[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 96 (Monday, May 19, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27037-27052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-12441]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 935-037, 2071-015, 2111-011, and 2213-002]


PacifiCorp, Cowlitz PUD, Washington; Notice of Availability

May 13, 2003.
    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 amendment to 
licenses for the Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects (Merwin P-935, Yale 
P-2071, Swift No. 1 P-2111, and Swift No. 2 P-2213), located on the 
North Fork Lewis River in Cowlitz, Clark, and Skamania counties, 
Washington and has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for 
the projects. No Federal lands are involved.
    The FEA contains the staff's analysis of the potential 
environmental impacts of the projects and concludes that approving the 
amendments to the licenses, 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 FEA is available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The FEA may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``FERRIS'' link--select ``Docket 
'' and follow the instructions. For assistance, please

[[Page 27038]]

contact FERC online support at [email protected] or call toll-
free 866-208-3676 or (202) 502-8659 (for TTY). Attachments A and C of 
the FEA are currently available on FERRIS.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be 
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or 
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Allison Arnold at (202) 502-6346 
or [email protected].

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.

Environmental Assessment

    Project Name: Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects.
    FERC Project Numbers: P-935, P-2071, P-2111, P-2213.
    May 12, 2003

1.0 Application

    1.1 Application type: Amendment of License.
    1.2 Date filed: July 6, 2000.
    1.3 Applicant: PacifiCorp (Portland, Oregon), Cowlitz PUD (Cowlitz 
County, Washington).
    1.4 Water body: North Fork Lewis River.
    1.5 Nearest city or town: Woodland, Washington.
    1.6 County and State: Cowlitz, Clark and Skamania Counties, 
Washington.

2.0 Purpose and Need for Action

    On July 6, 2000, PacifiCorp filed an application to amend its 
licenses for the North Fork Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects (Lewis 
River Projects) (Merwin P-935, Yale P-2071, and Swift No. 1 P-2111) and 
supplemented that filing on August 17, 2000. On August 17, 2000, 
Cowlitz PUD No. 1 (PUD) filed an application to amend its license for 
the Swift No. 2 Project (P-2213) also located on the Lewis River. The 
Swift No. 2 Project is operated by PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp and PUD 
request approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) to include within its licenses measures for protecting, 
enhancing, or mitigating impacts to endangered and threatened and 
proposed and candidate fish species under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (ESA). These measures are intended to provide 
PacifiCorp and PUD with ESA compliance for the Merwin, Yale, and Swift 
No. 1 and Swift No. 2 hydroelectric projects until collaborative 
relicensing is completed. By amending its licenses, PacifiCorp and PUD 
hope to incidental take of listed and proposed species occurring as a 
result of current facility operations.

3.0 Summary

    In this Environmental Assessment (EA), Commission staff review the 
proposed amendments to the Merwin, Yale, Swift No. 1 and Swift No. 2 
licenses to determine if the measures for protecting, enhancing, and 
mitigating impacts to fish species listed under the ESA will likely 
reduce incidental take of those species resulting from the operation of 
the four projects.
    The recommended alternative is approving the amendment of 
PacifiCorp's and PUD's licenses to adopt and implement the proposed 
conservation strategy. Incorporating the terms of the conservation 
strategy into PacifiCorp's and PUD's licenses will significantly reduce 
incidental take of listed species resulting from operation of the Lewis 
River Projects. Such conservation measures likewise represent important 
near-term conservation opportunities that may be lost if not secured 
while the parties collaboratively devise long-term conservation 
strategies.

4.0 Background

    PacifiCorp and PUD (Licensees) have initiated a collaborative ALP 
for four hydroelectric projects on the North Fork Lewis River in 
Cowlitz, Clark, and Skamania counties in southwest Washington. 
PacifiCorp owns and operates the Merwin, Yale, and Swift No. 1 
projects. PacifiCorp operates Swift No. 2 under a 1957 contract with 
Cowlitz PUD. Under that contract, PacifiCorp has sole charge and 
responsibility for generation and delivery of the power and energy from 
Swift No. 2.\1\ Each of these projects has a different FERC license 
number, original license expiration date, and production capacity. See 
(Table 4.0-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The operating agreement provides, in relevant parts: 
Whereas, the District and Pacific entered into a contract on June 4, 
1957, which provides for the delivery to Pacific of all the power 
and energy to which the District may be entitled under the terms of 
said contract and for the withdrawal of all or any part of such 
power and energy by the District in accordance with the conditions 
stated in said contract and also provides for the coordinated 
operation of the said Swift Plants Nos. 1 and 2 so as to produce the 
optimum project output and such coordinated operation will be 
facilitated by the operation of both plants under one direction and 
control and to accomplish such purpose and to achieve economy of 
operation Pacific should be authorized to operate Swift Plant No. 2 
under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.
    * * * * *
    ``Section 3. Manner of Operation of Swift Plant No. 2
    (a) Pacific will operate and maintain Swift Plant No. 2 in an 
efficient manner, consistent with established electric utility 
practices for the operation and maintenance of hydroelectric 
projects of similar type and size and in accordance with any 
applicable provisions of the Federal Power Commission License for 
Swift Plant No. 2, as the same may be amended from time to time.
    (b) Pacific shall perform the work hereunder as an independent 
contractor and shall not be subject to the control or supervision of 
the District except as to the results of the work.''
    Cowlitz PUD, as licensee, has the right to notice of 
PacifiCorp's actions and such notice has been given. Cowlitz PUD 
also may wish to be involved in PacifiCorp's discussions with the 
Commission staff, USFWS and NMFS (and has been to date). However, as 
contract operator, PacifiCorp has full discretion to take necessary 
steps to obtain ESA compliance for its operation of Swift No. 2.

          Table 4.0-1.--FERC License Number, Original License Expiration Date, and Production Capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FERC                               Capacity
             Project name                    Project owner       license No.     License expiration       (MW)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yale.................................  PacifiCorp..............         2071  May 1, 2001............        134
Swift No. 1..........................  PacifiCorp..............         2111  May 1, 2006............        240
Swift No. 2..........................  Cowlitz PUD.............         2213  May 1, 2006............         70
Merwin...............................  PacifiCorp..............          935  May 1, 2006 \1\........       136
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Original license expiration date was 2009.

    The current license for the Yale Project expired on May 1, 2001, 
five years prior to the expiration of the licenses for Swift Nos. 1 and 
2 projects (May 1, 2006) and about eight years before the original 
expiration date of the current license for the Merwin Project (December 
11, 2009). On April 1, 1999, the Commission approved PacifiCorp

[[Page 27039]]

and PUD's request to use the Commission's ALP and for the simultaneous 
and coordinated processing of the applications for all four projects.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that federal agencies ensure 
that their actions do not jeopardize federally-listed species. The 
Commission has recognized PacifiCorp as a non-federal designee under 
Section 7 in a letter dated October 20, 1999. PacifiCorp has developed 
a multi-species Biological Assessment (BA) (Attachment A) that includes 
a number of measures to protect, enhance and mitigate project impacts 
to proposed and listed species under the ESA for the Commission's 
review and adoption. In the BA, PacifiCorp requests the Commission to 
amend its licenses, which constitutes a federal action triggering a 
Section 7 consultation. Specifically, PacifiCorp's application for 
amendment of its licenses to provide ESA compliance for its ownership 
of three of the facilities (Merwin, Yale and Swift No. 1) and operation 
of all four projects (Merwin, Yale and Swift Nos. 1 and 2).

5.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

    The Proposed Action is Commission approval of the Application for 
Amendment of PacifiCorp's (Merwin, Yale, and Swift No. 1) and PUD's 
(Swift No. 2) Licenses.

5.1 Proposed Measures

    The following section describes proposed measures to reduce the 
effects of the Lewis River Projects on certain fish species that are 
listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the ESA. 
PacifiCorp proposes to implement pertinent measures upon issuance of 
license article amendments by the Commission after consultation with 
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and (USFWS) under section 
7(a)(2) of the ESA, and subsequent issuance of a Biological Opinion 
(BO)(Attachment C), and its associated incidental take statement, as it 
pertains to the proposed operation of the Lewis River Projects. Table 
5.1-1 summarizes PacifiCorp's proposed measures. The BO, filed June 28, 
2002 by NMFS and USFWS, is consistent with and supports the proposed 
amendments to the license.

                             Table 5.1-1.--Summary of PacifiCorp's Proposed Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Species                          Project                   Effects            ESA alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steelhead, Chinook, Chum, Coho and    Merwin....................  Instream Flows altered  Change existing
 Cutthroat.                                                        hydrograph ramping.     ramping rates
                                                                                           downstream of Merwin.
Steelhead, Chinook, Chum, Coho and    Merwin....................  Upstream Migration      Provide funds for
 Cutthroat.                                                        Block/reduced habitat.  Clark County to
                                                                                           purchase Eagle Island
                                                                                           for the protection of
                                                                                           anadromous fish
                                                                                           rearing habitat.
Steelhead, Chinook, Chum, Coho and    Merwin....................  Dewatering/stranding    Implement Merwin
 Cutthroat.                                                        incidents.              redundancy equipment
                                                                                           to prevent potential
                                                                                           dewatering of
                                                                                           riverbed, fish trap
                                                                                           and hatcheries. Work
                                                                                           with Washington
                                                                                           Department of Fish
                                                                                           and Wildlife (WDFW)
                                                                                           to provide for
                                                                                           habitat enhancement
                                                                                           measures in the Lewis
                                                                                           River and tributaries
                                                                                           to benefit salmon
                                                                                           populations.
Steelhead, Chinook, Chum, Coho and    Merwin....................  Hatchery Program......  Continue to fund WDFW
 Cutthroat.                                                                                Section 10 annual
                                                                                           evaluation.
Bull Trout..........................  Yale......................  Upstream Passage block  Continue net and haul
                                                                                           process Enhance/
                                                                                           protect habitat
                                                                                           upstream at Yale and
                                                                                           Swift.
Bull Trout..........................  Yale......................  Entrainment...........  Addressed in the ALP
                                                                  --turbines............   discussions Study
                                                                  --spill...............   strobe effectiveness.
                                                                                           Develop a preliminary
                                                                                           engineering design
                                                                                           study to modify the
                                                                                           Yale spillway.
                                                                                           Purchase Cougar Cr.
                                                                                           Area C to protect and
                                                                                           enhance spawning/
                                                                                           rearing habitat and
                                                                                           create a conservation
                                                                                           easement.
Bull Trout..........................  Swift.....................  Limited spawning/       Purchase Swift Cr.
                                                                   rearing.                Area A (Devil's
                                                                                           Backbone) to protect
                                                                                           bull trout sub-adult.
Bull Trout..........................  Swift.....................  Population Status.....  Continue PacifiCorp,
                                                                                           WDFW and USFWS
                                                                                           monitoring program on
                                                                                           Swift.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.1.1 Steelhead, Chinook, Chum and Coho (Downstream From Merwin Dam)

    The Lewis River anadromous salmonids, with the exception of the 
fall chinook, are currently of hatchery origin from other basins and 
have been supplemented or introduced since the early 1930's. In 
addition, current management is aimed at maintaining hatchery stocks in 
the North Fork Lewis River for the purposes of sport harvest 
(essentially a terminal fishery) (WDFW and Western Washington Treaty 
Tribes 1997).
    Given this background, PacifiCorp proposes to assist with 
acquisition of lands to protect and enhance fall chinook habitat 
downstream of Merwin dam. Chum will benefit from this action as well. 
The primary purpose is to provide juvenile wild fall chinook rearing to 
protect the remaining indigenous stock. Coho and steelhead are also 
known to utilize extensive rearing areas downstream of Merwin dam. 
PacifiCorp proposes to modify its existing ramping rates and also 
review the existing license flows downstream of Merwin dam to determine 
if the current flow regime is suitable for all anadromous species and 
life stages. In addition, PacifiCorp currently funds WDFW to evaluate 
hatchery affects on listed salmon and steelhead under a Section 10 
permit held by the state and proposes to continue that funding.
    Related to the unplanned outage and interruption of flow that 
occurred on June 6, 1999, PacifiCorp has been working with WDFW to 
identify measures that would provide for the potential adult salmon and 
steelhead production that was lost. Elements of the discussion include 
possible gravel enhancements downstream of Merwin, rehabilitation of a 
chum spawning site that was inundated by a landslide, habitat 
improvements on Cedar, Johnson, and Colvin creeks, or purchase of 
riparian habitat on Cedar Creek. WDFW and PacifiCorp are currently 
evaluating which of these options to pursue but any one of these will 
result in benefits to the listed species.

[[Page 27040]]

Habitat Enhancement and Protection

    Anadromous salmonids utilize several areas downstream of Merwin dam 
for spawning and rearing. The majority of the spawning occurs upstream 
of the Lewis River Salmon Hatchery. Juvenile rearing occurs in many 
areas between the uppermost spawning sites and the lower river adjacent 
to the city of Woodland. The primary rearing site downstream of Merwin 
dam is Eagle Island, which is approximately seven miles downstream of 
Merwin dam and is considered to be prime fall chinook juvenile rearing 
habitat.
    Eagle Island is a 259-acre parcel with an associated 20-acre 
mainland piece. Over 75 percent of the present day wild fall chinook 
rearing habitat is associated with the island. The island also provides 
critical habitat for adult and juvenile steelhead, coho, chum and 
cutthroat (WDFW 1998). Until this year, a developer owned the island 
with plans for residential development. The WDFW has made many attempts 
to purchase the island for protection of the habitat. In June 1999, 
Clark County obtained monies to match State funding for purchase of the 
island. PacifiCorp, through agreement with Clark County, has paid the 
county's portion of the funding to purchase the island and deed the 
property to the State. The funding obtained by Clark County will be 
used to protect and restore salmon and steelhead rearing areas through 
their Conservation Futures program to improve the habitat on the island 
for wildlife and set up a fund for continued preservation of Eagle 
Island.

Ramping Rates--Evaluation/Review/Modify

    PacifiCorp proposes to modify the current Merwin down-ramping rates 
to meet a new standard of 0.5 feet per three-hour period (with the 
intent to meet 2 inch/hour as best as possible). This down-ramping rate 
protects juveniles and fry using shallow stream margin habitat. Up-
ramping will be increased from 1 ft/hr to 1.5 ft/hr. The up-ramping 
limitations focus on safety for those using the river below the 
project. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) will be developed that 
describes how ramping requirements will be accomplished. The SOP will 
be subject to NMFS and USFWS approval.

Hatchery Evaluation

    PacifiCorp currently funds WDFW to evaluate effects of hatchery 
outplanting from Merwin and North Fork Lewis River hatcheries on 
Columbia and Snake river listed species. With the addition of listed 
species within the basin, PacifiCorp proposes to expand efforts to 
evaluate hatchery effects on in-basin species.

5.1.2 Bull Trout and Cutthroat Trout (Upstream From Merwin Dam)

Continue Yale Net and Haul

    The USFWS commented on the Yale application for a new license and 
suggested that PacifiCorp begin engineering studies concerning fish 
passage facilities at the projects. However, since the ALP will address 
basin-wide fish passage issues, PacifiCorp believes it is premature to 
propose specific passage measures at this time. PacifiCorp proposes to 
continue net and haul activities in cooperation with WDFW as directed 
by USFWS (letter from N. Gloman--USFWS, dated Nov. 12, 1998) and to 
expand efforts to the Swift No. 2 tailrace if needed. PacifiCorp 
initiated a pilot net and haul program at Swift No. 2 tailrace in 1999. 
According to the bull trout monitoring report (Lesko 2000 page 4), two 
bull trout were captured at the Swift 2 tailrace on October 2, 1999. 
However, PacifiCorp will continue its involvement in monitoring the 
presence of bull trout at the Swift No. 2 tailrace if USFWS and WDFW 
determine it to be necessary.

Entrainment Reduction

    PacifiCorp proposes to evaluate a strobe light system to prevent 
bull trout entrainment at the Yale and Swift No. 1 spill and turbine 
intakes (see 6.2 Biological Justification). However, effectiveness for 
bull trout is unknown and the system would need to be adequately 
evaluated. PacifiCorp believes that available scientific information 
suggests that strobes may prove successful in substantially reducing 
salmonid entrainment at the projects. Such evaluation will also provide 
the Aquatics Workgroup with a scientific basis for determining whether 
PacifiCorp should explore other measures to address entrainment 
concerns. In terms of the Yale spillway, PacifiCorp proposes to conduct 
preliminary engineering design studies to address modifications of the 
spillway configuration in order to reduce any potential for fish injury 
or mortality.

Habitat Protection

    Habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor for cutthroat trout 
in the upper basin. In contrast, the primary limiting factor for Yale 
and Swift bull trout production is the availability of adequate 
spawning and rearing habitat. The fact that only 1\3/4\ miles of 
spawning and rearing habitat (Cougar Creek) exists for the Yale 
population may explain the chronically low numbers of spawning adults 
observed each fall since records have been kept. With the exception of 
possible rearing habitat in Ole and Rain creeks, there are limited 
opportunities for expanding or improving habitat for the Yale bull 
trout population. While Graves (1982) observed bull trout spawning in 
the Swift bypass reach in 1981 and 1982, the potential for permanent 
spawning areas in this reach is limited. The bypass reach serves as a 
spill channel and has passed flows as high as 44,700 cfs in the 1996 
flood. Flows of this magnitude completely scour the channel of any 
potential spawning gravels and, since flows of this magnitude usually 
occur in winter, would potentially eliminate bull trout redds.
    For spawning and rearing habitat protection, action could be taken 
to protect the existing habitat around Cougar Creek. Therefore, 
PacifiCorp has purchased land from Weyerhaeuser Corporation in the 
Cougar Creek riparian corridor to protect the bull trout spawning and 
rearing habitat and proposes a conservation easement that will be 
approximately a 500-foot buffer on Cougar Creek and a 200-foot buffer 
on Panamaker Creek. No other known spawning habitat for bull trout 
residing in Yale reservoir is known. Therefore, the protection of this 
habitat is very desirable. PacifiCorp shall maintain the property 
consistent with the conservation easement and BO and incidental take 
statement. Such maintenance may include, but is not limited to, 
planting of vegetation, removal of non-native or invasive plant 
species, other vegetation management and installation of boundary 
markers or fences. PacifiCorp will coordinate with USFWS and NMFS on 
maintenance and management of lands subject to the conservation 
easement. Management of the lands outside the easement will include 
road and culvert maintenance in the short term and may eventually be 
included in the Lewis River wildlife management plan at the completion 
of ALP settlement discussions. PacifiCorp and PUD recognize and intend 
that the conservation easement along Cougar and Panamaker creek 
riparian corridors are measures under the ESA for the benefit of the 
species in the entire range of all four projects.

Water Quality in Tailraces

    PacifiCorp has implemented modifications to the Yale turbine 
intakes to resolve total dissolved gases (TDG) levels in the Yale 
tailrace. Temperature fluctuation in the Yale tailrace is currently 
being addressed

[[Page 27041]]

through the Lewis River ALP. Through the ALP, PacifiCorp is studying 
temperatures and TDG in the Swift Nos. 1 and 2 tailraces. This may lead 
to potential equipment modification, subject to USFWS approval, that 
will reduce TDG and temperature effects while providing for continued 
operational flexibility.

Protect Swift Bull Trout and Cutthroat Trout Habitat

    Information is lacking on bull trout in the Swift Creek arm and the 
location and status of known sub-adult rearing habitat in Swift 
reservoir. Therefore, PacifiCorp has entered into a contract with 
Weyerhaeuser Corporation to purchase lands on the east side of the 
Swift Creek arm (Devil's Backbone) for protection of shoreline rearing 
habitat and with the intent of placing a conservation easement along 
that adjacent riparian zone for the protection of that habitat in 
perpetuity. Such an easement will be created to protect and conserve 
the habitat for bull trout, cutthroat trout and other aquatic species 
and will provide a high level of certainty that long-term benefits will 
accrue to these species. PacifiCorp shall maintain the property 
consistent with the conservation easement and BO (Attachment C), and 
its associated incidental take statement. Such maintenance may include, 
but is not limited to, planting of vegetation, removal of nonnative or 
invasive plant species, other vegetation management and installation of 
boundary markers or fences. PacifiCorp will coordinate with USFWS and 
NMFS on maintenance and management of lands subject to the conservation 
easement.
    This proposed conservation easement will result in increased 
protections for the adjacent riparian zone beyond that currently 
required by the Washington Forest Practice Act and associated 
regulations. For example, NMFS believes these regulations do not 
provide properly functioning riparian and instream habitats. 
Specifically, NMFS believes the base regulations do not adequately 
address LWD recruitment, tree retention to maintain stream bank 
integrity and channel networks within floodplains, and chronic and 
episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediment that maintain habitats that 
are properly functioning for all salmonid life stages. Therefore, the 
proposed placement of a conservation easement on these areas will 
benefit salmonids by enhancing and protecting the productivity of 
aquatic habitat in this area, providing such benefits in perpetuity.

Continue Population Monitoring

    PacifiCorp has been funding and participating in a WDFW/USFWS 
cooperative Swift bull trout population monitoring project since 1988. 
Currently, WDFW is utilizing a visual mark-recapture protocol to 
estimate reservoir population size. PacifiCorp proposes to continue 
providing partial funding and in-kind services to maintain the Swift 
population monitoring database.

5.1.3 Alternatives

    Commission staff considered the Proposed Action and No Action 
alternatives until collaborative project relicensing is completed. 
Commission staff believe the Proposed Action is preferable because the 
proposed conservation measures will likely provide beneficial effects 
for listed, proposed and candidate fish species in the North Fork Lewis 
River project area. Securing essential habitat for listed species is 
important because these lands could be sold and developed in the 
future.

5.2 Reasonable Alternatives

    No alternatives to PacifiCorp's proposed measures were identified. 
Commission staff considered the Proposed Action and No Action until a 
new project license is issued by the Commission. No other alternatives 
were identified that met the purpose of providing near term ESA 
compliance. As discussed earlier, the Commission approved the use of 
the ALP for the Lewis River projects. A Collaborative Team consisting 
of PacifiCorp, PUD, federal, state, county and city agencies, the 
Yakama Nation, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and non-governmental 
organizations and private citizens are working together to complete the 
relicensing process. Through this process, PacifiCorp proposed to 
negotiate a comprehensive settlement agreement covering natural and 
social resource management measures for the new license terms of its 
projects, including long term conservation strategies for ESA 
compliance. Thus, the measures in the PacifiCorp's BA (Appendix A) 
represent important near-term conservation opportunities that can 
provide immediate benefits to aquatic species in the Lewis River Basin 
while recognizing that the Collaborative Team would devise a long-term 
conservation strategies in the ALP settlement for ESA compliance.
    Commission staff believe the Proposed Action is preferable because 
the proposed conservation measures will likely provide immediate 
benefits for listed, proposed and candidate fish species in the North 
Fork Lewis River project area. Securing essential habitat for listed 
species is important because these lands could be sold and developed in 
the future, subsequently becoming lost opportunities.

5.3 No Action Alternative

    The No Action alternative would require denying the inclusion of 
ESA compliance measures within the Lewis River Projects' licenses. A 
denial would maintain the status quo and result in a lost opportunity 
to purchase and protect essential habitat for the species in the near 
term prior to settlement or new licenses.

6.0 Consultation

6.1 Motions To Intervene and Comments on the DEA

    The Commission publicly noticed the licensee's application on July 
6, 2000. Table 6.1-1 lists those who filed motions to intervene.

                                        Table 6.1-1.--List of Intervenors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Agency                        Action             FERC project No.             Date filed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDOI..............................  Motion to Intervene...  P-935-037, P-2071-     Oct. 11, 2000.
                                                              015, P-2111-011, P-
                                                              2213-002.
NMFS...............................  Motion to Intervene...  P-935-037, P-2071-     Oct. 16, 2000.
                                                              015, P-2111-011, P-
                                                              2213-002.
State of Washington................  Motion to Intervene...  P-2213-002...........  Oct. 13, 2000.
PacifiCorp.........................  Motion to Intervene...  P-2213-002...........  Oct. 4, 2000.
Cowlitz PUD........................  Motion to Intervene...  P-935-037, P-2071-     Oct. 4, 2000.
                                                              015, P-2111-011.
American Rivers....................  Motion to Intervene...  P-935-037, P-2071-     Oct. 16, 2000.
                                                              015, P-2111-011, P-
                                                              2213-002.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 27042]]

    Commission staff included a draft environmental assessment (DEA) in 
the Federal Register with a comment closing date of October 15, 2000. 
All comments are addressed in Attachment B. Table 6.1-2 lists all of 
those who filed comments on the DEA.

                                     Table 6.1-2.--List of Commentors on DEA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Agency                        Action             FERC project No.             Date filed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS...............................  Comments on DEA.......  P-935-037, P-2071-     Oct. 16, 2000.
                                                              015, P-2111-011, P-
                                                              2213-002.
USFS...............................  Comments on DEA.......  P-935-037, P-2071-     Dec. 27, 2000.*
                                                              015, P-2111-011, P-
                                                              2213-002.
American Rivers....................  Comments on DEA.......  P-935-037, P-2071-     Oct. 16, 2000.
                                                              015, P-2111-011, P-
                                                              2213-002.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Late Submission.

6.2 Consultation History

    1995--PacifiCorp began working with the USFWS regarding the Yale 
Hydroelectric Project.
    1998--PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD continued to work with the USFWS 
and began working with NMFS when the scope of analysis was expanded to 
include the remaining three hydroelectric projects on the North Fork 
Lewis River Watershed.
    July 1999--PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD met with the USFWS, NMFS, and 
Commission staff to discuss habitat protection measures designed to 
protect and conserve salmon, steelhead and bull trout with the 
objective of obtaining authorization of incidental take under Section 7 
of the ESA for the operations of the Lewis River Projects.
    July 2000--On July 6th, PacifiCorp filed a draft single-party BA 
and application to amend the licenses for Merwin, Yale and Swift No. 1 
Hydroelectric Projects.
    August 2000--On August 16th, PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD jointly 
draft a BA for all four hydroelectric projects. PacifiCorp filed an 
amended application for amendment of PacifiCorp licenses and included a 
revised Exhibit E, a revised BA, and a revised EA. Cowlitz PUD filed an 
application to amend its license for the Swift No. 2 Hydroelectric 
Project.
    October 2000--On October 4th, the Commission requested formal 
Section 7 consultation by letter to the NMFS and USFWS. The NMFS 
initiated consultation.
    December 2000--On December 15th, the Commission sent additional 
information in a letter to the USFWS, per USFWS request. Commission 
staff noted that no other additional information was available. The 
USFWS initiated formal consultation on 27 December.
    June 2002--On June 28th, NMFS and USFWS file their BO and its 
associated Incidental take statement. Formal consultation concluded.
    Commission staff reviewed all comments received on the DEA 
(Attachment B). Below is a summary of and responses to the comments 
received.
    The NMFS, USFS, and American Rivers submitted comments on the DEA. 
The NMFS and American Rivers also filed motions to intervene. All 
comments received are generally supportive of the proposed amendments 
in this Order. The USFS made numerous comments that extended beyond the 
scope of the proposed amendments.
    The NMFS and American Rivers expressed concern that the DEA did not 
address, comprehensively, the impacts of ongoing operation of the Lewis 
River Projects on listed species but limited the scope to the specific 
measures contained in the amendment. The BA, which was included in the 
FEA, did address the impacts of ongoing operation on listed species to 
the extent it was known. However, as indicated earlier, the projects 
are undergoing the preparation of relicense applications. This effort 
will ultimately result in a comprehensive examination of project 
effects on listed species.
    In addition, both NMFS and American Rivers expressed concern 
regarding the lack of details as to how the lands that are to be 
protected will be managed. As stated in the FEA and required in this 
order management activities will be consistent with the terms and 
conditions of the BO for each target species.
    Finally, these entities expressed concern that, in the event that 
unforeseen circumstances cause the relicensing effort to become a 
protracted affair, the actions approved herein should have some time 
limits. Specifically their concern is that the protection measures may 
not afford the necessary protection for ongoing operation beyond the 
expiration of the existing licenses. Their does exist the possibility, 
albeit remote, that information will become available that indicates 
additional measures are required to address, as yet, unidentified 
effects to listed species associated with the ongoing operation of the 
subject projects. The ALP collaborative is in the process of 
undertaking studies or reviewing study results pursuant to the 
relicensing effort and it is possible that such efforts could reveal 
unidentified impacts. If this were to happen, then it is expected that 
Commission staff, in concert with the Licensee, NMFS, and USFWS, would 
undertake an effort to discuss the situation as appropriate.

7.0 Environmental Analysis

7.1 General Project Location

    The North Fork Lewis River Basin (Lewis River Basin) lies on the 
flanks of the southern Cascade Mountains of Washington State. The river 
flows in a general southwesterly direction from its source on the 
slopes of Mount Adams to the Columbia River 19 miles downstream of 
Vancouver, Washington. The river is 93 miles long and has a total fall 
of 7,900 feet, the greater part of which is in the upper reaches. At 
its mouth and up to the Lewis River Hatchery, the river stage is 
influenced by tides and subsequent backflow from the Columbia River. 
The area of the drainage basin is 1,050 square miles; its mean 
elevation is 2,550 ft.-mean sea level (msl). Slopes in the upper 
portions of the basin are generally steep, resulting from the incision 
of numerous streams and rivers into the geologically young landscape. 
Most of the tributaries have natural barrier falls or are too 
precipitous for spawning (Chambers 1957; Kray 1957). Areas to the south 
of the Merwin Project and downstream along the river are less steep, 
represented by rolling hills and flat woodland bottomlands.
    The basin has a complex geologic history, having undergone Tertiary 
volcanism, several glaciations, and interglacial erosion and 
deposition. Bedrock surrounding the project

[[Page 27043]]

reservoirs is predominantly comprised of younger Eocene to older 
Oligocene volcanic lava flows, Oligocene volcaniclastic rocks, and 
Quaternary volcaniclastic deposits. Alpine glacial deposits overlay 
older bedrock but underlay the younger Quaternary volcaniclastic 
deposits. The volcanic rocks have undergone regional compressional 
deformation; rock strata are folded by a major southeast plunging 
anticline and a southeast plunging syncline.
    Soils in the basin are predominantly well drained and medium-
textured, and were derived from volcanic ash or were formed in 
sediments derived from mixed volcanic rocks and ash. Slopes, which are 
variable from gentle to steep, range from flat to more than 70 percent. 
Soil erosion hazard is dependent on slope and vegetation cover; the 
erosion hazard increases with increasing slope and extent of bare soil.
    The climate in the North Fork Lewis River basin is influenced by 
the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Cascade Range to the east. The 
Pacific Ocean provides a moderating influence on temperatures in the 
basin. Storms from the Pacific encounter the Cascade Range, forcing the 
air masses to rise, cool, and drop large volumes of precipitation. 
Levels of precipitation increase with elevation in this area. Average 
annual precipitation varies from 45 inches near Woodland, to over 140 
inches on Mount Adams. The majority of the precipitation occurs during 
the rainy fall and winter months, with snow falling at higher 
elevations of the basin. Summers (July through mid-October) are 
generally drier.
    The majority of the North Fork Lewis River basin is forested; a 
condition typical of the Southern Washington Cascades Province. 
However, an area of approximately 30 square miles within the upper 
basin was denuded by the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. 
Most of the basin is within the western hemlock vegetation zone 
(Franklin and Dyrness 1988).
    Basin lands provide winter range for deer and elk; mink and beaver 
are common in wetlands. Large numbers of amphibians have been observed 
in the basin, primarily in wetland and riparian/riverine habitats. Over 
100 species of birds have also been observed, including waterfowl, 
raptors, and numerous species of passerines.
    A large portion of the North Fork Lewis River basin is managed as 
commercial forest, and as such is undeveloped except for logging roads. 
In recent years, these lands have experienced increased recreation use 
and demand for residential development. Other land uses include farming 
in the lower elevation areas, hydropower, parks, and the Mount St. 
Helens National Volcanic Monument (Monument). Population densities are 
low. The small communities of Cougar, Chelatchie, and Amboy lie in the 
upper basin, along with scattered private homes and recreational 
properties. The largest town near the project is Woodland.

The Lewis River Hydroelectric Facilities

    The following description covers all four hydroelectric projects in 
the North Fork Lewis River basin. The projects begin approximately 10 
miles east of the small town of Woodland, Washington. The upstream 
sequence of the projects from the confluence of the Lewis and Columbia 
rivers is as follows: Merwin, Yale, Swift No. 2, and Swift No.1. The 
Merwin, Yale, and Swift No.1 projects represent a linked reservoir/
powerhouse system covering over 30 miles of the Lewis River. The Swift 
No. 2 project does not include a dam and reservoir. It utilizes water 
directly from the tailrace of Swift No.1, which flows into a 3.2 mile-
long canal that discharges through the Swift No. 2 powerhouse into Yale 
Reservoir.
    The three-reservoir system is operated in a coordinated fashion to 
achieve optimum benefits for power production, flood control, and to 
provide for natural resources in the basin such as fish, wildlife and 
recreation. The four projects utilize the water resources within the 
North Fork Lewis River basin from elevation 50 ft msl (Merwin Project 
tailwater) to 1,000 ft msl (Swift No. 1 normal pool). The total usable 
storage in the reservoirs is 814,000 acre-ft. The total installed 
capacity for the four projects is 580 MW.

Merwin Dam and Reservoir

    The Merwin Hydroelectric Project is a 136 MW plant owned and 
operated by PacifiCorp. The project is the furthermost downstream 
project of the four projects on the North Fork Lewis River, and is 
located approximately 35 miles northeast of Portland. Construction of 
the Merwin Project began in 1929 and was completed with a single unit 
in 1931. Two additional units were added to the project in 1949 and 
1958.
    Merwin Dam is located on the North Fork Lewis River 21 miles 
upstream from the confluence with the Columbia River. Merwin Dam is a 
concrete arch structure with a total crest length of 1,300 feet and a 
maximum height above its lowest foundation of 314 feet. The dam 
consists of an arch section 752 feet in crest length, a 75-foot-long 
gravity thrust block, a 206-foot-long spillway section, a non-overflow 
gravity section 242 feet long, followed by a concrete core wall section 
20 feet high and extending 25 feet into the bank. The spillway is 
equipped with four taintor gates 39 feet wide and 30 feet high, and one 
taintor gate 10 feet wide and 30 feet high. The taintor gates have been 
extended to an elevation of 240 ft above msl by the addition of 5-foot 
flashboards.
    The reservoir formed by Merwin Dam is about 14.5 miles long with a 
surface area of approximately 4,000 acres at elevation 239.6 feet above 
msl (full pool). At full pool, the reservoir has a gross storage 
capacity of approximately 422,800 acre-ft. Of this amount, 182,600 
acre-ft are available between elevation 190 and 239.6 ft msl, and an 
additional 81,100 acre-ft are available if the reservoir is lowered to 
its allowable minimum level of 165 ft msl.

Yale Dam and Reservoir

    The Yale Hydroelectric Project is a 134 MW plant owned and operated 
by PacifiCorp. The project lies directly upstream of the Merwin Project 
on the North Fork Lewis River, approximately 40 miles northeast of 
Portland. Construction of the Yale Project began in 1951 and was 
complete by 1953. The project consists of a main embankment dam, saddle 
dam, reservoir, penstocks, powerhouse, and transmission line. The 
project is operated in coordination with the other three hydroelectric 
facilities on the North Fork Lewis River.
    Yale Dam is located on the North Fork Lewis River approximately 30 
miles upstream from the confluence with the Columbia River. Yale Dam is 
a rolled earthen fill embankment type dam with a crest length of 1,305 
feet and a height of 323 feet above its lowest foundation point. Its 
crest elevation is 503-ft msl. The saddle dam is located \1/4\ mile 
west of the main dam and it is approximately 1,600 feet long and 40 
feet high with a crest elevation of 503 feet msl The main dam has a 
chute type spillway, located in the right abutment, with a capacity of 
120,000 cfs by utilizing five 30 foot by 39 foot taintor gates with the 
reservoir at elevation 490 ft msl.
    The reservoir formed by Yale Dam is approximately 10.5 miles long 
with a surface area of approximately 3,800 acres at elevation 490-ft 
msl (full pool). At full pool, the reservoir has a gross storage 
capacity of approximately 401,000 acre-ft. At the minimum pool 
elevation of 430-ft msl, the reservoir has a capacity of approximately 
190,000 acre-ft.

[[Page 27044]]

Swift No. 1 Dam and Reservoir

    The Swift No. 1 Hydroelectric Project is a 240 MW plant owned and 
operated by PacifiCorp. The project is the furthermost upstream 
hydroelectric facility on the North Fork Lewis River, lying directly 
upstream of the Swift No 2 Hydroelectric Project, or approximately 45 
miles northeast of Portland. Construction of the Swift No. 1 Project 
began in 1956 and was completed in 1958. The project consists of a main 
embankment dam, saddle dam, reservoir, penstocks, powerhouse, and 
transmission line. It is operated in coordination with the other three 
hydroelectric facilities on the North Fork Lewis River.
    Swift Dam is located on the North Fork Lewis River approximately 40 
miles upstream from the confluence with the Columbia River and 10.5 
miles upstream of Yale Dam. Swift Dam is a an earthen fill embankment 
type dam with a crest length of 2,100 feet and a height of 512 feet 
above its lowest foundation point. At the time of its construction, 
Swift dam was the tallest earthen fill dam in the world. Its overflow 
spillway, located in the left abutment, has a capacity of 120,000 cfs 
by utilizing two 50 foot by 51 foot taintor gates with the reservoir at 
elevation 1,000 ft msl. The elevation at the top of the taintor gates 
is 1,001.6-ft msl.
    The reservoir formed by Swift Dam is approximately 11.5 miles long 
with a surface area of approximately 4,680 acres at elevation 1,000-ft 
msl (full pool). At maximum pool, the reservoir has a gross storage 
capacity of approximately 755,000 acre-ft. At the minimum pool 
elevation of 878-ft msl, the reservoir has a capacity of approximately 
447,000 acre-ft.

Swift No. 2 Hydroelectric Project

    The Swift No. 2 Hydroelectric Project is a 70 MW plant owned by 
Cowlitz PUD and, under contract, is operated and maintained by 
PacifiCorp. The project lies between the Swift No. 1 and Yale 
hydroelectric projects. The Swift No. 2 Powerhouse is located 3.2 miles 
downstream of the Swift No. 1 Powerhouse. Construction of the Swift No. 
2 Project began in 1956 and was completed in 1958. The project consists 
of a power canal, penstocks, powerhouse, and transmission line. It is 
operated in coordination with the other three hydroelectric facilities 
on the North Fork Lewis River.

7.2 Terrestrial Resources

    Basin lands provide winter range for deer and elk; mink and beaver 
are common in wetlands. Large numbers of amphibians have been observed 
in the basin, primarily in wetland and riparian/riverine habitats. Over 
100 species of birds have also been observed, including waterfowl, 
raptors, and numerous species of passerines. More information regarding 
terrestrial resources may be found in the supporting BA (Attachment A) 
and BO (Attachment C).

Affected Environment

    Terrestrial resources associated with the four Lewis River Projects 
include wildlife comprised of plant communities, unique land forms, and 
a compliment of mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles.

Vegetation

    Vegetation cover in the Lewis River basin is predominantly managed 
second-growth Douglas-fir forests and mixed conifer-hardwood forests 
typical of the Cascade region of Washington (Franklin and Dyrness 
1988). Forest resource inventories conducted on PacifiCorp-owned lands 
for the Yale and Merwin projects identified 7,340 acres of upland 
forest and provided information on associated species, volume, site 
class, and overstory crown closure (Hildreth 1995). The upland forests 
consist of conifer, mixed conifer/hardwood forest, and hardwood forest. 
A unique lodgepole pine community occurs in the old lava flow in the 
Mount St. Helens area. Non-forest cover types include meadows, 
wetlands, transmission line right-of-way (ROW) and other project 
facilities, shrub-dominated communities, and a small portion of the 
lava flow area. Detailed maps of vegetation cover types were produced 
for relicensing the Yale Project; these are included in the license 
application and Terrestrial Resource FTR (PacifiCorp 1999). Wetlands in 
the project area occur in the vicinity of the Yale Project, Frazier 
Creek, the upper end of Lake Merwin and Yale Dam and along the 
transmission line ROW (PacifiCorp 1996b). Wetlands have been identified 
around Swift Dam (EDAW 2000).
    Other sensitive habitats include caves, oak woodlands, old-growth 
forest stands, riparian areas, snag-rich forest stands, cliff/talus, 
meadows, and deer/elk winter range are present in the project vicinity 
(WDFW 1998). Functional riparian habitat in the project vicinity is 
present only at the upper end of Swift Reservoir, along the Swift 
bypass reach, and Lake Merwin. Other riparian habitat is primarily 
associated with the Lewis River downstream of Merwin Dam and with 
tributary streams, including Drift, Siouxon, Speelyai, Cougar, Canyon, 
Cresap, Rock, and Buncomb Hollow creeks.
    A number of threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant 
species potentially occur in the vicinity of the projects. Only one TES 
plant, the green-fruited sedge, was identified in surveys conducted for 
the Yale Project (PacifiCorp 1999).

Wildlife

    Wildlife species in the Lewis River basin are representative of 
southwest Washington and include a number of TES and state priority 
species (WDFW 1991) including nesting osprey and wintering and nesting 
bald eagles along the Lewis River and project reservoirs and northern 
spotted owls on Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) lands 
within 0.5 mile of the Lewis River Projects. No spotted owl nests have 
been documented in the old-growth conifer habitat on PacifiCorp lands.

Environmental Impacts

    Improving watershed conditions by purchasing conservation easements 
will provide direct and substantial benefits for wildlife and 
terrestrial species. Riparian areas are very productive biological 
areas for such species, providing important areas of food production, 
as well as cover areas for resting, watering, and feeding wildlife 
(Knutson and Naef 1997). Conservation easements also provide 
undisturbed areas where sensitive plant species may colonize and 
proliferate. Improving aquatic habitat conditions as proposed will also 
provide indirect benefits for various bird species including bald 
eagles, osprey, and other birds of prey that rely on aquatic species 
for food sources. Further, the Proposed Action will require compliance 
with the BO (Attachment C), and its associated incidental take 
statement, issued by NMFS and USFWS designed to protect and enhance TES 
and their associated habitats resulting in improvements in terrestrial 
resources relative to the No Action alternative.

7.3 Aquatic Resources

    More information regarding aquatic resources may be found in the 
supporting BA (Attachment A) and BO (Attachment C).

Affected Environment

    The Lewis River supports a variety of aquatic organisms. Merwin 
Dam, located approximately 21 miles upriver from the mouth of the Lewis 
River, is a barrier to upstream migration. The river

[[Page 27045]]

downstream of Merwin Dam includes a self-sustaining population of wild 
fall Chinook. Hatchery stocks of spring Chinook, early and late coho, 
winter and summer steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout also inhabit 
the Lewis River. Sturgeon, lamprey, eulachon smelt, northern pikeminnow 
(Ptychocheilus oregonensis, formerly known as northern squawfish), 
whitefish, and chum, pink, and sockeye salmon are occasionally observed 
downstream of Merwin Dam. More information for the selected species 
discussed below can be found in the supporting BA.

Existing Fish Species

    Numerous fish species are known to occur in Lake Merwin, Yale Lake, 
and Swift Reservoir (see supporting BA and BO).
    A list of analysis species was developed during planning sessions 
conducted for the Lewis River Watershed Studies scoping process. 
Contributors to this list include but are not limited to: WDFW, NMFS, 
USFWS, and USFS). Analysis species to be included in aquatic studies 
are listed in Table 7.3-1 (note this list also includes taxonomic 
groups or guilds).

   Table 7.3-1--Aquatic Analysis Species To Be Assessed During Aquatic
               Resource Studies of the Lewis River Basin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Analysis species                    Selection criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinook salmon....................  Potential sensitivity to changes in
                                     aquatic and riparian habitat
                                     quality and connectivity. Strong
                                     ecological interactor.
Coho salmon.......................  Potential sensitivity to changes in
                                     aquatic and riparian habitat
                                     quality and connectivity. Strong
                                     ecological interactor.
Chum salmon.......................  Potential sensitivity to changes in
                                     aquatic and riparian habitat
                                     quality and connectivity. Strong
                                     ecological interactor.
Steelhead trout...................  Potential sensitivity to changes in
                                     aquatic and riparian habitat
                                     quality and connectivity. Strong
                                     ecological interactor.
Sea-run cutthroat trout...........  Potential sensitivity to changes in
                                     aquatic and riparian habitat
                                     quality and connectivity. Strong
                                     ecological interactor.
Pacific lamprey...................  Special habitat requirements during
                                     spawning and rearing stages.
                                     Important ecological species.
White sturgeon....................  Long-lived species which may have
                                     been affected by construction of
                                     dams. May be vulnerable to
                                     overharvest.
Northern pikeminnow...............  Top level predator. May have
                                     increased in numbers due to
                                     construction of dams.
Mountain whitefish................  Native species with some habitat
                                     requirements that differ from other
                                     salmonids.
Bull trout........................  Federally listed threatened species.
                                     Unique habitat requirements. Top
                                     level predator.
Kokanee...........................  Important introduced sport fish.
                                     Planktivore. Interspecific
                                     interactions with native fishes may
                                     be important.
Sculpins..........................  Require cool water temperatures.
                                     Many species associated with high
                                     stream gradients. Benthic species.
Threespine stickleback............  Present in Yale and Merwin.
                                     Interspecific interactions with
                                     kokanee fry may be important.
Largescale sucker.................  Juveniles may constitute important
                                     prey item for bull trout.
Aquatic macroinvertebrates and      Changes in these communities may
 zooplankton guilds.                 indicate changes in ecological
                                     conditions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections present information on the status of several 
key aquatic species in the Lewis River basin.

Chinook Salmon

    In the Lewis River, spring Chinook have been supplemented with 
Cowlitz and Carson hatchery stocks since 1956 (pers. comm., R. Nicolay, 
WDFW, 1999). The bright fall Chinook run is considered a wild run 
although the run has experienced intermittent supplementation from 1930 
through 1986 (pers. comm., R. Nicolay, WDFW, 1999). This stock is one 
of only two self-sustaining, wild fall Chinook salmon populations in 
the Columbia River basin. The Lewis River bright fall Chinook salmon is 
a designated index stock used for monitoring purposes under the Pacific 
Salmon Treaty. The Tule fall Chinook run has also been supplemented 
with Kalama stock since 1930.

Chum Salmon

    Very little is known about the life history of chum in the Lewis 
River. Smoker et al. (1951) confirmed the presence of chum in the Lewis 
River downstream of Merwin Dam. Chambers (1957) reported 96 chum 
spawning just downstream of Merwin Dam in mid-November of 1955. Chum 
were sighted occasionally during 1998 fall Chinook spawning surveys, 
and four adult carcasses were observed in Cedar Creek. In addition, 
about 45 juvenile chum were captured during seining operations related 
to a smolt residual study in 1998 (pers. comm., S. Hawkins, WDFW, 
1999). Annually, about three or four adult chum have also been captured 
at the Merwin fish trap (pers. comm., R. Nicolay, WDFW, 1999).

Steelhead

    The Lewis River supports populations of winter and summer 
steelhead. The number of adults returning to the river and run-timing 
for each of these species are determined by trapping adult migrants in 
the fish ladder at the Lewis River hatchery and the fish trap at Merwin 
Dam. In addition, WDFW conducts spawning surveys on the East Fork Lewis 
River and Cedar Creek. The primary steelhead spawning and rearing areas 
in the Lewis River are located downstream of Merwin Dam in the 
mainstem, Cedar and Johnson creeks, and the East Fork Lewis River. WDFW 
continues spawning surveys on Cedar Creek and has installed a trap at 
the Grist Mill fish ladder to monitor upstream migration and to 
segregate hatchery and wild stocks. There are no existing data on the 
average annual size of the natural outmigration.

Bull Trout

    Currently, bull trout are listed as threatened under the ESA and 
are present in all three reservoirs. Self-sustaining bull trout 
populations exist in Yale and Swift reservoirs. Bull trout found in 
Lake Merwin are thought to be introduced from upstream, either through 
spill or turbine operations. There is no known spawning habitat 
available to bull trout in the reservoir.
    The Columbia River population of bull trout is comprised of 141 
subpopulations. The Lewis River basin contains two of the 20 
subpopulations in watersheds of nine major tributaries of the lower 
Columbia River (63fr111, June 10, 1998). The number of bull trout 
inhabiting the Lewis River basin is believed to be low. Spawning and

[[Page 27046]]

juvenile-rearing occur in Cougar, Rush, and Pine creeks. Additionally, 
sub-adults have been observed in the Swift bypass reach and Swift Creek 
arm of Swift Reservoir (PacifiCorp 1999).
    Bull trout populations in the Lewis River basin are found in 
Merwin, Yale, and Swift reservoirs. Spawning populations are found only 
in Yale and Swift reservoirs. The bull trout populations in the Lewis 
River basin are considered as having a ``moderate'' risk of extinction 
(WDFW 1998).

Coho Salmon

    Both early and late run coho salmon are endemic to the Lewis River 
(WDFW and USFWS 1951). Supplementation of the runs has occurred since 
the days of the Johnson Creek facility dating back to 1909. 
Historically, native stocks were used for supplementation; however, in 
1965 early coho were supplemented with eggs taken from Big Creek, 
Oregon (pers. comm., Robin Nicolay, WDFW, Lewis River Hatchery Complex 
Manager). Late-run coho were supplemented in 1981 with Cowlitz River 
stock. Today, the Lewis River hatchery continues to produce 3.3 million 
coho for PacifiCorp's obligation under the Merwin license. PacifiCorp 
funds about 70 percent of the hatchery operations and maintenance (O&M) 
for that facility.

Sea-Run Cutthroat Trout

    Contrary to increasing trends in the Toutle River, WDFW states that 
its population numbers for sea-run cutthroat trout are still critically 
low in the Lewis River (approximately 100 total adults in run). For 
example, 1998 sea-run cutthroat creel returns on the Lewis River 
numbered only 20 (Hillson and Tipping 1999). Based on this information, 
WDFW has elected to discontinue cutthroat trout production at Merwin 
Hatchery.

Environmental Impacts

    Section 7(a) of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that 
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
federally listed threatened and endangered species, or result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 
NMFS has identified that the following factors have significantly 
contributed to the decline of steelhead and other salmonids (NMFS 
1996): (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) over-utilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or education purposes; (3) 
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 
or (5) other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    Adoption of the No Action alternative will likely continue to 
contribute to the decline of these species per the factors listed above 
given that no ESA measures will be in place to protect listed or 
candidate species. Under the Proposed Action, measures will be adopted 
to benefit listed and proposed species occurring in the project area. 
These measures, including acquisition of conservation easements, 
modification of project ramping rates, and implementation of 
technological measures to reduce entrainment, will help conserve listed 
and proposed species during the period of project relicensing.
    Maintenance and improvement of water quality, temperature, and 
ecological productivity in the project area.
    The Proposed Action will adopt measures to modify turbine intakes 
to resolve TDG levels in the Yale tailrace, evaluate temperature 
fluctuation in the Yale tailrace, and study of temperatures and total 
dissolved gases (TDG) in the Swift No. 1 and Swift No. 2 tailraces. 
Improvement of water quality conditions will improve conditions for 
listed fish species that exist in the Yale and Swift tailraces.
    Protection of listed species and their progeny from stranding as a 
result of rapid flow fluctuations
    The Proposed Action will adopt measures to implement Merwin 
redundancy equipment to prevent potential dewatering of riverbed, fish 
trap and hatcheries in efforts to protect listed species including 
steelhead, chinook, chum, coho, and cutthroat. Collaboration with WDFW 
will continue to provide habitat enhancement measures in the Lewis 
River and tributaries to benefit salmon populations.

Protection of Listed Species From Entrainment

    Entrainment through spill or turbine intakes represents a potential 
threat to the Yale and Swift bull trout populations. The Proposed 
Action will address entrainment issues, however, measures are not 
likely to be in place until after additional studies are complete and 
settlement for Lewis River relicensing is achieved. Measures adopted by 
the Proposed Action will include a study using the Flash Technology 
strobe light system to determine the effectiveness of strobe lighting 
as a deterrent for entrainment. This study would take place during the 
relicensing process. If strobe lighting proves effective for bull trout 
and other resident species, bull trout and cutthroat trout entrainment 
should be curtailed resulting in substantial population level benefits 
in terms of reduced turbine and spill mortality.

Protection of Juvenile and Adult Habitat

    Land has been acquired to protect and enhance fall chinook habitat 
downstream of Merwin Dam. Eagle Island is a 259-acre parcel with an 
associated 20-acre mainland piece. Over 75% of the present day wild 
fall chinook rearing habitat is associated with the island. The island 
also provides important habitat for adult and juvenile steelhead, coho, 
chum and cutthroat (WDFW 1998). The primary purpose of the acquisition 
is to provide juvenile wild fall chinook rearing to protect the 
remaining indigenous stock. Further, the Proposed Action will result in 
the modification of existing ramping rates and a review of the existing 
license flows downstream of Merwin Dam to determine if the current flow 
regime is suitable for all anadromous species' life stages.
    With the exception of possible rearing habitat in Ole and Rain 
creeks, there are limited opportunities for expanding or improving 
habitat for the Yale bull trout population. However, the Proposed 
Action will adopt measures regarding the acquisition of lands to 
protect bull trout and cutthroat trout spawning and rearing habitat in 
the Cougar/Panamaker Creek, Swift Creek, and Devil's Backbone areas. 
Conservation easements will be established with the express purpose of 
conserving and protecting in perpetuity bull trout and cutthroat trout 
spawning and rearing habitat. These proposed conservation easements 
will result in increased protections for the adjacent riparian zones 
beyond that currently required by the Washington Forest Practices Act 
and associated regulations.
    Failing to adopt measures identified in the Proposed Action would 
result, at best, in maintaining the status quo. The No Action 
alternative could result in current potential adverse project effects 
on anadromous fish resulting from a lack of fish passage, inadequate 
instream flows and ramping rates, and spill. Further, opportunities to 
purchase and protect important aquatic and riparian habitats would be 
lost resulting in increased impacts to listed species. Therefore, the 
Proposed Action will likely result in improvements in aquatic resources 
relative to the No Action alternative.

[[Page 27047]]

7.4 Recreation Resources

Affected Environment

Recreation Resources and Use in the Project Vicinity
    The Lewis River Projects provide many recreation opportunities, one 
component of the large number of recreation facilities and 
opportunities in the Lewis River basin. Recreation development 
intensity and visitation at the three reservoirs range from more 
developed active recreation activities at Merwin and Yale, located 
closest to the Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor and Portland/Vancouver 
population base, to more primitive recreation activities at Swift, 
located farthest from the I-5 corridor.
    Popular recreation activities at these projects include camping (RV 
and tent), picnicking, boat and bank fishing, hunting, hiking, power 
boating (including personal watercraft), sailing, wind surfing, 
swimming, water skiing, horseback riding, cycling (road and mountain), 
relaxing, and sightseeing.
    Yale Lake recreation facility occupancy and use were examined 
during previous relicensing studies. The occupancy level at the three 
campgrounds is at 95 percent on weekends during the peak recreation 
period (July and August). From Memorial Day to Labor Day weekend, the 
weekly occupancy level ranges from 47-73 percent (PacifiCorp 1999). Day 
use site occupancy averages only 8-14 percent season long; however, 
overflow conditions do occur approximately five times annually, 
particularly on hot days.
    Swift Reservoir has two developed recreation facilities at the east 
end of the reservoir, Swift Campground and Eagle Cliff Park. Swift 
Campground has 93 campsites, a 2-lane boat ramp with parking spaces, 
and a day use beach swim area. Eagle Cliff Park is located at the far 
eastern tip of the reservoir and has ten picnic sites, a restroom, and 
a parking area.
    While the Swift No. 2 Project has no developed recreation 
facilities, the Swift No. 2 power canal does receive consistent use by 
bank anglers. In addition, an annual fishing derby for disabled 
recreationists is held at the Swift No. 2 power canal, which is stocked 
with fish for the event.
    All PacifiCorp recreation sites are open to the public during the 
primary recreation season, while Merwin Park and Speelyai Bay Park at 
Lake Merwin and Yale Park at Yale Lake are open year-round. Cresap Bay 
Campground at Lake Merwin is generally open from Memorial Day weekend 
to late September. Saddle Dam, Cougar Park, and Cougar Camp on Yale 
Lake are open from Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day weekend. Beaver 
Bay on Yale Lake is open from late April until mid-late September to 
accommodate spring fishing and fall hunting seasons. The use season at 
Swift Campground is also extended to accommodate fall hunter use and 
fishing, generally from late April until mid-November. Elk and deer 
hunting seasons for all types of hunts extend from September 1 through 
December 15 for management units in the immediate area. Peak hunting 
occurs during times when modern firearms are allowed; for elk this is 
November 6 through 14, and for deer this is October 16 through 31 (WDFW 
1999b). Recreation use at Swift Reservoir is limited by low pool 
levels, fishing season closure, and road access during winter months.
    The projects also provide non-shoreline dispersed recreation 
opportunities, such as trail use by hikers, equestrians, and mountain 
bikers. Most of this use occurs along a trail running from Saddle Dam 
along the southwest shoreline of Yale Lake to the Speelyai Canal and 
along the International Paper (IP) Road at Yale Lake. Other smaller 
trails also exist.
    Numerous examples of dispersed shoreline recreation use exist 
around the three reservoirs and along the Swift bypass reach above Yale 
Lake. Boat-in dispersed use occurs on all three reservoirs. Shoreline 
impacts have occurred because of this activity. As a result, PacifiCorp 
is increasing Marine Patrol activities and no longer permits overnight 
parking at its day use facility parking areas except at Swift. There is 
no fee for dispersed shoreline use; however, there is a fee charged for 
day use parking and for each watercraft trailered or hauled into 
PacifiCorp recreation sites, except for car-top watercraft.
    Other dispersed recreation uses adjacent to the reservoirs include 
a number of sites relating to river recreation in the Lewis River 
corridor. Canyon Creek, which joins Lake Merwin just below Yale Dam, 
receives whitewater boating use primarily in the form of kayaking. This 
advanced-level run has been the site of a ``kayak rodeo'' in recent 
years. Many paddlers running the creek either take out well above Lake 
Merwin or descend to the reservoir and paddle to the nearest takeouts 
at the SR 503 bridge or Cresap Bay Park. Upstream of Swift Reservoir, 
the upper Lewis River is used for dispersed recreation, hiking, 
mountain biking, and non-motorized boating.
    Over the last 15 to 20 years, recreation resource managers in the 
Lewis River corridor have witnessed increased use levels at Merwin, 
Yale, and Swift reservoirs based on day use vehicle counts, campground 
occupancy levels, signs of environmental degradation along the 
shoreline caused by boat-in dispersed camping and day use activities, 
and other indicators. While these higher use levels are usually 
contingent upon weather conditions, increased use is generally 
attributable to: (1) Increased population growth in the Portland/
Vancouver metropolitan area and proximity to Interstate 5 and Lewis 
River Road; (2) increased publicity about Merwin, Yale, and Swift 
reservoirs; (3) creation of and increased popularity of the Monument, 
including increasing use of the southern scenic loop road (Forest Road 
90, SR 503, and Lewis River Road) coupled with few overnight camping 
facilities within the Monument and GPNF; (4) increasing urban 
development in the Lewis River valley including new custom home 
development; and (5) increasing demand for lower cost recreation 
activities available at Merwin, Yale, and Swift reservoirs, and within 
western Washington State.

Environmental Impacts

    Recreation opportunities should be enhanced by measures that 
improve watershed conditions in the project area. Areas of the Lewis 
River are recognized as providing excellent sportfishing opportunities, 
as well as opportunities for boating, swimming, and wildlife 
observation. Improving watershed conditions and aquatic productivity 
should translate into enhanced recreational fishing opportunities, 
which should in turn provide greater recreational opportunities in an 
area near several large urban centers. However, greater recreational 
fishing opportunities also heighten the potential for anglers to catch 
and possibly harvest bull trout from reservoirs and streams. There is 
some evidence to suggest that bull trout are targeted and occasionally 
harvested by anglers even though fishing for bull trout is prohibited. 
Opening day creel surveys conducted by the WDFW on Swift reservoir and 
power canal have indicated that some bull trout are harvested in the 
Swift power canal (WDFW 2000). Large spoons and plugs are also 
sometimes found in the mouths of bull trout during annual bull trout 
surveys in the Swift reservoir (WDFW. 1999).

7.5 Aesthetic Resources

Affected Environment

    The natural setting of the study area is mountain rural with 
sweeping vistas

[[Page 27048]]

of forested hillsides, mountain lakes (project reservoirs), and distant 
volcanic peaks. Large numbers of visitors pass through the study area 
on Lewis River Road (State Route 503) on their way to the Mount St. 
Helens National Volcanic Monument (Monument). Visual resources in the 
vicinity include the landscapes visible from State Route 503 and the 
reservoir surfaces. The combination of extensive timber management 
activities, forested slopes, open meadows, and low-density residential 
development in this area creates a rural setting with ever-present 
signs of human modification of landscape characteristics. Primary 
features of the viewshed include the rolling, forested hills that 
encompass the Lewis River valley; Merwin, Yale, and Swift reservoirs; 
and Mount St. Helens.
    The Clark, Cowlitz, and Skamania county planning departments have 
primary jurisdiction over lands in the project vicinity. The USFS and 
the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manage 
extensive holdings around Yale and Swift reservoirs. Their management 
practices affect the reservoir's viewsheds.
    Visual resource issues related to the project include:
    [sbull] Visual character of project features, including 
hydroelectric generation, transmission, and recreation facilities;
    [sbull] Visibility of project features from locations of high 
public use such as Lewis River Road, and recreation areas;
    [sbull] Visual effect of reservoir water level fluctuations, 
particularly during periods of high recreation use;
    [sbull] Visual effect of instream flows in sections of the Lewis 
River controlled by the project;
    [sbull] Consistency of the project with existing and proposed 
federal, state, and local plans and policies regarding the visual 
resource; and
    [sbull] Opportunities to enhance the scenic landscape 
characteristics of the Lewis River Valley viewshed.

Environmental Impacts

    As described above, improving watershed conditions will provide 
direct and substantial benefits for aquatic species and terrestrial 
species associated with protected riparian communities. These 
improvements in the natural setting should result in improved aesthetic 
qualities in and around project features, and should result in a more 
natural setting in such areas. At this point, no construction or 
project alterations are proposed at this time that could result in 
construction-related impacts to aesthetic qualities. Therefore, the 
Proposed Action should result in enhanced aesthetic qualities relative 
to the No Action alternative.

7.6 Land Use

Affected Environment

    Existing land uses in the project vicinity include timber 
production, agriculture, hydroelectric generation, recreation, small 
commercial businesses, and residential housing. Land ownership in the 
project vicinity is a combination of large and small holdings by public 
and private entities including the USFS, DNR, Weyerhaeuser, Longview 
Fibre, Clark County, Cowlitz County, PacifiCorp, and private residents.
    The projects are located east (10-40 miles) of the community of 
Woodland; in recent years, there has been a considerable increase in 
residential development in the Woodland area and in areas adjacent to 
the projects along Lewis River Road.
    Land use regulations in the project vicinity are under federal, 
state, and local jurisdiction. Agencies with land management 
responsibilities in the project vicinity include the USFS, U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, DNR, WDFW, WDOE, Cowlitz County Planning 
Department, Clark County Planning Department, Skamania County Planning 
Department, and the City of Woodland.

Environmental Impacts

    Proposed watershed improvement measures are consistent with 
existing land use regulations. Conservation efforts with regard to the 
acquisition of Eagle Island reduces potential for land use conflicts as 
Eagle Island will be unavailable for development due to the 
conservation easement. Likewise, conservation easements for riparian 
habitat will provide long-term benefits for existing landowners, 
particularly with regard to aesthetic values as land within an easement 
is not likely to be developed. The Proposed Action provides 
opportunities to enhance the land use practices and benefit efforts to 
protect listed species.

7.7 Socioeconomic

Affected Environment

    The Lewis River Projects occupy lands located in three counties: 
Clark, Cowlitz, and Skamania. Information presented in this EA is based 
on information from the Economic Development Network Web site titled 
County Profiles for Washington. (http://www.wa.gov/esd/Imea/pubs/profiles/profiles.htm). County demographic data are summarized in Table 
7.7-1.

                                    Table 7.7-1.--County and Demographic Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Population
                             County                                Area (square     Population      density per
                                                                      miles)                        square mile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark...........................................................             628         332,000             537
Cowlitz.........................................................           1,139          94,100              83
Skamania........................................................           1,657           9,900               6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clark County

    For the past decade, Clark County has had one of the most dynamic 
economies in the state of Washington. Clark County's demographics and 
economy have been shaped by its status as a suburb, by its diverse 
industrial base, by a steady flow of high tech investment, and by the 
differing tax structures between Washington and Oregon.
    Clark County is a suburban county within the Portland-Vancouver 
metropolitan area. It shares many of the characteristics of not-yet-
fully-mature suburban counties, such as rapid population growth and an 
imbalance in commuting patterns. Close to one-third of the county's 
work force commutes across the Columbia River to Portland every day. 
The county's role as a bedroom community means that many of the jobs 
there cater to consumers, in the form of retail trade, social and 
health services, and personal services. Conversely, most of the (high 
wage) corporate services such as finance, advertising, law, 
engineering, etc., are located in Portland. While the county has strong 
economic and cultural ties to Portland, it also has a unique identity 
due to the barrier of the state border and the Columbia River. 
Transportation

[[Page 27049]]

access between the county and Portland is limited to two interstate 
bridges. Communication access is hampered by a different area code and 
long distance charges. Politically, Clark County is connected to 
Olympia and the rest of the state of Washington.
    Historically, Clark County has been a blue-collar community, with a 
diverse manufacturing base. The timber industry has always been present 
in the county but has not played a dominant role since the turn of the 
century. Besides paper and lumber, the county has been the site of food 
processing, textiles, apparel, aluminum, and machinery. The Port of 
Vancouver has also played a key role, both as a transportation hub and 
an industrial landlord. Employment in some of these ``traditional'' 
manufacturing industries has declined somewhat in the past few years 
due to employment reductions and closures, and future closures should 
not be ruled out. In general, however, new investment has far outpaced 
shutdowns, and manufacturing employment has grown substantially.
    Over the past 20 years, there has been a tremendous surge in high 
technology investment in the county. It began in the late 1970s when 
Tektronix sited a branch plant. Tek's employment peaked at about 2,000 
before the company spun off some operations and then closed down its 
Vancouver operation in 1990. Other large branch plants were established 
during the 1980s, many of them Japanese. High tech employers were lured 
by low land and energy costs, plenty of available water, a skilled and 
growing work force, excellent K-12 and community college education and 
training installations, proximity to the Portland International Airport 
(Vancouver and Camas are closer than Hillsboro), a Pacific Rim locale, 
and access to recreational opportunities.
    The future should bring continued maturation of the county economy 
and increased integration with Portland. Among the more prominent 
developments, Washington State University moved into a new campus just 
north of Vancouver in June. Reclamation of the Columbia River 
waterfront for recreational use is well under way. The city of 
Vancouver recently bought the former Lucky Brewery and surrounding 
blocks downtown; the old brewery will be razed, with mixed-use 
development in the offing. Finally, high tech investment and expansion 
continue to make the headline. A case in point is the large facility 
planned by Taiwan Semiconductor (doing business as WaferTech) in Camas, 
which is expected to add 800 manufacturing jobs to the county's 
employment base.
    Along with Portland, Clark County faces a major challenge in 
determining how to handle growth. At this point growth is occurring 
faster than local governments can plan and build infrastructure. The 
bridges crossing the Columbia are nearing capacity, and Clark County 
voters recently soundly rejected funding a light rail connection with 
Portland.

Cowlitz County

    Cowlitz County historically has had large resource-based economies 
that relied on timber. Although the big shakeout of the industry that 
occurred in the early-to-mid 1980s had a significant effect, timber 
still remains the biggest industry. Its employment fell dramatically 
but has since stabilized at new levels, and there has been some 
diversification of industry within manufacturing, as well as 
significant growth in the trade and services sectors.
    Because the economy has stabilized in recent years, the population 
is again increasing. During much of the 1980s, out-migration exceeded 
in-migration, and the overall population in the county declined. Since 
about 1990, that situation has reversed and the population is growing 
again. In 1999, the population of Cowlitz was estimated at 94,100.
    The labor force has been growing much like the population, and 
unemployment is at its lowest level in years. In 1997, the rate was 7.1 
percent in Cowlitz, the lowest since 1990. Even so, there are 
proportionally more unemployed people in the area than there are 
statewide, where the rate is down to 4.8 percent.
    There has been good growth in non-farm employment following the 
1990-91 national recession. Since 1992, Cowlitz County has added over 
3,000 jobs. Looking at the area as a whole, most of the growth has come 
in trade, services, and government. This growth in non-manufacturing 
activities and the earlier, quite sharp declines in the timber industry 
have not sufficed to dislodge manufacturing from its position as the 
largest industry sector in the county. Cowlitz County has over one-
fourth of its employment in manufacturing. Statewide, the share is 15 
percent.
    Cowlitz County has withstood the turbulence of the restructuring 
and decline in employment and wages of the timber industry in the 
1980s. The area is regaining population--in-migration is up--and timber 
remains a large, solid foundation of the economy. Relatively low 
unemployment and gains in the number of non-farm jobs make the labor 
market picture quite a bit more attractive than it has been for quite 
some time. Wages have been stagnant, in real terms, but are no longer 
declining. At the moment, the area is doing well. Projections to 2001 
indicate that Cowlitz County will have moderate growth overall with 
strong growth in non-timber related manufacturing, construction, 
services, and the finance, insurance, and real estate sector.

Skamania County

    Geography and politics have greatly influenced the Skamania County 
economy. Ninety percent of the county is forest land, and 80 percent of 
the county is part of the GPNF. For decades, the county economy rested 
on timber, directly through logging and milling and indirectly through 
USFS employment. Timber-related employment began to decline in the 
1980s, dropping from 820 in 1979 to 620 in 1988. At that time, harvest 
restrictions were placed on federal lands, limiting local timber supply 
and raising log prices. Timber harvest from federal lands dropped from 
an average of 250 million board feet to less than five million in 1996. 
Scarce timber and competition from chipboard substitutes led to the 
closure of Stevenson Co-Ply, the largest mill remaining in the county, 
in early 1992. The job loss was accompanied by loss of savings because 
the mill was a co-op. By 1993, only 180 timber jobs remained in 
Skamania County, and federal employment has fallen from a peak of 420 
to only 240 in 1996.
    While most of Skamania County is in forested, mountainous terrain, 
the bottom strip of the county borders the Columbia River Gorge. The 
gorge has influenced the county economy in two major ways. In the 1978-
1982 period, construction of a second powerhouse at Bonneville Dam 
boosted county construction employment, chiefly through construction 
workers commuting into the county. This had the unfortunate side effect 
of skewing county labor force estimates in the 1983-1989 period; 
through use of a faulty commuting ratio, the labor force size was 
under-estimated and the unemployment rate overestimated.
    Second, in 1986, about 15 percent of the county was made part of 
the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA). Creation of the 
CRGNSA, while placing some restrictions on development in the gorge 
area, has helped augment the county's growing tourism industry. Federal 
subsidies helped build the Skamania Lodge, a conference center/
destination resort, now the largest private sector

[[Page 27050]]

employer in the county. An interpretive museum is now in operation, and 
other retail and service spin-offs have come on line. In addition, 
manufacturing jobs related to windsurfing have been created.
    The transition from timber to tourism has had a number of effects. 
Population growth began picking up in 1990, as did labor force growth. 
Because of fewer job opportunities, almost half of the county labor 
force commutes to work outside the county. Unemployment rose sharply in 
1992 with the mill closure, reaching 18 percent before declining to the 
current 10-11 percent.
    Only a few years ago, one-third of the jobs in the county were in 
manufacturing; by 1996, the number had fallen below 15 percent. With 
the advent of the Skamania Lodge, trade and service employment rose 
from 19 percent to a 36 percent share, while the public sector 
accounted for 43 percent.
    Coming years should bring further expansion of tourist-related 
business as well as modest growth in population and employment. 
Commuting to jobs outside the county by a significant share of the 
labor force should be the norm.

 Environmental Impacts

    The Proposed Action enhances the natural setting of the area and 
encourages tourist-related use and development that are consistent with 
current and anticipated socioeconomic development. This should more 
than offset any effects of habitat protection and conservation 
easements on timber-related employment or revenues associated with the 
No Action alternative.

7.8 Cultural Resources

 Affected Environment

Regulatory Overview
    Cultural resource management in the Lewis River basin is under the 
auspices of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic 
Preservation (OAHP), the GPNF, and the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation (ACHP). Indian Tribes that have an interest in the project 
include the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT) and the Yakama Nation (YN). 
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and 
regulations promulgated by the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission 
is required to inventory archaeological, historical, and traditional 
cultural resources; evaluate their eligibility for listing in the 
National Register of Historic Places (National Register); determine 
project impacts on them; and consider measures to avoid or mitigate 
adverse effects. This work is conducted in consultation with the 
cultural resource oversight agencies, responsible federal land 
management agencies, and Indian tribes.

Cultural Resources in the Merwin Project Area

    Two archaeological sites, one historic-period cemetery, and 6 
isolated scatters of flaked stone artifacts have been recorded for the 
Merwin Project area. The National Register eligibility of the two 
archaeological sites and the cemetery has not been formally considered. 
The Federal Power Commission granted the license for the Merwin Project 
in late 1929, and the project began commercial operation on January 1, 
1932. The current Merwin license, issued in 1983, does not identify any 
specific cultural resource enhancement measures. Article 38 of the 
Merwin license states:

    Prior to commencement of any construction or development of any 
project works or other facilities at the project, the licensee shall 
consult and cooperate with the State Historic Preservation Officer 
to determine the need for * * * any archaeological or historic 
resource surveys and any mitigation measures that may be necessary.

    In mid-September 1990, a GPNF archaeologist reported to PacifiCorp 
the occurrence of unauthorized excavation of archaeological deposits 
along the exposed shoreline of Lake Merwin. Subsequently, PacifiCorp 
contracted the Oregon State Museum of Anthropology (OSMA) to survey 
high probability areas, evaluate the known deposits, and assess the 
damage to cultural resources at Lake Merwin (O'Neill 1991). A brief 
reconnaissance was conducted by OSMA staff, resulting in the discovery 
of 6 isolated scatters of flakes and tools along with excavations in 2 
locations. Excavations in one of the sites at Merwin revealed some 
flaked stone artifacts but not enough to make a detailed analysis. This 
site was found to have some significance but was not evaluated for 
National Register eligibility. The location of the historic-period 
cemetery near Woodland Park was recorded, but according to O'Neill 
(1991), all of the burials were removed prior to inundation. Protection 
of the sites through ongoing monitoring was recommended.
    Additional surveys in October 1999 examined the Lake Merwin 
drawdown zone and all developed and dispersed use areas associated with 
the lake. These investigations revealed the following:
    [sbull] 15 new prehistoric sites were recorded, all of which were 
lithic scatters without ground stone.
    [sbull] 5 historic-period sites were recorded, including a washed-
out bridge, a campsite with a cleared tent platform, a dense scatter of 
historic-period refuse, and an abandoned railroad grade.
    [sbull] 54 isolates were identified, the majority of which were 
groupings of flaked cobble tools, occasionally associated with a few 
flakes or other prehistoric artifacts.
    An evaluation of the Merwin powerhouse conducted by Historical 
Research Associates, Inc (HRA). Based on a survey of the powerhouse and 
associated facilities and archival research, HRA recommended that the 
powerhouse be considered eligible for inclusion on the National 
Register (pers. comm., G. Thompson, HRA, Seattle, WA, May 1, 1999).
    Additional archaeological sites may exist in the Merwin Project 
area, and historical buildings and structures need to be inventoried 
and evaluated for National Register eligibility.

Cultural Resources in the Yale Project Area

    Construction of the Yale Project began soon after the license was 
issued in April 1951, and the project began operation in 1953. A survey 
for archaeological resources in the area to be inundated by Yale Lake 
was conducted in 1952 and 1953 by the University of Washington (Bryan 
1953, 1955). This study resulted in the recording and testing of 6 
sites. Three other recent cultural resource investigations have been 
conducted at Yale Lake including: a 1993-94 GPNF-sponsored 
archaeological survey conducted by Oregon State University at a site 
along the margin of Yale Lake; PacifiCorp-sponsored archaeological 
testing in 1995 at a heavily vandalized site on company lands near Yale 
Dam; and a comprehensive cultural resources inventory and National 
Register evaluation of historic, prehistoric, and traditional cultural 
resources conducted in 1996-97 as part of the Yale license application 
process (PacifiCorp 1999).
    The results of this analysis found 8 prehistoric archaeological 
sites, 5 historic sites, and 9 prehistoric isolated finds. Of these, 5 
of the prehistoric sites were determined to be eligible for listing in 
the National Register (letter from Greg Griffith, OAHP to Russ Howison, 
PacifiCorp April 3, 1998). The OAHP and affected Indian tribes have 
expressed ongoing concern over the illegal collecting of artifacts and

[[Page 27051]]

possible damage from project-related ground-disturbing activities.
    The Yale hydroelectric facilities were evaluated for National 
Register eligibility and were found to be not eligible for listing. 
However, the Yale Project may be eligible for listing in the National 
Register as a contributing element to a mufti-property nomination for 
the entire Lewis River hydroelectric system.
    A Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) for resources 
potentially affected by the Yale Project is included as a proposed 
enhancement measure in the Yale license application submitted to the 
Commission in April 1999. A subsequent agreement was developed in 
consultation with Commission staff, the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation (ACHP), and the Lewis River Cultural Resource Work Group 
on January 20, 2000. Terms of this agreement include delaying 
development of the formal CRMP until the conclusion of relicensing 
studies for all four projects. Protection measures, as described in the 
Yale application, will be implemented. These include management 
guidelines for National Register-eligible sites (5 known currently) 
within the 2,500-acre Yale Area of Potential Effects (APE), which will 
include: Monitoring of known sites, options for site avoidance, site 
protection measures, or mitigation through data recovery. The final 
CRMP also will include a protocol for the discovery of previously 
unknown sites and a training program for project personnel.

Cultural Resources in the Swift No. 1 and No. 2 Project Areas

    The Swift No. 1 and Swift No. 2 projects operate under separate 
licenses issued in 1956, with project completion in December 1958. The 
current licenses for the Swift projects do not contain any specific 
cultural resource enhancement measures, nor are there any sites 
officially determined eligible for the National Register. A May 1957 
archaeological survey of the areas to be inundated by the Swift No. 1 
dam and Swift No. 2 power canal did not find any cultural resources 
present (undated letter from Clayton Denman to Dr. Douglas Osborne, 
Washington State Museum). However, the study was conducted under the 
standards of the day, and it remains a possibility that undiscovered 
cultural resources may be present. A 1998 archaeological survey of the 
Swift Reservoir drawdown area recorded two archaeological sites and 
nine isolated finds; one of the sites was considered not to be National 
Register eligible, and testing is needed to determine the eligibility 
of the other site (Goetz 1998). Additional surveys performed in October 
1999 revealed a single prehistoric isolate. In addition, the project 
buildings and structures need to be inventoried and evaluated for 
National Register eligibility because they will meet the 50-year age 
criterion when the existing license expires.

Environmental Impacts

    None of the proposed measures contained in the Proposed Action 
involve ground disturbing activities with potential to affect cultural 
resources. The Proposed Action should result in reduced adverse impacts 
to cultural resources with a conservation easement for riparian habitat 
on Cougar Creek and the habitat protection on Eagle Island versus the 
No Action alternative.

8.0 Issues and Recommendations

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

    Measures contained in the Proposed Action were arrived at through 
extensive pre-filing discussions with the USFWS and NMFS. Both agencies 
support the proposed measures and have issued a BO (Attachment C), and 
its associated incidental take statement, which is consistent with and 
supports the proposed amendments to the license. Comments and 
recommendations have likewise been incorporated from both agencies in 
this document and the associated BA (Attachment A).

Environmental Justice--Executive Order 12898

    On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 
12898 (``E.O. 12898''), Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations. E.O. 12898 requires 
federal executive agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-
income populations which may be affected by agency actions. 
Environmental justice issues encompass a broad range of issues already 
covered by the NEPA, including impacts on the natural or physical 
environment and interrelated social, and economic effects. 
Environmental justice analysis focused NEPA review on whether the 
environmental effects of a proposed federal action has 
disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 
populations, including Indian tribes. Although independent agencies 
such as the Commission are not subject to E.O. 12898, President Clinton 
requested independent agencies to comply with the provisions of E.O. 
Order 12898. In the exercise of the Commission's discretion, and 
recognizing the E.O. Order 12898 is not by its terms applicable to the 
Commission, but that potential environmental justice issues are already 
within the scope of NEPA issues that the Commission must evaluate in 
connection with proposals for Commission action, this EA analyzes the 
effects of the Proposed Action with respect to potential environmental 
justice issues.
    The Proposed Action is expected to have a positive effect on fish 
populations in the project vicinity, compared to existing conditions. 
Therefore, the Proposed Action is reasonably expected to have a 
beneficial effect on any population which relies on fishery resources 
for food or other purposes. Commission staff have not identified any 
disproportionate, adverse effect of the Proposed Action on any minority 
or low-income population or Indian tribe. Commission staff conclude 
therefore that the Proposed Action does not have adverse environmental 
justice effects.

Magnuson-Stevens Act

    Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and associated 
implementing regulations provide that Federal agencies must consult 
with NMFS concerning all actions that may adversely affect designated 
essential fish habitat (EFH). NMFS EFH guidance documents provide that 
EFH consultations should be combined with ESA consultations to 
accommodate the substantive requirements of both Acts. As discussed in 
the above referenced biological assessment, the Proposed Action will 
result in habitat improvements, and will not result in any adverse 
effects to EFH. Therefore, EFH consultation is not required at this 
time.

9.0 Finding of No Significant Impact

    The recommended alternative is approving the amendment of 
PacifiCorp's and PUD's licenses to adopt and implement the proposed 
conservation measures pursuant to the terms and conditions of the BO, 
as appropriate. Incorporating the conservation measures into 
PacifiCorp's and PUD's licenses will reduce incidental take of listed 
species resulting from operation of the Lewis River Projects. Such 
conservation measures likewise represent important near-term 
conservation opportunities that may be lost if not secured while the

[[Page 27052]]

parties collaboratively devise long-term conservation strategies.
    On the basis of our independent analysis, the proposed amendments 
for the Lewis River Projects, with the recommended mitigation measures, 
would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment.

10.0 References

Anderson, D.P. and M.V. Ichisaka. 1986. Wintering ecology of bald 
eagles on the Lewis River, Washington. 1985-1986. Pacific Power & 
Light Co., Portland, Oregon.
Bryan, A.L. 1953. An appraisal of the archaeological resources of 
the Yale Reservoir on the Lewis River, Washington. Reprinted in 1992 
in Archaeology in Washington 4:61-69.
Bryan, A.L. 1955. Archaeology of the Yale Reservoir, Lewis River, 
Washington. American Antiquity 20(3):281-283.
Chambers, J.S. 1957. Report on the 1956 survey of the North Fork of 
the Lewis River above Yale dam. Washington Department of Fisheries, 
Olympia, WA.
Dueker, J.K. and A.S. Paz. 1995. Inventory and assessment of, and 
management alternatives for wetlands at Yale Resevoir. Prepared for 
PacifiCorp. Portland, Oregon. 104 pp.
EDAW 2000. Unpublished data.
Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1978. Natural vegetation of Oregon 
and Washington. Pacific Northwest Forest, Range Experiment Station B 
USDA Forest Service Biennial Technical Report. PNW-8. Portland, OR.
Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyerness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon 
and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 
452 pp.
Goetz, Linda Naoi. 1998. Results of a cultural resources inventory 
of the Swift Reservoir, Skamania County, Washington. Draft report 
prepared for PacifiCorp by Historical Research Associates, Inc., 
Seattle, Washington.
Hildreth, J. 1995. Yale Hydroelectric project inventory report. 
Forest Resource Management, Inc. Wilsonville, Oregon.
Kray, A. 1957. A survey of resident game fish resources on the North 
Fork of the Lewis River with a post-flooding management plan. 
Washington Department of Game, Olympia, WA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Factors for decline: 
A supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead 
under the Endangered Species Act. NMFS Protected Species Branch, 
Portland, OR, 82 p. + app.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996a. Documents submitted 
to the ESA Administrative Record for west coast chinook salmon by J. 
Harmon, January 1996. (Available from Environmental and Technical 
Services Division, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., 525 N.E. Oregon St., 
Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232.)
O'Neill, B.L. 1991. Archaeological investigation at Lake Merwin, 
Cowlitz and Clark Counties, Washington--OSMA Report 91-3. Oregon 
State Museum of Anthropology, University of Oregon. Eugene, Oregon. 
37 pp.
PacifiCorp. 1999. License application for the Yale Hydroelectric 
Project, FERC Project No. 2071. Includes Final Technical Reports as 
Technical Appendices. Portland, Oregon.
PacifiCorp. 1996b. Merwin Wildlife Habitat: 7-year assessment 
report, 1989-1995. PacifiCorp, Portland, Oregon.
WDFW. 1998. Integrated landscape management for fish and wildlife--
An integrated plan for managing fish and wildlife. Pilot project in 
the Lewis-Kalama River Watershed, WRIA27. Prepared by the 
ILM Core Team, WDFW, Olympia, Washington.
WDFW. 1996. Priority habitats and species list, Habitat Program. 
WDFW. Olympia, Washington, 28 pp.
WDFW. 1996b. WDFW hunting guide.
WDFW. 1999. Bull trout netting results at the headwaters of Swift 
reservoir: 1990-2000. Unpublished data.
WDFW. 2000. 2000 Opening Day Creel Survey: Swift Reservoir. 
Unpublished data.

[FR Doc. 03-12441 Filed 5-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P