000 fish was 

estimated to have been entrained through all project turbines and spill gates over a oneyear period (Seattle, 2009a). Suckers, pumpkinseed, and yellow perch dominated the 

catch in fyke nets installed in the draft tube of turbine Unit 54. Although native 

salmonids were not captured as part of the netting effort, downstream movement of 

native salmonids is evidenced by the capture of two bull trout in the Boundary 

tailrace.92 Although the number of native salmonids entrained through the Boundary 

dam may be small, the influence of entrainment on recovery of native salmonid 

populations is uncertain.

As part of relicensing activities, a team of fish passage experts evaluated 

alternative entrainment reduction concepts for the Boundary dam, including fixed full 

flow screens, modular inclined screens, and floating or fixed surface collectors 

(McMillen, 2009). The results of the evaluation determined that a floating surface 

collector concept would provide the most flexibility and potentially the highest 

incremental increase in fish protection. The estimated incremental increase in survival 

was 0 to 2 percent for 4-inch fish, -1 to 9 percent for 10-inch fish, and 8 to 21 percent 

for 24-inch fish. Since little is known about the migration depth of native species, the 

efficacy of a floating surface collector concept to reduce entrainment is uncertain.

Due to uncertainty regarding the effects of entrainment on target fish 

populations, and uncertainty regarding the efficacy of available entrainment reduction 

options, Seattle proposes to implement an Entrainment Reduction Program, which 

would include an evaluation phase to assess the effects of project entrainment on target 

species. During Years 1-18, Seattle would develop and implement studies (see Tables 

2.2-3 and 2.2-4 in the FAMP filed March 29, 2010) sufficient to quantify the effects of 

entrainment on target species and to determine whether any population of target fish 

species (i.e., a unique population that constitutes a substantial percentage of fish in the 

project area or that has a unique evolutionary niche that requires special protection) or a 

substantial number of target fish are affected by project entrainment.

 

92 The fish were identified through genetic analysis as originating upstream in 

the Lake Pend Oreille basin.
154

Successful implementation of the Entrainment Reduction Program93 would 

reduce the effects of entrainment on target species (e.g., bull trout, westslope cutthroat 

trout, and mountain whitefish), as well as potentially other species by either: 

(1) preventing entrainment at the project; (2) reducing entrainment at the project and 

addressing the remaining effects through other means; or (3) fully addressing the effects 

of entrainment through other measures. The decision as to whether entrainment is best 

addressed through options 1, 2 or 3, as defined above, would be made by the FAWG,

based on site specific information developed under this program.94 Seattle would work 

collaboratively with the FAWG in all aspects of this program.

The Boundary Project currently entrains individual fish through its generating 

units and spillways, and direct mortality associated with entrainment is high (see Fish 

Entrainment and Habitat Connectivity Study, Study No. 12 Final Report; Seattle, 

2009a). The existing level of entrainment and mortality, if it continues, would likely 

reduce the benefits of fish production gained from the additional habitat provided by 

passage of native salmonids upstream of the Box Canyon dam. 

Seattle’s proposal to implement a fish entrainment reduction program at the 

project would reduce entrainment, injury, and mortality of fish during any downstream 

movement through the project area. The proposed studies/evaluation component would 

help to define the extent to which entrainment is occurring at the project and to ensure 

that the measures ultimately implemented are commensurate with project effects. 

Seattle’s proposed evaluation phase would last 18 years. The length of this phase 

reflects the uncertainty concerning the level of entrainment for bull trout, cutthroat trout, 

and whitefish that is occurring, and would be warranted under these circumstances. 

Tributary Aquatic Habitat Enhancements – As we noted above, much of the 

FAMP is focused on improving Boundary tributary habitat. As part of developing the 

FAMP, Seattle categorized tributaries flowing into Boundary Reservoir according to 

habitat availability for native salmonids and the potential opportunity to improve 

 

93 The minimum survival threshold is 60 percent, based on site conditions and 

best available technology. If survival of target species passing through the Boundary 

dam is less than 60 percent, Seattle would construct a facility to increase survival. The 

facility would be designed to improve survival of target species to more than 60 percent. 

Monitoring of the facility would confirm whether 60 percent survival has been 

achieved, or if additional modifications are needed to achieve 60 percent survival. 

94 Seattle proposes to implement an 18-year Fish Behavior and Population Study 

to help define factors that complement or hinder native salmonid recovery. The 

information obtained from this effort, which would include the effects of dam survival 

on native salmonid populations and the success of tributary enhancements, would help 

guide Seattle’s implementation of its entrainment reduction program (e.g., the decision 

to implement non-operational measures versus construct protection and passage 

facilities at the Boundary Project). 
155

conditions through habitat enhancement (see Assessment of Factors Affecting Aquatic 

Productivity in Tributary Habitats, Study No. 14; Seattle, 2009a). Twenty-eight 

tributaries were categorized as primary, secondary, or excluded according to the extent 

to which habitat improvements would likely benefit native salmonids. The majority of 

tributary treatments are directed at primary or secondary reaches (i.e., Tier-1) that 

provide the greatest potential to influence native fish resources. In addition, Seattle 

proposes to implement measures to improve aquatic habitat conditions in low priority 

tributaries (i.e., Tier-2). The over-riding criterion is that the Tier-2 tributary must have, 

or potentially have, useable native salmonid habitat that could be effectively improved 

through habitat improvement or protection.

Most of the tributaries to Boundary Reservoir have been stocked with non-native 

salmonids such as brook trout, brown trout, and hatchery rainbow trout from out-ofbasin stocks. The presence of non-native trout, especially brook trout, is a serious threat 

to native salmonids, as a result of interbreeding (with bull and westslope cutthroat trout) 

and competition for habitat and food resources. FWS (1999) states, in its status review, 

that westslope cutthroat trout are usually found in the cooler upper extents of 

tributaries.95 In addition, habitat in the tributary reaches has been degraded by blocking 

culverts, roads constructed in riparian zones, and past logging practices which reduced 

LWD recruitment. To address the aforementioned issues, Seattle proposes to 

implement biological and habitat treatments in tributaries to Boundary Reservoir to 

benefit native salmonids, followed by monitoring and adaptive management to increase 

performance of the measures.

The objective of the tributary aquatic habitat program is to establish selfsustaining, naturally reproducing stocks of native salmonids and provide access to, and 

improve, habitat conditions in tributaries draining to Boundary Reservoir to offset an 

estimated 304 acres of reservoir habitat affected by the Boundary Project. Fish 

population and habitat condition goals are needed to guide these restoration efforts. To 

this end, prior to implementing any tributary enhancements, Seattle proposes to develop 

a Tributary Management Plan that includes a schedule and scope of activities for each 

tributary to ensure that enhancements are complementary to the population and habitat 

goals. For instance, removal of culverts that block tributary access might be delayed 

until after brook trout suppression efforts to reduce the risk of brook trout 

recolonization. Biological enhancements would include suppression or eradication of 

non-native fish in tributary reaches and selected lakes draining to Boundary Reservoir.96

 

95 FWS suggests that this distribution pattern is more likely driven by 

competition from other trout such as rainbow trout and brook trout that are less tolerant 

of cooler, higher gradient streams, rather than a preference for that habitat type.

96 Backpack electrofishing would be the technique used to capture non-native 

fish (primarily brook trout) during suppression efforts. Eradication of non-native fish 

would involve multiple applications of an approved fish toxicant in select water bodies.
156

The proposed habitat enhancements would consist of a variety of measures 

designed in response to the site-specific conditions. Removal or replacement of blocked 

culverts would restore access to habitats that is not otherwise available during low-flow 

conditions. Riparian plantings and streamside road improvements would benefit 

tributary habitat conditions by reducing fine sediment runoff, increase shade and canopy 

cover to reduce water temperatures, and increase the long-term recruitment of LWD to 

the streams. Where possible, easements would be purchased to reduce development and 

other effects to the riparian areas and provide long-term protection to native salmonid 

habitat. 

Logjams and LWD pieces would be placed to increase channel complexity, 

retain gravel, and support pool formation. In general, as aquatic habitat increases 

(creating areas of different velocities and depths), fish populations increase (Heede and 

Rine, 1990). Stream complexity creates both low velocity areas where young fish can 

incubate and rear and high velocity areas that provide feeding stations and holding areas 

for larger fish. The addition of certain types of cover (e.g., extra depth, preferred 

substrates, woody debris, etc.) would likely make some areas in the tributaries suitable 

for fish that would not otherwise be used (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991).

For native salmonids using the tributaries, Seattle’s proposed habitat 

enhancements would create slow velocity and deep pool habitats suitable for all life 

stages. Salmonid fry prefer the margins of pools created by the instream enhancement 

structures, if adequate cover exists for escape from predators. Side-channel habitats, 

created with cover for predator avoidance, are preferred by juvenile salmonids. The 

creation of large complex pools with abundant cover are preferred by adults (for holding 

before spawning and summer habitat), and by rearing juveniles. Adult trout would use 

the deep, low-velocity pools created by instream structures as over-wintering habitat. 

Gravels introduced as part of the gravel augmentation program would be used by 

salmonids during the spawning periods. 

Suppressing or eradicating non-native fish from tributary reaches and 

implementing habitat enhancements would facilitate the recovery of native fish 

populations if there is sufficient recruitment of native salmonids. Out-planting of early 

life stages of native salmonids (see native fish conservation measures discussion below) 

could support a rapid population response to biological and habitat improvements in the 

tributaries.

Shirley and Wilhelm Botzheim and the Sweet Creek Ranch Residents, in letters 

filed August 9 and September 3, 2010, respectively, expressed concern with Seattle’s 

proposed measures for Sweet Creek. These entities question the benefits to be derived 

from the measures, and indicate that they have no intention of selling any of their 

property to facilitate the proposed improvements. These entities also seek clarification 

regarding the specific activities that would be associated with the work.

The proposed FAMP includes conceptual plans for the habitat improvements to 

be made on Sweet Creek. The general plans include: (1) riparian buffer protection and 
157

plantings,

97 (2) large woody debris placement,98 and (3) culvert improvements for 

Highway 31.

99 The overall goal of these improvements for Sweet Creek is to restore the 

creek to as natural condition as possible, including improving overall water quality in 

the creek and providing habitat for native salmonids. However, the FAMP recognizes 

the existing uses of the creek (e.g., use as a clean water supply for the residents). In 

addition, Seattle makes it clear in the FAMP that implementation of the riparian 

protection portion of the Sweet Creek improvements would depend upon the 

willingness of current landowners to either sell a portion of their property or enter into 

protective easement agreements, and that if the landowners do not cooperate the longterm protections planned for the creek would not be implemented. Based on this, it 

seems that the FAMP accommodates the residents’ concerns regarding activities on 

their property.

The Sweet Creek residents ask what specific activities would be associated with 

the work. The questions about the exact nature of the proposed work are difficult to 

answer at this time. While the FAMP outlines a conceptual plan for the improvements 

to Sweet Creek, which is sufficient for our NEPA review and analysis, the projectspecific detail would be designed post-filing, as part of the tributary-specific plans that 

are developed.

Mill Pond Site Monitoring and Maintenance – Mill Pond, located at RM 3.9 on 

Sullivan Creek, is a complete barrier to the upstream movement of resident fish (Seattle, 

2009a). The impoundment has altered natural stream processes in Sullivan Creek by 

interrupting the downstream transport of all bedload material and some LWD. The Mill 

Pond impoundment has also slowed water velocities and increased summer water 

temperatures in lower Sullivan Creek. 

As discussed in section 3.5.2.2, Aquatic Resources, Environmental Effects –

Sullivan Creek Project, the District, as part of its surrender application for the Sullivan 

Creek Project, proposes to remove the Mill Pond dam and restore the site to a natural 

functioning stream system.100 The Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan, filed by the 

 

97 The objective of this component is to provide long-term protection for the 

relatively intact riparian zone of Sweet Creek downstream from the Highway 31 culvert 

(approximately 11.8 acres within a 100-foot buffer on either side of Sweet Creek from 

RM 0.0 to RM 0.5, the location of the Highway 31 culvert.

98 The objective of this component is to increase channel complexity and gravel 

retention through placement of LWD from RM 0.0 to RM 0.6. The presence of eroding 

stream banks would be considered during the design of this component.

99 The objective of this component is to improve upstream fish passage at the 

culvert located at RM 0.5 under Highway 31.

100 New stream channel banks would be stabilized with keyed-in logs with root 

wads and large boulders, and then planted with native herbaceous and woody riparian 

species.
158

District with its surrender application describes the decommissioning work to be 

performed at the Mill Pond dam site. In general, the Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan 

covers removal and restoration work that would be completed within 5 years of the 

Commission issuing a surrender order for the Sullivan Creek Project. 

Upon the Commission determining that the District’s work required by the Mill 

Pond Decommissioning Plan has been completed, and the Commission terminates its 

jurisdiction over the Sullivan Creek Project, Seattle, proposes, as a component of the 

FAMP, to monitor and maintain the Mill Pond site to ensure that the habitat 

enhancements continue to function over time.

Seattle’s proposal has merit in this instance. Sullivan Creek is the largest 

tributary flowing into Boundary Reservoir and provides the most significant amount of 

habitat for native salmonids in the project area. Under the FAMP, Seattle proposes 

riparian and stream channel enhancements for Sullivan Creek from RM 0.3 to 0.54, RM 

2.3 to 3.0, and upstream of the confluence with Outlet Creek at RM 5.3, as well as the 

North Fork Sullivan Creek, which flows into Sullivan Creek downstream from the Mill 

Pond dam site. These enhancement projects would involve on-going monitoring and 

maintenance to ensure they continue to function as designed. The Mill Pond dam site is 

situated between RM 3.9 and RM 5.3, amongst the other areas to be monitored by 

Seattle. Improvements to the aquatic habitat at all of these sites are inter-dependant.101

Therefore, we have no objection to monitoring the habitat enhancements made to 

Sullivan Creek, including those made to the Mill Pond dam reach. Monitoring Sullivan 

Creek habitat improvements, as part of an integrated program, would ensure that desired 

benefits continue to accrue over time and that additional measures, if needed, are 

implemented in a timely manner. In addition, monitoring and maintaining the Mill 

Pond site, along with the other areas of Sullivan Creek, would further the goals of 

enhancing habitat in, and restoring native fish populations to, Sullivan Creek. This is 

consistent with the goals of the FAMP, as well as the resource agencies’ fishery 

restoration goals for the Pend Oreille River system.

Native Salmonid Conservation Program – As part of its native salmonid 

conservation program, Seattle proposes to fund the design, construction, operation and 

maintenance of a native fish conservation facility for the production of native salmonids 

to supplement tributaries draining into Boundary Reservoir. The facility would be 

designed to produce eyed eggs, fry, and fingerlings,102 as well as support multiple age 

class broodstock. In addition, the facility would be designed to simultaneously 

propagate two species of fish and several life stages, including but not limited to 

 

101 For example, unstable substrates in one area could lead to deposition of 

sediments downstream and render ineffective the downstream habitat improvements.

102 The primary distribution of fish is expected to be fingerlings, but may include 

stream-side incubators or artificial redds to minimize potential domestication.
159

westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout. Selection of species, stocks, and life stages to 

be produced would be determined in consultation with the FAWG. Locally adapted, 

multiple age class broodstock would be used to maintain long-term fitness traits,103 and 

the facility would be operated to minimize genetic divergence from local, naturally 

spawning stocks. Annual production would be commensurate with the need to out-plant 

fish in tributaries draining into Boundary Reservoir.

Seattle, in consultation with the FAWG, the Forest Service, and Ecology, would 

establish measurable goals for the conservation program by (a) determining appropriate 

tributary target fish populations, and (b) establishing self-sustaining native stocks of 

fish. The optimal outplanting strategies for achieving the desired goals would be 

identified based on monitoring and evaluating multiple outplanting strategies that 

consider appropriate fish sizes, outplanting densities, frequency, and timing. Finally, as 

part of the program, Seattle would monitor the initial success of outplanted native 

salmonids and conduct periodic monitoring until population goals are achieved.

Outplanting of native salmonids produced from an approved facility would, if 

done correctly and in consultation with the FAWG, the Forest Service, and Ecology, 

compliment brook trout suppression and habitat improvement activities in the 

tributaries. Native fish propagation and outplanting also would facilitate rapid 

recruitment and colonization of underutilized tributary habitats or currently unoccupied 

habitat. For example, artificial propagation of bull trout could be used to seed currently 

unoccupied habitat and facilitate the recovery of the species (see Assessment of Factors 

Affecting Aquatic Productivity in Tributary Habitats, Study No. 14: Seattle, 2009a; 

FWS 2002).

Recreational Fish Stocking Program – Boundary Project operations affect 

mainstem and tributary delta habitats, and cause loss of fish through entrainment and 

increased predation on salmonids associated with the reservoir environment (Seattle, 

2009a). Since 2001, Seattle has voluntarily stocked sterile rainbow trout in the 

Boundary Reservoir to increase recreational fish opportunities. As of 2010, Seattle 

discontinued stocking triploid trout in Boundary Reservoir since the Washington DFW 

no longer permits the activity, citing concerns regarding potential competition with 

native trout and poor trout habitat conditions in the reservoir.

As part of an ongoing Washington DFW program, fry and fingerling trout are 

routinely stocked in Washington lakes during the spring and fall where they grow on 

natural food until the following spring when they are large enough to be harvested. 

Where fry survival is low, or where there is intense fishing pressure, catchable size 

trout, 8 inches or larger, are stocked to improve recreational opportunities. In addition 

 

103 Design considerations for outdoor rearing facilities would consist of a 

naturalized, sinuous channel lined with cobble and gravel substrate similar to Boundary 

drainages, feeding system, natural shading, and instream woody habitat. 
160

to fertile rainbow and cutthroat trout, sterile and hybrid trout are sometimes planted in 

select lakes. If provided with an abundant food supply, sterile triploid and hybrid trout 

have the potential to quickly grow to trophy size. Sterile trout are also planted in areas 

where natural reproduction could adversely affect native species.

As an element of the FAMP, Seattle proposes to stock trout in 18 lakes within a 

15-mile area around the project. Trout species stocked in these lakes may consist of 

westslope cutthroat, rainbow, rainbow triploid, or tiger trout, and may include fall fry, 

fingerlings, spring fry and catchable-size fish. These fish would be produced annually 

and planted by the Washington DFW. However, fish may be obtained from a 

commercial production facility if fish are unavailable from the Washington DFW. 

About 11,678 pounds of fish would be stocked annually. In addition, Seattle proposes 

to monitor and evaluate lakes receiving the stocked fish. The number, size, and species 

of fish to be stocked in the selected lakes each year may be modified in response to the 

information developed through annual monitoring.

This measure would provide recreational fishing opportunities in the region, in 

lieu of recreation angling opportunities in Boundary Reservoir. In addition, stocking 

non-native trout in nearby lakes would offset the effects associated with the tributary 

restoration program on reduced recreational fish opportunities in Boundary tributary 

streams. The stocking program is expected to (a) reduce recreational fishing pressure 

on the Boundary Reservoir and tributary streams, and (b) gain local citizen and 

landowner support for the tributary restoration effort.

Habitat Improvement Fund for Sullivan Lake Tributaries – Sullivan Lake 

supports a naturally reproducing population of kokanee that provides recreational 

angling opportunities of regional significant. In addition, the Sullivan Lake dam is a 

barrier to fish movement in Sullivan Creek, blocking access to fish habitat in Sullivan 

Lake and its tributaries. As part of its settlement, Seattle proposes to establish a $2.5 

million fund that would be used to improve habitat in select Sullivan Lake tributaries. 

As we indicated in section 3.7.2.1, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental 

Effects – Boundary Project, improving habitat in Harvey, Noisy, and Jungle creeks 

would benefit native fish populations in the Sullivan Lake watershed, including 

kokanee, cutthroat trout, and bull trout (should they become established in the 

watershed). Enhancing the tributary habitat would also likely improve the forage base 

for native fishes. The habitat improvements in these tributaries would provide little, if 

any, benefit to resources affected by the continued operation of the Boundary Project 

and would serve no project purpose.

3.5.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project

As part of the Sullivan Creek settlement, the District is proposing measures that 

are designed to provide substantial resource benefits. For example, removal of the Mill 

Pond dam would remove a barrier to fish movement on a tributary to Boundary 

Reservoir, providing potential access to 16 miles of spawning, rearing, overwintering, 
161

and foraging habitat. In addition, Mill Pond dam removal and the additional stream 

restoration activities proposed by the District would return Sullivan Creek to a naturally 

functioning stream environment in the reach that is currently inundated by Mill Pond.

The Sullivan Lake dam and associated lake would remain in place to continue to 

provide significant recreational opportunities, which include camping, boating, fishing, 

and swimming (see section 3.8, Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetic Resources). 

However, the District’s proposed measures that would improve the temperature regime 

in the Sullivan Creek watershed include: installing a cold-water release structure for 

Sullivan Lake, increasing minimum flow releases from the Sullivan Lake dam, and 

modifying the operating regime in the summer and fall. The operational changes, which 

we discuss in greater detail below, are expected to (a) improve fish habitat conditions 

(primarily native salmonids) in Sullivan Creek (below its confluence with Outlet 

Creek), and (b) provide cooler water flowing into the Pend Oreille River.

We describe, individually, the District’s proposed measures and discuss 

associated effects in the paragraphs that follow.

Settlement Condition No. 4 – Mill Pond Decommissioning and Removal

Mill Pond, which is located at RM 3.5 on Sullivan Creek, was created when a 

log-crib dam was constructed in 1909. The current dam, an un-gated concrete structure 

situated immediately downstream from the log crib dam, was built in 1921. In 1956, the 

associated powerhouse was shut down because of maintenance problems with the 

wooden flume that conveyed water from the Mill Pond to the powerhouse.

Sullivan Creek flows into the reach of the Pend Oreille River impounded by 

Boundary reservoir immediately north of Metaline Falls. The Sullivan Creek watershed 

contains some of the best remaining spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids (native 

and non-native) in the lower Pend Oreille River (Forest Service, 2004). Within the 

Sullivan Creek watershed, the Mill Pond dam is a complete barrier to the upstream 

movement of resident fish (Seattle, 2009a). The dam also restricts downstream passage 

of fish, the movement of other aquatic organisms, and downstream transport of 

sediment and woody material in the system (Forest Service, 1997).

Bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, white sturgeon, mountain whitefish, 

northern pike-minnow, peamouth, redside shiner, sucker, sculpin, and dace species are 

native to the Pend Oreille River system. Many of these species either have adfluvial life 

histories or are most likely resident within tributaries to Boundary Reservoir. As we 

observe in section 3.7.1, Threatened and Endangered Species, Affected Environment, 

bull trout are present in low numbers in the reach of the Pend Oreille River between the 

Albeni Falls and Boundary dams. Large bull trout are present within the Boundary 

Reservoir, including lower Sullivan Creek. Bull trout are also found in tributaries to 

Box Canyon Reservoir, and all life forms are present upstream of Albeni Falls dam.

Mill Pond is 63 acres in size. Past land management activities resulted in 

excessive sediment transport from the upper watershed (Wasson, Forest Service, Pers. 
162

Comm., 1999; cited by Forest Service in its letter filed August 24, 2010, providing 

surrender conditions for the Sullivan Creek Project), with subsequent deposition of 

coarse particles within the transition zone and finer clays and silts into the lacustrine 

zone of Mill Pond. As noted by the Forest Service, the depositional area is about 1,500 

feet long, about 500 feet wide, and covers about 30 acres.

Sullivan Creek is the primary source of water flowing into Mill Pond. The Mill 

Pond dam has altered the natural sediment transport processes in Sullivan Creek by 

trapping incoming bedload material behind the dam (Forest Service, 1997). This has 

created a condition where Sullivan Creek downstream of the Mill Pond dam is sediment 

depleted. Thus, the sediment transport capacity exceeds the sediment supply in the 

reach downstream from the dam, which has resulted in a lack of appropriately-sized 

spawning gravel for resident trout populations and extensive armoring of the bed 

surface.

Water temperature data (R2 Resource Consultants, 1998a) demonstrates the 

warming effect of the Mill Pond dam on water released from Sullivan Lake and flowing 

towards the mouth of Sullivan Creek. During the summer months, water temperatures 

can exceed 60.8 °F, with the Mill Pond dam increasing water temperature by about 3.6 

to 4.3 °F (Doug Robison, Washington DFW, pers. Comm., 2009; cited by Forest 

Service in its letter filed August 24, 2010, providing surrender conditions for the 

Sullivan Creek Project).

To address the aforementioned effects, the District proposes, as part of the 

Sullivan Creek settlement, to remove the Mill Pond dam and return that reach of 

Sullivan Creek to a free-flowing stretch of river. Once the dam has been removed and 

site restored, the District would monitor the restoration work until the Commission’s 

jurisdiction ends. The resource agencies and Forest Service, who are signatories to the 

settlement, recommend the dam be removed and the creek restoration efforts.

Staff Analysis

The Code of Federal Regulations (18 CFR 6.2, Surrender of License) states that 

where project works have been constructed on lands of the United States, the licensee is 

required to restore the lands to a conditions satisfactory to the Department having 

supervision over such lands, which in this instance is Forest Service. The Colville 

National Forest Plan, as amended by INFISH, requires that hydroelectric projects 

maintain or restore riparian habitat to support populations of well-distributed native and 

desired non-native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that contribute to the 

viability of riparian-dependent communities, favorable channel conditions, and fish 

passage. The removal of the Mill Pond dam would meet these requirements.

Recent actions at other projects on the Pend Oreille River would lead to fish 

passage being provided at the Box Canyon and probably at Albeni Falls dams, both 

located upstream of the Boundary Project and Sullivan Creek. These actions would reestablish the historic migration corridor for migratory species in the lower Pend Oreille 
163

River, and fully reconnect habitat in the river from Boundary dam upstream to Lake 

Pend Oreille in Idaho. These actions, combined with removal of the Mill Pond dam, 

would enable fish species, including bull trout, to more easily re-colonize habitat and 

fully express migratory life history strategies that rely on tributaries, such as Sullivan 

Creek, for spawning and rearing.

The District proposes to monitor the reach of Sullivan Creek restored after the 

Mill Pond dam is removed. Rehabilitation and monitoring of, and adaptively managing 

the restoration activities on, Sullivan Creek in the area of the Mill Pond would provide 

the District, resource agencies, and Forest Service the necessary tools to make decisions 

regarding the structural and functional needs of aquatic and riparian dependent 

community species.

Finally, the Colville National Forest Plan, as amended, stipulates that projects 

and facilities on Forest Service lands comply with state water quality standards, as well 

as maintain favorable habitat for fish reproduction and growth. The removal of the Mill 

Pond dam would address these stipulations by contributing to the reduction of summer 

water temperatures in lower Sullivan creek, and restoring the natural movement of 

bedload material and passage of large woody debris downstream from the Mill Pond 

dam site. This would have the effect of increasing the aquatic habitat complexity and 

improving the spawning, rearing, and foraging habitat of Sullivan Creek downstream 

from the dam site.

Settlement Condition No. 5 – Cold Water Release Facility

Sullivan Lake is a natural lake that was increased in size by the construction of 

the Sullivan Lake dam. Currently, the project stores and releases about 31,000 acre-feet 

of water annually from Sullivan Lake for downstream generation purposes. Sullivan 

Lake covers 1,240 acres, and is maintained to the extent possible, at a constant elevation 

of 2,588.66 feet during the months of May through September. Beginning in October, 

the lake is drawn down to provide storage for spring runoff.

Although water temperature data is not available for the original lake, the 

Sullivan Lake dam has likely altered the original temperature regime by increasing the 

amount of lake surface area with relatively shallow depths. This created a situation 

where summer water temperatures in Sullivan Lake are above Washington State water 

quality standards in the upper 25 feet of the water column during portions of July and 

August (Nine and Scholz, 2005). Currently, water released from Sullivan Lake is drawn 

from this warmer epilimnion layer of the lake. Thus, the water released from the lake 

into Outlet Creek and lower Sullivan Creek during the July/August time period is 

marginal for some life stages of salmonids, particularly native salmonids.

To address the temperature effects associated with water released from Sullivan 

Lake, the District proposes, as part of the Sullivan Creek settlement, to construct a 
164

coldwater release facility at Sullivan Lake.104 The facility would consist of a gravity 

water supply pipe, 48 inches in diameter, with fish screens at the intake and using an 

existing low-level outlet gate at the Sullivan Creek dam. The resource agencies and 

Forest Service, who are signatories to the settlement, recommend this coldwater release 

facility be constructed.

Staff Analysis

As we previously mentioned, the Colville National Forest Plan requires 

compliance with water quality standards, as well as maintenance or restoration of 

favorable habitat conditions for fish reproduction and growth. The District’s proposal 

to construct and operate a coldwater release facility (siphon) would help meet this 

requirement. Releasing cold water from Sullivan Lake, particularly during July and 

August, would enhance the quantity and quality of habitat available for fish using 

Sullivan Creek.

The migratory corridor for a number of native fish species, including bull trout, 

is being re-established in the lower Pend Oreille River. Constructing a coldwater 

release facility, when coupled with the removal of the Mill Pond dam, would enable fish 

species, including the migratory bull trout, to use Sullivan Creek and Outlet Creek for 

spawning, incubation, and rearing.

As part of the Sullivan Creek settlement, the District proposes to screen the 

coldwater intake pipe, in accordance with NMFS’ design criteria of 0.4 fps approach 

velocity, and manage lake discharge flows to minimize the use of the low level outlet 

gates in the dam. Screening of the coldwater release facility would help prevent 

entrainment of fish. This measure, coupled with the intake screen, would help protect 

the fisheries of Sullivan Lake.

The proposed coldwater release facility would allow the District to initiate its fall 

drawdown earlier, improving water temperatures in Outlet and Sullivan creeks in late 

summer in the process. This earlier drawdown would expose Harvey Creek spawning 

areas substantially earlier, which would enhance spawning success of kokanee and other 

fish species that use the creek. Redd superimposition would be reduced.

Settlement Condition No. 6 – Reservoir Level Operations

Settlement Condition No. 10 – Water supply Program

Sullivan Lake is currently maintained at a constant elevation of 2,588.66 feet, to 

the extent possible, during the months of May through September. This is done 

 

104 The District would be responsible for constructing the facility pursuant to the 

Sullivan Creek settlement. However, Seattle, as part of a separate, off-license, 

agreement between the District and Seattle, would be responsible for 50 percent of the 

funding for the actual design, permitting, and construction costs, as well as operation 

and maintenance costs.
165

primarily to accommodate recreation use. During the summer months, when the gates 

are closed (typically from April 1 through September 30), a minimum of 10 cfs is 

released from Sullivan Lake. Beginning in October, the lake is drawn down about 25 

feet during the winter months to provide downstream benefits and to provide storage for 

spring runoff.

The District currently releases 31,000 acre-feet of the usable storage in Sullivan 

Lake annually for use for power production downstream. This water is released starting

the first week in October each year. Releases continue until late December or early 

January, at which time equilibrium of inflow and outflow is again normally reached. 

The District is compensated for these releases through the Pacific Northwest 

Coordination Agreement.

An annual drawdown in the fall and winter has the potential to expose substrate 

that may be important habitat for macroinvertebrates and mussels, contributing to 

desiccation and freezing. Extreme fluctuations have the potential to affect fish habitat 

and behavior by creating an unstable environment where temporary loss of habitat can 

occur. In addition, the success of species which spawn in the littoral zone could be 

reduced by extreme fluctuations where nests and rearing grounds are subjected to 

dewatering.105 For example, where water levels fluctuate on an irregular or un-natural 

basis, nest failure can be more likely to occur especially if nests are constructed during 

periods of extended high water levels and then the water levels are suddenly dropped.

Staff Analysis

The process of selling water for power production results in the manipulation of 

lake levels, which affects habitat within and adjacent to the lake. The existing lake level 

management regime affects the productivity of the lake habitat by preventing the 

establishment of a riparian and littoral zone around Sullivan Lake. This management 

regime also (a) accelerates the draining of nutrients out of the lake during fall plankton 

production, (b) removes fish from the lake via entrainment through the dam spillway, 

and (c) causes habitat degradation in Outlet and lower Sullivan Creeks due to increased

water temperatures.106

In addition, the existing lake level regime limits the use of littoral zone habitat 

around Sullivan Lake, as well as hinders fish movement into, and out of, the lake’s 

 

105 Kokanee, which is a nest building species, is an important component of the 

Sullivan Lake’s fishery, and the Washington DFW is considering this population as a 

potential brood source for stocking several lakes in eastern Washington.

106 The issues of nutrients, fish entrainment, and water temperatures in Outlet 

and Sullivan creeks have either been addressed previously in this section or in section 

3.4.2.2, Water Quantity and Quality, Environmental Effects – Sullivan Creek Surrender.
166

tributaries (see Harvey Creek Bedload Project discussion below).107 To address these 

effects, the District proposes, as part of the Sullivan Creek settlement, to change its 

operation of Sullivan Lake. The resource agencies and the Forest Service, who are 

signatories to the settlement, recommend these changes.

The changes in how Sullivan Lake is operated include higher lake levels and 

increased minimum flows downstream (we address the minimum flows in a subsequent 

discussion). The specific changes can generally be described as:

• increasing instream flow releases on a year-round basis;

• raising the winter lake level by 5 feet to elevation 2,570.0 feet to help ensure that 

Sullivan Lake fills more often in the spring;

• managing the rate of Sullivan Lake filling in the spring and drawdown in the fall 

to enhance the environment and for recreation; 

• start refilling Sullivan Lake on or before April 1 and continue until an elevation 

of 2,588.66 feet is reached, and maintain Sullivan Lake at that elevation through 

Labor Day, subject to hydrologic conditions, water availability, and dam 

discharge flow requirements; and

• drafting a specified amount of water (5,000 acre-feet) during the period of June 

through Labor Day.

As discussed in greater detail below and in section 3.7.2.2, Threatened and 

Endangered Species, Environmental Effects – Sullivan Creek Surrender, the increase in 

minimum flows would improve water quality and, thereby, enhance aquatic habitat in 

Outlet and Sullivan Creeks. 

The District’s proposed changes in how Sullivan Lake is managed likely would 

have a number of important benefits for the fish populations residing in the lake. First, 

raising the winter pool elevation by 5 feet would make it more likely that Sullivan Lake 

will fill to an elevation of 2,588.66 feet. This would enhance littoral zone habitat 

around the lake and potentially improve spawning and rearing conditions in those areas. 

Second, releasing cold, less-productive water earlier in the year (i.e., during the 

summer) is expected to improve overall productivity by retaining more nutrients in the 

lake. Third, kokanee and mountain whitefish spawn in the fall; whitefish typically in 

October and November, and kokanee from early August through December. Both 

species spawn over gravel in free-flowing bodies of water or along a lake’s shoreline. 

Given these are self-sustaining populations, they likely have adapted to the existing 

water management regime. Nonetheless, the District’s proposed changes in how it 

manages Sullivan Lake water levels would provide greater stability to shoreline habitats 

that may be used for spawning and rearing in the fall, and, thereby, improve spawning 

 

107 As described in our discussion of Settlement Condition No. 8, access to 

habitat in Harvey Creek is blocked during low-flow periods.
167

success for fish that use those areas. Fourth, more stable, and higher, lake levels should 

improve riparian and littoral zone habitat conditions. Finally, the proposed changes 

would improve access to important tributary habitat.

Settlement Condition No. 7 – Sullivan Lake Dam Minimum Discharge Flows

The magnitude of instream flows in Outlet and Sullivan creeks would affect 

aquatic resources by influencing water temperature, water quality, the amount of wetted 

space for aquatic macroinvertebrates, and the amount of habitat within the water column 

suitable for various species and life stages of fish. Adequate instream flows are needed 

to protect aquatic resources in Outlet and Sullivan creeks.

Currently, the gates at the Sullivan Lake dam are fully opened during the first 

week of October, and flows in Outlet and lower Sullivan Creeks are substantially 

increased for about 3 months for power generation purposes downstream from the 

Sullivan Creek Project. With these releases, flows downstream from Sullivan Lake in 

Outlet Creek increase and then decrease dramatically. For example, average flows in 

Outlet Creek from 1960 to 1989 increased from an average of 28 to 212 cfs during 

maximum release periods and then dropped back to 30 cfs in January when the releases 

are finished. Similarly, average flows in lower Sullivan Creek from 1960 to 1968 went 

from 84 to 292 cfs and then back down to 90 cfs in January (District, 1994). 

The relatively rapid increase and decrease in flows in these creeks can: 

(a) disturb habitat; (b) flush fry and juveniles out of their habitat; and (c) affect 

spawning success through the dewatering of spawning habitat when flows return to the 

more natural regime where outflow is approximately equal to inflow. In addition, rapid 

changes in stream discharge can lead to: (a) fish stranding and mortality;108 (b) loss of 

food resources; and (c) behavior responses that can reduce survival or growth (Hunter, 

1992).

To address the effects associated with current flow releases, the District 

proposes, as part of the Sullivan Creek settlement, to change the flow release schedule 

for Sullivan Lake, by increasing year-round flows. The resource agencies and the 

Forest Service, who are signatories to the settlement, recommend these changes.

Staff Analysis

The Colville National Forest Plan, as amended, requires compliance with state 

water quality standards, as well as maintenance and restoration of favorable habitat 

 

108 Eighty-seven percent of Sullivan Creek downstream from the Mill Pond dam 

is relatively confined and high gradient, with few, or no, major slide channels or gravel 

bars (FERC, 1998). Very little potential stranding habitat appears to exist in this reach. 

Therefore, a given reduction in stage over time in Sullivan Creek is less likely to strand 

aquatic organisms than that same rate of reduction would have in a river with side 

channels, low gradient gravel bars, and potholes.
168

conditions for fish reproduction and growth. Implementing a pre-set, more natural, 

schedule of flow releases from Sullivan Lake, as proposed by the District, would meet 

the Plan’s requirements.

The proposed increase in the flows discharged from Sullivan Lake would address 

the existing, on-going, effects associated with the substantial instream flow fluctuations 

in Outlet and lower Sullivan Creeks. During the time periods of early summer, and 

from early fall through winter, water would be released on a schedule with set minimum 

flows. The higher flows would improve aquatic habitat by making available more 

habitat and improving water quality (especially in the summer) (see flow analysis in 

FERC (1998) and section 3.7.2.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental 

Effects – Sullivan Creek Surrender)

The maintenance of consistent instream flows, with gradual increases and 

decreases during periods of up- and down-ramping, would reduce potential adverse 

affects to fish and habitat including: (a) minimizing any decrease in fall and winter 

salmonid spawning success due to dewatering of spawning substrate; and (b) reducing 

effects on food sources in the creek(s). This change would address the provision of the 

Colville National Forest Plan to “eliminate adverse effects on native fish associated with 

habitat manipulation” and “require instream flows and habitat conditions for 

hydroelectric and other surface water development proposals that maintain or restore... 

favorable channel conditions, ... reproduction and growth.” In addition, the proposed 

higher instream flows during the fall would reduce any adverse effects to critical 

spawning and rearing habitat for bull trout in lower Sullivan Creek due to the current 

flow regime (see section 3.7.2.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, Environmental 

Effects – Sullivan Creek Surrender).

Settlement Condition No. 8 – Limitations to Sullivan Lake Surface 

Elevations and Discharge Flows

The District proposes to comply with the Sullivan Lake water surface elevations 

and discharge flow requirements at all times, to which the resource agencies and the 

Forest Service agree, subject to short term deviations due to equipment failures 

maintenance activities, electric and mechanical device limitations, safety inspections, 

testing, natural disasters, and the Harvey Creek Bedload Mobilization activities. In 

addition, the District proposes to use the existing USGS stream gage on Outlet Creek 

and install a new Sullivan Lake level recording gage at the Sullivan Lake dam to 

demonstrate compliance with discharge flow requirements. These measures, as 

proposed by the District, would provide a mechanism and the data necessary for the 

District to demonstrate that the required lake level operation and instream flow releases 

are occurring. However, the parties to the settlement should understand that once the 

Commission ends it jurisdiction over the Sullivan Creek Project, the Commission can 

no longer ensure that the District operates the Sullivan Lake dam in a manner that 

complies with the lake level and flow requirements of the settlement.
169

Settlement Condition No. 9 – Harvey Creek Bedload Mobilization Project

Sullivan Lake is a high elevation, deep (mean and maximum depths of 190 and 

331 feet, respectively) lake. It has two main inlets, which are its only fish-bearing 

tributaries; Harvey and Noisy creeks. Portions of both streams frequently become 

intermittent during base-flow periods. Noisy Creek is a small watershed containing 

about 1.25 miles of suitable fish habitat located in the lower reaches of the creek. 

Harvey Creek contains about 17 miles of spawning and rearing habitat for species that 

need to move out of the lake to fulfill part of their lifecycle.

Under existing conditions, access to upstream habitat in Harvey Creek is blocked 

during low-flow periods due to excessive accumulation of bedload deposits in the 

vicinity of Harvey Creek’s confluence with Sullivan Lake. The sediment berm is an 

unnatural artifact of the management of water volumes and depths in the lake. As 

previously described, lake levels are kept artificially high in the spring, as water is 

stored for later release. The movement of bedload being transported down Harvey 

Creek during spring run-off is interrupted by the high lake level during the end of May. 

When bedload enters the high water and slow water velocity, it is deposited onsite 

rather than being carried farther down into the lake. Later in the year, as the lake level 

recedes, this bedload forms the berm that blocks fish access to habitats in the Harvey 

Creek. Lack of access to a majority of the suitable habitat in the creek by fall and 

winter spawners, such as kokanee, brown trout, and mountain and pygmy whitefish, 

limits their productions.

To address the effects associated with excess sediment at the mouth of Harvey 

Creek, the District proposes, as part of the Sullivan Creek settlement, to implement a 

program to mobilize the sediment and flush it into the lake (i.e., the Harvey Creek 

Bedload Mobilization Project). Briefly, the program would consist of: (a) consultation 

with the Resource Committee109 regarding available regional flow projections, snow 

pack data and run-off forecasts by April 1; (b) holding Sullivan Lake at no more than 

elevation 2,575.0 feet until May 20, if, by April 20, the Resource Committee determines 

this appropriate; (c) monitoring flows in Harvey Creek to determine when refilling can 

resume at its normal rate; (d) meeting of the Resource Committee after July 1 to 

determine the effectiveness of the lake-level hold down; and (e) the installation of a new 

gage on Harvey Creek. The resource agencies and the Forest Service, who are 

signatories to the settlement, recommend these changes.

 

109 Membership on the Resource Committee consists of representatives from 

Seattle, the District, Forest Service, FWS, BIA, Washington DFW, Ecology, the 

Kalispel Tribe, the Lands Council, the Selkirk Conservation Alliance, American 

Whitewater, Rick Larson, and Al Six.
170

Staff Analysis

The Colville National Forest Plan, as amended, stipulates that hydropower 

projects maintain or restore riparian habitat to support populations of well-distributed 

native and desired non-native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that 

contribute to the viability of riparian-dependent communities, favorable channel 

conditions, and fish passage. The change in lake-level operations, established by the 

proposed settlement, would address the myriad of provisions outlined in the Plan.

During the time period from late summer through winter, upstream fish passage 

beyond the first 500 feet of the creek is blocked, due to the aggradation of bedload 

material. This is the result of existing operations which maintain unnaturally high lake 

levels in the spring.

The lower lake levels provided by the settlement during the peak flow period in 

the spring would allow Harvey Creek to move its bedload out from the current area of 

aggradation farther into the lake where it would not restrict access to habitat in Harvey 

Creek. These operations would create favorable channel conditions and improve access 

to approximately 17 miles of spawning and rearing habitat in Harvey Creek for fall and 

winter spawning native salmonids which need to migrate to, and from, Sullivan Lake to 

fulfill parts of this lifecycle. The change to lower lake levels in the spring would also 

provide additional spawning and rearing habitat in lower Harvey Creek which is 

currently inundated during a portion of the year. 

3.5.2.3 Cumulative Effects

The Boundary Project is the third of five hydroelectric projects on the Pend 

Oreille River between Lake Pend Oreille and the Columbia River. The existing project 

contributes to the following cumulative effects: (a) lack of habitat connectivity for 

native salmonids; (b) disruption of sediment transport; and (c) disruption of LWD 

transport.

Habitat Connectivity

Currently, none of the five dams on the Pend Oreille River has upstream or 

downstream fish passage or screening facilities. Consequently, all fish entrained over or 

through the projects are at risk or injury or mortality. Because the level of mortality at 

each of the dams is unknown, the cumulative level of injury or mortality for fish that 

pass multiple projects is also unknown. However, some fish do survive passage, as 

evidenced by the capture and release of healthy fish in the Boundary dam tailrace that 

had been tagged upstream of the dam. In addition, genetic analysis of tissue from two 

bull trout captured in the Boundary Tailrace Reach indicates that these fish were derived 

from populations in tributaries to Lake Pend Oreille and survived passage at the Albeni 

Falls, Box Canyon, and Boundary dams. Status reviews for bull trout (Rieman and 

McIntyre, 1993) and westslope cutthroat trout (McIntyre and Rieman, 1995) identify the 

lack of habitat connectivity (i.e., upstream and downstream fish passage) as an 
171

important factor contributing to the patchy distribution and low viability of these species 

in the Pend Oreille River.

As discussed in this document, Seattle proposes to implement upstream fish 

passage measures and a fish entrainment reduction program that would address the 

project’s contribution to cumulative effects on native salmonids related to habitat 

connectivity. During the term of any new license issued for the Boundary Project, 

Seattle would install, operate, maintain, and monitor an upstream trap-and-haul fish 

passage facility in the project’s tailrace. Seattle would also implement a program over 

the new license term to address the effects of entrainment on bull trout, westslope 

cutthroat trout, and mountain white fish by either (a) preventing entrainment at the 

project, (b) reducing entrainment at the project and mitigating for the remaining effects, 

or (c) fully mitigating for the effects of entrainment through other measures.

As part of its settlement for the Sullivan Creek Project, the District proposes to 

remove the Mill Pond dam, manage sediment in Sullivan Creek and Harvey Creek (a 

tributary to Sullivan Lake, implement site restoration measures at the Mill Pond dam 

site, and install a cold water release facility in Sullivan Lake. These measures, taken 

together, would increase the extent of habitat connectivity for native salmonids, as well 

as improve water quality and aquatic habitat in Sullivan Creek, the largest tributary 

flowing into Boundary Reservoir.

Sediment Transport

The Pend Oreille River between the Boundary and Box Canyon dams has two 

distinct segments in terms of sediment transport. The section from the Boundary dam 

upstream to Metaline Falls is a depositional area created by project-related inundation. 

Upstream of Metaline Falls, the Pend Oreille River is at times influenced by a 

backwater effect from the Boundary dam, but it is often characterized by riverine 

conditions, particularly when forebay water surface elevations are low or inflows to the 

project from Box Canyon Reservoir are high.

The operation of the Box Canyon dam limits the supply of bed material to the 

Upper Reservoir Reach to periods when flows exceed 80,000 cfs. At flows above 

80,000 cfs, the leaves at the Box Canyon dam are opened, and bed material (primarily 

coarse gravel) stored behind the dam moves into Boundary Reservoir. The Box Canyon 

Project can, at times, reduce the coarse sediment supply to Boundary Reservoir if peak 

flows do not reach 80,000 cfs for an extended period.

The effect of project operations on sediment transport in the reservoir is 

negligible. The project ceases to operate in a load following mode when flows into the 

reservoir exceed power plant capacity (about 56,000 cfs). In general, most sediment is 

transported by flows approaching, or greater than, the “channel forming” flow (i.e., the 

estimated 2-year recurrence interval peak flow magnitude is 85,800 – 107,000 cfs), on 

which the project has little effects.
172

The cumulative effect of the dams is to disrupt the transport of coarse sediment, 

resulting in conditions in the Boundary dam tailrace that are depleted of gravel suitable 

for spawning by some fish species. Of the native salmonids in the project area, 

mountain whitefish are known to spawn in the 1-mile reach downstream of the Box 

Canyon dam and stage in the Boundary dam tailrace prior to spawning farther 

downstream in Seven Mile Reservoir. In both of these areas, mountain whitefish 

spawning habitat could be adversely affected by the disruption of gravel-sized particles 

suitable for spawning. To address this issue, Seattle proposes to deposit 1,500 yd3 of 

screened gravel between RM 29.1 and the Box Canyon dam to increase potential 

mountain whitefish spawning habitat, thereby lessening the Boundary Project’s 

contribution to any cumulative effects related to sediment transport.110

Woody Debris Transport

LWD is collected in the forebays of all dams on the Pend Oreille River to protect 

project facilities. The effect of this removal on the LWD budget of the river has not 

been quantified, but there is a cumulative loss of LWD that would otherwise provide 

aquatic habitat along the shoreline or at islands and cobble bars. As part of its 

settlement, Seattle proposes to place and maintain LWD jams in the delta regions of 

Sullivan, Sweet, Slate, and Linton creeks to provide cover for salmonids occupying 

coldwater refugia at the mouths of these tributaries. LWD jams would be located in the 

upper ends of tributary deltas to minimize use by non-salmonids. This measure would, 

to some extent, offset any project effects resulting from disruption of LWD transport.

Sullivan Lake Fishery Enhancement Fund

The District entered into an off-license Memorandum of Agreement (Fish MOA; 

see Attachment 3 to the settlement) with the Washington DFW to provide the 

Washington DFW funds to mitigate for fish entrainment and loss of productivity in 

Sullivan Lake. The funds provided in the Fish MOA would be used to address fishery 

resources management by the Washington DFW in Sullivan Lake and its associated 

tributaries, including developing a fisheries management plan and purchasing necessary 

equipment to carry out Washington DFW’s responsibilities. However, this measure, 

while having merit if the funds are used in a manner that improves fish populations and 

aquatic habitat, lacks specificity. Therefore, it is impossible for us to evaluate how the 

funds would benefit aquatic biota in the Sullivan Creek drainage in any meaningful and

measurable way.

 

110 Up to 25 percent of the gravel would be replenished every 5 years. To 

increase gravel retention, Seattle proposes to install up to 189 tons of 3- to 4-footdiameter boulders in weirs or other structures, and up to 25 percent of the boulders 

would be replenished every 10 years as needed to maintain gravel retention.
173

3.6 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

3.6.1 Affected Environment

3.6.1.1 Boundary Project

The influence of the maritime climate on the dominant vegetation types in the 

Selkirk Mountains is profound and likely exceeds the influence of geology and soils in 

most parts of the eastern Okanogan Highlands (Philip and Durke 1972). Vegetation 

zones, or climax vegetation, in the Project area include the Douglas-fir/Grand Fir Zone 

on drier sites and the Western Hemlock/Cedar Zone on more mesic sites (Williams et al. 

1995). Forest communities in the Pend Oreille River valley, including the project area, 

are characterized by a higher diversity of tree species than other regions in Washington. 

These species include: Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, western hemlock, Ponderosa pine,

western red-cedar, trembling aspen, grand fir, black cottonwood, western larch, paper 

birch, and western white pine.

Most of the land within the project area has been logged or burned within the last 

80 years, and the forested slopes adjacent to the reservoir are dominated by secondgrowth Douglas-fir and western larch. Mixed stands of western red-cedar and western 

hemlock occur in ravines and other shaded, moist areas. Riparian and wetland 

communities are uncommon, particularly downstream of Metaline Falls, where they 

occur only in sheltered coves and at the mouths of the few tributary streams in this 

reach. One of the largest and most diverse wetland/riparian communities in the project 

area occurs on the Boundary Wildlife Preserve.

Vegetation Cover Types

Seattle mapped vegetation cover types found on lands between Highway 31 (on 

the east side of the reservoir) and County Road 2975 (on the west side of the reservoir) 

from Boundary dam to Metaline Falls; and the area between Highway 31 (on the west 

side of the reservoir) and 0.25 mile east of the reservoir shoreline from Metaline Falls to 

the Box Canyon dam tailrace. This includes lands within the project boundary as well 

as lands outside the project boundary and unaffected by project operations. Seattle 

mapped 28 different cover types, broadly grouped as upland (899.2 acres) and 

riparian/wetland (2698.2 acres) cover types.

The upland cover types were subdivided into developed/disturbed cover types 

(i.e. agricultural, pasture, mining, recreation, etc.), totaling 117.5 acres. Forested 

uplands accounted for the majority of the upland habitats (612.9 acres), moist mixed 

conifer forest being the most abundant cover type, occupying 566 acres. The 

forestlands vary in forest cover and species composition as a result of timber harvest 

and forest fires that have occurred over the past 100 years. Deciduous hardwood 

species such as paper birch, aspen, and Douglas maple are relatively more abundant in 

open conifer stands, along forest edges, and disturbed locations. Non-forested uplands 
174

(meadow, grassland, and shrub habitats) and sparsely vegetated uplands (eroded and 

bedrock outcrops) accounted for 18.4 and 143.4 acres, respectively.

Riparian and wetland habitats were subdivided into lacustrine/littoral, palustrine 

wetlands, and riverine/riparian cover types. Lacustrine/littoral cover types cover about 

1,650 acres in the project area. Littoral emergent wetlands are wetland areas that are 

inundated or have a very high water table when the forebay elevation is at 1,994 feet. 

Littoral emergent wetlands cover approximately 15 acres along the reservoir, primarily 

upstream of Metaline Falls. Palustrine wetlands are often fed by groundwater seepage, 

in contrast to the littoral emergent wetlands, which are almost exclusively supported by 

shallow groundwater associated with the reservoir. Palustrine wetland habitats (87.2 

acres) were divided into aquatic bed, emergent wetland, scrub-shrub, and palustrine 

forested wetland habitats. Several palustrine emergent wetlands along the reservoir 

have very low species diversity and are dominated by dense swards of reed canary 

grass. Overall, species diversity is high in the palustrine emergent wetlands, with more 

than 150 taxa recorded during surveys conducted in 2005 (Seattle 2006). Palustrine 

forested wetlands occur primarily at the Boundary Wildlife Preserve, where open stands 

of mature black cottonwood grow on the broad floodplain. The main side channel in the 

terrace receives backwater during floods. In years with high spring runoff, all but the 

highest elevations on the floodplain are inundated.

The five cover types associated with riverine/riparian habitats include riverine, 

unconsolidated bottom, riverine unconsolidated shoreline, riparian grass, riparian shrub, 

and riparian deciduous tree (total of 61.9 acres). The mouth of Sullivan Creek is an 

exceptional area with extensive stands of riparian vegetation and alluvial features. 

Substantial amounts of riparian shrub and riparian deciduous tree cover types also occur 

in the upper portion of Peewee Creek where it crosses the BPA transmission line ROW. 

Small amounts of riparian vegetation are associated with the mouths of several other 

tributary streams, including Slate, Lime, Sand, Lost, Lunch, and Linton creeks.

Riverine/riparian cover types along the Pend Oreille River downstream of 

Boundary dam include the river itself, alluvial sediments (riverine unconsolidated 

bottom cover type), and the coarse, rocky shoreline (riverine unconsolidated shoreline 

cover type). The associated riparian vegetation consists primarily of small stands of 

coyote willow on islands, gravel bars, and at the upper margins of the shoreline 

corridor.

There are only 1.7 acres of riparian shrub and palustrine scrub-shrub in the lower 

reservoir because of the steep slopes, rocky terrain, and lack of suitable sediments. 

Riparian vegetation in the lower reservoir is limited to the few areas with moderate 

slopes or coves with suitable substrate conditions. Shoreline vegetation associated with 

managed reservoir systems can be minimal and fragmented (Nilsson and Keddy 1988), 

but natural physical and ecological processes (e.g., topographic variation, moisture 

gradients, and wildfire) also create fragmented landscapes (Saunders et al. 1991).
175

Weeds

Weeds are defined as terrestrial plant species that have been classified as noxious 

weeds by the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. In Washington, noxious 

weeds are defined as non-native plants that result in economic losses and adverse effects 

on the State’s agricultural, natural, and human resources (Washington Weed Law, 

Chapter 17.10 Revised Code of Washington [RCW]). 

Weeds are classified as follows (State NWCB 2009; RCW 17.10.010(2)):

• Class A Weeds - Non-native species with a limited distribution in the 

state. Eradication is required by state law.

• Class B Weeds - Non-native species established in some regions of 

Washington, but of limited distribution or not present in other regions of the 

state. Because of differences in distribution, treatment of Class B weeds 

varies between regions of the state. In regions where a Class B species is 

unrecorded or of limited distribution, prevention of seed production is 

required. In these areas, the weed is a “Class B designate,” meaning it is 

designated for control by state law. In regions where a Class B species is 

already abundant or widespread, control is a local option. In these areas, the 

weed is a “Class B” with the chief goals of containment, gradual reduction,

and prevention of further spread.

• Class C Weeds - Non-native species that are already widely established 

in Washington or of special concern to the state’s agricultural industry. 

Counties may enforce control if locally desired, or choose simply to provide 

education or technical consultation to county residents.

Studies conducted during relicensing in 2005, 2007, and 2008, and earlier by the 

Pend Oreille County NWCB, documented a total of 20 terrestrial noxious weed species 

in and near the Project area, five classified as Class B-designate, nine Class B, and six 

Class C (Seattle 2006, 2009). No Class A species were found. Infestations of one or 

more of the Class B-designate species were mapped in six different locations. In 

general, the number of noxious weed species found in and near the project area is low 

compared to many other locations in eastern Washington, but the Class B and Class C 

weed species that do occur are widespread and pervasive (Seattle 2006).

In uplands, weeds are more prevalent along roads and disturbed areas. Common 

upland weed species include Dalmatian toadflax, cheatgrass, common tansy, common 

St. John’s-wort, spotted knapweed, and meadow hawkweed. Weeds occur along most 

of the reservoir shoreline, but are especially common in the more sheltered backwaters 

of the upper reservoir. Ruderal weedy species dominate the sheltered areas because of 

their ability to tolerate daily changes in moisture compared to native plants. Common 

weeds in the reservoir fluctuation zone include St. John’s wort, yellow flag, common 

tansy, oxeye daisy, Canada thistle, reed canarygrass, lanceleaf plantain, and white 

sweetclover. Most of these species also dominate the island complex between project 
176

RMs 28.5 and 29.0, while all the other islands in the upper reservoir are covered in reed 

canarygrass. Some of the densest weed infestations consist of reed canarygrass 

occurring in palustrine wetlands, such as those observed in the Boundary Wildlife 

Preserve and other alluvial habitats along the upper reservoir. Reed canarygrass is also 

the dominant groundcover in willow stands along Sullivan Creek that are not influenced 

by the reservoir.

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plant Species

Surveys conducted during relicensing studies in 2007 documented 15 vascular 

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered (RTE) plant species in the project area. These 

species occurred in 206 polygons or subpopulations, which were combined into 53 

populations.111 Since the completion of the plant surveys, two species (Thalictrum 

dasycarpum and Impatiens aurella) have been removed from the Washington Natural 

Heritage Program (WNHP), which will likely affect their status on the federal agencies’

lists when these are updated. None are listed under the Endangered Species Act.

The 2007 survey results suggest that four RTE plants are locally abundant: 

yellow mountain-avens, lest bladdery milk-vetch, orange balsam, and purple 

meadowrue. Yellow mountain avens is a predominant component of the vegetation 

growing on the limestone rock faces and cliffs along the lower reservoir. Least 

bladdery milk-vetch is relatively common on cobble bars, islands and steep eroding 

slopes. Large populations of purple meadowrue were observed in a variety of habitats 

and several large populations of orange balsam were observed in palustrine forested 

wetlands. Other RTE species, including hair-like sedge, adder’s tongue, northern blueeyed grass, and Steeler’s rock-brake, are relatively rare, with either few populations 

and/or populations with few individuals. 

Of the 206 RTE documented plant subpopulations, 105 (51 percent) were located 

in the fluctuation zone. These subpopulations represent 10 RTE plant species. Noxious 

weeds were also commonly associated with RTE populations. Erosion was also 

associated with some of the plant subpopulations.

Wildlife Resources

Of the total 308 terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species that potentially occur in the 

project area, 152 species were confirmed during relicensing studies (Seattle 2006; 

Seattle 2009a). The remaining 156 species may occur in the project area based on 

range, habitat requirements, and migration patterns. The following sections provide a 

summary of the wildlife documented within the project area by major groups of 

terrestrial vertebrates (i.e., mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians).

 

111 A list of the RTE populations can be found in table 5.4-1 of the TRMP.
177

Mammals

Twenty-six mammal species were confirmed to occur within the project area

during the 2007/2008 field season. White-tailed deer, mule deer, and elk are the most 

common large game mammals and are of particular interest because of their overlapping 

wildlife, cultural, recreational, and commercial values. Deer are estimated at 4.1 to 4.9 

animals per square mile in the project area. The Selkirk elk herd (about 1,450 

individuals) occupies lands east of the Pend Oreille River, with some members of the 

herd commonly found in the project area (Seattle 2009a). Because the Selkirk herd has 

expanded its range without any corresponding population increase (see Big Game Study 

Final Report Seattle 2009a), it is hypothesized that winter range may be limiting the size 

of the elk population

The extent and distribution of big game hiding and thermal cover and forage 

habitats in the project area are strongly influenced by the age of the conifer forest stands 

and topography (see Big Game Study Final Report, Seattle 2009a). More than one-third 

of the 1,563-acre primary study area for the Big Game Study does not provide habitat 

for deer or elk because of steep slopes or lack of vegetation. This particularly true in the 

lower reservoir, where cliffs, rock outcrops, and slopes are effectively too steep for big 

game use. This is especially true along the Canyon Reach, which extends from 

Metaline Falls to the downstream end of Z Canyon (Project RM 26.8 to 18.0), where the 

average slope is greater than 100 percent. This steep terrain forces big game to follow 

topographic features, such as drainages, to access the reservoir. A number of big game 

trails and crossing sites have been mapped in the lower reservoir. The topography of 

the upper reservoir is less steep, and big game movement in this reach appears more 

diffuse. 

Though less common than deer and elk, moose are also frequently observed in 

the project area and are thought to be increasing in abundance locally (see Big Game 

Study Final Report, Seattle 2009a). Big-horn sheep and mountain goat are known to 

occur more than one mile away from the reservoir, with only rare sightings in the 

project area. Woodland caribou are a high elevation species and may enter the project 

area occasionally; however, they have not been documented recently (Seattle 2006; see 

RTE Wildlife Study Final Report, Seattle 2009a). Mountain lion, bobcat and black bear 

are common carnivores that may occur anywhere in the project area. 

Bats are commonly observed in the project area, likely due to the extensive 

mines, mine adits, suitable forest habitat, natural caves, and large area of foraging 

habitat over the reservoir (see Bat Study Final Report, Seattle 2009a). Potential bat 

roosting habitat was investigated for 24 mines, seven caves, and one bridge in the 

project area, and for several project-related structures, including the portals at the dam. 

Some roosting activity was documented at four mine locations and three shoreline caves 

(mostly California and Yuma myotis), and individual bats were observed in the visitor’s 

tunnel north portal and inside the employee’s tunnel (see Bat Study Final Report, Seattle

2009a). Ten species of bats were recorded foraging in the study area, including four 
178

rare, threatened or endangered species. Large numbers of bats were frequently observed 

foraging over the reservoir. These bats apparently roost outside of the project area, 

because few bat roosting sites were documented in the study area. Some roost sites are 

also potential hibernacula or maternal colony habitat, but low winter temperatures inside 

potential sites and low numbers of animals recorded outside of potential hibernacula 

suggest that surveyed sites are not suitable for maternal colonies or winter roosts (see 

Bat Study Final Report, Seattle 2009a).

Birds

One hundred and fourteen bird species were confirmed in the project area during 

field reconnaissance in 2005 and more detailed field investigations in 2007 and 2008. 

Another 113 species potentially occur in the project area (Seattle 2006; Seattle 2009a). 

The Forest Service regional species list identifies 185 bird species as resident to 

northeastern Washington, although some of these are quite rare (Forest Service et al. 

2001).

Twenty species of waterfowl and 20 species of waterbirds (see 

Waterfowl/Waterbird Study Final Report, Seattle 2009a) were observed in the project 

area. Canada geese are the most common nesting waterfowl that occur in the project 

area. This species nests primarily on islands in the upper reservoir; only seven of 44 

nests found in 2007 were in the lower reservoir. Most of the Canada goose nest 

production occurs on a large island at project RM 27.7. 

The project area potentially supports 12 hawk and eagle species, four falcon 

species, and 13 owl species. The two most commonly observed raptors—bald eagles 

and ospreys—nest in the project area.

Riparian areas characterized by a mix of deciduous woodlands, shrublands, 

grasslands, and wetlands support the greatest number of bird species in the project area. 

Sullivan Creek and the BWP represent excellent passerine bird habitat, indicated by the 

large numbers of species found at these sites. Additionally, several colonies of 

swallows are found in the project vicinity. A large colony of cliff swallows and at least 

two bank swallow colonies occupy the cliffs surrounding Boundary reservoir (Seattle

2006; see RTE Wildlife Study Final Report, Seattle 2009a).

Reptiles and Amphibians

Records from the Colville National Forest (CNF) document the presence of 

western toads, Columbia spotted frog, long-toed salamanders, bullfrogs, Pacific tree 

frogs, painted turtles, western terrestrial garter snakes common garter snakes, and 

rubber boas in the Sullivan Lake Range District (Hallock 2003). Four amphibian and 

four reptile species were confirmed in the project area: the western toad, bullfrog, 

Pacific treefrog, Columbia spotted frog, painted turtle, northern alligator lizard, western 

terrestrial garter snake, and common garter snake (RTE Wildlife Study Final Report, 

Seattle 2009a). No use of the project reservoir by amphibians was documented (see 

RTE Wildlife Study Final Report, Seattle 2009a).
179

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Wildlife

Seattle’s surveys documented presence and absence and limiting factors for 

wildlife species in the project area. Forty-three rare, threatened, and endangered 

wildlife species were identified as potentially occurring in the project area; this includes 

state-listed species and Forest Service/BLM management indicator species. Of those, 

20 species were documented in the project area and another four species likely occur in 

the area only as migrants. RTE species observed in the project vicinity include two 

amphibian, 12 bird, and six mammal species, four of which are bats (Seattle 2009a). 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are discussed in section 3.7.

The two RTE amphibian species documented in the project area were the western 

toad and Columbia spotted frog. Two incidental sightings of western toads were 

recorded near the forebay boat ramp. Columbia spotted frogs appear to be confined to 

wetland and seep areas downstream of the dam. No evidence of breeding by western 

toads or Columbia spotted frogs was recorded in the project area.

The project reservoir and shorelines provide habitat for bald eagles, osprey, great 

blue herons, beavers, migrating common loons, and eared and western grebes. Great 

blue herons are regularly observed along the reservoir; although there are no known 

rookeries in the project area, individual nests may occur. A heron nest was observed in 

the forest at the mouth of Sullivan Creek in 2009. There were three active bald eagle 

territories in the project area in 2005: across the reservoir from the Box Canyon Resort, 

near Sand Creek, and on Everett Island. Only the Everett Island nest was confirmed to 

fledge eaglets (two) in 2005 (Seattle 2006). In 2007, four eagle nesting territories were 

occupied in the project area, but only the three territories upstream of Metaline Falls 

were active, collectively producing at least five fledglings. The Everett Island nesting 

territory was occupied at various times by two adults and two juveniles. Although the

nest tree was used as a roost by these eagles, no evidence of breeding was observed at 

the Everett Island site in 2007. In 2008, the same three territories in the upper reservoir 

were occupied. The Sand Creek pair failed to nest, whereas the Metaline and Box 

Canyon nests fledged two eaglets each. Eagles were documented on several occasions 

along the lower reservoir on what appeared to be two territories (near Everett Island and 

Slate Creek), but active nests were not found. It is possible that nesting occurred 

outside of the project area.

Several cave features (including natural caves and mining adits) are used by bats. 

The Townsend’s big-eared bat roosts within the project area, and the long-legged 

myotis, western small-footed myotis, and long-eared myotis forage within the project 

area (Seattle 2009a).

A pair of peregrine falcons were observed by Settle’s study teams in 2007 and 

2008; Washington DFW confirmed nesting at Washington Rock in 2009. Pileated 

woodpeckers are widely distributed throughout the project area and a northern goshawk 

was recorded at Slate Creek, where there is a patch of late-seral conifer forest. 
180

3.6.1.2 Sullivan Creek Project

Vegetation Cover Types

The District reported vegetation cover types in the Sullivan Creek Project area as 

consisting of agriculture (175 acres), forest land in various serial stages (2,340 acres), 

and wetlands (35 acres). The forested riparian zone along Sullivan Creek is narrow due 

to steep banks and incised channel segments.

Upland vegetation is mostly second growth forest, with western larch, Douglas 

fir, western hemlock, grand fir and western red cedar the dominant overstory trees. 

Deciduous species occur in disturbed openings and in the narrow riparian zone along 

Sullivan Creek and its tributaries. White birch, black cottonwood, trembling aspen, and 

Douglas maple are common species. Understory plants are generally sparse, but include 

oceanspray, wild rose, willow, serviceberry, and a variety of grasses and forbs in shrub 

and grassy meadows in forest openings.

A more detailed review of vegetation associated with Mill Pond, Outlet Creek, 

and Sullivan Creek was completed by McMillen (2010). McMillen (2010) divided the 

cover types into coniferous forest, shrub and grass meadows, lacustrine/littoral, wetland, 

riverine/riparian, and disturbed/developed cover types. Species composition for the 

forested and grass meadows was similar to that reported above. Lacustrine/littoral 

habitats associated with Mill Pond and the confluence of Sullivan Creek and the 

Boundary reservoir consisted of rock bottom (around the concrete Mill Pond dam), 

unconsolidated bottom, aquatic bed, rocky shore, unconsolidated shore and emergent 

Species found in the shallow water areas of Mill Pond include Eurasian water milfoil, 

coonwort, and elodea. The littoral zone includes unconsolidated shoreline, emergent, 

and rocky shoreline. Species found on finer texture soils include yellow flag, forgetme-not, and water pygmyweed.

No wetlands were reported for the Sullivan Lake. The only wetland reported to 

be associated with Mill Pond is considered to be a properly functioning high quality 

riparian-wetland community at the head of Mill Pond. The alluvium at the outfall of the 

creek into the pond has be deposited and reworked over 100 years. Beavers are well 

established and confound any certainty about the hydrologic connectivity of the pond 

and wetland. The resource agencies believe the wetland is more likely to be 

hydrologically connected to Sullivan Creek during the majority of the year than Mill 

Pond (McMillan 2010). 

The wetlands associated with lower Sullivan Creek are riverine that become 

flooded during elevated flows. These wetlands are predominately scrub-shrub and 

emergent; scrub wetlands are dominated by Sitka alder, with lesser amounts of red-osier 

dogwood, common snowberry and buffaloberry. Species found in the emergent 

wetlands include self heal, purple meadowrue, hairy sedge, reed canarygrass, and 

common dogbane. 
181

Weeds 

Weed species described above the Boundary Project are also expected to be

found in disturbed areas surrounding Sullivan Lake and Mill Pond. Knapweeds and 

hawkweeds are the most prevalent species around Mill Pond.

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants

No federally listed threatened or endangered plants are known to occur in the 

Sullivan Creek Project area. However, little is known about the number, distribution, 

and condition of sensitive species in the area. Based on distribution and habitat 

requirements, the Forest Service identified 45 sensitive species that may occur in the 

area. Of these, only yellow sedge and bronze sedge are known to occur in the area, and 

from only one site.

Wildlife 

Given the proximity of the two projects and similar habitats, wildlife species 

expected to occur in the Sullivan Creek Project area are expected to be the generally 

same as those described for the Boundary Project above. Species documented occurring 

at the Sullivan Project include bald eagle, gray wolf, grizzly bear, caribou (sporadic 

sightings in the vicinity), lynx, common loon, eared grebe, Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

elk, mule and white-tailed deer, pileated woodpecker, and beaver. 

Sullivan Lake and Mill Pond support several pairs of breeding ducks and grebes 

each year. Mill Pond tends to support a greater diversity of species and produce more 

broods than Sullivan Lake, presumably because Mill Pond has greater amounts of 

aquatic and emergent vegetation, shallow water areas, and areas of dense cover along its 

shoreline. Each year a few pairs of Harlequin ducks nest on Harvey Creek and Sullivan 

Creek above Mill Pond. Various neo-tropical migrant songbirds are associated with 

riparian shrub habitats found on the margins of Mill Pond.

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Wildlife

Federal listed species are discussed in section 3.7. Forest Service and state listed 

species known or expected to occur in the Sullivan Creek Project area include: bald 

eagle, common loon, northern leopard frog, eared grebe, Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

wolverine, great gray owl, sandhill crane, peregrine falcon, Pacific fisher, and harlequin 

duck. 

Typically a few bald eagles (1 to 5) are observed at the mouth of Harvey Creek 

form about mid-November through December, when kokanee are spawning in the 

creek. One or two birds are also occasionally seen on Outlet Creek during this period. 

Eagles are occasionally seen foraging on Mill Pond during the summer. Eagles 

attempted to nest in a snag located on Outlet Creek, about 100 yards below Sullivan 

Lake dam, in 2003 and 2004 species, but abandoned the nest both years. The nest site 

has been inactive since then. 
182

Common loons occasionally use Sullivan Lake and Mill Pond as resting and 

foraging sited during migrations. There are no known records of loons nesting on either 

water body. In the spring when nesting is initiated, there is little vegetative cover near 

the water on Sullivan Lake within which to conceal a nest.

3.6.2 Environmental Effects

3.6.2.1 Boundary Project

Project operations have the potential to affect botanical and wildlife resources 

through the following mechanisms: water surface elevation fluctuations, erosion, 

project maintenance activities, project-related weed infestations, and project-related 

recreation. Seattle, in consultation with state and federal agencies, tribes, and nongovernmental organization, developed a Terrestrial Resources Management Plan

(TRMP) intended to provide for the protection, management, and enhancement of

terrestrial resources occurring within the project boundary or affected by project-related 

operations and recreation. Seattle also proposes to acquire within five years of license 

issuance and manage about 158 acres of riparian and upland habitat and about 13,022 

lineal feet of varying habitats immediate adjacent to water features.

Although the Tributary Fish Community and Aquatic Habitat Measures 

(contained in the FAMP) proposed by Seattle are intended to address fishery resources 

affected by project operations, implementation of the proposed riparian and channel 

improvements in Sullivan, Linton, and Sweet Creeks and other tributaries to the 

reservoir would also affect wildlife. Similarly, recreation improvements and road 

closures proposed by Seattle could affect wildlife.

Forest Service Condition 3 requires the implementation of the TRMP and the 

acquisition of the additional habitat lands; Interior and Washington DFW recommend 

implementing the TRMP and acquisition of the lands under section 10(j) of the FPA. 

Forest Service Conditions 3 also requires implementing the Tributary Fish Community 

and Aquatic Habitat Measures and Interior and Washington DFW recommend its 

implementation under section 10(j).

Terrestrial Resources Management Plan

The TRMP establishes goals, measurable program objectives, tasks, and schedule 

for implementing the terrestrial resource protection, mitigation, and enhancement 

measures on about 1,911.4 acres of land (either currently contained within or proposed 

for inclusion into the project boundary) owned by Seattle, Forest Service, and BLM; the

TRMP would also guide the development of specific habitat protection and 

enhancement measures on the additional 158 acres of riparian and upland habitat that 

Seattle would acquire in the future. These lands are grouped into Project Habitat Lands 

(PHL—lands owned by Seattle that would be managed to benefit terrestrial plant and 

wildlife communities unless other management considerations/constraints are 

identified); Seattle Project Facility Lands (lands that support project facilities and 
183

operations, including the dam, power plant, warehouses, and approximately 3,000 feet 

of transmission line right-of-way (ROW), as well as project recreation facilities and 

project roads); other Seattle-Owned Lands (lands owned by Seattle, including small 

parcels, steep cliffs, or talus slopes that generally provide less habitat value than the 

PHLs), and Federal Lands (lands managed by the Forest Service and BLM).112 

Management of Federal Lands is and would continue to be the responsibility of the 

federal agencies, but Seattle would coordinate with these entities regarding weed and 

erosion control/monitoring and rare plant and wildlife surveys and other cooperative 

management actions.

The TRMP defines three primary goals for the above lands: (1) foster 

biodiversity, ecosystem function, and habitat connectivity within the project area; (2) 

manage project-related recreation and other human uses in a manner that is compatible

with maintaining biodiversity, ecosystem function, and habitat connectivity; and (3) 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate effects on wildlife and habitat from ongoing project-related

operations and maintenance and recreation. The TRMP consists of six resource 

management programs designed to achieve these goals: (1) Erosion, (2) Habitat 

Management, Enhancement, and Protection, (3) Integrated Weed Management, (4) 

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plant Species, (5) Wildlife, and (6) Shoreline 

Management. The TRMP also describes actions Seattle would implement to improve 

employee awareness of environmental programs and best management practices it 

would implement to ensure maintenance of project facilities are conducted in a manner 

that minimizes adverse effects on terrestrial resources. The erosion program is 

described in section 3.2 and the shoreline management program is described in section 

3.8.2.1. We analyze the effects of the remaining programs below.

Habitat Management, Enhancement, and Protection Program, and Acquisition of 

Additional PHL Lands

Approximately 749 acres of Seattle-owned land would be managed for the 

benefit of wildlife and plant communities. Key elements of the Habitat Protection, 

Enhancement, and Management Program include active management and enhancement 

of project habitat lands (PHLs), and passive management to protect the existing habitat 

values on PHLs and to allow the natural maturation of the relatively young mixed 

conifer stands. Habitat management and enhancement measures are parcel-specific and 

include the following: motorized vehicle access control; a wetland/riparian habitat 

enhancement feasibility assessment; riparian habitat management and enhancement;

forest and other upland habitat management; island and shoreline access control; future 

 

112 The Forest Service and BLM manage approximately 606 and 314 acres of 

land, respectively; within the project boundary. Most of the federal ownership is 

located north of Metaline Falls and has a long history of being managed for timber 

production, mining, and resource protection.
184

measures for about 158 acres of PHLs that are to be acquired; and adaptive management

to address changing needs to achieve the management objectives.

The 158 acres of riparian and upland habitats and 13,022 lineal feet of varying 

habitats immediately adjacent to water features that Seattle would acquire would be 

located between the near ridgelines east and west of the project. The eastern boundary 

roughly aligns with Boundary Ridge, Crowell Mountain, and Sand Creek Mountain and 

the ridge between Boundary Reservoir and Sullivan Lake. On the west side, the 

boundary follows a line connecting Frisco, Abercrombie, Litton, and Baldy Mountains. 

Seattle would apply, in consultation with the TRWG, the following objectives to 

identify and prioritize acquisition of the properties: (1) acquire property with high 

habitat diversity located immediately adjacent to or containing perennial water and 

secure from disturbance via open roads or towns, and/or a natural community that is 

relatively scarce or dwindling in the watershed, which has unique landscape or habitat 

elements; (2) acquire large blocks of habitat that are contiguous with other protected 

parcels of land, form a strong corridor link or are connected by a viable corridor to 

protected land; and (3) acquire property with habitats that benefit threatened and 

endangered species, big game, waterfowl, upland game birds (grouse and turkey), 

amphibians, aquatic furbearers, and neotropical migrant birds.

The Forest Service, Interior, and Washington DFW assert that these collective 

measures are needed to compensate for the continuing inundation of 158 acres of 

riparian and upland habitats within the reservoir fluctuation zone (elevation 1954 to 

1994) and the loss of 6.1 acres and 24,193 lineal feet shoreline habitats from shoreline 

erosion. While Seattle disputes the acreage of affected lands and to some extent the

degree of the project-related effect,

113 it has agreed to acquire and manage about 158 

 

113 Both Seattle and the Forest Service estimated the acreage and types of habitats 

that might develop if the project were operated at lower reservoir levels based on 

extrapolations from existing habitats adjacent to the reservoir. Seattle estimated the 

types of riparian vegetation and the types of habitats important to big game species that 

would develop over time between elevation 1,974 and 1,994 because these represent 

typical reservoir fluctuations. However, the Forest Service considered elevations 

between 1,954 and 1,994 because the project is authorized to lower the reservoir to 

levels as low as 1,954. The Forest Service estimates that 158 acres of riparian, conifer, 

herbaceous (forage), rock, talus, and cliffs would continue to be inundated over the 

course of the next license. Seattle estimates that 48.6 acres of habitats of value to mule 

deer would develop in the lower reservoir, 41.6 acres of habitats of value to white-tailed 

deer would develop in the lower reservoir, and 21.6 acres of habitats important to biggame species would develop in the upper reservoir. In a separate study, Seattle 

calculates that an additional 8.8 acres of riparian habitat would be gained if the project 

was operated at elevation 1,974.
185

acres and about 13,022 lineal feet of varying habitats to address all documented projectrelated effects on terrestrial resources.

114

Staff Analysis

Fluctuations in water surface elevations affect the establishment and composition 

of the riparian vegetation community, which in turns affects its use and value to 

wildlife. This effect is more pronounced along the lower reservoir than the upper 

reservoir.

The project is allowed to operate between reservoir elevations of 1954 and 1994, 

a 40-foot elevation difference. However, operations typically result in reservoir 

elevations between 1,974 and 1,994 (a 20 foot fluctuation), depending on the time of 

year. While Seattle can use the additional storage below 1,974 during extreme energy 

loads or draw down the reservoir for maintenance, this occurs infrequently.115 Seattle 

reports that between 1987 and 2005 (the period represented by the available hydrologic 

record) the reservoir was drawn down below the 1,974 foot elevation less than 0.25 

percent of the time (about 17.5 days) and below 1,964 less than 0.02 percent of the time

(equivalent to 1.5 days).

Because of the hydraulic control at Metaline Falls, there is a distinct difference in 

the magnitude of water surface elevation fluctuations in the upper reservoir (upstream of 

Metaline Falls) and the lower reservoir (downstream of Metaline Falls). Project-related 

water surface elevation fluctuations are attenuated by Metaline Falls; when forebay 

elevation fluctuations are in the range of 5 to 20 feet, corresponding elevation changes 

in the upper reservoir are only 3 to 4 feet, depending on inflow and forebay elevation. 

Existing vegetation communities along the project reservoir reflect the current 

operating regime and historic land practices. Because proposed project operations 

would be the same over the next license, riparian vegetation and shoreline habitat would 

continue to be subject to similar reservoir fluctuations. Consequently, little change in 

these communities would be expected over the course of the next license. That is, 

habitats within the fluctuation zone in the lower reservoir which are generally devoid of 

vegetation, consist mostly of steep, rocky cliffs and slopes, and are of limited value to 

wildlife, particularly big game species, would be expected to continue to exhibit those 

 

As stated in section 2, the baseline against which alternatives are compared is 

existing operations, which we do. We also evaluate the benefits of acquiring the 

habitats as a proposed enhancement measure that would benefit resources affected by 

the project.

114 The targeted 158 acres of riparian and upland habitats and the 13,022 lineal 

feet of varying habitats immediately adjacent to water features could be provided on the 

same parcel of land, provided that the parcel meets the habitat criteria.

115 Continually operating the project at a forebay elevation below 1974 can cause 

cavitation damage to the units.
186

traits over the next license. Likewise; lands below elevation 1,974 are essentially 

consistently inundated and thus devoid of terrestrial vegetation and would continue to 

be devoid of vegetation over the next license. 

Erosion associated with water surface elevation fluctuations in the lower 

reservoir contributes to the reduction of the amount of fine sediment along the shoreline

affecting the ability of riparian vegetation to colonize these areas. However, riparian 

and palustrine wetlands in the lower reservoir are naturally sparse and disconnected 

because of the rock cliffs and talus slopes that occur in this area. Because of the steep 

rocky terrain, habitats in this reach are of limited value to big game and other wildlife. 

This condition would continue over the next license.

Unlike the lower reservoir, flood scour is the primary factor affecting the 

occurrence and distribution of shoreline vegetation in the upper reservoir (see Riparian 

Study Final Report, Seattle 2009a). Daily water surface elevation fluctuations can 

promote cottonwood seed germination at inappropriate elevations, or produce river 

stage declines that are too rapid for cottonwood seedlings to establish (Mahoney and 

Rood 1998). However, the majority of cottonwood stands in the project area are located 

in the upper reservoir, and project-related water surface elevation fluctuations do not 

appear to be adversely affecting these stands. On the Boundary Wildlife Preserve, 

periodic flooding of backwater channels is likely a factor in maintaining cottonwood 

stands and some level of recruitment in this area. Seedlings or saplings were found in 

79 percent of the acreage supporting mature cottonwood trees, suggesting that this 

species is reproducing and establishing. There was only one riparian stand (at the 

mouth of Sullivan Creek) where erosion was a management concern, but seasonal 

flood-related scouring was determined to be the primary source of the erosion at this 

site, and daily water surface elevation fluctuation a secondary source. Reservoir 

fluctuations in the upper reservoir do not appear to be significantly reducing wildlife 

habitats; and would not be expected to do so in the future due to the similarity of 

continued project operations. 

Approximately 14 to 15 acres of land adjacent to the shoreline have been lost 

over the past 40 years due to project-related erosion (Erosion Study Final Report, 

Seattle 2009a). Upland coniferous forest is a common habitat type in the project area

and is the habitat most affected by erosion. Thus, loss of such habitat will have a 

relatively minor adverse effect over the term of the new license on any species that use 

this habitat. A small portion (an estimated 10 percent) of the 15 acres of erosion 

projected over the next license period would occur in riparian habitat, based on the 

analysis of past erosion. Continued effects on this habitat would have a corresponding 

effect on wildlife that use these areas.

Management of riparian and upland habitats on project lands and other Seattleowned lands adjacent to the project over the course of the last license has been primarily 

one of preservation, with some control of recreational pursuits that could harm wildlife 

habitats in the Boundary Wildlife Preserve. The measures proposed within the TRMP 
187

would improve habitat conditions over most project lands by controlling recreational 

vehicle access where needed to prevent damage to valuable wetland and riparian 

communities,

116 creating openings and forage for big game, enhancing wetland habitats 

associated with several ponds within project boundary (if feasible), enhancing riparian 

areas associated with the Boundary Wildlife Preserve, Everett Creek and Tailrace 

Recreation Area through native vegetation plantings, improving upland habitats via 

measures to increase habitat diversity (e.g., creating small openings in the canopy to 

increase the amount of herbaceous vegetation and deciduous trees and shrubs), 

protecting Canada goose nesting sites on Metaline and Rat Islands by installing signs 

prohibiting access during the Canada goose nesting season from March 15 through May 

15, and educating the public about sensitive resources that could be damaged from

camping outside of designated use areas by installing signs at specified locations along 

the reservoir. Measures would be monitored to determine their effectiveness in 

achieving stated objectives, and the TRMP revised as needed to reflect any new or 

revised management actions. 

The acquisition and management of about 158 acres of project habitat lands

could further benefit wildlife resources, some of which may also use project lands. 

Given the priorities for selecting the habitat lands, it appears that Seattle and other 

interested stakeholders are targeting species that have large home ranges and would 

benefit from seclusion from human disturbance (such as elk, mule and white-tailed deer, 

grizzly bear, woodland caribou, lynx, and gray wolf). As noted in section 3.7, 

Threatened and Endangered Species, use of the project area by grizzly bear, woodland 

caribou, lynx and gray wolf is limited and used primarily as a travel corridor. However, 

some localized and temporary disturbance associated with project operation and 

maintenance, project-related recreation, and implementation of proposed conservation 

measures may occur. Acquisition and management of the lands proposed by Seattle

would off-set these minor effects. Further, as noted above, there is limited wintering 

habitat in the project area for big game, particularly along the lower portion of the 

reservoir. Accessible winter range is limited in northern Pend Oreille County and snow 

depths restrict elk movements and often limit use to open clear-cuts and shrub forage to 

areas below 3,500 feet elevation (Washington DFW 2001). Seattle is proposing habitat 

improvements that would improve winter forage for big game on project lands, but there 

are limited opportunities within the project boundary. Further, recreational pursuits 

(snowmobiling, boating, hunting, etc.,) on project lands may further limit the use of 

these areas.

 

116 ORV and snowmobile use at the Boundary Wildlife Preserve was documented 

several times during 2005 and 2007 field studies. This recreation use has harmed 

wetland and riparian vegetation by creating ruts and erosion patches primarily within 

areas dominated by reed canarygrass. The impacts from ORV use are currently minor

although it represents a potential ongoing and future threat to sensitive riparian and 

wetland vegetation at the Boundary Wildlife Preserve.
188

The Selkirk elk herd represents an important resource that provides significant 

recreational, aesthetic, cultural and economic benefit to Washington citizens and to the 

Native American people of the area (Washington DFW 2001). Although significant 

strides have been made in the county to benefit this herd (Washington 2010) and the 

habitat improvements proposed by Seattle on project lands would add to those benefits, 

the acquisition and management of additional lands could further state management 

objectives for the herd.

Given that project reservoir fluctuations would continue to preclude the 

development of riparian and upland vegetation habitats within the fluctuation zone, 

project-related erosion would continue to remove available habitats, disturbance from 

project-related recreation could limit use of project habitat lands, and that some 

important habitats (i.e., wintering habitats for big game) are in limited supply, 

acquisition and management of additional lands by Seattle could improve conditions for 

the species discussed above and promote the recovery of listed species. 

The area from which these lands would be acquired includes lands within a few 

miles of the project, but are unaffected by the operation of the project; thus, the habitats 

and the resources they support may bear no relationship to the project. Adhering to the 

criteria identified in the settlement agreement would help ensure a connection to 

resources affected by the project. However, until the lands are identified, there is little 

information on the record to determine exactly what those benefits would be, if there are 

lands of the quality and quantity sought that could be acquired and at what cost, or the

relationship of the lands and resources to the project. 

Integrated Weed Management

Noxious weeds and other invasive plant species can negatively affect native plant 

communities and wildlife, as well as recreation, aesthetics, cultural values, and 

economic resources. Several federal, state, and county policies and regulations have 

been developed to address concerns about the spread of weeds, and to guide 

management of weeds on private and public lands. Landowners in the state of 

Washington are required by state law and various county ordinances to take steps to 

control the spread of certain specified noxious weeds on their property. 

A number of project-related factors may influence the establishment and spread 

of noxious weeds, but it is difficult to quantify the effect: reservoir fluctuations may 

create conditions that are better tolerated by invasive species; vehicle traffic may be 

aiding the dispersal of weeds along project roads, although the level of project-related 

road traffic versus non-project-related use is unknown; and recreation users may also be 

a factor in dispersal of terrestrial and aquatic weeds. 

To control the spread of noxious weeds on project lands, Seattle proposes to 

develop and implement, as a component of the TRMP, an Integrated Weed Management 

Program (IWMP) that includes monitoring, control, suppression, and containment of

terrestrial noxious weed species in order to maintain or achieve diverse and naturally 
189

functioning plant communities in the project area. Aquatic weeds are not included in

the IWMP but are addressed under the Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention 

Plan.

Specifically, the plan includes: (1) conduct within one year of license issuance an 

initial inventory to update information regarding the locations of existing weed 

infestations and then re-inventory every three years to identify areas where new weeds 

or new infestations have become established: (2) develop and implement within three 

years of license issuance an integrated program to minimize the establishment of

noxious weeds in the project area and along roads and in recreation areas covered by the 

TRMP; and (3) develop site-specific treatment plans to eradicate, suppress, or contain

infestations of Class A and Class B-designate weed species on Seattle lands within the 

project boundary and along roads and at recreation areas covered by the TRMP, and on 

federal lands within the reservoir fluctuation zone, and initiate and monitor the 

effectiveness of control measures within three years of license issuance..

The Forest Service Condition 3 requires development and implementation of 

IWMP and Interior and Washington DFW recommend its implementation under section 

10(j) of the FPA.

Staff Analysis

Prevention of introduction and spread of weeds relies on early detection, 

effective treatment, on-going education of land managers and the public about weed 

issues, and proper planning and management of ground disturbing activities. 

Monitoring existing weed populations and patrols to identify new infestations are 

essential to evaluate the success of the steps being taken to control and prevent the 

spread of weeds.

Control and effectiveness monitoring tasks defined in the IWMP would focus on 

the noxious weed species that are required for land owner control, i.e., Class A and 

Class B-designate species. It would also include diffuse knapweed and yellow flag iris 

which are Class B and C species, respectively, but are not yet well established around 

Boundary reservoir. There is no single treatment method for effectively controlling 

weeds. Treatment methods proposed in the plan include manual, mechanical, cultural, 

chemical, and biological techniques. Any use of herbicides and pesticides would be

limited; screened based on toxicity to birds and bees, aquatic toxicity, mobility, 

persistence, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, reproductive effects and 

carcinogenicity; and applied in accordance with specified labels. Effective control may 

require integrating several treatment methods depending on the species, the

characteristics and location of the infestation, and site objectives for the infestation. 

Site objectives can range from complete eradication, to containing the spread of the 

species, to suppressing the population.

Seattle’s IWMP would likely help control existing weed populations and prevent 

the introduction and spread of weeds in the project area. The adaptive nature of the plan 
190

would enable the plan to be responsive to changing conditions such as changes in weed 

status, occurrence, or distribution.

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Program

The 2007 survey identified several factors that may be affecting populations of 

rare vascular plants: reservoir fluctuations, competition with noxious weeds, erosion, 

recreation, and project maintenance. Because the results were based on one year of 

survey, stakeholders felt that additional monitoring was needed to document population 

trends.

Seattle, in consultation with relicensing participants, agreed to develop a RET 

program as an integral part of the TRMP that includes:

• qualitative surveys to evaluate distribution and population trends for 

widespread RTE species in the project area;

• censuses to monitor trends of discrete RTE plant populations that could be

significantly affected by disturbance because of their rarity and limited 

distribution in the project area;

• sampling to assess the distribution and density of invasive, non-native 

plant species; and

• surveys in areas that are significantly affected by a natural disaster, such

as a large-scale wildfire.

Specifically, Seattle would (1) conduct qualitative surveys within two years of 

license issuance and then once every six years thereafter to evaluate the distribution and 

population trends for widespread RTE plant species in the project area; (2) conduct a 

census within two years of license issuance and then every three years thereafter to

evaluate the distribution and population trends for RTE plant species with limited 

distribution in the project area; (3) conduct an extensive survey following a catastrophic 

event in the project area to determine effects on RTE plants and identify appropriate 

restoration measures; (4) update the project database following each survey or census 

and coordinate with TRWG to ensure that RTE plant data are current; and (5) use the 

findings from RTE plant species monitoring surveys and censuses to inform projectrelated recreation management, with the goal of protecting RTE plant populations.

The Forest Service requires the development of the RTE program, and Interior 

and Washington DFW recommend its development pursuant to section 10(j) of the 

FPA.

Staff Analysis

Ten RTE plant species, representing about half of the RTE subpopulations are 

located in the project’s typical fluctuation zone. The presence and persistence of these 

species in the fluctuation zone suggests that they are adapted to variable hydrological 

conditions, including those conditions created by existing project operations. 
191

Regardless, although some plants, especially annual species, might not be killed 

directly, prolonged inundation during critical flowering and fruiting times could pose a 

threat to the reproductive success of some individual plants during some years. It is 

difficult to assess the potential RTE plant habitat that has been affected by projectrelated water surface elevation fluctuations, but it is likely that these fluctuations have, 

and will continue to have, some limiting effect on the distribution of RTE plant species 

over the term of the new license.

The most significant potential effect to RTE plant populations in the project area 

appears to be competition with weeds, especially in the fluctuation zone, where many 

populations of RTE plants occur. The influence of existing project operations on the 

establishment, persistence, and spread of weeds is unknown, as is whether RTE plant 

population sizes are increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant. 

As noted by the Forest Service, the overall effect of recreation on RTE plant 

populations is low. A total of 29 plant sites are in the vicinity of recreation sites, but the 

effect of project related recreation on RTE plants at these sites appears to be low. Most 

recreation use occurs in areas that do not support RTE plant populations or the 

recreation sites are large enough that the use is fairly diffuse.

Similarly, project maintenance activities do not appear to adversely affect RTE 

plants because few RTE plants occur near project facilities. Although project 

maintenance activities occur near some RTE sites, no effects were observed.

Seattle’s proposed RTE plant monitoring program would achieve the objectives 

of the settlement parties, would help identify when additional protection or restoration 

measures related to project operation, maintenance, and recreation are needed, and 

would help ensure that populations of these rare plant communities will continue to 

thrive on project lands.

Wildlife Program

The TRWG identified three wildlife species that they believed would potentially 

benefit from long-term monitoring: bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and bank swallow. 

Seattle developed and proposes to implement a Wildlife Program that includes the 

following:

• annual bald eagle nest monitoring surveys;

• management plans for bald eagle nests affected by project-related 

activities;

• surveys for peregrine falcon and bank swallows; and

• document wildlife observations in the project area.

Specifically, Seattle would (1) monitor bald eagle nesting sites annually by 

conducting two bald eagle nest surveys, one early in the season (April) and one late 

(June) of each year to determine occupancy of known nest sites and report the results to 
192

Washington DFW; (2) prepare and implement within three years of license issuance 

management plans for bald eagle nest sites documented within the project boundary; (3) 

monitor peregrine falcon breeding at identified cliff locations and bank swallow 

colonies along and immediately adjacent to the reservoir shoreline. For bank swallows, 

Seattle would conduct one nest survey annually during the breeding season (late May or 

early June); for peregrine falcons, Seattle would survey the following sites up to two 

times between April 15 and May 15 to determine occupancy (only one survey will be 

needed if occupancy is determined during the first survey): Washington Rock (known 

eyrie) and the cliffs along the reservoir 0.5-1 mile north of Washington Rock; the cliffs 

along the “Narrows” in the Canyon Reach near the BLM campground; Boundary 

tailrace; east cliff face, Boundary tailrace, west cliff face; and the cliffs along the 

reservoir 0.5-1 mile north of Washington Rock. If any occupancy is determined, Seattle 

would monitor each occupied site up to two times between June 10 and July 10 to 

determine nest success/productivity.

The Forest Service Condition 3 requires implementation of the Wildlife Program 

as mitigation for project-related recreational disturbance and to meet Forest Service 

management directions of preventing authorized actions from causing a species to move 

toward listing and to maintain viable populations in the area. Washington DFW and 

Interior also recommend implementation of the program pursuant to section 10(j) of the 

FPA.

Staff Analysis

Certain types of recreational activities (e.g., motorized boating, ORV use, and 

shooting guns) in the vicinity of bald eagle nests have the potential to adversely affect 

breeding behavior and nest success. The FWS (2007) has developed guidelines for 

managing disturbance around active eagle nests. These guidelines recommend 

restricting ORV use, loud boats, and camping activity within 330 feet of active bald

eagle nests, especially during critical periods.

Eagle response to recreationists is apparently dependent on site conditions, level 

of acclimation, age of the bird, season, and other factors (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). 

According to the Seattle Audubon Society (2008), there were more than 550 active bald 

eagle nests in Washington in 2008. Many productive nesting territories are in urban 

settings and along lakes and other water bodies, such as Hood Canal and the San Juan 

Islands, which are used extensively for recreational boating. Therefore, threats to eagles 

from boat noise or other recreational activities must be evaluated in the context of the 

susceptibility of the specific breeding pair to disturbance at different times of the 

nesting cycle. The most critical periods relative to eagle nest disturbance are the initial 

nest-building, egg-laying, and incubation periods. In the project area, this period runs 

from January to April, when there is little boat or camping activity on the reservoir. At 

the Boundary Wildlife Preserve, snowmobile activity may occur during these months 

and may pose a threat to the Sand Creek nest territory (although the nest is more than 

800 feet north of the BWP. In addition, erosion may undercut a tree used for nesting 
193

along Sand Creek; however, they have nested in two other trees in the Boundary 

Wildlife Preserve in the past and other suitable trees are available. Proposed monitoring 

and management plans would help determine if management actions are warranted to 

protect the bald eagle.

Seattle did not identify any project-related effects to the pair of peregrine falcons 

that nest on Washington Rock, located high above the project reservoir and outside the 

project area and near Metaline Falls. However, peregrine falcons are likely to forage on 

birds and waterfowl over the reservoir and shorelines, and therefore may be susceptible

to disturbance from recreational boating or other recreational pursuits in the Canyon 

Reach and tailrace recreational areas. Annual monitoring would help to determine if 

these birds are successfully expanding their distribution and if management actions to 

minimize recreational disturbances are needed.

Two colonies of bank swallows are located along the project reservoir. These 

colonies appear to benefit from erosion processes. However, they too forage over the 

reservoir. While recreational pursuits do not appear to be affecting these colonies, 

additional monitoring would help to determine if management actions are warranted.

Tributary Fish Community and Aquatic Habitat Measures, Recreation 

Measures, and Road Closures

Over the course of the license, Seattle proposes to implement a number of 

tributary enhancements to improve spawning, rearing, and foraging for native 

salmonids. These activities would consist of placing large woody debris and boulders in 

streams, replacing culverts that are barriers to fish migration, and planting native 

riparian tree species to stabilize bank slopes and increase overhead shade. Actions 

would occur in Sullivan Creek, Outlet Creek, Linton Creek, Sweet Creek, and other 

lesser tributaries as identified.

Seattle also proposes to implement a number of recreational improvements, such 

creating trails, extending boat launches, etc. (discussed in greater detail in section 3.9). 

Seattle also proposes to close portions of several roads no longer needed to monitor 

wells.

The above activities would increase human activity and noise in the area of the 

actions, potentially result in some vegetation disturbance, and result in soil disturbance 

that could foster the spread of weeds. Wildlife could be temporally displaced and their 

behavior altered during the construction periods. Vegetation and erosion effects are 

expected to be minor, short-term, and localized and controlled through appropriate best 

management practices. Over the long-term, wildlife associated with riparian habitats 

would likely benefit from the riparian habitat improvements and from the road closures.

Mill Pond Dam Site Monitoring and Maintenance

Following the removal of the Mill Pond dam and stream channel restoration 

efforts by the District (discussed further below), Seattle would, in conjunction with its 

other monitoring efforts defined in the FAMP, monitor and maintain the Mill Pond dam 
194

site. This would entail monitoring the site to asses stream channel, floodplain, and 

upslope conditions to determine if any structure or plantings fall below the success 

levels established during implementation planning, which as proposed by the District is 

80 percent survival of planted trees and 50 percent canopy cover of shrubs. Seattle 

proposes to develop detailed plans and protocols for monitoring and maintenance in 

consultation with the Fish and Aquatic Working Group and subject to approval by the 

Forest Service and Ecology. Seattle would conduct monitoring at the site in years 2, 4, 

6, and 10 following the end of the Commission’s jurisdiction over the District’s Sullivan 

Creek license and at eight-year intervals for the remainder of its license.

Forest Service 4(e) conditions would require Seattle to monitor Mill Pond site. 

Interior and Washington DFW recommend pursuant to section 10(j) that Seattle monitor 

the site.

Staff Analysis

Seattle is proposing a suite of measures to re-establish and enhance aquatic 

habitats in Sullivan Creek above and below Mill Pond. Establishment of native 

vegetation and a functioning stream channel at the Mill Pond site is critical to achieving 

the settling parties’ goals for the Sullivan Creek system. Assuming the surrender 

becomes effective within eight years of the Commission’s order approving the surrender 

(i.e., five years to complete dam removal and 3 years of monitoring), Seattle’s 

monitoring program would begin to provide information in years 10, 14, 16, 18, and 

every eight years thereafter for the life of the license. Seattle’s proposed monitoring 

would extend from the point after the period of most rapid change and stabilization of 

the system, well into the period when the vegetation community is developing its more 

defining characteristics. Seattle’s monitoring program would help determine if 

additional measures are needed to ensure the effectiveness of its enhancement measures 

However, specific monitoring criteria still need to be developed.

3.6.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project

Activities associated with the surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project have the 

potential to affect botanical and wildlife resources through the following mechanisms: 

changes in the operation of Sullivan Lake, disturbance associated with the installation of 

the Sullivan Lake cold water release structure, changes in habitat and species 

composition associated with the removal of Mill Pond and the restoration of Sullivan 

Creek, disturbances associated with construction activities associated with dam removal 

and site restoration, and erosion.

The District filed a draft Mill Pond decommission plan that generally describes 

the measures it would implement to limit adverse effects on surrounding vegetation and 

wildlife and to restore Sullivan Creek following removal of Mill Pond dam. This 

includes minimizing the area of disturbance, using best management practices to control 

erosion, revegetating with native species, controlling noxious weed establishment, and 

monitoring for three years to ensure 80 percent survival of trees and 50 percent canopy 
195

cover of native species 3 years after planting. The District would file a final plan once 

detailed engineering design is completed.

The Forest Service and Washington DFW recommend the removal of Mill Pond. 

No other specific recommendations were filed.

Below we discuss potential effects associated with future operations of Sullivan 

Lake and removal of Mill Pond dam.

Cold Water Intake on Sullivan Lake and Sullivan Lake Operations

Human activity and noise would increase during the installation of the cold water 

intake, which could displace wildlife from the construction area and disrupt their normal 

behavioral patterns. The increased noise and human disturbance would be short-term 

and localized to the area near the Sullivan Lake dam, where some level of human use is 

already occurring due to maintenance activities of the dam and road use. 

Sullivan Lake operations following the surrender of the license would be similar 

to current operations in that summer lake elevations would remain the same. The fall 

drawdown period would begin about one month earlier, immediately after Labor Day 

weekend instead of October 1, and winter lake elevations would be held five feet higher 

(2,570 as opposed to 2,565). During years when higher than average runoff is expected, 

lake levels would be held down a little longer (May 20) to move bedload in Harvey 

Creek. No direct effects on wildlife or vegetation would be expected from these

operational changes. The operational changes are proposed, in part, to improve kokanee 

spawning and lake productivity. If successful, wildlife (e.g. bald eagles) may indirectly 

benefit from an increase in available forage and their use of Sullivan Lake may increase.

Minimum discharge flows from Sullivan Lake would also increase. Riparian 

vegetation associated with Outlet and Sullivan Creek would likely benefit from the 

increase in available water. The degree of benefit would depend on the stream reach, 

with the greatest benefit occurring in the less incised segments of the streams.

Mill Pond Dam Removal and Restoration of Sullivan Creek

The District proposes to remove Mill Pond dam and restore Sullivan Creek from 

the dam to the confluence with Outlet Creek. The 63-acre pond and Sullivan Creek 

upstream to the confluence with Outlet Creek would be stabilized and planted with 

native vegetation. About 0.5 acres of upland coniferous forest would be permanently 

removed for construction access and the proposed siphon pipe over the existing dike. 

Portions of the wetland at the head of Mill Pond would likely be disturbed during 

grading to restore the stream channel. The 0.25-mile reach of lower Sullivan Creek 

above Mill Pond will be stabilized to prevent erosion. Riparian vegetation within this 

reach would receive temporary and some permanent effects from trampling and clearing 

for construction access. Once construction is complete, disturbed areas would be 

planted with native vegetation, limiting long-term disturbance effects.
196

The draft Mill Pond decommissioning plan contains a generalized approach for 

establishing native vegetation in upland areas and in riparian areas. Four planting zones 

are identified based on hydrology: riparian zone (edge of stream channel up to 5-year 

flood), wet zone (wetland area near inlet with Sullivan Creek and from stream channel 

up to 2-year flood), upland zone (above 5-year flood), and sediment depositional zone

(areas above the 100-year flood elevation where sediment removed from the channel 

would be placed in compacted layers). Species composition, planting methods (i.e., 

hydroseeding, live stakes), and desired functions (e.g., stabilizing soils, habitat) are 

described generally for each zone. The District would monitor the site for three years 

following completion of dam removal to ensure 80 percent survival of trees and 50 

percent canopy cover of native species. The District’s proposed time frames are 

consistent with generally accepted practices for ensuring site stabilization and 

successful establishment of vegetation (FISRWG, 1998).

The District’s approach would likely establish a functioning, viable stream 

channel and riparian zone valued by wildlife. However, more details, based on sitespecific conditions are needed to fully evaluate the efficacy of the proposed plans. Such 

details would include (1) site preparation and design details; (2) detailed provisions for 

site stabilization; (3) a description of plant species to be used and where they would be 

planted, the source of plant materials, planting densities and methods, and fertilization 

and irrigation requirements; (4) a description of methods to control noxious weeds for 3 

years after dam removal; (5) a description of a 3-year monitoring program, including the 

proposed performance standards and success criteria, of 80 percent survival of trees and 

shrubs and 50 percent canopy cover of native species after 3 years from the date of 

planting; (6) procedures to be implemented if monitoring reveals that establishment of 

vegetation is not successful or areas of erosion are identified, including the need for 

additional monitoring; and (7) an implementation schedule.

Removal of Mill Pond would eliminate the lacustrine/littoral habitats and any 

wetlands along the edge of Mill Pond; the lake bed and stream channel would be 

converted to upland and riparian habitats. The wetland complexes along lower Sullivan 

Creek and at its confluence with the Boundary Reservoir would not be affected because 

the hydrology pattern would remain constant during construction and restoration efforts. 

The lake bed and stream channel would be restored and planted with native upland and 

riparian species. Monitoring would be conducted both to ensure that the restored stream 

channel and wetland are functioning as intended.

Soil disturbance from construction activities could create conditions favoring 

colonization by noxious weeds. In addition, Sullivan Creek could transport weed seeds 

downstream to Mill Pond, affecting the quality of the restored stream channel and 

associated uplands. Noxious weeds in the construction area would be sprayed or 

removed prior to construction. The District would also apply best management 

practices to control the spread and growth of noxious weeds. The District would

develop a noxious weed control plan that would cover pre-, during, and post-
197

construction time periods (McMillan 2010). This plan should be filed with the 

Commission.

No rare, threatened, or endangered plant species have been identified in the Mill 

Pond area; however a site survey has not been completed. The District would conduct a 

survey prior to construction, and if any such plants are found, efforts would be made to 

minimize adverse effects (McMillan 2010). 

Increased human activity and noise would be likely to disturb and displace 

wildlife. Most large animals, such elk, deer, wolf, etc., will avoid the Mill Pond 

construction area for the duration of the construction period. Mill Pond dam is 

proposed to be removed and the site restored within five years of the Commission’s 

surrender order. The most significant disturbance would occur for only a portion of that 

period. McMillen (2010) expects that the surround conifer stands and intervening 

topography will limit noise from heavy equipment, pumps, and motors to about 0.25 

miles. Small and medium sized animals would also be temporarily displaced during 

construction, or may be lost by direct mortality or from lost habitats.

Some changes in wildlife species composition and use of the Mill Pond site 

would also be likely following removal of the pond. Species favoring lake habitats, 

such as loons, waterfowl, ducks and bats, would be replaced with species favoring 

stream riparian habitats, such as harlequin ducks. Wildlife using habitats in the lower 

Sullivan Creek are not expected to be affected by removal of Mill Pond because the 

hydrology would remain the same during construction.

Any rare, threatened, or endangered species in the project area would likely be 

affected as described generally above for wildlife. If any such wildlife species are 

found to be dependant on the habitats associated with Mill Pond, the District proposes 

to relocate, if possible, these species prior to construction (McMillen 2010). The 

District would also use best management practices, noise reducing equipment, and 

restrict construction times to avoid direct or indirect effects on RTE species (McMillen 

2010). 

3.6.2.3 Cumulative Effects

The effect of relicensing the Boundary Project and the surrender of the Sullivan 

Creek Project on wildlife and wildlife habitats is expected to be beneficial. A number 

of variables contribute to dispersal of weeds in the vicinity of both projects and the 

larger Pend Oreille watershed, which include ground-disturbing activities, aquatic and 

terrestrial recreation, road use, and the presence and operation of hydroelectric facilities. 

It is likely that weed populations in the watershed are increasing due to continued 

influence by these activities and construction activities associated with both projects 

could contribute to their spread. However, use of appropriate control measures and 

implementation of Seattle’s integrated weed program would minimize these effects and 

is consistent with Pend Oreille County objectives of controlling the spread of noxious 

weeds.
198

Although minor effects to individual RTE plants were identified in the Boundary 

Project vicinity, no effects were noted on a population level. Human activities in the 

watershed are likely having continued effects on RTE plants and wildlife through 

habitat loss and degradation, but the Boundary Project does not appear to be 

cumulatively contributing to these effects. Some RTE habitat loss could result in the 

counties where additional development occurs from the additional water supplied by the 

District to Ecology’s Columbia River program, but these effects would accounted for at 

the project specific level, as indicated in Ecology’s EISs.

Cumulative effects to riparian habitat in the watershed occur from shoreline 

development, habitat degradation, operation of hydroelectric facilities, road building 

and associated slope stabilization, shoreline erosion, and alteration of the sediment load 

of the river by dams. Upland vegetation is similarly affected by development and 

corresponding habitat removal and degradation. Erosion of up to an estimated 15 acres 

of upland habitat over the course of the new license would cumulatively contribute, 

albeit slightly, to effects on botanical resources in the watershed. Land clearing activity 

in the basin is likely to continue to affect the distribution of weeds and rare plants and 

have continued effects on the extent, distribution, and composition of vegetation

communities, including riparian habitat. Land clearing can be caused by timber 

operations, residential and commercial construction, and mining.

Seattle’s TRMP establishes management goals for all Seattle-owned lands and 

describes protection, enhancement, and monitoring efforts designed to benefit botanical 

resources on lands within the Project boundary. These efforts would reduce cumulative 

effects on botanical resources in the basin by decreasing the contribution of projectrelated factors.

Boundary Project operations contribute to minor, long-term cumulative adverse 

effects on shoreline vegetation, which have a corresponding effect on the ability of the 

watershed to support certain wildlife species. However, on a basin-wide and cumulative 

scale these effects are insignificant. Vegetation loss and modification from 

development, road building and maintenance, recreation, and operation of hydroelectric 

facilities in the basin cumulatively affect the distribution and quality of shoreline habitat 

for wildlife. Land clearing in the basin from residential and commercial development, 

timber harvest, and mining are likely to continue to cumulatively affect wildlife habitat. 

The Boundary Project also has a minor adverse effect on wildlife use of land within the 

project boundary because of associated roads and shoreline recreation. The Boundary 

Project’s contribution to cumulative effects related to wildlife disturbance is 

insignificant. The removal of Mill Pond dam and the restoration of Sullivan Creek 

would improve habitat in the basin.

3.7 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Three wildlife species and one fish species listed as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA may occur in the vicinity of both the Boundary and Sullivan Creek 
199

Projects: Canada lynx, grizzly bear, woodland caribou, and bull trout. On May 5, 2011, 

the gray wolf in eastern Washington was removed from the FWS’s list of threatened and 

endangered species. Therefore it is not subject to the protection of the Endangered 

Species Act. Nonetheless, given the interest in this species and because the analysis is 

still accurate, we left the analysis of project effects on the gray wolf in this section. No 

federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered plant species are known to occur 

in the vicinity of the projects. (letter from Preston Sleeger, Regional Environmental 

Officer, FWS to Kimberly Bose, Secretary, FERC, dated October 4, 2010).

3.7.1 Affected Environment

3.7.1.1 Action Area

For the bull trout, the Action Area extends from the Canada border, which is 

about 1 mile downstream from the Boundary dam in the Seven Mile Reservoir, 

upstream to the headwaters of the Boundary Project located just downstream from the 

Box Canyon dam. The Action Area also includes all tributaries that flow into Boundary 

Reservoir, including Sullivan Creek.

For terrestrial threatened and endangered species, the Action Area includes the 

entire area within the FERC Project boundary and lands proposed for inclusion within 

the project boundary as described in the TRMP (project area).

3.7.1.2 Bull Trout

In section 7.3.1 of the Boundary and Sullivan Creek settlements, the FWS 

indicates that it anticipates that the measures in the respective settlements would be 

adequate to: (a) avoid a jeopardy finding for bull trout; (b) avoid a finding of 

destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat for bull 

trout; and (c) minimize incidental take of bull trout. Due to the operational provisions 

of the settlements (i.e., instream flows and impoundment fluctuations), as well as the 

proposal to surrender the Sullivan Creek license and remove the Mill Pond dam, we 

consider the effects of the aforementioned actions on the bull trout inhabiting the Pend 

Oreille River and its tributaries.

Ecology and Life History

Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family, which also 

includes the Dolly varden, lake trout, and Arctic char. They can grow to more than 20 

pounds in lake environments, while bull trout that live in streams rarely exceed 4 

pounds.

Bull trout reach sexual maturity at 5 to 6 years of age during spawning 

migrations to their natal streams (Scholz et al., 2005). Bull trout are iteroparous and 

repeat spawning annually or in alternate years. They spawn in the fall after 

temperatures drop below 48° F (8.9 oC). In the Salmo River, which has its confluence 

with the Pend Oreille River at RM 12.7 (about 4.3 miles downstream from the 
200

Boundary dam), bull trout spawning migrations begin in June through early August, 

spawning peaks during early September, and post-spawning migration to overwintering 

habitat is completed by the end of November (Baxter and Nellestijn, 2000; DuPont et 

al., 2007). Few bull trout from the Salmo River are known to enter Seven Mile 

Reservoir. However, one Salmo River bull trout was captured, and another detected via 

telemetry, in the Boundary dam tailrace in 2008, suggesting that some remnant of an 

adfluvial life history pattern may still be present in the population.

Bull trout spawn in streams with cold, unpolluted water, clean gravel and cobble 

substrate, and gentle stream slopes. Bull trout spawning sites are characterized by lowgradient, uniform flow, and gravel substrate between 0.2 - 2.0 inches in diameter 

(Wydoski and Whitney, 2003; Fraley and Shepard, 1989). Groundwater influence and 

proximity to cover are also reported as important factors in spawning site selection 

(Fraley and Shepard 1989). Studies conducted throughout the species’ range indicate 

that spawning occurs in water from 0.75 to 2.0 feet deep (Wydoski and Whitney, 2003; 

Fraley and Shepard, 1989) and often occurs in reaches fed by streams or near other 

sources of cold groundwater (Pratt, 1992). 

Bull trout require a long period of time from egg deposition until emergence (4-5 

months). Rieman and McIntyre (1993) indicate that optimum incubation temperatures 

are between 35.6 and 39.2 °F (2 and 4 oC) . The alevins remain in the streambed, 

absorbing the yolk sac, for an additional 65 to 90 days after hatching (Pratt, 1992). 

Emergence from the streambed occurs in late winter/early spring (Pratt, 1992). High 

levels of fine sediment in spawning substrates reduce embryo survival, but the extent to 

which this affects bull trout populations is not entirely known (Rieman and McIntyre, 

1993). Long winter incubation periods for native char embryos and alevins make them 

particularly vulnerable to increases in fine sediments (FWS, 1998).

Some bull trout may live near areas where they were hatched. Others migrate 

from streams to lakes, reservoirs (or, in the case of coastal populations, salt water). 

Scholz et al. (2005) summarized the available information on juvenile bull trout 

migratory behavior. They concluded that most migratory bull trout outmigrate from 

tributaries at age 2 to 3 and at a size of 6.7 - 11.8 inches. Juvenile outmigration from 

tributaries to Lake Pend Oreille peaks during May, but information from other areas 

(i.e., Flathead River, Metolius River, Mill Creek) shows that some juveniles also 

outmigrate in early to late summer. 

Migratory bull trout attain a greater size than resident stream fish. However, 

lakes and reservoirs are not good spawning habitat, so migratory bull trout may swim 

considerable distances to spawn when habitat conditions allow. Bull trout typically 
201

occur in steeper gradient, more upstream reaches than other salmonid species.117 Adult 

bull trout have a greater ability to navigate waterfalls and cascades that impede the 

upstream migration of many other salmonid species. Rather than exhibiting unusual 

leaping abilities, bull trout have been observed to seek out channel margins and bypass 

falls during high flow events or to burrow through logjams to ascend to upstream 

reaches. Bull trout can also exhibit a patchy distribution, where they are found in only 

some tributaries or reaches within a watershed (Watson and Hillman, 1997; Baxter, 

1995). 

Small bull trout eat terrestrial and aquatic insects but shift to preying on other 

fish as they grow larger. Large bull trout are primarily fish predators. Bull trout 

evolved with whitefish, sculpins and other trout and use all of them as food sources.

Distribution

Historically bull trout occurred throughout the Columbia River Basin, east to 

western Montana, south to the Jarbidge River in northern Nevada, the Klamath Basin in 

Oregon, the McCloud River in California and north to Alberta, British Columbia, and 

possibly southeastern Alaska. Today bull trout are found primarily in upper tributary 

streams and several lake and reservoir systems; they have been eliminated from the 

main stems of most large rivers. The main populations remaining in the lower 48 states 

are in Montana, Idaho, Oregon and Washington with a small population in northern 

Nevada. Bull trout are now extinct in northern California.

Gilbert and Evermann (1894) observed that bull trout were “abundant in the Pend 

Oreille River” during their surveys in the late 1800s. Smith (2000), in his ethnography 

of the Kalispel Tribe, noted that “char” (presumably bull trout) were a component of the 

Tribe’s subsistence along with other resident fish (suckers, trout, chub, and whitefish) 

and salmon captured near the Salmo River and Kettle Falls. However, there are 

currently no bull trout spawning populations in the Action Area (Pend Oreille river mile 

[RM] 17.0 to RM 34.5) and tributaries, although individual bull trout are occasionally 

observed (see table 2.3-3 in Seattle’s March 2010 Draft Biological Assessment).118 

 

117 Bull trout may occur in greater densities in these higher gradient reaches to 

avoid higher water temperatures in downstream reaches, and possibly because of an 

inability to compete effectively with other salmonid species (Stolz and Schnell, 1991).

118 Bull trout have been found and/or observed: (1) within lower Sullivan Creek 

(McLellan, 2001; Seattle, 2009b); (2) within or near the mouth of Sweet Creek 

(Lembcke, 2001; McLellan, 2001); (3) in the Boundary dam tailrace; (4) in the Canyon 

Reach of the Boundary Reservoir (drop-down from Lake Pend Oreille); and (5) in the 

Boundary Reservoir near the mouth of Slate Creek, which is thought to provide a 

coldwater refuge for bull trout in the reservoir during the summer months. See

McLellan (2001), Seattle (2009b), Lembcke (2001), CES (1996a), R2 Resource 

Consultants (1998a), Forest Service (1995), and FERC (2004).
202

Bull trout in the Action Area are within the Pend Oreille Core Area of the 

Northeast Washington Unit (NWU) of the Columbia River Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS), an area that includes the Boundary and Sullivan Creek projects. The available 

information suggests there are two, and perhaps four, populations of bull trout in 

tributaries to the Pend Oreille River, but only LeClerc Creek, a tributary to Box Canyon 

Reservoir, is within the Pend Oreille Core Area. The Salmo River, which is located in 

British Columbia at RM 12.7, and the Priest River at RM 95.2 are both known to sustain 

reproducing bull trout populations. LeClerc Creek is suspected of having a small selfreproducing population of bull trout, but its status is unknown (Scholz et al., 2005). 

Five juvenile bull trout have been observed in Nine Mile Creek, which drains into 

Seven Mile Reservoir in British Columbia, but additional monitoring is needed to 

determine if a self-reproducing population is present there. The Salmo River and Nine 

Mile Creek are located downstream and the Priest River is located upstream of the core 

area.

Tributaries with particular pertinence to bull trout that drain into Boundary 

Reservoir include Sullivan Creek (RM 27.9), Slate Creek (RM 23.1), and Sweet Creek 

(RM 32.0). There are also 12 other named tributaries and 13 unnamed tributaries that 

drain into the Boundary Reservoir. A detailed compilation of existing information on 

habitat conditions in tributaries draining to Boundary Reservoir can be found in Seattle 

(2009a). Adfluvial fish habitat is very limited in tributaries to Boundary Reservoir 

because of stream size and the presence of natural passage barriers at or near the mouths 

of the tributaries (see table 2.3-2 in Seattle’s March 2010 Draft Biological Assessment).

Sullivan Creek is the largest tributary, with a drainage area of 142.5 square miles 

(m2

). Two potential natural fish barriers occur at RM 0.60 and RM 0.65 on lower 

Sullivan Creek.119 In addition, Mill Pond dam, located 3.94 miles from the mouth of 

Sullivan Creek, is not equipped with fish passage facilities and is a complete barrier to 

upstream fish passage, as is the dam at the outlet of Sullivan Lake on Outlet Creek. 

Slate Creek has a drainage area of about 32.3 square miles and includes about 3,474 

linear feet of adfluvial habitat downstream of a waterfall 19.7 feet in height (McLellan, 

2001). The Sweet Creek\Lunch Creek drainage has an area of about 11.1 square miles 

and a series of three waterfalls that limit potential adfluvial habitat to about 2,659 feet.

Currently, adfluvial bull trout may use the Pend Oreille River on a seasonal 

basis, as water temperatures are too high during summer for continuous use (see Figure 

 

119 Surveys of these two potential barriers found that (a) while the barriers would 

be extremely difficult to ascend, passage at certain flows could not be ruled out (CES, 

1996a), and (b) bull trout 18 inches or larger could pass the falls under low flows (99 

cfs) (Powers, 2008). Turbulence makes passage difficult at flows higher than 300 to 

500 cfs.
203

2.3-1 in Seattle’s March 2010 Draft Biological Assessment).120 Seasonal use of the 

Pend Oreille River by bull trout is evident from the studies completed by DuPont et al. 

(2007), DuPont and Horner (2003), Geist et al. (2004), and Scholz et al. (2005), but use 

patterns throughout the year are not known, particularly in Boundary Reservoir, where 

few bull trout have been observed and only a single observation from July 2009 is 

available from a radio-tracked individual. Observations of bull trout near Albeni Falls 

dam (Geist et al., 2004; Dupont and Horner, 2003), cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, 

and triploid rainbow trout in Boundary Reservoir (Seattle, 2009b), and brown trout in 

Box Canyon Reservoir (Garrett and Bennett, 1995) suggest that salmonids use thermal 

refugia when mainstem river temperatures begin to exceed 64.4 °F (18 oC). Few bull 

trout currently use the mainstem Pend Oreille River downstream of Albeni Falls for 

rearing. 

Threats

Bull trout are vulnerable to many of the same threats that have reduced salmon 

populations in the Snake River Basin. Due to their life history requirements, bull trout 

are more sensitive to increased water temperatures, poor water quality, and low-flow 

conditions than many other salmonids. In addition, past and continuing land 

management activities have degraded stream habitat. In Washington State, the 

Washington DFW lists the following factors as limiting for bull trout: stream 

temperatures that exceed the normal spawning and incubation temperature range, lack 

of spawning and rearing habitat, and a high percentage of fine sediment in spawning 

gravels (Washington DFW, 1998). Because of their close association with the bottom, 

native char, including bull trout, are sensitive to changes in the streambed (Fraley and 

Shepard, 1989; FWS, 1998). In many watersheds, remaining bull trout are small, 

resident fish isolated in headwater streams.

Bull trout readily interbreed with non-native brook trout, which results in the 

production of infertile hybrids, thus reducing the potential ecological fitness of bull 

trout. Brook trout may also exclude bull trout from suitable habitat (FWS, 1998). 

Dams and other in-stream structures also affect bull trout by blocking migration routes, 

altering water temperatures and killing fish as they pass through and over dams, or are 

trapped in irrigation and other diversion structures. Finally, bull trout are easily caught 

by anglers, making them highly susceptible to fishing pressure. Any increase in the 

accessibility of a population to fishing pressure may negatively affect that population 

(Fraley and Shepard, 1989; FWS, 1998).

 

120 The range of water temperature recorded at 15-minute intervals between May 

2007 and September 2008 was 37.9 -77.4 °F (3.3 – 25.2 oC) and averaged 57.0 °F 

(13.9 oC). Water temperatures in the Action Area exceed 68.0 °F (20 oC ) every year 

and at times exceed 75.2 °F (24 oC). Temperatures in excess of 68.0 °F commonly 

occur during the months of July through September (Seattle, 2009a).
204

Current Status

Bull trout was listed as federally threatened on June 6, 1998 (63 FR 31647-

31674). FWS originally designated critical habitat for the bull trout October 6, 2004 

(69 FR 59995-60076), and revised the critical habitat designation on September 26, 

2005 (70 FR 56211-56311) and on October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63897-64070).

The NWU Recovery Team for bull trout designated the Pend Oreille River and 

its tributaries from the Albeni Falls dam to the U.S.-Canada border as a core area. In 

developing recovery criteria for the species, the NWU Recovery Team used 

professional judgment, knowledge of the NWU, and guidance from Rieman and 

McIntyre (1993) and Rieman and Allendorf (2001). Rieman and McIntyre (1993) 

indicate that fish in core areas with less than five interconnected local populations are at 

increased risk of extirpation, while fish in core areas with five to 10 local populations 

are at intermediate risk, and those with more than 10 local populations are at diminished 

risk. Rieman and Allendorf (2001) indicate that local effective population sizes of more 

than 50 adults and core area effective populations greater than 1,000 adults minimize 

adverse genetic effects to the population.

There is at most one tributary (LeClerc Creek) within the Pend Oreille River 

Core Area that may have some bull trout reproduction. However, nine tributaries were 

identified by the NWU Recovery Team as having the potential to sustain local bull trout 

populations. These tributaries were assigned numeric recovery goals for adult 

migratory fish with an overall core area recovery goal of 1,575 – 2,625 fish. Two of 

these tributaries, Slate and Sullivan creeks, drain into Boundary Reservoir, and have 

goals of 25 - 75 fish and 600 - 850 fish, respectively. The remaining seven (i.e., Cedar 

Creek; Ruby Creek, LeClerc Creek, Mill Creek, Tacoma Creek, Calispell Creek, and 

Indian Creek) drain into Box Canyon Reservoir. Of the Box Canyon tributaries, 

LeClerc Creek has the largest goal of 400 to 500 adult fish. Currently, detailed 

population and habitat information is lacking to determine which tributaries to include 

as local populations (FWS, 2002). In addition, there is no specific plan for establishing 

bull trout populations where they currently are now. However, the NWU Recovery 

Team suggests that artificial propagation might be needed to achieve recovery within 25 

years. 

The NWU Recovery Team states that recovery in the NWU is contingent upon 

reconnecting the Pend Oreille River with the Lower Clark Fork River Subunit that lies 

upstream of the Pend Oreille Core Area and the Albeni Falls dam (RM 86.9). The 

Albeni Falls dam impounds the upper 18 miles of the Pend Oreille River and portions of 

Lake Pend Oreille, the Priest River, and the Clark Fork River (to Cabinet Gorge dam). 

The Priest River is located about 5 miles upstream of the Albeni Falls dam. FWS’ 

Biological Opinion (FWS, 2000) concluded that completion of the Albeni Falls dam 

was responsible for the “abrupt decline” of bull trout in the Pend Oreille River.

In the 2005 final rule designating critical habitat for bull trout, FWS identified 

short sections of lower Slate Creek and Sullivan Creek as critical habitat. All 
205

impoundments behind dams that have a primary purpose of providing flood control, 

energy production, or water supply for human consumption were excluded from 

designation as critical habitat. Consequently, Boundary Reservoir was not considered 

critical habitat for bull trout. FWS’ revised final rule designating critical habitat for bull 

trout, however, does include Boundary Reservoir, Sullivan Creek, Sweet Creek 

downstream of the impassable falls at RM 0.60, and Slate Creek downstream of the 

impassable chutes and falls at RM 0.65 as critical habitat.

Existing Conditions

The Boundary Project is located on the Pend Oreille River in northeastern 

Washington, one of eleven hydroelectric and storage projects within the Clark ForkPend Oreille River basin. The dam is located at RM 17.0 on the Pend Oreille River. 

The upstream end of the Boundary Reservoir is located immediately downstream of the 

Box Canyon dam, at RM 34.5. The Sullivan Creek Project is located on Sullivan Creek, 

a tributary of the Pend Oreille River that enters Boundary Reservoir just upstream of 

Metaline Falls, about 10 miles upstream of the Boundary dam.121 

The Pend Oreille River, which has a total drainage of 26,260 mi2

, is one of the 

two main tributaries to the Columbia River, contributing about 10 percent of the 

Columbia River’s flow on an annual basis (Muckleston, 2003). On average, the 120-

mile-long Pend Oreille River gains about 1,300 cfs between the upstream Albeni Falls 

dam (the outlet for Lake Pend Oreille) and the Boundary dam, with about 18 percent of 

that inflow coming from Sullivan Creek.122 The average annual flow is 26,370 cfs 

(Seattle, 2008a). Annual runoff is primarily from melting snow upstream of the project, 

with peak flows typically occurring from April through June. 

The Pend Oreille River passes through a bedrock-controlled constriction located 

at Metaline Falls (el. 1,970.6 feet),123 which is a geological feature that divides the 

Boundary Reservoir into two distinct reaches: an upstream reach that extends from the 

 

121 As originally constructed, the Sullivan Creek Project consisted of the 

Sullivan Lake dam and reservoir, the Sullivan Creek diversion dam and conduit, the 

Mill Pond dam and reservoir, a conduit, penstock, powerhouse, and transmission 

facilities. The Mill Pond dam is located at RM 3.5 on Sullivan Creek. The project 

currently is operated to store and release about 31,000 acre-feet of water annually.

122 Flows in lower Sullivan Creek are primarily a function of two tributaries that 

combine to form Sullivan Creek: Harvey Creek that contributes flow to Sullivan Lake; 

and Sullivan Creek. The average annual flow for Sullivan Creek is 122 cfs, and the 

average annual flow for Outlet Creek (the outlet of Sullivan Lake that joins Sullivan 

Creek) is 73 cfs. The average annual flow for Sullivan Creek downstream from the Mill 

Pond dam is about 210 cfs.

123 The Boundary Project can operate within a range 20 feet, between the 

elevations of 1994.0 to 1974.0 feet.
206

Box Canyon dam to Metaline Falls and a downstream reach that extends from Metaline 

Falls to the Boundary dam. Gradient and depth of the upstream reach, ranging from 10-

25 feet, are much less than those of the downstream reach.

As explained in section 3.5.1.1, Aquatic Resources, Affected Environment –

Boundary Reservoir, the Boundary Reservoir has been delineated into four reaches 

based on habitat characteristics: the Forebay Reach (RM 17.0 – 18.0), the Canyon 

Reach (RM 18.0 – 26.8), the Upper Reservoir Reach (RM 26.8 – 34.5), and the 

Tailrace/Seven Mile Reservoir Reach (RM 13.9 – 17.0). Summer water temperatures in 

Boundary Reservoir at times exceed 68 °F, which is too warm to provide optimum 

summer habitat for native trout species (i.e., generally less than 61°F (16.1 oC); Bjornn 

and Reiser, 1991). Phosphorous and nitrogen concentrations are low throughout the 

year, and phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations (at times < 2.8 μg/l) indicate that 

the system is oligotrophic.

The highest water temperature recorded in Sullivan Lake by the District in 2009 

was 70.7 °F (21.5 oC), which exceeds Washington’s standard of 63.5 °F (17.5 oC ) for 

salmonid rearing and migration (see section 3.4.1.2, Water Quantity and Quality, 

Affected Environment – Sullivan Creek Surrender). Nonetheless, temperature does not 

appear to limit fish production in Sullivan Lake, since average temperatures fall within 

the range of preferred temperatures for salmonids (50 to 68 °F, 10 to 20 oC). Water 

temperatures in Outlet Creek were similar to those at about the top 16 feet in the lake. 

The Mill Pond dam has a warming effect on water released from Sullivan Lake, 

increasing temperatures by about 2 degrees, except during the fall release of water from 

Sullivan Lake. DO does not appear to limit fish production in Sullivan Lake, as DO 

levels averaged 9.0 mg/L in the epilimnion, well within the range for normal 

physiological functions of salmonids (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). DO never dropped 

below 7.2 mg/L. However, DO in Outlet Creek was substantially lower, averaging 5.2 

mg/l. As for its productivity, Sullivan Lake is classified as an oligotrophic system, 

averaging 0.007 mg/l of phosphorus.

At least 28 species of fish occur in the Action Area (Seattle, 2009b). Although 

anadromous fish are not found in Boundary Reservoir, some fish species (especially 

bull trout) potentially found in the reservoir can have adfluvial life histories. Bull trout 

are rarely captured in the project area. Mountain whitefish are known to occur in the 

Upper Reservoir Reach and the Tailrace Reach. A variety of other native and nonnative species occur in Boundary Reservoir, including largescale sucker, northern 

pikeminnow, peamouth, yellow perch, and smallmouth bass, hatchery-reared rainbow 

trout, cutthroat trout, redside shiner, and minnows. The most abundant species that 

inhabits Sullivan Creek below the Mill Pond is rainbow trout, though a few cutthroat 

trout have been observed in this area as well. Brown trout and brook trout occur 

throughout the Sullivan Creek drainage, and Sullivan Lake has a healthy, self-sustaining 

population of kokanee.

Reservoir and Delta Habitat
207

Spawning and Incubation – Bull trout are not known to spawn in Boundary 

Reservoir, the project tailrace, or tributary deltas that could be affected by project 

operations. Scholz et al. (2005) describe bull trout spawning habitat as small tributaries 

with sufficient cover and upwelling. Consequently, it is not anticipated that bull trout 

would spawn in Boundary Reservoir.

Sub-Adult Rearing – Juvenile bull trout typically rear in natal streams for two to 

three years and outmigrate at a length of about 6.7 - 11.8 inches (Scholz et al., 2005). 

To assess mainstem juvenile bull trout habitat availability, juveniles were considered to 

be 2.2 - 5.9 inches in length, and adults were larger. Juvenile bull trout of this size 

would generally remain in tributaries rather than migrating to the mainstem Pend Oreille 

River. Nevertheless, potential juvenile bull trout habitat in Boundary Reservoir was 

assessed.

Aquatic habitat modeling was used to provide an index of the amount of physical 

habitat that might be available to bull trout based on the suitability of available water 

depths, water velocities, and substrate types under existing conditions.124 For 

comparability between reaches, the index calculated was weighted useable area (WUA) 

per foot of river reach. The model showed that during average flow years the Forebay 

and Canyon reaches have a relatively low density (35ft2 or less of monthly minimum 

WUA) of potentially suitable habitat for bull trout juveniles, particularly during the fall 

and spring months when water surface elevations fluctuate more frequently and over a 

greater range than during summer (figure 3-9). Monthly minimum WUA density was 

slightly higher for the Tailrace Reach (36 to 45 ft2 WUA) and substantially higher for 

the Upper Reservoir Reach (60 to 158 ft2 WUA). Because of its greater length, the 

Upper Reservoir Reach provides the most available potential habitat for juvenile bull 

trout.

Adult Habitat – Adult bull trout (assumed > 6 inches) habitat suitability has a 

broader range than that of juveniles. The Aquatic Habitat Model indicated that about 

three times the density of WUA was available for adult bull trout than for juvenile bull 

trout under existing conditions, primarily as a result of the higher suitability of deeper 

and faster water. For an average flow year, the density of WUA was similar for the 

Upper Reservoir, Canyon, and Tailrace reaches between November and March at about 

100 to 160 ft2 of WUA (figure 3-10). In contrast, the Forebay Reach was substantially 

higher at about 300 ft2 of WUA throughout the year. Between April and October the 

Upper Reservoir WUA density was more similar to the Forebay Reach. 

Delta Habitat – Tributary deltas are transition areas between the tributaries and 

reservoir that, depending upon their physical characteristics, provide a variety of 

ecological functions. Fish may congregate at the tributary confluence to feed on aquatic 

 

124 Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) information for sub-adult and adult bull trout 

is summarized in Seattle’s March 2010 Draft Biological Assessment, pages 18-20.
208

organisms transported downstream in the tributary flow, may use the deltas as 

temperature refugia, or may stage in delta habitats prior to spawning runs. Fry and 

juvenile fish may rear in complex habitats associated with the deltas, and the influx of 

tributary water may provide protection from dewatering associated with reservoir water 

surface elevation fluctuations. Portions of tributary deltas are present in the varial zone 

of Boundary Reservoir, and therefore are affected by fluctuations in water surface 

elevation. The fluctuations in elevation associated with project operations change 

portions of the deltas from stream habitat to lacustrine habitat as the water surface rises 

and then back to stream habitat as the water surface falls. 

Figure 3–9. Monthly WUA minima for juvenile bull trout in Boundary Reservoir 

during an average flow year under existing conditions (Source: Seattle, 2010).
209

Figure 3–10. Monthly WUA minima for adult bull trout in Boundary Reservoir 

during an average flow year under existing conditions (Source: Seattle, 2010).

As described previously, there are 28 tributaries that drain into Boundary 

Reservoir, including 13 unnamed drainages. Following a screening process, habitat 

modeling was limited to only those tributary deltas with substantial potential salmonid 

fish habitat (Seattle, 2009a). Habitat modeling occurred on seven tributary deltas, 

including Slate Creek, Flume Creek, Sullivan Creek, Linton Creek, Pocahontas Creek, 

Sweet Creek, and Sand Creek. The modeling translated hourly fluctuations in Boundary 

Reservoir into estimates of a habitat quality rating (HQR) for native salmonids, 

including bull trout.

The HQR (measured in ft2

) was calculated as the product of two components: 

the area of lacustrine and riverine habitat weighted by their HSI scores. HSI values 

were calculated for individual representative tributary delta areas for three life stages 

(i.e., adult, juvenile, and fry) of native salmonids using the species-habitat relationships 
210

developed for cutthroat trout by Hickman and Raleigh (1982).125 The riverine HSI 

modeled three or four of the following parameters depending on life stage: thalweg 

depth, percent cover, percent cobble/boulder substrate, percent pool, pool quality (size 

and depth), and percent fines. The lacustrine HSI model relied on water temperature, 

DO, and pH. To aid in interpretation of the model results, the HQR values for 

lacustrine habitat and for riverine habitat for various salmonid life stages were plotted 

on hourly and cumulative bases over the course of representative wet, dry, and average 

years. Details of the HQR modeling are provided in Seattle (2009a).

Results of the Hickman and Raleigh (1982) riverine model indicate that the Slate 

Creek delta had the highest HSI scores for each of the three life stages of trout (table 3-

15). Flume Creek and Sullivan Creek (during periods of regulated flow) deltas had the 

next highest HSI values for the three different life stages of trout. The Pocahontas 

Creek and Sand Creek deltas were rated as unsuitable because of their dry channels (and 

associated zero depth of thalweg) at the time of the late summer surveys. For low-flow 

periods, the suitability is still low in both these creeks for adult salmonids, with an HSI 

of 0.1. 

The Hickman and Raleigh (1982) lacustrine model for salmonid habitat in the 

shallow water areas of the deltas during periods of inundation suggests a range of 

habitat quality throughout the year (table 3-16). The model output was driven primarily 

by the variability in average monthly water temperature (ranging from 34.2 to 72.7 °F, 

1.2 to 22 oC). Monitoring data suggests that DO and pH are relatively stable over the 

year, with values generally greater than 8.0 mg/L and between 8.0 and 9.0, respectively. 

A number of patterns are apparent from the results of the HQR modeling. Each 

of the modeled tributary deltas had minimum lacustrine HQRs of 0 because water 

temperatures during August were considered unsuitable. With the exception of Slate, 

Sullivan, and Sweet creeks, minimum fry, juvenile, and adult riverine HQR values were 

also 0 under all year types, but different factors were limiting at different tributaries. 

Average lacustrine HQR values increased under dry, to average, to wet year conditions 

(figure 3-11). Although not displayed, maximum lacustrine HQR values demonstrated 

a similar pattern to average HQR values.

 

125 The use of a cutthroat trout model to represent native salmonid habitat results 

is an imperfect representation of bull trout habitat in delta areas. Nonetheless, the HQR 

model is useful as an index for describing the relative importance of the different 

tributaries to native salmonids and for understanding how project operations may affect 

habitat conditions.
211

Figure 3-11. Average lacustrine and riverine HQR values. HQR values for Slate and 

Flume creeks are for delta conditions expected during Years 1-17 of the 50-year 

evaluation period (Source: Seattle 2010).
212

The lacustrine HQR results followed the same general pattern for all tributaries, 

which is a function of water temperature. In the months of April and October, when 

temperature is within the optimal range, the HQR values peak. Between these two 

maximums, HQR values rise and fall as water temperatures warm (prior to April), 

become unsuitably hot (April to October), and then cool (after October). In the wet 

(1997) and average (2002) years, the lacustrine HQR values reach a maximum at each 

delta during high mainstem flows because reservoir water surface elevations exceed the 

upper extent of the delta. Under these high flow conditions, the delta is fully inundated, 

including areas at higher elevations than the delta, so the lacustrine area is held constant 

at the maximum. Under these same conditions, the riverine HQR values go to zero 

because no free-flowing stream habitat exists on the delta. 

The Sullivan Creek delta, with average HQRs of 20.4 x 105 ft2 and 2.0 x 105 ft2

for lacustrine and riverine juvenile habitat, respectively, supplies substantially more 

lacustrine and riverine habitat than any of the other tributaries. Average lacustrine HQR 

values are about an order of magnitude higher than riverine HQR values. From highest 

to lowest based on lacustrine HQR values, key tributaries can be ranked as follows: 

Sullivan, Flume, Slate, Sand, Sweet, Linton, and Pocahontas creeks. Rankings based on 

riverine HQR values for the average flow year were as follows: Sullivan, Sweet, Slate, 

and Sand creeks. Flume, Linton, and Pocahontas creeks had nearly negligible 

suitability, with HQR values all less than 600 ft2 of HQR.

Load following operations and the associated diurnal fluctuations in water 

surface elevations influence the physical characteristics of thermal plumes at tributary 

deltas. Modeling of the areal extents of thermal plumes for Flume, Sullivan, Linton, 

and Sweet creeks during representative wet, dry, and average flow years under existing 

conditions suggest that the areal extent of thermal plumes shrinks as water levels in 

Boundary Reservoir are dropped. Complete disappearance of plume areas requires a 

combination of low project inflow and unusually low forebay water surface elevations, 

which are uncommon events. 

Habitat Connectivity

Upstream Fish Passage – At the time of the construction of the Boundary dam, 

the importance of habitat connectivity for non-anadromous salmonids was not 

recognized; consequently, fish passage was not considered during its design. At 

present, the Boundary dam blocks upstream movement and hinders the downstream 

movement of bull trout in the Pend Oreille River.

Without upstream fish passage, bull trout that survive entrainment through the 

Albeni Falls, Box Canyon, and Boundary Projects are prevented from migrating back 

upstream to their natal streams for spawning. Also, bull trout from the Salmo River are 

blocked from moving upstream past the Boundary dam. Consequently, these fish are 

prevented from potentially contributing genetic material to upstream populations and 

using upstream habitat for foraging.
213

Downstream Fish Passage – There are no downstream passage facilities at the 

Boundary dam. Consequently, any bull trout that is entrained is at risk of injury or 

death. As described below, there are two components important for understanding the 

effects of the Boundary dam on bull trout moving downstream in the Pend Oreille 

River; the level of risk of mortality as a result of passage through the project’s turbines 

or as a result of spill once a fish is entrained, and understanding the risk of entrainment 

occurring.

As part of the relicensing, Seattle studied entrainment using a desktop analysis of 

passage survival (R2 Resource Consultants, 2006). The desktop analysis assessed the 

likely range of mortality to salmonids, depending upon the entrainment route (turbine, 

spillway, or sluiceway) and fish size (tables 3-5 and 3-6).

Turbine mortality rates were estimated using a predictive equation for Francis 

turbines developed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Hydro Turbine 

System Program, which was based on hundreds of turbine mortality studies and 

consideration of specific turbine characteristics (Franke et al., 1997). Strike and shear 

are the major factors that are addressed by the predictive equation method. The 

equation calculates the probability that a fish of a given size is likely to be near or come 

in contact with components of the turbine and the shear zone, which occurs in very 

close proximity to the surfaces of the turbine where water is moving at high velocity 

over the surface of the steel.

A number of field and laboratory studies were reviewed to understand the effects 

of spillway passage on fish and potential associated mortality levels (Hamilton, 1955; 

R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., 1998b; PNNL, 2000; Normandeau Associates, 2002). 

Based on this review, mortality can vary depending on flow conditions. Under 

extremely low-flow conditions, where flow does not reach the downstream plunge pool, 

fish mortality is likely to be near 100 percent for fish of all sizes. Under flow conditions 

where the majority of the spill flow reaches the plunge pool (but about half the water 

dissipates into mist), small fish (100 mm) that leave the water and free-fall in air to the 

tailrace are likely to experience a 60-70 percent mortality rate. Small fish that remain in 

the water are likely to experience near 100 percent mortality, due to shear exposure. 

Larger salmonids (600 mm) are likely to experience mortality in the range of 40-50 

percent. Under higher flow conditions where the majority of flow reaches the plunge 

pool in a coherent jet, small salmonids are likely to experience 50-80 percent mortality, 

whereas mortality for large salmonids is likely to be as low as 20-40 percent.

The Boundary dam includes seven sluiceways located at about mid-height (crest 

elevation 1,795 feet NAVD 88) of the dam that discharge into the plunge pool below the 

dam. Given the flow volume and velocity, the flow exiting the sluiceways is expected 

to be fairly well confined as a jet, and given that the tailwater is less than 50 feet below 

the invert of the sluiceway when the river flow is above approximately 125,000 cfs 

(typical conditions when sluice gates are in use under current operations), the jet should 

remain fairly well confined all the way to the tailwater. Thus, entrained fish are more 
214

likely to remain in the body of the flow. This, coupled with the close to horizontal 

trajectory of entry, suggests that mortality of entrained fish in the sluiceway flow should 

be somewhat lower than that estimated for spill flow of the same magnitude. 

The results of the passage survival analysis suggest that some level of mortality 

or injury to bull trout entrained at the Boundary dam is unavoidable. However, average 

mortality rates would likely range from 35 to 43 percent for turbine or spillway passage.

During 2007 and 2008, Seattle conducted hydroacoustic and fyke net sampling at 

the Boundary dam to estimate the number, size, and species, of fish that may be 

entrained, and the timing of entrainment, in the project turbine intakes and spillways. 

Hydroacoustic data collection was initiated at the Boundary dam on May 2, 2007 using 

split-beam target tracking techniques. Fyke nets were initially deployed in the Unit 54 

draft tube gatewell downstream of the turbine unit in October 2007. Details of the 

methods (and results which are summarized herein) of the entrainment study are 

provided in Seattle (2009c).

Hydroacoustic and fyke net data collected concurrently between March 2008 and 

February 2009 indicated that fish entrainment is occurring at the project.126 Monthly 

fish passage over the March 2008 through February 2009 monitoring period increased 

steadily from March through July 2008, reaching a peak in July. There was a marked 

decrease in total project entrainment in August, followed by a slight increase in 

September. Beginning in October 2008, project entrainment decreased sharply and 

remained low over the winter months through the end of sampling on March 1, 2009. A 

total of 54,597 ± 5,176 fish (90 percent confidence interval) were estimated to have 

been entrained through all operating turbines and spill gates at the project over the oneyear period. Non-native and/or hatchery-origin salmonids represented less than 5 

percent of this total number. No native salmonids were captured during the fyke netting 

effort.

FERC (1995) and Coutant and Whitney (2000) indicate the life history traits and 

behavior of the fish species found in an impoundment, including the non-salmonids, are 

important factors affecting a species potential for being entrained. For example, 

schooling fish tend to be entrained on an episodic basis and non-salmonid fish that tend 

to use littoral habitat may have higher entrainment at turbine units that are closer to the 

shore. Juvenile or larval fish that have a planktonic life history are likely to have higher 

entrainment levels than those that are benthic or use backwaters. Species that have 

seasonal movements for spawning or other specific habitat traits may have higher levels 

 

126 Suckers, pumpkinseed, and yellow perch dominated the entrainment through

unit 54 between February and October 2008, representing 42, 22, and 12 percent of the 

number, respectively. From November 2008 through March 1, 2009, Burbot (37 

percent), black crappie (30 percent), and pumpkinseed (13 percent) dominated the catch.
215

of entrainment during these movement periods. Other factors that could affect 

entrainment levels are a species’ depth preference and the depth of turbine intakes.

The available information suggests that any bull trout in the vicinity of the 

Boundary dam would be vulnerable to entrainment, but their low overall abundance in 

Boundary Reservoir and forebay suggests entrainment of bull trout is extremely rare.

Water Quality

Total Dissolved Gas – Supersaturation of gases in water has the potential to 

adversely affect fish by forming bubbles in tissues as the dissolved gases come out of 

solution (Weitkamp et al., 2003). Ecology standards require that waters remain below 

110 percent TDG supersaturation. In section 3.4, Water Quantity and Quality, we noted 

that TDG levels in the project forebay are closely linked to upstream project TDG levels 

from the upstream Box Canyon and Albeni Falls dams, and that operations at the 

Boundary Project exacerbate those TDG conditions as water passes through or over the 

Boundary dam.

The available information suggests that any bull trout residing in the Boundary 

Reservoir or tailrace during periods of high flow could be at risk of gas bubble trauma 

from TDG supersaturation. However, due to the species’ benthic orientation and 

preference for deeper water, the risk to bull trout of contracting gas bubble disease is 

likely lower than that for other salmonid species that prefer shallower water or are more 

surface oriented.

Water Temperature – High water temperatures can affect salmonids by altering 

the timing of adult and juvenile migrations and may contribute to stress-related 

mortality or reduced growth. While migrating bull trout may exhibit a short-term 

tolerance for high water temperatures (KCDNR, 2000), juvenile bull trout are 

particularly sensitive to changes in water temperature and are typically found in the 

coldest stream reaches within a basin. Researchers studying tributaries to Lake Pend 

Oreille found the highest densities of juvenile bull trout at sites with summer maximum 

temperatures between 51.8 and 57.2 °F (11 and 14 oC) (Saffel and Scarnecchia, 1995). 

Based on a review of bull trout temperature studies, Hillman and Essig (1998) 

concluded that optimal water temperatures for juvenile bull trout growth and rearing 

range from 53.6 to 57.2 °F (12 to 14 oC). Spawning activity begins when water 

temperatures drop below 48.2 °F (9 oC) in the fall and water temperatures consistently 

below 42.8 °F (6 oC) are needed for egg development.

Water temperatures in Boundary Reservoir are cold in winter and warm in 

summer (see section 3.4.1.2, Water Quantity and Quality, Affected Environment –

Boundary Project), and often exceed the suitable range for bull trout, as they would in 

the absence of the project. During periods of high water temperatures in excess of 64.4 

°F (18 oC), bull trout that do not locate cool water refugia near mouths of tributaries or 

by entering tributary streams are likely to be adversely affected by the warm water 
216

temperatures in the reservoir. Fish passage through the tributary deltas is a function of 

reservoir pool level, channel morphology, and tributary inflow.127

Cool water refugia at tributary deltas are generally very small, and, as described 

previously, their size is affected by fluctuations in water surface elevations. Other 

coolwater refugia may exist in Boundary Reservoir at groundwater seeps, but the 

location, size, and number of seeps is unknown. Competition for space at thermal 

refugia may be a factor adversely affecting any bull trout, as thermal refugia are used by 

triploid rainbow trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish. Anglers target 

these areas during warm water periods, which may expose bull trout using these refugia 

to a higher risk of accidental capture by anglers. 

Dissolved Oxygen – DO is strongly influenced by, and inversely related to, water 

temperature. Consequently, high water temperatures can adversely affect the ability of 

water to retain DO. DO levels can also be affected by plant and animal respiration and 

the amount of mixing in the water column. 

DO monitoring indicated that Boundary Reservoir is generally above the state 

standard of 8.0 mg/L, but several exceedances were recorded for July and August of 

2008 within deeper portions of the Canyon and Forebay reaches, and at a shallow water 

site near the City of Metaline. In addition, DO decreases about 1.0 mg/L from the 

surface to the deepest measurement between July and October, being most prevalent in 

the Forebay Reach. The relicensing studies (Seattle, 2009a) suggest that the presence of 

the Boundary dam affects the amount of mixing in the northern portion of Boundary 

Reservoir. Thus, if bull trout were to use the northern portion of the reservoir during 

late summer periods, they could be adversely affected by the DO levels less than 8 

mg/L.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1986) reports that DO levels less 

than 8 mg/L for salmonids, other than embryos, result in some level of impairment, with 

slight impairment occurring below 6 mg/L, and the limit to avoid acute mortality at 3 

mg/L. Except in macrophyte beds, measurements in Boundary Reservoir were greater 

than 7.0 mg/L and most were above 7.6 mg/L (Seattle, 2009a). Despite some 

indications of low DO levels near to, and within, macrophyte beds, DO generally 

remains above state standards and suitable for bull trout. 

Turbidity – Water quality sampling between May 2007 and March 2008 

indicated turbidity levels were well below the Washington State Standard of more than 

5 NTUs over background when background is 50 NTUs or less. Based upon the 

 

127 During the summer months, bull trout may not be able to enter any of the 

tributaries, except Sullivan, Slate, Linton, Flume, and Sweet creeks, because of the lack 

of flow or presence of natural barriers near the tributary confluences.
217

available information, turbidity in Boundary Reservoir is not expected to have an 

adverse effect on bull trout.

Ecosystem Functions

Gravel Transport – The nature and quality of salmonid habitat in rivers is 

determined, in part, by the transport and instream storage of sediments recruited from 

upland areas (Spence et al., 1996). In free-flowing river channels, coarse, gravel-sized 

sediment is primarily transported downstream during moderate to high flows and is 

stored within the channel bed and banks during intervening low-flow periods. Suitablysized gravel is particularly important for bull trout spawning habitat. As indicated 

previously, bull trout are not known to, and not anticipated to, spawn in the mainstem 

Pend Oreille River or in the lower reaches of tributaries or their deltas. Instead, 

spawning habitat would be located in upstream reaches of tributary streams that would 

not be affected by the project. Consequently, mainstem gravel transport and distribution 

is not important to maintaining bull trout spawning habitat. However, sediment 

transport and deposition are important for shaping the morphology of the river and 

consequently the quality and quantity of rearing or overwintering habitat for bull trout.

The Pend Oreille River between the Boundary and Box Canyon dams has two 

distinct segments in terms of sediment transport. The section from the Boundary dam 

upstream to Metaline Falls, consisting of the Forebay and Canyon reaches, is a 

depositional environment created as a result of the inundation from the Boundary dam. 

Upstream of Metaline Falls, in the Upper Reservoir Reach, the Pend Oreille River is at 

times influenced by a backwater effect from the Boundary dam, but often experiences 

riverine conditions, particularly when forebay water surface elevations are low or 

inflows are high.

The high energy portion of the Pend Oreille River, the Canyon Reach below 

Metaline Falls, has been inundated by the Boundary dam. The Upper Reservoir Reach 

was a low energy environment even prior to hydraulic influence from the Boundary 

dam. Therefore, its capacity to transport coarse sediment is, and was historically, 

limited, and the larger gravels and cobbles forming its bed are only mobilized at high 

flows. 

Considering the size of the Pend Oreille River watershed above the study area, 

the supply of sediment delivered to the study area is small. This disparity results from 

much of the contributing watershed passing through lakes and reservoirs that effectively 

trap sediment before entering the study area. 

The aforementioned factors combine to create a river that is not exceedingly 

dynamic in terms of its sediment transport response. The results of the mainstem 

sediment transport model support this statement in that the only appreciable change in 

the system predicted by the model was continued deposition below Metaline Falls, 

primarily in the Forebay Reach. The bed elevation changes and volume of deposition in 
218

the Upper Reservoir Reach over the potential 50-year term of a future license are 

estimated to be relatively minor.

The available information and modeling suggests that the morphology of the 

riverbed and the sediment size distribution in the Action Area are unlikely to 

substantially change from the current condition. The Tailrace Reach is, and would 

continue to be, limited in the availability of gravel as a result of deposition behind the 

Boundary dam. However, bull trout are not expected to use the Tailrace Reach for 

spawning (Pratt, 1992), and, thus, may not be affected by reduced gravel levels in the 

Boundary dam tailrace.

Woody Debris Transport – LWD can be an important component of aquatic 

habitat in both riverine and reservoir habitats (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991; Northcote and 

Atagi, 1997). LWD provides habitat complexity, cover, and substrate for fish and 

macroinvertebrates and has been identified as an important component of bull trout 

habitat (Baxter, 1997). As LWD decomposes, it may also provide nutrients to the water 

column and sediments (Harmon et al., 1986). 

The project affects the abundance, distribution, and quality of LWD as a 

component of aquatic habitat within the reservoir and downstream of the Boundary 

dam. Fluctuations in Boundary Reservoir water surface elevations can affect the 

portion of time that a given piece of wood provides habitat, and may affect wood 

recruitment indirectly by affecting the establishment of new riparian stands adjacent to 

the varial zone. Wood recruitment mechanisms adjacent to lakes or reservoirs are 

primarily windthrow, senescence, or mass wasting events. Recruitment may also occur 

by transport from tributaries or passage over dams during periods of spill. Removal of 

wood from the system depletes the amount of wood that could potentially contribute to 

bull trout habitat in the project area. See section 2.3.4.2, Woody Debris Transport, in 

Seattle’s March 2010 Draft Biological Assessment, for a detailed assessment of LWD 

transport.

Based on available information, the project has a small effect on LWD through 

the removal of LWD at the Boundary dam and by limiting the potential development of 

new riparian stands of trees. The degree to which bull trout would use LWD resources 

in the reservoir and tailrace is uncertain. Bull trout are strongly associated with LWD 

and large substrate while occupying streams (Pratt, 1992), but little information is 

available concerning microhabitat features used in lakes and reservoirs. Bassista et al. 

(2005) tracked five bull trout outfitted with acoustic tags in Lake Pend Oreille. Based 

on the authors’ observations, bull trout are not likely to substantially use LWD along a 

reservoir, but could use sunken LWD or submerged stumps.

Floodplain Connectivity – Rivers construct and maintain channels such that 

small and moderate-sized discharges (less than or equal to flows with a 2-year 

recurrence interval) are contained within the channel, while larger discharges that occur 

less frequently exceed the channel capacity and overflow onto the floodplain. During 

floods, water is stored in sloughs and side channels, or seeps into floodplain soils and 
219

recharges groundwater storage. This stored groundwater slowly drains back to the 

channel, providing a source of cool inflow during the summer (Naiman et al., 1992). 

Low-gradient, unconfined channels migrate back and forth across their floodplains in 

sinuous patterns in response to differential patterns of bank erosion and sediment 

deposition. Channel migration may occur as a result of slow, steady erosion of the 

outside of a meander bend, or it may occur as a sudden shift into an old channel during 

flood events. As a result of these processes, natural low gradient, alluvial channels 

typically develop a network of low-flow channels containing numerous gravel bars, side 

channels, abandoned oxbow lakes, sloughs and wetlands. Such off-channel and 

mainstem margin habitats are an important component of juvenile salmonid rearing 

habitat and refuge from high flows.

The formation, availability, and quality of off-channel habitat are currently 

limited in the Action Area due to natural topographic features, flood control operations 

associated with upstream projects, and land-use changes. Nearly all of Boundary 

Reservoir and the Boundary dam tailrace north of Metaline Falls are confined within 

steep-walled canyon topography. Consequently, the availability of floodplain habitat in 

that part of the reservoir is naturally low. In contrast, the Pend Oreille River between 

the Box Canyon dam and Metaline Falls is somewhat broader with areas where flood 

flows result in small backwater sloughs and pools that could trap and/or strand fish. 

However, bank hardening has contributed to confinement of the river in some places 

upstream of Metaline Falls. In addition, significant amounts of riprap are present in the 

Box Canyon tailrace and some riprap is present near the mouth of Sullivan Creek and 

along the west bank as a result of bank stabilization to protect roads and homes. These 

activities limit the availability of backwater sloughs and pools in these localized areas.

Based on sediment transport modeling of Boundary Reservoir, the limited offchannel habitat available is likely to persist without substantial change over the next 50 

years (Seattle, 2009a). Whether bull trout, if present in the Action Area, would use the 

available off-channel habitat during portions of the year is unknown. Observations by 

Bassista et al. (2005) in Lake Pend Oreille suggest that they would not use such areas.

Non-native Species Interactions – Numerous non-native fish species are present 

in the Action Area that could have an adverse effect on bull trout. These include 

smallmouth128 and largemouth bass, walleye, northern pike,129 brook trout, triploid 

 

128 Radiotelemetry studies indicate that smallmouth bass use the flooded delta 

area at the mouth of Sullivan Creek during spring high-flow periods when young 

salmonids, including bull trout, would be expected to move downstream and enter the 

reservoir (Seattle, 2009b).

129 Recent observations suggest that the population of northern pike in Boundary 

Reservoir is increasing in size; however, it is unclear how large a population may be 

sustained within the reservoir.
220

rainbow trout, brown trout, and lake trout.130 Many of these species are piscivorous and 

could forage on any young bull trout that are present. In order of their relative 

abundance in the mainstem fish community, these relatively large piscivorous nonnative species include yellow perch (14.9%), smallmouth bass (10.5%), brown trout 

(0.6%), largemouth bass (0.4%), walleye (0.3%), northern pike (0.2%), and lake trout 

(<0.1%).

The higher trophic level species include northern pikeminnow (6.0 percent), the 

non-native burbot (0.2 percent), cutthroat trout (<0.1 percent), and bull trout (<0.01 

percent). Cutthroat trout and bull trout (both native salmonids) rely on tributaries for 

spawning and rearing habitat, and the non-native brown trout also relies on the 

tributaries for a portion of its life history. The forage base for piscivorous fish species is 

also substantially altered in the mainstem due in part to the presence of non-native 

species such as pumpkinseed, black crappie, and tench, which in combination account 

for nearly 10 percent of the fish community in the mainstem. While the direct effects of 

non-native fish on native salmonids in Boundary Reservoir are unclear, it is apparent 

that non-native fish species currently have a much larger role as top level predators in 

the fish community than native species do.131

Sullivan Creek Drainage

As previously stated, Sullivan Creek has been designated critical habitat for the 

bull trout, and bull trout have been observed in the lower reaches of the creek. In the 

500-foot reach from the former powerhouse upstream to the natural falls in the lower 

canyon (see description below), little spawning habitat for any species exists (Powers, 

2008). Pools available in this reach would continue to provide a holding area for any 

fish that migrates up Sullivan Creek to escape warm temperatures in the Pend Oreille 

River and Boundary Reservoir. It is expected that removal of the Mill Pond dam would 

allow spawning-sized material to be flushed downstream into lower Sullivan Creek, 

which would enhance the value of spawning habitat in the reach, including that for the 

bull trout.

 

130 Naturally reproducing non-native trout are relatively rare in Boundary 

Reservoir, but could contribute to crowding in thermal refugia during periods of high 

mainstem water temperatures.

131 The scientific literature suggests that non-native species have an adverse 

effect on native salmonids (Sanderson et al., 2009; Fritts and Pearsons, 2004). 

However, it is unclear to what extent non-native species in the reservoir have 

contributed to the decline of native salmonids that historically filled higher trophic 

levels or whether the non-native species are opportunistically filling higher trophic 

levels vacated by native species whose abundance has been reduced due to other factors.
221

The District’s proposal to surrender the Sullivan Creek license and remove the 

Mill Pond dam is based on existing information compiled by the Forest Service and the 

studies summarized below.

Sullivan Creek Fish Barrier Assessment – In 2008, the District surveyed the 

existing falls located at RM 0.65 on Sullivan Creek (above the old powerhouse, but 

downstream from the Mill Pond dam) (Powers, 2008). The falls consists of a main drop 

of 5.6 feet, with lesser falls both upstream of, and downstream from, the main falls. 

Two flow conditions were assessed for passage of 18-inch bull trout: a low-flow 

condition (99 cfs) and a high-flow condition (1,528 cfs). Based on the assessment, the 

falls are passable under low-flow conditions, but become a barrier under high flow 

conditions.132 The authors also conclude that turbulence would likely become a passage 

hindrance at flows ranging from 300 to 500 cfs.

Harvey Creek Habitat Survey – The thalweg of Harvey Creek where it empties 

into Sullivan Lake, for a distance of 790 feet, was surveyed in June 2009. Water 

surface slope in this reach is 0.8 percent. Bank full flow through this reach, which is 

consistent with the average annual peak flow, is about 400 cfs. The survey concluded 

that flows in the 400 to 500 cfs range would mobilize fine sediments smaller than small 

gravel (< 2.5 mm) and flush them from spawning gravel.

Entrainment Investigation and Study of Fish Presence in the Vicinity of Sullivan 

Lake Dam – To address the issue of fish entrainment that may occur at Sullivan Lake 

dam under various fall drawdown regimes, the District conducted an entrainment study 

during October and November 2009. The study documented species and numbers of 

fish moving through the outlet gates at the dam into Outlet Creek. The data collected 

included species, length, condition/health, whether there was any apparent injuries, and 

evidence of predation. A total of 1,291 fish were captured in Outlet Creek during the 

netting period. No bull trout were captured.

2009 Sullivan Creek Instream Flow Study – The District updated the instream 

flow study that was conducted on Sullivan Creek for the 1994 license amendment. The 

previous work served as a reference to determine, not only the best flows for target 

species and life stages, but also to identify at what flow levels increased input from 

Sullivan Lake and Outlet Creek would affect aquatic habitat, especially for bull trout. 

The Outlet Creek flow study (Beecher, 2009) examined several selected flows (between 

13 and 263 cfs) and associated wetted widths for three transects to help identify a flow 

release regime for the Sullivan dam that would protect aquatic habitat and fisheries in 

Outlet Creek throughout the year. The results of the study show that flows of 18 to 101 

 

132 The conditions through this reach under high-flows are considered a 

swimming energetics barrier.
222

cfs provide the threshold for favorable depth (≥ 1 foot),133 depending upon transect,134

and a flow of 180 cfs provides the threshold for the favorable rate of change in wetted 

widths135 (Beecher, 2009).

Review of Lake Fertilization – Lack of productivity was raised as an issue with 

respect to Sullivan Lake. The District conducted some productivity sampling in 

Sullivan Lake and Outlet Creek, as well as reviewed 24 sockeye salmon lake 

fertilization efforts. As discussed in greater detail in section 3.4.1.2, Water Quantity 

and Quality, Affected Environment – Sullivan Creek Surrender, the District’s sampling 

indicates that Sullivan Lake is classified as Oligotrophic. Sullivan Lake is phosphorus 

limited, which is likely a factor that limits zooplankton production (in terms of both 

density and species diversity). Total phosphorus in Outlet Creek was similar to that in 

Sullivan Lake, and zooplankton densities in the creek were similar to average densities 

found in Sullivan Lake through the entire water column. The studies reviewed by the 

District suggest that fertilization may provide gains in smolt biomass, but also present 

complicated biological issues (e.g., algal control).

Temperature Ranges of Fishes Potentially Found in Sullivan and Outlet Creeks –

The District commissioned a literature review of temperature thresholds for species of 

fish occurring in Outlet and Sullivan creeks to address the potential effects on streamdwelling fishes of releasing additional warm water from Sullivan Lake (EES 

Consulting, 2009). Results of this review indicate that rainbow, brook, and brown trout

have the highest temperature tolerances of fish found in Outlet and Sullivan creeks, with 

lethal temperatures exceeding 75.2 °F (24 oC). Bull trout and cutthroat trout have a 

more restricted temperature tolerance, around 69.8 °F (21 oC). 

Bull Trout Spawning and Incubation Analysis – Releasing water from Sullivan 

Lake in the fall raises issues related to: (1) the magnitude of releases during the fall 

period and the potential effects on fall spawning fish (e.g., bull trout); and (2) as the 

lake empties, the potential effects on incubating bull trout eggs as flow levels in Outlet 

and Sullivan creeks recede. To address these concerns, the District commissioned an 

analysis of bull trout spawning and incubation. The purposes of the analysis were to 

determine: (1) the amount and location of high quality bull trout spawning habitat over 

a range of flows; and (2) the effects of reducing streamflow on incubating bull trout 

eggs. RHABSIM (Riverine habitat Simulation System) was used to produce WUA 

curves for bull trout spawning for existing conditions and a scenario with enhanced 

substrate.

 

133 The depth of 1 foot is above the minimum (> 0.5 foot) for adult resident 

salmonids for either rearing or spawning and would provide adequate passage.

134 18 to 69 cfs provides a maximum depth of ≥ 1 foot, and 69 to 101 cfs 

provides a mean depth of ≥ 1 foot across the three transects. 

135 The threshold for wetted width is to avoid conditions that could lead to 

stranding if flows were decreased rapidly from the flow of interest. 
223

The analysis showed that spawning habitat was, and continues to be, sparse in 

Sullivan Creek due to the presence of the Mill Pond dam, which prevents sediment and 

gravels from being transported to Sullivan Creek downstream from the dam (EES 

Consulting, 2009). If the Mill Pond dam is removed and the reach of Sullivan Creek at, 

and above, the present location of the dam is restored, gravel is expected to be 

transported downstream to lower Sullivan Creek, and the amount of spawning gravel, as 

well as spawning and incubation habitat, would increase. Under nearly all scenarios, 

over 80 percent of the spawning habitat would be protected while eggs are incubating in 

the gravel. In addition, the majority of spawning flow regimes examined provides at 

least 90 percent protection of incubating eggs (see Appendix E.4.9 of the Sullivan Creek 

license surrender application).

3.7.1.3 Canada Lynx

The Canada lynx was listed as federally threatened on April 24, 2000. Critical 

habitat has been designated in Washington; however, there is no critical habitat 

designated in Pend Oreille County.

In northeastern Washington, lynx use remote, high-elevation (> 4,000 feet) 

forests dominated by mature spruce, subalpine fir, and thickets of dense lodgepole pine 

that support prey (primarily snowshoe hare populations (Brittell et al. 1989; Stinson 

2001). Only a small amount of the land in the area (within 5 miles) of the Boundary 

and Sullivan Creek Projects is above elevation 4,000 feet.

Population recruitment and home range sizes of lynx in the United States are 

similar to those reported during the decline or low phase of snowshoe hare cycles at 

more northern latitudes (Koehler 1990; Apps 2000). Lynx at the southern periphery of 

their range may prey on a wider variety of organisms, because of differences in small 

mammal communities and lower average hare densities compared with northern taiga. 

There have been several reported lynx sightings within five miles of the projects. 

During the 2007-2008 field season, a fisheries study crew observed a lynx swimming 

across the Canyon Reach of the Boundary reservoir south of Monument Bar in a narrow 

section of the reservoir (about 300 feet wide) (see Big Game Study Final Report, Seattle 

2009a). This individual was thought to be a dispersing individual, traversing the area

and heading toward higher elevations and more suitable habitat. 

The Washington DFW recovery plan for lynx outlines steps to increase lynx 

populations in the state and defines recovery goals and objectives based on Lynx 

Management Zones (Stinson 2001). The projects are not located within a designated 

Lynx Management Zone (LMZ). The two LMZs closest to the projects are the Salmo 

Priest LMZ to the east and the Little Pend Oreille LMZ to the west. The LMZs have 

been divided into Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs), which were established to assess habitat 

conditions and are useful as survey units for documenting lynx occurrence. The 

projects are nearest to the Russian and Cedar (to the west) and Slate and Totem (to the 

east) LAUs. The LAUs are about 1 mile from the projects.
224

3.7.1.4 Woodland Caribou

The woodland caribou was listed as a federally endangered species on January 

14, 1983; no critical habitat has been designated for the species. A small number of 

woodland caribou occur in the southern Selkirk Mountains, with most of the animals 

occurring in British Columbia, north of the Boundary and Sullivan Creek Projects.

Caribou were transplanted into northeastern Washington and northern Idaho, including 

some in the upper Sullivan Creek drainage on the Sullivan Lake Ranger District, 

beginning in the late 1990s (Audet and Allen 1996). During early winter, caribou move 

to low-elevation, old-growth cedar/hemlock forests. They then move up to subalpine fir 

and whitebark pine stands once snow becomes sufficiently compacted and crusted for 

caribou to be able to walk on top of it (USFWS 1994). During spring, caribou move 

downslope to forage in shrub fields, meadows, and open forest stands. 

The majority of the caribou population resides in the Salmo-Priest Wilderness 

Area, more than five miles east of the projects. Areas above elevation 4,000 feet are 

included in the Selkirk Mountain Woodland Caribou Recovery Area (USFWS 1994).

Over the last 25 years, woodland caribou have occasionally been observed in the 

general vicinity of the town of Metaline Falls and near the West Side Access Road, and 

have been documented crossing the Pend Oreille River north of Metaline (CNF Sullivan 

Lake Ranger District Wildlife Species Occurrence database, 1996; Borysewicz 2008). 

They have also been observed within two miles to the northwest of Mill Pond. Despite 

these rare observations, the Boundary Project vicinity lacks the older forests and 

elevations typically used by this species.

3.7.1.5 Grizzly Bear

The grizzly bear was listed as a federally threatened species on July 28, 1975; no 

critical habitat has been designated for the grizzly bear. The FWS has determined that 

the grizzly bear population in the Selkirk area of Idaho and Washington warrants 

reclassification to endangered status, but such action has been precluded by work on 

other higher priority species (FR 64(94):26725-26733, May 17, 1999). The Grizzly 

Bear Recovery Plan lists human activity, road building, forestry, and mining as 

adversely affecting the grizzly bear (USFWS 1993). Since 1975, habitat protection 

measures implemented by federal agencies have focused on providing secure habitat for 

bears that lessens opportunities for human-caused mortality resulting from hunting (i.e., 

mistaken for black bear, poaching, human-bear conflicts, and livestock-bear conflicts. 

The boundary of the Selkirk Mountain Grizzly Bear Recovery Area (Highway 

31) is approximately 0.75 miles east of the Boundary Project area boundary. Thus, the 

Boundary Project area is not within a designated grizzly bear recovery area; however, 

Sullivan Lake, Mill Pond and portions of Lower Sullivan Creek are within a designated 

grizzly bear recovery area. The population is estimated to be 40 - 50 animals within the 

2,200 square-mile Selkirk Mountain recovery zone (USFWS 2004).
225

Grizzly bears have been sighted from both sides of the Boundary reservoir and 

near Sullivan Creek (Borysewicz 2008). However, grizzly bears are not expected to use 

the Boundary Project are on a regular basis due to human activity and scarcity of key 

forage species, particularly fruit-bearing shrubs. In 2004, Forest Service biologists 

observed a grizzly bear feeding on a deer carcass in the lower Sullivan Creek drainage

(Seattle 2009). Thus, bears may periodically traverse the project areas as they move 

between areas of suitable habitat.

Grizzly bears require spring forage habitats that provide large amounts of 

succulent, palatable herbaceous plants when they emerge from dens sites. In most 

cases, these habitats are restricted to wetlands and riparian areas. During the summer 

and fall, berry-producing shrub fields are important. Both spring and summer/fall 

forage habitats occur in limited portions on the Colville National Forest near the 

projects (Seattle 2009). Den sites are associated with high elevations near the SalmoPriest Wilderness Area (Seattle 2009).

3.7.1.6 Gray Wolf

Wolves are wide ranging predators that are currently re-establishing in 

Washington. Individuals and/or packs may use the project area and adjacent habitats at 

least occasionally (letter from Preston Sleeger, Regional Environmental Officer, FWS to 

Kimberly Bose, Secretary, FERC, September 2, 2010). Wolf howling was heard on 

several occasions by field crews working in the vicinity of Boundary dam during 2007 

and 2008, coming from the Canadian side of the international border. Unconfirmed 

sightings of wolves swimming across the Boundary reservoir and walking along the 

shoreline were recorded during 2007 field surveys (see RTE Wildlife Study, Seattle 

2009f). A wolf pack was confirmed by Washington DFW in northeastern Pend Oreille 

County in July 2009 (letter from Preston Sleeger, Regional Environmental Officer, 

FWS to Kimberly Bose, Secretary, FERC, September 2, 2010). 

3.7.2 Environmental Effects

3.7.2.1 Boundary Project

Description of Action

Proposed project operations are described in detail in section 2.1, Action and 

Action Alternatives.

Conservation Measures for Aquatic Species

Under the settlement, Seattle proposes to implement the provisions of its FAMP 

to protect and enhance fish and aquatic resources in the project area and tributaries. The 

FAMP establishes the goals, program objectives, tasks, and schedule for implementing 
226

those provisions during the term of a new license.136 Seattle would implement the final 

FAMP in consultation with the FAWG (Fish and Aquatics Work Group). The 

enhancement measures described in the FAMP are an integrated package of mainstem 

and tributary measures designed to benefit native salmonid populations (i.e., bull trout, 

westslope cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish) and their habitat. The FAMP is 

divided into the following elements:

• Mainstem Fish Community and Aquatic Habitat Measures

 Gravel Augmentation below Box Canyon dam

 Channel modifications for mainstem trapping pools at RM 30.3

 Mainstem large woody debris and tributary deltas

 Boundary Reservoir fish community monitoring and evaluation of 

salmonid predation at select tributary deltas

• Upstream Fish Passage

• Reduction of Project-Related Entrainment Mortality

• Tributary Restoration Measures

 Tributary non-native trout suppression and eradication

 Riparian improvement and stream channel enhancement in Sullivan 

Creek, RM 0.30 to 0.54

 Riparian, streambank, and channel improvements in Sullivan Creek, RM 

2.3 to 3.0, and in North Fork Sullivan Creek

 LWD placement and road improvements in Sullivan Creek and select 

tributaries upstream of the confluence with Outlet Creek

 Culvert replacements and LWD placement in tributaries to Boundary 

Reservoir

 Riparian planting, culvert replacement, and channel reconstruction in 

Linton Creek, RM 0.00 to 0.24

 Riparian and channel improvements in Sweet Creek, RM 0.0 to 0.6.

 Habitat improvement in Tier-2 tributaries to Boundary Reservoir

 Closure and restoration of Sullivan Creek dispersed recreation sites

• Mill Pond Dam Site Monitoring and Maintenance

 

136 Under the settlement, the settling parties have agreed that enhancement 

efforts should be primarily directed at Boundary Reservoir tributaries. This maintains 

the power generation benefits of the Boundary Project while providing the best 

opportunity for native salmonid protection and recovery.
227

• Native Salmonid Conservation Program

• Recreational Fish Stocking Program

The aforementioned measures are summarized and discussed below, and 

described in greater detail in the FAMP (see Attachment E-8 to Exhibit E of the License 

Application).

In addition to implementing the FAMP, Seattle proposes to undertake TDG 

abatement measures, which are described more fully in section 3.4, Water Quantity and 

Quality, and in detail within the TDG Abatement Plan (see Attachment E-4 to Exhibit E 

of the License Application). Finally, Seattle proposes to implement a Temperature 

Attainment Plan that would involve improving riparian and aquatic habitat in Boundary 

Reservoir tributaries.137

Gravel Augmentation below Box Canyon Dam – The available information from 

relicensing studies suggests that mountain whitefish spawn in the Box Canyon dam 

tailrace (Seattle, 2009d). In addition, egg mats successfully collected a small number of 

eggs believed to be those of mountain whitefish.

Seattle proposes to place a total volume of 1,500 cubic yards (yd3

) of screened 

gravels to increase potential mountain whitefish spawning habitat in the upper reservoir. 

In an effort to increase gravel retention at the placement sites, Seattle would install up to 

189 tons of 3- to 4-foot-diameter boulders in weirs or other structural designs. 

Construction of the boulder weirs and gravel placement would occur in two phases, and 

is expected to increase the spawning opportunities and success of mountain whitefish, a 

potential source of food for bull trout, in Boundary Reservoir. Finally, Seattle proposes 

to monitor the effectiveness of this measure, which would document the implementation 

of the program and help determine the appropriate frequency of gravel replenishment.

Channel Modifications for Mainstem Trapping Pools at RM 30.3 – Relicensing 

studies during 2007 and 2008 suggest that fry and young-of-year fish may become 

trapped in pools during periods of declining reservoir water surface elevations and 

under some conditions may suffer injury or mortality during these events. Although 

nearly all of the trapped fish observed were non-salmonids, such as suckers, perch, or 

smallmouth bass fry, these trapping mechanisms could also potentially adversely affect 

native salmonids if they are present in the trapping areas when water surface elevations 

decline.

 

137 The Ecology indicates that riparian plantings and fish habitat improvements 

in tributaries to the reservoir, plus enhancing and protecting thermal refugia in the 

reservoir’s tributary delta areas, erosion control measures, and associated riparian 

plantings on the mainstem Pend Oreille River, would help meet Ecology’s temperature 

improvement goals for the Pend Oreille River. See Seattle March 2010 Draft Biological 

Assessment, p. 54.
228

As part of the settlement, Seattle proposes to excavate a 1,800-foot-long channel, 

to an elevation below 1,979 feet NAVD 88, to connect mainstem flow to several 

isolated pools at a large cobble bar near RM 30.3.138 The objective of this measure is to 

reduce the risk of fish becoming trapped during declining water surface elevations. In 

addition, Seattle proposes to monitor the effectiveness of this measure, as described in 

the FAMP.

Mainstem Large Woody Debris at Tributary Deltas – Relicensing studies 

indicate that native and non-native salmonids use tributary deltas during summer to take 

advantage of coldwater refugia (Seattle, 2009b). Deltas also serve as transition areas 

between the reservoir and tributaries and must be used by fish moving between these 

two habitat types. Habitat studies indicate there is little LWD or other forms of cover in 

these tributary deltas (Seattle, 2008b).

Under the settlement, Seattle proposes to enhance tributary delta habitat by 

providing additional cover for salmonids holding in the coldwater refugia at tributary 

mouths. LWD jams would be placed and maintained in the thalweg in the upper delta 

regions of Sullivan,139 Sweet, Slate, and Linton creeks. The Sullivan Creek logjams 

would have a total volume of not less than 1,700 ft3

, while each logjam in Slate, Sweet 

and Linton creeks would have a volume of not less than 530 ft3

. The specific location 

and design of the LWD jams would be determined in collaboration with the FAWG, but 

generally would be located in the upper end of tributary deltas to minimize use by nonsalmonids. Finally, Seattle proposes to monitor the physical effectiveness LWD jams at 

ten year intervals and following major flood events (25-year event).

Boundary Reservoir Fish Community Monitoring and Evaluation of Salmonid 

Predation at Select Tributary Deltas – Information on the fish community in Boundary 

Reservoir can be used in a variety of ways, both by Seattle and the resource agencies. 

First, Seattle could use trend information in the adaptive management of its proposed 

environmental enhancement measures under a new license. Second, trend information 

can help resource management agencies to identify necessary changes in future 

management direction. Finally, if not kept in check, non-native predator fish species 

that use the project area can proliferate and become a threat to the already uncommon 

native salmonids, which could affect proposed recovery efforts for these species. 

 

138 This area is known as the Cobble Sisters area, which was identified as a 

location with a high occurrence of trapping (Seattle, 2009a).

139 Placement of LWD jams at the Sullivan Creek delta could be affected by 

activities required pursuant to the pending surrender proceeding for the District’s 

Sullivan Creek Project. As described in this EIS, removal of the Mill Pond dam could 

affect downstream enhancement projects due to short- or long-term changes in sediment 

supply and LWD recruitment and transport. Consequently, Seattle would schedule its 

enhancement measures for Sullivan Creek to complement upstream activities. 
229

Monitoring the fish community in Boundary Reservoir could assist management 

agencies in the development of strategies for the recovery of native salmonids and the 

setting of priorities and schedules for implementing these strategies. 

As part of the FAMP proposed under the settlement, Seattle would conduct fish 

community surveys in Boundary Reservoir beginning in year 5 after license issuance

and at five-year intervals thereafter. The objective of the surveys would be to monitor 

changes in fish population abundance and size structure of focal species over time.140 In 

addition, Seattle would conduct a study to evaluate predation on outmigrating native 

salmonids at select tributary deltas. The objective of the study would be to quantify the 

proportion (percent by number and biomass) of outmigrating native salmonids from 

select tributaries that are being consumed by predatory fish within the selected tributary 

deltas, and determine consumption rates of select predators consistent with the general 

methods described in Baldwin et al. (2003). These two study efforts are described in 

greater detail in the FAMP. 

Upstream Fish Passage – Passage barriers (e.g., dams, road crossings, waterfalls, 

etc.) are an isolating mechanism for local fish populations. A local population that lives 

above a barrier can only contribute individuals (and their genes) in a downstream 

direction. If a local population upstream of a passage barrier is extirpated, then there is 

virtually no opportunity for the local population to become re-established unless other 

local populations are present farther upstream or there is human intervention. The 

likelihood of re-establishing local populations is greatly enhanced if upstream 

populations include migratory life history forms, which are more likely to disperse. 

Baxter (1999) reported that the migratory form of bull trout is in decline in the Salmo 

River drainage. Nelson et al. (2002) suggested that the loss of the migratory form in 

some areas increases the risk that local populations could go extinct.

Passage barriers may isolate local populations, but they can also prevent the 

spread of non-native species such as brook trout, which are considered a threat to native 

salmonids (Andonaegui, 2003). Most of the tributaries to Boundary Reservoir have 

been stocked with non-native salmonid species such as brook trout, brown trout, and 

rainbow trout. However, Lost Creek and at least two sub-watersheds, the North Fork 

Sullivan Creek and Lunch Creek, have been unaffected by non-native species. 

The Boundary dam was built without fish passage facilities because downstream 

power and water storage projects, such as Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams, 

blocked anadromous fish migrations to the Upper Columbia Basin. However, declines 

in populations of native salmonids, including bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and 

mountain whitefish have increased focus on migrating resident fish. The NWU 

Recovery Team for bull trout considers passage at hydroelectric projects on the Pend 

 

140 At a minimum, the focal species would include westslope cutthroat trout, bull 

trout, mountain whitefish, smallmouth bass, northern pikeminnow, and northern pike.
230

Oreille River a high priority for recovery (FWS, 2002), and the Bull Trout Recovery 

Plan calls for upstream passage at the upstream Albeni Falls and Box Canyon dams, as 

well as the Boundary dam.

As part of the settlement, Seattle proposes to install, operate, maintain, and 

monitor an upstream trap-and-haul fish passage facility in the Boundary dam tailrace. 

The purpose of this fish passage facility is to provide safe, timely, and effective 

passage for bull trout, cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish in the project area. The 

facility would include a fixed entrance(s) and a release location(s) at least 1 mile 

upstream of the Boundary dam. Seattle would design and construct this upstream 

fishway using the best available scientific information, including but not limited to the 

NMFS (2008) Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design Manual, taking into 

account the site specific conditions at the project, biological information specific to the 

target species, and other relevant information.

At this time, there is uncertainty regarding an appropriate site within the tailrace 

for the fixed trap-and-haul facility. In addition, because of the low numbers of native 

salmonids captured or observed in the Boundary dam tailrace, there is little site-specific 

information from the project tailrace regarding seasonal movement patterns of target 

species. Therefore, consistent with NMFS (2008), the process for developing the trapand-haul facility includes an 8-year research and development phase to evaluate site 

specific conditions and biological traits of the target species in the project area. This 

information would be used to develop the final design for the trap-and-haul facility.

In addition to developing the upstream fish passage facility, Seattle also proposes 

to monitor its operations and modify it as needed based on the monitoring. Within 13 

years of license issuance, Seattle would file a Post Construction Evaluation Plan with 

the Commission. This plan would include methods for documenting fish passage 

efficiency, passage time, mortality, injury and fallback rates under a representative 

range of operating scenarios and environmental conditions.

Measures to Reduce Project-Related Entrainment Mortality – The Boundary 

dam was built without entrainment reduction facilities. However, declines in native 

resident salmonid populations have placed increased emphasis on protection of 

migrating fish. If fish pass downstream through the Boundary dam facilities, they are 

exposed to potential injury and mortality, with the level of mortality depending on the 

pathway, flow rate, and size of fish. Based on relicensing studies and a review of the 

literature, Seattle determined that smaller fish are expected to have the lowest turbine 

mortality (5 to 15 percent), while turbine mortality is expected to increase with fish size 

(i.e., 23 to 65 percent for larger fish). See section 3.5.1.1, Aquatic Resources, Affected 

Environment – Boundary Project for further details.

As part of the settlement, Seattle proposes to implement a program to address the 

effects of entrainment on bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish 

by either: (1) preventing entrainment at the project; (2) reducing entrainment at the 
231

project and addressing for the remaining effects through other measures; or (3) fully 

addressing the effects of entrainment through other measures.141 The FAWG would 

decide which alternative to pursue based on site-specific information developed as part 

of the program. The measure would be subject to agency and Commission approval. 

Seattle’s proposed program would be a multi-year effort that involves (a) quantifying 

the effects of entrainment on bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and mountain 

whitefish, (b) if warranted, building facilities at the project to improve survival of the 

species or implementing appropriate non-operational measures to improve survival of 

the species, and (c) follow-up monitoring to determine the need for additional measures.

Tributary Non-native Trout Suppression and Eradication – Most of the 

tributaries to the Pend Oreille River, including those flowing into Boundary Reservoir, 

have been stocked with non-native salmonid species such as brook trout, brown trout, 

and rainbow trout (McLellan, 2001). The presence of nonnative trout, especially brook 

trout, has been identified as a serious threat to native salmonids as a result of 

interbreeding (with bull trout) and competition for habitat and food resources 

(Andonaegui, 2003). The FWS (1999) stated in its status review that westslope 

cutthroat trout are usually found in the cooler upper extents of tributaries, but suggested 

this use was more likely driven by competition from other trout such as rainbow trout 

and brook trout that are less tolerant of cooler, higher gradient streams, rather than a 

preference for that habitat type.

Sullivan Creek and Slate Creek have been identified as streams important to the 

recovery of bull trout in the NWU and reduction of non-native fish species as a priority 

action (POSRT, 2005). As discussed in sections 3.5.1.1, Aquatic Resources, Affected 

Environment – Boundary Project and 3.5.1.2, Aquatic Resources, Affected 

Environmental – Sullivan Creek Project, brook trout are present in both creeks. 

Rainbow trout also have been documented in Slate Creek downstream from RM 0.75. 

Finally, brown trout and kokanee are known to exist in Sullivan Creek, downstream 

from Sullivan Lake.

Under the settlement, and as part of the FAMP, Seattle proposes to undertake 

non-native trout suppression or eradication activities in portions of 23 Boundary 

watershed water bodies (14 are tributaries to Sullivan Creek). For water bodies where 

non-native suppression is the objective, the level of effort may vary among stream 

reaches but would be consistent with an average of six electrofishing efforts of one to 

 

141 Based on relicensing activities, a team of fish passage experts evaluated 

entrainment reduction concepts at the Boundary dam and concluded that a floating 

surface collector concept would provide the most flexibility and potentially the highest 

incremental increase in fish protection. However, since little is known about the 

migration depth of bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish, the 

efficacy of a floating surface collector concept to reduce entrainment of the target 

species is uncertain.
232

three passes per reach every 10 years from the start of implementation through the 

remaining term of the license. For water bodies designated for eradication of non-native 

salmonids, the level of effort would be consistent with three chemical treatment 

applications assuming the use of antimycin, rotenone or an equivalent fish toxicant.

Riparian Improvement and Stream Channel Enhancement in Sullivan Creek, RM 

0.00 to 0.54 – Biological surveys conducted during relicensing indicated that the delta 

region and lower reaches of Sullivan Creek are used for rearing by cutthroat trout, 

brown trout, and rainbow trout. The delta has also been identified as a location of 

known mountain whitefish spawning. Although few bull trout have been observed in 

Sullivan Creek, it is proposed for designation as “critical habitat” by the FWS. 

Seattle undertook a channel assessment from RM 0.47 to RM 0.68 mid-July 

2008. The habitat conditions in the surveyed reach were described as poor for fish 

migration, rearing, and overwintering, as well as for spawning (due to the lack of 

appropriate sized gravel, and during high flows there is a high potential for any redds to 

be scoured). The dominant bed surface pattern consists of riffles and rapids, and LWD 

is rare throughout the surveyed reach. The LWD that does exist is primarily present 

above the water surface, which limits it as an active component of fish habitat to higher 

flows. The riparian zone was described as composed of young (< 40 years) mixed 

vegetation, with some portions devoid of riparian trees or brush (i.e., very sparse).

Under the settlement, and as described more fully in the FAMP, Seattle proposes 

to implement riparian improvements along the left bank of Sullivan Creek for up to 

1,200 feet of stream to improve riparian functions (shade, potential instream LWD, and 

erosion control). Selection of specific plants and planting locations would be 

determined in collaboration with the FAWG and following Washington DFW 

guidelines in Saldi-Caromile et al. (2004).142 In addition, Seattle proposes to improve 

instream spawning and rearing habitat and channel conditions along 1,200 feet of 

stream by LWD placement [15 to 20 pieces; following Washington DFW guidelines in 

Saldi-Caromile et al. (2004)], large boulder placement (5 to 10 boulders), and channel 

modification. It is expected that the addition of structural elements would contribute to 

pool formation, retention of LWD, and retention of coarse sediment suitable for 

salmonid spawning. Structural elements along the left bank would help stabilize the 

streambank, protecting downstream property owners and decreasing bank erosion. 

Finally, as described in the FAMP, Seattle would monitor the effectiveness of these 

enhancements.

Stream and Riparian Improvements in Sullivan Creek from RM 2.3 to 3.0, and in 

the North Fork Sullivan Creek – Habitat quality in two reaches of Sullivan Creek, from 

RM 2.30 to 2.60 and from RM 2.74 to 3.02, is described as low for salmonid spawning 

 

142 Plants would be a mix of native coniferous and deciduous trees, shrubs, and 

herbaceous plants or ground cover.
233

for both reaches, moderate for migration and rearing habitat in both reaches, as well as 

low and moderate, respectively, for overwintering habitat (Seattle, 2009a). The reaches 

are adversely affected by (a) the presence of the Mill Pond dam, which starves the reach 

of coarse substrate and LWD,143 and (b) the presence of Sullivan Lake Road along its 

right bank, which reduces riparian function.144 Both reaches lack rearing pools, and 

have a low abundance of cutthroat and rainbow trout (McLellan, 2001). 

North Fork Sullivan Creek has two fish migration barriers, including the North 

Fork Sullivan dam located at RM 0.25 (Andonaegui, 2003) and the Sullivan Lake Road 

culvert at the mouth of the stream (Forest Service, 2002). Cool water present within 

North Fork Sullivan Creek may provide thermal refugia to salmonids during warm 

summer periods.

Increasing channel structure, decoupling the Sullivan Road from the stream, and 

enhancing riparian conditions is expected to benefit trout in Sullivan Creek. As part of 

the settlement, and as described in more detail in the FAMP, Seattle proposes a variety 

of measures to achieve the aforementioned benefits.145 The elements would include: 

(a) seven engineered LWD jams with a target volume of 1,100 cubic feet; (b) placement 

of up to 10 to 20 boulders averaging 3 feet in diameter in the stream; (c) channel 

modifications; (d) riparian plantings; (e) streambank modifications at two locations 

where Sullivan Lake Road is hydrologically connected to the creek; and (f) either road 

relocation/reconstruction or stream channel diversion at one site on Sullivan Creek. 

These activities would be completed by year 10 of the license.146 In addition, Seattle 

proposes to replace the culvert at the Sullivan Lake Road stream crossing on North Fork 

Sullivan Creek and place LWD in North Fork Sullivan Creek from the mouth to the 

 

143 LWD density in the two reaches was lower than regional reference levels 

reported by Fox and Bolton (2007).

144 Riparian vegetation is described as a mixture of hardwoods and conifers, with 

the left bank having both young (< 40 years old) and mature (40-80 years old) trees, 

while the right bank had primarily young vegetation.

145 The objective of the measure is to decrease bank erosion on the right bank, 

provide instream structure to promote to create pools and enhance deposition and 

retention of spawning gravel, decrease the channel width-to-depth ratio, and promote 

the development of at least a 10-foot vegetated riparian zone along the right bank. The 

activities associated with the measure could be affected by activities proposed as part of 

the pending surrender proceeding for the Sullivan Creek Project, which includes the 

removal of the Mill Pond dam. Therefore, implementation of this measure would be 

scheduled to complement the Sullivan Creek surrender activities.

146 Selection of specific structural elements and their placement would be 

determined in collaboration with the FAWG and follow Washington DFW guidelines in 

Saldi-Caromile et al. (2004).
234

North Fork Sullivan Creek dam (RM 0.25) by year 15 of the license. Finally, Seattle 

proposes to monitor the effectiveness of this measure, as outlined in the FAMP.

LWD Placement and Road Improvements in Sullivan Creek and Select 

Tributaries Upstream of the Confluence with Outlet Creek – The Sullivan Creek 

Watershed Assessment (Forest Service, 1996) identified roads, dispersed recreation, 

mining, and riparian harvest as anthropomorphic activities contributing to an altered 

sediment regime, channel straightening, unstable stream banks, and low LWD levels in 

some areas of Sullivan Creek. The report also suggested that LWD removal from 

streams may have occurred as part of road building, harvest activities, and to prevent 

lateral migration of the stream into Sullivan Creek Road. Based upon channel type and 

current conditions, the Forest Service described most of the tributaries to Sullivan Creek 

as being at low risk, in good condition, and providing most of the spawning habitat for 

the watershed. In contrast, most high risk reaches were located in the mainstem 

Sullivan Creek, and lack of LWD contributed to low levels of sediment storage, channel 

instability, and poor spawning habitat conditions. The Forest Service identified high 

priority actions that would improve access to tributary habitat, decrease sediment 

delivery to Sullivan Creek, provide structure for salmonid rearing habitat, and stabilize 

stream banks.

As part of the FAMP, Seattle proposes to undertake measures to (a) improve fish 

and aquatic habitat and access to habitat, (b) improve road and stream crossings, and (c) 

provide stream channel and landslide stabilization. As described in the FAMP, the 

measures, to be completed by year 10 of the license, involve (a) placement of LWD in 

three river reaches of Sullivan Creek (i.e., Outlet Creek to Rainy Creek, Rainy Creek to 

Gypsy Creek, and Gypsy Creek), (b) road improvements along 12 miles of Sullivan 

Creek Road between the mouth of Outlet Creek and Leola Creek, and (c) road and 

channel stability improvements in Sullivan Creek tributaries upstream of Outlet Creek. 

Culvert Replacements and LWD Placement in Tributaries to Boundary Reservoir

– Slumber Creek and Styx Creek are tributaries to Slate Creek, with their confluences at 

RM 2.0 and 4.9, respectively. Forest Service Road 3155 crosses these tributaries near 

their mouths (RM 0.20 and 0.10, respectively). During 2008, habitat surveys were 

conducted upstream and downstream of these culverts for 492 feet in conjunction with 

evaluation of the culverts (Seattle, 2009a). Neither of the culverts was found to meet 

Washington State criteria for fish passage. Both tributaries are relatively small with 

wetted widths less than 7.5 feet, but contain suitable trout habitat over a portion of their 

lengths (Seattle, 2009a), which would be available under all flow conditions if the 

culverts were replaced. The Forest Service reports that westslope cutthroat trout and 

brook trout are present in both streams (Forest Service, 1998b).

Within Flume Creek, McLellan (2001) described two culvert barriers. Both 

culverts were described as perched between 5 and 8 feet above the downstream plunge 

pools. Brook trout and a small number of cutthroat trout exist in these creeks 

(McLellan, 2001; R2 Resource Consultants, 1998). According to McLellan (2001), 
235

salmonid habitat, in various amounts, exists throughout these stream reaches, including 

stretches between, and upstream of, the culverts. The lack of LWD and pool habitat 

was identified as a concern in certain areas. 

The culverts at Lehigh Hill Road that crosses Pocahontas Creek were surveyed 

and found to be out of compliance with Washington State criteria for fish passage due to 

high velocities (Seattle, 2009a). These culverts also can become clogged with LWD. 

PORST (2005) indicates that cutthroat trout and rainbow trout are present in Pocahontas 

Creek. 

With regard to Lime Creek, McLellan (2001) conducted habitat surveys within 

three reaches downstream of the Highway 31 stream crossing and documented a mean 

of 435 pieces of LWD per mile, mean gradient ranged from 3 to 10 percent, and pools 

that account for between 0 and 25 percent of habitat units in the reaches. Brook trout is 

the only salmonid known to use the stream.

To improve habitat and access to the habitat in the aforementioned creeks, 

Seattle, as part of the FAMP, proposes to improve fish and aquatic habitat and access to 

habitat through road and stream crossing improvements, stream channel stabilization, 

and LWD placement. Activities include replacement of 6 culverts in Slumber, Styx, 

Flume, and Pocahontas creeks, as well as LWD placement within 1.3 miles of Lime 

Creek, 1.0 miles of Flume Creek, and 2.7 miles of Sand Creek.147

Riparian Planting, Culvert Replacement, and Channel Reconstruction in Linton 

Creek, RM 0.00 to 0.24 – Habitat between RM 0.00 and 0.25 is predominantly 

composed of low gradient riffles, with an average channel slope of 2 percent (Seattle, 

2009a). Riparian and rearing habitat conditions within the survey reach were found to 

be poor, stream bank conditions were determined to be fair, and LWD was poor. Pool 

depth and pool frequency were not functioning properly, but off-channel habitat was 

classified as fair. There are thirteen culverts on Linton Creek, including a major stream 

crossing at RM 0.25. Two culverts downstream of RM 0.25 do not meet Washington 

DFW passage criteria (Seattle, 2009a). Seattle (2009b) observed cutthroat trout, 

rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, pumpkinseed, and largescale sucker using the 

tributary. Improvements to the riparian zone would substantially increase shade within 

5 to 10 years and increase LWD recruitment to the channel over the long-term.

As part of FAMP, Seattle proposes to replace three culverts, reconstruct the 

stream channel, place 20 to 25 pieces of LWD, augment gravel substrate in numerous 

locations, and conduct riparian planting within a distance of up to 50 feet of the stream 

banks. The objective of this measure is to improve riparian functions, passage 

conditions at the stream crossings, and spawning and rearing habitat. Seattle proposes 

 

147 The size and number of pieces of LWD would be determined by the FAWG 

based upon the best available science (e.g., Fox and Bolton, 2007) and site-specific 

characteristics.
236

to monitor the effectiveness of the improvements to determine if they are achieving the 

objectives.

Riparian and Channel Improvements in Sweet Creek, RM 0.0 to 0.6 – Sweet 

Creek is the fourth largest tributary draining into Boundary Reservoir. There are a 

series of natural falls that begin at RM 0.6, which are a complete barrier to upstream 

passage. The stream passes through a large box culvert at RM 0.5. The culvert blocks 

transport of LWD, and streambank erosion is occurring downstream of the culvert 

(Seattle, 2009a). The culvert does not meet Washington DFW criteria for fish passage,

but bull trout, cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, as well as rainbow, brown, and brook 

trout are known to occur upstream of the culvert (McLellan, 2001). Riparian and 

instream substrate and LWD conditions are considered to be good, but the reach is 

dominated by riffles and has relatively few pools (Seattle, 2009a; McLellan, 2001).

The cool-water plume at the tributary delta to Sweet Creek is an important area 

for salmonids during warm summer months. Bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and 

mountain whitefish have all been observed in lower reaches of Sweet Creek (Seattle, 

2009b). Most of the riparian zone of Sweet Creek downstream from RM 0.5 is in good 

condition (Seattle, 2009a; McLellan, 2001). Nonetheless, several areas could be 

improved through riparian planting. This is expected to benefit native salmonids and 

help to maintain coolwater temperatures in the tributary delta.

As part of the FAMP, Seattle proposes to improve and protect riparian 

conditions, instream habitat conditions, and passage at the culvert at RM 0.5. To 

provide long-term protection for the relatively intact riparian zone of Sweet Creek 

downstream of the culvert at RM 0.5, Seattle proposes to pursue the acquisition or 

protective land easements for 11.8 acres within a 100-foot buffer (excluding existing 

roads) on either side of Sweet Creek from the mouth to RM 0.50. In addition, Seattle 

would remove non-native vegetation and plant native brush and trees over a 0.3 acre 

area. Seattle also proposes to monitor the effectiveness of the measures to determine 

whether planting success criteria are being achieved.148

In addition to the riparian measures, Seattle proposes to increase channel 

complexity and gravel retention through LWD placement from the mouth of Sweet 

Creek to RM 0.6. The amount of wood to be placed would include approximately 166 

pieces of LWD and of these pieces at least 12 would be 12 inches or greater in diameter 

and a minimum of 35 feet in length. The bankfull width of Sweet Creek is about 33 feet 

in this reach, making it suitable for placement of channel spanning LWD. Selection of 

the specific location and design of the spanning structures would be determined in

collaboration with the FAWG and follow Washington DFW guidelines in Saldi-

 

148 As for all the riparian plantings proposed in the FAMP, the planting success 

criteria is to achieve at least 80 percent survival of trees and shrubs and 50 percent 

canopy cover of native species at the end of 3 years from the date of planting.
237

Caromile et al. (2004). Finally, Seattle proposes to improve upstream fish passage at 

the culvert located at RM 0.5. Improvements could include the addition of baffles, 

weirs, and/or aprons on the downstream end of the existing culvert. 

As part of the FAMP, Seattle would monitor the effectiveness of the 

improvements in Sweet Creek. The purpose is to assess the measures’ condition to 

determine if structural repairs, log replenishment, additional plantings, or non-native 

plant removal is needed to maintain the measures’ designed functions.

Habitat Improvement in Tier-2 Tributaries to Boundary Reservoir –Seattle 

categorized 28 tributaries flowing into Boundary Reservoir according to habitat 

availability for native salmonids and the potential opportunity to improve conditions 

through habitat manipulation. The results of the analysis are included in Seattle 

(2009a). Tributaries were categorized as either primary, secondary, or excluded from 

evaluation. Nineteen secondary and excluded tributaries were referred to Tier-2 

tributaries. The Tier-2 tributaries include 13 unnamed streams plus Everett Creek, 

Whiskey Gulch, Beaver Creek, Threemile Creek, Wolf Creek, and Lost Creek.

During relicensing, Tier-2 tributaries were considered a low priority because of 

their small size and/or presence of passage barriers near their confluence with the Pend 

Oreille River. Nevertheless, it is possible that these poorly understood tributaries may 

currently have, or have some potential to provide, habitat for native salmonids. 

As part of the FAMP, Seattle proposes to implement measures to improve 

aquatic habitat conditions in Tier-2 tributaries commensurate with the anticipated 

benefits to native salmonids. The measures, which would not occur until year 20 of a 

new license if determined appropriate, would consist of various habitat improvements 

(e.g., riparian planting, LWD or boulder placement, culvert replacement). Seattle would 

prepare a site-specific habitat improvement plan for each selected Tier-2 tributary, 

which would include a monitoring element.

Closure and Restoration of Sullivan Creek Dispersed Recreation Sites –

According to Forest Service (1996), many of the dispersed campsites in the vicinity of 

Sullivan Creek are located in riparian areas. The dispersed sites receive heaviest use 

during the summer recreation season, with a second high-use period occurring during 

the fall hunting season. Few of the dispersed sites are equipped with sanitary facilities. 

Many of the dispersed sites received heavy or extreme impact ratings at the time of the 

watershed assessment. Dispersed recreation has diminished the supply of LWD and 

resulted in a lack of shrubs and herbaceous cover in some riparian areas. Closure and 

restoration of the selected dispersed recreation sites are expected to improve riparian 

function, channel stability, and water quality in Sullivan Creek.

As part of the FAMP, Seattle proposes to close and restore up to 38 recreation 

sites located in riparian areas along Sullivan Creek to help restore fish habitat. Seattle 
238

would implement some combination of measures at each recreation site to be closed,149

and monitor the effectiveness of the closed and restored sites on an 8-year reoccurring 

schedule. 

Mill Pond Dam Site Monitoring and Maintenance –The Mill Pond dam is a 

complete barrier to the upstream movement of fish. The impoundment has altered 

natural stream processes in Sullivan Creek by interrupting the downstream transport of 

all bedload material and some LWD. The dam has created a condition where Sullivan 

Creek downstream of the Mill Pond dam is sediment depleted (Forest Service, 1996). 

The sediment transport capacity downstream of the dam exceeds the sediment supply, 

which has resulted in extensive armoring of the bed surface and a lack of gravels for use 

by spawning salmonid populations. Mill Pond has also slowed water velocities and 

increased summer water temperatures in lower Sullivan Creek.

Under the Sullivan Creek settlement, the District proposes to surrender the 

Sullivan Creek license, and remove the Mill Pond dam and restore the site within 5 

years of the Commission issuing an order authorizing the surrender of the license. 

Benefits of the Mill Pond dam removal and associated site restoration would include the 

elimination of a man-made barrier to upstream fish passage, an increase in the quantity 

and quality of habitat for native salmonids, restoration of downstream transport of 

coarse sediment and LWD, and possible benefits to water quality in the form of reduced 

summer water temperatures due to reductions in water surface area and increases in 

water velocity in the area of Mill Pond Reservoir.

As part of the FAMP, Seattle proposes to monitor and maintain the Mill Pond 

dam site to ensure that the habitat enhancements made to restore the reach continue to 

function over time. Seattle’s obligation for monitoring and maintaining the site would 

begin once the Commission determines that the work required by the District’s Mill 

Pond Decommissioning Plan has been completed and the Commission’s ends its 

jurisdiction over the Sullivan Creek Project.

Native Salmonid Conservation Program – The larger tributaries to Boundary 

Reservoir contain a variety of fish species, and most salmonid species in the project area 

occur in the tributaries (Seattle, 2009b). Surveys conducted by the Forest Service, the 

Washington DFW, and the Kalispel Tribe show that the dominant sport fish in the 

tributaries are westslope cutthroat trout, brook trout, rainbow trout, and to a lesser extent 

 

149 The measures could include: (a) placement of boulders to occupy existing 

camping and fire ring locations; (b) placement of boulders to prevent vehicle access; (c) 

loosening of compacted soils; (d) streambank stabilization measures; (e) slope grading;

(f) revegetation with locally derived native trees and shrubs; (g) suppression of invasive 

weed species, if feasible; (h) removal of fire pits; (i) trash removal; (j) removing pit 

toilets; and (k) public education.
239

brown trout and mountain whitefish (Seattle, 2006). These surveys documented bull 

trout, kokanee, and burbot in lower Sullivan Creek and bull trout in Sweet Creek. 

Currently, no self-reproducing bull trout populations occur in any tributaries to 

Boundary Reservoir. Nonetheless, the NWU recovery team identified Sullivan and 

Slate creeks as local bull trout populations under a recovered condition based on habitat 

survey data and professional judgment (FWS, 2002). The NWU recovery team 

suggested that artificial propagation of bull trout could be needed to seed currently 

unoccupied habitat. Westslope cutthroat trout are widely distributed in the project area, 

but threatened by the presence of non-native brook trout.

The FAMP proposed by Seattle provides for a native species conservation 

program. Seattle would fund the construction and operation of a fish propagation 

facility for the production of native salmonids to outplant into tributaries draining into 

Boundary Reservoir, with the initial target being westslope cutthroat trout. However the 

facility would be designed to propagate two species of fish (which could include bull 

trout). Selection of species, stocks, and life stages to be produced, as well as population 

goals for the conservation program, would be developed in consultation with the 

FAWG. 

Recreational Fish Stocking Program – Many of the measures included in 

Seattle’s proposed FAMP are designed to benefit native salmonids in the Boundary 

Reservoir, its tributaries, and the Pend Oreille River in the vicinity of the project. This 

would come at the expense of popular, non-native species. Moreover, the project would 

continue to have certain effects on aquatic habitat and the fish community in the 

Boundary Reservoir. 

As outlined in the FAMP, Seattle proposes to stock trout in 18 lakes within a 15-

mile area around the project. Trout species stocked in these lakes would consist of 

westslope cutthroat, rainbow, rainbow triploid, or tiger trout, and may include fall fry, 

fingerlings, spring fry and catchable-size fish. About 11,678 pounds of fish would be 

stocked annually beginning no later than year 2 of the license. Seattle proposes to 

monitor at least six of the lakes receiving the stocked fish each year prior to the 

springtime opening day of trout season. 

The purpose of this element of the FAMP is to mitigate for the loss of 

recreational angling opportunities at the project and compensate for other fish losses 

that would continue to occur. This measure has the potential to divert some fishing 

pressure from Boundary Reservoir to other areas, which may decrease the incidental 

capture of bull trout from angling in the reservoir.

Total Dissolved Gas – TDG levels have the potential to adversely affect any bull 

trout that use the tailrace during periods of spill. Following issuance of the new license 

for the project, Seattle proposes to implement measures identified in its TDG 

Attainment Plan (see Attachment E-4 to Exhibit E of the License Application). As 

described in section 3.4.2.1, Water Quantity and Quality, Environmental Effects –
240

Boundary Project, Seattle would initially evaluate three gate alternatives for TDG 

abatement. The historic performance of these outlets at small gate openings indicates 

the potential for successfully reducing tailwater TDG levels. Reduction of TDG levels 

would decrease the risk of gas bubble trauma in bull trout in the Boundary dam tailrace.

Each of the alternative measures could have both beneficial and adverse effects 

on bull trout. The beneficial effects would be a higher likelihood of attaining TDG 

compliance levels in the Boundary dam tailrace. However, the measures could also 

result in increased injury or mortality of fish entrained through the spillways or 

sluiceways due to the increased risk of fish strike with the added roughening elements. 

Fish strikes could result in blunt-force trauma to fish and loss of scales. Spreading the 

flow and reducing the size of water jets could be beneficial for small fish but adversely 

affect large fish during their landing in the tailrace. Regardless, there is uncertainty 

surrounding the magnitude of both the potential beneficial and adverse effects of the 

proposed measures for TDG abatement. This leads to uncertainty regarding the overall 

net effect to fish, in general, and bull trout in particular.

Habitat Improvements Fund for Sullivan Lake Tributaries – Sullivan Lake 

supports a naturally reproducing, self-sustaining population of kokanee that is a 

recreational fishery of regional importance. These fish live in Sullivan Lake and spawn 

in the lower Harvey Creek. In addition, the Sullivan Lake dam represents a barrier to 

fish movement in Sullivan Creek, blocking access to 1,291 acres and 13 miles of habitat 

for spawning, rearing, foraging, and overwintering habitat in Sullivan Lake and 

upstream tributaries, including that for bull trout. Nonetheless, the parties to the 

settlement agree that the need to protect habitat and refugia for native species (e.g., bull 

trout and westslope cutthroat trout150) outweigh the passage of fish at the Sullivan Lake 

dam. To improve habitat conditions in the upper Sullivan Lake drainage, Seattle 

proposes, as part of its settlement, to establish a $2.5 million fund for use by the FAWG 

to implement habitat improvement measures for tributaries of Sullivan Lake.

Conservation Measures for Terrestrial Species

Proposed environmental measures that will benefit terrestrial, federally listed 

threatened and endangered species are contained in Seattle’s Terrestrial Resources 

Management Plan (TRMP), and described in section 3.6.2.1. Aspects of the TRMP that 

will benefit federally listed species include standards and best management practices 

(BMPs) for Seattle maintenance activities, management prescriptions for Seattle-owned 

lands within the project boundary, and incorporation of four parcels of land into the 

project boundary (totaling 276 acres), as well as management of these lands for 

terrestrial resource protection and enhancement.

 

150 Genetic testing of cutthroat trout indicates that relatively pure strains of 

westslope cutthroat trout occur in Harvey Creek upstream of Sullivan Lake.
241

Bull Trout: Effects and Findings

The potential effects of the project on bull trout include: (a) fluctuations in 

reservoir and tributary delta habitat as a result of varying water surface elevation due to 

load following operations; (b) mortality and injury during entrainment at the Boundary 

dam; (c) potential for fish trapping or stranding; (d) loss of connectivity with habitat 

upstream of the Boundary dam; and (e) the risk of gas bubble trauma resulting from 

elevated TDG concentrations in the Boundary dam tailrace. These effects were outlined 

above, and are summarized as follows.

Fluctuations in reservoir and tributary delta habitat would occur under proposed 

project operations. Based on habitat modeling for bull trout greater than 6 inches, the 

quantity of bull trout habitat in the reservoir that would be affected by water surface 

fluctuation is a substantial portion of the total amount of available habitat. However, 

the amount of suitable habitat that is not affected by water surface fluctuation should be 

more than sufficient to support the current bull trout population in the project area. 

Suitable reservoir habitat based upon depth, velocity, and substrate is not limiting bull 

trout populations at the project.

Variability associated with coolwater plumes in tributary delta regions during the 

summer has the potential to be limiting if the number of bull trout using Boundary 

Reservoir increases over the term of a new license. Inter- and intra-specific competition 

may occur in coolwater plumes, but the relative importance of the project relative to 

other factors (e.g., presence and abundance of non-native species, tributary flow 

magnitudes, etc.) that could affect these interactions is unknown. Relicensing studies 

also suggest that the shapes of coolwater plumes change depending on mainstem flow 

and water surface elevations. Westslope cutthroat trout demonstrate active adjustments 

in delta regions to remain within suitable water temperatures, and bull trout are likely to 

behave similarly. The need for frequent adjustments in location as a result of 

fluctuating water surface elevations is likely an intermittent adverse effect. However, it

is difficult to quantify the magnitude of the effect or determine if these adjustments 

significantly affect overall fish growth or reproductive fitness, because some level of 

movement would be normal regardless of water surface level fluctuations.

Under proposed operations, it is anticipated that monthly juvenile WUA 

minimums would be the same as under existing conditions, except during dry years 

when WUA is expected to be slightly higher compared to existing operations during 

June (Forebay Reach – 19 to 30 ft2 WUA; Canyon Reach – 22 to 26 ft2 WUA) and July 

(Forebay Reach – 21 to 30 ft2 WUA; Canyon Reach – 24 to 26 ft2 WUA). Similarly, 

physical habitat modeling suggests that monthly adult bull trout WUA minimums would 

be slightly higher under during June (Forebay Reach – 316 to 322 ft2 WUA; Upper 

Reservoir Reach – 379 to 388 ft2 WUA; Tailrace Reach – 155 to 157 ft2 WUA) and July 

(Upper Reservoir Reach – 373 to 388 ft2 WUA). The adverse effects of fluctuating 

water surface elevations on tributary coolwater plumes would improve with Seattle’s 

proposal to place LWD jams in the deltas of Linton, Sweet, Slate, and Sullivan creeks; 
242

increase LWD levels and place LWD jams in the lower reach of Sullivan Creek; and 

improve riparian areas in lower Sullivan, Sweet, and Linton creeks. These measures 

would improve water quality (temperature) and the quality and quantity of tributary and 

tributary delta habitat that could be used by bull trout during warm summer months.

The available information suggests that bull trout in the vicinity of the Boundary 

dam could be vulnerable to entrainment, but their low overall abundance in Boundary 

Reservoir indicates that entrainment of bull trout is likely rare. If bull trout populations 

were to become established in Boundary Reservoir tributaries, it is unclear what 

proportion of the tributary fish would migrate downstream to mainstem habitats. Of 

those fish that entered Boundary Reservoir, some fish could move downstream, survive 

interaction with the introduced non-native predators, warm water temperatures, and 

other impediments to survival associated with the mainstem habitats and enter the 

Boundary dam forebay. Some tributary fish might also follow the allacustrine life 

history pattern reported by Dupont et al. (2007) and migrate upstream towards Lake 

Pend Oreille. The portion of those fish that move downstream could be exposed to 

potential entrainment at the Boundary dam and the associated risk of injury or mortality. 

In addition, if there are future increases in upstream bull trout population sizes and 

entrainment through the Albeni Falls and Box Canyon dams occur, then the numbers of 

bull trout at risk of entrainment at the Boundary dam could also increase.151 

As described above, the current level of risk of mortality to bull trout from 

trapping or stranding in the Action Area is considered low because of the low number of 

bull trout that have been observed in the past and their large size, which is consistent 

with life history of bull trout in the region (i.e., juveniles rear in tributary streams for at 

least several years until they reach 6.7 - 11.8 inches in length. Under Seattle’s proposal, 

the potential for trapping and stranding of bull trout is expected to decrease as a result of 

excavating a channel between trapping pools located in Cobble Sisters area of the Upper 

Reservoir Reach and filling one pool near the channel margin. The excavated channel 

would contain water when reservoir surface elevations are above 1,979 feet. However, 

the proposed enhancement would not reduce the potential for trapping or stranding of 

any bull trout elsewhere in the Action Area, except perhaps slightly as the result of the 

summer forebay water surface restriction. Consequently, some small level of risk to 

bull trout from trapping and stranding would be ongoing under a new license.

As described in the FAMP and summarized above, Seattle proposes to 

implement a phased approach to constructing upstream fish passage at the project. 

There is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the proposed trap and haul facility. 

In addition, it is unlikely that the facility would be able to operate year-round because of 

physical constraints associated with the Boundary dam tailrace, as well as the 

temperature and flow regime of the Pend Oreille River, which are independent of the 

 

151 Based on available evidence, high flow years may increase the risk of 

entrainment relative to normal or low flow years.
243

operation of the project. Even under an optimistic scenario where entrainment 

reduction measures are either not needed or entrainment is reduced because of 

implemented measures, it is unlikely that all bull trout that survive entrainment at the 

Boundary dam would return back upstream. Therefore, upstream connectivity for bull 

trout is likely to improve under the settlement, but may not be fully restored.

As described above and in section 3.4.2.1, Water Quantity and Quality, 

Environmental Effects – Boundary Project, Seattle is proposing to implement a number 

of alternatives to improve TDG at the project. Attainment of TDG compliance is 

expected to completely eliminate any project-related TDG effects on bull trout in the 

Boundary dam tailrace. However, TDG levels in the Action Area (in the reservoir 

upstream of the dam) are also the result of upstream operations at the Albeni Falls and 

Box Canyon dams. Therefore, it is unlikely that the project could independently restore 

TDG levels throughout in the Action Area (i.e., upstream of its area of influence). In 

addition, the measures designed to reduce TDG levels in Boundary Reservoir could also 

result in adverse effects to bull trout due to fish strike and increased likelihood that 

larger fish would not remain within plunging water jets if they were to be passed 

downstream via spillways or sluiceways.

The numerous conservation measures described above (e.g., tributary habitat 

enhancements, culvert replacements, monitoring and maintenance activities, etc.) are 

designed primarily to reduce or avoid adverse project effects to native salmonid 

populations, or to provide benefits to aquatic habitat and fisheries in tributaries draining 

to Boundary Reservoir.152 These measures would promote native salmonid populations 

and significantly improve the aquatic habitat they use. The majority of the tributary 

conservation measures enhance or restore adfluvial aquatic habitat that is currently 

(lower Sweet and lower Linton creeks) accessible to bull trout or would become 

accessible in the near future (Sullivan Creek upstream of the Mill Pond dam). The 

proposed eradication program for non-native species would reduce or eliminate the 

significant threat of brook trout to bull trout recovery in the Boundary tributaries. The 

native species conservation program would provide the means to potentially introduce 

bull trout into areas where they are currently not present. Each of the proposed 

measures supports the recovery of bull trout in the Pend Oreille River basin, but both 

individually and in total are unlikely to result in recovery on their own.

 

152 As described in more detail in section 3.5.2.1, Aquatic Resources, 

Environmental Effects – Boundary Project, monitoring and maintaining the Sullivan 

Creek habitat improvements, including those of the Mill Pond site, would ensure that 

the anticipated benefits continue over time and additional measures, if needed, are 

identified in a timely manner. The monitoring and maintenance program for Sullivan 

Creek would further the FWS’ goals to protect and enhance critical habitat for bull trout 

and be consistent with the species’ draft recovery plan. 
244

As part of the Sullivan Creek surrender proceeding, the parties to the Sullivan 

Creek settlement agree that the Sullivan Lake dam should not be removed, nor should 

fish passage be provided at the dam. The decision to leave the Sullivan Lake dam in 

place provides an effective barrier to non-native fish migrating up into upstream habitats 

important for native salmonids, such as bull trout that could move from lower Sullivan 

Creek further up into the system. However, not providing passage at the Sullivan Lake 

dam eliminates a large amount of potential habitat that could be used by native fish that 

occupy Sullivan Creek downstream from the dam. 

The Boundary settlement requires Seattle to establish a $2.5 million fund, which 

would help pay for measures to enhance habitat conditions in Harvey, Noisy, and Jungle 

creeks that flow into Sullivan Lake. Improving habitat conditions in these tributaries 

would benefit the Sullivan Lake kokanee and cutthroat trout populations, which 

potentially could reduce recreational fishing pressure on Boundary tributary streams. 

This would indirectly improve conditions for bull trout in the Sullivan Creek drainage 

through improved habitat and enhanced forage opportunities.153 

Finding

Based on the aforementioned analysis, and the cumulative effects analysis in 

section 3.7.3, we find that continued operation of the Boundary Project, as proposed 

with mandatory conditions and additional staff-recommended measures, would likely 

affect, but not adversely affect existing populations of bull trout or its designated critical 

habitat in the Action Area.

Canada lynx: Effects and Findings

Canada lynx is a wide-ranging species, with territories far beyond the size of the 

Boundary Project area. Canada lynx use of the project area is presumed to be primarily 

as a travel corridor between lynx populations on either side of the Pend Oreille River, in 

the designated LMZs (see RTE Wildlife Study, Seattle 2009a). As such, Lynx are not 

directly dependent on resources associated with the river or project lands. While 

riparian and upland habitats adjacent to the reservoir would continue to be subject to 

water fluctuations and erosion, there would be negligible effects on Canada lynx 

because of the abundance of these habitats in the project area, the wide-ranging habits 

of this species, and the lynx’s intermittent use of the project area.

Disturbance associated with project operation and maintenance, project-related 

recreation, and implementation of conservation measures would be temporary, and 

occur on a localized and discrete scale compared to the expansive home ranges of these 

species. Thus, the any effects would likely be minor. 

 

153 This fund is not addressed in the FAMP because, as stipulated in the 

settlement, Seattle’s responsibilities would be limited to establishing the fund, which 

would be administered by the FAWG. 
245

Streams, rivers, and lakes, represent potential obstacles to unrestricted wildlife 

movement across the landscape. Boundary reservoir does not appear to represent a 

significant barrier to the movement of the lynx as evidenced by the observed crossing of 

one individual. However, the slope and composition of the shoreline, as well as water 

currents in the reservoir, are likely to influence where these species can cross.

Seattle’s proposed management of project lands would provide some benefit to 

lynx through enhancement of habitat and by limiting public access. Details of terrestrial 

land management are provided in the TRMP. 

Construction of new roads can reduce available habitat, permit increased 

recreational activity, and provide travel corridors for lynx and their competitors. No 

new roads are proposed to be constructed, but several road spurs will be closed by 

Seattle. Only about 3 miles of project-related roads are paved; the remaining miles are 

dirt or crushed rock and bordered by native or naturalized vegetation. Preliminary 

information suggests that lynx do not avoid roads (Ruggiero et al. 2000a), except at high 

traffic volumes (Apps 2000), which does not occur on project-related roads. Although 

project-related roads may contribute to cumulative effects on the lynx habitat, they do 

not make up the majority of roads in the vicinity, and as such their effect is small.

The primary prey of lynx, snowshoe hare, is commonly available in the project 

vicinity (Seattle 2006), as are other small animals that lynx are known to prey upon 

(Squires et al. 2007). 

Finding

Given the lack of suitable habitat and lack of project effects on lynx prey base, 

and the minor effect that project roads contribute to the overall landscape, we find that 

continued operation of the Boundary Project, as proposed with mandatory conditions 

and additional staff-recommended measures, would likely affect, but not adversely 

affect the Canada lynx.

Woodland caribou: Effects and Findings

There are few records of woodland caribou in the vicinity of the Boundary 

Project, but this species may use the general area east of the project for winter forage 

grounds. Woodland caribou are occasionally known to cross the reservoir south of 

Metaline Falls, where topography may allow easier access to river crossing points. 

Because of the steeper terrain around the lower reservoir (below Metaline Falls), big 

game trails are concentrated in areas that follow topographic features such as drainages. 

Along the upper reservoir (above Metaline Falls) the terrain is gentler and allows for a 

more diffuse pattern of big game travel. No impediments to big game travel or to 

reservoir access were identified during field studies and subsequent analysis (see Big 

Game Study, Seattle 2009a). Woodland caribou are likely to use big game trails that 

other ungulates use, especially in areas of steep topography.

Habitat in the project area is generally unsuitable for woodland caribou because 

of its low elevation and lack of older forest habitat; therefore, project operations are not 
246

expected to affect caribou. Project-related roads are not a primary component of the 

road network in the project area and are not expected to hinder the movement of any 

woodland caribou that may wander into the area. Caribou may benefit from the land 

management activities associated with the TRMP.

Finding

Because of the marginal quality of available caribou habitat, and the extremely 

low use of the area by woodland caribou, we find that continued operation of the 

Boundary Project, as proposed with mandatory conditions and additional staffrecommended measures, would likely affect, but not adversely affect the woodland 

caribou.

Grizzly Bear: Effects and Findings

The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan lists human activity, road building, forestry, and 

mining as adversely affecting grizzly bears (USFWS 1993). Road density and 

associated human activity can affect grizzly bear movements and can cause significant 

mortality to bears from road kills and human-bear conflicts (Mace and Jonkel 1980). A 

number of studies have shown that grizzly bears tend to avoid areas with open roads 

(McLellan and Mace 1985, Kasworm and Manley 1988, Aune and Kasworm 1989), but 

that they may also become habituated to habituated to high levels of human disturbance, 

as long as it was predictable and non-lethal (McArthur 1979; Dood et al. 1986).

Grizzly bears may occasionally use the project area, but project operations do not 

have an effect on the habitat of this wide-ranging species for reasons described above 

for the Canada lynx. In addition, the project area roads represent a minor contribution 

to the landscape conditions and will not hinder the movement of grizzly bears that may 

wander through the area. As noted earlier, Seattle’s road closures would likely improve 

conditions slightly. Use of the Boundary Wildlife Preserve by snowmobiles and all 

terrain vehicles (ATVs) could discourage use of this area by bears if they were to 

wander into this area. Measures to limit such future use in the preserve would prevent 

these potential adverse effects. Other disturbances from project-related operations and 

maintenance and implementation of aquatic conservation measures would be temporary, 

localized, such that any effects on grizzly bears that may use the area would be 

negligible given the large home range and abundance of similar habitats.

Finding

Because of the low grizzly bear use of the project area and minimal effects on 

habitat from continue project operations, we find that continued operation of the 

Boundary Project, as proposed with mandatory conditions and additional staffrecommended measures, would likely affect, but not adversely affect the grizzly bear.

Gray Wolf: Effects and Findings

Wolves are wide ranging species. Individuals and/or packs of the expanding 

wolf populations in Washington may occasionally use the project area and adjacent 
247

habitats. Effects of project operations, project-related erosion, and disturbance from 

project-related activities represent negligible effects on the gray wolf for the same 

reasons noted above for the Canada lynx, grizzly bear, and woodland caribou. Interior 

also concluded that project operations would likely have negligible effect on gray 

wolves because the abundance of these habitats and the wolves’ wide-ranging habits 

(from Preston Sleeger, Regional Environmental Officer, FWS to Kimberly Bose, 

Secretary, FERC, September 2, 2010).

Finding

In the Draft EIS, , we found that continued operation of the Boundary Project, as 

proposed with mandatory conditions and additional staff-recommended measures, 

would likely affect, but not adversely affect the gray wolf for the above reasons. A 

finding is not required now because the gray wolf in eastern Washington is no longer 

listed as a threatened and endangered species.

3.7.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project

Description of Action

In accordance with the Sullivan Creek settlement, the District proposes to 

undertake a variety of measures as conditions of the license surrender that would 

enhance fish habitat in the project area. As described in greater detail in section 3.4.2.2, 

Water Quantity and Quality, Environmental Effects – Sullivan Creek Surrender, the 

District proposes to implement (a) changes in its management of lake levels at Sullivan 

Lake, (b) flow releases from the Sullivan Lake dam, (c) ramping, and (d) a water supply 

program. The District proposes to remove the Mill Pond dam (both the concrete and log 

crib dams) and restore Sullivan Creek in the currently submerged area of the Mill 

Pond.154 Measures to remediate the stream area would include installation of woody 

debris, large boulders and gravel, and rock weirs/riffles intended to control or moderate 

channel incision, and planting vegetation.

To enhance water temperatures in Outlet and Sullivan creeks, the District 

proposes to install a cold water release facility at Sullivan Lake.155 To protect fish 

 

154 The work would be carried out by Seattle, as a cooperating agency, in 

accordance with an Interlocal Agreement between the District and Seattle. 

155 To deliver cold water from Sullivan Lake, a cold water intake would be

designed and built to withdraw water from depth at Sullivan Lake and deliver the cold 

water to the project tailrace (McMillen, 2011). The cold water intake would be 

designed for a flow capacity ranging from 150 to 160 cfs with Sullivan Lake at full 

elevation of 2,588.66 feet. In order to ensure water temperatures are approximately 41 

°F or below, the intake structure for the pipeline would be at a depth of approximately 

120 feet below the water surface of the reservoir.
248

populations in Sullivan Lake and reduce entrainment through the dam, the District 

proposes to install fish screens at the intake of the cold water release facility that meet 

NMFS design criteria for approach velocity.156 The District does not propose, nor do 

the agencies recommend, screens for the low-level outlet gates. The District proposes 

to implement a Harvey Creek Bedload Mobilization program. 

Bull Trout: Effects and Findings

Operation of the Sullivan Creek Project, as currently exists, causes entrainment 

of fish at the Sullivan Creek dam during flow releases. Bull trout currently do not exist 

above the Sullivan Creek dam, and, therefore are not subject to entrainment through the 

dam. The existing warm water released from Sullivan Lake during the summer and 

early fall increases temperatures downstream of the dam, which decreases the suitability 

of this area for native trout habitat (especially that for cutthroat trout and bull trout that 

use the lower portions of Sullivan Creek). In addition, the Mill Pond dam prevents the 

upstream movement of fish, and the downstream movement of sediment through the 

system.

The adverse effects of current operations on fish and their habitat are expected to 

be reduced as a result of the license surrender. Temporary direct effects to fish would 

likely occur during the dewatering of the Mill Pond for dam removal. Fish that become 

trapped would be relocated to another portion of Sullivan Creek during the dewatering 

activities. Screening structures would be used on the siphon pipe inlet to eliminate the 

potential for fish being sucked into the pipe. Fish screens would also be placed 

upstream of the construction area in Sullivan Creek to preclude fish from entering the 

work area.

Removing the Mill Pond dam and implementing stream restoration activities 

would, in the long term, significantly improve the water quality of the affected reach by 

reducing water temperatures and improving DO. License surrender would facilitate the 

removal of the Mill Pond dam and the restoration of the area now covered by the dam, 

which would increase native fish habitat in the watershed, including that for bull trout. 

In addition, existing habitat would be enhanced. Native vegetation and LWD would be 

introduced and the recovered streambed would be “engineered” to resemble a natural 

stream, as well as monitored to ensure effectiveness of the restoration.

The District would implement operational provisions for Sullivan Lake to 

facilitate the movement of sediment at the mouth of Harvey Creek (i.e., Harvey Creek 

Bedload Mobilization Project). By providing flows capable of moving sediment, this 

 

156 The pipeline intake will be fitted with two tee style fish screens (McMillen, 

2011). The screen(s) would be designed to meet a maximum approach velocity of 0.4 

fps, as required by NMFS for intake structures which include active cleaning systems, 

and an air burst cleaning system would be provided with an air line.
249

program would benefit spawning habitat in the creek, and in the delta area where it 

empties into Sullivan Lake.

The District currently releases water from Sullivan Lake in the fall, and limits 

summer flows to Outlet and Sullivan creeks to a defined minimum flow. The District’s 

proposals to modify how it would operate Sullivan Lake and implement its water supply 

program would result in higher flows in the downstream river reaches during the 

summer, which would improve aquatic habitat for bull trout in Sullivan Creek. The 

ramping provisions of the proposal would help ensure that stranding of fish and other 

aquatic biota does not occur, or is minimized. 

According to McMillan (2011), the District could install the cold water release 

facility either in the summer (option 1) or in the fall (option 2). Option 1 would require 

the pipeline to be built in July and August at full reservoir levels with a turbidity 

curtain. This option would require a higher cofferdam, with underwater excavation and 

backfill of the pipeline. This option could have short-term localized water quality and 

aquatic habitat effects during construction. Option 2 would allow construction to occur 

in the fall with low reservoir levels behind a cofferdam that has been dewatered. Water 

quality and aquatic habitat effects would likely be negligible, due to lower lake levels to 

start and the fact that no underwater excavation and pipeline backfill would be 

necessary. Neither option is expected to have any effect on bull trout or its habitat 

during construction, as flow downstream from the dam in Outlet and Sullivan creeks 

would not be interrupted and lake levels in Sullivan Lake would be maintained in 

accordance with the new operating protocol outlined in the settlement. The cold water 

released from Sullivan Lake through the constructed facility is expected to improve 

water quality and have a beneficial effect on native salmonid habitat in Outlet and 

Sullivan creeks downstream of the dam, and potentially all the way to the confluence of 

the creek with the Pend Oreille River. The District would operate the Sullivan Lake 

dam to maximize the amount of water passed through the cold water release facility, 

which would be screened to exclude fish and, thus, prevent entrainment.

Finding

Based on the aforementioned analysis, and the cumulative effects analysis in 

section 3.7.3, we find that surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project and removal of the 

Mill Pond dam, as proposed with additional staff-recommended measures, would likely 

affect, but not adversely affect existing populations of bull trout or its designated critical 

habitat in the Action Area.

Canada lynx: Effects and Findings

Canada lynx use of the project area is presumed to be primarily as a migration 

corridor to higher elevation habitats. The District reports no confirmed sightings in the 

Mill Pond or Sullivan Creek area and does not anticipate lynx use habitat resources of 

Mill Pond or Sullivan Creek on a regular basis for hunting, resting or shelter (McMillen 

2010).
250

No new roads or structures are proposed as a condition of the license surrender 

that would fragment lynx habitat. Over time, restoration of upland and riparian habitats 

associated with Mill Pond and Sullivan Creek may result in a slight improvement in 

habitat conditions for lynx traveling through the area. Converting Mill Pond back to a 

riverine system could potentially create about 50 acres of additional habitat for small 

mammals. Thus, the likelihood of lynx using the restored area of Mill Pond may 

increase due to the potential increase in food sources over time. However, human

disturbance would still be present in this area from the campground and National Forest

trail system and would continue to likely deter the lynx from using this area.

Lynx may be disturbed by noise generated during dam removal and stream 

restoration activities. Construction activities will include the use of heavy machinery 

estimated to start in June and end in November. Temporary construction noise may 

travel up to 0.5 miles via line of sight. However, the conifer forest and topographic 

features surrounding Mill Pond are anticipated to dampen and reduce the distance that 

construction noise will travel from the construction area to about 0.25 miles. This

temporary effect is anticipated to be minimal due to the lack of lynx use of the project 

area, the existing amount of human disturbance in the vicinity of Mill Pond, and the 

abundance of suitable habitat and prey at higher elevations within the surrounding 

Coleville National Forest. No critical habitat will be affected by the surrender of the 

license and removal of Mill Pond.

Finding

For the above reasons, we find that surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project and 

removal of the Mill Pond dam, as proposed with additional staff-recommended 

measures, would likely affect, but not adversely affect existing populations of Canada 

lynx.

Woodland caribou: Effects and Findings

As noted above for the Boundary Project analysis, there are few records of 

woodland caribou in the vicinity of Sullivan Creek Project—one observation near Mill 

Pond to the northwest and over 0.5 miles away in 1987 (WDFW 2009a). This species 

may use the general area in the vicinity of the Sullivan Creek Project for winter forage 

grounds. However, they typically tend to shy away from human disturbance and 

generally avoid areas within 0.6 miles of campgrounds and up to 2,460 ft from trails 

(Whittington and Mercer 2004; as cited by Seattle 2009b). Caribou have also been 

noted to avoid areas within 820 ft of linear features such as gravel roads (Dyer 1999; as 

cited by Seattle 2009b). The campground and road to Sullivan Lake would continue to 

deter use of the Sullivan Lake Project area following license surrender.

If caribou were present during the removal of Mill Pond dam and the installation 

of the cold-water release structure in Sullivan Lake, they are anticipated to avoid the 

immediate construction areas. As noted above for the lynx, potential construction 

disturbance would temporary (June to November) and localized, and would have a 
251

negligible effect given the abundance of similar available habitats, lack of caribou use 

of the area (which is likely the result of the existing human disturbance in the vicinity of 

Mill Pond), and its low elevation and lack of older forests No woodland caribou critical 

habitat would be affected.

Finding

For the above reasons, we find that surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project and 

removal of the Mill Pond dam, as proposed with additional staff-recommended 

measures, would likely affect, but not adversely affect existing populations of woodland 

caribou.

Grizzly Bear: Effects and Findings

As noted above, observations of grizzly bear in the project area are rare. Existing 

wetlands along the edge of Mill Pond that may produce herbaceous plants that bears 

could forage on in the spring would be converted to an upland plant community

following removal of Mill Pond dam. However, herbaceous wetlands lost due to the 

dewatering of Mill Pond would be replaced within the restored Sullivan Creek corridor.

Disturbance from construction activities would be temporary and direct effects 

are anticipated to be minimal for the same reasons as discussed above for the Canada 

lynx—i.e., limited use of the area, the existing level of human activity in the vicinity of 

Mill Pond, and abundance of suitable habitat within the surrounding the project. Over 

time, the restored 50 acres of habitat would likely provide habitat for deer, bulbproducing sedges, grasses, and forbs, and berry-producing shrubs, which could result in 

a small benefit for any grizzly bears that move through the area.

Finding

For the above reasons, we find that surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project and 

removal of the Mill Pond dam, as proposed with additional staff-recommended 

measures, would likely affect, but not adversely affect existing populations of grizzly 

bear.

Gray Wolf: Effects and Findings

Gray wolves are expected to use the project area only occasionally. Effects of 

continued Sullivan Creek operations and construction related activities associated with 

the removal of Mill Pond dam are expected to represent negligible effects on the gray 

wolf for the same reasons noted above for the Canada lynx, grizzly bear, and woodland 

caribou. 

Finding

In the Draft EIS, we found that surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project and 

removal of the Mill Pond dam, as proposed with additional staff-recommended 

measures, would likely affect, but not adversely affect existing populations of gray wolf
252

for the above reasons. A finding is not required now because the gray wolf in eastern 

Washington is no longer listed as a threatened and endangered species.

3.7.3 Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects were identified for the Canada lynx, woodland caribou, 

grizzly bear, or gray wolf. The following focuses on bull trout.

Bull Trout Recovery Activities – There are a number of plans that provide 

guidance for the management of aquatic resources in the project area. These include:

• Watershed Management Plan for WRIA 62 (Golder Associates, Inc., 2005) 

• The NWPPC Intermountain Province Subbasin Plan (GEI Consultants, 2004) 

• Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan (FWS, 2002) 

• The Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH; Forest Service, 1995) 

• The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Colville National Forest 

(Forest Service, 1988) 

• The Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study: A summary of 

Findings and a Management Plan 

• Joint WDFW/Tribal Wild Salmonid Policy (Washington DFW and Western 

Washington Treaty Tribes, 1998)

A common goal among these plans is the improvement of aquatic habitat and 

water quality to benefit native salmonids, especially bull trout. However, there is no 

comprehensive list of activities that contribute to the recovery of bull trout in the NWU 

and Lake Pend Oreille area because of the wide variety of federal, state, tribal, and nongovernmental organizations that conduct activities in the region. Nonetheless, some of 

the major activities that are ongoing or have been recently completed are:

• Mainstem Fish Passage 

 Albeni Falls passage feasibility studies 

 Upstream and downstream passage at Box Canyon dam

• Tributary Habitat Restoration, Enhancement, and Passage 

 Box Canyon Project enhancement measures 

 Kalispel resident fish project 

 Road abandonment and bank stabilization 

 Riparian fencing and planting 

 Tributary passage and screening 
253

• Bull Trout Research and Monitoring 

 Monitoring in the Priest River sub-basin 

 Genetic inventory of bull trout in the Pend Oreille sub-basin 

 Kalispel resident fish project 

 Resident fish stock status above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams

 Granite Creek watershed assessment 

• Mainstem Pend Oreille River Water Quality 

 Temperature TMDL implementation for the Pend Oreille River 

 Water quality monitoring 

Implementation of most of the actions associated with the plans and many of the 

ongoing activities rely on funding that can vary widely from year to year. Because of 

the variability in annual funding, it is uncertain if or when activities recommended in 

the various state and federal plans, such as the establishment of downstream and 

upstream passage at the Albeni Falls dam, would be implemented.

Recovery activities implemented by organizations regulated by federal and state 

agencies have more certainty regarding their funding and schedule. For example, as 

part of the Box Canyon Settlement Agreement, the District agreed to install downstream 

passage facilities with the goal of 95 percent fish passage efficiency by 2015 or 10 years 

after issuance of a license. The District also agreed to restore 164 miles of tributary 

streams to Box Canyon Reservoir within 25 years.

Taken together, numerous activities that improve habitat, fish passage, and water 

quality are likely to occur in the watershed and would contribute to the recovery of bull 

trout during the term of a new license. Therefore, it is likely that the incidence of bull 

trout using Boundary Reservoir, tailrace, or tributaries would increase, but the 

magnitude of the increase, the timing of increases, and whether recovery criteria would 

be achieved is uncertain.

Sullivan Creek Fishery Enhancement Fund – As explained in section 3.5.4, 

Aquatic Resources, Cumulative Effects, the District entered a Fish MOA with the 

Washington DFW to provide the Washington DFW funds to address fishery 

management activities in Sullivan Lake and associated tributaries. As previously 

discussed, this measure, while having merit if the funds are used by the Washington 

DFW for management activities in Sullivan Lake and its watershed, lacks specificity. 

Therefore, it is impossible for us to evaluate how the funds would benefit aquatic biota 

in the Sullivan Creek drainage in any meaning, measurable way.

Hatchery and Harvest Practices – Washington DFW manages fisheries in the 

Action Area and regulates private and public hatchery releases. Washington DFW 

modifies and publishes recreational fishing regulations on an annual basis. Currently, 

recreational anglers may not target bull trout, but may incidentally catch and release bull 
254

trout. Changes in the regulations such as seasons, closed areas, and harvestable sizes 

and numbers of other trout species could also change the likelihood of the incidental 

catch of bull trout by reducing or increasing the level of effort expended by anglers.

Flood Control Operations – Significant storage reservoirs within the basin 

include Hungry Horse Reservoir and Flathead Lake in Montana, and Lake Pend Oreille 

and Priest Lake in Idaho. Other projects along the mainstem Pend Oreille River 

upstream of the project include the Box Canyon Project, the Albeni Falls Project, the 

Clark Fork River Project in Idaho and Montana, and the Thompson Falls Project in 

Montana. Downstream of the Boundary dam, the Pend Oreille River flows past Seven 

Mile and Waneta dams, both in Canada, before entering the Columbia River. Because 

of the basin size and corresponding annual flow, typically no single project has an 

overriding influence on flows in the river. Potential influence on flows by individual 

projects is greater during low-flow periods and for those reservoirs having significant 

storage capacity (Enserch, 1994). In addition to the dams listed above, the Sullivan 

Creek Project is located on Sullivan Creek, the main tributary to Boundary Reservoir.

The upstream projects have a significant effect on inflows to the project 

reservoir. In the absence of the upstream impoundments, flows would typically exceed 

regulated flows from May through July, during the periods when water is stored in 

upstream projects (Seattle, 2008a). Regulated flows are typically greater than 

unimpaired flows from August through April, as stored water is released from upstream 

projects. Future changes to flood control and other operations at these upstream 

projects could affect the timing and magnitude of inflows to the Boundary Project and, 

as a result, interact with project operations to influence water surface elevations in the 

reservoir.

Box Canyon Project – The District recently received a new license for its Box 

Canyon Project. There are a number of measures included in the license designed to 

benefit bull trout, such as turbine upgrades, upstream fish passage, and restoration and 

enhancement of tributary streams. These improvements, if successful, could increase 

the number of bull trout using the Boundary Reservoir, the Boundary dam tailrace, and 

the tributaries to Boundary Reservoir.

Boundary and Sullivan Creek Projects – The measures proposed by Seattle as 

part of the Boundary settlement (including on-going monitoring of the Mill Pond site) 

and the measures proposed by the District as part of the Sullivan Creek settlement, 

taken together, would increase the extent of habitat connectivity for native salmonids, 

including bull trout, and improve aquatic habitat and water quality in Sullivan Creek.

Waneta Upgrade and Seven Mile Project Operations – BC Hydro’s Seven Mile 

Project is located 11 river miles downstream of Boundary dam, and Seven Mile 

Reservoir, at times, backs water up to the base of the Boundary dam. The average 

maximum water surface elevation of Seven Mile Reservoir is approximately 1,734 feet 

NAVD 88 (BC Hydro, 2003). Because of downstream water quality and flow 

requirements and capacity limitations at the Waneta Project (the next project 
255

downstream of Seven Mile), the Seven Mile Project operates to reregulate flows from 

the Boundary Project. Upgrades to the capacity at the Waneta Project are anticipated to 

allow the Seven Mile Project to modify its operations to engage in a greater degree of 

load following. The specific effects of any operational modifications at the Seven Mile 

Project on pool levels in the Boundary dam tailrace are uncertain. However, changes 

could affect the amount of suitable rearing habitat available to bull trout in the 

Boundary dam tailrace, and may affect the design and operation of Seattle’s proposed 

upstream trap-and-haul facility.

3.8 RECREATION

3.8.1 Affected Environment

Opportunities for recreation within the region surrounding the Boundary and 

Sullivan Creek Project are plentiful. Both projects lie partially within the Colville 

National Forest, which provides a spectrum of recreation opportunities ranging from 

designated wilderness to developed campgrounds. Other public agencies including 

BLM (Boundary Recreation Site), Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 

(Crawford State Park), Washington State Department of Transportation (Sweet Creek 

Falls Rest Stop), and Pend Oreille County PUD (Campbell Park) manage land within 

the region and provide opportunities for outdoor recreation. Visitors to the area can 

hunt, camp, fish, rock climb, hike, view wildlife, boat, picnic, swim and paddle.

3.8.1.1 Boundary Project

Project Area Recreation Resources

A variety of unique natural features attract visitors to the project. The canyon 

reach, which extends from the community of Metaline Falls to the project forebay, 

provides the opportunity to boat through a narrow steep-walled canyon and see wildlife, 

waterfalls, geologic features, and evidence of historic mining activities. Peewee Creek 

flows over the edge of the western canyon wall and forms a high narrow waterfall into 

the project forebay that is visible from the opposite shore of the reservoir. Metaline 

Falls is located at a hydrologic constriction near the entrance to the canyon reach and 

appears more as a rapid than as a waterfall due to the reservoir impoundment. The 

rapids are enjoyed by some motorized and non-motorized boaters depending upon water 

levels in the reservoir.

Four developed recreation areas are contained within the project boundary: 

Forebay Recreation Area; Tailrace Recreation Area; Metaline Waterfront Park Boat 

Launch; and Vista House. The Forebay Recreation Area, Tailrace Recreation Area, and 

Vista House are project facilities, maintained and operated by Seattle.

The Forebay Recreation Area is located on the western shoreline of Boundary 

reservoir immediately upstream of the project dam. Some of the recreation 

opportunities at the site include picnicking (two areas), tent and RV camping (11 sites), 
256

boating (a two-lane concrete boat ramp with a boarding dock), fishing, playing 

horseshoes, and sightseeing (an historic miner’s log cabin and a view of the Boundary 

dam). A restroom building with flush toilets and 20 parking spaces are provided at the 

site.

The Tailrace Recreation Area is located immediately downstream of Boundary 

dam on the western bank of the Pend Oreille River and provides limited day use 

opportunities. Visitors must pass through a security checkpoint and are only allowed 

access to the site between 10:30 am and 4:30 pm daily. The primary attraction for 

visitors is the Visitor’s Gallery interpretive area and the ability to view the dam from the 

river near the base of the dam. Covered picnic tables are provided near the parking 

area. The Visitor’s Gallery, located at the entrance to the underground powerhouse, 

contains interpretive displays which explain the construction and operation of the 

facilities. Public restrooms are also provided in the Visitor’s Gallery.

The Metaline Waterfront Park Boat Launch is located in the community of 

Metaline on the western shore of Boundary reservoir. Portions of this park lie within 

the project boundary including the boat launch and boarding float, covered picnic tables, 

playground equipment, pedestrian bridge and a segment of the access road. The 

majority of the park is managed by the Town of Metaline via an easement granted to the 

community157 by Seattle, with the boarding float being the only facility maintained by 

Seattle.

The Vista House Recreation Area is located immediately downstream of 

Boundary dam on a bluff overlooking the eastern bank of the Pend Oreille River and the 

dam. The site was built to provide a safe place for the public to view dam construction. 

The Vista House provides an indoor area for visitors to enjoy scenic views of the project 

and surrounding areas as well as the opportunity to learn about the natural and cultural 

resources of the region through interpretive displays. A path to a wooden observation 

platform lower on the bluff provides outdoor views, and additional interpretive signs are 

located along the path. Restrooms with flush toilets are provided in the Vista House.

The recently authorized Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail extends from 

Northern Montana through Colville National Forest to the Olympic Peninsula. Within 

the project boundary, the trail crosses through the Vista House Recreation Area and 

over Boundary dam. Due to security concerns, hikers are escorted across the dam by 

Seattle staff.

Recreation Use

Seattle conducted surveys of recreation visitors on selected sampling days 

between May 19, 2007 and October 31, 2007, representing the peak recreation season at 

the project. Visitor use was estimated using a visitor registry at the Vista House 

Recreation Area, a visitor log at the Tailrace Recreation Area, and visitor counts in 

 

157 FERC order granting change in land rights issued May 17, 1976.
257

conjunction with interviews conducted throughout the remainder of the project area (see 

Table 3-19). A variety of recreation pursuits were documented at the project through 

on-site interviews with visitors and mail-back questionnaires from local residents. The 

primary activities identified by visitors and area residents were quite similar, with 

viewing scenery, fishing, motor boating, developed camping, swimming, and 

canoeing/kayaking representing the most frequently reported activities pursued at the 

Project (see Table 3-20).

Table 3-19. Recreation use by project area (Source: Seattle 2009, as modified by staff)

Facility/Resource Estimated Annual Use

(Recreation Days)

Vista House Recreation Area 2,200

Tailrace Recreation Area 2,400

Forebay Recreation Area – Day Use 1,900

Forebay Recreation Area – Campground 4,600

BLM Boundary Recreation Area 100

Metaline Waterfront Park (Reservoir-based use) 1,800

Box Canyon Boat Launch 600

Dispersed Campsites along the reservoir shore 400

Private Shoreline Use Areas 1,000

Total Project-Related Use 15,000

Table 3-20. Primary recreation activity for visitors and area residents at Boundary 

reservoir (Source: Seattle 2009, as modified by staff).

Primary Recreation 

Activity

Visitors

(N=589)

Area Residents

(N=278)

Viewing Scenery 16% 17%

Fishing 16% 14%

Developed Camping 10% 5%

Swimming 9% 8%

Canoeing/Kayaking 8% 4%

Motor boating 8% 15%

Socializing 7%

Picnicking 3% 6%

Day hiking 3% 2%

Traveling SR 31 2%

Dispersed camping 2%

Hunting 1% 3%
258

3.8.1.2 Sullivan Creek Project

Sullivan Lake provides opportunities for fishing, boating, camping, swimming, 

hiking, paddling, water skiing, ice fishing, scuba diving, and wildlife observation. The 

Forest Service manages four campgrounds at the reservoir: East Sullivan Campground 

with 38 camping/RV sites, bathrooms, picnic area, boat launch, and a swim area; West 

Sullivan Campground provides similar amenities with 10 camping/RV sites; Sullivan 

Lake Group Campground which can accommodate 50 people and provides bathrooms, a 

swim area, boat launch, and RV dump station; and Noisy Creek Group Campground 

with analogous facilities. Four developed trails are also located at Sullivan Lake.

The Mill Pond area includes the following recreation facilities: 1) campground 

with ten sites and an informal boat launch; 2) loop trail around the pond which links to 

other trails; 3) picnic area; and 4) historic interpretive display. 

Sullivan Creek downstream of Mill Pond provides a unique whitewater boating 

opportunity in the region. During the typically dryer fall months, drawdown flows from 

Sullivan Lake provide challenging whitewater for experienced paddlers. 

The District does not own or operate any recreation facilities.

Recreation use at Sullivan Lake and Mill Pond occurs primarily between midMay and Labor Day. As reported by Forest Service concessioners, Forest Service 

campgrounds at Sullivan Lake and Mill Pond were nearly full (93 and 83 percent 

occupancy, respectively) during high use weekends, and averaged about half full 

throughout the recreation season (54 and 34 percent occupancy, respectively) (Forest 

Service 2008).

Recreation use at Sullivan Lake is concentrated at the shoreline and boat launch 

areas. Sullivan Lake is popular for boat fishing, water skiing, personal watercraft, 

kayaking, and canoeing. Fishing activity is for rainbow, German Brown, cutthroat, 

Kokanee, and ling cod (Burbot). Mill Pond day use activity is concentrated at the Mill 

Pond Historic site where visitors can see remnants of the early 1900’s hydroelectric 

project (Forest Service 2008). Accessible, interpretive trail #520 loops through the 

historic site. There is also a low level of day use boating activity and use of the small 

lake for fishing (rainbow, German brown, eastern brook, and Kokanee). Day users 

include those using the lake, viewing the scenery, picnicking, hiking, and visiting 

historic sites.

3.8.2 Environmental Effects

3.8.2.1 Boundary Project

Project Operations

Existing project operations cause the project reservoir to fluctuate primarily 

between elevations of 1,994 feet and 1,974 feet, about 20 feet. Such fluctuations 

negatively affect recreation opportunities, recreational experiences, and use of existing 
259

boat ramps. In a survey of area residents, 54 percent reported problems or concerns 

about water conditions, including the effect of water surface elevations on their ability 

to safely launch or retrieve boats.

To facilitate reservoir access for recreational activities, Seattle would continue to 

maintain forebay water surface elevations at or above 1,984 feet from 6:00 am through 

8:00 pm from Memorial Day weekend (starting Friday evening) through Labor Day 

weekend (ending Monday evening). Night time forebay water surface elevations during 

this time frame would be maintained at or above elevation 1,982. Interior recommends 

that Seattle continue its operational practices to facilitate recreational access. The 

Forest Service Condition 3(1) requires Seattle to continue the operational limits from 

Memorial Day to Labor Day.

Staff Analysis

Seattle’s restrictions on reservoir fluctuations during the summer limit the 

adverse effects on recreational access, particularly in the lower reservoir. Because no 

changes in project operations are proposed, boating access to shoreline recreation 

amenities in the forebay and canyon reaches would continue to decrease as the water 

level recedes and the effect of reservoir fluctuations on the public’s recreational 

experience would not change from current conditions.

Extending the existing boat ramp at Forebay Recreation Area ten horizontal feet 

and one vertical foot, as proposed by Seattle, would provide three foot water depth 

above the toe of the ramp at elevation 1,984 feet. Similarly, the planned upgrade of the 

boat ramp at Metaline Waterfront Park would provide three foot water depth above the 

toe of the ramp at 1,988 (water levels remain higher in this portion of the reservoir due 

to the natural constriction at Metaline Falls). The boat launch improvements would

increase public access to project waters and enhance recreation experiences. 

Construction of the proposed Metaline Falls Portage Trail and Boater Access would 

improve boater access around Metaline Falls, further off-setting adverse affects 

associated with changing water levels associated with project operations.

Shoreline Management Program

Seattle proposes to develop a Shoreline Management Program (SMP). Its

program is an element of the Terrestrial Resources Management Plan (TRMP). Seattle 

would identify, define, and map appropriate shoreline land use designations, develop 

and implement guidelines for permitting private and public (non-federal) shoreline 

development, manage debris accumulation and removal, and create and implement a 

project public safety and education program. The project public safety and education 

program would assess potential public safety, interpretation, and education needs and 

concerns on project lands and waters and develop actions to address those needs and 

concerns. The SMP would be developed in conjunction with Pend Oreille County and 

Ecology to assure that the plan is consistent with the state’s shoreline management act 
260

and the county’s shoreline master program. Seattle would coordinate with the Forest 

Service and BLM regarding actions affecting federal lands. 

Staff Analysis

Although the shoreline of Boundary reservoir is relatively undeveloped to date, 

the county population is expected to increase 20 percent by 2024158. Higher populations 

may lead to increased pressure for shoreline development. Through implementation of 

the SMP, Seattle would be proactive in the establishment of land use designations which 

would help educate current and future landowners regarding appropriate shoreline 

development. Clearly defined land use designations and permitting procedures should 

provide the tools necessary for Seattle to manage future development pressures and 

protect shoreline resources. The SMP also calls for the timely removal of shoreline 

debris which is likely to enhance the recreational experience of visitors. The project 

public safety and education program would likely enhance visitor experiences by 

addressing safety issues and increasing understanding of the project as well as the 

natural and cultural resources in the project vicinity.

Recreation Resources Management Plan

Seattle filed a Recreation Resources Management Plan (RRMP) that includes the 

following programs: (1) a capital improvements program which highlights proposed 

recreation facilities during the first decade following license issuance and guides the 

level of development at each site; (2) an operations and maintenance (O&M) program 

which specifies the recreation facilities for which Seattle is taking responsibility, 

establishes O&M standards for those facilities, and identifies the recreation season 

during which the facilities will be open to the public; (3) a shoreline dispersed 

recreation management program which establishes guidance regarding the management, 

development and use of dispersed recreation sites along the reservoir shoreline; (4) a 

recreation monitoring program which describes standards for visitor use capacity, social 

capacity, and biophysical capacity to facilitate desired recreational experiences; (5) a 

travel and public access management plan which addresses the need to provide adequate 

operational access to project facilities, to manage public access for safety and security 

reasons, and to ensure adequate public access to recreation use areas and facilities; and 

(6) the development of an interpretation and education program to create an overall 

theme for the project and to identify appropriate locations for interpretation and 

education opportunities. Forest Service Condition 3(5) requires implementation of the 

Recreation Management Plan.

We discuss each program below.

Capital Facility Improvements Program—The capital facilities improvements 

program includes proposed locations, conceptual layouts, and descriptions for 

 

158 Washington State Growth Management Projections for Counties 2000-2030, 

see http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/projections07.asp
261

developed recreation facilities. Some of the measures are modifications to existing 

project recreation facilities; others require development of new project recreation sites 

and use areas (table 3-21). The development categories range from 0 to 5, with a higher 

number reflecting an increased level of site impact. These categories would be used to 

guide the intensity of recreation facility development over the course of the next license. 

Additionally the capital improvements planned during the first decade of the new 

license term are specified and design guidelines159 are proposed to reduce the aesthetic 

impacts of recreation facility development on the landscape. Finally, accessibility, 

operations, and maintenance issues are addressed in the capital improvements program.

Table 3-21. Project recreation site capital improvements (Source: Seattle 2010).

Area/Site Development 

Level

Planned Improvements

Vista House 

Recreation Area 

(existing)

Level 5 • Add I&E signage and/or other opportunities at 

the overlook platform.

• Provide ADA-accessible parking, vault toilet, 

and pathways that connect ADA-accessible 

facilities.

Peewee Falls 

Viewpoint and 

Trail (new)

Level 3 to 4 • Extend existing NFS road 3165315, as needed, 

and develop a new trailhead at the end of the road, 

a trail, and a view point of Peewee Falls (the 

trailhead, trail, and viewpoint would be ADAaccessible). Develop appropriate support 

facilities, including ADA-accessible parking, 

vault toilet, and signage.

Tailrace Recreation 

Area/Machine Hall 

Visitors’ Gallery 

(existing)

Level 5 • Update I&E signage and displays at the Machine 

Hall Visitors’ Gallery (see I&E Program) (the 

extent of upgrades at this site will be consistent 

with the level of anticipated use; security 

restrictions contribute to low use levels).

• Provide ADA-accessible parking, vault toilets, 

and pathways that connect ADA-accessible 

facilities.

 

159 The Rocky Mountain Province elements of the guidebook entitled Built 

Environment Image Guide for National Forests and Grasslands were adopted for use at 

the Boundary project. 
262

Area/Site Development 

Level

Planned Improvements

Forebay Recreation 

Area (existing)

Level 5 • Enhance campground facilities at this site: 

increase the number of designated recreation 

vehicle (RV) and tent campsites (phased – up to 

approximately 24 total), better delineate 

campsites, provide appropriate signage, use

vegetation and/or other site features (e.g., rocks) 

to create separation between campsites and day 

use picnic sites, and limit vehicle access to roads 

and parking areas.

• Enhance day use picnic sites with signage, 

improved access, and separation from campsites.

• Provide additional I&E signage and/or other 

opportunities (see I&E Program).

• Extend an existing boat ramp lane so that boats 

may be launched/retrieved during the primary 

recreation season (Memorial Day weekend to 

Labor Day weekend) without problems due to 

fluctuating reservoir water surface elevations. 

Provide adequate parking, signage, and circulation 

at the boat launch.

• Provide ADA-accessible parking, restrooms, 

boarding float, picnic sites, campsites, and 

pathways that connect ADA-accessible facilities.

Riverside Mine 

Canyon Viewpoint 

and Trail (new)

Level 3 to 4 • Develop a new trail and trailhead in the vicinity 

of the Riverside Mine to a viewpoint of the 

canyon. The trail alignment would take advantage 

of the existing NFS road network in this area 

(specifically NFS Road 3100172), and trailhead, 

trail, and viewpoint would be ADA-accessible.

• Develop appropriate support facilities, including 

ADA-accessible parking, vault toilet, and signage.

Eastside Trail 

(new)

Level 2 to 3 • Construct an Eastside Trail (to Forest Service

standards) that connects the Peewee Falls and 

Riverside Mine Canyon viewpoints. The trail 

would be designed and managed to meet semi-
263

Area/Site Development 

Level

Planned Improvements

primitive non-motorized standards.

• New trail will take advantage of trailhead 

facilities at both the Peewee Falls and Riverside 

Mine Canyon trailheads.

• Seattle would not groom the trail during the

cross-country skiing season.

Metaline Falls 

Portage Trail and 

Boater Access 

(new)

Level 3 to 4 • Develop a new portage trail in the vicinity of the 

falls to provide non-motorized boaters an 

alternative to avoiding or running the rapids at the 

falls.

• Construct a non-motorized boat access at the 

northern terminus of the portage trail. The nonmotorized boat access will include parking, 

appropriate signage, and restrooms.

• Provide I&E signage.

Metaline 

Waterfront Park

Boat Launch 

(existing)

Level 5 • Replace the existing boat launch and extend a 

boat ramp lane so that boats may be 

launched/retrieved during the primary recreation 

season (Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day

weekend) without problems due to fluctuating 

reservoir water surface elevations.

• Provide adequate gravel roadway access to the 

boat ramp, improved circulation and parking for 

single vehicles and vehicles with trailers, and 

other boat launch support facilities (e.g., signage, 

boarding float).

• Provide ADA-accessible parking, boarding float, 

and pathways that connect ADA-accessible 

facilities.

• Provide an accessible dual vault restroom in the 

vicinity of the boat launch parking area or 

potentially combine this new facility with a new, 

larger upgraded park restroom facility (location 

undefined) developed in coordination with the

Town of Metaline.
264

Staff Analysis

The specific recreation facilities proposed for development (each addressed 

separately below) would combine to provide a diverse spectrum of recreation 

opportunities for visitors to the project that is consistent with existing and anticipated 

use. The Commission encourages the use of universal design principles, whenever 

possible, to expand recreational opportunities to a broader cross section of the general 

public. Seattle’s efforts would be consistent with Commission policy.

Forebay Recreation Area

The Forebay Recreation Area is the most heavily developed and used recreation 

area at the project. Camping in this area meets or exceeds capacity on occasion, with 

campers expanding into day use areas. Additionally recreation survey respondents 

identified a need for more camping facilities and improved boat launching facilities. 

The planned upgrades at the Forebay Recreation Area would accommodate growing 

use, enhance visitor experiences, and protect natural and cultural resources at the site.

Vista House Recreation Area

The Vista House was developed to provide a sheltered location for a curious 

public to watch construction of the dam and excavation of a cavern for the powerhouse. 

The structure continues to serve as a scenic viewpoint and it houses a variety of 

interpretive displays. The Vista House Recreation Area provides an easily accessible 

location for people traveling on the International Selkirk Loop Scenic Drive to see 

project facilities and stretch their legs. The overlook platform provides a good 

opportunity to educate visitors about the project as well as the natural, cultural and 

historic resources of the area. The development of accessible facilities would allow a 

broader cross section of the population to enjoy the amenities.

Tailrace Recreation Area

Public access to the Tailrace Recreation Area, which also provides employee 

parking for the powerhouse, is limited. Due to enhanced security, all visitors must pass 

through a secure checkpoint and the site is open only during specified hours. The 

underground visitor’s center provides an overview of project operations and allows 

visitors to see the turbine room. While visitors enjoy seeing inside the project 

powerhouse, the interpretive elements in the Machine Hall Visitors’ Gallery are in need 

of updating. Seattle’s proposal to modernize the signs and displays would enhance 

visitor experience at the Tailrace Recreation Area. 

Metaline Falls Portage Trail and Boater Access

Due to project operations, water levels can change enough in this portion of the 

reservoir to make traversing the falls hazardous to some boaters. When combined with 

high river flows, the falls become impassible. Seattle’s summer operating regime 

reduces the variability in water levels. Even with the operational constraints some 

paddlers do not wish to challenge their skills by floating through the falls. Over half of 
265

the residents and one tenth of the visitors responding to the recreation resource survey 

noted concerns regarding water conditions, including navigating Metaline Falls. 

Development of the proposed portage trail around Metaline Falls as well as a 

non-motorized boat access with parking, signage, and restrooms at the northern 

terminus of the new trail would provide an alternative to those non-motorized boaters 

that prefer not to run the falls. Establishing a new boat access point would also allow 

non-motorized boaters a convenient place to launch boats for treks either through the 

narrow canyon reach or to the upper reservoir reach of Boundary reservoir. 

Currently no public access point to the reservoir exists between Metaline 

Waterfront Park and Forebay Recreation Area. The proposed facilities would enhance 

public access to project waters, provide restroom facilities near the shoreline for boaters, 

and make available the first water access point on the east side of the reservoir.

East Side Viewpoints and Trails

While much of the land between Highway 31 and the eastern shore of the canyon 

reach is public (managed by the Forest Service), recreation amenities are limited. 

Seattle proposes the development of two viewpoints, with associated parking and access 

trails, overlooking natural features in this scenic area of the project. The most northerly 

viewpoint, which would focus on Peewee Falls, would be accessed off the forest road 

leading to the Vista House (FR 3165-000). Forest Road 3165-329 would be upgraded 

and a trailhead would be developed to include accessible parking and an accessible 

vault toilet. An accessible trail, approximately 750 feet in length would be constructed 

to an accessible viewpoint with interpretive elements overlooking Peewee Falls. A 

second viewpoint with similar facilities would be developed approximately four miles 

upriver off of FR 3100-172. Additionally, Seattle proposes the construction of the 

Eastside Trail to extend along the rim of the canyon reach from the Peewee Falls 

Viewpoint to the Riverside Mine Canyon Viewpoint for a distance of approximately six 

miles. 

The two viewpoints would provide visitors without boats the opportunity to 

glimpse portions of the canyon reach and experience a section of the reservoir that is not 

visible from the existing paved road network. The Eastside trail would link the two 

viewpoints and create the first opportunity for long distance hiking at the project. The 

Washington Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (WA SCORP)160

supports the development of trails to enhance opportunities for physical activity and 

improve overall public health. The WA SCORP also reports that 73percent of 

Washingtonians reported participation in walking/hiking, and prefer to walk on unpaved 

paths and sidewalks. The Forest Service identified a local interest in developing a 

 

160 Defining and Measuring Success: The Role of State Government in Outdoor 

Recreation – A Statewide Outdoor Recreation Planning Document (2008). Washington 

State Recreation and Conservation Office, Olympia, WA.
266

broader trail network in the area161. These facilities would help meet the local and 

regional need for trails and expand the range of recreational opportunities currently 

available at the project, thus enhancing the experience of visitors.

Metaline Waterfront Park Boat Launch

The Town of Metaline’s Waterfront Park provides a wide range of recreational 

opportunities for town residents. Although a variety of the park’s recreation amenities 

fall within the project boundary, only the boarding float at the boat ramp is considered 

to be a project recreation facility and thus maintained by Seattle. Through the 

relicensing process Seattle agreed to upgrade the boat ramp and dredge a channel 

leading to the toe of the ramp, in order to improve circulation and parking for vehicles 

with and without trailers (including the addition of accessible parking), to develop an 

accessible dual vault toilet, to add an accessible boarding float and to create pathways 

linking accessible facilities. 

The development of new recreation facilities at Metaline Waterfront Park would

expand the variety of recreation opportunities for visitors to the project, as well as for 

Metaline residents. Extending the boat ramp and dredging a channel to the toe of the 

ramp would enable boaters to launch and retrieve boats without having to worry about 

fluctuating reservoir levels due to project operations. The new parking area and 

upgraded ramp would accommodate a wider variety of vehicles and watercraft. 

Schedule of Facility Capital Improvements

All of the recreation facility capital improvement measures would be completed 

during the first 10 years following license issuance.162 The schedule was developed in 

coordination with other project-related construction projects to maximize efficiency and 

minimize disturbance to recreation visitors and area residents. Appendix 7 of the 

recreation plan provides an approximate schedule and estimated costs for currently 

planned recreation capital improvements. The schedule for completing the proposed 

capital improvement projects assigns a priority to the measures as years 3 to 5, 6 to 7, or 

8 to 10 of the license. To facilitate Commission oversight of the license, a more 

definitive schedule should be provided and the improvements should not extend past the 

latter date for each priority to ensure that the recreational amenities are timely 

completed. 

Seattle would communicate and document any updates, if needed, including the 

schedule and estimated costs, on an annual basis as a component of the annual 

 

161 Preliminary 4(e) Terms and Conditions, Justification Statements, and 

Comments on the Boundary Hydroelectric Project (P-2144), submitted August 24, 2010 

by USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.

162 Appendix 7 of the recreation plan provides an approximate schedule for 

developing the projects and lists estimated costs for currently planned recreation capital 

improvements.
267

recreation report and work plan process, which would be filed with the Commission. 

Schedules and costs associated with potential future recreation facility capital 

improvement projects that result from monitoring would be documented during the 

annual recreation report and work plan process which would provide the Commission a 

mechanism for determining the need for additional measures.

Recreation Facility Operations and Maintenance Program—Seattle would 

operate and maintain the following project developed recreation sites: Vista House 

Recreation Area, Peewee Falls Viewpoint and Trail, Tailrace Recreation Area/Machine 

Hall Visitors’ Gallery, Forebay Recreation Area Riverside Mine Canyon Viewpoint and 

Trail, Eastside Trail, Metaline Falls Portage Trail and Boater Access site, and Metaline 

Waterfront Park Boat Launch (the boat launch and boarding float only). Seattle would

routinely maintain these recreation sites and use areas for public use during the primary

recreation season (Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend). At those 

recreation sites located on non-Seattle owned lands (but within the project boundary), 

Seattle would coordinate O&M efforts with the appropriate landowner to ensure 

consistent O&M standards and frequencies. For example, Seattle’s O&M standards and 

frequencies at the new Riverside Mine Canyon Viewpoint and Trail would be consistent 

with applicable Forest Service O&M standards. O&M standards and frequencies would

be reviewed and revised, if needed (in particular to acknowledge changes in Forest 

Service, BLM, or other applicable O&M standards), during the new license term. Any 

changes would be documented and reviewed during the annual review process.

Staff Analysis

Seattle’s O&M schedule would include the majority of the high use recreation 

seasons and would maximize recreational benefits at the existing project facilities. 

Shoreline Dispersed Recreation Management Program—The Shoreline 

Dispersed Recreation Management Plan establishes a method to formalize 16 dispersed 

recreation sites along the reservoir and to rehabilitate any sites found in environmentally 

sensitive or otherwise unsuitable areas. Although only 1.7 percent of respondents to the 

visitor survey identified dispersed camping as the primary reason for their visit to the 

project, it is unknown how many people utilize the dispersed sites for day or overnight 

purposes. When asked about their satisfaction with boat-in campsites respondents 

provided the second lowest response163 for all facilities at the project, with only RV 

hook-ups/facilities scoring lower. 

In an effort to increase visitor satisfaction, six dispersed recreation sites located 

on federal lands (site 2 (BLM recreation area), 4 (Ledbetter Cove), 7 (Deadman’s 

Eddy), 12 (Lime Creek), 13 (Monument Bar), and 14 (Wolf Creek)) would be 

 

163 Mean response of 3.57 on a 5-point scale with 1 = “not at all satisfied” and 5 

= “extremely satisfied.”
268

minimally developed through the addition of fire rings, picnic tables, tent pads, 

watercraft landing sites, bulletin boards and primitive sanitation systems.

Staff Analysis 

Multiple areas along the reservoir shoreline are used for dispersed recreation 

activities (e.g., camping, shoreline fishing, day use, etc.). These areas tend to be 

characterized by easy shoreline access (via watercraft) and relatively flat topography. 

To a great degree, use in the lower reservoir has been established where topography 

allows shoreline access. In the upper reservoir area, in addition to topography, a key 

constraint to dispersed recreation use along the shoreline is private land ownership. 

Given these conditions, it is not anticipated that a large number of additional dispersed 

recreation sites will be established during the new license period.

At the present time, the focus of the Shoreline Dispersed Recreation 

Management Program is on the 16 shoreline sites that have already been established and 

deemed suitable. Six sites would be improved to accommodate existing usage. 

Enhancements would be minimal to both provide a continued rustic experience and to

protect sensitive resources. The remaining 10 designated dispersed shoreline recreation 

sites would remain undeveloped and monitored. This would help protect and provide 

for the desired visitor experience at these sites. These sites would be improved as 

needed.

Seattle’s approach would reduce environmental effects at dispersed shoreline

recreation sites and enhance recreational experiences for most visitors. Those visitors 

desiring a more rustic experience will likely seek out or create sites without amenities. 

Seattle will monitor the shoreline to limit the proliferation of such sites to no more than 

10 percent of the managed dispersed sites during any six year monitoring cycle.

Recreation Monitoring Program—In order to track recreation impacts, use 

levels, and user perceptions over time, Seattle proposes to implement a recreation 

monitoring program which would assess visitor use capacity, social capacity, and 

biophysical capacity. Recreation site capacity, reservoir surface capacity, and dispersed 

recreation sites would be assessed every six years, while perceived crowding and 

conflict would be evaluated on a 12 year cycle. Litter and sanitation issues would be 

tracked on an ongoing basis as Seattle staff visit recreation facilities. Results of the 

monitoring efforts would be reported annually for litter or sanitation issues and in 

conjunction with FERC Form 80 submissions for the less frequent monitoring 

initiatives. The monitoring program developed by Seattle would provide data to inform 

future management decisions regarding recreation facility operations, maintenance and 

development.

Staff Analysis

Seattle’s monitoring approach would use defined indicators and standards 

commonly used by the recreation industry to identify changing resource needs and 
269

perceptions. This approach would ensure regular evaluation and revision of the 

recreation plan to accommodate increasing and changing use patterns in the area.

Travel and Public Access Management Program—The Boundary Project is 

located in an area with sparse road infrastructure, thus access to project facilities, lands 

and waters can be challenging. The travel and public access management plan identifies 

12 roads necessary to gain access to project facilities and areas needed for operations 

and maintenance. Either a portion or all of the roads were identified as being needed for 

project purposes including six for project operations, three for access to project 

recreation facilities, and three to serve both functions. 

Staff Analysis

No additional roads were identified that were needed primarily or solely for 

project purposes. Maintaining the identified roads would allow the public to access the 

existing and planned recreation facilities, and Seattle to maintain and operate the 

project. 

Multiple Resource Interpretation and Education Program—A draft Interpretation 

and Education (I&E) framework is provided in the recreation plan. Seattle proposes to 

file a final program within three years of license issuance for Commission approval. 

The purpose of the I&E Program is to provide enhanced experiences for visitors, 

encourage participation in multi-resource protection measures by area visitors, and 

promote cooperative, safe behaviors to benefit all project area resources and visitors. 

The focus of the I&E Program is primarily on project area resources, although it may 

contain broader, regional themes and messages. The potential I&E theme, subthemes, 

topics, and messages may include the following: wayfinding, water trail, 

cultural/historical resources, scenic byway, geologic resources, renewable energy, dam 

engineering, terrestrial resources, fish and aquatic resources, visitor management and 

rules, and Project operations and public safety. In addition, the I&E Program would

identify media (e.g., signs, brochures, internet, etc.), sites, and services (e.g., tours) to be 

provided during the new license term.

Staff Analysis

The preliminary framework would likely achieve the stated goals and objectives. 

However, without further details on the location, media, and themes, staff can not fully 

evaluate the benefits. These details are best developed in coordination with the fishery 

and wildlife programs that are being further refined following license issuance. 

3.8.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project

Removal of Mill Pond Dam

The proposed license surrender conditions submitted by the Forest Service 

include the removal of Mill Pond dam. A variety of recreation facilities have been 

developed around the pond including a campground with ten sites, an informal boat 

launch, trails, and a day use area. Mill pond is readily accessible off of a paved road 
270

and provides an uncommon opportunity to recreate at a small water body. Removal of 

Mill Pond would eliminate some recreational opportunities and alter others.

Staff Analysis

Removal of Mill Pond dam would displace recreational visitors that currently 

walk on the trail around the pond, camp next to the pond, boat in the pond, or fish in the 

pond. Removal of the pond and restoration of Sullivan Creek would extend the reach of 

the river open to paddlers and stream fishing. The existing camping and day use 

facilities would continue to provide access to the creek. Individuals seeking the 

recreational opportunities displaced by dam removal should be able to find substitutable 

locations nearby within the Colville National Forest.

Reservoir Level Operations

During September and October discharge flows from Sullivan Lake are to be 

managed, to the extent consistent with other temperature, flow, and water supply 

constraints, to provide discharge flows between 180 and 220 cfs on at least three 

weekends to support whitewater paddling. Additionally, discharge flows would be 

forecasted and posted online one week in advance to provide advance notice to 

paddlers. Reservoir operations may reduce the functionality of some existing docks and 

boat ramps on Sullivan Lake. The District has agreed to conduct an assessment of 

proposed reservoir level operations on these facilities and take steps to mitigate any 

impacts, such that Sullivan Lake docks and ramps would be fully functional across the 

agreed range of project summer operations prior to beginning the new operational 

changes. Improvements to any Forest Service facilities would meet Forest Service

standards and be approved by the Forest Service.

Staff Analysis

Whitewater paddling has been documented below Mill Pond dam on Sullivan

Creek (Marti, 1996). American Whitewater stated that boatable flows now occur in 

October and November and that the proposed discharge flows would move those flows 

to September and October, which would be better for paddlers (Colburn, 2010). Stream 

rehabilitation would yield a longer reach of Sullivan Creek available to paddlers, thus 

enhancing their recreation experience. We concur.

Under existing operations, the reservoir is drawdown starting October 1, after the 

primary recreation season, and starts refilling in February to reach full pool (2,588.66

feet) by June 1. Proposed operations would begin the fall drawdown about one month 

earlier, but still after the close of the typical recreation season and the high recreation 

use period. The recreation experience of the few cabin owners and others using the lake 

during this period would diminish relative to current operations.

Under current operations, the reservoir does not always reach full pool (2,588.66

feet) by June 1. The District’s modeling of lake elevations for the last 11 years 

indicates that the average date of reaching full pool was June 20; full pool was not 

reached in three dry years (District, 2009b). 
271

The District modeled the effect of its proposed minimum discharge flows and 

holding the reservoir at elevation 2,570 during the winter months over an 11-year time 

frame that included three average years, six dry years, and two wet years

(District, 2010). The modeling analysis shows that under the proposed higher minimum 

discharge flows, the reservoir reaches full pool by June 1 in 3 out of the 11 years 

modeled; and it reaches full pool no later than June 28. The average date for attaining 

full pool is June 9. Holding the reservoir five feet higher in the winter substantially

improves the District’s ability to attain a full pool by June 1.

Not obtaining full pool by the beginning of the typical summer recreation season

and maintaining full pool could adversely affect use of some boat docks and ramps. 

The record does not identify how many ramps or docks exist on the reservoir, their state 

of repair, or at what levels they would become unusable. The District did not model the 

water supply flows, but our review of the average annual flow in Outlet Creek relative 

to proposed releases for the water supply program, indicates that the proposed releases

are typically being spilled during the summer recreation season in most years. 

Therefore, there likely would not be any effect on reservoir levels, except in the driest 

years. Regardless, the District’s proposed corrective measures would ensure that the 

existing docks and ramps would continue to be useable under the proposed operations. 

Therefore, the District’s proposed Sullivan Lake operations are expected to have only a 

minor effect on recreation use.

3.9 LAND USE AND AESTHETICS

3.9.1 Affected Environment

3.9.1.1 Boundary Project

Land Use

Much of the land within the Project vicinity is currently undeveloped, with more 

than two-thirds (67.6 percent) defined as open space. Of this open space, forested land 

accounts for 48.9 percent, and wetlands and reservoirs account for 14.5 percent. 

Developed land uses comprise 30.3 percent of the project vicinity. The largest 

developed land use category is timber production, with more than 3,200 acres (24.2 

percent), followed by agricultural and mining activities, representing more than 232.6 

acres (1.7 percent) and 216.5 acres (1.6 percent), respectively. Hydropower facilities 

account for 74 acres (0.5 percent), while transmission lines for those facilities cover 

198.1 acres (1.5 percent) in the project vicinity. Residential land uses cover 183 acres 

(1.4 percent), while commercial uses cover a total of only 16.5 acres (0.1 percent). The 

majority of residential uses and all of the commercial activities are focused in and 

around the towns of Metaline and Metaline Falls. An additional 41 acres (0.3 percent) 

in the Project vicinity are devoted to public recreation sites. 

Downstream of Boundary dam, forested open space accounts for more than 56 

percent of the portion of the project vicinity from the dam to the U.S.-Canada border. 
272

Boundary dam and its associated facilities account for the only other land uses in this 

portion of the project vicinity, with project facilities and transmission lines covering 

62.5 acres. There are no residential, commercial, or agricultural activities in this portion 

of the project vicinity.

Land ownership patterns adjacent to Boundary Reservoir are a mixture of public 

and private ownership. North of Metaline Falls, the reservoir shoreline is a mixture of 

private (Seattle), state, and federal ownership, with a large portion of the eastern 

shoreline falling within the Colville National Forest, managed by the Forest Service. 

The BLM, Spokane District, manages a large area along the western shoreline. The 

portion of the reservoir shoreline south of Metaline Falls is predominantly in private 

ownership, with some Forest Service lands along the eastern shoreline. 

The total land area within the project boundary is 2,719.7 acres. The Federal 

government owns approximately 34.5 percent of this total, with Forest Service lands 

within the Colville National Forest accounting for 609.24 acres and lands owned by the 

BLM accounting for 329.35 acres. The remaining land is owned by Seattle City Light, 

state, county, city, and private entities. 

There are approximately 41 roads in the broader project vicinity, with 12 of those 

roads being used or proposed for use for project-related purposes. The roads are 

managed by the Forest Service, BPA, Seattle, and private users. Approximately 3 miles 

of the project-related roads are paved; the remaining miles are dirt or crushed rock, and 

bordered by native or naturalized vegetation.

Aesthetic Resources

The project is located within the Pend Oreille River valley bounded on the east 

by the Selkirk Mountains and on the west by the Chewelah Mountains. The landscape 

character varies from a narrow canyon with steep walls to a broader river valley with 

expansive views. In addition to the mining, logging and power industries, some rural 

development has impacted the natural scenery. Public access to Boundary reservoir is 

limited due to topography and land ownership.

As part of the relicensing process, an assessment of the aesthetic environment 

was conducted at various locations within the project vicinity where opportunities for 

scenic vistas of project features exist (Tetra Tech, 2009). The study employed protocols 

developed by the Forest Service (Scenery Management System), BLM (Visual 

Resource Management), and the Corps of Engineers (Visual Resources Assessment 

Procedure) to create a visual conditions form to record aesthetic data at Key 

Observation Points (KOP). Scenic integrity ratings were established for each of the 

eight land-based and five water-based KOPs. 
273

The land-based KOPs were found to have either moderate or low overall scenic 

integrity.164 KOPs at the Vista House and Tailrace Recreation Areas were found to 

have low scenic integrity due to the prevalence of man-made structures within the 

altered landscape. The remaining six land-based KOPs were rated slightly higher due to 

a greater degree of landscape integrity and less dominant man-made structures. 

The overall scenic integrity ratings for the water-based KOPs ranged from low to 

high. Only the Boundary reservoir forebay was identified as having low scenic 

integrity, due to the presence of the dam and other project facilities. The upper 

Boundary reservoir KOPs at Metaline Pool and Wolf Creek were found to have 

moderate scenic integrity because man-made structures were less prevalent in the 

viewshed and the landscape contained a variety of natural features. The KOPs with 

high scenic integrity were those with the most dramatic natural features such as Peewee

Falls or sheer rock cliffs abutting a narrow reservoir channel.

In addition to the scenic integrity analysis, Seattle also included questions 

regarding visual quality at the project in the recreation studies conducted as part of the 

relicensing process. A majority of respondents reported seeing project features while 

pursuing recreational activities in the project vicinity, with half of those individuals 

indicating that the views enhanced their experience (40 percent indicating the presence 

of project features had no impact on their experience).

For all future recreation facility capital improvements and renovations Seattle 

plans to use the Built Environment Image Guide for National Forests and Grasslands as 

guidance in order to protect the aesthetic character of the area.

3.9.1.2 Sullivan Creek Project

The project boundary includes all of Sullivan Lake, Mill Pond and Outlet Creek 

as well as portions of Sullivan and Harvey Creeks. The existing project boundary 

encompasses about 1,873 acres, of which 522 acres fall within the Colville National 

Forest. The remaining lands within the project boundary are owned by the District or 

privately owned. The area in the project vicinity is owned and managed by a 

combination of the Colville National Forest, Pend Oreille County, the District, the State 

of Washington and private parties. The lands in the project area are primarily managed 

for recreation, timber harvest, and wildlife management, with jurisdiction for 

management activities falling under the Colville National Forest and Pend Oreille 

County. 

 

164 The scenic integrity was ranked on a 6-point scale ranging from “very high” 

to “unacceptably low.”
274

3.9.2 Environmental Effects

3.9.2.1 Boundary Project

Project Boundary Modifications

The original project boundary was based on the line of ordinary high water as 

observed by surveyors in 1967. In 2009, the surveyed line of ordinary high water 

differed from this original line, resulting in a project boundary that now varies from 40 

feet to 440 feet from the ordinary high water line. The original 200-foot buffer was 

designed to provide a level of safety for nearby mining operations. 

Seattle proposes to bring new project habitat lands and lands required for project 

operations into the project boundary. These lands include: (i) the 100-acre Operations 

and Maintenance Support Area, (ii) the 149-acre Boundary Wildlife Preserve (BWP) 

and adjacent 89-acre parcel (the BWP Addition); (iii) the portions of the Tailrace East 

(86.9 acres), Everett Creek (82.7 acres), and Sullivan Creek (17.7 acres) parcels that 

currently reside outside the Project boundary; and the Metaline Falls Portage Trail. 

Seattle also proposes to include the following roads, all of which are used exclusively or 

primarily for project purposes: the 0.28-mile-long portion of the West Side Access 

Road not already in the boundary, approximately 1.7 miles of roads within the 

Operations and Maintenance Support Area road network, the 0.23-mile-long Bonneville 

Power Administration (BPA) substation road, the 0.15-mile-long portion of the spur off 

of BPA substation road not already in the boundary, the 0.08-mile-long section of south 

end of National Forest road (FR) 6200-348 not already in the boundary, the 0.08-milelong section of FR 3165-350 not already in the boundary, the 0.3-mile-long section of 

FR 3100-325, the 0.4-mile-long FR 3165-315 (for East Peewee Falls Trail and 

Viewpoint), the 1.07-mile-long section of FR 3100-172, and the 0.2-mile-long FR 3100-

178 (for Riverside Mine Canyon Viewpoint).

165 

Seattle proposes to modify the project boundary around the lower reservoir. The 

project boundary around the lower reservoir, as shown in the 1967 exhibit K drawings, 

is based on the predicted line of high water at an elevation of 1,990 feet National 

Geodectic Vertical Datum 1929.166 Seattle proposes to express the observed high water 

level in the lower reservoir as contour lines between 1,994 feet to 1,996 feet NAVD 88, 

as measured in 2009.167 Initially, Seattle proposed to modify the project boundary to 

create a fixed 200-foot buffer zone from the contour lines representing the observed 

high water level of the lower reservoir. However, in their August 24, 2010, comments 

the Forest Service said that adjusting the project boundary to a fixed 200-foot buffer 

around the reservoir would place an undue burden on the Forest Service by increasing 

 

165 Road lengths not explicitly provided by Seattle were estimated using the 

exhibit G drawings filed on March 29, 2010.

166 Approximately equal to 1,994 feet NAVD 88.

167 Addendum to Exhibit G of the License Application.
275

field work and surveying cost on Forest Service lands adjacent to the project boundary. 

Specifically, the Forest Service states that under the current project boundary, it would 

be able to use the existing FERC boundary monuments to identify the current boundary 

in a single surveying visit, but if the boundary would change, multiple field visits would 

be required to establish where the boundary is located. There are approximately 125 

FERC boundary monuments identified around the existing project boundary.168 

In its October 19, 2010, response to Forest Service comments, Seattle revised its 

proposal; it now proposes to retain the project boundary as-is in areas around the lower 

reservoir where the original project boundary is approximately169 200 feet or more from 

the observed high water level as measured in 2009, and to re-establish the buffer in 

areas where the existing boundary is less than 180 feet from the high water level 

through surveying. Seattle states that this modified proposal would result in avoiding 

the need to re-survey the entire reservoir area, minimize potential confusion between the 

old and new project boundaries, and avoid inconvenience to the Forest Service.

Seattle proposes to revise the project boundary in the upper reservoir to match 

the ordinary high water observed during the 2009 survey, expressed as level foot 

contours between 2,004 feet and 2,007 feet.170 Seattle also proposes to revise the 

project boundary in the vicinity of the Pend Oreille County PUD Campbell Park boat 

ramp where the recently revised FERC boundary for the Box Canyon project overlaps 

with the current FERC boundary for the project. Seattle proposes to revise the project 

boundary in this area to align with the Box Canyon project boundary, thereby 

eliminating the overlap.

Seattle also proposes to construct the following new recreation facilities at the 

Boundary Project: (1) the Riverside Mine Canyon Viewpoint and Trail; (2) the Eastside 

Trail, including the East Peewee Falls Trail area; (3) and the Metaline Falls Portage 

Trail and Boater access. Portions of these facilities fall outside of the project boundary 

as proposed by Seattle. Seattle also proposes to acquire about 158 acres of wildlife 

habitat lands and bring those lands into the project boundary. As part of the FAMP, 

Seattle would also monitor and maintain a number of habitat improvement measures in 

Sullivan, Linton, and Sweet Creeks, as well as other Tier 2 tributaries to the reservoir, 

but does not propose to modify the project boundary to include these features.

 

168 Study No. 22, Land and Roads Study, Revised Final Report, Figure 5.1.1 

(maps 2 through 10). Filed with the Commission March 16, 2009.

169 “Approximately” being 90%, or within 20 feet, of the 200-foot buffer from 

the current high water mark, as stated by Seattle. This approach would allow for 

retention of existing project boundary markers when the existing project boundary is 

near (within 20 feet) the targeted 200-foot buffer.

170 Except in those areas where the vegetation lines better reflected the ordinary 

high water level.
276

Staff Analysis

The majority of the lands that Seattle would bring into the project boundary are 

owned by Seattle. They have and would continue to be used for project purposes, 

including maintenance and operation and preservation of wildlife habitats. The 

additional roads being brought into the project boundary would ensure continued access 

to project and recreational resources for the public and for Seattle. 

There are areas where the project boundary is currently only 40 feet from the 

current ordinary high water level. Seattle’s proposed boundary adjustments would 

enlarge the buffer zone around the project, thereby providing additional shoreline 

control and protection of environmental resources consistent with other proposed 

environmental measures. Bringing the project boundary out to at least 180 feet from the 

current ordinary high water level (while retaining the current boundary in those areas 

greater than 180 feet from the current ordinary high water level) would maintain many 

of the current monuments in place needed for Forest Service activities. Re-establishing 

the survey monuments as proposed by Seattle would avoid or reduce any administrative 

burden on the Forest Service. 

The refinement of the project boundary in the area of District’s Campbell Park 

would result in a clear delineation of which entity holds responsibility for the 

management of those areas that are currently overlapping with the Box Canyon project.

Seattle would maintain and operate new recreational facilities, acquire and 

manage new lands for wildlife, and install, monitor, and maintain a number of new 

aquatic habitat improvements on lands outside the current project boundary. The 

Commission typically requires lands and waters that are to be maintained by the 

licensee as a condition of its license to be brought into the project boundary because

these lands and waters would serve project purposes and reflect the Commission’s 

ongoing responsibilities to ensure compliance with the license.171 The exception to this 

requirement is for one time actions where the licensee would not continue to be 

 

171 Project boundaries are used to designate the geographic extent of the lands, 

waters, works, and facilities that the license identifies as comprising the license project 

and for which the licensee must hold the rights necessary to carry out project purposes 

(See Policy Statement on Hydropower Licensing Settlements, 116 FERC ¶61,270 

September 21, 2006).
277

responsible for the measures.172 Because the new recreation facilities have not been 

built, the new wildlife lands acquired, or the exact habitat improvements put in place, it 

would be premature to require their inclusion in the project boundary. However, they 

may need to be brought into the project boundary upon completing construction or their 

acquisition.

Including the lands in the project boundary does not mean that the licensee must 

obtain fee-ownership of the lands or change property rights; it does mean that a licensee 

would have to obtain sufficient rights with respect to the facility or measure to comply 

with the requirements of the license.

Seattle’s proposal with the addition of the project lands and roads, the refinement 

of the boundary in the upper reservoir, and the refinement of the buffer to an 

approximate 200-foot buffer from the lower reservoir would increase the project 

boundary by approximately 544 acres to an estimated 3,263 acres, 639 acres of which 

would be on Forest Service lands, and 327 acres are estimated be on BLM lands. As 

Seattle has not filed a full set of exhibit G drawings that show the compromise proposal, 

we will not be approving the exhibit G drawings filed, and will be using the federal land 

totals as approved in the exhibit K drawings from 1968 until new drawings and federal 

land tabulations are filed and approved by the Commission. 

Re-establishment of the Public Land Survey System Corners

Seattle and the Forest Service propose to re-establish three Public Land Survey 

System Corners, or establish witness corners, delineating the project boundary within 

and adjacent to lands of the Colville National Forest in an area upstream of Metaline 

Falls that currently does not have such permanent markers installed. As part of the 

proposal, Seattle would also survey, mark and post to Forest Service standards and 

specifications, Forest Service lands adjacent to the project. This would include posting 

project boundary signage at all public access points at the project boundary, identifying

for the public where the project boundary falls. These locations include, but are not 

limited to, Metaline Waterfront Park, Boundary Forebay Recreation Area, the recreation 

site across from Everett Island, and at any new overlooks or trail access points.

Staff Analysis

 

172 For example, if a licensee is required once to place material in a stream in 

order to create fish habitat, but is not required to undertake other measures in that area 

during the license term, the Commission may not include that reach within the project 

boundary. If, however, the licensee is obligated to undertake measures throughout the 

license term, such as implementing an ongoing habitat restoration plan, the Commission 

may require that the affected lands be included in the project boundary (See e.g.,

PacifiCorp, 105 FERC ¶61,237 at P 114 (2003)).
278

Re-establishing the survey monuments would assist Seattle and the Forest 

Service in their day-to-day land management activities. Establishing project boundary 

signage at all public access points would identify for the public where the project 

boundary is located, as there are restrictions on activities within the project boundary 

that do not apply to lands of the Colville National Forest.

Travel and Public Access Management Program 

To ensure that there is road and/or boat access to areas designated for wildlife 

preserves, recreation use, and other project purposes, Seattle proposes to implement a 

Travel and Public Access Management Program as part of the Recreation Resources 

Management Plan. This program identifies project-related roads and establishes both 

public and operational access guidelines for these roads. In developing this program, 

Seattle identified 12 roads needed for project purposes (table 3-22). While most of the 

12 project-related roads are included or partially included in the existing FERC project 

boundary, Seattle proposes to bring the following new roads into the project boundary: 

the maintenance facility road network; and portions of FR 3165-325; FR-3165-315, FR 

3100-172, and FR 3100-178. Only those roads used exclusively, or primarily for,

project purposes are proposed to be brought into the project boundary. 
279

Table 3-22. Project-related roads (Source: Seattle 2010, as modified by staff).

Road Owner173 Provides Access To:

West Side Access 

Road

Seattle, Forest 

Service

Forebay Recreation Area access road, Tailrace 

Recreation Area, Maintenance facility road 

network, and dam access tunnel

Maintenance facility 

road network

Seattle Operations and Maintenance Support Area and 

Tailrace Recreation Area

Seattle Forebay 

Recreation Area

Seattle Forebay Recreation Area

BPA Substation 

Road

BPA, Forest 

Service

BPA Substation

Spur off of BPA 

Substation Road

BPA, Seattle, 

Forest Service

BPA Substation

South end of FR 

6200-348

Forest 

Service,

Seattle

Project operations in the area of the 

transmission lines

FR 3165-350 Seattle, Forest 

Service

Provides vehicular access across dam and 

connects FR 3165-000 (non-project road) to the 

West Side Access Road

Tailrace boat launch 

road

Seattle, Forest 

Service

Tailrace boat launch and project operations on 

the west side of the tailrace.

FR 3165-325 Forest Service Between FR 3165-000 (non-project road) and 

FR 3165-315, leading to the proposed East 

Peewee Falls Trail Area and proposed Eastside 

Trail

FR 3165-315 Forest Service Proposed East Peewee Falls Trail Area and 

proposed Eastside Trail

FR 3100-172 Forest Service The access roads to the proposed Eastside Trail 

and the Riverside Mine Canyon Overlook from 

State Route 31

FR 3100-178 Forest Service The south end of the proposed Eastside Trail 

and Riverside Mine Canyon Overlook 

As part of the Travel and Public Access Management Program, Seattle proposes 

to reconstruct, and maintain portions of the Forest Service roads listed above that 

provide access to the proposed recreation sites at the Eastside Trail, the Riverside Mine 

overlook, and the Peewee Falls overlook. These roads would be reconstructed and 

 

173 Refers to entities that either: 1) own the road surface, or 2) utilize the road to 

access their ownership. Use of roads by the public is not addressed in this table, though 

public access is provided on several Project-related roads.
280

maintained by Seattle as required by Forest Service 4(e) condition 8 to accommodate 

the proposed recreation use. 

The Travel and Public Access Management Program also contains provisions to: 

continue to manage and restrict public access to project hydroelectric facilities and areas 

(dam, intake forebay, trash racks, tailrace, operations and maintenance area, machine 

hall, spillways, road across the dam, transmission lines, and other facilities) by 

maintaining a security program174 consistent with the Department of Homeland Security 

National Threat Level; educate the visiting public, including adequate warning signs, 

about security procedures at the project in conjunction with the Multi-Resource I&E 

Program; periodically reassess public access and group tour restrictions to the Tailrace 

Recreation Area and Machine Hall Visitors’ Gallery; develop and implement a plan to 

maintain roadways used to access project recreation facilities; if necessary, provide for 

adequate snow removal during the primary recreation season;175 communicate with the 

public when vehicle access is not possible; implement boating enhancement measures; 

and implement trail enhancement measures to provide increased pedestrian access to 

project recreation sites and unique natural features of the project area.

Staff Analysis

Implementation of the Travel and Public Access Management Program would 

result in providing public access to the proposed recreational facilities and continued 

access to existing recreational facilities in the project area. Implementation would also 

ensure that Seattle maintains roads needed for both operational and recreation needs to a 

standard that is sufficient to provide a reasonable level of service, to protect project 

resources, and to protect the resources of the Colville National Forest. Implementation 

would also provide a level of public safety by restricting access to areas that may 

endanger public safety or national security. 

Effects of Project Operations on Aesthetics

Project operations have the potential to influence aesthetics through the raising 

and lowering of the reservoir pool. Summer operation restrictions have resulted in an 

average fluctuation of 7 feet at the forebay and 3-4 feet upstream of Metaline Falls. 

Staff Analysis

The aesthetics of the Boundary reservoir shoreline are negatively affected as the 

reservoir pool is dropped when generating power. Although a “bath tub ring” is 

discernable due to fluctuations in water levels even with the voluntary restrictions, the 

scale is relatively small when considered in context with the surrounding landscape. 

 

174 Including provisions to modify the program based on changes to safety and/or 

security needs or requirements.

175 Seattle does not intend to provide snow removal during the off-season for 

recreation.
281

Because project operations would not change under Seattle’s proposal, there would be 

no change in the aesthetic character of the project from existing project operations. 

Seattle’s current operations limit the adverse effect on the aesthetic setting and 

recreating public using the Forebay and Canyon reaches during the summer recreation 

season. Formalizing existing voluntary project operations would assure the status quo 

regarding water levels would continue into the future.

Groundwater Monitoring Well Decommissioning

As a condition of its existing license, Seattle installed a series of groundwater

monitoring wells in the late 1950s along the lower portion of the project reservoir (from 

the town of Metaline downstream to nearly the project dam) presumably as a means to 

monitor the effects of the project on groundwater levels on the adjoining mines. The 

wells are no longer needed and Seattle is taking steps to remove them and close the 

associated spur roads across Forest Service and BLM lands that were used to construct 

and maintain the wells. Seattle prepared and filed a Monitoring Well and Road 

Decommissioning Plan with the settlement agreement. Seattle proposes to implement 

the plan, and the Forest Service Condition 3 requires its implementation. Interior 

recommends its implementation pursuant to section 10(a).

The plan describes how Seattle would close 18 well heads, restore the sites as 

appropriate, and close associated spur roads as needed. Wells would be 

decommissioned by filling the wells with cement grout from bottom to top. The 

concrete pads around the well heads would be demolished, a hole would be dug around 

the well head, and the well head cut off approximately four feet below the ground 

surface, if possible. The holes would be backfilled with the excavated material, the 

ground graded to match the existing topography, and the bare ground surface seeded 

with grass. All demolition debris and other waste products would be removed from the 

site and disposed of at a location off of federal land. Site-specific plans would be 

developed for each well head and associated spur road prior to implementation. 

Cultural resource and rare, threatened and endangered plant surveys would be 

conducted, as necessary, prior to site disturbance. 

Seattle would also close the spur off of Forest Road 316-5340, which as been 

used in the past to access a survey monument. This road is no longer needed for project 

purposes and would be decommissioned at the same time as the monitoring well roads; 

this road is also addressed in this plan.

Seattle would complete the well decommissioning and road closures within two 

years of license issuance.

Staff Analysis

There is no record of a problem of project operations adversely affecting 

groundwater levels or seepage into adjoining mines. Thus there does not appear to be a 

need for Seattle to maintain these groundwater monitoring wells.
282

Seattle’s proposed measures would restore federal lands, would be conducted in 

a manner that would control erosion and release of cement or other chemicals that could 

be harmful to fish and wildlife, and would control noxious weeds in the disturbed area. 

While project roads are not considered a significant problem for project area wildlife, 

roads can increase human access and increase disturbance; closing these spurs would 

indirectly benefit wildlife by reducing the number of roads in the area

3.9.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project Surrender

The viewshed is not expected to change around Sullivan Lake, other than some 

possible seasonal differences in lake levels. The primary aesthetic impact will be the 

removal of Mill Pond dam.

Effects of Mill Pond Dam Removal on Aesthetics

Removal of Mill Pond dam and restoration of Sullivan Creek would increase 

noise during construction, and alter views of the pond as the dam is removed, the pond 

is dewatered, and aquatic habitat structures are installed. 

Staff Analysis

Construction activities would result in temporary, short-term noise and dust 

associated with the use of heavy equipment. The use of best management practices, and 

soil erosion control measures would minimize the adverse effects. In the long-term, 

aesthetic views would shift from an open pond to riverine system that blends into the 

forest. Long term aesthetic effects should be minimal for visitors unfamiliar with the 

existing landscape. For those visitors whose destination is Mill Pond, the loss of the 

pond will likely negatively impact their experience and may change visitor use at the 

site.

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

(NHPA), requires that the Commission evaluate the potential effects on properties listed 

or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). 

Such properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register are called historic 

properties. In this document we also use the term "cultural resource" for properties that 

have not been evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register. Cultural 

resources represent things, structures, places, or archeological sites that can be either 

prehistoric or historic in origin. In most cases, cultural resources less than 50 years old 

are not considered historic. Section 106 also requires that the Commission seek 

concurrence with the State Historic Preservation Officer on any finding involving 

effects or no effects to historic properties, and allow the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (Council) an opportunity to comment on any finding of effects to historic 

properties. If Native American (i.e., aboriginal) properties have been identified, Section 

106 also requires that the Commission consult with interested Indian tribes that might 

attach religious or cultural significance to such properties. In this case, the Commission 
283

must take into account whether any historic property could be affected by either a 

proposed new license for the Boundary Project or with the surrender of the Sullivan 

Creek Project, and allow the Council an opportunity to comment prior to issuance of 

any new license or surrender for these projects.

3.10.1 Affected Environment

3.10.1.1 Cultural History of the Boundary and Sullivan Creek Project 

Areas

Prehistory and Ethnographic Period

The Boundary and Sullivan Creek Projects fall within the Plateau physiographic 

area of the interior Northwest. The interior Northwest has experienced more than 

10,000 years of human occupation, as demonstrated by the archaeological record and, in 

the more recent past, by the ethnographic record. As archeological units (defined by the 

presence of diagnostic artifacts, primarily by chipped stone dart and arrow points), the 

prehistoric culture history of the interior Northwest can be divided into three periods 

(Period I-III), representing aboriginal occupations that tended to increase in size and 

settlement complexity up until European contact. Periods IA and IB (11,500-6,400 

years B.P.) represented the earliest interval of human occupation in the region by big 

game hunters, of which the earliest inhabitants settled the area during the end of the 

Pleistocene (IA), and made more substantial permanent settlements in the following sub 

period hunting and gathering modern-day plant and animal communities. Period II 

(6,400-3,900 years B.P.), was represented by an interval of more warmer and dryer 

weather, and populations began to adapt to fishing salmon in larger numbers due to it’s 

predictability over the diminishing of larger mammalian game. In the following Period 

III interval (3,900 to 200 years B.P.), the climate became cooler and wetter, and salmon 

runs increased, allowing for larger populations to congregate along the fishways. 

Although the project area was occupied by aboriginal groups, prior to European contact, 

very little cultural resource information was located dating to this later period. At the 

time of European contact, the project area was occupied by Interior Salish-speaking 

groups associated with the modern-day Kalispel Indians. The Kalispel were, no doubt, 

descendants of the earlier aboriginal inhabitants of the area who had been living in the 

area for thousands of years.

Historic Period

Early settlers in the project area were trappers and traders associated with the 

British North West Company, which dominated the interior Northwest fur trade in the 

early nineteenth century. The discovery of placer gold near Fort Colville on the 

Columbia River in 1855 caused a small rush of several hundred prospectors to the area, 

provoking conflicts with the local Native American population. Although prospectors 

were aware of the presence of various ore deposits in the Pend Oreille valley as early as 

1869, it was not until 1928 that they discovered large commercial ore bodies. By the 

1950s, the mines in Pend Oreille and Stevens counties had produced nearly the entire 
284

output of lead and zinc for the entire State of Washington. Small amounts of gold have 

been found in most lode mines within the region, but it generally has been of minor 

value compared with the other metals (Ferguson and Root 2004). Most of the major 

deposits were found in the Metaline Falls area of the county.

By 1912, Metaline Falls had entered the modern industrial world, with various 

businesses, hotels, parks, and electric lighting. In 1910, a man named Lewis Larsen 

made a mining claim, the Pend Oreille Mines and Metals Company (POMMC). This 

enterprise became the largest producer of lead and zinc in Washington. From 1942 to 

1952, 20 percent of the nation’s lead and 13 percent of its zinc was produced in the 

Metaline district. The Josephine Mine, later renamed Clark, may have been Larsen’s 

first set of claims to form the nucleus of his thriving mining company. By the second 

decade of the twentieth century, the once-remote wilderness that early fur traders 

originally traversed had been largely replaced with the characteristic traces of 

civilization that follow the mining frontier. 

The greatest impediment to early lode mining in eastern Washington was 

inadequate transportation facilities. With the arrival of the railroads, the limited extent 

of transport by steamboat was remedied. In 1889, the Spokane Falls and Northern 

Railroad expanded northward from Spokane to service the prosperous mining industry 

along the upper Columbia River. Soon, the tracks were extended to Northport and 

eventually into Canada. By 1910, the Idaho and Washington Northern Railroad was 

being built downriver to Ione, Metaline, and Metaline Falls to service the Pend Oreille 

Valley (Baltien 1996). These improved transportation facilities attracted an increasing 

number of homesteaders and spurred on forms of industry in addition to mining, such as 

logging, agriculture, and cement production.

Before the 1900s, most of present day Pend Oreille County was covered with 

forests. The lumber industry began there in 1888 when Edwin Winchester built a 

sawmill on Winchester Creek in the Calispell Valley. This mill functioned primarily to 

supply early settlers with lumber for their building projects. A few years earlier, 

railroad tracks were extended to Metaline Falls. As in other areas of the Pacific 

Northwest, the timber industry boomed after railroads and cheap transportation arrived. 

The demand for energy to serve the developing industrial needs sparked the 

development of hydropower in the region. Plans were developed by Lewis Larson in 

1905 to harness hydroelectric power from Sullivan Creek in order to establish a 

Portland cement factory at Metaline Falls, located near good source of limestone. In 

1909, a wagon road was constructed approximately five miles to connect the Pend 

Oreille River and Sullivan Lake. That same year a work camp for the construction crew 

was established one and a half miles northwest of the lake on a flat above Sullivan 

Creek. In 1910 the crew constructed a 50 foot high log crib dam on the lake’s northwest 

corner, and another dam adjacent to the work camp on Sullivan Creek. The operating 

plan for the newly constructed Sullivan Creek hydroelectric project was that Sullivan 

Lake would be used as a storage reservoir while Mill Pond would be used as the water 
285

source for the proposed hydroelectric plant at the confluence at Sullivan Creek and the 

Pend Oreille River at Metaline Falls. In 1910 a wooden flume and earthen canal was 

constructed to convey water from Mill Pond to the power house. A boardwalk was 

constructed on top of the wood flume, where townspeople of Metaline Falls could enjoy 

a scenic walk up to Sullivan Lake. Maintenance of the wood flume became a constant 

ordeal, due to the numerous springs running along the north-facing slope of where the 

flume was positioned. In the 1920s and 1930s, large sections of the flume failed and 

were replaced, and in the spring of 1956, many of the underlying trestle supports were 

washed away, rendering the flume inoperable, and was never rebuilt in subsequent 

years, due to the availability of cheaper electricity. In 1958, the District purchased the 

Sullivan Creek project, hoping to rejuvenate the hydroelectric facility up into the 

present. In the same year, Pend Oreille PUD was given a new license by FERC to 

operate the facility, but was never used. 

Studies of the potential for a hydroelectric development in the Z Canyon area, 

just upstream of the current Boundary Project dam site, were begun as early as 1914. 

Colonel Hugh L. Cooper, the engineer who undertook the initial investigations, applied 

for a license from the Federal Power Commission (FPC, FERC’s predecessor), but the 

application was denied (Sugiyama 1980). In 1943, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) published a comprehensive “308 Report” on the Columbia River and its 

tributaries, which included the finding that the Boundary site, approximately 1 mile 

downstream from the Z Canyon site and 1 mile upstream from the Canadian border, was 

superior to the Z Canyon site for construction of a hydroelectric project. The report 

recommended a dam that would create a reservoir to the elevation of 2,062.5 feet above 

mean sea level (NGVD 29), which is the elevation of Lake Pend Oreille. However, the 

USACE encountered considerable opposition to this proposal during hearings held in 

1947, and instead built the Albeni Falls dam, near the outlet to Lake Pend Oreille. In 

1951, the City of Seattle commissioned a study of undeveloped potential hydropower 

sites in the state of Washington. Based on the study’s findings and recommendations, 

the City of Seattle applied for a preliminary permit on October 28, 1953, to build a dam 

at the Boundary site. Seattle received its license in 1961, began construction in 1963, 

and started operations in 1967.
286

3.10.1.2 Boundary Project Cultural Resources

Seattle conducted an extensive cultural resources inventory for the Boundary 

Hydroelectric Project Area of Potential Effect (APE),

176 which included the following 

areas:

• Downstream of Metaline Falls—the reservoir and the land within the 

FERC project boundary, which includes most project facilities, the land 200 

horizontal feet (along the ground surface) inland of the high water elevation 

(1,994 feet ) along both shorelines, and the transmission line right-of-way 

(ROW) from the powerhouse to the Bonneville Power Administration 

interconnection. 

• Upstream of Metaline Falls—the reservoir and the land within the FERC 

project boundary, plus the land within 25 horizontal feet inland of the high water 

elevation along both shorelines (approximately 2,019 feet), extending south to 

the FERC Project boundary for the Box Canyon Project.

• The Seattle-owned Boundary Wildlife Preserve (BWP) (155 acres) and 

adjoining Seattle-owned property (85 acres).

• Major Project-related roads—the Seattle ROW for the road from 

Boundary dam to the Vista House and the road from the dam to County Road 

2975. The Pend Oreille County ROW for the road from the Vista House to State 

Route 31.

• All Seattle-owned lands outside the FERC Project boundary, in the Pend 

Oreille Valley between Box Canyon dam and the international border, including 

lands where there are Project-related structures or activities, such as 

maintenance and equipment staging locations.

• In addition, the APE was adjusted to include any areas where other 

resource studies (such as erosion or dispersed recreation) identify a project 

effect in an area not within the original APE.

The investigation included background and archival research in the summer of 

2007, and field surveys in the fall of 2007, and again in the spring of 2008. All of 

Seattle’s proposed study plans, defining the APE, and subsequent HRA surveys and 

reports were reviewed and commented on by a cultural resources work group (CRWG). 

 

176 The area of potential effects (APE) is defined as the geographic area or areas 

within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or 

use of historical resources if any such cultural resources exist. For hydroelectric 

projects, the APE usually consists of all lands within the existing FERC project 

boundary, in addition to any lands beyond the FERC project boundary where other 

historic properties could be affected by the project.
287

The CRWG consisted of representatives of Seattle, their cultural resources contractors, 

Washington SHPO, Kalispel Tribe, BLM, Forest Service and FERC. 

The results of the cultural resources inventory located 25 archeological sites and 

two historic structures in the Boundary Project APE (table 3-23). Of these 27 cultural 

resources, only two were identified as pre-contact aboriginal archeological sites. Of the 

27 cultural resources located in the project’s APE, two historic districts were 

established, the Josephine Mine and Pend Oreille Mines and Metal Company, both 

determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Another historic 

archeological site, the Carl Harvey Homestead (site 45PO584), was also determined 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The remaining cultural resource sites, 

most of which were associated with either of the two mining historic districts, located in 

the project’s APE were not considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register. 

No traditional cultural properties were located.

Table 3-23. Cultural resources found at the Boundary Project (Source: Seattle, 2009).

Site 

Designation

Site Type Cultural 

Materials

NRHP 

Eligibility

Land 

Ownership

DOE 

Concurrence

45PO520 –

Josephine Mine

Historic Mining 

Property

Collapsed 

buildings; 

mining debris

Yes, NRHPeligible, 

Historic District

BLM Incorporated 

into Josephine 

Mine Historic 

Mining District

45PO573 

Chickahominy 

Prospects

Historic Mining 

Property

Prospect Pits No, but within 

NRHP-eligible 

Historic District

BLM Incorporated 

into Josephine 

Mine Historic 

Mining District

45PO575 –

Flume Creek 

Aqueduct

Historic Mining 

Property

Aqueduct 

suspended over 

the Pend Oreille 

River

Yes, part of 

NRHP-eligible 

Historic District

Seattle and 

BLM

Incorporated 

into Josephine 

Mine Historic 

Mining District

45PO576 –

Robert .E. Lee 

Lode

Historic Mining 

Property

Adit, ore cart 

rails

No Seattle 1/6/2009

45PO577 –

POMMC 

Powerhouse 

Dump

Historic Debris 

Scatter

Domestic refuse No, but within 

NRHP-eligible 

Historic District

Seattle 1/6/2009

45PO578 –

Riverside Mine

Historic Mining 

Property

Collapsed mine 

buildings; adit

No Forest Service 1/6/2009

45PO579 –

Raise 3

Historic Mining

Property

Deteriorated 

mine structures

No BLM 3/3/2009

45PO580 –

Flusey Lode

Historic Mining 

Property

Adit/prospect pit 

and historic 

debris

No Seattle 1/6/2009

45PO581 Pre-Contact 

Feature

Fire-cracked 

rock; possible 

lithic artifact

No State of 

Washington

1/6/2009

45PO582 – Historic Mining Mine, adit; some No Seattle 1/6/2009
288

Site 

Designation

Site Type Cultural 

Materials

NRHP 

Eligibility

Land 

Ownership

DOE 

Concurrence

Metaline 

Mine/Hercules 

Adit

Property discarded 

equipment

45PO583 Pre-Contact 

Feature

Fire-cracked 

rock scatter and 

a single flake

No Seattle 1/6/2009

45PO584 – Carl 

Harvey 

Homestead

Historic 

Homestead

Collapsed cabin; 

historic debris 

scatters

Yes Seattle and 

Forest Service

16/2009

45PO585 Historic 

Homestead

Collapsed 20th

century log 

cabins and 

debris scatters

No Seattle 1/6/2009

45PO586 Historic 

Homestead

Collapsed 

cabins and trash 

scatters

No Seattle 1/6/2009

45PO587 Historic 

Structure 

Unknown

Cobble feature No Forest Service 6/22/2009

45PO589 – Z 

Canyon 

Footbridge

Historic 

Transportation

Remains of 

footbridge 

across the Pend 

Oreille River

No Seattle 1/6/2009

45PO590 Historic Mining 

Property

Mining adit No Seattle 1/6/2009

45PO592 Historic Mining 

Property

Mining adit No Seattle 1/6/2009

45PO593 Historic 

Transportation

Rail bed or 

roadway

No Seattle 1/6/2009

45PO594 Historic Mining 

Property

Mining adit No. BLM 8/18/2009

45PO597 Historic Mining 

Property

Prospect trench No Forest Service 6/22/2009

45PO598 Historic Mining 

Property

Prospect trench No Seattle 5/14/2009

45PO599 Historic Mining 

Property

Prospect trench No BLM 6/1/2009

45PO600 Historic Mining 

Property

Prospect trench No Forest Service 1/6/2009

Pend Oreille 

Mines and 

Metals 

Company 

Powerhouse

Energy Facility Abandoned mid20th century 

powerhouse

Yes, part of 

NRHP-eligible 

Historic District

Seattle HPI Report 

submitted to 

Washington 

SHPO 

7/17/2009

Miner’s Cabin

(Ross Cabin)

Domestic –

Single family 

house

Homestead 

cabin

No Seattle HPI Report 

submitted to 

Washington 

SHPO 

7/17/2009
289

3.10.1.3 Sullivan Creek Project Cultural Resources

As part of a 1994 license amendment, the District completed an extensive 

cultural resources assessment (HRA 1994). The investigations included archival 

research and background work, and a field survey of the Sullivan Creek Hydroelectric 

Project area (APE) between June 22 and June 24, 1993. This included Sullivan Lake 

dam, Mill Pond dam, Sullivan Lake reservoir, Mill Pond, Sullivan Creek diversion dam 

and conduit—which consists of an 0.8 mile long abandoned conduit, power conduit—

which consists of 12,500 feet of abandoned wooden flume, 2,500 feet of abandoned 

earthen canal, and 1,150 feet of an 8 foot diameter horseshoe tunnel, powerhouse, and

Mill Pond Historic Site—which includes portions of the wooden flume listed above, 

cabin with porch, large outhouse, unfinished or partly demolished cabin, stable (or 

blacksmith shop), small outhouse, and the existing Mill Pond dam, listed above

The results of the cultural resources investigations documented 14 cultural 

resources within the Sullivan Creek Project APE (table 3-24). All but one of the 

cultural resources are considered contributing elements to the Sullivan Creek Historic 

District, which, in turn, is determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register. The other cultural resource located in the project’s APE is a pre-contact 

archeological site located on Forest Service lands along the shoreline of Sullivan Lake. 

Another site, the MacDougall homesite, although near, is not within the project’s APE. 

No traditional cultural properties were located in the project’s APE. 

Table 3-24. Cultural resources found at the Sullivan Creek Project (Source: Seattle, 

2009).

Site 

Designation

Site Type Cultural 

Materials

NRHP 

Eligibility

Land 

Ownership

DOE 

Concurrence

45PO102H Sullivan Dam Concrete dam No, but 

considered a 

contributing 

element to 

Sullivan Creek 

Historic District

Forest Service 1980/1993

Diversion Ditch Earthen ditch Undetermined, 

but considered a 

contributing 

element to 

Sullivan Creek 

Historic District

Forest Service

CF532 Mill Pond Crib 

Dam

Wooden dam, 

inundated

No, but 

considered a 

contributing 

element to 

Sullivan Creek 

Forest Service 1980/1983
290

Site 

Designation

Site Type Cultural 

Materials

NRHP 

Eligibility

Land 

Ownership

DOE 

Concurrence

Historic District

SH-1 Old County Road 

Segment 

Roadbed Undetermined, 

but considered a 

contributing 

element to 

Sullivan Creek 

Historic District

Forest Service

Flume, Trestles, 

Canal, and 

Penstock 

12,500 feet of 

wooden 

structures and 

2,500 of earthen 

canal, steel 

penstock

No, but 

considered a 

contributing 

element to 

Sullivan Creek 

Historic District

Forest Service 

and District

1989/1993

Mealsite Dump Small can dump 

adjacent to 

flume

Undetermined, 

but considered a 

contributing 

element to 

Sullivan Creek 

Historic District

District

(not recorded)

Telephone Poles 

Connected to 

Flume 

Series of 

wooden 

telephone pools

Undetermined, 

but considered a 

contributing 

element to 

Sullivan Creek 

Historic District

District 

(not recorded)

Ditch Walker’s 

Cabin

A-frame wood 

cabin

Undetermined, 

but considered a 

contributing 

element to 

Sullivan Creek 

Historic District

District

(not recorded)

Overflow Waste 

Ditch

Earthen ditch Undetermined, 

but considered a 

contributing 

element to 

Sullivan Creek 

Historic District

District 

(not recorded)

Sullivan Creek 

Powerhouse

(Decommissioned)

Brick Structure No, but 

considered a 

contributing 

element to 

Sullivan Creek 

Historic District

District 1980/1983
291

Site 

Designation

Site Type Cultural 

Materials

NRHP 

Eligibility

Land 

Ownership

DOE 

Concurrence

CNF-1177 Mill Pond Flume 

Site/Construction 

Camp

Remains of 

construction 

camp

No, but 

considered a 

contributing 

element to 

Sullivan Creek 

Historic District

Forest Service 1993

MacDougall 

Homesite

Remains of 

milled wood 

house

Undetermined, 

but not in APE

District

SH-2 Can dump at SE 

end of Mill Pond

Euroamerican 

artifact scatter

Undetermined, 

but considered a 

contributing 

element to 

Sullivan Creek 

Historic District

Forest Service

SH-3 Historic Scatter, 

Mining Test Pits

Euroamerican 

artifact scatter 

and features

Undetermined, 

but considered a 

contributing 

element to 

Sullivan Creek 

Historic District

Forest Service

45PO148 Pre-contact Site on 

Sullivan Lake 

Shore

Aboriginal 

artifact scatter

Undetermined Forest Service

 

177 The construction camp site (CNF-1 contains the following features: Existing 

concrete dam (modified in 1956 an again in 1976), earthen dike (built in 1973), 

blacksmith shop (deteriorated), disassembled or incomplete log structure, small 

outhouse, large outhouse, log cabin, road remnants, bridge abutment remnants 

(downstream of Mill Pond Dam), cultural material scatter, and intake and log flume 

remnants (a portion located on Forest Service lands)
292

3.10.2 Environmental Effects

3.10.2.1 Boundary Project

Potential adverse effects to historic properties located within the Boundary 

Project APE could result from general project-related ground-disturbing activities, 

proposed mitigation and enhancement measures, recreational activities, encroachment 

by adjacent private landowners, shoreline erosion, vandalism and looting of 

archeological materials. In particular, potential adverse effects as described above

could occur on contributing elements associated with the National Register-eligible 

Josephine Mine Historic District, Pend Oreille Mines and Metal Company, and Carl 

Harvey Homestead. 

To resolve any existing and future potential adverse effects to historic properties 

located within the project’s APE, Seattle crafted a historic properties management plan 

(HPMP) in consultation with members of the CRWG. Seattle’s HPMP (dated March 

2010) establishes an HPMP coordinator to implement various procedures and programs 

including educating employees and the public on the value and protection of significant 

cultural resources; defines a process for basic management standards to protect historic 

properties; includes procedures for handling and noticing inadvertent discoveries and 

human remains; establishes protocols for emergency situations, and monitoring and 

protecting specific archeological sites, historic buildings, and structures, in particular 

those associated with the Josephine Mine Historic District, Pend Oreille Mines and 

Metal Company, and Carl Harvey Homestead. 

Staff’s Analysis

Commission staff concludes that Seattle’s proposal on implementing the HPMP 

for the term of a new license would effectively resolve potential project-related adverse 

effects to historic properties. 

3.10.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project

Potential long-term adverse effects to historic properties from the surrender of 

the Sullivan Project license include removal of the historic properties from federal 

jurisdiction, the temporary insertion of a drain pipe near site CNF-1 (a small collapsed 

outhouse feature), the removal of the Mill Pond dam and the log crib dam within Mill 

Pond, and removal of pond sediments from the Mill Pond dam that could affect buried 

archeological deposits.

Construction of the cold water release facility would occur in the area of the 

existing Ranger District and campground; the District compound was determined 

eligible for the National Register in 1989. Construction of the new facility would 

require a structure to house the pump. Construction of this structure could disturb a 

cultural resource site, especially an archeological deposit, and if inappropriately 

designed, the structure could adversely affect the integrity of the district’s National 

Register character. The Forest Service states that a cultural resources inventory needs to 
293

be conducted within the APE for the proposed cold water release facility and that the 

design of the housing structure must reflect the existing Ranger District and 

campground Depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) western rustic 

structure characteristics.

The District proposes to craft a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the 

Washington SHPO, Forest Service, Kalispel Tribe, and the Council (if they choose to 

participate) to implement the following measures: (1) prior to the removal of the Mill 

Pond dam and associated historic resources, complete a DAHP Level II mitigation 

documentation report and present it to the Washington SHPO and Council; (2) 

information gathered for the report and previous resources documentation would be 

used by the District to create and install new interpretive panels along the current 

interpretive trail at the site of the Mill Pond dam; (3) the District, in conjunction with 

the Forest Service, would consider in future planning, the historic significance of any 

remaining historic features of the landscape and would not adversely affect the integrity 

of those aspects of the landscape that are considered significant; and (4) the District 

would be responsible for an archeological survey and monitoring within the APE prior 

to and during stream restoration activities. Implementation of the MOA by the District 

will conclude the project’s section 106 requirements involving the surrender process.

Staff Analysis

An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, 

any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualifies it for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places. The District’s proposed measures would mitigate 

for adverse effects on historic properties associated with the removal of Mill Pond dam 

and restoration of the Sullivan Creek.

However, once the Commission terminates the Sullivan Creek license, historic 

properties that are within the project boundary on private lands would no longer be

under federal jurisdiction and protection. This is also considered an adverse effect on 

historic properties. The District has not proposed any measures to protect these 

resources.

Completing a cultural resources inventory within the APE for the proposed water 

release facility would protect or mitigate against any potential adverse effects to a 

cultural resource site, especially an archeological deposit that might be affected by the 

construction of the facility, including any construction staging areas adjacent to Sullivan 

Lake dam. Consultation with the Forest Service and Washington SHPO on a final 

design of the cold water release facility would also ensure that the rustic character of the 

adjacent Ranger District and CCC camp would not lose its significance as a 1930s era 

camp and ranger historic district. 

Completing a DAHP Level II mitigation documentation report of the Sullivan 

Creek powerhouse, and any other associated contributing element of the Sullivan Creek 

Historic District that is on District lands would fully mitigate for any loss of these 
294

properties once they are removed from federal oversight. Commission staff notes that 

in the District’s June 22, 2010 response to our May 19, 2010 additional information 

request, the District states that the Washington SHPO also recommends that the 

Sullivan Creek powerhouse be documented, and that the District is currently consulting 

with the Washington SHPO on determining what adverse effects are directly impacting 

the powerhouse, and what applicable measures to resolve such effects should be 

implemented.

3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS

3.11.1 Affected Environment

As one of Washington’s least populated counties, Pend Oreille County (County) 

is characterized by a low-population-density, rural landscape separating a number of 

small towns and cities. Due in part to the presence of the National Forest both east and 

west of Boundary Reservoir, land development along the reservoir is limited to the area 

north of Metaline Falls. Mining, timber harvest, and recreational activities are more 

common than urban land uses. The County’s largest urban area is the City of Newport 

(also the county seat), located at the southern end of the County. Metaline, Metaline 

Falls, and Ione are three towns near the Boundary and Sullivan Creek Projects, and each 

has fewer than 500 residents. In the recent past, population increases have mostly 

occurred in the unincorporated parts of the County rather than in existing towns and 

cities. This pattern of population growth is expected to continue in the future. 

Relatively inexpensive land and affordable housing generally characterize the real estate 

market in the county. Prominent employers in the county have included the Teck 

Cominco Company and the Ponderay Newsprint Company.

Pend Oreille County is characterized predominantly by resource-dependent 

industries and rural land uses, and has comparatively low incomes and high poverty 

rates relative to the state as a whole (Seattle 2006). Over the last 25 years, the 

unemployment rate in the County has been substantially higher than the state as a whole 

and the County was one of 16 counties designated by the State as a “distressed area” in 

2004.

The primary source of tax revenue for Pend Oreille County is through 

intergovernmental agreements. In 2006, the County obtained a total of $9,507,237 from 

such agreements, including payments from the state and federal government (State of 

Washington OFM 2007). Property taxes generated the second largest revenues for the 

County, producing a total of $2,910,261. “Charges for services” ($1,949,009), retail 

sales and use tax ($794,456), and “all other taxes” ($1,052,110) also generated sizeable 

tax revenues for the County. Total revenues in unincorporated Pend Oreille County in 

2006 came to $18,669,763.

Washington State law requires the City of Seattle to compensate counties and 

school districts for loss of revenues and increased costs caused by the operation of the 

Boundary Project (RCW 35.21.425-427). Under the most recent 10-year agreement, 
295

Seattle provided annual payments to the County that were allocated by the County in 

specified amounts to each of the affected jurisdictions (the County, towns of Metaline, 

Metaline Falls, and Ione; and the Selkirk, Cusick, and Newport School Districts) (City 

of Seattle 1999). From 1998 - 2008, impact payments varied by a negotiated amount 

but were approximately $1.2 million annually. On September 24, 2010, Seattle filed, 

for informational purposes only, a new agreement for continuing payments for the 

period 2009 - 2019.

Seattle contracts with Pend Oreille County Fire District #2 for fire protection at 

the Boundary Project facilities. Seattle also contributes to local services through local 

purchasing and vendor agreements. In 2004, Seattle made approximately $217,000 in 

payments to merchants within Pend Oreille County. Vendor payments increased to 

$275,174 in 2005. Vendors included in this total vary from the District and the Pend 

Oreille Telephone Company to local electrical and hardware stores. Purchases from 

these vendors generate sales tax revenue for local jurisdictions. In 2004 and 2005, 

$10,527 and $7,350, respectively, were paid in local sales tax.

Through the tax and fee revenues discussed above, the County supports a 

range of programs for its residents. In 2006, the County’s three largest 

expenditures for services included almost $3.8 million for the security of persons 

and property (police, fire, etc.), approximately $3.9 million for “capital outlays”, 

and $4,465,868 for transportation-related activities (State of Washington OFM 

2007). General government services ($3,297,006), health services ($1,501,446), 

and monies for natural resources ($1,317,193) represented the County’s three 

other major expenditures. Other expenditures, including debt service, support of 

culture and recreation activities, and economic development each totaled less 

than $400,000.

3.11.2 Environmental Effects

3.11.2.1 Boundary Project

The Boundary Project currently, and would continue under a new license, to 

provide economic benefits to the local economy through direct compensation payments 

to local jurisdictions in lieu of taxes, and Seattle’s fire protection contract. Seattle

would continue to maintain an at-cost power contract with the District, which would 

contribute to the District’s ability to provide some of the lowest cost power in the 

region.

In addition, proposed capital improvement projects, such as turbine efficiency 

upgrades, fish passage facilities, and recreation improvements, would benefit the local 

economy through local hiring and purchasing of materials and services. While the 

majority of these capital improvement projects and the O&M projects would be 

performed by existing Seattle fulltime staff with specialized experience in maintaining 

hydroelectric facilities, to a certain extent, some of the substantial costs and 

expenditures associated with these projects (estimated at about $237 million in capital 
296

expenditures for facility upgrades and about $203 million in capital expenditures for 

environmental measures) would be expended locally for goods and services and

potential equipment rental.

Short-term local laborers also could be involved, in particular for some of the 

O&M projects. In addition, the influx of Seattle work crews into the project vicinity to 

accomplish the work represents a positive impact in the form of expenditures on local 

goods and services and for short-term housing (for some of the projects that require 

longer term construction). These impacts have not been quantified but would be 

beneficial to the local communities.

No negative socioeconomic effects were identified by stakeholders, nor were 

additional measures recommended to address socioeconomic effects. Staff did not 

identify the need of any additional measures.

3.11.2.2 Sullivan Creek Project

Removal of Mill Pond dam and restoration of Sullivan Creek would temporally 

increase heavy truck traffic on the local roads. No other direct effects of the license 

surrender were identified.

The sale of 5,000 ac-ft of water to downstream users on the Columbia River 

during June 1 to August 31would help off set the District’s costs for habitat 

improvements, thereby reducing the burden of increased rates to its customers.

3.12 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

3.12.1 Boundary Project

Under the No-action alternative, the project would continue to operate as it is 

currently. There would be no significant change to the existing environmental setting or 

project operation. No new environmental measures would be implemented. Most of 

the current project effects, both positive and negative, would continue at the same level. 

For example, power output would continue at the same level; recreational opportunities 

would be essentially the same; and, depending on the success of basin-wide efforts, DO 

and TDG levels at the project would continue to exceed state water quality standards on 

occasion, as would temperature levels in the reservoir.

3.12.2 Sullivan Creek Project

As explained above, there would be no change in the environmental setting of the 

project. The District would continue to operate the Sullivan Creek Project as it does 

currently. There would be no change in Sullivan Creek temperatures or stream flows. 

Mill Pond would continue to provide a recreational lake fishery. 
297

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS

4.1 BOUNDARY PROJECT

In this section, we look at the Boundary Project’s use of the Pend Oreille River 

for hydropower purposes to see what effect various environmental measures would have 

on the project’s costs and power generation. Under the Commission’s approach to 

evaluating the economics of hydropower projects, as articulated in Mead Corp.,178 the 

Commission compares the current project cost to an estimate of the cost of obtaining the 

same amount of energy and capacity using a likely alternative source of power for the 

region (cost of alternative power). In keeping with Commission policy as described in 

Mead Corp, our economic analysis is based on current electric power cost conditions 

and does not consider future escalation of fuel prices in valuing the hydropower 

project’s power benefits.

For each of the licensing alternatives, our analysis includes an estimate of: 

(1) the cost of individual measures considered for the protection, mitigation and 

enhancement of environmental resources affected by the project; (2) the cost of 

alternative power; (3) the total project cost (i.e. for construction, operation, 

maintenance, and environmental measures); and (4) the difference between the cost of 

alternative power and total project cost. If the difference between the cost of alternative 

power and total project cost is positive, the project produces power for less than the cost 

of alternative power. If the difference between the cost of alternative power and total 

project cost is negative, the project produces power for more than the cost of alternative 

power. This estimate helps to support an informed decision concerning what is in the 

public interest with respect to a proposed license. However, project economics is only 

one of many public interest factors the Commission considers in determining whether, 

and under what conditions, to issue a license.

4.1.1 Power And Developmental Benefits of The Project

Tables 4-1 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our 

analysis for the Boundary Project. This information was provided by Seattle in its 

license application and in Seattle’s addendum filed with the Settlement Agreement. We 

find that the values provided by Seattle and the District are reasonable for the purposes 

of our analysis. Cost items common to all alternatives include: net investment (the total 

investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); normal operation and 

maintenance cost; and Commission fees. 

 

178 See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC ¶ 61,027 (July 

13, 1995). In most cases, electricity from hydropower would displace some form of 

fossil-fueled generation, in which fuel cost is the largest component of the cost of 

electricity production.
298

Table 4-1. Parameters for economic analysis of the Boundary Project (Source: Seattle 

2009, 2010, as modified by staff).

Parameter Value

Period of analysis (years) a 30

Future major capital cost, $b $236,768,000

Relicensing cost, $c $34,000,000

Operation and Maintenance, $/yeard $11,394,932 

FERC feese $1,878,653

Energy value ($/MWh)f $32.92

Interest rateg 5.44

Discount rateh 3.20

a The Commission uses a 30-year period of analysis for all economic analysis. b Future major capital costs include generator rebuilds, forebay wall hardening, rock 

damage mitigation, replacement of step-up transformers and isophase bus, ozone 

abatement and other minor improvement projects scheduled over a 30-year period of 

analysis and expressed as $2009. c Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses to date.

d Estimated by staff to 2009 dollars based on the applicant’s reported values for 1998-

2007, for existing plant operation and maintenance for the current license, 

administrative and general expenses, and insurance.

e Commission fees are based on statements of the 2009 annual charges received from 

the Commission for federal lands, 2010 administrative charges based on authorized 

capacity, and 2009-2010 charges for headwater benefits. . f Estimated by staff based on the Addendum to Exhibit D of the License Application, 

page 7, based on an average on-peak value of $35.70 and an average off-peak value of 

$28.62. 

g Based on Seattle’s weighted average cost of capital.

h Based on the Seattle’s rate for annualizing costs as provided in the Addendum to 

Exhibit D of the License application..
299

4.1.2 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 4-2 summarizes the installed capacity, annual generation, cost of 

alternative power, estimated total project cost, and difference between the cost of 

alternative power and total project cost for each of the alternatives considered in this 

EA: no-action, the applicant’s proposal, the staff alternative, and the staff alternative 

with mandatory conditions.

Table 4-2. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost for 

four alternatives for the Boundary project (Source: staff).

No Action Applicant 

Proposal 

Staff 

Alternative

Staff 

Alternative 

with 

Mandatory 

Conditions

Installed capacity 

(MW)

1,003 1,003 1,003 1,003

Annual generation 

(MWh)

3,572,750 3,612,588179 3,612,588 3,612,588

Annual cost of 

alternative power 

($/MWh)

$117,614,930

32.92

$118,926,400

33.29

$118,926,400 

33.29

$118,926,400

33.29

Annual project cost 

($/MWh)

$20,428,260

5.72

$50,197,050

14.05

$49,991,830

13.99

$50,260,070

14.07

Difference between 

the cost of 

alternative power 

and project cost 

($/MWh)

$97,186,670

27.20

$68,729,350

19.24

$68,934,570

19.30

$68,666,330

19.22

4.1.3 No-action Alternative

Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate as it does 

now. The project would have an installed capacity of 1,003 MW, and generate an 

average of 3,572,750 MWh of electricity annually. The average annual cost of 

alternative power would be $117.6 million, or about $32.9/MWh. The average annual 

project cost would be $20.4 million, or about $5.7/MWh. Overall, the project would 

 

179 The turbine runner replacements and other upgrades for Units 55 and 56 are 

expected to increase the annual generation of the project by 39,838 MWh. Seattle may 

need to file for a capacity amendment after the refurbishment and testing of turbines 55 

and 56 is complete.
300

produce power at a cost which is $97 million, or $20.2/MWh, less than the cost of 

alternative power. 

4.1.4 Seattle’s Proposal

Seattle proposes to upgrade two turbines to increase efficiency. Upon 

completion of the upgrades, Seattle estimates that the project would generate an 

additional 39,838 MWh per year, bringing the average generation to 3,612,588 MWh 

per year. The average annual cost of alternative power would be $118.9 million, or 

about $33.3/MWh. The capital cost of project upgrades of the turbines and generators is 

estimated at $236,768,000 over a 30-year period. Among other measures, Seattle also 

proposes to develop and implement an upstream fish passage program having a total 

capital cost of $114,149,000. In total, the average annual project cost would be $50.2

million, or about $14/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost which 

is $68.7 million, or $19.2/MWh, less than the cost of alternative power.

4.1.5 Staff Alternative

The staff alternative includes the same developmental upgrades as Seattle’s 

proposal and, therefore, would have the same capacity and energy attributes. However, 

as described in section 3.5, staff do not recommend establishing a fund for habitat 

improvements in tributaries to Sullivan Lake, the fish tissue sampling, or the 

recreational fish stocking program. Staff recommends that an operations and 

monitoring plan be developed. Table 4-2 shows the staff-recommended additions, 

deletions, and modifications to Seattle’s proposed environmental protection and 

enhancement measures, and the estimated cost of each. 

Based on a total installed capacity of 1,003 MW and an average annual 

generation of 3,612,588 MWh, the cost of alternative power would be $118.9 million, or 

about $33.3/MWh. The average annual project cost would be $50 million, or about 

$14/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost which is $68.9 million, 

or $19.3/MWh, less than the cost of alternative generation.

4.1.6 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions

This alternative is similar to the staff alternative, with the exception of the 

addition of the following items that are covered under the Forest Service’s 4(e) 

conditions, and are therefore mandatory: the habitat fund, fish tissue sampling, 

recreational fish stocking program, and a fee paid directly to the Forest Service for 
301

expenses related to the management of the project.

180 This alternative would have an 

average annual cost of alternative power of $118.9 million, or about $33.3/MWh. The 

average annual project cost would be $50.3 million, or about $14.1/MWh. Overall, the 

project would produce power at a cost which is $68.7 million, or $19.7/MWh, less than 

the cost of alternative power. This alternative would cost $63,020 more than the project 

proposed by Seattle and $268,240 more than the staff alternative.

4.1.7 Cost of Environmental Measures

Table 4-3 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures 

considered in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over 

a 30-year period of analysis to give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a 

measure to its cost.

 

180 Section 10(e)(1) of the FPA requires the Commission to collect from licensees 

annual charges to reimburse federal and state natural and cultural resource agencies 

their administrative costs incurred in administering their responsibilities under Part 1 of 

the FPA. The Forest Service included, as preliminary section 4(e) condition 4, a cost 

reimbursement schedule totaling $1,183,810 (in 2010$ based on the Forest Service’s 

formula for escalating payment values) that is to be collected directly from the District 

over a 30-year license term. Because this condition may be inconsistent with the FPA’s 

provisions regarding the recovery of administrative costs, our economic analysis does 

not include the Forest Service’s identified administrative costs in our current annual cost 

assumptions. However, because it is a 4(e) condition, our economic analysis accounts 

for this fee as a PM&E measure in the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions.
302

Table 4-3. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered in assessing the environmental effects 

of continuing to operate the Boundary Project (Source: Seattle, 2010).

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Recommending 

Entity

Capital Cost Annual 

Costa

Levelized 

Annual Cost

b

Implement the Boundary Resource Coordinating 

Committee and Work Groups (Article 2), which 

includes:

Seattle, Interior, 

Forest Service, 

WDFW, Staff

$0 $0c $0

Implement the Terrestrial Resources Management 

Plan (Article 3), which includes:

Seattle, Interior, 

Forest Service, 

WDFW, Staff

a. Erosion Control Program Same as above $397,000 $8,120 $28,900

b. Habitat Management, Enhancement, and 

Protection Program

Same as above $1,419,000 $13,900 $88,190

c. Integrated Weed Management Program Same as above $0 $106,710d $106,710

d. RTE Plant Species Program Same as above $0 $72,590 $72,590

e. Wildlife Program Same as above $0 $110,100 $110,100

f. Shoreline Management Program Same as above $141,280 $0 $7,400

Subtotal for Article 3: $1,957,280 $311,420 $413,890

Acquire and manage about 158 acres of riparian and 

upland habitat and about 13,022 lineal feet of 

varying habitats (Article 4)

Seattle, Interior, 

Forest Service, 

WDFW, Staff

$500,000 $0 $26,170

Implement the Recreation Resources Management 

Plan (Article 5), which includes:

Seattle, Interior, 

Forest Service, Staff
303

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Recommending 

Entity

Capital Cost Annual 

Costa

Levelized 

Annual Cost

b

a. Recreation Facility Capital Improvements 

Program

Same as above $5,834,320 $0 $305,400

b. Recreation Operations and Maintenance Program 

(including participating in the development of a 

regional water trail program on the Pend Oreille 

river)

Same as above $0 $143,590 $143,590

c. Shoreline Dispersed Recreation Management 

Program 

Same as above $252,030 $0e $13,190

d. Recreation Monitoring Program Same as above $0 $32,400 $32,400

e. Multi-resource I&E program (to be developed) Same as above $0 $10,470 $10,470

f. Reporting and Consultation with the Recreation 

Resources Work Group 

Same as above $0 $10,000 $10,000

g. Travel and Public Access Management Program 

(not specifically identified as an element of Article 

5)

Same as above $579,380 $15,000 $45,330f

Subtotal for Article 5: $6,665,730 $211,460 $560,380

Implement the Monitoring Well and Road 

Decommissioning Plan (Article 6)

Seattle, Interior, 

Forest Service, Staff

$305,000 $260 $16,230

Implement the Programmatic Agreement for 

Managing Historic Properties (Article 7), which 

includes HPMP

Seattle, Forest 

Service, Staff

$25,000 $8,750 $10,060

Implement the Water Quality Plans (Article 8), 

which include:

Seattle, Interior, 

Forest Service, 
304

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Recommending 

Entity

Capital Cost Annual 

Costa

Levelized 

Annual Cost

b

WDFW, Staff

a. Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention 

Plan

Same as above $0 $160,050 $160,050

b. Dissolved Oxygen Attainment Plan Same as above $0 $19,890 $19,890

c. Fish Tissue Sampling Plan Seattle, Interior, 

Forest Service, 

WDFW

$0 $3,400 $3,400

d. Temperature Attainment Plan Seattle, Interior, 

Forest Service, 

WDFW, Staff

$0 $49,730 $49,730

e. Total Dissolved Gas Attainment Plan Same as above $15,204,470 $380,960 $1,176,870

Subtotal for Article 8: $15,204,470 $614,480 $1,409,940

Implement the Fish and Aquatic Resources Plans 

(Article 9), which include:

Seattle, Interior, 

Forest Service, 

WDFW, Staff

a. Mainstem Fish Community and Aquatic Habitat 

Measures Program (9A)

Same as above $10,199,040 $104,880 $638,770

b. Upstream Fish Passage program (9B) Same as above $60,620,000 $113,070 $3,286,350g

c. Reduction of Project Related Entrainment 

Program (9C)

Same as above $70,000,000 $0 $3,664,290h

d. Tributary Non-native Trout Suppression and 

Eradication Program (9D)

Same as above $0 $717,570 $717,570

e. Tributary Fish Community and Aquatic Habitat 

Measures (9E)

Same as above $23,355,180 $1,408,760 $2,631,330

f. Mill Pond Dam Site Monitoring and Maintenance Same as above $0 $1,800 $1,800
305

Enhancement/Mitigation Measure Recommending 

Entity

Capital Cost Annual 

Costa

Levelized 

Annual Cost

b

(9F)

g. Native Salmonid Conservation Program (9G) Same as above $13,346,500 $1,287,780 $1,986,430i

h. Recreational Fish Stocking Program (9H) Seattle, Interior, 

Forest Service, 

WDFW

$0 $72,000 $72,000

i. Establish a Sullivan Lake Upper Tributary Fund 

(9I)

Seattle, Interior, 

Forest Service, DFW

$2,500,000 $0 $130,870

Subtotal for Article 9: $180,020,720 $3,705,861 $13,129,410

Adjust FERC project boundary to include projectrelated facilities, lands, roads and approximate 200-

foot buffer to the lower reservoirj that are currently 

outside of the project boundary

Seattle, Staff $500,000 $0 $26,170

Survey, install permanent monuments, and identify 

by signage National Forest Service lands at three 

identified corners within the project boundary

Seattle, Forest 

Service, Staff

$50,000 $0 $2,620

Forest Service schedule of payments Forest Service $61,970 k $0 $61,970

Develop and implement a Operations Compliance 

Monitoring Plan 

Staff $20,000 $0 $1,050

a Annual costs typically include operational and maintenance costs and any other cost which occur on a yearly basis.

b All capital costs and annual costs are converted to equal annual costs over a 30-year period to give a uniform basis for 

comparing all costs.

c Unless otherwise noted in the individual programs below, the cost of convening and supporting the individual work groups 

is imbedded in the individual program costs.
306

d

 Includes the applicant’s cost for monitoring invasive species through the term of the license or until discontinued by 

Ecology and the WQWG and FAWG. e Operations and maintenance cost included in the Recreation Facility Operations and Maintenance Program. f Only includes costs expected during first 30 years of the license. g 30-year annualized cost of operating the upstream fish passage management program for years 15-30 of the license. h Includes a $23,000,000 cost for research, monitoring for years 1 to18 of the license and a $47,000,000 cost to either build 

facilities or implement appropriate non-operational measures in years 19 to 30 of the license.

i Staff estimate of 30-year annualized cost for monitoring in years 5-30 of the license. 

j

 The Forest Service recommended no changes to the project boundary to re-establish the 200-foot buffer around the lower 

reservoir.

k

 Only the value of the first 30 years of payments requested by the Forest Service, escalated to $2010, were accounted for 

here.
307

4.2 SULLIVAN CREEK PROJECT

4.2.1 Costs Associated with the District’s Proposal 

In this section, we look at the costs associated with the surrender of the Sullivan 

Creek project. Our analysis includes an estimate of: (1) the cost of individual measures 

proposed by the applicant for the protection, mitigation and enhancement of 

environmental resources affected by the removal of Mill Pond dam and the modification 

to Sullivan dam; (2) alternatives proposed by staff; and (3) the no-action alternative.

Table 4-4 summarizes the projected annualized cost for each of the alternatives 

considered in this DEIS: no-action, the applicant’s proposal, and the staff alternative 

For each of the surrender alternatives, our analysis includes an estimate of the cost of 

the operations and maintenance required for the two alternatives and the cost of the 

individual measures considered in the EIS for the protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement of environmental resources affected by the project. This estimate helps to 

support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest with respect to 

the proposed surrender. 

As currently operated, the project acts as a storage facility and has no generating 

capacity; therefore, we do not consider the cost of alternative power in these 

projections, as was done for the Boundary Project analysis. 

Table 4-4. Estimated costs associated with project decommissioning and removal 

(Source: staff).

No Action District’s 

Proposal

Staff 

Alternative

Annual project operations 

and maintenance cost

$62,800 $62,800 $62,800

Annual proposed costs of 

environmental measures

N/A $971,920 $975,870

Total annual costs of 

O&M and environmental 

measures

$62,800 $1,034,720 $1,038,670

Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate as it does 

now. The project would not be surrendered, Mill Pond dam would not be removed, and 

the proposed environmental protection measures at Sullivan Creek dam would not be 
308

implemented. The project would cost $62,800 in annual operations and maintenance 

charges per year.181

The District proposes to remove Mill Pond dam, add a cold-water release facility 

to Sullivan Lake dam, implement environmental monitoring of both project areas, and 

to surrender the FERC license after all installation, removal, and monitoring 

requirements are completed. The surrender of the project under the District’s proposal 

would cost $1,034,720 per year.

4.2.2 Costs Associated with Staff Recommendations 

In addition to the applicant’s proposed measures for the surrender and 

decommissioning of the Sullivan Creek project, staff recommends that the District 

prepare an Operations and Maintenance plan that would state how Sullivan dam would

be operated until the decommissioning activities are completed, and would describe

how conflicting water uses would be addressed during low-water years. Staff estimates 

that this plan would cost approximately $20,000, or $1,020 per year, to develop and 

implement this plan. Staff also recommends that the District complete a DAHP Level II 

mitigation documentation report for the Sullivan Creek powerhouse and other 

associated contributing elements of the Sullivan Creek Historic District on District lands

within the project boundary. Staff estimates that this would cost $50,000 or $2,550 per 

year. Staff’s recommended measures bring the total annualized cost for the surrender of 

the Sullivan Creek project to $1,038,670 per year.

4.2.3 Cost of Environmental Measures

Table 4-5 gives the cost of each of the environmental measures considered in our 

analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period 

of analysis182 to provide a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its 

cost. Much of this information was provided by the District in its surrender application. 

We find that the values provided by the District are reasonable for the purposes of our 

analysis. 

 

181 The actual cost for operating Sullivan Lake dam and Mill Pond dam would 

likely be higher, as the additional facilities that would remain in place at Mill Pond dam 

would need to be monitored and maintained. However, the District did not provide a 

cost of continuing to operate the project under a FERC license, so we have used the 

projected cost provided for operations and maintenance at Sullivan Lake dam as an 

estimate of continued project operations. 

182 The 30-year period of analysis was chosen for consistency with our analysis 

of the no-action alternative, and because Sullivan Lake and dam would continue to 

operate under a Forest Service permit after the surrender is effective. Normally, we 

would consider the total cost of license surrender and site restoration without converting 

it to an annual cost over a period of years.
309

Table 4-5. Estimated costs associated with project decommissioning and removal 

(Source: District, 2009 and staff).

Capital Cost Annual Cost Levelized 

Annual Cost a

Applicant’s proposed 

measures

Fill and drain operations $8,000 $2,880 $3,290

Add lake level gage to 

Sullivan dam

$8,000 $1,440 $1,850

Add USGS gage to Harvey 

Creek

$15,000 $3,000 $3,770

Monitor bedload in Harvey 

Creek

$1,500 $1,500

Monitoring of run-off in 

Harvey Creek

$1,120 $1,120

Recreation measures $45,000 $0 $2,300

Cold-water release facility $2,704,920 $20,000 $158,000

Mill Pond dam removal $15,300,000 $0 $780,600

HAER Level 2 Report and 

photographic documentation 

of historical resources at Mill 

Pond

$100,000 $0 $5,100

Prepare for and attend 

resource committee meetings

$0 $6,400 $6,400

Dam maintenance, gage 

repairs, and weed removal

$0 $5,000 $5,000

Low-level gate maintenance $0 $3,000 $3,000

Total cost for the applicant’s 

proposed measures 

$18,180,920 $44,340 $971,920

Staff’s proposed measures

Preparation of an Operations 

and Maintenance plan for 

Sullivan Lake dam

$20,000 $0 $1,020

DAHP Level II mitigation 

documentation report of 

Sullivan Creek powerhouse 

and other associated 

contributing elements of the 

$50,000 $0 $2,550
310

Capital Cost Annual Cost Levelized 

Annual Cost a

Sullivan Creek Historic 

District on District lands

within the project boundary

Provide a final design for the 

cold water release facility 

that is compatible with the 

1930s era historic district 

associated with the Ranger 

District and CCC Camp

$7,500 $0 $380

Total cost for the additional 

measures proposed by staff

$77,500 $0 $3,950

Total cost for the license 

surrender measures

$18,258,420 $44,340 $975,870

a All capital costs and annual costs are converted to equal annual costs in 2010 dollars 

over a 30-year period at 3 percent to give a uniform basis for comparing all costs 

between a FERC license or an anticipated Forest Service Special Use Authorization. b Annualized cost over 30 years of a $20,000 payment made each year for years 1 to 17 

after the issuance of the surrender.
311

5.0 STAFF’S CONCLUSIONS

5.1 BOUNDARY PROJECT

5.1.1 Comparison of Alternatives

In this section, we compare the developmental and non-developmental effects of 

Seattle’s proposal, Seattle’s proposal as modified by staff, staff’s alternative with 

mandatory conditions, and the no-action alternative.

We estimate that the annual generation would be 3,612,588 MWh after 

completing the turbine runner upgrades under the proposed action, the staff alternative, 

and the staff alternative with mandatory conditions, and 3,572,750 MWh under the noaction alternative. 

The environmental effects of the alternatives are summarized in table 5-1. The 

staff alternative does not include Seattle’s proposed fish tissue sampling, recreational 

fish stocking program, or funding of habitat enhancement measures in Sullivan Lake 

tributaries; it does include a recommendation for Seattle to develop an Operations 

Compliance Monitoring Plan to document compliance with summer reservoir limits; a 

recommendation to modify the recreation plan to provide a more definitive schedule for 

completing the capital improvements; and reporting requirements to facilitate 

Commission review and approval of plans. The staff alternative with mandatory 

conditions includes the three measures excluded from the staff alternative plus staff’s 

additional recommended measures. Otherwise, the action alternatives are identical and 

the environmental effects would be the same.
312

Table 5-1. Comparison of alternatives for the Boundary Project (Source: staff).

Resource No-Action Alternative Seattle’s Proposal Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative

Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative with 

Mandatory 

Conditions

Generation (MWh) 3,572,750 3,612,588 3,612,588 3,612,588

Soils Reservoir fluctuations, 

wave action, flood flows, 

etc., would continue. 

Rate/amount of future 

loss of shoreline habitats

likely less than historical 

levels (about 15 acres).

Factors affecting shoreline 

erosion would continue. Three 

high value recreation sites 

would be stabilized; all erosion 

sites monitored and appropriate 

stabilization measures 

determined if occurring in high 

resource area and/or exceeding 

6.1 acres of land loss. Portions 

of Sullivan, Linton and Sweet 

Creek stream channels 

stabilized, reducing sediment 

input to the reservoir. 

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal

Water Quality

• Temperature Surface water 

temperatures would 

continue to exceed 20 °C 

at times during summer 

months.

Suite of actions (riparian 

plantings, stream channel 

improvements, etc.) would 

reduce temperatures in 

contributing tributaries which 

may translate to slightly cooler

water in the stream deltas. 

Surface reservoir temperatures 

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal
313

Resource No-Action Alternative Seattle’s Proposal Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative

Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative with 

Mandatory 

Conditions

would continue to exceed 20 °C 

at times during summer months.

• Dissolved 

Oxygen 

DO concentrations would 

occasionally be lower 

than 8 mg/l in summer 

months. 

Same as no-action, except 

Seattle would continuously 

monitor DO in the summer for 5 

years to confirm compliance 

with standards under most water 

conditions and identify potential 

measures if needed to comply 

with water quality standards.

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal

• Total Dissolved 

Gas

Sequencing of Units 55 

and 56 would continue to 

reduce project 

contribution to TDG 

levels during normal 

operation (non-spill 

events); TDG likely to 

exceed state standard of 

110 % saturation during 

high flows (70,000 to 

108,300 cfs). 

Sequencing of Units 55 and 56

may not be needed to reduce 

TDG following turbine runner 

upgrades. A step-wise 

evaluation and implementation 

of structural modifications to the 

project’s sluice gates and 

spillways would likely reduce 

TDG levels and achieve state 

standards in 10 years.

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal

• Lead and Zinc 

levels in fish 

tissues

No fish tissue sampling 

for lead and zinc, except 

as may be collected by 

Tissue samples collected from 

sport fish and suckers from four

sites one time to assess human 

Same as no 

action 

alternative

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal
314

Resource No-Action Alternative Seattle’s Proposal Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative

Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative with 

Mandatory 

Conditions

the state for food 

consumption advisories. 

health risks from fish

consumption. If health 

advisories are warranted, state 

would determine next steps.

• Aquatic 

Macrophytes

and Invasive 

Species

Existing macrophyte beds 

(223 acres) may spread

and populations of Zebra 

mussel, quagga mussel, 

and New Zealand mud 

snail may establish and 

spread.

Installation of bottom barriers 

would reduce or eliminate dense 

macrophyte beds at seven sites 

that hinder recreation and 

potentially trap fish in pools 

during reservoir fluctuations. 

Monitoring for Zebra mussel, 

quagga mussel, and New 

Zealand mud snail, and 

development and 

implementation of control 

methods, if found, would protect 

the aquatic habitats in the 

reservoir.

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal

Aquatic Resources

• Aquatic Habitat Reservoir fluctuations, 

warm water 

temperatures, low 

primary and secondary 

productivity, and 

Adding 1,500 cubic yards of 

gravel below Box Canyon dam 

would enhance native mountain 

whitefish spawning; excavating 

an 1,800-foot-long channel 

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal, except 

stocking of area 

lakes would not 

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal
315

Resource No-Action Alternative Seattle’s Proposal Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative

Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative with 

Mandatory 

Conditions

presence of non-native 

predatory sport fish 

would continue to limit 

native salmonid 

production and habitat. 

Stocking of triploid trout 

is discontinued to reduce

competition with native 

salmonids; this eliminates 

a non-native recreational 

fishery at the reservoir.

would connect mainstem flow 

with several isolated pools,

reducing trapping of fish during 

reservoir fluctuations; adding

1,700 cubic feet of LWD to 

tributary deltas would enhance

habitat quality of these areas;

riparian and stream channel 

enhancements in Sullivan, 

Linton, and Sweet Creeks, and 

other tributaries to the reservoir,

would improve over 2 miles of 

native salmonid habitat, 

including that for bull trout; 

removal of non-native trout 

from tributaries would reduce 

competition in the tributaries 

and improve native salmonid 

production; building a native 

fish propagation facility would 

produce native species to

supplement tributaries draining 

into Boundary reservoir;

monitoring fish abundance and 

occur, likely 

resulting in a 

net reduction in 

available nonnative trout 

recreational 

fishery in the 

project area; 

however a 

native 

recreational 

fishery would 

be improved. 

$2.5 million 

would not be 

made available 

for habitat 

improvements 

in Harvey 

Creek, resulting 

in no change in 

the existing 

conditions.
316

Resource No-Action Alternative Seattle’s Proposal Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative

Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative with 

Mandatory 

Conditions

size in the tributary deltas would 

assist in evaluating the success 

of the implemented 

enhancement measures in 

conserving and recovering 

native salmonids; stocking of 18 

area lakes would enhance

recreational fishing 

opportunities, offset the

discontinuance of reservoir 

stocking program, and reduce 

fishing pressure on native 

salmonids; and providing funds 

may result in habitat 

improvements in Harvey Creek, 

a tributary to Sullivan Lake.

• Entrainment Continued annual loss of 

about 55,000 resident 

fish, including potentially 

targeted native species 

(bull trout, westslope 

cutthroat trout, and 

mountain whitefish).

Targeted evaluation of the 

feasibility and efficacy of 

entrainment reduction facilities, 

such as a floating surface 

collector; installation would 

reduce potential loss of bull 

trout and other fish.

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal
317

Resource No-Action Alternative Seattle’s Proposal Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative

Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative with 

Mandatory 

Conditions

• Fish Passage Upstream movement of 

fish blocked by Boundary 

dam.

Installation of trap and haul 

fishway, following more 

detailed evaluation of target fish 

movements in tailrace to 

appropriately site the facility, 

would improve connectivity of 

upstream bull trout populations 

and would be consistent with 

bull trout recovery plans.

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal

Terrestrial Resources

• Habitat 

Management

Reservoir fluctuations 

would continue to limit 

upland and riparian 

development. Passive 

management would 

provide some protection 

of the 238-acre Boundary 

Wildlife Preserve.

Management of 749 acres of 

Seattle-owned lands within the 

project boundary would benefit 

wildlife and plant communities, 

and ensure remaining lands are 

managed to prevent degradation 

of natural resources. 

Monitoring and controlling

noxious weeds on all project 

lands would protect existing 

wildlife habitats; monitoring of 

rare plants and nesting bald 

eagles, peregrine falcons, and 

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal
318

Resource No-Action Alternative Seattle’s Proposal Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative

Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative with 

Mandatory 

Conditions

bank swallows would determine 

if specific management actions 

to reduce project-related 

recreation disturbance are 

needed; acquiring and managing

about 158 acres of riparian and 

upland habitat and about 13,022 

lineal feet of various habitats 

adjacent to stream channels 

within a few miles of the project 

would benefit federally listed

species and big game and offset 

effects of project-related

recreation and reservoir 

fluctuations on project wildlife 

and wildlife habitats.

• Shoreline 

Management

No shoreline 

management program

would be implemented.

Development of a shoreline 

management program would 

ensure shoreline land uses are 

compatible with wildlife and 

recreation management 

objectives.

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal

Threatened and No change to existing Aquatic habitat measures and Same as Same as Seattle’s 
319

Resource No-Action Alternative Seattle’s Proposal Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative

Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative with 

Mandatory 

Conditions

Endangered Species conditions. Project 

effects on woodland 

caribou, grizzly bear, 

lynx, and gray wolf 

would continue to be 

negligible. Habitat 

conditions for bull trout 

would continue to be 

impaired and upstream 

movement blocked by 

Boundary dam. 

water quality plans would 

improve aquatic habitats, 

reconnect habitat in the mainstem Pend Oreille River and 

promote recovery of bull trout. 

Acquisition and management of 

lands could benefit recovery of 

woodland caribou, grizzly bear, 

lynx, and gray wolf. 

Seattle’s 

proposal

proposal

Recreation Resources

• Operation Minimum lake elevation 

limits during summer 

recreation season 

minimizes effects of 

reservoir fluctuations on 

recreation access.

Same as no-action alternative. Same as noaction 

alternative;

operation 

compliance 

monitoring plan

would provide a 

mechanism for 

the Commission 

to monitor 

compliance with 

Same as staffalternative
320

Resource No-Action Alternative Seattle’s Proposal Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative

Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative with 

Mandatory 

Conditions

the reservoir 

limits.

• Recreational 

Facilities

Vista House, Forebay 

Recreation, and Tailrace 

Recreation Areas would 

continue to be 

maintained.

Recreation experience would be

enhanced by adding 

handicapped accessible vault 

toilets and pathways and 

updated signage at Vista House 

and Tailrace Recreation Areas; 

developing new trailhead, trail 

and view point at Peewee Falls 

and Riverside Mine Canyon 

viewpoints; constructing a new 

trail connecting Peewee Falls 

and Riverside Mine Canyon 

viewpoints; developing a

Metaline Falls Portage Trail; 

extending Metaline Waterfront 

Park boat launch and providing

handicapped parking, toilets, 

and paths.

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal.

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal

• Shoreline 

Dispersed 

Recreation 

Lack of management at 

16 established dispersed 

recreation sites may

Adding fire rings, picnic tables, 

tent pads, watercraft landing 

sites, bulletin boards and 

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal
321

Resource No-Action Alternative Seattle’s Proposal Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative

Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative with 

Mandatory 

Conditions

Management result in some 

environmental

degradation and reduced 

recreational experience.

primitive sanitation systems 

would improve use at six sites,

and reduce environmental 

degradation; monitoring of the 

remaining sites and making 

improvements, as appropriate, 

would ensure continued 

recreational experience.

• Recreation 

Monitoring 

Program

FERC Form 80 reporting

would continue to 

provide recreation use at 

project facilities.

Proposed monitoring program 

would provide information on

visitor use capacity, social 

capacity, and biophysical 

capacity as future demands 

change, enhancing decision 

making on future recreation 

needs.

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal

• Travel and 

Public Access 

Management 

Program

12 roads used primarily 

or exclusively for project 

operations or to access 

project recreation 

facilities would continue 

to be maintained.

Same as no-action; bringing the 

roads into the project boundary 

would facilitate Commission 

oversight of the license,.

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal
322

Resource No-Action Alternative Seattle’s Proposal Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative

Staff 

Recommended 

Alternative with 

Mandatory 

Conditions

Groundwater

monitoring well and 

road closure

Wells and road remain 

open.

Closure of 18, with the potential 

for one additional, groundwater

monitoring wells and spur roads 

used to access the wells would 

reduce in a small way the 

number of roads in the area, 

improving wildlife habitat; 

restoration of lands would be

consistent with Forest Plan.

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal

Cultural Resources No HPMP to protect 

cultural resources.

Implementing the HPMP would

protect cultural resources

Same as 

Seattle’s 

proposal

Same as Seattle’s 

proposal
323

5.1.2 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative

Section 4(e) and 10(a) of the FPA require the Commission, in considering 

whether and under what conditions to issue a license, to give equal consideration to the 

power development purposes and to the purposes of energy conservation; the protection, 

mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; the protection of 

recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of environmental 

quality. Any license issued shall be such as in the Commission’s judgment will be best 

adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways 

for all beneficial public uses. This section contains the basis for, and a summary of, our 

recommendations for relicensing the Boundary Project. We weigh the costs and 

benefits of our recommended alternative against other proposed measures. 

Based on our independent review of agency and public comments filed on this 

project and our review of the environmental and economic effects of the proposed 

project and its alternatives, we selected the staff alternative as the preferred option. We 

recommend this option because: (1) issuance of a new hydropower license by the 

Commission would allow Seattle to continue operating the project as a beneficial and 

dependable source of electrical energy; (2) the 1,003 MW of electric energy generated 

from a renewable resource may offset the use of fossil-fueled generating plants, thereby 

conserving nonrenewable resources and reducing atmospheric pollution; (3) the public 

benefits of this alternative would exceed those of the no-action alternative; and (4) the 

recommended measures would substantially protect and enhance fish and wildlife and 

their habitats, foster the recovery of the federally listed bull trout, enhance recreational 

opportunities, and protect cultural resources. 

In the following section, we make recommendations as to which environmental 

measures proposed by Seattle or recommended by agencies and other entities should be 

included in any license issued for the project. In addition to the Seattle’s proposed 

environmental measures, we recommend additional environmental measures to be 

included in any license issued for the project. We describe these proposed requirements 

in the draft license articles in Appendix A. We also discuss which measures we do not 

recommend including in the license in section 5.1.2.3 below.

5.1.2.1 Environmental Measures Proposed by Seattle

Based on our environmental analysis of Seattle’s proposal in section 3 and the 

costs presented in section 4, the following environmental measures proposed by 

Seattle183 would protect and enhance environmental resources and would be worth the 

 

183 Seattle proposes to include in the license a formula for escalating all costs or 

payments specified in the new license and management plans (article 10). While we do 

not object to including an escalation requirement to ensure that adequate planning and 

funding are available to implement the approved plans, any costs contained in the 
324

cost. Therefore, we recommend including these measures in any license issued for the 

project.184 Article numbers in parentheses reference proposed article numbers contained 

in settlement agreement filed on March 29, 2010.

 

recommended plans should not be construed as spending caps (see for example the 

spending limits contained in the Fish and Aquatics Management Plan for the 

development and evaluation of upstream passage and installation of facilities to reduce 

entrainment). To so clarify, Commission staff recommends including a condition in the 

license reserving the Commission’s authority to require the licensee to undertake such 

measures as may be appropriate and reasonable to implement approved plans and other 

requirements in any issued license. Also, the proposed article for the entrainment 

reduction program contemplates a two phase implementation process, with phase 1 from 

year 19 through year 33, and phase 2 from year 34 through the end of the license term. 

The license term is a matter for the order on license; thus, such measures may need to be 

modified to conform to the license term.

184 The following proposed plans and programs contemplate being developed and 

implemented in consultation with the various workgroups, but without Commission 

approval: Terrestrial Resource Management Plan; Adaptive Management Plan to 

monitor effectiveness of terrestrial resource measures; Long-Term Erosion Control 

Monitoring Program; Riparian Habitat Management Plans for Everett Creek and 

Boundary Wildlife Preserve (BWP); Upland Habitat Management Plan for BWP, BWP 

Addition, Tailrace East, and Everett Creek; Road Maintenance Plan; Final MultiResource Interpretation and Education Program; Tributary Management Plan Mill Pond 

Dam Site Monitoring and Maintenance Plan; Tributary Delta Predation Study Plan; 

Forebay Hydraulic Study Plan; Design Plans for Native Fish Conservation 

[Propagation] Facility. To enable Commission oversight of the license, we recommend 

including a requirement to file these plans for Commission approval. Likewise, the 

following reports should be filed to demonstrate compliance with the license 

requirements and facilitate the Commission’s oversight of the license: Annual 

Compliance Report; Aquatic Vegetation Bottom Barrier Effectiveness Reports; 

Temperature Data and Attainment (Measure Implementation) Reports; Total Dissolved 

Gas Data and Attainment Reports; and Fish and Aquatics Management Plan Annual 

Compliance Reports. The Dissolved Oxygen Attainment Plan contemplates potential 

future modifications to project operations or facilities to address dissolved oxygen 

issues in the reservoir. We recommend including a provision stipulating that any such 

future changes would require an amendment of the license. Proposed Article 9(d) 

provides for the filing of annual compliance reports to document activities that occur as 

part of the FAMP. Staff recommends that the annual reports also include a description 

of the activities planned for the upcoming year. This addition would help facilitate 

Commission oversight of the license by affording staff an opportunity to review and 

approve plans, as warranted, for proposed activities. 
325

Operations (proposed article 1)

• From Memorial Day weekend (starting Friday evening) through Labor Day 

weekend (ending on Monday evening), maintain forebay water surface elevations 

at or above 1,984 feet from 6:00 am through 8:00 pm, to facilitate recreational 

access and use. From 8:00 pm through 6:00 am maintain forebay water surface 

elevations at or above 1,982 feet.

• Operate Units 55 and 56 above 125 MW and sequence their startup and 

shutdown so that they are the last units to be brought on line and the first units to 

be shut down to reduce total dissolved gas under normal, non-spill operations. 

Revaluate unit sequencing following other unit upgrades.

Coordination (proposed article 2)

• Establish and convene Boundary Resource Coordinating Committee and the 

following work groups as needed to meet consultation requirements: Fish and 

Aquatics Work Group, Water Quality Work Group, Terrestrial Resources Work 

Group, Recreation Resources Work Group, and Cultural Resources Work Group.

Fish and Aquatic Resources

• Implement the following plans to improve and monitor water quality (proposed 

article 8): Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention Plan, Dissolved 

Oxygen Attainment Plan, Temperature Attainment Plan, and Total Dissolved 

Gas Attainment Plan filed as Exhibits 6, 7, 9, and 10 to the settlement agreement.

• Implement the Fish and Aquatics Management Plan (FAMP), filed as Exhibit 11 

to the settlement agreement, which consist of the following components to 

improve fish habitat, provide passage of resident fish, and foster recovery of bull 

trout and native resident fishes: (A) Mainstem Fish Community and Aquatic 

Habitat Measures, (B) Upstream Fish Passage, (C) Reduction of Project-Related 

Entrainment Mortality, (D) Tributary Non-native Trout Suppression and 

Eradication, (E) Tributary Fish Community and Aquatic Habitat Measures, (F) 

Mill Pond Dam Site Monitoring and Maintenance, and (G) Native Salmonid 

Conservation Program.

Terrestrial Resources

• Implement the Terrestrial Resource Management Plan, filed as Exhibit 2 to the 

settlement agreement, which consists of the following programs (proposed article 

3): (i) Erosion program, (ii) Habitat Management, Enhancement, and Protection 

and Program, (iii) Integrated Weed Management Program, (iv) Rare, Threatened 

or Endangered Plant Species Program, (v) Wildlife Program, and (vi) Shoreline 

Management Program.

• Within 5 years of license issuance, acquire and manage, within the area defined 

in the settlement agreement, about 158 acres of highly diverse riparian and 
326

upland habitat and about 13,022 lineal feet of varying habitats immediately 

adjacent to water features to benefit federally listed species and big game and 

offset the effects of project-related recreation and reservoir fluctuations on 

project wildlife and wildlife habitats (proposed article 4).

Recreation Resources

• Except as modified below, implement the Recreation Resource Management 

Plan, filed as Exhibit 3 to the settlement agreement, which consists of the 

following programs (proposed article 5): (i) Recreation Facility Capital 

Improvements Program, (ii) Recreation Facility Operations and Maintenance 

Program, (iii) Shoreline Dispersed Recreation Management Program, (iv) 

Recreation Monitoring Program, (v) Travel And Public Access Management 

Plan, and (vi) Multi-Resource Interpretation and Education Program.

Land Uses

• Implement the Well Monitoring and Road Decommissioning Plan, filed as 

Exhibit 4 to the settlement agreement, to close groundwater monitoring wells and 

roads to wells no longer needed for project purposes (proposed article 6).

Cultural Resources

• Implement a programmatic agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan 

(HPMP), filed as Exhibit 5 to the settlement agreement, to protect cultural 

resources (proposed article 7).

185

5.1.2.2 Staff Recommended Changes to Seattle’s Proposal

In addition to Seattle’s proposed measures for the Boundary Project, we 

recommend that Seattle prepare an operation compliance monitoring plan that specifies 

the methods that would be used to document compliance with the summer lake 

elevation limits and provides for filing an annual compliance report. We also 

recommend that the recreation plan be modified to clarify when recreational facility 

improvements would be completed. 

Below we discuss the basis for staff-recommended modifications to Seattle’s

proposal. 

Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan

Seattle proposes, and the Forest Service stipulates, that Seattle continue to 

maintain minimum forebay water surface elevations during the summer to enhance 

recreational access to the project reservoir. Seattle’s operating regime specifies water 

 

185 Consistent with Commission practice, Commission staff would craft a 

programmatic agreement to implement the HPMP, and the programmatic agreement 

would be made part of any new license for the project. 
327

surface elevations that must be met during certain times of the day. While Seattle 

proposes to notify the Commission following any deviations for the elevations due to 

specific conditions or events (e.g., equipment failure, unanticipated maintenance 

activities requiring extended outages, natural disasters, emergency load and reserve

support as required by WECC and NERC, etc.), it does not explain how it would 

monitor compliance with the pool elevations. Therefore, we recommend that Seattle 

develop and implement an Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan to provide the 

Commission a means to ensure compliance with the proposed summer water surface 

elevation limits. The compliance monitoring benefits of the plan would justify the cost 

($2,620 annualized over 30 years). 

FAMP – Tributary Management Plan Modification

Under the FAMP, Seattle proposes to use chemicals as part of its non-native fish 

eradication efforts, specifically rotenone, antimycin, or an equivalent fish toxicant. The 

Sweet Creek residents express concern with the use of chemicals to suppress or 

eradicate non-native fish in the Boundary watershed, specifically in Sweet Creek. The 

residents note that Sweet Creek provides drinking water and domestic use water for the 

ranch residents, as well as water used by the Selkirk school complex. The Sweet Creek

residents request that no chemicals be introduced into Sweet Creek or its adjacent areas.

This issue is addressed, in detail, in Appendix C, page 22, of this final EIS. As 

discussed on page C-22, the FAMP recognizes the existing uses of Sweet Creek. 

Moreover, the consultation process laid out in the FAMP should address many, if not 

all, the concerns of the Sweek Creek residents. The TMP (or Tributary Management 

Plan) would be developed in consultation with the FAWG, whose membership does not 

include the Sweet Creek residents.

To ensure that the Sweet Creek residents’ issues are addressed, Seattle should 

consider the residents’ concerns as it develops the TMP. To this end, we recommend 

that the final TMP filed with the Commission for approval address the details outlined 

in the FAMP, as well as: (1) any potential health risks associated with the proposed 

treatments; and (2) the potential for any chemical used to affect an individual’s or 

entities’ water supply. We also recommend Seattle address these issues with not only 

the members of the FAWG, but also the appropriate state entity tasked with protecting 

public health; in this case, the Washington Department of Health. There would be no 

additional cost to implement this modification to the TMP.

Recreation Resources Management Plan Modifications

Seattle proposes to implement the recreation resources management plan filed 

with the settlement agreement. Forest Service stipulates under section 4(e) and Interior 

recommends that Seattle implement the plan. The plan includes a schedule for 

completing the proposed capital improvement projects (appendix 7 to the plan) within 

the first 10 years of the license, and assigns a priority to the measures as years 3 to 5, 6 

to 7, or 8 to 10 of the license. To facilitate Commission oversight of the license, we 
328

recommend that the capital improvements be completed by the latter date within each 

range identified, as clarified below. 

• Within five years of license issuance: complete the recreation facility 

improvements at the Forebay Recreation Area and the Metaline Waterfront Park 

Boat Launch. 

• Within seven years of license issuance: complete the Peewee Falls Viewpoint 

and Trail, Riverside Mine Canyon Viewpoint and Trail, and Metaline Falls 

Portage Trail and Boater Access Site.

• Within seven years of license issuance: complete enhancements at the six 

designated dispersed shoreline recreation sites identified in the recreation plan.

• Within ten years of license issuance: complete the recreation facility 

improvements at the Eastside Trial, Vista House Recreation Area, and Tailrace 

Recreation Area/Machine Hall Visitors’ Gallery.

There would be no additional cost to implement the above measures because they 

are within the timeframes and specifications contemplated by the plan.

5.1.2.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff

The following measures proposed by Seattle and recommended by other 

interested parties are not sufficiently connected to the project’s environmental effects 

and would serve no project purpose: fish tissue sampling (proposed article 8(iii)), 

recreational fish stocking program (proposed article 9(H)), and funding of habitat 

improvements in tributaries to Sullivan Lake (article 9(I)). We discusses the basis for 

not to recommending these measures below. However, we note that all of these

measures are included in the Forest Service’s 4(e) conditions, and that valid 4(e) 

conditions would be made part of any license issued for the project.

Fish Tissue Sampling Plan

Seattle proposes to collect fish tissue from game fish and suckers collected in 

four areas in the project reservoir to monitor for lead and zinc levels in fish tissues. The 

data would be provided to Ecology and Washington Department of Health (WDOH) to 

assess human health risks from fish consumption. If health advisories are warranted, 

Ecology and WDOH would determine the next steps for tissue sampling or health 

advisory issuance. 

As discussed in section 3.4.2.2, multiple lines of evidence indicate that project 

operation does not affect the bioavailability or mobility of toxins, including lead and 

zinc. Seattle’s proposed fish tissue sampling plan would not be able to determine the 

source of lead or zinc in the fish tissues or determine a causal relationship between lead 

and zinc levels in resident fish tissues and project operations. Because there is no 

relationship to project effects and it would serve no project purpose, we do not 
329

recommend that the proposed Fish Tissue Sampling Plan be included in any license 

issued for the Boundary Project.

Recreational Fish Stocking Program

To mitigate the continuing effects of project water level fluctuations and fish 

entrainment on the aquatic habitat and the fish community in the Boundary Reservoir 

and the Pend Oreille River, Seattle and parties to the settlement agreement focused on 

measures designed to benefit native salmonids in the Boundary Reservoir and its 

tributaries. Such measures include habitat enhancements, improved passage at the 

Boundary dam, and within tributaries to the lake, fish entrainment protection, water 

quality improvements, implementing a native fish conservation program, and fish 

stocking. To offset the loss of recreational angling opportunities at the project186 and 

compensate for other fish losses that would continue to occur through entrainment, 

Seattle proposes to stock westslope cutthroat, rainbow, triploid rainbow, and/or tiger 

trout in 18 lakes within a 15-mile area around the project. Fry, fingerlings, and 

catchable-size fish could be stocked. To determine the efficacy of the program, Seattle 

would monitor at least six of the lakes each year prior to the springtime opening day of 

trout season. 

The measures contained in the FAMP, which we recommend, with the exception 

of the recreational fish stocking program, would eventually provide a recreational 

fishery for non-native fishes in the project reservoir and tributaries; these measures 

include eradication of non-native species from tributaries to the project and stocking 

with natives, construction of a hatchery to raise native species for stocking the 

tributaries, habitat improvements to benefit mountain whitefish spawning in the 

reservoir, and habitat improvements in tributaries and at their confluence with the 

reservoir to benefit native fisheries. We also recommend measures related to upstream 

fish passage, measures to reduce entrainment of fishery resources, measures to improve 

boat access to the reservoir, and measures to improve water quality in the project area 

and the larger tributaries flowing into the reservoir. 

Stocking resident, non-native fish in nearby lakes would no doubt provide 

recreational angling opportunities within close proximity to the project. However, 

fishery management decisions regarding native fish restoration in the Pend Oreille River 

basin are not the responsibility of a licensee. The licensee is responsible for providing 

appropriate public recreation opportunities at its project. To this end, the licensee 

would undertake measures, as part of the FAMP, to establish a native recreational 

fishery, consistent with resource agency goals. If the public interest is to promote a 

native fishery over the non-native recreational fishery, stocking resident, non-native 

 

186 Because of competition with native salmonids, Washington DFW no longer 

supports Seattle’s voluntary stocking of triploid trout (sterile trout) in the Boundary 

Reservoir, which has become a popular recreational fishery in the Boundary Reservoir.
330

trout in project waters would not be prudent. A licensee should not be expected to 

mitigate for the lost non-native recreational fishery by undertaking measures off-site. 

Therefore, we do not recommend that the Commission include this element of the 

FAMP in any license it may issue for the Boundary Project. 

Fund for Habitat Improvements in Tributaries to Sullivan Lake

Sullivan Lake, which is a component of the District’s Sullivan Project, is fed by 

Harvey, Noisy, and Jungle Creeks, and supports a naturally reproducing, self-sustaining 

population of kokanee that is a recreational fishery of regional importance. Sullivan 

Lake discharges into Outlet and Sullivan Creeks, which empty into the Boundary 

Project reservoir. The Sullivan Lake dam represents a barrier to fish movement in 

Sullivan Creek, blocking access to 1,291 acres and 13 miles of habitat for spawning, 

rearing, foraging, and overwintering habitat in Sullivan Lake and upstream tributaries, 

including that for bull trout. The parties to the settlement agreement, however, agree 

that the need to protect habitat and refugia for native species outweighs the passage of 

fish at the Sullivan Lake dam. As part of its settlement agreement, Seattle proposes to 

establish a $2.5 million fund to help pay for activities to enhance habitat conditions in 

Harvey, Noisy, and Jungle creeks that flow into Sullivan Lake. The fund would be 

administered by the FAWG.

Improving habitat conditions in these tributaries would benefit native fish 

populations in the Sullivan Lake drainage, including kokanee, cutthroat trout, and bull 

trout populations (should they become established in the future). Improving instream 

habitat conditions also is likely to enhance the forage base for native fishes. However 

this measure lacks a connection to the Boundary Project’s effects on aquatic resources 

in the Pend Oreille River and tributaries that flow into Boundary Reservoir. Improving 

habitat in these streams would provided little, if any, benefit to resources affected by 

continued operation of the Boundary Project and would serve no project purpose. 

Therefore, we do not recommend that the Commission include this element of the 

FAMP in any license it may issue for the project.

5.1.2.4 Project Boundary Modifications

We recommend that Seattle’s proposed changes to the project boundary be 

approved. Most of the approximately 544 acres of land that would be added have been 

and would continue to be used for project purposes, including maintenance and 

operation and preservation of wildlife habitats; a small portion (a few acres) would 

enlarge the buffer zone around the project thereby providing additional shoreline control 

and protection of environmental resources. Refinement of the project boundary in the 

area of District’s Campbell Park would also resolve conflicts with District’s upstream 

Box Canyon project boundary. There would be no adverse environmental effect 

associated with the boundary modifications; there would likely be a small increase in 

annual charges associated with administering a staff-estimated additional 30 acres of 
331

federal lands (i.e., once the revised exhibit G drawings are filed and the federal acreage 

retabulated).

Seattle would also modify the project boundary in the future after acquiring 

about 158 acres of wildlife habitat lands. Because Seattle would manage these lands for 

the life of the license, they should be brought into the project boundary upon 

acquisition. Similarly, because Seattle would also monitor and maintain aquatic habitat 

enhancements in Sullivan, Linton and Sweet Creeks and other tributaries for the life of 

the license, the affected stream segments where aquatic habitat improvements are 

installed would likely need to be brought into the project boundary and revised Exhibit 

G drawings filed for Commission approval after the measures are completed. Likewise, 

the native fish hatchery, which would be constructed, operated, and maintained by 

Seattle, would need to be brought into the project boundary, and revised Exhibits A and 

G filed for Commission approval upon completing construction.

5.1.2.5 Conclusion

Based on our review of the agency and public comments filed on the project and 

our independent analysis pursuant to sections 4(e), 10(a)(1), and 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 

we conclude that licensing the Boundary Project, as proposed by Seattle (with the 

exception of the fish tissue sampling, recreational fish stocking, and funding tributary 

improvements to Sullivan Lake), with staff-recommended measures, would be the best 

adapted plan for improving or developing the Pend Oreille River watershed.

5.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Some potential effects of relicensing the Boundary Project are unavoidable or 

can not be completely eliminated by Seattle’s proposed measures. Unavoidable adverse 

effects would include:

• reduced productivity in near-shore areas due to fluctuating water surface 

elevations, to the extent fluctuations are caused by project operations;

• disruption of sediment transport;

• disruption of LWD transport;

• trapping and stranding of fish and other aquatic organisms due to fluctuating 

water surface elevations, to the extent fluctuations are caused by project 

operations; 

• fluctuations in aquatic habitat and availability of thermal refugia in tributary 

delta regions, to the extent fluctuations are caused by project operations; and

• fish entrainment.

All of the unavoidable adverse impacts identified above are long term and would

occur throughout the term of any new license issued for the project. The magnitude of 

these effects on native salmonids is difficult to evaluate, because few native salmonids 
332

reside in the Boundary reservoir, and many non-project factors also affect native 

salmonid population abundance.

Reservoir fluctuations would continue to reduce near-shore aquatic habitat 

productivity. Seattle proposes to implement extensive habitat improvements to enhance 

aquatic habitat productivity in tributaries to the project. Seattle also proposes water 

quality improvements which would lessen the effects of the reservoir fluctuations on 

aquatic habitat productivity in the reservoir.

Disruption of sediment and LWD transport are caused by the existence of dams 

on the Pend Oreille River and are, therefore, cumulative in nature. Seattle proposes to 

implement a gravel augmentation program for the river reach between RM 29.1 and the 

Box Canyon dam to increase potential mountain whitefish spawning habitat; LWD jams 

would be placed in the deltas of Sullivan, Sweet, Slate, and Linton creeks to provide 

cover for salmonids occupying the mouths of these tributaries. 

Trapping and stranding of fish, as well as fluctuations in aquatic habitat and 

thermal refugia, are site-specific and occur episodically. Trapping and stranding effects 

are greatest during large-magnitude drawdowns that occur infrequently. Seattle 

proposes to excavate a channel to connect mainstem flow to several isolated pools at a 

large cobble bar near RM 30.3 to reduce the risk of fish becoming trapped during 

periods of declining water surface elevation. In addition, Seattle proposes to install 

bottom barriers at select locations to suppress invasive macrophyte abundance, thereby 

reducing the risk of macrophyte-related stranding and trapping at these locations.

Stream temperatures and TDG levels are likely to continue to exceed state 

standards until upstream projects are able to reduce their contributions to elevated 

temperatures and TDG levels. Thermal refugia are important primarily during summer 

when mainstem water temperatures can exceed the tolerance limits of native fish. 

Although some thermal refugia are generally available to fish seeking cool water, 

reservoir fluctuations from load following operations result in continuous changes to the 

shape and location of the thermal plumes, which means fish must frequently adjust their 

locations to remain in desirable thermal conditions. For native salmonids that prefer 

relatively cool water temperatures, these effects could be substantial.

The Pend Oreille River supports small populations of native fishes that use the 

river as a migratory corridor to access rearing, foraging, and spawning habitat in the 

river’s tributaries. The river also supports a variety of non-native species that are 

recreationally important or serve as forage fish for predatory species. These fish are 

subjected to entrainment and mortality at the project, either via passage through the 

generating units or when water is spilled at the dam. The on-going levels of mortality, 

if they continue, would reduce the benefits of fish production gained in the additional 

habitat provided by passage at the Box Canyon dam. Seattle’s proposed fish 

entrainment reduction program would substantially reduce, but likely not eliminate, fish 

entrainment and mortality at the project.
333

Some minor erosion and sediment deposition would continue to occur from 

project reservoir fluctuations and from implementing the various environmental 

measures. Reservoir fluctuations would continue to prohibit riparian development in 

the fluctuation zone and erosion would continue to eliminate habitat. Seattle’s TRMP 

would offset or compensate for these adverse effects.

5.1.4 Summary of Section 10(j) Recommendations and 4(e) Conditions

5.1.4.1 Fish and Wildlife Recommendations

Under the provisions of section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license 

issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided 

by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or 

enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. Section 10(j) of the 

FPA also states that whenever the Commission believes that any fish and wildlife 

agency recommendation may be inconsistent with the purposes and the requirements of 

the FPA, or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall attempt to 

resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, 

and statutory responsibilities of such agency.

In response to our REA notice, Interior and the Washington DFW submitted 

recommendations for the project on September 2, 2010 (supplemented on October 4, 

2010) and September 3, 2010, respectively. Table 5-2 lists the federal and state 

recommendations filed pursuant to section 10(j) and indicates whether the 

recommendations are included under the Staff Alternative. Environmental 

recommendations that we consider outside the scope of section 10(j) have been 

considered under section 10(a) of the FPA, and are addressed in the specific resource 

sections of this document.

Of the 16 recommendations that we consider to be within the scope of 

section 10(j), we include all within the staff alternative (table 5-2).

Table 5-2. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the Boundary Project 

(Source: staff).

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

Scope of 

Section 

10(j)

Annualized 

Cost ($)

Adopted? And 

Basis for 

Preliminary 

Determination of 

Inconsistency

Maintain lake levels 

consistent with proposed 

Article 1 of the settlement

for recreation.

Washington 

DFW

No – Not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

0 Yes
334

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

Scope of 

Section 

10(j)

Annualized 

Cost ($)

Adopted? And 

Basis for 

Preliminary 

Determination of 

Inconsistency

resources.

Implement proposed Article 

2 of the settlement –

Boundary Resource 

Coordinating Committee and 

Work Groups.

Washington 

DFW, 

Interior

No – Not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources.

0a Yes

Implement Terrestrial 

Resources Management Plan

and associated provisions 

identified in proposed 

Article 3, including:

Washington 

DFW, 

Interior

(i) erosion program Yes $28,900 Yes

(ii) habitat management, 

enhancement, and 

protection program

Yes $88,190 Yes

(iii) integrated weed 

management program

Yes $106,710 Yes

(iv) rare, threatened, and 

endangered plant program; 

No-measure 

designed to 

protect rare 

plants, not 

to protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources

$72,590 Yes

(v) Wildlife Program Yes $110,100 Yes

(vi) Shoreline 

Management Program

Yes $7,400 Yes

Acquire and manage about 

158 acres of riparian and 

upland habitat and about 

13,022 lineal feet of varying 

habitats immediately 

adjacent to water features

within the area specified in 

the agreement to benefit 

listed species and big game 

Washington 

DFW

Yes $26,170 Yes
335

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

Scope of 

Section 

10(j)

Annualized 

Cost ($)

Adopted? And 

Basis for 

Preliminary 

Determination of 

Inconsistency

wildlife, as identified in

proposed Article 4.

Implement the Water 

Quality Plans and associated 

provisions identified in

proposed Article 8 including.

Interior

(i) aquatic invasive species 

control and prevention 

plan

Yes $106,050 Yes

(ii) dissolved oxygen 

attainment plan

Yes $19,890 Yes

(iii) fish tissue sampling 

plan

No-study 

that could 

have been 

completed 

prior to 

filing and 

not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources

$3,400 No. no nexus to 

project effects (see 

section 5.1.2)

(iv) temperature attainment 

plan

Yes $49,730 Yes

(v) total dissolved gas 

attainment plan

Yes $1,176,870 Yes

Implement the Fish and 

Aquatics Management Plan 

and associated provisions 

identified in proposed 

Article 9, including the 

following:

Washington 

DFW, 

Interior

(i) mainstem fish 

community and aquatic 

habitat measures – Article 

9(A) .

Washington 

DFW, 

Interior

Yes $638,770 Yes

(ii) install, operate, 

maintain, and monitor an 

Washington 

DFW

Yes $3,286,350 Yes
336

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

Scope of 

Section 

10(j)

Annualized 

Cost ($)

Adopted? And 

Basis for 

Preliminary 

Determination of 

Inconsistency

upstream fish passage 

facility, including 

developing a Fish Passage 

Plan, – Article 9(B).

(iii) implement measures 

to reduce fish entrainment 

and turbine mortality –

Article 9(C).

Washington 

DFW

Yes $3,664,290 Yes

(iv) implement non-native 

salmonid suppression and 

eradication activities in 

portions of 23 waterbodies 

in the Boundary Reservoir 

watershed – Article 9(D).

Washington 

DFW, 

Interior

Yes $717,570 Yes

(v) implement tributary 

fish community and 

aquatic habitat measures –

Article 9(E).

Washington 

DFW, 

Interior

Yes $2,631,330 Yes

(vi) implement the Mill 

Pond dam site monitoring 

and maintenance 

provisions – Article 9(F).

Washington 

DFW, 

Interior

Yes $1,800 Yes

(vii) implement the native 

salmonid conservation 

program provisions –

Article 9(G).

Washington 

DFW, 

Interior

Yes $1,986,430 Yes

(viii) implement the 

recreational fish stocking 

program – Article 9(H) .

Washington 

DFW, 

Interior

No –

recreation 

measure, 

not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources.

$72,000 No, no nexus to 

project effects or 

purposes (see 

section 5.1.2).

(ix) establish the $2.5 

million Sullivan Lake 

Upper Tributary Fund for 

improving aquatic habitat 

Washington 

DFW, 

Interior

No – Not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect, 

$130,870 No, no nexus to 

project effects or 

purposes; 

tributaries are 
337

Recommendation Agency

Within the 

Scope of 

Section 

10(j)

Annualized 

Cost ($)

Adopted? And 

Basis for 

Preliminary 

Determination of 

Inconsistency

in Harvey, Noisy, and 

Jungle creeks – Article 9(I) 

.

mitigate, or 

enhance fish 

and wildlife 

resources.

upstream of 

Sullivan Lake 

dam, which blocks 

fish movement

(see section 5.1.2). a Consultation and reporting requirements included in individual measures.

5.1.4.2 Land Management Agencies’ Section 4(e) Conditions

In section 2.1.2.5, Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal—Mandatory 

Conditions, we list the preliminary 4(e) conditions submitted by the Forest Service, and 

note that section 4(e) of the FPA provides that any license issued by the Commission 

“for a project within a federal reservation shall 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.” Thus, any 4(e) condition that 

meets the requirements of the law must be included in any license issued by the 

Commission, regardless of whether we include the condition in our staff alternative. 

The Forest Service, by letter filed on August 26, 2010, states that it does not anticipate 

needing to modify its preliminary 4(e) conditions, but it reserves the right to do so if the 

Commission materially modifies the Settlement Agreement in a licensing order.

Of the Forest Service’s conditions, we consider Conditions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to be

standard, administrative, or legal in nature and not specific environmental measures. 

We, therefore, do not analyze these conditions in the EIS. 187

Table 5-3 summarizes our conclusions with respect to the four conditions that we

consider to be environmental measures. We include in the staff alternative two 

conditions as specified by the Forest Service, and did not recommend parts of two 

conditions; the measures not adopted in total are discussed in more detail in section 5.2, 

Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.. Regardless, we included 

all of these conditions in our staff alternative with mandatory conditions.

 

187 We do not, however, recommend including part of one of the administrative 

provisions. Specifically, we do not recommend including the cost reimbursement 

schedule included in Forest Service 4(e) condition 4, stipulating payments ($61,970 

annualized over 30 years) for reimbursing the Forest Service for its administrative costs.
338

Table 5-3. Forest Service 4(e) conditions considered environmental measures, their 

annualized cost, and staff recommendations (Source: staff).

Condition Annualized Cost Recommended?

1. Compliance with Settlement Agreement $0 In parta

3. Implementation of Settlement Agreement 

Articles

$15,566,080 In parta

8. National Forest System Roads $18,632b Yes

9. National Forest System Land Boundary 

Survey

$2,620 Yes

a

 We do not recommend the recreational fish stocking program ($72,000), the Sullivan 

Lake Tributary Fund ($130,870), or the Fish Tissue Sampling Plan ($3,400).

b

 This includes $90,000/15 years for major maintenance and $15,000/year annual 

maintenance for roads leading to project recreation facilities.

5.1.5 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans

Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C.§803(a)(2)(A), requires the

Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with the federal or 

state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or 

waterways affected by the project. We reviewed 14 comprehensive plans (listed below) 

that are applicable to the Boundary Project, located in Washington., No inconsistencies 

were found.

Forest Service. 1988. Colville National Forest land and resource management plan. 

Department of Agriculture, Colville, Washington.

Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 2002. Washington State 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning Document (SCORP): 2002-2007. 

Olympia, Washington. October 2002.

Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 1991. Washington State trails plan: 

policy and action document. Tumwater, Washington. June 1991.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2009. Columbia River Basin fish and 

wildlife program. Portland, Oregon. Council Document 2009-09. October 2009. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2010. The Sixth Northwest conservation 

and electric power plan. Portland, Oregon. Council Document 2010-09. February 

2010.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 1988. Protected areas amendments and 

response to comments. Portland, Oregon. Council Document 88-22 (September 

14, 1988).
339

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American 

waterfowl management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. 

May 1986.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries 

policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.

Washington Department of Community Development. Office of Archaeology and 

Historic Preservation. 1987. Resource protection planning process - Paleoindian 

study unit. Olympia, Washington. 55 pp.

Washington Department of Community Development. Office of Archaeology and 

Historic Preservation. 1987. A resource protection planning process 

identification component for the eastern Washington protohistoric study unit. 

Olympia, Washington. 51 pp.

Washington Department of Ecology. 1994. State wetlands integration strategy. 

Olympia, Washington. December 1994. 80 pp. 

Washington Department of Ecology. 1986. Application of shoreline management to 

hydroelectric developments. Olympia, Washington. September 1986.

Washington Department of Fisheries. 1987. Hydroelectric project assessment 

guidelines. Olympia, Washington. 91 pp.

Washington State Energy Office. 1992. Washington State hydropower 

development/resource protection plan. Olympia, Washington. December 1992. 

34 pp.

5.2 SULLIVAN CREEK PROJECT 

5.2.1 Comparison of Alternatives

In this section, we compare the effects of the District’s proposal, the District’s 

proposal as modified by staff, and the no-action alternative (i.e., continuing to operate 

the project as licensed). The project does not generate electricity and would not do so in 

the future. 

Surrendering the project with removal of Mill Pond dam as proposed would have 

a total cost of $18,180,920188 (with an annualized cost of $1,034,720), and as proposed 

with staff modifications, it would have a total cost of $18,258,420 (annualized cost of 

$1,038,670).

We summarize the environmental effects of the different alternatives in table 5-4.

 

188 This cost includes all capital costs provided by the applicant, and a presentvalue cost of all cost given as annual costs in the surrender application (monitoring, 

demolition, restoration, etc.).
340

Table 5-4. Comparison of alternatives for the Sullivan Creek Project.

Resource No-Action District’s proposal Staff Alternative

Operation

• Sullivan Lake 

Elevations

Drawdown would begin 

October 1 until lake reaches 

elevation 2,565 (typically 

December 31); beginning on or 

before April 1 reservoir would 

be refilled to reach full pool 

(2,588) by June 1, subject to 

hydrologic conditions; lake held 

at full pool until September 31

to benefit recreation.

Drawdown would begin about one month 

earlier (the day after Labor Day) to reach 

elevation 2,577 by November 15 and the 

minimum winter pool elevation of 2,570 (five 

feet higher than currently operated) by 

December 31; beginning on or before April 1

reservoir would be refilled to try to reach full 

pool by June 1; lake maintained at full pool 

through Labor Day, subject to hydrologic 

conditions, water availability, and discharge 

flow requirements.

During high run-off (120% of long-term 

average) years; Sullivan Lake held at 

elevation 2,575 until May 20 to facilitate 

mobilization of sediment at the confluence of 

Harvey Creek and Sullivan Lake (Harvey 

Creek Project); this is expected to improve 

access to habitats in Sullivan Lake, but will 

be discontinued if not effective after four such 

events.

Same as District’s 

proposal, except 

specific requirements 

placed on reaching 

and maintaining 

reservoir limits, 

subject to minimum 

flow requirements 

and operating 

emergencies. This 

would facilitate 

Commission 

oversight of license

and provide a 

reasonably certain 

level of 

environmental 

protection. 

Operation 

compliance

monitoring plan 

would provide a 

mechanism to

demonstrate 

compliance with the
341

Resource No-Action District’s proposal Staff Alternative

operational 

constraints.

• Minimum 

discharge flow

to Outlet Creek

10 cfs, or inflow if less —June 1 to June 30: 30 cfs;

—July 1 through the end of fall drawdown

(when Sullivan Lake reaches 2,570 feet): 20 

cfs;

—From the date the lake reaches 2,570 (target 

is January 1) until spring filling: inflow;

—April 1 through May 31=10 cfs or inflow, 

if less

Minimum discharge flows would enhance 

aquatic habitat and better mimic natural flow 

regimes.

Same as District’s 

proposal

• Mill Pond dam No storage; outflow would 

equal inflow. 

Dam removed and stream channel restored Same as District’s 

proposal

Soils No soil erosion issues identified Mill Pond dam removal would require 

excavation, grading, and disposal of about 

40,000 cubic-yards of sediment, on-site, and 

stabilization of about 380,000 cubic yards onsite; soil erosion control measures, 

revegetation and stabilization efforts, and 

noxious weed control measures would 

minimize or eliminate adverse effects of 

erosion and sedimentation on aquatic and 

terrestrial systems; site-specific control 

methods still need to be defined in final 

decommissioning plan. 

Same as District’s 

proposal
342

Resource No-Action District’s proposal Staff Alternative

Aquatic Resources

• Temperature Water released from the upper 

layers of Sullivan Lake during 

July/August would continue to 

be marginal for some life stages 

of salmonids; reaching as high 

as 24 °C in August. During 

summer months, Sullivan Creek 

water temperatures below Mill 

Pond dam can continue to 

exceed 20 °C, with Mill Pond 

impoundment increasing 

temperatures by about 2.0 to 

2.4 °C.

The cold water intake would discharge colder 

water (about 6.5 °C) from 36.5 meters below 

the surface of Sullivan Lake, into Outlet 

Creek, meeting water quality standards (16.0

oC average daily maximum temperature over 

a seven day period) and achieving 

temperatures in Sullivan Creek that do not 

exceed 14 oC or causing a change average 

daily temperatures by more than 2 oC when 

flows are less than 14 oC, depending on 

Sullivan Lake water temperatures. This 

would result in more desirable conditions for 

native salmonids. Prior to installation of the 

cold water release structure, discharges 

through the low level gates would be 

managed to prevent Sullivan Creek 

temperatures from exceeding 16 oC.

Same as District’s 

proposal

• Lake Habitat Kokanee spawning habitat and 

lake production limited under 

current operation; operations 

would continue to contribute to 

superimposition of kokanee 

redds in the tributaries and 

sediment build-up in the 

headwater of Sullivan Lake, 

reducing available fish habitat.

Lowering Sullivan Lake earlier in the fall

would make Harvey Creek kokanee spawning 

beds available sooner, potentially increasing 

kokanee spawning success and reducing redd 

superimposition. Releasing flows through the 

cold water intake would likely increase 

Sullivan Lake productivity by retaining more 

nutrients. Harvey Creek Bedload 

Mobilization Project may reduce sediment 

buildup improving access to habitats in 

Same as District’s 

proposal
343

Resource No-Action District’s proposal Staff Alternative

Harvey Creek. Removing Mill Pond would

eliminate 63 acres of lake habitat, which 

would be replaced with natural stream 

channel.

• Stream Habitat Mill Pond dam would continue 

to block passage of fish to 

headwaters of Sullivan Creek.

Removal of Mill Pond dam and restoration of 

Sullivan Creek would improve upstream and 

downstream fish passage, potentially provide

access to 16 miles of aquatic habitat in the 

basin, and restore sediment and large woody 

debris transport capacities to the lower 

portion of Sullivan Creek, resulting in 

increased habitat complexity and available 

spawning gravels for resident salmonids, 

including bull trout.

Same as District’s 

proposal

• Discharge Flow 

Limits and 

Ramping Rate

With no flow limits or ramping 

rate restrictions, storage releases 

would continue to result in 

dramatic increases and then 

decreases in flow in Outlet and 

Sullivan Creeks over a 

relatively short period (October

- December), potentially 

flushing fry and juvenile fish 

from their habitat, disturbing 

aquatic habitat, and reducing 

spawning success. Rapid 

changes in flow could result in 

fish stranding and mortality, 

Limiting discharges to a maximum flow of 

200 cfs, except during higher than average 

rain events, up-ramping rates to discharge 

flows no more than 80 cfs per day, and downramping rates to 10 cfs per hour would reduce 

scour of fish habitat, flushing of young fish 

from the stream, and reduce the potential for 

stranding. Preventing rapid changes in flows

would decrease energy demands on fish, and 

reduce the potential for stranding. 

Limits on maximum discharge flow of two 

times the minimum flow during spring and 

summer releases would increase available fish 

habitat, reduce adverse effects of dewatering 

Same as District’s 

proposal
344

Resource No-Action District’s proposal Staff Alternative

loss of food resources, and 

behavior responses that causes 

mortality and limits growth.

spawning substrate, and reduce loss of food 

resources. 

• Entrainment All flows would continue to be 

released through unscreened 

low level outlet gates (about 6 

meters), resulting in the loss of 

fish from the lake.

Withdrawing water from 36.5 meters through 

the screened cold water intake, designed to 

maintain a maximum intake velocity of 0.4

fps approach velocity, would help prevent 

fish entrainment and loss of fish from 

Sullivan Lake.

Same as District’s 

proposal

Terrestrial 

Resources

No changes to terrestrial 

resources

Removal Mill Pond dam and restoration of 

Sullivan Creek would result in the loss of 63 

acres of lake habitat and the creation of an 

equivalent amount of stream riparian and 

upland habitats, resulting in minor, localized 

changes in wildlife species composition. The 

pond and Sullivan Creek upstream to the 

confluence with Outlet Creek would be 

planted with native vegetation that would 

benefit wildlife. About 0.5 acres of upland 

coniferous forest would be permanently 

removed for construction access during dam 

removal. Short-term, minor, localized 

disturbance to wildlife would occur during 

deconstruction activities. Noxious weeds 

would be controlled to minimize adverse 

effects on wildlife habitats.

Same as District’s 

proposal, but more 

detailed revegetation 

plan filed with final 

decommissioning 

plan would ensure 

protection and 

enhancement of 

resources as 

anticipated.

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Mill Pond dam would continue

to block access to some 

Removal of Mill Pond dam and restoration of 

Sullivan Creek would improve access to 16 

Same as District’s 

proposal.
345

Resource No-Action District’s proposal Staff Alternative

Species designated bull trout critical 

habitat. No effect on terrestrial 

species.

miles of potential bull trout spawning and 

rearing habitat. Deconstruction activities may 

disturb woodland caribou, grizzly bear, gray 

wolf and lynx, but effects would be shortterm, minor, and undetectable because of 

limited use of the area.

Recreation 

Resources

Maintaining Sullivan Lake 

elevations at full pool between 

June 1 and September 31 would 

continue to protect recreation 

access. Flows suitable for 

whitewater boating would 

continue to occur after October 

when cold weather makes the 

available flows less desirable.

Recreational access on Sullivan Lake would 

diminish slightly from the day after Labor 

Day to October 1, relative to existing 

operations. Before implementing the new 

operating regime, the District would repair 

existing docks and ramps to ensure that they 

would continue to function under new 

operations. Whitewater boating flows 

between 180 and 220 cfs, provided on at least 

three weekends in September or October; 

with flows posted online one week in 

advance, would enhance whitewater boating 

opportunities. Removal of Mill Pond dam 

would eliminate a lake fishing opportunity;

but stream fishing opportunities would 

increase.

Same as District’s 

proposal.

Cultural 

Resources

No change in existing resources The District’s DAHP Level II mitigation 

documentation would mitigate adverse effects 

of removing Mill Pond dam.

Same as District 

proposal, except 

mitigation would 

extend to all 

remaining 

contributing 
346

Resource No-Action District’s proposal Staff Alternative

elements of the 

Sullivan Creek 

Historic District on 

District lands within 

the project boundary, 

including the 

Sullivan Creek 

powerhouse.
347

5.2.2 Recommended Alternative

In considering the surrender of one of its licenses, the Commission must ensure 

that, in the Commission's judgment, the decision and disposition of the license will 

adequately protect the public interest. This section contains the basis for, and a 

summary of our recommendations for surrendering the Sullivan Creek Project. We 

weight the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against other proposed 

measures. 

Based on our independent review of agency and public comments filed on this 

project and our review of the environmental and economic effects of the proposed 

project and its alternatives, we recommend the staff alternative as the preferred option

because: (1) the District’s proposal would foster the orderly disposition of the District’s 

license, including the removal of Mill Pond dam; (2) removal of Mill Pond dam and 

restoration of Sullivan Creek would help promote the recovery of the listed bull trout

and enhance conditions for native salmonids by providing access to 16 miles of good 

habitat and improving the quality of habitat in Sullivan Creek; (3) installation of the 

cold water intake and changes in operation of Sullivan Lake would improve aquatic 

habitat in Sullivan Creek and complement Seattle’s and the state’s efforts to reduce

temperatures in the Pend Oreille River; (4) operation of Sullivan Lake would continue 

to provide for established recreation opportunities, including camping, boating and 

fishing; (5) DAHP Level II mitigation documentation would mitigate possible adverse 

effects on cultural resources, including Mill Pond dam and all contributing elements of 

the Sullivan Creek historic district that would be removed from federal oversight; (6) 

federal lands would be restored;, and (7) additional staff measures would assist the 

Commission’s oversight of the license until the surrender becomes effective. We find 

that the benefits of this alternative exceed those of the no-action and the recommended 

measures would protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources, and protect water 

quality, recreation, and cultural resources.

In the following section, we make recommendations as to which environmental 

measures proposed by the District should be included in any order approving the 

surrender of the project (Appendix B contains staff’s draft license surrender conditions). 

We also discuss the basis for staff’s additional measures, as well as the measures that 

we do not recommend including in any surrender order.

5.2.2.1 Measures Proposed by District

Based on our environmental analysis of the District’s proposal discussed in 

section 3 and the costs discussed in section 4, we find that the following environmental 

and operational measures proposed by District (with the exception of the qualified lake 

level language discussed further below) would adequately protect and enhance 

environmental resources and would be worth the costs. Therefore, we recommend that 

the Commission accept the District’s proposal to surrender the Sullivan Creek Project, 

subject to the following conditions proposed by the District:
348

• Within three years of a surrender order, install a cold water release structure at

the Sullivan Lake dam and fit it with fish screens to improve temperatures in 

Outlet and Sullivan Creeks and prevent entrainment of fish.

• Until the surrender becomes effective, manage discharges from Sullivan Lake 

to provide the following minimum flows in Outlet Creek (as measured by the 

existing gage on Outlet Creek):

o June 1 through June 30: 30 cubic feet per second (cfs).

o July 1 through the end of fall drawdown (when elevation of Sullivan Lake 

reaches 2,570 feet mean sea level—by December 31): 20 cfs.

o From the date that Lake Sullivan reaches an elevation of 2,570 feet 

(expected January 1) until the beginning of spring filling (by May 31): 

outflow shall equal inflow.

o From April 1 through May 31: 10 cfs or inflow, whichever is less.

• Until the surrender becomes effective, and prior to installing the cold water 

release structure, operate Sullivan Lake as follows:

Spring Operations: Start refilling Sullivan Lake on or before April 1 and seek to

achieve and maintain a full pool elevation of 2,588.6 feet (as measured at 

Sullivan Lake dam) by May 31, subject to hydrologic conditions, water 

availability189, and dam discharge flow requirements. Refilling rates would be 

adjusted as necessary to accommodate the Harvey Creek bedload mobilization 

activities. 

Summer Operations: From June 1 through Labor Day of each year, the District 

would use its best efforts to reach and maintain Sullivan Lake at a target of 

elevation 2,588.6 feet (full pool) for recreation purposes

Fall Operations: Starting the day following Labor Day, begin drawing down 

Sullivan Lake in a manner that reaches the maximum flow target of 200 cfs 

during periods of normal or below normal precipitation and 225 cfs during 

periods of higher than normal precipitation as quickly as possible, given the 

following constraints: (1) maintain discharge flows to meet state water 

temperature standards (16.0 oC average daily maximum temperature over a seven 

day period) and so as not to cause the combined waters of Outlet and Sullivan 

Creeks, as measured at the “below confluence water temperature gage,” to 

exceed 16 °C; (2) strive to reach a drawdown water surface elevation of 2,577 

feet by no later than November 15 and a water surface elevation of 2,570 by 

 

189 We assume that the terms “hydrologic conditions” and “water availability” are 

synonymous and refer to the amount of inflow coming into Sullivan Lake on a given 

year.
349

December 31; (3) maintain an up-ramping rate not to exceed more than 80 cfs 

per day, and ensure not to exceed a change of more than 2 °C in average daily 

temperature per day as measured at the below confluence water temperature 

gage; and (4) maintain a down-ramping rate not to exceed 10 cfs per hour.

• Until the surrender becomes effective and after installing the cold water intake, 

operate Sullivan Lake as follows:

Spring Operations: Same as described above. 

Summer Operations: Same as above, but in addition, manage the discharges 

from the cold water pipe and the Sullivan Lake dam low-level outlet gates: (1) to 

meet state water temperature standards (16.0 oC average daily maximum 

temperature over a seven day period); (2) with the goal of preventing the daily 

average “below confluence water temperature” from exceeding 14 °C; and (3) 

with the goal of preventing the daily average “below confluence water 

temperature” from deviating from the daily average Sullivan Creek “above 

confluence water temperature” by more than 1 °C, when daily average “above 

confluence water temperature” is less than 14 °C.

Fall Operations: Starting the day following Labor Day, begin drawdown 

Sullivan Lake in the manner described below.

(1) Manage the discharges from the cold water pipe and the Sullivan Lake 

dam gates to meet state water temperature standards, with the goal of 

(a) preventing the daily average “below confluence water temperature” from 

exceeding 14 °C, and (b) preventing the daily average “below confluence 

water temperature” from deviating from the daily average Sullivan Creek 

“above confluence water temperature” by more than 1 °C, when the daily 

average “above confluence water temperature” is less than 14 °C. To prevent 

thermal shock of the downstream system, flows would be up-ramped or 

down-ramped to prevent waters below the confluence from changing daily 

average temperature more than 2 °C per day.

(2) Maintain the operation described in item (1) above until fall turnover 

(typically mid-October), when Sullivan Creek temperatures may fall below 

Outlet Creek temperatures by several degrees and it may not be possible to 

maintain a 1 °C water temperature difference.

(3) Subject to the temperature constraints in item 1 above, maximize 

discharge flows through the cold water pipe and minimize the use of the lowlevel gates at the dam during fall drawdown. When low level gates are used, 

releases shall be made from two gates simultaneously.

(4) Ramp up discharge flows no more than 80 cfs per day and down-ramp at a 

rate not to exceed 10 cfs per hour at the Outlet Creek gage.
350

(5) Manage drawdowns to reach a lake water surface elevation of 2,577 feet 

by no later than November 15 and an elevation of 2,570 feet by December 31.

(6) After November 15, all releases from Sullivan Dam up to the capacity of 

the cold water pipe, shall be made through the pipe.

(7) Forecast discharge flows and post online one week in advance to support 

recreational use.

• When forecasts predict runoff to exceed 120 percent of the long-term average, 

operate Sullivan Lake to facilitate the mobilization of Harvey Creek bedload at 

the head of Sullivan Lake by holding Sullivan Lake level at no more than 

elevation 2,575 feet until May 20 of that year.

• To document compliance with the above discharge flows, ramping rates, 

temperature limits, and lake elevations, install, operate and maintain a flow 

gage and recording device at Sullivan dam; maintain the USGS gage on Outlet 

Creek if discontinued by the USGS; maintain a gage and recording device on 

Harvey Creek; and install, maintain, and monitor a continuous water 

temperature gage on Sullivan Creek at least 300 feet downstream of the

confluence with Outlet Creek, and a continuous water temperature gage on 

Sullivan Creek upstream of its confluence with Outlet Creek and Sullivan 

Creek.

• Subject to the above temperature and flow constraints, manage fall drawdown 

to provide discharge flows between 180 and 220 cfs on at least 3 weekends in 

September or October to support whitewater paddling; post available flows at 

least one week prior to their release.

• Before implementing the new operating regime, repair existing docks and 

ramps to ensure that they would continue to function under new operations.

• Within five years of the Commission’s order on surrender of the license, 

remove the Mill Pond dam and the original log-crib dam; manage sediment;

restore the Sullivan Creek stream channel to a natural stream system, designed 

for up to a 100-year flood event; plant the affected area (defined as stream 

channel, floodplain, and upland areas from immediately downstream of the 

Mill Pond dam to Outlet Creek) with native species; control noxious weeds;

and conduct short-term monitoring and maintenance to ensure restoration is

successful. File a final Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan for Commission 
351

approval within two years of the Commission’s order on surrender based on 

detailed, site-specific engineering designs.

190

5.2.2.2 Additional Staff Recommended Measures

We recommend modifying the District’s characterization of proposed Sullivan 

Lake operating rules to include specific reservoir elevation requirements, subject to 

hydrologic conditions, discharge flow requirements, and operating emergencies beyond 

the control of the licensee. We recommend that the District prepare an operation 

compliance monitoring plan that includes identifying the location of the Harvey Creek 

gage and reporting requirements to document compliance with the various operational 

constraints on Sullivan Lake water; to file a more detailed revegetation plan; and to

complete a DAHP Level II mitigation documentation report of all contributing elements 

of the Sullivan Creek Historic District that would remain on District lands within the 

project boundary following the surrender. 

Below we discuss the basis for staff-recommended modifications to the District’s

proposal. 

Sullivan Lake Operation

The District proposes a number of complex operational constraints for managing 

Sullivan Lake discharges and elevations. In dry water years, achieving and maintaining 

the proposed lake levels by a specified date while also complying with discharge 

requirements may be difficult, if not impossible. Recognizing this, the District qualified 

the lake level requirements by using language including “shall strive to,” or “use its best 

efforts to reach and maintain” lake levels.

The Commission prefers conditions that impose clear obligations on licensees. 

Otherwise, the Commission will neither be able to provide a reasonably certain level of 

environmental protection, nor would it have a clear basis for enforcing the provisions of 

any surrender order. However, we recognize the need to provide the District with 

certain operational flexibility when all conditions can not be met simultaneously. Based 

on the record, it appears that the settling parties agree that achieving specified reservoir 

levels are subordinate to discharge flow constraints. Given that the District would 

repair existing docks and ramps on Sullivan Lake to ensure that they would continue to 

function under the new operations, not achieving a full pool during the summer by a 

 

190 To ensure that the final decommission plan meets the Commission’s dam 

safety needs, we recommend including the Commission’s standard construction 

requirements for filing final removal plans and specifications that contain contract plans 

and specifications, a quality control and inspection program, a temporary construction 

emergency action plan, a blasting plan (if needed), a disposal plan, a detailed erosion 

control plan, and cofferdam construction drawings and specifications. This plans 

should be based on the draft plan filed by the District. 
352

date certain would not cause substantial adverse effects on recreation. The effect of not 

achieving a full pool during the summer on the lake fishery would also be minimal

because the quantity and quality of habitat available to aquatic organisms would change 

little given the morphology of the lake. However, operating Sullivan Lake within the 

proposed discharge constraints would have significant benefits to aquatic resources in 

Outlet and Sullivan Creeks. Therefore, we recommend that the District operate Sullivan 

Lake to achieve and maintain its proposed lake levels by a date certain, subject to 

hydrologic conditions and the District’s proposed discharge requirements and the 

associated temperature constraints. We also recommend that the District be able to 

deviate from the proposed operations during emergencies beyond its control and for 

short periods of time upon mutual agreement with the Forest Service, Ecology, and 

Washington DFW. Staff’s recommended Sullivan Lake operation is nearly identical to 

that proposed by the District; therefore, it should not impose any additional cost on the 

surrender. 

Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan

The gages and temperature monitoring devices that the District would install and 

operate should provide adequate documentation of flows, lake levels, ramping rates, and 

temperature limits; however the District did not include a description of where the gages 

would be located or propose a mechanism for reporting monitoring results. Given the 

complexity of the project’s operation, we recommend that the District develop and 

implement an Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan that would identify where the 

Harvey Creek gage would be located, define a maintenance and operating schedule for 

all the gages and temperature monitoring devices, and include a reporting schedule that 

would provide the Commission a means to ensure compliance with the proposed 

operations. We find the compliance monitoring benefits of the plan would justify the 

cost to prepare and implement the plan ($20,000, or $1,050 annualized over 30 years). 

Revegetation Plan

The District filed a draft Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan with the settlement 

agreement that describes the procedures and schedule for removing the dam, stabilizing 

the lake bed, controlling erosion, and restoring the stream channel and adjacent uplands. 

The draft plan includes a generalized approach for establishing native vegetation in 

upland and riparian areas based on hydrology and function (e.g., soil stabilization, 

habitat). The District intends to file a final plan within two years of the Commission’s 

order approving the surrender that would include more details based on final 

engineering designs. The Forest Service, Interior, and Washington DFW recommend 

that the District implement the plan and file final design plans prior to undertaking 

removal activities. The District intends to complete the removal and site restoration 

within five years of the Commission’s order approving the settlement agreement.

As recognized by the District and the settling parties, the draft removal plan lacks 

sufficient detail at this time, and it is unclear exactly what the District would include in 

its final plan to ensure the success of its revegetation efforts. Therefore, staff
353

recommend that, within two years after the surrender order, the District file, for 

Commission approval, a detailed revegetation plan describing site-specific stabilization 

measures and riparian and upland plantings to restore Sullivan Creek. The plan should

be based on the measures included in the draft Mill Pond Removal Plan, filed as 

Appendix E to the Sullivan Creek settlement agreement, and should include, at a 

minimum, the following: (1) site preparation and design details; (2) detailed provisions 

for site stabilization; (3) a description of plant species to be used and where they will be 

planted, the source of plant materials, planting densities and methods, and fertilization 

and irrigation requirements; (4) a description of methods to control noxious weeds for 3 

years after dam removal; (5) a description of the proposed 3-year monitoring program, 

including performance standards and success criteria, that would include, at a minimum, 

80 percent survival of trees and shrubs and 50 percent canopy cover of native species 

after 3 years from the date of planting; (6) procedures to be implemented if monitoring 

reveals that establishment of vegetation is not successful or areas of erosion are 

identified; and (7) an implementation schedule. Staff’s recommendation would not cost 

any more than already projected by the District, but would ensure that sufficient detail is 

provided for Commission approval.

Cultural Resources DAHP Level II Mitigation Documentation

As part of the Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan, the District proposes to 

complete a DAHP Level II mitigation documentation report of Mill Pond dam facilities 

prior to removing the dam to mitigate the long-term loss of historic structures eligible 

for listing on the Natural Register. When the license surrender becomes effective, other 

contributing elements of the Sullivan Creek Historic District (e.g., Sullivan Creek 

powerhouse) on District lands within the project boundary would no longer be under 

federal oversight. Therefore, we recommend that the District complete a DAHP Level 

II mitigation documentation report for all contributing elements of the Sullivan Creek 

Historic District that would remain on District lands within the project boundary 

following the surrender. We estimate that this would cost $50,000 ($2,250 annualized 

over 30 years), and find the benefits to be worth the cost.

Cultural Resources Inventory in APE for the Proposed Cold Water Release 

Facility, and Design Plan for the Facility that is Compatible with the Adjacent 

Ranger District and CCC Camp Historic District 

Because archeological resources may exist in areas adjacent to the Sullivan Lake 

Dam site, and where such areas may be affected by ground-disturbing activities related 

to the construction of the cold water release facility, we recommend that the District, in 

consultation with the Forest Service and Washington SHPO, conduct a cultural 
354

resources inventory within the cold water release facility APE.191 In consultation with 

the Forest Service and Washington SHPO, we also recommend that the District file for

Commission approval a final design for the cold water release facility that is compatible 

with the visual character of the historic district associated with the 1930s era Ranger 

District and CCC Camp. We estimate that these two measures would cost $7,500 ($380

annualized over 30 years). Consistent with Commission practice, Commission staff 

would craft a memorandum of agreement directing the District to file for Commission 

approval a historic properties treatment plan within six months of an order accepting the 

surrender of this project. The historic properties treatment plan would include all the 

specific measures recommended by the District and Commission staff to resolve any 

anticipated adverse effects to historic properties as a result of the surrender. The 

memorandum of agreement stipulating the filing of this historic properties treatment 

plan would be made part of any surrender order issued by the Commission for this 

project.

5.1.2.3 Measures not Recommended by Staff

In section 5.17 of the settlement agreement, the District contemplates selling or 

leasing storage in Sullivan Lake to Ecology’s Columbia River Basin Water Supply 

Management Program from June 1 to Labor Day. Depending on whether it is a dry 

water year or an average/high water year, the District would discharge flows at a rate 

that would not exceed 60 cfs in June (50 cfs in a dry water year), 45 cfs in July (30 cfs 

in a dry water year), and 35 cfs between August 1 and the day after Labor Day (30 cfs in 

a dry water year). The District would manage the release of the flows to ensure that any 

water released does not exceed two times the minimum discharge flow for the defined 

period (described above); that any such discharge would be released at as steady a rate 

as possible, as measured by the day-to-day change in daily average cfs; and that the 

discharges would meet the proposed temperature constraints for Outlet and Sullivan 

Creeks. Revenue from the releases would be put into an account to pay for the various 

environmental measures that the District would implement as a condition of the

surrender and in operating the project under the Forest Service SUA. Proposed 

surrender condition 10 contained in the settlement agreement would have the 

Commission require the releases as proposed.

 

191 If archeological resources are discovered, they would need to be evaluated 

for their National Register eligibility, and if eligible, steps would need to be taken to 

resolve any potential adverse effects to them prior to any construction activity 

associated with the building of the cold water release facility. Determinations of 

eligibility and resolutions of potential adverse effects would be done by the District in 

consultation with Forest Service and Washington SHPO, and with the Kalispel, if the 

archeological resources were aboriginal in nature. 
355

While we do not object to the District releasing storage from Sullivan Lake, as 

contemplated by the settlement parties, we do not contemplate the need to authorize 

such releases so long as they conform to the proposed flow, temperature, and ramping 

rate constraints to protect aquatic habitat in Sullivan Creek (i.e., the aforementioned 

limitations on maximum flows and cause no other inconsistency with the requirements 

of any surrender approved by the Commission). The proposed flow limits would:

ensure that aquatic organisms, especially fry and small fish, are not subject to unnatural 

flow fluctuations. Such limitations would also ensure that summer and fall water 

temperatures in Outlet and Sullivan Creeks meet state water temperature standards (16.0

oC average daily maximum temperature over a seven day period) and bull trout 

temperature targets (14 °C), and maintain Sullivan Lake at full pool, thereby protecting

summer recreation access and shallow water habitats in Sullivan Lake. We note that the 

District’s proposed flows for the last week of July in average/high water years (45 cfs) 

exceed the limit of two times the minimum discharge flow (20 cfs). Therefore, we 

recommend including the two times the minimum discharge flow be applied from June 

1 through the day after Labor Day. Therefore, our recommended maximum flow would 

be 40 cfs.

5.2.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Removal of the Mill Pond dam would result in the permanent loss of 63 acres of

lake habitat. Short-term, local disturbances of wildlife would occur during 

deconstruction activities. People seeking to recreate on Mill Pond would be displaced 

to other nearby lakes. 
356

Page intentionally left blank
357

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

Alt, D.D. and D.W. Hyndman. 1984. Roadside Geology of Washington. Mountain 

Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana.

Ames, K.M., and A.G. Marshall. 1981. Villages, Demography, and Subsistence 

Intensification on the Southern Columbia Plateau. North American 

Archaeologist 2(1):25-52. 

Andonaegui, C. 2003. Bull trout habitat limiting factors for Water Resource Inventory 

Area (WRIA) 62 (Pend Oreille County, Northeast Washington State). 

Washington State Conservation Commission, Olympia, WA.

Andrefsky, W., Jr., G. C. Burtchard, K. M. Presler, S. R. Samuels, P. H. Sanders, and A. 

Thoms. 2000. The Calispell Valley Archaeological Project Final Report (5 

volumes). Project. Report Number 16, Center for Northwest Anthropology, 

Washington State University, Pullman.

Apps, C. D. 2000. Space-use, diet, demographics, and topographic associations of lynx 

in the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains: a study. Chapter 12 In Ruggiero, 

L.F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, et al., tech. eds. Ecology and conservation of 

lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp.

Audet, S., and H. Allen. 1996. Selkirk Mountains Woodland Caribou Herd 

Augmentation in Washington: A Cooperative Interagency Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, 

Washington.

Aune, K., and W. Kasworm. 1989. Final report East Front grizzly studies. Montana 

Dept. Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena. 332 pp.

Baldwin, C.M., J.G. McLellan, M.C. Polacek, and K. Underwood. 2003. Walleye 

predation on hatchery releases of kokanees and rainbow trout in Lake Roosevelt, 

Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 23:660-676.

Baldwin, C.M. and J.G. McLellan. 2005. Fisheries Survey of the limnetic zone of 

Sullivan Lake, Washington, using hydroacoustics and gill nets, September 2003. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wenatchee, WA.

Baltien, P. 1996. The Gold Seekers. A 200 Year History of Mining in Washington, and 

Lower British Columbia. Statesman Examiner, Inc. Colville, Washington. 

Bamonte, T., and S. Schaeffer Bamonte. 1999. Spokane and the Island Northwest: 

Historical Images. Tornado Creek Publications. Spokane, Washington. 

Bassista, T. P., M. A. Maiolie, and M. A. Duclos. 2005. Lake Pend Oreille predation 

research project. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Annual Report to 

Bonneville Power Administration, Contract 2002-009-00, Report number 05-04, 

Portland, Oregon.
358

Baxter, J. S. 1995. Chowade River bull trout studies 1995: habitat and population 

assessment. Report prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, 

Lands and Parks, Fisheries Branch, Fort St. John, British Columbia, 108 p.

Baxter, C. V. 1997. Geomorphology, land-use, and groundwater-surface water 

interaction: a multi-scale, hierarchical analysis of the distribution and abundance 

of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) spawning. M.S., University of Montana, 

Missoula, MT.

Baxter, J. 1999. Bull Trout Studies in the Salmo River Watershed: 1998 and 1999.

Baxter, J. and G. Nellestijn. 2000. Report on non-sportfish abundance and migration 

patterns in the Salmo River: Winter 1999 to Summer 2000. Baxter 

Environmental and Salmo Watershed Streamkeepers Society, Prepared for 

Columbia-Kootenay Fisheries Renewal Partnership and Columbia Basin Trust. 

BC Hydro. 2003. Seven Mile River consultative report and water use plan, executive 

summary. Prepared by B.C. Hydro Project Team. January 2003. Available 

online at 

http://www.bchydro.com/wup/completed/seven_mile/seven_mile_exec_sum_cc.

pdf. 

Beecher, H. 2009. Memorandum to Doug Robison, Brad Caldwell, and John Blum 

regarding Outlet Creek flows released from Sullivan Lake on July 15, 2009. July 

17, 2009.

Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat Requirements of Salmonids in Streams. 

In Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and 

their Habitats. Edited by W. R. Meehan. American Fisheries Society. Special 

Publication 19, pp 83–138.

Bohm, F.C., and C.E. Holstine. 1983. A People’s History of Stevens County. Stevens 

County Historical Society. Colville, Washington. 

Borysewicz, M. 2008. E-mails and conversation between Michael Borysewicz, Forest 

Service biologist, and Greg A. Green, Tetra Tech, regarding big game, bats, lynx, 

peregrine falcons, grizzly bears, 1925 fire, and timber harvesting. March 24, 

April 17, May 12, June 2 and 6, and August 8 and 19, 2008 as cited in Seattle 

2010).

Boyd, R.T. 1985. The Introduction of Infectious Diseases Among the Indians of the 

Pacific Northwest, 1774-1874. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of 

Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. 

Boyd, R. T. 1998. Demographic History Until 1990. In Plateau, Handbook of North 

American Indians Vol. 12, pp. 467-483, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr. 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
359

Boyle, S.D. 1996. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Metaline 

Falls United States Border Station, Pend Oreille County, Washington. On file at 

the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 

Olympia, Washington. 

Brittell, J., R. J. Poelker, S. J. Sweemey, and G. M. Koehler. 1989. Native cats of 

Washington, Section III: Lynx. Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia, 

Washington.

CES (Cascade Environmental Services, Inc). 1994a. Draft Fisheries Studies Report –

Instream Flow Report, Sullivan Creek Project. April 1994.

CES. 1994b. Instream Flow Study Additional Information, Volume I. Sullivan Creek 

Hydroelectric Project. May 1994.

CES. 1994c. Instream Flow Study Additional Information, Volume II. Sullivan Creek 

Hydroelectric Project. September 1994.

CES. 1996a. Final Report of Evidence for the Presence or Absence of Bull Trout in the 

Sullivan Creek Drainage. Prepared for Sullivan Creek Instream Flow Committee, 

Public Utility No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, Washington. September 1996. 

CES. 1996b. Response to FERC Additional Information Request – Electroshocking 

Study Results for the Sullivan Creek Project. September 1996.

CES. 1996c. Response to FERC Additional Information Request – Fry Abundance 

Data for the Sullivan Creek Project. September 1996.

Chance, D.H. n.d. Cabins in Clearings: Homesteading in the Pend Oreille County of 

Washington. 

Chance, D. H. and J. V. Chance. 1982. Kettle Falls, 1971 and 1974: Salvage 

Archaeology in Lake Roosevelt. University of Idaho Laboratory of 

Anthropology. Anthropological Research Manuscript Series 69. Moscow, Idaho.

Chatters, J.C. 1989. Resource Intensification and Sedentism on the Southern Plateau. 

Archaeology in Washington. 1: 1-20. 

Chatters, J.C. 1995. Population growth, climate cooling, and the development of 

collector strategies on the Southern Plateau, western North America. Journal of 

World Prehistory 9: 341-400. 

Chatters, J.C. 1998. Environment. In Plateau, vol. 12, Handbook of North American 

Indians. Edited by Deward E. Walker, J. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, 

D.C., pp. 29-48. 

Colburn, K. 2010. Transcript from the Boundary and Sullivan Technical Conference. 

Held June 10 in Spokane, WA.
360

Coutant, C. C., and R. R. Whitney. 2000. Fish behavior in relation to passage through 

hydropower turbines: a review. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 

129:351-380. 

District (Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County). 1994. Application for 

Amendment of License for Major Project – Existing Dam, Sullivan Creek 

Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 2225. Appendices Vol. I of IV. Prepared by 

HDR Engineering, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. November 1994.

District (Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County). 2010. Application for 

Surrender of License Sullivan Creek Project FERC No. 2225. March 2010. 

Dingee, R.L. 1930. Historical Sketches of Pend Oreille County, Washington. Miner 

Print. Newport, Washington. 

Dood, A. R., R. D. Brannon and R. D. Mace. 1986. Final programmatic environmental 

impact statement: the grizzly bear in northwestern Montana. Montana Dept. Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks, Helena. 287 pp.

DuPont, J. M., R. S. Brown, and D. R. Geist. 2007. Unique allacustrine migration 

patterns of a bull trout population in the Pend Oreille River drainage, Idaho. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 27:1268-1275.

DuPont, J. and N. Horner. 2003. Middle Fork East River bull trout assessment, 2003 

Annual Performance Report. Program: Fisheries Management F-71-R-28. 

Project: I-Surveys and Inventories, Subproject I-A. Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game, Panhandle Region, Boise, ID.

Dyer, S. J. 1999. Movement and distribution of Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus 

caribou) in response to industrial development in northeastern Alberta. M.S. 

Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 106 pp.

Ecology. 2006. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of 

Washington. Chapter 173-201A WAC. Olympia, Washington.

Ecology, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Pend Oreille River Total

Maximum Daily Load for Temperature Draft. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Fairfax, 

VA, for the Tri-State Water Quality Council, Sandpoint, ID, August 2007.

EES Consulting. 2009a. Working draft habitat suitability indices for species and life 

history stage proposed for the instream flow study. Prepared for the Sullivan 

Lake Project Mediation Team and the Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend 

Oreille County, WA. May 28, 2009.

EES Consulting. 2009b. Working draft Sullivan Lake elevation management scenarios. 

Prepared for the Sullivan Lake Project Mediation Team and the Public Utility 

District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, WA. June 22, 2009.
361

EES Consulting. 2010. Draft entrainment investigations and study of fish presence in 

the vicinity of Sullivan Lake Dam. Prepared for the Public Utility District No. 1 

of Pend Oreille County, WA. February 2010.

Engel, S. 1995. Eurasian Water milfoil as a Fishery Management Tool. Fisheries. 

20(3): 20–27.

Enserch (Enserch Environmental Corp). 1994. Boundary Reservoir: hydrologic and 

erosion processes affecting the Boundary Wildlife Preserve. Prepared by 

Enserch Environmental Co for Seattle City Light, September, 1994. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water, 1986. 

Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC.

EPA. 2002. Preliminary Assessments and Site Investigations Report, Lower Pend 

Oreille River Mines and Mills, Pend Oreille County, Washington. TDD: 01-08-

0009. Seattle.

Fahey, J. 1986. The Kalispel Indians. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Fandrich, B., L. M. Peterson, and S. Deaver. 2000. A Cultural History of the Kalispel 

Indians (Draft). Prepared for The Kalispel Tribe Department of Natural 

Resources, Usk. Ethnoscience, Inc., Billings, Montana.

Ferguson, D., and M. Root. 2002a. Cultural Resources Site Record of Site NELDP0012. Site form on file at the Bureau of Land Management, Spokane District 

Office, Spokane. 

Ferguson, D., and M. Root. 2002b. Cultural Resource Site Record for Site NELDP0018. Site form on file at the Bureau of Land Management, Spokane District 

Office, Spokane. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1995. Preliminary Assessment of 

Fish Entrainment at Hydropower Projects. A Report on Studies and Protective 

Measures. FERC, Washington, DC. 

FERC. 1998. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Sullivan Creek Hydroelectric 

Project, Washington (FERC Project No. 2225). Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC.

FERC. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Box Canyon Hydroelectric 

Project, Washington and Idaho (FERC Project No. 2042). Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.

FISRWG (10/1998). Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices.

By the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG)(15 

Federal agencies of the U.S. gov't). GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 

57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-934213-59-3.
362

Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). 1988. Colville National Forest Plan, as 

Amended. Colville National Forest, Colville, WA. 

Forest Service. 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment and 

Decision Notice. Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions. 

USDA Forest Service. 

Forest Service. 1996. Sullivan Creek Watershed Assessment. USDA Forest Service.

Forest Service. 1997. Final Environmental Assessment Report. Sullivan Creek 

Hydropower Project, FPA 4(e) Terms and Conditions. USDA Forest Service, 

Colville National Forest. Colville, Washington.

Forest Service. 1998a. Slate-Salmo Watershed Assessment. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region. Newport, Washington.

Forest Service. 1998b. Z-Slumber Timber Sale Biological Evaluation of Effects to 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. Colville National Forest, 

Sullivan Lake Ranger District.

Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. Wildlife of Northeast 

Washington. Colville National Forest, Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife 

Refuge and other public wildlands. Newport, Washington.

Forest Service. 2004. R6 Stream Survey Protocol – Sullivan Creek. Colville National 

Forest. Newport, Washington.

Forest Service. 2005. Fish distribution map, Colville National Forest. USDA Forest 

Service, Colville National Forest. Newport, Washington.

Forest Service. 2008. Sullivan Creek Sullivan Creek Hydroelectric Project Existing 

Information Analysis Colville National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Colville 

National Forest. Newport, Washington.

Fraley, J. J. and B. B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology, and population status of 

migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River 

systems, Montana. Northwest Science. 63:133-143. 

Franke, G.F., D.R. Webb, R.K. Fisher, Jr., D. Mathur, P.N. Hopping, P.A. March, M.R. 

Headrick, I.T. Laczo, Y. Ventikos, and F. Sotiropoulos. 1997. Development of 

environmentally advanced hydropower turbine system design concepts. Idaho 

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. 

Fritts, A. L., and T. N. Pearsons. 2004. Smallmouth bass predation on hatchery and 

wild salmonids in the Yakima River, Washington. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society. 133:880-895.

Fox, M. and S. Bolton. 2007. A Regional and Geomorphic Reference for Quantities 

and Volumes of Instream Wood in Unmanaged Forested Basins of Washington 

State. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 27:342-359.
363

FWS. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Recovery plan for woodland caribou in 

the Selkirk Mountains. First Revision. Prepared by the Selkirk Mountain 

Woodland Caribou Recovery Team. USFWS, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 51pp 

+ appendices.

FWS. 1998. Bull Trout Interim Conservation Guidance. Lacey, WA. 47 pp. 

FWS. 1993. Revised Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, Montana. 181 pp.

FWS. 1999. Status review for westslope cutthroat trout in the United States. Regions 1 

and 6 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR., and Denver, CO.

FWS. 2000. Biological Opinion - Effects to Listed Species From Operations of the 

Federal Columbia River Power System. BI-OP prepared by United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Regions 1 and 6). BI-OP consultation document sent to 

Action Agencies: Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration, 

and Bureau of Reclamation. 

FWS. 2002. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan. Region 1 U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

USFWS. 2004. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Grizzly 

Bear. Available: http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/grizzly/grizzlybearSelkirk2004.pdf. (November 2008).

FWS. 2007. National bald eagle management guidelines. Washington, D.C. 23 pp

Gaylord, M. n.d. Eastern Washington’s Past: Chinese and other Pioneers, 1860-1910. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region.

GEI Consultants, Inc. 2004. Intermountain Province Subbasin Plan, Pend Oreille 

Subbasin. Submitted to Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, 

Oregon, on behalf of: Intermountain Province Oversight Committee and 

Intermountain Province Subbasin Work Teams.

Geist, D.R., R.S. Brown, A.T. Scholz, and B. Nine. 2004. Movement and survival of 

radio-tagged bull trout near Albeni Falls Dam (Final Report). Prepared for the 

Department of the Army, Seattle District, Corps of Engineers, Batelle Pacific 

Northwest Division, Richland, WA and Eastern Washington University, Cheney, 

WA.

Gilbert, C.H. and B.W. Evermann. 1894. A report upon investigations in the Columbia 

River Basin with descriptions of four new species of fishes. Pages 19-61, In: 

Report of the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries on Investigations in the 

Columbia River Basin in Regard to the Salmon Fisheries. Government Printing 

Office. 

Golder Associates. 2005. Pend Oreille River Watershed Management Plan. Report 

prepared for the WRIA 62 Watershed Planning Unit. March 2005.
364

Gough, S. 1997. Data Recovery Excavations at Site 45PO422: A Camas Processing Site 

in the Calispell Valley, Pend Oreille County, Washington. Eastern Washington 

University Reports in Archaeology and History 100-99. Archaeological and 

Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney.

Hallock, D. 2003. Amphibian Inventory of Lentic Habitats in the Colville National 

Forest: 2001-2002 Survey Results. Prepared by Washington Department of 

Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, 

Washington. Report to Colville National Forest. Kettle Falls, Washington

Hamilton, J. A. R. 1955. An investigation of the effect of Baker Dam on downstream 

migrant salmon. University of Washington. 

Harmon, M. E., J. F. Franklin, F. J. Swanson; P. Sollins, S. V. Gregory; J. D. Lattin; 

N.H. Anderson; S. P Cline, N. G. Aumen, J. R. Sedell, G. W. Lienkaemper, K. 

Cromack, Jr., and K. W. Cummins. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in 

temperate ecosystems. Pages 133-302, In A. Macfadyen and E.D. Ford (eds.) 

Advances in Ecological Research, vol. 15; Academic Press, Inc. 171 pp. 

Heede, B.H. and J.N. Rinne. 1990. Hydrodynamic and fluvial morphologic processes: 

Implications for fisheries management and research. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management. 10(3):249-268

Hickman, T. and R.F. Raleigh. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Cutthroat 

Trout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Collins, CO.

Hillman, T. W. and D. Essig. 1998. Review of bull trout temperature requirements: a 

response to the EPA bull trout temperature rule. Idaho Division of 

Environmental Quality, Boise, ID.

Hunter, M.A. 1992. Hydropower flow fluctuations and salmonids: A review of the 

biological effects, mechanical causes, and options for mitigation. Technical 

Report Number 119. State of Washington Department of Fisheries, Habitat 

Management Division, Olympia, Washington.

Holstine, C. 1987. Forgotten Corner: A History of the Colville National Forest, 

Washington. Colville Statesmen-Examiner, Inc., Colville, Washington.

Howe, M.C. 1976. Historical Sketches of Pend Oreille County. The Miner Print. 

Hudson, L., S. Boswell, C. D. Carley, W. Choquette, C. Miss, D. H. Chance, and M. A. 

Stamper. 1981. A Cultural Resource Overview for the Colville and Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests and the Bureau of Land Management-Spokane and 

Coeur d’Alene Districts Northeastern Washington/Northern Idaho. Volume I: 

Cultural Resource Narrative Cultural Resource Consultants, Sandpoint, Idaho.

Hyatt, K.D., D.J. McQueen, K.S. Shortreed, and D.P. Rankin. 2004. Sockeye salmon 

(Oncorhynchus nerka) nursery lake fertilization: Review and summary of 

results. Environmental Review. 12:133-162.
365

Kasworm, W. F. and T. L. Manley, 1988. Grizzly bear and black bear ecology in the 

Cabinet Mountains of northwest Montana. Contract Rep., Montana Dept. Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks, Helena. 122 pp.

KCDNR (King County Department of Natural Resources). 2000. Literature review and 

recommended sampling protocol for bull trout in King County. Prepared by E. 

Connor, R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. Redmond, Washington for King County 

Department of Natural Resources. Seattle, WA. 42 pages. 

Knight, R. L. and K. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence 

through Management. Island Press. Washington, D.C.

Knight, R. L., and S. K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating 

activity. J. Wildlife. Mgmt. 48:999-1004.

Koehler, G. M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares 

in north central Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68: 845-851.

Lembcke, S. 2001. Email regarding the RL&L Report. Personal communication to A. 

Solonsky, Seattle City Light, 2001. 

Lyons, K. J. 2003. An Ethno-Archaeological Analysis of the Kalispel Aboriginal 

Fisheries of the Pend Oreille Watershed: The Relative Importance of Salvelinus 

confluentus to the Kalispel Bands (Draft). Unpublished draft paper prepared for 

the 2003 FCRPS Conference, Portland, Oregon. Kalispel Natural Resources 

Department, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Usk, Washington.

Mahoney, J. M., and S. B. Rood. 1998. Streamflow requirements for cottonwood 

seedling recruitment – an integrative model. Wetlands 18: 634-645.

Mace, R. D. and C. Jonkel. 1980. The effects of logging activity on grizzly bear 

movements. Spec Rep. No. 38. Border Grizzly Proj., Univ. Montana, Missoula. 

11 pp.

Marti, J. (1996). Recreational Instream Flow Evaluation for Sullivan Creek below Mill 

Pond Dam. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology.

McArthur, K. L. 1979. The behavior of grizzly bears in relation to people in Glacier 

National Park: a literature review. Prog. Rep., U S D I Nat’l. Park Serv., Glacier 

Natl. Park, MT. 70 pp.

McLellan, B. N. and R. D. Mace. 1985. Behavior of grizzly bears in response to roads, 

seismic activity, and people. Preliminary report, Can. Border Grizzly Proj., 

Cranbrook, B. C. 53 pp.

McLellan, J. G. 2001. 2000. WDFW Annual Report for the Project, Resident Fish 

Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams. Washington 

Department of Fisheries, Spokane, WA.
366

McLellan, J.G. 2009. Characteristics of the Kokanee Spawning Run in Harvey Creek, 

Washington, and its Potential Use as an Egg Source. Northwest Science. 

83(1):1-15.

McInturff, M. 1971. Interview with Alfred Kempe, Metaline Falls. Collection of John 

Ogmundson, Metaline Falls, Washington. 

McIntyre, J.D. and B.E. Rieman. 1995. Westslope Cutthroat Trout. Chapter 1 in 

Young, M.K. (ed.) Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout. USDA 

Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-GTR-256. Fort Collins, 

Colorado.

McMillen, Morton D. 2010. Mill Pond Removal and Restoration: Alternatives 

Analysis and Evaluation of Recommended Alternative. Prepared for Seattle City 

Light. Appendix A-2 to the Pend Orielle PUD License Surrender Application.

Moulton, G. E. 1990. The Definitive Journals of Lewis & Clark: Down the Columbia to 

Fort Clatsop. Volume 6 of the Nebraska Edition. University of Nebraska Press, 

Lincoln.

Mourning Dove. 1990. Mourning Dove, a Salishan Autobiography. Edited by Jay 

Miller. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Muckleston, K. W. 2003. International Management in the Columbia River System. 

Oregon State University. UNESCO/IHP/WWAP, IHP-VI Technical Documents 

in Hydrology, PCCP series, no. 12. 

Naiman, R. J., T. J. Beechie, L. E. Benda, D. R. Berg, P. A. Bison, L. H. MacDonald, 

M. D. O’Connor, P. L. Olson, and E. A. Steel. 1992. Fundamental elements of 

ecologically healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. In

R.J. Naiman, ed., Watershed Management: Balancing Sustainability with 

Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp. 127–188. 

Nelson, M. L., T. E. McMahon, and R. F. Thurow. 2002. Decline of the migratory 

form in bull charr, Salvelinus confluentus, and implications for conservation. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes. 64:321-332. 

New Zealand Mudsnail Management and Control Plan Working Group. 2007. National 

Management and Control Plan for the New Zealand Mudsnail (Potamopyrgus 

antipodarum). 

http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Documents/NZMS_MgmtControl_Final.pdf. 

Accessed November 23, 2010.

Nilsson, C., and P. A. Keddy. 1988. Predictability of change in shoreline vegetation in a

hydroelectric reservoir, northern Sweden. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 45(11):1896-1904.

Nine and Scholz. 2005. Fishery and Limnology study of Sullivan lake – Final Report. 

Eastern Washington University.
367

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Anadromous Salmonid Passage 

Facility Design. NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 137 pp. 

Normandeau Associates. 2002. Estimation of juvenile salmonid spillway passage 

survival at North Fork Dam. Prepared for Portland General Electric. 

Northcote, T. G. and D. Y. Atagi. 1997. Ecological interactions in the flooded littoral 

zone of reservoirs: the importance and role of submerged terrestrial vegetation 

with special reference to fish, fish habitat and fisheries in the Nechako Reservoir 

of British Columbia, Canada. Skeena Fisheries Report, SK- 111.

Piper, W.J. 1990. “The Ferries.” In The Big Smoke, p.27-33. Pflum Press, Chicago, 

IL. 

Pickett, P.J., H. Rueda, and M. Herold. Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Dissolved 

Gas in the Mid-Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt. Summary Report. 

Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 04-03-002. June 

2004.

PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory). 2000. Laboratory studies on the 

effects of shear on fish. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy.

Pokotylo, D. L. and D. Mitchell. 1998. Prehistory of the Northern Plateau. In 

Plateau,Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 12, pp. 81-102, edited by 

Deward E. Walker, Jr. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

POSRT (Pend Oreille Salmonid Recovery Team). 2005. Strategy for Protection and 

Improvement of Native Salmonid Habitat in the Pend Oreille Watershed, 

Washington Water Resource Inventory Area 62. Pend Oreille Conservation 

District, Newport, WA. 

Powers, P. 2008. Sullivan Creek RM 0.65 fish barrier assessment. Prepared for EES 

Consulting by Waterfall Engineering, L.L.C. 10 pp.

Pratt, K. L. 1992. A review of bull trout life history. Pages 5-9, In: Proceedings of the 

Gearhart Mountain bull trout symposium. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries 

Society. 

R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 1998a. Boundary Hydroelectric Project, bull trout field 

investigations, draft data report. Report of R2 Resource Consultants to Seattle 

City Light, Seattle, WA. 

R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 1998b. Annotated bibliography of literature regarding 

mechanical injury with emphasis on effects from spillways and stilling basins. 

Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District. 

R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 2006. Early Information Development: Fish 

Connectivity at the Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2144). Prepared 

for Seattle City Light, Seattle, WA. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., 

Redmond, WA. 
368

Rieman, B. E. and F. W. Allendorf. 2001. Effective population size and genetic 

conservation for bull trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 

21:756-764. 

Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements for 

Conservation of Bull Trout. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-302. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, and R.F. Thurow. 1997. Distribution, status, and likely future 

trends of bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath River Basins. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management. 17:1111-1125.

Ruby, R. H. and J. A. Brown. 1992 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific 

Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, et al., tech. eds. 2000a. Ecology and 

conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Boulder. 480

pp.

Saffel, P. D. and D. L. Scarnecchia. 1995. Habitat use by bull trout in belt-series 

geology watersheds of northern Idaho. Northwest Science. 69:304-317.

Saldi-Caromile, K., K. Bates, P. Skidmore, J. Barenti, D. Pineo. 2004. Stream Habitat 

Restoration Guidelines: Final Draft. Co-published by the Washington 

Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Olympia, Washington. 

Sanderson, B., K. A. Barnas, and M. W. Rub. 2009. Nonindigenous species of the 

Pacific Northwest: an overlooked risk to endangered salmon? BioScience. 

59:245-256. 

Saunders, D., R. J. Hobbs, and C. R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of 

ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5:18-32.

Schalk, R.F. 1977. The structure of an anadromous fish resource. In For Theory 

Building in Archaeology. Edited by L.R. Binford. Academic Press. San 

Francisco. Pp. 207-249. 

Scholz, A., H. J. McLellan, D. R. Geist, and R. S. Brown. 2005. Investigations of 

migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in relation to fish passage at Albeni 

Falls Dam. Final Report prepared for U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers, Seattle District. Contract No. DACW68-02-D-001. 

Seattle Audubon Society. 2008. BirdWeb. Available online at: 

http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/index.aspx (accessed October 30, 2008).

Seattle (Seattle City Light). 2006. Pre-Application Document for the Boundary 

Hydroelectric Project (FERC No.2144). Prepared by Long View Associates, 

Seattle, WA. Available at: 
369

http://www.seattle.gov/light/news/issues/bndryRelic/br_document.asp. May 

2006. 

Seattle. 2008a. Compilation of Project hydrologic data: preparation of hydrologic 

database and hydrologic statistics in support of relicensing studies, Boundary 

Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2144). Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, 

Inc., Redmond, WA. March 2008.

Seattle. 2008b. Initial Study Report - Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 

2144). Seattle, WA. Available at: 

http://www.seattle.gov/light/news/issues/bndryRelic/br_document.asp. March 

2008. 

Seattle. 2009. Application for the Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC NO. 2144). 

May 2009. 

Seattle. 2009a. Updated Study Report - Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 

2144). Seattle, WA. Available at: 

http://www.seattle.gov/light/news/issues/bndryRelic/br_document.asp. March 

2009. 

Seattle. 2009b. Evaluation of Total Dissolved Gas and Potential Abatement Measures 

Final Report. March 2009.

Seattle. 2009c. Toxics Assessment: Evaluation of Contaminant Pathways Final Report. 

March 2009.

Seattle. 2009b. Fish Distribution, Timing, and Abundance Study Final Report. Seattle, 

WA. Available at: 

http://www.seattle.gov/light/news/issues/bndryRelic/br_document.asp. April 

2009. 

Seattle. 2009c. Fish Entrainment and Habitat Connectivity Study Final Report. 

Seattle, WA. Available at: 

http://www.seattle.gov/light/news/issues/bndryRelic/br_document.asp. 

Seattle. 2009d. Technical memorandum describing Project effects on whitefish 

spawning conditions at the mouth of Sullivan Creek. Available at: 

http://www.seattle.gov/light/news/issues/bndryRelic/br_document.asp. May 

2009.

Seattle. 2010. Boundary H Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2144) Aquatic Invasive 

Species Control and Prevention Plan. March 2010.

Seattle. 2010b. Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2144) Dissolved Oxygen 

Attainment Plan. March 2010.

Seattle. 2010c. Boundary Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2144) Temperature 

Attainment Plan. March 2010.
370

Smith, A. H. 1961. An Ethnohistoric Analysis of David Thompson’s 1809-1811 

Journeys in the Lower Pend Oreille Valley, Northeastern Washington. 

Ethnohistory 8(4):309-381.

Small, M.P. and J. Von Bargen. 2009. Boundary Hydroelectric Project Westslope 

cutthroat and rainbow trout genetics program report. Prepared by Molecular 

Genetics Lab, Conservation Unit, Science Division, Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife.

Spence, B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughes, and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An 

ecosystem approach to salmon conservation. Management Technology. TR4501-96-6057.

Squires, J, R. Ruggiero, and F. Leonard. 2007. Winter prey selection of Canada lynx in 

northwestern Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71:310315.

State of Washington OFM (Washington State Office of Financial Management). 2007. 

Pend Oreille County Profile. From the 2007 Washington State Data Book. 

Available: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/databook/county/pend.asp. October 2008.

Stinson, D. W. 2001. Washington state recovery plan for the lynx. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Stolz, S., and J. Schnell. 1991. The wildlife series, trout pages 196-207, Stackpole 

Books, Harrisburg, PA., 370 pp. 

Sugiyama, K. 1980. History of the Boundary Project. City of Seattle, Office of 

Community Relations.

Tetra Tech. 2009. Study Number 21: Aesthetic/Visual Resources Study Report. 

Prepared for Seattle City Light.

Thoms, A. V. 1989. The Northern Roots of Hunter-Gatherer Intensification: Camas 

and the Pacific Northwest. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of 

Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

Todd, B.L. and C.F. Rabeni. 1989. Movement and habitat use by stream-dwelling 

smallmouth bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 118:229-242.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Zebra Mussel life history and biology. 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/zebra/zmis/zmishelp4/life_history_and_biology.htm

. Accessed on November 23, 2010.

USGS. 2010. Flow data from gage 12397100: Outlet Creek near Metaline Falls, WA. 

http://wa.water.usgs.gov/data/realtime/adr/2004/12397100.2004.sw.pdf. 

Accessed on November 29, 2010.

Watson, G. and T. W. Hillman. 1997. Factors Affecting the Distribution and 

Abundance of Bull Trout: An Investigation at Hierarchical Scales. Plum Creek 

Timber Company Technical Report #2. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management. 17:237-252. 
371

Washington DFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) and Western 

Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1998. Washington State Salmonid Stock 

Inventory - Appendix Bull Trout and Dolly Varden. Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 

Washington DFW. 2001. Washington State Elk Heard Plan: Selkirk Elk Herd. 

Washington DFW Wildlife Management Program, Olympia, Washington 

(February 2001) (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00451/wdfw00451.pdf.).

Washington DFW. 2010. 2010 Game status and trend report. Wildlife Program, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA.

(http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01159/wdfw01159.pdf.)

Washington State Historical Society. 1940. Building a State. Washington, 1889-1939, 

n.p.

Weitkamp, D.E, R.D. Sullivan, T. Swant, and J. DosSantos. 2003. Behavior of resident 

fish relative to total dissolved gas supersaturation in the lower Clark Fork River. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 132:5, 856-864.

Whittington, J., and G. Mercer. 2004. Proceedings of the Species at Risk 2004 

Pathways to Recovery Conference. 1 March 2–6, 2004, Victoria, B.C. Species at 

Risk 2004 Pathways.to Recovery Conference Organizing Committee, Victoria, 

B.C. T.D. Hooper, editor.

Williams, C. K., B. F. Kelly, B.G. Smith, and T.R. Lillybridge. 1995. Forested Plant

Associations of the Colville National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-360. 

United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. Portland, Oregon

Winans, W.P. 1904. Stevens County, Washington: Its Creation, Addition, Subtraction, 

and Division. Pamphlet on file at Seattle Public Library, Seattle. 

Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 2003. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle and London.
372

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

David Turner—FERC Project Coordinator (Wildlife Biologist; M.S., Zoology; B.S., 

Forest Resources and Wildlife Biology).

Allan Creamer – Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, and Threatened and Endangered 

Species (Fisheries Biologist; B.S. and M.S., Fisheries Science).

Ryan Hansen – Water Quantity and Quality (Fisheries Biologist; M.S., Environmental 

Science and Public Policy; B.S., Biology).

Frank Winchell—Cultural Resources (Archeologist; B.A., M.A., Ph.D., Anthropology)

Jennifer Harper—Need for Power, Developmental Resources, and Geology and Soils 

(Engineer; Ph.D., Environmental Health Engineering; MSCE, Civil Engineering)

Mark Ivy—Recreation, Aesthetics and Land Use (Outdoor Recreation Planner; Ph.D., 

Outdoor Recreation Management; M.S., Recreation & Resources Development; 

B.S., Natural Resource Planning)

Patrick Murphy—Vegetation and Wildlife Resources, Threatened and Endangered 

Species (Wildlife Biologist; M.S. and B.S., Wildlife Management)
373

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS

Honorable Maria Cantwell

U.S. Senator

915 Second Ave, Ste. 3206

Seattle WA 98174

Honorable Patty Murray

U.S. Senator

2988 Jackson Federal Building

Seattle, WA 98174

Honorable Doc Hastings

U.S. Representative

2715 St Andrews Loop Suite 

D

Pasco, WA 99301

Honorable Christine Gregoire

Office Of The Governor

PO Box 40002

Olympia WA 98504-0002

Yakama Nation

Dept. of Natural Resources

PO Box 151

Toppenish, WA 98948

Ralph Sampson, Jr.

Chair, Tribal Council

Yakama Nation

PO Box 151

Toppenish, WA 98948

Michael O. Finlely, Chairman

Colville Business Council

PO Box 150 

Nespelem, WA 99155

Elwood Patawa, Chairman

Confederated Tribes Of The 

Umatilla

PO Box 638 

Pendleton OR 97801

Confederated Tribes Of The 

Warm Springs Reservation

Attn: Ron Suppah, Chair

PO Box C

Warm Springs, OR 97761-

3001

Janea Holmquist

Washington State Senator

PO Box 40413

Olympia, WA 98504-0413

Bill Hinkle

Washington State Representative

401 John L. O’Brien Building

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Judy Warnick

Washington State 

Representative

403 John L. O'Brien Building

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Jerome Delvin

Washington State Senator

201 Irv Newhouse Building

PO Box 40408

Olympia, WA 98504-0408

Brad Klippert

Washington State Representative

436 John L. O'Brien Building

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Larry Haler

Washington State 

Representative

122 D Legislative Building

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Jim Honeyford

Washington State Senator

107 Irv Newhouse Building

PO Box 40415

Olympia, WA 98504-0415

Bruce Chandler

Washington State Representative

427 B Legislative Building

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

David Taylor

Washington State 

Representative

438 John L. O'Brien Building

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Linda Evans Parlette

Washington State Senator

316 Legislative Building

P.O. Box 40412

Olympia, WA 98504-0412

Cary Cardotta

Washington State Representative

122 B Legislative Building

P.O. Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Mike Armstrong

Washington State 

Representative

426 A Legislative Building

P.O. Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Dennis Beich

WDFW

1550 Alder Street NW

Ephrata, WA 98823-9699

Guy Gregory

Washington State Department of 

Ecology

N. 4601 Monroe

Spokane, WA 99205-1295

Bonneville Power 

Administration

Attn: Rob Swedo

P.O. Box 3621

Portland, OR 97208-3621
374

U.S. Department Of Energy

Office Of River Protection

Attn: Mary Beth Burandt

PO Box 450, Mail Stop H6–60

Richland, WA 99352

Dennis Bly

Lincoln County Commissioner

P.O. Box 28

Davenport, WA 99122

Paul Stoker

Columbia Basin GWMA

449 E. Cedar Blvd

Othello, WA, 99344

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Jim Fredericks

PO Box 3755

Seattle, WA 98124-3755

National Marine Fisheries Service

Attn: Dale Bambrick

304 S Water St. 

Ellensburg, WA 98926

Fish & Wildlife Services

Attn: Jeff Tayer

1917 Marsh Rd. 

Yakima, WA 98907

Washington State Department 

of Ecology

SEPA Unit

PO Box 47703

Olympia, WA 98504-7703

Washington Department of 

Agriculture

Attn: Dan Newhouse

PO BOX 42560

Olympia, WA 98504

Washington Parks & 

Recreation Commission

PO Box 42668

Olympia, WA 98504

Washington Department of Fish 

& Wildlife

Attn: Phil Anderson, Director

600 Capitol Way N. 

Olympia, WA 98501-1091

Washington Department of Natural 

Resources

Attn: Sandy Moody

PO BOX 47014

Olympia, WA 98504-7014

Washington State Dept of 

Transportation

Attn: Bill Preston

PO BOX 12560

Yakima WA, 98901

Washington State Dept of 

Archaeology 

& Historic Preserve

Attn: Robert Whitlam

PO BOX 48343

Olympia, WA 98504-8343

Washington State Recreation &

Conservation

Attn: Jim Eychaner

PO BOX 40917

Olympia, WA 98504-0917

Scott Revell

Kennewick Irrigation District

PO Box 6900

Kennewick, WA 98336-0401

Director

Bonneville Power Administration

PO Box 3621

Portland, Oregon 97208-3621

Columbia River Gorge Commission

Chairman

PO Box 730

White Salmon, WASHINGTON 

98672-0730

Dana Marcelle Mangold

Department of Ecology

4601 N. Monroe

Spokane, WASHINGTON 

99205

Washington Farm Bureau

Attn: John Stuhlmiller

975 Carpenter Rd NE, Suite 301

Lacey, WA 98516

Yakima County Commissioners

Attn: Mike Leita

128 North 2nd Street

Yakima, WA 98901

Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council

Attn: Tony Grover

851 S. W. 6th Ave, Suite 

1100

Portland, OR 97204

American Rivers

Attn: Michael Garrity

4005 20th Ave NW, Suite 221

Seattle, WA 98199

National Wildlife Federation

Attn: Steve Malloch

6 Nickerson Street # 200

Seattle, WA 98109

Center for Environmental Law 

and Policy

Attn: Rachael Osborn

25 West Main, Suite 234

Spokane, WA 99201

Columbia River Intertribal Fish 

Commission

Attn: Julie Carter

729 NE Oregon St. Suite 200

Portland, OR 97232

Sierra Club

Attn: Bill Arthur

180 Nickerson Street, Suite 202

Seattle, WA 98109

Lower Columbia Audubon 

Society

Attn: Richard Leaumont

9016 Sunset Trail

 Pasco, WA 99301
375

Citizens for a Clean Columbia

434 Orando Ave

Wenatchee, WA 98801

Dave Sauter

Klickitat County Commissioner

205 S Columbus MS-CH4

Goldendale, WA 98620

Dorothy Black, Planning 

Manager

Grant County Planning

PO Box 37

Ephrata, WA 98823

Mona Janopaul

FOREST SERVICE

Stop 1124

1400 Independence Ave SW

Washington, DC 20250

U.S. Forest Service

Forest Supervisor

765 S Main St

Colville, WASHINGTON 991142507

Kirk Holmes

Kittitas County Community 

Development Services

411 North Ruby St., Suite A

Ellensburg, WA 98926

Gary Chandler 

Vice Present of Government 

Affairs

Association of Washington 

Businesses

1414 Cherry St SE

Ol i WA 98507

Kathleen Collins 

Water Policy Alliance

3905 Lakehills Drive SE 

Olympia, WA 98501

Jon Culp

Washington State 

Conservation Commission

921 Murry St

Okanagon, WA 98840

Craig Simpson

East Columbia Basin Irriigation 

District

PO Box E

Othello, WA 99344

Rick George, Program Manager

Environmental Planning and Right 

Protection

Umatilla Tribes

PO Box 638 

Pendleton, OR 97801

Bill Gray, Manager

Area Manager

Bureau Of Reclamation

32 "C" St NW

Ephrata, WA 98823

Walt Dortch

U.S. Forest Service

21905 64th Avenue West

Mountlake Ter, WASHINGTON 

98043-2278

Joe Lucas

Grant County PUD

PO BOX 878

Ephrata, WA 98823

Mo Mcbroom, Policy Director

Washington Environmental 

Council

615 2nd Avenue St 380

Seattle, WA 98104

Merrill Ott, Commissioner

Stevens County Commission

215 S Oak St

Colville, WA 99114 

Gary Passmore

Environmental Trust Director

Colville Tribes

PO Box 150

Nespelem WA, 99155

Lisa Pelly, Executive Director

Washington Rivers 

Conservancy

103 Palouse Suite 33

Wenatchee, WA 98801

Rudy Peone

Natural Resources Director

Spokane Tribe

6208 Ford/Wellpinit Road

PO Box 100

Wellpinit, WA 99040

Mike Schwisow 

Columbia Basin Development 

League

606 Columbia St NW, Suite 101

Olympia, WA 98501

Teresa Scott 

Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife

600 Capitol Way North

Olympia, WA 98501

Rudy Plager

Adams County Commissioners 

210 W Broadway

Ritzville, WA 99169

Jim Eychaner

Interagency Committee for Outdoor 

Recreation

PO Box 40917

Olympia, WA 98501

Phillip Katzen

Kanji & Katzen, PLLC

401 Second Ave. S.

Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98104

Rich Stevens, Commissioner

Grant County

35 C St NW

Ephrata, WA 98823

David Turner

PO Box 1072

Harpers Ferry, WV 25425

Darryll Olsen

Columbia-Snake Rivers 

Irrigation Association

3030 W. Clearwater, Suite 205-

A

Kennewick, WA 99336
376

Dr. Brenda Bateman

Senior Policy Coordinator

Oregon Department of Water 

Resources

Summer Street NE, Suite A

Salem, OR 97301

Brent Foster

Columbia River Keeper

724 Oak St

Hood River, OR 97301

Washington State Library

PO Box 42460

Olympia, WA 98504-2460

Bob Morton

Washington State Senator

115D Irv Newhouse Building

PO Box 40407

Olympia, WA 98504-0407

Shelly Short

Washington State Representative

422 John L. O’Brien Building

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Mark Schoesler

Washington State Senator

110 Irv Newhouse Building

PO Box 40409

Olympia, WA 98504-0409

Joe Schmick

Washington State 

Representative

427 Legislative Building

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Joel Kretz 

Washington State Representative

335 Legislative Building

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Susan Fagan

Washington State 

Representative

122C Legislative Building

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Jim DeGraffenreid

Planning Services Director

Lincoln County Land Services

27234 State Route 25 N 

Davenport , WA 99122

Todd McLaughlin

Pend Oreille County Planning

P.O. Box 5066 

Newport, WA 99156

Chris Mylar

Clerk of the Board

Pend Oreille County

P O Box 5025

Newport, WA. 99156

Mark D Kulaas

Douglas County Land Services

140 19th Street NW, Suite A

East Wenatchee, WA 98802

Erik Johansen

Stevens County Land Services

215 S. Oak St.

Colville, WA 99114

Irene Whipple

Ferry County Planning Dept.

PO Box 305

Republic, WA 99166

Perry Huston

Office of Planning and 

Development

Okanogan County 

123 5th Ave N Ste 130

Okanogan, WA 98840

Sen. Linda Evans Parlette

316 Legislative Building

PO Box 40412

Olympia, WA 98504-0412

Rep. Cary Condotta

122B Legislative Building

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Rep. Mike Armstrong

426A Legislative Building

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Mark Cauchy

Pend Oreille Public Utility District 

PO Box 190

Newport, WA 99156-0190

Deane Osterman

Natural Resources Dept.

Kalispel Tribe of Indians

P.O. Box 39

Usk, WA 99180

Mary Wagner

Pacific Northwest Region

U.S. Forest Service

333 SW First Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97204-3440

Loren Torgerson

Washington State Department Of 

Natural Resources

225 S Silke Road

Colville, WA 99114-0190

Karen Gustin

Superintendent

Olympic National Park

600 East Park Avenue

Port Angeles, WA 98362

Kristine Wilson

Perkins Coie LLP

The PSE Building

10885 NE 4th Ave., Suite 700

Bellevue, WA 98004

Markham A Quehrn

Perkins Coie LLP

Suite 700

10885 N.E. Fourth St

Bellevue, WA 98004-5579

Pat Kelleher

6530 Wilson creek road

Ellensburg, WA 98926
377

Elizabeth Thomas

K&L Gates LLP

925 4th Ave Ste 2900

Seattle, WA 98104

Jorge Carrasco, .

Seattle City Light

PO Box 34023

Seattle, WA 98124-4023

Jerry R Boggs

Selkirk Conservation Alliance

PO Box 1809

Post Falls, ID 83869

Donald E Kempf

Stillaguamish Tribe

Po Box 277

Arlington, WA 98223-0277

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

Director

Portland Area Office

911 NE 11th Ave

Portland, OR 972324169

State Director (OR-936.1)

U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management

PO Box 2965

Portland, OR 97208-2965

DAN HAAS

U.S. National Park Service

909 1st Ave

Seattle, WA 981041055

Jeff Vail

United States Department of 

Agriculture

1400 Independence Ave SW

Washington, DC 20250

Jocelyn Somers

Office of the General Counsel

United States Department of 

Agriculture

1220 SW 3rd Ave Ste 1734

Portland, OR 97204

Maria Cantwell

United States Senate

511 Dirksen Senate Office 

Building

Washington, DC 20515-0001

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Secretary

PO Box 2870

Portland, OREGON 97208-2870

Jennifer Frozena

U.S. Department of Interior

911 N.E. 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97213

Kristen Bonanno

U.S. Forest Service

PO Box 3623

Portland, OREGON 97208-3623

Lee Van Tussenbrook

Washington Department of Fish & 

Wildlife

2108 Grand Blvd

Vancouver, WA 986614624

Washington Department of 

Fish & Wildlife

Chief

Habitat Division

600 N. Capitol Way

Olympia, WA 985040001

Neil Wise

Washington Office of Attorney 

General

PO Box 40100

Olympia, WA 98504-0100

Washington Dept. of Agriculture

406 General Administration Building

Olympia, WA 98504-0001

Washington Office Of 

Archaeology

SHPO

PO Box 48343

Olympia, WA 98504-8343

Joan Marchioro

Washington Office of Attorney 

General

PO Box 40117

Olympia, WA 00117

Bill Frymire

Washington Office of Attorney 

General

PO Box 40100

Olympia,WA 00100

Douglas L. Robison

Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife

2315 N. Discovery Place

Spokane Valley, WA 99216-

1566

Forest Practice Coordinator

Washington State Dept. of 

Natural Resources

950 Farman St N

Enumclaw, WA 980229282

Brett Swift

American Rivers

320 SW Stark Street, Suite 412

Portland, OR 97204

Thomas O’Keefe

PNW Stewardship Director

American Whitewater

3537 NE 87th St.

Seattle, WA 98115

John Snyder

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20006-3401

Barbara Greene

Seattle City Light

700 5th Ave, Suite 3205

Seattle, WA 98104

Mark Sprengel

Selkirk Conservation Alliance

PO Box 1809

Post Falls, ID 83856
378

Rich Bowers

Hydropower Reform Coalition

803 Reveille Road

Bellingham, WA 98229

Walt Dortch

U.S. Forest Service

140 Emens Ave N

Darrington, WA 98241-9502

Jean Parodi

Washington Dept of Ecology

PO Box 47600

Olympia, WA 98504-7600

Dennis Beich

Washington Dept of Ecology

PO Box 47600

Olympia, WA 98504-7600

Sara L. Hunt

Washington Dept. of Ecology

4601 N Monroe ST

Spokane, WA 99205

Mark Miller, Assistant Project 

Leader

Spokane Field Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

11103 East Montgomery 

Drive

S k W hi t 99206

Kevin Colburn

American Whitewater

2725 Highland Dr.

Missoula, MT 59802

Jerry R. Boggs, Ph.D.

Selkirk Conservation Alliance

PO Box 1809

Priest River, ID 83869

Joyce Launer

Sweet Creek Residents

PO Box 45

Metaline, WA 99152

Shirley and Wilhelm Botzheim

378 Sweet Creek Road

Metaline, WA 99152

Steven Kern

Seattle City Light

700 5th Ave., Suite 3200

P.O. Box 34023

Seattle, WA 98124-4023

Bob Geddes

Public Utility District #1 of 

Pend Oreille County

P.O. Box 190

Newport, WA 99156

Bob Dach

Bureau of Indian Affairs

911 N.E. 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232

Susan Rosebrough

National Park Service

Rivers, Trails and Conservation 

Assistance

909 First Avenue

Seattle, WA 98104

Laura Jo West

Forest Supervisor

Colville National Forest

Mailing Address 765 South 

Main Street

Colville, WA 99114

Deane Osterman

Director

Kalispel Natural Resources 

Department

P.O. Box 39

Usk, WA 99180

Mike Petersen

The Lands Council

25 West Main Ave., Suite 222

Spokane, WA 99201

Steve Llewellyn 

The Lands Council

25 West Main Ave., Suite 222

Spokane, WA 99201
APPENDIX A

Boundary Project

Draft License Articles Recommended by Staff
This page intentionally left blank.
A-1

APPENDIX A Draft Boundary License Articles Recommended by Staff

I. Mandatory Conditions

We recommend including Interior’s amended preliminary section 18 

prescriptions, which are identical to proposed license articles 9(B) and 9(C) of the 

settlement agreement, in any license issued. We also recommend including Forest 

Service’s section 4(e) conditions 1(in part), 3 (in part), 8, and 9, in any new license 

issued. Forest Service 4(e) Condition 1 stipulates that Seattle must implement all the 

provisions of the Boundary settlement agreement, including exhibits and attachments, 

relating to protection, mitigation and environmental measures and other obligations on 

National Forest System lands, except those related to the District’s Mill Pond dam 

removal and the installation of the cold water release intake on Sullivan Lake. 

Similarly, 4(e) Condition 3 stipulates that the licensee shall implement proposed license 

articles 1 through 10 included in the settlement agreement. We recommend that any 

license issued include all the measures contained in the proposed license articles except 

proposed articles 8a (iii) (Fish Tissue Sampling), 9(H) (Recreational Fish Stocking 

Program), and 9(I) (Fund for Habitat Improvements in Tributaries to Lake Sullivan). 

While we do not recommend including these measures in a new license, all valid 4(e) 

conditions would be made part of any license issued for the project. The following 

additional draft articles are based on the inclusion of all of the above prescriptions and 

conditions in a license. 

II. Draft License Articles

Draft Article 201. Administrative Annual Charges. The licensee shall pay the 

United States annual charges, effective as of the date of commencement of project 

construction, and as determined in accordance with the provisions of the Commission's 

regulations in effect from time to time for the purposes of: 

(a) reimbursing the United States for the cost of administration of Part 1 of the 

Federal Power Act. The authorized installed capacity for that purpose is 1,003,253 

kilowatts; and 

(b) recompensing the United States for the use, occupancy and enjoyment of 

938.59 acres of its lands (other than for transmission line right-of-way).

Draft Article 202. Exhibit F Drawings. Within 45 days of the date of issuance 

of the license, the licensee shall file the approved exhibit drawings in aperture card and 

electronic file formats.

(a) Three sets of the approved exhibit drawings shall be reproduced on silver or 

gelatin 35mm microfilm. All microfilm shall be mounted on type D (3-1/4" X 7-3/8") 

aperture cards. Prior to microfilming, the FERC Project-Drawing Number (i.e., P-2144-
A-2

1001 through P-2144-1005) shall be shown in the margin below the title block of the 

approved drawing. After mounting, the FERC Drawing Number shall be typed on the 

upper right corner of each aperture card. Additionally, the Project Number, FERC 

Exhibit (i.e., F-1, etc.), Drawing Title, and date of this license shall be typed on the 

upper left corner of each aperture card.

Two of the sets of aperture cards shall be filed with the Secretary of the 

Commission, ATTN: OEP/DHAC. The third set shall be filed with the Commission's 

Division of Dam Safety and Inspections - Portland Regional Office. 

(b) The licensee shall file two separate sets of exhibit drawings in electronic 

raster format with the Secretary of the Commission, ATTN: OEP/DHAC. A third set 

shall be filed with the Commission's Division of Dam Safety and Inspections Portland 

Regional Office. Exhibit F drawings must be identified as Critical Energy 

Infrastructure Information (CEII) material under 18 CFR § 388.113(c). Each drawing 

must be a separate electronic file, and the file name shall include: FERC ProjectDrawing Number, FERC Exhibit, Drawing Title, date of this license, and file extension 

in the following format [P-2144-1001, D-1, Description, MM-DD-YYYY.TIF]. 

Electronic drawings shall meet the following format specification:

IMAGERY - black & white raster file 

FILE TYPE – Tagged Image File Format (TIFF), CCITT Group 4 

RESOLUTION – 300 dpi desired (200 dpi min)

DRAWING SIZE FORMAT – 24” X 36” (min), 28” X 40” (max)

FILE SIZE – less than 1 MB desired

Draft Article 203. Exhibit G Drawings. Within 90 days of the effective date of 

the license, the licensee shall file, for Commission approval, revised Exhibit G drawings 

enclosing within the project boundary all principal project works necessary for 

operation and maintenance of the project, including revisions to the project boundary 

required to bring the new project lands and roads within the boundary, and including 

any revisions around the lower reservoir to bring the project boundary to a minimum 

distance of 180 feet from the current ordinary high water level of the reservoir. The 

Exhibit G drawings must comply with sections 4.39 and 4.41 of the Commission’s 

regulations. The licensee shall also provide a tabulation of federal lands within the 

revised project boundary so that Article 201 may be amended for the purpose of annual 

charges for federal land use and occupancy.

Draft Article 204. Headwater Benefits. If the licensee's project was directly 

benefited by the construction work of another licensee, a permittee, or the United States 

on a storage reservoir or other headwater improvement during the term of the original 

license (including extensions of that term by annual licenses), and if those headwater 

benefits were not previously assessed and reimbursed to the owner of the headwater 
A-3

improvement, the licensee shall reimburse the owner of the headwater improvement for 

those benefits, at such time as they are assessed, in the same manner as for benefits 

received during the term of this new license. The benefits will be assessed in 

accordance with Part 11, Subpart B, of the Commission's regulations.

Draft Article 301. Contract Plans and Specifications. At least 60 days prior to 

the start of any construction (including, but not limited to, volitional fish passage 

facilities), the licensee shall submit one copy of its plans and specifications and any 

supporting design documents to the Commission's Division of Dam Safety and 

Inspections (D2SI) - Portland Regional Engineer, and two copies to the Commission 

(one of these shall be a courtesy copy to the Director, Division of Dam Safety and 

Inspections). The submittal to the Regional Engineer must also include as part of 

preconstruction requirements: a Quality Control and Inspection Program, Temporary 

Construction Emergency Action Plan, and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. 

The licensee may not begin construction until the Regional Engineer has approved in 

writing the plans and specifications and determined that all preconstruction 

requirements have been satisfied. 

Draft Article 302. Cofferdam Construction Drawings. Before starting any 

removal, construction, or stream restoration activities the licensee shall review and 

approve the design of any contractor-designed cofferdams and deep excavations and 

shall make sure construction of cofferdams and deep excavations is consistent with the 

approved design. At least 30 days before starting construction of any cofferdam, the 

licensee shall submit one copy to the Commission's Division of Dam Safety and 

Inspections (D2SI) – Portland Regional Engineer and two copies to the Commission 

(one of these copies shall be a courtesy copy to the Commission's Director, Division of 

Dam Safety and Inspections), of the approved cofferdam construction drawings and 

specifications and the letters of approval.

Draft Article 303. As-built Drawings. Within 90 days of completion of 

construction of the facilities authorized by this license, the licensee shall file for 

Commission approval, revised exhibits A, F, and G, as applicable, to describe and show 

those project facilities as built. A courtesy copy shall be filed with the Commission's 

D2SI - Portland Regional Office, the Director, D2SI, and the Director, Division of 

Hydropower Administration and Compliance. 

Draft Article 304. Project Modification Resulting From Environmental 

Requirements. The planning and design of any permanent or temporary modification 

which affects the project works or operation resulting from environmental requirements 

shall be coordinated as early as feasible with the Commission’s Division Dam Safety 

and Inspections - Portland Regional Office (D2SI-PRO). Within 90 days of receipt of 

the license a letter is to be sent to the D2SI-PRO providing a plan and schedule of any 

proposed modifications (including, but not limited to, modifications to control Total 
A-4

Dissolved Gas) to the water-retaining features of the project in the planning and design 

phase resulting from environmental requirements of the license. The schedule is to 

allow sufficient review time for the Commission to insure that the proposed work does 

not adversely affect the project works, dam safety or project operation.

Draft Article 305. Turbine Upgrades. Within 90 days of the completion of the 

proposed upgrades on Units 55 and 56, the licensee shall file with the Commission, a 

description of the exact installed capacities of each unit. This information will be used 

to revise the annual charges under Article 201(a).

Draft Article 401. Commission Approval, Notification, and Filing of 

Amendments

(a) Requirement to File Plans for Commission Approval 

Certain conditions found in the U.S. Forest Service’s (Forest Service) section 

4(e) conditions require the licensee to prepare plans in consultation with other entities 

for approval and implement specific measures without prior Commission approval. The 

following table indicates the agencies (composition of the working groups are 

established by Forest Service Condition 3(2)) that the licensee shall consult before 

preparing the plans along with the deadline for filing the plans with the Commission for 

approval.

Forest 

Service 4(e) 

condition 

no. Description

Consultation

Due Date

3(3) Revised Terrestrial Resource 

Management Plan

Terrestrial 

Resources 

Working Group

Every 5 years from 

license issuance

3(3) Adaptive Management Plan to 

monitor effectiveness of 

terrestrial resource measures

Terrestrial 

Resources 

Working Group

1 year from license 

issuance

3(3) Long-Term Erosion Control 

Monitoring Program

Terrestrial 

Resources 

Working Group

1 year from license 

issuance

3(3) Riparian Habitat Management 

Plans for Everett Creek and 

Boundary Wildlife Preserve 

(BWP)

Terrestrial 

Resources 

Working Group

4 years from 

license issuance
A-5

Forest 

Service 4(e) 

condition 

no. Description

Consultation

Due Date

3(3) Upland Habitat Management 

Plan for BWP, BWP Addition, 

Tailrace East, and Everett 

Creek

Terrestrial 

Resources 

Working Group

4 years from 

license issuance

3(5) Road Maintenance Plan Recreation 

Resources 

Working Group

1 year from license 

issuance

3(5) Final Multi-Resource 

Interpretation and Education 

Program

Recreation 

Resources 

Working Group

3 years from 

license issuance

3(9E) Tributary Management Plan Fish and Aquatic 

Working Group

1 year from 

license issuance

3(9F) Mill Pond Dam Site Monitoring 

and Maintenance Plan

Fish and Aquatic 

Working Group

Within one year of 

the Commission 

ending its 

jurisdiction over the 

Sullivan Creek 

Project

3(9Ad) Tributary Delta Predation Study 

Plan

Fish and Aquatic 

Working Group

3 and 14 years from 

license issuance

3(9C) Forebay Hydraulic Study Plan` Fish and Aquatic 

Working Group

Within 15 years of 

license issuance

3(9G) Design Plans for Native Fish 

Conservation [Propagation] 

Facility

Fish and Aquatic 

Working Group

Within 4 years of 

license issuance

The licensee shall submit to the Commission documentation of its consultation, 

copies of comments and recommendations made in connection with each plan, and a 

description of how each plan accommodates the comments and recommendations. If 

the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s 

reasons, based on project-specific information. The licensee shall also include with 

each plan filed with the Commission, documentation that the plan has been approved by 

the Forest Service. With regard to the Tributary Management Plan [Condition 3(9E)], 

the licensee shall provide a copy of the plan to the Sweet Creek residents for their 
A-6

review and comment prior to filing the plan with the Commission. The Commission 

reserves the right to make changes to any plan submitted. Upon Commission approval, 

each plan or recommended measure becomes a requirement of the license, and the 

licensee shall implement the plan or measure, including any changes required by the 

Commission.

(b) Requirement to File Reports

Certain conditions of the U.S. Forest Service’s (Forest Service) section 4(e) 

conditions require the licensee to file reports with other entities. These reports 

document compliance with requirements of this license and may have bearing on future 

actions. Each such report shall also be submitted to the Commission. These reports are 

listed in the following table:

Forest 

Service 

4(e) 

condition 

no. Description Due Date

3(1) Operational Incidence Reports Within 10 days of 

the incident

3(8) Aquatic Vegetation Bottom Barrier Effectiveness 

Reports

Within one year of 

license issuance, 

and by March 31 

each year 

thereafter 

3(8) Temperature Data and Attainment (Measure 

Implementation) Reports

Within one year of 

license issuance, 

and by March 31 

each year 

thereafter 

3(8) Total Dissolved Gas Data and Attainment Reports Within one year of 

license issuance, 

and by March 31 

each year 

thereafter

3(8) Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention 

Plan Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

Nine months from 

license issuance

3(8) Dissolved Oxygen Attainment Plan QAPP Nine months from 

license issuance
A-7

Forest 

Service 

4(e) 

condition 

no. Description Due Date

3(8) Temperature Attainment Plan QAPP Nine months from 

license issuance

3(9) Fish and Aquatics Management Plan Annual 

Compliance Reports

Within one year of 

license issuance 

and by March 31 

each year 

thereafter

Forest Service 4(e) condition number 3(9), provides for the filing of annual 

compliance reports. The purpose of these annual reports is to document all activities 

that occurred for each element of the Fish and Aquatics Management Plan for the 

preceding year. To facilitate Commission oversight of this license, the licensee shall 

also include in the annual reports a description of any activity planned for the upcoming 

year, in addition to the activities completed for the year. 

The licensee shall submit to the Commission documentation of any consultation, 

and copies of any comments and recommendations made by any consulted entity in 

connection with each report. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to 

project operations, facilities, or measures based on the information contained in the 

reports and any other available information.

(c) Requirement to File Amendment Application

Certain Forest Service conditions contemplate unspecified long-term changes to 

project operations or facilities for the purpose of mitigating environmental impacts. 

These changes may not be implemented without prior Commission authorization 

granted after the filing of an application to amend the license. These conditions are 

listed below.

Forest 

Service 4(e) 

condition no. Description

3(8) Alternative methods of aquatic macrophyte control if bottom barriers 

prove inadequate

3(8) Future modifications to reduce dissolved oxygen levels in the reservoir
A-8

Draft Article 402. Funding. Notwithstanding the limitation on expenditures as 

expressed in the mandatory conditions and included in this license, the Commission 

reserves the right to require the licensee to undertake such measures as may be 

appropriate and reasonable to implement approved plans and other requirements in this 

license.

Draft Article 403. Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan. Within one year of

license issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, an Operation 

Compliance Monitoring Plan to ensure compliance with summer lake elevations

required by Forest Service 4(e) condition 3(1). The plan at a minimum shall include:

(a) a detailed description of how reservoir levels will be measured to ensure 

compliance with summer diurnal lake elevation requirements of maintaining forebay 

water surface elevations at or above 1,984 feet NAVD 88 from 6:00 am through 8:00 

pm and at or above 1,982 feet NAVD 88 from 8:00 PM through 6:00 AM from 

Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend. 

(b) a provision to file an operation compliance monitoring report by 

December 31 of the first complete year following license issuance and continuing 

annually by December 31 for each year thereafter for the term of the license, that 

documents the following for the previous water year (July through June): (a) Boundary 

reservoir hourly water surface elevations; and (b) if deviations from the targeted water 

surface elevations occurred, the reasons for the deviations and any proposals for 

corrective actions to avoid future occurrences, as appropriate.

The licensee shall include with the Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan,

documentation of consultation with the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife; copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has 

been prepared and provided to the consulted entities; and specific descriptions of how 

the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a 

minimum of 30 days for the consulted entities to comment and to make 

recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not 

adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons based on projectspecific information.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. 

Implementation of the plan shall not begin until the plan is approved by the 

Commission. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan, 

including any changes required by the Commission.

Draft Article 404. Tributary Management Plan. The Tributary Management 

Plan (TMP) developed by the licensee as part of the Fish and Aquatics Management 

Plan (FAMP), as required by Forest Service Condition 3(9E), shall include not only the 

details outlined in the FAMP, but shall also address (a) any potential health risks 

associated with the proposed use of rotenone, antimycin, or other chemical used in the 
A-9

eradication of fish from individual creeks, and (b) the potential for any chemical used to 

affect an individual’s or entities’ water supply. The licensee, in developing the TMP, 

shall consult with not only the Fish and Aquatics Working Group, but the Washington 

Department of Health and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as well, to 

address any potential health risks associated with the use of such chemicals.

Draft Article 405. Boundary Recreation Resource Management Plan. The 

Boundary Recreation Resource Management Plan filed on March 29, 2010, and 

consisting of Exhibit 3, pages 1 through 48, and Appendices 1 through 8, is approved

and shall be implemented with the following modifications: 

Recreation Facility Capital Improvements

Within five years of license issuance, the licensee shall complete the recreation 

facility improvements identified in the recreation plan at the Forebay Recreation Area 

and the Metaline Waterfront Park Boat Launch. 

Within seven years of license issuance, the licensee shall build the new Peewee

Falls Viewpoint and Trail, the new Riverside Mine Canyon Viewpoint and Trail, and 

the new Metaline Falls Portage Trail and Boater Access Site as described in the 

recreation plan. Also within seven years of license issuance, the license shall complete 

the enhancements at the following designated dispersed shoreline recreation sites

defined in section 4.3.2 and depicted on figure 4.3-1 of the plan: site 2 (BLM recreation 

area), 4 (Ledbetter Cove), 7 (Deadman’s Eddy), 12 (Lime Creek), 13 (Monument Bar),

and 14 (Wolf Creek). Following completion of the above recreational improvements, 

the licensee shall revise the project boundary as necessary to include the recreational 

facilities and dispersed recreation sites within the project boundary and file revised 

Exhibit G drawings in accordance with Article 203.

Within ten years of license issuance, the licensee shall complete the recreation 

facility improvements at the Vista House Recreation Area, at the Tailrace Recreation 

Area/Machine Hall Visitors’ Gallery, and Eastside Trail.

As-Built Drawings

Within 90 days of completing construction of the recreation facilities described 

in the plan, the licensee shall file, for Commission approval, as-built drawings, pursuant 

to Article 303 that show the location (including GIS data), type, and layout of all the 

existing and newly constructed facilities in relation to the existing Boundary Project 

boundary.

Draft Article 406. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The 

Commission reserves the authority to order, upon its own motion or upon the 

recommendation of federal and state fish and wildlife agencies, affected Indian Tribes, 

or the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, alterations of project structures and 
A-10

operations to take into account to the fullest extent practicable the regional fish and 

wildlife program developed and amended pursuant to the Pacific Northwest Electric 

Power Planning and Conservation Act.

Draft Article 407. Use and Occupancy. (a) In accordance with the provisions of 

this article, the licensee shall have the authority to grant permission for certain types of 

use and occupancy of project lands and waters and to convey certain interests in project 

lands and waters for certain types of use and occupancy, without prior Commission 

approval. The licensee may exercise the authority only if the proposed use and 

occupancy is consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, 

recreational, and other environmental values of the project. For those purposes, the 

licensee shall also have continuing responsibility to supervise and control the use and 

occupancies, for which it grants permission, and to monitor the use of, and ensure

compliance with the covenants of the instrument of conveyance for, any interests that it 

has conveyed, under this article. If a permitted use and occupancy violates any 

condition of this article or any other condition imposed by the licensee for protection 

and enhancement of the project’s scenic, recreational, or other environmental values, or 

if a covenant of a conveyance made under the authority of this article is violated, the 

licensee shall take any lawful action necessary to correct the violation. For a permitted 

use or occupancy, that action includes, if necessary, canceling the permission to use and 

occupy the project lands and waters and requiring the removal of any non-complying 

structures and facilities.

(b) The type of use and occupancy of project lands and waters for which the 

licensee may grant permission without prior Commission approval are: (1) landscape 

plantings; (2) non-commercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and 

facilities that can accommodate no more than 10 water craft at a time and where said 

facility is intended to serve single-family type dwellings; (3) embankments, bulkheads, 

retaining walls, or similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing shoreline; 

and (4) food plots and other wildlife enhancement. To the extent feasible and desirable 

to protect and enhance the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental values, 

the licensee shall require multiple use and occupancy of facilities for access to project 

lands or waters. The licensee shall also ensure, to the satisfaction of the Commission’s 

authorized representative that the use and occupancies for which it grants permission are 

maintained in good repair and comply with applicable state and local health and safety 

requirements. Before granting permission for construction of bulkheads or retaining 

walls, the licensee shall: (1) inspect the site of the proposed construction, (2) consider 

whether the planting of vegetation or the use of riprap would be adequate to control 

erosion at the site, and (3) determine that the proposed construction is needed and would 

not change the basic contour of the impoundment shoreline. To implement this 

paragraph (b), the licensee may, among other things, establish a program for issuing 

permits for the specified types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters, which 

may be subject to the payment of a reasonable fee to cover the licensee's costs of 
A-11

administering the permit program. The Commission reserves the right to require the 

licensee to file a description of its standards, guidelines, and procedures for 

implementing this paragraph (b) and to require modification of those standards, 

guidelines, or procedures.

(c) The licensee may convey easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of 

project lands for: (1) replacement, expansion, realignment, or maintenance of bridges 

or roads where all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) storm 

drains and water mains; (3) sewers that do not discharge into project waters; (4) minor 

access roads; (5) telephone, gas, and electric utility distribution lines; (6) non-project 

overhead electric transmission lines that do not require erection of support structures 

within the project boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, or underground major telephone 

distribution cables or major electric distribution lines (69-kV or less); and (8) water 

intake or pumping facilities that do not extract more than one million gallons per day 

from a project impoundment. No later than January 31 of each year, the licensee shall 

file three copies of a report briefly describing for each conveyance made under this 

paragraph (c) during the prior calendar year, the type of interest conveyed, the location 

of the lands subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for which the interest 

was conveyed. If no conveyance was made, the licensee does not have to inform the 

Commission.

(d) The licensee may convey fee title to, easements or rights-of-way across, or 

leases of project lands for: (1) construction of new bridges or roads for which all 

necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) sewer or effluent lines that 

discharge into project waters, for which all necessary federal and state water quality 

certification or permits have been obtained; (3) other pipelines that cross project lands 

or waters but do not discharge into project waters; (4) non-project overhead electric 

transmission lines that require erection of support structures within the project 

boundary, for which all necessary federal and state approvals have been obtained; (5) 

private or public marinas that can accommodate no more than 10 water craft at a time 

and are located at least one-half mile (measured over project waters) from any other 

private or public marina; (6) recreational development consistent with an approved 

report on recreational resources of an Exhibit E; and (7) other uses, if: (i) the amount of 

land conveyed for a particular use is five acres or less; (ii) all of the land conveyed is 

located at least 75 feet, measured horizontally, from project waters at normal surface 

elevation; and (iii) no more than 50 total acres of project lands for each project 

development are conveyed under this clause (d)(7) in any calendar year. At least 60 

days before conveying any interest in project lands under this paragraph (d), the licensee 

must submit a letter to the Director, Office of Energy Projects, stating its intent to 

convey the interest and briefly describing the type of interest and location of the lands to 

be conveyed (a marked Exhibit G map may be used), the nature of the proposed use, the 

identity of any federal or state agency official consulted, and any federal or state 

approvals required for the proposed use. Unless the Director, within 45 days from the 
A-12

filing date, requires the licensee to file an application for prior approval, the licensee 

may convey the intended interest at the end of that period.

(e) The following additional conditions apply to any intended conveyance under 

paragraph (c) or (d) of this article:

(1) Before conveying the interest, the licensee shall consult with federal and 

state fish and wildlife or recreation agencies, as appropriate, and the State Historic 

Preservation Officer.

(2) Before conveying the interest, the licensee shall determine that the proposed 

use of the lands to be conveyed is not inconsistent with any approved report on 

recreational resources of an Exhibit E; or, if the project does not have an approved 

report on recreational resources, that the lands to be conveyed do not have recreational 

value.

(3) The instrument of conveyance must include the following covenants running 

with the land: (i) the use of the lands conveyed shall not endanger health, create a 

nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project recreational use; and (ii) the 

grantee shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure that the construction, operation, 

and maintenance of structures or facilities on the conveyed lands will occur in a manner 

that will protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project.

(4) The Commission reserves the right to require the licensee to take reasonable 

remedial action to correct any violation of the terms and conditions of this article, for 

the protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational, and other 

environmental values.

(f) The conveyance of an interest in project lands under this article does not in 

itself change the project boundaries. The project boundaries may be changed to exclude 

land conveyed under this article only upon approval of revised Exhibit G drawings 

(project boundary maps) reflecting exclusion of that land. Lands conveyed under this 

article will be excluded from the project only upon a determination that the lands are not 

necessary for project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation, 

public access, protection of environmental resources, and shoreline control, including 

shoreline aesthetic values. Absent extraordinary circumstances, proposals to exclude 

lands conveyed under this article from the project shall be consolidated for 

consideration when revised Exhibit G drawings would be filed for approval for other 

purposes.

(g) The authority granted to the licensee under this article shall not apply to any 

part of the public lands and reservations of the United States included within the 

project boundary.
APPENDIX B

Sullivan Creek Project

Draft License Surrender Conditions Recommended by Staff
B-1

APPENDIX B Draft Sullivan Creek License Surrender Conditions 

Recommended by Staff

(A) Surrender of the Sullivan Creek Project. Surrender of the license for the 

Sullivan Creek Project No. 2225 is accepted, subject to the conditions set forth in 

ordering paragraphs (B) through (P). The surrender shall not be effective until the 

licensee has fulfilled these conditions and the Commission's Director, Division of 

Hydropower Administration and Compliance, has issued a letter stating that all 

conditions of the surrender order have been satisfied. 

(B) Special Use Authorization. The licensee shall obtain a special use 

authorization as required by 36 CFR §251 for occupancy and use of National Forest 

System lands from the U.S. Forest Service for project facilities that will remain on 

National Forest System lands after the surrender becomes effective. The surrender shall 

not be effective until the licensee has filed a copy of the special use authorization with 

the Commission.

(C) Removal Plans and Specifications. At least 60 days before starting

removal of the Mill Pond dam and the original log crib dam, and the restoration of 

Sullivan Creek, but no later than two years from this surrender order, the licensee shall

submit one copy of the following documents to the Commission's Division of Dam

Safety and Inspections (D2SI) - Portland Regional Office and two copies to the 

Commission (one of these shall be a courtesy copy to the Director, D2SI): (1) a detailed

description of the sequence of activities and schedule for removing the project features

and restoring the site; (2) final contract plans and specifications; (3) a Quality Control 

and Inspection Program required by ordering paragraph (F); (4) a Temporary 

Construction Emergency Action Plan required by ordering paragraph (H); (5) a blasting

plan, if necessary; (6) a public safety plan for the period during removal activities; (7) a

disposal plan; and (8) a detailed erosion and sediment control plan. The plans and 

specifications shall be based on the draft Mill Pond Removal Plan filed as Appendix E 

to the Sullivan Creek Settlement Agreement filed on March 29, 2010.

The implementation schedule required by item (1) above shall provide for 

commencing removal activities within three years of this surrender order and 

completing removal of Mill Pond dams, and restoring the Sullivan Creek channel within 

five years of the surrender order. 

The licensee shall not begin removal activities until the Division of Dam Safety

and Inspections - Portland Regional Office has reviewed and commented on the plans 

and specifications, determined that all preconstruction requirements have been satisfied, 

and authorized start of removal activities.

(D) Removal Progress Reports. During removal and restoration activities, the 

licensee shall submit one copy to the Division of Dam Safety and Inspections (D2SI) -
B-2

Portland Regional Office and two copies to the Commission (one of these copies shall 

be a courtesy copy to the Director, D2SI), of monthly progress reports.

(E) Revegetation Plan. Within two years from this surrender order, the 

licensee shall file, for Commission approval, a detailed revegetation plan describing site 

stabilization measures and riparian and upland plantings to restore Sullivan Creek. The 

plan shall be based on the measures included in the draft Mill Pond Removal Plan filed 

as Appendix E to the Sullivan Creek Settlement Agreement, and shall include, at a 

minimum, the following: (1) site preparation and design details; (2) detailed provisions 

for site stabilization; (3) a description of plant species to be used and where they will be 

planted, the source of plant materials, planting densities and methods, and fertilization 

and irrigation requirements; (4) a description of methods to control noxious weeds for 3 

years after dam removal; (5) a description of a 3-year monitoring program, including 

performance standards and success criteria, that would include, at a minimum, 80 

percent survival of trees and shrubs and 50 percent canopy cover of native species after 

3 years from the date of planting; (6) procedures to be implemented if monitoring 

reveals that establishment of vegetation is not successful or areas of erosion are 

identified; and (7) an implementation schedule.

The licensee shall prepare the plan after consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Washington Department of Ecology, Seattle City Light, and Kalispel Tribe. The 

licensee shall include with the plan documentation of consultation, copies of consulted 

entities’ comments and recommendations on the completed plan, and specific 

descriptions of how the entities' comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee 

shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make 

recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not 

adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee's reasons, based on 

project-specific information.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. No removal 

activities shall begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the plan is 

approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan, including 

any changes required by the Commission.

A courtesy copy of the filed plan shall be sent to the Commission's Division of 

Dam Safety and Inspections-Portland Regional Office (D2SI-PRO) Regional Engineer 

and Director, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections.

(F) Quality Control and Inspection Program. At least 90 days before starting 

removal activities, the licensee shall submit one copy to the Division of Dam Safety and 

Inspections (D2SI) - Portland Regional Office Regional Engineer and two copies to the 

Commission (one of these shall be a courtesy copy to the Director, D2SI) of the Quality 

Control and Inspection Program (QCIP) for the Commission's review and approval. 

The QCIP shall include an erosion and sediment control plan as specified in ordering 

paragraph (C).
B-3

(G) Cofferdam Construction Drawings and Specifications. Before starting 

removal activities, the licensee shall review and approve the design of any new 

contractor-designed cofferdams and deep excavations. At least 30 days before starting 

construction of the cofferdams, the licensee shall submit one copy to the Commission's 

Division of Dam Safety and Inspections (D2SI) - Portland Regional Office Regional 

Engineer and two copies to the Commission (one of these copies shall be a courtesy 

copy to the Commission's Director, D2SI) of the approved cofferdam construction 

drawings and specifications and the letters of approval.

(H) Temporary Construction Emergency Action Plan. At least 90 days before 

starting removal activities, the licensee shall submit one copy to the Commission's 

Division of Dam Safety and Inspections (D2SI)- Portland Regional Office Regional 

Engineer and two copies to the Commission (one of these shall be a courtesy copy to the 

Director, D2SI) of the Temporary Emergency Action Plan (TEAP) for the 

Commission's review and approval. The TEAP shall describe emergency procedures in 

the case of failure of the dam during construction of the drainage tunnel and draining of 

the reservoir, any large sediment control structure, or any other water retaining structure 

that could endanger construction workers or the public. The TEAP shall include a 

notification list of emergency response agencies; a plan drawing of the proposed 

cofferdam arrangement; the location of safety devices, escape routes, and informational 

and warning signage; a brief description of testing procedures; and measures for 

managing traffic in the project area to ensure public safety during dam removal.

(I) Sullivan Lake Cold Water Release Structure. Within three years of this 

license surrender order, the licensee shall install a cold water release structure at 

Sullivan Lake dam. The structure shall consist of a 48-inch diameter pipe, fitted with 

fish screens that meet National Marine Fisheries Service design criteria of 0.4 feet per 

second (fps) approach velocity at the inlet, and routed through one of the three existing 

low-level outlet gates at Sullivan Dam, as described in the 95 percent draft design report 

filed January 27, 2011. At least 90 days prior to any ground-disturbing activities to 

install the intake structure, the licensee shall file, for Commission approval, final 

contract plans and specifications as required by ordering paragraph (C). Final plans and 

specifications shall include a spill prevention and control and hazardous materials plan, 

as needed.

The licensee shall maintain and operate the cold water release structure as 

described below in ordering paragraph (J).

The licensee shall prepare the final plans and specifications after consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, Seattle City Light, and Kalispel 

Tribe. The licensee shall include with the final plan documentation of consultation, 

copies of consulted entities’ comments and recommendations on the completed plan, 

and specific descriptions of how the entities' comments are accommodated by the plan. 

The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make 
B-4

recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not 

adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee's reasons, based on 

project-specific information.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. No grounddisturbing activities shall begin until the licensee is notified by the Commission that the 

plan is approved. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan, 

including any changes required by the Commission.

A courtesy copy of the filed plan shall be sent to the Commission's Division of 

Dam Safety and Inspections-Portland Regional Office Regional Engineer and Director, 

Division of Dam Safety and Inspections.

(J) Sullivan Lake Reservoir Operations and Levels. Until the surrender 

becomes effective, as provided in ordering paragraph A, the licensee shall operate 

Sullivan Lake, as required below, to provide for recreation on Sullivan Lake, empty the 

reservoir in the fall to promote access to spawning habitat in Harvey Creek, and to 

protect aquatic resources in Outlet and Sullivan Creeks. 

(1) Interim Operations

Prior to the construction of the Sullivan Lake Cold Water Release Structure 

required by ordering paragraph (I), the licensee shall operate the Sullivan Lake as 

follows:

a. Spring Operations: Each year, the licensee shall start refilling Sullivan Lake 

on or before April 1st and shall achieve and maintain a Sullivan Lake elevation of 

2,588.6 feet (as measured at Sullivan Lake dam) by May 31, subject to hydrologic 

conditions and discharge requirements defined in ordering paragraph (K). Refilling 

rates shall also be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the Harvey Creek Bedload 

Mobilization activities, required in ordering paragraph (L).

b. Summer Operations: From June 1 through Labor Day of each year, the 

licensee shall maintain Sullivan Lake at elevation 2588.6 feet (full pool), subject to 

hydrologic conditions and discharge requirements defined in ordering paragraph (K).

c. Fall Operations: Starting the day following Labor Day each year, the licensee 

shall begin drawing down Sullivan Lake in a manner that reaches the maximum flow 

target of 200 cfs during periods of normal or below normal precipitation and 225 cfs 

during periods of higher than normal precipitation as quickly as possible, given the 

following constraints: (1) maintain discharge flows to meet state water temperature 

standards (16.0 oC average daily maximum temperature over a seven day period) and so 

as not to cause the combined waters of Outlet Creek and Sullivan Creek, as measured at 

the “below confluence water temperature gage,” to exceed 16 degrees C; (2) reach a

drawdown water surface elevation of 2,577 feet by November 15 and a water surface 

elevation of 2,570 by December 31, subject to hydrologic conditions and minimum 

discharge flows and associated temperature constraints described in ordering paragraph 

(K); (3) maintain an up-ramping rate not to exceed 80 cfs per day, as measured at the 
B-5

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage #12397100 on Outlet Creek, and ensure not to 

exceed a change of more than 2 degrees C in average daily temperature per day as 

measured at the below confluence water temperature gage; and (4) maintain a downramping rate not to exceed 10 cfs per hour, as measured at the USGS gage #12397100 

on Outlet Creek

(2) Post-Cold Water Release Structure Installation

Upon completion of construction of the cold water release structure required by 

ordering paragraph (I), the licensee shall operate Sullivan Lake in the following manner 

each year:

a. Spring Operations: Each year, the licensee shall start refilling Sullivan Lake 

on or before April 1st and shall achieve and maintain a Sullivan Lake elevation of 

2,588.6 feet (as measured at Sullivan Lake dam) by May 31, subject to hydrologic 

conditions and discharge flow requirements and associated temperature constraints 

defined in ordering paragraph (K). Refilling rates shall also be adjusted as necessary to 

accommodate the Harvey Creek Bedload Mobilization activities, required in ordering 

paragraph (L).

b. Summer Operations: From June 1 through Labor Day of each year, the 

licensee shall maintain Sullivan Lake at elevation 2588.6 feet (full pool), subject to 

hydrologic conditions and discharge flow requirements and associated temperature 

constraints defined in ordering paragraph (K). In addition, the licensee shall manage the 

discharges from the cold water release structure and the Sullivan Lake dam gates: (1) to 

meet state water temperature standards (16.0 oC average daily maximum temperature 

over a seven day period); (2) to the extent possible given Sullivan Lake temperatures, 

not cause the combined waters of Outlet Creek and Sullivan Creek, as measured at the 

“below confluence water temperature gage,” to exceed 14 degrees C; and (3) to prevent

the daily average “below confluence water temperature” from deviating from the daily 

average Sullivan Creek “above confluence water temperature” by more than 1 degree C, 

when daily average “above confluence water temperature” is less than 14 degree C.

c. Fall Operations: Starting the day following Labor Day each year, the licensee 

shall begin drawing down Sullivan Lake in the following manner: The licensee shall 

manage the discharges from the cold water release structure and the Sullivan Lake dam 

low level gates to meet state water temperature standards (16.0 oC average daily 

maximum temperature over a seven day period), and to the extent possible given 

Sullivan Lake water temperatures, prevent (1) the daily average “below confluence 

water temperature” from exceeding 14 degrees C, and (2) the daily average “below 

confluence water temperature” from deviating from the daily average Sullivan Creek 

“above confluence water temperature” by more than 1 degrees C, when daily average 

“above confluence water temperature” is less than 14 degrees C. The licensee shall 

maintain this operation until such time that Sullivan Creek temperatures fall below 

Outlet Creek temperatures, such that it is not be possible to maintain a 1-degree C water 

temperature difference (fall turnover, typically mid-October).
B-6

Subject to the temperature constraints described above, the licensee shall 

maximize discharge flows through the cold water release structure and minimize the use 

of the low-level gates at the dam during fall drawdown. When low level gates are used, 

releases shall be made from two gates simultaneously.

Maintain an up-ramping rate not to exceed 80 cfs per day, and a down-ramping 

rate not to exceed 10 cfs per hour, as measured at the Outlet Creek gaging station No. 

12397100.

Subject to discharge requirements and associated temperature constraints, 

manage the releases to draw down the lake to reach a water surface elevation of 2,577 

feet by November 15 and a water surface elevation of 2,570 feet by December 31.

After November 15, all releases from Sullivan Dam up to the capacity of the cold 

water pipe, shall be made through the pipe.

To the extent consistent with other constraints in this subsection, the fall 

drawdown shall be managed to provide discharge flows between 180 and 220 cfs on at 

least 3 weekends in September or October to support whitewater paddling. Discharge 

flows shall be forecasted and posted on-line one week in advance to support recreational 

use.

To the extent that there is a conflict between reservoir levels and discharge flows, 

the licensee shall comply with the discharge flow requirements required by ordering 

paragraph (K) below; reservoir levels shall be subject to, and subordinate to, all 

discharge flow constraints in this condition and ordering paragraph (K) below.

The licensee shall comply with the Sullivan Lake water surface elevations and 

discharge requirements described above at all times. These operations may be 

temporally modified if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of the 

licensee (e.g., equipment failures; natural disasters, such as floods; or drought 

conditions), by Harvey Creek Bedload Mobilization activities required by ordering 

paragraph (K), and for short periods of time upon mutual agreement with the U.S. 

Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kalispel Tribe, Washington Department 

of Fish and Game, and Washington Department of Ecology. If an impoundment water 

surface elevation or discharge requirement is modified as described in the preceding 

sentence, the licensee shall notify the Commission as soon as possible, but no later than 

10 business days after each such incident. The licensee shall document the modification 

in the annual operations report to the Commission required by Ordering Paragraph (M), 

including the reasons for the modifications. 

(K) Sullivan Lake Minimum Discharge Flows. The licensee shall annually 

maintain minimum discharge flows in Outlet Creek, as measured at the Outlet Creek 

U.S. Geological Survey gaging station No. 12397100, as follows:

(1). June 1 through June 30: 30 cubic feet per second (cfs).
B-7

(2). July 1 through the end of fall drawdown (when the elevation of Sullivan 

Lake reaches 2,570 feet mean sea level, or by December 31): 20 cfs.

(3). From the date that Lake Sullivan reaches an elevation of 2,570 feet 

(expected December 31) until the beginning of spring filling per ordering 

paragraph (L) (by May 31): outflow shall equal inflow.

(4). From April 1 through May 31: 10 cfs or inflow, whichever is less.

If the licensee releases additional water between June 1 and the day after Labor 

Day, as contemplated in section 7.15 of the settlement agreement filed on March 29, 

2010, the licensee shall manage Sullivan Lake discharges to ensure that any water 

released does not exceed two (2) times the minimum discharge flow described above, 

and is released at as steady a rate as possible, as measured by the day-to-day change in 

daily average cfs. Further, the licensee shall manage the discharges: (1) to meet state 

water temperature standards (16.0 oC average daily maximum temperature over a seven 

day period); (2) to prevent the daily average “below confluence water temperature” 

from exceeding 14 degrees C; and 3) to prevent the daily average “below confluence 

water temperature” from deviating from the daily average Sullivan Creek “above 

confluence water temperature” by more than 1 degree C, when daily average “above 

confluence water temperature” is less than 14 degrees C. 

The above discharge flows may be temporarily modified if required by operating 

emergencies beyond the control of the licensee and for short periods of time upon 

mutual agreement with the with the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Kalispel Tribe, Washington Department of Fish and Game, and Washington Department 

of Ecology. If minimum discharge flows are modified as described in the preceding 

sentence, the licensee shall notify the Commission as soon as possible but no later than 

10 business days after each such incident. The licensee shall document the modification 

in the annual operations report to the Commission required by Ordering Paragraph (M), 

including the reasons for the modifications. 

(L) Harvey Creek Bedload Mobilization Project. The Licensee shall manage 

Sullivan Lake surface elevations to facilitate the mobilization of Harvey Creek bedload

at the head of Sullivan Lake. The licensee shall operate Sullivan Lake as follows (the 

decision tree matrix filed as Exhibit 1, Appendix A, of settlement agreement filed on 

March 29, 2010, also summarizes the following):

(1) The licensee, in consultation with the Resource Committee contained in 

Appendix G to the settlement agreement, shall begin to examine available regional flow 

projections, snow pack data, and run-off forecasts by April 1 of each year to determine 

if the spring run-off can reasonably be expected to be at least 120 percent of the long 

term average.

(2) If the Resource Committee agrees, by April 20 each year based on the 

forecasts above, that the forecasts predict it will be a 120-percent or greater spring runoff year, the District shall hold Sullivan Lake level at no more than elevation 2,575 feet
B-8

until May 20 of that year, and the operating provisions described below shall be 

implemented.

(3) Flows shall be measured in Harvey Creek, as required by item 6 below. If 

before May 20 Harvey Creek reaches a flow of 250 cubic feet per second (cfs) or more, 

when the flow begins to recede from its peak, lake filling shall resume at its normal rate.

(4) On May 20, regardless of Harvey Creek flows, lake filling shall resume at its 

normal rate.

(5) After each year that the “lake level hold-down” is attempted as part of the 

Harvey Creek Bedload Mobilization Project, the licensee shall convene the Resource 

Committee by July 1 to review the effectiveness of the lake level hold-down, whether or 

not the forecasts were correct, whether or not a high flow event actually occurred on 

Harvey Creek, and whether or not the Harvey Creek flow was adequate to move 

sediments and bedload, thus achieving the goal of reducing sediment buildup at the 

Harvey Creek stream entrance to the lake. After four lake level hold-down events, the

licensee shall convene the Resource Committee to determine if further operating 

changes are warranted or whether the Harvey Creek Bedload Mobilization Project 

should be discontinued. If the surrender has not become effective, the licensee shall file 

the report for Commission approval, with any proposal for continuing or discontinuing

the lake level hold-down events.

The licensee shall prepare the report after consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Washington Department of Ecology, and Kalispel Tribe. The licensee shall include 

with the report documentation of consultation, copies of consulted entities’ comments 

and recommendations on the completed report, and specific descriptions of how the 

entities' comments are accommodated by the report. The licensee shall allow a 

minimum of 30 days for the entities to comment and to make recommendations before 

filing the report with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, 

the filing shall include the licensee's reasons, based on project-specific information.

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to Sullivan Lake 

operations or facilities based on the information contained in the report and any other 

available information.

6. The licensee shall install a new stream gage on Harvey Creek to U.S. 

Geological Survey standards, and shall operate and maintain this gage to collect the 

flow data required to implement the Harvey Creek Bedload Mobilization Project.

(M) Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan. Within 90 days of this license 

surrender order, the licensee shall file with the Commission, for approval, an Operation 

Compliance Monitoring Plan that would permit the licensee to demonstrate compliance 

with the Sullivan Lake level operations required by Ordering Paragraph (J), the

minimum discharge flows required by Ordering Paragraph (K), the ramping rates 
B-9

required by Ordering Paragraph (J), and the temperature limits specified by Ordering 

Paragraphs (J) and (K). The plan at a minimum shall include:

(1) a provision for installing, operating and maintaining a flow gage and 

recording device at the Sullivan dam for the purposes of documenting compliance with 

lake levels;

(2) a provision for operating and maintaining the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) gage #12397100 on Outlet Creek, in the event the USGS ceases to operate and 

maintain the existing gage;

(3) a provision for installing, operating, and maintaining a gage on Harvey 

Creek for the purposes of monitoring Harvey Creek flows to support the bedload 

mobilization project required by Ordering Paragraph (L), as well as documenting high 

flow events and flow peaks.

(4) a provision for installing, operating, and maintaining a continuous water 

temperature monitoring device on Sullivan Creek at least 300 feet downstream of the 

confluence with Outlet Creek, and a continuous water temperature monitoring device on 

Sullivan Creek upstream of its confluence with Outlet Creek and Sullivan Creek;

(5) a schedule for installing, maintaining, operating, and collecting data from 

the gages and temperature monitoring device provided for in items (1) through (4) 

above;

(7) a definition of low, average, and high-water years; and

(8) a provision for filing an operation compliance monitoring report by 

December 31 of the first complete year following the license surrender order and 

annually thereafter, until the surrender becomes effective as described in Ordering 

Paragraph (A). The report shall document the following for the previous water year: 

(a) Sullivan Lake reservoir daily water surface elevations; (b) daily temperatures from 

Sullivan Creek both above and below the confluence with Outlet Creek; and (c) if 

deviations from the targeted water surface elevations or water temperatures occurred, 

the reasons for the deviations and any proposals for corrective actions to avoid future 

occurrences, as appropriate.

The licensee shall include with the Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan, 

documentation of consultation with the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife; copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has 

been prepared and provided to the consulted entities, and specific descriptions of how 

the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The licensee shall allow a 

minimum of 30 days for the consulted entities to comment and to make 

recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. If the licensee does not 

adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons based on projectspecific information.
B-10

The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. 

Implementation of the plan shall not begin until the plan is approved by the 

Commission. Upon Commission approval, the licensee shall implement the plan, 

including any changes required by the Commission.

(N) Sullivan Dock and Launch Facility Improvements. Within one year from

the surrender order, the licensee shall, in consultation with Sullivan Lake dock and 

launch facility owners, evaluate the functionality of existing facilities under the 

operational regime required by Ordering Paragraph (K) and correct any functional 

deficiencies in the facilities to ensure that they can continue to be used under this 

operational program. Improvements to any U.S. Forest Service facilities must meet 

Forest Service standards and be approved by the Forest Service. Within 30 days of 

completing the repairs, the licensee shall file a report with the Commission, detailing 

the identified deficiencies and the repairs made. 

(O) Historical Resources Memorandum of Agreement. The licensee shall 

implement the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing 

Historic Properties that May be Affected by Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille 

County’s Surrender for the Sullivan Creek Project in Pend Oreille County, Washington 

(FERC No. 2225-015)", filed with the Commission on _______, 2011, including but not 

limited to the associated treatment plan for the project. Pursuant to the requirements of 

this Memorandum of Agreement, the licensee shall file for the Commission’s approval a 

final treatment plan within 3 months of the issuance of an order accepting surrender of 

the license for this project. In the event the Memorandum of Agreement is terminated, 

the licensee shall continue to implement the provisions of its approved treatment plan 

until the licensee fulfills all of the requirements in the surrender order. The 

Commission reserves the authority to require changes to the treatment plan at any time 

until the surrender becomes effective pursuant to Ordering Paragraph A. A copy of the 

treatment plan shall be sent to the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and 

Inspections Portland Regional Office Regional Engineer and to the Director, Division of 

Dam Safety and Inspections. 

(P) Final Report. Within 90 days after completing the activities required by 

this surrender order, the licensee shall submit one copy to the Commission's D2SI-PRO 

Regional Engineer and two copies to the Commission (one of these shall be a courtesy 

copy to the Director, D2SI) of a final report that demonstrates all the conditions of the 

surrender have been fulfilled. 
APPENDIX C

STAFF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The Commission staff issued its draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS) 

for the proposed relicensing of the Boundary Project and the proposed surrender of 

license for the Sullivan Creek Project on April 8, 2011. Staff requested comments on 

the draft EIS be filed by May 31, 2011. The following entities and individuals filed 

comments on the draft EIS.

Commenting Entity Date Filed

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) May 20, 2011

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Forest Service

 (Forest Service) May 27, 2011

Washington Depart of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) May 27, 2011

Seattle City Light Department (Seattle) May 27, 2011

Pend Oreille County Public Utility District (District) May 27, 2011

Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) May 31, 2011

U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) May 31, 2011

Kalispel Tribe of Indians (Kalispel Tribe) May 31, 2011

Ms. Carol Jean Merrill May 31, 2011

Sweet Creek Ranch Residents (Sweet Creek residents) June 6, 2011

Mr. Larry Gragg, et al. June 6, 2011

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) June 8, 2011

Several Metaline Falls and Sweet Creek residents (Ms. Carol Jean Merrill, Ms. 

Sharon Gragg, Ms. Cory, and Mr. Larsen) provided comments during the May 10, 2011, 

meeting in Metaline Falls, Washington to discuss the EIS. Several entities also 

provided comments during the May 11, 2011, meeting in Spokane.

Below, we summarize the substance of the comments received, provide 

responses to those comments, and explain how the text of the draft EIS was modified, as 

appropriate, to address the comments. Unless otherwise noted, changes addressing 
C-2

editorial comments were made to the final EIS, but are not described below. Comments 

are grouped by topic for convenience. Likewise, on July 29, 2011, Ecology filed a letter 

stating that its comments on the draft EIS relative to the temperature monitoring were 

moot given the filing of Seattle’s July 2011 version the Temperature Attainment Plan

which contained revised provisions for temperature monitoring. Therefore, we do not 

discuss Ecology’s comments below and have made no changes to the EIS to reflect 

Ecology’s comments on this issue. However, the EIS has been revised to address the 

revisions to the Temperature Attainment Plan.

PROCEDURAL AND GENERAL

Comment: Interior and the Washington DFW express concern that staff’s 

recommended measures do not encompass the entirety of the Boundary settlement. The 

agencies reiterate their belief that the Boundary Project operations caused significant 

harm to the fish populations and aquatic habitat in the basin, and that the settlement 

represents a complete package of protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures that 

adequately offset project effects. They state that the staff-recommended alternative 

excludes key provisions192 that may affect “the balance and tradeoffs negotiated for the 

conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources and associated recreation.” 

As a result, Interior and the Washington DFW request that the Commission adopt the 

settlement without material modification.

The Kalispel Tribe states that all provisions of the Boundary settlement should be 

included in any license issued by the Commission, but notes that the Sullivan Lake 

tributary enhancement fund is of particular importance to the tribe.

Response: Staff has considered the comments made by Interior, Washington DFW, and 

the Kalispel Tribe concerning the measures staff did not adopt in the draft EIS. Staff’s 

specific responses to the agencies’ and the Kalispel Tribe’s specific concerns are 

addressed in the requisite sections below.

Comment: In the draft EIS, the table of Forest Service’s 4(e) conditions included as 

part of draft Article 401(a) reference to a Tributary Aquatic Habitat Improvement 

Monitoring Plan. Seattle questions this reference, believing that the reference really 

should be to the Tributary Management Plan (TMP) required as part of the Fish and 

Aquatics Management Plan (FAMP). Seattle states that the terminology “Tributary 

Habitat Improvement Monitoring” is a section heading within the Temperature 

Attainment Plan, and that no plan was required or contemplated for this monitoring 

 

192 The measures include: (1) the fund for habitat improvements in tributaries to 

Sullivan Lake; (2) the recreational fish stocking program; and (3) the fish tissue 

sampling program.
C-3

effort. Seattle also states that the proposed TMP would be filed with the Commission 

within 12 months of license issuance, along with its integrated schedule for 

implementing the measures identified in the FAMP for each creek.

Response: Upon further review of the Temperature Attainment Plan and the FAMP, 

staff concurs that it misinterpreted the proposed requirements of the two plans. 

Moreover, notwithstanding Seattle’s comments on the draft EIS regarding what would 

be filed and when, in reviewing the FAMP, it is not clear as to whether the TMP would 

be filed along with the integrated schedule that would be filed within 12 months of 

license issuance. To address Seattle’s comments and the ambiguity in the section 5.4 of 

the FAMP, staff has revised Article 401(a) to reference the Tributary Management Plan, 

and require that it be filed within 1 year of license issuance.

Comment: In the draft EIS, draft Article 401(b) required the reports identified in Forest 

Service 4(e) conditions 3(8) and 3(9) be filed within 1 year of license issuance and by 

December 31 each year thereafter. Seattle expresses concern that filing the reports by 

December 31 would result in incomplete reports of activities performed during that 

calendar year being filed with the Commission. Seattle states that, per the Boundary 

settlement, review procedures provide for an 80-day review by work groups and a 

meeting prior to filing the reports with the Commission. Seattle asks that the deadline 

for filing the reports be moved to March 31.

Response: Given the complexity of issues and license requirements, with regard to 

water quality and fisheries measures at the Boundary Project, the timeframe outlined in 

the settlement is reasonable. Therefore, draft Article 401(b) has been changed to 

require the filing of the reports by March 31 each year. However, it should noted that 

these articles could be further modified in any Commission order.

Comment: Draft Article 403 stipulates that Seattle file, within 90 days of license 

issuance, an Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan. Seattle is concerned that this time 

frame would not allow it to make the necessary modifications to the software and 

electrical equipment to facilitate operational monitoring activities at the Boundary 

Project. Seattle recommends that the plan be filed within 1 year of license issuance.

Response: Per the settlement, Seattle would implement the formalized reservoir limits 

in year 2 of the license, which would make the 90-day requirement unnecessarily

restrictive. Therefore, draft Article 403 has been changed to require the Operations 

Compliance Monitoring Plan be filed within 1 year of license issuance.

Comment: In commenting on staff’s draft Article 401, Seattle states that it proposes to 

file the Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention Plan QAPP, the Dissolved 

Oxygen Attainment Plan QAPP, and the Temperature Attainment Plan QAPP with the 
C-4

Commission within 9 months of license issuance, not the 6 months specified in the 

table.

Response: Staff concurs because Seattle would need the additional time to obtain 

Ecology’s approval prior to filing the plans with the Commission. Therefore,the final 

EIS and draft Article 401 has been updated accordingly.

Comment: The Forest Service recommends that Commission staff include the Forest 

Service’s cost reimbursement agreement with Seattle in the staff alternative. The Forest 

Service states that it annually files reports with FERC about the costs it incurs 

administering its responsibilities under Part 1 of the Federal Power Act that are not 

otherwise reimbursed by project applicants, licensees or other sources. The Forest 

Service states that contrary to Commission staff’s assertion, Section 10(e)(1) of the 

Federal Power Act does not preempt agencies from securing reimbursement directly 

from licensees or new project applicants and that the reimbursement provided in 

Condition 4 ensures that measures required for the protection and utilization of the 

Colville National Forest will be reviewed and approved by the Forest Service within the 

timeframes established in the new license.

Response: This is a legal matter that will be addressed in any order on the license 

application. 

Comment: The Forest Service states that the EIS should describe the potential effects 

of the following staff-recommended measures on the existing schedules within the 

settlement agreements and associated plans and measures: (1) development of an

operation compliance monitoring plan, (2) development of a more definitive schedule 

for implementing proposed capital recreation improvements, (3) development of a 

Sullivan Lake operation compliance monitoring plan, (4) development of detailed 

revegetation plan, and (5) completion of cultural resources mitigation documentation for 

the removal of Mill Pond dam.

Response: As noted above, the schedule for the Boundary operations monitoring plan 

has been revised to reflect the proposed timeline to in the settlement agreement. No 

other modifications are needed as staff’s recommendations should be consistent or 

compatible with timelines proposed in the settlement agreements. 

Comment: The Forest Service states that the Executive Summary implies that the 

District would not be responsible for the operation and maintenance of Sullivan dam 

once the surrender of the FERC license is effective.

Response: The summary has been revised to clarify that the District would continue to 

operate and maintain Sullivan Lake dam in accordance with a special use authorization. 
C-5

Comment: The Forest Service states that the draft surrender conditions for the 

following plans should include the Forest Service’s approval authority as stipulated in 

the Sullivan Creek settlement agreement: Section C (Removal Plan and Specifications), 

E (Revegetation Plan), I (Sullivan Lake Cold Water Release Structure), J(1) (Interim 

Operations), and J(2) (Post Cold Water Release Structure Installation).

Response: The draft surrender conditions require the District to consult with the Forest 

Service in developing the above plans. The licensee shall also include with each plan 

filed with the Commission, documentation that the plan has been approved by the Forest 

Service. The Commission has final approval authority.

SEATTLE’S PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONS

Comment: Seattle recommends that the EIS be revised to reflect its proposal to 

continue both the assignment of 48 MW of Boundary Project power to the District 

(current license article 49) and the compensation to the District for the encroachment of 

the Boundary reservoir on the District’s Box Canyon Project No. 2042 (current license 

article 48). The District supports the continuation of these requirements in the new 

license.

Response: The EIS as been revised to reflect that these provisions are included in 

Seattle’s proposal. Whether these articles are included in the new license will be 

address in the Commission’s decision on the license application.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Comment: In the draft EIS, the discussion of erosion around the Boundary reservoir 

shoreline included a statement that the project is responsible for 13.3 miles of the 

eroding length of the reservoir shoreline and a statement that eroding shorelines and 

landslides occur along approximately 22 percent of shoreline on Forest Service lands, 

with over half of the eroding shorelines rated as having a high potential for future 

erosion. Seattle requested that the total shoreline erosion length be separated into 

erosion attributable to project-related factors and erosion attributable to a combination 

of project-related and non-project factors. Seattle also stated that the 2.5 miles of 

shoreline erosion on Forest Service land is 16 percent of the overall length of erosion 

sites documented in the study.

Response: The text was modified to separate out shoreline erosion due to projectrelated factors and a combination of project and non-project factors. The 22 percent

shoreline erosion stated in the draft EIS referred to erosion occurring on Forest Service 

shoreline lands only, as opposed to the overall length of shoreline erosion referenced by 

Seattle. The text within the final EIS has been revised to clarify overall shoreline 

erosion and erosion on Forest Service lands only.
C-6

Comment: The draft EIS documented, on page 335, that there would be 40,000 cubicyards of sediment disposed off-site. EPA states that the draft EIS does not identify or 

analyze locations for the disposition of the 40,000 cubic yards of sediment to be 

removed during the restoration of the creek channel. Seattle states that the 40,000 cubic 

yards of sediment within the restored stream channel referenced on page 335 would be 

deposited and graded on-site into the fill areas shown within the McMillan report, as 

stated on page 7 of the Mill Pond Decommissioning Plan.

Response: On page 3 of the decommissioning plan, the District states it would 

permanently dispose of sediment not left in place or utilized in restoration efforts at a 

non-Forest Service site. However, the McMillian Report seems to indicate that no offsite disposal will be necessary. The McMillan report referenced in the Mill Pond 

Decommissioning Plan indicates that sediment would be removed from the restored 

stream channel using a combination of mechanical removal and natural removal, and 

that the final Mill Pond dam removal and channel restoration design would determine 

how much of the 20,000 to 40,000 cubic yards of sediment present in the restored 

Sullivan Creek channel would be excavated. Those sediments that are excavated would 

be screened, the gravels removed and redistributed within the channel confines, and the 

fine sediments graded into the restored upland areas. However, the sediments not 

excavated from the stream channel are expected to be mobilized by stream flow, with 

ultimate deposition in Boundary reservoir. The EIS has been revised to include this 

information and clarify that no off-site disposal is expected. Further details on the 

volumes of stabilized channel sediments and mobilized channel sediments are expected 

in the final Mill Pond dam removal plan.

Comment: Ecology recommends that Seattle or the District produce a Sediment 

Assessment, Stabilization, and Management Plan for the Mill Pond dam 

decommissioning.

Response: Appendix B, Draft Sullivan Creek License Surrender Conditions 

Recommended by Staff, ordering paragraph C, includes a requirement for the District to 

provide a detailed erosion and sediment control plan to the Commission 60 days prior to 

the start of the removal of Mill Pond dam. 

WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY

Comment: Ecology points out that the due date for the issuance of a 401 water quality 

certification for the Boundary Project, as shown in section 1.3.1.2, Clean Water Act, 

page 9 of the draft EIS, should be changed from September 3, 2010 to September 3, 

2011. Ecology, as well as the District, also points out that the District withdrew and 

refiled its application for water quality certification for the Sullivan Creek Project, and 

that the new date for issuance is April 1, 2012. Ecology requests that section 1.3.2.1, 

Clean Water Act, page 12, be revised accordingly.
C-7

Response: On July 25, 2011, subsequent to the filing of Ecology’s comments, Seattle 

withdrew and refiled its water quality certification for the Boundary Project. The EIS 

now reflects the due date of July 25, 2012, for the water quality certification for the 

Boundary Project and April 12, 2012 for the Sullivan Creek surrender. 

Comment: Mr. Larry Gragg observes that the coldwater release facility proposed for 

the Sullivan Lake dam is likely to be scheduled and implemented before actions to 

remove the Mill Pond dam and restore affected reaches of Sullivan Creek are 

undertaken. Mr. Gragg recommends that Mill Pond dam be removed first. Mr. Gragg 

asserts that removing Mill Pond dam first would facilitate and expedite restoration of 

the aquatic habitat in Sullivan Creek by cooling the water flow sooner, which would 

support salmonid-related environments and salmon survival. Mr. Gragg also asserts 

that removing the Mill Pond dam ahead of constructing the coldwater release facility 

would allow the District and others to evaluate whether re-establishing the Sullivan 

Creek natural flow would “self-correct” the temperature throughout the creek, and 

determine whether the facility is needed.

Response: Staff agree that the removal of Mill Pond and the return of Sullivan Creek to 

a natural condition would contribute to lower water temperatures in Sullivan Creek. 

However, this action would not have any effect on water temperature in Outlet Creek or 

the portion of Sullivan Creek between the confluence of Outlet Creek and Mill Pond. 

As stated in the draft EIS, the water released from Sullivan Lake dam is the warmest 

water in the project area and the cold water release facility would have the potential to 

cool the temperature of these releases between 8o and 15o Celsius. This temperature 

reduction would have substantial benefits to aquatic life in Outlet Creek and in Sullivan 

Creek. Therefore, we have not changed our recommendation that the cold water facility 

be constructed in the time frame and manner proposed.

Comment: Mr. Gragg states that he and others are concerned about the possible 

disruption of the lake bed and associated silting that would result from the construction 

of the coldwater release facility at Sullivan Lake dam. Mr. Gragg asserts that 

construction activities associated with building and dismantling a coffer dam and 

placing and securing the tubing and pump system could adversely affect the habitat of 

the lake, as well as that of Sullivan Creek.

Response: As stated in the draft EIS, the construction of the cold water release facility 

could have negative effects on water quality, mainly from the disturbance of sediment 

on the lake bottom. These negative effects would likely be short term, as the sediment 

would settle back to the lakebed soon after construction is completed. 

Comment: The Selkirk Conservation Alliance (Alliance) states that the final EIS should 

include a discussion of the geologic lift at the juncture of Lake Pend Oreille and the 
C-8

beginning of the Pend Oreille River. The Alliance notes that this lift could contribute to 

the notion that the water of the Pend Oreille River is already at an elevated temperature 

before it enters the project area.

Response: The data on record and presented in the draft EIS are sufficient to describe 

the temperature regime in the project area prior to the project’s construction. While

geologic lift at Lake Pend Oreille could be a contributing factor to natural water 

temperatures in the project area exceeding 20o C, it does not alter our analysis of project 

effects on water temperature in the Pend Oreille River.

Comment: The Alliance notes that according to the Aquatic Invasive Species Control 

and Prevention Plan, the nearest occurrences of zebra and quagga mussels to the project 

are in Utah, not in Southern California as the draft EIS states. 

Response: Staff has corrected this in the final EIS.

Comment: The Alliance notes that the number and size of macrophtye beds in the 

Boundary reservoir reported in Table 3-14 are inconsistent with the numbers reported in 

the Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention Plan.

Response: Seattle reports (see e-mail correspondence filed on June 30, 2011) that the 

numbers reported in the Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention Plan are 

correct. Table 3-14 has been updated accordingly.

Comment: The Alliance states that in section 5.2.3, Unavoidable Adverse Effects, the 

wording is such that the statement that the conversion of “1,200 feet of Sullivan Creek 

to a natural stream/riparian habitat” could be construed as a negative effect. The 

Alliance recommends that the sentence read: Removal of the Mill Pond dam would 

result in the permanent loss of 63 acres of lake habitat.

Response: Staff concurs. The final EIS has been revised accordingly.

Comment: Washington DFW, Interior, and Ecology urge Commission staff to 

reconsider its recommendation not to include the proposed Fish Tissue Sampling Plan 

as part of the new license. The commenters state that the fish species, benthic 

organisms, and contaminated sediment depositional areas found in the project reservoir 

exist because of the impoundment created by the project. They further note that the 

project promotes recreational fishing in the project reservoir; therefore, it is reasonable 

to monitor the health of these fish.

Response: As noted in the draft EIS, the available data do not show that project 

operation affects the bioavailability of toxins in the project reservoir. However, as 

stated in the draft EIS, the Fish Tissue Sampling Plan is a Forest Service section 4(e) 

mandatory condition (Condition 3[8]) and would be made part of any new license 

issued for the Boundary Project.
C-9

Comment: The Forest Service and Ecology clarify that Ecology does have a state-wide 

fish tissue sampling program for the purpose of establishing consumption advisories. 

However, Ecology does not sample fish from the project area as the draft EIS suggests. 

Therefore, it is inappropriate to suggest that Seattle’s efforts would be duplicative and 

unnecessary.

Response: The reference to Ecology’s monitoring program has been removed from the 

final EIS. Nonetheless, staff’s recommendation stands for the reasons noted above.

Comment: Seattle points to the statement on page 65 of the draft EIS that “pH 

measurements are on average 0.4 units higher in macrophyte beds than in the main 

channel of the Pend Oreille River.” Seattle states that it does not disagree with this 

statement; however, it can not confirm this number as it did not calculate the value.

Response: This value was reported in a study from 2001 conducted by Duke 

Engineering and Services for Pend Oreille PUD. The study was conducted as part of 

the relicensing effort for the Box Canyon project (No. 2042). 

Comment: Seattle states that we incorrectly cite the data from table 3.2, as well as the 

source of the statement that “Ecology’s (2007) analysis for the Temperature TMDL 

indicates that areas of the Pend Oreille River in the Boundary Project area are not in 

compliance with the water quality standard for temperature (see table 3.2).” 

Response: The source of that statement is Ecology’s 2007 “Pend Oreille River Total 

Maximum Daily Load for Temperature Draft,” so the citation on page 74 of the draft 

EIS is correct. The reference to Table 3.2 directs the reader to the table where they can 

find the state water quality standard for temperature.

Comment: Seattle notes that the schedule for filing a final TDG Annual Report and a 

quality control inspection program with Ecology and the Commission, as presented on 

pages 79-80 of the draft EIS, has been revised.

Response: Staff has updated the final EIS to reflect this new schedule.

Comment: In footnote 178, on page 318 of the draft EIS, staff states that any potential 

future modifications that may be made to address dissolved oxygen issues in the 

reservoir would require an amendment of the license. In response, Seattle states that the 

Dissolved Oxygen Attainment Plan does not identify future modifications to project 

operations or facilities.

Response: On page 6 of the Dissolved Oxygen Attainment Plan, Seattle states “Seattle 

will report DO data to Ecology on an annual basis, and after five-years of monitoring, in 

consultation with Ecology, determine if any further actions are needed.” Staff interprets

“further actions” to potentially include future modifications to project operations or 
C-10

facilities. If modifications such as these were proposed in the future they would likely

require an amendment of the license.

Comment: The Forest Service states that the discussion in the draft EIS about Sullivan 

Lake surface elevations and discharges is confusing. In particular, the Forest Service 

points to pages in the draft EIS where the reported values for maximum flows are 

inconsistent.

Response: The only maximum flow proposal from Sullivan Lake is that the District 

would not release more than 200 cfs during dry and average water years, and 225 cfs 

during wet water years, until the construction of the cold-water release facility is 

complete. Staff has revised the final EIS accordingly.

Comment: The District points out that the cold-water release pipe does not act as a 

siphon, as the draft EIS would suggest, but as a gravity feed system.

Response: Staff has corrected this characterization in the final EIS.

Comment: The District states that the recommendation that it release all water from 

Sullivan Lake from the cold-water release pipe after November 15 annually is not 

consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement and would be impossible. It 

explains that at times of high inflow, the cold-water release pipe would not have the 

capacity to pass all of the water needed to hold the lake level constant. For that reason,

the District suggests that the draft EIS be revised in four places to read “After 

November 15, all releases from Sullivan Dam, up to the capacity of the cold-water pipe, 

shall be made through the pipe.

Response: Staff concurs that this modification to the language would be appropriate, 

and has revised the final EIS accordingly.

Comment: The District states that Table 3-9 is misleading in that it identifies 10 cfs as 

the proposed discharge flow from Sullivan Dam in April and May, and that 10 cfs is 

actually a proposed minimum flow. It also notes that this is the same flow regime in 

place currently at the project during these months. The District also states that the text 

of the draft EIS incorrectly states “the proposed flow could result in less water in Outlet 

Creek in April, May, and June during average and wet water years.”

Response: The referenced text and table have been modified to better clarify proposed 

operational releases as recommended. 

Comment: The District states that table 3-9 shows historical monthly mean flows that 

are slightly high for the months of April and May, which could be misleading. The 

District reports its calculated weekly average flow for each week in April and May 

based on 47 years of daily data from the Outlet Creek gage. The District concludes that 

average monthly flow at the gate was 22.1 cfs in April (versus 24 shown in Table 3-9), 
C-11

and 32 cfs in May (versus 37 cfs shown in Table 3-9). However, in May, the average 

flow the first 3 weeks of month is only 18.3 cfs, and the monthly average is skewed 

upward by data from the last week of the month (average weekly flow 73 cfs) due to 

heavy snowmelt that typically hits the system starting in late May. The District 

suggests showing the actual weekly average flows in this table.

Response: Staff created Table 3-9 in the draft EIS, using available data from USGS 

stream gage No. 12397100, for water years 1959-2004, which reported monthly mean 

flows for April and May to be 23.5 and 37.4 cfs, respectively. To respond to the 

Districts comment, staff accessed all of the data from USGS 2010 water data report for 

stream gage No. 12397100 (found at:

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/pdfs/12397100.2010.pdf). This report includes data 

from 1959-2010. The report shows that monthly mean flows for April and May are 

22.8 and 37.5 cfs, respectively. Staff has updated Table 3-9 with these figures.

Comment: The District points out that staff states on page 98 of the draft EIS that the 

cold-water release facility would cool the water so much that it “would be possible to 

meet and even exceed state water quality standards for temperature.” The District asks 

if we meant “going below” instead of “exceeding.”

Response: The District’s assumption is correct in that by “exceeding state water quality 

standards for temperature,” staff does mean to “go below” the temperature limit set by 

the state. The final EIS has been revised to clarify staff’s conclusion. 

Comment: The District comments that FERC staff has placed some significance on the 

requirement for the proposed release of water from the Sullivan Lake dam to not exceed 

two times the proposed minimum flow release. The District states that this “two times” 

value is arbitrary and provides no benefit to fish and wildlife and hinders their 

operational flexibility. The District continues by asking FERC staff to re-consider this 

recommendation so that it is consistent with the Forest Service Special Use 

Authorization and the settlement agreement. 

Response: Page 8 of Appendix A to the Sullivan Lake Settlement Agreement states that 

“the PUD shall release water at a rate...not to exceed 2.0 times the minimum discharge 

flow regime.” On the same page, table 1 lays out the discharge flows for every week in 

June and July for both normal and wet water years. For 7 of the 8 weeks listed, the 

proposed discharge flow does not exceed two times the proposed minimum flow. 

However, for the first week of July when the proposed minimum flow is 20 cfs, the 

proposed releases for the water supply program would be 45 cfs in wet years. The 

proposal for this week violates the earlier requirement not to exceed “2.0 times” the 

minimum flow regime. Staff’s recommendation to apply the “2X” maximum to all the 

weeks between the start of June and Labor Day was simply a continuation of the 

District’s proposal. This recommendation would provide a benefit to fish in Outlet 

Creek by protecting them from sudden, high flows that may wash them from the system. 
C-12

The District has provided no compelling argument as to why they should not comply 

with this “2X” proposal, which is part of the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, we 

have not changed our recommendation. 

Comment: Ecology states that the description of measures outlined in the Boundary 

Project settlement agreement, as shown in the Abstract on the cover sheet of the draft 

EIS, fails to mention measures to address water quality issues.

Response: Staff added water quality to its description of resources affected by the 

proposed action.

Comment: Ecology comments that Table 3-2 should be updated to reflect that the water 

quality standard for Sullivan Creek downstream from Sullivan Dam should be a 7-day 

daily maximum daily average temperature of 16o C (Chapter 173-201A Washington 

Administrative Code) because waters on the Colville National Forest are to be protected 

for summer salmonid habitat and extraordinary primary contact recreation. It also 

points out that the final EIS should be updated to reflect this in multiple places.

Response: Staff has revised the final EIS accordingly.

Comment: Ecology comments that the TDG TMDL goal for the Boundary Project only 

applies “if conditions upstream of a dam exceed allocations and prevent meeting 

allocations downstream.” Ecology also points out that the TMDL for TDG allocation in 

the Boundary tailrace is 69 mm of mercury above saturation.

Response: Staff has revised the final EIS accordingly.

Comment: Ecology points out that Seattle, as part of the Boundary Project settlement,

proposes to collect temperature and pH data concurrently with DO measurements, as 

part of the Dissolved Oxygen Attainment Plan. Ecology notes that the draft EIS fails to 

mention these two other parameters.

Response: Staff has revised the final EIS accordingly.

Comment: Ecology comments that our description of the Boundary Project’s cooling 

effect on water temperature in the tailrace in the second paragraph on page 74 of the 

draft EIS should be clarified. Ecology points out that, although the project does have a 

slight cooling effect on water released to the tailrace, water in the project area still 

sometimes exceeds state water quality criteria for temperature.

Response: The EIS acknowledges that water temperatures in the Pend Oreille River in 

the project area are not always in compliance with the TMDL.
C-13

Comment: Ecology comments that additional temperature analyses and/or measures 

may be required in the future to comply with water quality standards and the Pend 

Oreille River TMDL.

Response: Any future modifications that would alter project operations likely would 

require an amendment to any license the Commission may issue for the project, and 

would be considered at that time.

Comment: Ecology comments that it has not been past Commission practice to approve 

Quality Assurance Project Plans for water quality monitoring programs.

Response: Staff has revised draft Article 401. The QAPPs for the Aquatic Invasive 

Species Control and Prevention Plan, the Dissolved Oxygen Attainment Plan, and the 

Temperature Attainment Plan have been moved to subsection (b), Requirement to File 

Reports. 

Comment: Ecology comments that our Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis should 

acknowledge that Seattle declined Ecology’s request to conduct bioassays on benthic 

and water column species.

Response: The fact that Seattle declined this request from Ecology is already a part of 

the public record and the measures that Seattle proposes are clearly delineated in section 

2.1.2 of the EIS. Therefore, staff sees no reason to modify the discussion in section 3.2, 

Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis as requested.

AQUATIC RESOURCES

Comment: In the DEIS, staff did not recommend the $2.5 million dollar Sullivan Lake 

Tributary Fund because (1) the description of the measures that would be implemented 

in the tributaries to Sullivan Lake lacked sufficient specificity to evaluate the benefits,

and (2) the habitat enhancements would not benefit resources affected by the continued 

operation of the Boundary Project and would serve no project purpose. Interior, the 

Forest Service, and the Washington DFW believe there is sufficient nexus between the 

operation of the Boundary Project and enhancing aquatic habitat in watershed tributaries 

not directly connected to the Boundary Project’s effect on aquatic habitat and 

organisms.193

 

193 Interior notes that the Boundary settlement was clear in articulating that the 

off-site tributary enhancements were developed to address the ongoing effects of 

Boundary Project operations on about 17.5 miles of mainstem fish habitat upstream of 

the dam and about 1.5 miles of habitat downstream from the dam. The Forest Service 

also comments on the loss of 17.5 miles of “formerly excellent coldwater sport fishing 

river.”
C-14

Interior and the Washington DFW explain that the District’s studies show that 

fish spawning in Sullivan Lake tributaries out-migrate, or get flushed out of tributaries,

to stream reaches downstream of Sullivan Lake dam, which is expected to continue in 

the future because fish will continue to be entrained through the gates in Sullivan Creek 

dam into Outlet Creek when spring runoff and fall discharge flows exceed the capacity 

of the screened cold-water release facility. The agencies further explain that native 

salmonids from the Sullivan Lake tributaries contribute to the genetic diversity and 

overall strength of other native fish stocks in accessible tributaries below Sullivan Lake 

dam and other tributaries associated with the Boundary Reservoir. Finally, they state 

that the fund is for the specific purpose of improving aquatic habitat conditions in 

Sullivan Lake tributaries for salmonid use. Tributary restoration efforts will focus on 

restoring fish passage, reducing sediment input, increasing riparian and instream habitat 

complexity, streambank stabilization, and large woody debris placement. The agencies 

believe these measures will (a) improve fish habitat in the tributaries, (b) help increase 

cutthroat trout and kokanee populations in Sullivan Lake and elsewhere in the drainage, 

(c) reduce recreational fishing pressure on Boundary tributary streams, and (d) through 

out-migration, help strengthen native fish populations in the lower river and other 

Boundary tributaries. The Washington DFW considers the $2.5 million fund limited 

and focused on mitigation of impacts caused by the Boundary Project, and both 

agencies urge the Commission to reconsider its inclusion as part of the new license.

The Forest Service contends that there is sufficient clarity provided in the 

Boundary settlement for staff to adequately assess how the fund would be utilized. For 

example, the Forest Service notes that distributions from the fund would by made by the 

Fish an Aquatics Working Group (FAWG), and would be used to implement measures 

for improving connectivity in Harvey Creek, as well as reducing sediment input, 

increasing riparian and instream habitat complexity, streambank stabilization, and large 

woody debris placement in Noisy, Onata, and Jungle creeks, tributaries to Harvey 

Creek. The Forest Service states that the purpose of the fund is to improve stream 

habitats to produce more robust populations of westslope cutthroat trout, kokanee, 

mountain whitefish, and other species. This is intended to improve the sport fishing 

opportunities and experiences in the general area that have been lost due to the 

Boundary Project and its operation.

The Kalispel Tribe recommends Commission staff include the $2.5 million 

tributary enhancement fund in its recommended alternative for licensing the Boundary 

Project. The Kalispel Tribe comments that the habitat improvement measures will 

improve fisheries habitat within the tributaries, and contribute to more robust 

populations of cutthroat trout and kokanee populations in the Sullivan Lake. The Tribe 

believes that, through out-migration, this will have downstream benefits. 
C-15

Response: Section 2.1.2.3, Seattle’s Proposal – Proposed Project Environmental 

Measures of the EIS has been revised to include a general description of the types of 

measures that would be implemented in the tributaries to Sullivan Lake. 

As explained in the draft EIS, improving habitat conditions in Sullivan Lake 

tributaries would benefit native fish populations in the Sullivan Lake drainage. The EIS 

also acknowledges that fish using, or that are produced in, Sullivan Lake tributaries can, 

and would continue to, move through the Sullivan Lake dam to downstream stream 

reaches, albeit on a more limited basis than under current operations due to the 

screening of the coldwater release facility. It is clear, though, that recruitment to stream 

reaches downstream from Sullivan Lake, and ultimately the Boundary Reservoir and its 

fishery, was not the intended objective of the resource agencies. This is evidenced by 

the recommended screening of the cold water release facility to prevent the loss of fish 

from the lake and the off-license agreement between the District and Washington DFW 

for compensation of those losses.

The intended benefits of the Sullivan Lake tributary enhancement fund to the 

fishery at the Boundary Project, however tenuously connected to project effects or 

purposes, would be difficult, at best, to discern. In contrast, the measures Seattle 

intends to implement for the tributaries directly connected to the Boundary Reservoir, 

which are to be further defined and filed for Commission approval, would have a clear 

nexus to the project and would provide significant enhancement to the fish resources 

and fishery in the Boundary Reservoir. 

Therefore, the final EIS has not been revised to include the $2.5 million tributary 

enhancement fund as part of the staff-recommended alternative. Nonetheless, the 

tributary enhancement fund is a Forest Service section 4(e) mandatory condition

(Condition 3[9I]), and would be included any new license issued for the Boundary 

Project. 

Comment: In the draft EIS, staff states that Seattle proposes to establish a $2.5 million 

fund for habitat improvement measures in tributaries of Sullivan Lake, in lieu of 

opening up habitat upstream of the Sullivan Lake dam. Seattle comments that this is a 

mischaracterization of why the fund was proposed. Seattle notes that it proposed the 

fund as part of its comprehensive settlement package, and suggests that the “in lieu of” 

language be removed.

Response: The Forest Service (letter filed August 24, 2010) and the Washington DFW 

(letter filed September 3, 2010) point out that the parties to the Boundary settlement 

agreed that the need to protect habitat and refugia for native species upstream of the 

Sullivan Lake dam outweigh the passage of fish at the dam. Staff interpreted this to 

mean that the $2.5 million fund for habitat improvements was an “in lieu of” tradeoff. 
C-16

Nonetheless, staff has modified the language in the final EIS to address Seattle’s 

concern.

Comment: Interior and the Washington DFW comment that the purpose of the 

recreational fish stocking program is to mitigate for continuing project effects of water 

level fluctuations and fish entrainment on the fish community in the Boundary reservoir 

and Pend Oreille River downstream from the dam. Interior and the Washington DFW 

comment that the Settlement Parties agreed to stock trout in 18 lakes within a 15-mile 

radius of the project. The program would include monitoring at least six of the lakes 

each year, creel surveys on two lakes per year, and reporting. 

The agencies question the assumptions made in the draft EIS that led staff to not 

recommend including the recreational fish stocking program as part of a new license. 

The agencies argue that staff’s assumption that the measures included in the FAMP, 

including measures to reduce fish entrainment, would provide a native salmonid 

recreational fishery in the Boundary reservoir within a reasonable period of time is not 

correct. The agencies state that many of the measures would not be implemented within 

a reasonable time frame to yield such a fishery, particularly the measures designed to 

reduce fish entrainment. Moreover, Interior notes that the draft EIS recognizes a 

number of project effects that are either unavoidable or can not be completely addressed 

by the recommended measures. Interior and the Washington DFW point out the intent 

of the program is to direct fishing pressure away from native fish restoration efforts in 

the tributaries until a later time when recovery efforts have been fully achieved. The 

agencies point to input from Pend Oreille County citizens and County Commissioners

that an adequate level of recreational angling opportunities needs to be supported in the 

vicinity of the project. For the aforementioned reasons, Interior and the Washington 

DFW urge the Commission to reconsider inclusion of the recreational fish stocking 

program as part of the license.

The Alliance also states that removal or reduction of non-native predators and 

competitors to native salmonids, necessary to the successful recovery efforts for native 

salmonids, reduces the recreational opportunity for fisherman. To compensate for this 

reduction and to avoid or reduce the probability of such fisherman from deliberately reintroducing such species into the mainstem and/or its tributaries, it is important to 

provide enhanced fishing opportunity in nearby lakes/ponds/streams.

Response: Staff does not dispute the fact that establishing a new fishery, based on 

native fish stocks, is likely to take time. While it may take some time, staff’s 

recommended measures are expected to improve the fishery consistent with the 
C-17

management objectives of the Washington DFW.194 In the EIS, staff recommend a 

variety of measures to improve the fish populations and the angling experience in 

Boundary Reservoir. For example, staff recommend measures that would improve (a) 

boat access to the reservoir (see Recreation Resource Management Plan and operational 

constraints between Memorial Day and Labor Day), and (b) water quality in the project 

area, as well as in the larger tributaries flowing into the reservoir (see unit operation to 

improve total dissolved gas and elements of the Water Quality Plan). In addition, staff 

recommends Seattle implement its FAMP, which include measures to: (1) improve 

spawning habitat for whitefish in the headwater of Boundary Reservoir; (2) reduce fish 

stranding during reservoir drawdowns; (3) improve fish passage and protection at the 

Boundary dam; (4) enhance aquatic habitat and passage conditions in tributaries that 

flow into the reservoir; and (5) facilitate the restoration of native fish to project waters 

through suppression and eradication of non-native trout in tributaries stocking native 

trout.

In their comments, the agencies indicate that the purpose of the recreational fish 

stocking program is to address the on-going effects associated with water level 

fluctuations and fish entrainment on the fish community in the Boundary reservoir and 

Pend Oreille River downstream from the dam. The Washington DFW could have 

continued to support Seattle’s past stocking efforts to address these effects. However, 

the Washington DFW, for a number of reasons, elected to no longer support stocking in 

the Boundary Reservoir, and shift its focus, instead, to native fish restoration. Staff 

understands the agency’s desire to manage for native fish, while also providing 

recreational angling opportunities in the project area. There would be a public benefit 

to stocking fish in area lakes that have the habitat and other conditions to support a 

recreational fishery. However, providing a non-native fishery in non-project lakes is not 

the responsibility of a licensee.

The underlying argument(s) advanced by the agencies remains the same, and the 

agencies provided little, if any, new information in this regard. Therefore, the final EIS 

has not been revised to include the fish stocking program as part of the staffrecommended alternative. Nonetheless, the recreational fish stocking program is a 

Forest Service section 4(e) mandatory condition (Condition 3[9H]), and would be part 

of any new license issued for the Boundary Project.

 

194 The Washington DFW states that it no longer plans to support Seattle’s 10-

year-old program of planting triploid rainbow trout in Boundary reservoir. The 

Washington DFW cites a number of reasons for this change (see License Application at 

E-29, E-30, and E-161), including: (a) low catch rates; (b) poor salmonid habitat 

conditions in the reservoir; (c) low survival and retention in the reservoir; and (d) 

competition with native species.
C-18

Comment: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comments that it is not 

opposed to the placement of 1,500 cubic yards of screened gravels between river mile 

29.1 and the Box Canyon dam to increase potential mountain whitefish spawning 

habitat. EPA clarifies, though, that this action would constitute a discharge into waters 

of the United States and, thereby, require a section 404 permit under the Clean Water 

Act. EPA requests that the final EIS document make note of Seattle’s need to obtain 

this permit.

Response: Staff agrees, and has revised the language in the final EIS accordingly.

Comment: Several entities comment that the draft EIS presents conflicting information 

with regard to the presence of bull trout in Sullivan Creek. Interior, the Washington 

DFW, and the Kalispel Tribe comment that bull trout have been found in lower Sullivan 

Creek, and statements in the draft EIS to the contrary are inaccurate. The District, 

however, comments that no bull trout have been found in Sullivan Creek or its 

tributaries, and requests that statements to the contrary be corrected.

Response: Staff has reviewed the information in the record on this issue, and finds that 

bull trout are known to occur in portions of Sullivan Creek. For instance, McLellan 

(2001), and Seattle (2009b; Fish Distribution, Timing, and Abundance Study Final 

Report) report that bull trout are present, and have been found in, lower Sullivan Creek. 

To date, no studies or surveys have found bull trout in the mid- to upper Sullivan Creek 

drainage. Therefore, staff has revised the final EIS to clarify the bull trout’s current 

distribution in Sullivan Creek.

Comment: Seattle notes that staff, on pages 239 and 242-243 of the draft EIS, uses 

language that suggests that bull trout are known to occur in Sullivan Lake and its 

tributaries. Seattle states that using such language is misleading, in that bull trout have 

not been found in Sullivan Lake or its tributaries. Seattle questions whether it is 

appropriate to include a discussion related to entrainment at the Sullivan Lake dam 

under the Effects and Findings section for bull trout.

Response: Staff concurs that there is currently no evidence of bull trout occupying 

habitat in Sullivan Lake or its tributaries. However, releases from Sullivan Lake dam 

have the potential to affect bull trout using Sullivan and Outlet creeks downstream from 

the dam. Thus, staff revised this discussion in the final EIS to be more reflective of the 

fact that bull trout currently do not exist upstream of the Sullivan Lake dam.

Comment: Interior and the Washington DFW note that the draft EIS states that 

“Sullivan Lake is formed by the impoundment of Harvey, Noisy, and Hall creeks.” The 

agencies clarify that Sullivan Lake was a natural lake prior to the construction of the 

Sullivan Lake dam, which raised the elevation of the lake about 26 feet. The agencies 

request that the final EIS make this correction.
C-19

Response: Staff has revised the final EIS to clarify this element of the project area 

description.

Comment: Interior and the Washington DFW comment on the membership of the 

Resource Committee (see Appendix G of the Sullivan Creek Project settlement 

agreement), as constituted in footnote 104, on page 164, of the draft EIS. The 

Washington DFW states that it should be listed as a represented agency. Interior 

indicates that the membership, as referenced in the footnote, is not complete, and 

requests that the footnote be revised to include all listed parties on the Resource 

Committee.

Response: Staff agrees, and has revised the final EIS accordingly.

Comment: The District comments on staff’s conclusion that the Sullivan Lake dam is a 

complete barrier to fish passage. The District states that when the gates at the dam are 

opened, downstream passage occurs, and fish are entrained to areas of Outlet and 

Sullivan creeks downstream from the dam.

Response: Staff recognizes that downstream movement of fish occurs, and will 

continue to occur, through the Sullivan Lake dam. However, the dam will continue to 

pose a barrier to upstream movement of fish, which is the context in which the original 

statement about the dam being a barrier was made. Nonetheless, staff has clarified the 

language in question in the final EIS, accordingly.

Comment: The District notes that there is a discrepancy in the draft EIS regarding the 

design criteria for the cold water pipe inlet screens at the Sullivan Lake dam. The 

District states that on page 243, footnote 149, of the draft EIS, staff observed that the 

screens would be designed to meet a maximum approach velocity of 0.4 fps, whereas on 

page 338, table 5-4, and in Appendix B, page B-3, the design criteria includes an 

approach velocity of 0.2 fps. The District observes that this discrepancy appears to be 

an artifact of changes in the design that are associated with an automated cleaning 

system. The District states that the correct criteria is 0.4 fps, and requests that staff 

change the references in the final EIS to 0.4 fps.

Response: Staff has reviewed the information on the design of the cold water release 

facility and agrees that the appropriate design value is 0.4 fps. This change has been 

made in the final EIS.

Comment: Seattle states that staff’s characterization of the abundance for mountain 

whitefish and burbot in the Canyon and Upper Reservoir reaches, respectively, are 

incorrect. Seattle notes, as depicted in table 3-11 of the draft EIS, whitefish and burbot 

are both “occasionally observed” in their respective reservoir reaches. 
C-20

Response: Staff has made the requisite changes to the language in the final EIS.

Comment: Seattle comments that staff’s use of the terminology “downstream passage 

facility(ies)” is inaccurate. Seattle notes that it proposes to implement a fish 

entrainment reduction program, not construct downstream fish passage facilities at the 

project.

Response: Staff has revised the language in the final EIS accordingly.

Comment: Seattle comments that staff’s statement that bull trout migrate from streams 

a few weeks after emerging from the gravel is inconsistent with the literature. Seattle 

states that migratory bull trout typically live in stream for 2 to 3 years prior to 

outmigrating into larger streams, lakes, or reservoirs.

Response: Staff has revised the language in the final EIS accordingly.

Comment: Footnote 117, on page 200 of the draft EIS, states that the Boundary Project 

typically operates with a 20-foot drawdown, from elevation 1,994.0 to 1,974.0 feet 

NAVD 88. Seattle notes that operating the project as it currently operates would result 

in forebay water elevations generally fluctuating between 1,994.0 and 1,974.0 feet 

NAVD 88, which led to the proposed restrictions to the drawdown between Memorial 

Day weekend through Labor Day weekend. In addition, Seattle states that using 

“typically” implies a “daily” drawdown of 20 feet, which is not the case.

Response: Staff revised this footnote in the final EIS by providing a better description 

of the operating parameters of the project.

Comment: Seattle indicates that the draft EIS, on page 209, makes reference to the 

species captured during the fyke net study and that salmonids represent less than 5 

percent of the total number of fish captured. Seattle clarifies that no native salmonids 

were captured to the fyke net effort, and all salmonids captured were non-native or of 

hatchery origin.

Response: Staff revised this discussion in the final EIS accordingly.

Comment: On page 215 of the draft EIS, staff indicates that Northern pikeminnow, 

burbot, cutthroat trout, and bull trout are native to the Pend Oreille River system. 

Seattle notes that, to its knowledge, burbot are not native to the Pend Oreille system.

Response: Staff reviewed the historical distribution of burbot and northern pikeminnow 

in the Pend Oreille River. Staff agrees that burbot is not a native species to the Pend 

Oreille system. Thus, staff revised this discussion in the final EIS accordingly.
C-21

Comment: The Sweet Creek Ranch residents, represented by Sharron and Larry Gragg

(herein referred to as the Sweet Creek residents), commented on four aspects of 

Seattle’s proposed FAMP. First, the Sweet Creek residents note that under the FAMP 

several areas along Sweet Creek could be improved through riparian planting. The 

Sweet Creek residents state that before granting access, they would want to know the 

specific areas to be planted and what the riparian planting would encompass. Second, 

the Sweet Creek residents note that Sweet Creek floods during the spring run-off, and 

that the large woody debris (LWD) placed in the upper delta area of the creek is likely 

to be washed away; potentially making this habitat improvement a waste of time and 

money. The Sweet Creek residents request that this be further studied. Third, the Sweet 

Creek residents state that they do not believe that improvements to the culvert for 

Highway 31 would cause problems with their domestic water wells adjacent to the 

creek. Nonetheless, the Sweet Creek residents ask to be informed prior to, and when, 

the culvert improvements taking place. Fourth, the Sweet Creek residents express 

concern regarding the proposed suppression or eradication activities that target nonnative fish in the Boundary watershed. The Sweet Creek residents note that Sweet

Creek provides drinking water and domestic use water for the ranch residents, as well as 

water used by the Selkirk school complex. The Sweet Creek strongly request that no 

chemicals be introduced into Sweet Creek or its adjacent areas.

Response: As stated in the EIS, the proposed FAMP includes conceptual plans for the 

habitat improvements to be made on Sweet Creek, which include riparian buffer 

protections and plantings, large woody debris placement, and culvert improvements for 

Highway 31. Moreover, the FAMP recognizes the existing uses of the creek, and the 

consultation process laid out in the FAMP should address many, if not all, the concerns 

of the Sweet Creek residents. Nonetheless, staff addresses the Sweet Creek resident’s 

concerns below. Specific to the measures implemented for Sweet Creek,195 staff 

anticipates that Seattle would discuss its plans for Sweet Creek with the Sweet Creek 

residents, and staff expects Seattle to provide the completed plan to the residents for 

their review and comment prior to it being filed with the Commission for approval. 

Staff has modified the language in Article 401(a), accordingly.

The Sweet Creek residents seek more information regarding the specific areas 

where riparian planting would occur, and what such planting would entail. Given that 

the residents own a good portion of the riverbank area and riparian land in question, this 

is a reasonable request on the part of the residents. Staff anticipates that Seattle would

 

195 Seattle proposes to develop and file with the Commission, within 12 months 

of license issuance, an integrated schedule, which has been approved by the FAWG, for 

the completion of the tributary aquatic habitat enhancements outlined in section 5.4 of 

the FAMP. Seattle proposes to develop a TMP that would include a section specific to 

each tributary where habitat enhancements are proposed.
C-22

discuss such matters with the residents as it develops and finalizes its habitat restoration 

plan for Sweet Creek.

Under the FAMP, LWD would be placed from the mouth of Sweet Creek up to 

river mile (RM) 0.6, and would include the upper end of the Sweet Creek delta. As 

stated in the FAMP, the specific location and design of the LWD jams would be 

determined during implementation planning by Seattle, in consultation with and subject 

to approval by, the FAWG. The orientation and construction of each LWD jam would 

be based on site-specific hydraulic and channel conditions. Thus, staff sees no reason 

why the habitat improvements (e.g., log jams) designed for, and placed in, Sweet Creek 

would not be capable of withstanding the full range of hydraulic and channel conditions 

experienced in Sweet Creek, including flooding and high flow conditions.

Staff recognizes that, under the FAMP, Seattle proposes to use chemicals as part 

of its non-native fish eradication efforts, specifically rotenone,196 antimycin,197 or an 

equivalent fish toxicant. Staff notes that rotenone and antimycin are commonly used as 

fish toxicants in fishery management applications. These chemicals are registered by 

EPA, and their use is strictly regulated. If used and applied in accordance with requisite

guidelines, there should be little, if any, risks associated with the proposed use of the 

chemicals.

198

To ensure that the Sweet Creek residents’ issues are addressed, however, Seattle 

should consider the residents’ concerns as it develops the TMP. The FAMP states that 

the details of the program, including the specific chemicals to be used, their 

concentration, and the number of treatment and detoxification stations would be 

determined during the planning process and would be subject to approval of the FAWG. 

In addition to these details, the final TMP filed with the Commission for approval 

should also address (a) any potential health risks associated with the proposed 

 

196 Rotenone is water soluble and can last up to six months in water. It is used in 

solution as a pesticide and insecticide, or in emulsified liquid form as a piscicide (or fish 

poison). It is considered mildly toxic, with minor and transient environmental sideeffects. It’s found naturally in certain plants. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone

and http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35133. 

197 Antimycin is only slightly soluble in water. It is the active ingredient in 

Fintrol, a piscicide used in fisheries management and in the catfish industry. There is 

no consensus as to its toxicity. Antimycin is produced by Streptomyces bacteria. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimycin_A; 

http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/chemists/rod9.html; and 

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35392. 198 There is little, if any, evidence to suggest that either or both chemicals 

proposed for use in the eradication program would be a groundwater contaminant.
C-23

treatments, and (b) the potential for any chemical used to affect an individual’s or 

entities’ water supply. Finally, Seattle should address these issues with not only the 

members of the FAWG, but also the appropriate state entity tasked with protecting 

public health; in this case, the Washington Department of Health.

Comment: In footnote 178 of the draft EIS, staff alert Seattle and other interested 

parties that the term of any future license is a matter for the order on the license 

application, thus measures that contemplate actions beyond 30 years (e.g., entrainment 

mortality reduction measures) may require adjustments in the implementation schedule 

depending on any future license term set by the Commission. The Alliance states this 

conflicts with other statements in the draft EIS that acknowledges actions beyond the 

30-year timeframe.

Response: The EIS evaluates the actions and timeframes proposed by settlement 

parties. However, as noted above, this footnote is merely to alert the parties that 

adjustments in the various implementation schedule may be required if the license term 

is shorter than the 50 years sought by Seattle.

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Comment: The Shoreline Management Program (SMP), an element of the Terrestrial 

Resources Management Plan, identifies the need to define and map appropriate 

shoreline land use designations, to develop and implement guidelines for permitting 

private and public (non-federal) shoreline development, to manage debris accumulation 

and removal, and to create and implement a project public safety and education 

program. Ecology recommends that Seattle coordinate closely with Pend Oreille 

County and Ecology to assure that its “Plan” is compliant with the Shoreline 

Management Act and the Pend Oreille County’s Shoreline Master Program, which is 

currently being updated and is jointly administered by the county and Ecology. Ecology 

also advises against using the acronym “SMP” because this is the common acronym of 

regulatory programs that are mandated by the Shoreline Management Act.

Response: Section 3.8.2.1 has been revised to indicate that the Shoreline Management 

Program is structured to be consistent with the Pend Orielle County Shoreline Master 

Program and that Seattle would coordinate with Ecology and Pend Orielle County 

during its development. 

Comment: The Forest Service states that Commission staff misrepresented how land 

acquisition targets will be achieved. The DEIS says that the 13,022 lineal feet of 

varying habitats immediately adjacent to water features are to be contained in the 158 

acres of diverse riparian and upland habitats. The Forest Service says that the targets 

may be accomplished and applied to the same parcel of land, provided that the parcel 
C-24

meets the described criteria (see Section 5.2 Habitat Management, Enhancement and 

Protection Program of the Terrestrial Resource Management Plan).

Response: The FEIS has been revised to clarify the proposed requirements.

RECREATION, LAND USE, AND AESTHETICS

Comment: The DEIS states that the existing project boundary encloses about 2,720 

acres based on the approved Exhibit K drawings on file with the Commission. Seattle 

stated that it has updated its calculations to state that the land within the project 

boundary is 2,684 acres. Seattle also states that various staff estimates of acreages, 

numbers of roads, and road lengths listed in the DEIS have not been confirmed by 

Seattle.

Response: Acreages for the existing project boundary are based on the approved 

Exhibit K drawings on file with the Commission. Upon approval of the revised exhibit 

G drawings, the acreages for the approved project boundary, and the acreage of all 

federal lands for the purpose of calculating federal land use and occupancy charges will 

be updated. In areas where Commission staff was not provided with an acreage or 

length necessary for a description of the project area, Commission staff estimated the 

value based on Seattle’s proposed exhibit G maps or the GIS files provided by Seattle. 

The FEIS has been updated to include the word “estimated” or “approximately” with all 

lengths, acreages, or road numbers that were not explicitly provided by Seattle or on file 

with the Commission. Commission staff expect Seattle to file revised exhibit G maps 

that conform to sections §4.39 and §4.41 of Commissions regulations enclosing the 

revised project boundary as proposed by Seattle, and enumerating overall acres within 

the project boundary and acres of federal lands.

Comment: The Alliance states that for many long-term residents of Metaline Falls , 

WA, area and others who have visited the area over many years, the removal of Mill 

Pond dam will prove a dramatically, but very localized change in vista. These concerns 

were also expressed by Ms. Merrill at the draft EIS meeting in Metaline Falls.

Response: Section 3.9.2.2 has been revised to reflect the localized change in the 

viewshed that would result from the removal of Mill Pond dam and the perception of 

those visitors to Mill Pond dam. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Comment: The Forest Service recommends that the final EIS disclose the potential 

effects to cultural and historical resources associated with the construction of the cold 

water release structure and the procedural steps that should be taken to protect such 

resources.
C-25

Response: Section 3.10.2 of the EIS has been revised to address possible effects from 

construction activities in the vicinity of the cold water release facility and to reflect 

staff’s recommendation for the District to conduct a cultural resource inventory in the 

area prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity. The EIS has also been revised to 

reflect staff’s recommendation that the District consult with the FS and SHPO to ensure 

that the final design of the cold-water release facility appropriately considers and 

protects the integrity of the existing Ranger District and Depression-era Civilian 

Conservation Campground in order to retain the district’s National Register character.

SOCIOECONOMICS

Comment: The District states that the EIS should contain a review of the adverse 

economic consequences to the District of the decision to grant the Boundary license to 

Seattle, which lead to the Commission decision to include Article 49 in the Boundary 

license requiring Seattle to assign 48 MW to the District. The District agrees that a 

decision to continue the assignment of 48 MW of Boundary power to the District would 

not result in environmental impacts as it would be a continuation of the existing 

environment. However, a decision to terminate the assignment would have 

socioeconomic implications related to the District resorting to alternative power 

sources. The District states that the EIS should acknowledge that the District would be 

required to seek alternative sources of power at much higher costs, that these costs 

would result in higher rates to its Pend Orielle County customers, and the imposition of 

such higher costs would in turn have serious consequences on the future development of 

the county—an area of that is already economically distressed. Seattle states that the 

draft EIS’s analysis of Boundary’s socioeconomic effects expressly assumes the 

continued assignment of 48 MW to the District. Both Seattle and the District 

recommend that the Commission include a requirement in the new license to continue to 

assign 48,000 kW of Boundary Project power to the District.

Response: As stated in section 2.1.2.2, the allocation of power is a matter for 

Commission consideration in any order on the license application and silence on any 

such future action in the EIS should not be assumed to reflect future Commission 

action. The allocation of power to either Seattle or the District would cause either entity 

to seek alternative sources of energy to meet its customer’s demand. The effects of 

whether or not specific power sales contracts are renewed in the future was not 

addressed because we don’t know which contracts will or will not be renewed. Nor do 

we need to know. While we agree that if a particular entity’s contract is not renewed 

that entity could be adversely affected; however, that amount of project power would 

presumably go to another entity(s) which would benefit.

Comment: The District recommends that the socioeconomic analysis address the 

District’s recommendation that Seattle’s obligation in Article 48 to compensate the 
C-26

District for encroachment on Box Canyon be carried over to the new license. The 

District summarizes the existing agreements between Seattle and the District for said 

compensation which is to remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the date on which the 

Boundary license expires (including annual licenses), without renewal or extension; or 

(b) the license is transferred to another entity by Seattle. The District notes that section 

3 of the 2005 Encroachment Agreement provides that by compensating the District 

under such agreement Seattle satisfies its obligations under Article 48 of the license, “or 

under a comparable article of a successor FERC license held by Seattle for Boundary”. 

Seattle states that because the draft EIS is silent as to any change to Seattle’s obligation 

to compensate the District for encroachment, it implicitly also assumes the continuation 

of that obligation. Both the Seattle and the District recommend that the new license 

include a requirement to compensate for the District for encroachment on Box Canyon.

Response: The EIS was revised to indicate that this is a condition of the existing 

license and its continuation a proposal by Seattle. However, continuation of such a 

requirement is a matter for Commission consideration in any order on license 

application and would not result in environmental effects; thus it is not considered 

further in the EIS. As note above, silence on any such future action in the EIS should 

not be assumed to reflect future Commission action. 

Comment: Ms. Merril commented that instead of removing Mill Pond dam we should 

keep it to provide water to support irrigators and salmon. As a popular camping spot, 

she noted that its removal would result in the loss of tourism and much needed money to 

the county.

Response: As stated in section 2.2.1.3, Mill Pond dam has an open, unregulated 

spillway and no storage, so flow out the project is about equal to inflow. Without 

modification, Mill Pond dam would not be capable of providing the water storage 

suggested by Ms. Merril. The District does not wish to obtain a new operating license 

for the project and proposes to remove Mill Pond dam. The Commission can not 

compel a licensee to seek a new license or continue to operate the project. It can only 

require measures to ensure that the surrender is done in a manner that is consistent with 

its public interest responsibilities. The EIS recognizes the lost recreational opportunities 

associated with the removal of Mill Pond as well as the benefits that would be achieved 

to other environmental resources.

DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS

Comment: Seattle stated that the values presented by the Commission and referenced to 

Seattle in table 4-1 differ than the values presented by Seattle in addendum D to the 

license application. Seattle also states that the Commission should have used the cost 

value of $51.75 used by Seattle in their economic analysis of the project. 
C-27

Response: Staff has modified table 4-1 and footnotes to reflect where Commission 

staff modified Seattle’s submissions to make the analysis consistent with Commission 

policy for economic analysis. To obtain the value for project power, Commission staff 

used a weighted average of $32.92, comprised of an on-peak value of $35.70 and an offpeak value of $28.62, as reported by Seattle in its exhibit D addendum. The Energy 

Infrastructure Agency in their Annual Energy Outlook for 2011 report (available at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html) reported that the 2009 total cost for electric 

power generated by natural gas in the Pacific region for 2010 was estimated to be 

$36.30/MWh. As this value is close to the value reported by Seattle in their addendum 

to exhibit D, Commission staff have no basis for changing this value in the final EIS to 

the significantly higher value of $51.75.

Comment: In the DEIS, Commission staff used a value of 3,572,750 MWh for annual 

generation under the no-action alternative and a value of 3,612,588 MWh as the 

anticipated generation after the completion of efficiency upgrades to turbines 55 and 56. 

Seattle stated that they used a model based on the optimization of project operations for 

the average year (2002) using the Scenario Tool to calculate a value of 4,110,505 MWh 

generated.

Response: As previously stated in the DEIS, the value used by Commission staff was 

an average calculated from Seattle’s submissions to the Commission of their reported 

MWh generated at the Boundary project over the last 10 years. Therefore, Commission 

staff used this value to establish the existing energy production under the no-action 

alternative evaluated in the DEIS and the FEIS.

 

Comment: Seattle states that some of the costs presented in the EA for alternative 

power costs and annual project costs differ from the costs presented in their addendum 

D to the license application.

Response: Seattle provided their costs for proposed measures over a 50-year license 

term; however, the Commission uses a 30-year term of analysis when estimating the 

costs and benefits of a given project. When costs for the individual protection, 

mitigation and environmental measures, which were used to generate the annual project 

costs, were stated to occur within the first 30 years of any license issued or when 

Commission staff were unable to determine if costs would extend beyond the first 30 

years of any license issued, staff used the value for the measure as provided by Seattle. 

For those measures that were stated to occur beyond the first 30 years of any license 

issued, Commission staff estimated a 30-year cost estimate for that measure based on 

the value provided by Seattle.