13.07.2015 Views

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes - Idaho Power

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes - Idaho Power

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes - Idaho Power

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to CommentsSHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES—SBT1Hells Canyon Complex Page 1


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Page 2Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Hells Canyon Complex Page 3


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Page 4Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Hells Canyon Complex Page 5


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Page 6Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Hells Canyon Complex Page 7


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Page 8Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Hells Canyon Complex Page 9


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Hells Canyon Complex Page 11


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Page 12Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Hells Canyon Complex Page 13


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Page 14Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Hells Canyon Complex Page 15


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Page 16Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Hells Canyon Complex Page 17


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Page 18Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 19


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 20Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 21


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 22Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 23


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 24Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 25


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 26Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 27


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 28Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 29


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 30Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 31


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 32Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 33


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 34Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 35


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 36Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 37


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 38Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 39


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 40Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 41


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 42Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 43


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 44Hells Canyon Complex


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 46Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1Responses to CommentsHells Canyon Complex Page 47


Responses to Comments<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>—SBT1<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPage 48Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to CommentsRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-1IPC believes that its Snake River projects will continue to be clean, efficient, and cost-effectiverenewable resources for the foreseeable future. IPC welcomes tribal participation but believesthat it is the responsibility of the tribes to fund their own participation.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-2The <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> refer to two agreements: the 1980 Hells Canyon SettlementAgreement and the settlement agreement between the Nez Perce Tribe and IPC. We address themin reverse order.The agreement that IPC entered into in 1996 with the Nez Perce Tribe constituted the termsunder which IPC and the Nez Perce Tribe settled certain litigation that the Nez Perce Tribe hadinitiated against IPC. That litigation, reported in Nez Perce Tribe v. <strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company, 847F. Supp. 791 (D. <strong>Idaho</strong> 1994), concerned the alleged fisheries losses that the Nez Perce Tribepurportedly suffered due to IPC’s construction, operation, and maintenance of the Hells CanyonComplex (HCC). That claim was predicated on the tribe’s right, under its Treaty of 1855 with theUnited States, to take fish in common with citizens off of its reservation at its usual andaccustomed fishing places. The Nez Perce Tribe’s claim was further predicated on the IndianClaims Commission’s determination that the Nez Perce Tribe aboriginally had exclusive use andoccupation of significant portions of the HCC area, thus giving color to the tribe’s claim that itsusual and accustomed fishing places embraced portions of the Snake River affected by the HCC.IPC contested successfully the merits of the Nez Perce Tribe’s alleged claim. Indeed, theagreement settling that litigation notes that IPC denied all liability, and it remains the case thatthe decision judicially rejecting the Nez Perce Tribe’s claim has never been vacated and iscontrolling. Nevertheless, it also remained clear as a legal matter that the Nez Perce Tribe’sstanding to seek to negotiate an agreement with IPC embracing fisheries issues was wellestablished. Moreover, given the continued efficacy of the Nez Perce Tribe’s treaty-reservedright to take fish in common, it made good sense for IPC and the tribe to try to establish a basisfor a long-term relationship addressing their continuing common interests in the well-being ofthe fishery.The <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> stand on a very different footing than does the Nez Perce Tribe.First, there is no Indian Claims Commission determination, or any other legal determination, thatthe <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> aboriginally had exclusive use and occupation of any portion ofthe HCC project area. In fact, the Indian Claims Commission determination regarding theNez Perce Tribe’s exclusive use and occupation of the relevant territory makes any such<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> Tribal claim inappropriate. Moreover, if the Fort Bridger Treaty, which the<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> entered into with the United States in 1868, did reserve a right to takefish—a matter IPC does not concede—that right (and any other off-reservation rights) wasdefeasible, and the rights at issue in that case were in fact eliminated when the State of <strong>Idaho</strong>assumed jurisdiction over the fish and game within the state. See Ward v. Race Horse,163 U.S. 504 (1896), reaffirmed in relevant part in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of ChippewaIndians, 526 U.S. 172, 206-207 (1999). See also <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> v. Reno, 56 F. 3d1476 (D.C. Cir. 1995).Hells Canyon Complex Page 49


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyThese distinctions make the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>’ request for a “mitigation/compensationprogram funded by <strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong>” that is “comparable in size” to the company’s agreement withthe Nez Perce Tribe inappropriate.Similarly, the 1980 Hells Canyon Settlement Agreement involved the federal and state agencieswith certain jurisdiction over the fisheries resources allegedly affected by the HCC. (The FERCorder entered incorporating the agreement’s terms covered all parties to the FERC proceeding,including the Nez Perce Tribe.) These governmental parties had legally established rights toregulate the downstream fish resources in question. For the reasons addressed above, the<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> can make no such claim. Thus, any request for a comparable tribal“mitigation/compensation program” is inappropriate.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-3The assertions of the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> are inappropriate in light of the legaldeterminations discussed immediately above concerning the Indian Claims Commission’sdetermination of the Nez Perce Tribe’s aboriginal exclusive use and occupation of the relevantterritory surrounding the Snake River and within project boundaries and the United StatesSupreme Court’s ruling that any off-reservation harvesting rights that might have been preservedunder the Treaty of Fort Bridger were eliminated upon the State of <strong>Idaho</strong>’s assumption ofjurisdiction over fish and game with the state’s borders.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-4The factors of anadromous fish decline are clearly set forward in Technical Report E.3.1-2. Therecord does not establish that IPC projects are the primary reason for anadromous fish no longerreaching <strong>Shoshone</strong> Falls. Further, neither IPC nor FERC has ever acknowledged that that was thecase.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-5IPC believes that its Snake River projects will continue to be clean, efficient, and cost-effectiverenewable resources for the foreseeable future. IPC welcomes tribal participation, but IPCbelieves that it is the responsibility of the tribes to fund their own participation.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-6See Response to Comment SBT1-2.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-7It is unclear what project impacts, if any, are currently affecting “on-Reservation resources.” Itseems unlikely that there are any, however, given that the tribes’ reservation is more than300 miles from HCC project boundaries and that the tribes’ reservation is upstream of the HCC.Moreover, there is no indication that the tribes have the legal authority to manage any offreservationnatural resources affected by the HCC. See Response to Comment SBT1-2 above.Page 50Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to CommentsIPC notes the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>’ choice (top of page 7 of comment letter) not toparticipate in the Collaborative Process.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-8The Federal <strong>Power</strong> Act only requires that a licensee address impacts demonstrably resulting fromthe licensee’s project, and the record does not establish that the alleged impacts discussed by thetribes, even if they are as the tribes have asserted, which IPC denies, qualify.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-9See Response to Comment SBT1-2 above.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-10The Historic Preservation Act does not support the assertion that the “entire Snake River Basin isa historic cultural property.” Moreover, regarding the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>’ allegedaboriginal use and occupation of the project area, see Response to Comment SBT1-2 above.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-11The Mid-Snake projects and the HCC do not affect lands adjacent to or on the reservation. TheFort Hall Reservation is located near Pocatello, many miles upstream of Brownlee Reservoir.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-12The record does not reveal any instance of the HCC’s operations affecting on-reservationresources.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-13IPC has provided everything it is required to provide by FERC regulation in its final licensingapplication.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-14A loss of any developments in the HCC would significantly impact IPC’s ability to serve itscustomers and would not be in the public interest.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-15IPC has worked in cooperation with fish and wildlife managers on both its operations and studiesfor relicensing. IPC’s analysis is comprehensive and adequately addresses project-relatedimpacts for the purposes of determining mitigation at relicensing. IPC’s proposed mitigationmeasures will significantly improve the environment affected by its project operations andadequately and equitably offset project-related impacts.Hells Canyon Complex Page 51


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-16IPC is allowed a regulated return set by the IPUC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-17The <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> will receive a copy of the FLA, which will include all necessarywater right information. The October 25, 1984, agreement that the tribes refer to is theSwan Falls Agreement, which has been in effect since 1984 and remains in effect. If the<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> do not have a copy of the agreement, IPC will provide the tribes withone. To IPC’s knowledge, the Swan Falls Agreement has no effect on the 1990 Fort HallAgreement.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-18Exhibit E includes a detailed discussion of project-related impacts.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-19IPC used the collaborative process to work through consultation requirements set forth by theFERC. The value of the collaborative process is that it allowed for a more open environment todiscuss studies, results, and mitigation measures. A full description of IPC requirements forconsultation and the collaborative process are included in the FLA, Consultation Appendix. Thetribes have acknowledged that they chose not to participate in the Collaborative Process.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-20The title “Native American Organizations” is taken from FERC regulations. Nothing is impliedby the title, other than accurately stating what FERC regulations call for.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-21Comment noted.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-22Please see Technical Report E.3.1-2 in the license application for a complete discussion of thistopic.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-23This is a summary section. Exhibit E includes a full discussion of existing conditions, resourceimpacts from operations, and IPC’s proposed mitigation measures.Page 52Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to CommentsRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-24There are no HCC transmission-line rights-of-way licensed by the FERC on the Fort Hall IndianReservation.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-25There are no HCC transmission-line rights-of-way licensed by the FERC on the Fort Hall IndianReservation.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-26This is an overview section. The license application, Exhibit E.4. and the associated reportsinclude a full discussion of Native American historical use.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-27IPC considered all resource values in the relicensing process. This section describes how theproject is currently operated and is not an evaluation of impacts or resource values.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-28The text referenced in this comment has been modified in the FLA to provide clarity.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-29IPC disagrees that the minimum flow of 100 cfs through the Oxbow bypass should be increasedto 1,350 cfs because increasing the flow would not result in substantive improvements to eitherwater quality or habitat. Oxygen conditions throughout much of the bypass reach are determinedby oxygen levels in water being released from Brownlee Reservoir. Likewise, while BrownleeReservoir is generally improving downstream water temperatures for coldwater biota,temperature conditions in the bypass reach do not always meet standards. However, the mainfactor controlling temperatures in the bypass are temperatures of water being released upstream.Increasing the minimum flow would provide little or no improvement to water quality conditionsin the bypass but simply result in an additional amount of degraded water passing through thebypassed reach.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-30This comment is not correct. IPC stated that water temperatures become warmer as water flowsdownstream below Hell Canyon Dam, not that water temperatures increase throughHells Canyon Dam. It is incorrect and misleading to state that Hells Canyon Dam alters thenatural thermal regime. It is correct that the outflow thermal regime from Hells Canyon Dam isslightly shifted from the thermal regime of the inflow to Brownlee Reservoir. However, giventhe extensive anthropogenic development throughout the Snake River basin, it is misleading toimply that the thermal inflow regime represents “natural” conditions. Further, the thermal shiftoccurs as water passes through Brownlee Reservoir, not Hells Canyon Dam.Hells Canyon Complex Page 53


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-31The referenced paragraph states that most of the changes in dissolved oxygen (DO)concentrations occur in Brownlee Reservoir, not that DO is being limited at Brownlee Dam.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-32This comment is simply the tribes’ general characterizations of information in the DLA; noresponse is required.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-33See Response to Comment SBT1-29.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-34No specific studies have been conducted, but IPC has monitored temperature, DO, andconductivity on a 24-hour basis within the bypassed reach.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-35This comment is simply the tribes’ general characterizations of information in the DLA; noresponse is required.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-36The total dissolved gas (TDG) levels of 135% of saturation do not persist 60 miles downstream.The DLA states that TDG levels in excess of the 110% of saturation standard persist downstreamto the Salmon River. Degassing of water as it flows through the 60-mile reach of the Snake Riverimmediately downstream of Hells Canyon Dam is a more significant factor in decreased TDGlevels than dilution by the Salmon River.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-37This comment is simply the tribes’ general characterizations of information in the DLA; noresponse is required.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-38IPC refers the commenter to Technical Report E.2.2-2 for a more detailed description anddiscussion of algae levels and processes in Brownlee Reservoir.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-39The comment correctly notes that mercury concentrations in fish fillets were lower than the meaninternational standard of 0.5 µg/g and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration action level of1.0 µg/g.Page 54Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to CommentsRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-40The data referenced in the comment, as well as the data presented in Technical Report E.2.2-2,were collected within a single year.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-41This section has been modified in the FLA to more clearly state why comparisons to draftSnake River–Hells Canyon TMDL targets were used in discussing the data relative to statestandards. In addition, the FLA, (with the addition of Table E.2-4) and Technical Report E.2.2-2have been modified to clarify conditions relative to targets in the draft Snake River–Hells Canyon TMDL.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-42IPC’s analyses and conclusions are consistent with designated uses identified for the HCC in thedraft Snake River–Hells Canyon TMDL.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-43This comment is simply the tribes’ general characterizations of information in the DLA; noresponse is required.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-44This comment is simply the tribes’ general characterizations of information in the DLA; noresponse is required.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-45Degassing of water as it flows through the 60-mile reach of the Snake River immediatelydownstream of Hells Canyon Dam is a more significant factor in decreased TDG levels thandilution by the Salmon River.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-46IPC appreciates the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>’ support for IPC’s proposals to continuewastewater treatment activities and preferential use of the upper spillgates at Brownlee Dam.However, for the reasons stated above, IPC disagrees with the recommendation of a minimumflow of 1,350 cfs through the Oxbow Bypass.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-47The draft Snake River–Hells Canyon TMDL identified 1,450 tons of oxygen as IPC’s allocationfor restoring water quality. The draft Snake River–Hells Canyon TMDL correctly identified thatmuch of the degraded oxygen conditions throughout the HCC result from the severely degradedwater quality of inflows into Brownlee Reservoir.Hells Canyon Complex Page 55


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-48IPC acknowledged the uncertainty of predicting responses to improved inflow water quality inBrownlee Reservoir in the DLA and FLA. IPC adequately addressed the uncertainty by includingdevelopment of monitoring plans in its water quality PM&E measures.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-49IPC appreciates the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>’ support for its proposed oxygen injection PM&E.The aeration measures have been proposed by IPC to be implemented for the life of the license,therefore ensuring long-term implementation.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-50The measures have been proposed by IPC to be implemented for the life of the license, thereforeensuring long-term implementation.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-51The measures have been proposed by IPC to be implemented for the life of the license, thereforeensuring long-term implementation.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-52The measures have been proposed by IPC to be implemented for the life of the license, thereforeensuring long-term implementation.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-53The comment correctly identifies that inflow temperatures to Brownlee Reservoir currentlyexceed the coldwater and salmonid spawning standards. Changing operations of the HCC will donothing to remedy water temperature conditions in the inflow to Brownlee Reservoir. TableE.2-4 has been added to the FLA to more clearly show the improvement in temperatureconditions relative to appropriate bi-state targets identified in the draft Snake River–Hells Canyon TMDL.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-54IPC-proposed measures include full implementation of its oxygen load allocation identified inthe draft Snake River–Hells Canyon TMDL. IPC is assuming that all other upstream loadallocations identified in the draft Snake River–Hells Canyon TMDL will also be implemented.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-55Modeled proposed operations of the HCC will continue annual drawdowns (DLA, Exhibit B).Therefore, modeled proposed operations will continue to benefit migrant shorebirds and can beconsidered an enhancement of the habitat for these species.Page 56Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to CommentsRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-56IPC does not propose to change operations for the new license period (FLA, Exhibit B). Thepresence of the reservoirs benefits wintering waterfowl (Technical Report E.3.2-12).RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-57The locations of nesting colonial waterbirds (i.e., Peep Island and the confluence of the PowderRiver and Eagle Creek) are not influenced by the modeled proposed operations of the HCC.Therefore, modeled proposed operations (or any other operational scenario, for that matter)would not affect colonial nesting waterbirds.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-58This information would most appropriately be addressed in an oral history study. IPC intends todevelop a project with the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> in the coming years. As to the tribes’ treaty andalleged hunting rights, see Response to Comment SBT1-2 above.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-59Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs are re-regulating reservoirs and have a rapid turnover.Flows in these two reservoirs are relatively high (compared with those in Brownlee Reservoir).Therefore, ice formation does not take place in these two reservoirs, and a study of ice formationon these reservoirs is not relevant. Furthermore, the Terrestrial Resources Work Group indicatedthat issues of big game mortality from reservoir ice had never occurred on Oxbow andHells Canyon reservoirs.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-60Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs are re-regulating reservoirs and have a rapid turnover.Flows in these two reservoirs are relatively high (compared with those in Brownlee Reservoir).Therefore, ice formation does not take place in these two reservoirs, and a study of ice formationon these reservoirs is not relevant. Furthermore, the Terrestrial Resources Work Group indicatedthat issues of big game mortality from reservoir ice had never occurred on Oxbow andHells Canyon reservoirs.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-61IPC does not anticipate the acquisition of federal lands. Any lands that IPC acquires would allowuse consistent with existing laws and regulations. As to the tribes’ alleged treaty rights, seeResponse to Comment SBT1-2 above.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-62IPC did not introduce the exotic species that currently live throughout the Snake River. Thesefish were introduced through a variety of means near the turn of the century.Hells Canyon Complex Page 57


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-63IPC is not suggesting that anadromous fish did not use the area currently blocked by the HCCand other dams. IPC in this section is stating that there is not a significant amount of writtendocumentation available that is specific to spawn timing for the fish that once occupied this area.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-64IPC does not understand this comment. This section is merely describing what is known aboutfall chinook life history and habitats.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-65Thank you for the comment. No response is required.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-66White sturgeon likely exhibited anadromy prior to development of dams in the mainstemColumbia and Snake rivers. IPC discusses this species in the license application,section E.3.1.1.3. and in Technical Report E.3.1-6. IPC acknowledges in section E.3.1.1. thatcoho salmon were in the project area downstream of the HCC. However, there is no cleardocumentation that IPC could find regarding the historical presence of coho salmon in the areanow above the HCC. IPC does not consider bull trout an anadromous species; however, IPCdiscusses this species in detail in the Exhibit E.3.1.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-67This section is referring to the historical area above the HCC, so the answer to the question is no,none of the four anadromous species are present above the HCC today. Access was blocked forthem by multiple tributary dams and the HCC. However, downstream of the HCC, all four ofthese species are present, but currently protected under the Endangered Species Act. There is noevidence that coho salmon existed upstream of the HCC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-68This paragraph states that fall chinook were the only anadromous salmonid to spawn in themainstem Snake River, not that they were the only fish using the area.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-69The statement was specifically referring to the spawning and rearing life stages. It is realized thatthe fish used the entire river during some part of their life.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-70Comment noted.Page 58Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to CommentsRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-71IPC believes that several factors preclude reestablishing fall chinook to the Snake River abovethe HCC. Much of the habitat will remain inundated by the reservoirs and is therefore no longersuitable for spawning, and the balance of the remaining habitat is highly degraded and, underpresent conditions, would not support high enough survival to sustain natural runs. In light of thepresent condition of upstream habitat and water quality, IPC contends that any efforts toreestablish anadromous fish above the HCC are premature. These habitat and water qualityconditions are the result of natural and anthropogenic influences. Efforts are underway toimprove water quality and IPC, through the draft Snake River–Hells Canyon TMDL and otherwater quality projects, is a participant in such efforts. While water quality and habitat above theHCC must improve before reintroduction of anadromous fish should be considered, it is not theonly variable that must improve before reintroduction makes sense. The populations ofanadromous fish that currently must negotiate eight downstream hydroelectric projects (ownedand operated by the federal government) and that use habitat below the HCC of good to excellentquality are exceedingly depressed and are not self-sustaining. Passing those same fish upstreamof three additional hydroelectric projects, into habitat of questionable quality, would not increasetheir abundance or sustainability or lead to recovery of the ESA-listed species; it would likelyonly complicate it. Moreover, available habitat downstream of the HCC is currently significantlyunderseeded.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-72This section is talking about historical abundance only. There is not enough information to havehigh confidence in an estimate of what historical abundance of steelhead was in the Snake River.IPC did provide an estimate based on some crude assumptions regarding steelhead.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-73This section is saying that part of the estimate for steelhead adult abundance before the HCCrelied on the return of adults to traps from juvenile outmigrants that migrated to the ocean priorto completion of the dam. It is not saying that the HCC did not impair the movements ofanadromous fish.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-74IPC has fully considered HCC impacts on anadromous fish. For a complete discussion ondevelopmental impacts of anadromous fish, see Technical Report E.3.1-2.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-75IPC relied on trapping data during the construction period of the dams to make estimates of whatthe abundance of anadromous fish was just prior to the construction of the HCC. Very littlerecords were kept on the abundance of anadromous fish in this area to make any other estimates.Hells Canyon Complex Page 59


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-76This section of the DLA provides the history of what did occur and what efforts were made tocontinue the anadromous fish runs.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-77This section is describing the generalized history of development of the Snake River watershed,what policy decisions were made, and how those decisions may have impacted anadromous fish.The tribes suggest that these decisions need to be “reconsidered.” The tribes need to be morespecific in their comment. Obviously, some decisions may be irrevocable.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-78The lack of fish ladders at these facilities is not the reason why these runs failed. Adult passagewas quite successful. It was the inability of juveniles to pass downstream through a large slackwaterenvironment that was not foreseen and ultimately led to the failure of continuing fish runs.This same problem would persist today, as evidenced by the difficulties experienced bymigrating juvenile salmon through lower Snake and Columbia river federal facilities.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-79Thank you for the comment. With the section in question, IPC is mainly discussing the passageof anadromous fish past dams on the lower Snake and Columbia rivers that are owned andoperated by the federal government. IPC is an investor-owned company that has no interest inthe ownership, maintenance, or operations of those dams.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-80Thank you for the comment. Within the section referred to in the comments, IPC is using thebest data available for the description and discussion of the distribution and status of fall chinooksalmon in the mainstem Snake River. If <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> tribal members have more extensiveand accurate data relevant to fall chinook inhabiting the mainstem of the Snake River, IPC wouldfind this data useful and would not hesitate to incorporate such data into future assessments.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-81Thank you for the comment. IPC comparisons are not between stagnant and free-flowing waters;they are between two sections of the free-flowing Hells Canyon reach (downstream of theHells Canyon Dam) and the free-flowing Hanford reach of the Columbia River.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-82As described in Technical Report E.3.1-3, Chapter 3, habitat availability increases moderately asdischarge from the Hells Canyon Dam increases from 8,000 to 13,000 cfs, remains stable from13,000 to 15,000 cfs, and decreases rapidly at discharges greater than 15,000 cfs. Also, anevaluation of measured and predicted stage changes at discharges from the Hells Canyon DamPage 60Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to Commentsranging from 8,000 to15,000 cfs indicates that habitat throughout the Snake River would not beappreciably altered by discharge levels varying within this range. Finally, within a dischargerange of 8,000 to13,000 cfs, IPC predicts the redd capacity of the Snake River downstream of theHells Canyon Dam to be between approximately 3,450 and 3,750 redds (± 1,217). Recoverygoals for Snake River fall chinook salmon require that sufficient suitable habitat be availableupstream of Lower Granite Reservoir to support a minimum of 1,250 redds. At discharges above13,000 cfs, the availability of habitat remains relatively static (up to about 15,000 cfs), ordecreases rapidly (at discharges above 15,000 cfs).RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-83Thank you for the comment. It is possible that what may work in one stream may not work inanother; however, IPC has tried to use the best, known, relevant data as a reference with which tomake comparisons. IPC believes that, in this case, the comparisons are valid.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-84Thank you for the comment. Carrying capacities were estimated based on physical models of theriver and what is known of the physical habitat requirements of the fish during specific lifestages. These estimates were made using standard and accepted practices. By knowing thecarrying capacity, all people would be able to determine how many fish that the available habitatcould sustain. The carrying capacity allows for the estimation of the numbers of fish.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-85The “dangerous conditions” to which this comment in this section refers are in Lower GraniteReservoir, which is a federal government reservoir and which is not controlled by IPC. IPCagrees that historically fish moved through this reach of river much faster then they do todaybecause of the large slack water created by Lower Granite Reservoir.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-86Thank you for the comment. IPC acknowledge that Pacific lamprey were traditionally used byNative American people in the Pacific Northwest. However, nonnative settlers viewed thelamprey as a nuisance species, probably because of its parasitic nature and low commercialvalue. Therefore, this fish species was not then deemed important to the ecosystem or worthy ofprotection.When the lamprey is referred to as a “primitive” fish, it is not an attempt to belittle it, disregardit, or lessen its worth—it simply denotes that the lamprey is a species that has been presentlonger throughout time than many other fish species and that has changed little in its form andhabits over its existence.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-87Thank you for the comment. No response is required.Hells Canyon Complex Page 61


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-88As described in this section, the sockeye salmon being referred to are downstream of the HCCand destined for the Salmon River. Factors that led to their decline are many but are not relatedto the HCC. Sockeye salmon that historically occupied areas upstream of the HCC wereextirpated by construction of Black Canyon Dam on the Payette River in the 1920s—beforeconstruction of the HCC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-89Thank you for the comment. However, to add to your comment and to be more precise—allcreatures require water for life—not just fish. Please do not presume that IPC has little regard forlife or the water that all creatures require.Hatchery fish are not the only focus of IPC or of the regional scientific community.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-90The wild fish that are captured at the HCC likely originated from some of the smaller tributariesbelow the HCC. The current protocol for these fish is to release them back into the river belowthe dam.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-91The decision by the FPC in 1963 to relocate salmon and steelhead from the Snake River to theSalmon River stems from failed efforts to provide passage at the HCC. At that time, this wasbelieved to be the only viable means of preserving salmon and steelhead populations for thefuture.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-92This comment refers to a 1963 decision by the FPC to relocate anadromous fish from theSnake River to the Salmon River basin. Without baseline information to describe salmon andsteelhead populations in the Salmon River prior to relocation, it is impossible to evaluate theoutcome some 40 years later.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-93IPC is not clear what is meant by the statement that “the fish have not been saved.” The IPChatchery mitigation program has been successful at replacing harvest opportunities lost fromimpacts associated with the construction and operation of the HCC. The cost of this program hasincreased annually as necessary.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-94The <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> provide no indication as to what other measures they aresuggesting.Page 62Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to CommentsRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-95This comment refers to juvenile salmon and steelhead distribution dating back to the 1960s.Regardless of whether or not these past decisions to relocate fish to various drainages werecorrect, it is too late to revisit those decisions now. IPC is proposing no further fish relocation aspart of the new license application.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-96IPC does not understand the comment and therefore cannot provide a response.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-97The Snake River white sturgeon is a concern of IPC. IPC has developed a White SturgeonConservation Plan (WSCP), which is intended to serve as a master plan for guiding theimplementation of feasible mitigation measures for Snake River white sturgeon populationsimpacted by IPC’s hydroelectric projects. These measures are designed to help ensure their longtermpersistence and restore opportunities for beneficial use where feasible. This plan outlinesIPC-proposed measures and strategies for Snake River white sturgeon, from <strong>Shoshone</strong> Fallsdownstream to Hells Canyon, that IPC would implement once the WSCP were accepted and newproject licenses issued by FERC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-98The Snake River white sturgeon is a concern of IPC. IPC has developed a White SturgeonConservation Plan (WSCP), which is intended to serve as a master plan for guiding theimplementation of feasible mitigation measures for Snake River white sturgeon populationsimpacted by IPC’s hydroelectric projects. These measures are designed to help ensure their longtermpersistence and restore opportunities for beneficial use where feasible. This plan outlinesIPC-proposed measures and strategies for Snake River white sturgeon, from <strong>Shoshone</strong> Fallsdownstream to Hells Canyon, that IPC would implement once the WSCP were accepted and newproject licenses issued by FERC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-99A description of habitat use and suitability criteria is presented for all life stages of whitesturgeon in Technical Report E.3.1-6, Chapter 2.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-100Downstream passage of white sturgeon at several Snake River dams has been documented byrecovery of individuals (marked with PIT tags) that had been previously captured or stocked(i.e., hatchery fish) upstream. IPC has proposed translocation (i.e., capture and transport) as aneffective means of passing sturgeon upstream to reaches to rebuild population numbers indepressed reaches and/or to provide access to suitable spawning habitat. A similar approach(i.e., trawl and haul) has been used successfully by the ODFW for transporting white sturgeonamong lower Columbia River reservoirs to mitigate for lost recruitment and upstream passage.Hells Canyon Complex Page 63


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-101A description of habitat use and suitability criteria is presented for all life stages of whitesturgeon in Technical Report E.3.1-6, Chapter 2. An evaluation of feasibility of potential passageoptions for white sturgeon is described in Technical Report E.3.1-6, Chapter 4.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-102It is unclear about which statement the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> refer. IPC could not find anysentence saying “we have no idea what is going on with the sturgeon.” The license application,section E.3.1.1.3.3.2. provides a description of the population’s current status in OxbowReservoir and factors affecting recruitment, including spawner limitations, poor water quality,and sturgeon export.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-103Stock assessments conducted between 1972 and 2000 have indicated positive and consistentrecruitment trends, with juveniles dominating the population. The population currently supportsboth catch-and-release sport (including incidental angling mortality) and tribal harvest fisheries.Overall, the sturgeon population below Hells Canyon Dam exhibits what could be considered ahealthy population structure, based on a stock structure dominated by juveniles, a wide range ofsize classes, and stages of maturity from immature juveniles to reproducing adults.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-104This comment is unclear. IPC believes that Technical Report E.3.1-6, Chapter 1 has adequatelydescribed the current status of white sturgeon in the Hells Canyon–Lower Granite reach.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-105The “pools” referred to are habitat classifications downstream of Hells Canyon Dam. Thesepools are not manmade. IPC’s modeling effort is adequate and clearly identifies the issues in theHells Canyon–Lower Granite reach.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-106IPC’s native salmonid plan is designed to increase the numbers of redband and bull trout directlyand indirectly through various measures. IPC’s proposed protection, mitigation, andenhancement (PM&E) measures adequately and appropriately address the protection,maintenance, and enhancement of redband and bull trout populations associated with the HCC.IPC’s native salmonid plan is intended to mitigate and enhance native populations of residentsalmonids by implementing measures to maintain and enhance redband and bull troutpopulations associated with the HCC. Specific sites and measures will be identified through theHCC Native Salmonid Technical Advisory Committee.Page 64Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to CommentsRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-107IPC has recommended that state agencies should incorporate native redband trout or steriletriploid rainbow trout into their stocking programs for the HCC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-108FERC has determined that where project works already exist and are part of the existingenvironment, it is not reasonable to analyze the effects of relicensing using a pre-projectenvironmental baseline. The proper baseline for environmental analysis is existing conditions,rather than pre-project conditions. IPC is required to describe existing conditions and provide anevaluation of proposed project operations on those conditions, not an evaluation of impacts thatwere the result of the construction and operation of the HCC under the original license.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-109IPC has accurately and adequately described water quality associated with the HCC. In addition,IPC has proposed adequate and appropriate PM&E measures to address water quality issuesassociated with the HCC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-110IPC appreciates the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>’ support. IPC has proposed an adequate andappropriate level of PM&E measures. An inherent part of the proposals is to adequately fund themeasures.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-111IPC does not believe that the native fishes (salmonids) associated with the HCC will go extinct.The relicensing process for hydroelectric projects requires that relevant PM&E measures beconsidered and incorporated in order to circumvent ecological disturbances, such as those beingspeculated upon in this comment. Please refer to the PM&E measures proposed for the HCC inthe FLA, section E.3.1.3.).RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-112No response is necessary.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-113IPC keeps all of its trapping and transport equipment in good operating condition to ensuremaximum fish survival.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-114This a general statement; no response is required.Hells Canyon Complex Page 65


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-115Hatchery personnel at Rapid River Fish Hatchery transport several hundred to several thousandadult spring chinook annually. Mortality is limited to fewer than 10 fish each year. Based on thislevel of success, further transportation evaluation is not warranted.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-116In accordance with the NOAA Fisheries’ requirements, all naturally produced adult steelheadintercepted at the Pahsimeroi Fish Hatchery weir are released back to the river to spawnnaturally.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-117The proposed enhancements to Pahsimeroi Hatchery will conform to industry standards.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-118IPC is unclear of what the commenter is questioning or commenting on.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-119IPC is unclear of what the commenter is questioning or commenting on.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-120The hatchery facilities continue to provide a benefit for increased harvest opportunitiesdownstream of the HCC and mitigate for lost anadromous production associated with theconstruction of the HCC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-121The specific plan that this comment refers to is directed toward native resident salmonids such asredband trout and bull trout.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-122The pathogens prevalent in the tributary basins where the introductions of anadromous carcassesmay occur are largely unknown and have not been surveyed recently. The measure is primarilyto provide information necessary to assess the risks of potentially introducing a pathogen in anenvironment that currently does not have it. Many fish pathogens are natural occurrences andhave evolved with fish, while others have been introduced and are not endemic.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-123The Hells Canyon trap now exists and continues to fulfill its original purpose, which is to capturereturning hatchery salmon and steelhead. The proposal is to modify the trap to be able to capturePage 66Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to Commentssmaller resident salmonids such as redband trout and bull trout. The Oxbow trap is proposed tobe constructed and does not currently exist. The details of operations of the trap and specificprotocols on handling fish will be determined with guidance from the appropriate fishmanagement agencies.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-124Thank you for the comment.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-125IPC will comply with the articles included in a new license that it accepts. FERC also has theauthority to compel compliance with its licenses.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-126Habitat improvements in this plan are partly contingent upon willingness and cooperation oflandowners.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-127Comment noted.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-128It is only recently that the contribution and importance of marine-derived nutrients are beingrealized and demonstrated in the published literature.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-129Comment noted.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-130Upon issuance of a new license for the HCC, agencies and the appropriate tribes will have anopportunity to be involved with development of all hatchery monitoring and evaluation workproposed by IPC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-131The selection of a site on the Pahsimeroi River to construct a fish hatchery in 1966 was the resultof input from resource agency biologists. The decision to relocate salmon and steelhead from theSnake River to the undammed Salmon River stems from failed efforts to provide passage at theHCC. At the time, this was believed to be the only viable means of preserving salmon andsteelhead populations.Hells Canyon Complex Page 67


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-132IPC is not proposing to construct additional hatchery facilities—only to enhance existing ones.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-133In addition to providing funds for facility improvements, sufficient annual funds will also beprovided for operation and maintenance for the life of the new license. Proposed funding ispresented in the FLA.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-134Please refer to the license application, section E.3.1.3. for a description of measures associatedwith fish and snail resources.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-135Additional information has been added to the FLA, section E.3.1.3.2.3.2. Study plans andspecific details for this measure would be developed upon acceptance of the measure andissuance of a new license for the HCC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-136IPC has evaluated a full range of sturgeon passage alternatives, as well as the constraintsassociated with passing white sturgeon upstream and downstream of the HCC (TechnicalReport E.3.1-6, Chapter 4). Passage options were based on information from Russian andColumbia River sturgeon-passage facilities. The report concluded that the most feasible andpractical alternative was capture and transport (i.e., translocation). The capture-and-transportalternative can be accomplished with existing technology and represents the most reliablesolution for passing sturgeon at this time. Capture-and-transport techniques have been usedsuccessfully by the ODFW for transporting white sturgeon among the lower Columbia Riverreservoirs to mitigate for lost recruitment and passage (T. A. Rien and J. A. North, 2002, “WhiteSturgeon Transplants within the Columbia River,” American Fisheries Society Symposium28:223–236.). All other options explored (including fish ladders, locks, lifts, pressured passagesystems, trap and transport, surface collections, spillway releases, behavior guidance structures,and turbine exclusion) have considerable biological uncertainties, particularly those optionsrelying on volitional responses. Sturgeon behavior does not necessarily favor voluntary upstreampassage via facilities that have been effective for other species (D. W. Cooke, S. D. Leach, andI. J. Isely, 2002, “Behavior and Lack of Upstream Passage of Shortnose Sturgeon at aHydroelectric Facility and Navigation Lock Complex,” in: W. Van Winkle, P. J. Anders, D. H.Secor, and D. A. Dixon, editors, Biology, Management, and Protection of North AmericanSturgeon, American Fisheries Society, Symposium 28, Bethesda, MD, p. 101–110).IPC has proposed translocating reproductive-sized sturgeon as a potential means for increasingspawner abundance and future population productivity in the Swan Falls–Brownlee reach. Thismeasure is contingent upon improved water quality within this reach. IPC has proposed measuresto improve water quality in the HCC. IPC has indicated willingness to work with the IDEQ andPage 68Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to CommentsODEQ to develop measures that address IPC’s assigned load allocations for improving waterquality in the HCC in order to comply with state standards.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-137Current evidence presented by P. J. Anders and M. S. Powell (2002, “Population Structure andMitochondrial DNA Diversity of North American White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus):An Empirical Expansive Gene Flow Model,” Chapter 3 in Ph.D. Dissertation, University of<strong>Idaho</strong>, Moscow, ID, 38 p; also submitted to Journal of Applied Ichthyology) suggests that geneticsubstructuring has not occurred for Snake River sturgeon populations. They found thatvariability detected within an impounded Snake River reach is not unlike the variability detectedamong Snake River reaches. Translocation of sturgeon can provide reestablishment of gene flowbetween donor and recipient populations.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-138The FLA accurately reflects the appropriate targets identified by Oregon and <strong>Idaho</strong> in the draftSnake River–Hells Canyon TMDL.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-139An adequate and relatively detailed discussion of why the maximum outflow temperatures fromthe HCC are cooler than maximum inflow temperatures is presented in Technical Report E.2.2-2.Basically, it is the result of a combination of Brownlee Reservoir withdrawal depth and thevolume of water stored in Brownlee Reservoir. IPC has proposed adequate and appropriatemeasures relative to the impacts of the HCC on water temperature.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-140IPC has evaluated project impacts and is proposing adequate and equitable mitigation to offsetimpacts. See Technical Reports E.2.2-1, E.2.2-2, E.3.1-2, E.3.1-3, E.3.1-4, E.3.1-5, E.3.1-6, andE.3.1-7, as well as proposed PM&E measures in the FLA, sections E.2.4. and E.3.1.3.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-141It is unclear how this comment is relevant to the text.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-142No response is necessary.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-143Please note that something is being done and that the numbers are increasing.Hells Canyon Complex Page 69


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-144The comment does not refer to IPC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-145IPC concurs that efforts are needed to improve water quality upstream of Brownlee Reservoirthat will result in improved water quality flowing into Brownlee Reservoir. The draftSnake River–Hells Canyon TMDL identifies targets for the Snake River upstream ofBrownlee Reservoir that, if met, would significantly improve water quality.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-146This comment is unintelligible.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-147Comment noted.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-148IPC has proposed to pass bull trout over Oxbow and Hells Canyon dams and will work with theHCC Native Salmonid Technical Advisory Committee in developing passage criteria such astiming, number of individuals, size, and species (see FLA E.3.1 PM&E measures). IPC is notproposing passage for other species of fish. For a discussion of problems related to passage andreintroduction of anadromous fish see Technical Report E.3.1-2, specifically chapter 11.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-149IPC has proposed measures in its native salmonid plan that will improve water quality andphysical habitat conditions for redband and bull trout within the HCC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-150Measures proposed by IPC to improve oxygen levels are presented and explained in the FLA,section E.2.4.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-151The ongoing and proposed mitigation measures provide mitigation for project-related impacts.IPC believes that the proposed measures will substantially improve conditions for naturalresources in the project area.Page 70Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to CommentsRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-152IPC is unsure of what the question is. The page referenced in the comment does not have adiscussion of protecting natural resources. It is discussing what impact may occur to whitesturgeon based on water conditions above and within the HCC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-153This comment is simply the tribes’ general characterizations of information in the DLA; noresponse is required.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-154Comment noted.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-155Improvements to dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in Brownlee Reservoir would benefit not onlysalmonids but all aquatic life. However, substantial improvement is dependant upon fullimplementation of the draft Snake River–Hells Canyon TMDL, which would address upstreamwater quality conditions and inflowing conditions into the reservoir.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-156This comment is consistent and supportive of statements in the DLA.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-157The conclusion that water temperatures are not the result of controllable anthropogenic activitieswas a conclusion of the draft Snake River–Hells Canyon TMDL. IPC believes that, at this time,neither the impact of anthropogenic sources nor the feasibility of changing water temperatureshas been adequately evaluated.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-158Comment noted.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-159This comment inaccurately summarized what is written in the DLA, section E.3.1.4.3.2. Acorrect summary would be that “warmwater game fish are not affected by warm summertemperatures associated with the Snake River basin.”RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-160Comment noted.Hells Canyon Complex Page 71


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-161Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels measured in the tailrace of Hells Canyon Dam are suboptimal forwhite sturgeon during brief summer periods. The river receives considerable aeration afterentering a series of rapids some 8 miles downstream; however, it may not achieve 100%saturation or meet Oregon’s standard for salmonid spawning as far downstream as theSalmon River. IPC is not aware of any sturgeon mortalities related to water quality (includinglow DO) that have been recorded in the reach below Hells Canyon Dam. IPC has proposedupstream measures to improve DO conditions in the tailrace of Hells Canyon Dam, which areexpected to benefit white sturgeon.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-162Comment noted.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-163IPC agrees that the effects of low DO levels on native resident salmonids are uncertain butlimited spatially and temporally. IPC studies of redband and bull trout showed that fish utilizecoldwater refuge areas when temperature and DO conditions become less than suitable in projectreservoirs.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-164IPC appreciates the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>’ support for its proposed measures.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-165This comment appears to accurately reflect the conclusion in the DLA.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-166Thank you for the comment. No response is required.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-167IPC appreciates the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>’ support of its proposed measure to install flowdeflectors on Hells Canyon Dam.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-168Thank you for the comment. No response is required.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-169IPC agrees with the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>.Page 72Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to CommentsRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-170As to alleged off-reservation treaty rights, see Response to Comment SBT1-2. Moreover, traditionalplant resources have been identified in the oral history reports completed by the Confederated <strong>Tribes</strong>of the Warm Springs Reservation (confidential Technical Report E.4-13, Chapter 2) and the BurnsPaiute Tribe (confidential Technical Report E.4-13, Chapter 1). See Response to CommentSBT1-58.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-171None of the transmission lines discussed in either the DLA or the FLA are located on theFort Hall Indian Reservation. In addition, IPC has decided to remove all transmission linesassociated with the HCC, except the Pine Creek–Hells Canyon 69-kV line (Line 945), from theFLA. These lines will not be relicensed by FERC as a part of the HCC because they are nolonger primary lines subject to FERC licensing jurisdiction. The Pine Creek–Hells Canyon line(Line 945) parallels the Oxbow–Hells Canyon road and typically occurs in the road verge. Itdoes not have service roads associated with it.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-172As to alleged off-reservation treaty rights, see Response to Comment SBT1-2. None of thetransmission lines discussed in either the DLA or the FLA are located on the Fort Hall IndianReservation.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-173Impacts to botanical resources, in some cases at the species level, are described in the licenseapplication, Exhibit E.3.3. As to alleged “tribal plant resources,” see Response to CommentSBT1-2.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-174As to alleged off-reservation treaty rights, see Response to Comment SBT1-2.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-175Participation of all entities involved in the HCC relicensing process is summarized in the FLA,Consultation Appendix, section I, Attachment G. See also Response to Comment SBT1-170.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-176In a meeting held in February 1998, IPC discussed the 100-meter width of the APE with the<strong>Idaho</strong> State Historic Preservation Office (<strong>Idaho</strong> SHPO) staff, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) staff,and principal investigators from Applied Paleoscience and Rain Shadow Research. The staff ofthe Oregon SHPO were invited to the meeting, but they could not attend. The <strong>Idaho</strong> and OregonSHPOs and the USFS were notified of the APE definition in a letter from Mark Druss, IPCarchaeologist, dated March 5, 1998. Dr. Robert Yohe, the <strong>Idaho</strong> Deputy State HistoricHells Canyon Complex Page 73


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyPreservation Officer, responded to the March 5 letter by expressing the <strong>Idaho</strong> SHPO’s approvalof the river APE in a letter to IPC dated March 13, 1998. In addition, when the FormalConsultation Package for Relicensing (FCP) was published and distributed, the tribes wereprovided the opportunity to comment (IPC, 1997, Formal consultation Package for Relicensing:Hells Canyon Project [FERC No. 1971], 3 volumes, Boise, ID, p. VIII-630). In this exhibit, theriver APE is also referred to as downstream areas (FCP Exhibit E p. 871-CD).The tribes were not notified of the results of the 1998 decisions because Bruce Womack, thenUSFS archaeologist, told Mr. Druss that the USFS did not have to consult with the tribes about asurface inventory. It should be noted that the tribes were consulted more than a year earlier, inJanuary 1997, when the FCP was distributed. The <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> did not commenton the FCP (see the specific resources issues in the FLA, Consultation Appendix, section I fordocumentation of the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>’ failure to respond).RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-177The ethnographic section is on a confidential CD with other confidential reports. This can beobtained from the BLM or USFS. The <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> have declined to participate inan ethnographic study of the HCC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-178This comment is too unclear for IPC to try to respond. To what is the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>referring?RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-179The Historic Properties Management Plan: Hells Canyon Complex (HPMP; called the CulturalResources Management Plan: Hells Canyon Complex [CRMP] in the DLA) (Technical ReportE.4-15) is a working document, incorporating consultation with and input from agencies, tribes,and the public to protect known archaeological sites. Under the terms of a ProgrammaticAgreement (PA) in effect over the term of the new license, FERC, tribal, agency, and publicconsultation will assist IPC in refining the HPMP as the need arises. In addition, periodic reviewand active management of the HPMP would ensure that its actions are integrated with PM&Emeasures from other resources.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-180The reference in this comment is presumably referring to the Oregon “Sites of ParticularConcern” (DLA, section E.4.1.3.2.2.1.) and <strong>Idaho</strong> “Sites of Particular Concern”(section E.4.1.3.2.2.2.). Protection measures for the sites below Hells Canyon Dam, includingthese sites, are described in the FLA, sections E.4.2.5.1.5. and E.4.2.5.1.6. The FERC will reviewthese measures consistent with its trust responsibilities under the FPA.Page 74Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to CommentsRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-181Studies that IPC has performed with respect to sand beaches in Hells Canyon indicate that whilesandbars have declined in size and number since the HCC was constructed (see Appendix 4,section 6), it is clear that there was erosion in the canyon before the HCC was constructed andthat there are many potential causes for this decline other than the construction of the HCC (seeAppendix 4, section 10). Geotechnical analyses indicate that load following does not increase theerosion of sandbars (see Appendix 4, section 7) but that flood flows (not controlled by IPC) maydestabilize terraces. In addition, a comparison of sediment trapped in Brownlee Reservoir withsamples taken at sandbars in Hells Canyon indicate that the sediments trapped in BrownleeReservoir are generally too small to have contributed to sandbar construction and maintenance.An analysis of aerial photographs (see Appendix 4, section 6) indicates that sand features inHells Canyon do not show a continuing declining trend and that they may be reaching a newequilibrium level, having adjusted for significant changes in sediment supplies over the last200 years or so. Therefore, while the HCC has likely had some effect on sediment features inHells Canyon, it clearly is not responsible for all observed effects and may not be responsible forvery much of the observed change at all.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-182For the sake of clarity, IPC will change the sentence to read: “The effect of project operationsdownstream is yet to be empirically distinguished from the effects of natural river flows, theaction of ground water, and other phenomena (see Response to Comment USFS3-261).RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-183Comments and IPC responses to comments will be included in the FLA.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-184The tribes involved in the ethnographic studies include the Burns Paiute Tribe, the Confederated<strong>Tribes</strong> of the Warm Springs Reservation, and the Confederated <strong>Tribes</strong> of the Umatilla IndianReservation. The <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> were invited to participate but declined theinvitation.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-185The tribes involved in the ethnographic studies include the Burns Paiute Tribe, the Confederated<strong>Tribes</strong> of the Warm Springs Reservation, and the Confederated <strong>Tribes</strong> of the Umatilla IndianReservation. The <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> were invited to participate but declined theinvitation.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-186The tribes involved in the oral history studies include the Burns Paiute Tribe, the Confederated<strong>Tribes</strong> of the Warm Springs Reservation, and the Confederated <strong>Tribes</strong> of the Umatilla IndianReservation. The participants were mostly tribal elders from those tribes. TheHells Canyon Complex Page 75


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> were invited to participate in an oral history study but declined theinvitation.Due to some unanticipated delays, the completion date for the Nez Perce Tribe’s ethnographicstudy has been extended. The document is currently in the final review phase and will not besubmitted with the FLA. IPC will notify the appropriate agencies and tribes when the reportbecomes available.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-187Two of the three completed tribal ethnographic studies have addressed botanical resources.Because of the confidential nature of these reports, they were provided to the land managementagencies only. The <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> may obtain a copy of these reports by contactingthe BLM or USFS.An attempt was made to work with the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> and <strong>Shoshone</strong>-Paiute tribes todevelop ethnographic projects. IPC proposed an ethnobotanical field school at Bancroft Springswith the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> in connection with relicensing efforts for Mid-Snakeprojects. In the Mid-Snake new license application, the company proposed a 375-acre researchpreserve on land it owns at Bancroft Springs. In response to <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> tribal staffrequests, IPC offered access to the tribes to be used as a field school for <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong>tribal members. A field trip to the preserve took place in March 2000 with cultural anthropologistKristin Ruppel, Director of the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> Tribal AmeriCorps/InPEACE program;several AmeriCorps participants; and IPC representatives Mark Druss, Allan Ansell, and RobynJohnson. Despite IPC’s effort to provide this opportunity to the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>, thetribal government decided not to pursue the project. The project never went forward.IPC will work within the framework of treaties and other existing laws and regulations asappropriate to address plant resources in which the tribes have a legitimate interest.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-188IPC’s philosophy is to not abandon consultation, but to work through conflicts. An importantfirst step is to lay the groundwork for initial meetings through ongoing contacts so thatpotentially interested parties are aware of proposed actions on the part of IPC. Parties with nointerest in a specific project can express this prior to engaging in time-consuming meetings,saving their efforts for discussions that are relevant to their concerns.Consultation will precede unavoidable adverse effects on historic properties, as part of thesection 106 process required for all federal undertakings. It will also be a general method ofcultural resource management by IPC, wherein open lines of communication should helpmanagement practices run smoothly.Internally, IPC personnel who initiate and are responsible for ground-disturbing activities willapprise the cultural resources manager of a proposed action (see the HPMP [or TechnicalReport E.4-15], Figure 4.3-b). If the action is on private land, the cultural resources manager willconsult with the landowner to allow the management process to continue. The cultural resourcesmanager will determine whether Native Americans have an interest in the proposed action,Page 76Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to Commentsthrough a telephone call to the Native American representative(s), followed up by a letter orcertified letter. The Native American tribe(s) will have 30 days to review the proposed action andexpress its/their concerns (cf. 36 CFR 800.3[c][4]).If the action is on state land, the cultural resources manager will also consult with the <strong>Idaho</strong>and/or Oregon SHPO, which will have 30 days to express concerns, as well as determinewhether Native Americans have an interest in the proposed action (cf. 36 CFR 800.3[c][4]). Ifthe proposed action is on federal land, the cultural resources manager will consult with the <strong>Idaho</strong>and/or Oregon SHPO, which will have 30 days to express concerns, and also with the federalagency affected (e.g., the BLM or USFS), which will have the same 30 days (cf. 36 CFR800.3[c][4]). The federal agency will conduct consultation with the appropriate Native Americantribe(s), as this would enter the realm of government-to-government consultation. The federalagency will have 45 days to express concerns, including soliciting and receiving input fromNative Americans.Following notification, interested parties, including IPC, will meet to discuss concerns, potentialeffects to cultural resources, and impact mitigation plans. Meetings may be by telephone, bye-mail, in person, or with a combination. As an example of consultation, during pre-licensingmeetings, the Cultural Resources Work Group (CRWG) developed a series of guidelines forrecommended actions should monitoring show that cultural resources are being adverselyaffected by river erosion.Consultation with the <strong>Idaho</strong> and Oregon SHPOs, tribal government representatives and staffmembers, traditional practitioners and elders, and agency representatives and staff members isintegrated into this management plan. Consultation is a mandated element of the FERCrelicensing process (HPMP, section 1.3.). Consultation includes both a specific and a generalapproach. See the HPMP, Appendix 4.3-a for a basic step-by-step standard procedure forhandling conflicts that could arise out of situations requiring consultation. As stated above, IPC’sphilosophy is not to abandon consultation, but to work through conflicts. An important first stepis to lay the groundwork for initial meetings through ongoing contacts so that potentiallyinterested parties are aware of proposed actions on the part of IPC. Parties with no interest in aspecific project can express this prior to engaging in time-consuming meetings, saving theirefforts for discussions that are relevant to their concerns. As described in the HPMP,section 4.3.8., consultation will precede unavoidable adverse effects on historic properties, aspart of the section 106 process required for all federal undertakings. It will also be a generalmethod of cultural resource management by IPC, wherein open lines of communication shouldhelp management practices run smoothly.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-189IPC contemplates that funds dedicated to the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> would be spent inconsultation with IPC. Actual expenditures will be approved by IPC. The proposed PM&Emeasures specifically indicate the types of activities that IPC will consider appropriate:1. Obtain funding for participating in and/or administering cultural resources PM&E measures,educate its youth by providing a scholarship/training fund, and provide funds to facilitateseveral cultural enhancement projectsHells Canyon Complex Page 77


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Company2. Develop, in consultation with the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>, programs in the following areasof PM&E development of funding opportunities, educational development, and culturalenhancements:a. Funding for costs of tribal staff time and travel cost associated with cultural resourcesPM&E implementationb. Support for educational development programs, including scholarship/training fundsc. Support for ongoing and future cultural enhancement projects in consultation with the<strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-190Any reasons for rejecting specific recommendations of the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> areincluded in the FLA, per FERC regulations, and parties with standing to take issue with thosereasons will have the legal opportunity to do so.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-191See Response to Comment SBT1-2.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-192See Response to Comment SBT1-2.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-193With respect to the question, “Was there any specific survey….Why or why not?”—if NativeAmericans were recreating within the study area while studies (Technical Reports E.5-2., E.5-3.,E.5-4., E.5-5.) were being conducted, they would have had the opportunity to be interviewed onsite and/or via one or both of the mail surveys.With respect to the question, “Was data gathered…carried into this section?”—no, data gatheredfrom the cultural resources/archeological reports were not carried into this section.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-194IPC believes that the tribes were given ample opportunity to provide input into recreation issuesand the goals and design of recreational-use studies during this relicensing proceeding. The FCPwas sent out for review and comment in 1997, but the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> did notcomment on it. <strong>Tribes</strong> were invited and welcome to attend Recreation Work Group meetings andprovide input, but the tribes did not (see FLA, Consultation Appendix, section I, Attachment G).IPC also conducted a number of field trips in Hells Canyon; the tribes did participate in some ofthese and provided input, which was considered by IPC. Finally, 36 Collaborative Teammeetings were held from 1996 through 2002 during which the tribes had an opportunity toprovide input on all issues, including recreation. With respect to studies, IPC believes that thestudies conducted are adequate. IPC conducted extensive consultation and public review ofPage 78Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to Commentsrecreation studies and modified studies based on that review. The Recreation Work Group wasinstrumental in developing and refining studies and providing input as the studies progressed.See the FLA, Consultation Appendix, section I.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-195This paragraph accurately describes the existing/present contemporary conditions.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-196IPC is not obligated to set forth federal trust responsibilities. As to alleged off-reservation treatyrights, see Response to Comment SBT1-2 above.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-197IPC would purchase lands from willing sellers, who would most likely be private landowners.State and federal lands are not for sale.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-198As to off-reservation treaty rights, see Response to Comment SBT1-2 above.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-199See Response to Comment SBT1-198.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-200See Response to Comment SBT1-198.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-201See Response to Comment SBT1-198.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-202IPC cannot modify the Payette National Forest Plan. Also, see Response to Comment SBT1-198.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-203IPC cannot modify the Payette National Forest Plan. Also, see Response to Comment SBT1-198.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-204The Bureau of Reclamation owns and operates the American Falls Reservoir. The operations ofthe HCC do not influence or otherwise have an effect on the operations of the American Fallsproject.Hells Canyon Complex Page 79


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyRESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-205It is unclear what the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> are questioning or commenting on. No responseis necessary from IPC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-206As to alleged off-reservation treaty rights, see Response to Comment SBT1-2 above.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-207IPC has described project impacts specifically in Exhibit E. This section of Exhibit H is intendedto capture other actions that IPC has undertaken that affect the public.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-208IPC will comply with all applicable legal requirements. As to alleged treaty rights, see Responseto Comment SBT1-2 above.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-209This section of the DLA addresses activities in which IPC is or has been involved in the past.The tribes’ statement that signs or sites should be established to inform the public of theimportance of the fishery resource to the Native American people is a proposal comparable to aPM&E measure. A PM&E measure has been included in Exhibit E.5. of the license applicationto develop an interpretive plan that could include specific measures such as the tribes propose.IPC will consider such a measure once a license is issued.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-210Again, as mentioned in Response to Comment SBT1-209, this section of the DLA is addressingactions that IPC is taking or has taken in the past. The tribes’ statement is a proposal for futureaction (PM&E measures) and will be considered as such by IPC in the development of itsinterpretive plan.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-211IPC defines consultation consistent with the requirements set forth by FERC in 18 CFR, Part 16.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-212See Response to Comment SBT1-2 above.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-213The objective of the joint tribal video, The River Has Many Stories, was to convey the value ofcultural resources from the Native American perspective, detail the laws pertaining to thePage 80Hells Canyon Complex


<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> CompanyResponses to Commentsprotection of those resources, and impart a need for stewardship to the Hells Canyon visitor. Itwas an effort, on the part of IPC, to work cooperatively in a joint project with the tribal entitiesparticipating in the Hells Canyon Cultural Resource Work Group. IPC believes that theobjectives of this video were met successfully. As to the agreement with the Nez Perce Tribe, seeResponse to Comment SBT1-2 above.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-214In October 2001, Ms. Rozina George (Agaidika <strong>Shoshone</strong>) of the Sacajawea Interpretive andEducation Center, Inc., requested funding from IPC in the amount of $5,000.00 to support a filmdocumentary being produced by Lori Joyce of Idanha Films. The documentary’s objective was tohighlight the young Sacajawea as she accompanied the Lewis and Clark Expedition. IPC wastold that the production of Sacajawea’s story would utilize the expertise of Native Americansregarding the areas of tribal history, language, cultural values, and geography for the time inwhich Sacajawea lived. Given the project description provided by Ms. Rozina George, IPCbelieved that this was an appropriate and good faith contribution under our “grass roots” fundingcategory. The documentary, entitled The Journey of Sacajawea, was aired on <strong>Idaho</strong> PublicTelevision in March 2003.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-215In December 2001, Ed Galindo of <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> High School and the North AmericanNative Research and Education Foundation (Dance of the Salmon Foundation) requestedassistance from IPC for the Indian Summer VIII program. The Dance of the Salmon Program, orIndian Summer Program, addresses the environmental issue of declining salmon and steelheadpopulations in certain areas. IPC agreed to support the program by funding the printing processof the Indian Summer VIII field report. This is yet another IPC grass-roots project that thecompany believed to be an appropriate contribution. The IPC grass-roots projects are notnecessarily intended as PM&E measures set forth in the DLA, section 4.2.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-216IPC has attempted to deal equitably with all legally implicated tribes. Different tribes haveresponded with varying degrees of cooperation with IPC. The <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong>acknowledge that they chose to not participate in the Collaborative Process. IPC will continue toattempt to equitably mitigate for the impacts of the HCC.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-217IPC’s proposed mitigation measures are shown in the DLA, Exhibit E. The recommendationsmade by the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> will be taken into consideration during preparation of theFLA.IPC proposes to place six interpretive kiosks along Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyonreservoirs in areas selected in consultation with the legally implicated Native American tribes.This effort would enhance cultural resources by educating the public about Native American useof the area. Kiosks would not include site locations that are considered confidential but wouldHells Canyon Complex Page 81


Responses to Comments<strong>Idaho</strong> <strong>Power</strong> Companyhave information about penalties for vandalism, including looting, of archaeological sites andhistoric structures (Technical Report E.4-15, section 4.4.2.3.).RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-218An attempt was made to work with the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> and <strong>Shoshone</strong>-Paiute tribes todevelop ethnographic projects. IPC proposed an ethnobotanical field school at Bancroft Springswith the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> <strong>Tribes</strong> in connection with relicensing efforts for Mid-Snakeprojects. In the new license application for the Mid-Snake projects, IPC proposed a 375-acreresearch preserve on land it owns at Bancroft Springs. In response to <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> tribalstaff requests, the company offered access to the tribes to be used as a field school for <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> tribal members. A field trip to the preserve took place in March 2000 with culturalanthropologist Kristin Ruppel, Director of the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong> Tribal AmeriCorps/InPEACEprogram; several AmeriCorps participants; and IPC representatives Mark Druss, Allan Ansell,and Robyn Johnson. Despite IPC’s effort to provide this opportunity to the <strong>Shoshone</strong>-<strong>Bannock</strong><strong>Tribes</strong>, the tribal government decided not to pursue the project. As a direct result, the projectnever went forward.IPC also proposes to place six interpretive kiosks along Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyonreservoirs in areas selected in consultation with the legally implicated Native American tribes.This effort would enhance cultural resources by educating the public about Native American useof the area. Kiosks would not include site locations, which are considered confidential, butwould have information about penalties for vandalism, including looting, of archaeological sitesand historic structures (Technical Report E.4-15, section 4.4.2.3.).RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-219IPC’s consumer education programs are designed to benefit all residents within IPC’s serviceterritory. To this end, the Native American communities are intended to be fully included inthese programs.Page 82Hells Canyon Complex

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!