Okanogan Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County, WA; Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment, 28506-28621 [2011-11757]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28506-28621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11757]



[[Page 28505]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 95

May 17, 2011

Part II





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Energy Regulatory Commission



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Okanogan Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County, WA; Notice 
of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / 
Notices

[[Page 28506]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 12569-001]


Okanogan Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County, WA; 
Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's) 
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380 (Order No. 
486, 52 Federal Register [FR] 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has 
reviewed Okanogan Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County's 
(Okanogan PUD) application for license for the Enloe Hydroelectric 
Project (FERC Project No. 12569), located on the Similkameen River near 
the city of Oroville in Okanogan County, Washington. Part of the 
project would occupy a total of 35.47 acres of federal lands 
administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
    Staff prepared this draft environmental assessment (EA), which 
analyzes the potential environmental effects of relicensing the 
project, and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate 
environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal 
action that would significantly affect the quality of the human 
environment.
    A copy of the draft EA is available for review at the Commission in 
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 
at https://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket 
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to 
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at 
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 
202-502-8659.
    You may also register online at https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and 
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, 
contact FERC Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this 
notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web 
site https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit 
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, 
using the eComment system at https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the 
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online 
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, 
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and 
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    For further information, contact Kim Nguyen by telephone at (202) 
502-6105, or by e-mail at kim.nguyen@ferc.gov.

    Dated: May 9, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License

Enloe Hydroelectric Project--FERC Project No. 12569--Washington

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, 
Division of Hydropower Licensing, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426

[May 2011]

Table of Contents

 
 
 
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction
    1.1 Application
    1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power
        1.2.1 Purpose of Action
        1.2.2 Need for Power
    1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
        1.3.1 Federal Power Act
            1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions
            1.3.1.2 Section 4(e) Conditions
            1.3.1.3 Section 10(j) Recommendations
        1.3.2 Clean Water Act
        1.3.3 Endangered Species Act
        1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act
        1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act
        1.3.6 Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act
        1.3.7 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
    1.4 Public Review and Consultation
        1.4.1 Scoping
        1.4.2 Interventions
        1.4.3 Comments on the License Application
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives
    2.1 No-Action Alternative
    2.2 Applicant's Proposal
        2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities
        2.2.2 Project Safety
        2.2.3 Proposed Project Operation
        2.2.4 Proposed Environmental Measures
        2.2.5 Modifications to Applicant's Proposal--Mandatory
         Conditions
    2.3 Staff Alternative
    2.4 Staff Alternative With Mandatory Conditions
    2.5 Removal of Existing Hydroelectric Facilities Including Enloe Dam
3.0 Environmental Analysis
    3.1 General Description of the River Basin
    3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis

[[Page 28507]]

 
        3.2.1 Geographic Scope
        3.2.2 Temporal Scope
    3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives
        3.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources
            3.3.1.1 Affected Environment
            3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects
        3.3.2 Water Quantity and Quality
            3.3.2.1 Affected Environment
            3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects
            3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects
        3.3.3 Aquatic Resources
            3.3.3.1 Affected Environment
            3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects
            3.3.3.3 Cumulative Effects
        3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources
            3.3.4.1 Affected Environment
            3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects
        3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
            3.3.5.1 Affected Environment
            3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects
        3.3.6 Recreation and Land Use
            3.3.6.1 Affected Environment
            3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects
        3.3.7 Aesthetic Resources
            3.3.7.1 Affected Environment
            3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects
        3.3.8 Cultural Resources
            3.3.8.1 Affected Environment
            3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects
        3.3.9 Socioeconomics
            3.3.9.1 Affected Environment
            3.3.9.2 Environmental Effects
    3.4 No-Action Alternative
4.0 Developmental Analysis
    4.1 Power and Economic Benefits of the Project
    4.2 Comparison of Alternatives
        4.2.1 No-Action Alternative
        4.2.2 Okanogan PUD's Proposal
        4.2.3 Staff Alternative
    4.3 Cost of Environmental Measures
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
    5.1 Comparison of Alternatives
    5.2 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative
    5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
    5.4 Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations
    5.5 Consistency With Comprehensive Plans
6.0 Finding of No Significant Impact
7.0 Literature Cited
8.0 List of Preparers
 

List of Figures

 
 
 
Figure 1. Location of the Enloe Hydroelectric Project
Figure 2. Daily maximum temperatures at the 2006 monitoring locations
Figure 3. 7-DADMax temperatures in the lower end of the Enloe reservoir
 (RM 9.1) and at the upper end of the reservoir (RM 10.3)
Figure 4. Plunge pool below Similkameen Falls
Figure 5. Recreation facilities in the Enloe Project area
Figure 6. Land ownership in the Enloe Project area
Figure 7. Roads, gates, and spurs in the project area
Figure 8. Location of proposed fencing downstream of Enloe dam
Figure 9. Enloe Project recreation site schematic
Figure 10. Enloe Project area KOPs
Figure 11. KOP 1, Loomis-Oroville Road
Figure 12. KOP 2, overlook from Loomis-Oroville Road approximately 3
 miles north of Oroville
Figure 13. KOP 3, rocks below Enloe dam on the Similkameen River
Figure 14. KOP 4, overlook near Enloe dam
Figure 15. KOP 5, overlook east of Enloe dam, looking south
Figure 16. KOP 6, view from proposed interpretive panel 1,
 looking north
Figure 17. KOP 7, view from interpretive panel 2, looking north
 

List of Tables

 
 
 
Table 1. Major Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for the Enloe
 Hydroelectric Project
Table 2. Summary of Similkameen River Flows at the USGS Nighthawk Gage
 No. 12442500, 1929-2005

[[Page 28508]]

 
Table 3. Similkameen River Water Rights
Table 4. Enloe Reservoir Characteristics at Existing and Proposed
 Operations and Spills
Table 5. Summary of Total Dissolved Gas Measurements Near Enloe Dam From
 May 26-30, 2006
Table 6. Summary of Preliminary Enloe Dam Sediment Trace Metals Results
Table 7. Summary of Preliminary Enloe Dam Sediment Elutriate Results
Table 8. Simulated Average Annual Tailrace Flow for Three Normal and
 Three Wet Water Years
Table 9. Native and Non-Native Fishes in the Similkameen River Based on
 Snorkel Surveys
Table 10. Numbers and Percent Composition of Native and Non-Native
 Fishes in the River Downstream of Enloe Dam Based on Snorkel Surveys
Table 11. Numbers and Percent Composition of Native and Non-Native
 Fishes in the Reservoir Upstream of Enloe Dam
Table 12. Aquatic Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Found in the
 Similkameen River above Enloe Reservoir
Table 13. Proposed Ramping Rates
Table 14. Estimate of User Days by Month for the Project Area
Table 15. Estimate of User Days by Type of Day for the Project Area
Table 17. Land Ownership Within the Proposed Enloe Project Boundary
Table 18. Archaeological and Historic Resources Within or Directly
 Adjacent to the Enloe Project Boundary APE
Table 19. Population Characteristics of the City of Oroville, Okanogan
 County, and Washington
Table 20. Parameters for the Economic Analysis of the Enloe
 Hydroelectric Project
Table 21. Summary of Annual Cost of Alternative Power and Annual Project
 Cost for the Alternatives for the Enloe Hydroelectric Project
Table 22. Cost of Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
 Considered in Assessing the Environmental Effects of Constructing and
 Operating the Proposed Enloe Hydroelectric Project
Table 23. Summary of Key Differences in the Potential Effects of
 Okanogan PUD's Proposal and the Staff Alternative
Table 24. Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations for the Enloe
 Hydroelectric Project
 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

[micro]g microgram
AHS Archaeological and Historical Services
APE area of potential effect
BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management
BMP best management practice
[deg]C degrees Celsius
cfs cubic feet per second
Colville Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
CSMP Construction Sediment Management Program
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CRITFC Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission
CRWG Cultural Resources Working Group
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
DO dissolved oxygen
EA environmental assessment
EFH essential fish habitat
Enloe Project or project Enloe Hydroelectric Project
ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
ESA Endangered Species Act
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPA Federal Power Act
FTE full-time equivalent
FWS U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
g the acceleration due to gravity (32.2 feet per second\2\)
GWh gigawatt-hour
HAER Historic American Engineering Record
HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan
Interior U.S. Department of the Interior
kg kilogram
kV kilovolt
KOP key observation point
L liter
mg milligram
mm millimeter
Ministry of Environment British Columbia Ministry of Environment
msl mean sea level
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
National Register National Register of Historic Places
NERC North American Electric Reliability Council
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
Okanogan PUD Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County
Okanogan Shoreline Program Okanogan County's Shoreline Master 
Program
OTID Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District
PA Programmatic Agreement
Park Service National Park Service
Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
RM river mile
SCORP State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
SD1 Scoping Document 1
SD2 Scoping Document 2
Scenic Trail Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail
State Parks Commission Washington State Parks and Recreation 
Commission
TCP traditional cultural property
TDG total dissolved gas
TMDL total maximum daily load
UCR Upper Columbia River
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Vegetation Plan Vegetation Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
Washington DFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources
Washington DOE Washington Department of Ecology
Washington PC Washington Parks Commission
Washington RCO Washington Recreation and Conservation Office
Washington SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
Water Trail Committee Greater Columbia Water Trail Steering 
Committee
WSMA Washington State's Shoreline Management Act of 1971

Executive Summary

Proposed Action

    On August 22, 2008, the Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan 
County, Washington (Okanogan PUD) filed an application seeking a 
license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or 
FERC) for the proposed 9.0-megawatt (MW) Enloe Hydroelectric Project 
(Enloe Project or project) to be located on the Similkameen River near 
Oroville in Okanogan County, Washington. The project would occupy 35.47 
acres of federal lands administered by U.S. Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM).

Project Description and Proposed Facilities

    The Enloe dam and development was originally constructed for 
hydroelectric generation between 1919 and 1923. The project operated 
from 1923 to 1958 when it was decommissioned. The original project 
included an intake, penstock, and powerhouse located 850 feet 
downstream of the dam on the west bank of the Similkameen River. On 
September 13, 1996, the Commission issued an order to Okanogan PUD to 
redevelop the Enloe Project using the existing dam and rehabilitating 
the original intake, penstock, and powerhouse. However, on February 23, 
2000, that order was rescinded.
    Okanogan PUD proposes again to redevelop the Enloe Project by using 
the existing concrete gravity arch dam impounding a 76.6-acre 
reservoir, and constructing a new penstock intake structure and above-
ground steel penstocks carrying flows from the intake to the new 
powerhouse located 370 feet downstream of the dam on the east bank of 
the Similkameen River. The existing

[[Page 28509]]

dam crest elevation of 1,044.3 feet would be increased by installing 
new 5-foot-high crest gates which would increase the reservoir to 
1,049.3 feet elevation and the surface area to 88.3 acres. The 
powerhouse would contain two vertical Kaplan turbine/generator units 
with a total installed capacity of 9.0 MW. The project would also 
include a substation adjacent to the powerhouse, and a 100-foot-long, 
13.2-kilovolt primary transmission line connecting the substation to an 
existing distribution line. The project would also include about 1.5 
miles of new and upgraded access roads. The Enloe Project would operate 
automatically in a run-of-river mode, with a normal operating water 
level of the reservoir between 1,048.3 and 1,049.3 feet mean sea level.

Proposed Environmental Measures

    Okanogan PUD proposes the following environmental measures to 
protect, mitigate, and enhance water quality, aquatic, terrestrial, 
recreation, aesthetic, and cultural resources during construction and 
operation of the project.
    During construction:
     Implement a Construction Sediment Management Program 
(CSMP), an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), and a Spill Plan;
     Implement a Blasting Plan;
     Employ best management practices (BMPs) including flagging 
and fencing wetland areas;
     Provide biological monitoring;
     Implement a Noxious Weed Control Program;
     Survey disposal sites and control noxious weeds prior to 
spoil disposal;
     Revegetate spoil disposal sites;
     Schedule construction activities in the summer and early 
fall to minimize effects on overwintering birds and bald eagles;
     Conduct pre-disposal site surveys for wildlife and 
schedule vegetation clearing to avoid wildlife conflicts;
     Survey for Ute ladies-tresses prior to, during, and 
postconstruction to identify locations and avoid effects;
     Monitor and avoid known archaeological sites listed in the 
National Register of Historic Places (National Register) during 
construction of project facilities; and
     Develop and implement a Safety During Construction Plan 
and limit public access.
    During project operation:
     For water quality:
    [cir] Design and place the intake structure and channel to minimize 
sediment transport;
    [cir] Place the powerhouse tailrace below Similkameen Falls so that 
it discharges to and circulates water in the plunge pool downstream of 
the falls, preventing stagnation and consequently water quality 
degradation of the pool habitat;
    [cir] Provide aeration in the powerhouse draft tubes to maintain 
dissolved oxygen (DO) levels; and
    [cir] Monitor water quality, including water temperatures, DO, and 
total dissolved gases (TDG) in the tailrace for a five-year period.
     For aquatic resources:
    [cir] Ensure that logs and woody debris can pass over the dam and 
transporting large debris off-site if needed;
    [cir] Place two clusters of boulders in the Similkameen River 
upstream of the reservoir to improve mountain whitefish habitat and 
recreational fisheries;
    [cir] Include trashracks with 1-inch bar spacing on the project 
intake(s) so that smaller fish would be able to pass safely through the 
trashrack and larger fish would be discouraged or prevented from 
passing through the trashracks and turbines;
    [cir] Design and place the tailrace to avoid effects on fish;
    [cir] Install and monitor entrainment and mortality of fish at the 
tailrace barrier nets;
    [cir] Operate run-of-river and implementing agency-recommended 
ramping rates downstream of the project during project start-up and 
shut-down;
    [cir] Improve spawning, rearing, and summer thermal refugia 
downstream of the powerhouse tailrace in an existing side channel;
    [cir] Supplement gravel in the river reach downstream of the 
tailrace to increase the amount of gravel in the river downstream of 
Enloe dam and improve spawning habitat;
    [cir] Develop and implement a biological review process including 
the establishment of a Technical Review Group (TRG) comprising agencies 
and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville); and
    [cir] Develop a fish monitoring database for organizing and storing 
monitoring data related to aquatic resources for all proposed studies.
     For terrestrial resources, design the project transmission 
line to minimize effects on raptors and other birds and implement a 
Vegetation Plan that includes:
    [cir] Returning the abandoned shoreline road to natural conditions;
    [cir] Planting riparian vegetation along the abandoned road and 
along and upstream of the east and west banks of the reservoir;
    [cir] Installing grazing control measures;
    [cir] Monitoring restored areas and planting additional willows if 
needed; and
    [cir] Developing an environmental training program to inform 
employees about sensitive habitats.
     For recreation resources, implement a Recreation 
Management Plan that includes:
    [cir] Installing barricades, fencing, and a stock watering tank as 
part of the Fence Plan;
    [cir] Providing public access downstream of Enloe dam on the east 
bank;
    [cir] Transferring ownership rights of the trestle bridge to 
Okanogan County for the development of a future public, non-motorized, 
recreational use trail;
    [cir] Improving the existing informal boat ramp upstream of Enloe 
dam;
    [cir] Restoring the wooded area on the east bank and conducting 
annual cleanup activities of the wooded area and along the Ditch Road;
    [cir] Developing an interpretive publication, including a map 
illustrating public access and recreation sites;
    [cir] Developing interpretive displays by placing an information 
board near Enloe dam; and interpretive signage near the parking, picnic 
area, and near the access bridge to the abandoned powerhouse;
    [cir] Removing existing trash and conducting annual cleanup;
    [cir] Providing parking, picnic tables, primitive campsites, and a 
vault toilet on the east bank upstream of Enloe dam;
    [cir] Maintaining existing signage, safety cables, and grab ropes 
upstream of the dam;
    [cir] Installing safety and warning signs and a log boom across the 
channel to protect boaters; and
    [cir] Coordinating with BLM and other landowners on how to prevent 
public access to the old powerhouse.
     For aesthetic resources, implement an Aesthetics 
Management Plan that includes:
    [cir] Using visually-compatible colors and building materials for 
facilities along the east bank;
    [cir] Consulting with the Colville and other stakeholders regarding 
restoration;
    [cir] Using non-reflective surfaces where possible during 
construction; and
    [cir] Grading and repairing slopes with native plants following 
removal of buildings.
     For cultural resources, finalize a draft May 2009 Historic 
Properties Management Plan (HPMP) that includes:
    [cir] Soliciting for a new owner of the historic Enloe powerhouse, 
and failing that, demolishing the structure and providing interpretive 
signage using visually-compatible colors and building materials for 
facilities along the east bank;
    [cir] Reviewing and reaching agreement on the HPMP and 
incorporating

[[Page 28510]]

information into a Programmatic Agreement (PA);
    [cir] Monitoring effects of shoreline fluctuation on archaeological 
sites in shoreline areas and mitigating, as needed;
    [cir] Determining if there would be effects on archaeological sites 
around project recreation areas; and
    [cir] Developing an inadvertent discovery plan.
    On October 28, 2010, Okanogan PUD filed additional information 
regarding ongoing consultations with Washington Department of Ecology 
(Washington DOE) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(Washington DFW) for the 401 Water Quality Certification process. In 
this filing, Okanogan and Washington DFW and DOE have developed the 
following understanding with regards to the bypassed reach:
     Providing 30 cubic feet per second (cfs) minimum flows 
from mid-July to mid-September, and 10 cfs rest of the year to the pool 
in the bypassed reach;
     Monitoring DO and water temperature in the bypassed reach;
     Initiating an adaptive management program to enhance DO 
and monitor water temperature in the bypassed reach if water quality 
standards are not met;
     Providing downramping rates in the bypassed reach; and
     Determining means and withdrawal location for minimum 
flows released to the bypassed reach.

Alternatives Considered

    This draft environmental assessment (EA) considers the following 
alternatives: (1) No-action--the project would not be constructed and 
there would be no changes or enhancements at the site; (2) Okanogan 
PUD's proposal--as outlined above; and (3) a staff alternative--
Okanogan PUD's proposal with staff's additions and modifications.
    Under the staff alternative, the project would include Okanogan 
PUD's proposed measures, as outlined above, with the exception of 
placing boulder clusters in the project forebay and entrainment and 
resident fish monitoring. In addition, the staff alternative would 
include: (1) A Spoil Disposal Plan; (2) a water quality monitoring plan 
that includes: Selecting water quality monitoring locations, filing of 
reports at the end of year 5, and conducting additional temperature, 
DO, and TGD monitoring beyond the 5-year period, if needed; (3) 
consultation with the TRG prior to implementation of the Blasting Plan, 
the woody debris plan, the proposed side-channel enhancement plan, the 
proposed gravel supplementation program, and the Spill Plan; (4) 
consultation with Interior and Washington DFW during final design of 
the intake structure and trashracks; (5) a project compliance 
monitoring plan; (6) revision of the Vegetation Plan to include filing 
monitoring reports annually for first 5 years and in year 8 and 
providing the Commission, FWS, BLM, and Washington DFW with these 
reports and filing for Commission approval, any proposals for further 
restoration measures; (7) incorporation of the land occupied by the 
side-channel enhancement and length of the project access road from the 
Loomis-Oroville Road to the powerhouse into the project boundary; (8) 
retention of dead trees along the reservoir and provisions for 10 
artificial perch poles; (9) preparation of an Ute ladies'-tresses 
survey plan after consultation with FWS, BLM, and Washington DFW and an 
additional plan to avoid or minimize adverse effects on the Ute 
ladies'-tresses if they are identified in the project areas; (10) 
consultation with stakeholders on the final Recreation Management Plan; 
(11) a plowing schedule for winter months; (12) a recreation use 
monitoring plan developed in consultation with BLM; (13) a fire 
suppression program; (14) removal of the one small, deteriorated 
building on Okanogan PUD land at the north end of the proposed Enloe 
dam recreation area; (15) consultation with BLM and local emergency 
response agencies on the Safety During Construction Plan; (16) creation 
of a river access point at Miner's Flat; (17) consultation with BLM and 
the Colville to develop details on how the facilities and laydown or 
construction areas would blend into the existing landscape; and (18) a 
revised HPMP to include provisions for: Further consideration of the 
potential effects of capping site 45OK532, a description of the 
proposed side-channel enhancement site, two separate defined APEs that 
delineate the proposed Enloe project and the proposed side-channel 
enhancement site, consultation with the Cultural Resources Working 
Group regarding the resolution of adverse effects on the historic Enloe 
powerhouse, re-evaluating the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation Canal for 
National Register-eligibility, completing determinations of eligibility 
for unidentified cultural resources on BLM lands, periodic review of 
the HPMP, a site monitoring program, cultural interpretative and 
education measures, and revising the APEs to accommodate modifications 
to the project boundary.

Public Involvement and Areas of Concern

    Before filing its license application, Okanogan PUD conducted pre-
filing consultation under the traditional licensing process. The intent 
of the Commission's pre-filing process is to initiate public 
involvement early in the project planning process and encourage 
citizens, governmental entities, tribes, and other interested parties 
to identify and resolve issues prior to an application being formally 
filed with the Commission.
    After the license application was filed, we conducted scoping to 
determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed. On December 
16, 2008, we distributed Scoping Document 1 (SD1) to interested 
parties, soliciting comments, recommendations, and information on the 
project. An environmental site review of the project was held on 
January 15, 2009. Two scoping meetings were held in Oroville, 
Washington, on January 14 and 15, 2009, to receive oral comments on the 
project. Based on discussions during the environmental site review and 
scoping meetings and written comments filed with the Commission, we 
issued a revised scoping document (SD2) on May 7, 2009. On December 28, 
2009, we issued a notice that the application was ready for 
environmental analysis and requested conditions and recommendations.
    The primary issues associated with licensing the project are the 
effects of project construction and operation on geology and soils; 
water quality; aquatic, terrestrial, and cultural resources; threatened 
and endangered species; and recreation, land use, and aesthetic 
resources.

Staff Alternative

Aquatic Resources

    Measures proposed in the ESCP, CSMP, Spill Plan, Blasting Plan, and 
Safety During Construction Plan would help prevent adverse effects from 
erosion and sedimentation that may result from construction and 
operation of the project, and would help prevent adverse effects on 
geology and soils and water quality.
    Run-of-river operation would minimize effects on aquatic resources. 
Locating the tailrace downstream of Similkameen Falls would reduce TDG 
and enhance conditions for aquatic resources in the Similkameen 
downstream of the falls. In addition, designing the tailrace in a 
manner to provide circulation in the pool and aerating the draft tubes 
would ensure

[[Page 28511]]

adequate DO for aquatic resources downstream of Similkameen Falls.
    Providing minimum flows in the bypassed reach would provide some 
refuge for resident fish in the plunge pool downstream of Enloe dam. 
The 1-inch trash rack spacing on the intake trashrack, and installation 
and monitoring of a tailrace net barrier would minimize adverse affects 
on aquatic resources.
    The construction of the side channel, gravel enhancement, riparian 
planting projects, and improved water quality due to reductions in TDG 
and enhanced DO levels are expected to have long-term benefits for 
holding, spawning, and rearing fish, particularly anadromous salmonids, 
and should increase anadromous salmonid productivity in the Similkameen 
River downstream of the project.

Terrestrial Resources

    Measures in the Vegetation Plan, including grazing controls, 
noxious weed control, vegetation monitoring, employing BMPs, providing 
biological monitor during construction, retaining dead trees and 
installing artificial perch poles for bald eagle perching habitat, and 
employee training would prevent adverse effects on riparian and wetland 
areas which provide habitat for wildlife, as well as mitigate for 
adverse effects during construction of the project.

Threatened and Endangered Species

    The Similkameen River below Similkameen Falls is designated 
critical habitat for the threatened UCR steelhead, the only fish 
species known to occur in project affected waters that is listed under 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Proposed measures to reduce TDG, 
increase DO through draft tube aeration, supplement spawning gravel, 
transport large woody debris, and construct the side-channel 
enhancements would improve spawning and rearing habitat in the river 
downstream of the falls and increase productivity. The biological 
review process, fisheries monitoring, and ongoing refinement would 
provide long-term benefits for UCR steelhead and UCR steelhead 
designated critical habitat.
    Additional surveys for the threatened Ute ladies'-tresses prior to, 
during, and postconstruction would either confirm that the species does 
not occur in areas affected by the project or guide the development of 
avoidance or mitigative measures. The survey results and filing, with 
the Commission for approval, proposed measures to avoid or mitigate 
impacts to listed species; implementation of the Vegetation Plan, 
including noxious weed control, employing BMPs during construction, 
employee training, and provision of a biological monitor during 
construction would protect potential Ute ladies'-tresses habitat in 
areas affected by the project and at the proposed side channel 
enhancement site.

Recreation and Land Use

    Implementation of the Recreation Management Plan would improve 
existing recreational facilities and opportunities. The Safety During 
Construction Plan, as well as the Fence Plan, would help keep visitors 
to the project away from the construction activities and reduce user 
conflicts between recreationists and cattle grazing activities.
    Inclusion of the entire Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District Ditch 
Road as a project feature and bringing it into the project boundary 
would ensure maintenance of the entire road for the purpose of 
providing public access to the campground, boat launch, picnic areas, 
and access trail to the river below the dam.

Aesthetic Resources

    Okanogan PUD's proposal to use visually-compatible colors and 
building materials, use non-reflective surfaces where possible, and 
consult with the Colville during restoration activities, would provide 
some protection for visual resources. The staff alternative with 
additional recommendations including coordination with stakeholders to 
include specific approaches for blending existing and proposed Enloe 
Project facilities into the existing landscape character; revegetating, 
stabilizing, and landscaping the new construction areas and areas 
immediately adjacent; grading, planting native vegetation, repairing 
slopes damaged by erosion, and preventing future erosion; monitoring 
restored areas; and conducting maintenance activities would provide 
additional protection.

Cultural Resources

    Revising and implementing the May 2009 HPMP, with staff's 
additional measures, would ensure protection of historic properties 
over the license term.

No-Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, environmental conditions would 
remain the same, and no enhancement of environmental resources would 
occur. BLM stated that it would require Okanogan PUD to remove the dam 
and all associated facilities from the public lands under the existing 
right-of-way permit if a license is be issued. We discussed dam removal 
under cumulative effects in section 3.5.

Conclusions

    Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the project as 
proposed by Okanogan PUD with some staff modifications and additional 
measures.
    In section 4.2 of the EA, we estimate the likely cost of 
alternative power for each of the alternatives identified above. Our 
analysis shows that during the first year of operation under Okanogan 
PUD's proposed alternative, the project would cost $106,470, or $2.40/
megawatt-hours (MWh), less than the likely alternative cost of power. 
Under the staff alternative, the project power would cost $83,920, or 
$1.89/MWh, less than the likely cost of alternative 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 (44.4 gigawatt-hours annually); (2) 
the project could save an equivalent amount of fossil fuel-fired 
electric generation and capacity, which may help conserve non-renewable 
energy resources and reduce atmospheric pollution, including 
greenhouses gases; and (3) the recommended environmental resources 
proposed by Okanogan PUD, as modified by staff, would adequately 
protect and enhance environmental resources affected by the project. 
The overall benefits of the staff alternative would be worth the cost 
of proposed and recommended environmental measures.
    We conclude that issuing a new license for the project, with the 
environmental measures we recommend, would not be a major federal 
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Draft Environmental Assessment

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, 
Division of Hydropower Licensing, Washington, DC

Enloe Hydroelectric Project

Project No. 12569-001--Washington

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Application

    On August 22, 2008, the Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan 
County, Washington (Okanogan PUD) filed an application seeking a 
license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or 
FERC) for the 9.0-megawatt (MW) Enloe Hydroelectric Project (Enloe 
Project or project) located on the Similkameen River at river mile (RM) 
8.8 near the city of Oroville, Okanogan County, Washington (figure

[[Page 28512]]

1). The project would occupy 35.47 acres of federal lands administered 
by U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The project would generate an 
average of 45 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of energy annually.
    Enloe dam was originally constructed for hydroelectric generation 
between 1919 and 1923. The project operated from 1923 to 1958 when it 
was decommissioned. The original project included an intake, penstock, 
and powerhouse located 850 feet downstream of the dam on the west bank 
of the Similkameen River. On September 13, 1996, the Commission issued 
an order to Okanogan PUD to redevelop the Enloe Project using the 
existing dam and rehabilitating the original intake, penstock, and 
powerhouse. However, on February 23, 2000, that order was rescinded.
    Okanogan PUD proposes to again redevelop the Enloe Project by using 
the existing concrete gravity arch dam impounding a 76.6-acre 
reservoir; and constructing new penstock intake structure, and above-
ground steel penstocks carrying flows from the intake to the new 
powerhouse located 370 feet downstream of the dam on the east bank of 
the Similkameen River.

1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power

1.2.1 Purpose of Action
    The Commission must decide whether to issue a license to Okanogan 
PUD for the Enloe Project and what conditions should be placed on 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 (such as flood control, 
irrigation, or water supply), the Commission must give equal 
consideration to the purposes of (1) energy conservation; (2) the 
protection of, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and 
wildlife resources; (3) the protection of recreational opportunities; 
and (4) the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[[Page 28513]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17MY11.000

BILLING CODE 6717-01-C
    Issuing a license for the Enloe Project would allow the Okanogan 
PUD to generate electricity for the term of the license, making 
electrical power from a renewable resource available to its customers.
    This draft environmental assessment (EA) assesses the effects 
associated with construction and operation of the project and 
alternatives to the proposed project. It also includes recommendations 
to the Commission on whether to issue a license, and if so, includes 
the recommended terms and

[[Page 28514]]

conditions to become a part of any license issued.
    In this draft EA, we assess the environmental and economic effects 
of construction and operation of the project as proposed by Okanogan 
PUD, and with our recommended measures. We also consider the effects of 
the no-action alternative. Important issues that are addressed include 
the protection of geology and soils, water quantity and quality, 
cultural resources, aesthetics resources, and recreation and land use 
during project construction and operation.
1.2.2 Need for Power
    The Enloe Project would provide hydroelectric generation to meet 
part of Okanogan PUD's power requirements, resource diversity, and 
capacity needs. The project would have an installed capacity of 9.0 MW 
and generate approximately 44.4 GWh per year.
    The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) annually 
forecasts electrical supply and demand nationally and regionally for a 
10-year period. The Enloe 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 
throughout the 2010-2019 period. Over the next 10 years, WECC estimates 
that about 6,285 MW of additional capacity will be brought on line.
    We conclude that power from the Enloe Project would help meet a 
need for power in the Northwest subregion in both the short and long 
term. The project would provide 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.

1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    A license for the Enloe Project would be subject to numerous 
requirements under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and other applicable 
statutes. We summarize the major regulatory requirements in table 1 and 
describe them below.

   Table 1--Major Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for the Enloe
                          Hydroelectric Project
                             [Source: Staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Requirement                 Agency               Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 18 of the FPA (fishway  NMFS, FWS........  NMFS and FWS filed
 prescriptions).                                    reservations of
                                                    authority on
                                                    February 26, 2010.
Section 4(e) of the FPA (land   Interior.........  No section 4(e)
 management conditions).                            conditions have been
                                                    filed.
Section 10(j) of the FPA......  Washington DFW,    Washington DFW, FWS,
                                 FWS, NMFS.         and NMFS all filed
                                                    section 10(j)
                                                    recommendations on
                                                    February 26, 2010.
Clean Water Act--Water Quality  Washington DOE...  Application for
 Certification.                                     certification was
                                                    received on February
                                                    25, 2011; action on
                                                    the application due
                                                    by February 25,
                                                    2012.
Endangered Species Act          NMFS, FWS........  Commission staff is
 Consultation.                                      initiating formal
                                                    consultation with
                                                    both agencies.
Coastal Zone Management Act     Washington DOE...  By letter dated
 Consistency.                                       September 25, 2009,
                                                    Washington DOE
                                                    waived its
                                                    requirement for
                                                    compliance with its
                                                    Coastal Zone
                                                    Management Program
                                                    for the project.
National Historic Preservation  Advisory Council   The Commission
 Act.                            on Historic        designated Okanogan
                                 Preservation;      PUD as a non-federal
                                 Washington         representative for
                                 Department of      conducting section
                                 Archaeology and    106 consultation on
                                 Historic           September 26, 2005.
                                 Preservation.      Okanogan PUD filed a
                                                    Historic Properties
                                                    Management Plan on
                                                    June 16, 2009.
Pacific Northwest Power         .................  The project is not
 Planning and Conservation Act.                     located within the
                                                    designated protected
                                                    area of the Columbia
                                                    River Basin and
                                                    would be in
                                                    compliance with
                                                    specific provisions
                                                    to be considered in
                                                    the licensing or
                                                    relicensing of non-
                                                    federal hydropower
                                                    projects.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery        NMFS.............  Licensing the project
 Conservation and Management                        could adversely
 Act.                                               affect Chinook
                                                    salmon essential
                                                    fish habitat.
                                                    Commission staff is
                                                    initiating formal
                                                    consultation with
                                                    NMFS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 401 WQC--401 Water Quality Certificate
BLM--U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Commission--Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPA--Federal Power Act
FWS--U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Interior--U.S. Department of the Interior
NMFS--National Marine Fisheries Service
Okanogan PUD--Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County
Washington DFW--Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington DOE--Washington Department of Ecology

1.3.1 Federal Power Act
1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions
    Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission is to require 
construction, operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways 
as may be prescribed by the Secretaries of Commerce or the U.S. 
Department of the Interior (Interior). The National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) by letter dated February 26, 2010, and the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) by letter 
dated February 26, 2010, request that a reservation of authority to 
prescribe fishways under section 18 be included in any license issued 
for the project.

[[Page 28515]]

1.3.1.2 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. Interior, on behalf of the U.S. 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), filed recommended terms and conditions 
by letter dated February 26, 2010, and did not prescribe any conditions 
pursuant to section 4(e) of the FPA.
1.3.1.3 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, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources 
affected by the project. The Commission is required to include these 
conditions unless it determines that they are inconsistent with the 
purposes and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. 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.
    NMFS, FWS, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(Washington DFW) all timely filed, on February 26, 2010, 
recommendations under section 10(j), as summarized in table 23, in 
section 5.4, Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. In section 
5.4, we also discuss how we address the agency recommendations and 
comply with section 10(j).
1.3.2 Clean Water Act
    Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a license applicant 
must obtain certification from the appropriate state pollution control 
agency verifying compliance with the CWA. On February 24, 2010, 
Okanogan PUD applied to the Washington Department of Ecology 
(Washington DOE) for a 401 Water Quality Certificate (WQC) for the 
Enloe Project. Washington DOE received this request on February 25, 
2010. Washington DOE has not yet acted on the request. Washington DOE 
action is due by February 25, 2011.
    On October 28, 2010, Okanogan PUD filed a status report on its 
negotiations with Washington DOE and Washington DFW regarding possible 
conditions for the WQC for the Enloe Project, and on November 10, 2010, 
it filed supplemental information regarding the basis for the potential 
conditions. In this filing, measures for aquatic resources would 
include:
     A minimum flows of 30 cfs from mid-July to mid-September, 
and 10 cfs rest of the year to the pool below Enloe dam.
     Monitoring water temperature in the bypassed reach for a 
period of time postconstruction; and adopting an adaptive management 
program to enhance DO and water temperatures should monitoring indicate 
that water quality standards are not being met.
     Determining appropriate thresholds for downramping rates 
immediately downstream of Enloe dam based on monitoring and field 
observations prior to operations.
     Selecting an appropriate minimum flow release location in 
consultation with fisheries resource agencies (Washington DOE, 
Washington DFW, Interior, NMFS, BLM, and the Colville), and making 
appropriate project modifications to provide minimum flow releases.
1.3.3 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 habitat of such 
species. NMFS notified the Commission in its February 26, 2010, filing 
that one ESA-listed threatened species of anadromous fish is known to 
occur in the Similkameen River below Enloe dam: The upper Columbia 
River (UCR) steelhead distinct population segment. Designated critical 
habitat includes the Similkameen River below Similkameen Falls (the 
falls). There is no critical habitat designation upstream of 
Similkameen Falls.
    FWS lists five additional ESA-listed species of fish, wildlife, and 
plants that occur in Okanogan County, Washington, including the bull 
trout (threatened), Canada lynx (threatened), grizzly bear 
(threatened), northern spotted owl (threatened), and Ute ladies'-
tresses (threatened). There is no designated critical habitat for any 
of these species within the Enloe Project boundary. Our analyses of 
project impacts on threatened and endangered species are presented in 
section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species, and our 
recommendations in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and 
Recommended Alternative.
    We conclude that licensing the project would have no effect on bull 
trout, Canada lynx, grizzly bear, and northern spotted owl.
    We conclude that licensing the project would adversely affect 
federally listed UCR steelhead because proposed project construction 
and habitat enhancement projects could result in short-term increases 
in turbidity and sedimentation and the risk of injury or mortality to 
eggs, fry, juveniles, or adults by instream use of equipment. 
Construction of the tailrace could result in injury or mortality to 
eggs, fry, juveniles, or adults caused by capture and transport, 
relocation, and blasting. UCR steelhead injury or mortality could 
result from fish swimming into draft tubes and hitting the turbine 
runner during project operation. We conclude, however, that the 
proposed project would not appreciably diminish the value of designated 
UCR steelhead critical habitat for both survival and recovery of this 
species and the proposed enhancement measures would provide some long-
term beneficial effects. Consequently, we will request formal 
consultation with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.
    Potential habitat for Ute ladies'-tresses exists along the 
reservoir and in the side channel enhancement area. No populations of 
this species were discovered during Okanogan PUD's rare plant surveys, 
but there are agency concerns about the adequacy of the surveys. If Ute 
ladies'-tresses grows in the habitat identified at the edge of the 
reservoir, operation of the proposed crest gates would inundate the 
population. If this species occurs at the side-channel enhancement 
site, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed facility 
could adversely affect the plants, but it may be possible to adjust the 
facility's footprint so that the plants are not affected.
    In response to agency recommendations for additional surveys, 
Okanogan PUD proposes to survey areas that could potentially provide 
habitat for Ute ladies'-tresses for an additional 3 years as part of 
its proposed Vegetation Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Vegetation 
Plan). Thereafter, potential habitat for Ute ladies'-tresses would be 
resurveyed only if site management changes occur that could affect that 
habitat. Okanogan PUD's proposed surveys would either confirm that Ute 
ladies'-tresses does not occur in areas that would be affected by the 
project or would guide the development of avoidance or mitigative 
measures for this species. Therefore, licensing the project with the

[[Page 28516]]

recommended protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures would not 
be likely to adversely affect Ute ladies'-tresses.
1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act
    Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act 
(CZMA),\1\ 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 
Okanogan PUD's certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(A) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By letter dated September 25, 2009, the Washington DOE waived its 
requirement for compliance with its Coastal Zone Management Program for 
the project. Therefore, no consistency certification is required.
1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act
    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 
(NHPA) \2\ and its implementing regulations,\3\ requires that every 
federal agency ``take into account'' how each of its undertakings could 
affect historic properties. Historic properties are districts, sites, 
buildings, structures, traditional cultural properties, and objects 
significant in American history, architecture, engineering, and culture 
that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register 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 construction, 
operation, and maintenance of the Enloe Project. The terms of the PA 
would ensure that Okanogan PUD addresses and treats all historic 
properties identified within the project's areas of potential effects 
(APEs) for the proposed project and the side-channel enhancement site 
through implementation of a revised Historic Properties Management Plan 
(HPMP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. (2006).
    \3\ 36 CFR Part 800 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.3.6 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 
should take into account, to the fullest extent practicable, the 
program adopted under the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and 
Conservation Act.
    The program directs agencies to consult with federal and state fish 
and wildlife agencies, appropriate Indian tribes, and the Council 
during the study, design, construction, and operation of any 
hydroelectric development in the basin.
    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 specific provisions that apply to the proposed project 
call for: (1) Specific plans for fish facilities prior to construction; 
(2) assurance that the project would not degrade fish habitat or reduce 
numbers of fish; (3) assurance all fish protection measures are fully 
operational at the time the project begins operation; (4) timing 
construction activities, insofar as practical, to reduce adverse 
effects on wintering grounds; and (5) replacing vegetation if natural 
vegetation is disturbed.
    Our recommendations in this EA (sections 2.2 and 2.3) are 
consistent with the applicable provisions of the program, listed above. 
Further, a condition of any license issued would reserve the 
Commission's authority to require future alterations in project 
structures and operations to take into account, to the fullest extent 
practicable, the applicable provisions of the program.
    As part of the Program, the Council has designated more than 40,000 
miles of river (protected area) in the Pacific Northwest region as not 
being suitable for hydroelectric development. The project is not 
located within a protected area.
1.3.7 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions that may 
adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). The Pacific Fishery 
Management Council manages the fisheries for coho, Chinook, and Puget 
Sound pink salmon and has defined EFH for these three species. Salmon 
EFH includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water 
bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, 
except areas upstream of certain impassable human-made barriers 
(Pacific Fisheries Management Council, 2010), and longstanding, 
naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence 
for several hundred years). The historically accessible reaches of the 
Similkameen River (RM 0 to the falls) are EFH for Chinook salmon.
    Based on our analysis in this EA of the proposed action as 
specified in the license application, we conclude that licensing the 
project would be likely to adversely affect EFH for the UCR Chinook 
salmon for the same reasons we conclude that licensing the project 
would adversely affect the UCR steelhead and its designated critical 
habitats (see section 1.3.3, Endangered Species Act). Consequently, we 
will request that NMFS provide any EFH recommendation along with its 
biological opinion regarding listed anadromous fish.

1.4 Public Review and Consultation

    The Commission's regulations (18 CFR, section 4.38) require that 
applicants consult with appropriate resource agencies, tribes, and 
other entities before filing an application for a license. This 
consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act, ESA, NHPA, and other federal statutes. Pre-filing 
consultation must be complete and documented according to the 
Commission's regulations.
1.4.1 Scoping
    Before preparing this EA, we conducted scoping to determine what 
issues and alternatives should be addressed. Scoping Document 1 (SD1) 
was issued on December 16, 2008. Two scoping meetings were noticed on 
December 16, 2008, and held on January 14 and 15, 2009, in Oroville, 
Washington. 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, the following entities provided written comments:

[[Page 28517]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Commenting entity                       Date filed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington DFW......................  February 6, 2009.
National Park Service (Park Service)  February 9, 2009.
Richard Terbasket...................  February 12, 2009.
FWS.................................  February 13, 2009.
BLM.................................  February 17, 2009.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish      February 17, 2009.
 Commission (CRITFC).
NMFS................................  February 17, 2009.
Washington DOE......................  February 17, 2009.
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).  February 17, 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  February 17, 2009.
 (EPA).
Lower Similkameen Indian Band.......  February 20, 2009.
Confederated Tribes of the Colville   February 23, 2009.
 Reservation (Colville).
Arnold N. Merchand..................  February 23, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A revised scoping document 2 (SD2), addressing these comments, was 
issued on May 7, 2009.
1.4.2 Interventions
    On October 29, 2008, the Commission issued a notice that Okanogan 
PUD had filed an application for a license for the Enloe Project. This 
notice set December 29, 2008, as the deadline for filing protests and 
motions to intervene. In response to the notice, the following entities 
filed motions to intervene, none in opposition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Late intervention; no action has been taken on this 
petition.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Intervenor                           Date filed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater Columbia Water Trail          October 31, 2008.
 Coalition (Water Trail Committee).
American Whitewater.................  November 4, 2008.
Washington Department of Natural      November 26, 2008.
 Resources (Washington DNR).
Washington DFW......................  November 26, 2008.
American Rivers.....................  December 8, 2008.
Washington DOE......................  December 11, 2008.
CRITFC..............................  December 29, 2008.
Interior............................  December 29, 2008.
NMFS................................  December 30, 2008.
Colville \4\........................  April 10, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.4.3 Comments on the License Application
    A notice requesting conditions and recommendations was issued on 
December 28, 2009. The following entities commented:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Commenting agency and other entity               Date filed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
British Columbia Ministry of          February 18, 2010.
 Environment (Ministry of
 Environment).