Shoshone-Bannock Tribes - Idaho Power

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Responses to CommentsIdaho Power CompanyThese distinctions make the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ request for a “mitigation/compensationprogram funded by Idaho Power” 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, theShoshone-Bannock Tribes 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 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 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 Idaho’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 Shoshone 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
Idaho Power CompanyResponses to CommentsIPC notes the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ choice (top of page 7 of comment letter) not toparticipate in the Collaborative Process.RESPONSE TO COMMENT SBT1-8The Federal Power 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 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ 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
Page 1 and 2: Idaho Power CompanyResponses to Com
Page 9: Idaho Power CompanyResponses to Com
Page 12 and 13: Responses to CommentsIdaho Power Co
Page 20 and 21: Responses to CommentsShoshone-Banno
Page 44: Responses to CommentsShoshone-Banno
Page 47 and 48: Idaho Power CompanyShoshone-Bannock
Page 49: Idaho Power CompanyResponses to Com

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes - Idaho Power

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?