Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment, 52172-52190 [2013-20460]
Download as PDF
52172
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
other information, call (866) 208–3676
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659.
Dated: August 15, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–20467 Filed 8–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 14367–001]
Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC;
Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and
the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission’s (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No.
486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy
Projects has reviewed the application
for an original license to construct the
Gilbert Hydroelectric Project, located on
several unnamed springs near the Bear
River in Caribou County, Idaho, and has
prepared an environmental assessment
(EA) for the project. The project would
not occupy any federal lands.
The EA includes staff’s analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of 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 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 tollfree 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
email 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 five copies to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kelly Wolcott at (202) 502–6480.
Dated: August 15, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
HYDROPOWER LICENSE
Gilbert Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 14367–001
Idaho
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of Energy Projects, Division of
Hydropower Licensing, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
August 2013.
Table of Contents
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 10(j) Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................
1.3.2 Clean Water Act ..............................................................................................................................................................
1.3.3 Endangered Species Act .................................................................................................................................................
1.3.4 National Historic Preservation Act ................................................................................................................................
1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT .........................................................................................................................................
1.4.1 Scoping ............................................................................................................................................................................
1.4.2 Interventions ...................................................................................................................................................................
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................................
2.1 NO–ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................................................................................
2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL ......................................................................................................................................................
2.2.1 Project Facilities .............................................................................................................................................................
2.2.2 Project Safety ..................................................................................................................................................................
2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ...............................................................................................................................
2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................................................................
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................................
3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN .................................................................................................................
3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................
3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................................................................
3.3.1 Geologic and Soils Resources ........................................................................................................................................
3.3.2. Aquatic Resources .........................................................................................................................................................
3.3.3. Terrestrial Resources .....................................................................................................................................................
3.3.4. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species .........................................................................................................
3.3.5 Cultural Resources ..........................................................................................................................................................
3.3.6. Aesthetic Resources .......................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
iii
vi
vi
viii
x
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
9
10
10
11
11
12
13
16
18
18
21
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
52173
3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................................................................................
DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................................
4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT .........................................................................................
4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................................................
4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES ............................................................................................................................
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................................................
5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................................................
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................
5.2.2 Modifications and Additional Measures Recommended by Staff ...............................................................................
5.2.3 Measures Not Recommended .........................................................................................................................................
5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS .....................................................................................................................................
5.4. FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................
5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ................................................................................................................
FINDING OF NO SIGNICANT IMPACT .........................................................................................................................................
LITERATURE CITED .......................................................................................................................................................................
LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................................................................................
22
22
23
24
25
29
29
31
32
35
36
36
37
38
38
39
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location map and project features for the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14367 ...............................................
Figure 2. Schematic of drop inlet structure for the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14367 .................................................
7
8
List of Tables
Table 1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the Gilbert Project .....................................................................................
Table 2. Parameters for economic analysis of the Gilbert Project .........................................................................................................
Table 3. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost for the action alternatives for the Gilbert
Project ....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Table 4. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered in assessing the environmental effects of
construction and operation of the Gilbert Project ..............................................................................................................................
Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives for the Gilbert Project .................................................................................................................
Table 6. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the Gilbert Project .......................................................................................
3
23
24
26
29
37
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Executive Summary
Proposed Environmental Measures
APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction
Committee
applicant Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC
certification water quality certification
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
Commission Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
CWA Clean Water Act
EA environmental assessment
ESA Endangered Species Act
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
FPA Federal Power Act
FWS U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service
Idaho DEQ Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality
Idaho DFG Idaho Department of Fish and
Game
Idaho SHPO Idaho State Historic
Preservation Office
Interior U.S. Department of the Interior
Gilbert Project Gilbert Hydroelectric Project
Gilbert Hydro Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power,
LLC
kW kilowatt
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
National Register National Register of
Historic Places
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NERC North American Electric Reliability
Corporation
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
project Gilbert Hydroelectric Project
WECC Western Electric Coordinating
Council
Proposed Action
Project Design and Operation Features
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
On May 30, 2012, Don W. Gilbert
Hydro Power, LLC (Gilbert Hydro or
applicant) filed an application for an
original license to construct and operate
its proposed Gilbert Hydroelectric
Project (project). The project would
have an installed capacity of 90
kilowatts (kW) and would utilize the
flow from several unnamed springs that
converge into an unnamed channel that
is a tributary to the Bear River. The
project would be located eight miles
southwest of the City of Grace, in
Caribou County, Idaho. The project
would not occupy any federal lands.
Proposed Project Description
The project would consist of the
following new facilities: (1) An 8-footlong, 3-foot-wide, 3-foot-deep drop inlet
structure; (2) a 2-foot-diameter, 700-footlong primarily above-ground steel or
plastic penstock; (3) a powerhouse
containing two 45- kW reaction turbine/
generator units for a total installed
capacity of 90 kW; (4) an approximately
25-foot-long tailrace to convey flows
from the powerhouse to the existing
stream channel that flows into the Bear
River; (5) a 150-foot-long, 480-volt
transmission line; and (6) appurtenant
facilities. The project would divert up to
18 cubic feet per second to the project
and generate an average of 550
megawatt-hours annually.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Operate in a run-of-river mode to
maintain natural flows downstream of
the project for the protection of aquatic
resources;
• Design and construct the project
transmission line in accordance with
the most current raptor protection
standards recommended by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
• Design the powerhouse to be small
in size, similar in appearance to other
buildings in the area, and finished with
a color that blends in with the rural
character of the area.
During Construction
• Implement industry-standard
erosion control measures to minimize
erosion and sedimentation;
• Stop construction immediately in
the event of an inadvertent discovery of
cultural resources or human remains,
and contact the Idaho SHPO and the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for guidance
before continuing project construction
or other project-related activity.
During Project Operation
• Implement a Revegetation Plan that
includes: (1) Streambank improvement
to enhance habitat downstream of the
powerhouse; (2) revegetation of areas
disturbed during construction with
crested wheatgrass in the upland areas
and Timothy grass or, if available, deeprooted plants such as sedges and rushes
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
52174
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
in the wetland areas to enhance
vegetation, forage for livestock and
wildlife, and wildlife habitat; and (3)
use of certified weed-free seeds and
cleaning of all equipment prior to entry
into the construction site to prevent the
establishment of noxious weeds.
Alternatives Considered
This environmental assessment (EA)
considers the following alternatives: (1)
Gilbert Hydro’s proposal, as outlined
above; (2) Gilbert Hydro’s proposal with
staff modifications (staff alternative);
and (3) no action, meaning the project
would not be built.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Staff Alternative
Under the staff alternative, the project
would be constructed, operated, and
maintained as proposed by Gilbert
Hydro with the modifications and
additions described below. Our
recommended modifications and
additional environmental measures
include, or are based on,
recommendations made by state
agencies that have an interest in
resources that may be affected by the
proposed project.
Under the staff alternative, the project
would include most of Gilbert Hydro’s
proposed measures, as outlined above,
with the exception of the streambank
improvement program proposed as part
of the Revegetation Plan. We do not
recommend this measure because the
streambank improvement would be
implemented downstream of the project
and the run-of-river operation would
ensure that there would be no projectrelated effects on downstream aquatic
and riparian resources and therefore this
measure does not have a sufficient
nexus to project effects.
The staff alternative includes the
following staff modifications and
additional measures:
• An Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan that includes site-specific
measures;
• Modification of the Revegetation
Plan to include the use of native sedges
and rushes during replanting of
disturbed wetland areas, instead of
Timothy grass as proposed;
• Developing the final transmission
line design, in consultation with the
FWS, to adhere to the most current
Avian Power Line Interaction
Committee (APLIC) standards;
• Notify the Commission, in addition
to the Idaho SPHO and ShoshoneBannock Tribes, and develop measures
in consultation with the Idaho SHPO
and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes if
previously unidentified archeological or
historic properties are discovered; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
• In addition to finishing the
powerhouse in a color that blends in
with the rural character of the area,
avoid reflective materials and highlycontrasting colors in both the penstock
and powerhouse to reduce their
visibility from surrounding properties
and public roads.
No Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the
project would not be built,
environmental resources in the project
area would not be affected, and the
renewable energy that would be
produced by the project would not be
developed.
Public Involvement and Areas of
Concern
Before filing its license application,
Gilbert Hydro 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 to
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 Gilbert Hydro filed its
application, the Commission issued a
public notice on October 17, 2012, of its
intent to waive scoping, stating the
application was ready for environmental
analysis, and requesting comments,
terms and conditions, and
recommendations. The notice also
stated our intention to waive additional
study requests and three-stage
consultation.
Staff received comments and
recommendations from the State of
Idaho on behalf of Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality, Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (Idaho
DFG), Idaho Water Resource Board, and
Idaho State Board of Land
Commissioners. We also received a
letter from the U.S. Department of the
Interior, noting that it received and
reviewed the license application and
had no comments to offer.
The primary issues associated with
licensing the project are erosion and
sedimentation control, native plant
restoration, noxious weed control,
raptor protection, and aesthetic resource
protection.
Staff Alternative
Geology and Soils Resources
Project construction would
temporarily increase soil erosion during
vegetation clearing and excavation for
the drop inlet structure, penstock,
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
powerhouse, and transmission line.
Implementing staff’s recommended
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,
which would include industry-standard
erosion and sediment control measures
as proposed by Gilbert Hydro but with
site-specific measures, would minimize
project effects on soil erosion. Operating
the project in a run-of-river mode as
proposed by Gilbert Hydro would
minimize streambank erosion.
Aquatic Resources
Constructing the drop inlet structure,
penstock, and powerhouse as well as
initial project operation would
temporarily increase sedimentation and
turbidity in project waters. However,
adverse effects would be minimized
through the staff- recommended Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan.
Gilbert Hydro’s proposed run-of-river
operation would ensure that natural
flows in the channel below the
powerhouse for the protection of aquatic
resources. Run-of-river operation would
also minimize the potential for any
adverse effects on water quality.
Terrestrial Resources
Constructing the project would
temporarily disturb 0.5 acre of
vegetation and about 0.1 acre of
vegetation would be permanently lost.
Gilbert Hydro’s proposed Revegetation
Plan would enhance the recovery of
native vegetation in upland areas, and
minimize the establishment of noxious
weeds. Using native sedges and rushes
to replant disturbed wetland areas,
instead of Timothy grass, would assist
in the recovery of native plant species
that are beneficial to wildlife by
providing forage and habitat.
Gilbert Hydro’s proposal to design
and construct the project transmission
line in accordance with the most current
raptor protection standards
recommended by the FWS would
minimize adverse interactions between
the project’s transmission line and
raptors. Designing the transmission line
in consultation with FWS and adhering
to APLIC standards would ensure
adequate protection.
Threatened and Endangered Species
No federally listed endangered or
threatened species are known to occur
in the project area; therefore, the project
would have no effect on federally listed
species.
Aesthetic Resources
Project facilities would be visible over
a wide area because of sloping
topography and low-growing vegetation.
Gilbert Hydro’s proposal to construct a
small powerhouse, similar in
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
appearance to nearby buildings, with a
color that blends with the rural
character of the area would reduce
visual effects. Avoiding reflective
materials and highly-contrasting colors
for both the penstock and powerhouse
would reduce their visibility and help
maintain the existing character of the
landscape.
benefits of the staff alternative would be
worth the cost of the proposed and
recommended environmental measures.
We conclude that issuing an original
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.
Cultural Resources
No cultural resources eligible for or
included in the National Register of
Historic Places are known to exist in the
project area. Therefore, the project
would have no effect on cultural
resources.
Gilbert Hydro’s proposal to stop
construction if previously unidentified
archeological or historic properties are
discovered and contact the Idaho SHPO
and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes prior to
continuing construction would help
protect any newly discovered cultural
resources.
Environmental Assessment
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the
project would not be built,
environmental resources in the project
area would not be affected, and the
renewable energy that would be
produced by the project would not be
developed.
Conclusions
Based on our analysis, we recommend
licensing the project as proposed by
Gilbert Hydro, 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 three alternatives identified
above. Under the no-action alternative,
the project would not be constructed
and would not produce any power. Our
analysis shows that during the first year
of operation under the proposed action
alternative, project power would cost
$8,400, or $15.27 per megawatt-hour
(MWh) more than the likely alternative
cost of power. Under the staff
alternative, project power would cost
$8,510, or $15.48/MWh, more than the
likely alternative cost of power.
We chose the staff alternative as the
preferred alternative because: (1) The
project would provide a dependable
source of electrical energy for the region
(550 MWh annually); (2) the 90 kW of
electric capacity comes from a
renewable resource that does not
contribute to atmospheric pollution,
including greenhouse gases; and (3) the
recommended environmental measures
proposed by Gilbert Hydro, as modified
by staff, would adequately protect and
enhance environmental resources
affected by the project. The overall
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of Energy Projects, Division of
Hydropower Licensing, Washington, DC
Gilbert Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 14367–001—Idaho
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 APPLICATION
On May 30, 2012, Don W. Gilbert
Hydro Power, LLC (Gilbert Hydro or
applicant) filed an application for an
original minor license for the
construction, operation, and
maintenance of the proposed Gilbert
Hydroelectric Project (Gilbert Project or
project). The 90-kilowatt (kW) project
would be constructed on a channel
formed from flows of five unnamed
springs. The project would be located
about 1,000 feet upstream from the
confluence with the Bear River and
eight miles southwest of the City of
Grace in Caribou County, Idaho. The
project would be located on private
lands owned by the applicant and
would not occupy any federal lands.
The project would generate an average
of about 550 megawatt-hours (MWh) of
energy annually.
1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED
FOR POWER
1.2.1 Purpose of Action
The purpose of the proposed Gilbert
Project is to provide a new source of
hydroelectric power. Therefore, under
the provisions of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC)
must decide whether to issue a license
to Gilbert Hydro for the Gilbert 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
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52175
enhancement of fish and wildlife
resources; (3) the protection of
recreational opportunities; and (4) the
preservation of other aspects of
environmental quality.
Issuing an original license for the
Gilbert Project would allow Gilbert
Hydro to generate electricity at the
project for the term of a license, making
electric power from a renewable
resource available for use and sale.
This environmental assessment (EA)
assesses the effects associated with the
construction and operation of the
proposed project, and alternatives to the
proposed project, and makes
recommendations to the Commission on
whether to issue an original license, and
if so, recommends terms and conditions
to become part of any license issued.
In this EA, we assess the
environmental and economic effects of
constructing and operating the project:
(1) As proposed by Gilbert Hydro, and
(2) with our recommended measures.
We also consider the effects of the noaction alternative. Important issues that
are addressed include erosion and
sedimentation control; and vegetation,
wildlife, and cultural resources
protection.
1.2.2
Need for Power
The Gilbert Project would provide
hydroelectric generation to meet part of
Idaho’s power requirements, resource
diversity, and capacity needs. The
project would have an installed capacity
of 90 kW and generate approximately
550 MWh per year. The electricity
generated by the project in excess of
Gilbert Hydro’s needs would be sold to
Rocky Mountain Power.
The North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) annually
forecasts electrical supply and demand
nationally and regionally for a 10-year
period. The Gilbert Project is located in
the Basin subregion 1 of the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council
(WECC) region of the NERC. According
to NERC’s 2012 forecast, average annual
demand requirements for the WECC
region are projected to grow at a rate of
1.6 percent from 2012 through 2022.
NERC projects planning reserve margins
(capacity resources in excess of net
internal demand) will be 15 percent
during the 10-year forecast period,
including estimated new capacity
additions. Over the next 10 years, WECC
estimates that about 19,361 MW of
future planned capacity will be brought
on line.
1 The Basin subregion is a summer-peaking
subregion composed of all or major portions of the
states of Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
52176
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
We conclude that power from the
Gilbert Project would help meet a need
for power in the WECC region in both
the short and long-term. The project
would provide power that displaces
generation from non-renewable sources.
Displacing the operation of non-
renewable facilities may avoid some
power plant emissions, thus creating an
environmental benefit.
1.3 STATUTORY AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
A license for the proposed project is
subject to numerous requirements under
the FPA and other applicable statutes.
The major regulatory and statutory
requirements are summarized in table 1
and described below.
TABLE 1—MAJOR STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GILBERT PROJECT
[Source: staff]
Requirement
Agency
Status
Section 18 of the FPA ..............................
FWS ................
Section 10(j) of the FPA ...........................
Idaho DFG ......
Clean Water Act—water quality certification.
Endangered Species Act Consultation .....
Idaho DEQ ......
National Historic Preservation Act ............
Idaho SHPO ...
No fishway prescriptions or reservation of authority to prescribe fishways have
been filed.
The State of Idaho, on behalf of Idaho DFG, provided section 10(j) recommendations on December 13, 2012.
The application for water quality certification was received on March 5, 2013; due
by March 5, 2014.
No federally listed species are known to occur within or near the project area;
therefore, the project would have no effect on any federally listed species.
The Idaho SHPO determined on December 7, 2011, that no historic properties
would be affected by the federal licensing action.
FWS ................
Notes: FWS—U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Idaho DFG—Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Idaho DEQ—Alaska Department of Environmental Quality. Idaho SHPO—Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer.
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 Interior.
No fishway prescriptions, or request
for reservation of authority to prescribe
fishways under section 18 of the FPA,
have been filed.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1.3.1.2 Section 10(j)
Recommendations
Under section 10(j) of the FPA,16
U.S.C. 803(j), 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.
The Idaho Department of Fish and
Game (Idaho DFG) timely filed, on
December 13, 2012, recommendations
under section 10(j), as summarized in
table 6 in section 5.4, Fish and Wildlife
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
Agency Recommendations. 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 March 5,
2013, Gilbert Hydro applied to the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality
(Idaho DEQ) for 401 water quality
certification (certification) for the
Gilbert Project. Idaho DEQ received this
request on the same day. The Idaho DEQ
has not yet acted on the request. Idaho
DEQ’s action on the request is due by
March 5, 2014.
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.
No federally listed or proposed
species, or critical habitats, are known
to occur in the project area, and the
FWS stated that the proposed project
would not affect any of its trust species
(email communication on March 21,
2013, between C. Myler, Partners
Biologist, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service,
and K. Wolcott, Environmental
Biologist, FERC, Washington, DC, filed
on March 29, 2013). Therefore, we
conclude that licensing the Gilbert
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Hydroelectric Project, as proposed with
staff-recommended measures, would
have no effect on any federally listed
species and no further consultation is
required under the ESA.
1.3.4
Act
National Historic Preservation
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) 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).
Pursuant to section 106, Gilbert Hydro
consulted with the Idaho State Historic
Preservation Officer (Idaho SHPO) and
affected Indian tribes to locate,
determine National Register eligibility,
and assess potential adverse effects on
historic properties associated with the
proposed project. By letter dated August
15, 2011,2 the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
commented that the proposed project
would be located on private land. No
comments were provided on the
presence of any cultural resources. The
tribes requested project construction
cease in the event of an inadvertent
discovery (cultural resources and/or
human remains) and Gilbert Hydro
consult with the tribes to ensure proper
treatment of the cultural resources and/
2 A copy of the letter can be found in Appendix
E of the final license application.
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
or human remains. By letter dated
December 7, 2011,3 the Idaho SHPO
commented that an archaeological
survey would not be productive,
withdrew its previous recommendation
for a survey,4 and determined that the
project would have no effect on historic
properties. As a result of these findings
made by the tribes and the Idaho
SHPO’s concurrence that no historic
properties would be affected by the
project, the drafting of a programmatic
agreement to resolve adverse effects on
historic properties will not be necessary.
1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
The Commission’s regulations (18
Code of Federal Regulations [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
Due to the small size and location of
the proposed project on private lands
copy of the letter can be found in Appendix
E of the final license application.
3 A copy of the letter can be found in Appendix
E of the final license application.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2A
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
52177
owned by the applicant, the close
coordination with state and federal
agencies during the preparation of the
application, agency comments, and
completed studies, we waived public
scoping.5
the project would not be built and
environmental resources in the project
area would not be affected.
1.4.2 Interventions
On October 17, 2012, the Commission
issued a notice that it had accepted
Gilbert Hydro’s application to license
the Gilbert Project, solicited motions to
intervene and protest, and solicited
comments and final terms and
conditions, recommendations, and
prescriptions. The notice set December
17, 2012, as the filing deadline. On
December 13, 2012, the State of Idaho
filed a timely motion to intervene, not
in opposition, and comments on behalf
of Idaho DEQ, Idaho DFG, Idaho Water
Resource Board, and Idaho State Board
of Land Commissioners. On December
10, 2012, Interior filed a letter stating
that it had no comments on the
application. Gilbert Hydro filed no reply
comments.
The proposed project would consist of
the following new facilities: (1) An 8foot-long, 3-foot-wide, 3-foot-deep drop
inlet structure that would divert flow
from the unnamed natural stream
channel into; (2) a 2-foot-diameter, 700foot-long primarily above-ground 6 steel
or plastic penstock; (3) a powerhouse
containing two 45- kW reaction turbine/
generator units for a total installed
capacity of 90 kW; (4) an approximately
25-foot-long tailrace to convey flows
from the powerhouse back to the
existing stream channel; (5) a 150-footlong, 480-volt transmission line that
would connect to Rocky Mountain
Power’s three-phase line; and (6)
appurtenant facilities. The drop inlet
structure, penstock, powerhouse, and
tailrace would bypass an approximately
800-foot-long reach of an existing stream
channel that conveys flow from the
unnamed springs to the Bear River. The
project would divert up to 18 cubic feet
per second (cfs) to the project. Project
facilities are shown in figures 1 and 2.
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND
ALTERNATIVES
2.1 NO–ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The no-action alternative is license
denial. Under the no-action alternative,
previous recommendation for a survey was
included in a letter dated June 29, 2011. A copy of
the letter can be found in Appendix E of the final
license application.
2.2
2.2.1
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL
Project Facilities
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
4 The
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6 Approximately 20 feet of the upper end of the
penstock where it connects to the drop inlet
structure would be buried.
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
52178
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
Figure 1. Location map and project features for the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project, FERC
No. 14367 (Source: Staff).
Figure 2. Schematic of drop inlet structure for the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project, FERC
No. 14367 (Source: application, as modified by staff).
BILLING CODE 6717–01–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
EN22AU13.001
Incoming
EN22AU13.000
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
DToplnl~t
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
The proposed 900-foot-long, 300-footwide project boundary would enclose
all of the project facilities listed above.
cleaning of all equipment prior to entry
into the construction site to prevent the
establishment of noxious weeds.
2.2.2 Project Safety
As part of the licensing process, the
Commission would review the adequacy
of the proposed project facilities.
Special articles would be included in
any license issued, as appropriate.
Commission staff would inspect the
licensed project both during and after
construction. Inspection during
construction would concentrate on
adherence to Commission-approved
plans and specifications, special license
articles relating to construction, and
accepted engineering practices and
procedures. Operational inspections
would focus on the continued safety of
the structures, identification of
unauthorized modifications, efficiency
and safety of operations, compliance
with the terms of the license, and proper
maintenance.
2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE
Under the staff alternative, the project
would be constructed, operated, and
maintained as proposed by Gilbert
Hydro with the modifications and
additions described below. Our
recommended modifications and
additional environmental measures
include, or are based on,
recommendations made by state
resource agencies that have an interest
in resources that may be affected by the
proposed project.
Under the staff alternative, the project
would include most of Gilbert Hydro’s
proposed measures, as outlined above,
with the exception of the streambank
improvement program proposed as part
of the Revegetation Plan. In addition,
the staff alternative includes the
following modifications and additional
measures:
• An Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan that includes site-specific
measures;
• Modification of the Revegetation
Plan to include the use of native sedges
and rushes during replanting of
disturbed wetland areas, instead of
Timothy grass as proposed;
• Developing the final transmission
line design, in consultation with the
FWS, to adhere to the most current
APLIC standards;
• Notify the Commission, in addition
to the Idaho SPHO and ShoshoneBannock Tribes as proposed, and
develop measures in consultation with
the Idaho SHPO and the ShoshoneBannock Tribes if previously
unidentified archeological or historic
properties are discovered; and
• In addition to finishing the
powerhouse with a color that blends in
with the rural character of the area,
avoid reflective materials and highlycontrasting colors in the finished
appearance of both the penstock and
powerhouse to reduce their visibility
from surrounding properties and public
roads.
Proposed and recommended measures
are discussed under the appropriate
resource sections and summarized in
section 4 of the EA.
2.2.3 Proposed Environmental
Measures
Project Design and Operation Features
• Operate in a run-of-river mode to
maintain natural flows downstream of
the project for the protection of aquatic
resources;
• Design and construct the project
transmission line in accordance with
the most current raptor protection
standards recommended by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
• Design the powerhouse to be small
in size, similar in appearance to other
buildings in the area, and finished with
a color that blends in with the rural
character of the area.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
During Construction
• Implement industry-standard
erosion control measures to minimize
erosion and sedimentation;
• Stop construction immediately in
the event of an inadvertent discovery of
cultural resources or human remains,
and contact the Idaho SHPO and the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for guidance
before continuing project construction
or other project-related activity.
During Project Operation
• Implement a Revegetation Plan that
includes: (1) Streambank improvement
to enhance habitat downstream of the
powerhouse; (2) revegetation of areas
disturbed during construction with
crested wheatgrass in the upland areas
and Timothy grass or, if available, deeprooted plants such as sedges and rushes
in the wetland areas to enhance
vegetation, forage for livestock and
wildlife, and wildlife habitat; and (3)
use certified weed-free seeds and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In this section, we present: (1) A
general description of the project
vicinity; (2) an explanation of the scope
of our cumulative effects analysis; and
(3) our analysis of the proposed action
and other recommended environmental
measures. Sections are organized by
resource area. Under each resource area,
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52179
historical and current conditions are
first described. The existing condition is
the baseline against which the
environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives are compared,
including an assessment of the effects of
proposed mitigation, protection, and
enhancement measures, and any
potential cumulative effects of the
proposed action and alternatives. Staff
conclusions and recommended
measures are discussed in section 5.2,
Comprehensive Development and
Recommended Alternative of the EA.7
3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
RIVER BASIN
The project would be located in
southeastern Idaho, about eight miles
southwest of the City of Grace. The
project would utilize flows from five
unnamed springs that converge
immediately upstream of the proposed
project location and flow about 0.4 mile
through an existing unnamed stream
channel into the Bear River at
approximately river mile (RM) 154.8
The Bear River, from its headwaters in
the Uinta Mountains to its mouth at the
Great Salt Lake, is approximately 500
miles in length and drains a basin of
7,500 square miles. The unnamed
springs are located within the Middle
Bear subbasin which consists of the
Bear River and its tributaries from
Alexander dam (RM 170) to the Utah
state line (RM 94).
The project would be located in the
Gentile Valley of southeastern Idaho.
The topography of the area is
characterized by relatively flat terrain of
the valley floor running north and south
along the Bear River, steep bluffs
composed of river terraces to the east,
and the forested ridges of the Portneuf
Mountains to the west. Land in the
project area is primarily used for
agricultural purposes including
livestock grazing and hay and crop
production.
The climate of the Bear River Basin is
generally continental and semiarid. The
average annual precipitation in the City
of Grace is 14.7 inches and the average
snowfall is 44.7 inches, with the highest
amount of snow falling in the months of
December and January. Temperatures
range from an average low of 10.2
degrees Fahrenheit in January to an
7 Unless noted otherwise, the sources of our
information are the license application (Don W.
Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC, 2012) and additional
information filed by DeAnn Simonich for Gilbert
Hydro Power on April 4, 2013.
8 River miles were estimated based on Schmidt
and Beck, 1975.
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
52180
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
average high of 84.9 degrees Fahrenheit
in July.9
3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE
EFFECTS ANALYSIS
According to the Council on
Environmental Quality’s regulations for
implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (40 C.F.R.
section 1508.7), cumulative effect is the
impact on the environment that results
from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency
(federal or non-federal) or person
undertakes such other actions.
Cumulative effects can result from
individually minor but collectively
significant actions taking place over a
period of time, including hydropower
and other land and water development
activities.
Based on our review of the license
application and agency comments, we
have not identified any resources as
having the potential to be cumulatively
affected by the proposed project in
combination with other past, present,
and future activities.
3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
In this section, we discuss the effects
of the project alternatives on
environmental resources. For each
resource, we first describe the affected
environment, which is the existing
condition and baseline against which
we measure effects. We then discuss
and analyze the site-specific
environmental issues.
Only the resources that would be
affected, or about which comments have
been received, are addressed in detail in
this EA. Based on this, we have
determined that geologic and soils,
aquatic, terrestrial, cultural, and
aesthetic resources may be affected by
the proposed action and action
alternatives. We have not identified any
substantive issues related to land use,
recreation, or socio-economic resources
associated with the proposed action,
and therefore, these resources are not
assessed in the EA. We present our
recommendations in section 5.2,
Comprehensive Development and
Recommended Alternative.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3.3.1
3.3.1.1
Geologic and Soils Resources
Affected Environment
The proposed project is located on a
rocky bluff, characterized as lithic
9 Historical data from the Western Regional
Climate Center, 1907–2012, available at https://
www.wrcc.dri.edu.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
bedrock 10 overlain by shallow loams 11
(personal communication on February
26, 2013, between B. Griffith, Soil
Survey Project Leader, Natural Resource
Conservation Service, Soda Springs,
Idaho, and J. Harper, Engineer, FERC,
Washington, DC, filed August 14, 2013).
The drop inlet structure would be
constructed on a rocky bluff, where the
bedrock outcroppings are more
pronounced. The penstock and
powerhouse would be constructed over
pasture lands with shallow loamy soils
overlaying bedrock. The density of the
vegetation near the proposed
powerhouse location is restricted by the
shallow depth of the soils and rocky
outcroppings. Slopes in the project area
range from 4 to 12 percent.
3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects
Land-disturbing activities associated
with the proposed project construction,
operation, and maintenance could cause
erosion and sedimentation. To minimize
erosion and sedimentation during
construction activities, Gilbert Hydro
proposes to: (1) Implement industrystandard erosion control measures, and
(2) reseed or replant areas disturbed
during construction with crested
wheatgrass in the upland areas and
Timothy grass or deep-rooted plants
such as sedges and rushes, if available,
in the wetland areas, as part of the
Revegetation Plan.
Idaho DFG recommends the
applicant’s proposed measures and
deferred to Idaho DEQ to define specific
measures to control or minimize erosion
as part of the WQC.
Our Analysis
Due to the semi-arid conditions and
the rocky outcrops in the project area,
erosion potential as a result of project
construction activities would be low.
Nevertheless, vegetation clearing and
ground-disturbing excavation activities
associated with construction of the drop
inlet structure, penstock, powerhouse,
and transmission line could cause a
minor amount of soil erosion. Gilbert
Hydro’s proposal to implement erosion
control measures during project
construction should minimize soil
erosion and sedimentation in project in
waters. However, other than noting that
its proposed measures would be
consistent with industry standards,
Gilbert Hydro does not provide any
detail on the measures that it would
implement. A site-specific Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan would enable the
10 Lithic bedrock is differentiated from paralithic
bedrock by its hardness and is far less erodible than
paralithic bedrock or overlaying soils.
11 Loams are soils that consist of relatively equal
amounts of silts, sands, and clay.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Commission to document that the
proposed measures are adequate to
minimize the potential for soil erosion
and sedimentation of project lands and
waters. Revegetation of areas disturbed
during construction would provide
further protection from erosion.
Revegetation is discussed further in
section 3.3.3, Terrestrial Resources.
3.3.2
Aquatic Resources
3.3.2.1
Affected Environment
Water Quantity and Quality
A natural channel draining five
unnamed springs would be the source
water for the project. The flow from the
unnamed stream channel flows about
0.4 mile to its confluence with the Bear
River. During a normal year, the amount
of combined flow in the springs ranges
from 10 to 15 cfs, with higher flows up
to 20 cfs possible during spring months.
Flow measurements near the proposed
powerhouse location collected in
October 2009 recorded a flow rate of 13
cfs.
There is no information in the project
record on the water quality of the
unnamed springs; however, given that it
originates from natural springs a short
distance from the point of diversion and
only flows for about 0.4 mile before
entering the Bear River, water quality in
the unnamed springs is likely excellent.
Fisheries Resources and Aquatic Habitat
Aquatic habitat in the existing stream
channel downstream of the convergence
of the five unnamed springs includes
two distinct stream reaches: (1) An
approximately 1,200 foot-long upper
reach, and (2) an approximately 1,000foot-long lower reach. A cascade/plunge
pool complex forms the transition
between the upper and lower reaches
and also creates a natural barrier to fish
attempting to access the upper reach.
The upper reach predominately consists
of shallow braided channels with an
average gradient of 20 percent. The
lower reach extends from the cascade/
plunge pool complex to the confluence
with the Bear River and ranges from 10
to 20 feet in width with water depths of
less than one foot. The lower reach has
a lower gradient than the upper reach
and substrate consists primarily of silt,
sand, and fine gravels. The entire length
of the stream channel within the project
area is located within existing
agricultural lands used for livestock
grazing. Grazing has resulted in erosion
and streambank degradation in portions
of the lower reach.
In August 2011, Idaho DEQ conducted
fish surveys in two areas in the lower
reach between the cascade/plunge pool
complex and the confluence with the
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
Bear River. The survey collected four
fish species: rainbow trout, Bonneville
cutthroat trout, brook trout, and sculpin.
All species are common in the project
vicinity. Bonneville cutthroat trout
collected during the survey consisted of
both naturally spawned and stocked
individuals. No fish surveys were
conducted upstream of the cascade/
plunge pool complex, and there is no
evidence of fish inhabiting the upper
reach; however, Idaho DEQ reported
that it appeared to be a barrier to
upstream fish passage.
Other fish known to occur in the
mainstem Bear River near the proposed
project include brown trout, mountain
whitefish, common carp, Utah sucker,
mountain sucker, smallmouth bass,
yellow perch, mottled sculpin, and
Paiute sculpin (FERC, 2003).
3.3.2.2
Environmental Effects
Water Quantity and Quality
To protect water quality during
construction, Gilbert Hydro proposes to
use unspecified erosion control
measures that it states would be
consistent with industry standards to
minimize sediment from washing into
the existing stream channel during
project construction.
During project operation, Gilbert
Hydro proposes to operate the project in
a run-of-river mode diverting up to 18
cfs for power generation.
Idaho DFG recommends that Gilbert
Hydro obtain the necessary water rights
to operate the proposed project or
downsize the project to be consistent
with the existing water rights permit.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Our Analysis
Constructing the proposed project
would temporarily increase soil erosion
and sedimentation. As discussed in
section 3.3.1, Geologic and Soil
Resources, Gilbert Hydro’s proposed
erosion control measures using industry
standards, and staff’s recommended
development of an Erosion Sediment
Control Plan would limit soil erosion
and sedimentation, and related turbidity
effects in the stream channel.
Operating the proposed project in a
run-of-river mode would ensure that all
diverted water is returned to the natural
stream channel below the powerhouse
for the protection of aquatic resources.
In the event that the powerhouse trips
off-line, flows would immediately
bypass the penstock and powerhouse
and return to the bypassed reach at the
point of diversion; therefore, project
operation would have no effect on flows
above the diversion or below the
powerhouse. In addition, operating the
project in run-of-river mode and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
without the use of a reservoir or
impoundment would eliminate the
potential for changes to water quality
conditions that could occur if
streamflow was impounded or stored by
the project.
In regard to Idaho DFG’s
recommendation that Gilbert Hydro
obtain the necessary water rights to
operate the proposed project or
downsize the project to be consistent
with the existing water rights permit,
Commission licenses include a standard
article that requires licensees to require
all rights necessary for operation and
maintenance of a project within five
years of license issuance.
Fisheries Resources and Aquatic Habitat
In its Revegetation Plan, Gilbert
Hydro proposes to cooperate with
federal and state agencies to develop a
streambank improvement program in
the existing stream channel downstream
of the powerhouse. Gilbert Hydro states
that it would not provide funding for
the program and that it must approve
any program elements that could
potentially adversely affect agricultural
use of its lands. Idaho DFG states that
it would work with Gilbert Hydro to
provide a funding source for the
proposed streambank improvement
program.
Our Analysis
Gilbert Hydro proposes to construct a
drop inlet structure and 700-foot-long
penstock to divert up to up to 18 cfs of
flow from the existing stream channel to
a new powerhouse located
approximately 1,000 feet upstream from
the confluence with the Bear River. The
proposed powerhouse would be
constructed adjacent to a cascade/
plunge pool complex in the existing
stream channel that forms a natural
barrier to upstream fish passage. Water
diverted for power production would be
discharged from the powerhouse into a
25-foot-long tailrace channel that would
return flows to the existing stream
channel at a location immediately
downstream of the cascade/plunge pool
complex. Gilbert Hydro’s proposal
would result in the elimination or
reduction of flow in the 800-foot-long
bypassed reach between the point of
diversion at the drop inlet structure and
the location where the tailrace channel
returns flow back to the existing stream
channel. Although flow diversion
would eliminate aquatic habitat in the
bypassed reach during most of the year,
there is no information in the project
record to suggest that fish inhabit this
reach. Therefore, there would be no
effect on the existing fish community in
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52181
the project area from reduction of
habitat availability.
Gilbert Hydro’s proposal to
implement a streambank improvement
program downstream of the proposed
powerhouse location could potentially
enhance aquatic and riparian habitat
conditions downstream of the project.
However, operation of the proposed
project in run-of-river mode would not
result in adverse effects to aquatic and
riparian habitat downstream of the
project and outside of the project
boundary. Further, Gilbert Hydro does
not provide any specific measures to be
implemented under the program or a
schedule for implementation. Without
specific measures, we cannot evaluate
the environmental effects of the program
or its relationship to the project.
3.3.3
Terrestrial Resources
3.3.3.1
Affected Environment
Vegetation
The project area occurs entirely
within agricultural crop and pasture
land and grasslands. The area
surrounding the project in all directions
also consists of similar lands, with small
remnants of sagebrush-steppe scrub
habitat preserved in areas of rugged
topography. Similar to the topography
of the stream channel, the terrestrial
component of the project area can be
divided into two components: a flat
upper pasture section and a flat lower
pasture section. The boundary between
the upper and lower pastures is marked
by a high gradient reach where the
existing stream channel descends
through the cascade/plunge pool
complex. The boundary between the
upper and lower pastures is marked by
a high gradient reach of the stream
channel where it descends to a second,
smaller bluff. The topographic drop
across this bluff provides the potential
energy for hydropower generation.
The dominant vegetation type in both
components is pasture grass and forbs.
The lower pasture is more sparsely
vegetated than the upper pastures due to
the presence of thin soils and rocky
substrate in the lower pasture. The
banks of the existing stream channel
consist of saturated wetlands varying in
total width from approximately 10 feet
(including the stream channel) along
incised portions of the creek to
approximately 100 feet in braided
segments of the creek. Small areas of
shrub-scrub vegetation occur along the
bluffs and other small areas of rugged
topography not suited for pasture grass.
GeoSense conducted a wetlands
reconnaissance survey for Gilbert Hydro
in the project area in July 2011 to
delineate wetland boundaries and
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
52182
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
support the assessment of potential
project effects. The survey was extended
into the upper pasture area above the
location of proposed project facilities to
more thoroughly describe the overall
nature of the wetlands complex in the
project area. A total of 7.3 acres, all
located on lands owned by the
applicant, were mapped.
Wildlife
Wildlife resources in the project area
include yellow-bellied marmot,
squirrels, raccoons, mule deer, and
various species of birds such as
American kestrel, common nighthawk,
mourning dove, red-breasted nuthatch,
song sparrow, common snipe, cinnamon
teal, Brewer’s blackbird, and blackbilled magpie (Idaho Department of
Lands, 2004). Common species of
waterfowl use the Bear River, which
adjoins the lower pasture approximately
1,000 feet below the powerhouse site.
3.3.4.2
Environmental Effects
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Vegetation
The proposed project would
temporarily disturb 0.5 acre of wetland
vegetation and permanently remove 0.1
acre of upland vegetation. The drop
inlet structure and about 430 feet of the
proposed penstock would be located in
existing wetlands. The remainder of the
penstock, powerhouse, and
transmission line would be located in
uplands areas. Gilbert Hydro proposes
to implement a Revegetation Plan to
revegetate areas disturbed during project
construction.
The Revegetation Plan includes
provisions to reseed and replant areas
disturbed by project construction. The
plant seed mixture would be certified
weed-free. Gilbert Hydro proposes to
reseed the upland areas with crested
wheatgrass and the wetland areas with
Timothy grass, or deep-rooted plants
such as sedges or rushes, if available.
Gilbert Hydro would also plant grasses
as soon as possible after construction to
revegetate disturbed areas, provide
forage for livestock and wildlife, and
enhance wildlife habitat. To control
noxious weeds, Gilbert Hydro would
clean all equipment prior to entry into
the construction site. All tires
(including treads), and undercarriages
would be thoroughly cleaned to prevent
the introduction and spread of noxious
weeds. Idaho DFG recommends the
applicant’s proposed measures in the
proposed Revegetation Plan with the
exception of reseeding wetlands areas
with Timothy grass. Instead, Idaho DFG
recommends that Gilbert Hydro replant
wetland areas with native sedges and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
rushes, and offered to help locate
sources of native plants.
Our Analysis
The proposed Revegetation Plan
would help to restore upland and
wetland areas that were temporarily
disturbed by project construction.
Cleaning construction equipment prior
to entering the project site would reduce
the introduction and spread of invasive
species. Reseeding and replanting
wetland areas using native sedges and
rushes instead of Timothy grass, as
recommended by Idaho DFG, would
promote and enhance native vegetation.
Restoring disturbed wetland areas with
native species and upland areas with
the crested wheatgrass would also
provide forage for livestock and wildlife
and enhance wildlife habitat in the
project area.
Wildlife
Gilbert Hydro proposes to construct
the project transmission line in
accordance with FWS’s most current
standard for raptor protection standards.
Idaho DFG recommends that Gilbert
Hydro consult with FWS to design
appropriate raptor protection measures
for the project transmission line.
Our Analysis
Constructing the transmission line to
the most current raptor protection
standards as recommended by, and in
consultation with, FWS would
minimize the risk of raptor collision and
electrocution with the project
transmission line.
Construction activities have the
potential to disturb wildlife that occur
in the project area. Increased human
presence and noise associated with
project construction, while expected to
be minimal, may disturb and displace
wildlife from the project area. Any
potential disturbance or displacement is
expected to be temporary. Permanent
loss of 0.1 acre of upland habitat and
temporary loss of 0.5 acre of wetland
habitat would have a minor effect on
wildlife. The effects of the proposed and
recommended revegetation measures are
discussed above under Vegetation.
3.3.4 Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive Species
No federal listed, proposed, or
candidate species are known to be
present in the project area, and FWS
stated that the proposed project would
not affect trust species. Idaho DFG also
stated that it is unaware of any federally
listed species in the project area and
agreed with the applicant that the
project would not affect any federally
listed species. Therefore, the project
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
would not affect any threatened,
endangered, or sensitive species or their
habitats.
3.3.5
Cultural Resources
3.3.5.1
Affected Environment
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act
Section 106 of the NHPA requires the
Commission to evaluate potential effects
on properties listed or eligible for listing
in the National Register prior to an
undertaking. An undertaking means a
project, activity, or program funded in
whole or in part under the direct or
indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency,
including, among other things,
processes requiring a federal permit,
license, or approval. In this case, the
undertaking is the proposed issuance of
an original license for the project.
Potential effects associated with this
undertaking include project-related
effects associated with construction or
the day-to-day operation and
maintenance of the project after
issuance of an original license.
According to the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation’s (Advisory
Council) regulations (36 C.F.R. section
800.16(l)(1)), an historic property is
defined as any prehistoric or historic
district, site, building, structure, or
object included in, or eligible for
inclusion in, the National Register. The
term includes properties of traditional
religious and cultural importance to an
Indian tribe and that meet the National
Register criteria. In this EA we also use
the term ‘‘cultural resources’’ for
properties that have not been evaluated
for eligibility for listing in the National
Register. In most cases, cultural
resources less than 50 years old are not
considered eligible for the National
Register.
Section 106 also requires that the
Commission seek concurrence with the
Idaho SHPO on any finding involving
effects or no effects on historic
properties, and allow the Advisory
Council an opportunity to comment on
any finding of adverse effects on historic
properties. If Native American
properties have been identified, section
106 also requires that the Commission
consult with interested Indian tribes
that might attach religious or cultural
significance to such properties.
Cultural Context
The project area is within a large
region spanning Idaho and several
adjoining states that was traditionally
occupied by Northern Shoshone and
Northern Paiute tribes. These distinct
Native American groups were
linguistically related and were hunters
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
and gatherers who moved with the
seasons to collect food and other
resources. Southeastern Idaho was a
favored wintering area for both
Shoshone and Bannock (Northern
Paiute) bands.12
Early Euro-American contact with
these tribes included John Jacob Astor’s
Pacific Fur Company expedition of 1811
to the Snake River region of southern
Idaho, which initiated an intensive
period of trapping through the 1830s. By
1843, the Oregon Trail along the Snake
River had become well established as a
migration route for Euro-American
settlers bound for the Pacific Northwest.
Mining, grazing, ranching, and
settlement by non-natives led to major
conflicts with the tribes, including the
Bear River Massacre (1863),13 Snake
Indian War (1866–1868), and the
Bannock War (1878).14 As a
consequence, the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation was established by the Fort
Bridger Treaty of 1868. Farming and
ranching expanded across the region in
the late 1800s, substantially aided by
irrigation from the early 1900s through
the present. More than 5,600 tribal
members currently reside on or near the
reservation, which is located about 30
miles away generally to the west and
north of the project area.
No Cultural Resources or Historic
Properties Identified
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The area surrounding the proposed
project has been disturbed by grazing,
cultivation, and agricultural use, as well
as by an existing Rocky Mountain Power
transmission line. The area within the
project boundary consists primarily of
agricultural land. In 2011, Gilbert Hydro
consulted with the Idaho SHPO and
interested Indian tribes, and provided
photographs of the proposed project site
and a description of the proposed 90 kW
project, including the proposed 150foot-long transmission line. Gilbert
Hydro stated in its application that an
inventory and/or survey of cultural
resources might not be warranted
because the proposed project occupies a
small area of land owned by Gilbert
Hydro and used for past and current
agricultural practices.
12 History of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes,
available at https://
www.shoshonebannocktribes.com.
13 Id. The Bear River Massacre site, located at the
confluence of the Bear River and Beaver Creek, is
more than 30 miles downriver from the proposed
project.
14 A brief history of Euro-American contact with
the tribes is contained in the Malad Hydroelectric
Project Final Environmental Assessment (P–2726–
012). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC, September 24, 2004.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
By letter dated August 15, 2011,15 the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes commented
that the proposed project area is within
the ancestral lands of the Shoshone and
Bannock people. No comments were
provided on the presence of any cultural
resources. In the event of an inadvertent
discovery (cultural resources and/or
human remains) during project
construction, the tribes requested
project construction cease and Gilbert
Hydro consult with the tribes to ensure
proper treatment of cultural resources
and/or human remains.
3.3.5.2
Environmental Effects
By letter dated December 7, 2011, the
Idaho SHPO agreed with Gilbert Hydro
that an archaeological survey would not
be productive, withdrew its
recommendation for a survey, and
determined that there would be no
effect on historic properties.16 Because
no historic properties would be affected
by the proposed project, a programmatic
agreement and associated Historic
Properties Management Plan are not
needed. If previously unidentified
archeological or historic properties are
discovered during construction,
operation, or maintenance of the project
facilities, Gilbert Hydro proposes to
immediately stop construction and
notify the Idaho SHPO and ShoshoneBannock Tribes for guidance prior to
resuming the project-related activity.
Our Analysis
Previously unidentified archeological
or historic properties may be discovered
during project construction, operation,
or maintenance. Gilbert Hydro’s
proposal to notify and consult with the
Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes would address any effects on
cultural resources, if cultural resources
are discovered during the term of any
license issued.
Based on our independent analysis,
we agree with the findings and
determinations made by Gilbert Hydro,
the Idaho SHPO, and the ShoshoneBannock Tribes that the proposed
project would have no adverse effect on
historic properties. Although no historic
properties are known to occur within
the proposed project boundary, it is
possible that cultural resources may be
discovered during construction,
operation, or maintenance of the project.
15 A copy of the letter can be found in Appendix
E of the final license application.
16 Gilbert Hydro included each letter from the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and the Idaho SHPO in
its license application at Appendix E.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3.3.6
52183
Aesthetic Resources
3.3.6.1 Affected Environment
The project area is located in an area
of pasture, crop land, grasslands, rocky
bluffs, and wetlands along existing
springs that discharge through an
existing stream channel to the Bear
River. Extensive agricultural activities
and related structures are sparsely
scattered throughout the area. Farm
roads, irrigation systems, and
transmission lines are also present. The
nearest public road is approximately 0.5
mile to the east. The project area is on
private land surrounded by extensive
farms, ranches, and open country with
long viewing distances, particularly to
the north, south, and west.
3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects
Construction and operation of the
proposed project would affect aesthetic
resources in the vicinity by introducing
project facilities into a relatively
undeveloped, rural and agricultural
setting. Gilbert Hydro proposes to
reduce visual effects by designing the
powerhouse to be small in size, similar
in appearance to other buildings in the
area, and finished with a color that
blends in with the rural character of the
area.
No other specific concerns relating to
noise or visual effects were expressed by
agencies or other interested participants
during project consultation.
Our Analysis
During construction, the presence of
equipment and vehicles would have
short-term negative effects on views and
noise levels.
During operation, visual and noise
effects are expected to be minor. The
site of the proposed project and
surrounding lands are owned by the
applicant, and the nearest residence is
approximately 1,000 feet to the
northeast. Other residences and public
roads in the area are typically one-half
to one mile away from the project site.
The most visible project features would
be the powerhouse and 700-foot-long,
primarily above-ground penstock. At
these distances, the proposed
powerhouse and penstock should be
relatively inconspicuous from most
vantage points and would be partially
hidden from view by intervening
topography. Gilbert Hydro’s proposal to
reduce visual effects by designing the
powerhouse to be small in size, similar
in appearance to other buildings in the
area, and finished with a color that
blends in with the rural character of the
area would help to minimize the
aesthetic effects of the project. However,
visual effects could be further
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
52184
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
minimized by avoiding reflective
materials and highly-contrasting colors
in the finished appearance of both the
penstock and the powerhouse.
Noise produced by the powerhouse
may be audible offsite, but is expected
to be of a low intensity and should not
significantly change ambient noise
levels in the area.
3.4
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the no-action alternative, the
Gilbert Project would not be
constructed. There would be no changes
to the physical, biological, recreational,
or cultural resources of the area and
electrical generation from the project
would not occur. The power that would
have been developed from a renewable
resource would have to be replaced
from nonrenewable fuels.
4.0
DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS
In this section, we look at the Gilbert
Project’s use of the unnamed channel’s
flow for hydropower purposes to see
what effect various environmental
measures would have on the project’s
costs and power generation. Under the
Commission’s approach to evaluating
the economics of hydropower projects,
as articulated in Mead Corp.,17 the
Commission compares the current
project cost to an estimate of the cost of
obtaining the same amount of energy
and capacity using the likely alternative
source of power for the region (cost of
alternative power). In keeping with
Commission policy as described in
Mead Corp., our economic analysis is
based on current electric power cost
conditions and does not consider future
escalation of fuel prices in valuing the
hydropower project’s power benefits.
For each of the licensing alternatives,
our analysis includes an estimate of: (1)
The cost of individual measures
considered in the EA for the protection,
mitigation and enhancement of
environmental resources affected by the
project; (2) the cost of alternative power;
(3) the total project cost (i.e., for
construction, operation, maintenance,
and environmental measures); and (4)
the difference between the cost of
alternative power and total project cost.
If the difference between the cost of
alternative power and total project cost
is positive, the project produces power
for less than the cost of alternative
power. If the difference between the cost
of alternative power and total project
cost is negative, the project produces
power for more than the cost of
alternative power. This estimate helps
to support an informed decision
concerning what is in the public interest
with respect to a proposed license.
However, project economics is only one
of many public interest factors the
Commission considers in determining
whether, and under what conditions, to
issue a license.
4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL
BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT
Table 2 summarizes the assumptions
and economic information we use in our
analysis. This information, except as
noted, was provided by Gilbert Hydro in
its license application and subsequent
filings. We find that the values provided
by Gilbert Hydro are reasonable for the
purposes of our analysis. Cost items
common to all alternatives include:
taxes and insurance costs; estimated
future capital investment required to
maintain and extend the life of plant
equipment and facilities; licensing
costs; and normal operation and
maintenance cost.
TABLE 2—PARAMETERS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE GILBERT
PROJECT
[Source: staff and Gilbert Hydro]
Economic parameter
Period of analysis (years) ...
Interest/discount rate (%) ...
Federal tax rate (%) ...........
State tax (%) .......................
Insurance rate ($/year) .......
Average annual generation
(MWh) .............................
Energy value ($/MWh) ........
Term of financing (years) ...
Construction cost ($) ..........
License application cost ($)
Operation and Maintenance, $/year ..................
Value
30
a 7.25
b 35
b3
a $1,000
a 550
c $30.35
20
a $200,000
a $25,000
a $2,000
a From final license application filed May 30,
2012.
b Assumed by staff.
c 2013 contract year cost provided by Idaho
Power Avoided Cost Rates for Non-Fueled
Projects, Errata to Order No. 32697, dated
January 2, 2013.
4.2 COMPARISON OF
ALTERNATIVES
Table 3 summarizes the installed
capacity, annual generation, cost of
alternative power, estimated total
project cost, and difference between the
cost of alternative power and total
project cost for each of the action
alternatives considered in this EA: the
applicant’s proposal and the staff
alternative.
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE POWER AND ANNUAL PROJECT COST FOR THE ACTION
ALTERNATIVES FOR THE GILBERT PROJECT
[Source: staff]
Staff alternative a
Gilbert Hydro’s proposal
Installed capacity (kW) ......................................
Annual generation (MWh) .................................
Annual cost of alternative power .......................
Annual project cost ............................................
Difference between the cost of alternative
power and project cost.
90 ......................................................................
550 ....................................................................
$16,690 .............................................................
$30.35/MWh .....................................................
$25,090 .............................................................
$45.62/MWh .....................................................
($8,400) b ..........................................................
($15.27/MWh) b .................................................
90.
550.
$16,690.
$30.35/MWh.
$25,200.
$45.83/MWh.
($8,510).b
($15.48/MWh).b
a Costs
were escalated to 2013 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for Energy Services.
number in parentheses denotes that the difference between the cost of alternative power and project cost is negative, thus the total project
cost is greater than the cost of alternative power.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
bA
17 See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper
Division, 72 FERC ¶ 61,027 (July 13, 1995). In most
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
cases, electricity from hydropower would displace
some form of fossil-fueled generation, in which fuel
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
cost is the largest component of the cost of
electricity production.
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
4.2.1
No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the
project would not be constructed as
proposed and would not produce any
electricity. No costs for construction,
operation and maintenance, or proposed
environmental protection, mitigation, or
enhancement measures would be
incurred by the applicant.
4.2.2
Gilbert Hydro’s Proposal
Under Gilbert Hydro’s proposal, the
project would require construction of a
drop inlet structure, a penstock, a
powerhouse containing generation
facilities, a tailrace, and a transmission
line. Gilbert Hydro proposes various
environmental measures to protect,
mitigate, and enhance existing
environmental resources in the vicinity
of project features.
Under Gilbert Hydro’s proposal, the
project would have an installed capacity
of 90 kW and would generate an average
of 550 MWh annually. The average
annual cost of alternative power would
be $16,690, or about $30.35/MWh. The
average annual project cost would be
$25,090 or about $45.62/MWh. Overall,
the project would produce power at a
cost which is $8,400, or $15.27/MWh,
more than the cost of alternative power.
4.2.3
Staff Alternative
The staff alternative would have the
same capacity and energy attributes as
Gilbert Hydro’s proposal. Table 4 shows
the staff-recommended additions,
deletions, and modifications to Gilbert
52185
Hydro’s proposed environmental
protection and enhancement measures,
and the estimated cost of each. The cost
of alternative power would be the same
as the applicant’s proposal. The average
annual project cost would $25,200, or
about $45.83/MWh. Overall, the project
would produce power at a cost which is
$8,510, or $15.48/MWh, more than the
cost of alternative generation
4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MEASURES
Table 4 gives the cost of each of the
environmental enhancement measures
considered in our analysis. We convert
all costs to equal annual (levelized)
values over a 30-year period of analysis
to give a uniform basis for comparing
the benefits of a measure to its cost.
TABLE 4—COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE GILBERT PROJECT
[Source: staff]
Levelized annual
cost
(2012$) b
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Enhancement/Mitigation measures
Entities
Capital (2013$) a
Annual (2012$) a
1. Implement erosion control measures
that are consistent with industry standards.
2. As part of the Revegetation Plan, develop and implement a streambank improvement program.
3. As part of the Revegetation Plan, (1) revegetation of areas disturbed during
construction with crested wheatgrass in
the upland areas and Timothy grass or,
if available, deep rooted plants such as
sedges and rushes in the wetland areas
as soon as possible after construction;
and (2) use of certified weed-free seeds
and cleaning equipment prior to entry
into construction site.
4. Same as #3, but replant disturbed wetland areas with native rushes and
sedges instead of Timothy grass.
5. Design and construct the project transmission line in accordance with the
most current raptor protection standards
recommended by FWS.
6. Consult with FWS for guidelines for
transmission line design and construction.
7. Design and construct the transmission
line to APLIC standards in consultation
with FWS.
8. Notify the SHPO, Shoshone-Bannock
Tribe, and Commission if any archeological artifacts are found and develop
protective measures.
9. Develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
10. Design the powerhouse to be small in
size, similar in appearance to other
buildings in the area, and finished with a
color that blends in with the rural character of the area.
Gilbert Hydro ...........
$2,565 .....................
$0 ............................
$190.
Gilbert Hydro ...........
Unknown .................
Unknown .................
Unknown .................
Gilbert Hydro ...........
$2,565 .....................
$0 ............................
$190.
Staff, Idaho DFG .....
$3,080 .....................
$0 ............................
$230 ........................
f
Gilbert Hydro ...........
$0 ............................
$0 ............................
$0 ............................
d
Idaho DFG ..............
$0 ............................
$0 ............................
$0 ............................
d
Staff .........................
$0 ............................
$0 ............................
$0 ............................
d
Gilbert Hydro, Staff
$0 ............................
$0 ............................
$0 ............................
e
Staff .........................
$1,025 .....................
$0 ............................
$70 ..........................
b
Gilbert Hydro ...........
$0 ............................
$0 ............................
$0.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Notes
c
52186
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
TABLE 4—COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE GILBERT PROJECT—Continued
[Source: staff]
Enhancement/Mitigation measures
Entities
Capital (2013$) a
Annual (2012$) a
11. Avoid reflective materials and highlycontrasting colors in the finished appearance of both the penstock and powerhouse.
Staff .........................
$0 ............................
$0 ............................
Levelized annual
cost
(2012$) b
Notes
$0.
a Costs
were provided by Gilbert Hydro unless otherwise noted.
estimated by staff.
measures that would be implemented were not specified; therefore, Commission staff could not assign a cost for this proposal. While the
Commission staff does not object to Gilbert Hydro’s proposal to develop and implement the streambank improvement program to enhance downstream resources, staff does not recommend that it be a condition of any license issued for this project.
d These costs are included in the overall construction costs of the project.
e The implementation of this measure would only happen if archeological artifacts are found; staff’s recommendation to notify the SHPO, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, and the Commission would have no additional cost.
f The implementation of this measure would have an incremental cost of $515 (and an incremental levelized annual cost of $40) over the applicant’s proposed Revegetation Plan to account for the difference in cost between Timothy grass seed and Idaho DFG and staff’s recommended
native rushes and sedges.
b Cost
c The
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 COMPARISON OF
ALTERNATIVES
In this section, we compare the
developmental and non-developmental
effects of Gilbert Hydro’s proposal,
Gilbert Hydro’s proposal as modified by
staff, and the no-action alternative.
We estimate the annual generation of
the project under the two action
alternatives identified above would be
the same.
We summarize the environmental
effects of the different alternatives in
Table 5.
TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE GILBERT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
[Source: staff]
Resource
No action alternative
Geology and Soils .......
No changes to geology and soils.
Aquatic Resources ......
No changes to aquatic
resources.
Terrestrial Resources ..
No changes to terrestrial resources.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Cultural Resources ......
VerDate Mar<15>2010
No changes to cultural
resources.
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
Proposed action
Staff alternative
Temporary erosion during vegetation clearing
and excavation for construction; however,
soil erosion would be minimized through
proposed industry-standard erosion control
measures.
Run-of-river operation would maintain aquatic
habitat below the proposed powerhouse
and minimize adverse effects on water
quality. Erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity of project waters may occur during
construction; however, these would be
minimized through proposed industrystandard erosion control measures.
Proposed streambank improvement program
could enhance aquatic habitat downstream
of the powerhouse.
Minor increased potential for raptor collision
and electrocution with transmission line.
Same as Proposed Action, except development of a site-specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would ensure soil erosion and sedimentation would be minimized.
Same as Proposed Action, except a site-specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
would ensure minimal erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity. No streambank stabilization downstream of the project would
occur.
Temporary disturbance of 0.5 acre vegetation
and permanent loss of 0.1 acre.
Disturbed vegetation would be restored and
the livestock and wildlife forage and wildlife
habitat would be replaced. Noxious weed
establishment would be minimized.
No effects on identified cultural resources. If
previously unidentified cultural resources or
human remains are discovered, resources
would likely be protected.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Same as Proposed Action, except disturbed
wetlands would be revegetated with native
sedges and rushes instead of Timothy
grass, enhancing vegetation, forage for
livestock and wildlife, and wildlife habitat.
Same as Proposed Action except, if archeological or historic properties are discovered,
Commission notification and protection
measures developed in consultation with
Idaho SHPO and Shoshone-Bannock,
would provide greater assurance of resource protection.
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
52187
TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE GILBERT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT—Continued
[Source: staff]
Resource
Aesthetic Resources ...
No action alternative
No changes to aesthetic resources.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE
DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE
Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA
require the Commission to give equal
consideration to the power development
purposes and to the purpose of energy
conservation; the protection, mitigation
of damage to, and enhancement of fish
and wildlife; the protection of
recreational opportunities; and the
preservation of other aspects of
environmental quality. Any license
issued shall be such as in the
Commission’s judgment will be best
adapted to a comprehensive plan for
improving or developing a waterway or
waterways for all beneficial public uses.
This section contains the basis for, and
a summary of, our recommendations for
licensing the Gilbert Hydroelectric
Project. We weigh the costs and benefits
of our recommended alternative against
other proposed measures.
Based on our independent review of
agency and public comments filed on
this project and our review of the
environmental and economic effects of
the proposed project and its
alternatives, we selected the staff
alternative as the preferred alternative.
This alternative includes elements of
the applicant’s proposal, resource
agency recommendations, and some
additional measures. We recommend
this alternative because: (1) Issuance of
an original hydropower license by the
Commission would allow Gilbert Hydro
to build and operate the project as a
beneficial and dependable source of
electrical energy; (2) the 90 kW of
electric capacity available comes from a
renewable resource that does not
contribute to atmospheric pollution; (3)
the public benefits of this alternative
would exceed those of the no-action
alternative; and (4) the recommended
measures would protect and enhance
environmental resources affected by
constructing, operating, and
maintaining the project.
In the following section, we make
recommendations as to which
environmental measures proposed by
Gilbert Hydro or recommended by
agencies or other entities should be
included in any original license issued
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
Proposed action
Staff alternative
Potential minor visual effects on surrounding
properties.
Same as Proposed Action, except minor effects would be reduced by avoiding reflective materials and high-contrast colors in
the finished appearance of facilities.
for the project. In addition to Gilbert
Hydro’s proposed environmental
measures, we recommend additional
environmental measures to be included
in any license issued for the project, as
described in section 5.2.2 below.
5.2.1 Measures Proposed by Gilbert
Hydro
Based on our environmental analysis
of Gilbert Hydro’s proposal in section 3,
and the costs presented in section 4, we
conclude that the following
environmental measures proposed by
Gilbert Hydro would protect and
enhance environmental resources and
would be worth the cost. Therefore, we
recommend including these measures in
any license issued for the project.
Operation and Design Features
• Operate in a run-of-river mode to
maintain natural flows downstream of
the project for the protection of aquatic
resources;
• Design and construct the project
transmission line in accordance with
the most current raptor protection
standards recommended by the FWS;
• Design the powerhouse to be small
in size, similar in appearance to other
buildings in the area, and finished with
a color that blends in with the rural
character of the area.
During Construction
• Implement industry-standard
erosion control measures to minimize
erosion and sedimentation;
• Stop construction immediately in
the event of an inadvertent discovery of
cultural resources or human remains,
and contact the Idaho SHPO and the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for guidance
before continuing project construction
or other project-related activity.
During Project Operation
• Implement the portions of the
Revegetation Plan that include: (1)
revegetation of areas disturbed during
construction with crested wheatgrass in
the upland areas; and (2) use of certified
weed-free seeds and cleaning of all
equipment prior to entry into
construction site.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5.2.2 Modifications and Additional
Measures Recommended by Staff
We recommend the measures
described above, and the following
modifications and additional staffrecommended measures:
• An Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan that includes site-specific
measures;
• Modification of the Revegetation
Plan to include the use of native sedges
and rushes during replanting of
disturbed wetland areas, instead of
Timothy grass as proposed;
• Developing the final transmission
line design, in consultation with the
FWS, to adhere to the most current
APLIC standards;
• Notify the Commission, in addition
to the Idaho SPHO and ShoshoneBannock Tribes as proposed, and
develop measures in consultation with
the Idaho SHPO and the ShoshoneBannock Tribes if previously
unidentified archeological or historic
properties are discovered; and
• In addition to finishing the
powerhouse in a color that blends in
with the rural character of the area,
avoid reflective materials and highlycontrasting colors in the finished
appearance of both the penstock and
powerhouse to reduce their visibility
from surrounding properties and public
roads.
Below, we discuss the basis for our
staff-recommended modifications and
additional measures.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Gilbert Hydro proposes to minimize
the potential for erosion and
sedimentation from project construction
by implementing unspecified erosion
control measures that it states would be
consistent with industry standards.
While the proposed measures could
potentially minimize soil erosion in the
project area, Gilbert Hydro’s proposal
lacks detail on the measures that would
be implemented to ensure its
effectiveness and adequately provide for
Commission oversight and enforcement
of the measures. For these reasons, we
recommend that Gilbert Hydro prepare
and file, after consultation with Idaho
DFG and Idaho DEQ, a site-specific
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
52188
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that
specifies the measures that would
implemented during project
construction. We envision the plan
would include, but not necessarily be
limited to, a description of the measures
for protecting existing vegetation,
grading slopes, controlling surface
drainage, containing sediment,
stockpiling topsoil, storing and
disposing excess soil and debris, and
clearing and constructing the
transmission line rights-of-way. We
estimate that the levelized annual cost
to develop the plan would be $70, and
conclude that the benefits of the plan
would justify the additional cost.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Revegetation Plan
Gilbert Hydro proposes to implement
a Revegetation Plan that includes, in
part, provisions to reseed and replant
areas disturbed by project construction.
The seeds would be certified weed-free.
Gilbert Hydro proposes to reseed the
upland areas with crested wheatgrass
and the wetland areas with Timothy
grass, or, if available, deep-rooted plants
such as sedges or rushes. Idaho DFG
recommends that Gilbert Hydro replant
wetland areas with native sedges and
rushes instead of Timothy grass, and
offered to help locate sources of native
plants. Reseeding and replanting
wetland areas using native sedges and
rushes instead of Timothy grass would
promote and enhance native vegetation,
livestock and wildlife forage, and
wildlife habitat. We estimate that the
additional levelized annual cost to
replant disturbed wetlands with native
sedges and rushes would be $40, and
conclude that the benefits of this
measure would justify the additional
cost.
Transmission Line Design and
Construction
Gilbert Hydro proposes to design the
project transmission line in accordance
with the most current raptor protection
standards recommended by FWS. Idaho
DFG recommends that Gilbert Hydro
consult with FWS on the design of
appropriate raptor protection measures
for the project transmission line. While
Gilbert Hydro’s proposal could protect
raptors in the project area, the plan
lacks detail on the standards that would
be implemented and any mechanism to
consult with the FWS prior to final
design and construction of the
transmission line. Therefore, we
recommend an additional requirement
that Gilbert Hydro design the
transmission line, in consultation with
the FWS, to adhere to APLIC standards.
This would ensure that the transmission
line would be protective of raptors on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
As part of Gilbert Hydro’s license
application, Gilbert Hydro included
letters from the Idaho SHPO and the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes that reached
the same conclusion that no historic
properties would be affected by the
proposed project. Although no cultural
resources or historic properties have
been identified within the project
boundary, it is possible that previously
unidentified archeological or historic
properties could be discovered during
construction, operation, or maintenance
of project facilities. To ensure protection
of cultural resources and provide
guidance on measures to be
implemented if cultural resources are
discovered during the term of any
license issued for the project, we
recommend that Gilbert Hydro also
notify the Commission and develop
measures in consultation with the Idaho
SHPO and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.
We estimate that there would be no cost
for this additional measure and find the
benefits of this measure would be in the
public interest.
Streambank Improvement Program
As part of its Revegetation Plan,
Gilbert Hydro proposes to work with
federal and state agencies to develop a
streambank improvement program along
the existing stream channel downstream
of the powerhouse. Gilbert Hydro
stipulates that it would not provide
funding for the proposed program and
that it would need to approve any
program elements that could potentially
adversely affect agricultural use of its
land. Idaho DFG indicated in its
comments on the license application
that it would work with Gilbert Hydro
and other agencies to identify sources of
funding for the program.
While the proposed program could
potentially enhance aquatic and riparian
habitat downstream of the powerhouse,
we do not recommend including a
provision in the license for the proposed
program. The area in which the program
would be implemented is located
downstream of the project area and
outside of the project boundary.
Furthermore, the run-of-river operation
would ensure that there would be no
project-related effects on downstream
aquatic and riparian resources. This
measure does not have a sufficient
nexus to project effects. For these
reasons, we do not recommend the
proposed program be included as a
license requirement.18
Aesthetic Resources
5.2.4
To reduce potential effects on
aesthetic resources, including the
visibility of project facilities from
surrounding properties, Gilbert Hydro
proposes to design the powerhouse to be
small in size, similar in appearance to
other buildings in the area, and finished
with a color that blends in with the
rural character of the area. To minimize
visual effects on neighboring residences,
we recommend that reflective materials
and highly-contrasting colors be
avoided in the finished appearance of
both the penstock and the powerhouse.
We estimate that there would be no cost
to implement this measure and
conclude that the aesthetic benefits
would be justified.
Water Rights
Idaho DFG recommends that Gilbert
Hydro acquire a water right equal to the
amount of water that will be diverted by
the project. Commission licenses
include a standard article requiring
licensees to acquire all rights necessary
for operation and maintenance of the
project; therefore, there is no need for
and we do not recommend an additional
license condition specifically requiring
Gilbert Hydro to acquire a water right
for water diverted by the project.
the project area. We estimate that there
would be no cost for the additional
requirement and conclude that the
benefits of ensuring raptor protection
would be justified.
Cultural Resources
5.2.3
Measures Not Recommended
Some of the measures proposed by
Gilbert Hydro and recommended by
Idaho DFG would not contribute to the
best comprehensive use of project water
resources, do not exhibit sufficient
nexus to the project environmental
effects, or would not result in benefits
to non-power resources that would be
worth their cost. The following
discusses the basis for staff’s conclusion
not to recommend such measures.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Other Issues
5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE
EFFECTS
Construction and operation of the
proposed project would result in
temporary increases in erosion and
sedimentation of project lands and
waters, temporary increases in water
turbidity during construction of project
facilities and initial project operation,
permanent increased potential for raptor
collision and electrocution as a result of
the new transmission line, temporary
18 We have no objection to Gilbert Hydro entering
into a cooperative agreement with the State of Idaho
or another party to implement the streambank
improvement program outside of the requirements
of any license that may be issued for the project.
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
52189
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
and permanent vegetation loss, and
minor visual effects on surrounding
properties.
5.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Under the provisions of section 10(j)
of the FPA, each hydroelectric license
issued by the Commission shall include
conditions based on recommendations
provided by federal and state fish and
wildlife agencies for the protection,
mitigation, or enhancement of fish and
wildlife resources affected by the
project.
Section 10(j) of the FPA states that
whenever the Commission believes that
any fish and wildlife agency
recommendation is inconsistent with
the purposes and the requirements of
the FPA or other applicable law, the
Commission and the agency shall
attempt to resolve any such
inconsistency, giving due weight to the
recommendations, expertise, and
statutory responsibilities of such
agency. In response to our REA notice,
Idaho DFG submitted recommendations
for the project on December 13, 2012.
Table 6 lists the state recommendations
filed subject to section 10(j), and
indicates whether the recommendations
are adopted under the staff alternative.
Environmental recommendations that
we consider outside the scope of section
10(j) have been considered under
section 10(a) of the FPA and are
addressed in the specific resource
sections of this document and the
previous section.
We determined one recommendation,
to revegetate wetland areas using native
sedges and rushes instead of Timothy
grass, to be within the scope of section
10(j) and recommend this measure. We
also recommend that the provision for
Gilbert Hydro consult with FWS on the
design of project transmission line.
Table 6 indicates the basis for our
preliminary determinations concerning
measures that we consider inconsistent
with section 10(j).
TABLE 6—FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GILBERT PROJECT
[Source: staff]
Recommendation
Agency
Within scope of Section
10(j)
Annualized cost
Revegetate wetland areas using native sedges
and rushes instead of Timothy grass.
Consult with FWS on the design of appropriate
raptor protection measures for the project
transmission line.
Idaho DFG ..
Yes ...............................
$230 ..............................
Yes.
Idaho DFG ..
$0 ..................................
Yes.
Acquire a water right equal to the amount of
water that will be diverted by the project.
Idaho DFG ..
No, consulting with the
FWS is not a specific
fish and wildlife
measure.
No, acquiring water
rights is not a specific
fish and wildlife
measure.
Unknown .......................
No, however, Commission licenses include
a standard article requiring licensees to
acquire all rights necessary for operation
and maintenance of a
project.
Adopted?
6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNICANT
IMPACT
action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C.,
section 803(a)(2)(A), requires the
Commission to consider the extent to
which a project is consistent with
federal or state comprehensive plans for
improving, developing, or conserving a
waterway or waterways affected by a
project. We reviewed five
comprehensive plans that are applicable
to the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project.19
No inconsistencies were found.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
Issuing an original minor license for
the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project, with
our recommended measures, would
provide a source of renewable power.
Our recommended measures would
protect cultural resources and reduce
minor aesthetic effects. Project
construction and operation would result
in some minor erosion, sedimentation,
and turbidity during project
construction and initial operation; may
create minor long-term effects to
aesthetics; and may create temporary
noise impacts from construction. Project
construction and operation would also
increase the potential for raptor
collision and electrocution from the
new transmission line and would result
in minor temporary and permanent
vegetation loss.
On the basis of our independent
analysis, we find that the issuance of an
original license for the proposed Gilbert
Hydroelectric Project, with our
recommended environmental measures,
would not constitute a major federal
7.0
19 (1) Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2001.
Fisheries management plan, 2007–2012. Boise,
Idaho; (2) Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Bonneville Power Administration. 1986. Pacific
Northwest rivers study. Final report: Idaho. Boise,
Idaho. 12 pp; (3) Idaho Department of Fish and
Game. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy. Boise, Idaho. September, 2005; (4) Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare. 1992. Idaho
water quality standards and wastewater treatment
requirements. Boise, Idaho. January 1992; and (5)
Idaho Water Resource Board. 2012. State water
plan. Boise, Idaho. November 2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
LITERATURE CITED
Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power LLC. 2012.
Application for license for a minor water
project: Gilbert Hydroelectric Project
(FERC No. 14367). Grace, Idaho. May 30,
2012.
Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC. 2013.
Submittal of Additional Information in
Response to FERC AIR dated 08-Feb2013. Filed by DeAnn Simonich on April
4, 2013.
EPRI. 1992. Fish Entrainment and Turbine
Mortality Review and Guidelines.
Prepared by Stone and Webster
Environmental Services. Boston, MA.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC). 2003. Final environmental
impact statement, Bear River (FERC
Project Nos. 20–019, 2041–007, and 472–
017). Washington, DC April 16, 2003.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
2004. Malad Hydroelectric Project No.
2726–012, Final Environmental
Assessment. Washington, DC. September
24, 2004.
Griffith, Bryce. Personal communication of
soil characterization in Caribou County,
Section 33. Natural Resource
Conservation Service. February 26, 2013,
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
52190
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Notices
filed on August 14, 2013.
History of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes,
available at https://
www.shoshonebannocktribes.com
(March 12, 2013).
Historical data from the Western Region
Climate Center, 1907–2012, available at
https://www.wrcc.dri.edu (January 22,
2013).
Idaho Department of Lands. 2004. Wildland
Fire Mitigation Plan: Caribou County.
Available at https://www.idl.idaho.gov/
nat_fire_plan/county_wui_plans/
caribou/caribou_plan.pdf (July 9, 2013).
Myler, Cary. Personal communication of Fish
and Wildlife Service interest in Gilbert
Hydroelectric Project. Fish and Wildlife
Service. March 21, 2013, filed March 29,
2013.
National Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). 2012. Web Soil Survey. https://
websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov (June 7,
2012).
North American Reliability Corporation
(NERC). 2012 Long-Term Reliability
Assessment. November 2012.
Schmidt, B., and K. Beck. 1975. Investigation
of Bear River Basin Water Quality
August 1974. EPA–910/8–75–091.
Surveillance and Analysis Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Seattle, Washington July 1975. 169 pp.
8.0
LIST OF PREPARERS
Kelly Wolcott—EA Coordinator,
Terrestrial Resources (Environmental
Biologist, M.S., Natural Resources).
Jennifer Harper—Developmental
Analysis (Engineer, Ph.D.,
Environmental Health Engineering).
John Matkowski—Aquatic Resources
(Fish Biologist, M.S., Environmental
Science and Policy).
Ken Wilcox—Cultural and Aesthetic
Resources (Outdoor Recreation
Planner, B.S. Environmental Policy
and Management).
[FR Doc. 2013–20460 Filed 8–21–13; 8:45 am]
Any person desiring to intervene or to
protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214).
Protests will be considered by the
Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Any person wishing to
become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate. Such notices, motions, or
protests must be filed on or before the
comment date. On or before the
comment date, it is not necessary to
serve motions to intervene or protests
on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages
electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the
‘‘eFiling’’ link at https://www.ferc.gov.
Persons unable to file electronically
should submit an original and 5 copies
of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
This filing is accessible on-line at
https://www.ferc.gov, using the
‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for
review in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC.
There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC
Online service, please email
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call
(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202) 502–8659.
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time on August 28, 2013.
Dated: August 15, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[FR Doc. 2013–20459 Filed 8–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
United States Department of Energy,
Bonneville Power Administration:
Notice of Filing
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[Docket Nos. EF13–7–000, EF13–8–000,
EF13–9–000, EF13–10–000, EF13–11–000,
EF13–12–000, EF13–13–000, EF13–14–000]
Information Collection Request
Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP
for Gasoline Distribution Facilities
(Renewal)
Take notice that on July 29, 2013, as
supplemented on August 1, 2013, and
August 14, 2013, the Bonneville Power
Administration submitted its Proposed
2014 Wholesale Power and
Transmission Rates Rate Adjustment,
for confirmation and approval, to be
effective October 1, 2013, through
September 30, 2015.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Aug 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
[EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0662; FRL–9535–5]
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency has submitted an information
collection request (ICR), ‘‘NESHAP for
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Gasoline Distribution Facilities (40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart R) (Renewal)’’ (EPA ICR
No. 1659.08, OMB Control No. 2060–
0325), to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval
in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through
September 30, 2013. Public comments
were previously requested via the
Federal Register (77 FR 63813) on
October 17, 2012, during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for
an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the
ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor
and a person is not required to respond
to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
DATES: Additional comments may be
submitted on or before September 23,
2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
referencing Docket ID Number EPA–
HQ–OECA–2012–0662, to: (1) EPA
online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to:
docket.oeca@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via
email to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes profanity, threats,
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs
Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 564–4113; fax number:
(202) 564–0050; email address:
williams.learia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Supporting documents which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will
be collecting are available in the public
docket for this ICR. The docket can be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov
or in person at the EPA Docket Center,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The telephone number for the
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52172-52190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20460]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 14367-001]
Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for an original license
to construct the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project, located on several
unnamed springs near the Bear River in Caribou County, Idaho, and has
prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the project. The project
would not occupy any federal lands.
The EA includes staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of 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 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 email 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
five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Wolcott at (202) 502-6480.
Dated: August 15, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE
Gilbert Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 14367-001
Idaho
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects,
Division of Hydropower Licensing, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
August 2013.
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES............................................. vi
LIST OF TABLES.............................................. vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................. viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................... x
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................ 1
1.1 APPLICATION......................................... 1
1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER................ 1
1.2.1 Purpose of Action............................. 1
1.2.2 Need for Power................................ 2
1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS............... 3
1.3.1 Federal Power Act............................. 3
1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions........ 3
1.3.1.2 Section 10(j) Recommendations........... 4
1.3.2 Clean Water Act............................... 4
1.3.3 Endangered Species Act........................ 4
1.3.4 National Historic Preservation Act............ 5
1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT........................... 5
1.4.1 Scoping....................................... 5
1.4.2 Interventions................................. 6
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES........................ 6
2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE............................... 6
2.2 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL................................ 6
2.2.1 Project Facilities............................ 6
2.2.2 Project Safety................................ 8
2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures............... 8
2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE................................... 9
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.................................. 10
3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN.............. 10
3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS................ 11
3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES............. 11
3.3.1 Geologic and Soils Resources.................. 12
3.3.2. Aquatic Resources............................ 13
3.3.3. Terrestrial Resources........................ 16
3.3.4. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 18
3.3.5 Cultural Resources............................ 18
3.3.6. Aesthetic Resources.......................... 21
[[Page 52173]]
3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE............................... 22
4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS.................................. 22
4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT..... 23
4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.......................... 24
4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES...................... 25
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................... 29
5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.......................... 29
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED 31
ALTERNATIVE............................................
5.2.2 Modifications and Additional Measures 32
Recommended by Staff...............................
5.2.3 Measures Not Recommended...................... 35
5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS......................... 36
5.4. FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS........... 36
5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS................ 37
6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNICANT IMPACT.......................... 38
7.0 LITERATURE CITED........................................ 38
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS....................................... 39
List of Figures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1. Location map and project features for the Gilbert 7
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14367......................
Figure 2. Schematic of drop inlet structure for the Gilbert 8
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14367......................
List of Tables
Table 1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the 3
Gilbert Project............................................
Table 2. Parameters for economic analysis of the Gilbert 23
Project....................................................
Table 3. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and 24
annual project cost for the action alternatives for the
Gilbert Project............................................
Table 4. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement 26
measures considered in assessing the environmental effects
of construction and operation of the Gilbert Project.......
Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives for the Gilbert Project. 29
Table 6. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the 37
Gilbert Project............................................
Acronyms and Abbreviations
APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee
applicant Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC
certification water quality certification
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
CWA Clean Water Act
EA environmental assessment
ESA Endangered Species Act
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPA Federal Power Act
FWS U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Idaho DEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Idaho DFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Idaho SHPO Idaho State Historic Preservation Office
Interior U.S. Department of the Interior
Gilbert Project Gilbert Hydroelectric Project
Gilbert Hydro Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC
kW kilowatt
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
National Register National Register of Historic Places
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
project Gilbert Hydroelectric Project
WECC Western Electric Coordinating Council
Executive Summary
Proposed Action
On May 30, 2012, Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC (Gilbert Hydro or
applicant) filed an application for an original license to construct
and operate its proposed Gilbert Hydroelectric Project (project). The
project would have an installed capacity of 90 kilowatts (kW) and would
utilize the flow from several unnamed springs that converge into an
unnamed channel that is a tributary to the Bear River. The project
would be located eight miles southwest of the City of Grace, in Caribou
County, Idaho. The project would not occupy any federal lands.
Proposed Project Description
The project would consist of the following new facilities: (1) An
8-foot-long, 3-foot-wide, 3-foot-deep drop inlet structure; (2) a 2-
foot-diameter, 700-foot-long primarily above-ground steel or plastic
penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing two 45- kW reaction turbine/
generator units for a total installed capacity of 90 kW; (4) an
approximately 25-foot-long tailrace to convey flows from the powerhouse
to the existing stream channel that flows into the Bear River; (5) a
150-foot-long, 480-volt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant
facilities. The project would divert up to 18 cubic feet per second to
the project and generate an average of 550 megawatt-hours annually.
Proposed Environmental Measures
Project Design and Operation Features
Operate in a run-of-river mode to maintain natural flows
downstream of the project for the protection of aquatic resources;
Design and construct the project transmission line in
accordance with the most current raptor protection standards
recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
Design the powerhouse to be small in size, similar in
appearance to other buildings in the area, and finished with a color
that blends in with the rural character of the area.
During Construction
Implement industry-standard erosion control measures to
minimize erosion and sedimentation;
Stop construction immediately in the event of an
inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains, and
contact the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for guidance
before continuing project construction or other project-related
activity.
During Project Operation
Implement a Revegetation Plan that includes: (1)
Streambank improvement to enhance habitat downstream of the powerhouse;
(2) revegetation of areas disturbed during construction with crested
wheatgrass in the upland areas and Timothy grass or, if available,
deep-rooted plants such as sedges and rushes
[[Page 52174]]
in the wetland areas to enhance vegetation, forage for livestock and
wildlife, and wildlife habitat; and (3) use of certified weed-free
seeds and cleaning of all equipment prior to entry into the
construction site to prevent the establishment of noxious weeds.
Alternatives Considered
This environmental assessment (EA) considers the following
alternatives: (1) Gilbert Hydro's proposal, as outlined above; (2)
Gilbert Hydro's proposal with staff modifications (staff alternative);
and (3) no action, meaning the project would not be built.
Staff Alternative
Under the staff alternative, the project would be constructed,
operated, and maintained as proposed by Gilbert Hydro with the
modifications and additions described below. Our recommended
modifications and additional environmental measures include, or are
based on, recommendations made by state agencies that have an interest
in resources that may be affected by the proposed project.
Under the staff alternative, the project would include most of
Gilbert Hydro's proposed measures, as outlined above, with the
exception of the streambank improvement program proposed as part of the
Revegetation Plan. We do not recommend this measure because the
streambank improvement would be implemented downstream of the project
and the run-of-river operation would ensure that there would be no
project-related effects on downstream aquatic and riparian resources
and therefore this measure does not have a sufficient nexus to project
effects.
The staff alternative includes the following staff modifications
and additional measures:
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that includes site-
specific measures;
Modification of the Revegetation Plan to include the use
of native sedges and rushes during replanting of disturbed wetland
areas, instead of Timothy grass as proposed;
Developing the final transmission line design, in
consultation with the FWS, to adhere to the most current Avian Power
Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) standards;
Notify the Commission, in addition to the Idaho SPHO and
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and develop measures in consultation with the
Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes if previously unidentified
archeological or historic properties are discovered; and
In addition to finishing the powerhouse in a color that
blends in with the rural character of the area, avoid reflective
materials and highly-contrasting colors in both the penstock and
powerhouse to reduce their visibility from surrounding properties and
public roads.
No Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be built,
environmental resources in the project area would not be affected, and
the renewable energy that would be produced by the project would not be
developed.
Public Involvement and Areas of Concern
Before filing its license application, Gilbert Hydro 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 to 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 Gilbert Hydro filed its application, the Commission issued a
public notice on October 17, 2012, of its intent to waive scoping,
stating the application was ready for environmental analysis, and
requesting comments, terms and conditions, and recommendations. The
notice also stated our intention to waive additional study requests and
three-stage consultation.
Staff received comments and recommendations from the State of Idaho
on behalf of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (Idaho DFG), Idaho Water Resource Board,
and Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners. We also received a letter
from the U.S. Department of the Interior, noting that it received and
reviewed the license application and had no comments to offer.
The primary issues associated with licensing the project are
erosion and sedimentation control, native plant restoration, noxious
weed control, raptor protection, and aesthetic resource protection.
Staff Alternative
Geology and Soils Resources
Project construction would temporarily increase soil erosion during
vegetation clearing and excavation for the drop inlet structure,
penstock, powerhouse, and transmission line. Implementing staff's
recommended Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, which would include
industry-standard erosion and sediment control measures as proposed by
Gilbert Hydro but with site-specific measures, would minimize project
effects on soil erosion. Operating the project in a run-of-river mode
as proposed by Gilbert Hydro would minimize streambank erosion.
Aquatic Resources
Constructing the drop inlet structure, penstock, and powerhouse as
well as initial project operation would temporarily increase
sedimentation and turbidity in project waters. However, adverse effects
would be minimized through the staff- recommended Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan.
Gilbert Hydro's proposed run-of-river operation would ensure that
natural flows in the channel below the powerhouse for the protection of
aquatic resources. Run-of-river operation would also minimize the
potential for any adverse effects on water quality.
Terrestrial Resources
Constructing the project would temporarily disturb 0.5 acre of
vegetation and about 0.1 acre of vegetation would be permanently lost.
Gilbert Hydro's proposed Revegetation Plan would enhance the recovery
of native vegetation in upland areas, and minimize the establishment of
noxious weeds. Using native sedges and rushes to replant disturbed
wetland areas, instead of Timothy grass, would assist in the recovery
of native plant species that are beneficial to wildlife by providing
forage and habitat.
Gilbert Hydro's proposal to design and construct the project
transmission line in accordance with the most current raptor protection
standards recommended by the FWS would minimize adverse interactions
between the project's transmission line and raptors. Designing the
transmission line in consultation with FWS and adhering to APLIC
standards would ensure adequate protection.
Threatened and Endangered Species
No federally listed endangered or threatened species are known to
occur in the project area; therefore, the project would have no effect
on federally listed species.
Aesthetic Resources
Project facilities would be visible over a wide area because of
sloping topography and low-growing vegetation. Gilbert Hydro's proposal
to construct a small powerhouse, similar in
[[Page 52175]]
appearance to nearby buildings, with a color that blends with the rural
character of the area would reduce visual effects. Avoiding reflective
materials and highly-contrasting colors for both the penstock and
powerhouse would reduce their visibility and help maintain the existing
character of the landscape.
Cultural Resources
No cultural resources eligible for or included in the National
Register of Historic Places are known to exist in the project area.
Therefore, the project would have no effect on cultural resources.
Gilbert Hydro's proposal to stop construction if previously
unidentified archeological or historic properties are discovered and
contact the Idaho SHPO and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes prior to continuing
construction would help protect any newly discovered cultural
resources.
No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be built,
environmental resources in the project area would not be affected, and
the renewable energy that would be produced by the project would not be
developed.
Conclusions
Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the project as
proposed by Gilbert Hydro, 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 three alternatives identified above.
Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be constructed
and would not produce any power. Our analysis shows that during the
first year of operation under the proposed action alternative, project
power would cost $8,400, or $15.27 per megawatt-hour (MWh) more than
the likely alternative cost of power. Under the staff alternative,
project power would cost $8,510, or $15.48/MWh, more than the likely
alternative cost of power.
We chose the staff alternative as the preferred alternative
because: (1) The project would provide a dependable source of
electrical energy for the region (550 MWh annually); (2) the 90 kW of
electric capacity comes from a renewable resource that does not
contribute to atmospheric pollution, including greenhouse gases; and
(3) the recommended environmental measures proposed by Gilbert Hydro,
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 the proposed and
recommended environmental measures.
We conclude that issuing an original 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.
Environmental Assessment
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects,
Division of Hydropower Licensing, Washington, DC
Gilbert Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 14367-001--Idaho
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 APPLICATION
On May 30, 2012, Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC (Gilbert Hydro or
applicant) filed an application for an original minor license for the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Gilbert
Hydroelectric Project (Gilbert Project or project). The 90-kilowatt
(kW) project would be constructed on a channel formed from flows of
five unnamed springs. The project would be located about 1,000 feet
upstream from the confluence with the Bear River and eight miles
southwest of the City of Grace in Caribou County, Idaho. The project
would be located on private lands owned by the applicant and would not
occupy any federal lands. The project would generate an average of
about 550 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy annually.
1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER
1.2.1 Purpose of Action
The purpose of the proposed Gilbert Project is to provide a new
source of hydroelectric power. Therefore, under the provisions of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) must decide whether to issue a license to Gilbert
Hydro for the Gilbert 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.
Issuing an original license for the Gilbert Project would allow
Gilbert Hydro to generate electricity at the project for the term of a
license, making electric power from a renewable resource available for
use and sale.
This environmental assessment (EA) assesses the effects associated
with the construction and operation of the proposed project, and
alternatives to the proposed project, and makes recommendations to the
Commission on whether to issue an original license, and if so,
recommends terms and conditions to become part of any license issued.
In this EA, we assess the environmental and economic effects of
constructing and operating the project: (1) As proposed by Gilbert
Hydro, and (2) with our recommended measures. We also consider the
effects of the no-action alternative. Important issues that are
addressed include erosion and sedimentation control; and vegetation,
wildlife, and cultural resources protection.
1.2.2 Need for Power
The Gilbert Project would provide hydroelectric generation to meet
part of Idaho's power requirements, resource diversity, and capacity
needs. The project would have an installed capacity of 90 kW and
generate approximately 550 MWh per year. The electricity generated by
the project in excess of Gilbert Hydro's needs would be sold to Rocky
Mountain Power.
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) annually
forecasts electrical supply and demand nationally and regionally for a
10-year period. The Gilbert Project is located in the Basin subregion
\1\ of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region of
the NERC. According to NERC's 2012 forecast, average annual demand
requirements for the WECC region are projected to grow at a rate of 1.6
percent from 2012 through 2022. NERC projects planning reserve margins
(capacity resources in excess of net internal demand) will be 15
percent during the 10-year forecast period, including estimated new
capacity additions. Over the next 10 years, WECC estimates that about
19,361 MW of future planned capacity will be brought on line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Basin subregion is a summer-peaking subregion composed
of all or major portions of the states of Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and
Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52176]]
We conclude that power from the Gilbert Project would help meet a
need for power in the WECC region in both the short and long-term. The
project would provide power that displaces generation from non-
renewable sources. Displacing the operation of non-renewable facilities
may avoid some power plant emissions, thus creating an environmental
benefit.
1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
A license for the proposed project is subject to numerous
requirements under the FPA and other applicable statutes. The major
regulatory and statutory requirements are summarized in table 1 and
described below.
Table 1--Major Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for the Gilbert
Project
[Source: staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Agency Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 18 of the FPA........ FWS................ No fishway
prescriptions or
reservation of
authority to
prescribe fishways
have been filed.
Section 10(j) of the FPA..... Idaho DFG.......... The State of Idaho,
on behalf of Idaho
DFG, provided
section 10(j)
recommendations on
December 13, 2012.
Clean Water Act--water Idaho DEQ.......... The application for
quality certification. water quality
certification was
received on March
5, 2013; due by
March 5, 2014.
Endangered Species Act FWS................ No federally listed
Consultation. species are known
to occur within or
near the project
area; therefore,
the project would
have no effect on
any federally
listed species.
National Historic Idaho SHPO......... The Idaho SHPO
Preservation Act. determined on
December 7, 2011,
that no historic
properties would be
affected by the
federal licensing
action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: FWS--U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Idaho DFG--Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Idaho DEQ--Alaska
Department of Environmental Quality. Idaho SHPO--Alaska State Historic
Preservation Officer.
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 Interior.
No fishway prescriptions, or request for reservation of authority
to prescribe fishways under section 18 of the FPA, have been filed.
1.3.1.2 Section 10(j) Recommendations
Under section 10(j) of the FPA,16 U.S.C. 803(j), 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.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Idaho DFG) timely filed, on
December 13, 2012, recommendations under section 10(j), as summarized
in table 6 in section 5.4, Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations. 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 March 5, 2013, Gilbert
Hydro applied to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (Idaho
DEQ) for 401 water quality certification (certification) for the
Gilbert Project. Idaho DEQ received this request on the same day. The
Idaho DEQ has not yet acted on the request. Idaho DEQ's action on the
request is due by March 5, 2014.
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.
No federally listed or proposed species, or critical habitats, are
known to occur in the project area, and the FWS stated that the
proposed project would not affect any of its trust species (email
communication on March 21, 2013, between C. Myler, Partners Biologist,
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, and K. Wolcott, Environmental Biologist,
FERC, Washington, DC, filed on March 29, 2013). Therefore, we conclude
that licensing the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project, as proposed with
staff-recommended measures, would have no effect on any federally
listed species and no further consultation is required under the ESA.
1.3.4 National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
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).
Pursuant to section 106, Gilbert Hydro consulted with the Idaho
State Historic Preservation Officer (Idaho SHPO) and affected Indian
tribes to locate, determine National Register eligibility, and assess
potential adverse effects on historic properties associated with the
proposed project. By letter dated August 15, 2011,\2\ the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes commented that the proposed project would be located on
private land. No comments were provided on the presence of any cultural
resources. The tribes requested project construction cease in the event
of an inadvertent discovery (cultural resources and/or human remains)
and Gilbert Hydro consult with the tribes to ensure proper treatment of
the cultural resources and/
[[Page 52177]]
or human remains. By letter dated December 7, 2011,\3\ the Idaho SHPO
commented that an archaeological survey would not be productive,
withdrew its previous recommendation for a survey,\4\ and determined
that the project would have no effect on historic properties. As a
result of these findings made by the tribes and the Idaho SHPO's
concurrence that no historic properties would be affected by the
project, the drafting of a programmatic agreement to resolve adverse
effects on historic properties will not be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A copy of the letter can be found in Appendix E of the final
license application.
\3\ A copy of the letter can be found in Appendix E of the final
license application.
\4\ The previous recommendation for a survey was included in a
letter dated June 29, 2011. A copy of the letter can be found in
Appendix E of the final license application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
The Commission's regulations (18 Code of Federal Regulations [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
Due to the small size and location of the proposed project on
private lands owned by the applicant, the close coordination with state
and federal agencies during the preparation of the application, agency
comments, and completed studies, we waived public scoping.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Commission issued a notice on October 17, 2012, stating
that it intended to waive scoping for this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.4.2 Interventions
On October 17, 2012, the Commission issued a notice that it had
accepted Gilbert Hydro's application to license the Gilbert Project,
solicited motions to intervene and protest, and solicited comments and
final terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions. The
notice set December 17, 2012, as the filing deadline. On December 13,
2012, the State of Idaho filed a timely motion to intervene, not in
opposition, and comments on behalf of Idaho DEQ, Idaho DFG, Idaho Water
Resource Board, and Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners. On
December 10, 2012, Interior filed a letter stating that it had no
comments on the application. Gilbert Hydro filed no reply comments.
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The no-action alternative is license denial. Under the no-action
alternative, the project would not be built and environmental resources
in the project area would not be affected.
2.2 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
2.2.1 Project Facilities
The proposed project would consist of the following new facilities:
(1) An 8-foot-long, 3-foot-wide, 3-foot-deep drop inlet structure that
would divert flow from the unnamed natural stream channel into; (2) a
2-foot-diameter, 700-foot-long primarily above-ground \6\ steel or
plastic penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing two 45- kW reaction
turbine/generator units for a total installed capacity of 90 kW; (4) an
approximately 25-foot-long tailrace to convey flows from the powerhouse
back to the existing stream channel; (5) a 150-foot-long, 480-volt
transmission line that would connect to Rocky Mountain Power's three-
phase line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The drop inlet structure,
penstock, powerhouse, and tailrace would bypass an approximately 800-
foot-long reach of an existing stream channel that conveys flow from
the unnamed springs to the Bear River. The project would divert up to
18 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the project. Project facilities are
shown in figures 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Approximately 20 feet of the upper end of the penstock where
it connects to the drop inlet structure would be buried.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[[Page 52178]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22AU13.000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22AU13.001
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C
[[Page 52179]]
The proposed 900-foot-long, 300-foot-wide project boundary would
enclose all of the project facilities listed above.
2.2.2 Project Safety
As part of the licensing process, the Commission would review the
adequacy of the proposed project facilities. Special articles would be
included in any license issued, as appropriate. Commission staff would
inspect the licensed project both during and after construction.
Inspection during construction would concentrate on adherence to
Commission-approved plans and specifications, special license articles
relating to construction, and accepted engineering practices and
procedures. Operational inspections would focus on the continued safety
of the structures, identification of unauthorized modifications,
efficiency and safety of operations, compliance with the terms of the
license, and proper maintenance.
2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures
Project Design and Operation Features
Operate in a run-of-river mode to maintain natural flows
downstream of the project for the protection of aquatic resources;
Design and construct the project transmission line in
accordance with the most current raptor protection standards
recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
Design the powerhouse to be small in size, similar in
appearance to other buildings in the area, and finished with a color
that blends in with the rural character of the area.
During Construction
Implement industry-standard erosion control measures to
minimize erosion and sedimentation;
Stop construction immediately in the event of an
inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains, and
contact the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for guidance
before continuing project construction or other project-related
activity.
During Project Operation
Implement a Revegetation Plan that includes: (1)
Streambank improvement to enhance habitat downstream of the powerhouse;
(2) revegetation of areas disturbed during construction with crested
wheatgrass in the upland areas and Timothy grass or, if available,
deep-rooted plants such as sedges and rushes in the wetland areas to
enhance vegetation, forage for livestock and wildlife, and wildlife
habitat; and (3) use certified weed-free seeds and cleaning of all
equipment prior to entry into the construction site to prevent the
establishment of noxious weeds.
2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE
Under the staff alternative, the project would be constructed,
operated, and maintained as proposed by Gilbert Hydro with the
modifications and additions described below. Our recommended
modifications and additional environmental measures include, or are
based on, recommendations made by state resource agencies that have an
interest in resources that may be affected by the proposed project.
Under the staff alternative, the project would include most of
Gilbert Hydro's proposed measures, as outlined above, with the
exception of the streambank improvement program proposed as part of the
Revegetation Plan. In addition, the staff alternative includes the
following modifications and additional measures:
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that includes site-
specific measures;
Modification of the Revegetation Plan to include the use
of native sedges and rushes during replanting of disturbed wetland
areas, instead of Timothy grass as proposed;
Developing the final transmission line design, in
consultation with the FWS, to adhere to the most current APLIC
standards;
Notify the Commission, in addition to the Idaho SPHO and
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes as proposed, and develop measures in
consultation with the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes if
previously unidentified archeological or historic properties are
discovered; and
In addition to finishing the powerhouse with a color that
blends in with the rural character of the area, avoid reflective
materials and highly-contrasting colors in the finished appearance of
both the penstock and powerhouse to reduce their visibility from
surrounding properties and public roads.
Proposed and recommended measures are discussed under the
appropriate resource sections and summarized in section 4 of the EA.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In this section, we present: (1) A general description of the
project vicinity; (2) an explanation of the scope of our cumulative
effects analysis; and (3) our analysis of the proposed action and other
recommended environmental measures. Sections are organized by resource
area. Under each resource area, historical and current conditions are
first described. The existing condition is the baseline against which
the environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives are
compared, including an assessment of the effects of proposed
mitigation, protection, and enhancement measures, and any potential
cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives. Staff
conclusions and recommended measures are discussed in section 5.2,
Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative of the EA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Unless noted otherwise, the sources of our information are
the license application (Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC, 2012) and
additional information filed by DeAnn Simonich for Gilbert Hydro
Power on April 4, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN
The project would be located in southeastern Idaho, about eight
miles southwest of the City of Grace. The project would utilize flows
from five unnamed springs that converge immediately upstream of the
proposed project location and flow about 0.4 mile through an existing
unnamed stream channel into the Bear River at approximately river mile
(RM) 154.\8\ The Bear River, from its headwaters in the Uinta Mountains
to its mouth at the Great Salt Lake, is approximately 500 miles in
length and drains a basin of 7,500 square miles. The unnamed springs
are located within the Middle Bear subbasin which consists of the Bear
River and its tributaries from Alexander dam (RM 170) to the Utah state
line (RM 94).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ River miles were estimated based on Schmidt and Beck, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The project would be located in the Gentile Valley of southeastern
Idaho. The topography of the area is characterized by relatively flat
terrain of the valley floor running north and south along the Bear
River, steep bluffs composed of river terraces to the east, and the
forested ridges of the Portneuf Mountains to the west. Land in the
project area is primarily used for agricultural purposes including
livestock grazing and hay and crop production.
The climate of the Bear River Basin is generally continental and
semiarid. The average annual precipitation in the City of Grace is 14.7
inches and the average snowfall is 44.7 inches, with the highest amount
of snow falling in the months of December and January. Temperatures
range from an average low of 10.2 degrees Fahrenheit in January to an
[[Page 52180]]
average high of 84.9 degrees Fahrenheit in July.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Historical data from the Western Regional Climate Center,
1907-2012, available at https://www.wrcc.dri.edu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS
According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 C.F.R. section
1508.7), cumulative effect is the impact on the environment that
results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other
actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time,
including hydropower and other land and water development activities.
Based on our review of the license application and agency comments,
we have not identified any resources as having the potential to be
cumulatively affected by the proposed project in combination with other
past, present, and future activities.
3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES
In this section, we discuss the effects of the project alternatives
on environmental resources. For each resource, we first describe the
affected environment, which is the existing condition and baseline
against which we measure effects. We then discuss and analyze the site-
specific environmental issues.
Only the resources that would be affected, or about which comments
have been received, are addressed in detail in this EA. Based on this,
we have determined that geologic and soils, aquatic, terrestrial,
cultural, and aesthetic resources may be affected by the proposed
action and action alternatives. We have not identified any substantive
issues related to land use, recreation, or socio-economic resources
associated with the proposed action, and therefore, these resources are
not assessed in the EA. We present our recommendations in section 5.2,
Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.
3.3.1 Geologic and Soils Resources
3.3.1.1 Affected Environment
The proposed project is located on a rocky bluff, characterized as
lithic bedrock \10\ overlain by shallow loams \11\ (personal
communication on February 26, 2013, between B. Griffith, Soil Survey
Project Leader, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soda Springs,
Idaho, and J. Harper, Engineer, FERC, Washington, DC, filed August 14,
2013). The drop inlet structure would be constructed on a rocky bluff,
where the bedrock outcroppings are more pronounced. The penstock and
powerhouse would be constructed over pasture lands with shallow loamy
soils overlaying bedrock. The density of the vegetation near the
proposed powerhouse location is restricted by the shallow depth of the
soils and rocky outcroppings. Slopes in the project area range from 4
to 12 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Lithic bedrock is differentiated from paralithic bedrock by
its hardness and is far less erodible than paralithic bedrock or
overlaying soils.
\11\ Loams are soils that consist of relatively equal amounts of
silts, sands, and clay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects
Land-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project
construction, operation, and maintenance could cause erosion and
sedimentation. To minimize erosion and sedimentation during
construction activities, Gilbert Hydro proposes to: (1) Implement
industry-standard erosion control measures, and (2) reseed or replant
areas disturbed during construction with crested wheatgrass in the
upland areas and Timothy grass or deep-rooted plants such as sedges and
rushes, if available, in the wetland areas, as part of the Revegetation
Plan.
Idaho DFG recommends the applicant's proposed measures and deferred
to Idaho DEQ to define specific measures to control or minimize erosion
as part of the WQC.
Our Analysis
Due to the semi-arid conditions and the rocky outcrops in the
project area, erosion potential as a result of project construction
activities would be low. Nevertheless, vegetation clearing and ground-
disturbing excavation activities associated with construction of the
drop inlet structure, penstock, powerhouse, and transmission line could
cause a minor amount of soil erosion. Gilbert Hydro's proposal to
implement erosion control measures during project construction should
minimize soil erosion and sedimentation in project in waters. However,
other than noting that its proposed measures would be consistent with
industry standards, Gilbert Hydro does not provide any detail on the
measures that it would implement. A site-specific Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan would enable the Commission to document that the proposed
measures are adequate to minimize the potential for soil erosion and
sedimentation of project lands and waters. Revegetation of areas
disturbed during construction would provide further protection from
erosion. Revegetation is discussed further in section 3.3.3,
Terrestrial Resources.
3.3.2 Aquatic Resources
3.3.2.1 Affected Environment
Water Quantity and Quality
A natural channel draining five unnamed springs would be the source
water for the project. The flow from the unnamed stream channel flows
about 0.4 mile to its confluence with the Bear River. During a normal
year, the amount of combined flow in the springs ranges from 10 to 15
cfs, with higher flows up to 20 cfs possible during spring months. Flow
measurements near the proposed powerhouse location collected in October
2009 recorded a flow rate of 13 cfs.
There is no information in the project record on the water quality
of the unnamed springs; however, given that it originates from natural
springs a short distance from the point of diversion and only flows for
about 0.4 mile before entering the Bear River, water quality in the
unnamed springs is likely excellent.
Fisheries Resources and Aquatic Habitat
Aquatic habitat in the existing stream channel downstream of the
convergence of the five unnamed springs includes two distinct stream
reaches: (1) An approximately 1,200 foot-long upper reach, and (2) an
approximately 1,000-foot-long lower reach. A cascade/plunge pool
complex forms the transition between the upper and lower reaches and
also creates a natural barrier to fish attempting to access the upper
reach. The upper reach predominately consists of shallow braided
channels with an average gradient of 20 percent. The lower reach
extends from the cascade/plunge pool complex to the confluence with the
Bear River and ranges from 10 to 20 feet in width with water depths of
less than one foot. The lower reach has a lower gradient than the upper
reach and substrate consists primarily of silt, sand, and fine gravels.
The entire length of the stream channel within the project area is
located within existing agricultural lands used for livestock grazing.
Grazing has resulted in erosion and streambank degradation in portions
of the lower reach.
In August 2011, Idaho DEQ conducted fish surveys in two areas in
the lower reach between the cascade/plunge pool complex and the
confluence with the
[[Page 52181]]
Bear River. The survey collected four fish species: rainbow trout,
Bonneville cutthroat trout, brook trout, and sculpin. All species are
common in the project vicinity. Bonneville cutthroat trout collected
during the survey consisted of both naturally spawned and stocked
individuals. No fish surveys were conducted upstream of the cascade/
plunge pool complex, and there is no evidence of fish inhabiting the
upper reach; however, Idaho DEQ reported that it appeared to be a
barrier to upstream fish passage.
Other fish known to occur in the mainstem Bear River near the
proposed project include brown trout, mountain whitefish, common carp,
Utah sucker, mountain sucker, smallmouth bass, yellow perch, mottled
sculpin, and Paiute sculpin (FERC, 2003).
3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects
Water Quantity and Quality
To protect water quality during construction, Gilbert Hydro
proposes to use unspecified erosion control measures that it states
would be consistent with industry standards to minimize sediment from
washing into the existing stream channel during project construction.
During project operation, Gilbert Hydro proposes to operate the
project in a run-of-river mode diverting up to 18 cfs for power
generation.
Idaho DFG recommends that Gilbert Hydro obtain the necessary water
rights to operate the proposed project or downsize the project to be
consistent with the existing water rights permit.
Our Analysis
Constructing the proposed project would temporarily increase soil
erosion and sedimentation. As discussed in section 3.3.1, Geologic and
Soil Resources, Gilbert Hydro's proposed erosion control measures using
industry standards, and staff's recommended development of an Erosion
Sediment Control Plan would limit soil erosion and sedimentation, and
related turbidity effects in the stream channel.
Operating the proposed project in a run-of-river mode would ensure
that all diverted water is returned to the natural stream channel below
the powerhouse for the protection of aquatic resources. In the event
that the powerhouse trips off-line, flows would immediately bypass the
penstock and powerhouse and return to the bypassed reach at the point
of diversion; therefore, project operation would have no effect on
flows above the diversion or below the powerhouse. In addition,
operating the project in run-of-river mode and without the use of a
reservoir or impoundment would eliminate the potential for changes to
water quality conditions that could occur if streamflow was impounded
or stored by the project.
In regard to Idaho DFG's recommendation that Gilbert Hydro obtain
the necessary water rights to operate the proposed project or downsize
the project to be consistent with the existing water rights permit,
Commission licenses include a standard article that requires licensees
to require all rights necessary for operation and maintenance of a
project within five years of license issuance.
Fisheries Resources and Aquatic Habitat
In its Revegetation Plan, Gilbert Hydro proposes to cooperate with
federal and state agencies to develop a streambank improvement program
in the existing stream channel downstream of the powerhouse. Gilbert
Hydro states that it would not provide funding for the program and that
it must approve any program elements that could potentially adversely
affect agricultural use of its lands. Idaho DFG states that it would
work with Gilbert Hydro to provide a funding source for the proposed
streambank improvement program.
Our Analysis
Gilbert Hydro proposes to construct a drop inlet structure and 700-
foot-long penstock to divert up to up to 18 cfs of flow from the
existing stream channel to a new powerhouse located approximately 1,000
feet upstream from the confluence with the Bear River. The proposed
powerhouse would be constructed adjacent to a cascade/plunge pool
complex in the existing stream channel that forms a natural barrier to
upstream fish passage. Water diverted for power production would be
discharged from the powerhouse into a 25-foot-long tailrace channel
that would return flows to the existing stream channel at a location
immediately downstream of the cascade/plunge pool complex. Gilbert
Hydro's proposal would result in the elimination or reduction of flow
in the 800-foot-long bypassed reach between the point of diversion at
the drop inlet structure and the location where the tailrace channel
returns flow back to the existing stream channel. Although flow
diversion would eliminate aquatic habitat in the bypassed reach during
most of the year, there is no information in the project record to
suggest that fish inhabit this reach. Therefore, there would be no
effect on the existing fish community in the project area from
reduction of habitat availability.
Gilbert Hydro's proposal to implement a streambank improvement
program downstream of the proposed powerhouse location could
potentially enhance aquatic and riparian habitat conditions downstream
of the project. However, operation of the proposed project in run-of-
river mode would not result in adverse effects to aquatic and riparian
habitat downstream of the project and outside of the project boundary.
Further, Gilbert Hydro does not provide any specific measures to be
implemented under the program or a schedule for implementation. Without
specific measures, we cannot evaluate the environmental effects of the
program or its relationship to the project.
3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources
3.3.3.1 Affected Environment
Vegetation
The project area occurs entirely within agricultural crop and
pasture land and grasslands. The area surrounding the project in all
directions also consists of similar lands, with small remnants of
sagebrush-steppe scrub habitat preserved in areas of rugged topography.
Similar to the topography of the stream channel, the terrestrial
component of the project area can be divided into two components: a
flat upper pasture section and a flat lower pasture section. The
boundary between the upper and lower pastures is marked by a high
gradient reach where the existing stream channel descends through the
cascade/plunge pool complex. The boundary between the upper and lower
pastures is marked by a high gradient reach of the stream channel where
it descends to a second, smaller bluff. The topographic drop across
this bluff provides the potential energy for hydropower generation.
The dominant vegetation type in both components is pasture grass
and forbs. The lower pasture is more sparsely vegetated than the upper
pastures due to the presence of thin soils and rocky substrate in the
lower pasture. The banks of the existing stream channel consist of
saturated wetlands varying in total width from approximately 10 feet
(including the stream channel) along incised portions of the creek to
approximately 100 feet in braided segments of the creek. Small areas of
shrub-scrub vegetation occur along the bluffs and other small areas of
rugged topography not suited for pasture grass.
GeoSense conducted a wetlands reconnaissance survey for Gilbert
Hydro in the project area in July 2011 to delineate wetland boundaries
and
[[Page 52182]]
support the assessment of potential project effects. The survey was
extended into the upper pasture area above the location of proposed
project facilities to more thoroughly describe the overall nature of
the wetlands complex in the project area. A total of 7.3 acres, all
located on lands owned by the applicant, were mapped.
Wildlife
Wildlife resources in the project area include yellow-bellied
marmot, squirrels, raccoons, mule deer, and various species of birds
such as American kestrel, common nighthawk, mourning dove, red-breasted
nuthatch, song sparrow, common snipe, cinnamon teal, Brewer's
blackbird, and black-billed magpie (Idaho Department of Lands, 2004).
Common species of waterfowl use the Bear River, which adjoins the lower
pasture approximately 1,000 feet below the powerhouse site.
3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects
Vegetation
The proposed project would temporarily disturb 0.5 acre of wetland
vegetation and permanently remove 0.1 acre of upland vegetation. The
drop inlet structure and about 430 feet of the proposed penstock would
be located in existing wetlands. The remainder of the penstock,
powerhouse, and transmission line would be located in uplands areas.
Gilbert Hydro proposes to implement a Revegetation Plan to revegetate
areas disturbed during project construction.
The Revegetation Plan includes provisions to reseed and replant
areas disturbed by project construction. The plant seed mixture would
be certified weed-free. Gilbert Hydro proposes to reseed the upland
areas with crested wheatgrass and the wetland areas with Timothy grass,
or deep-rooted plants such as sedges or rushes, if available. Gilbert
Hydro would also plant grasses as soon as possible after construction
to revegetate disturbed areas, provide forage for livestock and
wildlife, and enhance wildlife habitat. To control noxious weeds,
Gilbert Hydro would clean all equipment prior to entry into the
construction site. All tires (including treads), and undercarriages
would be thoroughly cleaned to prevent the introduction and spread of
noxious weeds. Idaho DFG recommends the applicant's proposed measures
in the proposed Revegetation Plan with the exception of reseeding
wetlands areas with Timothy grass. Instead, Idaho DFG recommends that
Gilbert Hydro replant wetland areas with native sedges and rushes, and
offered to help locate sources of native plants.
Our Analysis
The proposed Revegetation Plan would help to restore upland and
wetland areas that were temporarily disturbed by project construction.
Cleaning construction equipment prior to entering the project site
would reduce the introduction and spread of invasive species. Reseeding
and replanting wetland areas using native sedges and rushes instead of
Timothy grass, as recommended by Idaho DFG, would promote and enhance
native vegetation. Restoring disturbed wetland areas with native
species and upland areas with the crested wheatgrass would also provide
forage for livestock and wildlife and enhance wildlife habitat in the
project area.
Wildlife
Gilbert Hydro proposes to construct the project transmission line
in accordance with FWS's most current standard for raptor protection
standards. Idaho DFG recommends that Gilbert Hydro consult with FWS to
design appropriate raptor protection measures for the project
transmission line.
Our Analysis
Constructing the transmission line to the most current raptor
protection standards as recommended by, and in consultation with, FWS
would minimize the risk of raptor collision and electrocution with the
project transmission line.
Construction activities have the potential to disturb wildlife that
occur in the project area. Increased human presence and noise
associated with project construction, while expected to be minimal, may
disturb and displace wildlife from the project area. Any potential
disturbance or displacement is expected to be temporary. Permanent loss
of 0.1 acre of upland habitat and temporary loss of 0.5 acre of wetland
habitat would have a minor effect on wildlife. The effects of the
proposed and recommended revegetation measures are discussed above
under Vegetation.
3.3.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species
No federal listed, proposed, or candidate species are known to be
present in the project area, and FWS stated that the proposed project
would not affect trust species. Idaho DFG also stated that it is
unaware of any federally listed species in the project area and agreed
with the applicant that the project would not affect any federally
listed species. Therefore, the project would not affect any threatened,
endangered, or sensitive species or their habitats.
3.3.5 Cultural Resources
3.3.5.1 Affected Environment
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the NHPA requires the Commission to evaluate
potential effects on properties listed or eligible for listing in the
National Register prior to an undertaking. An undertaking means a
project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the
direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including, among
other things, processes requiring a federal permit, license, or
approval. In this case, the undertaking is the proposed issuance of an
original license for the project. Potential effects associated with
this undertaking include project-related effects associated with
construction or the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the project
after issuance of an original license.
According to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
(Advisory Council) regulations (36 C.F.R. section 800.16(l)(1)), an
historic property is defined as any prehistoric or historic district,
site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for
inclusion in, the National Register. The term includes properties of
traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe and
that meet the National Register criteria. In this EA we also use the
term ``cultural resources'' for properties that have not been evaluated
for eligibility for listing in the National Register. In most cases,
cultural resources less than 50 years old are not considered eligible
for the National Register.
Section 106 also requires that the Commission seek concurrence with
the Idaho SHPO on any finding involving effects or no effects on
historic properties, and allow the Advisory Council an opportunity to
comment on any finding of adverse effects on historic properties. If
Native American properties have been identified, section 106 also
requires that the Commission consult with interested Indian tribes that
might attach religious or cultural significance to such properties.
Cultural Context
The project area is within a large region spanning Idaho and
several adjoining states that was traditionally occupied by Northern
Shoshone and Northern Paiute tribes. These distinct Native American
groups were linguistically related and were hunters
[[Page 52183]]
and gatherers who moved with the seasons to collect food and other
resources. Southeastern Idaho was a favored wintering area for both
Shoshone and Bannock (Northern Paiute) bands.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ History of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, available at https://www.shoshonebannocktribes.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early Euro-American contact with these tribes included John Jacob
Astor's Pacific Fur Company expedition of 1811 to the Snake River
region of southern Idaho, which initiated an intensive period of
trapping through the 1830s. By 1843, the Oregon Trail along the Snake
River had become well established as a migration route for Euro-
American settlers bound for the Pacific Northwest. Mining, grazing,
ranching, and settlement by non-natives led to major conflicts with the
tribes, including the Bear River Massacre (1863),\13\ Snake Indian War
(1866-1868), and the Bannock War (1878).\14\ As a consequence, the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation was established by the Fort Bridger Treaty of
1868. Farming and ranching expanded across the region in the late
1800s, substantially aided by irrigation from the early 1900s through
the present. More than 5,600 tribal members currently reside on or near
the reservation, which is located about 30 miles away generally to the
west and north of the project area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id. The Bear River Massacre site, located at the confluence
of the Bear River and Beaver Creek, is more than 30 miles downriver
from the proposed project.
\14\ A brief history of Euro-American contact with the tribes is
contained in the Malad Hydroelectric Project Final Environmental
Assessment (P-2726-012). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC, September 24, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Cultural Resources or Historic Properties Identified
The area surrounding the proposed project has been disturbed by
grazing, cultivation, and agricultural use, as well as by an existing
Rocky Mountain Power transmission line. The area within the project
boundary consists primarily of agricultural land. In 2011, Gilbert
Hydro consulted with the Idaho SHPO and interested Indian tribes, and
provided photographs of the proposed project site and a description of
the proposed 90 kW project, including the proposed 150-foot-long
transmission line. Gilbert Hydro stated in its application that an
inventory and/or survey of cultural resources might not be warranted
because the proposed project occupies a small area of land owned by
Gilbert Hydro and used for past and current agricultural practices.
By letter dated August 15, 2011,\15\ the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
commented that the proposed project area is within the ancestral lands
of the Shoshone and Bannock people. No comments were provided on the
presence of any cultural resources. In the event of an inadvertent
discovery (cultural resources and/or human remains) during project
construction, the tribes requested project construction cease and
Gilbert Hydro consult with the tribes to ensure proper treatment of
cultural resources and/or human remains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ A copy of the letter can be found in Appendix E of the
final license application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects
By letter dated December 7, 2011, the Idaho SHPO agreed with
Gilbert Hydro that an archaeological survey would not be productive,
withdrew its recommendation for a survey, and determined that there
would be no effect on historic properties.\16\ Because no historic
properties would be affected by the proposed project, a programmatic
agreement and associated Historic Properties Management Plan are not
needed. If previously unidentified archeological or historic properties
are discovered during construction, operation, or maintenance of the
project facilities, Gilbert Hydro proposes to immediately stop
construction and notify the Idaho SHPO and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for
guidance prior to resuming the project-related activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Gilbert Hydro included each letter from the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes and the Idaho SHPO in its license application at
Appendix E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Analysis
Previously unidentified archeological or historic properties may be
discovered during project construction, operation, or maintenance.
Gilbert Hydro's proposal to notify and consult with the Idaho SHPO and
the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes would address any effects on cultural
resources, if cultural resources are discovered during the term of any
license issued.
Based on our independent analysis, we agree with the findings and
determinations made by Gilbert Hydro, the Idaho SHPO, and the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes that the proposed project would have no adverse effect
on historic properties. Although no historic properties are known to
occur within the proposed project boundary, it is possible that
cultural resources may be discovered during construction, operation, or
maintenance of the project.
3.3.6 Aesthetic Resources
3.3.6.1 Affected Environment
The project area is located in an area of pasture, crop land,
grasslands, rocky bluffs, and wetlands along existing springs that
discharge through an existing stream channel to the Bear River.
Extensive agricultural activities and related structures are sparsely
scattered throughout the area. Farm roads, irrigation systems, and
transmission lines are also present. The nearest public road is
approximately 0.5 mile to the east. The project area is on private land
surrounded by extensive farms, ranches, and open country with long
viewing distances, particularly to the north, south, and west.
3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects
Construction and operation of the proposed project would affect
aesthetic resources in the vicinity by introducing project facilities
into a relatively undeveloped, rural and agricultural setting. Gilbert
Hydro proposes to reduce visual effects by designing the powerhouse to
be small in size, similar in appearance to other buildings in the area,
and finished with a color that blends in with the rural character of
the area.
No other specific concerns relating to noise or visual effects were
expressed by agencies or other interested participants during project
consultation.
Our Analysis
During construction, the presence of equipment and vehicles would
have short-term negative effects on views and noise levels.
During operation, visual and noise effects are expected to be
minor. The site of the proposed project and surrounding lands are owned
by the applicant, and the nearest residence is approximately 1,000 feet
to the northeast. Other residences and public roads in the area are
typically one-half to one mile away from the project site. The most
visible project features would be the powerhouse and 700-foot-long,
primarily above-ground penstock. At these distances, the proposed
powerhouse and penstock should be relatively inconspicuous from most
vantage points and would be partially hidden from view by intervening
topography. Gilbert Hydro's proposal to reduce visual effects by
designing the powerhouse to be small in size, similar in appearance to
other buildings in the area, and finished with a color that blends in
with the rural character of the area would help to minimize the
aesthetic effects of the project. However, visual effects could be
further
[[Page 52184]]
minimized by avoiding reflective materials and highly-contrasting
colors in the finished appearance of both the penstock and the
powerhouse.
Noise produced by the powerhouse may be audible offsite, but is
expected to be of a low intensity and should not significantly change
ambient noise levels in the area.
3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the no-action alternative, the Gilbert Project would not be
constructed. There would be no changes to the physical, biological,
recreational, or cultural resources of the area and electrical
generation from the project would not occur. The power that would have
been developed from a renewable resource would have to be replaced from
nonrenewable fuels.
4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS
In this section, we look at the Gilbert Project's use of the
unnamed channel's flow for hydropower purposes to see what effect
various environmental measures would have on the project's costs and
power generation. Under the Commission's approach to evaluating the
economics of hydropower projects, as articulated in Mead Corp.,\17\ the
Commission compares the current project cost to an estimate of the cost
of obtaining the same amount of energy and capacity using the likely
alternative source of power for the region (cost of alternative power).
In keeping with Commission policy as described in Mead Corp., our
economic analysis is based on current electric power cost conditions
and does not consider future escalation of fuel prices in valuing the
hydropower project's power benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC ]
61,027 (July 13, 1995). In most cases, electricity from hydropower
would displace some form of fossil-fueled generation, in which fuel
cost is the largest component of the cost of electricity production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each of the licensing alternatives, our analysis includes an
estimate of: (1) The cost of individual measures considered in the EA
for the protection, mitigation and enhancement of environmental
resources affected by the project; (2) the cost of alternative power;
(3) the total project cost (i.e., for construction, operation,
maintenance, and environmental measures); and (4) the difference
between the cost of alternative power and total project cost. If the
difference between the cost of alternative power and total project cost
is positive, the project produces power for less than the cost of
alternative power. If the difference between the cost of alternative
power and total project cost is negative, the project produces power
for more than the cost of alternative power. This estimate helps to
support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest
with respect to a proposed license. However, project economics is only
one of many public interest factors the Commission considers in
determining whether, and under what conditions, to issue a license.
4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT
Table 2 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use
in our analysis. This information, except as noted, was provided by
Gilbert Hydro in its license application and subsequent filings. We
find that the values provided by Gilbert Hydro are reasonable for the
purposes of our analysis. Cost items common to all alternatives
include: taxes and insurance costs; estimated future capital investment
required to maintain and extend the life of plant equipment and
facilities; licensing costs; and normal operation and maintenance cost.
Table 2--Parameters for Economic Analysis of the Gilbert Project
[Source: staff and Gilbert Hydro]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic parameter Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of analysis (years).............................. 30
Interest/discount rate (%).............................. \a\ 7.25
Federal tax rate (%).................................... \b\ 35
State tax (%)........................................... \b\ 3
Insurance rate ($/year)................................. \a\ $1,000
Average annual generation (MWh)......................... \a\ 550
Energy value ($/MWh).................................... \c\ $30.35
Term of financing (years)............................... 20
Construction cost ($)................................... \a\ $200,000
License application cost ($)............................ \a\ $25,000
Operation and Maintenance, $/year....................... \a\ $2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ From final license application filed May 30, 2012.
\b\ Assumed by staff.
\c\ 2013 contract year cost provided by Idaho Power Avoided Cost Rates
for Non-Fueled Projects, Errata to Order No. 32697, dated January 2,
2013.
4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 3 summarizes the installed capacity, annual generation, cost
of alternative power, estimated total project cost, and difference
between the cost of alternative power and total project cost for each
of the action alternatives considered in this EA: the applicant's
proposal and the staff alternative.
Table 3--Summary of the Annual Cost of Alternative Power and Annual
Project Cost for the Action Alternatives for the Gilbert Project
[Source: staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Hydro's Staff alternative
proposal \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installed capacity (kW)......... 90................ 90.
Annual generation (MWh)......... 550............... 550.
Annual cost of alternative power $16,690........... $16,690.
$30.35/MWh........ $30.35/MWh.
Annual project cost............. $25,090........... $25,200.
$45.62/MWh........ $45.83/MWh.
Difference between the cost of ($8,400) \b\...... ($8,510).\b\
alternative power and project ($15.27/MWh) \b\.. ($15.48/MWh).\b\
cost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs were escalated to 2013 dollars using the Consumer Price Index
for Energy Services.
\b\ A number in parentheses denotes that the difference between the cost
of alternative power and project cost is negative, thus the total
project cost is greater than the cost of alternative power.
[[Page 52185]]
4.2.1 No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be
constructed as proposed and would not produce any electricity. No costs
for construction, operation and maintenance, or proposed environmental
protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be incurred by
the applicant.
4.2.2 Gilbert Hydro's Proposal
Under Gilbert Hydro's proposal, the project would require
construction of a drop inlet structure, a penstock, a powerhouse
containing generation facilities, a tailrace, and a transmission line.
Gilbert Hydro proposes various environmental measures to protect,
mitigate, and enhance existing environmental resources in the vicinity
of project features.
Under Gilbert Hydro's proposal, the project would have an installed
capacity of 90 kW and would generate an average of 550 MWh annually.
The average annual cost of alternative power would be $16,690, or about
$30.35/MWh. The average annual project cost would be $25,090 or about
$45.62/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost which is
$8,400, or $15.27/MWh, more than the cost of alternative power.
4.2.3 Staff Alternative
The staff alternative would have the same capacity and energy
attributes as Gilbert Hydro's proposal. Table 4 shows the staff-
recommended additions, deletions, and modifications to Gilbert Hydro's
proposed environmental protection and enhancement measures, and the
estimated cost of each. The cost of alternative power would be the same
as the applicant's proposal. The average annual project cost would
$25,200, or about $45.83/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power
at a cost which is $8,510, or $15.48/MWh, more than the cost of
alternative generation
4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES
Table 4 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement
measures considered in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal
annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period of analysis to give a
uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost.
Table 4--Cost of Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Considered in Assessing the Environmental
Effects of Construction and Operation of the Gilbert Project
[Source: staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhancement/Mitigation Capital (2013$) Annual (2012$) Levelized annual
measures Entities \a\ \a\ cost (2012$) \b\ Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Implement erosion control Gilbert Hydro... $2,565.......... $0.............. $190............
measures that are consistent
with industry standards.
2. As part of the Gilbert Hydro... Unknown......... Unknown......... Unknown......... \c\
Revegetation Plan, develop
and implement a streambank
improvement program.
3. As part of the Gilbert Hydro... $2,565.......... $0.............. $190............
Revegetation Plan, (1)
revegetation of areas
disturbed during
construction with crested
wheatgrass in the upland
areas and Timothy grass or,
if available, deep rooted
plants such as sedges and
rushes in the wetland areas
as soon as possible after
construction; and (2) use of
certified weed-free seeds
and cleaning equipment prior
to entry into construction
site.
4. Same as 3, but Staff, Idaho DFG $3,080.......... $0.............. $230............ \f\
replant disturbed wetland
areas with native rushes and
sedges instead of Timothy
grass.
5. Design and construct the Gilbert Hydro... $0.............. $0.............. $0.............. \d\
project transmission line in
accordance with the most
current raptor protection
standards recommended by FWS.
6. Consult with FWS for Idaho DFG....... $0.............. $0.............. $0.............. \d\
guidelines for transmission
line design and construction.
7. Design and construct the Staff........... $0.............. $0.............. $0.............. \d\
transmission line to APLIC
standards in consultation
with FWS.
8. Notify the SHPO, Shoshone- Gilbert Hydro, $0.............. $0.............. $0.............. \e\
Bannock Tribe, and Staff.
Commission if any
archeological artifacts are
found and develop protective
measures.
9. Develop an Erosion and Staff........... $1,025.......... $0.............. $70............. \b\
Sediment Control Plan.
10. Design the powerhouse to Gilbert Hydro... $0.............. $0.............. $0..............
be small in size, similar in
appearance to other
buildings in the area, and
finished with a color that
blends in with the rural
character of the area.
[[Page 52186]]
11. Avoid reflective Staff........... $0.............. $0.............. $0..............
materials and highly-
contrasting colors in the
finished appearance of both
the penstock and powerhouse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs were provided by Gilbert Hydro unless otherwise noted.
\b\ Cost estimated by staff.
\c\ The measures that would be implemented were not specified; therefore, Commission staff could not assign a
cost for this proposal. While the Commission staff does not object to Gilbert Hydro's proposal to develop and
implement the streambank improvement program to enhance downstream resources, staff does not recommend that it
be a condition of any license issued for this project.
\d\ These costs are included in the overall construction costs of the project.
\e\ The implementation of this measure would only happen if archeological artifacts are found; staff's
recommendation to notify the SHPO, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, and the Commission would have no additional cost.
\f\ The implementation of this measure would have an incremental cost of $515 (and an incremental levelized
annual cost of $40) over the applicant's proposed Revegetation Plan to account for the difference in cost
between Timothy grass seed and Idaho DFG and staff's recommended native rushes and sedges.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
In this section, we compare the developmental and non-developmental
effects of Gilbert Hydro's proposal, Gilbert Hydro's proposal as
modified by staff, and the no-action alternative.
We estimate the annual generation of the project under the two
action alternatives identified above would be the same.
We summarize the environmental effects of the different
alternatives in Table 5.
Table 5--Comparison of Alternatives for the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project
[Source: staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource No action alternative Proposed action Staff alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geology and Soils................. No changes to geology Temporary erosion during Same as Proposed Action,
and soils. vegetation clearing and except development of a
excavation for site-specific Erosion
construction; however, and Sediment Control
soil erosion would be Plan would ensure soil
minimized through erosion and
proposed industry- sedimentation would be
standard erosion control minimized.
measures.
Aquatic Resources................. No changes to aquatic Run-of-river operation Same as Proposed Action,
resources. would maintain aquatic except a site-specific
habitat below the Erosion and Sediment
proposed powerhouse and Control Plan would
minimize adverse effects ensure minimal erosion,
on water quality. sedimentation, and
Erosion, sedimentation, turbidity. No streambank
and turbidity of project stabilization downstream
waters may occur during of the project would
construction; however, occur.
these would be minimized
through proposed industry-
standard erosion control
measures.
Proposed streambank
improvement program could
enhance aquatic habitat
downstream of the
powerhouse.
Terrestrial Resources............. No changes to Minor increased potential Same as Proposed Action,
terrestrial for raptor collision and except disturbed
resources. electrocution with wetlands would be
transmission line. revegetated with native
sedges and rushes
instead of Timothy
grass, enhancing
vegetation, forage for
livestock and wildlife,
and wildlife habitat.
Temporary disturbance of
0.5 acre vegetation and
permanent loss of 0.1
acre.
Disturbed vegetation would
be restored and the
livestock and wildlife
forage and wildlife
habitat would be
replaced. Noxious weed
establishment would be
minimized.
Cultural Resources................ No changes to No effects on identified Same as Proposed Action
cultural resources. cultural resources. If except, if archeological
previously unidentified or historic properties
cultural resources or are discovered,
human remains are Commission notification
discovered, resources and protection measures
would likely be protected. developed in
consultation with Idaho
SHPO and Shoshone-
Bannock, would provide
greater assurance of
resource protection.
[[Page 52187]]
Aesthetic Resources............... No changes to Potential minor visual Same as Proposed Action,
aesthetic resources. effects on surrounding except minor effects
properties. would be reduced by
avoiding reflective
materials and high-
contrast colors in the
finished appearance of
facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to
give equal consideration to the power development purposes and to the
purpose of energy conservation; the protection, mitigation of damage
to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; the protection of
recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of
environmental quality. Any license issued shall be such as in the
Commission's judgment will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for
improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial
public uses. This section contains the basis for, and a summary of, our
recommendations for licensing the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project. We
weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against
other proposed measures.
Based on our independent review of agency and public comments filed
on this project and our review of the environmental and economic
effects of the proposed project and its alternatives, we selected the
staff alternative as the preferred alternative. This alternative
includes elements of the applicant's proposal, resource agency
recommendations, and some additional measures. We recommend this
alternative because: (1) Issuance of an original hydropower license by
the Commission would allow Gilbert Hydro to build and operate the
project as a beneficial and dependable source of electrical energy; (2)
the 90 kW of electric capacity available comes from a renewable
resource that does not contribute to atmospheric pollution; (3) the
public benefits of this alternative would exceed those of the no-action
alternative; and (4) the recommended measures would protect and enhance
environmental resources affected by constructing, operating, and
maintaining the project.
In the following section, we make recommendations as to which
environmental measures proposed by Gilbert Hydro or recommended by
agencies or other entities should be included in any original license
issued for the project. In addition to Gilbert Hydro's proposed
environmental measures, we recommend additional environmental measures
to be included in any license issued for the project, as described in
section 5.2.2 below.
5.2.1 Measures Proposed by Gilbert Hydro
Based on our environmental analysis of Gilbert Hydro's proposal in
section 3, and the costs presented in section 4, we conclude that the
following environmental measures proposed by Gilbert Hydro would
protect and enhance environmental resources and would be worth the
cost. Therefore, we recommend including these measures in any license
issued for the project.
Operation and Design Features
Operate in a run-of-river mode to maintain natural flows
downstream of the project for the protection of aquatic resources;
Design and construct the project transmission line in
accordance with the most current raptor protection standards
recommended by the FWS;
Design the powerhouse to be small in size, similar in
appearance to other buildings in the area, and finished with a color
that blends in with the rural character of the area.
During Construction
Implement industry-standard erosion control measures to
minimize erosion and sedimentation;
Stop construction immediately in the event of an
inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains, and
contact the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for guidance
before continuing project construction or other project-related
activity.
During Project Operation
Implement the portions of the Revegetation Plan that
include: (1) revegetation of areas disturbed during construction with
crested wheatgrass in the upland areas; and (2) use of certified weed-
free seeds and cleaning of all equipment prior to entry into
construction site.
5.2.2 Modifications and Additional Measures Recommended by Staff
We recommend the measures described above, and the following
modifications and additional staff-recommended measures:
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that includes site-
specific measures;
Modification of the Revegetation Plan to include the use
of native sedges and rushes during replanting of disturbed wetland
areas, instead of Timothy grass as proposed;
Developing the final transmission line design, in
consultation with the FWS, to adhere to the most current APLIC
standards;
Notify the Commission, in addition to the Idaho SPHO and
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes as proposed, and develop measures in
consultation with the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes if
previously unidentified archeological or historic properties are
discovered; and
In addition to finishing the powerhouse in a color that
blends in with the rural character of the area, avoid reflective
materials and highly-contrasting colors in the finished appearance of
both the penstock and powerhouse to reduce their visibility from
surrounding properties and public roads.
Below, we discuss the basis for our staff-recommended modifications
and additional measures.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Gilbert Hydro proposes to minimize the potential for erosion and
sedimentation from project construction by implementing unspecified
erosion control measures that it states would be consistent with
industry standards. While the proposed measures could potentially
minimize soil erosion in the project area, Gilbert Hydro's proposal
lacks detail on the measures that would be implemented to ensure its
effectiveness and adequately provide for Commission oversight and
enforcement of the measures. For these reasons, we recommend that
Gilbert Hydro prepare and file, after consultation with Idaho DFG and
Idaho DEQ, a site-specific
[[Page 52188]]
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that specifies the measures that
would implemented during project construction. We envision the plan
would include, but not necessarily be limited to, a description of the
measures for protecting existing vegetation, grading slopes,
controlling surface drainage, containing sediment, stockpiling topsoil,
storing and disposing excess soil and debris, and clearing and
constructing the transmission line rights-of-way. We estimate that the
levelized annual cost to develop the plan would be $70, and conclude
that the benefits of the plan would justify the additional cost.
Revegetation Plan
Gilbert Hydro proposes to implement a Revegetation Plan that
includes, in part, provisions to reseed and replant areas disturbed by
project construction. The seeds would be certified weed-free. Gilbert
Hydro proposes to reseed the upland areas with crested wheatgrass and
the wetland areas with Timothy grass, or, if available, deep-rooted
plants such as sedges or rushes. Idaho DFG recommends that Gilbert
Hydro replant wetland areas with native sedges and rushes instead of
Timothy grass, and offered to help locate sources of native plants.
Reseeding and replanting wetland areas using native sedges and rushes
instead of Timothy grass would promote and enhance native vegetation,
livestock and wildlife forage, and wildlife habitat. We estimate that
the additional levelized annual cost to replant disturbed wetlands with
native sedges and rushes would be $40, and conclude that the benefits
of this measure would justify the additional cost.
Transmission Line Design and Construction
Gilbert Hydro proposes to design the project transmission line in
accordance with the most current raptor protection standards
recommended by FWS. Idaho DFG recommends that Gilbert Hydro consult
with FWS on the design of appropriate raptor protection measures for
the project transmission line. While Gilbert Hydro's proposal could
protect raptors in the project area, the plan lacks detail on the
standards that would be implemented and any mechanism to consult with
the FWS prior to final design and construction of the transmission
line. Therefore, we recommend an additional requirement that Gilbert
Hydro design the transmission line, in consultation with the FWS, to
adhere to APLIC standards. This would ensure that the transmission line
would be protective of raptors on the project area. We estimate that
there would be no cost for the additional requirement and conclude that
the benefits of ensuring raptor protection would be justified.
Cultural Resources
As part of Gilbert Hydro's license application, Gilbert Hydro
included letters from the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
that reached the same conclusion that no historic properties would be
affected by the proposed project. Although no cultural resources or
historic properties have been identified within the project boundary,
it is possible that previously unidentified archeological or historic
properties could be discovered during construction, operation, or
maintenance of project facilities. To ensure protection of cultural
resources and provide guidance on measures to be implemented if
cultural resources are discovered during the term of any license issued
for the project, we recommend that Gilbert Hydro also notify the
Commission and develop measures in consultation with the Idaho SHPO and
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. We estimate that there would be no cost for
this additional measure and find the benefits of this measure would be
in the public interest.
Aesthetic Resources
To reduce potential effects on aesthetic resources, including the
visibility of project facilities from surrounding properties, Gilbert
Hydro proposes to design the powerhouse to be small in size, similar in
appearance to other buildings in the area, and finished with a color
that blends in with the rural character of the area. To minimize visual
effects on neighboring residences, we recommend that reflective
materials and highly-contrasting colors be avoided in the finished
appearance of both the penstock and the powerhouse. We estimate that
there would be no cost to implement this measure and conclude that the
aesthetic benefits would be justified.
5.2.3 Measures Not Recommended
Some of the measures proposed by Gilbert Hydro and recommended by
Idaho DFG would not contribute to the best comprehensive use of project
water resources, do not exhibit sufficient nexus to the project
environmental effects, or would not result in benefits to non-power
resources that would be worth their cost. The following discusses the
basis for staff's conclusion not to recommend such measures.
Streambank Improvement Program
As part of its Revegetation Plan, Gilbert Hydro proposes to work
with federal and state agencies to develop a streambank improvement
program along the existing stream channel downstream of the powerhouse.
Gilbert Hydro stipulates that it would not provide funding for the
proposed program and that it would need to approve any program elements
that could potentially adversely affect agricultural use of its land.
Idaho DFG indicated in its comments on the license application that it
would work with Gilbert Hydro and other agencies to identify sources of
funding for the program.
While the proposed program could potentially enhance aquatic and
riparian habitat downstream of the powerhouse, we do not recommend
including a provision in the license for the proposed program. The area
in which the program would be implemented is located downstream of the
project area and outside of the project boundary. Furthermore, the run-
of-river operation would ensure that there would be no project-related
effects on downstream aquatic and riparian resources. This measure does
not have a sufficient nexus to project effects. For these reasons, we
do not recommend the proposed program be included as a license
requirement.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ We have no objection to Gilbert Hydro entering into a
cooperative agreement with the State of Idaho or another party to
implement the streambank improvement program outside of the
requirements of any license that may be issued for the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2.4 Other Issues
Water Rights
Idaho DFG recommends that Gilbert Hydro acquire a water right equal
to the amount of water that will be diverted by the project. Commission
licenses include a standard article requiring licensees to acquire all
rights necessary for operation and maintenance of the project;
therefore, there is no need for and we do not recommend an additional
license condition specifically requiring Gilbert Hydro to acquire a
water right for water diverted by the project.
5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in
temporary increases in erosion and sedimentation of project lands and
waters, temporary increases in water turbidity during construction of
project facilities and initial project operation, permanent increased
potential for raptor collision and electrocution as a result of the new
transmission line, temporary
[[Page 52189]]
and permanent vegetation loss, and minor visual effects on surrounding
properties.
5.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
Under the provisions of section 10(j) of the FPA, each
hydroelectric license issued by the Commission shall include conditions
based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and
wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of
fish and wildlife resources affected by the project.
Section 10(j) of the FPA states that whenever the Commission
believes that any fish and wildlife agency recommendation is
inconsistent with the purposes and the requirements of the FPA or other
applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall attempt to resolve
any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations,
expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency. In response
to our REA notice, Idaho DFG submitted recommendations for the project
on December 13, 2012. Table 6 lists the state recommendations filed
subject to section 10(j), and indicates whether the recommendations are
adopted under the staff alternative. Environmental recommendations that
we consider outside the scope of section 10(j) have been considered
under section 10(a) of the FPA and are addressed in the specific
resource sections of this document and the previous section.
We determined one recommendation, to revegetate wetland areas using
native sedges and rushes instead of Timothy grass, to be within the
scope of section 10(j) and recommend this measure. We also recommend
that the provision for Gilbert Hydro consult with FWS on the design of
project transmission line. Table 6 indicates the basis for our
preliminary determinations concerning measures that we consider
inconsistent with section 10(j).
Table 6--Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations for the Gilbert Project
[Source: staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within scope of
Recommendation Agency Section 10(j) Annualized cost Adopted?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revegetate wetland areas using Idaho DFG.......... Yes............... $230.............. Yes.
native sedges and rushes
instead of Timothy grass.
Consult with FWS on the design Idaho DFG.......... No, consulting $0................ Yes.
of appropriate raptor with the FWS is
protection measures for the not a specific
project transmission line. fish and wildlife
measure.
Acquire a water right equal to Idaho DFG.......... No, acquiring Unknown........... No, however,
the amount of water that will water rights is Commission
be diverted by the project. not a specific licenses include
fish and wildlife a standard
measure. article requiring
licensees to
acquire all
rights necessary
for operation and
maintenance of a
project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C., section 803(a)(2)(A),
requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is
consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving,
developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by a
project. We reviewed five comprehensive plans that are applicable to
the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project.\19\ No inconsistencies were found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ (1) Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2001. Fisheries
management plan, 2007-2012. Boise, Idaho; (2) Idaho Department of
Fish and Game. Bonneville Power Administration. 1986. Pacific
Northwest rivers study. Final report: Idaho. Boise, Idaho. 12 pp;
(3) Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy. Boise, Idaho. September, 2005; (4) Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare. 1992. Idaho water quality
standards and wastewater treatment requirements. Boise, Idaho.
January 1992; and (5) Idaho Water Resource Board. 2012. State water
plan. Boise, Idaho. November 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNICANT IMPACT
Issuing an original minor license for the Gilbert Hydroelectric
Project, with our recommended measures, would provide a source of
renewable power. Our recommended measures would protect cultural
resources and reduce minor aesthetic effects. Project construction and
operation would result in some minor erosion, sedimentation, and
turbidity during project construction and initial operation; may create
minor long-term effects to aesthetics; and may create temporary noise
impacts from construction. Project construction and operation would
also increase the potential for raptor collision and electrocution from
the new transmission line and would result in minor temporary and
permanent vegetation loss.
On the basis of our independent analysis, we find that the issuance
of an original license for the proposed Gilbert Hydroelectric Project,
with our recommended environmental measures, would not constitute a
major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
7.0 LITERATURE CITED
Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power LLC. 2012. Application for license for a
minor water project: Gilbert Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14367).
Grace, Idaho. May 30, 2012.
Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC. 2013. Submittal of Additional
Information in Response to FERC AIR dated 08-Feb-2013. Filed by
DeAnn Simonich on April 4, 2013.
EPRI. 1992. Fish Entrainment and Turbine Mortality Review and
Guidelines. Prepared by Stone and Webster Environmental Services.
Boston, MA.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2003. Final
environmental impact statement, Bear River (FERC Project Nos. 20-
019, 2041-007, and 472-017). Washington, DC April 16, 2003.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2004. Malad Hydroelectric
Project No. 2726-012, Final Environmental Assessment. Washington,
DC. September 24, 2004.
Griffith, Bryce. Personal communication of soil characterization in
Caribou County, Section 33. Natural Resource Conservation Service.
February 26, 2013,
[[Page 52190]]
filed on August 14, 2013.
History of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, available at https://www.shoshonebannocktribes.com (March 12, 2013).
Historical data from the Western Region Climate Center, 1907-2012,
available at https://www.wrcc.dri.edu (January 22, 2013).
Idaho Department of Lands. 2004. Wildland Fire Mitigation Plan:
Caribou County. Available at https://www.idl.idaho.gov/nat_fire_plan/county_wui_plans/caribou/caribou_plan.pdf (July 9, 2013).
Myler, Cary. Personal communication of Fish and Wildlife Service
interest in Gilbert Hydroelectric Project. Fish and Wildlife
Service. March 21, 2013, filed March 29, 2013.
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2012. Web Soil
Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov (June 7, 2012).
North American Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2012 Long-Term
Reliability Assessment. November 2012.
Schmidt, B., and K. Beck. 1975. Investigation of Bear River Basin
Water Quality August 1974. EPA-910/8-75-091. Surveillance and
Analysis Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Seattle,
Washington July 1975. 169 pp.
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Kelly Wolcott--EA Coordinator, Terrestrial Resources (Environmental
Biologist, M.S., Natural Resources).
Jennifer Harper--Developmental Analysis (Engineer, Ph.D., Environmental
Health Engineering).
John Matkowski--Aquatic Resources (Fish Biologist, M.S., Environmental
Science and Policy).
Ken Wilcox--Cultural and Aesthetic Resources (Outdoor Recreation
Planner, B.S. Environmental Policy and Management).
[FR Doc. 2013-20460 Filed 8-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P