Shoshone-Bannock Tribes - Idaho Power

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Responses to CommentsIdaho Power 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
Idaho Power 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 ofIdaho, 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 Idaho 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
Page 1 and 2:
Idaho Power CompanyResponses to Com
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9:
Page 12 and 13:
Responses to CommentsIdaho Power Co
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19: 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 and 50: Idaho Power CompanyResponses to Com
Page 67: Idaho Power CompanyResponses to Com
show all

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes - Idaho Power

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

Delete template?

Save as template?