[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52172-52190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20460]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14367-001]


Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC; Notice of Availability of 
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for an original license 
to construct the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project, located on several 
unnamed springs near the Bear River in Caribou County, Idaho, and has 
prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the project. The project 
would not occupy any federal lands.
    The EA includes staff's analysis of the potential environmental 
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with 
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a 
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the 
human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the 
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at 
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket 
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to 
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at 
[email protected], or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances 
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this 
notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web 
site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit 
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, 
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the 
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online 
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, 
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and 
five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Wolcott at (202) 502-6480.

    Dated: August 15, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE

Gilbert Hydroelectric Project

FERC Project No. 14367-001
Idaho
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, 
Division of Hydropower Licensing, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.

August 2013.

Table of Contents

 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................         iii
LIST OF FIGURES.............................................          vi
LIST OF TABLES..............................................          vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................        viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................           x
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................           1
    1.1 APPLICATION.........................................           1
    1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER................           1
        1.2.1 Purpose of Action.............................           1
        1.2.2 Need for Power................................           2
    1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS...............           3
        1.3.1 Federal Power Act.............................           3
            1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions........           3
            1.3.1.2 Section 10(j) Recommendations...........           4
        1.3.2 Clean Water Act...............................           4
        1.3.3 Endangered Species Act........................           4
        1.3.4 National Historic Preservation Act............           5
    1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT...........................           5
        1.4.1 Scoping.......................................           5
        1.4.2 Interventions.................................           6
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES........................           6
    2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE...............................           6
    2.2 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL................................           6
        2.2.1 Project Facilities............................           6
        2.2.2 Project Safety................................           8
        2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures...............           8
    2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE...................................           9
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS..................................          10
    3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN..............          10
    3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS................          11
    3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES.............          11
        3.3.1 Geologic and Soils Resources..................          12
        3.3.2. Aquatic Resources............................          13
        3.3.3. Terrestrial Resources........................          16
        3.3.4. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species          18
        3.3.5 Cultural Resources............................          18
        3.3.6. Aesthetic Resources..........................          21

[[Page 52173]]

 
    3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE...............................          22
4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS..................................          22
    4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT.....          23
    4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES..........................          24
    4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES......................          25
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................          29
    5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES..........................          29
    5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED                     31
     ALTERNATIVE............................................
        5.2.2 Modifications and Additional Measures                   32
         Recommended by Staff...............................
        5.2.3 Measures Not Recommended......................          35
    5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS.........................          36
    5.4. FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS...........          36
    5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS................          37
6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNICANT IMPACT..........................          38
7.0 LITERATURE CITED........................................          38
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.......................................          39
 
                             List of Figures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1. Location map and project features for the Gilbert            7
 Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14367......................
Figure 2. Schematic of drop inlet structure for the Gilbert            8
 Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14367......................
 
                             List of Tables
 
Table 1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the           3
 Gilbert Project............................................
Table 2. Parameters for economic analysis of the Gilbert              23
 Project....................................................
Table 3. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and          24
 annual project cost for the action alternatives for the
 Gilbert Project............................................
Table 4. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement             26
 measures considered in assessing the environmental effects
 of construction and operation of the Gilbert Project.......
Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives for the Gilbert Project.          29
Table 6. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the             37
 Gilbert Project............................................
 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee
applicant Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC
certification water quality certification
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
CWA Clean Water Act
EA environmental assessment
ESA Endangered Species Act
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPA Federal Power Act
FWS U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Idaho DEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Idaho DFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Idaho SHPO Idaho State Historic Preservation Office
Interior U.S. Department of the Interior
Gilbert Project Gilbert Hydroelectric Project
Gilbert Hydro Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC
kW kilowatt
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
National Register National Register of Historic Places
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
project Gilbert Hydroelectric Project
WECC Western Electric Coordinating Council

Executive Summary

Proposed Action

    On May 30, 2012, Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC (Gilbert Hydro or 
applicant) filed an application for an original license to construct 
and operate its proposed Gilbert Hydroelectric Project (project). The 
project would have an installed capacity of 90 kilowatts (kW) and would 
utilize the flow from several unnamed springs that converge into an 
unnamed channel that is a tributary to the Bear River. The project 
would be located eight miles southwest of the City of Grace, in Caribou 
County, Idaho. The project would not occupy any federal lands.

Proposed Project Description

    The project would consist of the following new facilities: (1) An 
8-foot-long, 3-foot-wide, 3-foot-deep drop inlet structure; (2) a 2-
foot-diameter, 700-foot-long primarily above-ground steel or plastic 
penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing two 45- kW reaction turbine/
generator units for a total installed capacity of 90 kW; (4) an 
approximately 25-foot-long tailrace to convey flows from the powerhouse 
to the existing stream channel that flows into the Bear River; (5) a 
150-foot-long, 480-volt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant 
facilities. The project would divert up to 18 cubic feet per second to 
the project and generate an average of 550 megawatt-hours annually.

Proposed Environmental Measures

Project Design and Operation Features

     Operate in a run-of-river mode to maintain natural flows 
downstream of the project for the protection of aquatic resources;
     Design and construct the project transmission line in 
accordance with the most current raptor protection standards 
recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
     Design the powerhouse to be small in size, similar in 
appearance to other buildings in the area, and finished with a color 
that blends in with the rural character of the area.

During Construction

     Implement industry-standard erosion control measures to 
minimize erosion and sedimentation;
     Stop construction immediately in the event of an 
inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains, and 
contact the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for guidance 
before continuing project construction or other project-related 
activity.

During Project Operation

     Implement a Revegetation Plan that includes: (1) 
Streambank improvement to enhance habitat downstream of the powerhouse; 
(2) revegetation of areas disturbed during construction with crested 
wheatgrass in the upland areas and Timothy grass or, if available, 
deep-rooted plants such as sedges and rushes

[[Page 52174]]

in the wetland areas to enhance vegetation, forage for livestock and 
wildlife, and wildlife habitat; and (3) use of certified weed-free 
seeds and cleaning of all equipment prior to entry into the 
construction site to prevent the establishment of noxious weeds.

Alternatives Considered

    This environmental assessment (EA) considers the following 
alternatives: (1) Gilbert Hydro's proposal, as outlined above; (2) 
Gilbert Hydro's proposal with staff modifications (staff alternative); 
and (3) no action, meaning the project would not be built.

Staff Alternative

    Under the staff alternative, the project would be constructed, 
operated, and maintained as proposed by Gilbert Hydro with the 
modifications and additions described below. Our recommended 
modifications and additional environmental measures include, or are 
based on, recommendations made by state agencies that have an interest 
in resources that may be affected by the proposed project.
    Under the staff alternative, the project would include most of 
Gilbert Hydro's proposed measures, as outlined above, with the 
exception of the streambank improvement program proposed as part of the 
Revegetation Plan. We do not recommend this measure because the 
streambank improvement would be implemented downstream of the project 
and the run-of-river operation would ensure that there would be no 
project-related effects on downstream aquatic and riparian resources 
and therefore this measure does not have a sufficient nexus to project 
effects.
    The staff alternative includes the following staff modifications 
and additional measures:
     An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that includes site-
specific measures;
     Modification of the Revegetation Plan to include the use 
of native sedges and rushes during replanting of disturbed wetland 
areas, instead of Timothy grass as proposed;
     Developing the final transmission line design, in 
consultation with the FWS, to adhere to the most current Avian Power 
Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) standards;
     Notify the Commission, in addition to the Idaho SPHO and 
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and develop measures in consultation with the 
Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes if previously unidentified 
archeological or historic properties are discovered; and
     In addition to finishing the powerhouse in a color that 
blends in with the rural character of the area, avoid reflective 
materials and highly-contrasting colors in both the penstock and 
powerhouse to reduce their visibility from surrounding properties and 
public roads.

No Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be built, 
environmental resources in the project area would not be affected, and 
the renewable energy that would be produced by the project would not be 
developed.

Public Involvement and Areas of Concern

    Before filing its license application, Gilbert Hydro conducted pre-
filing consultation under the traditional licensing process. The intent 
of the Commission's pre-filing process is to initiate public 
involvement early in the project planning process and to encourage 
citizens, governmental entities, tribes, and other interested parties 
to identify and resolve issues prior to an application being formally 
filed with the Commission.
    After Gilbert Hydro filed its application, the Commission issued a 
public notice on October 17, 2012, of its intent to waive scoping, 
stating the application was ready for environmental analysis, and 
requesting comments, terms and conditions, and recommendations. The 
notice also stated our intention to waive additional study requests and 
three-stage consultation.
    Staff received comments and recommendations from the State of Idaho 
on behalf of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho 
Department of Fish and Game (Idaho DFG), Idaho Water Resource Board, 
and Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners. We also received a letter 
from the U.S. Department of the Interior, noting that it received and 
reviewed the license application and had no comments to offer.
    The primary issues associated with licensing the project are 
erosion and sedimentation control, native plant restoration, noxious 
weed control, raptor protection, and aesthetic resource protection.

Staff Alternative

Geology and Soils Resources

    Project construction would temporarily increase soil erosion during 
vegetation clearing and excavation for the drop inlet structure, 
penstock, powerhouse, and transmission line. Implementing staff's 
recommended Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, which would include 
industry-standard erosion and sediment control measures as proposed by 
Gilbert Hydro but with site-specific measures, would minimize project 
effects on soil erosion. Operating the project in a run-of-river mode 
as proposed by Gilbert Hydro would minimize streambank erosion.

Aquatic Resources

    Constructing the drop inlet structure, penstock, and powerhouse as 
well as initial project operation would temporarily increase 
sedimentation and turbidity in project waters. However, adverse effects 
would be minimized through the staff- recommended Erosion and Sediment 
Control Plan.
    Gilbert Hydro's proposed run-of-river operation would ensure that 
natural flows in the channel below the powerhouse for the protection of 
aquatic resources. Run-of-river operation would also minimize the 
potential for any adverse effects on water quality.

Terrestrial Resources

    Constructing the project would temporarily disturb 0.5 acre of 
vegetation and about 0.1 acre of vegetation would be permanently lost. 
Gilbert Hydro's proposed Revegetation Plan would enhance the recovery 
of native vegetation in upland areas, and minimize the establishment of 
noxious weeds. Using native sedges and rushes to replant disturbed 
wetland areas, instead of Timothy grass, would assist in the recovery 
of native plant species that are beneficial to wildlife by providing 
forage and habitat.
    Gilbert Hydro's proposal to design and construct the project 
transmission line in accordance with the most current raptor protection 
standards recommended by the FWS would minimize adverse interactions 
between the project's transmission line and raptors. Designing the 
transmission line in consultation with FWS and adhering to APLIC 
standards would ensure adequate protection.

Threatened and Endangered Species

    No federally listed endangered or threatened species are known to 
occur in the project area; therefore, the project would have no effect 
on federally listed species.

Aesthetic Resources

    Project facilities would be visible over a wide area because of 
sloping topography and low-growing vegetation. Gilbert Hydro's proposal 
to construct a small powerhouse, similar in

[[Page 52175]]

appearance to nearby buildings, with a color that blends with the rural 
character of the area would reduce visual effects. Avoiding reflective 
materials and highly-contrasting colors for both the penstock and 
powerhouse would reduce their visibility and help maintain the existing 
character of the landscape.

Cultural Resources

    No cultural resources eligible for or included in the National 
Register of Historic Places are known to exist in the project area. 
Therefore, the project would have no effect on cultural resources.
    Gilbert Hydro's proposal to stop construction if previously 
unidentified archeological or historic properties are discovered and 
contact the Idaho SHPO and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes prior to continuing 
construction would help protect any newly discovered cultural 
resources.

No-Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be built, 
environmental resources in the project area would not be affected, and 
the renewable energy that would be produced by the project would not be 
developed.

Conclusions

    Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the project as 
proposed by Gilbert Hydro, with some staff modifications and additional 
measures.
    In section 4.2 of the EA, we estimate the likely cost of 
alternative power for each of the three alternatives identified above. 
Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be constructed 
and would not produce any power. Our analysis shows that during the 
first year of operation under the proposed action alternative, project 
power would cost $8,400, or $15.27 per megawatt-hour (MWh) more than 
the likely alternative cost of power. Under the staff alternative, 
project power would cost $8,510, or $15.48/MWh, more than the likely 
alternative cost of power.
    We chose the staff alternative as the preferred alternative 
because: (1) The project would provide a dependable source of 
electrical energy for the region (550 MWh annually); (2) the 90 kW of 
electric capacity comes from a renewable resource that does not 
contribute to atmospheric pollution, including greenhouse gases; and 
(3) the recommended environmental measures proposed by Gilbert Hydro, 
as modified by staff, would adequately protect and enhance 
environmental resources affected by the project. The overall benefits 
of the staff alternative would be worth the cost of the proposed and 
recommended environmental measures.
    We conclude that issuing an original license for the project, with 
the environmental measures we recommend, would not be a major federal 
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Environmental Assessment

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

Gilbert Hydroelectric Project

FERC Project No. 14367-001--Idaho

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 APPLICATION

    On May 30, 2012, Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC (Gilbert Hydro or 
applicant) filed an application for an original minor license for the 
construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Gilbert 
Hydroelectric Project (Gilbert Project or project). The 90-kilowatt 
(kW) project would be constructed on a channel formed from flows of 
five unnamed springs. The project would be located about 1,000 feet 
upstream from the confluence with the Bear River and eight miles 
southwest of the City of Grace in Caribou County, Idaho. The project 
would be located on private lands owned by the applicant and would not 
occupy any federal lands. The project would generate an average of 
about 550 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy annually.

1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER

1.2.1 Purpose of Action

    The purpose of the proposed Gilbert Project is to provide a new 
source of hydroelectric power. Therefore, under the provisions of the 
Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission or FERC) must decide whether to issue a license to Gilbert 
Hydro for the Gilbert Project and what conditions should be placed on 
any license issued. In deciding whether to issue a license for a 
hydroelectric project, the Commission must determine that the project 
will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or 
developing a waterway. In addition to the power and developmental 
purposes for which licenses are issued (such as flood control, 
irrigation, or water supply), the Commission must give equal 
consideration to the purposes of: (1) Energy conservation; (2) the 
protection of, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and 
wildlife resources; (3) the protection of recreational opportunities; 
and (4) the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.
    Issuing an original license for the Gilbert Project would allow 
Gilbert Hydro to generate electricity at the project for the term of a 
license, making electric power from a renewable resource available for 
use and sale.
    This environmental assessment (EA) assesses the effects associated 
with the construction and operation of the proposed project, and 
alternatives to the proposed project, and makes recommendations to the 
Commission on whether to issue an original license, and if so, 
recommends terms and conditions to become part of any license issued.
    In this EA, we assess the environmental and economic effects of 
constructing and operating the project: (1) As proposed by Gilbert 
Hydro, and (2) with our recommended measures. We also consider the 
effects of the no-action alternative. Important issues that are 
addressed include erosion and sedimentation control; and vegetation, 
wildlife, and cultural resources protection.

1.2.2 Need for Power

    The Gilbert Project would provide hydroelectric generation to meet 
part of Idaho's power requirements, resource diversity, and capacity 
needs. The project would have an installed capacity of 90 kW and 
generate approximately 550 MWh per year. The electricity generated by 
the project in excess of Gilbert Hydro's needs would be sold to Rocky 
Mountain Power.
    The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) annually 
forecasts electrical supply and demand nationally and regionally for a 
10-year period. The Gilbert Project is located in the Basin subregion 
\1\ of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region of 
the NERC. According to NERC's 2012 forecast, average annual demand 
requirements for the WECC region are projected to grow at a rate of 1.6 
percent from 2012 through 2022. NERC projects planning reserve margins 
(capacity resources in excess of net internal demand) will be 15 
percent during the 10-year forecast period, including estimated new 
capacity additions. Over the next 10 years, WECC estimates that about 
19,361 MW of future planned capacity will be brought on line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Basin subregion is a summer-peaking subregion composed 
of all or major portions of the states of Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and 
Wyoming.

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

[[Page 52176]]

    We conclude that power from the Gilbert Project would help meet a 
need for power in the WECC region in both the short and long-term. The 
project would provide power that displaces generation from non-
renewable sources. Displacing the operation of non-renewable facilities 
may avoid some power plant emissions, thus creating an environmental 
benefit.

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

    A license for the proposed project is subject to numerous 
requirements under the FPA and other applicable statutes. The major 
regulatory and statutory requirements are summarized in table 1 and 
described below.

  Table 1--Major Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for the Gilbert
                                 Project
                             [Source: staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Requirement                  Agency               Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 18 of the FPA........  FWS................  No fishway
                                                     prescriptions or
                                                     reservation of
                                                     authority to
                                                     prescribe fishways
                                                     have been filed.
Section 10(j) of the FPA.....  Idaho DFG..........  The State of Idaho,
                                                     on behalf of Idaho
                                                     DFG, provided
                                                     section 10(j)
                                                     recommendations on
                                                     December 13, 2012.
Clean Water Act--water         Idaho DEQ..........  The application for
 quality certification.                              water quality
                                                     certification was
                                                     received on March
                                                     5, 2013; due by
                                                     March 5, 2014.
Endangered Species Act         FWS................  No federally listed
 Consultation.                                       species are known
                                                     to occur within or
                                                     near the project
                                                     area; therefore,
                                                     the project would
                                                     have no effect on
                                                     any federally
                                                     listed species.
National Historic              Idaho SHPO.........  The Idaho SHPO
 Preservation Act.                                   determined on
                                                     December 7, 2011,
                                                     that no historic
                                                     properties would be
                                                     affected by the
                                                     federal licensing
                                                     action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: FWS--U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Idaho DFG--Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Idaho DEQ--Alaska
  Department of Environmental Quality. Idaho SHPO--Alaska State Historic
  Preservation Officer.

1.3.1 Federal Power Act

1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions

    Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission is to require 
construction, operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways 
as may be prescribed by the Secretaries of Commerce or the Interior.
    No fishway prescriptions, or request for reservation of authority 
to prescribe fishways under section 18 of the FPA, have been filed.

1.3.1.2 Section 10(j) Recommendations

    Under section 10(j) of the FPA,16 U.S.C. 803(j), each hydroelectric 
license issued by the Commission must include conditions based on 
recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife 
agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and 
wildlife resources affected by the project. The Commission is required 
to include these conditions unless it determines that they are 
inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other 
applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an agency recommendation, 
the Commission is required to attempt to resolve any such inconsistency 
with the agency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, 
and statutory responsibilities of such agency.
    The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Idaho DFG) timely filed, on 
December 13, 2012, recommendations under section 10(j), as summarized 
in table 6 in section 5.4, Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations. In 
section 5.4, we also discuss how we address the agency recommendations 
and comply with section 10(j).

1.3.2 Clean Water Act

    Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a license applicant 
must obtain certification from the appropriate state pollution control 
agency verifying compliance with the CWA. On March 5, 2013, Gilbert 
Hydro applied to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (Idaho 
DEQ) for 401 water quality certification (certification) for the 
Gilbert Project. Idaho DEQ received this request on the same day. The 
Idaho DEQ has not yet acted on the request. Idaho DEQ's action on the 
request is due by March 5, 2014.

1.3.3 Endangered Species Act

    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal 
agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such 
species.
    No federally listed or proposed species, or critical habitats, are 
known to occur in the project area, and the FWS stated that the 
proposed project would not affect any of its trust species (email 
communication on March 21, 2013, between C. Myler, Partners Biologist, 
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, and K. Wolcott, Environmental Biologist, 
FERC, Washington, DC, filed on March 29, 2013). Therefore, we conclude 
that licensing the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project, as proposed with 
staff-recommended measures, would have no effect on any federally 
listed species and no further consultation is required under the ESA.

1.3.4 National Historic Preservation Act

    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 
requires that every federal agency ``take into account'' how each of 
its undertakings could affect historic properties. Historic properties 
are districts, sites, buildings, structures, traditional cultural 
properties, and objects significant in American history, architecture, 
engineering, and culture that are eligible for inclusion in the 
National Register of Historic Places (National Register).
    Pursuant to section 106, Gilbert Hydro consulted with the Idaho 
State Historic Preservation Officer (Idaho SHPO) and affected Indian 
tribes to locate, determine National Register eligibility, and assess 
potential adverse effects on historic properties associated with the 
proposed project. By letter dated August 15, 2011,\2\ the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes commented that the proposed project would be located on 
private land. No comments were provided on the presence of any cultural 
resources. The tribes requested project construction cease in the event 
of an inadvertent discovery (cultural resources and/or human remains) 
and Gilbert Hydro consult with the tribes to ensure proper treatment of 
the cultural resources and/

[[Page 52177]]

or human remains. By letter dated December 7, 2011,\3\ the Idaho SHPO 
commented that an archaeological survey would not be productive, 
withdrew its previous recommendation for a survey,\4\ and determined 
that the project would have no effect on historic properties. As a 
result of these findings made by the tribes and the Idaho SHPO's 
concurrence that no historic properties would be affected by the 
project, the drafting of a programmatic agreement to resolve adverse 
effects on historic properties will not be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A copy of the letter can be found in Appendix E of the final 
license application.
    \3\ A copy of the letter can be found in Appendix E of the final 
license application.
    \4\ The previous recommendation for a survey was included in a 
letter dated June 29, 2011. A copy of the letter can be found in 
Appendix E of the final license application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

    The Commission's regulations (18 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], 
section 4.38) require that applicants consult with appropriate resource 
agencies, tribes, and other entities before filing an application for a 
license. This consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish 
and Wildlife Coordination Act, ESA, NHPA, and other federal statutes. 
Pre-filing consultation must be complete and documented according to 
the Commission's regulations.

1.4.1 Scoping

    Due to the small size and location of the proposed project on 
private lands owned by the applicant, the close coordination with state 
and federal agencies during the preparation of the application, agency 
comments, and completed studies, we waived public scoping.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission issued a notice on October 17, 2012, stating 
that it intended to waive scoping for this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.4.2 Interventions

    On October 17, 2012, the Commission issued a notice that it had 
accepted Gilbert Hydro's application to license the Gilbert Project, 
solicited motions to intervene and protest, and solicited comments and 
final terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions. The 
notice set December 17, 2012, as the filing deadline. On December 13, 
2012, the State of Idaho filed a timely motion to intervene, not in 
opposition, and comments on behalf of Idaho DEQ, Idaho DFG, Idaho Water 
Resource Board, and Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners. On 
December 10, 2012, Interior filed a letter stating that it had no 
comments on the application. Gilbert Hydro filed no reply comments.

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

    The no-action alternative is license denial. Under the no-action 
alternative, the project would not be built and environmental resources 
in the project area would not be affected.

2.2 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL

2.2.1 Project Facilities

    The proposed project would consist of the following new facilities: 
(1) An 8-foot-long, 3-foot-wide, 3-foot-deep drop inlet structure that 
would divert flow from the unnamed natural stream channel into; (2) a 
2-foot-diameter, 700-foot-long primarily above-ground \6\ steel or 
plastic penstock; (3) a powerhouse containing two 45- kW reaction 
turbine/generator units for a total installed capacity of 90 kW; (4) an 
approximately 25-foot-long tailrace to convey flows from the powerhouse 
back to the existing stream channel; (5) a 150-foot-long, 480-volt 
transmission line that would connect to Rocky Mountain Power's three-
phase line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The drop inlet structure, 
penstock, powerhouse, and tailrace would bypass an approximately 800-
foot-long reach of an existing stream channel that conveys flow from 
the unnamed springs to the Bear River. The project would divert up to 
18 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the project. Project facilities are 
shown in figures 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Approximately 20 feet of the upper end of the penstock where 
it connects to the drop inlet structure would be buried.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[[Page 52178]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22AU13.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22AU13.001

BILLING CODE 6717-01-C

[[Page 52179]]

    The proposed 900-foot-long, 300-foot-wide project boundary would 
enclose all of the project facilities listed above.

2.2.2 Project Safety

    As part of the licensing process, the Commission would review the 
adequacy of the proposed project facilities. Special articles would be 
included in any license issued, as appropriate. Commission staff would 
inspect the licensed project both during and after construction. 
Inspection during construction would concentrate on adherence to 
Commission-approved plans and specifications, special license articles 
relating to construction, and accepted engineering practices and 
procedures. Operational inspections would focus on the continued safety 
of the structures, identification of unauthorized modifications, 
efficiency and safety of operations, compliance with the terms of the 
license, and proper maintenance.

2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

Project Design and Operation Features

     Operate in a run-of-river mode to maintain natural flows 
downstream of the project for the protection of aquatic resources;
     Design and construct the project transmission line in 
accordance with the most current raptor protection standards 
recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
     Design the powerhouse to be small in size, similar in 
appearance to other buildings in the area, and finished with a color 
that blends in with the rural character of the area.

During Construction

     Implement industry-standard erosion control measures to 
minimize erosion and sedimentation;
     Stop construction immediately in the event of an 
inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains, and 
contact the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for guidance 
before continuing project construction or other project-related 
activity.

During Project Operation

     Implement a Revegetation Plan that includes: (1) 
Streambank improvement to enhance habitat downstream of the powerhouse; 
(2) revegetation of areas disturbed during construction with crested 
wheatgrass in the upland areas and Timothy grass or, if available, 
deep-rooted plants such as sedges and rushes in the wetland areas to 
enhance vegetation, forage for livestock and wildlife, and wildlife 
habitat; and (3) use certified weed-free seeds and cleaning of all 
equipment prior to entry into the construction site to prevent the 
establishment of noxious weeds.

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE

    Under the staff alternative, the project would be constructed, 
operated, and maintained as proposed by Gilbert Hydro with the 
modifications and additions described below. Our recommended 
modifications and additional environmental measures include, or are 
based on, recommendations made by state resource agencies that have an 
interest in resources that may be affected by the proposed project.
    Under the staff alternative, the project would include most of 
Gilbert Hydro's proposed measures, as outlined above, with the 
exception of the streambank improvement program proposed as part of the 
Revegetation Plan. In addition, the staff alternative includes the 
following modifications and additional measures:
     An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that includes site-
specific measures;
     Modification of the Revegetation Plan to include the use 
of native sedges and rushes during replanting of disturbed wetland 
areas, instead of Timothy grass as proposed;
     Developing the final transmission line design, in 
consultation with the FWS, to adhere to the most current APLIC 
standards;
     Notify the Commission, in addition to the Idaho SPHO and 
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes as proposed, and develop measures in 
consultation with the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes if 
previously unidentified archeological or historic properties are 
discovered; and
     In addition to finishing the powerhouse with a color that 
blends in with the rural character of the area, avoid reflective 
materials and highly-contrasting colors in the finished appearance of 
both the penstock and powerhouse to reduce their visibility from 
surrounding properties and public roads.
    Proposed and recommended measures are discussed under the 
appropriate resource sections and summarized in section 4 of the EA.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

    In this section, we present: (1) A general description of the 
project vicinity; (2) an explanation of the scope of our cumulative 
effects analysis; and (3) our analysis of the proposed action and other 
recommended environmental measures. Sections are organized by resource 
area. Under each resource area, historical and current conditions are 
first described. The existing condition is the baseline against which 
the environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives are 
compared, including an assessment of the effects of proposed 
mitigation, protection, and enhancement measures, and any potential 
cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives. Staff 
conclusions and recommended measures are discussed in section 5.2, 
Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative of the EA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Unless noted otherwise, the sources of our information are 
the license application (Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC, 2012) and 
additional information filed by DeAnn Simonich for Gilbert Hydro 
Power on April 4, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN

    The project would be located in southeastern Idaho, about eight 
miles southwest of the City of Grace. The project would utilize flows 
from five unnamed springs that converge immediately upstream of the 
proposed project location and flow about 0.4 mile through an existing 
unnamed stream channel into the Bear River at approximately river mile 
(RM) 154.\8\ The Bear River, from its headwaters in the Uinta Mountains 
to its mouth at the Great Salt Lake, is approximately 500 miles in 
length and drains a basin of 7,500 square miles. The unnamed springs 
are located within the Middle Bear subbasin which consists of the Bear 
River and its tributaries from Alexander dam (RM 170) to the Utah state 
line (RM 94).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ River miles were estimated based on Schmidt and Beck, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The project would be located in the Gentile Valley of southeastern 
Idaho. The topography of the area is characterized by relatively flat 
terrain of the valley floor running north and south along the Bear 
River, steep bluffs composed of river terraces to the east, and the 
forested ridges of the Portneuf Mountains to the west. Land in the 
project area is primarily used for agricultural purposes including 
livestock grazing and hay and crop production.
    The climate of the Bear River Basin is generally continental and 
semiarid. The average annual precipitation in the City of Grace is 14.7 
inches and the average snowfall is 44.7 inches, with the highest amount 
of snow falling in the months of December and January. Temperatures 
range from an average low of 10.2 degrees Fahrenheit in January to an

[[Page 52180]]

average high of 84.9 degrees Fahrenheit in July.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Historical data from the Western Regional Climate Center, 
1907-2012, available at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS

    According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for 
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 C.F.R. section 
1508.7), cumulative effect is the impact on the environment that 
results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other 
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 
what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other 
actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but 
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, 
including hydropower and other land and water development activities.
    Based on our review of the license application and agency comments, 
we have not identified any resources as having the potential to be 
cumulatively affected by the proposed project in combination with other 
past, present, and future activities.

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES

    In this section, we discuss the effects of the project alternatives 
on environmental resources. For each resource, we first describe the 
affected environment, which is the existing condition and baseline 
against which we measure effects. We then discuss and analyze the site-
specific environmental issues.
    Only the resources that would be affected, or about which comments 
have been received, are addressed in detail in this EA. Based on this, 
we have determined that geologic and soils, aquatic, terrestrial, 
cultural, and aesthetic resources may be affected by the proposed 
action and action alternatives. We have not identified any substantive 
issues related to land use, recreation, or socio-economic resources 
associated with the proposed action, and therefore, these resources are 
not assessed in the EA. We present our recommendations in section 5.2, 
Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

3.3.1 Geologic and Soils Resources

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment

    The proposed project is located on a rocky bluff, characterized as 
lithic bedrock \10\ overlain by shallow loams \11\ (personal 
communication on February 26, 2013, between B. Griffith, Soil Survey 
Project Leader, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soda Springs, 
Idaho, and J. Harper, Engineer, FERC, Washington, DC, filed August 14, 
2013). The drop inlet structure would be constructed on a rocky bluff, 
where the bedrock outcroppings are more pronounced. The penstock and 
powerhouse would be constructed over pasture lands with shallow loamy 
soils overlaying bedrock. The density of the vegetation near the 
proposed powerhouse location is restricted by the shallow depth of the 
soils and rocky outcroppings. Slopes in the project area range from 4 
to 12 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Lithic bedrock is differentiated from paralithic bedrock by 
its hardness and is far less erodible than paralithic bedrock or 
overlaying soils.
    \11\ Loams are soils that consist of relatively equal amounts of 
silts, sands, and clay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects

    Land-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project 
construction, operation, and maintenance could cause erosion and 
sedimentation. To minimize erosion and sedimentation during 
construction activities, Gilbert Hydro proposes to: (1) Implement 
industry-standard erosion control measures, and (2) reseed or replant 
areas disturbed during construction with crested wheatgrass in the 
upland areas and Timothy grass or deep-rooted plants such as sedges and 
rushes, if available, in the wetland areas, as part of the Revegetation 
Plan.
    Idaho DFG recommends the applicant's proposed measures and deferred 
to Idaho DEQ to define specific measures to control or minimize erosion 
as part of the WQC.

Our Analysis

    Due to the semi-arid conditions and the rocky outcrops in the 
project area, erosion potential as a result of project construction 
activities would be low. Nevertheless, vegetation clearing and ground-
disturbing excavation activities associated with construction of the 
drop inlet structure, penstock, powerhouse, and transmission line could 
cause a minor amount of soil erosion. Gilbert Hydro's proposal to 
implement erosion control measures during project construction should 
minimize soil erosion and sedimentation in project in waters. However, 
other than noting that its proposed measures would be consistent with 
industry standards, Gilbert Hydro does not provide any detail on the 
measures that it would implement. A site-specific Erosion and Sediment 
Control Plan would enable the Commission to document that the proposed 
measures are adequate to minimize the potential for soil erosion and 
sedimentation of project lands and waters. Revegetation of areas 
disturbed during construction would provide further protection from 
erosion. Revegetation is discussed further in section 3.3.3, 
Terrestrial Resources.

3.3.2 Aquatic Resources

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment

Water Quantity and Quality

    A natural channel draining five unnamed springs would be the source 
water for the project. The flow from the unnamed stream channel flows 
about 0.4 mile to its confluence with the Bear River. During a normal 
year, the amount of combined flow in the springs ranges from 10 to 15 
cfs, with higher flows up to 20 cfs possible during spring months. Flow 
measurements near the proposed powerhouse location collected in October 
2009 recorded a flow rate of 13 cfs.
    There is no information in the project record on the water quality 
of the unnamed springs; however, given that it originates from natural 
springs a short distance from the point of diversion and only flows for 
about 0.4 mile before entering the Bear River, water quality in the 
unnamed springs is likely excellent.

Fisheries Resources and Aquatic Habitat

    Aquatic habitat in the existing stream channel downstream of the 
convergence of the five unnamed springs includes two distinct stream 
reaches: (1) An approximately 1,200 foot-long upper reach, and (2) an 
approximately 1,000-foot-long lower reach. A cascade/plunge pool 
complex forms the transition between the upper and lower reaches and 
also creates a natural barrier to fish attempting to access the upper 
reach. The upper reach predominately consists of shallow braided 
channels with an average gradient of 20 percent. The lower reach 
extends from the cascade/plunge pool complex to the confluence with the 
Bear River and ranges from 10 to 20 feet in width with water depths of 
less than one foot. The lower reach has a lower gradient than the upper 
reach and substrate consists primarily of silt, sand, and fine gravels. 
The entire length of the stream channel within the project area is 
located within existing agricultural lands used for livestock grazing. 
Grazing has resulted in erosion and streambank degradation in portions 
of the lower reach.
    In August 2011, Idaho DEQ conducted fish surveys in two areas in 
the lower reach between the cascade/plunge pool complex and the 
confluence with the

[[Page 52181]]

Bear River. The survey collected four fish species: rainbow trout, 
Bonneville cutthroat trout, brook trout, and sculpin. All species are 
common in the project vicinity. Bonneville cutthroat trout collected 
during the survey consisted of both naturally spawned and stocked 
individuals. No fish surveys were conducted upstream of the cascade/
plunge pool complex, and there is no evidence of fish inhabiting the 
upper reach; however, Idaho DEQ reported that it appeared to be a 
barrier to upstream fish passage.
    Other fish known to occur in the mainstem Bear River near the 
proposed project include brown trout, mountain whitefish, common carp, 
Utah sucker, mountain sucker, smallmouth bass, yellow perch, mottled 
sculpin, and Paiute sculpin (FERC, 2003).

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects

Water Quantity and Quality

    To protect water quality during construction, Gilbert Hydro 
proposes to use unspecified erosion control measures that it states 
would be consistent with industry standards to minimize sediment from 
washing into the existing stream channel during project construction.
    During project operation, Gilbert Hydro proposes to operate the 
project in a run-of-river mode diverting up to 18 cfs for power 
generation.
    Idaho DFG recommends that Gilbert Hydro obtain the necessary water 
rights to operate the proposed project or downsize the project to be 
consistent with the existing water rights permit.

Our Analysis

    Constructing the proposed project would temporarily increase soil 
erosion and sedimentation. As discussed in section 3.3.1, Geologic and 
Soil Resources, Gilbert Hydro's proposed erosion control measures using 
industry standards, and staff's recommended development of an Erosion 
Sediment Control Plan would limit soil erosion and sedimentation, and 
related turbidity effects in the stream channel.
    Operating the proposed project in a run-of-river mode would ensure 
that all diverted water is returned to the natural stream channel below 
the powerhouse for the protection of aquatic resources. In the event 
that the powerhouse trips off-line, flows would immediately bypass the 
penstock and powerhouse and return to the bypassed reach at the point 
of diversion; therefore, project operation would have no effect on 
flows above the diversion or below the powerhouse. In addition, 
operating the project in run-of-river mode and without the use of a 
reservoir or impoundment would eliminate the potential for changes to 
water quality conditions that could occur if streamflow was impounded 
or stored by the project.
    In regard to Idaho DFG's recommendation that Gilbert Hydro obtain 
the necessary water rights to operate the proposed project or downsize 
the project to be consistent with the existing water rights permit, 
Commission licenses include a standard article that requires licensees 
to require all rights necessary for operation and maintenance of a 
project within five years of license issuance.

Fisheries Resources and Aquatic Habitat

    In its Revegetation Plan, Gilbert Hydro proposes to cooperate with 
federal and state agencies to develop a streambank improvement program 
in the existing stream channel downstream of the powerhouse. Gilbert 
Hydro states that it would not provide funding for the program and that 
it must approve any program elements that could potentially adversely 
affect agricultural use of its lands. Idaho DFG states that it would 
work with Gilbert Hydro to provide a funding source for the proposed 
streambank improvement program.

Our Analysis

    Gilbert Hydro proposes to construct a drop inlet structure and 700-
foot-long penstock to divert up to up to 18 cfs of flow from the 
existing stream channel to a new powerhouse located approximately 1,000 
feet upstream from the confluence with the Bear River. The proposed 
powerhouse would be constructed adjacent to a cascade/plunge pool 
complex in the existing stream channel that forms a natural barrier to 
upstream fish passage. Water diverted for power production would be 
discharged from the powerhouse into a 25-foot-long tailrace channel 
that would return flows to the existing stream channel at a location 
immediately downstream of the cascade/plunge pool complex. Gilbert 
Hydro's proposal would result in the elimination or reduction of flow 
in the 800-foot-long bypassed reach between the point of diversion at 
the drop inlet structure and the location where the tailrace channel 
returns flow back to the existing stream channel. Although flow 
diversion would eliminate aquatic habitat in the bypassed reach during 
most of the year, there is no information in the project record to 
suggest that fish inhabit this reach. Therefore, there would be no 
effect on the existing fish community in the project area from 
reduction of habitat availability.
    Gilbert Hydro's proposal to implement a streambank improvement 
program downstream of the proposed powerhouse location could 
potentially enhance aquatic and riparian habitat conditions downstream 
of the project. However, operation of the proposed project in run-of-
river mode would not result in adverse effects to aquatic and riparian 
habitat downstream of the project and outside of the project boundary. 
Further, Gilbert Hydro does not provide any specific measures to be 
implemented under the program or a schedule for implementation. Without 
specific measures, we cannot evaluate the environmental effects of the 
program or its relationship to the project.

3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment

Vegetation

    The project area occurs entirely within agricultural crop and 
pasture land and grasslands. The area surrounding the project in all 
directions also consists of similar lands, with small remnants of 
sagebrush-steppe scrub habitat preserved in areas of rugged topography. 
Similar to the topography of the stream channel, the terrestrial 
component of the project area can be divided into two components: a 
flat upper pasture section and a flat lower pasture section. The 
boundary between the upper and lower pastures is marked by a high 
gradient reach where the existing stream channel descends through the 
cascade/plunge pool complex. The boundary between the upper and lower 
pastures is marked by a high gradient reach of the stream channel where 
it descends to a second, smaller bluff. The topographic drop across 
this bluff provides the potential energy for hydropower generation.
    The dominant vegetation type in both components is pasture grass 
and forbs. The lower pasture is more sparsely vegetated than the upper 
pastures due to the presence of thin soils and rocky substrate in the 
lower pasture. The banks of the existing stream channel consist of 
saturated wetlands varying in total width from approximately 10 feet 
(including the stream channel) along incised portions of the creek to 
approximately 100 feet in braided segments of the creek. Small areas of 
shrub-scrub vegetation occur along the bluffs and other small areas of 
rugged topography not suited for pasture grass.
    GeoSense conducted a wetlands reconnaissance survey for Gilbert 
Hydro in the project area in July 2011 to delineate wetland boundaries 
and

[[Page 52182]]

support the assessment of potential project effects. The survey was 
extended into the upper pasture area above the location of proposed 
project facilities to more thoroughly describe the overall nature of 
the wetlands complex in the project area. A total of 7.3 acres, all 
located on lands owned by the applicant, were mapped.

Wildlife

    Wildlife resources in the project area include yellow-bellied 
marmot, squirrels, raccoons, mule deer, and various species of birds 
such as American kestrel, common nighthawk, mourning dove, red-breasted 
nuthatch, song sparrow, common snipe, cinnamon teal, Brewer's 
blackbird, and black-billed magpie (Idaho Department of Lands, 2004). 
Common species of waterfowl use the Bear River, which adjoins the lower 
pasture approximately 1,000 feet below the powerhouse site.

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects

Vegetation

    The proposed project would temporarily disturb 0.5 acre of wetland 
vegetation and permanently remove 0.1 acre of upland vegetation. The 
drop inlet structure and about 430 feet of the proposed penstock would 
be located in existing wetlands. The remainder of the penstock, 
powerhouse, and transmission line would be located in uplands areas. 
Gilbert Hydro proposes to implement a Revegetation Plan to revegetate 
areas disturbed during project construction.
    The Revegetation Plan includes provisions to reseed and replant 
areas disturbed by project construction. The plant seed mixture would 
be certified weed-free. Gilbert Hydro proposes to reseed the upland 
areas with crested wheatgrass and the wetland areas with Timothy grass, 
or deep-rooted plants such as sedges or rushes, if available. Gilbert 
Hydro would also plant grasses as soon as possible after construction 
to revegetate disturbed areas, provide forage for livestock and 
wildlife, and enhance wildlife habitat. To control noxious weeds, 
Gilbert Hydro would clean all equipment prior to entry into the 
construction site. All tires (including treads), and undercarriages 
would be thoroughly cleaned to prevent the introduction and spread of 
noxious weeds. Idaho DFG recommends the applicant's proposed measures 
in the proposed Revegetation Plan with the exception of reseeding 
wetlands areas with Timothy grass. Instead, Idaho DFG recommends that 
Gilbert Hydro replant wetland areas with native sedges and rushes, and 
offered to help locate sources of native plants.

Our Analysis

    The proposed Revegetation Plan would help to restore upland and 
wetland areas that were temporarily disturbed by project construction. 
Cleaning construction equipment prior to entering the project site 
would reduce the introduction and spread of invasive species. Reseeding 
and replanting wetland areas using native sedges and rushes instead of 
Timothy grass, as recommended by Idaho DFG, would promote and enhance 
native vegetation. Restoring disturbed wetland areas with native 
species and upland areas with the crested wheatgrass would also provide 
forage for livestock and wildlife and enhance wildlife habitat in the 
project area.

Wildlife

    Gilbert Hydro proposes to construct the project transmission line 
in accordance with FWS's most current standard for raptor protection 
standards. Idaho DFG recommends that Gilbert Hydro consult with FWS to 
design appropriate raptor protection measures for the project 
transmission line.

Our Analysis

    Constructing the transmission line to the most current raptor 
protection standards as recommended by, and in consultation with, FWS 
would minimize the risk of raptor collision and electrocution with the 
project transmission line.
    Construction activities have the potential to disturb wildlife that 
occur in the project area. Increased human presence and noise 
associated with project construction, while expected to be minimal, may 
disturb and displace wildlife from the project area. Any potential 
disturbance or displacement is expected to be temporary. Permanent loss 
of 0.1 acre of upland habitat and temporary loss of 0.5 acre of wetland 
habitat would have a minor effect on wildlife. The effects of the 
proposed and recommended revegetation measures are discussed above 
under Vegetation.

3.3.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

    No federal listed, proposed, or candidate species are known to be 
present in the project area, and FWS stated that the proposed project 
would not affect trust species. Idaho DFG also stated that it is 
unaware of any federally listed species in the project area and agreed 
with the applicant that the project would not affect any federally 
listed species. Therefore, the project would not affect any threatened, 
endangered, or sensitive species or their habitats.

3.3.5 Cultural Resources

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    Section 106 of the NHPA requires the Commission to evaluate 
potential effects on properties listed or eligible for listing in the 
National Register prior to an undertaking. An undertaking means a 
project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the 
direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including, among 
other things, processes requiring a federal permit, license, or 
approval. In this case, the undertaking is the proposed issuance of an 
original license for the project. Potential effects associated with 
this undertaking include project-related effects associated with 
construction or the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the project 
after issuance of an original license.
    According to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's 
(Advisory Council) regulations (36 C.F.R. section 800.16(l)(1)), an 
historic property is defined as any prehistoric or historic district, 
site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for 
inclusion in, the National Register. The term includes properties of 
traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe and 
that meet the National Register criteria. In this EA we also use the 
term ``cultural resources'' for properties that have not been evaluated 
for eligibility for listing in the National Register. In most cases, 
cultural resources less than 50 years old are not considered eligible 
for the National Register.
    Section 106 also requires that the Commission seek concurrence with 
the Idaho SHPO on any finding involving effects or no effects on 
historic properties, and allow the Advisory Council an opportunity to 
comment on any finding of adverse effects on historic properties. If 
Native American properties have been identified, section 106 also 
requires that the Commission consult with interested Indian tribes that 
might attach religious or cultural significance to such properties.

Cultural Context

    The project area is within a large region spanning Idaho and 
several adjoining states that was traditionally occupied by Northern 
Shoshone and Northern Paiute tribes. These distinct Native American 
groups were linguistically related and were hunters

[[Page 52183]]

and gatherers who moved with the seasons to collect food and other 
resources. Southeastern Idaho was a favored wintering area for both 
Shoshone and Bannock (Northern Paiute) bands.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ History of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, available at http://www.shoshonebannocktribes.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Early Euro-American contact with these tribes included John Jacob 
Astor's Pacific Fur Company expedition of 1811 to the Snake River 
region of southern Idaho, which initiated an intensive period of 
trapping through the 1830s. By 1843, the Oregon Trail along the Snake 
River had become well established as a migration route for Euro-
American settlers bound for the Pacific Northwest. Mining, grazing, 
ranching, and settlement by non-natives led to major conflicts with the 
tribes, including the Bear River Massacre (1863),\13\ Snake Indian War 
(1866-1868), and the Bannock War (1878).\14\ As a consequence, the Fort 
Hall Indian Reservation was established by the Fort Bridger Treaty of 
1868. Farming and ranching expanded across the region in the late 
1800s, substantially aided by irrigation from the early 1900s through 
the present. More than 5,600 tribal members currently reside on or near 
the reservation, which is located about 30 miles away generally to the 
west and north of the project area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. The Bear River Massacre site, located at the confluence 
of the Bear River and Beaver Creek, is more than 30 miles downriver 
from the proposed project.
    \14\ A brief history of Euro-American contact with the tribes is 
contained in the Malad Hydroelectric Project Final Environmental 
Assessment (P-2726-012). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, September 24, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Cultural Resources or Historic Properties Identified

    The area surrounding the proposed project has been disturbed by 
grazing, cultivation, and agricultural use, as well as by an existing 
Rocky Mountain Power transmission line. The area within the project 
boundary consists primarily of agricultural land. In 2011, Gilbert 
Hydro consulted with the Idaho SHPO and interested Indian tribes, and 
provided photographs of the proposed project site and a description of 
the proposed 90 kW project, including the proposed 150-foot-long 
transmission line. Gilbert Hydro stated in its application that an 
inventory and/or survey of cultural resources might not be warranted 
because the proposed project occupies a small area of land owned by 
Gilbert Hydro and used for past and current agricultural practices.
    By letter dated August 15, 2011,\15\ the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 
commented that the proposed project area is within the ancestral lands 
of the Shoshone and Bannock people. No comments were provided on the 
presence of any cultural resources. In the event of an inadvertent 
discovery (cultural resources and/or human remains) during project 
construction, the tribes requested project construction cease and 
Gilbert Hydro consult with the tribes to ensure proper treatment of 
cultural resources and/or human remains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A copy of the letter can be found in Appendix E of the 
final license application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects

    By letter dated December 7, 2011, the Idaho SHPO agreed with 
Gilbert Hydro that an archaeological survey would not be productive, 
withdrew its recommendation for a survey, and determined that there 
would be no effect on historic properties.\16\ Because no historic 
properties would be affected by the proposed project, a programmatic 
agreement and associated Historic Properties Management Plan are not 
needed. If previously unidentified archeological or historic properties 
are discovered during construction, operation, or maintenance of the 
project facilities, Gilbert Hydro proposes to immediately stop 
construction and notify the Idaho SHPO and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for 
guidance prior to resuming the project-related activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Gilbert Hydro included each letter from the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes and the Idaho SHPO in its license application at 
Appendix E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Analysis

    Previously unidentified archeological or historic properties may be 
discovered during project construction, operation, or maintenance. 
Gilbert Hydro's proposal to notify and consult with the Idaho SHPO and 
the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes would address any effects on cultural 
resources, if cultural resources are discovered during the term of any 
license issued.
    Based on our independent analysis, we agree with the findings and 
determinations made by Gilbert Hydro, the Idaho SHPO, and the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes that the proposed project would have no adverse effect 
on historic properties. Although no historic properties are known to 
occur within the proposed project boundary, it is possible that 
cultural resources may be discovered during construction, operation, or 
maintenance of the project.

3.3.6 Aesthetic Resources

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment

    The project area is located in an area of pasture, crop land, 
grasslands, rocky bluffs, and wetlands along existing springs that 
discharge through an existing stream channel to the Bear River. 
Extensive agricultural activities and related structures are sparsely 
scattered throughout the area. Farm roads, irrigation systems, and 
transmission lines are also present. The nearest public road is 
approximately 0.5 mile to the east. The project area is on private land 
surrounded by extensive farms, ranches, and open country with long 
viewing distances, particularly to the north, south, and west.

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects

    Construction and operation of the proposed project would affect 
aesthetic resources in the vicinity by introducing project facilities 
into a relatively undeveloped, rural and agricultural setting. Gilbert 
Hydro proposes to reduce visual effects by designing the powerhouse to 
be small in size, similar in appearance to other buildings in the area, 
and finished with a color that blends in with the rural character of 
the area.
    No other specific concerns relating to noise or visual effects were 
expressed by agencies or other interested participants during project 
consultation.

Our Analysis

    During construction, the presence of equipment and vehicles would 
have short-term negative effects on views and noise levels.
    During operation, visual and noise effects are expected to be 
minor. The site of the proposed project and surrounding lands are owned 
by the applicant, and the nearest residence is approximately 1,000 feet 
to the northeast. Other residences and public roads in the area are 
typically one-half to one mile away from the project site. The most 
visible project features would be the powerhouse and 700-foot-long, 
primarily above-ground penstock. At these distances, the proposed 
powerhouse and penstock should be relatively inconspicuous from most 
vantage points and would be partially hidden from view by intervening 
topography. Gilbert Hydro's proposal to reduce visual effects by 
designing the powerhouse to be small in size, similar in appearance to 
other buildings in the area, and finished with a color that blends in 
with the rural character of the area would help to minimize the 
aesthetic effects of the project. However, visual effects could be 
further

[[Page 52184]]

minimized by avoiding reflective materials and highly-contrasting 
colors in the finished appearance of both the penstock and the 
powerhouse.
    Noise produced by the powerhouse may be audible offsite, but is 
expected to be of a low intensity and should not significantly change 
ambient noise levels in the area.

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

    Under the no-action alternative, the Gilbert Project would not be 
constructed. There would be no changes to the physical, biological, 
recreational, or cultural resources of the area and electrical 
generation from the project would not occur. The power that would have 
been developed from a renewable resource would have to be replaced from 
nonrenewable fuels.

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS

    In this section, we look at the Gilbert Project's use of the 
unnamed channel's flow for hydropower purposes to see what effect 
various environmental measures would have on the project's costs and 
power generation. Under the Commission's approach to evaluating the 
economics of hydropower projects, as articulated in Mead Corp.,\17\ the 
Commission compares the current project cost to an estimate of the cost 
of obtaining the same amount of energy and capacity using the likely 
alternative source of power for the region (cost of alternative power). 
In keeping with Commission policy as described in Mead Corp., our 
economic analysis is based on current electric power cost conditions 
and does not consider future escalation of fuel prices in valuing the 
hydropower project's power benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC ] 
61,027 (July 13, 1995). In most cases, electricity from hydropower 
would displace some form of fossil-fueled generation, in which fuel 
cost is the largest component of the cost of electricity production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each of the licensing alternatives, our analysis includes an 
estimate of: (1) The cost of individual measures considered in the EA 
for the protection, mitigation and enhancement of environmental 
resources affected by the project; (2) the cost of alternative power; 
(3) the total project cost (i.e., for construction, operation, 
maintenance, and environmental measures); and (4) the difference 
between the cost of alternative power and total project cost. If the 
difference between the cost of alternative power and total project cost 
is positive, the project produces power for less than the cost of 
alternative power. If the difference between the cost of alternative 
power and total project cost is negative, the project produces power 
for more than the cost of alternative power. This estimate helps to 
support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest 
with respect to a proposed license. However, project economics is only 
one of many public interest factors the Commission considers in 
determining whether, and under what conditions, to issue a license.

4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT

    Table 2 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use 
in our analysis. This information, except as noted, was provided by 
Gilbert Hydro in its license application and subsequent filings. We 
find that the values provided by Gilbert Hydro are reasonable for the 
purposes of our analysis. Cost items common to all alternatives 
include: taxes and insurance costs; estimated future capital investment 
required to maintain and extend the life of plant equipment and 
facilities; licensing costs; and normal operation and maintenance cost.

    Table 2--Parameters for Economic Analysis of the Gilbert Project
                    [Source: staff and Gilbert Hydro]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Economic parameter                          Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of analysis (years)..............................           30
Interest/discount rate (%)..............................        \a\ 7.25
Federal tax rate (%)....................................       \b\ 35
State tax (%)...........................................        \b\ 3
Insurance rate ($/year).................................   \a\ $1,000
Average annual generation (MWh).........................      \a\ 550
Energy value ($/MWh)....................................      \c\ $30.35
Term of financing (years)...............................           20
Construction cost ($)...................................  \a\ $200,000
License application cost ($)............................  \a\ $25,000
Operation and Maintenance, $/year.......................   \a\ $2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ From final license application filed May 30, 2012.
\b\ Assumed by staff.
\c\ 2013 contract year cost provided by Idaho Power Avoided Cost Rates
  for Non-Fueled Projects, Errata to Order No. 32697, dated January 2,
  2013.

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

    Table 3 summarizes the installed capacity, annual generation, cost 
of alternative power, estimated total project cost, and difference 
between the cost of alternative power and total project cost for each 
of the action alternatives considered in this EA: the applicant's 
proposal and the staff alternative.

   Table 3--Summary of the Annual Cost of Alternative Power and Annual
    Project Cost for the Action Alternatives for the Gilbert Project
                             [Source: staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Gilbert Hydro's    Staff alternative
                                       proposal               \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installed capacity (kW).........  90................  90.
Annual generation (MWh).........  550...............  550.
Annual cost of alternative power  $16,690...........  $16,690.
                                  $30.35/MWh........  $30.35/MWh.
Annual project cost.............  $25,090...........  $25,200.
                                  $45.62/MWh........  $45.83/MWh.
Difference between the cost of    ($8,400) \b\......  ($8,510).\b\
 alternative power and project    ($15.27/MWh) \b\..  ($15.48/MWh).\b\
 cost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs were escalated to 2013 dollars using the Consumer Price Index
  for Energy Services.
\b\ A number in parentheses denotes that the difference between the cost
  of alternative power and project cost is negative, thus the total
  project cost is greater than the cost of alternative power.


[[Page 52185]]

4.2.1 No-Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be 
constructed as proposed and would not produce any electricity. No costs 
for construction, operation and maintenance, or proposed environmental 
protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be incurred by 
the applicant.

4.2.2 Gilbert Hydro's Proposal

    Under Gilbert Hydro's proposal, the project would require 
construction of a drop inlet structure, a penstock, a powerhouse 
containing generation facilities, a tailrace, and a transmission line. 
Gilbert Hydro proposes various environmental measures to protect, 
mitigate, and enhance existing environmental resources in the vicinity 
of project features.
    Under Gilbert Hydro's proposal, the project would have an installed 
capacity of 90 kW and would generate an average of 550 MWh annually. 
The average annual cost of alternative power would be $16,690, or about 
$30.35/MWh. The average annual project cost would be $25,090 or about 
$45.62/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost which is 
$8,400, or $15.27/MWh, more than the cost of alternative power.

4.2.3 Staff Alternative

    The staff alternative would have the same capacity and energy 
attributes as Gilbert Hydro's proposal. Table 4 shows the staff-
recommended additions, deletions, and modifications to Gilbert Hydro's 
proposed environmental protection and enhancement measures, and the 
estimated cost of each. The cost of alternative power would be the same 
as the applicant's proposal. The average annual project cost would 
$25,200, or about $45.83/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power 
at a cost which is $8,510, or $15.48/MWh, more than the cost of 
alternative generation

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

    Table 4 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement 
measures considered in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal 
annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period of analysis to give a 
uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost.

  Table 4--Cost of Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Considered in Assessing the Environmental
                          Effects of Construction and Operation of the Gilbert Project
                                                 [Source: staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Enhancement/Mitigation                        Capital (2013$)   Annual (2012$)   Levelized annual
           measures                Entities             \a\               \a\        cost (2012$) \b\    Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Implement erosion control   Gilbert Hydro...  $2,565..........  $0..............  $190............
 measures that are consistent
 with industry standards.
2. As part of the              Gilbert Hydro...  Unknown.........  Unknown.........  Unknown.........  \c\
 Revegetation Plan, develop
 and implement a streambank
 improvement program.
3. As part of the              Gilbert Hydro...  $2,565..........  $0..............  $190............
 Revegetation Plan, (1)
 revegetation of areas
 disturbed during
 construction with crested
 wheatgrass in the upland
 areas and Timothy grass or,
 if available, deep rooted
 plants such as sedges and
 rushes in the wetland areas
 as soon as possible after
 construction; and (2) use of
 certified weed-free seeds
 and cleaning equipment prior
 to entry into construction
 site.
4. Same as 3, but     Staff, Idaho DFG  $3,080..........  $0..............  $230............  \f\
 replant disturbed wetland
 areas with native rushes and
 sedges instead of Timothy
 grass.
5. Design and construct the    Gilbert Hydro...  $0..............  $0..............  $0..............  \d\
 project transmission line in
 accordance with the most
 current raptor protection
 standards recommended by FWS.
6. Consult with FWS for        Idaho DFG.......  $0..............  $0..............  $0..............  \d\
 guidelines for transmission
 line design and construction.
7. Design and construct the    Staff...........  $0..............  $0..............  $0..............  \d\
 transmission line to APLIC
 standards in consultation
 with FWS.
8. Notify the SHPO, Shoshone-  Gilbert Hydro,    $0..............  $0..............  $0..............  \e\
 Bannock Tribe, and             Staff.
 Commission if any
 archeological artifacts are
 found and develop protective
 measures.
9. Develop an Erosion and      Staff...........  $1,025..........  $0..............  $70.............  \b\
 Sediment Control Plan.
10. Design the powerhouse to   Gilbert Hydro...  $0..............  $0..............  $0..............
 be small in size, similar in
 appearance to other
 buildings in the area, and
 finished with a color that
 blends in with the rural
 character of the area.

[[Page 52186]]

 
11. Avoid reflective           Staff...........  $0..............  $0..............  $0..............
 materials and highly-
 contrasting colors in the
 finished appearance of both
 the penstock and powerhouse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs were provided by Gilbert Hydro unless otherwise noted.
\b\ Cost estimated by staff.
\c\ The measures that would be implemented were not specified; therefore, Commission staff could not assign a
  cost for this proposal. While the Commission staff does not object to Gilbert Hydro's proposal to develop and
  implement the streambank improvement program to enhance downstream resources, staff does not recommend that it
  be a condition of any license issued for this project.
\d\ These costs are included in the overall construction costs of the project.
\e\ The implementation of this measure would only happen if archeological artifacts are found; staff's
  recommendation to notify the SHPO, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, and the Commission would have no additional cost.
\f\ The implementation of this measure would have an incremental cost of $515 (and an incremental levelized
  annual cost of $40) over the applicant's proposed Revegetation Plan to account for the difference in cost
  between Timothy grass seed and Idaho DFG and staff's recommended native rushes and sedges.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

    In this section, we compare the developmental and non-developmental 
effects of Gilbert Hydro's proposal, Gilbert Hydro's proposal as 
modified by staff, and the no-action alternative.
    We estimate the annual generation of the project under the two 
action alternatives identified above would be the same.
    We summarize the environmental effects of the different 
alternatives in Table 5.

                    Table 5--Comparison of Alternatives for the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project
                                                 [Source: staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Resource               No action alternative        Proposed action           Staff alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geology and Soils.................  No changes to geology  Temporary erosion during    Same as Proposed Action,
                                     and soils.             vegetation clearing and     except development of a
                                                            excavation for              site-specific Erosion
                                                            construction; however,      and Sediment Control
                                                            soil erosion would be       Plan would ensure soil
                                                            minimized through           erosion and
                                                            proposed industry-          sedimentation would be
                                                            standard erosion control    minimized.
                                                            measures.
Aquatic Resources.................  No changes to aquatic  Run-of-river operation      Same as Proposed Action,
                                     resources.             would maintain aquatic      except a site-specific
                                                            habitat below the           Erosion and Sediment
                                                            proposed powerhouse and     Control Plan would
                                                            minimize adverse effects    ensure minimal erosion,
                                                            on water quality.           sedimentation, and
                                                            Erosion, sedimentation,     turbidity. No streambank
                                                            and turbidity of project    stabilization downstream
                                                            waters may occur during     of the project would
                                                            construction; however,      occur.
                                                            these would be minimized
                                                            through proposed industry-
                                                            standard erosion control
                                                            measures.
                                                           Proposed streambank
                                                            improvement program could
                                                            enhance aquatic habitat
                                                            downstream of the
                                                            powerhouse.
Terrestrial Resources.............  No changes to          Minor increased potential   Same as Proposed Action,
                                     terrestrial            for raptor collision and    except disturbed
                                     resources.             electrocution with          wetlands would be
                                                            transmission line.          revegetated with native
                                                                                        sedges and rushes
                                                                                        instead of Timothy
                                                                                        grass, enhancing
                                                                                        vegetation, forage for
                                                                                        livestock and wildlife,
                                                                                        and wildlife habitat.
                                                           Temporary disturbance of
                                                            0.5 acre vegetation and
                                                            permanent loss of 0.1
                                                            acre.
                                                           Disturbed vegetation would
                                                            be restored and the
                                                            livestock and wildlife
                                                            forage and wildlife
                                                            habitat would be
                                                            replaced. Noxious weed
                                                            establishment would be
                                                            minimized.
Cultural Resources................  No changes to          No effects on identified    Same as Proposed Action
                                     cultural resources.    cultural resources. If      except, if archeological
                                                            previously unidentified     or historic properties
                                                            cultural resources or       are discovered,
                                                            human remains are           Commission notification
                                                            discovered, resources       and protection measures
                                                            would likely be protected.  developed in
                                                                                        consultation with Idaho
                                                                                        SHPO and Shoshone-
                                                                                        Bannock, would provide
                                                                                        greater assurance of
                                                                                        resource protection.

[[Page 52187]]

 
Aesthetic Resources...............  No changes to          Potential minor visual      Same as Proposed Action,
                                     aesthetic resources.   effects on surrounding      except minor effects
                                                            properties.                 would be reduced by
                                                                                        avoiding reflective
                                                                                        materials and high-
                                                                                        contrast colors in the
                                                                                        finished appearance of
                                                                                        facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

    Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to 
give equal consideration to the power development purposes and to the 
purpose of energy conservation; the protection, mitigation of damage 
to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; the protection of 
recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of 
environmental quality. Any license issued shall be such as in the 
Commission's judgment will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for 
improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial 
public uses. This section contains the basis for, and a summary of, our 
recommendations for licensing the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project. We 
weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against 
other proposed measures.
    Based on our independent review of agency and public comments filed 
on this project and our review of the environmental and economic 
effects of the proposed project and its alternatives, we selected the 
staff alternative as the preferred alternative. This alternative 
includes elements of the applicant's proposal, resource agency 
recommendations, and some additional measures. We recommend this 
alternative because: (1) Issuance of an original hydropower license by 
the Commission would allow Gilbert Hydro to build and operate the 
project as a beneficial and dependable source of electrical energy; (2) 
the 90 kW of electric capacity available comes from a renewable 
resource that does not contribute to atmospheric pollution; (3) the 
public benefits of this alternative would exceed those of the no-action 
alternative; and (4) the recommended measures would protect and enhance 
environmental resources affected by constructing, operating, and 
maintaining the project.
    In the following section, we make recommendations as to which 
environmental measures proposed by Gilbert Hydro or recommended by 
agencies or other entities should be included in any original license 
issued for the project. In addition to Gilbert Hydro's proposed 
environmental measures, we recommend additional environmental measures 
to be included in any license issued for the project, as described in 
section 5.2.2 below.

5.2.1 Measures Proposed by Gilbert Hydro

    Based on our environmental analysis of Gilbert Hydro's proposal in 
section 3, and the costs presented in section 4, we conclude that the 
following environmental measures proposed by Gilbert Hydro would 
protect and enhance environmental resources and would be worth the 
cost. Therefore, we recommend including these measures in any license 
issued for the project.

Operation and Design Features

     Operate in a run-of-river mode to maintain natural flows 
downstream of the project for the protection of aquatic resources;
     Design and construct the project transmission line in 
accordance with the most current raptor protection standards 
recommended by the FWS;
     Design the powerhouse to be small in size, similar in 
appearance to other buildings in the area, and finished with a color 
that blends in with the rural character of the area.

During Construction

     Implement industry-standard erosion control measures to 
minimize erosion and sedimentation;
     Stop construction immediately in the event of an 
inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains, and 
contact the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for guidance 
before continuing project construction or other project-related 
activity.

During Project Operation

     Implement the portions of the Revegetation Plan that 
include: (1) revegetation of areas disturbed during construction with 
crested wheatgrass in the upland areas; and (2) use of certified weed-
free seeds and cleaning of all equipment prior to entry into 
construction site.

5.2.2 Modifications and Additional Measures Recommended by Staff

    We recommend the measures described above, and the following 
modifications and additional staff-recommended measures:
     An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that includes site-
specific measures;
     Modification of the Revegetation Plan to include the use 
of native sedges and rushes during replanting of disturbed wetland 
areas, instead of Timothy grass as proposed;
     Developing the final transmission line design, in 
consultation with the FWS, to adhere to the most current APLIC 
standards;
     Notify the Commission, in addition to the Idaho SPHO and 
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes as proposed, and develop measures in 
consultation with the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes if 
previously unidentified archeological or historic properties are 
discovered; and
     In addition to finishing the powerhouse in a color that 
blends in with the rural character of the area, avoid reflective 
materials and highly-contrasting colors in the finished appearance of 
both the penstock and powerhouse to reduce their visibility from 
surrounding properties and public roads.
    Below, we discuss the basis for our staff-recommended modifications 
and additional measures.

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

    Gilbert Hydro proposes to minimize the potential for erosion and 
sedimentation from project construction by implementing unspecified 
erosion control measures that it states would be consistent with 
industry standards. While the proposed measures could potentially 
minimize soil erosion in the project area, Gilbert Hydro's proposal 
lacks detail on the measures that would be implemented to ensure its 
effectiveness and adequately provide for Commission oversight and 
enforcement of the measures. For these reasons, we recommend that 
Gilbert Hydro prepare and file, after consultation with Idaho DFG and 
Idaho DEQ, a site-specific

[[Page 52188]]

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that specifies the measures that 
would implemented during project construction. We envision the plan 
would include, but not necessarily be limited to, a description of the 
measures for protecting existing vegetation, grading slopes, 
controlling surface drainage, containing sediment, stockpiling topsoil, 
storing and disposing excess soil and debris, and clearing and 
constructing the transmission line rights-of-way. We estimate that the 
levelized annual cost to develop the plan would be $70, and conclude 
that the benefits of the plan would justify the additional cost.

Revegetation Plan

    Gilbert Hydro proposes to implement a Revegetation Plan that 
includes, in part, provisions to reseed and replant areas disturbed by 
project construction. The seeds would be certified weed-free. Gilbert 
Hydro proposes to reseed the upland areas with crested wheatgrass and 
the wetland areas with Timothy grass, or, if available, deep-rooted 
plants such as sedges or rushes. Idaho DFG recommends that Gilbert 
Hydro replant wetland areas with native sedges and rushes instead of 
Timothy grass, and offered to help locate sources of native plants. 
Reseeding and replanting wetland areas using native sedges and rushes 
instead of Timothy grass would promote and enhance native vegetation, 
livestock and wildlife forage, and wildlife habitat. We estimate that 
the additional levelized annual cost to replant disturbed wetlands with 
native sedges and rushes would be $40, and conclude that the benefits 
of this measure would justify the additional cost.

Transmission Line Design and Construction

    Gilbert Hydro proposes to design the project transmission line in 
accordance with the most current raptor protection standards 
recommended by FWS. Idaho DFG recommends that Gilbert Hydro consult 
with FWS on the design of appropriate raptor protection measures for 
the project transmission line. While Gilbert Hydro's proposal could 
protect raptors in the project area, the plan lacks detail on the 
standards that would be implemented and any mechanism to consult with 
the FWS prior to final design and construction of the transmission 
line. Therefore, we recommend an additional requirement that Gilbert 
Hydro design the transmission line, in consultation with the FWS, to 
adhere to APLIC standards. This would ensure that the transmission line 
would be protective of raptors on the project area. We estimate that 
there would be no cost for the additional requirement and conclude that 
the benefits of ensuring raptor protection would be justified.

Cultural Resources

    As part of Gilbert Hydro's license application, Gilbert Hydro 
included letters from the Idaho SHPO and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 
that reached the same conclusion that no historic properties would be 
affected by the proposed project. Although no cultural resources or 
historic properties have been identified within the project boundary, 
it is possible that previously unidentified archeological or historic 
properties could be discovered during construction, operation, or 
maintenance of project facilities. To ensure protection of cultural 
resources and provide guidance on measures to be implemented if 
cultural resources are discovered during the term of any license issued 
for the project, we recommend that Gilbert Hydro also notify the 
Commission and develop measures in consultation with the Idaho SHPO and 
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. We estimate that there would be no cost for 
this additional measure and find the benefits of this measure would be 
in the public interest.

Aesthetic Resources

    To reduce potential effects on aesthetic resources, including the 
visibility of project facilities from surrounding properties, Gilbert 
Hydro proposes to design the powerhouse to be small in size, similar in 
appearance to other buildings in the area, and finished with a color 
that blends in with the rural character of the area. To minimize visual 
effects on neighboring residences, we recommend that reflective 
materials and highly-contrasting colors be avoided in the finished 
appearance of both the penstock and the powerhouse. We estimate that 
there would be no cost to implement this measure and conclude that the 
aesthetic benefits would be justified.

5.2.3 Measures Not Recommended

    Some of the measures proposed by Gilbert Hydro and recommended by 
Idaho DFG would not contribute to the best comprehensive use of project 
water resources, do not exhibit sufficient nexus to the project 
environmental effects, or would not result in benefits to non-power 
resources that would be worth their cost. The following discusses the 
basis for staff's conclusion not to recommend such measures.

Streambank Improvement Program

    As part of its Revegetation Plan, Gilbert Hydro proposes to work 
with federal and state agencies to develop a streambank improvement 
program along the existing stream channel downstream of the powerhouse. 
Gilbert Hydro stipulates that it would not provide funding for the 
proposed program and that it would need to approve any program elements 
that could potentially adversely affect agricultural use of its land. 
Idaho DFG indicated in its comments on the license application that it 
would work with Gilbert Hydro and other agencies to identify sources of 
funding for the program.
    While the proposed program could potentially enhance aquatic and 
riparian habitat downstream of the powerhouse, we do not recommend 
including a provision in the license for the proposed program. The area 
in which the program would be implemented is located downstream of the 
project area and outside of the project boundary. Furthermore, the run-
of-river operation would ensure that there would be no project-related 
effects on downstream aquatic and riparian resources. This measure does 
not have a sufficient nexus to project effects. For these reasons, we 
do not recommend the proposed program be included as a license 
requirement.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ We have no objection to Gilbert Hydro entering into a 
cooperative agreement with the State of Idaho or another party to 
implement the streambank improvement program outside of the 
requirements of any license that may be issued for the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.2.4 Other Issues

Water Rights

    Idaho DFG recommends that Gilbert Hydro acquire a water right equal 
to the amount of water that will be diverted by the project. Commission 
licenses include a standard article requiring licensees to acquire all 
rights necessary for operation and maintenance of the project; 
therefore, there is no need for and we do not recommend an additional 
license condition specifically requiring Gilbert Hydro to acquire a 
water right for water diverted by the project.

5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

    Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in 
temporary increases in erosion and sedimentation of project lands and 
waters, temporary increases in water turbidity during construction of 
project facilities and initial project operation, permanent increased 
potential for raptor collision and electrocution as a result of the new 
transmission line, temporary

[[Page 52189]]

and permanent vegetation loss, and minor visual effects on surrounding 
properties.

5.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS

    Under the provisions of section 10(j) of the FPA, each 
hydroelectric license issued by the Commission shall include conditions 
based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and 
wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of 
fish and wildlife resources affected by the project.
    Section 10(j) of the FPA states that whenever the Commission 
believes that any fish and wildlife agency recommendation is 
inconsistent with the purposes and the requirements of the FPA or other 
applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall attempt to resolve 
any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, 
expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency. In response 
to our REA notice, Idaho DFG submitted recommendations for the project 
on December 13, 2012. Table 6 lists the state recommendations filed 
subject to section 10(j), and indicates whether the recommendations are 
adopted under the staff alternative. Environmental recommendations that 
we consider outside the scope of section 10(j) have been considered 
under section 10(a) of the FPA and are addressed in the specific 
resource sections of this document and the previous section.
    We determined one recommendation, to revegetate wetland areas using 
native sedges and rushes instead of Timothy grass, to be within the 
scope of section 10(j) and recommend this measure. We also recommend 
that the provision for Gilbert Hydro consult with FWS on the design of 
project transmission line. Table 6 indicates the basis for our 
preliminary determinations concerning measures that we consider 
inconsistent with section 10(j).

                    Table 6--Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations for the Gilbert Project
                                                 [Source: staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Within scope of
         Recommendation                 Agency           Section 10(j)      Annualized cost        Adopted?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revegetate wetland areas using   Idaho DFG..........  Yes...............  $230..............  Yes.
 native sedges and rushes
 instead of Timothy grass.
Consult with FWS on the design   Idaho DFG..........  No, consulting      $0................  Yes.
 of appropriate raptor                                 with the FWS is
 protection measures for the                           not a specific
 project transmission line.                            fish and wildlife
                                                       measure.
Acquire a water right equal to   Idaho DFG..........  No, acquiring       Unknown...........  No, however,
 the amount of water that will                         water rights is                         Commission
 be diverted by the project.                           not a specific                          licenses include
                                                       fish and wildlife                       a standard
                                                       measure.                                article requiring
                                                                                               licensees to
                                                                                               acquire all
                                                                                               rights necessary
                                                                                               for operation and
                                                                                               maintenance of a
                                                                                               project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

    Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C., section 803(a)(2)(A), 
requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is 
consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, 
developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by a 
project. We reviewed five comprehensive plans that are applicable to 
the Gilbert Hydroelectric Project.\19\ No inconsistencies were found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ (1) Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2001. Fisheries 
management plan, 2007-2012. Boise, Idaho; (2) Idaho Department of 
Fish and Game. Bonneville Power Administration. 1986. Pacific 
Northwest rivers study. Final report: Idaho. Boise, Idaho. 12 pp; 
(3) Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 
Conservation Strategy. Boise, Idaho. September, 2005; (4) Idaho 
Department of Health and Welfare. 1992. Idaho water quality 
standards and wastewater treatment requirements. Boise, Idaho. 
January 1992; and (5) Idaho Water Resource Board. 2012. State water 
plan. Boise, Idaho. November 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNICANT IMPACT

    Issuing an original minor license for the Gilbert Hydroelectric 
Project, with our recommended measures, would provide a source of 
renewable power. Our recommended measures would protect cultural 
resources and reduce minor aesthetic effects. Project construction and 
operation would result in some minor erosion, sedimentation, and 
turbidity during project construction and initial operation; may create 
minor long-term effects to aesthetics; and may create temporary noise 
impacts from construction. Project construction and operation would 
also increase the potential for raptor collision and electrocution from 
the new transmission line and would result in minor temporary and 
permanent vegetation loss.
    On the basis of our independent analysis, we find that the issuance 
of an original license for the proposed Gilbert Hydroelectric Project, 
with our recommended environmental measures, would not constitute a 
major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment.

7.0 LITERATURE CITED

Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power LLC. 2012. Application for license for a 
minor water project: Gilbert Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14367). 
Grace, Idaho. May 30, 2012.
Don W. Gilbert Hydro Power, LLC. 2013. Submittal of Additional 
Information in Response to FERC AIR dated 08-Feb-2013. Filed by 
DeAnn Simonich on April 4, 2013.
EPRI. 1992. Fish Entrainment and Turbine Mortality Review and 
Guidelines. Prepared by Stone and Webster Environmental Services. 
Boston, MA.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2003. Final 
environmental impact statement, Bear River (FERC Project Nos. 20-
019, 2041-007, and 472-017). Washington, DC April 16, 2003.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2004. Malad Hydroelectric 
Project No. 2726-012, Final Environmental Assessment. Washington, 
DC. September 24, 2004.
Griffith, Bryce. Personal communication of soil characterization in 
Caribou County, Section 33. Natural Resource Conservation Service. 
February 26, 2013,

[[Page 52190]]

filed on August 14, 2013.
History of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, available at http://www.shoshonebannocktribes.com (March 12, 2013).
Historical data from the Western Region Climate Center, 1907-2012, 
available at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu (January 22, 2013).
Idaho Department of Lands. 2004. Wildland Fire Mitigation Plan: 
Caribou County. Available at http://www.idl.idaho.gov/nat_fire_plan/county_wui_plans/caribou/caribou_plan.pdf (July 9, 2013).
Myler, Cary. Personal communication of Fish and Wildlife Service 
interest in Gilbert Hydroelectric Project. Fish and Wildlife 
Service. March 21, 2013, filed March 29, 2013.
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2012. Web Soil 
Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov (June 7, 2012).
North American Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2012 Long-Term 
Reliability Assessment. November 2012.
Schmidt, B., and K. Beck. 1975. Investigation of Bear River Basin 
Water Quality August 1974. EPA-910/8-75-091. Surveillance and 
Analysis Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Seattle, 
Washington July 1975. 169 pp.

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Kelly Wolcott--EA Coordinator, Terrestrial Resources (Environmental 
Biologist, M.S., Natural Resources).
Jennifer Harper--Developmental Analysis (Engineer, Ph.D., Environmental 
Health Engineering).
John Matkowski--Aquatic Resources (Fish Biologist, M.S., Environmental 
Science and Policy).
Ken Wilcox--Cultural and Aesthetic Resources (Outdoor Recreation 
Planner, B.S. Environmental Policy and Management).
[FR Doc. 2013-20460 Filed 8-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P