CLARK FORK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
LIHI APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION
INTRODUCTION
The Clark Fork Project consists of the Cabinet Gorge (FERC No. 2058) and Noxon Rapids (previously
FERC No. 2075) developments. The Cabinet Gorge and the Noxon Rapids developments abut one another
on the Clark Fork River in Bonner County, northern Idaho and Sanders County, in northwest Montana,
respectively. The Cabinet Gorge dam is located at river mile 150 in the state of Idaho and the Noxon Rapids
dam is located at river mile 170 in the state of Montana.
The new Clark Fork Project License (FERC No. 2058), including both the Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge
hydroelectric developments, was issued via FERC Order February 23, 2000 (Attachment 1), and became
effective on March 1, 2001. The new license is the result of the successful efforts of representatives from
nearly 40 organizations, who worked together for several years to create the Clark Fork Settlement
Agreement. The Settlement Agreement (Attachment 2) contains 26 protection, mitigation and enhancement
(PM&E) measures addressing impacts of continued operation of the project. The agreement also adopts the
term "Living License,” a concept that promotes ongoing problem solving through adaptive management.
Avista immediately began implementation of the PM&E measures in March of 1999, a full two years before
expiration of the existing licenses. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) followed up in an
unprecedented action with the issuance of a new license one year before the existing licenses expired. Just
two years into implementation, the Clark Fork Project achieved monumental tasks including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Transporting bull trout over Cabinet Gorge Dam for the first time in 50 years, in an attempt to reestablish historic migration routes.
Restoring over a mile of Twin Creek (an important bull trout spawning stream) to its historic channel
through a multi-party effort lead by Trout Unlimited and partially funded by Avista.
Purchase of 871 acres of wetland and riparian habitat along Bull River, the largest tributary to
Cabinet Gorge Reservoir. These purchases will allow preservation of existing wetland and riparian
habitat.
Obtaining more than $300,000 in grant money to leverage existing funds.
Receipt of the National Hydropower Association's Outstanding Stewardship of America's Waters
Awards award in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
Significant improvements to recreational facilities such as Pilgrim Creek Park.
The collaborative spirit that was instrumental in the relicensing process continues on in the
implementation efforts. The Clark Fork Management Committee (comprised of the signatories to the
Settlement Agreement) continues to meet twice annually to approve all implementation activities and
monitor the success of implementation efforts. If resource goals are not met, the Management
Committee has the ability to make changes in the direction of the program. Terrestrial and water
resources advisory committees advise the Management Committee on technical issues. The Cultural
Resource Management Group advises the Management Committee on projects that have the potential to
impact cultural and historic resources associated with the project. Annual reports, and implementation
PM&E mitigation plans for the following year, are prepared and filed with the FERC for approval.
Attachment 3 includes the FERC Order approving the 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Implementation
Plans. This collaborative process ensures the continued operation of the project with appropriate longterm environmental protection measures to meet diverse objectives for maintaining a balance on nonpower and power values in the Clark Fork Basin.
Low Impact Hydropower Institute
34 Providence Street
Portland, ME 04103
Tel. (207) 773-8190 • Fax (206) 984-3086
www.lowimpacthydro.org
LOW IMPACT HYDROPOWER QUESTIONNAIRE
E. LOW IMPACT HYDROPOWER QUESTIONNAIRE
Background Information
Applicant Answer
1) Name of the Facility.
Clark Fork Project (FERC No. 2058): Cabinet Gorge Project (FERC No 2058) and Noxon
Rapids Project (FERC No 2075) were combined under a single license and renamed the Clark
Fork Project using FERC No. 2058.
Tim Swant
Clark Fork License Manager
94 Avista Power Road
PO Box 1469
Noxon, MT 59853
(406) 847-1282
tim.swant@avistacorp.com
2) Applicant’s name, contact information and
relationship to the Facility. If the Applicant is
not the Facility owner/operator, also provide
the name and contact information for the
Facility owner and operator.
3) Location of Facility by river and state.
Clark Fork River, Idaho and Montana
4) Installed capacity.
Clark For Project (total 749.2 MW):
Noxon Rapids Development: 486 MW
Cabinet Gorge Development: 263.2 MW
5) Average annual generation.
Noxon Rapids: 1,725 GWh
Cabinet Gorge: 1,111 GWh
Clark Fork Project Total: 2,836 GWh
6) Regulatory status.
FERC-licensed via a collaborative settlement agreement. The Order issuing the New License
and associated Settlement Agreement was issued for the Clark Fork Project on February 23,
2000 (90 FERC ¶61,167).
1
7) Reservoir volume and surface area measured at
the high water mark in an average water year.
Noxon Rapids Development
Cabinet Gorge Development
400,000 acre-feet
105,000 acre-feet
7,940 surface acres
3,200 surface acres
8) Area occupied by non-reservoir facilities
(e.g., dam, penstocks, powerhouse).
9) Number of acres inundated by the Facility.
Not Required
10) Number of acres contained in a 200-foot zone
extending around entire impoundment.
11) Please attach a list of contacts in the relevant
Resource Agencies and in non-governmental
organizations that have been involved in
recommending conditions for your Facility.
12) Please attach a description of the Facility, its
mode of operation (i.e., peaking/run of river)
and a map of the Facility.
3,684.85 acres (includes both Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids reservoirs)
Not Required
See Attachment 4
The Clark Fork Project includes the Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge developments. Noxon
Rapids dam is located at river mile 170 in northwest Montana and Cabinet Gorge dam is
located at river mile 150 in northern Idaho. The two developments abut each other over a
distance of 58 miles on the Clark Fork River. A drop of 258 feet in elevation occurs between
the uppermost end of the Noxon Reservoir and the Cabinet Gorge tailrace. Releases from
Noxon Rapids refill the smaller, downstream Cabinet Gorge reservoir.
The Noxon Rapids development consists of a powerhouse, concrete spillway, earthen dam,
intake and a limited storage reservoir. Likewise, the Cabinet Gorge development includes a
powerhouse, spillway, with an arch dam and intake, and limited storage reservoir. The
Noxon Rapids development has a hydraulic capacity of 51,430 cubic feet per second (cfs) and
an authorized installed capacity of 486 megawatts (MW) using five Francis turbines. The
Cabinet Gorge development has a hydraulic capacity of 36,000 cfs and an authorized installed
capacity of 263 MW utilizing three fixed blade propeller turbines and one Kaplan turbine.
Operated in tandem, both hydroelectric projects are peaking facilities used to help meet the
daily, weekly, and seasonal peak electric needs. To help Avista serve its customer demand,
some water in the Clark Fork River is stored in the Noxon and Cabinet Gorge reservoirs at
night and released for generation at times of peak demand during the day. Noxon Reservoir
is typically drafted on a weekly cycle, while Cabinet Gorge operations serve to re-regulate
flow releases from Noxon Rapids, usually on a daily basis.
Refer to Attachment 5 for further descriptions of project facilities and operations (Attachment
5-1), and for project map and boundary and design drawings (Attachment 5-2).
2
Questions for “New” Facilities Only:
If the Facility you are applying for is “new”
i.e., an existing dam that added or increased
power generation capacity after August of
1998 please answer the following questions to
determine eligibility for the program
13) When was the dam associated with the
Facility completed?
14) When did the added or increased generation
first generate electricity? If the added or
increased generation is not yet operational,
please answer question 18 as well.
NEW = Increased Generation Capacity
Noxon Rapids Development: completed in 1959
Cabinet Gorge Development: completed in 1952
Cabinet Gorge Unit 2
Cabinet Gorge Unit 3
Cabinet Gorge Unit 4
Noxon Rapids Unit 1
Increased
Generation
?
?
?
?
Authorized
Installed Capacity
72.2 MW
72.2 MW
59.4 MW
99.0 MW
Date Operational
April 2004
April 2001
April 2006
May 2009
Additional increased generation is proposed at the Noxon Rapids development in the near
future (refer to question 18).
15) Did the added or increased power generation
capacity require or include any new dam or
other diversion structure?
16) Did the added or increased capacity include or
require a change in water flow through the
facility that worsened conditions for fish,
wildlife, or water quality (for example, did
operations change from run-of-river to
peaking)?
17) (a) Was the existing dam recommended for
removal or decommissioning by resource
agencies, or recommended for removal or
decommissioning by a broad representation of
interested persons and organizations in the
local and/or regional community prior to the
added or increased capacity?
(b) If you answered “yes” to question 17 (a)
NO
NO
NO
3
the Facility is not eligible for certification,
unless you can show that the added or
increased capacity resulted in specific
measures to improve fish, wildlife, or water
quality protection at the existing dam. If such
measures were a result, please explain.
18) (a) If the increased or added generation is not
yet operational, has the increased or added
generation received regulatory authorization
(e.g., approval by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission)? If not, the facility
is not eligible for consideration; and
(b) Are there any pending appeals or litigation
regarding that authorization? If so, the
facility is not eligible for consideration.
YES – FERC Order dated 4/10/08, Amending License and Revising Annual Charges,
included upgrades to Noxon Rapids Units 1-4 (Attachment 6). Unit 1 was upgraded in May
2009. Upgrades to Noxon Rapids Units 2-4 will be completed by May 2014. Upgrades to
Units 2-4 will increase the total authorized capacity of the Clark Fork Project from 749.2 MW
to 751.0 MW.
NO
A. Flows
PASS
FAIL
Applicant Answer
1) Is the Facility in Compliance with
Resource Agency Recommendations
issued after December 31, 1986
regarding flow conditions for fish
and wildlife protection, mitigation
and enhancement (including instream
flows, ramping and peaking
rate conditions, and seasonal and
episodic instream flow variations)
for both the reach below the tailrace
and all bypass reaches?
YES = Pass,
go to B
N/A = Go
to A2
NO =
Fail
YES – The Clark Fork Project is in compliance with resource agency
conditions issued after December 31, 1986 regarding flow conditions. The
FERC License and 1999 Settlement Agreement included requirements for
flow releases and water level control recommended by resource agencies
(Attachments 1 and 2).
The prior FERC license issued for the Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids
projects in 1951 and 1955, respectively, placed no limits on seasonal
storage, minimum flows, or the weekly or daily peeking operations. At that
time there were no instream flow requirements below Cabinet Gorge dam
and Noxon Reservoir was seasonally drawn down or “drafted” to 36 feet
below full pool and on three occasions, prior to 1985, it was drafted up to
54 feet.
In the early 1970s, an agreement reached with Idaho Department of Fish
and Game (IDFG) provided 3,000 cfs minimum flow below Cabinet Gorge
Dam.
In 1985, WWP (now Avista) voluntarily entered into an agreement with the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) to limit the
4
extent of seasonal drafts to 10 feet at Noxon Rapids, except under
emergency operation conditions. The voluntary operation limits at Noxon
Rapids included:
4-feet maximum draft
10-feet maximum draft
2-feet maximum daily net draft
5-feet maximum weekly net draft
May 15 – September 30
October 1 – May 4
Year-round
October 1 – May 14
Cabinet Gorge typically is drafted up to seven feet within each week to
capture Noxon releases for power generation.
Starting in 1996, a number of studies were conducted to address flow
conditions for fish and wildlife protection. Studies related to influences of
project operations on limnological, water quality parameters, and aquatic
habitat indicated that operations (peaking related to discharge and reservoir
fluctuations) had little if any effect on nutrient or other water quality
parameters.
Evaluation of project operations on the effect on aquatic habitat associated
fish resources and in particular the effects of water level, flow fluctuations,
and minimum instream flows resulted in a program consisting of flow
modification, as well as, enhancement in the side channel and
implementation of a watershed restoration program (Attachment 2,
Appendix T).
Avista, in collaboration with the Clark Fork Relicensing Team and as
agreed to in the 1999 Clark Fork Settlement Agreement (Attachment 2),
increased the instantaneous minimum flow below the Cabinet Gorge Project
from 3,000 cfs to 5,000 cfs. Combined with the accretion of approximately
800 cfs of spring flow below the project, the resultant 5,800 cfs provides
more stable and suitable shoreline rearing areas for fish, principally fry, and
enhanced macroinvertebrate production.
Increasing the minimum flow below Cabinet Gorge Dam caused changes in
the drawdown patterns in the reservoir: the overall draft limit on Cabinet
Gorge Reservoir of 2,168 feet elevation (seven feet) remained the same, but
the average weekly maximum draft changed from around 2.3 to 3.5 feet.
5
Current operating limits as outlined in the Settlement Agreement
(Attachment 2, Appendix T) for Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids includes:
Cabinet Gorge:
Maximum Forebay Elevation
Minimum Forebay Elevation
Minimum Discharge
Noxon Rapids:
Maximum Forebay Elevation
Minimum Forebay Elevation (May 15 – Sept 30)
Minimum Forebay Elevation (Oct 1 – May 14)
Maximum Forebay Draft Rate
2) If there is no flow condition
recommended by any Resource
Agency for the Facility, or if the
recommendation was issued prior to
January 1, 1987, is the Facility in
Compliance with a flow release
schedule, both below the tailrace and in
all bypass reaches, that at a minimum
meets Aquatic Base Flow standards or
“good” habitat flow standards
calculated using the Montana-Tennant
method?
3) If the Facility is unable to meet the
flow standards in A.2., has the
Applicant demonstrated, and obtained
2331.0
2327.0
2321.0
2 feet per day (net)
5 feet per week (net)
Each year Avista files documentation with FERC confirming compliance
with flow and impoundment level conditions. The facility is in compliance
with resource agency recommendations for flows, as outlined in the
Settlement Agreement and annual reports (Refer to Attachment A, 2008
annual report and FERC Order approving annual report and implementation
plans).
----
YES = Pass,
go to B
NO = Go to
A3
YES = Pass,
go to B
2175.0
2168.0
5,000 cfs
NO =
Fail
----
6
a letter from the relevant Resource
Agency confirming that demonstration,
that the flow conditions at the Facility
are appropriately protective of fish,
wildlife, and water quality?
B. Water Quality
PASS
FAIL
Applicant Answer
1) Is the Facility either:
a) In Compliance with all conditions
issued pursuant to a Clean Water Act
Section 401 water quality certification
issued for the Facility after December
31, 1986? Or
b) In Compliance with the quantitative
water quality standards established by
the state that support designated uses
pursuant to the federal Clean Water act
in the Facility area and in the
downstream reach?
YES = Go
to B2
NO =
Fail
YES - a) Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification was
received from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) on
August 20, 1999 and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) on April 27, 1999 (see Attachment B-1). IDEQ and MDEQ were
parties to the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement and both certifications
reference specific appendices of the Settlement Agreement that were
designed to protect, maintain, and enhance various natural resources and
environmental values affected by the hydroelectric facilities including water
quality and beneficial uses of the waters of the Clark Fork River. Both
IDEQ and MDEQ determined that continued operation of the Project in
accordance with the conditions listed below would not result in violation of
water quality standards or beneficial uses (Attachment B-1).
FERC issued the new license on February 23, 2000 with an effective date of
March 1, 2001 (See Attachment 1). These Clean Water Act (CWA) 401
certifications became Appendix A of the New License Order. Articles 409
through 413 address water quality issues at the project and correlate to
Appendices F1 through F5 of the Settlement Agreement (SA) (Attachment
2). The 401s also include 13 other PM&E measures and plans that pertain to
fishery, wildlife and botanical resources; and erosion and project operations.
The license articles that deal specifically with water quality are briefly
described below:
Article 409 – Support Tri-State Implementation Council Water Quality
Monitoring Program (Appendix F1 of SA).
Article 410 – Monitoring of Noxon Reservoir Stratification and
Mobilization of Sediment Nutrients/Metals (Appendix F2 of SA).
Article 411 – Aquatic Tissue Analysis (Appendix F3 of SA).
Article 412 – Water Quality Protection and Monitoring Plan for
Maintenance, Construction and Emergency Activities (Appendix F4 of SA).
7
Article 413 – Dissolved Gas Supersaturation Control, Mitigation, and
Monitoring (Appendix F5 of SA).
Compliance with conditions of the 401 Certification and associated
License Articles include:
Article 409 – The Licensee has funded this program for over 10 years. The
Tri-State Water Quality Council Monitoring Program conducts the water
quality monitoring for the Project. The results of data collected from 1984
to 2007 indicated overall that water quality with respect to nutrients and
attached algae showed no trends, or improving trends in the Clark ForkPend Oreille Watershed (TSWQC, 1984-2007). Monitoring during the
2007 calendar year found that total recoverable and dissolved metals
constituents were generally low at all monitoring locations with median
values often at or below the analytical detection limits. In general, the
frequency of detectable metals parameters (primarily copper and zinc) in the
lower Clark Fork River showed a decreasing spatial trend from Thompson
Falls Dam to below Cabinet Gorge Dam (TSWQC, 2007).
Article 410 – The purpose of this monitoring effort is to collect additional
data concerning the potential for nutrients or metals deposited in Noxon
Reservoir sediments to remobilize back into the water column during
periods of reservoir stratification. Conclusions of monitoring results
indicated that the potential for widespread mobilization of nutrients or
metals from reservoir sediments appeared to be low, and that metals
mobilization from reservoir sediments did not appear to be an issue of
concern. Due to these conclusions, it was determined that future monitoring
was not necessary (Land & Water Consulting, Inc. 2002).
Article 411 – WRTAC had determined that tissue analysis was not
warranted; however, the PM&E retains a commitment from Avista to fund
tissue analysis should public health or other concerns arise in the future.
Article 412 – The Plan was submitted to FERC on April 12, 2002 (see
Attachment B-2). FERC approved the Plan via order issued December 10,
2002 (Attachment B-3). Annual meetings are held with Avista staff to
review and coordinate upcoming activities.
8
Article 413 - The Clark Fork Settlement Agreement required development
of a Final Gas Supersaturation Control Program (GSCP) for the Clark Fork
Project. This plan was approved by Idaho DEQ and the USFWS and
submitted to FERC on July 6, 2004 (Attachment B-4), as a condition of the
project license. FERC approved the plan on January 11, 2005 (Attachment
B-5). The plan outlines activities that will reduce production of excess
TDG at the Cabinet Gorge Dam in Idaho. With the establishment of the
Settlement Agreement, operations at Noxon Dam upstream of Cabinet
Gorge in Montana were altered so that there is little to no elevated TDG
production from the Noxon facility. Increases in flows through the Cabinet
Gorge powerhouse and the change in spill gate operations are examples of
efforts that “reduce, offset, or otherwise mitigate the increase in TDG due to
spill at the Cabinet Gorge Dam” as required by the GSCP (2004). The 2004
GSCP also proposed a bypass tunnel that will reduce TDG production at
Cabinet Gorge Dam, however, this plan is being revised because the tunnels
alternative that was part of the GSCP is not feasible. The Licensee is
currently developing an addendum to the plan to help meet current
standards (Attachment B-6).
The Licensee has been in compliance with funding and implementing the
Settlement Agreement related to water quality and associated PM&E
measures and programs as noted in their annual reports (see Attachment B-6
for most current annual reports and implementation plans related to License
Articles 409 through 413). Attachment 3 includes the FERC’s order
approving the latest annual report and plans.
2) Is the Facility area or the
downstream reach currently
identified by the state as not
meeting water quality standards
(including narrative and numeric
criteria and designated uses)
pursuant to Section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act?
YES = Go
to B3
NO =
Fail
YES - The Clark Fork River from the Idaho/Montana State line to Cabinet
Gorge Dam (0.55 miles) is on the State of Idaho’s 303(d) list of impaired
waters for cadmium, copper, zinc and dissolved gas supersaturation (See
Attachment B-7).
The Clark Fork River is also on the State of Montana’s 303(d) list of
impaired waters for the 2006 303(d) list because cold-water fishery and
aquatic life beneficial uses are partially supported due to thermal
modifications, flow alteration, and other habitat alterations likely caused by
dam construction and flow regulation/modification. Total dissolved gas
supersaturation exceeds standards during high flow/spill events mainly
caused by the Thompson Falls Dam located upstream. Therefore, total
9
3) If the answer to question B.2 is yes,
has there been a determination that the
Facility is not a cause of that violation?
YES =
Pass
NO =
Fail
dissolved gas was added as a cause of impairment on the 2006 303(d) list. It
should be noted that MCA 75-5-306 (“Conditions resulting from the
reasonable operation of dams at July 1, 1971 are 'natural.”) may apply and
the above-listed impairments may be considered “natural” upon further
evaluation. This segment will be reassessed following completion of the
large river protocols. (see Attachment B-8)
YES - Activities that have occurred upstream in the headwaters of the Clark
Fork River include residential development, mining, and agriculture have an
impact on the water quality of the river as it passes through the project
(FERC FEIS 2000) (see Attachment B-9). Montana DEQ also attributes
TDG issue to impacts from Thompson Falls Dam located upstream
(Attachment B-8). Both Idaho and Montana recognize the issue of historic
mining in the watershed and its downstream effects (Attachments B-8 and
B-9).
C. Fish Passage and Protection
PASS
FAIL
Applicant Answer
1) Is the Facility in Compliance with
Mandatory Fish Passage
Prescriptions for upstream and
downstream passage of anadromous
and catadromous fish issued by
Resource Agencies after December
31, 1986?
YES = Go
to C5
N/A = Go
to C2
NO =
Fail
YES - By letter filed May 3, 1999, the U.S. Department of Interior
(Interior) submitted its Section 18 fishway prescriptions for the Clark Fork
Project which are included as Appendix C of FERC License (Attachment C1). Anadromous and catadromous fish do not occur in the Clark Fork River
(a tributary of the Pend Oreille River) and did not occur historically in the
Project area. Prior to construction of Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia
River, the lower section of the Pend Oreille River, below Box Canyon Dam,
was reported to have supported anadromous runs of Chinook salmon.
However, anadromous fish were restricted to the lower reaches of the Pend
Oreille River due to natural fish barriers at Z Canyon (RM 18) located in
Washington State near the Canadian border and over 270 river miles
downstream from the Cabinet Gorge Dam.
Since no anadromous of catadromous fish occur in the project area, the
mandatory fish passage prescriptions are related to riverine or resident fish.
These fish passage prescriptions are also included in the Clark Fork
Settlement Agreement (Attachment 2). The fish passage prescriptions are
still valid and Avista has developed and implemented a fish passage
program in accordance with the prescriptions, terms of the Clark Fork
Settlement Agreement and the Native Salmonid Restoration Plan.
Following issuance of the Clark Fork River Project FERC License, Avista
10
provided upstream fish passage via trap and haul techniques. These
include electrofishing, trapping, and hook-and-line methods below Noxon
Rapids and Cabinet Gorge dams and the transport of those fish upstream to
appropriate locations based on genetic analysis and assignment to a specific
region. Genetic testing includes bull trout and more recently Westslope
Cutthroat Trout. In addition to genetic analysis, a number of bull trout, and
other fish, captured downstream of Cabinet Gorge Dam, have been
surgically implanted with radio transmitters, prior to transport, to monitor
movement patterns.
Currently the existing fish ladder at the IDFG Cabinet Gorge Fish Hatchery,
located below Cabinet Gorge Dam, has been utilized as a capture facility for
adult bull trout as well as other fish. A number of other fish collection
facilities have been reviewed and developed over the years, but were
ineffective at capturing bull trout.
An expert fish passage panel was formed in 2008 to review past fish
passage activities and recommend future upstream fish passage measures at
the Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids dams. The report was developed to
assist the Clark Fork Management Committee and its subcommittees in
future decisions regarding upstream fish passage development at Cabinet
Gorge and Noxon Rapids dams. The expert fish passage panel findings and
recommendations final report was completed in March 2009 and filed with
FERC on April 14, 2009. In general, recommendations of the Panel for
both the Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids dams included reviews of
existing capture and transport programs to determine their level of success,
determine whether the existing program can be improved, and proceed with
pre-design of permanent production fishways while maximizing the
existing trap and haul program.
For downstream passage, traps are installed in tributaries of Cabinet Gorge
and Noxon Rapids reservoirs to capture downstream migrating fish,
especially juvenile bull trout. Juvenile bull trout are transported to
appropriate release locations in the Clark Fork River downstream of
Cabinet Gorge Dam.
All fish, including bull trout, that were radio tagged and released in the
lower Clark Fork River have been Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT)
11
tagged. These PIT-tagged fish are tracked in a database used to evaluate
fish movement, survival and other life history aspects and to make informed
decisions on both juvenile and adult bull trout transport. The database also
provides important information for upstream fish passage studies.
Other aspects required under the Mandatory Fish Passage Prescription
include exotic fish control and monitoring fish populations which have been
implemented and reported in annual reports.
Over the years Avista has diligently pursued fish passage at the Clark Fork
Project and currently provides upstream and downstream fish passage via
trap and haul methods. They are continuing to study to improve passage
options at the Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids dams and are currently
pursuing a formal agreement with the USFWS regarding future fish passage
activities. The Project is in compliance with the Mandatory Fish Passage
Prescriptions for upstream and downstream passage (refer to Attachment C2).
----
2) Are there historic records of
anadromous and/or catadromous
fish movement through the Facility
area, but anadromous and/or
catadromous fish do not presently
move through the Facility area
(e.g., because passage is blocked at
a downstream dam or the fish run is
extinct)?
YES = Go
to C2a
NO = Go to
C3
a) If the fish are extinct or
extirpated from the Facility area or
downstream reach, has the
Applicant demonstrated that the
extinction or extirpation was not
due in whole or part to the Facility?
YES = Go
to C2b
N/A = Go
to C2b
NO =
Fail
b) If a Resource Agency
Recommended adoption of
upstream and/or downstream fish
YES = Go
to C5
N/A = Go
NO =
Fail
12
passage measures at a specific
future date, or when a triggering
event occurs (such as completion of
passage through a downstream
obstruction or the completion of a
specified process), has the Facility
owner/operator made a legally
enforceable commitment to provide
such passage?
3) If, since December 31, 1986:
a) Resource Agencies have had the
opportunity to issue, and considered
issuing, a Mandatory Fish Passage
Prescription for upstream and/or
downstream passage of anadromous
or catadromous fish (including
delayed installation as described in
C2a above), and
to C3
NO = Go to
C5
N/A = Go
to C4
YES =
Fail
----
b) The Resource Agencies declined
to issue a Mandatory Fish Passage
Prescription,
c) Was a reason for the Resource
Agencies’ declining to issue a
Mandatory Fish Passage Prescription
one of the following:
(1) the technological infeasibility of
passage, (2) the absence of habitat
upstream of the Facility due at least
in part to inundation by the Facility
impoundment, or (3) the anadromous
or catadromous fish are no longer
present in the Facility area and/or
downstream reach due in whole or part
to the presence of the Facility?
13
YES = Go
to C5
NO =
Fail
-----
5) Is the Facility in Compliance with
Mandatory Fish Passage Prescriptions
for upstream and/or downstream
passage of Riverine fish?
YES = Go
to C6
N/A = Go
to C6
NO =
Fail
YES - Refer to C.1 above.
6) Is the Facility in Compliance with
Resource Agency Recommendations
for Riverine, anadromous and
catadromous fish entrainment
protection, such as
tailrace barriers?
YES = Pass,
go to D
N/A = Pass,
go to D
NO =
Fail
N/A
4) If C3 was not applicable:
a) Are upstream and downstream fish
passage survival rates for anadromous
and catadromous fish at the dam each
documented at greater than 95% over
80% of the run using a generally
accepted monitoring methodology?
Or
b) If the Facility is unable to meet the
fish passage standards in 4.a., has the
Applicant demonstrated, and obtained
a letter from the US Fish and Wildlife
Service or National Marine Fisheries
Service confirming that demonstration,
that the upstream and downstream fish
passage measures (if any) at the
Facility are appropriately protective of
the fishery resource?
D. Watershed Protection
PASS
FAIL
Applicant Answer
1 ) Is there a buffer zone dedicated for
conservation purposes (to protect fish
and wildlife habitat, water quality,
YES = Pass,
go to E and
receive 3
NO =
go to
D2
YES – The Project has a buffer zone for dedicated conservation purposes as
outlined in its Land Use Management Plan (Attachment D-1).
Approximately 57% of the project area is designated as either Conservation
14
aesthetics and/or low impact
recreation) extending 200 feet from the
high water mark in an average water
year around 50 - 100% of the
impoundment, and for all of the
undeveloped shoreline?
1 or Conservation 2 lands and another 7% is in low-impact recreation for a
total of 64% of the project area. See Table 2 on Page 28 of the Land Use
Management Plan for a breakdown of the land use categories within the
project area. The Land Use Category Maps are located in Appendix B of
the Land Use Management Plan.
extra years
of
certification
2 ) Has the facility owner/operator
established an approved watershed
enhancement fund that: 1) could
achieve within the project’s watershed
the ecological and recreational
equivalent of land protection in D.1.,
and 2) has the agreement of
appropriate stakeholders and state and
federal resource agencies?
YES = Pass,
go to E and
receive 3
extra years
of certification
NO =
go to
D3
----
3 ) Has the facility owner/operator
established through a settlement
agreement with appropriate
stakeholders and that has state and
federal resource agencies agreement an
appropriate shoreland buffer or
equivalent watershed land protection
plan for conservation purposes (to
protect fish and wildlife habitat, water
quality, aesthetics and/or low impact
recreation).
YES = Pass,
go to E
NO =
go to
D4
----
4 ) Is the facility in compliance with
both state and federal resource
agencies recommendations in a license
approved shoreland management plan
regarding protection, mitigation or
enhancement of shorelands
surrounding the project.
YES = Pass,
go to E
No =
Fail
----
15
E. Threatened and Endangered
Species Protection
PASS
1) Are threatened or endangered species
listed under state or federal endangered
Species Acts present in the Facility
area and/or downstream reach?
YES =
Go to E2
NO = Pass,
go to F
FAIL
Applicant Answer
YES - Federally listed species that were known to occur in the project area,
when the Project was re-licensed, included the grizzly bear (threatened),
gray wolf (endangered), bull trout (threatened), and water howellia, a
threatened aquatic plant. The Canada lynx, a previous proposed species,
was listed as threatened in March 2000.
The bald eagle (threatened) and peregrine falcon (endangered) were delisted
in August 2007 and August 1999, respectively. Even though the bald eagle
and peregrine falcon were delisted, bald eagles are still protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
And peregrine falcon are still protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act.
The gray wolf was downsized from endangered to threatened in early 2003,
and then delisted May 4, 2009.
The Biological Assessment (BA) for the Clark Fork Project concluded that
the continued operation of the project would not likely adversely affect
grizzly bear, gray wolf, water howellia, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, or the
continued existence of the Canada lynx.
Interior’s Biological opinion concluded that the project would likely
adversely affect bull trout (see Section E.3 below).
2) If a recovery plan has been adopted for
the threatened or endangered species
pursuant to Section 4(f) of the
endangered Species Act or similar state
provision, is the Facility in Compliance
with all recommendations in the plan
relevant to the Facility?
YES =
Go to E3
N/A = Go
to E3
No =
Fail
YES – The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has adopted the
following recovery plans for existing listed species that may be present in
the vicinity of the Clark Fork Project:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan.
Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Area. USFWS, Missoula MT.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Draft Recovery Plan for Bull
Trout, Columbia River/Klamath. Chapter 3. Clark Fork River. Clark
Fork Recovery Unit. USFWS, Portland OR.
16
The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, and more specifically the Cabinet-Yaak
Recovery Area, is located along the northern shoreline of the Clark Fork
Project. The Area extends north to the Canadian border and includes
approximately 2,600 square miles. A small population of grizzlies has been
documented in this recovery zone and although grizzly bears are
periodically sighted along the hillsides and upper elevation areas
surrounding the projects, they have rarely been reported in the lowlands and
more developed areas along the reservoirs. No changes to the projects are
proposed that would alter or adversely impact available grizzly bear habitats
(FERC Final EIS, 2000). Operations of the Clark Fork Project are consistent
with the recovery plan (Attachment E-1, Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan).
The USFWS completed a draft recovery plan for bull trout in 2002, that
included the Lower Clark Fork River. The Service intends to finalize the
plan soon with cooperation from federal, state and tribal partners, and with
public input. The Clark Fork License and Settlement Agreement, including
the Native Salmonid Restoration Plan, is consistent with, and in compliance
with, the goals and objectives of the draft recover plan for bull trout
(Attachment E-2, Bull Trout recovery plan).
3) If the Facility has received authority to
incidentally take a listed species
through: (i) Having a relevant agency
complete consultation pursuant to ESA
Section 7 resulting in a biological
opinion, a habitat recovery plan, and/or
(if needed) an incidental Take
statement; (ii) Obtaining an incidental
Take permit pursuant to ESA Section
10; or (iii) For species listed by a state
and not by the federal government,
obtaining authority pursuant to similar
state procedures; is the Facility in
Compliance with conditions pursuant
to that authority?
YES =
Go to E4
N/A = Go
to E5
No =
Fail
The USFWS has not completed a Recovery Plan for the Canada Lynx.
They are still is the process of outlining the scope of the recovery efforts for
this species.
YES – The facility received authority to incidentally take a listed species.
The FERC completed consultation pursuant to ESA Section 7 resulting in a
biological opinion which included an incidental take statement.
By letter dated August 5, 1999 (Attachment E-3), the Department of
Interior, USFWS (Interior), filed its biological opinion concurring that the
project would likely adversely affect bull trout, but concluded that the
project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the Columbia
River distinct population segment of bull trout. Interior included an
incidental take statement in its biological opinion. The incidental take
statement included reasonable and prudent measures and terms and
conditions to minimize incidental take as part of the biological opinion.
The Clark Fork Project Final EIS concluded that the measures specified in
the incidental take statement are consistent with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
17
Interior’s incidental take statement contains 9 reasonable and prudent
measures, which are also listed in the License, and 26 terms and conditions
it believes necessary to implement the measures. The 26 terms and
conditions are addressed in an annual Threatened and Endangered Species
Plan and Annual Report, prepared after consultation with the Management
Committee. The 2008 annual report is included as Attachment E-4 and
demonstrates Avista’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the
incidental take statement filed by Interior on August 23, 1999, and attached
as Appendix D of the new License (issued via FERC Order February 23,
2000) for the Clark Fork Project.
4) If a biological opinion applicable to the
Facility for the threatened or
endangered species has been issued,
can the Applicant demonstrate that: a)
The biological opinion was
accompanied by a FERC license or
exemption or a habitat conservation
plan? Or
b) The biological opinion was issued
pursuant to or consistent with a
recovery plan for the endangered or
threatened species? Or
c) There is no recovery plan for the
threatened or endangered species under
active development by the relevant
Resource Agency? Or
d) The recovery plan under active
development will have no material
effect on the Facility’s operations?
YES = Pass,
go to F
NO =
Fail
YES – The Biological Opinion (Attachment E-3) was accompanied by a
FERC License (see Attachment 1, FERC Order issuing License, page 1214).
5) If E.2. and E.3. are not applicable, has
the Applicant demonstrated that the
Facility and Facility operations do not
negatively affect listed species?
YES =
Pass, go
to F
NO =
Fail
---
18
F. Cultural Resource Protection
PASS
FAIL
Applicant Answer
1) If FERC-regulated, is the Facility in
Compliance with all requirements
regarding Cultural Resource
protection, mitigation or enhancement
included in the FERC license or
exemption?
YES =
Pass, go
to G
N/A =
Go to F2
NO =
Fail
YES - The Licensee and cultural resource agencies that make up the
Cultural Resources Management Group (CRMG) signed a Programmatic
Agreement (PA) that was submitted to FERC as part of the Settlement
Agreement/Final License Application on February 17, 1999 (see
Attachment F-1). The terms of the PA direct the Licensee to appropriately
address and treat all historic properties identified within the project area
through a comprehensive plan called the Clark Fork Heritage Resource
Program, which avoids negative impacts and preserves historic properties
in-place. The Heritage Resources Treatment Plan guides the process to
protect, enhance and if necessary, treat impacts to eligible historic
properties. All members of the CRMG have a long-term commitment to the
adaptive management of these resources over the term of the new license.
FERC issued the new license on February 23, 2000 with an effective date of
March 1, 2001. Article 427 of the New License (See Attachment 1) directs
the Licensee to fund and implement the Programmatic Agreement among
the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of
the Flathead Reservation, Couer d’Alene Tribe, Kalispel Tribe, FERC,
Forest Service, Avista Corporation, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, Idaho State Historic Preservation Office, and Montana State
Historic Preservation Office for the Clark Fork Heritage Resource Program
executed on December 30, 1998 (Appendix R of the Settlement
Agreement).
A FERC order on October 30, 2000 (See Attachment F-2), modified the
language of Article 427 to more closely match the verbiage of the PA in
Appendix R of the Settlement Agreement. The order revised Article 427 to
read:
The Licensee shall fund and implement the Clark Fork Heritage
Resource Program and the Clark Fork Heritage Resources
Management Program, as agreed to in the Programmatic
Agreement among the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Couer
d’Alene Tribe, Kalispel Tribe, FERC, Forest Service, Avista
Corporation, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Idaho
State Historic Preservation Office, and Montana State Historic
19
Preservation Office for the Clark Fork Heritage Resource
Program executed on December 30, 1998 (Appendix R of the
Settlement Agreement).
All PM&Es are coordinated and approved by the CRMG to ensure
compliance with the Programmatic Agreement. In addition, the CRMG
reviews all annual implementation plans as part of the overall annual
approval process. Those projects, which are of concern to the CRMG, are
monitored throughout their implementation. The CRMG also monitors all
ground-disturbing activities that may impact cultural or historic resources.
2) If not FERC-regulated, does the
facility owner/operator have in place a
plan for the protection, mitigation or
enhancement of impacts to Cultural
Resources approved by the relevant
state or federal agency or Native
American Tribe, or a letter from a
senior officer of the relevant agency or
Tribe that no plan is needed because
Cultural Resources are not negatively
affected by the Facility?
YES = Pass,
go to G
NO =
Fail
Over the years Avista has funded and diligently implemented the
Programmatic Agreement in accordance with the terms of the Clark Fork
Settlement Agreement and the New License. Annual reports have been
prepared each year to show what implementation measures have occurred
over the last year and the proposed measures to take place for the following
year (see Attachment F-3 for 2009 implementation plans). The Project is in
compliance with the Programmatic Agreement and Article 427 of the New
License. See Attachment 3 for FERC’s order approving the latest annual
report.
----
20
G. Recreation
PASS
FAIL
Applicant Answer
1) If FERC-regulated, is the Facility in
Compliance with the recreational
access, accommodation (including
recreational flow releases) and
facilities conditions in its FERC license
or exemption?
YES = Go
to G3
N/A = Go
to G2
NO =
Fail
YES - A Recreation Resource Management Plan was developed as part of
the Settlement Agreement and submitted to FERC as part of the Final
License Application on February 17, 1999 (see Attachment G-1). One of the
goals of the plan is to provide adequate and safe public access to waterbased recreation within the project area.
FERC issued the new license on February 23, 2000 with an effective date of
March 1, 2001. Article 415 of the New License (see Attachment 1) directs
the Licensee to fund and implement, in consultation with the Management
Committee, the Recreation Resources Management Plan (License
Application Volume IV.C), in accordance with the Settlement Agreement
and Appendix H thereof, to maintain and manage appropriate recreational
facilities at the project and to develop new recreational facilities in the
vicinity of the project to effectively meet recreation demand during the term
of the new license. In the Annual Report required by Article 402, the
Licensee shall include the annual implementation plan for this PM&E
measure. Also, Standard License Article 18 directs the Licensee to allow
the public free access to project waters and adjacent lands.
2) If not FERC-regulated, does the
Facility provide recreational access,
accommodation (including recreational
flow releases) and facilities, as
Recommended by Resource Agencies
or other agencies responsible for
recreation?
3) Does the Facility allow access to the
reservoir and downstream reaches
without fees or charges?
YES = Go
to G3
NO =
Fail
YES = Pass,
go to H
NO =
Fail
The Licensee has been diligently implementing the Recreation Resource
Management Plan as demonstrated in the annual reports and
implementation plans (refer to Attachment G-2 for most recent annual
report and plan). There have been no issues noted and the Licensee is in
compliance with Article 415 of the New License. See Attachment 3 for
FERC’s order approving the latest annual report.
----
----
21
H. Facilities Recommended for
Removal
1) Is there a Resource Agency
Recommendation for removal of the
dam associated with the Facility?
PASS
FAIL
Applicant Answer
NO =
Pass,
Facility
is Low
Impact
YES =
Fail
NO – See Attachment H-1
22