DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Puget … · Web viewInstead, reservoir drawdown causes sediments...

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTFOR HYDROPOWER RELICENSING

BAKER RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

FERC Project No. 2150-033Washington

Puget Sound Energy, Inc.10885 N.E. 4th Street

Bellevue, WA 98004-5591

Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionOffice of Energy Projects

Division of Hydropower Licensing888 First Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20426

April 2006

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSIONWASHINGTON D.C. 20426

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED:

Attached is the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Baker River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2150-033), located on the Baker River in Whatcom and Skagit Counties, Washington.

The draft EIS documents the views of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) staff on relicensing the project. Before the Commission makes a decision on relicensing, it will take into account all concerns relevant to the public interest. The draft EIS will be part of the record from which the Commission will make its decision. An electronic copy of this document may be viewed on FERC’s website at www.ferc.gov using the “Documents & Filing” link; select “eLibrary” and follow the instructions (call 866-208-3676 for assistance). The TTY number is 202-502-8659.

Agencies, organizations, or individuals are invited to file comments on the draft EIS pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Commission’s Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (18 CFR Part 380). Any comments, conclusions, or recommendations that draw upon studies, reports, or other working papers of substance should be supported by appropriate documentation. Your comments will be considered in the staff’s preparation of a final EIS.

Comments on the draft EIS should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. All comments should be filed within 45 days of the notice date in the Federal Register, and should reference “Baker River Project No. 2150-033.” Comments on the draft EIS may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission’s website under the “Documents & Filing – eFiling” link.

ii

http://www.ferc.gov/

COVER SHEET

a. Title: Relicensing the Baker River Hydroelectric ProjectFERC Project No. 2150-033

b. Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

c. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

d. Cooperating Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

e. Abstract: On April 30, 2004, Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Puget) filed an application to relicense the existing Baker River Hydroelectric Project, located on the Baker River in Whatcom and Skagit Counties, Washington. The project consists of two developments, Upper Baker and Lower Baker. The two developments adjoin one another over a distance of about 18 miles on the Baker River. The project has a current installed capacity of 170.03 megawatts (proposed installed capacity is 200.03 megawatts) and occupies 5,207 acres of lands within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Currently, the project is operated as a multi-purpose facility for hydropower generation, federal flood control storage, recreation and fisheries.

Puget proposes to relicense the project in accordance with a comprehensive Settlement Agreement that was developed under the Commission’s alternative licensing procedures. The Settlement Agreement contains 50 proposed license articles containing various protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures.

The staff’s recommendation is to relicense the project as proposed, with certain modifications, and additional measures recommended by the agencies.

f. Contact: Steve HockingFederal Energy Regulatory CommissionOffice of Hydropower Licensing888 First Street, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20426(202) 502-8753

g. Transmittal: This draft EIS to relicense the existing Baker River Project is being made available for public comment in April 2006, as required by the

iii

National Environmental Policy Act of 19691 and the Commission's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (18 CFR Part 380).

1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, § 4(b), September 13, 1982).

iv

FOREWARD

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA)2 and the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act,3 is authorized to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of non-federal hydroelectric developments subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary conditions:

That the project adopted . . . shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of waterpower development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in section 4(e) . . .4

The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the FPA as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the project.5

2 16 U.S.C. § § 791(a)-825(r), as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, Public Law 99-495 (1986) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 (1992).

3 Public Law 95-91, 91 Stat. 556 (1977).

4 16 U.S.C. § 803(a).

5 16 U.S.C. § 803(g).

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................xii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................xiv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................xvii

1.0 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER......................................1-11.1 PURPOSE OF ACTION...............................................................................1-11.2 NEED FOR POWER....................................................................................1-41.3 INTERVENTIONS.......................................................................................1-51.4 SCOPING PROCESS...................................................................................1-61.5 AGENCY CONSULTATION......................................................................1-71.6 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT...................................................................1-7

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES...............................................2-12.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE....................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities................................................................2-12.1.1.1 Upper Baker Development............................................2-12.1.1.2 Lower Baker Development............................................2-2

2.1.2 Current Project Operations..............................................................2-32.1.2.1 Power Generation Operations........................................2-42.1.2.2 Flood Storage Operation................................................2-42.1.2.3 Recreation Operations...................................................2-52.1.2.4 Fishery Management Operations...................................2-52.1.2.5 Project Safety.................................................................2-6

2.1.3 Current Environmental Measures....................................................2-62.2 PROPOSED ACTION..................................................................................2-6

2.2.1 Project Facilities..............................................................................2-62.2.2 Project Operation.............................................................................2-82.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures.................................................2-9

2.3 MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED ACTION................................2-162.3.1 Staff’s Modifications to the Proposed Action...............................2-162.3.2 Water Quality Certification...........................................................2-182.3.3 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions..................................................2-182.3.4 Section 4(e) Federal Land Management Conditions.....................2-192.3.5 Section 10(j) Recommendations....................................................2-21

2.4 ALTERNATIVIES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY..................................................................................2-212.4.1 Federal Takeover...........................................................................2-212.4.2 Nonpower License.........................................................................2-222.4.3 Project Retirement.........................................................................2-22

vi

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................................................................3-13.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIN.............................................3-23.2 CUMULATIVELY AFFECTED RESOURCES..........................................3-4

3.2.1 Geographic Scope............................................................................3-43.2.1.1 Water Quantity..............................................................3-53.2.1.2 Water Quality................................................................3-63.2.1.3 Sediment Supply and Transport....................................3-63.2.1.4 Aquatic Resources.........................................................3-73.2.1.5 Terrestrial Resources.....................................................3-83.2.1.6 Recreational Resources..................................................3-83.2.1.7 Cultural Resources.........................................................3-8

3.2.2 Temporal Scope...............................................................................3-93.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES.........................3-9

3.3.1 Geology and Soils............................................................................3-93.3.1.1 Affected Environment...................................................3-93.3.1.2 Environmental Effects.................................................3-183.3.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects......................................3-243.3.1.4 Cumulative Effects......................................................3-24

3.3.2 Water Quantity...............................................................................3-243.3.2.1 Affected Environment.................................................3-243.3.2.2 Environmental Effects.................................................3-323.3.2.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects......................................3-543.3.2.4 Cumulative Effects......................................................3-54

3.3.3 Water Quality.................................................................................3-553.3.3.1 Affected Environment.................................................3-553.3.3.2 Environmental Effects.................................................3-663.3.3.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects......................................3-753.3.3.4 Cumulative Effects......................................................3-75

3.3.4 Aquatic Resources.........................................................................3-763.3.4.1 Affected Environment.................................................3-763.3.4.2 Environmental Effects...............................................3-1023.3.4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects....................................3-1443.3.4.4 Cumulative Effects....................................................3-145

3.3.5 Terrestrial Resources...................................................................3-1453.3.5.1 Affected Environment...............................................3-1453.3.5.2 Environmental Effects...............................................3-1983.3.5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects....................................3-2243.3.5.4 Cumulative Effects....................................................3-224

3.3.6 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat..................................................................................3-2273.3.6.1 Affected Environment...............................................3-2303.3.6.2 Environmental Effects...............................................3-2503.3.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects....................................3-308

3.3.7 Cultural Resources.......................................................................3-3093.3.7.1 Affected Environment...............................................3-309

vii

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects...............................................3-3213.3.7.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects....................................3-3253.3.7.4 Cumulative Effects....................................................3-326

3.3.8 Recreational Resources................................................................3-3263.3.8.1 Affected Environment...............................................3-3273.3.8.2 Environmental Effects...............................................3-3413.3.8.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects....................................3-3643.3.8.4 Cumulative Effects....................................................3-364

3.3.9 Aesthetic Resources.....................................................................3-3653.3.9.1 Affected Environment...............................................3-3653.3.9.2 Environmental Effects...............................................3-3813.3.9.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...................................3-393

3.3.10 Land Management and Use.........................................................3-3933.3.10.1 Affected Environment...............................................3-3933.3.10.2 Environmental Effects...............................................3-3993.3.10.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects....................................3-402

3.3.11 Socioeconomic Resources...........................................................3-4023.3.11.1 Affected Environment...............................................3-4023.3.11.2 Environmental Effects...............................................3-4063.3.11.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects....................................3-407

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE................................................................3-4073.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF

RESOURCES...........................................................................................3-4073.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY.....................................................................................3-407

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS......................................................................4-14.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT....................4-1

4.1.1 Economics of the No-Action Alternative........................................4-34.1.2 Economics of the Proposed Project.................................................4-44.1.3 Economics of the Staff Recommended Alternative.........................4-4

4.2 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES............................................4-44.2.1 Cost Impacts of Operational Changes.............................................4-44.2.2 Cost of Environmental Enhancement Measures..............................4-64.2.3 Cost of Agency Recommendations.................................................4-6

4.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.....................................................4-10

5.0 STAFF’S CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................5-15.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED

ALTERNATIVE...........................................................................................5-15.1.1 Proposed Measures Recommended by Staff...................................5-25.1.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff...............................5-155.1.3 Modifications Recommended by Staff..........................................5-175.1.4 Proposed Measures Not Recommended by Staff..........................5-27

5.2 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS...................5-35

viii

5.3 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.............................5-415.4 RELATIONSHIP OF LICENSCE PROCESS TO LAWS AND POLICIES5-44

5.4.1 Water Quality Certification...........................................................5-445.4.2 Coastal Zone Consistency Certification........................................5-445.4.3 Endangered Species Act................................................................5-445.4.4 Essential Fish Habitat....................................................................5-465.4.5 National Historic Preservation Act................................................5-46

6.0 LITERATURE CITED........................................................................................6-1

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.......................................................................................7-1

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS.......................................................................................8-1

APPENDIX A, PROPOSED LICENSE ARTICLES.................................................A-1

APPENDIX B, INTERIM PROTECTION PLAN..........................................................B-1

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Proposed license articles....................................................................................2-10Table 2-2. Forest Service preliminary section 4(e) conditions............................................2-19Table 3-1. Shoreline erosion categorization around Baker Lake and Lake Shannon..........3-14Table 3-2. Sediment budgets for Baker River with the influence of the Baker River Project.

............................................................................................................................3-16Table 3-3. Daily mean statistics (cfs) for Baker River at Concrete under regulated and

unregulated conditions (water years 1981 through 2002)..................................3-25Table 3-4. Maximum 3-day maximum flow statistics (cfs) for Baker River at Concrete under

regulated and unregulated conditions (water years 1981 through 2002)...........3-26Table 3-5. Minimum 7-day low-flow statistics (cfs) for Baker River at Concrete under

regulated and unregulated conditions (water years 1981 through 2002)...........3-27Table 3-6: Aquatics Table 1.................................................................................................3-34Table 3-7: Aquatics Table 2.................................................................................................3-35Table 3-8. Flood Control Storage at the Upper Baker Development in acre-feet...............3-52Table 3-9. Washington water quality criteria applicable for surface waters.......................3-56Table 3-10. Designated uses of water bodies affected by the project as revised in June 2003.

............................................................................................................................3-57Table 3-11. Washington water quality criteria as revised in June 2003................................3-57Table 3-12. Species composition of adult anadromous salmonids returning to the Baker River

Project, 1926–2003.............................................................................................3-82Table 3-13. Baker River anadromous salmonids periodicity chart.......................................3-84Table 3-14. Periodicity chart for anadromous salmonids known to spawn in the Middle Skagit

River...................................................................................................................3-87Table 3-15. Resident fish species confirmed present in the Baker River Project area..........3-91Table 3-16. Aquatic resource effects of early or late reservoir drawdown..........................3-107Table 3-17. Baker River Project area cover types (in acres)...............................................3-147Table 3-18. Baker River basin major cover types (in acres)...............................................3-148Table 3-19. Baker River Project area wetlands (in acres)...................................................3-155Table 3-20. Baker River basin wetland acreages.................................................................3-158Table 3-21. Special status plant species in the Baker River basin.......................................3-163Table 3-22. Washington State WDFW priority habitats in the Baker River basin..............3-170Table 3-23. Noxious weeds and invasive, non-native plant species in the Baker River Project

vicinity..............................................................................................................3-173Table 3-24. Special status wildlife species known or potentially occurring in the Baker River

basin..................................................................................................................3-185Table 3-25. Noxious weed sites and treatment methods available for National Forest System

lands under Proposed Article 508, Noxious Weed Management Plan.............3-210Table 3-26. Federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species known

or potentially occurring in the Baker River Project vicinity............................3-228Table 3-27. Baker Lake Project bald eagle nest territory productivity 1991–2004.............3-239Table 3-28. Analysis of environmental baseline, matrix of pathways and indicators.........3-252

x

Table 3-29. Analysis of project effects. Summary of effects of the Proposed Action on the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU and Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS found in the action area....................................................................................3-256

Table 3-30. Transect-weighted, reach-averaged, effective Chinook salmon spawning width in the Middle Skagit River under Current Operations, Interim Protection Plan, and the Proposed Action.........................................................................................3-262

Table 3-31. Summary of effects determinations for ESA-listed fish species, their designated critical habitat, and EFH that occurs in the Baker River Project action area.. .3-268

Table 3-32. Transect-weighted, reach-averaged, effective Pink and Chum Salmon and Steelhead spawning width in the Middle Skagit River under Current Operations, Post-Licensing Interim Protection Plan, and the Proposed Action..................3-283

Table 3-33. Effects determinations by type of disturbance (construction noise) and operating period for marbled murrelets, northern spotted owls and bald eagles..............3-288

Table 3-34. Summary of effects determinations for ESA listed plant and wildlife species, and their designated critical habitat.........................................................................3-308

Table 3-35. Eligible prehistoric and historic archaeological resources...............................3-312Table 3-36. Properties contributing or non-contributing to the historic districts................3-318Table 3-37. Summary of developed recreational facilities at or near the Baker River Project.....

..........................................................................................................................3-329Table 3-38. Summary of trails within the Baker River watershed......................................3-333Table 3-39. Estimated annual overnight use for the Baker River Project Area...................3-336Table 3-40. The minimum lake level elevations at and below which the six boat launches and

two swimming beaches at the Baker River Project are unusable.....................3-340Table 3-41. Description of key viewing areas within the Baker River Project area............3-369Table 3-42. Effects of project operations on key viewing areas at Baker Lake..................3-382Table 3-43. Visibility of project features.............................................................................3-386Table 3-44. Effects of project facilities on key viewing areas from which project features can

be seen..............................................................................................................3-388Table 3-45. Approximate land and water area within the Baker River Project boundary...3-394Table 3-46. Parcels proposed for removal from project boundary......................................3-401Table 3-47. Economic characteristics of Whatcom and Skagit Counties............................3-405Table 3-48. Population growth projections for Whatcom and Skagit Counties, Washington......

..........................................................................................................................3-406Table 4-1. Parameters for economic analysis of the Baker River Project.............................4-2Table 4-2. Summary of costs of environmental protection and mitigation measures as

proposed in the Settlement Agreement (2006 $)..................................................4-7Table 4-3. Summary of developmental costs, benefits, and annual net power benefits for the

Baker River Project Alternatives........................................................................4-10Table 5-1. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations.......................................................5-36Table 5-1. Comprehensive Plans relevant to the Baker River Project.................................5-42

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Baker River Project location................................................................................1-3Figure 3-1. Duration analysis of modeled water elevations for Baker Lake and Lake Shannon

based on HYDROPS results for five representative years.................................3-20Figure 3-2. Duration analysis of modeled daily water elevation fluctuations for Baker Lake

and Lake Shannon based on HYDROPS results for five representative years.. 3-21Figure 3-3. Example of the effect of current Baker River Project operations and natural

diurnal fluctuations on May 1998 streamflow at the Skagit River near Concrete gage....................................................................................................................3-29

Figure 3-4. Example of attenuation and lag time upstream of the Skagit River near Concrete gage associated with a typical load-following event at Seattle City Light’s Skagit River Project on April 7–8, 1998.......................................................................3-30

Figure 3-5. Modeled hourly 90 percent exceedance flows for Current Operations and Proposed Operations, based on HYDROPS results for five representative years.................................................................................................................................3-37

Figure 3-6. Modeled average hourly flows for Current Operations and Proposed Operations, based on HYDROPS results for five representative years.................................3-38

Figure 3-7. Modeled ten percent exceedance flows for Current Operations and Proposed Operations, based on HYDROPS results for five representative years.............3-40

Figure 3-8. Annual percent exceedance of modeled daily flow fluctuations for Current Operations and Proposed Operations, based on HYDROPS results for five representative years............................................................................................3-42

Figure 3-9. Target maximum and minimum Baker Lake water levels for Current Operations and Proposed Operations....................................................................................3-46

Figure 3-10. Target maximum and minimum Lake Shannon water levels for Current Operations and Proposed Operations.................................................................3-47

Figure 3-11. Modeled Baker Lake water elevations for Current Operations and Proposed Operations based on HYDROPS results for five representative years..............3-49

Figure 3-12. Modeled Lake Shannon water elevations for Current Operations and Proposed Operations based on HYDROPS results for five representative years..............3-50

Figure 3-13. Typical patterns between TDG at the Baker adult fish trap and flow in the Lower Baker River, January 10 to 15, 2003..................................................................3-64

Figure 3-14. Spawning habitat WUA in the Middle Skagit River for Chinook, pink, and chum salmon and steelhead trout.................................................................................3-81

Figure 3-15. Rearing habitat WUA in the Middle Skagit River for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout.....................................................................................................3-81

Figure 3-16. Five-year weighted average monthly number of transect-weighted, reach-averaged, downramping events in Middle Skagit River and exceedance of WDFW criteria...............................................................................................................3-115

Figure 3-17. Transect- and year-weighted average varial zone width (feet) in the Middle Skagit River.................................................................................................................3-119

Figure 3-18. Backwater slough surface area in the Middle Skagit River during low- and high-flow months for 12 consecutive energy years (1991–2002)............................3-122

xii

Figure 3-19. Side channel surface area in the Middle Skagit River during low- and high-flow months for 12 consecutive energy years (1991–2002).....................................3-123

Figure 3-20. Comparison of the percent time during each month, based on five representative water years, that four of the six boat launches are usable, using the elevations presented in table 3-40.....................................................................................3-342

Figure 3-21. Comparison of the percent time that the narrow passage at Baker Lake is navigable under Current Conditions and Proposed Operations based on five representative years and a reservoir elevation of 693.77 feet msl............3-345

xiii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C degrees CelsiusCorps U.S. Army Corps of Engineersac-ft acre-feetAESI Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.ALP alternative licensing processaMW average megawattAPE area of potential effectARG Aquatics Resource GroupASC Aquatic Conservation StrategyARWG Aquatic Resources Working GroupBaker River Project Baker River Hydroelectric ProjectBLM Bureau of Land ManagementBMU Bear Management UnitBRC Baker River CommitteeBRCC Baker River Coordinating Committeecfs cubic feet per secondCommission Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionCommission staff Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staffCRAG Cultural Resources Advisory GroupCREF Cultural Resources Enhancement FundCWA Clean Water ActCZMA Coastal Zone Management Actdbh diameter at breast heightDCA Designated Conservation AreaDFPIP downstream fish passage implementation planDO dissolved oxygenDPS distinct population segmentEA environmental assessmentEcology Washington Department of EcologyEFH essential fish habitatEIS environmental impact statementESA Endangered Species ActESU evolutionarily significant unitFERC Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionFIP flow implementation planFPA Federal Power ActFPFP fish propagation facilities planFPTWG Fish Passage Technical Working GroupFSC floating surface collectorFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

xiv

GIS geographic information systemGMU Game Management UnitHCP Habitat Conservation PlanHERC Fund Habitat Enhancement, Restoration, and Conservation FundHPMP Historic Properties Management PlanHSRG Hatchery Scientific Review GroupIHN infectious hematopoietic necrosisIPP Interim Protection PlankV kilovoltkVA kilovolt ampereKVA key viewing areaLEP Law Enforcement PlanLRMP Land and Resource Management PlanLSR late successional reserveLWD large woody debrismg/l milligram(s) per literMIS management indicator speciesml milliliter(s)MOA Memorandum of AgreementMSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Actmsl mean sea levelMTBE methyl-tert-butyl etherMW megawatt(s)MWh megawatt-hourNational Register National Register of Historic PlacesNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNGO non-governmental organizationNHPA National Historic Preservation ActNMFS National Marine Fisheries ServiceNTU nephelometric turbidity unitNWPCC Northwest Power and Conservation CouncilO&M operation and maintenanceOAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic PreservationPark Service National Park ServicePDEA preliminary draft environmental assessmentPFC properly functioning conditionPFMC Pacific Fishery Management CouncilPNUCC Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference CommitteePower Plan Northwest Conservation and Electric Power PlanProgram Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife ProgramProject Baker River Hydroelectric Project

xv

Puget Puget Sound Energy, Inc.RAM Fund Recreation Adaptive Management FundRM river mileRRG Recreation Resources GroupRV recreational vehicleSCORP State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation PlanSHPO State Historic Preservation OfficerSkagit River Project Skagit River Hydroelectric ProjectSMMP Shoreline Management Master ProgramSMS Scenery Management SystemSSC Skagit System CooperativeTDG total dissolved gasTERF Terrestrial Enhancement and Research FundTRIG Terrestrial Resources Implementation GroupTRWG Terrestrial Resources Working Groupμg/l microgram(s) per literForest Service U.S. Forest ServiceUSGS U.S. Geological SurveyVMS Visual Management SystemVQO Visual Quality ObjectiveWAC Washington Administrative CodeWAU watershed administrative unitWDFW Washington Department of Fish and WildlifeWDNR Washington Department of Natural ResourcesWHNP Washington Natural Heritage ProgramWRIA Water Resources Inventory AreaWWTIT Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes

xvi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On April 30, 2004, Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Puget) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) for a new license to continue operation of the existing Baker River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2150-033). The existing 170.03-megawatt project (proposed installed capacity is 200.03 megawatts) is located on the Baker River in Whatcom and Skagit Counties, Washington. The project occupies 5,207 acres of lands within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest managed by the U.S. Forest Service.

Puget used the Commission’s alternative licensing procedures and filed an applicant prepared Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) with the application for a new license. The PDEA evaluated the effects of continued project operation as proposed in Puget’s new license application.

On November 30, 2004, Puget filed a Settlement Agreement signed by Puget, 11 governmental agencies, three tribes, eight non-governmental organizations, and one citizen representative (the Settlement Parties). Puget then filed an amended license application and revised PDEA on January 31, 2005, which reflects the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement contains 50 proposed license articles that Puget and the Settlement Parties recommend the Commission incorporate into the new license. The proposed articles describe how Puget would operate the project and Puget’s responsibilities for certain protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures including measures related to: geology and soils, water quantity and quality, aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, recreation, aesthetics, and land uses.

This draft environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzes the effects of the No-Action Alternative, Proposed Action (Settlement Agreement), and a Staff Alternative. Commission staff (lead agency) prepared this draft EIS in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (cooperating agency) pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6 of the National Environmental Policy Act.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Baker River Project would continue to operate under the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. Commission staff use this alternative as the baseline against which we evaluate other alternatives.

xvii

With the average annual generation of 723,320 megawatt-hours (MWh), the existing project costs $8,985,900 annually to operate, has power benefits of about $39,366,300 and has net annual benefits of about $30,380,400.

PROPOSED ACTION

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would implement the protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures contained in the Settlement Agreement. These measures address: (1) fish propagation; (2) upstream and downstream fish passage; (3) reservoir operations and flow releases; (4) gravel and woody debris; (5) shoreline erosion control; (6) historic properties; (7) recreation facilities; (8) water quality; (9) terrestrial resources including wildlife and threatened and endangered species; (10) committees to implement the Settlement Agreement; (11) funds for terrestrial, recreation, aquatic and cultural resources; and (12) adaptive management.

Under the Proposed Action, the project would cost $20,734,900 annually to operate ($11,749,000 more than under the No-Action Alternative), have annual power benefits of $37,440,400 ($1,925,900 less than under the No-Action Alternative) and have a net annual benefit of $16,705,500 ($13,674,900 less than under the No-Action Alternative). The project’s average annual generation would be 722,019 MWh (1,301 MWh less than under the No-Action Alternative).

STAFF ALTERNATIVE

After evaluating the Proposed Action, and recommendations from resource agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other interested parties, we considered what, if any, additional protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be necessary or appropriate with continued operation of the project. The Staff Alternative consists of the Proposed Action with these additional or modified environmental measures, which include agency recommendations made pursuant to sections 18, 4(e), and 10(j), or modifications thereof, as noted. Additional staff recommended measures include: (1) an evaluation to determine the need for flow continuation valve(s) at the Lower Baker dam and installation of such facilities if warranted, and (2) access, records and notification procedures to help resource agencies and tribes remain informed about the construction and operation of fish protection measures at the project.

Under the Staff Alternative, the project would cost $19,845,700 annually to operate ($10,859,800 more than under the No-Action Alternative), have annual power benefits of $37,440,400 ($1,925,900 less than under the No-Action Alternative), and have a net annual benefit of $17,594,700 ($12,785,700 less than under the No-Action

xviii

Alternative). The project’s average annual generation would be 722,019 MWh (1,301 MWh less than under the No-Action Alternative and equivalent to the Proposed Action).

Section 10(j) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requires the Commission to include license conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies. We have addressed the concerns of federal and state fish and wildlife agencies and have made recommendations, one of which is inconsistent with those of the agencies. We make a preliminary determination that one recommendation made by FWS and WDFW is inconsistent with the FPA. The staff alternative does not include this measure, which would require Puget to develop a plan to acquire, protect, and enhance low-elevation bottomland ecosystems in the Skagit River basin focusing on habitat for anadromous salmonids, other aquatic species, and riparian-dependent birds and amphibians. We discuss this measure in the relevant resource section of this draft EIS and summarize the basis for our determination in section 5.2, Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations.

The staff alternative also does not include the following proposed measures: (1) a recreation management report, (2) a Baker Lake resort redevelopment plan, (3) a Baker reservoir water safety plan, (4) Bayview campground rehabilitation, (5) Upper Baker trail and trailhead construction funding, (6) developed recreation monitoring and funding, (7) Upper Baker developed recreation maintenance funding, (7) law enforcement, (8) terrestrial resources management plan, (9) funding for mountain goat enhancement, (10) funding for a road closure program to protect grizzly bears, (11) various contingency funds, and (12) certain adaptive management provisions.

CONCLUSION

We choose the Staff Alternative as the preferred alternative because: (1) the project would provide a significant (722,019 MWh) and dependable source of electrical energy for the region, (2) the project would avoid the need for an equivalent amount of fossil-fueled electric generation and capacity, thereby continuing to help conserve these nonrenewable energy resources and reduce atmospheric pollution, and (3) measures recommended by staff would adequately protect and enhance environmental resources and mitigate the impacts of the project.

The overall benefits of this alternative would be worth the cost of the proposed environmental measures and would outweigh the consequences of the other alternatives or license denial.

xix

1.0 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER

On April 30, 2004, Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Puget) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) for a new license for the existing Baker River Hydroelectric Project (“Baker River Project” or “project”). On January 31, 2005, Puget filed an amended application reflecting the terms of the “Baker River Hydroelectric Project Comprehensive Settlement Agreement” (Settlement Agreement) filed with the Commission on November 30, 2004.6

The project, consisting of two developments, has a total installed capacity of 170.03 megawatts (MW) and generates an average of about 708,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy annually (1981-2002). Puget proposes to construct an auxiliary powerhouse at the Lower Baker Development and install two new turbine-generator units which would add 30 MW of installed capacity to the project. Puget proposes other construction-related activities, as contained in the Settlement Agreement, and described in this draft EIS.

The project is located in Whatcom and Skagit Counties, Washington, immediately north and partly within the boundary of the Town of Concrete (figure 1-1). About 5,207 acres of the 8,526.8 acres of total project lands (including submerged lands) are located within the boundary of the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest. The project currently operates under a license issued by the Commission on May 1, 1956, which expires on April 30, 2006.

1.1 PURPOSE OF ACTION

The Commission must decide whether to relicense the project and what conditions should be placed on any license issued. In deciding whether to authorize the continued operation of the project and related facilities in compliance with the Federal Power Act (FPA) and other applicable laws, the Commission must determine that the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway. In addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are issued, the Commission must give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation; the protection of, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat); the protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.

In this draft EIS, we assess the environmental and economic effects of: (1) continuing to operate the project as it is currently operated (No-Action Alternative); (2) operating the project in accordance with the Settlement Agreement (Proposed Action);

6 Puget filed an erratum to the Settlement Agreement on May 10 and July 5, 2005.

1-1

and (3) operating the project with modifications recommended by staff (Staff Alternative). We also consider federal takeover, nonpower license, and project retirement options. Briefly, the principal issues addressed in this draft EIS include: (1) fish propagation, (2) upstream and downstream fish passage; (3) reservoir operations and flow releases; (4) gravel and woody debris, (5) shoreline erosion control, (6) historic properties, (7) recreation facilities, (8) water quality, (9) terrestrial resources including wildlife and threatened and endangered species, (10) committees to implement the Settlement Agreement, (11) funds for terrestrial, recreation, aquatic and cultural resources, and (12) adaptive management.

1-2

Figure 1-1. Baker River Project location

1-3

1.2 NEED FOR POWER

Puget is an investor-owned utility that provides electric service to approximately 958,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers in the State of Washington. Puget’s customers are located in a service territory covering approximately 6,300 square miles extending from Olympia to Bellingham and including the greater Everett/Seattle/Bellevue/Tacoma area.

As of year-end 2002, Puget’s peak electric power resources were approximately 4,577 MW, and Puget’s historical peak load (occurring December 21, 1998) was 4,847 MW (Puget, 2003a).

Puget meets the majority of its customers’ peak power needs (about 61 percent in 2002) through power purchases from multiple generating sources including various mid-Columbia public utility districts and non-utility generators. Puget-controlled generating plants provide the remaining 39 percent of the peak demand of its customers (Puget, 2003a). Hydroelectric resources account for about 17 percent of Puget’s company-controlled capacity, and the Baker River Project represents over half (about 57 percent) of Puget’s company-controlled hydroelectric resource base.

Puget expects its electric sales to grow (base case forecast) at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent, from 2,181 average megawatts (aMW) in 2002 to 2,891 aMW in 2022. This forecast is driven primarily by the absorption of new customers, and it incorporates anticipated conservation savings. Without conservation savings, the forecasted base case average annual growth rate would be 1.7 percent. Compared to the historical growth rate of 2.1 percent per year, the forecast is lower as a result of a ramp-up in conservation program savings, slower growth in population and employment in the near term, and an increasing share of multi-family residential units, which have lower use per customer. Puget forecasts increased peak loads over time as the number of customers increases. The forecasted annual rate of growth in the peak loads (about 1.6 percent) is slightly higher than the growth rate in energy needs (about 1.4 percent) since residential energy load is growing faster than non-residential, and the residential sector makes a larger contribution to peak demands. Puget forecasts peak load to grow from 4,670 MW in 2002 to 6,384 MW in 2022 (Puget, 2003b).

The loss of existing resources, including the expiration of power supply and non-utility generation contracts, significantly affects Puget’s load-resource outlook. Puget will lose 314 aMW of energy and 755 MW of capacity by 2010 due to the expiration of current power supply contracts, and will lose another 600 aMW of energy through the expiration of hydropower and non-utility generator contracts by 2012.

1-4

Based on forecasted load growth and on scheduled expiration of existing power purchase contracts, Puget has a shortage of 385 aMW of energy in 2004, growing to 1,551 aMW by 2013 and 2,229 aMW by 2023. With regard to peaking capacity, Puget identifies a need for additional capacity of 1,403 MW in 2004, rising to 3,385 MW in 2013 and 4,590 MW by 2023 (Puget, 2003b).

For the Pacific Northwest region as a whole, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC)7 estimates a loss of load probability ranging from less than 1 percent to about 6 percent in the years 2004–2006, depending primarily on the amount of power available for import from other regions (NWPPC, 2003). According to the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC), the combined energy forecast of the Northwest Regional Planning Area utilities has been adjusted downward from 2000 through 2003, primarily because of the region’s economic downturn (PNUCC, 2003). Meanwhile, during the same period, there has been substantial new resource development in the region (2,650 MW of generating capacity). The majority of this new generation is in the form of combined-cycle combustion turbines and wind projects. Although construction of three projects totaling 1,200 MW has been suspended and other projects in the planning process have been slowed, delayed, or abandoned, there is still substantial regional capacity (approximately 17,300 MW) in various stages of planning. The reduction in demand and the development of additional generation has translated into an improved regional surplus/deficit situation. Although the decade of the 1990s saw a growing energy deficit, the PNUCC reports a trend from 2000 to 2003 back toward a regional supply/demand balance (PNUCC, 2003).

The Baker River Project, with an installed capacity of 170.03 MW, generated an annual average of 708,000 MWh, or about 81 aMW, over a 22-year period from 1981 through 2002. This is equivalent to supplying energy to about 57,249 homes per year. Overall, the project accounts for about 3.7 percent of Puget’s peak power resources and about 2.6 percent of Puget’s average annual generation. If relicensed, the project would continue to contribute toward meeting Puget’s power requirements and to regional power supply sufficiency.

1.3 INTERVENTIONS

On July 1, 2004, the Commission issued a notice that Puget had filed an application for a new license for the Baker River Project. This notice set September 30, 2004, as the deadline for filing protests and motions to intervene. In response to the notice, the following entities filed motions to intervene:

7 Prior to July 2003, the NWPCC was known as the Northwest Power and Planning Council.

1-5

Intervenors Date Filed

Washington Department of Ecology July 19, 2004

U.S. Department of the Interior September 14, 2004

Washington Department of Natural Resources September 24, 2004

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife September 24, 2004

U.S. Forest Service September 24, 2004

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe September 27, 2004

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe September 28, 2004

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community September 28, 2004

The Nature Conservancy September 28, 2004

National Marine Fisheries Service September 29, 2004

Skagit County September 30, 2004

Seattle City Light September 30, 2004

1.4 SCOPING PROCESS

Commission staff conducted early scoping, as requested by Puget in its letter filed March 12, 2002. A scoping document (SD1) was distributed to interested agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and others on April 19, 2002. Scoping meetings were held on May 21 and May 22, 2002, in Concrete and Mt. Vernon, Washington, respectively. A notice for these meetings was published in the Federal Register and in local newspapers. A court reporter recorded all comments and statements made at the scoping meetings. All comments and statements have been made a part of the Commission’s public record for this project. In addition to oral comments provided at the scoping meetings, the following entities provided written comments:

Commenting Entities Date Filed

Washington Department of Ecology May 22, 2002

National Park Service July 8, 2002

Washington State Department of Natural Resources July 22, 2002

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife July 22, 2002

Skagit County July 23, 2002

Skagit System Cooperative July 23, 2002

1-6

Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland July 24, 2002

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 17, 2002

Commission staff issued a second scoping document (SD2) addressing the above comments on May 8, 2003.

1.5 AGENCY CONSULTATION

On January 19, 2005, the Commission issued a notice accepting Puget’s license application and requesting final recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions for the project. This notice set March 21, 2005, as the deadline for these filings. In response to the notice, the following entities filed recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions:

Commenting Entities Date Filed

National Marine Fisheries Service March 16, 2005

U.S. Forest Service March 21, 2005

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community March 21, 2005

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe March 21, 2005

U.S. Department of Interior March 21, 2005

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife March 21, 2005

1.6 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On November 30, 2004, Puget filed a comprehensive Settlement Agreement for relicensing the project which includes various protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures in the form of 50 proposed license articles. The Settlement Agreement was intended to resolve all issues associated with issuing a new license. The parties to the Settlement Agreement are: Puget; U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); National Park Service (Park Service); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); Upper Skagit Indian Tribe; Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology); Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW); Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR); Skagit County; City of Anacortes; Town of Concrete; Public Utility District No. 1 of Skagit County; Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation; The Nature Conservancy; North Cascades Conservation Council; North Cascades Institute; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group; Washington Council of Trout Unlimited; Wildcat Steelhead Club; and Bob Helton. Appendix A to

1-7

this draft EIS contains a copy of the 50 proposed articles included in the Settlement Agreement.

On December 3, 2004, the Commission issued a notice that Puget had filed a Settlement Agreement for relicensing the project. This notice set December 23, 2004, as the deadline for filing comments and January 3, 2005, as the deadline for filing reply comments. In response to the notice, the following entities filed comments and reply comments:

Comments on the Settlement Agreement Date Filed

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers December 21, 2004

Puget Sound Energy December 22, 2004

U.S. Forest Service December 22, 2004

National Marine Fisheries Service December 22, 2004

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe December 22, 2004

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community December 22, 2004

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife December 22, 2004

Skagit County December 23, 2004

The Nature Conservancy December 23, 2004

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe December 27, 2004

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service January 4, 2005

Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group January 7, 2005

Reply Comments on the Settlement Agreement Date Filed

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers January 3, 2005

Puget Sound Energy January 3, 2005

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe January 3, 2005

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community January 3, 2005

Skagit County January 3, 2005

The Nature Conservancy January 3, 2005

1-8

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

In this section, we describe the alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS. Section 2.1 describes the No-Action Alternative which is continued project operation under the terms and conditions of the existing license. We use this alternative to establish baseline environmental conditions for comparison with other alternatives. Section 2.2 describes the Proposed Action which is operation of the project in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Section 2.3 describes modifications to the Proposed Action which includes the Staff Alternative. Section 2.4 discusses other alternatives that were considered, but were eliminated from detailed evaluation.

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No-Action Alternative, the project would continue to operate under the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental measures would be implemented. We use this alternative to establish baseline conditions for comparison with other alternatives.

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities

The Baker River Project consists of two developments, Upper Baker and Lower Baker. The two developments adjoin one another over a distance of about 18 miles on the Baker River. The project has an installed capacity of 170.03 MW.8

2.1.1.1 Upper Baker DevelopmentThe Upper Baker Development, which begins at river mile (RM) 9.35, was

constructed between June 1956 and October 1959. The development consists of the following facilities:

a 312-foot-high, 1,200-foot-long concrete gravity dam incorporating an ogee-type spillway containing three radial gates that are each 25 feet wide and 30 feet high, a concrete gravity gated intake section with an intake fish baffle, three gravity-type concrete non-overflow sections totaling approximately 1,000 feet in length, and a 12-foot-wide roadway running along the top of the dam at elevation 735.77 feet mean sea level (msl) (North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD 88]); 9

8 In the remainder of this draft EIS, we round 170.03 MW to 170 MW.

9 In the late spring of 2003, participants in the alternative licensing process (ALP) decided to reconcile datum discrepancies by converting elevations based on 1929 datum (NGVD 29) to GIS-based datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). The text notes any

2-1

a 115-foot-high, 1,200-foot-long earth and rock-fill dike (West Pass dike) with an adjacent auxiliary earth-fill dike;

a 9-mile-long reservoir (Baker Lake) having a surface area of 4,980 acres and a total volume of 274,221 acre-feet at normal full pool elevation of 727.77 feet msl;

a 0.7-mile-long pond (Depression Lake) adjacent to West Pass dike having a surface area of about 44 acres and a total volume of about 234 acre-feet at a full pool elevation of 698.77 feet msl, formed by a 3,000-foot-long, 22-foot-high earth-fill dike with a 44-foot-wide overflow spillway;

a water recovery pumping station located at the southwest corner of Depression Lake containing two 54,000-gallon-per-minute vertical propeller recovery pumps and a discharge channel into Baker Lake;

two 13.5-foot-diameter, 320-foot-long steel penstocks;

a 122-foot-long, 59-foot-wide reinforced concrete and structural steel powerhouse at the downstream toe of the dam containing two turbine-driven generators with a combined authorized installed capacity of 90.7 MW;

a step-up transformer bank containing three single-phase, 35,000-kilovolt ampere (kVA) transformers;

downstream fish passage facilities (i.e., barrier net, floating surface collector [FSC], fish trap/sampling area, and fish transport system);

artificial sockeye spawning beaches;

juvenile fish rearing facility; and

appurtenant facilities.

2.1.1.2 Lower Baker DevelopmentThe Lower Baker Development, which begins at RM 0.6, was constructed

between April 1924 and November 1925. The dam was raised 33 feet to its current elevation in 1927. In 1965, a landslide destroyed the 3-unit powerhouse. Turbine-generator Units 1 and 2 were abandoned, and a new powerhouse structure was built for Unit 3, which was refurbished and reinstalled. Unit 3 returned to service in September 1968. The development consists of the following facilities:

a 285-foot-high, 550-foot-long concrete thick arch dam at RM 1.2 with two non-overflow sections and a centrally located spillway section

elevations that are still based on NGVD 29. If not otherwise noted, all elevations are based on the NAVD 88 datum.

2-2

containing 23 vertical slide spill gates that are each 14 feet high and 9.5 feet wide;

a 7-mile-long reservoir (Lake Shannon) having a surface area of 2,278 acres and a total volume of 146,279 acre-feet at normal full pool elevation of 442.35 feet msl;

a concrete intake equipped with trash racks and gatehouse located at the dam’s left abutment;

a 1,410-foot-long pressure tunnel, having a 905-foot-long, 22-foot-diameter concrete-lined section transitioning to a 505-foot-long, 16-foot-diameter steel-lined section;

a 20-foot-diameter, 259-foot-high concrete surge chamber;

a 90-foot-long, 66-foot-wide reinforced concrete and structural steel powerhouse located on the east bank of the Baker River at RM 0.9 containing a single turbine-generator with an authorized capacity of 79.3 MW;

a single, three-phase, step-up transformer with a maximum continuous power production capability of 77.0 MW;

a 750-foot-long, 115-kilovolt (kV) primary transmission line from the transformer to the Baker River substation;

an upstream trap-and-haul fish passage facility (i.e., 150-foot-long barrier dam at RM 0.6, fish trap, holding ponds and fish lift) and downstream passage facilities (i.e., barrier net, FSC, fish trap/sampling area, and fish transport system);

Lake Shannon net pens; and

appurtenant facilities.

2.1.2 Current Project Operations

The Baker River Project is operated as a multi-purpose facility. The project is managed for hydropower generation, federal flood storage, recreation, and fisheries. Water levels in both reservoirs (Baker Lake and Lake Shannon) fluctuate seasonally in response to operational objectives including operations for flood storage, generation, recreation and variations in natural inflows to the reservoirs. The current project license includes requirements for flood storage at Baker Lake and an 80 cubic feet per second (cfs) minimum flow for operation of the existing fish passage facilities. These are the only operational requirements contained in the current license.

2-3

2.1.2.1 Power Generation OperationsPuget generally operates the Baker River Project in coordination with its other

power supply resources to meet the power needs of its customers, within the constraints of flood control restrictions at the Upper Baker Development. On a weekly basis, the demand for electricity is generally higher Monday through Friday than on weekends. On a daily basis, the demand for power peaks during the morning (6 a.m. to 10 a.m.) and early evening (5 p.m. to 9 p.m.). Typically, the project generates power on weekdays between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. Depending on lake levels, inflows, weather forecasts, and system demand, the project may not generate evenings or weekends. During periods of high inflow, however, the project may generate continuously for several days or weeks.

Electricity demand in the Northwest is relatively high from October through March. During this period, Puget typically drafts the project’s reservoirs during the daily and weekly peaks to provide power for meeting the higher demand. This drawdown also makes room in the reservoirs for flood control and to capture spring runoff from snowmelt. Due to snowmelt and lower regional electricity demand during the warmer months, the reservoirs are typically refilled to near full pool during the April-to-June period. With lower regional electricity demand in the summer and higher recreation demand, the reservoirs traditionally remain near full during the summer.

The two developments generally follow similar operational patterns, but Puget must generate power at the Lower Baker Development about 20 percent longer than at Upper Baker to avoid spill. This is a result of higher project inflows at Lower Baker coupled with a smaller reservoir and lower hydraulic capacity through the powerhouse. Consequently, Upper Baker has a historical plant capacity factor of approximately 38 percent, while that for Lower Baker is about 59 percent.

2.1.2.2 Flood Storage OperationArticle 32 of the current license requires Puget to provide up to 100,000 acre-feet

of storage at the Upper Baker Development for flood control purposes if requested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Of this storage, Puget must provide 16,000 acre-feet from November 1 to March 1 and up to an additional 84,000 acre-feet from about September 1 to April 15 each year.10

Of the 100,000 acre-feet of storage available under Article 32, the Corps requires Puget to provide a total of 74,000 acre-feet with 16,000 acre-feet provided from November 1 to March 1 and an additional 58,000 acre-feet provided from November 15 to March 1 each year. The amount of this storage and its timing was recommended by

10 Under Article 32, the Corps must compensate Puget for any storage it requires greater than 16,000 acre-feet.

2-4

the Corps and approved by Congress in 1977. Specific flood control operations at the project are governed by an agreement between the Corps and Puget.

During a flood, the Corps operates the Upper Baker Development in coordination with its operation of Seattle City Light’s Ross Dam on the Skagit River to reduce flood peaks in the lower Skagit River valley.11 Collectively, Baker and Ross Lake reservoirs control runoff from about 39 percent of the Skagit River basin upstream of Mt. Vernon. Baker Lake, alone, controls about seven percent of this basin.

Under Article 32, Puget is not required to provide any storage at the Lower Baker Development. During a flood, Puget retains control of operations at the Lower Baker Development, but avoids operating in any way that would adversely affect the Corps flood control procedures.

2.1.2.3 Recreation OperationsWhen consistent with operational objectives, Puget seeks to maintain reservoir

levels favorable for recreational activities during the recreation season. At Baker Lake, Puget maintains, when possible, reservoir elevations at or above 704.95 feet msl from June 1 through July 3 and at or above 718.77 feet msl from July 4 through the Labor Day weekend. At Lake Shannon, Puget maintains, when possible, reservoir elevations at or above 404.75 feet msl from April 15 through the Labor Day weekend.

2.1.2.4 Fishery Management OperationsPuget provides a continuous minimum flow of 80 cfs at the Lower Baker

Development for the operation of the adult fish trap-and-haul facility located 0.3 mile downstream of the powerhouse. When the Lower Baker turbine-generator unit is shut down, Puget supplements approximately 55 cfs of dam leakage with a 25-cfs release through a 24-inch-diameter fish water release pipe that discharges into the Lower Baker tailrace.

Puget, when consistent with operational objectives and in a voluntary effort to reduce the potential for fish stranding, seeks to limit the average downramp rate in the Baker River downstream of the Lower Baker powerhouse to approximately 2,000 cfs per hour whenever the Skagit River flow falls below 18,000 cfs, as measured at the Skagit River near Concrete gage. This USGS gage (No. 12194000) is located on the Skagit River at RM 54.1 which is about 2.4 miles downstream of the confluence with the Baker River (RM 56.5).

11 A flood is defined as an 8-hour forecast of an unregulated flow of 90,000 cfs at the Skagit River near Concrete gage.

2-5

2.1.2.5 Project SafetyThe project has been operating for over 49 years under the existing license and

during this time, Commission staff has conducted operational inspections focusing on the continued safety of the structures, identification of unauthorized modifications, efficiency and safety of operations, compliance with the terms of the license, and proper maintenance. In addition, the project has been inspected and evaluated every five years by an independent consultant and a consultant’s safety report has been submitted for Commission review. As part of the relicensing process, the Commission staff would evaluate the continued adequacy of the proposed project facilities under a new license. Special articles would be included in any license issued, as appropriate. Commission staff would continue to inspect the project during the new license term to assure continued adherence to Commission-approved plans and specifications, special license articles relating to construction (if any), operation and maintenance, and accepted engineering practices and procedures.

2.1.3 Current Environmental Measures

Currently, the Baker River Project provides facilities and programs related to fisheries, wildlife, and recreation. Refer to sections 3.3.4, Aquatic Resources, 3.3.5, Terrestrial Resources, and 3.3.8, Recreational Resources, respectively, for discussion of these facilities and programs.

2.2 PROPOSED ACTION

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would operate the project in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement specifies the construction of a new auxiliary powerhouse at the Lower Baker Development, a modified reservoir and flow release regime, and various other environmental protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures as summarized below.

2.2.1 Project Facilities

To meet proposed ramping rates and to generate additional power with proposed minimum flows (see section 2.2.2, Project Operation), the Proposed Action includes partial rehabilitation of the original power generating facilities at the Lower Baker Development that were destroyed by the 1965 landslide. A new auxiliary powerhouse with two new 750-cfs turbine-generators would be installed on existing penstocks within the concrete foundation of the original 1925 powerhouse located adjacent to and immediately north (upstream) of the existing Lower Baker powerhouse. The powerhouse would be a 170-foot-long by 100-foot-wide reinforced concrete building.

2-6

To protect the new powerhouse against any potential landslide, a substantial concrete superstructure would be built to withstand the backfill and surcharge load resulting from a typical landslide. It would house the two new turbine-generators, two new 17,000-kVA transformers, and associated mechanical and electrical support equipment. The new auxiliary powerhouse would be connected to the existing Unit 3 powerhouse at its north end, and would include a connecting stairway. The new auxiliary powerhouse superstructure would extend the existing powerhouse profile and include a sloping roof ranging from 30 to 70 feet in height, and would have two steel roof hatches for access to the turbine-generators and the transformers. The roof and roof hatches would be capable of withstanding the external loads resulting from any landslide overburden. Crane rails for the existing overhead gantry crane at Unit 3 would be extended some 170 feet north for installation and maintenance of the new equipment. Additional access for construction, operation, and maintenance of the new facilities would be provided by a new access platform to be built adjacent to the west side of the auxiliary powerhouse foundation.

Two new 750-cfs, horizontal-shaft Francis turbine-generators would be connected to existing abandoned 7-foot diameter penstocks. The new turbines would have a stainless-steel runner diameter of 5.58 feet, rotate at 360 rpm, and produce 15 MW. A horizontal synchronous generator would be direct-connected to each turbine and provide an output voltage of 13.8 kV to the low voltage side of a step-up transformer. Each new turbine configuration would include a new 84-inch butterfly valve that would serve as a turbine guard valve. The new units would be configured to operate in synchronization with the existing Unit 3, enabling a continuous discharge at all times when the penstocks are watered up.

In conjunction with the proposed fish propagation and enhancement program (Proposed Article 101), Puget would make physical improvements to Spawning Beach 4 located at the Sulphur Creek facility just downstream of Upper Baker dam along Sulphur Creek. Puget would eventually decommission Spawning Beaches 1, 2, and 3, located at the upper end of Baker Lake, and would construct a sockeye salmon hatchery. The improvements to Spawning Beach 4 would include isolating the water supply to each of the existing beach segments, installing concrete walls between segments, improving alarm systems, and protecting the water supply intake area. Decommissioning Spawning Beaches 1, 2, and 3 would involve removing the existing water intake structures in Channel Creek, configuring the ponds into a naturally meandering channel, removing existing structures, and restoring landscaping. The new salmon hatchery would be an expansion of the current rearing facility and would be located adjacent to Spawning Beach 4, in the already cleared and fenced area on the right bank of the Baker River near the Sulphur Creek confluence. Hatchery facilities would include adult holding facilities, artificial incubation facilities, a small concrete hatchery building, and starter ponds.

2-7

The upstream fish passage implementation plan (Proposed Article 103) would likely entail a combination of new facilities and renovations to existing facilities at the Lower Baker trap-and-haul facility. New or modified features could include, based on consultation with the resource agencies and tribes: a water supply pipe, pump station and fish screens, anesthetic tank, transport flume, sorting gate, pre-sorting raceways, water supply diffuser, crowding channel, loading hopper, brail pond, fish lock, and a new access road. Other than the access road, the new facilities could be immediately adjacent to the existing trap-and-haul facilities in already disturbed areas. An access road, approximately 240 feet long, could extend south from the loading hopper parallel to the river’s edge and connect to existing asphalt below the administration building. In-water work during construction would involve installation of a temporary cofferdam upstream of the barrier dam on the left bank to facilitate installation of the new intake screens and intake pipe.

Under Proposed Article 104, Puget would initiate studies to determine whether segregated fish populations in Lake Shannon would use upstream passage facilities. If shown to be effective, these facilities would likely be located either in the Baker River or in Sulfur Creek and would consist of a channel approximately 20 feet wide with a concrete sill for a picket weir and a fish trap.

The downstream fish passage implementation plan (DFPIP; Proposed Article 105) calls for 500-cfs capacity FSCs (with possible subsequent expansion to 1,000-cfs capacity) at both Upper Baker and Lower Baker Developments. Both new facilities and the renovation of some existing works are anticipated. The surface collectors could include a guide net, an FSC, a transition structure between the guide net and FSC including a transportation conduit and a floating fish trap, transfer facilities, and stress-relief ponds. The stress-relief ponds would be sited at the Lower Baker compound area south of the administration building. Each FSC would require development of a fabrication and launch site, along the reservoir shoreline, from which the FSC would be floated into place. At Lower Baker, the site would likely be adjacent to the existing Lower Baker boat launch. At Upper Baker, a site is available that is approximately 6,000 feet up-reservoir from the Upper Baker dam.

2.2.2 Project Operation

Under Proposed Article 106, Puget would operate the project in accordance with an Interim Protection Plan (IPP) for the first six years. Under the IPP, Puget would moderate flows in the Skagit River by limiting flow reductions attributable to the project and by capturing high flows or augmenting low flows in order to improve spawning conditions for Chinook salmon (see appendix B for a complete description of the IPP).

2-8

Puget would also use best efforts to protect other species of salmonids by reducing the project’s maximum generation from 4,100 to 3,200 cfs; by investigating ways and using best efforts to reduce ramping rates; and by limiting the amount of daily amplitude change and minimizing the difference between spawning and incubation flows.

Within six years of license issuance, Puget would install two new turbine-generators in the new auxiliary powerhouse giving Puget the operational flexibility to implement new minimum flows, maximum flows and ramping rates specified in Aquatic tables 1 or 2 contained in Proposed Article 106.

Under Proposed Article 107(a), Puget would continue to provide up to 74,000 acre-feet of storage for flood control at the Upper Baker Development if requested by the Corps. Up to 16,000 acre-feet would be provided from October 15 to March 1 and up to an additional 58,000 acre-feet would be provided from about September 1 to April 15. These provisions would provide storage about two weeks earlier and about six weeks longer than current operations (if requested by the Corps).

Finally, Proposed Article 107(b) would provide up to 29,000 acre-feet of storage for flood control at the Lower Baker Development from October 1 to March 1 upon the Corps’s request. This storage would be in addition to any storage provided at the Upper Baker Development. 12

2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

The Settlement Agreement includes other protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures in the form of 50 proposed license articles. Each proposed article is listed in table 2-1 below:

12 Like Article 32, proposed Article 107(a) would require the Corps to compensate Puget for any storage it requires greater than 16,000 acre-feet at the Upper Baker Development. Proposed Article 107(b) would require the Corps to compensate Puget for the entire 29,000 acre-feet of storage at the Lower Baker Development.

2-9

Table 2-1. Proposed license articles.

Article Measure Elements

Aquatic Resources101 Fish Propagation Modify existing Spawning Beach 4.

Continue existing enhancement programs. Decommission Spawning Beaches 1, 2, and 3. Add new hatchery and adult holding facilities. Fund nutrient enhancement of Baker Lake to

improve sockeye production.102 Aquatics Reporting Report for all aquatic articles.

Consult according to specified review periods. File reports on specified dates.

103 Upstream Fish Passage

Upgrade existing fish trap to state-of-the-art. Add fish sorting capability. Increase capacity to accommodate run growth. Establish operations and coordination protocols.

104 Fish Connectivity between Reservoirs

Initiate studies to determine whether segregated Lake Shannon fish populations would use upstream passage facilities.

Develop facilities and programs to reconnect segregated migratory fish species.

105 Downstream Fish Passage

Provide juvenile Upper Baker FSC by 2008. Provide Lower Baker FSC by 2012. Develop stress-relief ponds. Test to document performance of 95 percent

passage and 98 percent survival.106 Flow

Implementation Install new generation to permit variable

instream flow regimes and ramping rates. Increase minimum flows from 80 cfs to 1,000

cfs/1,200 cfs. Operate according to new ramping rates meeting

state guidelines. Set reservoir rule curve to maximize recreational

availability.

2-10

Article Measure Elements107 Flood Regulation Continue existing 74,000 acre-feet of flood

storage at Upper Baker. Up to an additional 29,000 acre-feet at Lower

Baker subject to Corps request. Initiate early start to flood control season. Identify means and methods to provide

additional drawdown in anticipation of impending floods.

108 Gravel Augmentation

Track gravel aggradation in Skagit River. Release gravel into Baker River to offset gravel

interruption by project.109 Large Woody Debris Develop plan to gather floating large woody

debris (LWD) from project reservoirs and stockpile for habitat projects by others.

110 Shoreline Erosion Develop an Erosion Control Plan. Provide funding to treat erosion sites.

Cultural and Historic Resources

201 Programmatic Agreement

Implement Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan including protection and enhancement of historic and traditional cultural properties, training, education, coordination, and artifact curation.

Report on activities and expenditures.Recreation and Aesthetics Resources301 Recreation

Management Report Report on status of implementation. Report status of Forest Service actions. Compile recreation plans, schedule, and updates. Report expenditures.

302 Aesthetics Management

Develop and implement Aesthetics Management Plan.

Fund Forest Service vegetation management activities at specific sites.

303 Baker Lake Resort Redevelopment

Develop plan to redevelop resort area to “Level 3” campground with 30 to 50 campsites.

Fund Forest Service to implement redevelopment.

2-11

Article Measure Elements304 Baker Reservoir

Recreation Water Safety

Develop Water Safety Plan. Install buoys for swim areas. Install bulletin boards for information. Provide boating maps and other information.

305 Lower Baker Developed Recreation

Acquire site for boat access on Lake Shannon, or other site.

Develop boat launch within 10 years. Maintain site.

306 Upper Baker Visitor Information Services

Fund Forest Service for visitors’ information facility and parking development, staffing and operations, and seasonal support.

307 Upper Baker Visitor Interpretive Services

Fund Forest Service for development and support of interpretive services in the project area and preparation of an Interpretation and Education Plan.

308 Dispersed Recreation Management

Fund Forest Service for development and support in implementation of Dispersed Recreation Management Plan and in hardening 3 to 6 high-priority sites.

309 Bayview Campground Rehabilitation

Fund Forest Service for rehabilitation and reconstruction of Bayview site to “Level 4.”

310 Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead Construction

Fund Forest Service for development and support for up to 6 miles of new trails in project area.

311 Lower Baker Trail Construction

Provide up to 2 miles of trails in the vicinity of the Town of Concrete.

312 Developed Recreation Monitoring

Develop plan to monitor recreational site usage. Monitor site usage and occupancy. Provide data to Forest Service annually. Fund site expansion when occupancy exceeds 60

percent of total available sites.313 Upper Baker

Developed Recreation Maintenance

Fund Forest Service for operation and maintenance of specified facilities.

Adjust future funds based on expenditures formula and specified maintenance standard.

2-12

Article Measure Elements314 Upper Baker Trail

and Trailhead Maintenance

Fund Forest Service for development and support of trails and trailheads in Baker Lake vicinity.

315 Lower Baker Trails Maintenance

Fund maintenance of Lower Baker Trail.

316 Forest Service Road Maintenance

Fund Forest Service for routine maintenance of up to 25 miles of specific Forest Service roads serving project-related facilities.

Contribute to Forest Service paving FR 1106.317 Access to Baker

Lake Assure public access to east side of Baker Lake

using FR 1106 across Upper Baker dam.

318 Law Enforcement Convene law enforcement entities to develop Law Enforcement Plan (LEP) for the Baker River basin.

File report on LEP. Fund LEP development and implementation.

Water Quality

401 Water Quality Comply with Water Quality Certification. Focus on temperature, dissolved oxygen, total

dissolved gas, and turbidity. Develop and implement Water Quality

Monitoring Plan and Water Quality Protection Plan.

Terrestrial Resources

501 Terrestrial Resource Management

Prepare and file Terrestrial Resource Management Plan.

Report annually on all terrestrial measures and expenditures.

502 Deciduous Forest Habitat

Acquire and manage deciduous forest habitat (having 40 percent or more deciduous composition) for birds using that habitat.

503 Elk Habitat Acquire and manage elk foraging habitat in three phases.

Annual planning, habitat enhancement and management of those lands that are acquired.

2-13

Article Measure Elements504 Wetland Habitat Acquire and manage wetland habitat based on

Terrestrial Resources Implementation Group (TRIG) selection criteria.

505 Aquatic Riparian Habitat Protection, Restoration and Enhancement

Prepare and submit Aquatic Riparian Habitat Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement Plan.

506 Osprey Nest Structures

Provide and maintain 10 artificial osprey nest structures.

Modify 10 trees near Lake Shannon to create new sites.

Monitor usage and expand as necessary with goal of supporting 7 breeding pairs.

507 Floating Loon Nest Platforms

Install and maintain three to six floating platforms for common loon nesting.

Monitor and report on use.508 Noxious Weeds Manage project lands for the control of noxious

weeds, complying with state and federal regulations.

Address seven high-quality wetlands with a priority on control of reed canarygrass.

509 Special Status Plants Manage plants of special status on existing project lands and specified non-project lands.

510 Carax Flava (yellow sedge)

Manage for protection of Carax flava (yellow sedge).

Inventory and map known populations. Develop control strategies for invasive plant

species near populations of Carax flava. 511 Decaying and

Legacy Wood Manage snags, logs, and residual live trees on

project lands as habitat for decaying and legacy wood-dependent species.

512 Bald Eagle Night Roosts

Conduct two surveys for communal night roost for bald eagle near the project.

2-14

Article Measure Elements513 Bald Eagle

Management Develop management plan for each bald eagle

nest and night roost site known on project lands. Develop management plan for each bald eagle

nest and night roost site known on acquired lands.

514 Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)

Develop plan to monitor effectiveness of implementation of proposed articles 502–504, 506, 507, and 513, using the FWS’ HEP.

515 Late Seral Forest Fund Forest Service for actual costs of thinning trees on approximately 321 acres of second-growth forest.

516 Mountain Goats Fund Forest Service for actual costs for habitat improvements in mountain hemlock occupied by mountain goats.

Fund licensee’s contribution of the cost of planning and implementing improvements for up to 194 acres of forest.

517 Grizzly Bears Fund Forest Service for actual cost of planning, reviewing, and implementing road closure to benefit grizzly bear recovery.

General

601 Baker River Coordinating Committee

Create topical subgroups TRIG, Recreation Resources Group (RRG), ARG, and Cultural Resources Advisory Group (CRAG).

Implement decision-making. Track settlement implementation. Resolve disputes.

2-15

Article Measure Elements602 Contingency Funds Create the Habitat Enhancement, Restoration,

and Conservation Fund (HERC Fund); Terrestrial Enhancement and Research Fund (TERF); Recreation Adaptive Management Fund (RAM Fund); and Cultural Resources Enhancement Fund (CREF).

Fund adaptive management needs in all topic areas.

Address some identified, but as yet unquantified, needs such as connectivity.

Encourage partnering with similar interests. Create funding tracking account, interest rate

accrual, and unspent fund carryover from year to year.

603 Adaptive Management

Consider alternative strategies.

2.3 MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.3.1 Staff’s Modifications to the Proposed Action

After evaluating the Proposed Action and recommendations from the resource agencies and other interested parties, we considered what, if any, additional protection, mitigation or enhancement measures would be necessary or appropriate with continued operation of the project. The Staff Alternative consists of the Proposed Action (section 2.2) with the following additional measures:

Provide an analysis to determine the actual benefits of flow continuation at the Lower Baker dam and install flow continuation valves or other facilities if warranted.

With respect to fish protection measures - provide the agencies and tribes copies of operational records, allow agencies and tribes reasonable access in the performance of their official duties, and notify agencies and tribes of all unusual operational occurrences.

We do not, however, recommend that all measures in the Settlement Agreement be included as conditions in any license issued for the project. Some proposed measures do not have a clear nexus to the project (are not tied to either project effects or purposes), are not needed to fulfill any project-demonstrated need, are general measures that should not

2-16

be Puget’s responsibility, or do not provide benefits to the resource that are worth the costs. While we recognize that Puget may elect to provide these measures as terms of the Settlement Agreement, we do not recommend them as license conditions. These measures include:

A recreation management report (Proposed Article 301) because there would be individual plans for each of the proposed measures we recommend.

Redeveloping the Baker Lake Resort (Proposed Article 303), providing a Baker Lake Water Safety Plan (Proposed Article 304), rehabilitating Bayview campground (Proposed Article 309), and constructing new trails near Upper Baker (Proposed Article 310) because these facilities or measures are not needed for project purposes and sufficient recreation would be provided at the project with the other measures we recommend.

Monitoring recreation occupancy levels, expanding recreation capacity (Proposed Article 312) at non-project sites, and providing funds to the Forest Service (Proposed Article 313) to maintain certain developed non-project recreation sites because sufficient recreation would be provided at the project with the measures we recommend. Further, the Commission’s provisions for monitoring project recreation facilities would adequately address future needs.

Providing funds for a Law Enforcement Plan (Proposed Article 318) because local law enforcement is not a matter of Commission jurisdiction but is the responsibility of local law enforcement agencies.

Providing a Terrestrial Resources Management Plan (Proposed Article 501) because there would be individual plans for each of the proposed measures we recommend.

Providing an Aquatic Riparian Habitat Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement Plan (Proposed Article 505) because this measure does not appear to be worth its high cost and because we recommend other aquatic measures that are adequate for the project.

Providing funds to the Forest Service to improve habitat for mountain goats (Proposed Article 516) and providing funds to the Forest Service to improve habitat for grizzly bears because these measures do not have a clear nexus to project effects or purposes.

Providing aquatic, recreation, terrestrial, and cultural resource contingency funds (Proposed Article 602) to mitigate unforeseen effects not otherwise addressed in other proposed license articles because we are not certain these funds would be needed or how these funds would be used, and we

2-17

are recommending a comprehensive set of measures designed to protect, mitigate, and enhance environmental resources at the project.

Complying with certain adaptive management provisions (Proposed Article 603) because the stated provisions are too vague to be enforceable and are not specific with regards to individual measures.

2.3.2 Water Quality Certification

On March 8, 2005, Puget submitted an application for a water quality certificate (WQC) to Ecology as required by section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Puget then withdrew and refilled its WQC application with Ecology by letter dated March 7, 2006. Ecology have one year to issue either a WQC, a wavier, or deny Puget’s WQC application.

2.3.3 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions

Section 18 of the FPA provides the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce the authority to prescribe fishways.13 By letters dated March 16 and March 21, 2005, respectively, the NMFS (as delegated by the Secretary of Commerce) and Interior filed preliminary section 18 prescriptions for the construction, operation, and maintenance of upstream and downstream fishways.

NMFS and Interior both signed the Settlement Agreement and helped develop the fish passage measures contained in proposed articles 103, 104, and 105. Both entities say their prescriptions are intended to be consistent with the Settlement Agreement.

In general, NMFS and Interior are requiring Puget to continue the existing trap and

haul method of transporting fish around the Upper and Lower Baker Developments, but with substantial improvements. Both entities’ upstream and downstream fishway prescriptions require interim trap and haul operations using existing facilities, new and/or redesigned facilities, and post-construction effectiveness evaluations. Upstream fishway prescriptions specifically address: the barrier dam, fishway, gravity water supply, entrance pool diffusers, ladder type, fishway pool volume, trap holding pools, fish lock crowder, fish lock brail, fish lock water supply, transport flume and raceways, transport hopper and trucks, recovery tanks, and auxiliary power. Downstream fishway prescriptions specifically address: debris and trash management, guide nets, net

13 Section 18 of the FPA provides: “The Commission shall require the construction, maintenance, and operation by a licensee at its own expense of . . .such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior, as appropriate.”

2-18

transitions structures, FSCs, dewatering and detection, raceways, transport hoppers, transport trucks and trailers, stress relief ponds, and auxiliary power.

In addition to the above, Interior is also prescribing a fishway between the Upper

and Lower Baker Developments which it says should also be consistent with Proposed Article 104. NMFS says it “has provided no details [for a fishway prescription] for Proposed Article 104 because its development is still contingent on the investigations described in the proposed article.” Interior includes the prescription to improve connectivity for native char and other native fish species that are isolated between the two dams. Specifically, Interior requires Puget to investigate and study the feasibility of a fishway and prepare a Fish Connectivity Implementation Plan that includes details on: construction and design, operation and maintenance, quality assurance and control, emergency response, annual reporting, and documentation of consultation.

Finally, Interior also filed a request for a reservation of authority to prescribe

fishways under section 18 of the FPA.

NMFS and Interior say they will file modified fishway prescriptions within 60 days of the comment closing date of this draft EIS.

2.3.4 Section 4(e) Federal Land Management Conditions

Most lands within the project boundary at the Upper Baker development are owned by the Forest Service and are located within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Conversely, most lands within the project boundary at the Lower Baker development are owned by Puget and are not within the above National Forest.

As authorized under section 4(e) of the FPA, the Forest Service filed preliminary

conditions on March 21, 2005. The Forest Service is a signatory to the Settlement Agreement and says its section 4(e) conditions are intended to be consistent with the Settlement Agreement.

The Forest Service included 38 preliminary conditions which require compliance with the entire Settlement Agreement and compliance with specific portions of the Settlement Agreement. Each condition is shown in table 2-2, below.

Table 2-2. Forest Service preliminary section 4(e) conditions. (Source: Staff)No. Summary of Condition No. Summary of Condition

1 Compliance with the Settlement Agreement 20 Developed Recreation Monitoring and

Funding

2 Acceptance and Implementation of the 21 Upper Baker Developed Recreation

2-19

Settlement Agreement Maintenance Funding

3 Reservation for Change in the Event of a Party Withdrawal 22 Forest Service Forest Road

Maintenance Funding

4 Implementation of Activities on Forest Service Lands 23 Access to Baker Lake

5 Self Insurance 24 Law Enforcement

6 Surveys, Land Corners 25 Terrestrial Resource Management Plan

7 Fire Prevention 26 Forest Habitat

8 Heritage Resource Protection 27 Elk Habitat

9 Shoreline Erosion 28 Wetland Habitat

10 Recreation Management Report 29 Aquatic Riparian Habitat Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement Plan

11 Aesthetics Management 30 Loon Floating Nest Platforms

12 Baker Lake Resort Development Plan 31 Noxious Weeds

13 Reservoir Recreation Water Safety Plan 32 Plants of Special Status and Carex

flava

14 Upper Baker Visitor Information Services Funding 33 Late Seral Forest Growth

15 Upper Baker Visitors Interpretive Services Funding 34 Mountain Goats

16 Dispersed Recreation Management 35 Grizzly Bear Road Management

17 Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead Construction Funding 36 Flow Implementation

18 Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead Maintenance Funding 37 Baker River Coordinating Committee

19 Bayview Campground Rehabilitation Funding 38 Required Funding

The Forest Service says it will file modified 4(e) conditions within 60 days of the comment closing date of this draft EIS.

We do not recommend some of the measures included in the Forest Service’s preliminary section 4(e) conditions as discussed in this draft EIS because some measures are not directly related to project purposes or effects. However, we recognize that the Commission may include valid final section 4(e) conditions in any license issued for the Baker River Project.

2-20

2.3.5 Section 10(j) Recommendations

Under the provisions of section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project.

Section 10(j) also states that, whenever the Commission believes that any fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of the agency.

On March 16, 2005, NMFS filed section 10(j) recommendations for the project. FWS14 and WDFW filed section 10(j) recommendations on March 21, 2005. We have preliminary determined that one of these recommendations, within the scope of section 10(j), may be inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA (see section 5.2, Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations).

2.4 ALTERNATIVIES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

We also considered other alternatives to the Proposed Action, but eliminated them from detailed study because they are not considered reasonable in the circumstances of this case.

2.4.1 Federal Takeover

We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. Federal takeover and operation of the project would require Congressional approval. While that fact alone would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, there is no evidence to indicate that federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. No party has suggested that a federal takeover would be appropriate, and no federal agency has expressed an interest in operating the project.

2.4.2 Nonpower License

The FPA permits governmental bodies to obtain a temporary nonpower license. A nonpower license is temporary in that the Commission would terminate the nonpower

14 Interior filed these recommendations on behalf of FWS.

2-21

license whenever it determines that another government agency would assume regulatory authority and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the nonpower license. Such a nonpower license could preserve the reservoir and the flood storage, but would not allow the generation of power. In the case of the Baker River Project, no agency has suggested its willingness or ability to accept a nonpower license. No party has sought a nonpower license, and there is no basis for concluding that the project should no longer be used to produce power. As such, a nonpower license is not viewed as a reasonable alternative requiring further analysis.

2.4.3 Project Retirement

A project retirement alternative was included in Puget’s PDEA filed with the license application. Since that time, Puget has filed a Settlement Agreement to continue operating the project and no entity has recommended project retirement. Continued operation of the project would have many benefits as discussed in this draft EIS. As such, we have no basis for recommending project retirement and we do not consider this option a reasonable alternative requiring further analysis.

2-22

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS15

In this section, we describe the resources that are part of the affected environment and provide an analysis of the potential effects on these resources. Because implementation of protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures would affect project economics and other resources, we make our recommendations in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. Project economics are discussed in section 4.0.

HYDROPS ModelingMuch of the analysis in this draft EIS is based on Puget’s PDEA which was

developed in collaboration with the Settlement Parties and filed along with Puget’s license application. In developing the PDEA, Puget and the Settlement Parties relied heavily on the HYDROPS optimization model for testing different project operational scenarios and for evaluating project effects. The HYDROPS optimization model is used to specify the operating characteristics of hydroelectric plants and to optimize the operation of the plants to maximize potential revenues while meeting environmental and operational constraints. It was developed by the Powel Group and was tailored to the needs of the Baker River Project in consultation with Puget. The information to support model input and organize model results is stored in a series of databases.

The “engineering module” specifies the operating and physical characteristics of the plant including turbine performance characteristics (efficiency, generation limitations, rough zones, flow and head constraints), tailwater elevation curves, reservoir storage elevation curves, and rating curves for USGS gages. This module provides the engineering information necessary to operate the “study model.” The “study model” allows the user to design a specific operational scenario to evaluate both economic and environmental effects associated with a specified alternative.

Several types of operating constraints and input parameters are also specified in the “study model” including the following: (1) maximum and minimum reservoir elevations; (2) maximum and minimum total release (can be specified below Upper Baker dam, below Lower Baker dam, and the Skagit River below the Baker River confluence; (3) maximum and minimum powerhouse generation; (4) maximum and minimum system generation (both Upper and Lower Baker); (5) maximum and minimum powerhouse discharge; (6) maximum and minimum spill; (7) ramping rates either by level or flow or a combination thereof; (8) turbine maintenance schedule; and (9) monthly peak and off-peak energy prices. These constraints can be specified as hard constraints (must be met or the run becomes infeasible and terminates) or soft constraints (may be violated, but violations are reported to the user). Soft constraints are prioritized allowing the user to specify which constraints they would like to see violated first.

15 All information is from Puget (2005a) unless otherwise indicated.

3-1

The “study model” is used to produce reports containing operation summaries, energy generation, and revenues. Additionally, the model provides inputs to other hydrologic and habitat models used to evaluate project effects.

The hydrologic input data set includes unregulated flow into the Upper Baker reservoir, accretion between Upper Baker dam and the Baker River confluence with the Skagit River, and historical flow in the Skagit River upstream of the Baker confluence. The hydrology is based on representative energy years. Puget selected five energy years (August 1 of the previous year through the end of July of the energy year) with the goal of providing a representative analysis while limiting the need for processing numerous years through the model. The five selected years along with their general hydrologic characteristics are as follows: (1) 2001 – very dry, (2) 1993 – somewhat dry, (3) 1995 – average, (4) 2002 – somewhat wet, and (5) 1996 – very wet.

The selection process focused on both biological resources and hydrologic conditions. To capture realistic Upper Skagit River flows, the selection of years was restricted to the years of 1991 – 2002 to reflect post-licensing operations at the Skagit River Project. Average unregulated Baker River flow from the five selected years is 97 percent of the long-term (energy years 1976 – 2002) average flow. Comparison of the unregulated Baker River flows indicate that the flow duration curves for the typical reservoir drawdown and refill periods are very similar for the selected period and the long-term conditions.

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIN16

The Baker River watershed covers 297 square miles and ranges in elevation from 10,778 feet msl at the summit of Mt. Baker to 160 feet msl at the confluence of the Baker and Skagit rivers near the Town of Concrete. The Baker River is the second largest tributary to the Skagit River, which, in turn, is the largest drainage in Puget Sound. The Baker River’s average annual flow contribution to the Skagit River is about 16 percent.

The headwaters of the Baker River are in the northeastern portion of the watershed and originate from glaciers and snowfields on Mt. Baker, Mt. Shuksan (elevation 9,127 feet msl) and nearby peaks. From its headwaters, the Baker River flows toward the southwest and reaches the valley floor (elevation 1,000 feet msl) after about 5 miles. From this point, the Baker River valley continues in a southwesterly to southerly direction for about 25 miles to its confluence with the Skagit River. Lake Shannon and Baker Lake occupy about 16 lineal miles of the Baker River valley. Prior to project construction, historical documents indicate that Baker Lake existed as a natural lake

16 This general basin description is based on Puget (2002b) and on Forest Service (2002a).

3-2

occupying about 550 acres of the valley bottom within the northern half of Baker Lake’s current footprint.

Over 60 tributary streams totaling approximately 315 miles enter the Baker River, primarily discharging into Lake Shannon and Baker Lake. The primary tributary streams include Swift, Park, Boulder, Noisy, Thunder, Sulphur, Rocky, and Bear creeks. A number of the tributaries on the west side of the basin (e.g., Swift, Boulder, and Park creeks) are glacial streams, heavily dominated by glacial sediment.

The Baker River watershed is generally very steep, with slopes from 20 to 40 percent over most of its area, with the exception of the valley bottom along the Baker River channel and some of its major tributary streams. The lower basin consists of a wide, unconfined valley floor composed of glacial and stream sediments, into which the Baker River has carved a narrow canyon up to 500 feet deep. Lake Shannon occupies much of this canyon. The middle portion of the basin, site of Baker Lake, is a more confined valley where glacial and stream sediments have been covered by mudflows and recent alluvial deposits. The upper basin is a narrow rock canyon with a valley floor of recent deposits of sand and gravelly material. At the upper reaches of the watershed, Mt. Baker, Mt. Shuksan, and their adjacent ridges and pinnacles form a spectacular alpine topography that dominates the landscape.

The watershed lies in a convergence zone between Pacific weather systems from the west and Arctic weather systems from the north. During the summer, the Pacific systems dominate and bring periods of generally clear weather and reduced precipitation. During the winter, the Arctic systems usually dominate, with winter storms and increased precipitation. Lower temperatures at higher elevations in the watershed result in heavy snow in winter, a portion of which is stored in ice fields and glaciers. Average annual precipitation ranges from about 70 inches at Concrete to greater than 150 inches at some of the higher elevations.

The main access into the watershed is afforded by the Baker Lake Highway (also known as Baker River Highway and Forest Service Road 11), which begins at the junction with the North Cascades Highway about 6 miles west of Concrete. Land ownership and management in the watershed is dominated by federal government holdings in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (55.6 percent of the total watershed area) and in North Cascades National Park (30.4 percent). Over 99 percent of the watershed above Upper Baker dam (RM 9.35) consists of federal lands. Private and state holdings account for the remaining 14 percent of the watershed’s area. The private and state holdings are primarily confined to the lower watershed tributaries entering Lake Shannon and to the Lower Baker River downstream of Lake Shannon.

About 49 percent of the watershed is managed as wilderness, roadless areas, or national park. Recreation and management of lands for protection of natural values are

3-3

the predominant land uses in the watershed. Most of the 14 percent of land in private and state ownership has been extensively harvested and is managed for silviculture. The Baker River Project, including Baker Lake and Lake Shannon, occupies about 5 percent of the watershed.

Small hydroelectric projects were constructed in the watershed around 1906 to power cement operations in the Town of Concrete, but they were later abandoned. The two developments of the Baker River Project were completed in 1925 and 1959. In the early 1980s, there was renewed interest in small hydropower, and by 1990, 13 potential projects had been studied. Only one project (Koma Kulshan) has been built. This project (FERC Project No. 3239) went into operation in 1990 and diverts water from Rocky and Sulphur creeks to a power plant on Sandy Creek. By letter orders dated March 7, 2003, and May 30, 2003, the Commission dismissed applications for projects on Lower Rocky Creek (FERC Project No. 10311) and on Anderson Creek (FERC Project No. 10416), respectively. By order dated April 18, 2005, the Commission terminated the license for a project on Bear Creek (FERC Project No. 10371) for failure to start construction.

3.2 CUMULATIVELY AFFECTED RESOURCES

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing NEPA (section 1508.7), a cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

The following resources may be cumulatively affected by the project in combination with other past, present, and future activities: instream flows, water quality, sediment supply and transport, fishery resources (anadromous and resident fish), wildlife habitat, recreation, and cultural resources.

In the following subsections, we discuss the geographic and temporal scope of our analysis of these cumulatively affected resources. Past actions that have affected the above-listed resources are briefly described in the Affected Environment sections for each resource. The cumulative effects analysis at the end of each resource section summarizes the potential for the Proposed Action to contribute to cumulative effects of past, present, and future activities on these resources.

3.2.1 Geographic Scope

3-4

The geographic scope of the analysis defines the physical limits or boundaries of the Proposed Action’s effects on the resources. Because the Proposed Action would affect each resource differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary.

3.2.1.1 Water QuantityThe storage and release of water for power generation and flood storage at the

Baker River Project affects flows in the mainstem Skagit River below the confluence of the Baker and Skagit Rivers.

Under existing conditions, on a seasonal basis, project operations tend to augment mainstem Skagit River flows from August through March when there is typically a net removal of water from project’s reservoirs. Conversely, there is a net storage of water from April through July which results in reduced flows to the Skagit River compared to unregulated Baker River conditions (refer to the discussion of surface water in section 3.3.2, Water Quantity).

Likewise under existing conditions, on a daily basis, Baker River Project load-following operations may cause fluctuations in mainstem Skagit River flows of up to 4,200 cfs over several hours each day. Stage differences between generating and non-generating periods may be between 0.9 feet and 1.2 feet as measured at the Skagit River near Concrete gage (Puget, 2002c).

Releases from the Skagit River Project operated by Seattle City Light also affect

flows in the mainstem Skagit River. The Skagit River Project consists of three dams and associated reservoirs on the Upper Skagit River, with the most downstream powerhouse (Gorge) being situated at RM 94.2, about 38 river miles above the Baker/Skagit confluence. The Skagit River Project is typically operated as a load-following plant with the amplitude of Skagit River Project downramping events governed by the terms of a 1991 Fisheries Settlement Agreement (FERC, 1991). The effects of fluctuating releases at the Skagit River Project continue downstream but dampen in magnitude and are typically observed as river stage changes at the Skagit River near Concrete gage about 6 to 8 hours after the release occurs at the Skagit River Project.

The effects of both hydroelectric projects on river stage in the Skagit River near Concrete can amplify each other (be mutually additive) or somewhat offset each other (be mutually reductive). These interactive effects are largely attenuated by the time they reach the vicinity of Mt. Vernon at RM 15.7 (Puget, 2002c). Accordingly, the geographic scope of our cumulative effects analysis for river flows extends along the Skagit River from the Baker/Skagit confluence to Mt. Vernon.

3-5

3.2.1.2 Water QualityWater quality is influenced by human activities in the Baker River watershed

including land management policies and recreation, current Baker River Project operations, the interaction of Baker River flows with flows from the Upper Skagit River, and increasing human development along the middle reach of the Skagit River. Accordingly, the geographic scope of our cumulative effects analysis for water quality extends along the Skagit River from the Baker/Skagit confluence to Sedro-Woolley at RM 24.5.

3.2.1.3 Sediment Supply and TransportNumerous human factors influence sediment supply to the Skagit River. Some of

these tend to decrease sediment supply, while others tend to increase sediment supply. As described above, under existing conditions, project dams prevent bedload and most suspended load from passing the Lower Baker Development and entering the Skagit River. In a similar fashion, the Skagit River Project operated by Seattle City Light reduces sediment supply to the Upper Skagit River. In contrast, forest harvest practices and road building may increase sediment supply to Skagit River tributaries and consequently the Skagit River (Paulson, 1997).

Operation of the Baker and Skagit hydroelectric projects generally reduces flood flows and increases daily flow fluctuations (refer to the discussion of surface water in section 3.3.2, Water Quantity). Flood storage from both projects has reduced the sediment transport capacity of the Middle Skagit River. Without a large reduction in sediment supply, this reduction in sediment transport capacity would be expected to result in aggradation, particularly below large sediment sources. Although the Baker River Project has substantially reduced the sediment supply from the Baker River, there is no evidence that the in-channel sediment deposits have substantially decreased (R2, 2004). In fact, recent reassessment of cross-sections and water surface elevations downstream of the Skagit River near Concrete gage suggests that the reach has aggraded over the last several decades (Corps, unpublished data, as cited in R2, 2004). Surveys of transects located downstream of Sedro-Woolley suggest that the Lower Skagit River has aggraded by 1 to 2 feet since the 1970s.

The geographic scope of our cumulative effects analysis for sediment supply and transport is the Baker River watershed and the Skagit River from the Baker/Skagit confluence downstream to Sedro-Woolley.

3-6

3.2.1.4 Aquatic Resources

Anadromous Fish PopulationsReservoir operations, fish passage, habitat modifications, fish propagation and

enhancement programs, and flow regimes in both the Baker and Skagit Rivers affect anadromous fish populations. Many of the anadromous salmonids inhabiting the Baker River watershed are considered to be components of Skagit River stocks. For example, fall Chinook entering the Baker River adult trap are considered to be part of the Lower Skagit mainstem/tributaries fall Chinook stock, while chum migrating to Baker River are part of the mainstem Skagit fall chum stock (WDFW and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes [WWTIT], 1994). Therefore, potential effects on fisheries resources caused by the Baker River Project could cumulatively affect Skagit River salmonid stocks when considered with other actions in the watershed that may affect those fish stocks.

Furthermore, anadromous fish migrating to the Baker River may also be

cumulatively affected by non-related actions occurring in the Baker River watershed and in the Skagit River from the Baker/Skagit confluence downstream to the Skagit River estuary. Non-related actions that result in degradation of aquatic habitat in the Middle and Lower Skagit River or the Baker River watershed may cumulatively affect Baker River fisheries resources.

Recovery efforts also have been initiated for ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations. Activities associated with such efforts that improve aquatic habitat, productivity, and/or survival of Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) may also produce a cumulative benefit for Baker River fish populations when considered with other efforts to improve fisheries resources in the basin.

Considering these potential sources of cumulative effects on fisheries resources, the geographic scope of our cumulative effects analysis includes the Baker River watershed and the Skagit River from the confluence with the Baker River downstream to the Skagit River estuary. To a lesser extent, our analysis will discuss potential cumulative effects on Puget Sound fisheries as they relate to current recovery efforts.

Resident Fish PopulationsReservoir operations, fish passage, habitat modifications, fish propagation and

enhancement programs, and flow regimes in both the Baker and Skagit Rivers may also affect resident fish populations. Project operations (e.g., flow regime and reservoir fluctuations) can affect the spawning and rearing habitat potential of resident fish species in both the Baker and Skagit Rivers. These project-related influences when considered with non-project activities, such as potential timber harvest activities, recreational

3-7

development, residential and commercial development, fish harvest, and other reasonably foreseeable human activities, could cumulatively affect Baker and Skagit River resident fish species. Considering these factors, the geographic scope for our cumulative effects analysis for resident fish includes the Baker River and tributaries up to migration barriers and the Skagit River from the Baker/Skagit confluence downstream to Mt. Vernon.

3.2.1.5 Terrestrial ResourcesPast actions from a variety of sources, including recreation, project construction

and operation, and other human activities in the watershed like timber harvesting have cumulatively affected certain wildlife habitats in the Baker River basin. Key habitats cumulatively affected include mature and old-growth coniferous forest, deciduous forest, riparian habitats, and wetlands. Additionally, on the basis of scoping comments, we consider cumulative effects on rare plants. The geographic scope of our cumulative effects analysis for wildlife habitat is the Baker River watershed.

3.2.1.6 Recreational ResourcesConstruction of the Baker River Project has contributed to the cumulative increase

in developed recreational facilities within the Baker River watershed. Historically, the first trails in the watershed were hunting and gathering trails developed by Native Americans. Homesteaders in the region added to these trails as did loggers. Early mountain climbers used these early trails when attempting to climb Mt. Baker and Mt. Shuksan. In the late 1890s, a fish hatchery was constructed on the south side of Baker Lake. The development of the Lower Baker dam in 1925 led to more roads in the watershed allowing people easier access above Lake Shannon to the old Baker Lake and the surrounding high country. The creation of Baker Lake reservoir increased the amount of lakeside recreational opportunities in the watershed, and increasing numbers of recreationists spurred the development of recreational facilities and trails. Accordingly, the geographic scope of our cumulative analysis for recreation is the Baker River watershed.

3.2.1.7 Cultural ResourcesPast actions from a variety of sources, including recreation, project construction

and operation, the Skagit River Project, and other human activities in the Baker River watershed have cumulatively affected prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and culturally sensitive areas associated with the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, as well as historic structures and buildings associated with hydroelectric development in northwest Washington State. Key cumulatively affected resources include the cultural materials associated with sites used by the tribes and the hydroelectric facilities. The geographic scope of our cumulative effects analysis for cultural resources is the Baker River watershed.

3-8

3.2.2 Temporal Scope

Based on the anticipated term of any new license issued for the Baker River Project, we will look 30 to 50 years into the future, concentrating on the cumulative effects of relicensing the project on instream flows, water quality, sediment supply and transport, anadromous fish, resident fish, wildlife habitat, recreation, and cultural resources in the context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES

3.3.1 Geology and Soils

3.3.1.1 Affected EnvironmentGeologyThe Baker River basin’s geology is the product of mountain building over millions

of years through uplift, folding, and volcanism.17 The current landforms have been sculpted by repeated glaciation and stream erosion. Alpine glaciation has produced the sharp peaks and ridges, as well as cut the deep valleys. Continental glaciation has rounded many of the landforms at lower elevations and scoured out the pre-existing drainages. These glaciers also created ice dams behind which large glacial lakes were formed, and into which heavily sediment-laden streams deposited their alluvium.

The post-glacial history is responsible for much of the geological complexity associated with the Upper Baker dam area. With the retreat of the Vashon Glacier about 15,000 years ago, the Baker River was left in a deeply glaciated valley about 400 to 500 feet deeper (at the dam site) than the current ground elevation. A series of eruptive events along the flanks of Mt. Baker produced a sequence of mudflows, pyroclastic flows, and lava flows down the tributary valleys draining the mountain. In the Baker River valley, the most extensive of these occurred in the pre-existing Sulphur Creek and Boulder Creek valleys. In the Sulphur Creek valley, one or more lava flows originating from a vent at Schreiber’s Meadow extended about eight miles down the valley and forced the Baker River against the eastern side of its valley and dammed the river temporarily. Based on stratigraphic data, this event took place after a major tephra eruption dated at 10,350 years ago and before the layer of ash that was deposited from the eruption of Mt. Mazama dating from 6,600 years ago. As a result, the current channel of the Baker River was downcut east of Glover Mountain rather than to the west, where the ancestral channel is now buried under many hundreds of feet of lava.

17 The description of geology, soils, and geological hazards comes from Puget (2002b), except where noted.

3-9

Lava from the vent at Schreiber’s Meadow filled the valley of Sulphur Creek to a depth of up to 800 feet and, as it entered the Baker River valley, spread out upriver and pushed Sandy Creek to the northern side of its valley. Subsequent to this lava flow, mudflows, alluvium, and colluvium have filled in the pre-existing drainages to significant depths.

SoilsThe soils of the watershed fall into one of two general classifications: alluvial

soils or upland soils. The deeper and more fertile alluvial soils are associated with the floodplains of major watercourses, such as the Baker River and Lower Swift Creek. The upland soils are characteristically shallow, low in fertility, and found on steep slopes. Typically, they are derived from glacial materials, although they can also be shallow, gravelly, or residual soils derived from the local bedrock.

Snyder and Wade (1970, as cited by Puget, 2002b) identified five major soil groups based on similarities in texture, structure, soil depth, and mode or origins in the reference soil resource inventory titled “Mt. Baker National Forest Soil Resource Inventory.” All five of these soil groups are present in the Baker River basin.

The most prevalent category of soil in the Baker River basin is that of the high-elevation soils. These are the thin, intermittent soils formed on rocky outcrops, talus slopes, alpine meadows, and around snow and ice. These soils are both shallow and fragile, and they are easily eroded if the vegetation is removed. These soils occur above the timberline throughout the watershed. Alpine vegetation clinging to them is easily destroyed by even light foot traffic.

Soils categorized as shallow residual soils and deep glacial soils found on long steep slopes, ridges, and narrow valleys are the second most common in the watershed and generally occur at elevations above 1,000 feet. The shallow residual soils typically predominate at elevations above 3,000 feet to the tree line, while the deeper glacially derived soils occur more generally at lower elevations. The combination of weakly structured soils, high slopes, and heavy precipitation results in a high potential for surface erosion of the residual soils.

Less frequently encountered are the more localized, deep, unstable colluvial soils originating on steep toeslopes and midslopes. The hillside between Ermine and Noisy Creeks on the east bank of Baker Lake is one of the best examples of these types of soils in the watershed. These soils generally consist of gravel or silt and sandy loam with subsoil textures of clay, gravel, and sand. When combined with steep slopes, weathered bedrock, and saturated subsoils, these areas are prone to slump even under undisturbed conditions.

3-10

Another major category is the deep, stable soils derived from glacial till and outwash deposits. These soil types are characteristic of the Baker River valley floor, from about Blum Creek downstream to Upper Baker dam, and the valley of lower Swift Creek as well. Most of this soil mapping unit has been inundated by the Upper Baker reservoir.

The final category of soils is the deep, unstable soils derived from glacial lake sediments, till, and outwash. In the Baker River basin, these soils occur downstream of the upper dam along the valley floor where they have been deeply incised by the Baker River. They also occur in combination with deep, unstable colluvial soils associated with the steep sideslopes of the Lower Baker River canyon.

Geologic HazardsPotential geologic hazards in the Baker River basin include volcanic activity from

Mt. Baker or the more general risk of earthquakes.

The northern Cascades are underlain by a number of major fault zones. Extensive geologic investigations have been conducted to identify the major fault zones closest to project developments and to determine if any of these faults show signs of renewed activity (Coombs, 1989, as cited by Puget, 2002b). The following were investigated for signs of recent movement: the Straight Creek Fault, which runs north-south about 25 miles east of the Lower Baker River valley until it is cut off by the intrusive rocks of the Chilliwack Batholith; the southern edge of the Chilliwack Batholith about 20 miles east of Upper Baker Development; a series of scarps south of the batholith that were suggestive of a major fault zone; and the Shuksan Thrust. Tephrochronology (using known volcanic eruptions to date sediment layers) confirmed that neither the scarps nor the southern edge of the batholith had experienced any movement over the last 6,600 years, and there was no evidence that either the Shuksan Thrust or the Straight Creek Fault had experienced any movement over a much longer period (refer to Forest Service (2002a) for a detailed discussion about faulting and seismic potential).

The hazards posed by Mt. Baker were examined in considerable detail following the most recent increase in hydrothermal activity in Sherman Crater, which lies about 0.5 mile south of the summit (Hyde and Crandell, 1978, as cited by Puget, 2002b). This increased activity was monitored very closely in 1975–1976 when it peaked, but it has subsided to normal background conditions since that time. Hyde and Crandell (1978, as cited by Puget, 2002b) identified the four principal classes of volcanic hazards as the formation of mud flows and avalanches, the eruption of tephra, hot pyroclastic flows, and lava flows. An eruption often produces hazards in more than one class simultaneously.

With the exception of the emission of tephra, the direct effects from the other volcanic activity classes would occur in the tributary drainages radiating from Mt. Baker

3-11

and the Baker River valley from the mouth of Rocky Creek to the upper end of Baker Lake (refer to Forest Service (2002a) page 3-71, figure 3-17, Volcanic Hazard Areas). Secondary effects, such as forest fires or the flooding accompanying the sudden melting of large quantities of snow and ice, could result in effects both upstream and downstream of this area. The magnitude and extent of such effects would depend on wind direction and strength, antecedent snowfall accumulation, and seasonal reservoir water levels, factors independent of operational alternatives considered in this analysis. Renewed thermal activity on Mt. Baker could create conditions for large mud flows originating from a mixture of snow, ice, melt water, and avalanches of structurally weak clay-rich rocks. A possible worst-case event could reach Baker Lake and displace 15 to 20 percent of the reservoir volume. In 1975, as a precautionary measure, in response to volcanic observations on Mt. Baker, Puget voluntarily dropped the water surface elevation in Baker Lake to about 710 feet msl (Puget, 2002b).

Sediment Supply and TransportSediments are supplied to the Baker River system through one of three processes:

(1) mass wasting, (2) surface erosion, and (3) soil creep. Mass wasting supplies most of the coarse-grained sediments, while also supplying fine-grained sediments. In contrast, surface erosion and soil creep provide mostly fine-grained sediments and virtually no coarse-grained sediments. Erosion of moraines and other sediments deposited by glaciers also supplies streams and the reservoirs with coarse and fine sediments. In addition, glacial melt provides a source of fine sediments. As glacial melt increases during summer, very fine sediments (i.e., glacial flour) become entrained in the water and lead to naturally elevated turbidity in some streams draining the northwest portion of the basin, particularly Swift, Park, Boulder, Sandy, and Rocky Creeks.

The most frequent and primary means of mass wasting at Mt. Baker are debris avalanches and debris flows (Gardner et. al., 1995). Debris avalanches and debris flows have moved down all of the drainages that have headwaters on Mt. Baker. Since 1958, at least six debris avalanches have occurred on Mt. Baker, all of which originated in the Sherman Crater area (Gardner et. al., 1995). Many debris avalanches at Mt. Baker transform into debris flows. Debris flows of moderate size, 0.002–0.02 square mile, have occurred during both eruptive and non-eruptive periods and have traveled six to nine miles from the mountain’s summit. Gardner et al. (1995) indicated that moderate-sized debris flows are of special concern in basins that have headwaters on the east and southeast sides of Mt. Baker, because events in these drainages could potentially reach Baker Lake.

Paulson (1999) developed estimates of natural and existing rates of hillslope sediment production. Sediment production rates were based on results of inventorying landslides based on two sets of aerial photographs (1983 and 1991), records of land use history, and literature values for glacial erosion rates. Estimates of natural and current

3-12

sediment production rates were developed for each of four subbasins. Results of this analysis indicate that sediment production rates are relatively similar to natural conditions for the Baker Lake subbasins; however, land use has increased the sediment production rate in the Lake Shannon subbasin.

Paulson (1999) compared sediment production rates for immature forests and road-related landslides to rates for mature forests. For the Baker Lake subbasin (i.e., streams draining to Baker Lake with the exception of the Baker River, Swift Creek, and Park Creek), results of Paulson’s investigation suggest that the sediment production rate from landslides in immature forests was 10 times higher and road-related landslides were 21 times higher than landslides in mature forests. Similarly, estimated rates were considerably higher in the Lake Shannon subbasin; immature forest rates were 19 times higher and road-related rates were 150 times higher than mature forest. This suggests that land-use activities within the Lake Shannon subbasin have substantially altered sediment supply to streams. A major landslide that mobilized about 250,000 cubic yards of material destroyed part of the Lower Baker powerhouse in May 1965. In 1990, another landslide mobilized about 250,000 cubic yards of sediment from Miner’s Creek into Lake Shannon (Paulson, 1999). Both of these landslides occurred during major precipitation events. Sediments from the Miner’s Creek landslide elevated turbidity in Lake Shannon, the Lower Baker River, and the Skagit River for three years (Forest Service, 2002a).

In addition to erosion occurring throughout the watershed, erosion occurs along the shorelines of project reservoirs. Shoreline erosion can be influenced by several natural factors including local geology, soil type, bank configuration, wind direction, wind speed, and stream currents. Shoreline erosion can also be influenced by several human-influenced factors including reservoir pool elevation, fluctuations in pool levels, and land use activities. Puget conducted an evaluation of shoreline erosion around Baker Lake and Lake Shannon using ortho-corrected aerial photographs taken in 2001 and spring 2002 reconnaissance level field surveys (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI), 2003). Results of this evaluation indicate that the primary cause of erosion along the shoreline or in the drawdown zone was undercutting, either by wave or stream action, or a combination of both. Other erosion processes included bank toppling, slides and flows, rills and gullying, dry raveling, and ground water piping. AESI (2003) noted that generally two or more processes were affecting a given area.

AESI (2003) categorized the severity of erosion along the shorelines of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon into one of four categories. A summary of results from AESI (2003) is provided in table 3-1. Severe erosion (described as near-vertical bluffs of more than ten feet high) occurred along approximately 2.5 to 2.8 percent of each reservoir’s surveyed shoreline. High erosion defined by near-vertical bluffs or bank undercutting of three to ten feet occurred along 8.5 percent of Baker Lake’s surveyed shoreline and 11.5

3-13

percent of Lake Shannon’s surveyed shoreline. The majority of the remaining shoreline had low to moderate erosion for Lake Shannon and was not eroding for Baker Lake.

Table 3-1. Shoreline erosion categorization around Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. (Source: AESI, 2003)

Category Category DescriptionBaker Lake Shoreline

Lake Shannon Shoreline

1-Severe Near-vertical bluff height >10 feet

0.8 mile (2.5%) 0.7 mile (2.8%)

2-High Near-vertical bluff height or undercutting of bank of 3–10 feet

2.7 miles (8.5%) 2.8 miles (11.5%)

3-Low to moderate Near-vertical bluff height or undercutting of bank measurable, but <3 feet

11.8 miles (37.3%) 17.0 miles (70.0%)

4-Not eroding No undercutting and no near-vertical exposed bluffa

16.3 miles (51.6%) 3.8 miles (15.6%)

a Includes areas where bedrock is exposed along shoreline.

Site geology and slope were similar for sites categorized as having high or severe erosion. Over half of the Baker Lake shoreline sites categorized as such had coarse-grained outwash and alluvium exposed. The vertical to near-vertical pre-project terrace escarpments and Baker River cut banks were particularly susceptible to undercutting by wave action and streams. The most severe erosion areas occurred where outwash or alluvium was present on these steep slopes. Where coarse-grained outwash and alluvium were present on gentle slopes, wave action generally removed sand-sized particles, leaving behind a gravel lag deposit. At Lake Shannon, the majority of erosion sites that have high or severe erosion occur in steep-sloped areas with thick deposits of glaciolacustrine silt/clay with larger size sediments and dropstones, incorporated. Most (25 of 29) shoreline erosion sites categorized as high or severe erosion were located on promontories that are heavily affected by wave erosion.

The majority of both reservoirs’ shoreline sites that were categorized as having low to moderate erosion included long stretches of shoreline where undercutting had occurred, generally less than two feet. Stumps immediately adjacent to the shoreline had between one and three feet of roots exposed. Rill and gully erosion along with wave erosion are the predominant erosion processes in these areas.

During the spring of 2002, Puget evaluated erosion in the drawdown zones of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. This study focused on erosion that was non-cyclic in nature. No severe erosion sites were identified in the drawdown zone evaluated; however, 19 drawdown-zone sites in the two reservoirs were categorized as high erosion sites. Baker Lake had 17 high erosion sites and Lake Shannon had two high erosion sites (AESI, 2003). Nearly all of the drawdown-zone erosion sites identified in Baker Lake

3-14

occur along the edge of flat terraced areas on the western side of the reservoir and may have been caused by wave action. Similarly, wave action against the edge of a gently sloping terrace located just up-reservoir of the Bear Creek confluence with Lake Shannon could be responsible for high erosion in this area.

The edges of most of these terraces where the high erosion sites were identified were at elevations of about 705 to 710 feet msl for Baker Lake and about 420 feet msl for Lake Shannon.

As sediment is transported into the project’s reservoirs, water velocities decrease rapidly, and consequently much of the sediment drops out of the water column. The reduced rate at which sediment is transported is highly dependent on the flow and size of the sediment. The larger-sized sediments drop out first, followed by finer sediments farther down reservoir. Finer-sized suspended sediments continue farthest down reservoir, sometimes continuing completely through the reservoir depending on water velocities and sediment size. Evaluation of Upper Baker Delta substrate characteristics indicates that storm events result in widespread deposition and lateral shifting of the primary distributary channels through the delta (R2, 2004b). Annual drawdown of the reservoirs mobilizes a portion of the deposited sediments. Results of monitoring bed profiles at the Upper Baker Delta indicate that drawdown of Baker Lake causes vertical incision of the delta in the channel braids located at the transition from riverine to reservoir conditions (R2, 2004b). However, virtually none of the coarse-grained sediments are transported past either the Upper or Lower Baker dams. Instead, reservoir drawdown causes sediments to be re-sorted and resuspended, depending on sediment size (R2, 2004a). Unequalized pore pressures during drawdown may also increase the risk of mass wasting along the shoreline, particularly in areas with glacial lake sediments (Heller, 1978, as cited in Forest Service, 2002a; Esser, 1999).

R2 (2004a) evaluated the potential for the two reservoirs and natural Baker Lake, which was inundated by the Upper Baker dam, to interrupt sediment transport downstream of the project. This was done by first estimating the sediment supply from three subbasins and then estimating the trapping efficiencies of the reservoirs. First, R2 estimated the bedload yield based on bedload rating curves developed from field data for tributary streams in the Baker River basin. Second, it estimated suspended sediment yield by using long-term water quality data collected for the Nooksack River, which drains the northern and western flanks of Mt. Baker. Then, the total load was estimated from each of these estimates by assuming that bedload accounted for 15 percent of the total annual sediment load. The resulting estimates were compared to published regional estimates of bedload yield. R2 used the modified Brune Curve method, which uses the ratio of reservoir capacity to mean annual water inflow, to estimate the fraction of the sediment that is trapped in the impoundment (Linsley et al., 1982). To evaluate trap efficiencies for sediment size classes ranging from very fine clay to small cobbles, R2 used a method that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation recommends for turbulent flow that is

3-15

based on reservoir hydraulic characteristics (Borland, 1971; Chen, 1975; and Raudkivi, 1993).

The results of these evaluations indicate that approximately 14 percent of suspended sediment entering Baker Lake is routed past the Upper Baker dam and into Lake Shannon. Approximately 33 percent of the suspended sediment entering Lake Shannon is routed past the Lower Baker dam and into the Lower Baker River. In comparison, approximately 29 percent of the suspended sediment entering natural Baker Lake would have been routed through this lake. Virtually all sediments larger than medium silt are trapped in Baker Lake and sediments larger than fine silt are trapped in Lake Shannon. Most sediment smaller than coarse clay passes through Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. The portion of sediments between these sizes that is trapped in the reservoirs is dependent on the water level of the reservoir and flows through the reservoir.

Sediment budgets for the project are displayed in table 3-2. In summary, about ten percent of sediments pass both project developments. Sediments supplied downstream of the Lower Baker Development average 28,700 to 42,100 tons per year, and no bedload.

Table 3-2. Sediment budgets for Baker River with the influence of the Baker River Project.

LocationSuspended Load Bedload Total Load

Sediment Supply (tons/year)From Baker River and tributaries upstream of natural Baker Lake

93,500–181,800 14,100–27,200 107,600–209,000

From Baker Lake reservoir tributaries downstream of natural Baker Lake

65,300–126,500 9,700–18,900 75,000–145,400

From Lake Shannon tributariesa 64,200–85,100 9,600–12,700 73,800–97,800Percent of Incoming Sediment Trapped In Baker Lake reservoir 86% 100% 88%In Lake Shannona,b 67% 100% 70%a Adapted from R2 (2004a).b Based on incoming from Baker Lake reservoir and Lake Shannon tributaries not total

incoming to basin above Lake Shannon.

The Baker River has two distinct sections below the Lower Baker dam. Between the Lower Baker dam and the weir at RM 0.6, the river flows through a narrow bedrock controlled canyon that has a high sediment transport potential with an armored layer consisting primarily of boulders and bedrock. The lowermost section of the river is much less confined, has a lower gradient than the canyon reach, is influenced by backwaters from the Skagit River, and has been straightened and dredged. Naturally, this reach was an alluvial fan where sediments routed through the canyon were deposited and reworked in the lower energy reach. Historically, there also was a side channel, the Little Baker

3-16

River, which meandered within the alluvial fan. The current straight incised channel has a higher potential to transport sediments and receives less sediments (due to deposition above the two dams), which has led to a coarse armor layer of bed sediments that remain stable even at high flows. High flows in the Skagit River result in backwater effects (i.e., reduced velocities and sediment transport capacity) in the lowermost section of the Baker River.

Operation of the Baker and Skagit hydroelectric projects generally affects Skagit River flows by reducing peak flood flows and increasing daily flow fluctuations (refer to the discussion of surface water in section 3.3.2, Water Quantity). Flood storage provided by both projects has reduced the sediment transport capacity of the Middle Skagit River. Without a large reduction in sediment supply, this reduction in sediment transport capacity would be expected to result in aggradation, particularly below large sediment sources. In fact, recent reassessment of cross-sections and water surface elevations downstream of the Skagit River near Concrete gage suggests that the reach has aggraded over the last several decades (Corps, unpublished data, as cited in R2, 2004a). Surveys of transects located downstream of Sedro-Woolley suggest that the Lower Skagit River has aggraded by one to two feet since the 1970s. Therefore, while the Baker River Project has substantially reduced the sediment supply from the Baker River, there is no evidence that in-channel sediment deposits have substantially decreased (R2, 2004a).

Sediment Storage in ReservoirsLower Baker dam began storing water and trapping sediment being supplied by

the Baker River and its tributaries to Lake Shannon in 1925. Lake Shannon continued to trap sediment from all these sources until the Upper Baker dam was constructed in 1959. Since 1959, most of the sediments being transported by the Baker River above the Upper Baker dam have accumulated in Baker Lake, which has substantially reduced the rate of accumulation in Lake Shannon. Sediment trapped in Lake Shannon is primarily from tributary sources to Lake Shannon, not from sediment routed past the Upper Baker dam.

Puget’s evaluation of the sediment budget (which does not include sediment supplied by reservoir shoreline erosion) indicates that currently average annual sediment accumulations are approximately 160,600 to 312,000 tons in Baker Lake and approximately 67,000 to 98,200 tons in Lake Shannon (R2, 2004a). Puget estimated that the total amount of sediment that has accumulated in the Baker Lake reservoir since the dam was constructed in 1959 is approximately 3,520 to 7,744 acre-feet, which accounts for about one to three percent of the total storage capacity of the reservoir. Estimated sediment accumulation in Lake Shannon since its construction in 1929 is between 3,526 and 5,624 acre-feet, which has reduced the storage capacity of the reservoir by about two to four percent.

3-17

Much of the sediment that accumulates in the reservoirs is deposited in deltas located just down-gradient of inflowing tributaries. The largest delta is the feature where the Baker River flows into the upper end of Baker Lake. Comparison of topographic data from 1959 and 1999 suggests that deposits within the drawdown zone on this feature are typically five to ten feet in thickness, although this is within the range of error associated with the data sets used. By assuming even distribution of all of the bedload and 60 percent of the suspended load, Puget estimated that deposits on the delta feature are 1.9 to 3.7 feet deep (R2, 2004a), which is reasonably consistent with estimates developed from the topographic data. Delta deposits are also present at the mouths of other glacially fed tributaries draining the east slopes of Mt. Baker. Comparison of 1959 and 1999 topographic profiles indicates that typically 5 to 15 feet of deposition has occurred in the drawdown zone of these deltas.

In Lake Shannon, sediment deposition is most obvious in the upper end of the reservoir and near the Thunder Creek confluence with the reservoir. Prior to construction of the Upper Baker dam, a considerable sediment load entered the reservoir from the Baker River and much of it was deposited at the upper end of the reservoir. Comparison of 1929 and 1959 storage capacity curves suggest that most sediments accumulated between roughly elevation 435 and 410 feet msl. Puget estimated that the depth of these sediments is probably about 9 to 19 feet (R2, 2004a). Thunder Creek is the only Lake Shannon tributary that has a pronounced delta feature. Coarse-grained sediment has completely filled in the original Thunder Creek embayment of the reservoir.

3.3.1.2 Environmental EffectsReservoir Level Management Erosion of sediments occurs along the shoreline and within the drawdown zone of

both Baker Lake and Lake Shannon (AESI, 2003). The extent of shoreline erosion is influenced by natural factors including soil type, bank configuration, and wind direction. The extent of shoreline erosion is also influenced by human-controlled factors including reservoir pool levels, fluctuations in pool levels, land use activities, and recreational use. Recent evaluations indicate that approximately 11 percent of the Baker Lake shoreline and 14 percent of the Lake Shannon shoreline currently have “high” to “severe” erosion, as defined by AESI (refer to the sediment supply and transport discussion of Section 3.3.1, Geology and Soils, Affected Environment). Additional “high” erosion sites were identified in the drawdown zone of both reservoirs. Further, the drawdown of Baker Lake was determined to cause incision of the Upper Baker delta at the transition point from the river to the reservoir (Puget, 2003c).

Effects Analysis

Under the Proposed Article 106, for the first six years, Puget would make its best effort to limit downramp rates, limit daily amplitude changes, and minimize the difference between spawning and incubation flows. Limiting downramp rates and daily

3-18

amplitude changes would not result in significant changes in lake levels compared to current conditions. Although implementing best efforts to minimize the difference between spawning and incubation flows could shift the seasonal timing of releases and affect lake levels, significant changes in lake levels are not expected. Consequently, project operations under Proposed Article 106 for the first six years are not expected to effect ongoing shoreline erosion or ongoing erosion within the drawdown zones of either Baker Lake or Lake Shannon.

After the first six years (once the two new turbine-generator units are installed), Puget would operate the project in accordance with a Flow Implementation Plan and specifically, Aquatic Tables 1 or 2, required by Proposed Article 106. To evaluate any effects on shoreline erosion or erosion within the drawdown zones of either Baker Lake or Lake Shannon, Puget analyzed percent exceedance for water levels and daily water level fluctuations for Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. Results of the analysis of water elevations are displayed in figure 3-1, and results of the analysis of water level fluctuations are displayed in figure 3-2. These results are based on the HYDROPS optimization model used to evaluate flow and water level effects from project operations. An explanation of the HYDROPS model is contained in section 3.3.2, Water Quantity.

3-19

Baker Lake

680

690

700

710

720

730

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Frequency Greater than or Equal to Elevation

Wat

er E

leva

tion

(fee

t, N

AVD

88)

Current Operations

Proposed Operations

Lake Shannon

380

390

400

410

420

430

440

450

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Frequency Greater than or Equal to Elevation

Wat

er E

leva

tion

(fee

t, N

AVD

88)

Current Operations

Proposed Operations

Figure 3-1. Duration analysis of modeled water elevations for Baker Lake and Lake Shannon based on HYDROPS results for five representative years.

3-20

Baker Lake

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Frequency Greater Than or Equal to Water Level Fluctuation

Dai

ly W

ater

Lev

el F

luct

uatio

n (f

eet)

Current Operations

Proposed Operations

Lake Shannon

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Frequency Greater Than or Equal to Water Level Fluctuation

Dai

ly W

ater

Lev

el F

luct

uatio

n (f

eet)

Current OperationsProposed Operations

Figure 3-2. Duration analysis of modeled daily water elevation fluctuations for Baker Lake and Lake Shannon based on HYDROPS results for five representative years.

3-21

Operating the project under the Proposed Action would result in a similar range of Baker Lake water levels compared to current condition (figure 3-1). Baker Lake water levels would tend to remain higher than current levels approximately 70 percent of the time, although the modeled differential remained less than four feet (figure 3-1). The Proposed Action would result in little change in daily water level fluctuations (figure 3-2). Consequently, we have no basis to conclude that the modeled differences in water levels would affect ongoing shoreline erosion or ongoing erosion in the drawdown zone.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in Lake Shannon water levels that are higher than current conditions a little more than half the time (figure 3-1), and would somewhat reduce the frequency of daily water level fluctuations in the one to five-foot range (figure 3-2). Reduced lake level fluctuations in this range could somewhat reduce ongoing erosion along project shorelines.

Proposed Article 110 would require Puget to develop a Reservoir Shoreline Erosion Control Plan (Erosion Control Plan). Under this plan, Puget would evaluate individual eroding sites, propose site-specific treatment measures, prioritize sites for treatment, monitor treated and untreated sites, and update the plan every five years. This plan would ensure that ongoing shoreline erosion and ongoing erosion in drawdown areas are addressed. Any additional effects from operating the project pursuant to the Settlement Agreement would also be addressed. We discuss the effects of project operations on turbidities in section 3.3.3, Water Quality.

Sediment TransportThe downstream movement of most sediment, including all bedload (gravel and

larger-sized sediments) is blocked by the Upper and Lower Baker dams. Currently, only a small portion of the Baker River’s suspended sediment load passes the project. Most of this material is smaller than fine silt.

Despite the fact that the project acts as a sediment trap, available evidence suggests that the Middle Skagit River is currently aggrading. The aggradation may be the natural result of geomorphic processes and/or accelerated yields from tributary streams as a result of land management activities, the reduction in transport capacity caused by flood control at the Baker and Skagit projects, or a combination of these, or other factors.

Proposed Article 108 would require Puget to develop a Gravel Management Plan for evaluating sediment interruption by the Project and identifying any gravel augmentation measures to be implemented by Puget. Puget would develop the Gravel Management Plan in consultation with the Aquatic Resources Group (ARG) and file it along with documentation of consultation, comments and recommendations on this plan, and reasons for not accepting recommendations that it does not adopt. The Gravel

3-22

Management Plan would focus on improving the geomorphic function of the Lower Baker River alluvial fan and the project-affected downstream reach of the Skagit River. The fan landform is defined as the mainstem river channel and the associated depositional feature located within the Skagit River floodplain. This plan would include, at a minimum:

A description of intended gravel augmentation that may address location and contribution of gravel/cobble-sized material in the affected reach, condition and substrate attrition rates in the reach immediately upstream, substrate change rates within the affected reach, and the relationship between substrate sizes and biological needs of salmonids and other aquatic organisms. The amount of gravel augmentation would not exceed 12,500 tons annually, which is the estimated amount of bedload intercepted by the project.

Procedures for conducting cost-effective monitoring and evaluations of conditions in the Skagit River to determine any need for gravel augmentation and to track long-term trends in substrate profile degradation.

Implementation guidelines and triggers for gravel/cobble augmentation that may include the condition of the Middle Skagit River, fluvial geomorphic changes throughout the term of any new license issued, and/or habitat suitability for salmonids or other aquatic organisms using the Middle Skagit River.

Effects Analysis

Project reservoirs act as sediment traps, preventing all bedload and most sediment from reaching the Skagit River. R2 (2004a) estimates that the project reduces the sediment supply to the Skagit River by approximately 6.5 percent. Despite these effects, there is no evidence that in-channel sediment deposits have substantially decreased in the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence. Available evidence suggests that the Middle Skagit River is currently aggrading and surveys of transects located downstream of Sedro-Woolley suggest that the Lower Skagit River has aggraded by one to two feet since the 1970s.

Proposed Article 108 would require Puget to develop a Gravel Management Plan with two main purposes. First, Puget would complete its evaluation of augmenting gravel just below the project at the Lower Baker River alluvial fan which was begun in relicensing study A-16 (R2, 2004c). Adding gravel to the river would improve spawning conditions for Chinook salmon. Second, Puget would monitor the Skagit River downstream of the project on a long-term basis to determine if and when gravel augmentation ever becomes needed. Such augmentation is not needed at this time but could be needed later if aggradation stops. Criteria for beginning any gravel augmentation work in the Skagit River (below the Baker River alluvial fan) would be included in the Gravel Management Plan. Puget’s Gravel Management Plan in Proposed

3-23

Article 108 would enhance spawning conditions for Chinook salmon and possible other fish species in the Lower Baker River. Further, any gravel augmentation in the Skagit River, if determined needed based on long-term monitoring, would also enhance salmonid spawning and mitigate bedload losses caused by the project.

3.3.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse EffectsLake level fluctuations would continue to cause some shoreline erosion and

project reservoirs would continue to trap bedload and sediment from moving downstream. Installation of shoreline stabilization measures, the construction of new trails and other various recreation improvements have the potential for unavoidable, localized increases in erosion.

3.3.1.4 Cumulative EffectsThe Skagit and Baker hydroelectric projects substantially reduce sediment supply

to the Skagit River. The dams block virtually all of the bedload supplied by the basins upstream of each project. Despite these effects, there is no evidence that in-channel sediment deposits have substantially decreased in the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence.

Road construction and land management activities have increased the sediment supply from many tributaries to the Skagit River. As a result, the Skagit Watershed Council set a high priority on sediment reduction in unregulated tributaries (Beamer et al., 2000). Successful implementation of sediment-reduction projects is expected to reduce fine sediment supplied to the Skagit River during any new license term.

The Skagit and Baker hydroelectric projects have substantially reduced the Skagit River’s sediment transport capacity through flood storage. Continued operation of the Skagit and Baker projects would continue these effects.

3.3.2 Water Quantity

3.3.2.1 Affected EnvironmentSurface Water FlowsBaker River—The Baker River has a drainage area of approximately 297 square

miles and contributes approximately 18 percent of the Skagit River’s flow on an average annual basis as measured at the Skagit River near Concrete gage (R2, 2003a). Streamflows in the Baker River basin are driven by rainfall, snow, and glacial melt, and to a lesser extent, groundwater discharge to the stream channel. Using USGS gage data, the proportion of flow that the Baker River contributes to the Skagit River varies under different water year types. The Baker River generally contributes the greatest proportion of flow during August to November, and the smallest proportion of flow during April and

3-24

May. In an average year (1995), the Baker River contributed between 11 percent (April) and 27 percent (November) to the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence.

Average annual runoff in the Baker River basin is about 120 inches, and varies from about 83 inches (USGS gage No. 12192700, Thunder Creek near Concrete) to 158 inches (USGS gage No. 12190718, Swift Creek near Concrete).

Glaciers in the headwaters of streams in the northwestern part of the Baker River basin substantially affect flows during the low-flow period. Pelto and Hartzell (undated) report that glacial melt accounts for 16 percent of the Baker River flow to the Skagit River between July 1 and October 1. This percentage is higher during dry, warm periods. Glacial melt accounted for 45 percent of the Baker River’s outflow during the drought months of 1998. Between 1979 and 1997, glaciers in the basin retreated, and further glacial recession could reduce summer runoff and increase spring runoff from headwater streams.

Most of the tributaries to the Baker River are unregulated; however, the Koma Kulshan Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 3239), which began operation in 1990, diverts up to 120 cfs of flow from Sulphur and Rocky Creeks (tributaries to Lake Shannon) to Sandy Creek (a tributary to Baker Lake).

Flows monitored at the Baker River near Concrete gage reflect the project’s influence on flow patterns. This gage can experience a backwater effect from high flows in the Skagit River (70,000 cfs and greater at the Skagit River near Concrete gage) depending on flow in the Baker River. The reported gage data present existing (regulated) conditions; Puget estimated unregulated flows by removing the storage effects of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. Summaries of both regulated and unregulated (i.e., adjusted for storage) daily mean, maximum 3-day maximum, and minimum 7-day low flows are presented in tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5, respectively.18

Table 3-3. Daily mean statistics (cfs) for Baker River at Concrete under regulated and unregulated conditions (water years 1981 through 2002).a

Unregulatedb RegulatedPeriod Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median MaximumOctober 456 1,369 18,609 95 2,805 19,200November 484 2,366 38,418 95 3,930 21,500December 573 1,753 32,485 82 3,010 19,000January 428 1,841 29,853 80 2,970 14,100February 279 1,721 19,592 80 2,850 5,960

18 Operation of the Project evolved during the late 1970s to early 1980s and has remained relatively stable since that time. Accordingly, water years 1981 through 2002 are used to represent flows under existing operating conditions.

3-25

Unregulatedb RegulatedPeriod Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median MaximumMarch 366 1,659 27,206 47 2,660 4,100April 371 2,095 14,475 30 1,820 9,990May 869 3,084 15,402 56 2,850 5,040June 1,575 3,709 12,311 91 3,660 13,500July 1,170 2,826 20,427 95 2,945 21,000August 591 1,662 10,675 66 2,030 7,080September 577 1,190 9,165 66 1,780 5,120a Water data for 2002 are based on provisional data collected by Puget in 2002. Some

values were rounded in accordance with USGS standard practices in the final data published in Kimbrough et al. (2003). The difference amounts to 1 cfs on any given day and does not materially affect the long-term statistics.

b Unregulated flows were computed by correcting for changes in storage of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon.

Table 3-4. Maximum 3-day maximum flow statistics (cfs) for Baker River at Concrete under regulated and unregulated conditions (water

years 1981 through 2002).a Unregulatedb Regulated

Period Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median MaximumOctober 950 5,299 12,134 1,549 3,898 11,567November 2,000 7,466 26,701 2,540 5,423 16,333December 1,202 5,789 20,695 1,308 4,047 15,233January 2,030 5,194 17,269 2,363 3,958 9,127February 1,669 4,497 15,121 2,443 3,872 5,047March 1,485 3,696 16,530 312 3,732 4,100April 2,534 4,724 10,337 2,034 3,560 7,727May 4,320 5,452 11,354 1,953 3,778 5,383June 3,636 5,741 10,977 2,840 4,037 10,570July 2,997 4,343 17,487 2,717 4,010 17,567c

August 1,605 2,833 6,980 1,650 3,040 5,613September 1,175 2,910 6,057 1,527 3,038 4,550a Water data for 2002 are based on provisional data collected by Puget in 2002. Some values

were rounded in accordance with USGS standard practices in the final data published in Kimbrough et al. (2003). The difference amounts to 1 cfs on any given day and does not materially affect the long-term statistics.


c From July 12 to 14, 1983, a storm event resulted in an atypical increase of the 3-day maximum flow to about 17,567 cfs, compared to an unregulated flow of about 13,321 cfs.

Table 3-5. Minimum 7-day low-flow statistics (cfs) for Baker River at Concrete under regulated and unregulated conditions (water years 1981 through 2002).a

Unregulatedb RegulatedPeriod Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median MaximumOctober 476 800 2,212 175 1,164 2,856

3-26

Unregulatedb RegulatedPeriod Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median MaximumNovember 525 1,370 2,707 736 2,361 4,011December 741 1,107 2,103 176 1,526 3,526January 543 1,155 1,760 115 1,535 3,726February 607 1,125 2,219 151 1,473 3,724March 585 1,178 1,735 49 857 3,759April 893 1,506 2,333 32 120 2,549May 1,350 2,131 3,216 79 1,259 3,106June 2,010 2,909 4,487 93 2,193 4,013July 1,391 2,118 4,556 125 1,693 3,720August 885 1,243 2,325 90 1,216 3,283September 622 894 1,178 90 893 1,425a Water data for 2002 are based on provisional data collected by Puget in 2002. Some values were rounded in accordance with USGS standard practices in the final data published in

Kimbrough et al. (2003). The difference amounts to 1 cfs on any given day and does not materially affect the long-term statistics.


Uunregulated flows are highest in May, June, and July, and lowest in September. Operation of the project generally increases daily mean flows during August to March because the project draws down the reservoirs and shifts runoff from peak flow events to later in the year, and it generally reduces daily mean flows in April and May as the reservoirs are refilled (table 3-3).

The project, under existing conditions, substantially reduces peak flow events. The highest daily mean flows for unregulated conditions occur from November to January (about 30,000 to 38,500 cfs), but are reduced by at least 13,700 cfs with the project (table 3-3). Similarly, maximum 3-day maximum flows in November to January are reduced substantially (approximately 5,500 to 10,500 cfs) by project operations (table 3-4).

The project, under existing conditions, also generally reduces annual 7-day low flows (table 3-5). Generally, project operations reduce 7-day low flows from April to July, increase 7-day low flows from October to February, and have minimal effect on 7-day low flows in August and September. Under regulated conditions, the annual 7-day low flow most frequently occurs during spring refill (i.e., from April to June), but it can occur during any month of the year. In contrast, unregulated 7-day low flows tend to occur in late summer to early fall or in the winter. In general, project operations cause greater interannual variation in 7-day low flows. The increased variability in 7-day low-flow levels and the timing is primarily related to maintenance outages, which can restrict project outflows to 80 cfs for several consecutive days (R2, 2004d).

3-27

The Baker River Project is typically operated as a load-following facility. Flows in the Lower Baker River depend largely on the Lower Baker Development’s single generating unit. This unit efficiently operates between 3,700 and 4,100 cfs at a head of 253 feet. At flows of less than about 75 percent of capacity, pressure differentials result in severe cavitation (Puget, 2002c). When the unit is shut down, 25 cfs is continually released through a bypass valve. In addition, about 55 cfs leaks through pressure relief holes in Lower Baker dam abutments to contribute to the flow in the Baker River below the dam, resulting in a flow of 80 cfs when the Lower Baker Development is off-line.

Load-following operations cause daily flow fluctuations in the Lower Baker River of up to 4,200 cfs. During late June through July (periods of peak sockeye adult migration), Puget typically generates power at the Lower Baker Development for four hours beginning at daylight to provide additional attraction for adult sockeye staging at the confluence of the Skagit and Baker Rivers (Puget, 2002c). Since 1978, Puget has implemented a voluntary restriction on the Lower Baker Development’s downramp rate when Skagit River flows, as measured at the Skagit River near Concrete gage, are less than 18,000 cfs (Puget, 2002c). Following this protocol requires Puget to operate in the Lower Baker turbine’s cavitation zone for about one hour during downramp events. Puget has had varying success in meeting the voluntary downramp rate.

Skagit River—Daily and hourly fluctuations of Skagit River flows depend on many different factors, including natural runoff from glacial and non-glacial streams and operations of the Skagit River and Baker River Projects. Figure 3-3 presents an example of the effects of current Baker River Project load-following operations and natural fluctuations on flows at the Skagit River near Concrete gage. The Skagit River Project was operated at relatively constant flows during this period (May 1998); therefore, this example does not show the effects of the Skagit River Project load-following operations. Since the water travel time from the Lower Baker Development to the Skagit River near Concrete gage is only about 30 minutes under typical generation flows, it closely reflects Baker River Project flow fluctuations without appreciable attenuation. Typical load-following operations at the Lower Baker Development cause the Skagit River to fluctuate up to 3,800 cfs on a daily basis (Puget, 2002c).

Snowmelt in the Upper Skagit River basin can result in substantial daily fluctuations in Skagit River flows. From May 1 to 7, 1998, naturally caused hourly flow fluctuations at the Skagit River near Concrete gage had about the same magnitude as effects from load-following operations at the Baker River Project, which occurred later in the month. During early May, neither the Baker River Project nor the Skagit River Project was operated as load following. Snowmelt produced diurnal flow fluctuations over a cycle of about 12 hours (refer to Sauk River in figure 3-3).

3-28

1998

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1-M

ay

1-M

ay

2-M

ay

3-M

ay

4-M

ay

5-M

ay

6-M

ay

7-M

ay

8-M

ay

9-M

ay

10-M

ay

11-M

ay

12-M

ay

13-M

ay

14-M

ay

15-M

ay

16-M

ay

17-M

ay

18-M

ay

19-M

ay

20-M

ay

21-M

ay

22-M

ay

23-M

ay

24-M

ay

25-M

ay

26-M

ay

27-M

ay

28-M

ay

29-M

ay

30-M

ay

31-M

ay

Date

Flow

(cfs

)

Skagit River near Concete

Sauk River near Sauk

Skagit River at Newhalem

Baker River at Concrete

Figure 3-3. Example of the effect of current Baker River Project operations and natural diurnal fluctuations on May 1998 streamflow at the Skagit River near Concrete gage. Note that the Skagit River Project was not load following during this period. (Source: R2, 2004d)

Seattle City Light also typically operates its Skagit River Project in load-following mode. The Skagit River Project’s lowermost facility is the Gorge powerhouse, which is approximately 40 miles upstream of the Baker River confluence. The Baker River and Skagit River projects often follow similar load-following regimes. R2 (2004d) reported that the magnitude of the Skagit River Project’s ramping events ranged from 1,260 to 3,120 cfs in 1998 at the Skagit River near Concrete gage. Figure 3-4 displays an example of attenuation, lag time, and accumulation of water from other sources as water moves down the river to the Skagit River near Concrete gage. Substantial attenuation occurs upstream of this gage, which results in a slower rate of reduction (and an increase in upramping) of flows. It typically takes approximately six to eight hours for Skagit River Project outflows to reach the confluence with the Baker River. Under current Baker River and Skagit River project operations, load-following operations of the two projects can either amplify or somewhat offset flow fluctuations of each other (Puget, 2002c).

3-29

Figure 3-4. Example of attenuation and lag time upstream of the Skagit River near Concrete gage associated with a typical load-following event at Seattle City Light’s Skagit River Project on April 7–8, 1998. (Source: R2, 2004d)

Flow regulation upstream of the Concrete gage helps reduce downstream flooding. Two major storm events occurred in October 2003, following the period that Puget evaluated to represent existing conditions. Forecasted peak inflows to Baker Lake for the two storms were between 50,000 and 60,000 cfs (NWS, 2003). Peak flow at the Skagit River near Concrete gage was approximately 165,500 cfs on October 21 (NWS, 2003). Both storms resulted in the flood stage of 28.0 feet being exceeded at the Skagit River near Concrete gage. The first storm had a peak stage very near the flood stage for major damage (32.3 feet); whereas, the second storm exceeded this level by nearly ten feet. However, the NWS (2003) reported that flow regulation upstream of Concrete resulted in reducing the second storm’s peak stage level at the Skagit River near Concrete gage from 45.2 to 42.2 feet.

Reservoir Water LevelsBaker Lake—Baker Lake, impounded by the Upper Baker dam, is

approximately nine miles long and one mile wide. At the normal full pool elevation of 727.77 feet msl, the lake has a surface area of 4,980 acres, an estimated storage capacity of 274,221 acre-feet, and provides approximately 180,128 acre-feet of active storage above the minimum generating level. HDR (2004) reported that Baker Lake has average

3-30

April 7-8, 1998

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

17.5

0

18.5

0

19.5

0

20.5

0

21.5

0

22.5

0

23.5

0

0.50

1.50

2.50

3.50

4.50

5.50

6.50

7.50

8.50

9.50

10.5

0

11.5

0

12.5

0

13.5

0

14.5

0

15.5

0

16.5

0

17.5

0

18.5

0

19.5

0

20.5

0

21.5

0

22.5

0

23.5

0

Time (hours)

Inst

anta

neou

s Fl

ow (c

fs)

Skagit River at NewhalemSkagit River at Marblemount

Skagit River near Concrete

Stage change = 1.24 ft

Lag time = 2.25 hrs

Lag time = 6.5 hrs

Stage change = 0.64 ft

retention times of 25 to 70 days. Based on the 30-day, 10-year low flow and minimum generating pool elevation, retention time would be 461 days.

Baker Lake is held near full pool during the summer, and minimum reservoir levels typically occur between November and early April. Baker Lake’s historical water surface levels from 1981 through 2002 varied 49.3 feet, between about 678.6 and 727.9 feet msl. Based on monthly median values, Baker Lake was within ten feet of full pool from June to October, and was lowest (about 30 feet below full pool) during March.

Lake Shannon—Lower Baker dam impounds Lake Shannon. At the normal full pool elevation of 442.35 feet msl, the reservoir is about seven miles long, and has a surface area of 2,278 acres and an estimated storage capacity of 146,279 acre-feet (plus unknown additional storage below the minimum generating pool level of 373.75 feet msl). The reservoir has an active storage capacity of approximately 116,770 acre-feet above minimum generating level. HDR (2004) reported that Lake Shannon has average retention times of 7 to 31 days. Based on the 30-day, 10-year low flow and minimum generating pool elevation, retention time would be 233 days.

Lake Shannon reaches the normal full pool elevation in most years. In some years, the normal full pool level is exceeded for short periods while water is spilled through the dam’s spillway gates.

Based on monthly median water levels for the period 1981 through 2002, the reservoir was within ten feet of full pool from June to December. Monthly median levels were within five feet of the full pool elevation from July to September and November. The lowest monthly median level was approximately 33 feet below full pool and occurred in March.

Depression Lake—Depression Lake is adjacent to West Pass dike at the Upper Baker Development. Water enters Depression Lake, in part, as a result of subsurface leakage from Baker Lake, which is transmitted through native materials that include a series of lava flows underlying both Baker and Depression Lakes. When Baker Lake drops below an elevation of 701.77 feet msl, seepage into Depression Lake stops. It is estimated that 11 to 22 cfs exits the impoundment via fractures within the lava bed when it is near full pool (Shannon & Wilson, 1979). The water that collects in Depression Lake is transferred into Baker Lake via a water recovery pumping station and a channel leading to Baker Lake. Depression Lake receives an average inflow of 70 to 80 cfs, principally from groundwater sources, when Baker Lake is near full pool. Typically, Puget operates the pumping station for about 14 hours each day to maintain Depression Lake’s water surface at an elevation of 695.77 to 698.77 feet msl, which results in a hydraulic residence time of about four days. At a water level of 698.77 feet msl, Depression Lake has a surface area of approximately 44 acres, and a storage capacity of about 234 acre-feet.

3-31

GroundwaterGroundwater is present throughout the Baker River basin within consolidated and

unconsolidated geologic units.

A generalized map of groundwater availability in the Skagit River basin (Drost and Lombard, 1978, as cited by Puget, 2002b) suggests that well yields from unconsolidated aquifer units in the Baker River basin range from 11 to 25 gallons per minute; generally sufficient for single-family domestic use and limited irrigation use.

Groundwater data for consolidated geologic units are limited; however, review of data for similar geologic units indicates that well yields would be adequate for only limited domestic use under most circumstances. Possible exceptions are the Sulphur Creek lava flows located along the southwest rim of Baker Lake and the Horseshoe Cove area of Baker Lake.

Water RightsPuget operates the Baker River Project under water rights issued by the State of

Washington. Puget has approved water rights for the Upper Baker Development for 298,000 acre-feet of storage and a total of 4,800 cfs for the production of power. The Lower Baker Development is operated under water right certificates for a total of 190,000 acre-feet of storage and a total of 6,000 cfs for the production of energy. In addition to these rights, Puget has been issued water rights that are used for fish propagation at the Upper Baker spawning beaches, Sulphur Creek spawning beaches and rearing pond, and for domestic uses near the Upper Baker dam.

3.3.2.2 Environmental EffectsInstream FlowsThe Baker River Project can control most flows originating from the Baker River

basin, except when inflow to the project exceeds its storage capacity or when it is under the direct control of the Corps for flood control operations. Under Current Operation, at least 80 cfs is continually provided to the Lower Baker River for operation of the adult fish trap-and-haul facility. This flow is provided by a combination of dam and abutment leakage (approximately 55 cfs) and at least 25 cfs through a bypass valve when the generating unit is offline (the valve has a capacity of 80 cfs). Typically, Puget operates the project in load-following mode to help meet energy demands. These operations cause daily flow fluctuations in the Lower Baker River of up to 4,200 cfs. Baker River Project load-following operations, along with Seattle City Light’s similar operation of the Skagit River Project, have considerable influence on flows in the Middle Skagit River, and Baker River Project releases can either amplify or somewhat offset the effects of Seattle City Light’s operations on the Middle Skagit River (figure 3-3).

3-32

Under Proposed Article 106, Puget would operate the project in accordance with an Interim Protection Plan for the first six years. Under the Interim Protection Plan, Puget would moderate flows in the Skagit River by limiting flow reductions attributable to the project and by capturing high flows or augmenting low flows in order to improve spawning conditions for Chinook salmon (see Appendix B for the Interim Protection Plan). Puget would also use best efforts to protect other species of salmonids by reducing the project’s maximum generation from 4,100 to 3,200 cfs; by investigating ways and using best efforts to reduce ramping rates; and by limiting the amount of daily amplitude change and minimizing the difference between spawning and incubation flows.

Also under Proposed Article 106, Puget would prepare a Flow Implementation Plan that would: (1) specify the schedule for installing two new 750-cfs turbine-generator units in a new auxiliary powerhouse; (2) require implementation of Aquatics Tables 1 or 2 which specify new minimum flows, maximum flows and ramping rates and; (3) contain procedures for amending the above tables and plan.

Aquatic Tables 1 and 2 contain the specific operating procedures agreed to by the Settlement Parties. In summary, these procedures are: (1) a minimum flow of 1,000 cfs from August 1 to October 20 and a minimum flow of 1,200 cfs during the rest of the year; (2) a maximum flow of 3,200 to 5,600 cfs depending on the time of year, except when inflow to Baker Lake or flow in the Skagit River is high; and (3) downramp rates for the Skagit River at “Transect 1” (RM 56.5) of 0 to 2 inches per hour depending on the time of year and whether day or night. Downramp rates would be in effect when Skagit River flows immediately upstream of the Baker River confluence are less than or equal to 26,000 cfs. Aquatics Table 1 also shows the amount of flood storage the Corps would use at the Upper Baker Development pursuant to Proposed Article 107(a). Aquatics Table 2 shows the amount of flood storage available to the Corps at the Lower Baker Development pursuant to Proposed Article 107(b).

Proposed Article 106 also includes protocols for monitoring, evaluating compliance, and reporting. The Baker River near Concrete gage would be used for measuring compliance with flow release restrictions, and a combination of measurements recorded at this gage and at the Skagit River near Concrete gage would be used for measuring compliance with ramping rates. Puget would continuously monitor flow and stage at appropriate gages. Puget would also prepare annual flow implementation reports that address implementation of Proposed Article 106 in consultation with Ecology, FWS, NMFS, Forest Service, WDFW, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, and other ARG members. Puget would report any violations within 24 hours and would provide the Commission, Ecology and the ARG a follow-up report within two weeks of any incident.

3-33

Table 3-6: Aquatics Table 1. Flows and reservoir elevations proposed for the Baker River Project, FERC No. 2150. Lower Baker Development

Engineering Module: Three turbines (one 4,100 cfs turbine, two 750-cfs turbinesUpper Baker Development

No changes to turbine configuration

PeriodMin. Instream

Flow (cfs)Max. Instream

Flow (cfs) (1)Downramping

Rates (2)Flood Control Storage (AF)

Max Pool Level (ft)(NAVD 88)

Min Pool Level (ft) (NAVD 88) Period

Flood Control

Storage (AF)

Max Pool (3)

Level (ft)(NAVD 88)

Min Pool Level (ft) (NAVD 88)

Max Daily Pool Level

ChangeAug 1-31 1,000 3,600

1-inch per hour day and night

No flood

control

requirement

442.35 404.75 Aug 1-31 No flood control

requirement prior to 10/1

727.77 724.8 Max pool fluctuation < 0.5 ft per rolling 24-hr period

Sep 1-3 1,000 3,600 442.35 404.75 Sept 3 727.77 724.8

4-9 1,000 3,600 442.35 404.75 Sept 9 727.77 720.810-30 1,000 3,200 442.35 404.75 Sept 30 727.77 718.8

No constraints

on max daily pool

level changes

Oct 1-7 1,000 3,200 (1) 442.35 389 Oct 7Gradual

drawdown to 74,000

AF by 11/15

727.11(4) 713.88-15 1,000 3,200 (1) 442.35 389 Oct 15 726.23(4) 685

16-20 1,000 3,200 (1) 442.35 389 Oct 20 725.68(4) 68521-31 1,200 3,600 (1) 442.35 389 Oct 31 724.47(4) 685

Nov 1-15 1,200 3,600 (1)

2-inches per hour day and night

442.35 389 Nov 14 712.42(4) 68516-30 1,200 3,600 (1) 442.35 389 Nov 15-30

74,000 AF 11/15 to

03/01

711.56 685Dec 1-31 1,200 3,600 (1) 442.35 389 Dec 1-31 711.56 685Jan 1-31 1,200 5,600 442.35 389 Jan 1-31 711.56 685Feb 1-15 1,200 5,600 442.35 389 Feb 1-15 711.56 685

16-28 1,200 5,600

0 inches per hour day

and 2 inches per hour

night

442.35 389 16-28 711.56 685Mar 1-31 1,200 5,600 442.35 389 Mar 1-31 Gradual refill 718 685Apr 1-30 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 Apr 1-30

No flood control

requirement after 04/01

718 685May 1-8 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 May 1-8 727.77 685

9-14 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 9-14 727.77 713.815-22 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 15-22 727.77 718.823-31 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 23-31 727.77 724.8 Max pool

fluctuation < 0.5 ft per rolling 24-hr period

Jun 1-15 1,200 5,600 442.35 404.75 Jun 1-15 727.77 724.816-30 1,200 5,600 1-inch /hour

day and night

442.35 404.75 16-30 727.77 724.8

Jul 1-31 1,200 5,600 442.35 404.75 Jul 1-31 727.77 724.8

(1) Maximum release constraints eliminated when Baker Lake inflow > 10 % monthly exceedance flow OR Skagit River above the Baker River confluence > 24,000 cfs October through December.

No minimum flow requirements.No maximum instream flow constraint.No downramping limitations for environmental interests.

(2) Downramping rates measured at the Baker River at Concrete, but based on stage changes observed at Transect 1 on the mainstem Skagit River below the Baker River confluence (RM 56.5). (3) Maximum elevation unless otherwise directed by the District Engineer (Corps) during Flood Season.

(4) Daily reservoir elevations between October 1, November 1, and November 15 shall be at or below straight lines drawn between 727.77 and 724.47 and between 724.47 and 711.56 for those respective dates with a gradual refill after March 1.

3-34

Table 3-7: Aquatics Table 2. Flows and reservoir elevations proposed for the Baker River Project, FERC No. 2150 if Proposed Article 107 is adopted. Lower Baker Development



PeriodMin. Instream




Max Pool (3)

Level (ft)

(NAVD 88)


Flood Control

Storage (AF)

Max Pool (3)

Level (ft)(NAVD 88)



ChangeAug 1-31 1,000 3,600


No flood control





Sep 1-3 1,000 3,600 442.35 404.75 Sept 3 727.03 (4) 724.8

4-9 1,000 3,600 442.35 404.75 Sept 9 724.82 (4) 720.810-30 1,000 3,200 442.35 404.75 Sept 30 717.09 (4) 718.8

No constraints

on max daily pool

level changes

Oct 1-7 1,000 3,200 (1)

29,000 AF 10/01 to 03/01

428.55 389 Oct 7

Gradual drawdown

to 74000 AF by 10/15 (4)

74,000 AF 10/15 to

03/01

714.51 (4) 713.88-15 1,000 3,200 (1) 428.55 389 Oct 15 711.56 (4) 685

16-20 1,000 3,200 (1) 428.55 389 16-20 711.56 68521-31 1,200 3,600 (1) 428.55 389 21-31 711.56 685

Nov 1-15 1,200 3,600 (1)


428.55 389 Nov 1-15 711.56 68516-30 1,200 3,600 (1) 428.55 389 16-30 711.56 685

Dec 1-31 1,200 3,600 (1) 428.55 389 Dec 1-31 711.56 685Jan 1-31 1,200 5,600 428.55 389 Jan 1-31 711.56 685Feb 1-15 1,200 5,600 428.55 389 Feb 1-15 711.56 685

16-28 1,200 5,600



night

428.55 389 16-28 711.56 685Mar 1-31 1,200 5,600

No flood control


442.35 389 Mar 1-31 Gradual refill 718 685Apr 1-30 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 Apr 1-30

No flood control


718 685May 1-8 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 May 1-8 727.77 685

9-14 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 9-14 727.77 713.815-22 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 15-22 727.77 718.823-31 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 23-31 727.77 724.8 Max pool


Jun 1-15 1,200 5,600 442.35 404.75 Jun 1-15 727.77 724.816-30 1,200 5,600 1-inch /hour

day and night

442.35 404.75 16-30 727.77 724.8

Jul 1-31 1,200 5,600 442.35 404.75 Jul 1-31 727.77 724.8




(4) Daily reservoir elevations between October 1 and October 15, shall be at or below straight lines drawn between 727.77 and 711.56 for those respective dates with a gradual refill after March 1.

3-35

Effects Analysis

The IPP operations (Appendix B), which would continue for the first 6 years after license issuance, were developed to improve spawning conditions for Chinook salmon downstream of the Baker River confluence. The IPP was developed to provide more protection to downstream aquatic habitats by reducing ramping rates and allowing Puget to release flows that fill the load-following troughs released from the upstream Skagit River Project. The early Chinook salmon spawning period of the IPP maintains relatively low flows during September 16 to October 15, which reduces the risk of egg losses associated with dewatering. The late Chinook salmon spawning period allows Chinook to spawn higher along the stream margins during the wetter half of the spawning period (October 16 to November 15), which provides some redd protection from potential flood flows during winter storm events. During October 1 to November 15, the IPP requires Puget to reserve up to 41,000 acre feet of reservoir storage, which can be used to protect downstream spawning habitat during dry conditions. Puget would have more control of project flow releases after the new auxiliary powerhouse at the Lower Baker Development is installed, which would provide further fishery habitat benefits in the Baker and Skagit Rivers.

After the first 6 years, Puget would operate the project in accordance with a Flow Implementation Plan that would incorporate Aquatic Tables 1 or 2 contained in Proposed Article 106. Based on an analysis of the effects of operating the project as proposed by Puget, low flows downstream of the Lower Baker Development would be substantially higher in the Lower Baker River following the installation of the new auxiliary powerhouse. Lower Baker River 90 percent exceedance flows would be increased from 80 cfs to at least 1,000 cfs during all months of the year, and flows for the Skagit River would increase nine out of 12 months (figure 3-5).

3-36

Baker River at Concrete Gage (USGS No. 12193500)

0

1,000

2,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

90%

Exc

eeda

nce

Flow

(cfs

) Current Operations Proposed Operations

Skagit River below Baker River

0

5,000

10,000

15,000


90%

Exc

eeda

nce

Flow

(cfs


Figure 3-5. Modeled hourly 90 percent exceedance flows for Current Operations and Proposed Operations, based on HYDROPS results for five representative years.

Average hourly flows under the Proposed Action are similar to Current Operations January through March, May through August, and November through December (figure 3-6).

3-37

Baker River below Upper Development, at Warning Sign

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000


Aver

age

Flow

(cfs

)

Current Operations Proposed Operations


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000


Aver

age

Flow

(cfs

)



0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000


Aver

age

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure 3-6. Modeled average hourly flows for Current Operations and Proposed Operations, based on HYDROPS results for five representative years.

3-38

The main differences in the monthly average flows would result from shifting the drawdown and refill season for Baker Lake. Under the Proposed Action, the largest changes would be reduced Baker River flows in April and September and increased Baker River flows in October. In the Skagit River, resulting changes would be small (five percent or less) compared to overall flows.

The ten percent exceedance flows, used to evaluate high flows, under the Proposed Action would be similar to flows under Current Operations in the Baker River downstream of the Upper Baker Development and in the Skagit River (figure 3-7). This information indicates that the greatest differences in ten percent exceedance flows would occur in the Baker River below the Lower Baker Development during March. Implementing the Proposed Action would reduce March flows from about 4,000 cfs to 1,200 cfs (70 percent) and would increase November to February flows from about 4,000 to 4,400 cfs up to about 5,400 to 5,600 cfs (26 to 33 percent). The ten percent exceedance flows for the Baker River below the Upper Baker Development would increase approximately 18 percent in October.

3-39


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000


10%

Exc

eeda

nce

Flow

(cfs



0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000


10%

Exc

eeda

nce

Flow

(cfs

) Current Operations Proposed Operation


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000


10%

Exc

eeda

nce

Flow

(cfs


Figure 3-7. Modeled ten percent exceedance flows for Current Operations and Proposed Operations, based on HYDROPS results for five representative years.

3-40

Daily flow fluctuations in the Baker River downstream of the Upper Baker Development under the Proposed Action would remain similar to those that under the Current Operations (figure 3-8). In the Lower Baker River, flow fluctuations would be substantially reduced, by up to 4,000 cfs. In the Skagit River downstream of the project, flow fluctuations would be reduced by 500 cfs or more, 38 percent of the time. These reductions in flow fluctuations would be beneficial to salmonid spawning habitat conditions.

3-41


0

5,000

10,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Frequency that Flow Fluctuation is Equalled or Exeeded

Flow

Flu

ctua

tion

(cfs

) Current OperationsProposed Operations


0

5,000

10,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Flow

Flu

ctua

tion

(cfs



0

5,000

10,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Flow

Flu

ctua

tion

(cfs


Figure 3-8. Annual percent exceedance of modeled daily flow fluctuations for Current Operations and Proposed Operations, based on HYDROPS results for five representative years.

3-42

Agency RecommendationsOn March 16, and March 21, 2005, respectively, NMFS and WDFW filed two

recommendations for fish protection measures not contained in the Settlement Agreement: (1) provide a flow continuation valve, and (2) schedule annual operation inspections; permit agencies and tribes other reasonable inspections; maintain and make available project operational records; and notify resource agencies of unusual operational incidents. Each of these recommendations is discussed below.

Flow Continuation Valve—NMFS and WDFW recommend Puget provide a flow continuation valve at the Lower Baker development to ensure compliance with new downramping rates, amplitude, and minimum flows contained in the Settlement Agreement. Both agencies indicate load rejections or other circumstances can cause turbine outages that prevent Puget from meeting downstream flow requirements. A flow continuation valve would ensure ramping rates and minimum flows can be maintained when turbine outages occur.

Inspections, Records and Notification—NMFS and WDFW recommend Puget schedule annual operation inspections for agencies and tribes to ensure that fish protection measures are functioning as expected. NMFS and WDFW also recommend Puget permit the agencies and tribes to inspect the project at any reasonable time before, during or after construction to evaluate activities that may affect fish and wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. Both agencies recommend Puget maintain and make available a record of project operations including the daily amount of diversion, spill and fluctuation for all flows. In addition, NMFS recommends Puget document all unusual occurrences such as load rejections; powerhouse mechanical problems; turbine, intake and fish screen failures; and sedimentation events. NMFS says such events should be brought to the agencies’ attention immediately.

Effects Analysis

Flow Continuation Valve—Interruptions in flow to stream reaches can dewater redds with incubating eggs and alevins. Salmonid eggs can withstand one to five weeks of continuous redd dewatering with no ill effects on hatching success or alevin and juvenile growth rates provided that the eggs do not free or reach lethal incubation temperatures and the surrounding sediments remain moist (Reiser and White, 1983). Yolk-sac alevins and pre-emergent alevins in redds are less tolerant of prolonged dewatering. For example, Becker et al. (1982) observed the survivability of newly hatched Chinook yolk-sac alevins in artificial redds decline from 96 percent survival after six hours of continuous dewatering, to 65 percent after 12 hours, 29 percent survival after 24 hours, and four percent after 48 hours. Older, pre-emergent alevin survivability decreased to one percent after only six hours of continuous dewatering.

3-43

Puget’s PDEA contains several references to installing a flow continuation device including table 5-56 which describes as part of the Proposed Action “Installation of new turbines with flow continuation devices [to] minimize flow reductions due to load rejections.” However, flow continuation devices or valves were not included as part of the Settlement Agreement. Commission staff contacted Puget to clarify the Proposed Action with respect to any flow continuation devices. Puget does not propose to install a flow continuation device at the Lower Baker development.19

NMFS and WDFW recommend Puget provide a flow continuation valve at the Lower Baker development to ensure compliance with new downramping rates, amplitude, and minimum flows contained in the Settlement Agreement. This recommendation would require a valve or valves designed to provide flows from 5,600 cfs (the maximum generation with the new units installed) to 1,000 cfs (the lowest minimum flow). Any valve would also have to be capable of meeting ramping rates contained in Proposed Article 106 which specifies downramping rates as low as one inch per hour.

Partial flow continuation would be provided at the Lower Baker development through the use of the two new 750 cfs turbine-generator units in the proposed new auxiliary powerhouse. As designed, the two new units would add redundancy at Lower Baker enabling Puget to maintain minimum flows despite the loss of any one unit or the loss of the two new 750 cfs units.

Despite this added redundancy, it’s quite likely that over the term of any new license, circumstances would periodically force more than one unit off-line thus preventing Puget from meeting its new minimum flow and ramping rates and potentially leading to dewatering of salmonid redds and decreased survivability of pre-emergent alevins. Table H-8 of Puget’s license application lists unscheduled outages at the Lower Baker development from 1998 to 2002. During this time, there were 29 instances of mechanical failure or other circumstances that caused unscheduled outages at Lower Baker. A flow continuation valve or valves would enable Puget to continue providing minimum flows and meeting ramping rates under most, if not all scenarios. Such a valve(s) would maintain the fishery benefits for which the minimum flows and ramping rates are proposed. We make our final recommendation regarding any need for flow continuation valves in the Comprehensive Development section.

Inspections, Records and Notification—As discussed above, NMFS and WDFW recommend Puget schedule annual operation inspections and permit agencies and tribes to inspect the project’s fish protection measures at any reasonable time before, during or

19 Telephone conversation record between Steve Hocking (FERC) and Cary Feldmann (Puget) filed with the Commission on May 19, 2005.

3-44

after construction activities. Both agencies recommend Puget maintain certain records and NMFS recommends documenting and notifying the agencies of unusual occurrences.

These recommendations would help ensure that the agencies and tribes remain informed about the construction, operation and maintenance of fish protection measures at the Project. Agencies and tribes could then provide Puget with timely feedback which should help Puget implement fish protection measures contained in the Settlement Agreement. We make our final recommendation regarding any need for the above inspection, records and notification measures in the Comprehensive Development section.

Reservoir Level ManagementPuget does not have any lake level requirements or restrictions in its current

license except for Article 32, which requires Puget to lower Baker Lake and provide up to 100,000 acre-feet of storage for flood control purposes if requested by the Corps (discussed in the next section). Under Current Operations, Puget operates the project as described under the IPP. Other than storage for flood control, Puget operates the project with the goal of meeting target water levels in both Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. Puget’s goal is to maintain Baker Lake at elevation 718.77 feet msl at a minimum from the July 4th weekend through the Labor Day weekend. At Lake Shannon, Puget operates the project with the goal of maintaining water levels at elevation 404.75 feet msl at a minimum from April 15 through the Labor Day weekend.

Under the Proposed Action, lake levels would be required in accordance with Aquatic Tables 1 or 2 of Proposed Article 106. Figures 3-9 and 3-10 graphically display the proposed target maximum and minimum lake levels under the Proposed Action compared with Current Operations for both reservoirs.

3-45

Figure 3-9. Target maximum and minimum Baker Lake water levels for Current Operations and Proposed Operations.

3-46

Baker Lake - Current Operations

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

Wat

er E

leva

tion

(fee

t) (N

AVD

88)

Regulated Maximum

Regulated Minimum

Minimum Generating Pool

Baker Lake - Proposed Operations

670

680

690

700

710

720

730

Wat

er E

leva

tion

(fee

t) (N

AVD

88)

Regulated Maximum

Regulated Minimum


Figure 3-10. Target maximum and minimum Lake Shannon water levels for Current Operations and Proposed Operations.

3-47

Lake Shannon - Current Operations

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

420

430

440

450

1-Au

g

1-Se

p

1-Oc

t

1-No

v

1-De

c

1-Ja

n

1-Fe

b

1-M

ar

1-Ap

r

1-M

ay

1-Ju

n

1-Ju

l

1-Au

g

Wat

er E

leva

tion

(fee

t) (N

AVD

88)

Regulated Maximum

Regulated Minimum


Lake Shannon - Proposed Operations

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

420

430

440

450

1-Au

g

1-Se

p

1-Oc

t

1-No

v

1-De

c

1-Ja

n

1-Fe

b

1-M

ar

1-Ap

r

1-M

ay

1-Ju

n

1-Ju

l

1-Au

g

Wat

er E

leva

tion

(fee

t) (N

AVD

88)

Regulated Maximum

Regulated Minimum


Effects Analysis

Until the new auxiliary powerhouse is installed, Puget would continue to operate the project as described in the IPP. Puget would continue to make its best effort to limit downramping rates, limit daily amplitude changes, and minimize the difference between spawning and incubation flows.

Following the installation of the new auxiliary powerhouse, operating under Proposed Article 106, lake levels would vary compared to Current Operations. Figures 3-11 and 3-12 presents box plots of modeled hourly water levels for Baker Lake and Lake Shannon provided by Puget in the PDEA. Each plot is based on all HYDROPS hourly modeled elevations for a specific operational regime for the five selected years.

3-48

Note: Bars – Minimums and maximums.

Boxes – 25 and 75 percent exceedances.

X – Median values.

Figure 3-11. Modeled Baker Lake water elevations for Current Operations and Proposed Operations based on HYDROPS results for five representative years.

3-49

Current Operations

680

690

700

710

720

730


Wat

er E

leva

tion

(feet

, NAV

D 88

)

Proposed Operations

680

690

700

710

720

730


Wat

er E

leva

tion

(feet

, NAV

D 88

)

Note: Bars – Minimums and maximums.

Boxes – 25 and 75 percent exceedances.

X – Median values.

Figure 3-12. Modeled Lake Shannon water elevations for Current Operations and Proposed Operations based on HYDROPS results for five representative years.

3-50

Current Operations

380

390

400

410

420

430

440

450


Wat

er E

leva

tion

(feet

, NAV

D 88

)

Proposed Operations

380

390

400

410

420

430

440

450


Wat

er E

leva

tion

(feet

, NAV

D 88

)

Water elevation plots for Baker Lake show that operating the project as proposed would result in delayed fall drawdown and earlier spring refill compared to Current Operations. Instead of drawing down Baker Lake in late August/early September as occurs under Current Operations, drawdown would be delayed. The lowest modeled September water elevation for the Proposed Action is approximately 717.4 feet msl; whereas approximately 65 percent of the modeled values for Current Operations are below this level. The change in general operating parameters created by the flow regime prescribes a more controlled lake level drawdown with the Proposed Action relative to Current Operations. The change does not impair the ability of the project to reach scheduled flood storage elevations. The lowest modeled April and May elevations for the Proposed Action are higher than for Current Operations by more than 10.5 feet for April and more than 18 feet for May. This is a result of a much smaller drawdown in the somewhat dry year (energy year 1993) for the Proposed Action than Current Operations. Baker Lake water levels would generally be within three feet of full pool under both the Proposed Action and Current Operations during June through August.

For very wet years (e.g. energy year 1996), water levels would exceed the levels set to provide flood storage during most of November through January for both the Proposed Action and Current Operations. This reflects the same reservoir levels that occur under current active flood storage. The November 1 to March 1 flood storage levels would also be satisfied during each of the other four years modeled.

Under the Proposed Action, fall drawdown of Lake Shannon would continue to occur, although October through February water levels would typically remain higher than under Current Operations. April and May water levels would be much more variable under the Proposed Action than under current conditions. The Proposed Action would have little effect on the frequency that Lake Shannon’s water level is within three feet of full pool during September.

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would continue to monitor the water levels of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon at 15-minute intervals or less for operational purposes. Monitoring the lake levels in this manner would provide the data necessary to document compliance with lake level restrictions.

Flood Control OperationsAs discussed in section 2.1.2.2, Article 32 of the current license requires Puget to

provide up to 100,000 acre-feet of storage at the Upper Baker Development for flood control purposes if requested by the Corps. Under Article 32, Puget must provide 16,000 acre-feet of storage from November 1 to March 1 and up to an additional 84,000 acre-feet from about September 1 to April 15 each year (table 3-8, column 1).

3-51

Table 3-8. Flood Control Storage at the Upper Baker Development in acre-feet. (Source: Staff).

Currently, the Corps requires Puget to provide 74,000 acre-feet of storage in conformance with its 1977 Congressional authorization. Of this amount, 16,000 acre-feet are provided from November 1 to March 1 and an additional 58,000 acre-feet are provided from November 15 to March 1 each year (table 3-8, column 2).

Proposed Article 107(a) in the Settlement Agreement would enable the Corps to continue to use up to 74,000 acre-feet of storage at the Upper Baker Development but over an extended period of time. As shown in table 3-8, column 3, the Corps would be permitted to use storage at the project about two weeks earlier and continue using storage about six weeks longer, compared to the Corps’s current operation.

Proposed Article 107(b) in the Settlement Agreement would provide the Corps an additional 29,000 acre-feet of storage at the Lower Baker Development for flood control from October 1 to March 1. This storage would be in addition to the storage provided under Proposed Article 107(a) at the Upper Baker Development.

Effects Analysis

Before the Corps can use an extended storage period contained in Proposed Article 107(a) or additional storage contained in Proposed Article 107(b), the Corps has stated that it must complete its own study and receive Congressional authorization. In pursuit of this goal, the Corps is currently performing a General Investigation (GI) study to evaluate how best to accomplish additional flood damage reduction in the Skagit River valley. In its study, the Corps is considering all flood control options in the basin including modified levees, diversions, and dikes, as well as additional storage and/or modified operations at the Baker River Project. The engineering, economic, and environment costs and benefits of each option will be evaluated leading to a recommendation for the most cost effective method(s) of reducing flood peaks. The Corps expects to complete its GI study by 2008. Until this time, the Corps intends to continue to implement its current flood control operation which as shown in table 3-8, column 4.

3-52

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Storage Available to Corps Under

Existing Article 32

Storage Used by Corps Under

Existing Article 32

Storage Available to Corps Under

Proposed Article 107(a)

Storage Corps Intends to Use

Under Proposed Article 107(a)

16,000 84,000 16,000 58,000 16,000 58,000 16,000 58,000

11/1-3/1 about 9/1-4/15 11/1-3/1 11/15-3/1 10/15-3/1 about

9/1-4/15 11/1-3/1 11/15-3/1

Total 100,000 ac-ft Total 74,000 ac-ft Total 74,000 ac-ft Total 74,000 ac-ft

Both Puget and Skagit County retained consultants20 to study the effects of additional storage at the project. Studies from each consultant were filed with the Commission.21 These studies are preliminary and have not been completed, nor have these studies been technically reviewed by the Corps; however, preliminary results from both consultants indicate that an extended period of time and/or additional storage would yield additional flood control benefits. Tetra Tech’s report states that all of the additional flood storage alternatives considered in its study would likely provide net benefits; however, the risk of flooding would still exist. Pacific International Engineering’s study states that additional flood storage at the project would provide additional flood reduction benefits, but also notes that operation and structural modifications would need to be considered.

In summary, preliminary results indicate that the extended storage period

contained in Proposed Article 107(a) and/or the additional storage in Proposed Article 107(b) could provide additional flood control benefits. Nevertheless, the Corps has stated that it cannot make any changes to its existing flood control operation until it completes its GI study and receives Congressional authorization. Given the Corps’s position, and the pending GI study in which the Corps is evaluating all flood damage reduction options in the basin, including additional storage and/or modified operations at the Baker River Project, we defer to the Corps to complete its GI study and to file study results and any flood control recommendations for the project with the Commission. Appropriate reopener provisions in the license would ensure the Commission could require additional flood control measures in the future after the Corps has completed its GI study and has provided study results and any recommendations to the Commission.

As currently written, Proposed Article 107(a) would require Puget to provide “up to a maximum of 58,000 acre-feet” of additional storage as may be requested by the Corps “about September 1 to April 15.” The use of the word “about” does not conform to standard license article language; a license article must be written in a fashion that enables the Commission to determine compliance with the article. To this end, Commission staff recommends removing the word “about” and any terms in proposed

20 Puget retained Tetra Tech, Inc. and Skagit County retained Pacific International Engineering.

21 Tetra Tech, Inc., Draft Memorandum, Skagit River Flood Reduction Feasibility Study – Baker Project Evaluation – Phase I, dated November 14, 2003; Tetra Tech, Inc., Draft Memorandum, Skagit River Flood Reduction Feasibility Study – Baker Project Evaluation – Phase III, dated December 19, 2003; and Pacific International Engineering, Technical Memorandum, Analysis of Flood Control Storage at Baker River Project, dated August 27, 2004. These memoranda were attached to Puget’s August 30, 2004, response to the Commission’s July 30, 2004, request for additional information.

3-53

license articles that make compliance with the article difficult to determine. Also, because the word “maximum” does not add useful meaning to the aforementioned storage volume of 58,000 acre-feet, we recommend removing this word as well.

As currently written, Aquatics Table 2 does not match Aquatics Table 1 with regards to dates and lake elevations for flood control storage at the Upper Baker Development. These dates and lake elevations should be the same since only the Lower Baker Development has altered flood control storage procedures between the two tables. Commission staff recommends that Aquatics Table 2 be revised to match Aquatics Table 1 for the Upper Baker Development.

Secondary Effects

New Auxiliary PowerhouseConstructing a new auxiliary powerhouse containing two new 750-cfs turbine-

generator units would require Puget to take the existing Lower Baker powerhouse off-line for two months to dewater the flow line and remove the concrete plug in the tunnel leading to the new powerhouse. Puget has tentatively scheduled this action for September through mid-November. During this period, Puget would control flow releases to the Lower Baker River through Upper Baker powerhouse releases and Lower Baker spillway gate adjustments. Releases from the Upper Baker powerhouse would be variable and would depend on inflow to Baker Lake. Puget plans to maintain Lake Shannon at an elevation above 424.8 feet msl to control releases through the Lower Baker spillway gates.

3.3.2.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects In spite of the protective measures contained in the Proposed Action, the project

would still have the potential for short-term rapid changes in river flow and daily flow fluctuations as a consequence of hydroelectric project operations.

3.3.2.4 Cumulative EffectsThe Baker River Project affects flows in the mainstem Skagit River through its

storage and release of water for power generation and flood control. Seasonally, the project tends to augment mainstem Skagit River flows from August through March and reduce mainstem Skagit River flows in April and May. Under Current Operations, Puget typically operates the project in load-following mode, which may cause fluctuations in mainstem Skagit River flows of up to 4,200 cfs over several hours each day (figure 3-3). At the Skagit River near Concrete gage (RM 54.1) located 2.4 miles downstream of the Baker/Skagit confluence, stage changes resulting from Baker River Project load-following operations may be between 0.9 foot and 1.2 feet.

3-54

Seattle City Light’s operation of the Skagit River Project also affects flows in the mainstem Skagit River. The Skagit River Project consists of three dams and associated reservoirs on the Upper Skagit River, with the most downstream powerhouse Gorge located about 40 river miles upstream of the Baker/Skagit confluence. The Skagit River Project is typically operated in load-following mode with the amplitude of the Skagit River downramping events governed by terms of a 1991 Fisheries Settlement Agreement (FERC, 1991). The effects of fluctuating flow releases at the Skagit River Project are dampened as water flows downstream and take about six to eight hours to reach the Skagit River near Concrete gage (figure 3-4).

Snowmelt in the headwaters of the Skagit River basin also results in substantial daily fluctuations of Skagit River flows during portions of the year.

The effects of load-following operations at the Baker and Skagit projects and natural snowmelt can either amplify or offset each other depending on the timing of the releases. These interactive effects are largely attenuated by the time they reach the vicinity of Mt. Vernon (RM 15.7).

Major changes in Seattle City Light’s operation of the Skagit River Project are not expected. We anticipate Seattle City Light would continue to operate the Skagit River Project in load-following mode and in accordance with the 1991 Fisheries Settlement Agreement (FERC, 1991).

Under the Proposed Action, Puget plans to install two new 750-cfs turbine-generators in a new auxiliary powerhouse that would enable operating the project in accordance with new minimum flows, maximum flows and ramping rates contained in Proposed Article 106. Changes in high flow releases would generally be small in comparison to Skagit River flows. Proposed Operations would result in moderate increases in Skagit River minimum flows. Synchronous operation of these new turbines with Lower Baker Unit No. 3 would typically result in slower downramping rates associated with Baker River Project load-following operations.

3.3.3 Water Quality

3.3.3.1 Affected EnvironmentWater Quality StandardsThe Washington Water Quality Standards designates the Baker and Skagit Rivers

as Class AA (extraordinary) waters. Baker Lake and Lake Shannon are Lake Class waters. Class AA and Lake Class waters must meet or exceed water quality standards to protect all uses. Characteristic uses for Class AA and Lake Class waters include water supply (domestic, industrial, and agricultural); stock watering; fish and shellfish; salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting; wildlife habitat;

3-55

recreation (primary contact recreation, sport fishing, boating, and aesthetic enjoyment); hydropower development; and commerce and navigation. Numeric water quality criteria for Class AA and Lake Class waters are displayed in table 3-9.

Ecology’s proposed revision of the Water Quality Standards, which are subject to approval by the EPA, designates uses of specific water bodies as presented in table 3-10. Numeric water quality criteria for the designated beneficial uses are given in table 3-11. The temperature criteria in table 3-11 is more restrictive for char than for salmon and trout spawning, core rearing, and migration.

Table 3-9. Washington water quality criteria applicable for surface waters. (Source: Chapter 173-201A WAC)

Constituent Class AA Lake ClassTemperature <16oC due to human activities; no

increases of >0.3oC when natural conditions are >16oC a

No measurable change from natural conditions

Total dissolved gas (TDG)

<110% of saturation at any point b

Dissolved oxygen (DO)

>9.5 milligrams per liter (mg/l) No measurable decrease from natural conditions

pH Within 6.5–8.5, human-caused variation of <0.2 units.

No measurable change from natural conditions

Turbidity <5 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) increase over background turbidity of <50 NTU or <10% increase over background turbidity of >50 NTU

<5 NTU over background conditions

Fecal coliform Levels shall not exceed a geometric mean of 50 colonies/100 milliliters (ml) or 100 colonies/100 ml for 10 percent of samples.

Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious materials

Concentrations shall be below those that have the potential either singularly or cumulatively to adversely affect characteristic water uses, cause acute or chronic conditions to the most sensitive biota dependent upon those waters, or adversely affect public health.

Aesthetic values Shall not be impaired by the presence of materials or their effects, excluding those of natural origin, which offend the senses of sight, smell, touch, or taste.

a Incremental temperature increases resulting from nonpoint source activities shall not exceed 2.8ºC. Incremental temperature increases resulting from point sources shall not exceed 23/(background temperature +5).

b TDG criteria does not apply when the stream flow exceeds the 7-day, 10-year frequency flood.

3-56

Table 3-10. Designated uses of water bodies affected by the project as revised in June 2003. (Source: Chapter 173-201A WAC, June 24, 2003)

Cha

r

Salm

on a

nd T

rout

Sp

awni

ng, C

ore

Rea

ring

, and

M

igra

tion

Ext

raor

dina

ry P

rim

ary

Con

tact

Dom

estic

, Ind

ustr

ial,

Agr

icul

tura

l, an

d St

ock

Wat

er S

uppl

y

Wild

life

Hab

itat

Har

vest

ing

Com

mer

ce/ N

avig

atio

n

Boa

ting

Aes

thet

ics

Baker Lake and all tributaries

X X X X X X X X

Baker River between Baker Lake and the mouth

X X X X X X X X

Skagit River Xa X X X X X X X X

a Substantial numbers of char smolts use the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence (WDFW, 1998).

Table 3-11. Washington water quality criteria as revised in June 2003. (Source: Chapter 173-201A WAC, June 24, 2003)

Constituent CriteriaTemperaturea 7-DADMaxb not to exceed 12°C for designated char waters. 7-DADMax

not to exceed 16°C for designated core salmon/trout waters.

TDGc Shall not exceed 110 percent of saturation at any point of sample collection.

DOa Lowest 1-day minimum not less than 9.5 mg/l.

pH Shall be within 6.5 to 8.5, with a human-caused variation within the above range of less than 0.2 units.

3-57

Constituent CriteriaTurbidity Shall not exceed 5 NTU increase over background turbidity of <50 NTU

or 10% increase over background turbidity of >50 NTU.

Fecal coliform Extraordinary primary contact recreation: must not exceed a geometric mean of 50 colonies/100 ml, with no more than 10 percent of all samples exceeding 100 colonies/100 ml.

Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious materials

Concentrations must be below those that have the potential, either singularly or cumulatively, to adversely affect characteristic water uses, cause acute or chronic conditions to the most sensitive biota dependent upon those waters, or adversely affect public health.

Aesthetic values Must not be impaired by the presence of materials or their effects, excluding those of natural origin, which offend the senses of sight, smell, touch, or taste.

a Additional restrictions are included in the regulation.b 7-DADMax is defined as the average of seven consecutive measures of daily maximum

temperatures, based on the period from 3 days before and 3 days after the date.c TDG criteria does not apply when the stream flow exceeds the 7-day, 10-year frequency

flood. TDG criteria may be adjusted to aid fish passage over hydroelectric dams when consistent with a department approved gas abatement plan.

Water quality in the basin is generally considered good and meets the needs of designated beneficial uses. Ecology does not include any of the Baker River reaches affected by the project on the 303(d) list of water-quality limited water bodies (Ecology, 2000). In addition to developing the 303(d) list, Ecology summarizes its routine stream monitoring data by using a Water Quality Index method developed for that purpose (Hallock, 2002). Ecology’s (2004) assessment of the overall water quality in the Lower Baker River is of “lowest concern,” based on the most recent data (water year 1993). Review of Ecology’s Water Quality Index components indicates that suspended solids and turbidity are of moderate concern, and all of the other Water Quality Index components (i.e., temperature, DO, pH, fecal coliform, and total phosphorous) are of lowest concern.

The following description of water quality is based on:

results of Ecology’s (2004) routine water quality monitoring program;

several license applications for new projects on tributaries to the Baker River (Puget, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1982a, 1982b);

a study of the limnology of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon in August 1962–October 1964 (Westley, 1966); and

3-58

Puget’s water quality monitoring program, which was initiated in March 2002 and continued through early February 2004 (HDR, 2004).

TemperatureBaker River and Tributary Streams—Puget monitored water temperature using

thermographs at several locations in the Baker River and some of its tributaries, and in the Skagit River. Monitoring results between the summer of 2000 through January 2004 indicated that water temperatures were generally below the upper limit of 16°C in Sulphur Creek22, Spawning Beach 4 outflow, Lower Baker River, and Skagit River. However, water temperatures of greater than 16°C occurred occasionally in the Lower Baker River, and the Skagit River both upstream and downstream of the Baker River confluence. Temperatures greater than 16°C were most common in the Lower Baker River, where they occurred approximately five percent of the days in July through September and approximately two percent of the days in October through December.

Water temperatures reported for numerous studies conducted since 1975 were compiled by R2 (2003b). Based on the R2 (2003c) compilation, along with data reported by Ecology (2004) for the Lower Baker River, temperatures in the Baker River and tributary streams in the basin generally remain below the upper limit of 16ºC.

Baker Lake and Lake Shannon—As part of the relicensing studies, Puget monitored the water temperatures of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. Vertical temperature profiles were developed for both lakes, water temperatures in the Upper Baker powerhouse tailrace and at the Lower Baker intake were collected.

During portions of every winter, Baker Lake occasionally ices over, although water temperatures of about 4 to 6 °C occur throughout the water column during most of November through April. Thermal stratification of the reservoir began in early April and temperatures reached their maximum in late August to mid-September (HDR, 2004; Westley 1966). During 2003, the maximum temperatures at the reservoir’s surface and mid-level intake depth were about 20°C and 14°C, respectively (HDR, 2004). The project is operated by withdrawing water from Baker Lake through the mid-level intake, which results in stagnation of water behind the dam and leads to deep water having cool temperatures (approximately 4–8ºC) throughout most of the year. The withdrawal of warm mid-level water from Baker Lake inhibits the formation of a well-defined thermocline in the reservoir’s forebay. In late October, water temperatures were approximately 10°C throughout the water column of Baker Lake.

22 Because of the level of interaction between surface and subsurface water, the hydrologic and thermal characteristics of Sulphur Creek differ substantially from most tributaries to the Baker River.

3-59

Results of Lake Shannon water temperature monitoring indicate that water temperatures generally range from 4 to 7°C throughout the water column between late November and mid-March. As with Baker Lake, Lake Shannon began to thermally stratify in early April. Lake Shannon surface temperatures were warmest in late August to early September. During 2003, the maximum temperatures at the reservoir’s surface and intake depth were about 20°C and 17°C, respectively (HDR, 2004). The entire water column cooled to less than 6°C by mid-November indicating that the fall turnover had occurred.

The thermal regime of Lake Shannon is considerably different than that of Baker Lake. By mid-July, a thermocline forms at a depth of about 20 to 30 feet. By mid-October this thermocline no longer exists. Westley (1966) reported a second thermocline that forms at a depth of about 150 feet by mid-July, and continues to exist in October. This lower thermocline is a result of inflow from the Upper Baker Development flowing through Lake Shannon at depths of less than 150 feet during March through late October (Westley, 1966). Cooler inflow to Lake Shannon results in turnover in mid-December to spring.

Water temperatures of greater than 16°C were most common (41 percent of the days) at depths of 33 feet in Baker Lake during the summer. None of the other locations monitored had temperatures that exceeded 16°C on more than 10 percent of the summer days.

Biological Productivity (Nutrients, DO, pH)This section describes factors closely related to primary productivity, including

principal ions, availability of nutrients, DO, pH, and Secchi depth as an indictor of the euphotic (i.e., depth of light) zone in the case of reservoirs.

Baker River and Tributary Streams—Water in Baker River basin streams is generally soft, with low to moderate alkalinity (which limits the buffering capacity against changes in pH levels), and is dominated by either calcium carbonate or calcium sulfate. The sulfate ion is associated with intermittent fumarole activity around Mt. Baker. Streams that tend to be more dominated by calcium sulfate include Rocky, Sulphur, Boulder, Park, and Swift creeks and to a lesser extent Sandy Creek. Increased volcanic activity on Mt. Baker in 1975 reduced Boulder Creek’s pH to as low as 3.4 standard units, in comparison to 6.0 to 6.6 prior to the increase in volcanic activity (Bortleson et al., 1977). Measurements reported by numerous sources indicate that other streams draining Mt. Baker have pH values of 6.3 to 8.2 (R2, 2003b). Streams flowing into Baker Lake and Lake Shannon have relatively steep gradients, which maintains high reaeration ratios and nearly saturated oxygen levels. Generally, these streams have low nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations.

3-60

The quality of water in the Baker River downstream of the Lower Baker dam is generally similar to streams entering Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. For water years 1979 to 1993, Ecology (2004) reported DO concentrations of 8.7 to 14.0 mg/l, pH of 6.6 to 8.2 units, and indicate low phosphorous and nitrogen concentrations for the Lower Baker River at Concrete (Ecology station 04B070).

Baker Lake and Lake Shannon—The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) applied chlorophyll-a concentrations from limnologic and morphologic data collected by Puget from 1983 to 1989, to a trophic state index developed by Carlson (1977). ADFG’s application of the trophic state index resulted in a classification of Baker Lake as oligotrophic (letter from G.B. Kyle and J.A. Edmundson, Limnologists, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Soldotna, AK, to A. Aspelund, Fisheries Biologist, Puget Sound Power & Light Company, Bellevue, WA, November 10, 1992). ADFG also found that phosphorous levels were probably not limiting primary production in the reservoir, since seasonal total phosphorus levels typically fell within the mesotrophic range of 10 to 20 micrograms per liter (µg/l), and orthophosphorous (i.e., the biologically available form of phosphorous) comprises a large portion (approximately 60 percent) of total phosphorous levels. Mazumder (2004) reported that summer averages of total phosphorous concentrations generally continued to remain in the 10 to 20 µg/l range from 1989 to 2000, although concentrations dropped to about 5 µg/l during several years in the mid-1990s. Summer averages of nitrate concentrations remained at approximately 15 to 65 µg/l in 1983 to 1997, and then rapidly increased to levels greater than 200 µg/l in 1999 to 2001. Summer average concentrations of total organic carbon typically ranged from approximately 1.25 to about 5 mg/l, and reached a maximum of 37.57 mg/l in 1991. Summer averages of Secchi depths decreased from approximately 16.4 feet in 1993 to 11.8 feet in 2000. During the summers of 2002 and 2003, average Secchi depth readings were 11.5 and 15.6 feet, respectively.

Mazumder (2004) reported that total zooplankton density has increased consistently from less than 2,000 organisms per cubic meter to greater than 5,000 organisms per cubic meter, and total zooplankton biomass has increased from 10 mg/m3 to 30 to 40 mg/m3 during 1984 to 2000. The summer average density and biomass of total zooplankton were substantially higher than the annual averages. During 1997 to 2000, high density and biomass of zooplankton were spread over a longer period of spring to late summer than in 1980s and early 1990s.

Examination of DO data collected by Puget between 1982 and 2000 suggests that recent DO minimums are somewhat higher than those reported by Westley in 1962-1966. Westley’s lower values may reflect high carbon levels that were present initially in the Baker reservoirs after the inundation of forest soils.

As described above, Mt. Baker volcanic activity increased mineral concentrations and lowered pH in Boulder Creek in 1975. These changes to the quality of water

3-61

entering Baker Lake resulted in short-term effects in Baker Lake. In September 1975, a distinct layer of water from Boulder Creek extended at least 0.3 mile down-reservoir (Bortleson et al., 1977). The likelihood of a distinct layer of Boulder Creek water extending into Baker Lake is primarily controlled by Boulder Creek’s flow and water quality characteristics, relative rates of inflow from other sources, and the extent of reservoir stratification. Strong stratification, low inflows from other sources, and extreme water quality characteristics in Boulder Creek would produce the greatest opportunity for Boulder Creek water to persist as a discrete layer in the reservoir.

TurbidityTurbidity in the Baker River basin is a function of several factors including glacial

melt, landslides, surface runoff, wind, drafting the reservoirs to levels that result in resuspension of sediments deposited in the reservoirs, and travel time through the system. Many of these factors occur naturally, although land-use activities have accelerated erosion rates, and operation of the Baker River Project can also elevate turbidity levels by resuspending sediments that have been deposited in the reservoirs. In contrast, the reservoirs usually result in deposition of suspended sediments, thus reducing turbidity in the Baker River and the Skagit River downstream of the confluence with the Baker River.

Turbidity has been measured historically at numerous locations in the Baker and Skagit River systems. In samples collected since 1978, turbidity levels for Baker River tributaries and the Baker River upstream of Baker Lake range from less than 1 NTU to greater than 1,000 NTU. Turbidities were relatively stable throughout the year in the Upper Baker River; however, turbidity varied considerably during the 2003 monitoring period in Boulder Creek, Swift Creek, and Park Creek. Turbidities in these three tributaries generally were less than 5 NTU between March and mid-May, increased following the onset of snowmelt in June, peaked in September and October due to high runoff events, and decreased substantially in December (HDR, 2004). These conditions are representative of glacially fed streams, which typically experience elevated turbidities during the summer, due to glacial melt (Uehlinger et al., 2002).

Turbidities in Baker Lake, Lake Shannon, and the Upper Baker tailrace were generally less than 10 NTU from August 2002 until mid-October 2003, but major storm events can substantially increase turbidities. Following storm events, turbidity levels gradually subside - although they remained elevated at levels of greater than 30 NTU throughout the end of Puget’s monitoring program in February 2004. These same storm events reduced Secchi depths of 16 to 14 feet in Baker Lake and to less than 1 foot in Lake Shannon.

Turbidities reported for the Lower Baker River since 1978 were generally less than 10 NTU, although levels of nearly 140 NTU occurred. Overall, the timing of high turbidity levels did not follow any clear trend.

3-62

In a study conducted by HDR (2004), no direct relationship was found between either Lake Shannon or Lower Baker River turbidity levels and corresponding daily reservoir elevations. This study did not identify the causes of elevated turbidity in the Lower Baker River. During mid- to late September 2003 when Lake Shannon’s water elevation ranged from 385.7 to 402.8 feet msl, turbidity reported for Lake Shannon was less than 5 NTU.

Turbidity ranged from 0.2 to 15 NTU in the Upper Skagit River during water years 1979 through 1993, while ranging from 0.8 to 200 NTU in the Sauk River. Much of the water in the Upper Skagit River has to pass through Ross, Gorge, and Diablo reservoirs and would be expected to have lower turbidity levels than would otherwise be present naturally in an unregulated watershed like the Sauk. Turbidity in the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence ranged from less than 1 to 83 NTU in samples collected since 1978.

Total Dissolved GasAs part of the relicensing studies, Puget monitored TDG concentrations

continuously at hourly intervals in the Lower Baker River at the adult fish trap; continuously in the Upper Baker powerhouse tailrace during October 2004, in the east (powerhouse) side of the channel about 200 yards downstream of the lower powerhouse tailrace during two spill events; and every other week in the Baker Lake and Lake Shannon forebays, downstream of the powerhouse tailraces of the Upper and Lower developments, and in the Skagit River upstream and downstream of the Baker River confluence.

TDG concentrations recorded approximately 1,000 feet downstream of the Upper Baker dam below the powerhouse tailrace ranged from 100 to 104 percent between October 7 and October 27, which is below the applicable 110-percent criterion. During this period, the Upper Baker Development followed its typical load-following operations with discharges ranging from about zero to 4,400 cfs on most days. TDG appears to have been increased somewhat by entrainment of air during turbine shutdown.

TDG concentrations recorded hourly at the Lower Baker adult fish trap ranged from 94 to 120 percent between October 30, 2002, and January 21, 2004 (HDR, 2004). Of the 9,264 TDG measurements for periods when flows were less than the 7-day 10-year frequency flood (7Q10-flood), 512 (5.5 percent) exceeded the 110-percent criterion. Evaluation of the relationship between TDG concentrations and Lower Baker River flows shows that TDG levels of greater than 110 percent occur at both low and high flows. Many of the elevated TDG levels at the adult fish trap appear to be caused by air venting of the turbine draft tube, which is done to prevent cavitation of the turbine during low and no generation events at the Lower Baker Development (figure 3-13). TDG levels of

3-63

between the 110-percent TDG criterion and 115 percent were generally associated with down-ramp events and typically lasted three to four hours. Review of TDG levels that occurred during a shorter than normal downramp on July 30, 2003, suggest that shorter downramp periods may result in lower TDG levels than typical operations (HDR, 2004).

92%

96%

100%

104%

108%

1/10/03 0:00 1/11/03 0:00 1/12/03 0:00 1/13/03 0:00 1/14/03 0:00 1/15/03 0:00 1/16/03 0:00

Tota

l Dis

solv

ed G

as (%

)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Low

er B

aker

Riv

er F

low

(cfs

)

TDG Flow

Figure 3-13. Typical patterns between TDG at the Baker adult fish trap and flow in the Lower Baker River, January 10 to 15, 2003. (Source: electronic mail from J. Oppenheimer, Environmental Scientist, HDR Engineering, Bellevue, WA, to B. Mattax, Louis Berger, Bellevue, WA, April 1, 2003)

Review of the continuous data for the adult fish trap also indicates that some spill events at the Upper and/or Lower Baker dam can elevate TDG levels above the 110-percent criterion. Flood control operations can result in water being routed through the spillway at Upper Baker dam. TDG was highest during a 2-hour period when Lower Baker River provisional flows were between 30,300 and 30,700 cfs. The 110-percent criterion does not apply for periods when flow is greater than the 7Q10, which was computed to be 13,300 cfs at the Baker River at Concrete USGS gage. In addition, TDG levels of up to 112 percent at the adult fish trap occurred on October 28 and 29, 2004, coinciding with the Lower Baker Development operating at its capacity. These data are believed to result from spill conditions at Upper Baker during the October 21 flood and subsequent weeklong passage through the Lower Baker reservoir.

3-64

An intense rainfall event in late January 2003 necessitated operating the project as mandated by the Corps. Operation of the project resulted in discharges from the Upper Baker Development exceeding the capacity of the Lower Baker Development’s generator, and consequently resulted in the Lower Baker Development spilling approximately 2,000 to 2,600 cfs while generating at full load from January 28 through February 1, 2003. Analysis of TDG concentrations measured downstream of the Lower Baker powerhouse twice a day during this spill event indicates that TDG ranged from 99 to 103 percent (HDR, 2004). On the 6 days following the spill releases, TDG concentrations measured at this site were 96 to 100 percent of saturation. TDG levels recorded at the adult fish trap were generally within 2 percent of levels measured near the powerhouse (HDR, 2004). All of the TDG measurements made during this spill event satisfied the criterion of 110 percent.

TDG levels monitored in the Skagit River during 11 twice monthly monitoring events ranged from 95 to 107 percent (HDR, 2004).

Coliform BacteriaDuring water years 1977 to 1993, Ecology monitored fecal coliform levels in the

Baker River at Concrete as part of its long-term monitoring program. Based on the values reported by Ecology (2004), fecal coliform levels satisfy the applicable standard in the Lower Baker River. The 204 reported fecal coliform measurements for water years 1977 to 1993 ranged from less than 1 to 70 organisms per 100 ml. The measurement of 70 organisms per 100 ml reported for May 21, 1991, was the only value of more than 20 organisms per 100 ml.

Hazardous MaterialsPuget uses hazardous materials in the normal operations of the Baker River

Project. These materials include lubricants for the generators, fuel and oil for vehicles, and chemicals for propagating fish (i.e., formalin, sodium bisulfate, and sodium hypochlorite). Puget maintains and implements spill prevention control and countermeasure plans that are designed to address potential oil spills from the Upper Baker generation plant, Lower Baker generation plant, and the Baker Lake Resort. Each plan establishes procedures, methods, and equipment to be used to prevent a spill from occurring, if possible, or to contain and clean up a spill that does occur. Puget employees are aware of the onsite hazardous materials and are trained regarding the proper procedures and precautions to take in event of a spill.

Recreational activities can also result in the use of potentially hazardous materials over and around surface waters in the project area. Use of motorized watercraft presents the potential for spilling or leaking petroleum products and hazardous fuel additives such as methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) into the reservoirs.

3-65

3.3.3.2 Environmental EffectsThe Settlement Agreement and the amended license application contain proposed

license articles (Appendix A) that address water quality issues in all project-affected waters. FWS, NMFS, FS, WDFW, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, and Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, recommend that Puget implement the proposed license articles of the Settlement Agreement. The following sections describe the measures proposed by Puget and the agencies, as well as our analysis of the proposed measures on water quality in the project area.

Effects of Project Operations Operation of the project can increase turbidity along reservoir shorelines and

occasionally in the Lower Baker River and Middle Skagit River, and project operations can elevate TDG levels in the project reach.

Reservoir WaterHigh turbidity levels have been documented in Lake Shannon and the Lower

Baker River in the past (refer to the turbidity discussion presented in subsequent sections of this EIS). During a period when Lake Shannon’s water level was drawn down to an elevation of approximately 378 feet msl, high turbidity was observed in the reservoir, and a turbidity of as high as 46 NTU was measured in the Lower Baker River. Other than these types of events, both reservoirs act as net deposition zones for suspended sediments that would otherwise be transported to the Skagit River.

Under the Proposed Action, the reservoir and flow management target is defined in Proposed Article 106. We discuss the overall management of the reservoirs and their effects on Baker Lake and Lake Shannon water levels in the discussion of Reservoir Level Management in section 3.3.2, Water Quantity.

The proposed water quality measure (Proposed Article 401) sets target minimum operating levels for Baker Lake at elevation 685 feet msl and Lake Shannon at elevation 389 feet msl to minimize resuspension of sediments deposited in the reservoirs. This measure also includes development and implementation of a Water Quality Monitoring Plan to ensure that the project would comply with applicable state water quality standards. Puget would develop this plan in consultation with the Ecology. Implementation of this measure would include monitoring water quality throughout the new license period, and Puget would report annually the results of monitoring to the Commission and Ecology. Proposed Article 401 states that Puget may submit requests to Ecology for reduced sampling frequencies and/or parameters, if appropriate.

3-66

Effects Analysis

During the first 6 years of a new license term under the Proposed Action (Interim Operations), the project would operate under the IPP as detailed in the instream flows Effects Analysis provided in section, 3.3.2.2. We anticipate that turbidity levels would not be altered substantially from those observed under operation implemented in 2003 and 2004 (see turbidity discussion provided in section, 3.3.3.1, Water Quality Affected Environment).

Analysis of reservoir water levels modeled to represent Proposed Operations following construction of the two new generating units suggests that project Operations could somewhat reduce the potential to resuspend fine-grained sediments in Baker Lake because of reduced surface water-level variability during the drawdown season. Resulting reductions of turbidity in Baker Lake would be small and localized. Greater reductions in turbidity would likely occur in Lake Shannon because of a reduction in the extent and frequency of drawdown, a reduction in daily fluctuations in the 1- to 5-foot-per-day range, and less frequent occurrence of elevations corresponding with high quantities of fine-grained materials (less than 420 feet msl). However, we anticipate that these reductions in turbidity would generally be localized, since HDR’s (2004) evaluation of the effects of Lake Shannon drawdown did not reveal a significant relationship between drawdown to elevations as low as approximately 386 feet msl and turbidities near the Lower Baker dam.

Under Proposed Article 401, Puget would develop and implement a plan to monitor water quality. This plan would identify measured exceedance(s) of applicable state water quality standards. We would expect to see improvements in water quality operating under the Proposed Action.

Project ReleasesTDG levels at the adult fish trap exceeded the maximum allowable limit of 110

percent during periods of extremely low flows and high flows in the Lower Baker River (see TDG discussion provided in section, 3.3.3.1, Water Quality Affected Environment).

Effects Analysis

During monitoring of operations in 2003 and 2004, TDG sometimes exceeded the applicable criterion of 110 percent (see TDG discussion provided in section, 3.3.3.1, Water Quality Affected Environment). These high TDG levels generally occurred when outflow from the project was less than 140 cfs, and were linked to air venting of the turbine. Increasing the minimum flow release from 80 cfs to at least 1,000 cfs and using the two new 750-cfs turbines as called for in the Proposed Action is expected to reduce TDG levels to less than 110 percent during the lowest flow releases.

3-67

Spill events also cause non-compliance with the TDG standard in the Lower Baker River. Based on our evaluation of the results of continuous monitoring of TDG at the adult fish trap during the January 2003 and October 2003 spill events (HDR, 2004), we estimate that spills of 3,500 cfs or more at the Lower Baker dam typically cause TDG to exceed 110 percent. The 110-percent criterion is not applicable at flows above the 7Q10, which is 13,300 cfs at the Baker River at Concrete gage. Puget developed a conservative estimate of the effect of spills under the Proposed Operations on exceedances of the TDG standard by analyzing the frequency of modeled Lower Baker spills of 3,500 cfs or greater coinciding with flows of 13,300 cfs or less.23 This analysis suggests that Lower Baker spills would result in non-compliance with the applicable TDG standard very seldom (approximately 0.8 percent of the time) under Current Operations and virtually never (less than 0.1 percent of the time) under the Proposed Action.

Under the Proposed Action, Puget may occasionally still need to spill water at the Upper and/or Lower dams while not routing water through the generators. As under current conditions, this can result in non-compliance with the TDG standard. Development and implementation of a Water Quality Monitoring Plan as required under Proposed Article 401 would provide a mechanism to assess the extent of project effects on TDG and other stream water quality constituents. It would also provide a way to evaluate compliance with applicable state water quality standards, identify means to resolve exceedances of the state standards, and provide feedback on the success of methods used to avoid recurrence of problems. Proposed Article 401 also provides assurance that Puget would apply all known, available and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment as necessary to resolve project effects causing non-compliance with applicable state water quality standards.

Stormwater Management and Erosion ControlOperation and maintenance of the project necessitates use and maintenance of

various facilities including access roads, transmission corridors, structures, and staging areas. Some of these actions require storage, use, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials, and present a risk that these materials could enter waters of the state and consequently adversely affect beneficial uses of these waters. Some project maintenance activities can increase the risk of erosion and cause runoff, which adversely affect water quality. In addition, implementation of measures included in the Proposed Action has the potential to increase the risk of erosion along with the potential of contaminating waters with pollutants.

23 Operation of the two new 750-cfs capacity generating units would increase maximum generation flows at the Lower Baker Development from approximately 4,100 cfs to 5,600 cfs (approximately 37 percent) and would substantially dilute the effects of elevated TDG levels in water that has been routed through the spillway in comparison to current conditions.

3-68

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would develop, in consultation with Ecology, a water quality protection plan (Proposed Article 401). This plan would address the control of potential sources of pollutant releases from project construction, operations, or emergencies by including a stormwater pollution prevention plan and in-water work protection plan. The plan would address all project-related facilities including access roads; boat ramps; transmission corridors; portable toilets; hatcheries and fish collection, handling and transportation facilities; and staging areas for all activities related to project operation, maintenance, and repair. Following development of the plan and Ecology approval, Puget would file the plan with the Commission for approval.

Puget would develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan that would specify best management practices to prevent the project from contaminating surface and ground waters. To accomplish this goal, Puget would specify spill prevention and containment procedures for chemicals, hazardous materials, and petroleum products including refueling procedures, measures to take in the event of a spill and reporting and training requirements. Puget also would develop an in-water work protection plan that specifies best management practices for project activities that require work within the project’s surface waters. This work includes, but is not limited to, application of herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, disinfectants, and lake fertilization. An appropriate water quality monitoring plan would be developed and implemented for all in-water work.

Effects Analysis

Puget’s proposal to develop a water quality protection plan (Proposed Article 401) would ensure that appropriate stormwater management measures are adhered to during the construction and operation of the project. Using Puget’s proposed best management practices to limit erosion and protect beneficial uses of water resources will improve the quality of stormwater produced by Puget’s activities.

Secondary Effects of Proposed Measures

In this subsection we describe the direct, cross-resource effects of the proposed license articles. Proposed license articles designed to enhance one resource may have beneficial or adverse effects on other resources and are considered secondary effects.

Lower Baker Power Plant ModificationsTo enable provision of the ramping and minimum flow restrictions set in Proposed

Article 106, the Proposed Action would include partial rehabilitation of the original Lower Baker Development power generating facilities that were destroyed by a 1965 landslide. This would include the following: (1) Constructing a new permanent access platform adjacent to the west side of the powerhouse foundation; (2) Excavating and hauling the slide debris from the old powerhouse location to a nearby disposal area: (3)

3-69

Identifying the presence of any contaminants from old equipment: (4) Removing the original Units 1 and 2, if needed; (5) Selective demolition and excavation of existing structures; and (6) Linking the two new 750-cfs turbine generators to the existing abandoned penstocks.

Because of limited access to the area, Puget would use barge-mounted excavators, drilling equipment, and lifting cranes for preparation and installation of piers and abutments. Following installation of the piers and abutments, a barge-mounted heavy lift crane would be used to place the precast concrete decking onto the piers and abutments.

There is an estimated 10,000 cubic yards of debris, including loose soil, broken rock, and vegetative cover that would be removed from the area on top of and above the original Units 1 and 2. Because of the risk of damage from this material falling onto the new facilities installation, this material would be removed before any new structures are placed. Puget plans to do this by loading the excavated material onto 40-ton off-road haulers that would haul the material to a Puget-owned disposal area.

The extent of previous removal of the original Units 1 and 2 is unknown; therefore, Puget has assumed that they would need to be removed. Puget would do so by using a small to medium sized rubber tired crane to lift the units onto short lowboys or haul trucks, which would transport them to a final disposal site or salvage area. Puget could concurrently identify the presence of any contaminants that may have originated from the old equipment, so that they can be disposed of in a safe manner.

Puget would conduct mechanical demolition and limited controlled blasting to remove portions of the original concrete structures.

Effects Analysis

Modifying the Lower Baker power plant as proposed in the Proposed Action would require earthwork and could disturb potentially hazardous materials from the old equipment at the site. These activities could result in increased erosion and further contamination of the area if appropriate actions are not taken. Puget would limit the risk of increasing erosion and degrading water quality during and following construction activities by implementing a water quality protection plan (Proposed Article 401). This would include adoption of best management practices that limit the timing of activities such as in-water construction, control of sources of pollution, and limiting erosion at the site.

It would be important to determine the extent of contamination by potentially hazardous materials prior to their disturbance through the preparation of a Phase I EA. If potentially hazardous materials were present, it would be important to conduct the removal of the original equipment during a season of low precipitation to limit the

3-70

potential for runoff from the work site to spread the contamination. By consulting with the Ecology, Puget could determine a preferred method for investigating the extent of contamination and discarding contaminated materials.

Implementation of appropriate best management practices would limit the risk of construction-related erosion, and is expected to result in minor localized erosion during and immediately after the 2-year construction period. Minor erosion of the construction site along with some runoff of fine-grained sediments is expected to cause short-term localized turbidity increases of more than the amount allowed by the state criterion. The general pattern expected is that turbidity would be elevated in the immediate vicinity of point discharges to the Lower Baker River, but turbidity would dissipate quickly as inflowing water mixes with the Baker River flow.

To construct the new access platform, it would be necessary to conduct in-water construction while installing the platform piers and abutments. By performing the in-water construction during a low-flow period, Puget could ensure that the piers and abutments could be constructed in an efficient manner and adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem could be limited. It would also be important to implement appropriate best management practices for this activity that would limit the likelihood of introducing potentially hazardous materials or substantially increasing turbidity to the Lower Baker River.

Since the status of the original Units 1 and 2 and related facilities is unknown, it would be important to determine the extent of contamination by potentially hazardous materials from them prior to disturbing them. Puget could determine a preferred method to accomplish this goal and discard any materials containing potentially hazardous materials. By conducting these actions, Puget could minimize the risk of introducing any contaminants that exist into surface and ground waters in the area.

Aquatic Resources MeasuresFish Propagation—Puget proposes to develop and implement a fish propagation

facilities plan (FPFP) to support fish propagation and enhancement programs (Proposed Article 101). Puget would develop the FPFP through consultation with the ARG. Implementing the FPFP would necessitate construction of new facilities and modification of existing facilities to support fish propagation and enhancement programs. Construction activities that are expected for fish propagation facilities consist of the following: (1) Improving Spawning Beach 4 by separating the spawning beach chambers with concrete walls, installing separate water supply lines to each spawning beach chamber, and installing a sediment separator in the water supply lines. Puget also may need to stabilize the historical landslide to prevent the material from moving into the water supply for the spawning beach; (2) Expanding the hatchery facility at the Sulphur Springs site within the previously disturbed footprint; and (3) Decommissioning the

3-71

Upper Baker spawning beaches, which would likely include demolition of the existing water intake structure in Channel Creek and removal of all structures followed by creating a meandering side channel to Channel Creek.

Puget would conduct demolition and construction activities in a manner consistent with the water quality protection plan that will be developed under Proposed Article 401 to ensure limited adverse effects on water quality. Puget would select and implement best management practices for both in-water and upland activities. In-water work would be scheduled to occur during low-flow periods, and cofferdams would be used when and where necessary to segregate work areas from nearby surface waters. Removal of the Upper Baker spawning beach intake structure would occur when the creek is dry or during extreme low-water conditions when a shallow Super Sack cofferdam could easily be constructed and removed. The side channel would be constructed during the dry season, and its connection to Channel Creek would be expected to occur following completion of its construction. Other best management practices that may be implemented include: developing appropriately sized stormwater detention facilities; using appropriately sized equipment for demolishing the spawning beaches and constructing the side-channel; maintaining a dry environment around curing concrete; refueling in areas away from surface waters, mulching disturbed areas; and revegetating disturbed areas. Implementing these measures during demolition and construction activities would be expected to result in negligible contamination of surface waters by hazardous materials and short-term increases in turbidity. The extent of turbidity increases would be expected to be minor in most areas.

Under Proposed Article 101, the expanded rearing capacity of the fish propagation facilities at the Sulphur Springs site would not exceed 20,000 pounds for more than 3 months, which is the threshold level for requiring a NPDES permit. Although a NPDES permit would not be required for the facility, it would be operated in a customary manner for such facilities to ensure efficient production of fish while limiting the detrimental effects of discharges on water quality. Operating the expanded facility to meet higher fish production levels would result in increased use of formalin and feed and, consequently, would increase loads of formalin and nutrients discharged into Lake Shannon. Because of the size of Lake Shannon and the extent of the expected increases in load, the long-term effects on Lake Shannon water quality are expected to be negligible throughout the term of any new license issued.

Upstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan—To improve upstream fish passage, Puget would construct new facilities and renovate the existing facilities along the Lower Baker River (Proposed Article 103). It is anticipated that the improvements to the facility would require demolition of a portion of the trap, construction of a new water intake, and reconstruction of the trap. For all construction activities, Puget would control conditions in the work site in a manner consistent with the water quality protection plan that would be developed for Proposed Article 401 to minimize erosion and adverse

3-72

effects on water quality. In-water work would be scheduled to avoid periods when flood releases occur. A cofferdam would be used to segregate the work area from the remainder of the Baker River channel, and additional best management practices would be implemented to limit the adverse effects of construction on erosion and water quality.

Connectivity between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake—Under Proposed Article 104, Puget may construct and maintain a fishway to provide upstream passage for native char and other native fishes between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake. The design of this facility would be developed in consultation with the ARG. Construction of this facility would likely require in-water work to install a concrete sill in either the Baker River or Sulphur Creek channel for a picket weir. Puget would implement appropriate best management practices to limit the potential for construction of the facility to degrade water quality. Best management practices that are likely to be implemented include: restricting use of motorized vehicles within the stream channel; refueling offsite; conducting work in the dry when feasible; restricting in-water work to low-flow periods; and using cofferdams to segregate work areas from the remainder of the wetted channel.

Downstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan—To improve downstream migration of fish, Puget would construct and operate passage facilities for downstream migratory fish at the Upper Baker and Lower Baker developments using sequential development of FSC technology (Proposed Article 105). Implementing this measure would include preparation of launch sites on Baker Lake and Lake Shannon for the FSCs, fabrication and installation of FSCs for the Upper Baker dam and Lower Baker dam, and construction of acclimation facilities located near the confluence of the Baker and Skagit rivers.

Construction associated with improving downstream fish passage facilities would require disturbance of existing landforms; in-water construction; and the use, storage, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. Performing these activities increases the short-term risk of erosion, introducing sediments to surface waters, and the potential for contaminating waters. By implementing protective measures in a manner consistent with the water quality protection plan that will be developed for Proposed Article 401, Puget would limit effects on water quality.

Puget would limit the potential for construction of the stress-relief ponds to result in erosion and adverse effects on water quality by conducting activities in a manner consistent with the water quality protection plan to be developed for Proposed Article 401. Puget would implement its best management practices, such as timing construction for the dry season, refueling offsite or in an area specifically designed for that purpose, limiting in-water work to the extent feasible, and protecting the disturbed area from erosion by commonly accepted methods.

3-73

Large Woody Debris—Under Proposed Article 109, Puget would transport LWD annually from project reservoirs to mutually agreeable stockpile areas in the Baker River basin. To accomplish this goal, Puget would annually collect LWD from the project reservoirs and develop a LWD Management Plan in consultation with the ARG and Terrestrial Resources Implementation Group (TRIG).

Currently, LWD accumulates along the log booms in both Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. Under the Proposed Action, we anticipate that LWD would similarly accumulate along the new log booms and that a boat may be used to corral the floating logs and tow them to the shore where a drag line or track hoe may be used to lift the LWD onto trucks for transport to stockpile areas. In accordance with the water quality protection plan developed for Proposed Article 401, Puget would implement best management practices to limit any adverse effects on erosion and water quality.

Terrestrial Resources MeasuresOsprey Nest Structures—Implementation of Proposed Article 506 would result

in Puget installing at least one artificial osprey nest structure at Lake Shannon. Puget may need to install one pole for each artificial osprey nest structure. Puget would implement the water quality protection plan in order to minimize adverse effects of these actions on erosion and water quality (Proposed Article 401). This protective measure would ensure that appropriate best management practices would be implemented to limit the potential for increasing turbidity and contaminating water with potentially hazardous materials used for the construction activity including in-water work.

Loon Floating Nest Platforms—Implementation of Proposed Article 507 would result in Puget installing and maintaining between three and six loon floating nest structures on the project reservoirs. Each floating loon nest structure, log booms surrounding each structure, and boundary buoys or other devices used to indicate restricted zones would need to be anchored in some manner. Additionally, Puget could decide to remove and reinstall some or all of these structures and store them offsite during periods other than April–July when they are required to be functional. Puget would install any necessary anchors and conduct maintenance activities in accordance with the water quality protection plan required under Proposed Article 401 to minimize adverse effects of these actions on erosion and water quality. It is anticipated that annual removal and reinstallation of the floating structures would result in negligible increases in turbidity.

Recreational Resources MeasuresThe Baker River Project attracts many day use and overnight recreationists to the

area. To address the level of demand for recreation, several measures are included in the Proposed Action. Some of these measures have the potential to affect water quality. These activities could include: (1) constructing new trails and maintaining existing trails

3-74

and trail heads; (2) constructing and expanding campgrounds: (3) constructing day-use facility and a small-scale viewing facility; (4) constructing designated parking areas; (5) constructing a new boat launch; (6) redeveloping Baker Lake Resort, which could include removing buildings, boat dock, and fuel tanks at the resort and rehabilitating the area with native vegetation; (7) constructing floating log booms, buoys, or functionally equivalent structures to separate existing designated swimming areas from boat traffic; and (8) constructing and upgrading restrooms/toilet facilities.

Effects Analysis

Performing the activities listed above would have the potential to affect water quality. This would primarily occur by increasing erosion during ground disturbing activities, although there is also the potential to contaminate waters with fuel and other potentially hazardous materials used, stored and disposed of onsite. Puget would limit risks of degrading water quality through implementation of a water quality protection plan (Proposed Article 401). This would include adoption of appropriate best management practices for each activity. Installation and upgrading toilet facilities at dispersed camping sites could result in less human fecal matter near the shoreline of reservoirs, and could subsequently reduce the concentration of fecal coliform and disease-causing organisms in the near-shore environment.

3.3.3.3 Unavoidable Adverse EffectsMajor short-term increases in turbidity would likely occur for a few days to

one month following connection of the new fish propagation side channel. There would be some circumstances that would result in localized elevated turbidity levels and the possibility of contaminating water with potentially hazardous materials associated with construction of the new upstream and downstream passage facilities. Operation of the stress-relief ponds would slightly increase the nutrient loads to the Lower Baker River, although these increases would have negligible effects on water quality in the Baker River because of its relatively high flow. With implementation of appropriate best management practices, we expect minor localized short-term increases in turbidity and negligible contamination from hazardous materials associated with Proposed Article 109 (LWD) throughout the new license term. Minor localized increases in turbidity could occur during and immediately following the associated construction period(s) for the osprey nest structures. Implementation of loon floating nest platforms measure is expected to limit turbidity increases to short-term minor localized events during and immediately following installation of the anchors.

3.3.3.4 Cumulative EffectsSeveral human activities influence water quality in the Baker River basin and the

Middle Skagit River including implementation of land management policies, recreation, Baker River Project operations, the interaction of Baker River flows with flows from the Upper Skagit River, and increasing development along the Middle Skagit River.

3-75

Based on current trends, we expect that demand for recreating in the Baker River basin and continued development along the Middle Skagit River would increase. Both of these foreseeable actions would have a potential to adversely affect water quality in the basin.

Under the Proposed Action, project operations would result in enhanced water quality conditions compared to current conditions. Operation of the two new 750-cfs turbines, along with increasing the minimum flow from 80 cfs to at least 1,000 cfs at the Lower Baker Development, is expected to reduce TDG concentrations in the Lower Baker River. Installation and maintenance of improved toilet facilities in areas near the reservoirs could reduce the occurrence of improper human waste disposal and thus reduce the extent of fecal coliform and disease-causing organisms near these sites. Baker Lake and Lake Shannon would generally be maintained at a higher elevation than under current conditions, which would reduce resuspension of sediments deposited in the reservoirs and subsequently turbidity along the drawdown zone of both the reservoirs. With a greater proportion of the flows coming off the surfaces of the reservoirs, as proposed with the FSCs, discharges from the forebays may be somewhat warmer and more turbid than under current conditions. Construction activities associated with modifications to the Lower Baker power plant, and implementation of enhancement measures for fish propagation, upstream and downstream fish passage, installation of artificial osprey nest structures and loon floating nest platforms, and recreation facilities could result in minor short-term localized increases in turbidity. However, implementation of the water quality protection plan would minimize these risks.

3.3.4 Aquatic Resources

The following sections describe the existing aquatic habitat and fish species occurring in the project vicinity. Additional information on federally listed threatened and endangered species (Chinook salmon and bull trout) is provided in section 3.3.6, Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat.

3.3.4.1 Affected EnvironmentAquatic Habitat ConditionsFor the purpose of characterizing existing aquatic habitat conditions, Puget defined

the following three major basins and five subbasins: (1) Baker River Basin, composed of the Upper Baker River Subbasin (headwaters near RM 34 to RM 18.4), the Baker Lake Subbasin (RM 18.4 to RM 9.35), and Lake Shannon Subbasin (RM 9.35 to RM 1.2); (2) Lower Baker River Basin (RM 1.2 to RM 0.0), and the (3) Skagit River Basin, composed of the Middle Skagit River Subbasin (RM 56.5 to RM 24.5), and the Lower Skagit River Subbasin (RM 24.5 to RM 0.0) (R2 2003c). Puget described and quantified the amount of habitat currently or potentially accessible to anadromous and adfluvial (lake-maturing)

3-76

trout, char, and salmon in the tributary reaches upstream of the Lower and Upper Baker River developments.

Baker River Basin—The number of low-gradient streams is the primary difference among the three subbasins in the Baker River Basin. The Upper Baker River subbasin contains more accessible tributary habitat with gradients less than 2 percent than the combined total of the other two subbasins, and also contains more accessible side-channel and off-channel ponded habitat, which are very productive rearing areas for juvenile salmonids. The Baker Lake subbasin contains some off-channel habitat, whereas low-gradient side-channels and off-channel ponds are essentially lacking in the anadromous/adfluvial zone of the Lake Shannon subbasin. The Lake Shannon subbasin has the least amount of lower gradient tributary habitat. The subbasins also differ from each other because of the reservoir system. Baker Lake is estimated to be more productive for juvenile salmonids than Lake Shannon because the Baker Lake reservoir is larger, less turbid, and has more littoral (shallow edge) habitat than the Lake Shannon reservoir. The Upper Baker River subbasin also contains more accessible side-channel and off-channel ponded habitat than the other two Bake River subbasins

Upper Baker River Subbasin—The Upper Baker River subbsin includes approximately 15 miles of the mainstem from its headwaters near RM 34 downstream to the full-pool shoreline of Baker Lake at approximately RM 18.4 (R2, 2002). The major tributaries in this subbasin include Picket, Pass, Bald Eagle, Crystal, and Sulphide creeks (Puget, 1983b; Williams et al., 1975). Glacial melt from Mt. Shuksan to the north and Mt. Blum and Bacon Peak to the east influence flows in the Upper Baker River and many of its tributaries. The majority of the subbasin is within the North Cascades National Park, which is predominantly free of past human disturbances (Puget, 2002b).

From Pass Creek (approximately RM 31) to the headwaters, the stream habitat in the mainstem Baker River is dominated by steep gradients. Below Pass Creek, for the next 6 to 8 miles, the valley widens with stream widths ranging from 36 to 60 feet. Gradients through this reach are generally low with riffles and pools being the primary habitat types. Substrates are dominated by cobble, with gravels in many of the riffles (Williams et al., 1975).

From Sulphide Creek (RM 23) down to the confluence with Baker Lake the Upper Baker River channel has a low gradient. The floodplain is rather wide and the river frequently shifts and meanders along the valley floor. The stream channel becomes braided in this reach, especially near the confluence with Baker Lake, which is commonly referred to as the Upper Baker River delta. Substrate is composed mainly of gravel and cobble (Williams et al., 1975; R2, 2002).

Anadromous and adfluvial fish can access 14 tributaries to the Upper Baker River and the mainstem Baker River, up to a cascade located about 10.4 miles upstream of

3-77

Baker Lake, for a total of 20.5 miles of accessible habitat. A total of 15.3 miles of channel up to 4 percent gradient is the limit of tributary habitat available to spawning or rearing coho salmon. Most of this habitat (13.7 miles) is in large streams that could also potentially support spawning and rearing Chinook salmon, steelhead, and migratory native char. In addition, 2.4 miles of habitat in 4 to 8 percent gradient reaches are potentially suitable for adfluvial rainbow, anadromous/adfluvial cutthroat trout and resident native char production. Water temperatures in the Upper Baker River and many of its tributary streams are generally cold throughout the year. Glaciers feed many of the streams, resulting in seasonal increases in suspended solids from spring and summer glacial melt. Nutrient levels are generally low in the Upper Baker River, which may limit productivity (Forest Service, 2002a).

The Upper Baker River transports sediments and LWD from the upper watershed to Baker Lake, where the downstream movement of these materials is blocked. The Upper Baker River delivers the majority of the sediment delivered to Baker Lake each year.

Baker Lake Subbasin—The Baker Lake subbasin includes Baker Lake and its tributaries (excluding the Upper Baker River). Baker Lake is approximately 9 miles long and covers 4,980 surface acres at full pool. The major tributaries are Shannon, Boulder, Swift, Park, and Sandy creeks on the west side of the lake and Noisy and Anderson creeks, which flow from the east. Swift, Boulder, and Park creeks originate in glaciers on Mt. Baker. The other streams are non-glacial, although some of them have substantial snow packs that influence their hydrograph and water temperatures. Human development has not disturbed aquatic habitat in the majority of the Baker Lake tributaries, although road construction and past timber harvests in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest have affected some drainages. Past mining activities may have also affected habitat quality in some streams, such as Swift and Noisy creeks (Forest Service, 2002a).

At full pool, the reservoir has a shoreline perimeter of 35.6 miles. Water quality data collected in the Baker River suggest that the reservoir is oligotrophic (see additional discussion in Reservoir Water Levels section 3.3.2, Water Quantity Affected Environment).

Baker Lake stores sediments and LWD transported from the upper watershed. In addition to these materials, 280 pieces of LWD are contributed annually to Baker Lake from fallen trees along the reservoir margin and 66 pieces of LWD are transported from tributary streams. Currently, wood is removed from the reservoir only if it poses a possible operational or safety hazard. No large pieces of woody debris are passed downstream of Upper Baker dam (R2, 2003d). Baker Lake traps the vast majority of sediment delivered to the reservoir each year; approximately 88 percent of the incoming sediment load is trapped in Baker Lake. Fine, suspended sediments comprise the materials delivered downstream to Lake Shannon (R2, 2003e).

3-78

Resident and anadromous fish have access to portions of approximately 30 tributaries to Baker Lake. Steep gradients limit anadromous fish use of many of the streams. Approximately 10 streams have substantial sections with appropriate gradients for salmonid species. In the Baker Lake subbasin there is approximately 18.4 miles of stream length potentially accessible to anadromous or adfluvial salmonids, excluding the Upper Baker River. The total 7.9 miles of channel up to 4 percent gradient is the limit of tributary habitat available to spawning or rearing coho. Of this low gradient habitat, about one half (3.7 miles) is in large tributaries that could also potentially support spawning and rearing Chinook salmon, steelhead, and migratory native char. In addition, 4 miles of habitat in 4 to 8 percent gradient reaches are potentially suitable for adfluvial rainbow, anadromous/adfluvial cutthroat trout and resident native char production.

Lake Shannon Subbasin—The Lake Shannon subbasin is composed of Lake Shannon and its tributaries, including the major tributaries of Sulphur, Rocky, and Bear creeks on the west side of Lake Shannon. Lake Shannon is located approximately 1 mile downstream of Baker Lake. The reservoir is approximately 7 miles long (RM 1.2 to RM 8.2) and 1 mile wide, covering an area of 2,278 acres. Rocky Creek originates on Mt. Baker and is the only stream in this subbasin that receives glacial runoff. Lake Shannon is located in a narrower valley than the Baker Lake subbasin and most of the streams in the Lake Shannon subbasin are smaller than those in the Baker Lake subbasin. The shoreline of Lake Shannon is generally steep and there are few streams with large amounts of low-gradient habitats potentially accessible to anadromous/adfluvial salmonids.

At full pool, Lake Shannon has a shoreline perimeter of 27.3 miles. Lower Baker dam prevents the downstream transport of coarse sediment and much of the LWD from Lake Shannon and its tributaries. Woody debris in the reservoir are only removed if they pose an operational or safety hazard.

From the upper end of Lake Shannon (RM 8.2) to Upper Baker dam (RM 9.35), aquatic habitat is inundated as part of Lake Shannon during full-pool elevations, but during low-pool elevations a section of the river is exposed. The flow in this section of river is dependent on operations at the Upper Baker dam. Sulphur Creek and Rocky Creek are tributaries to this section.

Migratory fish have access to portions of approximately 22 tributary streams in the Lake Shannon subbasin, although the majority of these streams have rather steep gradients and are poor quality salmonid habitat. There are approximately 14.5 miles of stream length that are potentially accessible to anadromous or adfluvial salmonids in the Lake Shannon subbasin. The 3.7 miles of channel up to 4 percent gradient is the likely limit of tributary habitat available to spawning or rearing coho. Only 1.1 miles are in large tributaries that could also potentially support spawning and rearing Chinook

3-79

salmon, steelhead, and migratory native char. In addition, 2.6 miles of habitat in 4 to 8 percent gradient reaches are potentially suitable for adfluvial rainbow, anadromous/adfluvial cutthroat trout and resident native char production.

Lower Baker River Basin—The Lower Baker River consists of just over 1 mile of stream extending from Lower Baker dam (RM 1.2) down to the confluence with the Skagit River. This area can be divided into the following three reaches: (1) Lower Baker dam to the powerhouse (RM 0.9), (2) powerhouse to the barrier dam (RM 0.6), and (3) barrier dam to confluence with the Skagit River.

The barrier dam precludes upstream anadromous fish migration and directs fish to the Baker River adult trap facility. Much of the reach between the dam and the confluence with the Skagit River is inundated by backflow from the mainstem Skagit River, even during low flow conditions.

Skagit River Basin—The Baker River enters the mainstem Skagit River at RM 56.5 near the Town of Concrete. The Middle Skagit River subbasin is defined as the reach upstream of RM 24.5 to the confluence with the Baker River, while the Lower Skagit River subbasin consists of all reaches downstream of RM 24.5.

Middle Skagit River Subbasin—In the Middle Skagit River’s gradient is generally low with predominantly riffle, glide, and pool habitat. This reach contains various sloughs and side channels that provide important resident and anadromous salmonid spawning and rearing habitat (Williams et al., 1975). Figure 3-14 presents weighted usable area (WUA) of habitat for various salmonids species that use the Middle Skagit River for spawning. Figure 3-15 presents WUA for Chinook and steelhead rearing habitat in the Middle Skagit River. This information was generated through habitat inventories and data collection at 23 transects in the Middle Skagit River as part of a relicensing study, conducted by R2 Resource Consultants.

3-80

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

Flow (cfs)

WU

A (f

eet2 , p

er 1

,000

feet

of s

trea

m le

ngth

)Chinook Salmon Spawning

Pink Salmon Spawning

Chum Salmon Spawning

Steelhead Spawning

Figure 3-14. Spawning habitat WUA in the Middle Skagit River for Chinook, pink, and

chum salmon and steelhead trout.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

Flow (cfs)

WU

A (f

t2 , per

1,0

00 fe

et o

f str

eam

leng

th)

Chinook Salmon Rearing

Steelhead Trout Rearing

Figure 3-15. Rearing habitat WUA in the Middle Skagit River for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout.

Lower Skagit River Subbasin—The Lower Skagit River has a low gradient. Before the Skagit River enters the Skagit Bay estuary, it splits into a north and

3-81

south fork in addition to numerous sloughs. Human development increases along the shores of the Skagit River in these lower reaches. Past and ongoing human disturbances in the Lower Skagit River have led to the degradation of aquatic habitat. Off-channel habitat and tributary streams, which are critical components of juvenile salmonid rearing habitat, have been the most heavily affected (Bishop and Morgan, 1996; Beechie et al., 1994).

Channelization associated with flood control activities in the Lower Skagit River also has degraded mainstem aquatic habitat (Bishop and Morgan, 1996). Much of the Lower Skagit River is a single, modified channel (Smith et al., 2003). More than 60 percent of the historical Skagit River tidal wetlands and estuarine areas have been lost, primarily due to conversion to agricultural lands (Dean et al., 2000; City of Seattle, 2001). These estuarine areas provide important juvenile salmonid rearing habitat.

Stream flows from both the Baker River Project and the Skagit River Project affect habitats in the Lower Skagit River (see discussion of Baker River Flows and Skagit River Flows in section 3.3.2.1 Water Quantity, Affected Environment).

Anadromous Fish SpeciesThe following eight species of anadromous salmonids occur in the Baker River

Project area: sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), coho (O. kisutch), Chinook (O. tshawytscha), pink (O. gorbuscha), and chum salmon (O. keta), steelhead (O. mykiss), native char (Salvelinus sp.), and coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki). It is unknown whether anadromous native char spawn in the Baker River watershed, and therefore, native char are discussed in the Resident Fish Species section provided in subsequent sections of this EIS.

Coho and sockeye are the most abundant salmon stocks returning to the adult fish trap with the remaining species comprising only about 7 percent of the total trap returns (table 3-12).

Table 3-12. Species composition of adult anadromous salmonids returning to the Baker River Project, 1926–2003. a

Species Average Percent of Total Minimum MaximumSockeye 3,332 32 99 20,236Coho 6,140 60 187 26,549Chinook 222 2 0 1,453Steelhead 180 2 0 929Pink 340 3 0 6,123Chum 19 0 0 185Coastal cutthroat troutb 5 0 1 17Native charb 19 0 7 40a Source: License application.

3-82

Species Average Percent of Total Minimum Maximumb Data from 1995–2003.

Sockeye Salmon—The Baker River sockeye population has been a focus of fisheries management for over 100 years and is believed to be the only remaining native sockeye population in the Puget Sound Region (Forest Service, 2002a). Management of sockeye fisheries in the Baker River system is under the jurisdiction of WDFW and Tribal interests. Currently, sockeye salmon in the Baker River system are included on the Forest Service Regional Forester’s Sensitive Animal list. The sockeye run comprises about 32 percent of total anadromous salmonid returns to the system (table 3-12). The WDFW considers the Baker River population a distinct stock on the basis of its geographic separation from other sockeye runs and its genetic characteristics (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994).

Anecdotal estimates of historical escapement suggest that the maximum run size ranged from approximately 10,000 to 20,000 adults (Kemmerich, 1945; Skagit System Cooperative [SSC], 1996). Prior to construction of Upper Baker dam, sockeye in the basin were primarily beach spawners, using areas of upwelling along the original Baker Lake. The majority of the historical sockeye spawning habitat was inundated with the completion of Upper Baker dam in 1959.

As mitigation for the loss of spawning habitat, Puget constructed three artificial sockeye spawning beaches (Spawning Beaches 1, 2, and 3) to provide for continued sockeye production in the Baker River system. In addition, a fourth artificial spawning beach (Spawning Beach 4) was constructed in 1990 to replace the other beaches. Currently, only Spawning Beaches 3 and 4 are actively used. The beaches provide spawning habitat for approximately 4,500 adults. Spawner success and fry survival is considerably higher in the spawning beaches than in the wild. When adult returns to the Baker River are forecasted to exceed the capacity of the spawning beaches, fish are released directly into Baker Lake.

Adult sockeye return to the Baker River basin from June through August, with peak returns in July (table 3-13). Spawning at the artificial beaches generally occurs from late September through December, peaking from late October to late November (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). Adults normally spend 2 to 3 years rearing in the ocean prior to returning at a size of 4 to 8 pounds (Puget, 2002b). Adult sockeye returns to the Baker River trap from 1926 to 2002 ranged from a low of 99 to a maximum of 15,991, with an average of 3,115. A new record escapement was established in 2003, with 20,236 adult sockeye returns as of December 31, 2003. Since 1994, adult sockeye returns to the Baker River have increased substantially to an annual average of 7,803 sockeye, with record escapements occurring in 6 of the last 10 years. NMFS conducted an evaluation of the Baker River population and on March 25, 1999, ruled that the species did not warrant ESA protection because adult returns had increased substantially.

3-83

Table 3-13. Baker River anadromous salmonids periodicity chart. (Source: Adapted from Puget, 2002b)

Species and Life History Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecSockeyeAdult immigrationJuvenile emigrationCohoAdult immigrationJuvenile emigrationChinookAdult immigrationJuvenile emigrationSteelhead (summer)Adult immigrationJuvenile emigrationSteelhead (winter)Adult immigrationJuvenile emigrationPinkAdult immigrationJuvenile emigrationChumAdult immigrationJuvenile emigrationAnadromous Coastal CutthroatAdult immigrationJuvenile emigrationNotes: Black – Peak migration period.

Gray – Span of run timing.

Sockeye fry produced at the spawning beaches emerge from spawning gravels from February through late May or early June. At the upper spawning beach, fry are able to volitionally outmigrate to Baker Lake. At Spawning Beach 4, fry volitionally exit the spawning beaches and enter a holding area, and are then trucked to Baker Lake for release.

The majority of sockeye juveniles rear in Baker Lake for 1 to 2 years, although some may remain in freshwater for well over 3 years (Mazumder, 2004). Approximately 90 percent of juvenile sockeye outmigrants from Baker Lake are less than 3 years in age.

According to Puget (2002b), outmigration of sockeye smolts from the Baker River occurs from the end of March through July, peaking from mid-May to mid-June (table 3-13). Over the past 11 years, total juvenile sockeye counts at the project

3-84

downstream migrant traps have averaged about 125,800, with a peak of 194,955 sockeye in 2001 and a low of 25,848 in 1993.

Based on analysis from Mazumder (2004) of data for nutrients and zooplankton, Baker Lake productivity is currently not limited by nutrients and the concentration of nutrients is at or above average levels observed among some of the most productive sockeye systems. Large Baker Lake sockeye smolt sizes and high biomass of large zooplankton suggest that the current carrying capacity of Baker Lake has not been reached for sockeye production, yet adult return percentages have been lower than expected given the large smolt sizes (Mazumder, 2004).

Coho Salmon—Coho salmon are native to the Skagit River drainage. The WDFW has identified two stocks of coho in the basin: Skagit and Baker (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). Skagit River adult coho generally spawn in tributary streams, although some spawning may occur in side channels and sloughs along the mainstem Skagit River. Coho juveniles may be present throughout the year in the Lower Skagit River, rearing in pools and off-channel habitat (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). Based on escapement and commercial catches, total Skagit River adult coho run size was estimated to range from 17,100 to 127,000 (average of 54,100 fish) from 1985 to 2001(Pacific Fishery Management Council [PFMC], 2003; WDFW, 2002a). Because of declines in escapement numbers in the 1980s and early 1990s, WDFW considers this stock to be depressed (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994).

Coho salmon from the Baker River have been considered a separate stock from Skagit River coho because of their smaller size at maturity, and because they historically had an earlier adult run timing. Adult Baker River coho salmon tend to weigh only about 3 to 4 pounds compared to the 6- to 7-pounds for Skagit River coho salmon (Puget, 2002b; WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). The current life history periodicity for Baker River stock coho salmon is shown in table 3-13.

Based on trap counts from 1926 to 2002, coho escapement to the Baker River averaged 6,139 adults, with a high of 26,549 in 1962 and a low of 187 in 1928. Most adult coho collected at the Baker River trap are transported upstream and released into Baker Lake, although some are transported to the Sulphur Creek facility to be used as broodstock for artificial propagation. Coho spawning generally occurs from October through January. Spawning ground surveys show that coho spawn in the Upper Baker River and its tributaries (Egan, 1978; Puget, 2002b).

Baker River coho juveniles rear in the stream and lake habitats for 1 to 2 years. Coho smolts migrate to the ocean from March to August, with peak migration occurring in May and June (table 3-13) (Puget, 2002b).

3-85

Using potential habitat area as an indicator, estimates of total Baker River system coho smolt production potential was estimated between 100,000 and 150,000 fish (Johnson, 1986; Beechie et al., 1994). Juvenile counts at the Baker River gulpers averaged 48,989 coho smolts from 1987 to 2002. These numbers do not include smolts that may have passed over project spillways and turbines or residualized in the lake.

Artificial propagation has influenced coho production in the Baker River system. Clark Creek coho from the Skagit River basin were released for many years into the Baker River system. Since the mid-1990s, coho returns to the Lower Baker River trap have been used as broodstock for a voluntary supplementation program. An average of about 115,000 artificially produced Baker River coho were released from the Sulphur Creek facility into the Baker River system annually from 1994 to 2001.

Management of coho fisheries in the Baker River system is under the jurisdiction of WDFW and Tribal interests. Coho salmon in the Baker River system are included on the Forest Service Regional Forester’s Sensitive Animal list.

Chinook Salmon—Chinook salmon are the largest of the Pacific salmon species. Some individuals weigh over 100 pounds, although most adults weigh less than 40 pounds (Meehan and Bjornn, 1991). The Skagit River supports the largest natural run of Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). The WDFW has identified six distinct Skagit River Chinook stocks, including two summer runs (Upper Skagit Mainstem/Tributaries and Lower Sauk), three spring runs (Upper Sauk, Suiattle, and Upper Cascade), and one fall run (Lower Skagit Mainstem/ Tributaries) (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). The total Skagit River adult Chinook run size was estimated to range from 5,200 to 26,400 fish from 1985 to 2001, with an average of about 14,175 adults (PFMC, 2003). In recent years, Chinook salmon returning to the Baker River have primarily been spring Chinook that are part of an experimental program, although some fish from the Lower Skagit River fall Chinook stock also have been observed in the trap. The first returns for the experimental program were in 2002. The majority of the Skagit River Chinook spawn in stream reaches located upstream of the Baker River confluence.

The Lower Skagit fall Chinook run spawns primarily in the mainstem Skagit River and tributary streams between the Sauk River confluence and Newhalem, excluding the Upper Cascade River (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). Periodicity of Chinook and other salmonids that are known to spawn in the Middle Skagit River are summarized in table 3-14. Based on spawning surveys, adult escapement for the period from 1986 to 2001 ranged from 409 to 4,584, with an average of 1,967. In general, adult escapement levels have tended to be lower in odd years than in even years, which may attributed to incidental catch of Chinook in pink salmon fisheries, biennial differences in production, or other unknown factors (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). Because of a long-term negative trend in escapement numbers, WDFW classified this Chinook stock as depressed (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994).

3-86

Table 3-14. Periodicity chart for anadromous salmonids known to spawn in the Middle Skagit River. Species/Lifestage Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June JulyChinook spawninga 10 25 31 15

Chinook incubationb

Chinook peak alevinc

Chinook fry <50mmb

Pink spawninga 10 20 20

Pink incubationb

Pink peak alevinc

Pink fry <50 mmb

Chum spawninga 15 1 5 31

Chum incubationb

Chum peak alevinc

Chum fry <50 mmb

Steelhead spawninga 15 11 15 31

Steelhead incubationb

Steelhead peak alevinc

Steelhead fry <50 mmb

Steelhead yearlingsNotes: Light gray–Total time period for that life stage.

Dark gray–Peak timing.a R2 (2003f).b Results are compiled from annual counts of screw-trap data reported by Seiler et al. (2002); electrofishing surveys reported in Stober et al. (1982),

Jones & Stokes (1985),and Beck and Associates (1989). Information has been excerpted from R2 (2003g).c Assuming 30 days prior to peak abundance of newly emerged fry.

3-87

During the initial years of operation, adult Chinook returning to the Baker River trap were transported to Baker Lake. In 1995, the WDFW recommended elimination of adult Chinook transported to Baker Lake because it decided adults would have higher reproductive potential if they were returned to the Skagit River (Puget, 2002c).

In the Baker River, juvenile Chinook outmigration occurs from March through August, peaking in June and July (table 3-13). Over the past 11 years, an average of 1,303 juvenile Chinook salmon have been collected and transported downstream of the Baker River Project annually.

The WDFW began introducing spring Chinook, with an early adult migration pattern, into the Baker River watershed in 1999. The intent of the experimental program is to determine if these Chinook are able to take advantage of habitat in and above the Baker River reservoirs (Puget, 2002c). The WDFW will be monitoring the contribution of the 4,889 spring Chinook adults released since 1999 in an effort to evaluate the success of the experimental program (BRC, 2002a).

Six Chinook stocks migrate through the lower portion of the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence, which is influenced by the project. Each stock has exhibited declines in spawner escapement from the 1970s to early 1990s; however, spawner escapement of all stocks increased from 1997 to 2001. All stocks are above the NMFS critical escapement threshold. All six of these Chinook stocks are maintained by wild production, although some hatchery programs exist.

Four Chinook hatchery programs currently exist in the Skagit River basin: the Skagit River summer Chinook, Skagit River fall Chinook, Skagit Hatchery spring Chinook, and the Baker River spring Chinook. Spawning, incubation, and early rearing of all four stocks takes place at the Marblemount Hatchery. Total release targets by stock include fall Chinook fingerlings (220,000), spring Chinook fingerlings (250,000), summer Chinook (200,000), and yearling spring Chinook (150,000). All hatchery programs use Skagit River basin stocks (HSRG, 2003).

Chinook salmon spawn in approximately 270 miles of the Skagit River and its tributaries (NMFS, 2003). The Lower Sauk Chinook spawn primarily from the mouth of the Sauk River to RM 21, separate from the Upper Sauk spring spawning areas above RM 32. The Upper Sauk Chinook spawn above RM 32 in the main stem and in the Whitechuck River and its tributaries. The Suiattle Chinook population spawns in the mainstem and several tributaries.

Descriptions of harvest rates for Skagit River stocks are provided in NMFS (2003). Recovery exploitation rates have been set at 49 percent for the Lower Skagit River population, 51 percent for the Lower Sauk River population and 60 percent for the Upper Skagit River population (NMFS, 2000a). Total fishery exploitation rates on the

3-88

Skagit and Sauk River summer and fall populations are estimated to have averaged 60 percent from 1983 through 1996, and 29 percent from 1997 through 2000. Actual recent 5-year mean harvest rates for individual Skagit River basin Chinook stocks have ranged from 30 to 63 percent (WCSBRT, 2003).

Steelhead Trout—Three summer steelhead and three winter steelhead stocks have been identified in the Skagit River basin (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). Winter steelhead returning to the Baker River drainage belong to the Mainstem Skagit/Tributaries (Mainstem Skagit) stock (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). Escapement of the mainstem Skagit River winter steelhead stock ranged from 3,780 to 13,194 from 1985 through 2001, with an average of about 8,150 adults (WDFW, 2002a). The WDFW considers the mainstem Skagit winter steelhead stock to be healthy, because, on average, escapement meets the goal of 6,000 adults (WDFW, 2002a; WDFW and WWTIT, 1994).

The timing of the Baker River winter and summer steelhead life cycles are shown in table 3-13. Winter steelhead trout are a native species and are thought to have historically used areas primarily below Baker Lake for spawning (Puget, 1983c). Winter steelhead trout return to the Baker River from September through April. Summer steelhead adults have also been captured at the Baker River trap from April through August.

Pink Salmon—The Skagit River supports a single pink salmon stock that primarily uses the mainstem Skagit River and Sauk River. Spawning generally occurs from Newhalem (RM 93) downstream to Sedro-Woolley (RM 23), with the heaviest amount of spawning concentrated in the mainstem Skagit River from Marblemount (RM 78) upstream to Newhalem. The Skagit River pink stock is the largest spawning stock in Washington State, with total run sizes ranging from 117,700 to 1,426,600 (average of 784,120 fish) from 1985 to 2001 (PFMC, 2003). The WDFW considers this stock to be healthy (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994).

An average of 347 pink salmon adults have been collected each year at the Baker River trap since 1926. Adults normally arrive at the trap from August through November, with the peak migration occurring in October (table 3-13).

Chum Salmon—-The WDFW defines three stocks of Skagit River chum salmon: Mainstem Skagit, Sauk, and Lower Skagit Tributaries (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). The Mainstem Skagit stock spawns in the mainstem Skagit River and larger tributaries from Newhalem (RM 93) downstream at least as far as Lyman (RM 34). Spawning primarily occurs from mid-November to late December, peaking in late November or early December. Skagit River chum tend to spawn in side channels or protected mainstem areas (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994).

3-89

Small numbers of chum salmon began returning to the Baker River traps starting in 1972 (only one adult was documented at the traps prior to that year). An average of 21 adult chum have been collected at the Baker River trap over the last 31 years. When adult chum are observed at the trap, they normally arrive from late September through December, with peak returns in November (table 3-13) (Puget, 2002b).

Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Sea-run)—The WDFW has identified the Skagit River coastal cutthroat as a separate stock, based upon the geographic distribution of their spawning grounds. The watershed supports all life-history forms including anadromous, adfluvial, fluvial, and stream residents. All forms of cutthroat in the basin are considered native and are maintained by wild production (Blakley et al., 2000). There are no data regarding the total production, catch, or escapement for anadromous coastal cutthroat trout in the Skagit River. A rough estimate of approximately 13,000 returning spawners was observed in 1997 (Johnson et al., 1999). Because of the limited information regarding the abundance of coastal cutthroat in the Skagit River drainage, WDFW considers the status of the stock as unknown (Blakley et al., 2000).

The Baker River is known to support at least adfluvial and stream resident coastal cutthroat trout, which are described in greater detail in the following section. The status of anadromous cutthroat in the Baker River system is not fully understood, as documentation of adult collections at the Baker River trap has only been kept since 1995. From 1995 to 2000, 18 adult cutthroat were collected at the trap. Adult coastal cutthroat trout migrate into the Baker River sporadically throughout the year, but primarily in October and November (table 3-13).

Management of coastal cutthroat trout fisheries in the Baker River system is under the jurisdiction of WDFW and Tribal interests. Baker River cutthroat trout are included on the Forest Service Regional Forester’s Sensitive Animal list.

Pacific and River Lamprey—Pacific and river lamprey both exhibit anadromous life history strategies. Upon hatching, larvae (ammocoetes) reside for several years in fine silt deposits in quiet backwater areas of streams.

Anadromous lamprey historically had access to the Baker River at least as far upstream as Baker Lake. It is not known whether adult Pacific or river lamprey enter the adult collection facility, although no fish have been transported above Lower Baker dam since 1929. There have been no confirmed Pacific or river lamprey observations in the Baker River basin upstream of Lower Baker dam (R2, 2003h).

White Sturgeon—White sturgeon have historically had access to the Baker River. Sturgeon primarily inhabit large river systems and can be found holding in deep pools in the Lower Skagit and Snohomish rivers (R2, 2003h). Adult sturgeon spend time rearing in estuarine and marine environments and spawn in freshwater during the spring. The

3-90

historical presence of white sturgeon in the Baker River system has not been confirmed, and no adults have been captured for transport upstream of the Lower Baker dam.

Resident Fish Species—Fifteen species of resident fish have been confirmed in the Baker River system. These include five species of native game fish, six species of native non-game fish, three species of non-native game fish, and one species of non-native, non-game fish (table 3-15). The abundance of many of these fish is not known.

Table 3-15. Resident fish species confirmed present in the Baker River Project area.

Common Name Scientific Name StatusNative char Salvelinus spp. Native, commonRainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Native, commonCoastal cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki Native, commonKokanee (sockeye salmon)

Oncorhynchus nerka Native, common

Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Native non-game fish, commonSalish suckera Catostomus catostomus

subspecies, undescribedNative, uncommon

Three-spine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Native non-game fish, uncommonTorrent sculpin Cottus rhotheus Native non-game fish, commonPrickly sculpin Cottus asper Native non-game fish, commonCoastrange sculpin Cottus aleuticus Native non-game fish, commonLargescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilus Native non-game fish, commonEastern brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis Non-native, commonBrown trout Salmo trutta Non-native, uncommonLake trout Salvelinus namaycush Non-native, uncommonPumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Non-native, uncommona Only observed in the Skagit River, not in the Baker River watershed.

Native Char (Bull Trout/Dolly Varden)—The Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout distinct population segment (DPS) was designated threatened under the ESA on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). ESA critical habitat was proposed for the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS by the FWS on June 24, 2004, which includes habitat in the Baker River watershed.

Historically, bull trout occurred throughout the Puget Sound region. Their historical distribution has been significantly reduced. Currently, bull trout persist in isolated populations of headwater streams; however, migratory components still exist in some local populations. The Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS encompasses all Pacific Coast drainages within the coterminous United States north of the Columbia River, and includes 34 subpopulations, 15 of which occur in the Puget Sound analysis area, and four that occur in the Skagit River basin. Adult population size is highly variable, ranging up to 10,000 spawners per year throughout the Skagit River basin. The decline of the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS has been attributed to habitat degradation, migration

3-91

barriers, interaction with introduced species, water quality degradation, and past management practices.

McPhail and Taylor (1995) concluded that the two char show all the attributes of classic subspecies. For this reason, WDFW manages bull trout and Dolly Varden as a single management unit (Kraemer, 1996). Although the distribution of bull trout and Dolly Varden is largely unknown in Puget Sound river basins, limited preliminary data suggest bull trout predominate in mainstem river systems and reservoirs and Dolly Varden are stream residents (McPhail and Taylor, 1995; Baxter et al., 1997; Hagen and Taylor, 2001; Taylor et al., 2001). Fisheries managers assume that all native char observed in the Baker and Skagit rivers are bull trout in order to be conservative on the side of bull trout conservation.

Throughout their range, bull trout are primarily freshwater species that exhibit both resident and migratory life-history patterns. The entire lifecycle of the resident bull trout takes place in headwater streams. Resident fish spawn, rear, and live as adults generally in one headwater stream, although short migrations may occur. Migratory bull trout spawn and rear in headwater streams, then after 2 to 4 years rearing in their home stream, juveniles migrate downstream to larger rivers (fluvial) or lakes and reservoirs (adfluvial) where they grow to maturity. Migrations can range from a few miles to well over 50 miles (Goetz, 2002). Mature adults migrate back upstream to spawn in headwater reaches. There is increasing evidence that several coastal populations have an anadromous component in Washington (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993; Kraemer, 1994; Goetz, 2002; Volk, 2000).

Anadromous char have been documented in the Puget Sound region and in the Skagit River, although the distribution within the marine environment, migration timing, and proportion of populations that exhibit anadromy is poorly understood.

Bull trout spawning occurs in the fall from late August into December (timing varies based on local conditions) and is thought to be correlated with antecedent flows, water temperatures, and photo period. In the Baker River basin, spawning primarily occurs in October. Bull trout spawning generally occurs when water temperature drops below 9°C. In western Washington, 95 percent of bull trout spawning occurs above an elevation of 1,000 feet or in streams with very cold temperatures similar to high elevation streams (WDFW, 1998). Mature adult bull trout can spawn more than once in a lifetime. First spawning is often noted after age four, with individuals living 10 or more years (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993).

Bull trout appear to have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993), requiring cold clean water and a high degree of habitat complexity. Habitat characteristics including water temperature, stream size, stream gradient, substrate composition, hydraulic complexity, and large wood have been

3-92

associated with bull trout distribution and abundance (Dambacher et al., 1992; Rieman and McIntyre, 1993).

The Bull Trout Recovery Team reviewed the distribution of Skagit River basin subpopulations, and bull trout within the Baker River basin are now considered to be part of the Lower Skagit River subpopulation. The Lower Skagit River bull trout subpopulation is the only one considered “strong” by the FWS in the Puget Sound analysis area based on the estimated subpopulation size of 8,000 to 10,000 adult fish (50 CFR Part 17). Bull trout from this stock tend to spawn in the upper reaches of tributary streams above approximately 1,000 feet in elevation, and the mainstem Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence is not considered spawning habitat, but is considered foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat (69 FR 122, page 35790; FWS, 2004e).

Very few quantitative data regarding native char abundance are available for the Baker River basin. Since 1995, an average of 19 native char per year have been collected at the adult trap and released into Baker Lake. Sampling has failed to confirm the presence of native char in the 0.6 mile reach between the barrier dam and Lower Baker dam.

Between 1994 through 2003, an average of 10 juvenile native char were counted at the Baker River Project downstream passage facilities. Large native char are frequently observed holding at the entrance to the downstream fish passage facilities in both reservoirs during the spring, presumably feeding on outmigrating salmonids. Large native char are also reported to congregate immediately below Upper Baker dam during the spring (Puget, 2002d).

The majority of char production is thought to come from tributaries to Baker Lake, although juvenile char have been observed in tributaries to Lake Shannon (Puget, 2002d). Many tributaries to Lake Shannon are relatively warm, but juvenile char have been observed in tributaries that feed into the lower reservoir. In comparison to Lake Shannon tributaries, several Baker Lake tributaries have cold, glacial origins and support relatively larger native char populations. However, during various electrofishing surveys native char were found in only two of these tributaries.

Adult native char have been observed in the mainstem Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence. This reach is primarily considered to be a migration corridor between upstream spawning habitat and the Skagit River estuary and Puget Sound.

The Upper Baker River appears to support a larger native char population compared to Lake Shannon. Large native char, up to 30 inches in length, were observed in the Upper Baker River during habitat surveys conducted in the fall of 2001 and 2002.

3-93

These fish were presumed to be adfluvial adults migrating into the Baker River from Baker Lake to spawn.

Electrofishing surveys in 1992 also indicated numerous juvenile native char in side channels near Pass Creek, immediately downstream of RM 28. Downstream passage of native char from Baker Lake to Lake Shannon was confirmed through mark/recapture site observations.

During November 2000, the FWS conducted surveys of the Upper Baker River delta and approximately 1.9 miles of stream habitat above the delta. The researchers observed eight native char and two redds during three surveys. One of the native char observed was holding near a redd in the mainstem river immediately above the delta, and the researchers concluded that the area was located in the drawdown zone (FWS, 2001).

Only one estimate, based on direct observations, has been made of native char densities in the Baker River watershed. An electrofishing study in Sulphur Creek resulted in density estimates of 0.0018 native char per square foot. This density estimate was for more than one year-class. Recent snorkel surveys suggest that spawner abundance in Sulphur Creek is lower than observed in the Upper Baker River.

Between 1987 and 1992, native char made up less than 1 percent of the recorded opening day catch. Over the 6-year period, 20 native char were caught on the opening day of fishing in Baker Lake out of a total of 2,939 fish (catch rate of 0.7 percent), and 4 native char were caught in Lake Shannon out of a total of 3,266 fish (catch rate of 0.1 percent).

Rainbow Trout—Rainbow trout have similar biology and habitat requirements to the anadromous steelhead component of the species. Rainbow trout are native to the Baker River watershed and are found in both project reservoirs in addition to many of the tributary streams. These fish remain in fresh water for their entire lives and therefore reach smaller sizes at maturity than anadromous steelhead.

As part of the recreational fishery in the Baker River system, rainbow trout have been stocked annually into Baker or Depression lakes since 1968 through a cooperative effort between Puget and WDFW. Non-native rainbow trout stocking was discontinued in Baker Lake in 2002, in favor of releases only to Depression Lake.

Coastal Cutthroat Trout—Resident coastal cutthroat trout are also native to the Baker River system and share the same general biology and habitat requirements as the anadromous component of the species. Cutthroat trout have been found in both project reservoirs and numerous tributary streams.

3-94

Resident cutthroat trout generally spawn from January through April in the upper portions of tributary drainages. Most juveniles have emerged from the gravel by mid-spring, where they rear for approximately 1 year before moving downstream to larger streams or lakes (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979).

Kokanee—The biology and distribution of kokanee salmon are similar to that of the species’ anadromous component, the sockeye salmon. The U.S. Bureau of Fisheries’ (now FWS) reports suggested that the Baker River kokanee stock became established only after the creation of Lake Shannon. Beginning in 1927, large numbers of kokanee were observed in the Baker Lake System. In subsequent years after completion of the Upper Baker dam in 1956, it was also observed that whenever there was limited overflow at Upper Baker dam during juvenile outmigration periods, above average numbers of sockeye would remain in Baker Lake (Puget, 1983b).

Adult kokanee usually reach smaller sizes at maturity in comparison to sockeye salmon, as lake environments are generally less productive than the ocean (Meehan and Bjornn, 1991). There have been no formal studies to quantify the abundance of kokanee in Baker Lake.

In the Baker River system, kokanee are believed to spawn in some of the smaller tributaries of Baker Lake and immediately downstream of the Upper Baker dam (Puget, 2002b). In general, kokanee mature and migrate into their natal streams from late August through October, with peak spawning occurring from September through late October.

From 1934 to 1940, an average of 228,500 kokanee was released in Lake Shannon. Since 1995, WDFW has resumed releases of kokanee into Lake Shannon, planting approximately 97,000 to 343,000 fry per year.

Salish Sucker—The Salish sucker is a Forest Service sensitive species. The confluence of the Baker and Skagit rivers is one of a few locations where this species has been found in Washington (McPhail and Taylor, 1999). The Salish sucker is currently a scientifically undescribed fish that is closely related to the longnose sucker. The Salish sucker is known only to be found in the Fraser River valley of British Columbia and in a few Washington State Puget Sound tributaries. Populations of Salish suckers in British Columbia have been declining, and this species has been extirpated from some areas that it previously inhabited.

Although the Salish sucker is listed as endangered in Canada, McPhail and Taylor (1999) state that “the Salish sucker is unlikely to go extinct in Washington State in the near future.

3-95

Aquatic Invertebrates and PlanktonBenthic macroinvertebrates include a variety of aquatic insects, annelids,

mollusks, crustaceans, and flatworms inhabiting the bottom of a watercourse. Benthic macroinvertebrates are a major food source for fish and other aquatic organisms in streams and lakes, and their diversity and abundance is an important indicator of water quality and aquatic ecosystem status. In addition to benthic macroinvertebrate, plankton communities in Baker Lake and Lake Shannon are important components of the biological food web in project waters. In addition to being important food resources for aquatic organisms, such as fish, benthic macroinvertebrates and plankton are important components of the food web for amphibians, birds, mammals, and other terrestrial invertebrates. Many invertebrate species act indirectly as agents in nutrient recycling within stream and reservoir ecosystems (Black et al., 2001).

Plankton—Information about plankton resources in the Baker River watershed is summarized from the Baker Aquatic and Sockeye Salmon Productivity study (Mazumder, 2004).

Zooplankton and phytoplankton are the base of aquatic food webs in reservoirs and lakes and are the predominant diet of juvenile sockeye salmon and many lake/reservoir dwelling organisms. The zooplankton community composition and size distribution are excellent indicators of juvenile sockeye predation on zooplankton and these measures are also good indicators of the growth potential of juvenile sockeye to the smolt stage. The macro- zooplankton community of Baker Lake is similar taxonomically to other clear water lakes that support sockeye salmon rearing (Edmundson and Mazumder, 2001).

Zooplankton density has increased consistently from less than 2,000 to more than 5,000 organisms per cubic meter, and biomass increased from 10 mg per cubic meter to greater than 30 mg per cubic meter from years 1984 to 2000. Summer average density and biomass of zooplankton were significantly higher than the annual averages, suggesting that the summer months (May to September) provide much greater sockeye food resources than the remaining months of the year. The total zooplankton density and biomass measured in Baker Lake fall within the range of productive sockeye lakes (Mazumder, 2004). Daphnia and Diaptomous were the next two most dominant taxa. On average, Daphnia contributed about 15 to 20 percent of total zooplankton biomass, which can be considered as excellent for a sockeye lake (Mazumder, 2004). The percent contribution of Diaptomous to total zooplankton biomass also indicates that the predation pressure on large zooplankton is not intense and that the lake is under carrying capacity for producing sockeye smolts.

Benthic Macroinvertebrates—This group of bottom dwelling organisms cycle nutrients in their aquatic environment by feeding on algae and organic detritus and by

3-96

preying on a wide range of small organisms. Benthic macroinvertebrates are an important food resource for fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.

In studies conducted by the National Park Service for several tributaries to Baker Lake during 2000 to 2002, a total of 131 taxa were observed from 9 major taxonomic groups (21,848 individual organisms were counted). Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera accounted for 67 percent of taxa observed (n = 131 taxa) within the watershed.

Existing Fish Facilities and ProgramsAs part of the existing license for the Baker River Project, Puget is required to

provide upstream and downstream fish passage and operate spawning beaches for sockeye production. In addition to these programs, Puget also operates the Sulphur Creek hatchery facility, where voluntary production and rearing programs are conducted.

Adult Fish Passage—Adult upstream passage is provided at the Baker River Project through the use of a trap-and-haul fish transport system.

The system at the Baker River Project is operated as a four-step process.

(1) A tailrace barrier (barrier dam) along with attraction flow (80 cfs) is used to guide the adults from the river into the trapping facility, where they are directed into two holding pools, each 40 feet by 15 feet.

(2) A crowder system is then used to force the adults from the holding pools into a sorting and counting facility.

(3) Adults selected for transport are crowded using a vertical crowder (brail) and moved into the hopper pond. The hopper is a steel tank that holds approximately 1,000 gallons of water. The hopper is then lifted by crane, and the fish-laden water is transferred into a transport truck equipped with aeration and oxygen diffusers.

(4) After loading, the fish are transported to release locations in the basin based on management objectives dictated by treaty tribes and WDFW for the species being transported. For fish transported to the Upper Baker facilities, total transport time is approximately 20 to 25 minutes.

The current Baker River Project upstream adult trap-and-haul facilities are located at RM 0.6 and have been in operation since 1957. The major fish species transported or collected at the Baker River trap include coho, sockeye, Chinook, steelhead, pink, chum, and native char. On average, about 10,000 anadromous fish are transported yearly from this facility. The most fish transported in any year since 1926 was 30,269 fish in 1962.

3-97

From 1995 to 2002, an average of 19 adult char was also collected each year at the facility, and transported and released upstream of the Upper Baker River Project (Puget, 2002d). In general, the adult passage facilities operate year-round with the exception of a brief maintenance repair period that occurs in May or June.

Juvenile Fish Passage—Downstream migrating fish are able to pass project facilities through spillways, turbines, and juvenile fish collection facilities. Juvenile fish passage facilities are located both at Upper and Lower Baker dams. The facilities at both projects are similar in design and function. However, juvenile facilities at Lower Baker dam are smaller than those at Upper Baker dam. The juvenile passage systems function as follows:

(1) Full-depth barrier nets direct fish away from turbine openings and guide downstream migrating fish into a juvenile fish collection barge, referred to as the gulper. The nets are constructed of 0.25-inch square mesh netting that extends completely across and to the bottom of the forebay.

(2) The gulper is a FSC equipped with a pumping system that provides the flow needed to attract downstream migrants to the entrance of the FSC. Total flow into the Upper Baker gulper is 130 cfs. The entrance of the FSC is 12 feet wide and extends approximately 9 feet below the surface of the water.

(3) The water and fish entering the FSC encounter a set of wooden louvers that are used to separate the fish from the flow. The louvers act as a fish behavioral device that directs migrants up into a 3-foot-wide chute that leads them to the FSC.

(4) Captured juveniles are sampled for biological information, counted, transferred to a tank trailer and trucked to the mouth of the Baker River where they are released.

Besides size, other differences between the juvenile facilities at Upper Baker and Lower Baker exist. Upper Baker has more pumping capacity through the gulper, has a larger collection trap, was the first to have full depth nets, and loads fish at the head of the dam. Lower Baker captures fewer fish, has a smaller-scale collection trap, and barges fish to shore for transport. With most of the fish production coming out of Baker Lake, the focus has been to make the Upper Baker downstream capture system the most effective possible.

From 1987 to 2001, the average number of downstream migrants collected at Upper and Lower Baker was approximately 127,000 and 13,000, respectively. The juvenile fish passage facilities generally operate from March through July. When these facilities are not in operation, downstream migrants may pass through the project via spillways and turbines.

3-98

Hydroacoustic data from Baker Lake, used to quantify fish entering the turbine intakes versus those that enter the juvenile collection facility, indicated that 71 percent of fish used the bypass facilities from 1988 to 1995.

Based on mark-recapture studies conducted from 1992 to 2002, approximately 53 percent of juveniles used the Baker Lake FSC, while 23 percent used the Lake Shannon FSC. The numbers presented for the two FSCs are not true efficiency values because natural residualization and mortality associated with juvenile passage through the reservoirs affects the numbers available for capture at each FSC. It was noted that approximately 2 percent of the marked coho released in Upper Baker over this same period was collected at the Lower Baker FSC, indicating that some juveniles are able to successfully migrate past the project through turbines or spill.

Spawning Beaches—To replace inundated sockeye spawning habitat at Baker Lake, WDFW, with funding from Puget, created three spawning beaches at the upper end of Baker Lake. Sockeye salmon Spawning Beaches 1, 2, and 3 were constructed in 1957, 1959, and 1966, respectively. Spawning Beach 1 was simply a test facility with the capacity for 100 spawning adults and was decommissioned in 1965. In addition, Spawning Beach 2 has not been used since 1994.

Spawning Beach 3 is an artificial pond approximately 100 feet by 150 feet with a designed capacity of 1,500 sockeye. Approximately 5 to 10 cfs of water is diverted from Channel Creek to supply the pond. A series of pipes underneath the spawning beach distributes the water, which percolates through the gravel to simulate natural sockeye spawning areas. Adult sockeye collected at the Baker River trap are delivered to the beaches and allowed to spawn naturally. After emergence, fry tend to spend between 10 to 14 days at the beach before volitionally migrating to Channel Creek and ultimately to Baker Lake (Quistorff, 1960). Egg-to-fry survival rates at the upper spawning beaches have been quite high, ranging from 25 to 95 percent and averaging about 61 percent, which is substantially higher than what would be expected in the wild (Puget, 2002e).

Because of concern that the migrating Upper Baker River channel would eventually reclaim the spawning beach facility, Spawning Beach 4 was constructed in 1990 at the Sulphur Creek facility. Spawning Beach 4 is also an artificial pond measuring 200 feet by 150 feet. The pond uses approximately 10 cfs of water, which is provided by a series of springs. Water is distributed using a similar system to the previous beaches, which allows inflow to percolate through the gravels to mimic natural spawning conditions.

Spawning Beach 4 has a standard capacity of 3,400 adults. In 2003, the upper limits of capacity were tested with 3,750 adults. After a couple of years of initially poor survival due to sedimentation associated with slides at the water intake, egg-to-fry

3-99

survival rates have been comparable to those observed at the upper spawning beaches. From 1993 to 2000 survival rates based on estimates of fecundity ranged from 40 to 74 percent with an average of about 57 percent. Fry emerging from the gravel at Spawning Beach 4 are allowed to volitionally exit the beaches where they are held at a collection structure until they are transported to Baker Lake and released at various locations.

Originally Spawning Beach 4 was a single unit. However, because of concerns regarding an IHN virus outbreak in 1994, the beach was divided into four isolated compartments, each measuring 50 feet by 150 feet. Currently, if the IHN virus infection is detected in one of the compartments, the effluent can be diverted for chlorination treatment in accordance with the disease management protocol for the facility. Spawning adults carry the virus to the facility (BRC, 1999). In recent years, efforts have been made to remove adult sockeye from the spawning beaches earlier in the season in an attempt to avoid IHN virus transmission to emerging sockeye fry. Since the early removal of adults has been initiated, incidences of IHN virus infection have been dramatically reduced (BRC, 2002b). Efforts at reducing adult density in Spawning Beach 4 were also attempted, although no causal link was established between density and incidences of IHN virus infection (BRC, 2001).

The Upper Baker River channel has not yet caused the forecasted destruction of the Spawning Beach 3 facility. Therefore, as an attempt to spread the risk of production failures due to disease or other unforeseen events at Spawning Beach 4, the BRC has decided to continue using Spawning Beach 3.

Spawning Beach 3 is now operated as an unattended facility. In recent years, low flows in Channel Creek have led to concerns regarding the adequacy of water being supplied to the beach in dry years. A special-use permit issued by the Forest Service to Puget requires that Spawning Beaches 1, 2, and 3 be formally decommissioned when they are no longer needed. As Spawning Beach 3 remains in operation, no actions have been taken toward decommissioning.

Currently, after sockeye adults spawn and die at spawning beaches 3 and 4, the carcasses are distributed to select streams to provide marine-derived nutrients to enhance primary production. Carcasses pulled from beach 3 and 4 are dumped off the bridges into Sandy, Park, Swift, and Shannon creeks. Numbers of fish carcasses placed at each location are recorded each year. Since the spawning beaches began operation, an average of about 1,355,000 sockeye fry have been produced each year at these facilities.

The Sulphur Creek Facility and Voluntary Fisheries Programs—The Sulphur Creek facility, located downstream of Upper Baker dam along Sulphur Creek, was constructed in the 1970s. It is used for sockeye, coho, and rainbow trout propagation. The facility consists of a large rearing pond, five raceways, five circular ponds, and several work/storage sheds. Puget and WDFW staff operate the facilities.

3-100

Puget has also been voluntarily rearing coho salmon since 1981. In the early years of the program, coho fry were transferred from WDFW’s Marblemount hatchery on the Skagit River and raised in the raceways at the Sulphur Creek facility. Beginning in 1987, the program was expanded to also include coho rearing in the net pens on Lake Shannon.

In addition, a cooperative rainbow trout stocking program has been conducted voluntarily between WDFW and Puget since 1968. WDFW provides the rainbow trout fingerlings and Puget rears them at the Sulphur Creek facility. In the past, these fish were primarily planted in Baker Lake, with small numbers occasionally released in Lake Shannon and Depression Lake. Beginning in 2002, all of the rainbow trout produced (18,792) were released into Depression Lake to avoid potential adverse interactions with native fish in Baker Lake.

The Skagit System Cooperative, in conjunction with Puget, also conducted a voluntary steelhead rearing program from 1987 to 1998. The program used steelhead fry transported from Skagit River hatcheries. These fish were raised at the Lake Shannon net pens until they were released as smolts.

In 2002, Puget and WDFW constructed an egg incubation building at the Sulphur Creek facility as part of a sockeye supplementation pilot program and to safeguard against production losses from IHN-related mortality at the spawning beaches. The structure is approximately 27 feet long by 12 feet wide and uses water from the same spring as Spawning Beach 4. The facility uses approximately 0.07 to 0.08 cfs. Funding for the facility is provided by Puget, and the WDFW oversees operations.

The purpose behind the incubation program is to provide an additional option for sockeye production in years when the spawning beaches do not meet production goals in the event of an IHN virus outbreak. The program would produce 1 million sockeye fry. If full spawning beach production goals are met and there is no IHN virus disease outbreak triggering disinfection, then one-half of the fry produced would be released in Lake Shannon and one-half in Baker Lake. If the IHN virus is detected, then 75 percent of the fry produced at the incubation facility would be released in Baker Lake and 25 percent released in Lake Shannon. These fish would be released as unfed fry (BRC, 2002a).

Fish HarvestAnadromous fish from the Baker River are subject to all of the same fisheries

affecting Skagit River stocks, from terminal area fisheries in the Skagit River and Skagit Bay to Pacific Ocean fisheries. However, there is limited information that relates directly to the commercial harvest of Baker River fish, as estimates tend to be for the Skagit River basin as a whole. For example, the PFMC estimated that between 1990 and 2000

3-101

commercial net catches in the Puget Sound took an average of about 7,750 coho, 1,340 Chinook, and 263,000 pink salmon that originated from the Skagit River (PFMC, 2003). By comparing Skagit River coho escapement estimates and Baker River adult trap returns with harvest numbers, Puget estimated that an average of approximately 840 Baker River coho were harvested each year in the Puget Sound commercial fishery from 1990 to 2000 (WDFW, 2002a; PFMC, 2003).

Since 1987, Puget has conducted angler surveys on both reservoirs, normally during the opening day of fishing season. These surveys have found that in Baker Lake, kokanee and residual sockeye comprise the vast majority of the fishery, generally ranging from about 85 to 98 percent of the catch. Coho are the second most caught species in Baker Lake comprising about 1 to 5 percent of the catch in most years. Rainbow trout catches were also observed in most years, but at substantially lower numbers than coho, kokanee, and residualized sockeye. The Lake Shannon fishery displays the same basic species catch distribution. Kokanee and residualized sockeye generally make up about 85 to 95 percent of the fishery, followed by coho at about 1 to 15 percent, and then rainbow trout. In both reservoirs, Chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, and native char are also caught in low numbers. The catch per unit effort for anglers on Baker Lake has ranged from 0.35 to 2.08 fish/angler-hour, while Lake Shannon catch per unit effort has ranged from 0.34 to 2.79 fish/angler-hour.

Since the 1970s, WDFW has also conducted periodic angler surveys at Baker Lake; however, these data have not been formally compiled and the raw data sheets could not be summarized for this analysis.

Environmental Impacts and RecommendationsThe Settlement Agreement and the amended license application contain proposed

license articles that address water quantity issues in the Baker and Skagit Rivers and both project reservoirs. FWS, NMFS, FS, WDFW, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, and Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, recommend that the Commission approve the Settlement Agreement and that Puget implement the proposed license articles. The following sections describe the measures proposed by Puget and the agencies, as well as our analysis of the proposed measures on aquatic resources in the project area.

In addition to the measures contained in the Settlement Agreement, WDFW and NMFS made several additional recommendations that are addressed in section 5.2, Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations. Our final recommendations on those measures are made in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

3.3.4.2 Environmental EffectsThe effects of reservoir level management and project releases on aquatic

resources in the Baker River Project area are described below. The following effects

3-102

analyses rely heavily on analyses and figures presented in sections 3.3.2.2, Water Quantity, Environmental Effects and 3.3.3.2 Water Quality, Environmental Effects. Effects analysis of project releases also relies heavily on hydrologic and habitat modeling. A major hydrologic and habitat modeling effort (HYDROPS and post-processing), conducted by Puget and R2 Resource Consultants, was completed for each alternative for the Lower Baker and Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence as part of the collaborative process to reach settlement on the operational strategy. HYDROPS output for current conditions and the Proposed Action were used in flow routing and habitat models (termed “post-processing” for this analysis) to estimate the effect of each alternative on several habitat parameters and metrics for the five representative energy years. Post-processing generated estimates of operational effects on ramping, quantity of various habitat types, and the size of the varial zone (water fluctuation zone) in the Middle/Lower Skagit River. The post-processing estimates are summarized in the appropriate effects analysis section where applicable (i.e., varial zone estimates are summarized in the Redd Dewatering and Aquatic Invertebrates analysis sections).

In addition to post-processing output for the five representative energy years (termed level-3 output), level-4 output was also produced using the hydrograph from 12 consecutive energy years from 1991 to 2002, which includes the five representative energy years. Level-4 output was used to double check preferred operational scenarios and assumptions from level-3 output. Level 4 output is also provided in subsequent analyses where applicable.

Reservoir Level ManagementAs presented in the Reservoir Level Management discussion of section 3.3.2.2,

Water Quantity, Environmental Effects, reservoir water levels fluctuate as a result of current project operations (No-Action Alternative) and would also fluctuate under the Proposed Action. These fluctuations have the potential to affect water quality, such as DO concentrations, water temperature, TDG, and turbidity in the reservoirs, as well as in the Lower Baker River and Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence. Changes in water quality and bank erosion can affect aquatic habitat quality and quantity and also fish spawning.

Three proposed articles included in the Proposed Action would affect reservoir elevations. Proposed Article 106, Flow Implementation, is based on aquatic, recreational, and cultural resource needs, as well as human health and safety, property and project economic and operational issues. Proposed Article 107 is associated with flood storage and is based on the continuation of an existing agreement and potential for an expansion of Puget’s flood control agreement with the Corps. Proposed Article 401 restricts drafting Baker Lake and Lake Shannon below elevations of 685 feet and 389 feet msl,

3-103

respectively, to limit the likelihood of resuspending fine sediments that have deposited in the reservoirs.

Flood control operations are discussed in section 2.2.2. Under the Proposed Action, the reservoir management regime described in Proposed Article 106(C), Flow Implementation, would reduce the duration of exposure of the reservoir inundation zone by delaying the start of fall drawdown and accelerating spring refill. The use of reservoir storage at the Baker River Project for flood storage under the Proposed Action would remain under the direction of the Corps.

As discussed in section 3.3.2.2, Water Quantity, Environmental Effects, operating the project under the Proposed Action would result in delayed fall drawdown and earlier spring refill of the reservoir in comparison with Current Operations in Baker Lake. Baker Lake water levels would tend to remain higher than Current Operation levels approximately 70 percent of the time, although the modeled differential remained less than 4 feet (see section 3.3.1.2). The Proposed Action would result in little change in daily water level fluctuations of Baker Lake compared to current conditions.

The Proposed Action would also tend to result in Lake Shannon water levels that are higher than current conditions a little more than half the time and would somewhat reduce the frequency of daily water level fluctuations in the 1-foot to 5-foot range (see section 3.3.1.2). In April and May, Lake Shannon water levels would be more variable under the Proposed Action than under current conditions.

Input received during the collaborative relicensing process highlighted the importance of reducing the resuspension of fine sediments in Lake Shannon and reducing redd-dewatering at tributary mouths of Baker Lake caused by reservoir drawdown. Questions were raised through the collaborative process concerning the effects of reservoir management on the euphotic zone, aquatic invertebrates and plankton, and spill events. We present effects analyses for reservoir level management with regard to effects on water quality, euphotic zone, fish habitat and redd dewatering, aquatic vertebrates and plankton, and spill events in the sections below.

Water Quality—Reservoir level fluctuations can affect water quality by increasing bank erosion and resuspending fine sediments that have accumulated along the reservoir margins. Reservoir fluctuations can also affect DO concentrations, turbidity levels, and water temperatures (section 3.3.3.1, Water Quality Affected Environment). Water quality degradation can have many effects on fish and other aquatic organisms ranging from stress to mortality.

3-104

Effects Analysis

Under Current Operations, TDG levels can rise above state standards (section 3.3.3.1). Compared to Current Operations, turbidity events may be less frequent under the Proposed Action, and TDG in the Lower Baker River would be reduced. The water quality monitoring program would result in the identification of water quality problems and result in feasible remedies. This would be beneficial to aquatic resources because elevated TDG concentrations can negatively affect juvenile fish survival and elevated turbidity could cause negative effects such as siltation of salmonid spawning grounds in the Middle Skagit River. Elevated turbidity could also cause chronic and acute stress response in fish species, lower juvenile fish survival, interfere with adult migration, and cause direct mortality at very high levels.

Under the Proposed Action, the water quality monitoring plan would allow for the continued study of and early identification of potential water quality problems caused by the project and would facilitate remedies to these problems over the term of the new license. Effects on aquatic resources under the Proposed Action would be minimized because potential water quality problems would be addressed by operational or technical solutions.

Euphotic Zone—Reservoir fluctuations in Baker Lake and Lake Shannon can affect the euphotic zone (the zone that light penetrates). Lake and reservoir primary production is primarily driven by phytoplankton production. The depth that light penetrates into the water column and reservoir surface area determines the volume of water available for phytoplankton production, since phytoplankton need light to conduct photosynthesis. Therefore, the euphotic zone is a good indicator of primary production potential, with the assumption that a lake system would be more productive as the euphotic zone increases.

Effects Analysis

R2 Resource Consultants estimated euphotic zone volume for the 5 energy years for both Lake Shannon and Baker Lake. The Proposed Action would result in an increase in Baker Lake euphotic zone volume for all five representative years compared to Current Operations, but would result in a very slight decrease of Lake Shannon for 2 of the 5 energy years. However, the combined weighted average Lake Shannon euphotic zone volume would be slightly more than under Current Operations. Overall, the Baker Lake euphotic zone volume would increase approximately 8 percent under the Proposed Action compared to current conditions. The Proposed Action should result in an increase of primary production in Baker Lake because the euphotic zone volume would increase, which would benefit all aquatic species, and may result in increased fish production.

Fish Habitat and Redd Dewatering—Reservoir fluctuations in Baker Lake affect potential salmonid spawning habitat for bull trout, coho, and sockeye salmon.

3-105

Redds constructed in tributary delta areas are subject to dewatering caused by reservoir drawdown, scour during channel migration, or inundation during subsequent reservoir refill (FWS, 2001; SSC, 1996). Many tributary streams have habitat accessible to anadromous/adfluvial salmonids in Baker Lake and Lake Shannon, although the majority of this habitat is in Baker Lake tributaries.

Although the majority of native char spawning is thought to occur in tributary streams located a considerable distance above Baker Lake, it is possible that some char may spawn in the deltas of tributaries that flow into Baker Lake (R2, 2003i). Fourteen tributaries to Baker Lake have habitat in the drawdown zone that native char could potentially use for spawning, but only a few tributary delta areas provide potential char spawning habitat in Lake Shannon (R2, 2003i).

Excess sockeye salmon adults that are not transferred to the artificial spawning beaches are released into the Baker Lake system to spawn naturally. SSC (1996) conducted a study in 1994, when 12,653 adult sockeye were released into Baker Lake, and found that 26 percent of natural sockeye spawning in Baker Lake occurred within the drawdown zone and the Upper Baker River delta. SSC (1996) estimated that at least one-third of all redds constructed in the drawdown zone in 1994 were dewatered, which was equal to approximately 9 percent of all redds counted. There is some indication that drawdown zone timing can influence the proportion of redds constructed in the drawdown zone. The 2 years with the highest proportion of redds in the drawdown zone were years in which drawdown started before October 1. Of particular note is that the spawning beach program was initiated to mitigate for effects on sockeye spawning habitat caused by the construction and operation and of the Baker River Project. Actual use of this habitat by other salmonid and native fish species is largely unknown, although spawning by other salmonids has been documented in tributary drawdown zones and rearing/foraging also occurs.

Effects Analysis

The following effects analysis focuses on sockeye, for which data are available; however, the general analysis is also applicable to potential bull trout and coho salmon spawning impacts. SSC (1996) suggested that if Baker Lake is drawn down to its minimum surface elevation prior to sockeye spawning (mid-September), lake-spawning sockeye would have only habitat that would remain continually wetted for spawning, which would substantially reduce the potential for sockeye redd dewatering.

Although early drawdown may decrease redd dewatering, other negative effects may be caused by early drawdown (table 3-16). Similarly, later drawdown has benefits and consequences to aquatic resources (table 3-16).

3-106

Table 3-16. Aquatic resource effects of early or late reservoir drawdown.a

Positive Effects Negative EffectsAquatic Resource Effects of Early DrawdownAvoid scour/dewatering due to change in base level

May encourage additional spawning in drawdown zoneb

Increase stability of spawning habitat during spawning season

Reduces storage available for downstream low flow augmentation

Isolate effects of reservoir pool changes Increases length of exposed stream channelGreater flexibility to time downstream releases Increases risk of high-flow related scour Aquatic Resource Effects of Late DrawdownMay discourage spawning in the drawdown zoneb

Unavoidable scour and dewatering of redds within drawdown zone

Increases storage available for downstream flow augmentation

Increases the probability of spill

Decreases length of exposed stream channel during spawning season

Continued risk of high-flow related scour

a Source: Study A-15, Upper Baker Delta Scour, presentation at ARWG meeting on August 8, 2003.

b The 2 years with the highest proportion of redds in the drawdown zone were years in which drawdown started before October 1.

Although early drawdown may protect redds from being dewatered, Baker Lake fluctuates substantially in elevation during the winter and spring under all scenarios, primarily due to flood control operations. Sockeye fry do not emerge until February to May or early-June; therefore, redds constructed in drawdown stream habitats may be exposed to reservoir inundation before eggs hatch and fry emerge. Redds constructed in the drawdown zone would be inundated if the reservoir level rises above the spawning level and potentially scoured during high flow events. Inundation by reservoir water could reduce intergravel flow, which provides oxygen to incubating eggs and also removes metabolic waste products that can be toxic to eggs. In addition, inundation can lead to siltation, which could smother incubating eggs and alevins. Unless the reservoir level remained nearly constant from the spawning through incubation period, redds would either be subject to dewatering or inundation due to water level fluctuations.

Spawner abundance fluctuates from year to year and spawning distributions of fish change over time, possibly due to shift in habitat. Yearly hydrologic variation can also cause shifts in spawning distribution. In some years, higher percentages of fish may spawn in the drawdown zone, while in other years more spawning may occur outside the drawdown zone. Therefore, it is not possible to estimate the actual number or percentage of redds that may be dewatered in a given year. Only the amount of habitat affected in the drawdown zone can be quantified.

Under Current Operations, approximately 14 percent of all tributary habitat (linear distance) accessible to anadromous/adfluvial salmonids above Upper Baker dam is

3-107

located in the Baker Lake drawdown zone, and 8.2 percent of accessible tributary habitat in Lake Shannon is located in the drawdown zone. Over 80 percent of the drawdown zone habitat in both reservoirs is less than 4 percent in gradient (lower gradients are more preferable for fish spawning and rearing), but not all of the low gradient tributary drawdown habitat reaches have appropriate substrate for spawning. Many of these reaches are dominated by sandy or silty substrates that are not good spawning habitat. The Proposed Action would slightly reduce the total amount of tributary habitat subject to drawdowns when compared to Current Operations since the regulated minimum reservoir elevation for Baker Lake would be approximately 8 feet above Current Operations regulated minimums and Lake Shannon would be approximately 15 feet above Current Operations regulated minimums.

In summary, fish spawning occurs in the drawdown zones of the project reservoirs and reservoir fluctuations affect spawning habitat and fish redds in the drawdown zone. If the reservoirs are drawn down early, redds created in the drawdown zone could be inundated later during incubation by reservoir water when the reservoir refills to detain peak runoff as part of the Corps flood control agreement, which would be a negative effect. If the reservoirs are drawn down later, redds would be subject to dewatering and would also be subject to later inundation during peak runoff events, which are negative effects. Redds under any scenario would be subject to scour caused by down cutting as the reservoir recedes and scour caused by high stream flows during peak runoff, which are negative effects. Since early drawdown and late drawdown both have a separate set of benefits and consequences regarding fish spawning effects and the lake levels are not changing substantially, we conclude that the overall general effect of the Proposed Action on spawning would be similar or slightly improved compared to Current Operations.

Based on relicensing study results, the vast majority of spawning bull trout have been observed upstream of the drawdown zone (see Resident Fish Species discussion in section 3.3.4.1). Therefore, drawdown effects on bull trout redds under the Proposed Action are expected to be minimal. Currently, the majority of sockeye production occurs at the artificial spawning beaches, and only excess sockeye from the spawning beach program are released to spawn naturally in Baker Lake.

Aquatic Invertebrates and Plankton—Reservoir fluctuations may impact aquatic invertebrates and plankton. The construction of Upper and Lower Baker dams inundated a large area and changed the hydrologic cycle of the Baker River. These changes may have affected invertebrate life cycles and communities that evolved over time. Further, facilities at the project may act as barriers and prevent either downstream movement or dispersal upstream (Vaughn, 2002).

3-108

Effects Analysis

As described in section 3.3.4.1, Affected Environment, there appears to be an abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates in tributaries to Baker Lake, although similar data are not available for Lake Shannon. In addition, zooplankton biomass and diversity appears to be at or above the levels of other productive sockeye salmon lakes (Mazumder, 2004). Although wide seasonal fluctuations in reservoir levels would occur within both Lake Shannon and Baker Lake during similar times of the year under the Proposed Action and Current Operations, the total reservoir drawdown zone would decrease and the euphotic volume would increase under the Proposed Action. An increased euphotic zone would increase primary productivity and the forage base for aquatic invertebrates and zooplankton.

Spill Events—Reservoir management in combination with downstream releases can affect spill event frequency and magnitude. Spill can flush fish over the dams. A substantial portion of fish spilled over the dams may not survive. During the 1950s, researchers identified that sockeye smolts passing over the spillway at Lower Baker dam sustained a mortality rate of 54 percent (Hamilton and Andrew, 1954). Therefore, alternatives that increase the number and volume of spill events would increase negative effects on fish populations.

Effects Analysis

HYDROPS post-processing estimated that the average number and volume of yearly spill events over the Lower Baker dam under Current Operations would be 3.7 spill events at 846,194 million acre-feet and 3.11 spill events at 494,429 million acre-feet under the Proposed Action. Upper Baker dam spill events would be reduced from an average of 0.81 spill event per year under current conditions to 0.58 spill event under the Proposed Action. Therefore, modeling predicts that the Proposed Action would decrease the number and volume of spill events compared to Current Operations. Reducing the number and volume of spill events under the Proposed Action should decrease the likelihood of spilling migrating juvenile salmonids over the dams, thereby reducing fish mortality.

Under the Proposed Action, springtime reservoir refill must be completed much earlier compared to Current Operations. Based on daily reservoir pool level data for the period from 1981 through 2002, the median Baker Lake reservoir pool level did not exceed 724.8 feet msl until early July. This delayed refill schedule often provided storage for late spring runoff and reduced the frequency of late spring spill. The design of the existing downstream fish passage facility allows the top of the guide nets to be submerged to reduce drag during large spill events to minimize damage to the system. During periods of late spring spill, smolts migrating downstream are attracted to the surface release of water through the spillway and may have passed over the spillway. Under the Proposed Action, refill of Baker Lake must occur by mid-May and must

3-109

exceed 724.8 feet msl by May 23. Maintaining a minimum reservoir pool level of 724.8 feet by May 23 provides near full pool conditions for summer recreational benefits, but increases the risk of late spring spill events at Upper Baker dam.

Under the Proposed Action, new downstream fish passage facilities would be designed for both Upper Baker and Lower Baker developments, and the new facilities may be able to operate at some level of spill without damage to the guide nets. It is uncertain whether the passage facility would operate during all spill events. Under the Proposed Action, the generation capacity of the Lower Baker Development would be increased from 4,100 cfs to 5,600 cfs. This increased capacity at the Lower Baker Development would help to reduce the incidence of late spring spill at Lower Baker compared to Current Operations.

Project ReleasesAs discussed in section 3.3.2, Water Quantity, operation of the Baker River

Project alters the flow regime in the Lower Baker River and Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence. Flow alterations associated with project operations can affect the wetted channel width, alter water quality, and reduce fish spawning and rearing habitat. Project-induced flow fluctuations (project ramping) can also result in the stranding of fish in shallow areas and off-channel habitat (resulting in immediate or delayed mortality); temporary loss of habitat; and the dewatering of fish redds, amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, and plant life (Hunter, 1992). In most cases, the faster the reduction in water surface elevation (stage), and the frequency and magnitude of flow reduction, the greater the likelihood that fish and other aquatic organisms would be stranded or adversely affected. As part of Current Operations, releases from the project to the Lower Baker River are voluntarily regulated. Currently, the voluntary critical flow for ramping is set at 18,000 cfs and downramping cannot exceed 2,000 cfs per hour in the Baker River.

The Proposed Action includes a flow regime measure (Proposed Article 106) that would seasonally set the minimum instream flows downstream of Lower Baker dam ranging from 1,000 cfs in the late summer and fall to 1,200 cfs in the winter, spring, and early summer. Maximum stream flow from the Lower Baker River would also be capped at various levels on a seasonal basis except during flood events. Ramping restrictions ranging from 0 inches per hour during day hours (February 16 – June 15) to 2 inches per hour (day and night hours November 1 – February 15 and night hours February 16 – June 15) would be implemented to meet WDFW interim ramping criteria at Transect 1 on the mainstem Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence, but would be measured at the Baker River at Concrete gage based on Baker River and Skagit River discharge relationships. Critical flow for ramping restrictions would be 30,000 cfs at the Skagit River near Concrete gage site. The objective of this measure would be to increase stability of flows in the Lower Baker and Middle Skagit rivers to improve fish habitat,

3-110

and reduce fish and aquatic organism stranding and redd dewatering, while providing for recreation, human health and safety, flood control, and hydroelectric power generation.

The flow implementation article would require the installation of two new 750 cfs turbines, which are expected to come on-line within 6 years after the issuance of a new license, at which time the flow regime described above would be fully implemented. During the Interim Operations between when the new license would be issued and the new turbines come on-line, the Baker River Project flow release strategy would follow the IPP flow strategy, which was analyzed by NMFS in their October 25, 2004 biological opinion (NMFS, 2004a), and was found not to jeopardize the continued existence of Puget Sound Chinook salmon. In addition to the IPP flow strategy, maximum flow caps would be implemented to reduce redd dewatering and best efforts would be made to further reduce down-ramping. The interim operations flow plan is presented and analyzed in more detail with regard to ESA listed fish species in section 3.3.6. In general, Interim Operations would provide increased aquatic resource protection over Current Operations by minimizing down-ramping events as much as possible and reducing spawning flows in the Skagit River to minimize salmon redd dewatering during the egg incubation period.

The following effects analysis assumes the full implementation of the flow regime contained in Proposed Article 106, Flow Implementation (using Aquatics Table 1). The effect of flow changes on aquatic habitat can be evaluated by studying fish habitat requirements and estimating the changes in habitat at various flows using hydraulic models. Current Operations and the Proposed Action were analyzed using HYDROPS and post-processing habitat models to estimate habitat effects in the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence.

Following are summaries of modeled effects of flow alterations and fluctuations in the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence. Of note is that flow fluctuations and alterations in the Skagit River are a function of the combined effect of natural flow fluctuations, Skagit River Project operations (FERC No. 553), and Baker River Project operations.

Flow Alterations—Flow alterations are changes in river flow over long periods (weeks or months) resulting from the storage of water, water diversion, or reduction of flows due to water conveyance from a dam to a powerhouse. Flow alterations in this EA refers to major changes in the unregulated yearly hydrograph, such as reduction of the total quantity of water delivered to the stream channel through water diversion, or changes in flow derived from seasonal storage for hydropower production. The following is a summary of flow alterations regarding the Baker River Project from R2 (2004d) unless otherwise noted.

3-111

Seasonal storage of water at the Baker River Project has resulted in flow alterations of the Lower Baker River and Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence. Although the mean annual discharge for the Baker and Skagit rivers is essentially the same when comparing regulated with unregulated conditions (without the Baker River Project), the Baker River Project alters seasonal runoff components, particularly in the fall, winter, and spring. In general, evacuation of the reservoir storage during late August through mid-November results in higher average daily flows in the Baker and Skagit rivers compared with unregulated conditions. Flood control operations result in capture and gradual release of flood flows, which decreases the magnitude of peak flows, but the duration of the event is increased. Reservoir refill reduces flows in the Baker and Skagit rivers from April through June as compared with unregulated conditions. Once the reservoir reaches full pool in July, outflows are generally similar to inflows and are therefore similar to unregulated conditions.

Although current operation of the Baker River Project alters seasonal runoff patterns, mean daily flows for each month remain within the unregulated range of variability throughout most of the year, except during May when refill regularly reduces daily flows in the Baker River to the extent that the average daily flow is less than the unregulated range of variability. In addition, the range of flows under regulated conditions is shifted downward (i.e., the magnitude of change between high and low flows may be similar to unregulated conditions, but high and low flows are less as compared with unregulated conditions throughout the spring and early summer).

Effects Analysis

Section 3.3.2.2 describes flow alterations for Current Operations and the Proposed Action. Minimum flows in the Lower Baker River would increase from approximately 80 cfs to 1,000 to 1,200 cfs depending on the month under the Proposed Action. Minimum flows in the Skagit River would increase only slightly throughout most of the year, because resultant changes would be small in comparison with overall flow levels in the Skagit River.

In the absence of the Proposed Action (expanded generation and instream flow regime), the existing reservoir storage operations at the Baker River Project may slightly benefit Chinook egg-to migrant survival by reducing Skagit River peak flows based on general Skagit River basin fish survival relationships (Seiler et al., 2002). However, these peak flow offset benefits were not developed as discrete relationships for the Baker River Project or downstream of the Baker River Project and might need to be verified independently. Nevertheless, for the IPP and until the Proposed Action is in place, interim operating conditions were predicated on this assumed benefit.

Under Current Operations, the Baker River Project is estimated to reduce the Skagit River average annual 3-day maximum flow (downstream of the Baker River

3-112

confluence) by approximately 3 percent compared with unregulated conditions (i.e., without the Skagit and Baker River project’s influence). Reducing the peak flow from 80,000 to 77,600 cfs (3 percent reduction) would increase egg-to-migrant survival. Flood storage and operations stipulated in the Corps flood control agreement would remain unchanged under the Proposed Action unless and until approved by Corps. The Proposed Action would continue to provide a minor benefit to Chinook salmon egg-to-migrant survival in the Middle Skagit River.

Flow Fluctuations (Ramping)—Project-induced flow fluctuations (ramping) can result in unnaturally rapid changes in the flow over periods of minutes, hours, or days. Flow fluctuations can be measured either by change in flow or by change in stage over a specific time interval. Both measures are needed to understand effects associated with flow fluctuations; however, the biological effects of flow fluctuations are most directly related to changes in stage (water surface elevation). Hunter (1992) provides a good description of the potential flow fluctuation effects on aquatic habitats and fish species.

Flow fluctuations can cause direct mortality of aquatic organisms or have indirect and delayed biological effects. Negative effects are generally thought to be most severe during downramping (flow reduction); therefore, downramping is the focus of this effects analysis.

Effects Analysis

The number of ramping events and exceedance of the WDFW interim ramping criteria are summarized below for Current Operations and the Proposed Action. The post-processing hourly habitat model was used to determine the total number of downramping events for each energy year and each operational scenario, in excess of Washington State guidelines, at each of the 23 transect locations in the Middle Skagit River. When the flow in the Skagit River at the USGS gage near Concrete exceeded the critical flow of 30,000 cfs, downramping events were ignored at all transects. Generally, more events occurred towards the upstream end of the study reach and fewer events occurred towards the downstream end of the study reach, as would be expected with flow attenuation. A transect-weighted, reach-averaged number of downramping events was determined for the Middle Skagit River study reach by applying transect-weighting factors to the 23 transects. Project operations under the Proposed Action would continue to result in ramping, but total number of ramping events that exceed WDFW interim criteria24 would generally be less than Current Operations for all months except June and February when there would be no difference between the alternatives (figure 3-16).

24 1-inch per hour day and night (June 16 – October 31); 2-inches per hour and night (November 1 – February 15); 0-inches per hour during the day and 2-inches per hour during the night (February 16 – June 15).

3-113

The number of ramping events that exceed 2 inches per hour would be reduced in all months. In addition, the number of ramping events that exceed 4 inches per hour would be dramatically reduced or eliminated for all months, except June when the number of events would be increased somewhat. Daytime ramping during winter and spring, which poses a great stranding risk to salmonid fry, would also be discontinued under the Proposed Action. The overall general trend is that the total number of ramping events would be reduced; ramping events during the critical salmonid fry emergence period in the Skagit River from December through July would be reduced; and large ramping events over 4 inches per hour would be greatly reduced under the Proposed Action compared to Current Operations. Reduced ramping rates and eliminating day-time ramping in the winter under the Proposed Action would reduce juvenile fish stranding over Current Operations.

The Proposed Action identifies 30,000 cfs (measured at the Skagit River gage near Concrete) as the critical flow; ramping restrictions would take effect at flows less than or equal to this discharge to minimize fish stranding potential. The Current Operations critical flow is 18,000 cfs. Data gathered at 23 cross-sections representing multiple habitat types in the Middle Skagit River suggest that increased protection would be available at a higher critical flow measured at the Skagit River near Concrete gage. The cross-section data show that flows over approximately 26,000 cfs cover shallow gravels bars, and substantially wet the active river channel of the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence. The critical flow for ramping should occur at flows where most low gradient gravel bars remain continually wetted in order to reduce stranding potential. The critical flow should also occur at flows where the majority of the substrate is wetted, or where the asymptote (i.e., where the curve levels off) occurs for a wetted surface area to discharge relationship. Based on the “wetted surface area to Middle Skagit River flow” relationship, a critical flow of 30,000 cfs would provide over 85 percent of all available substrate in the active channel of the Middle Skagit River, while 18,000 cfs only covers approximately 75 percent of the substrate in the active channel.

3-114

Total # of ramping events

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

# of

eve

nts

Ramping events that exceed WDFW interim criteria

0

10

20

30

40

50


# of

eve

nts Current Operations

Proposed Action

Percent of the total number of ramping events that exceed the WDFW interim criteria

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


perc

ent

Figure 3-16. Five-year weighted average monthly number of transect-weighted, reach-averaged, downramping events in Middle Skagit River and exceedance of WDFW criteria.

3-115

Redd Dewatering—The general life history of Pacific salmon involves adult migration into rivers to bury eggs in gravel nests called “redds.” The eggs incubate in the gravel environment for several months before emerging as fry at various times of the year, generally from late winter through summer, depending on the species. During the incubation period, the eggs may be susceptible to dewatering during flow fluctuations that may be caused or exacerbated by hydropower project operations, although dewatering caused by natural hydrograph fluctuations also occurs. Redds constructed on the river margin are most susceptible to the effects of dewatering. Redds constructed near the center of the river channel are protected from low-flow dewatering, but are more susceptible to scour during high-flow conditions. Research has documented the lethal effect of redd dewatering on salmonid eggs and alevins. However, redds may be able to tolerate some degree of flow fluctuation, as salmonid eggs and alevins can survive under some situations in subsurface, inter-gravel flow.

Effects Analysis

Many salmonids of various species are known to use the 32 miles of mainstem Skagit River below the Baker River confluence for spawning. These species include Chinook, pink, chum salmon and steelhead (R2, 2003f). During aerial surveys conducted as part of Baker River Project relicensing studies, the peak count of Chinook spawning during the fall of 2002 in the Middle Skagit reach was 704 redds (R2, 2003f). The peak redd counts reported by R2 biologists were not intended to quantify total escapement; those figures are developed by the Fish Co-managers. The peak count of chum spawning was 925 redds for the winter of 2002 in the same reach (R2, 2003f). Because substantial numbers of salmonid spawning takes place downstream of the Baker River Project, there is potential for Baker operations to affect salmonid spawning habitat.

Baker River Project operations contributed to redd dewatering during a very low water year in the Skagit River during the spawning season of 2000, which occurred as a result of combined flow fluctuation effects from operation of the Skagit and Baker River projects and natural low flows. WDFW estimated that 80 percent of the total number of Chinook salmon spawning located downstream of the Baker River Project in the mainstem Skagit River were influenced by the combined operations of the Skagit and Baker River projects, but only production from approximately 16 percent of all Lower Skagit River Chinook spawning was lost due to dewatering (Puget, 2002c). Of note is that most Chinook spawning occurs upstream of the Baker River Project influence.

Independent effects that the Baker or Skagit River projects or natural flow variation may have had on redd dewatering were not determined for the 2000 spawning year, nor was it reasonably possible to estimate based on the data available at the time (Puget, 2002c). However, a relicensing study assessed redd dewatering/flow relationships through HYDROPS post-processing for the 5 representative energy years. An index of effective spawning width accounting for redd dewatering and scour was

3-116

developed for Current Operations and the Proposed Action for Chinook, chum, and pink salmon and steelhead. This index gives a relative indication of how these two operations affect the available spawning habitat and how scour and redd dewatering impact spawning habitat. The study showed that scour and redd dewatering effects are important determinants in the amount of effective Chinook spawning habitat in the Middle Skagit River, but that redd-dewatering is less important than scour effects for both operational scenarios.

Under the Proposed Action, the maximum flow cap of 3,200 cfs in the early fall is designed to deter anadromous fish from spawning in Skagit River habitats that would not remain wetted during the incubation period, and therefore, the maximum flow cap was designed to reduce redd dewatering in the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence. The minimum flow requirement of 1,000 cfs was designed to provide enough water for spawning in dry years. This goal is reflected in the post-processing estimates of effective spawning width that show the Proposed Action would generally increase effective Chinook, pink, and chum salmon and steelhead spawning habitat over Current Operations. On average, the Proposed Action would provide an increase of 8, 12, 13, and 5 percent more effective spawning habitat for Chinook, pink, and chum salmon and steelhead, respectively, compared to Current Operations.

The Proposed Action’s strategy of reducing redd dewatering potential and ramping rates has recently been shown to increase anadromous fish production in the Upper Skagit River upstream of the Baker River confluence (Connor and Pflug, 2004), which is a 27-mile reach of the Skagit River regulated by the upper Skagit River Project. Connor and Pflug (2004) demonstrated that reducing redd dewatering potential and ramping rates resulted in mean spawner abundance increases. The total number of pink and chum salmon spawners significantly increased within the study area after the flow measures were implemented. These increases were substantially greater than those observed concurrently in other areas of the Skagit River basin not influenced by the Upper Skagit Project and in other northern Puget Sound rivers. The average number of Chinook salmon spawners remained unchanged in the study area after 1981, while substantially declining in other unregulated Skagit River subbasins and most Puget Sound rivers. The analysis presented by Connor and Pflug (2004) adds further assurance that reducing redd dewatering potential and ramping rates would benefit anadromous fish production in the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence.

Spawning Interference—Bauersfeld (1978) reported that repeated dewatering of spawning areas caused Chinook salmon to abandon attempts to spawn and move elsewhere, often to more crowded locations. However, other researchers reported that Chinook salmon successfully spawned in areas that were dewatered several hours a day (Chapman et al., 1986; Stober et al., 1982). Specific studies were not conducted to evaluate spawning interference in the Skagit River as part of the Baker River relicensing

3-117

process; however, the following analysis is based on available analyses of habitat conditions and information reported in the literature listed above.

Effects Analysis

Salmonids may begin to spawn in a given area and then have to retreat as the area is dewatered. Fish may return if the area is rewetted to continue to spawn. This interference may have negative effects on spawning fish. One would expect spawning interference potential to increase as the area subject to flow fluctuations increases. The area subject to flow fluctuations is termed the “varial zone” for this analysis. HYDROPS post-processing models were used to calculate the varial zone at the 23 transects in the Middle Skagit River for three time series definitions of the upper and lower extent of the varial zone (figure 3-17).

Under the Proposed Action, the 12-hour varial zone (top graph of figure 3-17) would be decreased during 10 of 12 months when compared to Current Operations. The slight reduction in the 12-hour varial zone may reduce potential impacts on spawning salmon in September through December and on steelhead in March through May. Under the Proposed Action, the weekly varial zone (middle graph of figure 3-17) would also be reduced in 10 of 12 months, and it would be reduced substantially during the peak Chinook spawning season from September through November and the steelhead spawning season from March through May, which may also reduce potential spawning impacts on anadromous fish species. However, a slight increase in the weekly varial zone in December may affect the end of the chum spawning season. The other varial zone time series presented in figure 3-17 (i.e., monthly varial zone) has less influence on spawning interference, but more influence on aquatic invertebrate colonization and production, which is discussed under the Aquatic Invertebrates subsection.

If an increase in the 12-hour and weekly varial zone during peak spawn timing increases the potential for spawning interference, then the Proposed Action would decrease spawning interference potential for Chinook and pink salmon and steelhead trout compared to Current Operations. The Proposed Action may also result in an overall decrease in spawning interference for chum salmon because the varial zone would be reduced during the majority of the peak chum spawning period.

3-118

Upper and lower extents of varial zone based on previous 12 hours

0

25

50

75

100

125

150


varia

l zon

e (fe

et)

Upper extent of varial zone based on previous 12 hours and lower extent based on previous week

0

25

50

75

100

125

150


varia

l zon

e (fe

et) Current Operations

Proposed Action

Upper extent of varial zone based on previous 12 hours and lower extent based on previous 30 days

0

25

50

75

100

125

150


varia

l zon

e (fe

et)

Figure 3-17. Transect- and year-weighted average varial zone width (feet) in the Middle Skagit River.

3-119

Fish Habitat Availability—Riverine community structure is strongly influenced by habitat stability and availability (Bain et al., 1988). Changes in aquatic habitat stability and availability affect an individual organism’s ability to find and use its optimal habitat.

Hydropower peaking can decrease habitat stability and can change the quantity and quality of available habitat over short-time intervals. A study by Pert and Erman (1994) examined rainbow trout habitat use and preference under daily fluctuations in discharge from a hydropower peaking operation. They found that rainbow trout used different habitats under fluctuating flows; however, not all individuals within the population responded similarly to changing stream flow. For adult rainbow trout, mean water column velocity and focal point velocity in the habitat used increased with each successive increase in discharge (Pert and Erman, 1994). The increase in use of higher velocity water may negatively influence the fish’s energy budget and reduce energetic efficiency (Fausch, 1984; Jenkins, 1969; Everest and Chapman, 1972).

Effects Analysis

The relicensing study Skagit River Flow and Habitat Assessment estimated the quantity of various habitat types in the Middle Skagit River including spawning, side channel, and backwater slough habitat. Section 3.3.4.1 presents WUA estimates for salmonid spawning habitat (figure 3-14), and Chinook and steelhead trout rearing habitat (figure 3-15). WUA information was used to generate daily backwater slough and sidechannel habitat values for each energy year for Current Operations and the Proposed Action based on average daily flows. Backwater slough and sidechannel habitats are both important rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids during all flows. Backwater and side channel habitats are also very important as refuge habitat from high flows in the spring for salmonid juveniles. Although backwater slough and side channel habitats are both important for rearing and high flow refuge, backwater sloughs may be of greater importance for high flow refuge and rearing in the spring, while side channels maybe more important for rearing during summer low flow periods.

Spring high flows occur primarily in April and May and low summer flows occur in August and September in the Middle Skagit River based on information presented in section 3.3.2, Water Quantity. The WUA information generated for each energy year by habitat type is extensive. In order to summarize this information and to present the data that are important for salmonid species, we present backwater slough and side channel habitat percent exceedance for the spring high flow and summer low flow period.

Figure 3-18 shows that, on an average daily basis, the Proposed Action provides slightly less backwater slough habitat during the spring high-flow period and less backwater slough habitat during the summer low-flow period compared to Current Operations. However, the minimum backwater slough habitat available under the

3-120

Proposed Action would be greater (i.e., 100 percent exceedance is greater) during the lowest flows. Figure 3-19 shows that the Proposed Action provides slightly less side channel habitat during high and low flow periods compared to Current Operations. These data indicate that overall the Proposed Action would generally provide slightly less refuge habitat during high flows and less rearing habitat during low flows compared to Current Operations. Of note is that by August and September (low flow period) Chinook, pink, and chum salmon will have already largely migrated out of the freshwater environment to marine waters. In addition, bull trout would not be present in the Middle Skagit River during low summer flows because of high water temperatures. However, other salmonids such as cutthroat, steelhead, and coho juveniles would be present in the Middle Skagit River. All of these species would be present during the high-flow period.

Even though the Proposed Action may provide less backwater slough and side channel habitat compared to Current Operations on an average daily basis, these habitats would be more stable (i.e., more continuously wetted) under the Proposed Action when compared to Current Operations due to the implementation of ramping restrictions, increased minimum flows, and generation caps. Under Current Operations, side channels may be wetted and then dewatered rapidly during a single day due to peaking operations. The amount of backwater slough and side channel habitat was calculated using average daily flow values.

3-121

April-May Energy Year 1991-2002

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent Exceedence

Wet

ted

Bac

kwat

er S

loug

h Su

rfac

e A

rea

(feet

2 )

Current Operations

Proposed Action

August-September Energy Year 1991-2002

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent Exceedence

Wet

ted

Bac

kwat

er S

loug

h Su

rfac

e A

rea

(feet

2 )

Current Operations

Proposed Action

Figure 3-18. Backwater slough surface area in the Middle Skagit River during low- and high-flow months for 12 consecutive energy years (1991–2002).

3-122

April-May Energy Year 1991-2002

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent Exceedence

Wet

ted

Side

Cha

nnel

Sur

face

Are

a (fe

et2 )

Current Operations

Proposed Action

August-September Energy Year 1991-2002

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent Exceedence

Wet

ted

Side

Cha

nnel

Sur

face

Are

a (fe

et2 )

Current Operations

Proposed Action

Figure 3-19. Side channel surface area in the Middle Skagit River during low- and high-flow months for 12 consecutive energy years (1991–2002).

3-123

Under the Proposed Action, the average daily flow value may be lower than under Current Operations, but there is less within-day stage fluctuation as reflected in the greater varial zone under Current Operations. Channel wetting and dewatering decreases the functionality of these habitats, and fish and aquatic invertebrates would be subject to negative effects, such as stranding.

Current Operations may provide more side-channel and backwater slough habitat when measured on an average daily basis, but under the Proposed Action these habitats would be more stable, which is reflected in the varial zone analysis presented previously (figure 3-17). More stable habitat under the Proposed Action would decrease negative effects such as stranding, and increase side-channel and backwater slough functionality for aquatic species when compared to Current Operations.

Fish Migration—Flow fluctuations have been shown experimentally to influence juvenile Chinook to emigrate downstream (McPhee and Brusven, 1976). Extreme low summer flows could also hinder adult upstream migration if water depths are too shallow.

Effects Analysis

The varial zone and ramping modeled data can be used to assess the size of the zone subject to flow fluctuations and the number of fluctuations during the juvenile anadromous salmonid residency period. Although juvenile salmonids are present in the Middle Skagit River year round, the majority are present in the winter as they emerge from spawning gravels until outmigration in the spring for most species.

Under Current Operations there is no evidence of significant impairment of adult salmonid upstream migration associated with Baker River Project flow releases. However, varial zone and ramping estimates have been made (see the Spawning Interference under the Ramping analyses). Smaller flow fluctuations would tend to have less influence on fish migrations. The Proposed Action would generally reduce 12-hour and weekly flow fluctuations during the winter and spring compared to Current Operations (figure 3-17). As described in the ramping analysis, the number of large ramping events (rapid flow decreases) over 4 inches per hour would be greatly reduced during the spring under the Proposed Action compared to Current Operations. Therefore, a reduction in juvenile salmonid migration interference may occur under the Proposed Action compared to Current Operations.

Adult salmonid upstream migration would benefit from greater flow provided under the Proposed Action compared to Current Operations; minimum flows would increase over ten fold in the Lower Baker River under the Proposed Action (from 80 cfs to greater than 1,000 cfs). Increased minimum flows in the Lower Baker River would provide greater depth for upstream migrating salmonids to negotiate riffles and would also provide increased cover and holding areas compared to Current Operations.

3-124

Aquatic Invertebrates—Flow fluctuations have been shown to reduce benthic macroinvertebrate diversity and total biomass and can change species composition. A study on the Skagit River, conducted as part of relicensing of the upstream Skagit River Project (FERC No. 553), found that flow fluctuations had a greater adverse effect on the aquatic invertebrate community than a substantial reduction in average flow (Gislason, 1985). A reduction in the aquatic invertebrate forage base can negatively affect fish production potential. Flow fluctuations can affect aquatic invertebrates through stranding (similar to fish stranding), increase drift response, and may reduce aquatic invertebrate forage.

The composition of the benthic macroinvertebrate community is influenced by many factors including temperature, flow, DO, nutrients, and the structure of the habitat. Flow and water temperature have been found to be the most important factors controlling benthic fauna in unpolluted streams and rivers (Ward and Stanford, 1979). Reduced flow in stream channels results in lower current velocity and reduced wetted area, which can alter composition of benthic fauna and reduce production (Brusven, 1984; Trotzky and Gregory, 1974).

The life cycles of benthic macroinvertebrates are closely linked with the temperature regimes of the streams they inhabit (Lehmkuhl, 1972; Ward and Stanford, 1979; Petts, 1984; Erman, 1996). Water temperature affects the growth rates and fecundity of benthic fauna and acts as a cue for egg development, hatching, and emergence of adults. Alterations of the normal seasonal changes in water temperatures can disrupt the timing of these events to varying degrees (Ward and Stanford, 1979; Erman, 1996). Factors which affect the temperature regime of streams downstream of dams include release depth from the reservoir, thermal stratification pattern of the reservoir, retention time and dam operation (Ward and Stanford, 1979).

Effects Analysis

It is anticipated that increasing the minimum flow release from 80 cfs to 1,000 to 1,200 cfs depending on the month under the Proposed Action would increase aquatic invertebrate habitat and production in the Lower Baker River. In addition, under the Proposed Action, ramping events would be reduced, and the 12-hour, weekly, and monthly varial zone would be reduced compared to Current Operations. Therefore, the Proposed Action would increase macroinvertebrate production in the Lower Baker and Middle Skagit rivers compared to Current Operations providing an increase in the forage base for fish.

Upstream Fish Migration The project interrupts connectivity of migrating fish species to upstream locations.

Upstream fish passage has been provided at the project since Lower Baker dam was

3-125

completed. The current trap-and-haul system has been in operation since 1957 and functions year-round, except for brief periods of maintenance and repair.

The Fish Passage Technical Working Group (FPTWG), created for the Baker River relicensing efforts and composed of experts in the field of fish passage from federal and state fisheries agencies and private companies, was convened to evaluate fish passage alternatives, including volitional and assisted facilities and programs. The FPTWG agreed on a proposed facility concept for Lower Baker for upstream migration using a trap-and-haul concept similar to existing programs but requiring modification to existing facilities.

Under Proposed Article 103, Upstream Fish Passage Implementation, Puget would provide safe and effective upstream passage at the Baker River Project by using trapping, sorting, holding, and hauling facilities located on the Baker River and other operations and facilities as appropriate. Modifications and upgrades to the existing upstream passage facilities or operations would be made in consultation with the ARG and approved by the NMFS and FWS. The upstream passage facility upgrades would be completed within 3 years from the issuance of a new license. In addition, Puget would provide for limited beneficial modifications beyond the scope of any modifications required to meet performance standards. Additional beneficial modifications would be made in consultation with the ARG and approved by NMFS and FWS. Proposed Article 103 would provide for: safe, timely and effective upstream passage of anadromous and resident fish; Access to historical fish habitat above Lower and Upper Baker dams; and The capture, holding, safe handling, sorting, and selection of broodstock.

Effects Analysis

After license issuance there would be an interim 2-year period during which the Upstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan and final construction design would be prepared for the new upstream passage facility. During this interim 2-year period, the upstream migration facilities currently in place would be operated in the same fashion as occurs under Current Operations. Handling mortality of upstream migrant fish captured in the trap is estimated to be less than 0.5.

To accomplish the above-mentioned goals, the new upstream fish passage facilities would include fish screens on the gravity intake and a new pump station intake, a fish lock to replace the existing brail and hopper, a sorting facility to provide more automated fish sorting capabilities, post-sorting holding raceways with crowders, a truck loading facility and new access, and a fish sampling facility with a work area.

Puget would provide upgraded fish passage facilities for upstream migratory fish at the Lower Baker Development. This system would be constructed to meet the design

3-126

and operation criteria for upstream fish passage facilities developed by the ARG and approved by NMFS and FWS before final Commission approval.

Although final design plans have not been prepared, it is anticipated that by meeting agency design criteria, the new facility would reduce effects on both juvenile and adult fish encountering or entering upstream passage facilities. The new system would include more effective screens on water intakes and fish sorting, holding and transport systems; use water-to-water transfer methods when handling fish; and provide increased or more effective attraction flows to the trap system.

The use of screens that meet agency design criteria on all water intakes should provide protection for juvenile fish encountering the intake system. The proposed trap modifications are expected to further reduce the approximate 0.5 percent or less adult handling mortality observed at the existing facility. Total trap-and-transport time could be approximately 2 hours, which is similar to Current Operations. The new facilities would be sized to capture, process, and transport potential increases in sockeye production that are expected from the implementation of Proposed Article 101, Fish Propagation. Increasing the daily transport capacity would be provided by adding additional tank trucks. Primary benefits of the upgraded fish passage facilities would include reduced handling and stress due to automated sorting features and reduced crowding by creating additional holding ponds. Puget would also allocate up to $20,000 annually for additional upstream passage facility modifications, if needed, as technology advances or monitoring suggest additional modifications are needed. This funding would help assure that the upstream passage facilities keep up with the most recent advances in upstream passage technology during the license term.

Connectivity Between Baker Lake and Lake Shannon Current upstream fish passage facilities at the Baker River Project collect fish

below Lower Baker dam and transport them to Baker Lake, bypassing Lake Shannon. There is currently no mode of upstream transport between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake for migratory species, such as native char. Therefore, migratory fish inhabiting Lake Shannon are isolated from the Upper Baker River basin. The FPTWG reviewed a wide range of volitional and assisted passage options. The FPTWG sought to address the need for connectivity associated with populations isolated by Upper Baker dam between Baker Lake and Lake Shannon and made provision for investigation of facilities and/or programs for other species population connectivity needs within the Basin.

To address connectivity between Baker Lake and Lake Shannon, as outlined in Proposed Article 104 of the Proposed Action, Puget would develop a Fish Connectivity Implementation Plan (FCIP) to provide a fishway between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake focused on native char, but including other native fish species that are isolated by the project. No later than 3 years after license issuance, Puget would conduct an

3-127

investigation, in consultation with the ARG, to develop and initiate studies with regard to the type of fishway, its location and timing, and the species and numbers of fish to be collected and transported upstream of Upper Baker dam, following approval from NMFS and FWS and final Commission approval.

Fishways provided according to this proposed article may range from, collect-and-haul operations, a temporary weir and trap on Sulphur Creek or a similar facility installed below Upper Baker dam, up to a more permanent trap-and-haul facility below Upper Baker dam. The facility would include design accommodations for other aquatic species that do not compromise the primary design focus on native char and may be lesser in scope and complexity than the adult fish trap downstream of Lower Baker dam. Investigation is necessary to narrow the range of prospective fishway alternatives within this range. If testing demonstrates that the approved prototype fishway does not appropriately achieve fish species connectivity, licensee would propose an alternative plan to the ARG for approval by FWS and NMFS and final Commission approval.

Effects Analysis

After license issuance, there would be an interim period (up to 3 years) before the investigation into passage alternatives would occur. Once the passage study was complete, final design would be initiated and a connectivity method would be implemented. Until that time, connectivity would not be provided and existing conditions would be maintained.

To accomplish the above-mentioned goal of providing migration continuity within the Baker River, the new upstream fish passage facilities may be constructed, possibly in lower Sulphur Creek or in the Baker River channel downstream of Upper Baker dam. In-water work, such as installing a concrete sill across the channel for a picket weir attachment point, may be necessary. An access road to the potential trap site would have to be constructed.

Under the Proposed Action, some type of passage connectivity, focused on native char, would be implemented to provide connectivity between bull trout spawning populations located in Baker Lake and Lake Shannon, and to provide for metapopulation linkages for other native fish species.

Bull trout populations are patchily distributed at multiple spatial scales, such as throughout their range, within the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS, and at the local level of the Skagit River basin. This patchy distribution even occurs in watersheds with pristine wilderness characteristics (Rieman and McIntyre, 1995). It is thought that groups of patchily distributed local populations of bull trout may function as a metapopulation of some form at the core area level or local level. In general, a true metapopulation is a collection of relatively isolated, spatially distributed, local populations bound together by

3-128

the potential for dispersal between populations to the extent that if one local population was extirpated, the habitat could potentially be recolonized by dispersal of individuals from another local population. A less rigorous definition of a metapopulation requires that the extent of dispersal between local populations only be enough to sustain some level of genetic interaction over time (Whitesel et al., 2004).

Currently, there may be one-way interactions between spawning populations of bull trout within the Baker River basin. Based on recent studies, bull trout have been observed passing from Baker Lake to Lake Shannon. Bull trout spawning in Baker Lake may be contributing to bull trout recruitment in Lake Shannon. This connection may only occur in the downstream direction. Bull trout from Lake Shannon have been observed passing downstream into the Skagit River, but it has not been confirmed that those fish return to the Lower Baker River trap where they may be passed upstream into Baker Lake. The genetic relationship between spawning populations from Baker Lake and Lake Shannon is currently unknown, although tissue samples from adult fish from the various subbasins have been collected. There is a possibility that spawners from Lake Shannon and Baker Lake tributaries may be genetically distinct from one another, or that spawning populations within Baker Lake may be distinct from one another (i.e., Upper Baker River and Park Creek).

Guidelines for effective population size that would be required to sustain bull trout in the Baker River basin through time are important considerations of bull trout population dynamics and connectivity. The number of spawners per year is a good measure of the effective population size (Whitesel et al., 2004). Generally, it is recommended that a spawning population (Ne) should exceed 50 to avoid inbreeding depression and that the population should exceed 500 to avoid the loss of genetic and phenotypic variation through drift (Whitesel et al., 2004).

In the Baker River basin, bull trout produced in Baker Lake tributaries may contribute to individuals found downstream in Lake Shannon (supported by tagging observations). Based on the limited spawning ground surveys, the Upper Baker River spawning population appears to exceed the Ne greater than 50 criteria; therefore, inbreeding depression and short-term genetic viability are not a concern if the Upper Baker River is composed of only one genetically distinct spawning population. However, information about other Baker Lake tributaries and Lake Shannon tributaries are not yet available.

Establishing connectivity between isolated spawning populations has been a fundamental goal in development of all of the draft bull trout recovery plans throughout the bull trout range, except in specific cases in which increasing connectivity between bull trout populations would carry an unacceptable risk of increasing negative interactions and hybridization with exotic fish species such as brook trout. Under the Proposed Action, providing upstream and downstream passage continuity between Baker

3-129

Lake and Lake Shannon bull trout populations would allow for two-way genetic exchange between local spawning populations, which would decrease inbreeding depression risk. However, inbreeding depression risk may increase if a trap were to be placed on Sulphur Creek and an excessive number of spawners were captured and moved upstream to Baker Lake, decreasing the Sulphur Creek effective population size. This would be a concern only if Baker Lake and Lake Shannon bull trout are genetically distinct, which is unknown at this time.

It is assumed that through the investigation of connectivity issues, fisheries managers would use the best available science to evaluate passage measures to provide for population connectivity while maintaining an appropriate minimum effective population size and minimizing potential inbreeding depression of local spawning populations in the Baker River basin. Therefore, establishing connectivity under the Proposed Action would benefit native char and other native species in the Baker River basin by reconnecting habitats and populations of fish and providing the opportunity for two-way genetic exchange. Any adverse effects of this action would be minimal and relate primarily to the handling associated with tagging and monitoring of test specimens.

Downstream Passage Continuity for Migratory Fish Species (Anadromous, Adfluvial, Fluvial, Resident)The Baker River Project interrupts connectivity of migrating fish species to

downstream locations. The project needs to provide a safe and efficient means of egress to migrating fish. Recent investigations indicate that the existing attraction barge facilities at Upper Baker are an effective means to address fish passage. However, the existing technology is more than 50 years old, and major advances in understanding and technical capability have been developed in the ensuing years. Past evaluations indicate that approximately 50 to 75 percent of juvenile outmigrants are captured and transported downstream. Studies of the collection facility at Lake Shannon suggest that the system in that reservoir is much less effective (approximately 23 percent). Under the Proposed Action, installing new FSCs was selected as the downstream fish passage facility after review of a wide range of volitional and assisted options by the FPTWG.

Under the Proposed Action’s Proposed Article 105, Downstream Fish Passage Implementation, Puget would provide safe and effective downstream passage at the Baker River Project by using attraction, guidance, trapping, sorting, holding, and hauling facilities located on Lake Shannon and Baker Lake, and other operations and facilities as appropriate for the Baker River Project. Puget would prepare a downstream fish passage implementation plan (DFPIP) in consultation with the ARG, and approved by NMFS and FWS, within 6 months of license issuance. The plan would be implemented in phases, according to the following schedule in order to sequentially test attraction flow to the FSCs.

3-130

No later than 2 years after license issuance, Puget would complete plans and specifications for construction of facilities for attraction, capture, and transport of downstream migrating fish at the Upper Baker and Lower Baker developments. Passage facilities would include a guide net, FSC, transition structure between the guide net and FSC, transportation conduit, floating fish trap, transfer facilities, hauling vehicles, and stress-relief ponds.

Initially, the Upper Baker Phase 1 would include a 500-cfs-capacity FSC (with 1,000 cfs pumping capacity), scheduled to be operational by March 2008. Lower Baker Phase 1 would also include a 500-cfs-capacity FSC (with 1,000 cfs pumping capacity) but would be operational by March 2012. Phase 2 would be initiated at each location if Phase 1 fails to meet performance criteria (developed under the DFPIP) and would include upgrading to an attraction flow of 1,000 cfs at the FSC within 5 years after the completion of Phase 1. If Phase 2 is not implemented at either location due to the success of Phase 1 (at the direction of NMFS and FWS), certain funds would be made available for habitat projects under the Aquatic Riparian Habitat Protection, Restoration and Enhancement Plan. In addition, Puget would allocate certain funds for beneficial modifications beyond the scope of any modifications required to meet performance standards (approved by NMFS and FWS).

Effects Analysis

The new Upper Baker FSC is currently scheduled to start up on March 1, 2008, and the Lower Baker FSC is scheduled to start up March 1, 2012. Therefore, there would be an interim 2-year period after a new license before the Upper Baker FSC was complete and operational and an interim 6-year period at Lower Baker. The interim 2-year period is required for final design and fabrication. The interim 6-year period at Lower Baker allows time for final design and fabrication as well as initial testing of the Upper Baker FSC, which may provide valuable information about the design and construction of the Lower Baker FSC to remedy potential problems. This phased approach of installing the new FSC at Upper Baker first, followed by subsequent upgrades at Lower Baker is reasonable and prudent because the majority of anadromous salmonid production occurs in tributaries of Baker Lake.

During the interim period, after license issuance but before the FSCs become operational, downstream passage would be provided at both project dams with existing guide net and FSC systems. Recent investigations of these facilities indicate that under Current Operations between 50 to 75 percent of the marked coho juveniles released into Baker Lake are successfully collected, transported, and released below the project. In contrast, the collection efficiency for coho at the Lake Shannon (Lower Baker FSC) system has been estimated at approximately 23 percent. In the past, less than 2 percent of the marked fish released into Baker Lake has been collected at the Lower Baker FSC on a yearly basis. These data indicate that some upper basin juveniles survive passage through

3-131

project reservoirs, turbines, and spill. It is currently unknown what proportion of fish not collected in the Lower Baker FSC pass the project and arrives safely in the Lower Baker River. During the 1950s, researchers identified that sockeye smolts passing over the spillway at Lower Baker dam sustained a survival rate of 46 percent (Hamilton and Andrew, 1954).

To accomplish the above-mentioned goal of providing downstream passage at project dams, new FSC and guide net systems would be fabricated and installed in Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. The FSC units would be fabricated onsite at temporary construction and launch sites along the shores of each reservoir, then floated out and anchored in place. Temporary access would be needed during the construction period. Stress relief ponds would be installed in the vicinity of the upstream trap along the Lower Baker River.

Under the Proposed Action, the new facilities would be designed to increase juvenile survival past the project; however, performance criteria, such as reservoir survival, fish collection efficiency, and trap-and-transport survival are still being prepared through development of the DFPIP in consultation with the ARG, and to be approved by NMFS and the FWS and final Commission approval.

The expected increase in juvenile anadromous salmonid survival and recruitment from the construction of new downstream passage systems cannot be determined at this time because performance criteria have not be identified. Whether more adults would return to the Baker River if downstream passage facilities were improved would be heavily dependent on environmental conditions both within and outside of the project area during the term of any new license issued. External influences, including poor ocean productivity, flood events, intra- and inter-specific competition, and change in harvest rates, affect the number of fish produced from, and returning to, the Baker River. In addition, other outside environmental conditions such as predation, disease, and water quality and habitat degradation in the Lower Skagit River and estuary also influence fish survival and returns to the Baker River.

We conclude that increasing the efficiency of the downstream passage facilities would increase juvenile fish survival. New guide nets would be more effective because the mesh size in the top 30 feet would be decreased from 1/4-inch to 1/8-inch mesh. Increased attraction flow may also increase fish attraction to the FSC. An increase in collection efficiency would reduce fish entrainment (both adults and juveniles) through project turbines and spillways, thereby lessening project effects on both resident and anadromous fish species. In addition, the modernization of these facilities would reduce fish stress and injury from passage through both systems. Well-designed fish passage systems exhibit injury rates less than 0.5 percent (NMFS, 2000b). However, data collected at the Upper Baker FSC show that juvenile mortality rates for collected fish are as good as or better than the 0.5 percent value described by NMFS. These values apply

3-132

to both resident fish species such as bull trout, as well as anadromous species such as coho and sockeye.

The proposed stress relief ponds would be designed to reduce fish stress associated with collection, transport and release. It has been shown from studies conducted on the Columbia River that fish plasma cortisol levels become elevated when fish are handled (NMFS, 2000c). This change in fish physiology could cause transported fish to become more susceptible to predation or disease, resulting in decreased survival. The use of stress relief facilities would allow fish to recover, as evidenced by a lower plasma cortisol level, prior to being released into the river. The use of acclimation facilities would benefit fish survival. Facility effectiveness would be evaluated over time by Puget.

An additional benefit of the stress relief facility is that it would allow Puget biologists the ability to measure short-term survival rates for transported fish. Operators would be able to quickly detect problems with the collection and transport system, and make changes as appropriate before impacts to fish survival become excessive. Puget would also allocate certain funds for additional passage facility modifications, if needed, as technology advances or monitoring suggest additional modifications are needed. Providing a long-term passage facility upgrade fund would ensure that the downstream passage facilities remain functional to the greatest extent possible as fish passage technology advances over the term of any new license issued.

Physical HabitatFluvial Geomorphic Management—Sediment originates on hillslopes and is

delivered to stream channels via erosion or mass wasting. Generally, dams form permanent impoundments that interrupt the downstream movement of most sediments as the transported material settles in the deep, low velocity reservoirs behind the dams. Trapping of materials within an impoundment reduces sediment delivered to downstream reaches and may result in sediment starvation accompanied by bed armoring and incision. Conversely, if downstream sediment inputs are high and flow regulation reduces the magnitude of flood flows, undesirable amounts of sediment may accumulate within the stream channel.

The Baker River has two distinct sections below the Lower Baker dam. Between the Lower Baker dam and the weir at RM 0.6, the river flows through a narrow bedrock controlled canyon that has a high sediment transport potential with an armored layer consisting primarily of boulders and bedrock. The lowermost section of the river is much less confined, has a lower gradient than the canyon reach, is influenced by backwaters from the Skagit River, and has been straightened and dredged. Prior to channelization, the lowermost section consisted of an alluvial fan, where sediments routed through the canyon were deposited and reworked in the lower energy reach environment. There also was a side channel, the Little Baker River, which meandered within the alluvial fan. The

3-133

current straight, incised channel has a higher potential to transport sediments and receives less sediments due to deposition above the dams; this has resulted in a coarse armor layer of bed sediments that remain stable even at high flows. Sediments still accumulate in the reach during high flows in the Skagit River, when backwater effects reduce the velocities and sediment transport capacity in the lowermost section of the Baker River.

The Skagit River downstream of the confluence with the Baker River is a very large alluvial river. Large alluvial channels like the Skagit River typically achieve a state of “dynamic equilibrium” where sediment transport capacity and sediment supply are approximately equal over the long term. Because their bed and banks are comprised of material deposited by the river, they are generally very sensitive to changes in sediment yield and flow.

The project under existing conditions disrupts sediment transport and results in an annual reduction of approximately 12,500 tons of gravel and 2,500 to 4,300 tons of cobble delivered to the Skagit River from the Baker River in comparison to modeled unregulated conditions (R2, 2003e). Overall, the total sediment load delivered from the Baker River is reduced by 86 to 88 percent over unregulated conditions (R2, 2003e).

Operation of the Baker and Skagit hydroelectric projects generally affects Skagit River flows by reducing peak flood flows and increasing daily flow fluctuations. Flood storage provided by the projects has reduced the sediment transport capacity of the Middle Skagit River. Recent reassessment of cross-sections and water surface elevations downstream of the Skagit River near Concrete gage suggests that this reach has aggraded over the last several decades (Corps, unpublished data, as cited in R2, 2004a). Surveys of transects located downstream of Sedro-Woolley suggest that the Lower Skagit River has aggraded by 1 to 2 feet since the 1970s. Therefore, although the Baker River Project has substantially reduced the sediment supply from the Baker River, there is no evidence that the in-channel sediment deposits have substantially decreased (R2, 2004a).

Under Proposed Article 108, within two years of license issuance, or on an alternative schedule submitted to and approved by the Commission, Puget would develop and file a Gravel Management Plan for evaluating sediment interruption by the project and identifying any gravel augmentation measures to be implemented by Puget. Puget would develop the Gravel Management Plan in consultation with the ARG. The Gravel Management Plan would focus on improving the geomorphic function of the Lower Baker River alluvial fan and the project-affected downstream reach of the Skagit River. The fan landform is defined as the mainstem river channel and the associated depositional feature located within the Skagit River floodplain. This plan would include, at a minimum:

A description of intended gravel augmentation that may address location and contribution of gravel/cobble-sized material in the affected reach,

3-134

condition and substrate attrition rates in the reach immediately upstream, substrate change rates within the affected reach, and the relationship between substrate sizes and biological needs of salmonids and other aquatic organisms. The amount of gravel augmentation would not exceed 12,500 tons annually, which is the estimated amount of bedload intercepted by the project.

Procedures for conducting cost-effective monitoring and evaluations of conditions in the Skagit River to determine any need for gravel augmentation and to track long-term trends in substrate profile degradation.

Implementation guidelines and triggers for gravel/cobble augmentation that may include the condition of the Middle Skagit River absent project influence, fluvial geomorphic changes throughout the term of any new license issued, and/or habitat suitability for salmonids or other aquatic organisms using the Middle Skagit River.

Effects Analysis

The Baker River Project cuts off the supply of bedload from the Baker River basin upstream of the Lower Baker dam. R2 (2004a) estimates that the project has reduced sediment supply to the Skagit River by approximately 6.5 percent, although there is no evidence that, as a result, in-channel sediment deposits have substantially decreased in the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence. However, the river substrate may have coarsened as smaller substrates have been removed over time.

By implementing Proposed Article 108, Puget would improve and enhance the geomorphic and biological function of the Lower Baker River alluvial fan. During the relicensing process, Puget consulted stakeholders while evaluating the feasibility of a range of alternative approaches to improve the geomorphic function and aquatic habitats associated with the Lower Baker River alluvial fan (R2, 2004c). Alternatives evaluated in this effort were intended to complement the Little Baker River Side Channel Restoration Project sponsored by the Town of Concrete and being evaluated by the Corps (Corps, 2001). The Corps developed a preliminary restoration plan and is currently assessing the feasibility of several project alternatives. Puget’s feasibility analysis (R2, 2004c) was conducted in a phased approach, which included: (1) development and evaluation of preliminary conceptual designs of a range of alternative approaches, (2) conceptual design refinement of selected alternatives and further evaluation of these alternatives, and (3) revisiting the previously selected alternatives and modifying them as appropriate to be consistent with the flow conditions in the Settlement Agreement. This feasibility evaluation would serve as a basis for Puget’s development of gravel augmentation measures to be included in the Gravel Management Plan by Puget.

By developing this plan in consultation with the ARG, monitoring streambed conditions in the Middle Skagit River, and augmenting gravel as defined by the Gravel Management Plan, Puget would ensure that improvements to the Lower Baker River

3-135

alluvial fan would be done at a level that does not exacerbate aggradation in the Middle Skagit River. Puget would provide a means of regularly reviewing the status of the Middle Skagit River channel’s streambed characteristics during the term of any new license issued, and augment gravel as needed.

Large Woody Debris—The role of LWD in Pacific Northwest streams is linked to channel processes that benefit fish and the aquatic community (Montgomery et al., 2003). LWD plays an important role in controlling channel morphology, the storage and routing of sediment and organic matter, and the creation of fish habitat (Bisson et al., 1987). The geomorphic potential of the channel to process wood into features that benefit fish is often limited by the quantity and size of wood (Abbe and Montgomery, 1996). LWD creates habitat complexity by forming pools, back eddies, and side channels and by increasing channel meanders and hydraulic complexity (Spence et al., 1996). A diversity of wood sizes creates debris dams and pools, log jams, and bank features that support a range of fish life stages (Montgomery et al., 2003). Trees recruited to the stream can force creation of pools and bars, thereby increasing habitat complexity (Montgomery et al., 2003). Aquatic productivity also has been linked to LWD, because it retains organic matter that macroinvertebrates process and ultimately increases food sources for juvenile salmonids (Bilby and Likens, 1980). Large wood decays and disintegrates in a stream over time and needs replacement from some source.

The downstream movement of LWD in the Baker River system has been impaired by project dams. Prior to hydroelectric development, some LWD would have moved to the Lower Baker and Skagit Rivers during flood events. The potential effects on aquatic productivity, and in particular salmonid production, due to the lack of LWD that was historically delivered from the Baker River system have not been studied.

Under existing conditions, a total of 528 pieces of LWD are delivered to Baker Lake annually and 246 pieces are delivered to Lake Shannon (R2, 2003d). Some LWD does pass the dams during spill events; however, the number of pieces passed during spill events has not been quantified. Under existing conditions, Puget only removes LWD from the project reservoirs when necessary to ensure safe project operations. It is not known whether LWD availability currently is limiting aquatic productivity in either the Lower Baker River or the Middle Skagit River. However, Smith et al. (2003) rated the Lower Skagit River as poor for LWD recruitment, and most of the Lower Skagit tributaries were also rated as poor for LWD recruitment. The downstream transport of LWD from the Baker River Project would benefit downstream habitats. Under Proposed Article 109, within 2 years of license issuance, Puget would develop a LWD Management Plan in consultation with the ARG and TRIG. The LWD Management Plan would provide for the transport of LWD (i.e., wood over 12 inches in diameter and over 8 feet long) from project reservoirs to mutually agreeable stockpile areas in the Baker River basin to be identified in the plan. The plan would identify the following 20-year targets for transport: (1) 2,960 pieces 1 to 2 feet in diameter, (2) 540 pieces 2 to 3 feet in

3-136

diameter, and (3) 160 pieces greater than 3 feet in diameter. Puget would fund the cost of collection and transport of LWD related to the plan.

Effects Analysis

The project blocks the downstream movement of LWD except during periods of spill. Under Proposed Article 109, Puget would develop a LWD Management Plan to collect and stockpile LWD on mutually agreeable stockpile areas in the Baker River basin.

Collecting and stocking LWD for others to use in various habitat enhancement projects would address project effects to this resource. LWD could be used by others in streams to increase habitat complexity by forming pools, back eddies, and side channels and by increasing channel meanders. This action would benefit fish as discussed above. However, we see no reason why Puget should not stockpile the LWD it collects on project lands since it appears suitable lands exist for this purpose, particularly adjacent to the Upper Baker dam or near Puget’s operations center below Lower Baker dam. We discuss the cost of the LWD Management Plan and our recommendation in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Fish Propagation and EnhancementAs part of the existing license for the Baker River Project, Puget has constructed

and funded operations of the existing artificial sockeye spawning beaches. In addition, Puget has voluntarily reared other salmonid species for the enhancement of area fisheries resources (refer to section 3.3.4). Artificial production of sockeye and other salmonids has been used to maintain fish runs, although the strategy could also result in unintended effects on native fish populations through competition for food and space, predation, disease outbreaks, genetic alteration, and harvest (Lichatowich and McIntyre, 1987; Hard et al., 1992; Witty et al., 1995; ISG, 1996; Berejikian et al., 1997; Waples, 1999; Flagg and Nash, 1999; Einum and Fleming, 2001; Cuenco et al., 1993; National Research Council, 1996; Reisenbichler and Rubin, 1999; and Leider et al., 1990). Although the interactions between artificially produced and wild fish have been documented in other stream systems, the relative effect on wild fish from artificial production operations and releases, which incorporate new technologies and strategies to reduce interactions with wild populations, is unknown and continues to be a topic of much debate within the fisheries scientific community. In addition, since the majority of the historic sockeye spawning habitat is currently inundated by the Baker Lake reservoir, there is an ongoing need to provide continued artificial sockeye production to sustain this population.

The Proposed Action includes a fish propagation and enhancement measure (Proposed Article 101) wherein Puget would continue operation of the sockeye spawning beach (Spawning Beach 4) and implement facility upgrades; restore and decommission Spawning Beaches 1, 2 and 3; and add additional sockeye broodstock holding and

3-137

incubation facilities at the existing Sulphur Creek facility. The overall sockeye production goal is to roughly triple yearly fry outplants to Baker Lake during an 11-year period, while assessing the lake carrying capacity. In addition, funding would be provided to continue artificial propagation of other species up to 20,000 pounds yearly rearing capacity for no more than 3 months. Species for this production program would be identified by the Fish Co-managers, and may include coho, Chinook, and rainbow/steelhead trout supplementation (or similar cost equivalent).

Within 5 years following license issuance, Puget would also make funding available to the Fish Co-managers for the purpose of evaluating, planning, permitting, and implementing a reservoir nutrient enhancement program. All of the actions in Proposed Article 101 would be conducted in consultation with the ARG and Fish Co-managers.

Effects Analysis

Existing Facility Improvements and New Facility ConstructionInstallation of permanent concrete walls between each segment of Spawning

Beach 4 would minimize the potential for intermixing of water between beach segments to assist in disease management. The isolation of the water supplies for each segment would be an improvement over Current Operations, because it would simplify water distribution for each segment, which is currently from a single pipeline for the entire spawning beach. Separating the water supply would also add flexibility to each individual segment to provide for flow adjustments that could accommodate differing sockeye loading densities in each segment, and assist in disease management.

Improvement of the existing turbidity alarm system would reduce the potential effects of water supply failures or substantial turbidity increases that could result in reduced sockeye production. Separation of the drains from each beach segment would aid in controlling the possible spread of disease from segment to segment. These improvements would decrease the likelihood of sockeye production losses and would especially minimize the potential for losses of an entire brood year’s production due to disease or water supply issues.

Studying the water intake and sediment issues and implementing sediment control measures would result in higher quality spawning beds within the artificial spawning beaches by reducing sediment infusion into the system. This may result in increased egg to fry survival.

Artificial incubation and rearing facilities at Sulphur Creek would be modified to support rearing capacity, up to 20,000 pounds instantaneous rearing capacity for no more than 3 months per year, and to produce up to 11 million sockeye fry at the end of Phase 2.

3-138

The facilities may include artificial incubation facilities, a hatchery building, ponds, etc.; however, specific facility proposals are not included in Proposed Article 101.

Overall, facility improvements and new facility construction would represent a benefit to the Baker River sockeye stock by reducing impacts on the cultured stock, while increasing production.

Restore and Decommission Spawning Beaches 1, 2 and 3Under the Proposed Action, Spawning Beaches 1, 2 and 3 would be retained on an

interim basis while other measures are implemented. To ensure that these beaches function properly, Puget would make necessary modifications (e.g., reduce leakage, modify water supply) as deemed necessary in consultation with the ARG. At such time as the ARG determines these facilities are no longer necessary, decommissioning would be conducted and may include: (1) configuring of the channel to a natural meander and optimize habitat for fish; (2) removing all structures and restoring landscaping; and (3) initiating fish returns to the site with temporary supplementation.

Continued short-term operation of Spawning Beaches 2 and 3 would help to increase overall sockeye production until the ARG determines that the sockeye run size is sufficient, and the resources used to maintain and operate Spawning Beaches 2 and 3 could be redirected elsewhere. Sockeye adults entering the Lower Baker River trap would be distributed between Spawning Beach 4 and the Upper Baker beaches. Restoration of the Channel Creek stream channel following decommissioning of Spawning Beaches 2 and 3 would be a substantial improvement over Current Operations by increasing habitat quantity and quality below the Baker Lake Highway, which has been reported to block access to the upper reaches of Channel Creek (Forest Service, 2002a).

All potential decommissioning activities would be conducted in collaboration with the ARG, and the Forest Service would be the lead agency in permitting the decommissioning activities since the project is under a Forest Service special use permit. If the activities listed above were to occur, the increase in natural spawning habitat would benefit naturally reproducing salmonids and native fish species in the Baker River watershed, and additional natural fish production would benefit the aquatic community as a whole.

General PropagationThe drafting and implementation of a formal operations manual for the spawning

facilities would be a substantial improvement over existing conditions. There is currently only an informal operations manual for the spawning beach facilities, and protocols are generally determined on an ad-hoc basis by the BRC. A formal operations manual would establish set protocols for specific events, such as emergencies, spills, and disease

3-139

outbreaks, and would also facilitate public review of the fish management protocols at this facility.

A formalized audit process would aid in evaluating the success and efficiency of spawning beach operations and provide the type of information needed by the ARG to adaptively manage the propagation facilities. A formal auditing process would be a substantial improvement over the informal reporting on propagation operations to the existing BRC, as is the current practice.

Ongoing propagation funding, other than for sockeye, would be provided under the Proposed Action. However, numbers and species to be reared and released are unknown. Proposed Article 101 provides for funding equivalent to 20,000 pounds instantaneous cultured fish yearly rearing capacity. The measure does not specifically state which species would be propagated under the 20,000-pound yearly rearing capacity; however, the species and programs would be determined by the Fish Co-managers. All propagation activities would occur in consultation with the ARG, which would be made up of all federal and state fish management agencies and local tribes. We have included the following analysis of releasing 20,000 catchable rainbow trout and 15,000 coho smolts. We have also included an analysis of a Chinook and steelhead program at an unspecified level to assess general impacts that may occur if these programs were implemented under the 20,000-pound yearly capacity.

Coho Salmon—The 15,000 smolts would be raised at the Sulphur Creek facility and broodstock would be taken from coho adults returning to the Lower Baker River trap. These fish, along with those produced naturally in the basin, are anticipated to produce approximately 4,600 returning coho adults or more. The 4,600 value is the average number of coho adults that have returned to the Baker River since the Upper Baker Development began operation in 1959. The supplementation efforts, along with fish passage improvements, flow regime modifications, and potential riverine habitat improvements should provide for sufficient coho production in the Baker River system to sustain the adult return goals, and to test downstream fish passage facilities.

Supplementation of 15,000 coho smolts should provide adequate smolt production to meet adult return goals, while minimizing the potential for adverse effects associated with hatchery production. The measure is also consistent with the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) recommendation for the Baker River, which suggests that artificial production of coho salmon should be kept at a low level.

Rainbow Trout—The rearing and release of rainbow trout would be solely for the purpose of sport harvest in Depression Lake. Depression Lake is a good location for a put-and-take hatchery trout fish, because it would minimize the potential for adverse species’ interactions between the hatchery rainbow trout and wild fish in Baker Lake; HSRG (2003) recommended stocking hatchery rainbow trout only in Depression Lake for

3-140

this reason. The West Pass dike separates Depression Lake from Baker Lake, and there is no surface water connection between the two water bodies. There is a possibility that small numbers of hatchery rainbow trout could be introduced into Baker Lake during pumping operations from Depression Lake or to Lake Shannon via an overflow channel that drains to the reservoir, although the likelihood of such events is low and would not be expected to pose a threat to wild fish production in Baker Lake or Lake Shannon.

Chinook Salmon—If Chinook were produced under the 20,000-pound capacity program, these fish would be reared at the Sulphur Creek facility. Prior to rearing, a study would be needed of potential adverse effects and benefits, to determine whether rearing Chinook in the Baker River system or supporting other Skagit River programs would be most beneficial to overall Skagit River spring Chinook production.

A Baker River Chinook program would also be consistent with the HSRG recommendations because it would expand the range of spring Chinook in the Skagit River basin. It is believed that the program would release low numbers of Chinook juveniles; therefore, these potential effects would not be expected to produce a substantial adverse effect on fish populations in the Baker and Skagit rivers.

Steelhead Trout—Since 1959, average steelhead returns to the Baker River have been about 230 fish. The Baker River is not currently thought to support a self-sustaining population of steelhead; therefore, the use of hatchery fish in the Baker River system would not compromise existing wild steelhead production in the system. There would be potential for a portion of any hatchery steelhead smolts to residualize and remain in the Baker River system for prolonged periods. Residual steelhead could pose a predation risk to sockeye fry and other salmonid juveniles including Chinook salmon and bull trout (Whitesel et al., 1994; Jonasson et al., 1994, Jonasson et al., 1995, Jonasson et al., 1996, Cannamela, 1993, Beauchamp, 1995). These studies suggest that while there is the potential that some of the artificially produced steelhead smolts may prey upon other juvenile salmonids in the Baker and Skagit rivers, the levels of predation would be low.

Increase Sockeye PropagationA primary goal of the Proposed Action is to release a total of 14.5 million sockeye

fry to the Baker River watershed following a phased propagation program. The program would incrementally increase fry releases over a total of 11 years. As part of the sequential development, a study would be conducted by the end of year 2 to evaluate the carrying capacity of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon for sockeye fry. In addition, tests would be conducted concurrently with the sequential increases in sockeye fry production in order to empirically test sockeye production limits of the Baker River watershed. Through this sequential increase and testing program in combination with the proposed passage improvements, sockeye adult returns should increase.

3-141

Hatchery intervention in the form of artificial spawning beaches has been adequate to maintain the sockeye stock at low but acceptable levels of abundance (HSRG, 2003). In most years since 1990, the program has attained the goal of returning at least 3,000 spawners to the lake system and artificial beaches. The stock has been successfully maintained, with little alteration of its natural life history pattern, since the inception of the program in 1957. Proposed changes in management, by confining spawners to a single artificial spawning beach, would substantially increase the demographic risk to the population from natural events like siltation, flooding, and disease. There is a risk associated with the inability to properly sort returning adults at the Baker River trap. There is also a potential risk associated with the general lack of information on the hydrology, nutrient input, predation and food availability in the receiving waters of Baker Lake. The goals for Baker River sockeye pose little or no threat to other indigenous stocks in the Baker River system and are consistent with the goals for other stocks and species.

The Proposed Action incorporates the HSRG recommendations for the Baker River sockeye program with regard to spawning beach upgrades, upstream and downstream migrant trap upgrades, and studies to assess limnological characteristics of the reservoirs in order to reduce or eliminate the risks that the HSRG has identified.

Reservoir Nutrient EnhancementReservoir nutrient enhancement funding is also part of Proposed Article 101.

Within 5 years of any new license issued, Puget would provide funding to the Fish Co-managers for the purpose of evaluating, planning, permitting, and implementing a reservoir nutrient enhancement program.

According to Mazumder (2004), lake fertilization is not recommended at this time, since it appears that nutrients are not currently limiting sockeye production in the Baker River watershed. However, reservoir fertilization may be beneficial under increased sockeye recruitment compared to existing sockeye production levels. It is not known whether the reservoirs could support more than 14 million fry per year without nutrient enhancement.

The Fish Co-managers could determine whether the use of salmon carcasses or fertilizer would be most suitable for this program. Carcasses have the potential to spread disease, although such effects are reduced when adults native to the system are used (Cederholm et al., 1999).

Ongoing Resource Monitoring and ManagementProposed articles 102 and 603 provide for ongoing aquatic resource monitoring,

reporting, and adaptive management. All aquatic resource and habitat provisions included in the Proposed Action require ongoing evaluation and decision-making during

3-142

the course of the license so that management of resources can adapt to changing conditions in the Baker River system by using adaptive management principles (Article 603). Under Current Operations, Puget voluntarily participates in the BRC, which is responsible for making management decisions pertaining to the aquatic resources of the Baker River system.

Under the Proposed Action, Puget along with parties to the Settlement Agreement would form the Baker River Coordinating Committee (Article 601). The BRCC would have an expanded membership compared with the existing BRC and would deal with a variety of resources, not solely aquatics. The BRCC would manage settlement implementation and resource management issues over the course of the license. Several subcommittees, including the ARG, would be formed to focus on specific resource issues. The ARG would be responsible for studies and monitoring required for implementation of the license and to address any other aquatic resource needs that may arise during the license period.

The BRCC and ARG would implement adaptive management principles. Results of monitoring and studies of fisheries resources would be continually reviewed at least on an annual basis, and the group would determine how resources should be managed in the future, based on the findings and experience of past activities. Generally, the BRCC would only move forward on an issue once consensus on a subject has been reached, thereby avoiding dominance of a single party in resource decisions.

One of the responsibilities of the BRCC would be to oversee Puget’s administration of the Habitat Enhancement, Restoration, and Conservation Fund (HERC Fund; see Proposed Article 602) and the ARP (see Proposed Article 505), annual funds to be used for aquatic resources-related activities and riparian habitat protection. The purpose of these funds would be to address potential effects of the Baker River Project and provide for enhancement of aquatic and riparian resources in comparison with existing conditions. Annual funds would allow the BRCC to address ongoing aquatic resource needs over the course of the license.

These funds may be used to address some of the following topic areas, as deemed appropriate by the BRCC: (1) Native non-salmonid species; (2) A native resident salmonid program and recreational fishing opportunities: (3) Non-native and invasive aquatic animal species; (4) Water quality enhancement; (5) Riparian habitat enhancement; (6) Stream channel improvements/modifications; (7) Noxious weed control; (8) Passage facility modifications; (9) Supplementation programs; (10) LWD placement projects independent of the LWD article (Proposed Article 109); and (11) Implementation of aquatic habitat restoration and conservation measures.

Various inspection and monitoring regimes would be implemented to assess the efficiency of trap modifications, water quality, fish propagation success, sediment and

3-143

erosion control, etc., as part of many proposed aquatic related articles. Where applicable, monitoring actions were previously evaluated in specific resource sections.

Effects Analysis

Establishment of the BRCC would ensure a long-term collaborative approach to aquatic resource management in the Baker River basin. The BRCC would provide for the representation of a variety of interests in aquatic resource management. Creation of the BRCC and the ARG also would help to ensure that all license provisions were fully implemented. The adaptive management principles that would guide the BRCC would provide the management flexibility needed to manage environmental resources, which are in a constant state of flux. Thus, the BRCC would provide a long-term benefit for aquatic resources of the Baker River system by creating a structured, yet adaptive management framework.

The HERC fund would be used for actions that would enhance, conserve and/or restore aquatic species. This fund would also be used to mitigate for unforeseen impacts not otherwise addressed in other proposed license articles. Possible uses of the HERC fund describe by Puget include: resident salmonid programs, native species initiatives, recreational fishing opportunities, controlling non-native or invasive aquatic animal species, water quality enhancements, riparian enhancements, channel modifications, noxious weed control, and modifications to fish passage facilities and supplementation programs in the basin not required by other articles.

Although Puget provides some examples of how HERC funds may be used, Puget does not provide any specific measures to be implemented using these funds. Without specific measures, we cannot evaluate the fund’s environmental effects or the fund’s nexus to the project. We make our final recommendation regarding the HERC fund and Proposed Article 602 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Likewise, the ARP (Proposed Article 505) also does not include enough detail to allow us to assess the potential benefits of the specific measures that would be implemented by this plan, or the nexus of these measures to project impacts. We make our final recommendation regarding the ARP and Proposed Article 505 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

3.3.4.3 Unavoidable Adverse EffectsRegardless of the collection efficiency level achieved by the new downstream fish

passage systems, some project related mortality would occur to both resident and anadromous fish due to the handling required to collect and transport fish, and the inability to collect fish during extreme flood flows. However, increased collection

3-144

efficiency and handling practices would improve overall fish production in the Baker River watershed.

Short-term increases in turbidity and minor water quality impacts are likely to occur associated with the construction of the powerhouse facility, upstream passage facility upgrade, FSCs, passage facility for connectivity, fish propagation facility, and the spawning beach decommissioning. As discussed in the Secondary Effects portion of section 3.3.3, Water Quality, Puget would limit risks of degrading water quality through implementation of a water quality protection plan (Proposed Article 401). This would include adoption of appropriate best management practices for all activities.

3.3.4.4 Cumulative EffectsSkagit River Project operations when combined with current Baker River Project

operations produce an adverse cumulative effect on fish habitat availability, redd dewatering, and fish stranding in the Middle Skagit River due to river fluctuations. These effects are described in detail in section 3.3.4.2. The Proposed Action reduces cumulative effects, such as redd dewatering and stranding potential, when compared to Current Operations.

Cumulative effects may arise from the total production and releases of hatchery

fish from the Baker River Project to the Skagit River basin. Hatchery fish may stray and spawn with wild fish within the Skagit River basin and may also stray to other basins, although the effects of this are unknown. The Proposed Action is consistent with HSRG (2003) Skagit River and Baker River artificial production recommendations and would represent a positive benefit to local wild fish stocks compared to existing conditions.

Cumulative effects on aquatic habitat could also arise through increased land development and urbanization throughout the Lower Skagit River watershed. Recreational and commercial fish harvest may cumulatively affect fish populations. The project neither controls nor cumulatively affects these activities. Skagit River Watershed restoration planning is currently underway. Watershed restoration activities, in combination with instream flow requirements and ramping restrictions under the Proposed Action, may have a cumulative benefit for aquatic resources in the Skagit River basin; however, specific watershed restoration projects have not been evaluated. No other major land-use or construction projects are known that in combination with project operations may cumulatively adversely affect aquatic resources.

3.3.5 Terrestrial Resources

3.3.5.1 Affected EnvironmentThe following sections describe the existing vegetation and wildlife resources in

the Baker River Project vicinity, including cover types, distribution of vegetation and

3-145

wildlife, and special status species. Information sources include Puget’s surveys and study reports, Forest Service data and reports from the Mt. Baker Ranger District, and WDFW data on priority habitats and species.

We provide information about federally threatened and endangered species in section 3.3.6, Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat.

Past actions from a variety of sources have affected certain key wildlife habitats in the Baker River basin. Key habitats identified through scoping and studies include mature and old-growth coniferous forest, deciduous forest, riparian habitats, and wetlands. In the following section, the description of the existing condition for these key habitats is expanded to include discussion of past actions that have led to the current status of the habitat in an effort to better describe existing conditions.

Plant Communities and Wildlife HabitatsThe Baker River Project is located within the western hemlock (Tsuga

heterophylla) zone of the Northern Cascades Physiographic Province (Franklin and Dyrness, 1988). Mt. Baker (elevation 10,778 feet msl), Mt. Shuksan (elevation 9,127 feet msl), and other high mountain peaks rise up from the Baker River and the project reservoirs on the west, north, and east sides. Along these slopes, vegetation transitions to higher elevation assemblages including the Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), parkland, and alpine zones. The glaciers and snowfields associated with the high peaks and ridges funnel cold air down into the Baker River basin. This effect is particularly strong on the western side of Baker Lake, where several plant species typical of higher elevations occur at unusually low elevations (Forest Service, 2002a).

Events of both natural and human origin have modified forest stands in the Baker River basin. Natural disturbance events include wind storms, wildfire, and avalanches. Human disturbance of vegetation has occurred through timber management activities, fire, limited residential and recreational development, and the development of the Baker River Project.

The northern portion of the Baker River basin is a mosaic of forest stand ages, containing large tracts of both old-growth and second growth coniferous forest. Most of the area is federally managed as National Forest System and National Park System lands, and timber harvest is currently restricted. The southern portion of the basin supports extensive, ongoing management of private and state timberlands. Little old-growth forest remains, and the area is dominated by second- and third-growth stands of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock, western redcedar (Thuja plicata), red alder (Alnus rubra), and other less common species.

3-146

Table 3-17 presents the acreages of each major vegetated cover type in the Baker River Project area by reservoir subarea. The project area was mapped through aerial photograph interpretation and ground verification of cover types and polygons. Detailed information about the vegetation mapping of the project area is contained in Hamer Environmental et al. (2004). The project area includes approximately 8,527 acres, including about 2,273 acres of reservoir at Lake Shannon and 4,977 acres of reservoir at Baker Lake (both at near full pool elevations). The cover type mapping was performed when water surface elevations were below full pool and includes acres of emergent grass/forb cover types within both reservoirs (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004).

Table 3-17. Baker River Project area cover types (in acres). (Source: Hamer Environmental et al., 2004)

Cover Type/Structure Class

Lake Shannon Subarea

Baker Lake Subarea

Total Project Area

Percent of Total

Coniferous ForestOld-growth 26 58 84 4.8Mature 44 276 320 18.4Mid-successional 1 61 62 3.6Pole 0 13 13 0.7Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous ForestMid-to-late seral Stage 111 165 276 15.9Young seral stage 0 0 0 0.0Deciduous ForestMid-to-late seral stage 143 282 425 24.5Young seral stage 6 19 25 1.4Shrub 10 34 44 2.5Rock/Talus/Bare SoilRock/talus 0 0 0 0.0Cliff 1 2 3 0.2Unvegetated upland 0 1 1 0.1Disturbed/Modified Cover TypesResidential/developed 20 1 21 1.2Project facilities 7 64 71 4.1Other disturbed 10 9 19 1.1Grass/Forb Cover TypesHerbaceous species 82 269 351 20.2Roads 6 16 22 1.3Total 385 1,001 1,386 100.0

3-147

Table 3-18. Baker River basin major cover types (in acres). (Source: R2, 2003j)a

Cover Type/Structure Class

Skagit County Subarea

Whatcom County Subarea

Total Baker River Basin

Percent of Total

Coniferous Forest

All classes 27,383 79,304 106,687 56.0

Deciduous Forest

All classes 3,237 2,356 5,592 2.9

Shrub

Shrub 1,906 8,165 10,072 5.3

Grass/Forb

Grass/forb/sparse vegetation 2,539 23,666 26,205 13.8

Wetlands

All wetlandsb 392 1,099 1,491 0.8

Rock/Talus/Bare Soil

Rock/talus/bare soil 384 18,944 19,328 10.1

Disturbed/Modified Cover Types

All types 61 0 61 0.0

Water

Reservoir/lakes/snow/ice 1,999 19,126 21,125 11.1

Total 37,901 152,660 190,561 100.0a The R2 (2003j) estimates of habitat area in the Baker River basin have not been adjusted to

reflect the shift to NAVD 88 and may differ from figures used elsewhere in this document.b Above reservoir, including small natural lakes.

The Whatcom County subarea referenced in table 3-18 includes the majority of the Baker Lake basin surrounding Baker Lake; the Skagit County subarea includes the southernmost portion of Baker Lake and all of the lands surrounding Lake Shannon.

Coniferous and Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous ForestConiferous forests capable of exhibiting great biomass and longevity dominate the

Baker River basin (Forest Service, 2002a). Old-growth coniferous forests are characterized by very old and large overstory trees. Many additional structural attributes contribute to the high value of old-growth stands for wildlife, including variation in tree size and spacing, broken and deformed tops, multiple canopy layers, canopy openings, variation and patchiness of understory composition, and large-diameter standing dead and

3-148

downed trees. This complex habitat supports a large number of plant and animal species, some of which are found only in late seral forests. Mature forests typically exhibit some, but not all, of the components of old-growth forests.

Elevation influences the species composition and biomass of coniferous forests. In the Baker River basin, lower elevation forests in the western hemlock zone are capable of high productivity and very high standing biomass. These forests are dominated by Douglas fir, western hemlock, and western redcedar, including some of the oldest and largest trees on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (Forest Service, 2002a). The higher elevation silver fir and mountain hemlock zones are less productive than the lower elevation forests because of differences in soil composition and environmental factors. The distribution of late seral stands across the landscape also influences their quality to wildlife. Large stands are better able to support those species that require large contiguous patches of interior forest. Travel corridors between stands are important for some interior forest species that move long distances; corridors provide pathways for dispersal of young and allow access between seasonal habitats, high- and low-elevation ranges, and along riparian zones.

Species closely associated with late seral coniferous forest include the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis spp. caurina), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), American marten (Martes americana), Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly (Mitoura johnsonii), certain terrestrial mollusks, and several vascular plants, lichens, and mosses.

Naturally occurring events that have shaped the age and structure of the Baker River basin forests include wildfire, landslides, wind storms, avalanches, and lava flows. Human activities profoundly influenced the age and distribution of forest stands during the past 100 years. The first sawmill in the Middle Skagit River valley was established near Birdsview in 1878, and timber harvest within the Baker River basin was in full swing by 1922 (Puget, 2002b). Timber harvest has occurred on private, state, and National Forest System lands within the basin. Road building and limited residential and industrial development have also influenced the forest stands.

The Lower Baker Development was constructed at a time when logging was actively occurring along the Lower Baker River. Creation of Lake Shannon contributed to timber harvest volumes, providing over 100 million board feet of timber; it also interrupted commercial timber harvest, forcing the relocation of the primary rail line to the east side of the proposed reservoir. The Baker Lake area was largely harvested immediately prior to inundation. However, the filling of the reservoir also served to block access to, and prevent the logging of, National Forest System and private (Scott Paper Company) lands on the east side of the basin, including some being logged near Noisy Creek at the time of inundation. Approximately 4,984 acres of coniferous and mixed coniferous-deciduous forests of varying ages (Biota Pacific et al., 2003) were

3-149

harvested or inundated by the project reservoirs. Because commercial timber harvest was a primary land-use activity in the basin, much of this land would have been harvested prior to the early 1990s if the project had not been constructed. Timber harvest slowed dramatically in the basin during the 1990s, as a result of changes in management direction for the protection of spotted owls and other old-growth dependent species.

Private and state timberlands surrounding Lake Shannon are dominated by second- and third-growth coniferous forest, and currently support little or no old-growth forest (Puget, 2002b). The Forest Service estimated that 39 percent of coniferous forested habitats on National Forest System lands in the Baker River watershed are currently in early to mid-seral stages, primarily as a result of timber harvest (Forest Service, 2002a).

Mature and old-growth coniferous forest stands remain primarily in the northern portion of the watershed. The Forest Service estimated that 10,541 acres of mature coniferous forest and 41,735 acres of old-growth coniferous forest remain on National Forest System lands in the watershed (Forest Service, 2002a). This represents 61 percent of all coniferous forest habitats on National Forest System lands. Remaining mature and old-growth forest at low to mid-elevations on the west side of Baker Lake have been highly fragmented due to timber harvest and road building. Fragmentation of mature and old-growth stands has occurred to a lesser extent on the east side of Baker Lake. Currently, about 680 acres of mature and old-growth coniferous and mixed coniferous/deciduous forest are present within the project area. The majority of this acreage (73 percent) is located around Baker Lake. Hamer Environmental et al. (2004) includes detailed habitat information about tree species composition, diameter class, canopy cover, coarse woody debris, and snags for sample sites within these habitats.

Puget owns a limited amount of land surrounding the project reservoirs and does not currently implement specific management measures for late seral forest habitat. The Forest Service has implemented specific management practices to protect late seral coniferous forest and the species that depend on this habitat. The Northwest Forest Plan (Forest Service and BLM, 1994a,b) established a system of late successional reserves (LSRs) to provide habitat capable of supporting viable populations of species associated with late successional and old-growth forest. The Baker LSR is about 82,100 acres and almost completely surrounds Baker Lake. Designated Conservation Area (DCA) WD-21 was established in 1992 for the protection of northern spotted owls under the ESA (FWS, 1992). It encompasses roughly 104,000 acres of National Forest System lands on the Mt. Baker Ranger District, including 29,750 acres not included in the Baker LSR. Commercial timber harvest activity has been at a standstill on the Mt. Baker Ranger District since the early 1990s.

Washington State Forest Practices Rules specify standards for commercial timber harvest on non-federal lands. Included in the Forest Practices Rules are specific requirements for lands supporting listed fish and wildlife species. State and private

3-150

timberlands surrounding Lake Shannon are managed under these rules. Additionally, state-owned timberlands in the watershed are managed in accordance with a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) prepared by the WDNR under the provisions of section 10 of the ESA. The HCP has a number of management provisions specific to the protection of habitat for late-seral wildlife.

State and private lands surrounding Lake Shannon are expected to be managed for timber resources in the future, resulting in continued rotation of forest stand ages, within the requirements of Washington State Forest Practices Rules and the WDNR HCP. The ongoing management designations on National Forest System lands surrounding Baker Lake, including LSRs, DCA, Riparian Reserves, Wilderness and Recreation reserved areas, and administratively withdrawn lands, are expected to provide protection to old-growth and mature forest values in the future.

Deciduous Forest and Shrub HabitatsIn the Baker River Project vicinity, deciduous forest stands characterize sites with

relatively recent and/or frequent ground disturbance, such as timber harvest, landslides, avalanche chutes, and riparian zones of low to moderate gradient streams and rivers. Red alder is the dominant recolonizer of disturbed soils within the western hemlock zone; it is also common within riparian zones. Big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) is common in riparian zones and in openings in coniferous forest. Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera spp. trichocarpa) is the dominant overstory species along riparian zones with moderately to well-developed floodplains. Within areas of frequent disturbance, such as avalanche chutes and riparian zones, deciduous shrub communities may persist; these are typically dominated by willows (Salix species), vine maple (Acer circinatum), and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis).

Deciduous forest stands along riparian zones can provide locally unique wildlife habitat when certain structural features are present. Locally unique features can include variation and patchiness of understory vegetation, snags and downed logs, seasonal canopy cover, and stream shading. Species closely associated with deciduous forest and shrub habitats include willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), MacGillivray’s warbler (Oporornis tolmiei), black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceous), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), and ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellatus).

Timber harvest has affected the distribution of deciduous forests in a number of ways over the past 100 years. The amount of deciduous and mixed forest in the watershed increased over the first half of the twentieth century because cutover lands were typically burned and allowed to regenerate naturally. Red alder became particularly abundant due to its ability to rapidly colonize disturbed soils and out-compete slower growing conifers. In the second half of the twentieth century, advances in silviculture

3-151

and increased emphasis on the growth of high-value conifer species resulted in the conversion of many acres of alder forest to conifers, and the active suppression of young alders in regenerating conifer stands. While the total area of deciduous forest has decreased in recent decades, it still remains higher overall than is believed to have existed prior to European settlement. The general distribution of deciduous forest has changed since European settlement. Following the original project construction, the total amount of lowland riparian deciduous forest decreased slightly due to inundation of Lake Shannon and Baker Lake, while the amount of upland deciduous forest (particularly red alder) has increased for the reasons discussed above. Current state and federal regulations prohibit timber harvest directly adjacent to perennial streams in the watershed, so the amount of deciduous forest in these riparian areas is expected to decrease over the next 100 years, eventually approaching the pre-settlement condition.

It is estimated that construction of the Baker River Project affected approximately 90 acres of upland deciduous forest habitats and an additional 269 acres of riparian deciduous forest and shrub (Biota Pacific et al., 2003).

Currently, deciduous forest habitats are present on about 5,592 acres in the Baker River basin and about 450 acres in the project area. Most of these sites are disturbed timber lands, or disturbed lands along the northern shorelines of Lake Shannon and the northwestern shore of Baker Lake. Deciduous shrub habitats comprise about 44 acres within the project area, primarily along the western shorelines of the project reservoirs. Hamer Environmental et al. (2004) includes detailed habitat information on tree species composition, diameter class, canopy cover, coarse woody debris, and snags for sample sites within these habitats.

The Forest Service and State of Washington do not implement specific management guidelines for the protection of deciduous forest and shrub habitats. Many of these habitats are currently protected, and are expected to be protected in the future, under riparian zone management regulations and policies (described in the following section).

Riparian HabitatsRiparian habitats are located at the interface between terrestrial habitats and

aquatic environments. In the Baker River basin, deciduous forest and shrub habitats are characteristic along the active channel of low gradient waterways with well-developed floodplains. Mixed coniferous/deciduous and coniferous forests extend back into the less frequently disturbed portions of the floodplain. Riparian zones narrow with increasing stream gradient, leading to stands of mixed coniferous and deciduous species. Along the narrowest, highest gradient streams, coniferous tree species dominate the overstory. Many wildlife species of riparian habitats are associated with deciduous forest and shrub habitats, as described in the preceding section. Wildlife indicative of riparian habitats,

3-152

but not necessarily tied to deciduous plant species, include mink (Mustela vison), red-legged frog (Rana aurora), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), and harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus).

Timber harvest has affected riparian zones in the Baker River basin through clearing of vegetation, road and railroad construction, and modification of drainage. The Forest Service (2002a) estimates that approximately 78 percent of the existing riparian areas on non-federal lands in the basin has been disturbed by timber harvest occurring up to 1990. However, potential for recruitment of LWD, an important function of riparian areas that is related to streamside vegetation structure class, is rated as good on most non-federal lands in the basin (Forest Service, 2002a). On Forest Service lands, an estimated 10 percent of the riparian area has been disturbed by timber harvest. The uppermost watershed is largely rated as low potential for LWD recruitment because of the lack of trees at high elevation; in the mid-elevation portions of the watershed, most Forest Service lands are rated as moderate to high potential. The Forest Service (2002a) also notes that most of the riparian zones in the Baker River basin support vegetation of sufficient age and structure to provide ample stream shading.

A review of functional condition of riparian reserves in the Baker River subbasin is summarized in NMFS (2004a, based on Beamer et al., 2000 as cited in WCC, 2003). Almost 90 percent of the riparian areas within the Mt. Baker watershed administrative unit (WAU) were ranked as functional. Within the Mt. Blum and Lake Shannon East WAUs, less than 60 percent of the riparian areas were rated as functional. Just over 50 percent of the riparian areas in the Lake Shannon West WAU were ranked with functional reaches.

Riparian conditions in the Lower Skagit River are highly disturbed because of extensive agricultural, residential, and urban development. Tree cover, along with the related riparian functions of LWD recruitment and shading, is low. Beamer et al., 2000 (as cited in WCC, 2003) describes riparian conditions along the Lower Skagit River as generally poor. Between the confluences of Grandy Creek and the Town of Sedro-Woolley, approximately 72 to 76 percent of the reaches were described as impaired or moderately impaired. The shorter stretch between Grassmere (immediately downstream of the Town of Concrete) to Grandy Creek was rated as fair, with approximately 45 to 50 percent of reaches rated as impaired or moderately impaired. The Skagit delta, the lowermost end of the riparian zone, has been highly modified by ditching, filling, and diking.

The original development of the Baker River Project affected riparian zones along an estimated 57 miles of streams, including 16 miles of the Baker River (Forest Service, 2002a). Pre-project vegetation mapping delineated the broad floodplain of the Baker River and its vegetation (Biota Pacific et al., 2003). An estimated 2,223 acres of riparian habitats were affected by inundation, including 1,114 acres of coniferous forest, 841

3-153

acres of mixed coniferous/deciduous forest, 203 acres of deciduous forest, and 65 acres of shrub habitat.

Under current conditions in the Baker River basin, more than 1,410 miles of stream and 32 miles of reservoir shoreline are present. Eighty-seven percent of the streams in the basin are small, higher gradient streams (Forest Service, 2002a; Class 3 and 4 streams) with very narrow riparian zones. The riparian habitats in the project area are not readily distinguishable from surrounding vegetation at the mapping scale used for the basin, and riparian habitats were not delineated on maps. Riparian zones characterized by mixed coniferous/deciduous forest, deciduous forest, or deciduous shrub were mapped under those cover types, and their habitat features were discussed in the preceding sections.

The Forest Service manages the land adjacent to streams, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands as Riparian Reserves, per the direction of the Northwest Forest Plan (Forest Service and BLM, 1994a). The allocation of Riparian Reserves is intended to provide adequate habitat protection for riparian species, provide travel and dispersal corridors for wildlife, and maintain water quality. State and private timberlands are managed under the Washington State Forest Practices Rules, which specify stream, wetland, and riparian zone protection. The Washington State Shoreline Management Act regulates development and other activities along all shorelines of the state (those adjacent to streams with a mean annual flow of ≥ 20 cfs and lakes with a total area ≥ 20 acres).

Implementation of federal and state regulations and policies for management of riparian zones is expected to continue in the future, providing long-term protection for these habitats.

Wetlands and Open Water HabitatsWetlands in the Baker River basin include forested, scrub/shrub, emergent, and

open water habitats of small ponds. The most common tree species associated with forested wetlands are red alder, black cottonwood, and western redcedar. Shrub wetlands in the basin are characterized by various willow species, salmonberry, vine maple, and spiraea (Spiraea douglasii). Emergent wetlands in the basin support a variety of sedges, forbs, and grasses, including the common invasive species reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Wetlands provide valuable plant, fish, and wildlife habitat, and are also valued for their hydrologic functions.

Timber harvest has affected wetlands through clearing of vegetation, ground-disturbing activities, road building, and modification of natural drainage patterns. The majority of the Lake Shannon subwatershed, and significant portions of the Baker Lake subwatershed, were harvested prior to implementation of management policies protecting wetlands.

3-154

The original development of the Baker River Project affected wetland habitats associated with the Baker River floodplain, the riparian zones of tributary streams, and isolated wetlands and ponds. The Forest Service estimates that 172 acres of wetlands were inundated by Baker Lake, as well as streamside riparian areas that may have contained wetlands (Forest Service, 2002a). Pre-project cover type mapping (Biota Pacific et al., 2003) indicates that approximately 290 acres of wetland habitats, 15 acres of ponds, and 549 acres of lake (historical Baker Lake) were affected when Baker reservoir was inundated. Inundation of Lake Shannon affected 66 acres of wetlands and 3 acres of pond habitat.

Construction of the project also created the large open-water habitats of the project reservoirs. Emergent wetlands persist within the reservoir boundaries and the reservoirs contribute to the hydrology supporting many of the adjacent wetlands along portions of the shorelines.

Table 3-19 provides a summary of the acreage of current wetland habitats. This evaluation included wetlands within the intermittently inundated portions of the reservoirs as well as those located above reservoir full pool elevation (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004).

Table 3-19. Baker River Project area wetlands (in acres).a

Wetland TypeLake Shannon Subarea

Baker Lake Subarea

Total Project Area

Palustrine (Above Reservoir Full Pool)Forested wetland (PFO) and PFO mosaics 2 18 20Scrub/shrub wetland (PSS) 0 16 16Emergent wetland (PEM) 0 11 11Stream and aquatic bed 27 25 52

Lacustrine (Below Reservoir Full Pool)Upper perennial—emergent 0 26 26Intermittently inundated—emergent 79 126 205Upper perennial—non-vegetated 643 564 1,207Intermittently inundated—non-vegetated 172 1,651 1,823Lower perennial lacustrine (reservoir)b 1,220 2,384 3,604

All Wetlands 2,143 4,821 6,964a Sources: Hamer Environmental et al., 2004b Reservoir surface area near minimum pool as interpreted from aerial photography

dated March 4 and March 6, 2001.

3-155

The majority of palustrine forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent wetlands are located at the northern end and along the western side of Baker Lake. Over 16 acres of scrub/shrub wetlands are present and are dominated by salmonberry and/or Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis). Forested wetlands and mosaics total 20 acres and include red alder dominated sites, mixed conifer-deciduous sites (typically characterized by red alder and western hemlock), and wetland/upland mosaic sites (typically dominated by red alder with western hemlock and western redcedar). Less than two acres of forested wetland are located near Lake Shannon. Herbaceous emergent wetlands total about 11 acres at Baker Lake; the majority of these contained the invasive species reed canarygrass.

One emergent wetland (WB-30)25 located in the Little Sandy Creek wetland complex contains many bog features, including understory cover dominated by sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), and stunted western hemlock and western redcedar trees (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004). Several other wetlands at the Sandy Creek complex have high functions and values scores for plant composition, species diversity, and/or structural complexity. A total of six wetlands meeting the WDFW priority habitat “bog-fen-marsh” criteria were recorded; four of these sites are at Lake Shannon and two are located in and south of the Little Sandy Creek wetland complex (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004).

An estimate of the source of supporting wetland hydrology was made for each palustrine wetland site, based on field observations. Of 33 wetlands evaluated at Baker Lake, 5 (13 acres) were categorized as being supported solely by Baker Lake, 10 were rated as being supported solely by shallow groundwater and/or groundwater discharge (16 acres), and 18 (62 acres) were rated as supported by a combination of Baker Lake and groundwater hydrology. High value wetlands at the Sandy Creek complex (WB-21, 22, 23, 28, and 30) all are believed to have hydrology provided by a combination of Baker Lake, shallow groundwater, and/or groundwater discharge. Monitoring of water levels in wetland WB-30 was conducted to determine how strongly the wetland is influenced by Baker Lake hydrology. Results of the monitoring indicate that shallow ground water is the primary source of supporting wetland hydrology for WB-30 (Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, 2004). Water surface elevations within the wetland appeared to be independent of the water surface elevations of Baker Lake, except when the reservoir was at or near full pool. The lowermost portion of the wetland was inundated by the Baker Lake full pool; however, the effect of inundation on hydrology of WB-30 appeared to be limited in geographic area, frequency, and duration.

At Lake Shannon, nine wetlands were evaluated; of these, four wetlands (3 acres) were categorized as being supported solely by shallow groundwater and/or groundwater discharge, and five wetlands (8 acres) were thought to be supported by a combination of Lake Shannon and groundwater hydrology.

25 Individual wetlands are shown in Hammer Environmental et al., 2004.

3-156

The lacustrine habitats below reservoir full pool elevation were grouped into three categories depending upon the degree of inundation (table 3-19). The upper perennial category denotes areas that are saturated to the surface with water year-round, such as the lands bordering stream outlets. Intermittently inundated wetlands are those that are above the minimum operating pool level and are dry for some portion of the growing season. Lower perennial wetlands are below the minimum operating pool level and are, therefore, permanently inundated by the reservoirs. Lacustrine emergent wetlands are present within the upper perennial and intermittently inundated categories in both the Lake Shannon and Baker Lake reservoirs. Within-reservoir emergent wetlands total 152 acres at Baker Lake and 79 acres at Lake Shannon. These emergent wetlands are dominated by grass/forb type vegetation including sedges of the genus Carex, rushes of the genus Juncus, spearwort buttercup (Ranunculus flammula), and reed canarygrass. Large expanses of exposed non-vegetated ground are present within the reservoir at Baker Lake (2,215 acres), mostly along the shallow delta area at the northern end and along the western perimeter. Non-vegetated ground exposed at lower pool elevations at Lake Shannon totals 815 acres, most of which is located in the northern half of the reservoir.

We summarize general wetland types within the Baker River basin in table 3-20. Approximately 345 acres of forested wetlands, 289 acres of scrub/shrub wetlands, and 248 acres of emergent wetlands are present in the basin. These values likely under-represent actual wetland acres in the Baker River basin because they are based on aerial photography interpretation of vegetation. Forested wetlands and small, non-forested wetlands are often misclassified as upland or riparian forest when determinations are based solely on remote data.

Reservoir elevations fluctuate on a daily and seasonal basis at Baker Lake. Normal full pool for Baker Lake is 727.77 feet msl; surface area at this elevation is approximately 4,977 acres. For purposes of flood storage, Baker Lake is maintained at or below 724.50 feet msl by November 1 and at no more than 711.56 feet msl under normal operating conditions from November 15 to March 1, under current agreement with the Corps. Minimum reservoir levels typically occur from November through March or early April. Baker Lake is maintained at or near full pool during the summer. Based on the past 20 years of monthly median values, Baker Lake was within 10 feet of full pool from June through October, and, at its minimum, about 30 feet below full pool during March. Water levels may vary several feet on a daily basis.

3-157

Table 3-20. Baker River basin wetland acreages.a (Source: R2, 2003j)

Wetland Type ModifierTotal Baker River

Basin (acres) Percent of TotalPalustrine

Forested (PFO) 345 23.2Scrub/shrub (PSS) 289 19.4Emergent (PEM) 248 16.6Aquatic bed 3 0.2Open water 62 4.1

RiverineUpper perennial 275 18.5

Lacustrine Natural lakes 269 18.0

Total 1,491 100.0a The R2 (2003j) estimates of habitat area have not been adjusted to reflect the shift to

NAVD 88 and may differ from published figures used elsewhere in this document.

Lake Shannon full pool is 442.35 feet msl; surface area at this elevation is approximately 2,273 acres. Over the past 20 years, monthly median water levels were within 10 feet of full pool between June and December, and within 5 feet of full pool for the months of July, August, September, and November. The lowest monthly median level was approximately 33 feet below full pool during March.

Erosion occurs along portions of the reservoir shorelines in the current condition, and can result in disturbance and loss of shoreline vegetation. Puget conducted an evaluation of shoreline erosion (AESI, 2003) and determined that the primary cause of erosion along the shoreline and in the drawdown zone is undercutting, either by wave or stream action, or a combination of both. The shoreline of Baker Lake is affected by high to severe erosion along approximately 11 percent of its length. Low to moderate erosion affects an estimated 37 percent, and no erosion was occurring on 52 percent of the shoreline. At Lake Shannon, high to severe erosion affects 14 percent of the shoreline. Low to moderate erosion currently occurs on 70 percent, and no erosion occurs on 16 percent of the shoreline. The AESI (2003) study did not determine the rates of shoreline erosion, nor did it compare reservoir shoreline erosion with natural riverbank erosion in the Baker River basin upstream and downstream of the project. Bank erosion and undercutting are common occurrences in high-energy, glacially fed systems such as the Baker River and are important sources of coarse bedload, sediment, and LWD (Benda and Sias, 1998; Collins et al., 2002; Murphy and Koski, 1989). Vegetation surveys in the project area recorded sightings of shoreline erosion thought to be a result of reservoir fluctuation (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004). Twelve sites were recorded, two on Baker Lake and ten on Lake Shannon. One of the sites was described as a narrow piece

3-158

of land surrounded by reservoir on three sides, and exhibiting extremely undercut banks. The remaining 11 sites exhibited erosion only along the reservoir-facing side of the site. No estimates of area of the sites were provided.

Puget implements a number of measures to assess and protect wildlife habitats associated with the project reservoirs. Surveys of bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) use of the reservoirs during wintering and breeding seasons were initiated in 1980 (Puget, 2002f). These surveys were expanded to include observation of waterfowl use of the reservoirs and osprey (Pandion haliaetus) nesting use of the reservoirs. Monthly surveys have been performed during December through September since 1980. Puget has installed several osprey nest structures to replace decayed snags and stumps in Lake Shannon. Other wildlife activities have included developing an osprey-safe screening material for excluding herons from the trout rearing ponds. Management measures for the protection of an existing bald eagle nest on National Forest System lands at Baker Lake have been implemented, including road closure, signing of the sensitive wildlife site, and scheduling of project-related activities to occur outside of the nesting period. These measures were implemented in coordination with the Forest Service.

The Forest Service manages the land adjacent to streams, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands as Riparian Reserves, per the direction of the Northwest Forest Plan (Forest Service and BLM, 1994a). The allocation of Riparian Reserves is intended to provide adequate habitat protection for riparian species, provide travel and dispersal corridors for wildlife, and maintain water quality. State and private timberlands are managed under the Washington State Forest Practices Rules, which specify stream, wetland, and riparian zone protection. The Washington State Shoreline Management Act regulates development and other activities along wetlands that fall within or are contiguous with shorelines of the state.

Implementation of federal and state regulations and policies for management of wetlands, water quality, riparian areas, and shorelines of the state is expected to continue in the future, providing long-term protection for these habitats.

Other Non-Forested HabitatsNon-forested habitats in the project area (excluding shrub and emergent wetlands

and project facilities) include grass/forb habitats, bare soil, and cliffs/talus/rock outcrops (table 3-17). Grass/forb habitats in the project area total about 351 acres and are comprised predominantly of emergent wetlands within the reservoir drawdown zones. These wetlands are dominated by sedges, rushes, reed canarygrass, and spearwort buttercup (refer to the Wetlands and Open Water Habitats section above). Bare soil (one acre) in the project area likely represents a recently disturbed site.

3-159

Three acres of cliffs and one acre of unvegetated upland were mapped in the Pro project area. Because of their small size and steep slopes, cliffs, rock outcrops, and small talus fields in the project area were likely underrepresented by the vegetation mapping (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004). Field observations of these WDFW priority habitat sites were recorded (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004) and totaled 14 cliff areas, 15 talus sites, and 2 talus sites with rock outcrops. Rock faces, cliffs, and talus slopes may provide habitat for wildlife species, such as the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus).

In the Baker River basin, grass/forb/sparsely vegetated cover types total over 26,000 acres, the majority of which are located in high elevation meadows and slopes (table 3-18). Rock/talus/bare soil totals 19,328 acres, primarily at high elevation in the Baker Lake subbasin. The mapping category “water” includes snowfields and glaciers, as well as reservoirs and major lakes, totaling 21,125 acres in the watershed.

Puget does not specifically manage the non-forested habitats described above. No federal management designation is given to these habitat types. The WDFW provides management recommendations for Priority Species and Habitats, including caves, cliffs, and talus. Within the Baker River basin, most of these habitats are located within LSRs or other management designations with high levels of protection from human activity other than recreation.

Project FacilitiesThe Lower Baker Development includes the Lower Baker dam, powerhouse, and

associated facilities at the southern end of the Lake Shannon reservoir, all located within the Town of Concrete city limits.

The Upper Baker Development includes the Upper Baker dam and powerhouse, West Pass and pumping pond dikes, downstream fish passage facilities, and other associated facilities. Sockeye Spawning Beaches 2 and 3 are located at the head of the lake, west of the Baker River. Sockeye Spawning Beach 4 is located at the northern end of Lake Shannon on the western shore.

Additional office facilities for the Baker River Project are located within the Town of Concrete.

Plant Species and Habitats of Special ConcernSpecial Status Plant Species and Habitats—This section describes the

documented occurrences of special status plant species in the vicinity of the Baker River Project. Special status plant species include Washington State threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (WNHP, 2004a) and Forest Service sensitive species (Forest Service, 2004a). WDFW priority habitats are also noted. Species protected under the

3-160

ESA, as well as federal candidates for protection, are discussed in section 3.3.6, Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat. One federally listed (and state endangered) species, golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta), was recorded historically in Skagit County. No federally listed, proposed, or candidate plant species or species of concern are known to occur in the project area.

A wide range of habitats support rare plants in the Baker River basin, including emergent, shrub, and forested wetlands; mature and old-growth coniferous forest; deciduous forest; streambanks; talus slopes; and alpine meadows. Timber harvest, road building, and hydroelectric development have cumulatively affected forest and wetland habitats at low to mid-elevations in the basin. The Forest Service estimates that potential suitable habitat for 13 Region 6 sensitive plant species was affected by inundation of the Baker Lake reservoir (Forest Service, 2003a), although no direct evidence exists of the presence of the plants in the project area prior to inundation.

Surveys for rare plants were conducted in June through September 2002 at Project-related dispersed recreational sites and in wetlands that are hydrologically influenced by the project reservoirs (Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003a). Supplemental rare plant surveys were conducted during the summers of 2003 and 2004 (Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003b; Hamer Environmental, 2004). Other sources of information include Forest Service rare plant surveys and Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) records. Special status species occurrences are summarized in table 3-21 and are discussed below. The habitat requirements for many of these species are largely unknown, and potential habitat may occur within the project area. One state threatened plant species has been recorded in the project vicinity. Canyon bog-orchid (Platanthera sparsiflora) has been documented at a single site near the mouth of Noisy Creek. This orchid ranges from extreme southwestern Oregon to Baja and is considered at the northern edge of its range in northern Washington (Hitchcock et al., 1969; Forest Service, 2002a). Canyon bog-orchid is designated sensitive by the Forest Service.

Six species designated as state sensitive have been documented in the project vicinity. These include bristly sedge (Carex comosa), yellow sedge (Carex flava), long-styled sedge (Carex stylosa), northern rice root (Fritillaria camschatcensis), Canadian St. Johnswort (Hypericum majus), and ground pine (Lycopodium dendroideum). The Baker River Watershed Analysis (Forest Service, 2002a) indicates that the identification of northern rice root is uncertain. The above-listed species are also designated as sensitive by the Forest Service Region 6 (Forest Service, 2004a).

Bristly sedge has been reported from a single location just outside the Baker River basin near Grandy Lake (approximately 2 miles from the project).

Yellow sedge was observed at the north end of Baker Lake near the full pool boundary. Surveys during 2003 (Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003b) documented

3-161

several hundred plants growing within reed a canarygrass meadow, a red alder forested wetland, and along a streambank.

Long-styled sedge has been recorded from one site on the Sulphur Creek lava flow (approximately 5 miles from the project). It is a wetland species found in marshes, bogs, and wet meadows and along shorelines at low to upper elevations (Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994).

Northern rice-root was tentatively identified from an area in the upper Sulphur Creek drainage (WNHP, 2004b), approximately 8 miles from the project. This species inhabits moist areas, including open meadows and streambanks (Pojar and McKinnon, 1994).

Canadian St. Johnswort was reported by the Forest Service at one site near Shannon Creek (Forest Service, 2002a; WNHP, 2004b) near the project boundary. This species inhabits wet sites and is likely near the southern edge of its range in the project vicinity (Hitchcock et al., 1969).

3-162

Table 3-21. Special status plant species in the Baker River basin.

Common Name Scientific NameFederal Status

StateStatus

HabitatRequirements

Occurrence inBaker River Basin

Vascular Plants

Bristly sedge Carex comosa Forest Service Sensitive

State Sensitive

Marshes, lakeshores, wet meadowsa

1 site just outside of basin, near Grandy Lakeb

Yellow sedge Carex flava Forest Service Sensitive

State Sensitive

Wet, usually sandy meadows, sometimes on calcareous soils, low to mid elevationsc

1 site: North end of Baker Lake, northeast shored,e

Long-styled sedge

Carex stylosa Forest Service Sensitive

State Sensitive

Bogs, fens, marshes, wet meadows, streambanks, shorelines, low to high elevations, coastsf

1 site: Sulphur Creek lava flowe

Northern rice root

Fritillaria camschatcensis

Forest Service Sensitive

State Sensitive

Moist open places, meadows, streambanks, shorelines and saltmarsh edges, sea level to subalpinef

1 site: Sulphur Creek lava flowb,e; ID uncertaing

Boreal bedstraw Galium kamtschaticum


-- Moist coniferous forest (especially alluvial), streambanks, grassy or mossy talus slopes, low to middle elevationsf

Several sites: Marten Lake Road, upper Shannon Creek, Boulder Ridge, Jackman Creek drainageb,d

3-163


StateStatus

HabitatRequirements


Canadian St. Johnswort

Hypericum majus Forest Service Sensitive

State Sensitive

Moist open sitesa 1 siteb,g

Ground pine Lycopodium dendroideum


State Sensitive

Moist to fairly dry, deciduous and coniferous forests, thickets, openings and bog edges, low to middle elevationsf

Several sites: Morovitz Pond, Noisy Creek, Sulphur Creek lava flow, Shadow of Sentinels Trailb,e,g,h

Canyon bog-orchid

Platanthera sparsiflora


State Threatened

Wet, mostly boggy areas, extreme SW Oregon to Bajaa

1 site: Noisy Creekb,e,g,h

Fungi, Lichens, Liverworts and Mosses

Lichen Dendriscocaulon intracatulum


-- 2 sites: Sulphur Creek lava flowe

Liverwort Herbertus aduncus


-- 1 site near Concreteg

Lichen Nephroma occultum


-- 1 site: Sulphur Creekg

3-164


StateStatus

HabitatRequirements


Lichen Pannaria saubinetii


-- 1 site: Lower Rocky Creeke

Lichen Pilophorus nigricaulis


-- 3 sites: near Artist's Point, Sulphur Creekg

Lichen Platismatia lacunosa


-- 1 site: Little Sandy Creek outletd,e

Lichen Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis


-- 2 sites: near Shadow of the Sentinels Trail, along Baker Lake Road near Boulder Creeke

Moss Rhizomnium nudum


-- 2 sites: Schreibers Meadow, Sulphur Creekg

Fungus Sarcosoma latahense


-- 1 site: Sandy Creekg

3-165


StateStatus

HabitatRequirements


Moss Schistostega pennata


-- Numerous sites: Schreibers Meadows, Boulder Ridge, Park Creek Campground, Panorama Point Campground, Little Sandy Creek outlet, West Pass dike, Swift Creek south of Baker Lake Road, Baker River at head of Baker Laked,e,g,i

Moss Tetraphis geniculata


-- 1 site: Sandy Creek outletd,e

Liverwort Tritomaria quinquedentata


-- 1 site: Swift Creekg

Lichen Usnea longissima Forest Service Sensitive

-- Multiple sitesj, k

Notes:Federal Status:Endangered–Species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range; protected under ESA.Threatened–Species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range; protected under ESA.Candidate–Species considered for possible addition to the list of endangered and threatened species.Species of concern–Species for which the FWS does not have sufficient information to support a listing proposal at this time.Forest Service sensitive– Species listed by the Forest Service Regional Forester (Forest Service, 2004a).State Status:Endangered–Any taxon in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated from Washington within the foreseeable future if factors contributing to its decline continue.

3-166


StateStatus

HabitatRequirements


Threatened–Any taxon likely to become endangered in Washington within the foreseeable future if factors contributing to its population decline or habitat degradation continue.Sensitive–Any taxon that is vulnerable or declining and could become endangered or threatened in the state without active management or removal of threats.a Hitchcock et al. (1969).b WNHP (2004b).c Hurd et al. (1998).d Hamer Environmental and R2 (2003a).e Forest Service (2003b).f Pojar and MacKinnon (1994).g Forest Service (2002a).h Puget (2002b).i Hamer Environmental and R2 (2003b). j Hamer Environmental (2004).k Forest Service, 2004a.

3-167

Ground pine inhabits moist to dry sites in North American boreal forests from Alaska to Newfoundland, extending into southern Washington (Flora of North America Editorial Committee, 1993). A large population of several thousand stems is present on the Sulphur Creek lava flow (Forest Service, 2002a; Puget, 2002b), approximately 5 miles from the project. It has also been observed at several other sites in the Baker River basin and may be present within the project area.

Boreal bedstraw (Galium kamtschaticum) is a Forest Service sensitive species formerly designated by the state as sensitive. It has been documented at several sites in the basin (WNHP, 2004b). This species inhabits moist streambanks, slopes, and coniferous forests from northern Washington north to Southeast Alaska. It is considered at the edge of its range at Snoqualmie Pass, Washington (Forest Service, 2002a). This species has not been recorded in the project area.

Three Forest Service sensitive non-vascular plant species were observed during surveys of dispersed campsites and wetland habitats in and near the project area. Schistostega pennata was observed at an informal recreational site near the outlet of Swift Creek. It was also observed at six wetland sites near the project reservoirs, and has been recorded by the Forest Service at many higher elevation sites in the basin. The species was observed in wetland-upland mosaic or forested wetlands varying from young mixed riparian forest to old-growth open conifer forest. S. pennata was found growing on mineral soil within the root mass of upturned trees.

Tetraphis geniculata was observed at one location during the 2002 surveys. The plant was growing on the moist vertical face of a rotting log within an old-growth forest wetland in the Little Sandy Creek wetland complex. Platismatia lacunosa was observed at the Little Sandy Creek wetland complex during project surveys in 2002. Three thallus bodies were located on downed red alder branches within a mid- to mature-aged red alder forested wetland. Additional plants may have been present in the canopy of the red alder trees.

The Forest Service sensitive lichen Usnea longissima was observed on privately owned lands during the 2004 survey of the proposed FSC launch site. The plants were growing on vine maple branches along the shrubby border between upland forest and lakeshore (Hamer Environmental, 2004).

Several WDFW priority habitats are present in the project area and the Baker River basin: old-growth/mature forest, riparian habitat, wetlands and fresh deepwater habitats, cliffs and talus, and snag/log habitat (table 3-22). The occurrence and distribution of these habitats are discussed in section 3.3.5.1, Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats.

3-168

Future management of federal and private lands is expected to continue providing protection for special status species and habitats per current regulations and policy.

Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive, Non-Native Plant Species—Washington Weed Law (Chapter 17.10 RCW) requires that noxious weeds be controlled to limit adverse economic effects on agricultural, natural, and human resources of the state. Noxious weeds are plants that, when established, are highly destructive, competitive, or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices. The State Noxious Weed Control Board updates its list of noxious weeds annually and categorizes the species into three classes. The State Board coordinates noxious weed control activities throughout the state via County Weed Districts and County Noxious Weed Control Boards. Management goals for noxious weed species may range from complete eradication to containment of the species within a currently infested area.

3-169

Table 3-22. Washington State WDFW priority habitats in the Baker River basin.a (Source: WDFW, 2003a; WDFW, 2004)

Priority Habitat WDFW Definition (abbreviated) Occurrence in Baker River BasinOld-growth and mature forests

At least two species, at least 20 trees/hectare >32 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh), plus large snags and downed logs. Mature forests: average dbh > 21 inches, typically 80 to 200 years old.

Present in project area and basin. Refer to Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats discussion in section 3.3.5.1, Terrestrial Resources.

Riparian Area adjacent to aquatic ecosystems containing elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.


Freshwater wetlands and fresh deep-water habitats

Wetlands per federal and state definition. Fresh deep-water habitats are permanently flooded lands below wetlands.


Snags and logs Snags: dbh ≥ 20 inches, height ≥ 6.5 feet; logs: dbh 12 inches at large end, length ≥ 20 feet.

Present in project area and basin as components of major habitat types. Refer to Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats discussion in section 3.3.5.1, Terrestrial Resources.

Cliffs/talus Cliffs >25 feet high, below 5,000 feet elevation; talus: homogeneous areas of rock rubble 0.5 to 6.5 feet in size.

Observed in project area; numerous sites present higher in the Baker River basin

a Priority habitats – Habitats or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species.

3-170

Class A species are those noxious weeds not native to the state that are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in the state. Eradication of all Class A species is required by state law. State Class A species are listed on all County Class A weed lists.

Class B species are those noxious weeds not native to the state that are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in a region of the state, and that pose a serious threat to the region. These species are treated differently in different regions of the state, based on their distribution. In regions where a Class B species is of limited distribution or unrecorded, the species is designated for control under state law (Class B designate species). Prevention of seed production is required for Class B designates. In regions where a Class B species is already widespread, control is an option of the local weed board.

Class C weeds may be widely established in Washington, or may be of species interest to the agricultural industry. Control of these species, and of Class B non-designates, is a local weed board option.

The State of Washington also maintains a monitor list of non-native species. Species may be included on the list for a variety of reasons including the need for information on distribution and biology, the need to verify occurrence, and the need to monitor reoccurrence. There is no regulatory or legal authority associated with the monitor weed list. The major federal authorities for management of non-native plants are the Plant Protection Act (Title IV of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000), the Amendment to the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, and Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species of 1999. The Forest Service implements measures to prevent the introduction and control the spread of noxious weeds on National Forest System lands. Forest Service management must comply with the objectives, standards, and guidelines of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (Forest Service, 1990), as well as federal law and direction. Regional Forest Service direction (Forest Service, 1988, 1989) is currently being updated and clarified in a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) about management of non-native and invasive plants, released in 2004 (Forest Service, 2004b).

A forest-wide EA was completed for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in 1999 (Forest Service, 1999). This EA addresses site-specific treatment for known weed infestations and includes a comprehensive appendix outlining best management practices for prevention of noxious weeds. The best management practices have been incorporated as Amendment #14 in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest LRMP (Forest Service, 1990). The 1999 EA recommended control measures for several Japanese knotweed sites in the vicinity of the Baker River Project.

Weed species known to occur in the Baker River Project vicinity are shown in table 3-23. This information is compiled from existing data provided by Skagit and

3-171

Whatcom counties, Forest Service, as incidental finds during Puget rare plant surveys conducted in 2002 (Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003a; Hamer Environmental, 2004), and as observed during weed surveys of the project area conducted during summer 2003 (Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003c).

3-172

Table 3-23. Noxious weeds and invasive, non-native plant species in the Baker River Project vicinity.

Common Name Scientific Name

State Statusa

Skagit County Statusb

Whatcom County Statusc

Forest Service Management

RecommendationsdOccurrence in Baker

River BasinClass A Weed Species Class A Class A Class A None known to occur

Class B Designates Class B Designate

Class B Designate

Class B Designate

None known to occur

Class B Weeds, Non-Designates

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius

Class B Class B,Priority Status

Class B,targeted for educational or biological efforts

Manage per county direction

Eight populations: Near Lake Shannon boat ramp; Lower Baker River, Upper Baker dam, Park Creeke

Wild carrot Daucus carota Class B Class B,Priority Status

Not Listed Manage per county direction

Four populations in Skagit Co: Near Lake Shannon boat ramp, Lower Baker Rivere

3-173


State Statusa





River BasinHerb Robert Geranium

robertianumClass B Class B,

Priority Status

Not Listed Manage per county direction

31 populations: South end Lake Shannon, Upper Baker dam, Depression Lake, several sites around Baker Lakee; Baker Lake Road near junction with Forest Road 12f; FSC and Lower Baker powerhouse sitesi

Smooth hawkweed

Hieracium laevigatum

Class B Class B, Priority Status

Class B, targeted for educational or biological efforts; priority species for 2004


Near Upper Baker dam

Hairy cat’s-ear Hypochaeris radicata


Not Listed Not Proposed for Treatment

Upper Baker dam, various sites around Baker Lake and Lake Shannonh; FSC sitei

3-174


State Statusa





River BasinOxeye daisy Leucanthemum

vulgareClass B Class B,

Priority Status

Not Listed Not Proposed for Treatment

Depression Lake, Upper Baker dam, various sites around Baker Lake; Lake Shannon at Thunder Creek, near Upper Baker dam, near boat ramph; FSC and Lower Baker powerhouse sitesi

Japanese knotweed

Polygonum cuspidatum


Class B,targeted for educational or biological efforts; priority species for 2004

Eradicate Junction of Baker Lake Road and Forest Road 1106, Little Sandy Creek, and near Sandy Creekf; Baker Lake Road at Grandy Creekg

Giant knotweed

Polygonum sachalinense (P. glandulifera)

Class B Class B Class B,targeted for educational or biological efforts; priority species for 2004

Eradicate Baker Lake Road near Shannon Creekf

3-175


State Statusa





River BasinTansy ragwort Senecio

jacobaeaClass B Class B,

Priority Status

Class B,targeted for educational or biological efforts; priority species for 2004


Lower Baker dam, Welker Creeke;Anderson Pointe,f

Class C Weed Species

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Class C Class C, selected for control

Class C,targeted for educational or biological efforts


Various sites along Baker Lake Roadf; numerous sites around Lake Shannon, north and south ends of Baker Lakee

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Class C Class C Class C, targeted for educational or biological efforts


Numerous sites around Lake Shannon, Upper Baker dam, and north end Baker Lakee; FSC sitei

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis

Class C Class C Not Listed Manage per county direction

Southeast shore Lake Shannon near boat ramph

3-176


State Statusa





River BasinEnglish ivy Hedera spp. Class C Class C Class C,

targeted for educational or biological efforts

Eradicate Five populations: South end of Lake Shannon, Lower Baker River, Concrete, and one site at Baker Lake former spawning beach.e

St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum

Class C Class C Class C,targeted for educational or biological efforts

Not Proposed for Treatment

Depression Lake, Upper Baker dam, numerous sites around Baker Lake; Lake Shannon at Thunder Creek, southwest shore, southeast shore near boat ramph; FSC and Lower Baker powerhouse sitesi

Reed canarygrass

Phalaris arundinacea

Class C Class C Class C,targeted for educational or biological efforts

Contain, and where feasible and consistent with other objectives, control or eradicate in six designated wetlands and Carex flava site.

Perimeter of Lake Shannon and Baker Lake and adjacent arease,f,i

3-177


State Statusa





River BasinCommon tansy Tanacetum

vulgareClass C Class C Class C,

targeted for educational or biological efforts


Southeast of Upper Baker dam on Baker Lake, Southeast shore Lake Shannon near boat ramph

Monitor Weed Species

Watercress Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum

Monitor Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Southeast of Upper Baker dam on Baker Lakeh

Other Invasive Non-Natives

Butterfly bush Buddleia sp. Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed

Unidentified Species Within Weed Genera

Hawkweed Hieracium sp. Baker Lake Road, near Koma Kulshan Guard Stationf

3-178


State Statusa





River Basina Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (2004). b Skagit County Noxious Weed Control Board (2004).c Whatcom County Noxious Weed Control Board (2004).d Enclosure II to a letter from Y.R. Iwamoto, Acting Forest Supervisor, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Mountlake

Terrace, WA, to C. Freeland, Relicensing Program Manager, Puget, Bellevue, WA, dated December 24, 2003.e Hamer Environmental and R2 (2003c).f Forest Service (2003c). g Forest Servoce (2002a).h Hamer Environmental and R2 (2003a).i Hamer Environmental (2004).

3-179

No Class A weed species are currently known to occur in the Baker River Project vicinity. At this time, no Class B weed species designated for control in either Skagit or Whatcom counties are known to occur. A hawkweed (Hieracium sp.) was recorded at one location in the project vicinity, but was not identified to species. This genus contains some species on the Class A and Class B designate lists. Surveys conducted in 2003 did not include identification of this genus to the species level.

The following Class B non-designate and Class C species were observed in the project. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) was reported at several sites along the Baker Lake Highway and along the shorelines of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) was observed at several sites at both reservoirs. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) was observed near the Lake Shannon boat ramp during 2002 rare plant surveys. Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) was reported from eight sites, primarily in disturbed habitats near the Upper and Lower Baker River Project facilities, but also from one site near Park Creek. Wild carrot (Daucus carota) was observed at four sites near the Lake Shannon boat ramp and along the Lower Baker River. Herb Robert (Geranium robertianum) was present at numerous sites around Baker Lake and project facilities and Upper and Lower Baker dams. English ivy (Hedera spp.) was observed at one site at the north end of Baker Lake and additional sites near Lower Baker dam and the Lower Baker River. Smooth hawkweed (Hieracium laevigatum) was noted from one site near Upper Baker dam. St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) was recorded at numerous sites around Baker Lake and Lake Shannon.

Hairy cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris radicata) was observed at Upper Baker dam and several sites around the reservoirs. Oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) was observed at numerous disturbed sites around both reservoirs. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) was reported to be present in a nearly continuous band along the shorelines of both reservoirs. It was also noted in several wetlands outside of the reservoirs. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) has been reported at four sites on the west side of the project reservoirs, including the Baker Lake Highway near Grandy Creek, Sandy and Little Sandy creeks, and Forest Road 1106 near the Upper Baker dam. Giant knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense) has been observed at one site along Baker Lake Road. Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) was observed along the Baker Lake Road at Forest Road 1118 (to Horseshoe Cove), near Welker Creek, and at Anderson Point on the east shore of Baker Lake. Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) was noted near Upper Baker dam and at the south end of Lake Shannon.

The Washington State monitor species watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum) was observed on Baker Lake southeast of the Upper Baker dam.

Forest Service direction for the management of non-native invasives is currently under development for Region 6. A draft EIS was released in August 2004 and is expected to be finalized in 2005 (Forest Service, 2004b). The most recent, site-specific,

3-180

management proposal prepared by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest is the 1999 Forest-Wide Assessment (Forest Service, 1999). A revised site-specific analysis currently is under development for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and is expected to be released during 2005.

Wildlife This section describes the occurrence and distribution of wildlife species in the Pro

project vicinity. The Baker River basin supports over 164 species of birds, 60 species of mammals, and numerous additional species of amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, and insects. Puget (2002b) provides lists of the wildlife species that are known or suspected to occur in the habitats of the project vicinity.

The wildlife information in this section is based in part on the results of visual surveys that Puget biologists conducted near the two project reservoirs. Puget conducted monthly wildlife surveys on Baker Lake and Lake Shannon in December through August from 1980 to the present. The surveys were focused primarily on waterfowl, osprey, and bald eagle, but included incidental sightings of other species as well. Data collected during the surveys include species, number, location, sex/age (where possible), and occasional notes on habitat use and behavior (Puget, 2002f; Puget, 2004c). This information has been supplemented by incidental observations of wildlife during other field activities, such as fisheries studies and project maintenance activities. Information about wildlife occurrence in the Baker River basin also was provided by Puget relicensing studies, Forest Service inventories, WDFW reports, and NPS inventories. Written species accounts were prepared for 38 wildlife analysis species selected by the Baker River Terrestrial Resources Working Group (TRWG). The species accounts include the life histories, habitat requirements, distribution, and local occurrence for each analysis species (Hamer Environmental, 2003) and provided much of the information described in this section.

Reptiles and Amphibians—Nineteen species of reptiles and amphibians are known or suspected to occur in the project vicinity (Puget, 2002b). Reptiles likely to inhabit the area include the western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea).

Surveys of amphibian habitats were conducted in 2001 and 2002 for the Baker River Project (Hamer Environmental, 2002a; Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003d). Field survey methods were designed to sample suitable habitats in and near the project area for five species of amphibians with special federal or state management status: Cascades frog (Rana cascadae), Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora), tailed frog (Ascaphus truei), and western toad (Bufo boreas). A total of 11 species of amphibians were documented: Pacific giant salamander

3-181

(Dicamptodon tenebrosus), northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile), long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum), northern rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa), western red-backed salamander (Plethodon vehiculum), tailed frog, western toad, Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla), northern red-legged frog, Cascades frog, and the non-native bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). The most frequently observed adult amphibians were western toad and northwestern salamander. The Cascades frog was the most numerous juvenile stage observed (9,487 larvae/tadpoles). The bullfrog, which feeds on native amphibians, was observed at only one site, Vogler Lake (over 1 mile from the project area). Oregon spotted frog, a candidate for federal listing, is discussed in detail in section 3.3.6, Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat.

Mollusks—Surveys for mollusks were conducted within 100 feet of the high water mark on Baker Lake during the fall of 2001 and the spring of 2002 (Hamer Environmental, 2002b). The methods followed the Survey Protocol for Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan, Version 2.0, dated October 29, 1997. During the 73 survey visits, which covered approximately 270 acres, five species of mollusk were confirmed. These included the banana slug (Ariolimax columbianus), robust lancetooth (Haplotrema vancouverensis), Pacific sideband (Monadenia fidelis), Northwest hesperian (Vespericola columbianus), and beaded lancetooth (Anacotrema sportella). Two slug species were tentatively identified: evening field slug (Deroceras hesperium) and warty jumping slug (Hemphillia glandulosa). The Forest Service currently designates these two species as sensitive (Forest Service, 2004a).

Birds—Over 164 species of birds are known or are potentially present in the Baker River Project Watershed (Puget, 2002b). The species composition includes waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, game birds, raptors, songbirds, and other birds.

The project reservoirs provide habitat for many species of waterfowl. Common species known to breed in the project area include Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynhcos), and common merganser (Mergus merganser). Common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), American wigeon (Anas americana), green-winged teal (Anas crecca), and ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris) are frequently observed during the winter and spring. The trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) is also a regular winter visitor, using Lake Shannon and Baker Lake during November through February.

Shorebirds and waterbirds observed on the project reservoirs include American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), and ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis). The great blue heron (Ardea herodias) is observed year-round in small numbers. Western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis) and double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) are present primarily in the fall and winter months. Common loons (Gavia immer) have been observed in all seasons, but are not known to nest in the

3-182

Project area. Marbled murrelets have been observed flying and are suspected to nest within the basin. Information on the federally threatened marbled murrelet is presented in section 3.3.6, Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat.

The primary species of game bird in the project vicinity is the ruffed grouse, which is found in mixed deciduous/coniferous forest and along secondary roads in forested habitats. White-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucurus) are present at high elevations in the basin and band-tailed pigeons (Columba fasciata) are found in mature forested areas.

Two raptor species, bald eagle and osprey, are closely associated with the project reservoirs and use several breeding territories along the reservoirs every summer. Bald eagles also are present during the winter in the project area. Golden eagles occasionally use a single nesting territory about 2 miles west of Baker Lake, although they have not been observed in the basin since 1995. Several raptor species use the forests and other upland habitats in the Baker River basin. Northern spotted owl and northern goshawk have been documented in mature and old-growth forests in the upper portion of the Baker River basin. Barred owl (Strix varia), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and western screech owl (Otus kennicottii) use forest stands of mixed species composition and age. Other species, such as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and the short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), frequent open habitats, meadows and recent clear cuts. The Baker River basin is at the extreme southern edge of the range of the great gray owl (Strix nebulosa), which is an occasional visitor during the winter. Peregrine falcon is an uncommon visitor to the basin and is not known to nest in the project vicinity. Refer to section 3.3.6, Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat, for information on bald eagle and northern spotted owl.

At least 87 species of songbird and other types of birds are known or suspected to use the project vicinity during breeding, wintering, or migration. Species strongly associated with conifer stands include pileated woodpecker, red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), and brown creeper (Certhia americana). Open shrub habitats, clear cuts, and meadows provide habitat for birds that forage on the ground, including song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) and American robin (Turdus migratorius). Aerial insect feeders, such as tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor), violet-green swallows (Tachycineta thalassina), and northern rough-winged swallows (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), frequent open habitats over land and water. Riparian habitats supporting deciduous trees and shrubs provide habitat suitable for red-eyed vireo, yellow warbler, willow flycatcher, and Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus).

3-183

Mammals—Large mammals in the Baker River Project vicinity include black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), elk (Cervus elaphus), black bear (Euarctos americanus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), and mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus). Both grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and gray wolves (Canis lupus) have been observed in the Baker River basin. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) are present east of the Cascade crest, but are not known to occur in the Baker River basin. Wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) have been documented in the region and may be occasional visitors to the Baker River basin. Refer to section 3.3.6, Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat, for information on grizzly bear, gray wolf, and Canada lynx.

Furbearer species frequently observed in the project vicinity include river otter (Enhydra lutra), beaver (Castor canadensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), American marten, mink (Mustela vison), and coyote (Canis latrans). Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) have been observed on occasion in the Lower Baker River (letter from P.A. Sleeger, FWS, Portland, OR, to C. Freeland, Puget, Relicensing Program Manager, Bellevue, WA, dated January 20, 2004).

Common small mammals in the project vicinity are Townsend chipmunk (Eutamias townsendi), Trowbridge shrew (Sorex trowbridgei), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasi), and northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus). One documented sighting of a Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) was recorded in the basin (Perkins, 1988); other bats that may inhabit the vicinity include big brown bat, little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis).

Special Status Wildlife SpeciesSpecial status wildlife species known or potentially occurring in the project

vicinity are listed in table 3-24. The list includes federal species of concern, Forest Service Region 6 sensitive species (Forest Service, 2004a), Forest Service management indicator species (MIS), WDFW priority species, and Washington State threatened, endangered, candidate, monitor, and sensitive species.

Wildlife species protected under the ESA, including federally listed and proposed species, are discussed in section 3.3.6, Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat. Candidates for federal listing are also discussed in section 3.3.6.

3-184

Table 3-24. Special status wildlife species known or potentially occurring in the Baker River basin.

Common Name Scientific NameFederal Status State Status

Occurrence in Baker River Basin

BirdsBlack-backed woodpecker

Picoides arcticus Forest Service MIS

Candidate Potential breeding species; not documented

Common loon Gavia immer Forest Service sensitive

Sensitive Documented; migrant, non-breedinga,b,c

Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis

Forest Service sensitive

-- Documented; migranta

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

-- Candidate Documented; breeding territory west of Baker Lakea

Great blue heron

Ardea herodias -- Monitor Documented; breeding speciesa,b

Great gray owl Strix nebulosa -- Monitor Documented occasional winter visitorc

Greater yellowlegs

Tringa melanoleuca

Forest Service sensitive

-- Potential migrant or winter visitor

Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus

Species of concern

Priority Documented; potential breeding speciesa

Merlin Falco columbaris

-- Candidate Potential winter visitor; not documented

Northern goshawk

Accipiter gentilis Species of concern

Candidate Documented; within 1 mile of project area (March)a,c,d

Olive-sided flycatcher

Contopus cooperi

Species of concern

-- Potential breeding species

3-185



Osprey Pandion haliaetus

-- Monitor Documented; breeding territories at Baker Lake and Lake Shannona

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus

Species of concern; Forest Service sensitive

Sensitive Documented; migrantb

Pileated woodpecker

Dryocopus pileatus

Forest Service MIS

Candidate Documented; residenta

Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi -- Candidate Documented; breeding speciesa,c

Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

-- Candidate Documented; wintering, migranta

Wood duck Aiz sponsa -- Priority Documented; potential breeding speciesa

Mammals

American marten

Martes americana

Forest Service MIS

Priority Resident game species

Black-tailed deer

Odocoileus hemionus columbianus

Forest Service MIS


Elk Cervus elaphus Forest Service MIS


California wolverine

Gulo gulo luteus Species of concern; Forest Service sensitive

Candidate Potential resident; documented sightings at Acme, Sauk River, Cascade Passb

Long-eared myotis

Myotis evotis Species of concern

Monitor Potential resident

3-186



Long-legged myotis

Myotis volans Species of concern

Monitor Potential resident

Mountain goat Oreamnos americanus

Forest Service MIS

Priority Documented resident game speciesb

Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat

Coryhorhinus townsendii townsendii

Species of concern; Forest Service sensitive

Candidate Documented; single individual, Baker Lake basine

Western gray squirrel

Sciurus griseus griseus

Species of concern

Threatened Not expected to occur in Baker River basin

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis

Species of concern

-- Potential resident

Amphibians

Cascades frog Rana cascadae Species of concern

Monitor Documented; residentf

Northern red-legged frog

Rana aurora Species of concern

-- Documented; residentf

Tailed frog Ascaphus truei Species of concern

Monitor Documented; residentf

Western toad Bufo boreas Species of concern

Candidate Documented; residentf

Insects

Beller’s ground beetle

Agonum belleri Species of concern

Candidate Potential resident

Hatch’s click beetle

Eanus hatchii Species of concern

Candidate Potential resident

Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly

Mitoura johnsonii

-- Candidate Potential resident

3-187



Mollusks

Evening field slug

Deroceras hesperium


-- Unverified observationg

Warty jumping slug

Hemphillia glandulosa


-- Unverified observationg

Notes:Federal Status:Species of concern–Species for which the FWS does not have sufficient information to supporta listing proposal at this time.Forest Service sensitive–Species listed by the Regional Forester.Forest Service MIS–Species that are believed to be representative of a larger group of wildlife species with similar habitat needs.State Status: Endangered–Any taxon in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated from Washington within the foreseeable future if factors contributing to its decline continue.Threatened–Any taxon likely to become endangered in Washington within the foreseeable future if factors contributing to its population decline or habitat degradation continue.Sensitive–Any taxon that is vulnerable or declining and could become endangered or threatenedin the state without active management or removal of threats.Candidate (animals)–Taxa under review for listing.Monitor (animals)–Taxa requiring management, survey, or data emphasis.Priority (animals)–Fish and wildlife species requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation.a Puget (2002f).b Forest Service (2002a).c WDFW (2004).d FWS (2004a).e Perkins (1988).f Hamer Environmental and R2 (2003d).g Hamer Environmental (2002b).

BirdsBlack-backed Woodpecker—The black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus)

is an uncommon species of mountainous coniferous forests and open coniferous forests of northern North America. Its preferred habitat is among spruce, fir, lodgepole pine, and/or

3-188

ponderosa pine, with adequate snags. Black-backed woodpecker may nest at higher elevations of the Baker Lake basin and may be an occasional visitor to the project area during irruptive events. Black-backed woodpecker is a Washington State candidate species and a Forest Service MIS.

Common Loon—Common loon is a Washington State sensitive species and a Forest Service Regional Forester’s sensitive species. Breeding pairs are known from a limited number of locations in Washington. Habitat loss and susceptibility to disturbance and predation are the primary factors thought to be responsible for low numbers of breeding pairs. Adult loons are commonly observed on the project reservoirs during the winter, spring, and summer. However, nesting loons have never been observed in the project area (Hamer Environmental, 2003; Puget, 2002f).

Eared Grebe—Eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) is a Forest Service sensitive species that has been documented on the project reservoirs on several occasions during the winter and spring. In Washington, colonies of breeding eared grebes are found primarily in freshwater lakes in the eastern portion of the state (Wahl and Paulson, 1981).

Golden Eagle—Golden eagles are opportunistic predators and scavengers of open habitats and forested mountain terrain. In Washington, golden eagle is a state candidate species. A golden eagle breeding territory is located about a mile west of Baker Lake. The territory has been used intermittently over the period of survey by Puget (1980–2002); the last verified use was in 1995, with one chick observed in the nest during July (Puget, 2002f). The site has been inactive over the past 7 years and is possibly abandoned. The WDFW database reports the existence of two other nest sites in or near the basin: in the upper Thunder Creek and Jackman Creek drainages.

Great Blue Heron—Great blue heron is a WDFW monitor species. Small numbers of herons are regularly observed along the shorelines of the project reservoirs (Puget, 2002f). No breeding colonies had been documented in the Baker River basin prior to 2003 per the WDFW priority and habitats species database (WDFW, 2003b). However, during a 2003 Puget aerial survey of raptor nests, a heronry was observed within the project area to the west of the Upper Baker Development; this heronry was active again in 2004, with eight chicks observed.

Great Gray Owl—Great gray owl is a WDFW monitor species. This large owl inhabits northern boreal forests, occasionally ranging into northern Washington and Idaho during the winter. One observation of a great gray owl has been recorded south of the Baker River basin (WDFW, 2004); the owl was observed in the Jackman Creek drainage.

Greater Yellowlegs—Greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) is a large species of sandpiper that nests in northern muskegs and winters in coastal wetlands. The Forest

3-189

Service considers the species to be sensitive. No observations of greater yellowlegs have been recorded in the WDFW database for the Baker River basin (WDFW, 2004).

Harlequin Duck—Harlequin duck is a FWS species of concern and a WDFW priority species. During the breeding season, April to June, harlequin ducks use forested and dense shrub cover along rapidly flowing streams. Harlequin ducks winter primarily along the Strait of Georgia. Harlequin ducks have been observed on the project reservoirs (Puget, 2002f). The Baker River upstream of the project may provide suitable breeding habitat for this species.

Merlin—The merlin (Falco columbarius) is a Washington State candidate species. These falcons inhabit open habitats, including open woodlands and savannah. Merlin may occasionally pass through the Baker River basin during migration.

Northern Goshawk—The northern goshawk is a federal species of concern and a state candidate species. Goshawks inhabit mature to old-growth coniferous and mixed forests and open woodlands. A few sightings of adult and young goshawks have been reported in the Baker River basin (WDFW, 2004), including one observation on March 23, 1993, near the Baker Lake reservoir (Puget, 2002f).

Olive-sided Flycatcher—The olive-sided flycatcher is a FWS species of concern. These insectivorous birds typically nest along forest edges and openings, in areas where there are tall trees and snags for singing and foraging perches (Hamer Environmental, 2003). Coniferous trees are often used for nesting, with nests located high in the tree and away from the trunk. The reasons for recent decline in the species population are unknown, but are suspected to be related to habitat loss in wintering areas. This species may use the reservoir edges or other openings in the project vicinity.

Osprey—Osprey is a Washington State monitor species. These migratory raptors nest adjacent to rivers, lakes, and saltwater in western Washington, feeding almost exclusively on fish. The project reservoirs provide high-quality habitat for breeding osprey, typically supporting five or more pairs each year on each reservoir. Puget has conducted monthly surveys of the reservoirs between December and August since 1980 and has recorded nest occupancy and number of chicks each breeding season.

Baker Lake has approximately 10 natural osprey nesting territories. Each territory is not used every year, and many of the territories have multiple alternate nest sites. Between 1994 and 2004, an average of eight osprey nests have been occupied at Baker Lake during the July survey (Puget, 2002f; Puget, 2004c).

During the 1980s, Lake Shannon had several natural nest sites located on large snags created by the inundation of the reservoir. Over time, the snags deteriorated and ospreys were forced to nest on short snags and stumps vulnerable both to harassment by

3-190

boaters and to flooding by the fluctuating reservoir. Few natural snags were available adjacent to Lake Shannon due to timber management; therefore, Puget replaced deteriorated nest snags with pole-mounted artificial nest structures. Currently, three natural sites and nine artificial nesting structures are present in Lake Shannon. An average of seven osprey nests have been occupied at Lake Shannon during July of the last 11 years (Puget, 2002f; Puget, 2004c).

Production at the osprey nests is difficult to assess because of inaccuracies in chick counts performed from below the nests during boat surveys and the fact that fledgling osprey are nearly indistinguishable from adults. An average of seven and eight chicks were observed during July in the Baker Lake and Lake Shannon nests, respectively, over the last 11 years (Puget, 2002f; Puget, 2004c). Given that osprey are long-lived, production at the project area nests is believed to exceed that necessary to sustain the local population.

Peregrine Falcon—Formerly classified as federally endangered, the American peregrine falcon was delisted in August 1999. The species was greatly affected by DDT and other organochlorine pesticides that accumulated in their prey; however, populations have rebounded in the past 20 years and the species is now well-distributed in Washington State (Hayes and Buchanan, 2002). The WDFW downlisted peregrine falcon from state endangered to state sensitive in 2002 (WDFW, 2002b). No peregrine falcon nest sites are known from the Baker River Project vicinity, and annual surveys of the project area during bald eagle and osprey nesting have not detected peregrine falcons. Use of the project vicinity is likely limited to occasional migratory falcons. One observation of a peregrine falcon was reported from the Baker River drainage in April 1985 (Forest Service, 2002a).

Pileated Woodpecker—Pileated woodpecker is a Washington State candidate species and a Forest Service MIS. These woodpeckers are closely associated with mature and old-growth forests, using large diameter snags for nesting and roosting (Hamer Environmental, 2003). The late- and old-successional forests in the Baker Lake and Baker River basin provide high-quality habitat for pileated woodpecker. Because of the extent of timber harvest activity near Lake Shannon, suitable habitat at this reservoir is restricted to occasional, typically small, stands of mature or old-growth forest.

Vaux’s Swift—This species is a candidate for listing in the state of Washington. It inhabits coniferous and mixed coniferous/deciduous forests, typically selecting large diameter, hollow trees or woodpecker holes as nesting and roost sites. It is also known to occasionally nest in chimneys. Foraging occurs above the forest canopy, in forest openings, and over water. Mature and old-growth coniferous and mixed forest stands in the project vicinity provide suitable habitat for Vaux’s swift. Vaux’s swifts have been observed during surveys of the project reservoirs (Puget, 2002f). An active Vaux’s swift nest site was reported in the Sandy Creek drainage in 1991 (WDFW, 2004).

3-191

Western Grebe—The western grebe (Aechmophoris occidentalis) is a candidate for listing in the State of Washington. This water bird has been observed occasionally at the project reservoirs, primarily during the fall, winter, and spring. Suitable nesting habitat for western grebe requires emergent wetland vegetation, such as tule or reeds, which are not present at the project reservoirs.

Wood Duck—Wood duck (Aix sponsa) is a WDFW priority species. Wood ducks have been observed at Lake Shannon (Puget, 2002f) and may breed in the Baker River basin.

MammalsAmerican Marten—American marten is a WDFW priority species and a Forest

Service MIS. Marten is a resident game species in the Baker River basin, and is closely associated with late successional and old-growth forests.

Black-tailed Deer—Black-tailed deer is an important game species in Washington State and is a Forest Service MIS. Game Management Unit (GMU) 418 Nooksack extends from the Skagit River north to the Canadian border and from west of the North Cascades National Park to Highway 9. Harvest data for GMU 418 indicate a total of 174 deer harvested in 2001 and 107 in 2002 (WDFW, 2001a, 2002c). The current population objective for GMU 418 and nearby GMUs 407, 410, 426, 437, and 450, is to maintain a post-hunt ratio of 15 bucks to 100 does, when possible (WDFW, 2001b). Black-tailed deer harvest in these GMUs totaled 1,193 animals and comprised 2.9 percent of the total statewide harvest for the 2001 season; harvest in these GMUs totaled 1,151 animals and 3.0 percent of total statewide harvest for the 2002 season.

The extensive forested habitats of the Baker River basin do not provide optimal deer habitat, and deer were not likely historically abundant. Openings created by natural disturbances and logging can temporarily increase the quality of forage habitat. Black-tailed deer are present in the Baker River basin and are most commonly observed in the lower elevation, managed timberlands surrounding Lake Shannon, where forage is more abundant.

Elk—Elk is an important game species, a WDFW priority species, and a Forest Service MIS. The North Cascade elk herd, also referred to as the Nooksack herd, is described in detail in a recent WDFW elk herd management plan (Davison, 2002). The Nooksack herd is the smallest of 10 herds in the State of Washington. It is considered to be a reintroduced population of Rocky Mountain elk (C. elaphus nelsoni) released in 1912 and 1948 and Roosevelt elk (C. elaphus rooseveltii) released in 1946. The range of the Nooksack herd includes portions of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, and King counties between the Skykomish River and the Canadian border and from the Cascade crest west

3-192

to Highway 9. The core area for this herd occupies about 492 square miles and extends from the western side of the Baker River watershed to just east of Highway 9 north of Highway 20.

The population in the Nooksack GMU decreased from an estimated 1,700 animals in 1984 to 300 animals in 2000. The population objective for the Nooksack GMU is 1,450 animals. In the North Cascades, mortality rates between 1993 and 2000 have been reduced by: (1) severely restricted hunting seasons (closed since 1993), (2) extensive road access restrictions, and (3) reduced hunter effort.

Suitable habitat for elk in the Baker River basin includes both mid- to high-elevation summer range and lower-elevation transitional and winter range. Farrow (1995) described the locations and seasonal use of these ranges in the Baker Lake vicinity using information collected from two radio-collared elk. Summer range for both radio-collared cows was located in the mid- to upper elevations of Sandy and Dillard creeks; use of the summer range extended from mid-May to late October. Transition range included low elevation habitat along the west side of Baker Lake, including the lower reaches of Boulder, Park, and Little Sandy creeks, and possibly including lower Rocky Creek and 1799 hill. Elk migrated from the transition areas to low elevation winter range along the Skagit River between September and December. During mild winters, transition range was used throughout much of the winter. Spring migration occurred between early April and early May, and the elk used lower Vogler Lake, Bear, Rocky, Sulphur, and lower Sandy creeks, and 1799 hill as transitional habitat. Farrow (1995) noted that pellet count data also indicated spring transition use of lower Boulder and Park creeks. Farrow concluded that transition range along the west side of Baker Lake may be used between early September and late May, depending on the severity of the winter.

An elk habitat mapping study (EDAW and University of Illinois, 2003) was conducted as part of project relicensing. The study provides site-specific information and modeling of elk habitat quality and uses existing radiotelemetry data to identify areas most often used by elk in the project vicinity. The study area was divided into three elk ranges based on elevation and radio-telemetry data. Summer range is located above 2,400 feet elevation, and is used primarily July through September (57 percent of study area). Spring/fall transition range is restricted to the mid-elevation habitat between Swift Creek to Rocky Creek (12 percent of study area). Winter/transitional range is the lowest elevation zone and extends from Swift Creek to Highway 20 (31 percent of study area).

Approximately 29 percent of the study area supports good quality elk forage; almost two-thirds of this is located in high elevation summer range areas. A total of 42 percent of the study area exhibits poor quality elk forage habitat, including substantial portions of the summer and winter/transitional ranges. Seventeen percent of the study area supports marginal forage habitat. The study also evaluated roads and recreation sites

3-193

that could contribute to human disturbance of elk, providing information that can be used in developing mitigation and enhancement measures such as road closures.

California Wolverine—Wolverine is a FWS species of concern, a Forest Service sensitive species, and a candidate for listing in Washington State. Suitable habitat for wolverine, open, high-elevation forests and alpine zones, is present in the upper reaches of the Baker River basin. No wolverine have been recorded in the basin; the nearest verified sighting was in the town of Acme in the late 1990s (Forest Service, 2002a).

Long-eared Myotis—The long-eared myotis is a federal species of concern and a Washington State monitor species. This species is strongly associated with forested habitats and forest edges, including Douglas fir, true fir, spruce, and subalpine forests. It also uses deciduous shrubs and forests of riparian zones. Suitable habitat for long-eared myotis may be present in the project vicinity. The Forest Service did not detect long-eared myotis during its bat survey of areas within the Mt. Baker Ranger District (Perkins, 1988).

Long-legged Myotis—The long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) is a federal species of concern and a state monitor species. This species is closely associated with coniferous forests and uses cliff crevices, caves, and abandoned buildings for roosting. Suitable habitat for long-legged myotis may be present in the project vicinity. The Forest Service did not detect the long-legged myotis during its 1988 bat survey of areas within the Mt. Baker Ranger District (Perkins, 1988).

Mountain Goat—Mountain goat is an important native game species in Washington, a WDFW priority species, and a Forest Service MIS. The Baker River basin provides suitable year-round habitat for the species. A population survey of the Mt. Baker hunting area in 1960 estimated a population size of 650 goats (Johnson, 1977). A 1995 aerial survey of the Mt. Baker area resulted in a population estimate of between 59 and 212 mountain goats (Forest Service, 2002a). As a result of this low population estimate, the Mt. Baker area was closed to sport hunting in 1995. The most recent aerial survey was performed in 2001 and resulted in a population estimate of 183 to 484 goats (Forest Service, 2002a).

Pacific Townsend’s Big-eared Bat—The Pacific subspecies of Townsend’s big-eared bat is a federal species of concern, a Forest Service sensitive species, and a state candidate for listing. The species is an insectivore that inhabits forested regions primarily west of the Cascade Mountains. Townsend’s big-eared bats are primarily cavity-dwellers, typically selecting roost sites in caves or abandoned mines; they also use human-made structures such as barns, attics, and bridges, as long as human disturbance is very low. They require different sites with specific microclimatic conditions for roosting, hibernation, and reproduction. Caves have reportedly been used as maternal roost sites and hibernacula; bridges have also been documented as maternal sites.

3-194

Suitable habitat for Townsend’s big-eared bat foraging is present in the project vicinity. The Forest Service conducted a bat survey of portions of the Mt. Baker Ranger District and detected a single Pacific Townsend’s big-eared bat (Perkins, 1988). Perkins speculated that the hibernacula may be located along Chuckanut Creek, west of the project vicinity. Limestone formations are present near the Lower Baker dam, and caves in these formations could potentially be suitable sites for big-eared bat hibernacula.

Western Gray Squirrel—The western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus griseus) is a federal species of concern and a state threatened species. The distribution of western gray squirrel in Washington includes the Puget Trough ecoregion from Pierce County southward, and scattered locations east of the Cascades from Okanogan County to Klickitat County.26 The species is closely associated with mature oak-pine and oak-fir forests, and is intolerant of urbanization and traffic. The WDFW Priority Species and Habitats database shows no records for western gray squirrel in the Baker River basin (WDFW, 2004).

Yuma Myotis—This bat species is closely associated with water and typically forages for insects close to the surface of open water bodies. It is associated with a wide variety of habitats, ranging from forest stands to dry, open shrub communities. Yuma myotis roosts in caves, mines, and human-made structures, such as sheds, barns, and bridges. They are susceptible to human disturbance, but may be locally abundant where suitable roosting habitat is present. The Forest Service did not detect the Yuma myotis during its bat survey of portions of the Mt. Baker Ranger District (Perkins, 1988).

AmphibiansCascades Frog—The Cascades frog is a federal species of concern and a state

monitor species. In Washington, the Cascades frog occurs at mid- to high elevations in the Cascades and the Olympic mountains (Leonard et al., 1993). The species is most commonly found in small pools in subalpine meadows and also inhabits sphagnum bogs, forested swamps, small lakes, ponds, and marshes near streams.

Amphibian surveys in the project area resulted in detections of Cascades frog adults or tadpoles at 29 sites (Hamer Environmental, 2002a; Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003d). All but three of the sites were permanent lakes or ponds, and the majority of detection sites were in or near forested habitats dominated by red alder.

26 The Puget Trough ecoregion embraces the lowlands and marine waters lying between the Cascades on the east and the coastal ranges on the west, from sea level to an elevation of about 1,000 feet, as well as the Strait of Juan de Fuca coastal plain west to the Twin Rivers mouth and the western end of the Columbia Gorge upriver of southwestern British Columbia and south through Oregon’s Willamette Valley.

3-195

Northern Red-legged Frog—The northern red-legged frog is a federal species of concern that occurs at low to moderately high elevations in western Washington. It typically uses small ponds, pools, and swamps within forest stands. During the breeding season, the species is most abundant in ponds and pools that are seasonally, rather than permanently, flooded. Red-legged frogs breed in winter, attaching the egg masses weakly to emergent vegetation or underwater branches. Newly metamorphosed frogs, as well as mature adults, are more terrestrial than aquatic, inhabiting shrub and forested areas near permanent water.

Amphibian habitats were surveyed in the Baker River Project area in 2001 and 2002 (Hamer Environmental, 2002a; Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003d). Northern red-legged frogs were among the most frequently observed species in the project area during the surveys and were recorded at eight aquatic sites including both stream and reservoir areas. All sites had a silt/mud substrate, and emergent vegetation, primarily reed canarygrass, covered over 50 percent of the sites’ margins.

Tailed Frog—The tailed frog is a federal species of concern and a state monitor species that occurs in cold, rocky streams from British Columbia to northern California. Tailed frogs inhabit streams from low to high elevation, spending several years as tadpoles. Adults are nocturnal and infrequently seen, emerging at night to feed on insects near the stream and in the adjacent forest. Adults can be found in summer, and tadpoles year-round, by turning over rocks in the stream.

Project area amphibian surveys (Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003d) detected the presence of tailed frogs at three sites, each of which was a natural, permanent stream with a silt/gravel, cobble and boulder/bedrock substrate. These sites had no emergent vegetation and were all located within the forest.

Western Toad—The western toad is a federal species of concern and a Washington State candidate for listing. In Washington, western toad is found in all but the driest portions of the Columbia River basin (Leonard et al., 1993). The species has become uncommon in western Washington lowlands and in the mountain meadows of the North Cascades, possibly due to habitat alteration. Western toads are pond breeders and use marshes and small lakes from low to high elevations. They also travel cross-country for long distances, crawling and climbing through dry forests and thickets. Outside of the breeding season, western toads are nocturnal, emerging at night from refuges, including soil excavations, burrows of other animals, and hollows beneath woody material. Western toad tadpoles are gregarious, forming large schools. Newly metamorphosed toadlets are often observed in large numbers on forest floors or crossing roads.

Amphibian surveys performed in the project area detected western toad at 27 different sites, primarily along the shores of Baker Lake (Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003d). No egg masses were detected during the surveys. Baker River Project personnel

3-196

also reported that large congregations of toadlets were often seen along the shoreline of Baker Lake during the late summer.

InsectsBeller’s Ground Beetle—Beller’s ground beetle (Agonum belleri) is a federal

species of concern and a state candidate for listing. It is a flightless beetle found in sphagnum bogs from southwestern British Columbia to northern Oregon. Beller’s ground beetle has been reported in western Washington at sites from eastern Puget Sound to the Cascades. It typically is found in bogs among floating mats of sphagnum. Little is known about the population status of the species. One study in King County, Washington, estimated the population density of Beller’s ground beetle at 15 adults per square meter (Larson et al., 1995).

One sphagnum bog wetland has been recorded in the project area along the western shore of Baker Lake (wetland number WB-30; Hamer Environmental et al., 2004). This wetland may provide suitable habitat for Beller’s ground beetle.

Hatch’s Click Beetle—Hatch’s click beetle (Eanus hatchii) is a federal species of concern and a state candidate species. The species inhabits lowland sphagnum bogs of northwest Washington and is associated with low, floating mats dominated by sphagnum. Little is known about the population of the species, but it is believed to have been reduced through habitat loss and alteration (Larsen et al., 1995).

Sphagnum bog wetland number WB-30, located on the western shore of Baker Lake, may provide suitable habitat for Hatch’s click beetle.

Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly—Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly is a candidate for listing in the State of Washington. This is a rare species of butterfly known from southwestern British Columbia to central California, almost exclusively west of the Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountains (Hamer Environmental, 2003). Its larvae feed on dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.); consequently, the butterfly is found only in or near Douglas fir and western hemlock stands that are infected with mistletoe. Adult butterflies feed on nectar of mistletoe and understory plants. Forest industry prescriptions to eradicate mistletoe and the spraying of Bacillus thuringiensi to eliminate introduced gypsy moth have affected Johnson’s hairstreak.

Hemlock dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense) occurs commonly in western hemlock in the Baker River watershed (Forest Service, 2002a). Mountain hemlock dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense spp. mertensiana) was formerly designated as a survey and manage species under the Northwest Forest Plan and may occur in the basin. Suitable habitat for Johnson’s hairstreak likely occurs throughout the watershed within mature and old-growth conifer stands exhibiting mistletoe infections.

3-197

MollusksEvening Field Slug—The evening field slug is a Forest Service sensitive species

and a state monitor species. In Washington, the evening field slug inhabits low- to mid-elevation sites from the Cascades to the Pacific Ocean. The species is associated with litter, debris, rock crevices, and various types of low vegetation.

Warty Jumping Slug—The warty jumping slug is a Forest Service sensitive species and a state monitor species. The range of the warty jumping slug in Washington extends from the western Cascades to the Pacific coast. The species prefers moist coniferous forests and is associated with conifer logs and heavy ground cover of low vegetation, litter, and debris.

Surveys for mollusks were conducted over 73 survey visits covering approximately 270 acres of potential habitat in the project area (Hamer Environmental, 2002b). One sighting of a mollusk suspected to be a warty jumping slug was recorded; the species identification was not verified.

3.3.5.2 Environmental EffectsReservoir Level ManagementCurrent Operations and the Proposed Action are described in section 2.0, Proposed

Action and Alternatives. Section 3.3.2.2, Water Quantity, Environmental Effects, provides a detailed discussion of the effects of Current Operations and the Proposed Action on reservoir elevations and management.

Current Operations of the Baker River Project result in fluctuation of the water surface levels in both project reservoirs. Reservoir fluctuations have the potential to affect a number of terrestrial resources, including amphibian breeding habitat and in-reservoir snags which may support cavity-nesting birds or osprey nests. Water-level fluctuations may also influence the ability of certain species to breed in the project area. Common loons are frequently observed on the project reservoirs but may be precluded from nesting in part due to reservoir fluctuations. Changing water levels and the occurrence of weedy plant species along portions of the reservoir shorelines may influence the plant communities surrounding the reservoirs. Continued operation of the reservoirs would result in continued potential for erosion along the reservoir shorelines and within the reservoirs.

The Proposed Action includes two measures that would influence reservoir water levels: Proposed Article 106, Flow Implementation, and Proposed Article 401, Water Quality. The proposed flow implementation article is based on consideration of multiple factors including aquatic, recreation, terrestrial, and cultural resource needs; human

3-198

health and safety; flood control; and project economics. Proposed Article 106 specifies operation parameters for the interim period prior to construction of two new 750-cfs turbine-generating units at Lower Baker, and presents the proposed target maximum and minimum reservoir levels to be achieved after installation of the new generating units. Proposed Article 106 also describes the components of a FIP, including monitoring and reporting of flows and ramping rates and allowable temporary modifications to flows and ramping rates for natural events and emergencies. Proposed Article 401 restricts drafting the reservoirs below certain elevations to limit the likelihood of resuspending fine sediments.

Effects Analysis

We base our analysis of reservoir water levels on modeling of project operations for 5 representative years using the HYDROPS model (refer to section 3.3.2.2, Water Quantity, Environmental Effects). Operation of the project under the Proposed Action is expected to result in a more consistent overall rate of fall drawdown at Baker Lake compared to Current Operations. The fall drawdown would occur gradually during the September to December period, rather than almost entirely during the month of September as currently occurs. Water levels would generally be within three feet of full pool under both the Proposed Action and Current Operations during June through August. At Lake Shannon, the Proposed Action would result in October through February water levels typically higher than under Current Operations. Water levels during April and May would be more variable under the Proposed Action than under Current Operations, but would not be expected to have a different or more adverse effect.

The Proposed Action would not change the general pattern of seasonal reservoir levels, which historically has consisted of average low water surface elevations during the winter and average high water surface elevations during the late spring and summer. Wetlands along the reservoir shoreline dependent upon the reservoirs for part or all of their hydrology, would experience the same range of variation as under Current Operations. Implementation of the Proposed Action is not expected to change the characteristics of plant communities surrounding the reservoirs relative to the current condition.

Relative to Current Operations, the Proposed Action would result in gradual exposure of fluctuation zone habitats in Baker Lake from September to December, rather than almost entirely during the month of September. This change could alter the growth and distribution of reed canarygrass along project shorelines. Actual growth expansion of reed canarygrass during the fall is dependent upon a large number of variables, including slope, aspect, current vegetation conditions, wave action, annual variation in rainfall, insolation, and temperature. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not be expected to cause substantial change in the characteristics of within-reservoir plant

3-199

communities relative to current conditions. Some slight shifts in the distribution of reed canarygrass could occur.

Project Releases Project releases under Current Operations and the Proposed Action are described

in section 2.0, Proposed Action and Alternatives. The effects of the proposals are evaluated in section 3.3.2.2, Water Quantity, Environmental Effects.

The Lower Baker River extends 1.2 miles from the Lower Baker dam to its confluence with the Skagit River. Between the dam and the powerhouse (RM 0.9), the river is located in a narrow, bedrock-controlled canyon. Between the powerhouse and the barrier dam (RM 0.6), the river is narrow and confined by steep sideslopes. From the barrier dam to the Skagit River, the Baker River is dominated by hardened streambanks and a confined channel.

Flow in the dam to powerhouse reach is limited to about 80 cfs which is provided to the Lower Baker River for operation of the adult fish trap-and-haul facility. Of this total, approximately 55 cfs consists of leakage through the dam and 25 cfs is routed through a bypass valve. During spill events, greater amounts of water enter the lower river. Daily load-following operations can cause flows in the Lower Baker River downstream of the powerhouse to fluctuate up to 4,200 cfs within several hours.

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would implement a new flow regime (Proposed Article 106) once the two new 750-cfs turbine-generating units are installed at the Lower Baker Development. This measure would provide: (1) a minimum year-round instream flow of 1,000 to 1,200 cfs, depending on the time of year, as measured at the Baker River at Concrete gage; (2) maximum instream flows at the Baker River at Concrete gage of 3,200 to 5,600 cfs, depending on the time of year, except when inflow to Baker Lake or Skagit River flows are high during October through December; (3) a schedule of ramping rates for all licensee-controlled streamflow releases from the Lower Baker Development; and (4) specific protocols for monitoring, evaluating compliance and reporting.

Effects Analysis

Lower Baker River—There is little potential for riparian vegetation to develop or persist in the narrow, confined reaches of the Lower Baker River as the majority of the shoreline is unvegetated bedrock, steep rocky slopes, or hardened streambank.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in substantially higher typical low flows in the Lower Baker River than provided by Current Operations. Lower Baker River 90 percent exceedance flows would be increased from 80 cfs to 1,000 cfs or more during all months of the year (figure 3-5), based on HYDROPS modeling of five selected representative years (refer to section 3.3.2.2, Water Quantity, Environmental Effects).

3-200

Under the Proposed Action, the largest changes in monthly average hourly flows (figure 3-6) compared to Current Operations would be reduced Baker River flows in April and September, and increased Baker River flows in October.

Evaluation of 10 percent exceedance flows (figure 3-6) shows that implementation of the Proposed Operations would reduce March high flows from about 4,000 cfs to 1,200 cfs (70 percent), and increase November flows from a range of about 4,000 to 4,400 cfs up to a range of about 5,400 to 5,600 cfs (26 to 33 percent).

Increased flows during the low water season in the lower river could provide the potential for riparian vegetation to develop on any portions of the streambank exhibiting substrate suitable for plant growth. Factors influencing riparian vegetation establishment in this reach include substrate, slope, aspect, and scouring effects of high flows. No substantial development of riparian vegetation would be expected to occur under either scenario, due to the lack of suitable substrate and the continued occurrence of scouring high flows.

Skagit River—As modeled for the Proposed Action, 90 percent exceedance flow values (low flows) for the Skagit River would increase somewhat throughout most of the year. The 90 percent exceedance flow for April would be reduced by 1,380 cfs, or 15 percent (figure 3-5).

The Proposed Action would modify average hourly flows in the Skagit River below Concrete only slightly (5 percent or less) in comparison to overall flow levels (figure 3-6).

Based on analysis of HYDROPS hourly flow modeling, the 10 percent exceedance flow values (high flows) under the Proposed Action would be similar to those observed under Current Operations in the Skagit River (figure 3-7).

HYDROPS modeling of the Proposed Action for the 5 representative years indicates that daily flow fluctuations in the Skagit River would be reduced by 500 cfs or more 38 percent of the time.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in slightly increased low-flows throughout most of the year and would contribute to reduction of daily flow fluctuations. This operation scenario is not expected to adversely affect riparian vegetation along the Skagit River below Concrete.

Proposed Article 505 would require Puget to develop an Aquatic Riparian Habitat

Protection, Restoration and Enhancement Plan. Under this plan, Puget would acquire, protect and enhance low-elevation bottomland ecosystems in the Skagit River basin

3-201

focusing on habitat for anadromous salmonids, other aquatic species and riparian-dependent birds and amphibians.

However, Proposed Article 505 does not include enough detail to allow us to assess the potential benefits of the specific measures that would be implemented by the plan, or the nexus of those measures to project impacts. It is unclear exactly what type of habitat would be acquired under this article; how many acres would be acquired; and what management actions would be taken (if any) on acquired lands. Also, it is likely most land acquisitions would be outside project boundaries given the geographic preferences stated in the proposed article. Given the lack of specifics, we cannot evaluate the benefits of the proposed article. The type of additional information we would need to evaluate this article would include: estimated number of acres of land to be acquired and/or enhanced; the location of these lands relative to existing project boundaries; any proposed changes to existing project boundaries associated with land acquisitions; the specific enhancement and/or management activities that would occur on these lands once acquired; the benefits associated with these measures; nexus to project effects and/or resources; and any ongoing, long-term operation and maintenance responsibilities. We make our final recommendation regarding Proposed Article 505 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats Deciduous Forest Habitat—Current project operation has minor effects on

existing deciduous forest habitats through the influence of fluctuating reservoir water levels. Erosion occurs along portions of the reservoir shorelines under current conditions, and can result in disturbance and loss of shoreline vegetation. Continued operation of the project reservoirs precludes the development of deciduous forest habitats (T7-B Study; Biota Pacific and R2, 2003). Deciduous forest habitat is in short supply in the Baker River basin, lowland Skagit River basin, and the Puget Sound lowlands and valleys. Deciduous woodland habitat is identified as an important component of riparian habitat, a conservation priority in the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Lowlands and Valleys of Western Oregon and Washington (Altman, 2000).

Under the Proposed Action, a new auxiliary powerhouse would be constructed on the original powerhouse site at the Lower Baker Development. Approximately 1 acre of young deciduous riparian habitat would be permanently cleared during construction of this facility. Several measures proposed for the enhancement of fish resources also have the potential to result in disturbance and/or clearing of deciduous vegetation, including fish propagation facilities (Proposed Article 101), downstream fish passage facilities at both the Upper and Lower Baker developments (Proposed Article 105), and fishway connectivity facilities between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake (Proposed Article 104). In total, these developments are expected to result in the disturbance of approximately 19 acres; only a small portion of this total would be deciduous forest habitat.

3-202

Under the Proposed Action, a habitat management measure (Proposed Article 502) would provide for certain acquisition and management of deciduous forest habitat. Qualifying habitat would comprise land with 40 percent or greater deciduous tree composition. This habitat would benefit deciduous forest dwelling species, including neotropical migratory birds. The specific parcels and enhancement actions would be determined in consultation with the TRIG.

The Proposed Action also includes a measure to develop and implement an Erosion Control Plan, in consultation with the Forest Service (Proposed Article 110). This plan would include identification of sites with specific resource concerns and development, implementation, and monitoring of erosion control treatment methods. This measure could be used to protect specific high-value deciduous forest sites along the reservoir margins.

Effects Analysis

Proposed Article 502, Forest Habitat, would provide for protection and enhancement of a substantial number of acres of deciduous forest habitat to benefit deciduous forest-dwelling species. The number of acres to be managed would substantially exceed the number of acres to be affected by the new auxiliary powerhouse at the Lower Baker Development and fisheries enhancement facilities. This measure would also offset any losses of deciduous forest habitat along the reservoir shorelines due to erosion. However, we note that this proposed article does not identify the number of acres to be enhanced or acquired or any management actions that would be taken on these lands once acquired. We make our final recommendation regarding Proposed Article 502 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Late Seral Forest Habitat— Current project operation has minor effects on existing late seral forest habitats through the influence of fluctuating reservoir water levels. Erosion occurs along portions of the reservoir shorelines under current conditions (refer to section 3.3.1.1), and can result in disturbance and loss of shoreline vegetation. The habitat edge created along the interface of the reservoir shoreline and late-seral forest may increase the risk of predation for mature and old-growth dependent species such as marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl.

Under the Proposed Action, vegetation clearing associated with the new auxiliary powerhouse on the site of the original powerhouse at the Lower Baker Development would not be expected to affect late seral forest habitats (refer to Secondary Effects discussion in section 3.3.5.2, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment). Several measures proposed for the enhancement of fish resources also would not be expected to result in disturbance and/or clearing of forest vegetation, including fish propagation facilities (Proposed Article 101), downstream fish passage facilities at both the Upper and

3-203

Lower Baker developments (Proposed Article 105), and fishway connectivity facilities between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake (Proposed Article 104). Preliminary siting information for these proposed developments indicates that the majority of these facilities would be constructed in areas dominated by previous disturbance, young seral vegetation, and/or reservoir drawdown zones. No clearing of late-seral forest would be anticipated to occur for the construction of any of these facilities.

One action, the decommissioning of spawning beaches 1, 2, and 3 near the head of Baker Lake, would occur within mature and/or old-growth forest stands, but would not be expected to require removal of overstory vegetation (refer to Secondary Effects discussion in section 3.3.5.2, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment). However, construction could disturb marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls which may nest in old-growth forest adjacent to the spawning beaches.

The Proposed Action includes a habitat management measure (Proposed Article 515) that would provide funding to the Forest Service for the actual cost of thinning 321 acres of second-growth forest. This measure would promote the development of late seral habitat characteristics in second growth stands within or adjacent to LSRs. The specific locations of the parcels to be thinned have not been determined. The Proposed Action also includes a measure to develop and implement an Erosion Control Plan, in consultation with the Forest Service (Proposed Article 110). This plan would include identification of sites with specific resource concerns and development, implementation, and monitoring of erosion control treatment methods. This measure would allow identification and protection of specific late seral forest sites along the reservoir margins.

Effects Analysis

Implementation of Proposed Article 515 under the Proposed Action would provide thinning of 321 acres of second-growth forest to promote the development of late seral forest characteristics. This measure would mitigate for any new construction that would require clearing vegetation for various fishery enhancement measures. Further, loud noise associated with heavy equipment and pile drivers could disturb marbled murrelets and northern spotted owl which may nest in areas adjacent to where new construction would occur. Implementation of an Erosion Control Plan under Proposed Article 110 would allow identification and protection of specific late seral forest sites at risk of erosion along the reservoir shorelines. We make our final recommendation regarding Proposed Article 515 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Wetlands/Amphibian Breeding Habitat—Current project operation influences the hydrology of shoreline wetlands through fluctuating reservoir water levels. A total of five wetlands (13 acres) have hydrology provided solely by the reservoirs, and a total of 23 wetlands (70 acres) have hydrology provided by a combination of reservoir, shallow groundwater, and/or groundwater discharge.

3-204

Amphibian egg masses deposited in ponded areas within the reservoir drawdown zones are subject to flooding and/or desiccation due to reservoir fluctuation (Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003d). Wave action and high rates of water movement may also be detrimental to amphibian eggs, which are sometimes unattached or only weakly attached to submerged vegetation. Optimal breeding and rearing habitat for common northwest pond-breeding amphibians has low current velocity, relatively shallow depths (5 to 16 inches), and a relatively stable water surface elevation (less than 5-inch fluctuation over average depth) between January and May (Richter, 1995). Approximately 231 acres of vegetated habitats currently are present in the drawdown zones of the two reservoirs (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004). These vegetated habitats provide the best potential amphibian breeding habitat within the reservoirs and currently are subject to fluctuating water levels during the amphibian reproductive season.

Under Current Operations, the project would continue to subject documented breeding sites and other potential suitable amphibian breeding habitat to the risk of fluctuating water levels and temperatures, due to regulation of the reservoirs to meet flood control, power generation, fisheries, and/or recreational requirements.

Under the Proposed Action, wetlands with hydrologic connection to the reservoirs would continue to be influenced by reservoir fluctuation. The Proposed Action would not change the general pattern of seasonal reservoir levels, which historically has consisted of average low water surface elevations during the winter and average high water surface elevations during the late spring and summer. Wetlands along the reservoir shoreline dependent upon the reservoirs for part or all of their hydrology would experience the same range of variation as under current operation. Implementation of the Proposed Action is not expected to change the characteristics of wetland plant communities surrounding the reservoirs relative to the current condition. Some shifting of the distribution of vegetated wetlands within the fluctuation zone of Baker Lake could occur, due to the more gradual fall drawdown of the reservoir under the Proposed Action.

The Proposed Action would reduce the risk of flooding or desiccating amphibian breeding habitats in Baker Lake through implementation of the flow regime (Proposed Article 106). The flow regime would hold the reservoir level below the elevation of most documented amphibian breeding sites from late November through the end of March. This period encompasses most of the amphibian breeding season, although breeding and juvenile development may occur through April and May.

Other measures to be implemented under the Proposed Action have the potential to disturb vegetated habitats, including the new auxiliary powerhouse at the Lower Baker Development and installation of fisheries enhancements for production, upstream, and downstream passage (proposed articles 101, 103, 104, and 105). Preliminary siting information for the proposed facilities indicates that high-value wetland habitats

3-205

identified in pre-licensing studies (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004) would not be affected by implementation of the aquatic measures. Reservoir drawdown zones would be affected temporarily by the construction of the FSC launch site at the Upper Baker Development and at the Lower Baker Development, if that site is constructed at a later date (refer to Secondary Effects discussion in section 3.3.5.2, Terrestrial Resources, Affected Environment).

The Proposed Action includes a measure (Proposed Article 504, Wetland Habitat) to provide certain funds for the acquisition, enhancement, and management of wetland habitats. The number of acres to be acquired would be determined through consultation with the TRIG and would depend on factors, such as habitat quality, location, and level of enhancement. Proposed Article 505 would provide additional funding for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of low elevation bottomland ecosystems, focusing on aquatic and riparian habitats. It is anticipated that riparian wetland habitats, some of which may provide amphibian breeding habitat, could be a component of the bottomlands managed under this proposed article.

Effects Analysis

Proposed Article 504 would require Puget to acquire wetlands and to conserve wetland-dependent species, with priority for acquiring high quality breeding habitat for native amphibians. This measure would mitigate the effects of fluctuating water levels on wetlands adjacent to Baker Lake and Lake Shannon and the effects to amphibians that use these habitats.

However, we note that this proposed article does not specify how many acres of wetlands would be acquired or what management actions would be taken on those lands, once acquired. We make our final recommendation regarding Proposed Article 504 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Special Status Plant Species Several special status plant species are known to occur in the project area and

Baker River basin. Many of these species are designated special status due to their rarity in the region.

Current project operation could negatively affect populations of special status plant species through recreational activities at both developed and dispersed sites, water-level fluctuations, and habitat-disturbing activities associated with project operation and maintenance.

Under the Proposed Action, the project could negatively affect populations of special status plant species through the same types of activities and through facility upgrades. Refer to Secondary Effects discussion in section 3.3.5.2, Terrestrial Resources,

3-206

Affected Environment, for description of the Lower Baker power plant modifications and of aquatic and recreational measures with potential to affect terrestrial habitats.

The Proposed Action includes a measure for the development and implementation of a special status plant management plan (Proposed Article 509, Plants of Special Status). Under the plan, Puget would: (1) survey all sites of proposed project disturbance/activity with the potential to affect special status plants; (2) develop site-specific management plans for 10 known sites supporting special status plant populations that may be affected by Project disturbance/activity; (3) develop a process for assessing and preventing conflicts between special status plants and project -related activities that emerge during the term of any new license issued; (4) develop a monitoring and evaluation program for threatened and endangered species plant locations within the area affected by the project; and (5) update the plan within one year of the addition of a species to any of the special status categories.

The Proposed Action also includes a measure for specifying the development and implementation of a site-specific management plan for yellow sedge (Carex flava) at a site near the head of Baker Lake (Proposed Article 510). This measure includes inventory, reed canarygrass control measures, and monitoring and evaluation of the yellow sedge population.

Effects Analysis

Proposed Article 509 would protect special status plants including federal and state listed endangered, threatened and proposed plants and plants on the Forest Service’s regional list of sensitive species. All areas where project-related ground disturbance would occur would be surveyed to identify any special status plants. Certain known populations of special status plants, identified during relicensing studies, would also be protected.

Implementation of a yellow sedge management plan (Proposed Article 510) would help protect this species which exists adjacent to Baker Lake. Under the plan, Puget would inventory and map known populations; control reed canarygrass which can compete with this species; and replant yellow sedge if the population decreases by more than 20 percent. We note that special status plant management would occur on some lands that are not within the project boundary. We make our final recommendation regarding proposed articles 509 and 510 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Non-native Plant Species Noxious weeds and invasive non-native plant species are known to occur in the

Baker River basin. These species can be aggressive, out-competing native plant species, reducing the value of wildlife habitat, and affecting waterways and aquatic habitats.

3-207

Roads, trails, boat launches, and other areas of vehicle, pack animal, and foot traffic are typical sites of initial establishment of weed populations. Disturbed soils are susceptible to colonization by weedy species, including non-native invasives. The Baker River Project access roads, recreational facilities, and other project facility sites may have contributed to the occurrence of weed species in the basin. Currently, Puget implements weed control activities at project facilities at both Upper and Lower Baker dams, West Pass dike, and selected boat ramps and campgrounds.

Current project operation would continue to provide avenues for weed introduction and establishment along access roads, recreational facilities, boat launches, and the unvegetated portions of the project reservoir fluctuation zones.

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would develop and implement a noxious weed management plan (Proposed Article 508) for project lands and other sites surveyed during relicensing studies (Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003c). The plan would address site-specific and species-specific management and monitoring programs for noxious weeds and would replace (and incorporate as appropriate) current noxious weed management practices for the project. The plan would include inventory, treatment, monitoring, and updating of species lists and management techniques on an established schedule. The plan would be consistent with Forest Service, other federal, state, and county weed regulations and policy

Proposed Article 508 includes specific components to guide weed management activities on National Forest System lands. Prevention of weed introduction and establishment would be accomplished by implementing Amendment #14 to the Forest Service Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Plan: Best Management Practices for Prevention of Noxious Weeds (Forest Service, 1999, appendix C). Updates to the best management practices would be implemented within six months of issuance to Puget. If new, high priority (e.g., Class A or B designate) noxious weeds are discovered within the project area, they would be treated in the most effective manner possible, within the guidelines and recommendations of the Region 6 EIS for preventing and managing invasive plants (Forest Service, 2004b; Record of Decision expected during 2005). Revegetation on Forest Service lands would follow Forest Service Region 6 policy regarding native plant movement. Use of desirable non-native species would follow the recommendations in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Native Plant Notebook (Potash and Aubry, 1997), or subsequent Region 6 guidance.

Based on relicensing surveys, site-specific weed treatments are proposed for a total of 54 sites on Forest Service lands totaling over 14 acres (table 3-25). Potential treatment methods include manual methods, such as hand pulling and grubbing; physical methods, such as mowing or cutting; biological control; herbicide application; and control by planting other species to shade out the populations.

3-208

Under Proposed Article 508, weed sites on non-Forest Service lands would be evaluated to determine the need for treatment and the appropriate potential treatment methods in consultation with the TRIG.

3-209

Table 3-25. Noxious weed sites and treatment methods available for National Forest System lands under Proposed Article 508, Noxious Weed Management Plan.

SpeciesCommon

Name

No. Sites on

Forest Service Lands

No. Acres on

National Forest Service Lands

Proximity to Water Potential Treatment Methodsa

Cirsium arvenseb

Canada thistle

12 3.30 Many sites below full pool, along streams

Manual control: hand pulling, mowingBiological controlHerbicide application: Picloram or Glyphosate (Rodeo)Shade planting

Cirsium vulgareb

Bull thistle 12 7.86 Many sites below full pool, along streams

Manual control: hand pulling, mowingBiological controlHerbicide application: Picloram or Glyphosate (Rodeo)Shade planting

Cytisus scopariusb

Scotch broom

4 0.15 Upland sites Manual control: hand pulling, cutting, mowingBiological controlHerbicide application: Picloram or Glyphosate (Rodeo)Shade plantings in conjunction with other treatments

Geranium robertianumb

Herb Robert 15 2.98 Some wetland sites

Manual control: hand pulling, mowingHerbicide application: Picloram or Glyphosate (Rodeo)

Hedera helixb

English Ivy 1 < 1 Near old spawning beach,

Manual control: cutting, hand pulling and grubbing

3-210

Baker Lake Herbicide application with surfactantsPhalaris arundinaceab

Reed canarygrass

7 No estimate available

All 7 sites are wetlands

Manual control: hand pulling, mowingHerbicide application: Glyphosate (Rodeo)

Senecio jacobaeab

Tansy ragwort

2 < 1 Upland sites Manual control: hand pullingBiological controlHerbicide application: Glyphosate (Rodeo)Shade plantings and healthy plant communities

Polygonum cuspidatumc

Japanese knotweed

1? No estimate available

Wetland site Manual control: cutting/bending stems, mowingHerbicide application: Glyphosate (Rodeo), Picloram, Dicamba, othersShading

a If new, high priority (e.g., Class A or B designate) noxious weeds are discovered within the project area, they will be treated in the most effective manner possible, within the guidelines and recommendations of the Region 6 EIS for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants.

b Species identified in Hamer Environmental and R2 (2003c).c Species not identified in Hamer Environmental and R2 (2003c).

3-211

Effects Analysis

Implementation of the noxious weed management plan would reduce the introduction, establishment, and spread of noxious weeds in the project area and the basin. Puget’s current weed management activities would be replaced and/or supplemented with an integrated weed management program. By reducing noxious weed populations, this measure would contribute to the enhancement and protection of native plant and wildlife habitats.

On Forest Service lands, infestations of Scotch broom, English ivy, and tansy ragwort are located at upland sites and are small in area. Treatment of these sites by any of the proposed treatment methods would be expected to cause less than one acre of ground disturbance; effects of herbicide treatment would be dependent upon the application method, timing of application, and presence of other species with potential to receive herbicide “drift.” Other species targeted for treatment occur in large patches often within wetlands or adjacent to waterways. Herbicide application in these areas would be consistent with Forest Service and state protocols for protection of water quality and other natural resources. All weed treatment activities would be implemented in accordance with Proposed Article 508, Noxious Weeds, and existing regulations and policies regarding protection of fish and wildlife species. We note that noxious weeds would be controlled on some lands that are not within the project boundary. We make our final recommendation regarding Proposed Article 508 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Wildlife and Special Status Wildlife Species Elk Foraging Habitat— The Nooksack Elk Herd provides recreational, aesthetic,

spiritual, and subsistence values to residents of northwestern Washington. The herd is the smallest in Washington and has decreased in size over the past 15 years. Foraging habitat may not be a limiting factor to the herd at present, but the availability of forage in the future is a concern. The Baker River Project is located on the eastern edge of the Nooksack herd’s range.

Human activity associated with current operation of the project has the potential to disturb elk, displacing them temporarily or permanently from otherwise suitable habitats surrounding the project.

Under the Proposed Action, human activity associated with the project could disturb elk that may be foraging or traveling through the area. The Proposed Action includes a measure (Proposed Article 503) to provide several tracts of elk foraging habitat within the range of the Nooksack herd. Approximately 300 acres, with an elk forage equivalency value of at least 1,437, would be acquired and habitat management activities, including planning, enhancement, and noxious weed management would occur.

3-212

Annual planning, habitat enhancement and management would be performed for those lands that are acquired. Proposed Article 503 specifies geographic criteria to be used in parcel selection and describes the roles of the WDFW and TRIG in implementing the proposed article.

Effects Analysis

Implementation of the elk forage enhancement action (Proposed Article 503) would ensure the availability of a minimum of 300 acres of good quality elk foraging habitat for the term of any new license. This measure would benefit elk in the Nooksack herd by providing a reliable source of elk forage in the Baker River study area, where currently almost 60 percent of the elk forage habitat is rated marginal or poor. This proposed article would contribute to the objectives of the WDFW Nooksack Herd management plan (Davison, 2002) through maintaining elk habitat capability on non-state lands and through enhancing habitat quality on primary elk range. However, it appears that opportunities to enhance habitat or acquire lands in accordance with this proposed article exist closer to the project than the geographic preferences stated in the proposed article. We make our final recommendation regarding Proposed Article 503 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Mountain Goat Summer Habitat—Mountain goat populations in the area around Mt. Baker have declined gradually over the past several decades (Forest Service, 2002b). A shortage of usable summer habitat has been proposed as a factor contributing to this status. Summer foraging habitat comprises alpine shrubs and grasses; this habitat is believed to have decreased in area over the past 100 years due to encroachment by closed-canopy mountain hemlock forest. Goats may be restricted from using remaining suitable habitat by the presence of high-country recreationists.

Based on studies conducted during relicensing, mountain goat use of summer range in the Baker River watershed is being affected by recreational activity (R-13 Study, Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004c). Existing project-induced recreation may account for a portion of the recreational use impact believed to be affecting mountain goats on their summer range in the Baker River basin and adjacent areas. Ongoing operation of the project is expected to continue to contribute somewhat to backcountry recreational activity at levels similar to current levels.

Under the Proposed Action, backcountry recreational activity would continue at levels similar to or slightly greater than current levels, providing potential for disturbance of goats on summer range. The Proposed Action includes a proposal (Proposed Article 516) to provide funding to compensate the Forest Service for the costs of habitat improvements in mountain hemlock forest in occupied mountain goat summer range on Forest Service lands in or adjacent to the Baker River watershed. This measure would

3-213

fund planning, environmental review, and implementation for the enhancement of up to 194 acres. The specific methods for accomplishing the canopy thinning may include prescribed burns or other means in high elevation forest areas away from established recreation areas in the project vicinity.

Effects Analysis

According to Puget, existing project-induced recreation may account for a portion of the recreational use impact believed to be affecting mountain goats on their summer range in the Baker River basin and adjacent areas. Ongoing operation of the project is expected to continue to indirectly contribute somewhat to backcountry recreational activity at levels similar to current levels.

Proposed Article 516 would require Puget to provide funding to the Forest Service for its actual costs in making habitat improvements on 194 acres of mountain hemlock forest on Forest Service lands in or adjacent to the Baker River basin. This measure was included in the Settlement Agreement to mitigate for apparent backcountry hikers which may originate from the project.

However, backcountry hiking and recreation activities which occur in high-elevation areas away from the project are not project effects. All existing project recreation facilities are in the immediate vicinity of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. All staff-recommended trails would also be in the lower elevations of the Baker River valley and not in elevations that would affect mountain goats. We make our final recommendation regarding Proposed Article 516 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Osprey Nest Structures—Lake Shannon supports a relatively stable population of osprey, with an average of seven breeding pairs during the last 11 years (Puget, 2002f; Puget, 2004c). Currently, nesting occurs on both natural snags and on artificial nesting platforms. Due to the limited availability of natural nest structures and the recent losses of in-reservoir snag nest sites from decay, artificial nest structures are key to maintaining stable osprey populations at Lake Shannon in the future.

Current project operation would result in continued implementation of Puget’s informal artificial nest structure maintenance program. Currently, nine nest structures are installed at Lake Shannon.

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would implement a formal, expanded nest structure maintenance program (Proposed Article 506). Under this proposed article, one additional nest platform would be installed within 1 year of license issuance. A total of 10 artificial nest structures would be inspected on a 2-year cycle and maintained in

3-214

condition suitable for use by nesting osprey. Puget would also modify 10 existing trees along the shoreline to promote their eventual use as osprey nest sites. Ten trees would be selected on lands owned and/or controlled by Puget in sites suitable for osprey nesting; modification of the trees may include topping or killing, based on site-specific evaluation. Puget would monitor osprey nesting and productivity annually during the breeding season of April 1 to August 31 at both Lake Shannon and Baker Lake.

Effects Analysis

Implementation of the nest structure maintenance program would ensure that osprey nest sites in excess of the current average number of breeding pairs would be available at Lake Shannon during the term of any new license issued. This would allow the average number of breeding pairs (seven) to be maintained. In addition, 10 existing trees surrounding the lake would be modified to promote the eventual development of natural nest sites for osprey. Annual productivity surveys at both Baker Lake and Lake Shannon would monitor osprey use of the project reservoirs and nest structures and provide information for future adaptive management decisions. We make our final recommendation regarding Proposed Article 506 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Common Loon Floating Nest Platforms—Common loons are frequently observed on project reservoirs but have never been observed nesting. The absence of loon nesting may be related to the lack of suitable nest sites along the reservoir shorelines, effects of reservoir fluctuations, and/or human disturbance.

The Proposed Action includes a measure to increase the suitability of loon nesting habitat through installation of floating nest structures and implementation of human-use restrictions at nesting sites (Proposed Article 507). Floating nest platforms have been shown to be successful in some reservoirs (Piper et al., 2002), providing loons the predator protection and accessibility found in natural floating nests (Richardson et al., 2000). Within 1 year of license issuance, Puget would install a total of three floating nest platforms in suitable locations in one or both of the project reservoirs, consistent with Proposed Article 304, Baker Reservoir Recreation Water Safety Plan. Log booms, boundary buoys, or other appropriate devices would be placed around each nesting platform to establish use restriction zones for the purpose of limiting human disturbance. Nesting platforms and public access restriction devices would be in place by April 1 and removed by July 31 each year. Puget would monitor the three platforms for 15 years to determine nesting activity and the effectiveness of access restriction devices. The proposed article specifies elements to be included in the monitoring report and requires the program to be expanded by an additional three platforms if nesting success is determined. Up to one platform could be substituted with funding to a third-party for a nesting platform on non-project reservoirs.

3-215

Effects Analysis

Implementation of this measure would enhance nesting conditions for common loons by providing new, suitable nesting structures and enhanced nest site security at project reservoirs for a minimum trial period of 15 years. If the program is successful, it would be expanded and continued beyond the initial 15-year period. However, we note that Puget could substitute the placement of one floating nest platform by making funding available to a third party for a nest platform on a non-project reservoir. This action may not be necessary because opportunities exist on project reservoirs for these platforms. We make our final recommendation regarding Proposed Article 507 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Decaying and Legacy Wood—Snags and logs provide nesting, roosting, and feeding habitats for a wide variety of native vertebrate species and are considered a WDFW Priority Habitat. Many snags in and adjacent to Lake Shannon have deteriorated and fallen over time, reducing available habitat to species such as tree swallow. Much of the forested habitat surrounding Lake Shannon has been subject to timber harvest, and snag and downed log densities are relatively low compared to stands of late successional and old-growth stages.

Current project operations do not provide management of snag, log, and residual live tree habitats.

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would implement a plan for the management of decaying and legacy wood (Proposed Article 511) on all existing or acquired project lands. The plan would include methods to retain existing snags, logs, and residual live trees; to promote the natural development of these features where they do not exist; and, if needed, to provide artificial structures to meet short-term habitat needs. Puget, in collaboration with the TRIG, would determine the specific target numbers of these habitat features to be retained/created within each habitat type.

Effects Analysis

Implementation of the plan for management of decaying and legacy wood would protect and promote the development of snag, log, and residual live trees on project lands for the purpose of enhancing habitat value to snag- and log-dependent species. Decaying and legacy wood structure provides important nesting, roosting, and feeding habitats for cavity excavators and nesters, residual live tree nesters, and species relying on dead and down wood. For example, studies have shown that nest site availability is a limiting factor to tree swallows, which cannot excavate their own cavities (Stutchbury and Robertson, 1985). This measure would be consistent with the WDFW management recommendations for protection and enhancement of snag and log habitats. We make our

3-216

final recommendation regarding Proposed Article 511 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Salmonid Nutrient Resource Management—Marine nutrients accumulate in the body mass of Pacific salmon and are transported to and deposited in freshwater habitats where salmon spawn and die. These nutrients are incorporated into the food web via: (1) direct consumption of salmon eggs and flesh by fish and invertebrates, and (2) chemical or biological uptake of dissolved materials released from fish metabolism and carcass decomposition (Naiman et al., 2002). Bald eagle, American black bear, common merganser, grizzly bear, harlequin duck, osprey, and northern river otter exhibit strong and consistent links to salmonids, through egg, juvenile, adult, and/or carcass stages.

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would provide fish propagation and enhancement programs and facilities (Proposed Article 101), upstream passage for migratory fish species (Proposed Article 103), assessment of connectivity barriers and implementation of improvements between Baker Lake and Lake Shannon (Proposed Article 104), and downstream passage facilities for migratory fish (Proposed Article 105. These actions would increase fish production over the levels currently supported in the reservoirs and Baker River system. Other measures to be implemented for enhancement of aquatic habitats include a reservoir and Lower Baker River FIP (Proposed Article 106), plans to address gravel and LWD management (proposed articles 108 and 109), shoreline erosion and water quality measures (proposed articles 110 and 401), and a plan to protect, restore, and enhance aquatic and riparian habitats (Proposed Article 505). These measures would benefit fisheries resources in the Baker River basin; Proposed Article 106 would benefit fish in the Lower Skagit River basin.

Effects Analysis

Under the Proposed Action, installation of improved upstream and downstream migratory fish passage facilities (proposed articles 103 and 105) would be expected to contribute to an increase in overall fish populations for anadromous species. Supplementation programs also would contribute to the availability of salmonid-based nutrients in the basin. Implementation of Proposed Article 101 would be expected to approximately triple the current level of sockeye salmon juvenile releases to the Baker River watershed. Under the Proposed Action, sockeye returns to the Baker River watershed would likely be substantially increased. Based on current spawning beach operations, approximately 4,500 sockeye adults would be transported to the spawning beach each year. Up to 8,500 returning adults would be used in the hatchery, once both phases are in operation. Adults in excess of spawning beach, hatchery, and tribal harvest requirements would likely be released to Baker Lake. In addition, carcasses from the hatchery and spawning beach facilities would be distributed within the basin.

3-217

Proposed Article 106 would be expected to substantially reduce the potential for fish stranding and decrease redd dewatering in the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence (section 3.3.4.2). This could contribute to increased production of anadromous fish, and associated marine-derived nutrients, in the Lower Skagit River basin.

Wildlife PlanCurrent project operation does not include a wildlife management plan.

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would provide a comprehensive terrestrial resources management plan (Proposed Article 501) within 1 year of license issuance. The terrestrial resources management plan (TRMP) would be developed by Puget in consultation with the TRIG and would provide planning and implementation requirements consistent with the lands, budgets, and ranges of management options identified in the following proposed articles: 502, Forest Habitat; 503, Elk Habitat; 504, Wetland Habitat; 506, Osprey Nest Structures; 507, Loon Floating Nest Platforms; 508, Noxious Weeds; 509, Plants of Special Status; 510, Carex flava; 511, Decaying and Legacy Wood; 512, Bald Eagle Winter Roost Surveys; 513, Bald Eagle Management Plans; and 514, Use of Habitat Evaluation Procedures. The TRMP would include a schedule for monitoring as required by proposed articles 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, and 514. Annual budgetary reporting would be required for all proposed terrestrial license articles (501 through 517).

Effects Analysis

Proposed Article 501 would require Puget to develop a Terrestrial Resource Management Plan that would include the substantive planning and implementation requirements contained in Proposed Articles 502-504 and 506-514; provisions for monitoring and filing annual reports with the Commission; provisions for periodically reviewing the plan and; a summary of expenditures, earned interest, disbursements, adjustments for inflation, and other accounting information.

However, this proposed measure does not contain substantive requirements but instead would consolidate the planning and implementation requirements of most other proposed terrestrial measures into one plan. We make our final recommendation regarding Proposed Article 501 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Habitat MonitoringHabitat monitoring is a valuable tool to measure the progress made toward

achieving the measurable biological objectives established for terrestrial resources.

3-218

Current operation of the project does not include a formal program of wildlife habitat monitoring.

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would periodically assess the quantity and quality of managed wildlife habitat parcels to determine the effectiveness of implementing proposed articles 502, Forest Habitat; 503, Elk Habitat; 504, Wetland Habitat; 506, Osprey Nest Structures; 507, Loon Floating Nest Platforms; and 513, Bald Eagle Management Plans. The FWS Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP), or other appropriate methodology selected in consultation with the TRIG, would be used.

Effects Analysis

Under the Proposed Action, a HEP or similar methodology would be used to provide assessment of habitat conditions on lands managed under proposed articles 502, 503, 504, 506, 507 and 513, at a minimum of two, and maximum of three, points in time. The assessments would provide information on habitat quantity and quality over time on lands managed for terrestrial resources. Information gathered during monitoring would be considered in the continued implementation of management activities under these proposed articles, in consultation with the TRIG. We make our final recommendation regarding Proposed Article 514 in section 2.0, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Ongoing Terrestrial Resource Needs Resource management objectives, habitat conditions, and wildlife enhancement

and protection needs relative to the Baker River Project may change during the term of any new license issued. Individual measures incorporate a reasonable range of expected outcomes and management adjustments. A fund, under the management of Puget and overseen by project area wildlife managers, could be used to respond to unforeseen outcomes, new resource management issues, and adaptive management decisions.

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would establish the BRCC and three technical subgroups, including the TRIG (Proposed Article 601). Under the related Proposed Article 602, Required Funding, funds would be established to support resource protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. The funds are intended to offset existing or unforeseen impacts on fish, wildlife, and cultural resources and to address unanticipated increases in recreation demand; they may also be used to implement alternative strategies for resource protection, mitigation, and enhancement identified under the provisions of Proposed Article 603. One of the four separate funds comprising the Baker River Project Funds would be the Terrestrial Enhancement and Research Fund (TERF). Proposed Article 602 specifies the annual funding level for the TERF. The TERF may be used for actions to enhance, conserve, acquire and/or restore habitat for

3-219

terrestrial species. All projects would be funded only with TRIG approval and would be located in the Skagit River basin, with emphasis on the Baker River basin.

Effects Analysis

Although Puget provides some examples of how TERF funds may be used, Puget does not provide any specific measures to be implemented using these funds. Without specific measures, we cannot evaluate the fund’s environmental effects or the fund’s nexus to the project. We make our final recommendation regarding the TERF fund and Proposed Article 602 in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.


Terrestrial Resources MeasuresLower Baker Power Plant Modifications—The Proposed Action includes a

proposal for rehabilitating the original power generating facilities at the Lower Baker Development that were destroyed by a 1965 landslide (refer to section 3.2.1). The powerhouse upgrade would include two new turbine generators installed on existing penstocks within the concrete foundation of the original 1925 powerhouse located adjacent to and immediately north (upstream) of the existing Lower Baker powerhouse.

Vegetation along the Baker River shoreline in the vicinity of the power plant rehabilitation site consists of young deciduous riparian forest that regenerated after the 1965 slide. Red alder is the dominant species with minor components of black cottonwood and conifers. An area estimated to be less than one acre would be cleared of vegetation along the shoreline for construction of the access platform and excavation of the former powerhouse site. The footprint of the new powerhouse, located on the former powerhouse site, would be about 0.4 acre. Equipment staging and excavated materials storage would occur on Puget properties at the Lower Baker Development and would not involve vegetation clearing.

Young deciduous riparian forest is a relatively uncommon habitat type in the Baker River basin and is valuable to a variety of wildlife species. The Proposed Action includes a proposal for the acquisition and management of deciduous forest habitats (Proposed Article 502). Construction activity is expected to occur primarily during a 24-month period, with winter outdoor work shutdowns occurring between late November and early March. Preliminary site investigations and excavation of old facilities would occur over an approximate 3-month period prior to the construction. Instream work on the access platform would occur during low-flow periods. Noise and human activity associated with the construction may disturb wildlife temporarily, precluding use of

3-220

habitats in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. This temporary disturbance is not expected to significantly affect populations of any wildlife species.

Aquatic Resources MeasuresFish Propagation and Enhancement Programs and Facilities—Under Proposed

Article 101, fish propagation and enhancement programs at the Baker River Project would be expanded. Sockeye Spawning Beach 4, located downstream of the Upper Baker dam near the confluence of Sulphur Creek and the Baker River, would be modified and/or upgraded with ancillary facilities. A new fish culture facility would be constructed adjacent to Spawning Beach 4, as an expansion of the current rearing facility. The fish hatchery would be constructed in the cleared and fenced area on the right bank of the Baker River near the Sulphur Creek confluence. This site is located within the current special use permit area for the existing sockeye facilities. Based on preliminary siting information, it is expected that construction of these facilities would entail clearing of weedy forbs on previously disturbed sites within the current special use permit area, and would not affect native plant communities. Total area to be cleared is estimated at less than 2 acres.

Existing Spawning Beaches 1, 2, and 3 at the upper end of Baker Lake would be decommissioned, including restoration of vegetation along Channel Creek. Noise and human disturbance associated with this activity could potentially disturb wildlife in the vicinity. Decommissioning of the site would be scheduled during the low water season because of the need for instream work. No removal of overstory trees is expected to occur.

Another effect of the fish propagation and enhancement activities would be an increase in sockeye returns to Baker Lake (section 3.3.4.2). An increase in anadromous fish would benefit bald eagles and other wildlife that rely on fish and fish carcasses for a food resource. The spawned out fish also would contribute to the supply of marine-derived nutrients in the basin.

Upstream Passage Facilities—Proposed Article 103, Upstream Passage Implementation Plan, would provide attraction, capture, and transport facilities for upstream migrating fish at the Lower Baker Development. The trap-and-haul facility, and associated crowding and sorting areas, would be constructed in the vicinity of the existing facility. Habitat in the area is dominated by the current facilities, riprapped river banks, parking areas, and adjacent disturbed vegetation. Preliminary information on siting and design indicates that upgrade of the existing facility would not require any substantial clearing of native plant communities. Total area to be cleared is estimated at less than 1 acre.

3-221

Proposed Article 104 would provide a fishway between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake for the passage of native char and other native fish species. The fishway design options include a temporary or permanent trap-and-haul facility or a weir and trap; location options include Sulphur Creek and the base of Upper Baker dam. Although final design and siting information are not available at this time, it is anticipated that the construction of the facility would involve clearing of approximately 1 to 2 acres of habitat that may consist of young deciduous forest, disturbed weedy habitats in and near the Sulphur Creek spawning beach, and/or other habitats. Construction of the fishway is expected to create a low to moderate level of noise disturbance for a period of relatively short duration.

Over the long-term, improvements in upstream passage for migratory fish would benefit wildlife species dependent upon salmon as a food resource. Other species, and the ecosystem, would benefit from the additional marine-derived nutrients provided by the salmon.

Downstream Passage Facilities—Downstream passage facilities for migratory fish would be provided at both Upper and Lower Baker developments (Proposed Article 105). Many of the components would be located within the reservoirs and would not affect vegetated habitats. Installation of the FSC facility, however, would require a temporary construction and launch site at each reservoir. A diked area of approximately 2 acres in size would be constructed, extending from above the shoreline into the reservoir drawdown zone. Associated features include a sediment control pond, laydown area, and access road. Total area to be occupied by these features is approximately 7 acres, including both vegetated uplands and non-vegetated areas below the normal high water elevation (MWH, 2005).

Existing vegetation at the site consists of upland mixed conifer/deciduous forest, upland deciduous forest, and intermittently flooded portions of the reservoir drawdown zone (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004). Deciduous trees and shrubs at the site include red alder, black cottonwood, bigleaf maple, vine maple, Scouler’s willow, mountain ash, salmonberry, thimbleberry, red elderberry, and red-osier dogwood. Coniferous tree species at the site include western red cedar and Douglas fir. Much of the area has been cleared and is characterized by regenerating stands. Sword fern, trailing blackberry, low Oregon grape, and the invasive species Himalayan blackberry are also present. Shoreline areas are dominated by Sitka willow and the invasive weed, reed canarygrass. Most of the proposed construction site is located in the drawdown zone, where there is little or no vegetation due to water fluctuations.

Upon completion of installation of the FSC, the temporary construction and launch site would be removed and portions of the affected area not needed for operation of the

3-222

facility would be restored. Restoration of upland habitats would be performed using native tree, shrub, and grass species suited to the site in accordance with Proposed Article 508 guidelines on native plant movement and best management practices for prevention of noxious weeds. The restoration planting goals and objectives are as follows: (1) provide in-kind or greater replacement of existing vegetation affected by construction; (2) provide diversity in replacement plant species to enhance wildlife habitat; (3) provide soil stabilization with planting of scrub/shrub planting and herbaceous erosion control seeding along the shorelines’ normal high water line; and (4) replace existing LWD affected by construction using existing trees cleared for construction. Restoration grading and planting plan details are provided in Appendix 1 of the Stormwater Pollution Protection and Water Quality Plan (MWH, 2005).

Construction activity at this site is expected to occur over an approximately 2.5-year period. Construction of the launch facility would take just over 2 months during late fall/early winter and would involve earth-moving work, construction and compaction of the embankments, and driving of sheet pile. The following August, construction would begin on the FSC; and would continue through July of the following year. During August, the FSC would be launched. Finally, grading and restoration of the site would occur during November to March following the launch of the FSC. FSC launch site construction activities would be expected to include temporary increases in noise levels associated with heavy equipment and pile-driving activities during berm construction and from vehicles and activities during the construction of the FSC. Noise generated by heavy equipment and construction personnel may cause localized, short-term disturbance of wildlife on the reservoir, shoreline, and upland areas in the vicinity of the launch site.

At the Lower Baker Development, a potential site for construction of the FSC has been identified near the existing boat ramp; the FSC structure would be towed from this site to the installation site at the dam. We estimate that up to 7 acres of vegetated and non-vegetated habitats would be affected by the construction of the FSC launch facility. Most of the areas in the vicinity of the dams have been previously cleared as part of the construction and operation of the facilities. Existing cover types in the vicinity include project facilities, upland deciduous forest, and upper perennial and intermittently flooded portions of the reservoir drawdown zone. Portions of the site not needed for operation of the FSC would be restored after completion of construction using native plant species suited to the site in accordance with Proposed Article 508 guidelines on native plant movement and best management practices for prevention of noxious weeds. Most of the proposed construction site is located in the drawdown zone, where there is little or no vegetation due to water fluctuations.

Construction sequencing, duration, and noise-generating activities at the Lower Baker Development site are expected to be similar to those described above for the Upper

3-223

Baker Development. Construction of the Lower Baker launch facility would be initiated after completion of the Upper Baker FSC.

A series of stress-relief ponds would be constructed near the confluence of the Baker and Skagit rivers. Preliminary information indicates that the ponds would consist of a series of three raceways located along the Lower Baker River near the Lower Baker compound area south of the administration building. This site is highly disturbed and largely non-vegetated. The ponds, access areas, and associated berms are estimated to occupy less than one acre.

Proposed articles 508, Noxious Weeds, and 509, Plants of Special Status, would be implemented where applicable. These measures would provide protection of special status plant species, management of noxious weeds, and revegetation of disturbed sites with appropriate plant species.

Over the long-term, improvements in downstream passage for migratory fish would benefit wildlife species dependent upon salmon as a food resource. Other species, and the ecosystem, would benefit from the additional marine-derived nutrients provided by the salmon.

3.3.5.3 Unavoidable Adverse EffectsNone.

3.3.5.4 Cumulative EffectsWildlife Habitats (Mature and Old-Growth Forest, Deciduous Forest, and Riparian Habitats)Commercial timber harvest occurred on private, state, and federal lands in the

forested stands of the Baker River basin prior to, during, and following the development of the Baker River Project. The original construction of the Baker River Project affected forested habitats, including harvested stands, mature and old-growth stands, and riparian habitats. In the 1990s, commercial timber harvest activity came to a virtual standstill on National Forest System lands in the basin, due to protections for species inhabiting late and old-successional forest. Currently, about 61 percent of the coniferous forested habitats on National Forest System lands are mature and old-growth coniferous forest. Lands surrounding Baker Lake and higher in the basin are predominately mature and old-growth forest, although remaining stands at low to mid-elevations on the west side of Baker Lake have been highly fragmented. Private and state timber lands surrounding Lake Shannon are dominated by second- and third-growth coniferous forest and currently support little or no old-growth. Deciduous forest stands that have developed in response to timber harvest are distributed throughout the managed timberlands. Riparian habitats,

3-224

some of which are dominated by deciduous trees and shrubs, remain essentially undisturbed by human activity within mature and old-growth forests, and in varied condition within harvested areas.

The majority of late and old-successional forests, deciduous forests, and riparian habitats surrounding Baker Lake and higher in the basin are protected under the provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan (Forest Service and BLM, 1994b, 2001); these protections are expected to remain in place in the future.

State and private timberlands surrounding Lake Shannon are expected to be managed for timber resources in the future, resulting in continued rotation of forest stand ages. It is also possible that private timberlands would be converted in the future to residential sites. Deciduous forest stands that have developed in response to timber harvest are expected to continue to occur in the future on lands managed for timber production. Riparian habitats are currently protected under Washington State Forest Practices Rules; these protections are expected to remain in effect in the future.

Several measures under the Proposed Action would cumulatively contribute to the protection and enhancement of forested wildlife habitats compared to existing conditions. The habitat management program discussed in Proposed Article 502 would provide funding for acquisition and enhancement of deciduous forest habitat. The elk forage habitat program (Proposed Article 503) would provide an initial tract of 300 acres of elk foraging habitats, plus certain funding for additional habitat acquisitions. It is anticipated that some of the elk forage habitat parcels would be located within forested stands. Proposed Article 515 would provide funding to thin 321 acres of second-growth forest to promote late-seral forest characteristics. Rare plants would be protected within forest stands potentially affected by project-related activities, per specifications of proposed articles 509 and 510. Noxious weeds would be managed on lands affected by the project under Proposed Article 508. Snags, logs, and residual live trees would be managed on project lands through Proposed Article 511.

Reservoir shoreline erosion and rehabilitation of the original powerhouse at the Lower Baker Development have the potential to affect small areas of coniferous, mixed coniferous-deciduous, and deciduous forest of various ages. Based on preliminary information, it is anticipated that powerhouse reconstruction at the Lower Baker Development would affect approximately one acre of young deciduous riparian forest. Aquatic measures may affect up to 20 acres of habitats; most of this habitat is within reservoir or located in areas already cleared and occupied by project facilities. Implementation of proposed articles 502, 503, and 515 would fund the acquisition and enhancement of a minimum of 300 acres specified for elk forage, additional deciduous

3-225

forest habitat, and enhancement of 321 acres of second-growth forest to promote late-seral stage characteristics.

WetlandsCumulative effects on wetlands in the Baker River basin have occurred primarily

through timber harvest activity, including clearing, modification of hydrology, and road construction. The quality and function of some basin wetlands have been reduced from historical conditions due to land management activities. The original development of the Baker River Project affected wetlands through inundation of vegetated wetlands plus additional open-water habitat. Some of the wetlands adjacent to the project reservoirs rely, to an unknown degree, on hydrology provided by the reservoirs. Although reservoir water levels vary greatly over the short term, the long-term operating pattern of average low water surface elevations during the winter months and average high water surface elevations during the late spring and summer months has remained constant. Wetlands dependent on reservoir hydrology have been subjected to this hydrologic cycle since project construction and are believed to have reached a relatively steady-state condition.

Wetland habitats remaining in the basin are largely protected by federal and state regulations; these protections are expected to remain in effect in the future. Under the Proposed Action, wetland habitats would be acquired, protected, and/or enhanced under Proposed Article 504. Management to protect and enhance these habitats would improve their functions and values, including wildlife habitat value, over time.

The Proposed Action would not change the general pattern of seasonal reservoir levels, which historically has consisted of average low-water surface elevations during the winter and average high-water surface elevations during the late spring and summer. Wetlands, along the reservoir shoreline dependent upon the reservoirs for part or all of their hydrology, would experience the same range of variation as under Current Operations. Implementation of the Proposed Action is not expected to change the characteristics of wetlands surrounding the reservoirs relative to the current condition. Fluctuation zone wetlands may be modified slightly in terms of distribution within Baker Lake as a result of more gradual fall drawdown rates.

No wetland habitats are expected to be affected by construction work on the new auxiliary powerhouse at the Lower Baker Development. Implementation of aquatic measures would have the potential to affect small areas of wetland habitats, primarily within the reservoir drawdown zones. No wetlands identified as high value in the pre-licensing studies (Hamer Environmental, et al., 2004) are located in the immediate vicinity of any of the proposed aquatic facilities.

3-226

Implementation of terrestrial resource measures under the Proposed Action would increase protection and quality of wetland habitats in the project area and on acquired project lands. A substantial number of acres of wetlands are expected to be acquired and enhanced. Quality of wetland habitats would be improved through enhancement measures, including management of noxious weeds, as prescribed under Proposed Article 508.

Rare PlantsNo data regarding the occurrence of historical rare plant populations in the Baker

River basin are available. Timber harvest and associated road construction on private, state, and federal lands in the basin likely affected rare plant habitats and populations over the last century. The original construction of the Baker River Project and inundation of the project reservoirs may have contributed to cumulative effects on rare plant species. The Forest Service estimates that project construction affected potential habitat for 13 sensitive species, although no direct evidence for the occurrence of the plants exists (Forest Service, 2003a).

Rare plants and state priority habitats occurring in the basin are protected to differing degrees by federal, Forest Service, and state regulations and policy. Protections are strongest for federally listed species, none of which have been documented in or near the project area. These protections are expected to continue in the future.

The Proposed Action would cumulatively contribute to the maintenance of rare plant populations through acquisition and protection of forested, wetland, and aquatic riparian habitats as specified in proposed articles 502 and 504. A specific program designed to protect special status plants, including survey, site-specific management plans, and monitoring, would be implemented under proposed articles 509 and 510. Potential rare plant habitat would be protected by controlling the spread of noxious weeds under Proposed Article 508.

Habitat-disturbing activities associated with the project would be evaluated for effects on rare plants, and appropriate protection or mitigation actions would be implemented under Proposed Article 509.

3.3.6 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat

By letters dated March 5, 2001, the Commission designated Puget to be its non-federal representative for consultation with NMFS and FWS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. A list of federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species that may occur in the Baker River Project area was compiled by consulting the FWS and

3-227

NMFS electronic species list websites (FWS, 2004a; NMFS, 2004b). Critical habitat designations for listed fish species were obtained from NMFS (2005) and FWS (2005). Table 3-26 shows federally listed, proposed, and candidate fish and wildlife species known or potentially occurring in the project vicinity and indicates whether critical habitat or Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been designated for each listed species.

Table 3-26. Federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species known or potentially occurring in the Baker River Project vicinity.


Federal Status


Critical Habitat or EFH

Plants

Golden paintbrush

Castilleja levisecta

Threatened Historical record in Skagit Countya

N/A

Fish

Chinook salmon

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Threatened Documented in project areab

Critical habitat designated for mainstem Skagit River and select tributaries; Baker River not designated in final rule. EFH: Baker and Skagit Riversc

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus

Threatened Documented in project areaa

Critical habitat designated for the mainstem Baker River and select tributaries. The project reservoirs are excludedd

Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch

Species of Concern

Documented in project areab

EFH: Baker and Skagit Riversc

Pink Salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha

Listing not warranted

Documented in project areab

EFH: Baker and Skagit Riversc

Amphibians

Oregon spotted frog

Rana pretiosa Candidate Not observed during surveys of potential habitate

N/A

Birds

3-228


Federal Status



Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Threatened (proposed for delisting)

Documented; wintering, breeding territories on Baker Lake, Lake Shannona,f,g

N/A

Marbled murrelet

Brachyramphus marmoratus

Threatened Documented; present during breeding seasona,g

Critical habitat designated in Baker River basin

Northern spotted owl

Strix occidentalis spp. caurina

Threatened Documented; residenta,g

Critical habitat designated in Baker River basin

Yellow-billed cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus

Candidate Not present within Baker River basin

N/A

Mammals

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Suspected; transient only

N/A

Fisher Martes pennanti Candidate Documented in region historically; likely extirpatedh

N/A

Gray wolf Canis lupus Threatened Two recent sightings Baker River basin

N/A

Grizzly bear Ursus arctos Threatened Documented; two recent sightings Upper Baker River basin; two recent sightings with tracks Baker Lake basing,i

N/A

3-229


Federal Status



a Berg (2004). b Puget (2002b).c Amendment No. 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Pacific Fisheries Management

Council, Portland, OR. August 1999.d FWS (2005).e Hamer Environmental (2002a), Hamer Environmental and R2 (2003d). f Puget (2002f).g WDFW (2004).h Lewis and Stinson (1998).i Forest Service (2002a).

3.3.6.1 Affected EnvironmentAquatic Resources

Chinook SalmonChinook salmon are the largest of all Pacific salmon. Chinook salmon, the least

abundant of the five Pacific salmon species, were historically found from the Ventura River, California, to Point Hope, Alaska (Myers et al., 1998). Currently, spawning populations of Chinook exist from the San Joaquin River to the Kotzebue Sound, Alaska (Healey, 1991).

NMFS listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU as threatened under the ESA in March 1999 (64 FR 14308). Myers et al. (1998) cited contributing factors such as the degradation or loss of freshwater spawning and rearing habitat, variations in ocean conditions, poor hatchery practices, and substantial overharvest for the decline of Puget Sound Chinook. The Puget Sound ESU encompasses Chinook populations (both naturally spawning and hatchery populations) from the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula to the Nooksack River in North Puget Sound and south to the Nisqually River. However, of the 38 hatchery populations within the ESU, including Skagit (Marblemount) Hatchery populations, only five of the hatchery Chinook salmon stocks are protected under the ESA. The listed hatchery stocks are Kendall Creek, North Fork Stillaguamish, White River, Dungeness River, and Elwha River.

In February 2002, NMFS received several petitions to delist ESUs of Pacific salmon that are currently listed as threatened or endangered. The ESUs at issue were those that have hatchery populations that were excluded from ESA protection at the time of listing. The Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU was included in the petitions for delisting. NMFS found that the petitioned actions might be warranted in view of a recent

3-230

U.S. District Court ruling regarding NMFS’ prior treatment of hatchery fish in ESA-listing determinations. NMFS reviewed its policy regarding the consideration of hatchery fish in ESA status reviews. On June 14, 2004, NMFS proposed to expand the Puget Sound Chinook ESU to include 22 artificial propagation programs (i.e., hatcheries), including fall, spring yearling, spring subyearling, and summer run Chinook produced at the Marblemount Hatchery in the Skagit River basin.

NMFS designated critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU on February 16, 2000, which included the Baker River watershed (65 FR 7764). This designation was vacated and remanded to NMFS for new rulemaking consistent with all applicable federal laws. On December 14, 2004, NMFS proposed critical habitat designations for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and 12 other listed salmonid species (50 CFR Part 226). On September 2, 2005, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU (NMFS, 2005). The Skagit River from the Baker River confluence downstream to the estuary was included in the designation. The Baker River watershed was not identified as critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU in the final rule.

The Skagit River supports the largest natural run of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994; Cramer et al., 1999), which comprises three spring runs (Upper Sauk, Suiattle, and Upper Cascade), two summer runs (Upper Skagit mainstem/tributaries and Lower Sauk), and one fall run (Lower Skagit mainstem/tributaries). The vast majority of Skagit River Chinook salmon spawn in the Skagit River system upstream of the influence of the Baker River Project.

Historically, the Baker River Chinook run made up a small proportion of the total Skagit River Chinook run. When the Baker River trap was initially operated, an average of 157 Chinook returned to the trap from 1926–1933. These figures may be complicated by construction impacts on the Baker River Project from 1924–1927. An average of 222 Chinook salmon have returned to the Baker River trap from 1926–2003, with a high return of 1,453 fish in 1967 and a low of 1 Chinook in 1955. See section 3.3.4.1 for a detailed description of Chinook abundance and life history strategies in the project area.

Current fisheries management of the Baker River system is based on the assumption that if there was an original Baker River Chinook stock that was independent of the Skagit River stocks, it has been extirpated. The WDFW modified the procedure for handling the Baker River trap beginning in 1995, reducing the transport of Chinook into the Baker River system. WDFW decided adult Chinook entering the trap would have higher reproductive potential if they were returned to the Skagit River, as opposed to being transported to Baker Lake. In 1999, WDFW began introducing spring Chinook with an early adult migration pattern into the Baker watershed. In 1999, 2,000 excess

3-231

adult hatchery spring Chinook from Marblemount Hatchery were released into the reservoir above Upper Baker dam. Currently only unmarked Chinook that enter the Lower Baker River trap facility before August 15, or marked fish that enter the trap before September 1, are transported to Baker Lake. In 2004, this policy resulted in only 46 adult Chinook being released into Baker Lake (see section 3.3.4.1 for additional information about Chinook distribution in the project area).

In recent years, Skagit River adult Chinook escapement has frequently been below the goals of 14,900 fall/summer Chinook and 3,000 spring Chinook adults (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). Because of these declines, WDFW considers the fall Chinook run that inhabits the Lower Skagit River to be depressed.

Potential strategies for restoring Chinook salmon populations to the Skagit River System are currently under development. Section 4(f) of the ESA mandates that a recovery plan be drafted for listed species. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for the conservation and recovery of species listed under the ESA. The Skagit Chinook Workgroup, an association formed by agency representatives with interests in the basin, was created to guide the preparation of a Chinook salmon recovery plan for the Skagit River basin. When completed, this plan will outline recovery and management objectives for Chinook in the entire Skagit River basin, including the Baker River and the Skagit River below the Baker River confluence.

On December 27, 2005, NMFS announced the availability for public review of a proposed Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan for the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU (Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, 2005). The Plan consists of a Draft Puget Sound Recovery Plan prepared by the Shared Strategy and a NMFS supplement to the Shared Strategy Plan. The NMFS is soliciting review and comment on the proposed Plan from the public and all interested parties.

Bull TroutBull trout are native to most of the interior and some coastal drainages of the

Pacific Northwest (63 FR 31693). Populations of bull trout are found in western Washington, including coastal drainages of the Puget Sound, Straight of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, and Olympic Peninsula (64 FR 58910). Bull trout have been recorded in northern California and Nevada; the Klamath River basin in Oregon; throughout much of interior Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and western Montana; and British Columbia, Hudson Bay, and the St. Mary’s River Saskatchewan; but are shrinking in distribution throughout their former range (63 FR 31693).

The FWS received a petition from an alliance of conservation organizations in Montana to list bull trout throughout its native range under the ESA on October 30, 1992.

3-232

In 1994, the FWS determined that listing was warranted within the coterminous United States but was precluded due to the need to list higher priority species. Legal debate followed the warranted-but-precluded status from 1995–1997 until populations in the Columbia River, Klamath River, and Jarbidge River basins were listed in June 1998. On November 1, 1999, the FWS issued a final rule announcing the listing of bull trout throughout the coterminous United States as a threatened species under the ESA (64 FR 58910).

The Coastal-Puget Sound DPS encompasses all Pacific Coast drainages within the coterminous United States north of the Columbia River and includes 34 “subpopulations” of native char, 15 of which occur in the Puget Sound analysis area, and four that occur in the Skagit River basin. The Skagit River basin supports the largest population of native char in Puget Sound. Anadromous, adfluvial, and riverine life history strategies all exist in the watershed, and there is considerable geographical overlap between fish exhibiting different life history patterns. WDFW originally classified bull trout within the Baker River basin reservoirs and tributaries as a distinct stock based on its geographic distribution (WDFW, 1998) and classified the status as “unknown.” However, the Bull Trout Recovery Team reviewed the distribution of Skagit River basin subpopulations, and bull trout within the Baker River basin are now considered to be part of the Lower Skagit River subpopulation (Hilgret, 2002). The Lower Skagit River bull trout subpopulation is the only one considered “strong” by the FWS in the Puget Sound analysis area, based on the large number of spawning adults and high overall abundance (64 FR 58910). The status of the other three subpopulations in the Skagit River is “unknown” because insufficient abundance, trend, and life history information is available.

At the time of bull trout listing, the FWS did not list Dolly Varden as a threatened species. In 2001, the FWS proposed that the species be afforded protection under the similarity of appearance provisions of ESA (66 FR 1628). The FWS has not made a final decision on the Dolly Varden proposal.

The FWS proposed designating critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout on June 24, 2004 (50 CFR Part 17). On September 26, 2005, the FWS designated critical habitat for the Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS. The mainstem Baker River and select tributaries were designated as bull trout critical habitat, Baker Lake and Lake Shannon were excluded from the designation (FWS, 2005).

Bull trout have very specific habitat requirements and are more sensitive to habitat changes than other Pacific salmonid species. In the listing of bull trout, the FWS addressed numerous factors that have contributed to the depletion of bull trout populations, including: (1) the destruction and modification of bull trout habitat through

3-233

effects from dams, forest practices, livestock grazing, agriculture, roads, and mining; (2) overharvest of bull trout for commercial and recreational fishing; and (3) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (63 FR 31693). In addition, bull trout may interbreed with non-native brook trout, which may compromise bull trout production where brook trout are present (FWS, 1998).

Native char in Puget Sound and coastal streams may express up to four life history types: anadromous, adfluvial, fluvial, and resident. Anadromous forms migrate to marine areas in the spring and return in late summer and early fall (Wydoski and Whitney, 2003). Anadromous native char may spend 2 or 3 years in freshwater before migrating to sea. Little is known about their habits or distribution while in the marine environment. Adfluvial stocks rear in lakes or reservoirs before returning to tributary streams to spawn. Fluvial bull trout may migrate between natal streams and larger river systems, while resident bull trout complete their life cycles within natal streams. Individual fish may exhibit changes in life history type in response to changes in environmental conditions. A recent study using scale analysis to back-calculate length-at-age and age-at-spawning indicates that individual fish in the Skagit River basin may switch life histories (either from resident to anadromous or from anadromous to resident), and may also spawn at each stage (Kraemer, 2003).

The Baker River supports at least adfluvial and resident bull trout life histories. It is uncertain whether anadromous or fluvial bull trout inhabit the Baker River. Each year, adult bull trout are observed at the Lower Baker River trap. Formal records of adult captures at the trap were not kept until 1994, and since that time, an average of 19 bull trout have been collected at the Lower Baker trap and released into Baker Lake. Small numbers of juvenile bull trout have been captured at the downstream fish passage facilities at Baker Lake and Lake Shannon, but little is known about bull trout reproduction and movement in the Upper Baker River watershed. See section 3.3.4.1 for a detailed description of native char abundance and life history strategies in the Baker River basin.

Coho SalmonAs discussed in section 3.3.4.1, coho salmon are the most abundant anadromous

salmonid species in the Baker River system. Baker River coho salmon are part of the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU. In response to petitions requesting listing of this coho ESU, NMFS reviewed Puget Sound/Straight of Georgia coho status in the early 1990s. On July 25, 1995, NMFS found that the ESU did not warrant listing as threatened or endangered. However, the status review reflected the overall health of the ESU, which prompted NMFS to designate the Puget Sound/Straight of Georgia coho salmon ESU as a Species of Concern (69 FR 19975). Candidate species are not required to be considered in section 7 consultation under the ESA. However, EFH provisions apply to coho salmon

3-234

in the Baker and Skagit rivers, as described below. Additional information pertaining to coho salmon in the Baker River system is provided in the Anadromous Fish Species discussion in section 3.3.4.1.

Pink SalmonPink salmon from the Skagit River System are part of the odd-year pink salmon

ESU in Washington and southern British Columbia. NMFS reviewed the status of this ESU and ruled on October 4, 1995, that odd-year pink salmon were not currently at risk of extinction; therefore, no ESA listing of the species was proposed (60 FR 51928). EFH provisions apply to Puget Sound pink salmon, including those inhabiting the Skagit River System, as described below.

Essential Fish HabitatThe MSA, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (PL 104-267),

established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance EFH for those species regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. The MSA, as amended, defines EFH as those waters and substrate necessary for fish use in spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The MSA requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS regarding activities that may adversely affect EFH. The objectives of EFH consultation are to determine whether the proposed action would adversely affect designated EFH and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to EFH. The implementing regulations for MSA allow for the integration of NEPA or ESA section 7 reviews with the analysis of proposed project effects on EFH. Therefore, the information contained in this draft EIS has been drafted in accordance with the EFH consultation requirements defined by NMFS.

Pursuant to the MSA, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council has designated EFH for Chinook, coho, and Puget Sound pink salmon. Freshwater EFH for coho and Chinook salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Freshwater EFH for pink salmon includes all currently or historically accessible waters in the Puget Sound region. The four major components of EFH for these species consist of (1) spawning and incubation, (2) juvenile rearing, (3) juvenile migration corridors, and (4) adult migration corridors and adult holding habitat.

EFH potentially affected by the project extends from the headwaters of the Baker River down to the confluence with the Skagit River, and the Skagit River below the confluence with the Baker River. The general habitat characteristics for these reaches are described in the discussion of Aquatic Habitat Conditions in section 3.3.4.1.

Terrestrial Resources

3-235

Golden PaintbrushGolden paintbrush was listed by the FWS as federally threatened on July 11, 1997

(62 FR 31740); it is designated as endangered in the State of Washington. The species is found in open grasslands of the Puget Trough ecoregion at elevations of less than 328 feet. Currently, populations in Washington are known from near Olympia, northern Whidbey Island, and the San Juan Islands (WNHP, 2004a). A single historical record from Skagit County is recorded in the WNHP database, and was reported by FWS (FWS species list for the Baker River Project, attachment to letter from K.S. Berg, Manager, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, FWS, Olympia, WA, to K. Smayda, Biologist, Smayda Environmental Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA, dated February 20, 2004). However, this occurrence was located outside of both the project area and the Baker River basin.

Golden paintbrush is not known or suspected to occur within the Baker River basin. The project area is outside the known historic distribution of the species, which is restricted to low elevation grasslands of the Puget Trough ecoregion.

Oregon Spotted FrogOregon spotted frog is a candidate for federal listing and a Washington State

endangered species. Four distinct populations of spotted frog were indicated to be warranted for listing in 1993, including the Pacific Coast population (58 FR 27260). Recently, the Pacific Coast population was determined to be a separate species.

Historically, Oregon spotted frog was present in the Puget Trough ecoregion lowlands from southern British Columbia to northern California and east into the Cascade Mountains in southern Washington and Oregon. Eleven historical populations in Washington have been documented; in 1930, one of these populations was reported two miles northwest of the Town of Concrete (McAllister and Leonard, 1997). This site may have been located at the extreme south end of the Baker River Project area. Suitable habitat for Oregon spotted frog may have been provided historically by wetlands and side channel habitat in the Skagit River valley, and possibly the Baker River drainage. Habitat loss, through modification of riparian and wetland habitat, is thought to be a major factor in the decline of the species throughout the state (McAllister and Leonard, 1997).

Currently, three populations of Oregon spotted frog are known in Washington State: one in south Puget Sound, and two in the Cascade Mountains of south-Central Washington (McAllister and Leonard, 1997). One population is known from British Columbia and another 20 populations are documented in Oregon.

3-236

Suitable habitat for Oregon spotted frogs is shallow, emergent wetlands, typically in forested areas. Oregon spotted frogs rarely leave the aquatic environment and are usually found in standing, shallow water with abundant emergent or floating vegetation.

Puget conducted a survey for spotted frogs during summer 2001 in the Baker River watershed (Hamer Environmental, 2002a). Surveys were conducted at a sample of wetlands and ponds (22 sites) considered “the best suitable habitat available in the Baker River watershed” (Hamer Environmental, 2002a). The WTRWG participated in the site selection process and the development of a sampling protocol.

Three types of survey methods were used: visual observations, dip netting, and funnel traps. The survey methods followed the Oregon spotted frog protocol that Applegarth (1994) described. No Oregon spotted frogs were detected during the 142 hours of surveys. Puget also conducted general amphibian surveys of Baker River Project reservoir areas in 2002 (Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003d); no Oregon spotted frogs were detected during these surveys.

Bald Eagle In 1978, the bald eagle was federally listed throughout the lower 48 states as

endangered, except in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon, where it was listed as threatened (43 FR 6233). Five recovery regions were established; the Pacific region published a recovery plan in 1986 (FWS, 1986). The bald eagle is currently classified as a threatened species by the State of Washington. Reasons for the decline in bald eagle populations included trophy hunting, poisoning of livestock predators, habitat loss, human disturbance, and bioaccumulation effects of DDT and other organochlorine compounds.

The bald eagle population has shown dramatic recovery from its estimated low of 417 pairs in the lower 48 states in 1963; in July 1999, the number of nesting pairs was estimated at 5,748 (Stinson et al., 2001). By 1995, declassification goals had been achieved in states where the bald eagle was listed as endangered, and the species was downlisted to threatened in all of the lower 48 states (60 FR 35999). In 1999, the bald eagle was proposed for removal from the list of threatened and endangered species, as recovery goals had generally been met or exceeded throughout the range of the species in the coterminous states (64 FR 36543).

Washington State supports a large number of breeding and wintering bald eagles. Prior to European settlement, the summer population of bald eagles in the state may have been as high as 6,500 (Stinson et al., 2001). A low of 105 documented breeding pairs was recorded in 1980. Protection measures, elimination of DDT use, construction of major reservoirs (particularly in eastern Washington), and introduction of warm-water

3-237

fishes, all have likely contributed to the increase in both breeding and wintering eagles in the state over the past 20 years. In 1998, 664 occupied nests were recorded. Wintering eagles, largely from Canada and Alaska, have also increased in number. Surveys during the mid-1980s recorded 1,000 to 3,000 eagles in the state during the winter. Based on those trend data and on increases in breeding bird numbers, a total winter population of about 4,500 birds was predicted by the year 2000 (Stinson et al., 2001).

Bald eagles are both predators and scavengers, feeding largely on fish and waterfowl. Bald eagles select nesting sites near open-water bodies, including lakes, rivers, estuaries, and marine shorelines. In Washington, the breeding season extends from courtship and nest-building in January and February to fledging of the eaglets typically in mid-July (Watson and Roderick, 2002). Nest trees are selected by height, structure, and location, rather than by species; nests are typically re-used, although alternate nest sites may be present within a nesting territory.

Wintering eagles congregate in areas providing open water, food, perches, and suitable night roosts. During the day, perches are selected in proximity to food sources. Communal roosts are used at night and are typically situated in uneven-aged stands with multilayered canopies and in areas sheltered from winds (Watson and Roderick, 2002).

Primary limiting factors to wintering and breeding bald eagles in Washington State were summarized by Watson and Roderick (2002). Habitat alteration, including the removal of perch, roost, and nest trees; loss of buffer trees; and disturbance of magnitude sufficient to cause reproductive failure or reduced vigor are the most severe threats to bald eagles in Washington. Human activities near nest sites during the nesting season can disturb eagles leading to nest abandonment or reduced reproductive success (Anthony and Isaacs, 1989). Disturbance while feeding, particularly during winter, can cause eagles to expend more energy, increasing their susceptibility to disease and poor health (Stalmaster, 1987). Loss of food resources may be a limiting factor in areas where salmon populations have significantly declined.

Bald eagles use the Baker River basin for nesting, foraging, and overwintering. The project reservoirs support up to three pairs of breeding bald eagles each summer (Puget, 2002f; Puget, 2004c). Two nesting territories were documented in use at Baker Lake between 1991 and 2003. One territory is located near the outlet of the Baker River at the head of Baker Lake. A second territory is located near Boulder Creek and has included at least three different nest sites. During 2002, a third nest territory was occupied near Thunder Creek on Lake Shannon. Neither the Baker River nor the Boulder Creek territory was active during 2002, and the nest at the Baker River territory had blown out of the tree during the previous winter. One of the Baker Lake pairs may have shifted to the new territory at Lake Shannon during 2002. During 2004, three nest sites

3-238

were active at Baker Lake, including a new active site near the Maple Grove Campground (Puget, 2004c). The Thunder Creek territory at Lake Shannon was inactive during 2004.

Table 3-27 shows the number of bald eagle chicks observed at each nest territory during summer surveys between 1991 and 2004. Most of the surveys were conducted by boat, which provided incomplete viewing of the nests; therefore, it is possible that chicks were present but not counted during these surveys. Aerial surveys, which provide complete viewing of the nests, were conducted in 1992, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004. Surveys did not provide complete data on number of young fledged. Between 1991 and 2004, a total of 13 chicks were observed during eight seasons at the Baker River territory. During the same period, five chicks were observed in five seasons at the Boulder Creek nest territory. In three years of surveys at the new Thunder Creek nest territory on Lake Shannon, three chicks were observed during two nesting seasons. One egg (probably non-viable) was observed in the new nest at Maple Grove during 2004. This nest had been observed previously but had never been associated with actively nesting bald eagles (Puget, 2004c).

Table 3-27. Baker Lake Project bald eagle nest territory productivity 1991–2004. (Source: Puget, 2002f; Puget, 2004c)

Survey DateSurvey Method

Baker River Nest

Territory

Boulder Creek Nest Territory

Thunder Creek Nest Territory a

Maple Grove Nest

Territoryb

June 4 & 20, 1991

Boat 2 chicks 1 chick -- --

June 30, 1992 Boat/aerial Activec No activityd -- --June 30, 1993 Boat 1 chick 1 chick -- --July 20, 1994 Boat 2 chicks No activity -- --July 11, 1995 Boat 2 chicks Active -- --July 17, 1996 Boat 1 chick 1 chick -- --June 24, 1997 Boat Active No activity -- --June 23, 1998 Boat No activity No activity -- --August 6, 1999 Boat 1 chick No activity -- --July 12, 2000 Aerial 1 chick No activity -- --July 5, 2001 Aerial 1 chick 1 chick -- --July 16, 2002 Boat No activity No activity 1 chick --July 8, 2003 Aerial Active No activity 2 chicks --July 12, 2004 Aerial 2 chicks 1 chick No activity Active; one

3-239

Survey DateSurvey Method

Baker River Nest

Territory

Boulder Creek Nest Territory

Thunder Creek Nest Territory a

Maple Grove Nest

Territoryb

egga Thunder Creek nest first observed in 2002.b Maple Grove nest first observed active in 2004.c “Active” indicates adult bald eagles (but no chicks) observed at or near nest on

survey date.d “No activity” indicates no bald eagles (adults, juveniles, or chicks) observed at or

near nest on survey date.

It is not known whether bald eagles nested along the Baker River prior to construction of the project reservoirs. Spawning summer steelhead and sockeye would have provided a food source during the nesting season (Forest Service, 2002b; table 3-13). The reservoirs may have improved the quality of breeding habitat for bald eagles by creating a more dependable summer food source of fish and waterfowl; however, no specific data are available to verify this assumption. The nearest active bald eagle nest site outside of the project vicinity is located on the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence (letter from K.S. Berg, Manager, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, FWS, Olympia, WA, to K. Smayda, Biologist, Smayda Environmental Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA, dated February 13, 2003; WDFW, 2004).

No estimates of bald eagle winter use of the Baker River prior to construction of the project are available. Coho, Chinook, pink, and chum salmon and winter steelhead trout would have provided a potential food resource for wintering bald eagles, with adult runs extending primarily from August through December. Anadromous coastal cutthroat trout would also have been present.

Wintering bald eagles concentrate along the Skagit River from September to January to feed on salmon carcasses. Suitable wintering areas provide large, late-run salmon populations and/or abundant waterfowl. The Skagit River attracts a high number of bald eagles that feed primarily on chum but also coho and steelhead (Stinson et al., 2001). Winter bald eagle distribution and abundance along the Skagit River is highly associated with chum salmon abundance. Currently, mainstream Skagit River fall chum stocks are healthy and production levels are consistent with available habitat (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994).

In late winter, bald eagles move from the Skagit River to its tributaries to feed on late spawning coho salmon (Forest Service, 2002a). Puget survey data from 1992 to 2002 show the average number of bald eagle sightings on Lake Shannon increasing

3-240

during December and January, and peaking during February (Puget, 2002f). Baker Lake data from the same period indicate peak bald eagle numbers in January. The greatest number of bald eagles recorded on a single survey date was 32 for Lake Shannon (24 adults and 8 juveniles) recorded on February 21, 1996. Baker Lake surveys showed a maximum number of eagles on January 1, 1992, with a total of 18 eagles (16 adults, 2 juveniles).

Bald eagles may roost communally near feeding areas during the winter. Roost sites are often located in mature or old-growth forest stands in proximity to feeding areas. There are no known night roosts in the immediate vicinity of the Baker River Project; however, potential communal night roost habitat is available in the basin (Puget, 2002b). A total of 3 bald eagle communal night roosts have been documented on the Skagit River within 2 miles of the mouth of the Baker River (WDFW, 2004).

Puget and the Forest Service have implemented protection measures at the bald eagle nest territory located at the upper end of Baker Lake to reduce the potential for human disturbance. An access road leading through the nesting territory is closed seasonally, and the area has been signed to inform visitors of the sensitive wildlife habitat behind the closed road.

Both federal and state regulations, which include the ESA, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the state ESA, protect bald eagles and their nest sites. Washington State management recommendations for bald eagles include separate guidelines for nest tree, winter roost, and perching/feeding area protection (Watson and Roderick, 2002). In the event that the bald eagle is delisted, many of these protections will remain in effect. The FWS will continue to monitor bald eagle populations for at least 5 years (64 FR 36453). The Forest Service intends to designate the bald eagle a sensitive species (FO, 2002a). The State of Washington will initiate a review of the state status of the species at the time of federal delisting; currently, the State of Washington recommends that the bald eagle be down-listed to state sensitive, rather than removed from the list, based on development trends in areas affecting bald eagle habitat (Stinson et al., 2001).

Marbled Murrelet The marbled murrelet was designated as federally threatened in Washington,

Oregon, and California on October 1, 1992 (57 FR 45328); it is also a Washington State threatened species. Critical habitat was designated for the species in 1996 (61 FR 26255) and a recovery plan was adopted in 1997 (FWS, 1997). The FWS 5-year review concluded that the 1992 final listing as threatened will remain in effect until a range-wide status review of the species can be conducted (FWS, 2004a).

3-241

The marbled murrelet is a small seabird that feeds on marine waters but nests high in the canopy of old-growth coniferous forests. They commonly occupy large stands (500 acres) rather than smaller stands (100 acres) and are typically absent from stands less than 60 acres (FWS, 2004c). Large diameter trees with large diameter limbs, broken tops, witches’ brooms, or other deformities are used for nest platforms; nests are not constructed but usually are located on a substrate of moss or lichen. The breeding season extends from April 1 to September 15.

Adult murrelets carry food from marine waters to the single offspring at the nest site, flying distances as great as 52 miles inland (Ralph et al., 1994). Pacific sand lance is the primary prey species of marbled murrelets, constituting more than 65 percent of their diet, especially during the breeding season (Burkett, 1995). Other prey species include Pacific herring, sea perch, euphausiids, and other marine invertebrates (Burkett, 1995).

Factors that contributed to the decline in marbled murrelet populations included over-fishing of its prey species, entanglement in fishing nets, oil spills, and loss of nesting habitat through timber harvest and development (WDFW, 1993). Potential threats to marbled murrelet populations include loss of old-growth forest, disturbance during nesting, nest predation, oil spills, entanglement in gill-nets, and disturbance during foraging (Ralph et al., 1995).

Recent population estimates for Washington State indicated approximately 5,500 murrelets (Ralph et al., 1995). Modeling for the Pacific Northwest population predicts an annual decline of 2 to 12 percent of the at-sea population of murrelets (Corps, 2000). An evaluation report of the marbled murrelet was prepared for the FWS in 2004 (EDAW, 2004a). The report concludes that although the rate of population decline has been reduced, the listed population is expected to continue to decline during the next 40 years. Critical habitat was designated for the marbled murrelet to provide suitable nesting habitat, located in proximity to marine foraging habitat, on lands not otherwise protected by existing regulations or land use designation. Most known nest sites were included in critical habitat designations, on both federal and private land. National Parks, Wilderness Areas, and National Wildlife Refuges were generally excluded from critical habitat designation. In the Baker River Project vicinity, critical habitat for marbled murrelet coincides with LSRs designated under the Northwest Forest Plan (Forest Service and BLM, 1994a) created for the management of northern spotted owl and other old-growth species. The Baker LSR is about 82,100 acres in size, and is adjacent to the Mt. Baker and Noisy-Diobsud wilderness, the Mt. Baker National Recreation Area, and the North Cascades National Park, each of which may provide additional suitable habitat. Murrelets generally use forest stands in the western hemlock and silver fir vegetation zones located below 3,200 feet elevation.

3-242

Surveys of the Baker River basin have documented marbled murrelets present during the nesting season, and presumably nesting. Forest Service surveys indicate that the northern half of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest accounts for 50 percent of nesting habitat and 85 percent of murrelet detections on the entire forest (Forest Service, 2002a). The WDFW priority habitats and species database shows 10 “occupancy” sites in or near the watershed, where occupancy is determined by the detection of flying behaviors and/or vocalizations believed to be associated with nesting (WDFW, 2004). Four of these sites are located along Park Creek, well upstream of Baker Lake. Four occupancy sites are located along Anderson Creek, near the mouth and upstream. Two occupancy sites are located south of Thunder Creek, well upstream of Lake Shannon; one of these sites is outside the Baker watershed. Surveys were performed for a number of small hydroelectric projects proposed for Anderson and Park creeks on Baker Lake during the early 1990s in conjunction with the Forest Service (Beak, 1992a, 1992b). Occupancy was determined at three of six sites at Anderson Creek (southeastern side of Baker Lake) during 1992. At Park Creek, on the northwestern side of Baker Lake, occupancy was determined at four of eight sites in 1992. Surveys have not been conducted in recent years, and the current status of marbled murrelets in the basin is unknown.

At this time, most suitable marbled murrelet habitat in the Baker River basin is protected by designation as LSR, within which timber harvest is restricted, or by other federal land use designation. Small amounts of suitable habitat may be present on privately owned timberlands.

Northern Spotted OwlThe northern spotted owl was federally listed as threatened in Washington,

Oregon, and California in July 1990 (55 FR 26114); it is a Washington State endangered species. Factors that contributed to the federal listing were the declining population trends, the loss of suitable forested habitats throughout the species range, and the lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect existing habitat for the species. Critical habitat was designated for the northern spotted owl in 1992 (57 FR 1796). The FWS 5-year review of the northern spotted owl concluded that the species will remain listed as threatened (FWS, 2004d).

Spotted owls are strongly associated with mature and old-growth forests for nesting, foraging, and roosting. Nesting and roosting occur in a variety of coniferous forest types characterized by moderate to high levels of canopy closure; high density of standing snags; large diameter overstory trees with deformities, such as broken tops and witches’ brooms; and abundant coarse woody debris on the forest floor (FWS, 1987a). Foraging occurs in nesting and roosting habitat, and in coniferous forest of younger age and less structural diversity, where key prey species are present. Important forage

3-243

species in mesic Douglas fir forests include northern flying squirrel and woodrat species; these species occur at relatively low density and the spotted owl has a correspondingly large home range (FWS, 1992).

A final draft recovery plan for the spotted owl was prepared in 1992 (FWS, 1992); the plan was never formally adopted. Critical habitat for spotted owls in the Baker River basin is located on National Forest System lands surrounding Baker Lake. Congressionally reserved areas, including Wilderness and National Recreation Areas, are excluded from the critical habitat designation. The Northwest Forest Plan (Forest Service and BLM, 1994a) serves recovery plan functions through specific management requirements, standards, and guidelines. The Northwest Forest Plan established a system of LSRs to provide habitat capable of supporting viable populations of species associated with late- and old-successional forest, including the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. The Baker LSR is about 82,100 acres and almost completely surrounds Baker Lake. DCA WD-21 was established in 1992 for the protection of northern spotted owls (FWS, 1992) and contributes another 29,750 acres of protected lands. Additional habitat that may be suitable for spotted owl is located in adjacent wilderness areas, the Mt. Baker National Recreation Area, and the North Cascades National Park.

The Baker LSR and DCA WD-21 combined are projected to support 28 pairs of nesting spotted owls (Forest Service, 2002a). The Baker LSR/DCA is expected to be a major contributor to spotted owl recovery as a source of owls dispersing to the north, southeast, south, and east. The Forest Service (2002a) analyzed habitat suitability for spotted owl within the LSR/DCA. Approximately 67 percent of the area is in the western hemlock and Pacific silver fir vegetation zones; the remaining 33 percent is in the mountain hemlock or non-forested zones, which do not provide spotted owl habitat. Only 17 percent of the LSR/DCA is in the western hemlock zone, which is the lowest elevation, highest productivity forest. Approximately 70 percent of the LSR/DCA is late- and old-successional forest; about one-third of this amount is greater than 450 years old and provides optimum habitat for old-growth associated species.

The size of old-growth stands is also important to the quality of spotted owl habitat. Throughout the Baker LSR, most patches of late successional and old-growth forest are greater than 620 acres. Old-growth forest has been fragmented into smaller blocks in the Rocky, Sandy, and Dillard creek drainages.

Spotted owl surveys were conducted in the Anderson and Park creek drainages on Baker Lake during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Reproductive pairs of spotted owls were located in Anderson Creek during 1989, 1991, and 1992 (Beak, 1992c). Adult owls were located on Park Creek during the same years; however, reproductive status was not determined (Beak, 1992d). Pairs of owls were also recorded in the Swift, Shuksan, Little

3-244

Sandy, Sandy, and Noisy creek drainages between 1989 and 1992 (WDFW, 2004). The NPS surveyed owls in the North Cascades National Park from 1993 through 1996 (Kuntz and Christopherson, 1996). A total of six spotted owl pairs and five single owls were located in the Park, which is located partially within the Baker River basin. WDFW data on priority habitats and species indicate eight spotted owl site centers within the Baker River watershed (WDFW, 2004). Activity at these sites has not been verified in recent years, and the current status of the spotted owl population in the Baker River basin is largely unknown.

Currently, spotted owls and their habitat are protected by the requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan, as well as the ESA and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Timber harvest on private lands is performed under the Washington State Forest Practices Act, which incorporates assessment of effects to listed species.

Yellow-billed CuckooYellow-billed cuckoo was designated a federal candidate species on July 18, 2001

(66 FR 38611). The FWS concluded that listing of the species as threatened is warranted, but precluded by higher priority listing actions.

Based on historical accounts, yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) was once locally common in Washington (Laymon, 2000; 66 FR 38611). The last confirmed breeding records of this neotropical migrant in Washington were in the 1930s, and the species is now believed to be extirpated from the state. Occasional summer visitors have been recorded in Washington. In the west, yellow-billed cuckoo is closely tied to deciduous riparian habitat, particularly cottonwood-willow associations (Laymon, 2000). Loss and degradation of deciduous riparian habitats in the western United States appears to be a primary factor in the decline of the species. Overgrazing, displacement of favorable vegetation by alien plants, river water management, logging, and pesticides are the primary causes of habitat degradation.

Yellow-billed cuckoo is not known or suspected to breed in the Baker River basin, and no records of incidental sightings are recorded in the WDFW Priority Species and Habitats database (WDFW, 2004).

Canada LynxThe Canada lynx was listed as federally threatened in the 48 contiguous states on

April 23, 2000 (63 FR 36994). A lynx recovery plan was published by the WDFW in March 2001 (Stinson, 2001). Primary reasons lynx populations are in decline include alteration of habitat, overhunting, disturbance by humans, and competition with species, such as bobcat and coyotes, which have expanded their ranges (63 FR 36994). The lynx

3-245

was designated a Washington State threatened species on November 14, 1993 (Stinson, 2001).

Lynx are found mainly in the north central and northeastern portions of Washington State. In the Cascades, lynx inhabit primarily high-elevation forests with a strong component of subalpine fir (McKelvey et al., 1999; Stinson, 2001). Lynx populations are strongly correlated with snowshoe hare populations; high-quality foraging habitat occurs in early successional forest stands with high densities of hare. Thermal and security cover and denning habitat are provided by mature, closed canopy forests (Stinson, 2001). The Washington State population of Canada lynx is currently estimated at fewer than 100 individuals (Stinson, 2001).

The lynx is neither known nor suspected to be a resident in the Baker River watershed (Forest Service, 2002a; Stinson, 2001). Based on Forest Service modeling of lynx habitat, no potential habitat is thought to be present in the Baker River watershed. Hair-snagging surveys performed in 1998 in the Rocky and Sulphur creek drainages did not detect the presence of lynx (Forest Service, 2002a). It is possible that transient lynx, dispersing from eastern Washington habitats, pass through the Baker River watershed on occasion (Forest Service, 2002a).

Six Lynx Management Zones have been established in areas that are occupied, or were recently occupied, by lynx (Stinson, 2001). The Baker River Project area is outside of the Lynx Management Zones, which are located mainly east of the Cascade crest.

FisherThe West Coast DPS of the fisher was designated a candidate for federal listing in

April 2004 (69 FR 18769). This population segment includes portions of California, Oregon, and Washington. The FWS concluded that listing of the West Coast DPS is warranted, but precluded by higher priority listing actions. Fisher is classified as endangered in Washington State and is designated as a Region 6 sensitive species by the Forest Serivce. A status report for the fisher was prepared for the State of Washington in 1998 (Lewis and Stinson, 1998).

Fishers inhabit coniferous and mixed deciduous/coniferous forests with closed canopies and large diameter snags and logs. They use riparian zones, lakeshores, and ridges, often maintaining very large home ranges for foraging. Formerly occupying forested habitats in the northern United States and Canada, the fisher’s range has been reduced due to loss and modification of forested habitats, predator and pest control efforts, and trapping (Lewis and Stinson, 1998; 69 FR 18769). Since the 1950s, fisher populations have recovered in some areas of the eastern United States and Canada likely

3-246

because of regeneration of forest habitats from farmlands, cessation of trapping, and reintroduction.

Fisher historically occurred throughout much of the forested area of Washington, including the Olympic Peninsula, Cascade Mountains, and probably southwestern and northeastern portions of the state (Lewis and Stinson, 1998). The species is not believed to have been abundant (Lewis and Stinson, 1998). Based on Lewis and Stinson’s 1998 Status Report, only three verifiable records, involving trapped specimens or photos, were recorded in the state between 1992 and 1998. The fisher is very rare and probably not represented by a viable population in Washington State (Lewis and Stinson, 1998). The species currently is thought to be extirpated from the state (Lewis and Hayes, 2004).

A total of 12 sightings or recordings of tracks, of various levels of reliability, were documented at sites in Skagit and Whatcom counties between 1939 and 1995 (Lewis and Stinson, 1998). The WDFW priority habitats and species database does not include any reports of fisher sightings in the Baker River watershed (WDFW, 2004). Fisher may occur in the watershed as suitable habitat is present; however, no populations of fisher are known or suspected to be present.

Gray WolfIn 1978, the gray wolf was listed as endangered throughout the 48 coterminous

states, except Minnesota, where it was listed as threatened (43 FR 9607). Critical habitat for the species was designated within the states of Michigan and Minnesota in the same ruling. On April 1, 2003, three DPSs for the gray wolf were established: the Western DPS, Eastern DPS, and Southwestern DPS (68 FR 15803). This ruling also reclassified the gray wolf from endangered to threatened within the Western DPS and Eastern DPS (except where already classified as threatened or as an experimental population). The Western DPS includes all of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, along with Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, northern Colorado, and northern Utah. Gray wolves are also classified as endangered by the State of Washington.

Gray wolves previously occupied most of the lower 48 states. Their populations declined with increased populations of European settlers across the mid-west and western states. Wolves were hunted for their furs and were killed in great numbers as part of predator control programs. They were extirpated from most of the lower 48 states, early in the twentieth century, although a small population remained in Minnesota.

The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan was published in 1980 and revised in 1987 (FWS, 1980, 1987b). This plan included all of Washington State; however, specific population goals for the state were not included. Recovery in the Rocky Mountain area relied on two reintroduced, experimental populations in central

3-247

Idaho and Yellowstone National Park, and one site in Glacier National Park, Montana, that was reoccupied by wolves from Canada. At this time, the recovery criteria set in the 1987 plan have been exceeded, and the three individual populations are believed to be acting as a metapopulation. The FWS intends to propose to delist the wolf in the Western DPS in the near future (50 FR 15879).

A small population of gray wolves may be present in the North Cascades Mountains of Washington (WDFW, 2003a). Wolves have been seen regularly in southern British Columbia north of the North Cascades National Park and Ross Lake National Recreation Area since 1984. In 1990, wolves with pups were observed near Hozomeen at the north end of Ross Lake (NPS, 2003). Since then, three separate groups of wolves with pups have been observed in the Cascades. Wolves have been observed at McAlester Pass, the Pasayten Wilderness, Twisp River drainage, and Glacier Peak Wilderness, and near Steven’s Pass. The WDFW database of priority habitats and species reports two observations of gray wolves in the Baker River basin in 1984 and 1992 (WDFW, 2004). There are no wolf population estimates for the North Cascades area.

Wolves feed primarily on ungulates but will also feed on small mammals. Both forested and open habitats are used when sufficient prey is present year-round, suitable den sites are present, and human exposure is limited. Wolf packs may consist of 2 to 12 animals, and home ranges average about 200 square miles in size. Ungulate populations in the Baker River basin are not large, and this may preclude the area from providing high-quality habitat for wolves. Wolves observed in the Baker River basin are likely transient wolves traveling through the area.

Grizzly BearThe grizzly bear is a federally threatened species. The species is also classified as

endangered by the State of Washington. The grizzly bear was listed as federally threatened under the ESA in the 48 contiguous states in 1975 (40 FR 31734). The primary causes of population decline are hunting, human disturbance, and habitat alteration. A recovery plan was prepared in 1982 (FWS, 1982), identifying the need for evaluation of the North Cascades area of Washington to determine habitat condition and status of bear population. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee completed this evaluation in 1992, concluding that a small number of grizzly bears inhabit the area and that suitable habitat to support about 200 to 400 bears is present (Almack et al., 1993). The grizzly bear recovery plan was modified in 1993 (FWS, 1993) and was supplemented with a chapter containing a recovery plan for the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Ecosystem (Servheen, 1997). In 1991, a petition was filed to reclassify the grizzly bear in the North Cascades area as endangered; the finding on this petition was that action was warranted but precluded by higher priority actions (56 FR 33892).

3-248

Grizzlies are omnivores that use a wide range of habitat types across a large home range. Home ranges of males can be 200 to 500 square miles, while those of females are in the range of 50 to 300 square miles (FWS, 1993). Habitat use varies with season, with lower elevation, snow-free areas used in early spring, mid-elevation habitats during summer, and mid- to high-elevation habitats during late summer and fall (Mace et al., 1999). Presence of roads and humans are negatively correlated with grizzly bear presence.

The North Cascades Recovery Area, established in 1993, extends from the western edge of the Cascade foothills, east to the Okanogan, and south as far as Snoqualmie Pass. Three Bear Management Units (BMUs) border Lake Shannon and Baker Lake: Sisters BMU west of Lake Shannon, Baker BMU west of Baker Lake, and Welker BMU east of both reservoirs. A fourth BMU, Baker-Goodell, encompasses the Upper Baker River basin and the Goodell Creek watershed to the southeast. An assessment of grizzly bear habitat in the North Cascades Recovery Area was performed by the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Ecosystem Technical Team (Forest Service, 2002a). The results of the assessment are summarized briefly below.

Sisters BMU is 100,875 acres in size, with 45.9 percent located on federal lands. Remaining lands are predominantly managed as private timberlands; residential developments are also present. Early and late season core areas are each less than 50 percent of the BMU; preferred habitats in the seasonal core areas are well below the range believed to be necessary to support grizzly bear use. The Sisters BMU is considered to have low likelihood of successful occupancy by grizzly bears.

The Baker BMU is 82,380 acres in size, with 96.7 percent in federal ownership. Early and late core areas fall into the moderate class, with preferred seasonal habitats in the core areas at the low end of the evaluation range. The preferred habitats are within the range believed to be adequate to support occupied habitat, provided that the risk for mortality is low. This BMU experiences a high level of recreational activity, including a climbing route to Mt. Shuksan and other trails. Maintenance or improvement of the quantity and quality of the core area and habitats are objectives for this BMU.

Welker BMU exhibits moderate levels of both early and late season core area, and low (early season) and moderate (late season) levels of preferred habitats in the core areas. The amounts of seasonally preferred habitats are within the range believed necessary to support grizzly bear use, provided that mortality risk is low. Welker BMU is 78 percent federally owned. Recreational pressures are not as high as in the Baker BMU, and the Welker BMU has additional forage resources along over 7 miles of anadromous streams/rivers.

3-249

The Baker-Goodell BMU exhibits high amounts of both early and late season core areas and a very high amount of preferred habitat within the late season core. Early season preferred habitat levels were below the midpoint of the evaluation range. A small portion of the 100,821-acre BMU (0.05 percent) is in non-federal ownership, and is located near State Highway 20 and/or other roads.

Puget conducted a study of grizzly bear spring foraging habitat in the project vicinity (EDAW et al., 2003). The relative values of potential and important forage species were evaluated in several habitat types that are currently present in the watershed. Wet meadow habitats provided the greatest amount of potential forage biomass, exceeding the next nearest habitat type by almost twice the biomass. Wet meadow, shrub wetland, and forested wetland provided similar amounts of forage biomass of “important” plant species. Riparian forest and deciduous forest provided low potential and important forage. Reed canarygrass, a dominant grass of herbaceous wetlands near the reservoirs, was listed as a “non-important” forage species; however, this grass provided a substantial amount of biomass in wet meadow habitats in the project area.

The grizzly bear is known to occur in the Upper Baker River watershed (Forest Service, 2002a; WDFW, 2004). Historically, the North Cascades provided high-quality habitat; trapping records indicate that more than 3,700 grizzly bear hides were transported from forts in and near the region between 1827 and 1859 (Servheen, 1997). Grizzly bear numbers declined significantly by the late 1800s. Nine grizzly bears were recorded on the Mt. Baker National Forest, including the Upper Baker River, during 1929 (Forest Service, 2002a). Recent estimates of the North Cascades grizzly bear population range from 12 to 50 individuals (Almack et al., 1993; MacCracken and O’Laughlin, 1998). The most recent grizzly sightings in the project vicinity include an observation of one adult and one young in the Baker River headwaters in 1991, over 10 miles from the project area (WDFW, 2004), and a grizzly bear track recorded in 1989 near Watson Peak, about 4.5 miles east of the Upper Baker dam (WDFW, 2004).

3.3.6.2 Environmental EffectsFish Species

The action area for the analysis of the effects of the Proposed Action on listed fish species and their designated critical habitat extends from the upstream extent of reservoir fluctuations in Baker Lake downstream to the point at which any project related effects on flow in the Baker or Skagit Rivers would be attenuated. As previously discussed, the effects of both the Baker and Skagit hydroelectric projects on river stage in the Skagit River near Concrete can amplify each other (be mutually additive) or somewhat offset each other (be mutually reductive). These interactive effects are largely attenuated by the

3-250

time they reach the vicinity of Mt. Vernon on the Skagit River at RM 15.7 (Puget, 2002c). Accordingly, the action area for this analysis includes the mainstem Baker River from the upstream extent of reservoir fluctuations in Baker Lake downstream through both project reservoirs to the Baker/Skagit confluence, and includes the Skagit River from the Baker/Skagit confluence downstream to RM 15.7.

The environmental baseline for this evaluation is “the past and present impacts of all federal, state or private actions and other human activities in the action area, including the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal projects in the action area that have undergone section 7 consultation and the impacts of state and private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in progress” (50 CFR 402). The evaluation of the baseline condition is intended to provide a description of current conditions including historical and current actions that have influenced survival of listed species in the action area and contributed to the ESA listing for the species.

Historical and current actions have affected the viability of populations of listed salmonid species. Since the state of available science makes it difficult to determine how a specific action may affect the status of a population, ESA evaluations typically assess the effects of an action on a given habitat component that constitutes the biological requirements of a species. By examining the effects of a given action on the habitat portion of a species’ biological requirements, it is possible to assess how the action would affect the population, and ultimately, how the action would affect the species’ current and future health. NMFS currently defines the biological requirements in terms of a concept called properly functioning condition (PFC). The PFC is the sustained presence of natural habitat-forming processes in a watershed that are necessary for the long-term survival of the species. In the PFC framework, baseline environmental conditions are described as “properly functioning” (PF), “at risk” (AR), or “not properly functioning” (NPF). The indicators of PFC vary between different landscapes based on the natural processes and the physiographic and geologic features unique to the action area.

The purpose of this analysis of ESA-listed species is to determine if licensing of the Baker River Project under the Proposed Action would have an adverse effect on ESA-listed species and, if appropriate, to provide analyses of project effects on those listed species and any designated critical habitats that are likely to be found in the project area. Determining the effects of a proposed action typically follows a matrix of pathways, through which habitat degradation could occur, and indicators of those effects. A matrix of pathways and indicators was originally developed by the FWS to evaluate the effects of grazing, and it was later modified to evaluate the effects of timber harvest activities. The analysis of the effects of the Baker River Project operations followed a similar evaluation of pathways and indicators that were modified to address action-specific circumstances as recommended by NMFS. In recent NMFS guidance documents, NMFS

3-251

has indicated that this determination applies not just to the species and critical habitats levels, but also applies at the individual level.

Table 3-28 is based on a Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (NMFS, 1996) and is designed to describe existing environmental conditions for the action area and summarize the status of each indicator within the PFC framework. NMFS recommends using this process to quantify and standardize the existing environmental baseline conditions for several environmental “pathways” or parameters and to determine the effects of a project on each relevant indictor. Note that the summary status of each indicator is a reflection of all federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, including, but not limited to, past and current operation of the Baker River Project. For example, road density may be considered “at risk” due to logging, agricultural, and residential development in the Lower Skagit River watershed, even though the Baker River Project may have little or no influence on this indicator. See sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, and 3.3.5 for detailed descriptions of the environmental resources summarized in table 3-28.

Table 3-28. Analysis of environmental baseline, matrix of pathways and indicators.a

Pathway Indicator Function Description Source

Wat

er Q

ualit

y

Temperature ARBaker River watershed has excellent water quality, but Lower Skagit River temperatures within at risk range as defined by NMFS.

Land clearing for development, logging

Nutrients ARHigh levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and ammonia recorded in Lower Skagit River

Agriculture, sewage treatment

Turbidity ARLandslides in Baker and Skagit tributaries contribute to increased sediment recruitment, Baker reservoirs extend suspension of fine material

Logging, road building, reservoirs

Hab

itat

Acc

ess

Upstream and downstream passage barriers

AR Estimated downstream fish passage efficiency at Upper Baker facility of 71 percent, Lower Baker downstream passage facility is older and has less pumping capacity

Upper and Lower Baker dams

3-252

Pathway Indicator Function Description SourceH

abita

t Ele

men

tsSubstrate AR

Landslides in Skagit tributaries contribute to increased sediment recruitment, Baker reservoirs interrupt downstream transport of sand and larger sediment particles

Logging, road building, hydropower reservoirs

Large woody debris

ARLoss of riparian reserves, hydropower reservoirs interrupt downstream recruitment of wood

Logging, hydropower reservoirs, urban development

Refugia and off-channel habitats

NPF Off-channel habitat in Skagit River lost to diking, ditching, streambank modification, and channelization

Agricultural/urban development, flood control

Pool frequency and quality

NPF Reduced complexity of Lower Skagit River channel, LWD jams removed to maintain channel transport capacity

Hydromodification, logging, flood control

Cha

nnel

C

ondi

tions

/D

ynam

ics

Channel morphology

AR Lower Skagit River hydromodified, loss of secondary channels particularly evident below town of Sedro-Woolley


Streambank condition

NPF Bank hardening in Lower Skagit River


Flow

/Hyd

rolo

gy

Floodplain connectivity

NPFReduced magnitude but extended duration of flood events during fall and winter affect frequency and duration of high flow events, reservoir refill reduces volume of springtime releases

Flood control and power generation at hydropower projects

Peak flows AR48% of Skagit watershed upstream of hydropower projects, but flood control effects are somewhat ameliorated by small storage volume at Baker River Project

Flood control at hydropower projects

3-253

Pathway Indicator Function Description Source

Base flows ARThe 7-day low flow in the Skagit River near Concrete is higher than unregulated conditions due to augmentation from the Skagit River Project; the 7-day low flow at the Baker River at Concrete is 1/3 of 7-day low flow under unregulated conditions.

Power generation at Lower Baker Development

Rapid flow fluctuations

AR Ramping rates immediately below hydropower projects exceed Washington State guidelines.

Baker and Skagit hydropower projects

Wat

ersh

ed C

ondi

tions

Road density NPF Extensive network in Lower Skagit River basin

Logging, urban, agricultural, and residential development

Disturbance history

NPFLogging throughout lower and mid-level elevations in Skagit River basin, extensive development in Lower Skagit floodplain


Riparian reserves

NPFRiparian reserves good in Baker River basin but poor condition in Middle and Lower Skagit River (as cited by NMFS, 2004a)


Bio

tic In

tera

ctio

ns

Predation PFSome predation in reservoirs, such as bull trout on sockeye smolts at passage facilities, but predator population levels do not appear to exceed historical levels

Baker downstream fish passage concentrates juvenile salmonids increasing risk of predation

Competition PFPotential competition exists between juvenile coho and bull trout

WDFW and Tribal interests manage coho production

Harvest PFChinook harvest rates reduced from over 80% in 1970s to 50–60% in recent years, bull trout harvest prohibited in Baker River basin (as cited by NMFS, 2004a)

Fisheries Co-managers regulate harvest

3-254

Pathway Indicator Function Description SourceNotes:Function Codes:PF– Properly functioning.NPF– Not properly functioning.AR– At risk.a Unless otherwise noted, the descriptions apply to the biological requirements of the

populations of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU and Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS found in the action area.

The following subsections describe the effects of the Proposed Action on ESA-listed fish species and those species regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. Analysis of the effects of future operations of the Baker River Project will be based on indicators specific to the Proposed Action.

Compared to Current Operations, most indicators of the aquatic habitats and biological requirements of Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU and Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS would be improved under the Proposed Action (table 3-29).

3-255

Table 3-29. Analysis of project effects. Summary of effects of the Proposed Action on the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU and Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS found in the action area.

Category Indicators

Project Area

Baseline Functiona

Effects of Proposed Actionb

Description of Proposed Action (and relevant Proposed License Article)

Wat

er Q

ualit

y

Temperature AR MaintainBaker River watershed has generally good water quality; existing impairment of Lower Skagit River habitats would be largely unaffected by the Proposed Action. Operation of the FSC(s) would increase resuspension of forebay sediments during initial startup and annual maintenance; however, compliance with terms and conditions of Proposed Article 401 would minimize effects.

Nutrients AR Improve

Baker River tributaries are naturally nutrient-poor; the reservoir nutrient enhancement program (Proposed Article 101[f]) would evaluate, and if deemed appropriate, increased nutrients to benefit salmonid production. Existing impairment of Lower Skagit River habitats would be largely unaffected by the Proposed Action.

Turbidity AR MaintainThe Erosion Control Plan (Proposed Article 110) and minimum pool level restrictions (Proposed Article 401) would reduce the recruitment and resuspension of sediments that contribute to turbidity; but operation of the FSCs would increase winter-time resuspension of forebay sediments during initial startup and annual maintenance.

Hab

itat A

cces

s Upstream fish passage barriers

AR ImproveThe upstream fish passage implementation plan (Proposed Article 103) would improve the attraction and transport of salmonids and minimize the potential for take associated with holding, handling and transport of listed species. Proposed Article 104 would provide for the evaluation and implementation of connectivity between project reservoirs.

3-256

Category Indicators

Project Area

Baseline Functiona



Downstream fish passage barriers

AR ImproveThe DFPIP (Proposed Article 105) would improve the attraction and downstream transport of juvenile salmonids and minimize the potential for take associated with holding, handling, and transport of listed species.

Hab

itat E

lem

ents

Substrate AR ImproveThe Gravel Management Plan (Proposed Article 108) would evaluate, and if deemed appropriate, augment the recruitment of gravel below the Lower Baker Development. The plan would serve to reduce potential project effects on Skagit River habitats supporting spawning of listed species.

Large woody debris

AR ImproveThe LWD Management Plan (Proposed Article 109) would provide for the transport of LWD from project reservoirs where the wood would be available for use in habitat improvement projects.

Refugia and off-channel habitats

NPF ImproveThe aquatic riparian habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement plan (Proposed Article 505) would protect and enhance low-elevation bottomland ecosystems, but the primary sources of impairment of Lower Skagit River habitats are largely unaffected by the Proposed Action.

Reservoir inundation zone

AR Maintain

Under the FIP (Proposed Article 106), the reservoir management regime would reduce the duration of exposure of the reservoir inundation zone by accelerating spring refill and delaying fall drawdown; winter reservoir operations would continue to affect tributary channel stability within the reservoir area.

Cha

nnel

C

ondi

tions

/D

ynam

ics Channel

morphologyAR Maintain

The aquatic riparian habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement plan (Proposed Article 505) would protect and enhance low-elevation bottomland ecosystems, but the primary sources of impairment of Lower Skagit River habitats are largely unaffected by the Proposed Action.

3-257

Category Indicators

Project Area

Baseline Functiona



Flow

/H

ydro

logy

Floodplain connectivity

NPF ImproveUnder the FIP (Proposed Article 106), reduced hourly flow fluctuations and increased baseflows would improve use of floodplain habitats by listed species, but the primary sources of impairment of Lower Skagit River habitats are largely unaffected by the Proposed Action.

Peak flows AR MaintainFlood flow management is directed by the Corps and is the subject of a separate ESA consultation process.

Base flows AR ImproveUnder the FIP (Proposed Article 106), 7-day low flows at Baker River at Concrete would substantially increase and exceed unregulated base flow conditions during September and during longer portions of dry years; during wet years or wet months, 7-day low flows will improve compared to baseline conditions, but would remain less than unregulated conditions. Installation of new turbines with flow continuation devices would minimize flow reductions due to load rejections.

Rapid flow fluctuations AR Improve

Under the FIP (Proposed Article 106), new facilities would be installed to provide controlled flow releases and satisfy Washington State downramping rate guidelines.

Bio

tic In

tera

ctio

ns

Predation PF Maintain Increased forage base for native char (Proposed Article 101) would be offset by reduced opportunity for char feeding on sockeye smolts at the downstream fish passage facilities (Proposed Article 105); increased protection and enhancement of avian predator habitats (Osprey Nest Structures [Proposed Article 506], Loon Floating Nest Platforms [Proposed Article 507], Bald Eagle Management Plans [Proposed Article 513]) would not be expected to result in populations that exceed the natural range of avian densities.

3-258

Category Indicators

Project Area

Baseline Functiona



Competition PF MaintainThe FPFP (Proposed Article 101) provides for potential increases in fish production within the Baker River basin; however, the Tribal and state Fish Co-managers would direct the species mix, life stages, and quantities of fish produced in the facilities.

Harvest PF MaintainHarvest rates are directed by the Tribal and state Fish Co-managers; bull trout harvest is currently prohibited in the Baker River basin.

a Function code rating based on analysis of project area consisting of the Baker and Skagit River basins without regard to source of potential impairment. PF: Properly Functioning; NPF: Not Properly Functioning; AR: At Risk.

b Effects Codes:Improve–Appreciably improve functioning of impaired habitat.Impair–Impair properly functioning habitat.Maintain–Project effects both improve and impair which are largely offsetting.Retard–Retard the long-term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC.NKE–No known significant project effects.

Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESUDirect Effects—Direct effects of the Proposed Action on the Puget Sound

Chinook salmon ESU and their designated critical habitat occurring within the action area are discussed below.

Water Quality: As previously described in section 3.3.3, water quality in the surface waters of the Baker River basin is generally considered good and meets the needs of designated beneficial uses. Review of Ecology’s Water Quality Index components indicates that suspended solids and turbidity are of moderate concern, and all other water quality components are of lowest concern. The primary water quality concerns associated with potential effects on Chinook salmon are temperature, nutrients, and turbidity.

Elevated water temperatures can affect Chinook salmon by altering the timing of adult and juvenile migrations, changing incubation, altering hatching intervals, and possibly contributing to stress-related mortality or reduced growth. Temperature criteria contained in Ecology’s proposed revision of the water quality standards criteria calls for the average of seven consecutive measures of daily maximum temperatures (7-DADMax)

3-259

to not exceed 16C for designated core salmon waters. The Baker River downstream of Baker Lake and the mainstem Skagit River are proposed as designated uses for salmon and trout spawning, core rearing, and migrating. Under Current Operations, the 7-DADMax during the summer of 2002 and 2003 was 16.1C in the Lower Baker River, but the 7-DADMax in the mainstem Skagit River below the Baker River confluence remained below 16C. Under the terms of Proposed Article 106, Puget would comply with the terms and conditions of the 401 Certification issued by Ecology. Compliance would be measured at the project forebays and tailraces and the Lower Baker fish weir. Compliance is anticipated to improve but not eliminate effects of the Proposed Action on water temperatures compared to Current Operations.

Baseline nutrient conditions in the Lower Skagit River are impaired due to nitrogen, phosphorus, and ammonia contributions associated with agricultural practices and sewage treatment. In contrast, tributaries to the Baker reservoirs are naturally low in nutrients. Under Current Operations, marine-derived nutrients are added to the Upper Baker River basin when sockeye carcasses from the spawning beaches are distributed to Sandy, Park, Swift, and Shannon creeks. This practice would continue under the Proposed Action and would likely increase if adult sockeye returns are increased through proposed articles 101, Fish Propagation; 103, Upstream Fish; and 105, Downstream Fish Passage. In addition, under the Proposed Action, Puget would implement a reservoir nutrient enhancement program. These efforts would increase available nutrients in the Baker River basin while having little or no effect on nutrient conditions in the Lower Skagit River.

Turbidity is elevated in natural streams for short duration during storm and snowmelt events and for longer duration following mass-wasting events. Low levels of turbidity may influence foraging behavior of juvenile salmonids by reducing the distance from which they can locate drifting prey. Higher concentrations of suspended sediments may affect Chinook spawning success if fine sediments settle out over spawning redds, diminishing intragravel flow by clogging substrate interstices. Current Operations of the Baker River Project result in deposition of sands and larger-sized sediments in the project reservoirs. During periods of high sediment influx into the reservoirs, for instance immediately following a mass-wasting event in a reservoir tributary, the reservoirs reduce the downstream transport of sands and larger-sized sediments into the mainstem Skagit River. Thus, the reservoirs serve as settling basins. However, downstream turbidity levels may be elevated when reservoir drawdown resuspends fine sediments that have been deposited in the reservoirs. During repeated cycles of reservoir drawdown, refill, and drawdown, such as for winter flood control, fine sediments deposited within the alluvial fans of the reservoir tributaries may be re-suspended causing low-intensity but extended increases in turbidity.

3-260

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would implement a Shoreline Erosion Control Plan (Proposed Article 110) and would have established minimum pool levels in Baker Lake and Lake Shannon that would reduce the recruitment and resuspension of sediments that contribute to turbidity. Implementing the proposed articles would require construction of new project facilities and rebuild of several existing facilities (see section 2.2.1). These efforts may cause temporary increases in turbidity, but discharges would be controlled by measures to be detailed in the water quality monitoring plan, stormwater pollution prevention plan, and in-water work protection plan. These plans would be developed in consultation with Ecology; and compliance with these measures would minimize but not eliminate effects of the Proposed Action on turbidity conditions in the action area (see section 3.3.3.2 for additional description of project effects on turbidity).

Habitat Access: The Baker River system historically supported limited production of Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Although quantitative information is lacking, a fisheries survey conducted in 1921, 4 years before the Lower Baker Development was completed, noted that “a few” Chinook returned to the Baker River. It is not certain whether these Chinook were spring or fall runs, and fisheries harvest rates and land-use activities affected the abundance of Chinook in 1921. Between 1926 and 2002, an average of 220 Chinook salmon returned to the Baker River trap. In 1995, the WDFW recommended that adult Chinook entering the Lower Baker fish trap would have higher reproductive potential if they were returned to the mainstem Skagit River. Since that time, the Fish Co-managers have introduced spring Chinook into the Baker watershed on an experimental basis to determine if spring Chinook are able to take advantage of habitats within and upstream of the project reservoirs. Proposed Article 103, Upstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan, would improve the attraction and transport of salmonids and minimize the potential for take associated with holding, handling, and transport of Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Improvements to the upstream fish passage facility would minimize potential adverse effects of the Proposed Action.

As described in section 3.3.4.1, during the past 11 years, an annual average of 1,303 juvenile Chinook have been collected and transported downstream of the Baker River Project. Proposed Article 105, Downstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan, would improve the attraction and downstream transport of juvenile salmonids. The design and installation of the downstream fish passage facilities would be developed by Puget in consultation with Tribal and state Fish Co-managers, and subject to NMFS and FWS approval. The facility would be subject to performance criteria that would minimize the potential for take associated with holding, handling, and transport of Puget Sound Chinook salmon.

Habitat Elements: Proposed Article 106, Flow Implementation, includes an increase in minimum flow releases from 80 cfs to 1,000 cfs in the Lower Baker River and

3-261

several other flow measures designed to protect, mitigate, and enhance aquatic habitat conditions in the mainstem Skagit River. Based on modeling of Middle Skagit River habitats using site-specific data, the Proposed Action is estimated to increase the average width of effective Chinook spawning habitat in the Middle Skagit River from a 5-year weighted average of 28.4 feet under Current Operations, to 30.7 feet under the Proposed Action (see table 3-30). This represents an 8 percent increase in channel width of effective Chinook spawning habitat considering the effects of both scour and dewatering through the egg incubation period. However, existing structural elements of the Lower Baker Development prevent full implementation of the flow measures identified in Proposed Article 106(C) until two new generating units are installed and operating. As described in Proposed Article 106(A), until the new units are constructed, Puget would conduct operations in accordance with the IPP described in NMFS (2004a).

Table 3-30. Transect-weighted, reach-averaged, effective Chinook salmon spawning width in the Middle Skagit River under Current Operations, Interim Protection Plan, and the Proposed Action.

Energy Year

Transect-Weighted, Reach-Averaged, Effective Spawning Width in Middle Skagit River (feet)

Current Operations

Interim Protection Plan

Proposed Action

Chinook salmon (neglecting scour and dewatering)

1993 39.0 40.9 40.51995 36.7 39.8 38.91996 34.9 36.4 34.62001 38.7 40.5 40.12002 37.6 39.7 38.5

Five-Year, Weighted-Averagea 37.3 39.7 38.8

Chinook salmon (including scour only)

1993 38.1 39.9 39.61995 30.5 33.3 32.61996 18.8 19.4 18.82001 38.0 39.6 39.22002 29.5 29.7 29.8


Chinook salmon (including dewatering only)

1993 35.4 38.8 37.81995 34.7 38.8 37.01996 32.4 34.3 33.12001 34.0 37.7 36.22002 32.4 37.8 36.8


3-262

Energy Year


Current Operations

Interim Protection Plan

Proposed Action

Chinook salmon (including both scour and dewatering)

1993 34.4 37.7 36.91995 28.5 32.2 30.71996 16.7 17.5 17.52001 33.2 36.8 35.42002 24.5 28.0 28.3

Five-Year, Weighted-Averagea 28.4 31.6 30.7a Average of 5 energy years (EY) weighted by likelihood of occurrence (EY 1993

Somewhat Dry * 0.231, EY 1995 Average * 0.462, EY 1996 Wet * 0.115, EY 2001 Dry * 0.077, EY 2002 Somewhat Wet * 0.115)

The IPP includes a flow management regime developed in consultation with NMFS and the FWS in an effort to minimize the effects of pre-licensing project operations on Puget Sound Chinook salmon within the structural constraints of existing project facilities. During pre-licensing consultation with NMFS and other interested parties, several alternative flow management strategies were modeled to evaluate project effects on Chinook salmon. Evaluation of the split-spawning season flow management regime indicated that the channel width of effective Chinook spawning habitat in the Middle Skagit River would increase from a 5-year weighted average of 28.4 feet under Current Operations to 31.6 feet under the IPP (table 3-30). The combination of reduced releases from the Lower Baker powerhouse during the first half of the Chinook spawning season and controlled releases during the second half of the Chinook spawning season was designed to complement natural precipitation patterns in the Skagit River basin. Reducing flow releases to the Lower Baker River during the first part of the Chinook spawning season would encourage redd construction deeper in the river channel to reduce risks of dewatering during egg incubation. During the second part of the Chinook spawning season, power generation at the Lower Baker Development would gradually restore available reservoir storage capacity while allowing Chinook redds to be broadly distributed across the Skagit River channel, reducing the risk of egg loss associated with flood events. Further modifications to the IPP in Proposed Article 106(A) are not expected to affect the overall benefit of post-licensing interim operations compared to Current Operations.

Under Current Operations, the Lower Baker Development operates under a voluntary, gradual unit shutdown program consistent with the limitations of the existing, single large generating unit. Under this program, Puget limits the average rate of reduction of river flow whenever flow in the Skagit River near Concrete (measured at the

3-263

USGS gage No. 12194000) drops below 18,000 cfs. As described in section 3.3.4.2, the number of downramping events that exceed Washington State standards would be reduced under the Proposed Action. However, until the additional generating units come on-line at the Lower Baker Development, the ability to reduce downramping rates would remain limited by the narrow operating range of the single, large existing unit. During the 6-year, post-licensing interim period, Puget would investigate methods and make best efforts to reduce ramping rates toward the standards identified in Proposed Article 106(C). These efforts would be expected to improve downramping conditions compared to Current Operations but would not provide the level of protection afforded by the flow management regime described in Proposed Article 106(C). During the interim post-licensing period, Chinook fry and juveniles would continue to be exposed to stage reductions that would cause some stranding and associated mortality. Even when the additional units come online, hourly flow fluctuations associated with power generation would cause stranding of Chinook fry and juveniles, although the level of stranding and associated mortality would be expected to be much reduced compared to Current Operations.

The nature and quality of salmonid habitat in rivers is determined, in part, on the transport and instream storage of sediments recruited from upland areas. In free-flowing river channels, coarse, gravel-sized sediment is primarily transported downstream during moderate-to-high flow events and is stored within the channel bed and banks during intervening low-flow periods. Trapping of sediment within upstream areas reduces the sediment yield to downstream reaches and may result in sediment starvation accompanied by bed armoring and incision depending on the channel type. Conversely, if downstream sediment inputs are high and flow diversion or storage substantially reduces the magnitude of flood flows, undesirable amounts of sediment may accumulate within downstream channels.

Prior to construction of the Upper and Lower Baker developments, bedload from the Upper Baker River and its tributaries would deposit in Baker Lake and intervening low gradient reaches, while sediment entering the system downstream of historic Baker Lake would be transported to the Skagit River. Under Current Operations, bedload from the Upper Baker River and all tributaries is stored within the reservoirs. There are no tributaries to the Baker River downstream of Lower Baker dam and only episodic slope failures downstream of Lower Baker dam contribute coarse sediment (gravel-sized and larger) to the mainstem Skagit River. The Gravel Management Plan (Proposed Article 108) would evaluate and, if deemed appropriate, augment the recruitment of gravel below the Lower Baker Development possibly in the Lower Baker River. The plan would serve to reduce potential project effects on Skagit River habitats downstream of the Baker River confluence that support spawning of Puget Sound Chinook salmon.

3-264

Woody debris provides habitat space (pools) and structure (cover), provides habitat and food for aquatic invertebrates, helps retain local deposits of gravel, contributes to bank stability, and can be integral to channel migration processes in alluvial reaches. Researchers studying juvenile salmonid use of mainstem Skagit River margin habitats observed that four to five times more juvenile Chinook were observed in channel margin habitat containing debris piles or rootwads compared to margins containing riprap or single logs (Beamer and Henderson, 1998). Most alluvial rivers in the Pacific Northwest formerly contained extensive debris jams, especially in low gradient reaches, which also supported Chinook spawning. Removal of in-channel woody debris has occurred throughout much of the Skagit River basin as a result of timber harvest practices, land-use changes, and flood control. Under Current Operations, the transport of wood from Baker River basin tributaries and reservoir margins has been disrupted, as pieces of wood are either collected and disposed of or are stranded within the reservoirs. LWD tends to collect at the upper end of both reservoirs due to prevailing wind direction, and in past years, recreationists and others have removed and burned a portion of the accumulating rafts of wood. Under the Proposed Action, the LWD Management Plan (Proposed Article 109) would provide for the transport of LWD from project reservoirs to stockpile areas where the wood would be available for use in habitat improvement projects. As described in section 3.3.4.2, Puget’s Proposed Action would be limited to transporting and stockpiling LWD, but this action would be expected to improve aquatic habitat conditions in the Skagit and Baker rivers where habitat improvement activities are conducted (table 3-29).

Under unregulated conditions, low-gradient, unconfined river channels migrate back and forth across their floodplains in response to bank erosion and sediment deposition. Channel migration may occur as a result of slow, steady erosion of the outside of a meander bend, or it may occur as a sudden shift into an old channel during flood events. As a result of these processes, natural low gradient, alluvial channels typically develop a network of low-flow channels containing numerous gravel bars, side channels, abandoned oxbow lakes, sloughs and wetlands. Such off-channel and mainstem margin habitats are an important component of juvenile Chinook rearing habitat and provide refuge from high water velocities during flood events (table 3-29).

Under the reservoir management regime modeled to describe Current Operations, reservoir pool levels are managed primarily for power generation and flood storage. Reservoir drawdown begins in late August or early September and spring refill is delayed until late May or June. The reservoir pool levels are held near full pool during July and August to benefit recreational users. As described in section 3.3.4.1, only adult Chinook that enter the Lower Baker trap prior to August 1 are currently hauled and released into Baker Lake as part of an experimental program. Adult Chinook have been observed spawning in tributaries to Baker Lake and must move upstream through the exposed

3-265

portions of the tributaries within the reservoir drawdown zone to reach upstream reaches. During the spring, Chinook fry and juveniles must move downstream from the tributary streams and enter the reservoirs through exposed portions of the stream channel.

Under the Proposed Action, the reservoir management regime, described in Proposed Article 106, would reduce the duration of exposure of the reservoir inundation zone by delaying fall drawdown and accelerating spring refill. Winter flood storage, including flood control, would continue to affect tributary channel stability within the reservoir inundation zone.

Channel Conditions: Channel dynamics affect the formation, availability, and quality of off-channel habitat in the Middle and Lower Skagit River. Channel change is currently constrained by land-use changes and flood control operations. Channelization and construction of county flood-control levees, revetments, and roads have disconnected many formerly accessible side channels. Flood control operations at the Baker and Skagit hydroelectric projects have reduced some of the large channel-altering flows that threaten people and property, but these flood events also create new side channels benefiting salmonid habitats in the Middle and Lower Skagit River.

Flow/Hydrology: Typical floodplain habitats include a network of low-flow channels, gravel bars, side channels, abandoned oxbow lakes, sloughs, and wetlands. As previously described, connectivity to floodplain habitats in the Middle and Lower Skagit River has been interrupted by land-use changes and flood control measures. Much of the remaining side channel and backwater slough habitat in the Middle and Lower Skagit River is affected by flow fluctuations associated with power generation at the Lower Baker Development. Under Current Operations, side channels and backwater sloughs may be wetted and dewatered on an hourly basis due to load-following operations (see section 3.3.4.2). Under the Proposed Action, the frequency, hourly rate and daily range of flow fluctuations would be reduced, benefiting juvenile Chinook rearing in off-channel habitats (table 3-29).

Minimum flows in the Lower Baker River under Current Operations total approximately 80-cfs and consist of releases through a 24-inch Darling valve and leakage through the dam abutments. The existing, large generating unit at the Lower Baker Development was installed without a flow continuation device, and the unit can only operate for extended periods within a flow range of approximately 3,200 to 4,100 cfs. During periods of upstream salmon migration, Puget typically generates power for a minimum of 4 hours each day beginning at daylight to provide additional attraction for adult fish staging at the confluence of the Baker and Skagit rivers. Under the FIP (Proposed Article 106), two new turbine generating units would be installed at the Lower Baker Development to provide controlled flow releases and satisfy Washington State

3-266

downramping guidelines. The minimum flow releases would increase from 80 cfs to 1,000 cfs. Under the Proposed Action, 7-day low flows measured at the Baker River at Concrete gage would substantially increase and exceed unregulated base flow conditions during September and during longer portions of dry years (see section 3.3.2). During wet years or wet months, 7-day low flows would improve compared to baseline conditions, but would remain less than unregulated conditions. Installation of new turbines with flow continuation devices would minimize the risk of rapid flow reductions and potential stranding of Chinook fry during load rejections (table 3-29).

Biotic Interactions: Analysis of potential effects of predation, competition, and harvest under the environmental baseline suggests that those biotic factors are properly functioning under Current Operations, and the Proposed Action would not be expected to alter that condition (table 3-29). Limited numbers of adult Chinook salmon are currently transported and released into Baker Lake and future management of Chinook salmon in the Skagit and Baker River basins would be directed by the Fish Co-managers and NMFS. The FPFP (Proposed Article 101) would provide for potential increases in fish production within the Baker River basin.

Indirect Effects—No indirect effects are known or suspected to occur under existing conditions or under the Proposed Action.

Cumulative Effects—Cumulative effects considered for ESA determinations include the effects of future state, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area (50 CFR §402.14(g)(3) and (4)). Future federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. At this time, we are unaware of any specific non-federal (state, tribal, local, or private) actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area in the future.

Conservation Measures—Under Current Operations, conservation measures include a suite of fish propagation and upstream and downstream fish passage measures (see sections 3.3.4 and 5.1). The Lower Baker plant operates under a voluntary gradual unit shutdown; however, the operational limitations associated with the existing large, single turbine at the Lower Baker powerhouse affect downstream flow releases and downramping rates.

The Proposed Action includes mandatory downramping restrictions, reservoir management guidelines and flow releases (Proposed Article 106) and improved fish passage facilities (proposed articles 103, 104, and 105). Two additional turbines would be constructed at the Lower Baker powerhouse to facilitate meeting instream flow and downramping restrictions. Sediment and LWD would also be managed in collaboration

3-267

with the BRCC for potential habitat enhancement use under the Proposed Action (proposed articles 108 and 109).

Effect Summary—Compared to Current Operations, the Proposed Action would improve aquatic habitat available for Chinook salmon spawning and incubation during the fall and winter, and would benefit juvenile Chinook salmon utilizing the Baker and lower Skagit Rivers during the spring and summer rearing and outmigration periods. The improvements in aquatic habitat conditions as a consequence of the proposed measures recommended in this draft EIS would contribute to the long-term recovery and sustainability of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU. However, while the overall effects of the conservation measures contained in the Proposed Action would represent significant improvements in the biological requirements and habitat conditions of Puget Sound Chinook salmon, it is likely that some incidental take of individuals and some short and long-term deleterious impacts to critical habitat would occur. Therefore, continued operation of the Baker River Project may affect and is likely to adversely affect individuals belonging to the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU and their designated critical habitat (table 3-31).

Table 3-31. Summary of effects determinations for ESA-listed fish species, their designated critical habitat, and EFH that occurs in the Baker River Project action area.

Species ESU/DPS

ESA Listing Status/Critical Habitat

Designation/EFH Effects

DeterminationChinook salmon Puget

Sound Chinook salmon ESU

Threatened May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Critical habitat designated in the mainstem Skagit River

May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

EFH: Baker and Skagit Rivers

May Adversely Affect

Bull trout Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS

Threatened May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Designated critical habitat in the mainstem Baker River from the Skagit River confluence to the headwaters, and select tributaries above Baker Lake. Project reservoirs excluded from designation.

May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Coho salmon Puget Sound/



3-268

Straight of Georgia coho salmon ESUa

Pink salmon Odd-year pink salmon ESUa



a ESU is not listed as “threatened” or “endangered” and critical habitat has not been designated for this ESU under the federal ESA; therefore, an ESA effects determination is not warranted.

Anticipated Take—It is anticipated that the Proposed Action would continue to cause some incidental take of Puget Sound Chinook salmon within the action area. Examples of take may include impacts to redds or stranding of fry caused by flow fluctuations. During the first 6 years of a new license, the ability to control releases from the Lower Baker Development would be limited by the operational range of the single existing turbine. Although Puget is committed to investigate methods and make best efforts to reduce ramping rates and reduce the difference between spawning and incubation flows during this interim period (see Proposed Article 106), some dewatering of redds and stranding of Chinook fry would be anticipated. Once the new turbines in the Lower Baker powerhouse are operational and the proposed instream flow regime is fully implemented, the quantity of take would be greatly reduced; however, complete avoidance of take would not be anticipated. Flow fluctuations associated with power generation and flood control would still cause some stranding and take of Chinook salmon fry. Power generation during the fall months may cause some Chinook salmon to spawn higher along the channel margins where they may be at risk of dewatering even though minimum flows from the Lower Baker powerhouse would have increased from 80 cfs to a minimum of 1,000 cfs.

The trapping and transport of adult Chinook salmon entering the Lower Baker trap may cause some fish to be injured, even though new facilities would be constructed, existing facilities would be renovated, and operational procedures would be reviewed and revised in coordination with federal, Tribal and state managers (see Proposed Article 103). Construction impacts and initial start-up of the FSC at both Baker Lake and Lake Shannon would cause some short-term increases in turbidity that would affect downstream Chinook habitats but are not expected to affect survival.

The Proposed Action would cause incidental take of some individuals belonging to the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU from the upstream end of Baker Lake

3-269

downstream to the Skagit River at RM 15.7 through the term of any new license issued. Isolating and quantifying project-specific take is complicated by the influence of non-project related factors occurring upstream of the Baker River confluence but extending downstream into reaches affected by the Baker River Project. These non-project-related influences may include, but are not limited to, daily and hourly flow fluctuations associated with natural runoff from glacial and non-glacial upstream tributaries, the downstream influence of the Skagit River Project, effects of hatchery management, harvest and other natural and anthropomorphic influences. Seasonal or cyclic population fluctuations, or the effects of natural events such as major floods or extended drought would mask direct or indirect take of Chinook salmon related to the Proposed Action. Despite the use of best available science, it is not possible to quantify a specific amount of take of individual Chinook salmon juveniles, adults, or incubating eggs as a result of the Proposed Action.

Chinook Salmon EFHThe Proposed Action would continue to result in some short-term and long-term

adverse effects on Chinook salmon EFH in the action area. However, the level of protection for Chinook salmon EFH would be improved under the IPP and the Proposed Action, as compared to Current Operations. The suite of conservation measures in proposed articles 101, 103, 105, 106, 108, and 109 for the protection of aquatic resources including the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU and their designated critical habitat, would also be adopted as conservation measures for Chinook salmon EFH. The measures that we recommend that would provide a benefit to Chinook salmon EFH include:

A reservoir nutrient enhancement program (Proposed Article 101).

Proposed Article 101 would provide for evaluating, planning, permitting, and implementing a reservoir nutrient enhancement program, primarily directed at increasing the carrying capacity of project reservoirs for sockeye production. As sockeye salmon production levels increase to 14.5 million sockeye fry per year, reservoir nutrient enhancement would likely be needed and would provide increased aquatic habitat productivity for sockeye as well as juvenile Chinook salmon rearing in project reservoirs.

Improving upstream and downstream fish passage (proposed articles 103 and 105).

Improvements to project fish passage facilities would improve Chinook salmon EFH within and adjacent to these facilities by providing safe, timely and effective upstream passage. The new system would include more effective screens on water intakes and fish sorting, holding and transport systems; use water-to-water transfer

3-270

methods when handling fish; and provide increased or more effective attraction flows to the trap system.

Improving flows below Lower Baker dam (Proposed Article 106).

Proposed Article 106 would likely substantially improve Chinook salmon EFH, primarily by reducing the frequency and magnitude of flow fluctuations that currently dewaters Chinook salmon rearing, migration, spawning, and incubation habitats downstream of the project (section 3.3.4).

Augmenting gravel in the Baker and Skagit Rivers (Proposed Article 108).

Proposed Article 108 would require Puget to develop a Gravel Management Plan for evaluating sediment interruption by the project and identifying any gravel augmentation measures to be implemented by Puget. The Gravel Management Plan would focus on improving the geomorphic function of the Lower Baker River alluvial fan and the project-affected downstream reach of the Skagit River. Puget’s Gravel Management Plan in Proposed Article 108 would potentially enhance spawning habitat for Chinook salmon in the lower Baker and Skagit rivers.

Transporting LWD from project reservoirs for future habitat enhancement projects (Proposed Article 109).

Under Proposed Article 109, Puget would develop a LWD Management Plan in

consultation with the ARG and TRIG. The LWD Management Plan would provide for the transport of LWD from project reservoirs to a stockpile area within the project boundary.

The LWD Management Plan does not specifically identify locations for installation of LWD captured in project reservoirs. However, the development and implementation of the LWD Management Plan would provide for collection of wood from the Baker River system for potential use both within the project area and for transport around the project downstream to locations in the Skagit River system for habitat enhancement projects. During Current Operations, the downstream movement of LWD in the Baker River system has been impaired by project dams. Although the potential effects on aquatic productivity, due to the lack of LWD that was historically delivered from the Baker River system have not been studied, the role of LWD in Pacific Northwest streams has been linked to channel processes that benefit fish and the aquatic community (Montgomery et al., 2003).

3-271

Bull TroutDirect Effects—Compared to Current Operations, most indicators of the aquatic

habitats and biological requirements of the Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS would be improved under the Proposed Action (table 3-29). Conditions of some habitat indicators would be maintained but no indicators would show overall increased impairment under the Proposed Action. As described in section 3.3.4.1, bull trout currently spawn, rear, and migrate through project reservoirs and some tributaries and exhibit a variety of life history strategies. While the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence is used as a migration corridor for adult and subadult bull trout moving to upstream habitats and juvenile and adult bull trout moving downstream to the Skagit estuary and Puget Sound marine waters, the Middle and Lower Skagit River is not considered to represent spawning habitat for bull trout. The following section describes the direct effects of the Proposed Action on bull trout and their designated critical habitat within the action area.

Water Quality: The effects of the Proposed Action on water quality are similar to those previously described for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU. However, there are some species-specific differences in the response to water quality conditions between bull trout and Chinook salmon. As described in section 3.3.3.1, Ecology adopted a revision to the state water quality standards based on designated uses of specific water bodies. In response to the presence of bull trout in the action area, Baker Lake and all tributaries and the Skagit River have been designated for use by native char. The temperature criteria for designated char waters are more restrictive than designated core salmon/trout waters. The 7-DADMax cannot exceed 12C for designated char waters, compared to a maximum of 16C for core salmon/trout waters. Under Current Operations, the 7-DADMax during the summer of 2002 and 2003 exceeded 15C in the euphotic zone of Baker Lake, the Lower Baker River, and the mainstem Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence. Under the terms of Proposed Article 106, Puget would comply with the terms and conditions of the 401 Certification issued by Ecology. Compliance would be measured at the project forebays and tailraces and the Lower Baker fish weir. Compliance would be expected to improve but not eliminate effects of the Proposed Action on water temperatures compared to Current Operations.

The Middle and Lower Skagit River are not considered bull trout spawning areas, so while short-term increases in turbidity may affect feeding and holding behavior, downstream effects of the Proposed Action on turbidity would not significantly affect bull trout reproduction. Compared to Current Operations, the Proposed Action would be expected to cause increases in turbidity levels within the project reservoirs as a result of pump discharges resuspending bottom sediments during annual start-up of the downstream fish passage facilities. Bull trout have primarily been observed spawning in tributary streams upstream of the project reservoirs; therefore, reproduction would be largely unaffected by increased turbidity levels.

3-272

Bull trout rearing and feeding in the reservoirs would be slightly impaired by increased reservoir turbidity from pump discharges associated with operation of the downstream fish passage facilities. The impairment is not expected to be significant and is somewhat offset by reductions in reservoir turbidity associated with implementation of several proposed articles. Bull trout are typically found in western Washington steams and rivers containing glacial meltwater. Although bull trout presence in glacially influenced waters may be due to the associated cold water temperatures, bull trout successfully rear, feed, and hold in turbid, glacially influenced waters. Under Current Operations, repeated cycles of reservoir drawdown and refill re-suspend fine sediments deposited within the alluvial fans of the reservoir tributaries causing low-intensity but extended increases in turbidity compared to Current Operations. Under the Proposed Action, the Erosion Control Plan (Proposed Article 110) and reservoir pool level restrictions (Proposed Article 401) would reduce the recruitment and resuspension of sediments that contribute to turbidity. Implementing the proposed articles would require construction of new project facilities and rebuild of several existing facilities (see section 2.2.1). These efforts may cause temporary increases in turbidity, but discharges would be controlled by measures to be detailed in the water quality monitoring plan, stormwater pollution prevention plan and in-water work protection plan. These plans would be developed in consultation with, and approved by, Ecology, and compliance with these measures would minimize but not eliminate effects of the Proposed Action on turbidity conditions in the action area.

Habitat Access: Adult and larger subadult bull trout caught at the Lower Baker River upstream migrant fish trap are passed upstream to Baker Lake under Current Operations. In the absence of existing barriers, it is not known if all bull trout caught in the trap would have continued upstream in the Baker River on their own volition, or whether these fish were exhibiting natural distributary movements. If not transported upstream and released in Baker Lake, it is likely that at least some of the transported fish would have moved upstream to other Skagit River basin reaches. The transport and release of non-Baker River basin bull trout into Baker Lake may be a beneficial effect for Baker Lake bull trout populations by potentially increasing genetic interactions with other Skagit River basin populations. Since the Skagit River basin supports the largest population of bull trout in the Puget Sound analysis area, the annual average transport of less than 20 bull trout to Baker Lake (see section 3.3.4.1) would not be expected to significantly affect other Skagit River basin populations.

As described in section 3.3.4.2, some injury and mortality associated with handling and transport of bull trout is possible; however, handling mortality is low. Under Proposed Article 103, Upstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan, new facilities would be constructed, existing facilities would be renovated, and operational procedures

3-273

would be reviewed and revised in coordination with federal, Tribal, and state managers. Management protocols for the capture, transport and release of bull trout would be developed as part of the fish passage plan.

Under Proposed Article 104, Puget would, in coordination with federal, Tribal, and state managers, provide a fishway between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake. As described in section 3.3.4.2, establishing connectivity between spawning populations of bull trout is a common objective of draft bull trout recovery efforts, except where connectivity may increase hybridization with brook trout. Collection of tissue samples from bull trout within the Baker area subbasins is currently ongoing, and the results of the genetic analyses, along with additional evaluation of connectivity issues provided under the measure, would precede selection of an appropriate fishway design. Establishing connectivity under the Proposed Action would benefit bull trout by reconnecting habitats and subpopulations and providing for increased opportunity for two-way genetic exchange. Potential injury and mortality of bull trout may occur during the handling and transport of fish during operation of the fishway, or during tagging, radio tagging, or other monitoring methods. Adverse effects under this measure are expected to be minimal.

Small numbers of juvenile bull trout are currently captured in the Baker River Project juvenile fish passage facilities and transported downstream (see section 3.3.4.2). It is unknown whether the small numbers of juvenile bull trout collected in the existing facilities are a result of adfluvial fish being inadvertently captured, or a low proportion of the Baker River basin population expressing volitional downstream movement. Some degree of handling mortality likely occurs during the handling and transport of juvenile bull trout, but is thought to be minimal under Current Operations. The DFPIP is the largest capital cost in the suite of proposed measures. Under Proposed Article 105, new facilities would be constructed, existing facilities would be renovated, and operational procedures would be reviewed and revised in coordination with federal, Tribal, and state managers. Under the measure, Puget would provide for the safe and effective attraction, capture and downstream transport of juvenile fish at both Upper Baker and Lower Baker developments. Compliance with performance criteria would ensure that any adverse effects of the measure on bull trout would be minimized. Management protocol for the collection, transport and release for juvenile bull trout would be developed as part of the fish passage plan.

Habitat Elements: Proposed Article 106, Flow Implementation, includes an increase in minimum flow releases from 80 cfs to 1,000 cfs at the Lower Baker Development and several other flow measures designed to protect, mitigate and enhance aquatic habitat conditions in the mainstem Skagit River. Increased base flows and reduced flow fluctuations would benefit aquatic habitats in the Skagit River (table 3-29),

3-274

but bull trout use of downstream habitats is primarily limited to holding and migration, which are not heavily flow dependent within the range of Current and Proposed Operations.

Under Current Operations, the Lower Baker Development has operated under a voluntary, gradual unit shutdown program consistent with the limitations of the existing, single large generating unit. As described in section 3.3.4.2, the number of downramping events that exceed WDFW proposed criteria would be reduced under the Proposed Action. However, until the additional generating units come on line at the Lower Baker Development, the ability to reduce downramping rates would remain limited by the narrow operating range of the single, large existing unit. During the 6-year, post-licensing interim period, Puget would investigate methods and make best efforts to reduce ramping rates toward the standards identified in Proposed Article 106. These efforts are expected to improve downramping conditions compared to Current Operations but would not provide the level of protection afforded by the flow management regime described in Proposed Article 106. During the interim post-licensing period, bull trout fry and juveniles moving downstream through the Skagit River would continue to be exposed to stage reductions that would cause some stranding and associated mortality of juveniles. Even when the additional units come on line, hourly flow fluctuations associated with power generation may cause some stranding of bull trout juveniles, although the level of stranding and associated mortality would be expected to be much reduced compared to Current Operations.

The Middle and Lower Skagit River do not support significant bull trout spawning, but channel substrate is one of the most important physical factors influencing the distribution and abundance of bull trout. The distribution of adult bull trout is closely associated with coarse substrates such as large gravels, cobbles and boulders. Sedimentation, by filling in the interstitial spaces within the substrate matrix, can substantially reduce the quality of habitats for use by bull trout. Under the Gravel Management Plan (Proposed Article 108), Puget in cooperation with aquatic resource group would evaluate, and if deemed appropriate, augment the recruitment of gravel below the Lower Baker Development. The plan would serve to reduce potential project effects on Skagit River habitats downstream of the Baker River confluence.

Similar to their association with coarse substrates, bull trout are commonly associated with LWD in pool habitats. Under Current Operations, the transport of wood from Baker River basin tributaries and reservoir margins has been disrupted, as pieces of wood are either collected and disposed of, or are stranded within the reservoirs. LWD tends to collect at the upper end of both reservoirs due to prevailing wind direction, and in past years, recreationists and others have removed and burned a portion of the accumulating rafts of wood. Under the Proposed Action, the LWD Management Plan

3-275

(Proposed Article 109) would provide for the transport of LWD from project reservoirs to stockpile areas where the wood would be available for use in habitat improvement projects. As described in section 3.3.4.2, Puget’s Proposed Action would be limited to transporting and stockpiling LWD, but this action would be expected to improve aquatic habitat conditions in the Skagit and Baker Rivers where habitat improvement activities are conducted (table 3-29).

Under the reservoir management regime modeled to describe Current Operations, reservoir pool levels are managed primarily for power generation and flood storage. Reservoir drawdown begins in late August or early September and spring refill is delayed until late May or June. The reservoir pool levels are held near full pool during July and August to benefit recreational users. Adult bull trout spawn in select tributaries to Baker Lake and Lake Shannon and must move upstream through the exposed portions of the tributaries within the reservoir drawdown zone to reach upstream reaches. During the spring, bull trout fry and juveniles may move downstream from the tributary streams and enter the reservoirs through exposed portions of the stream channel.

Under the Proposed Action, the reservoir management regime, described in Proposed Article 106, Flow Implementation, would reduce the duration of exposure of the reservoir inundation zone by delaying fall drawdown and accelerating spring refill. Winter flood storage would continue to affect tributary channel stability within the reservoir inundation zone. As described in section 3.3.4.2, both Current Operations and the Proposed Action may result in dewatering of potential bull trout spawning habitat at tributary deltas in Baker Lake and possibly Lake Shannon. Estimates of the drawdown zone are given in section 3.3.4.2. The vast majority of bull trout spawning is believed to occur in tributary reaches upstream of the drawdown zone; therefore, effects of the Proposed Action on bull trout reproduction would not be expected to present a significant risk to the population.

Channel Conditions: The effects of the Proposed Action on channel conditions in the Skagit and Baker River basins are expected to be similar for bull trout habitats as those previously described for Chinook salmon habitats.

Flow/Hydrology: Under Current Operations, side channels and backwater sloughs in the Skagit River below the Baker River confluence may be wetted and dewatered on an hourly basis due to load-following operations (see section 3.3.4.2). Under the Proposed Action, the frequency, hourly rate, and daily range of flow fluctuations would be reduced, benefiting off-channel habitat conditions. Under the Proposed Article 106, two new turbine generating units would be installed at the Lower Baker Development to provide controlled flow releases and satisfy Washington State downramping guidelines. Minimum flow releases in the Lower Baker River would increase from 80 cfs to 1,000

3-276

cfs. Increased base flows under the Proposed Action would slightly benefit bull trout holding and migration in the Skagit River (table 3-29). Installation of new turbines with flow continuation devices would minimize the risk of rapid flow reductions and potential stranding of bull trout juveniles migrating downstream through the Skagit River. Evaluation of flow and hydrology indicators suggest that the Proposed Action would slightly improve Skagit River habitats compared to Current Operations, but bull trout use of downstream habitats is primarily limited to holding and migration, which are not heavily flow dependent within the range of Current Operations and Proposed Operations.

Biotic Interactions: Analysis of potential effects of predation, competition, and harvest under the environmental baseline suggests that those biotic factors are properly functioning under Current Operations, and the Proposed Action would not be expected to alter those conditions (table 3-29). The FPFP (Proposed Article 101) provides for potential increases in fish production within the Baker River basin. As described in section 3.3.4.2, the greater the number of hatchery fished introduced to a system, the greater likelihood that hatchery and wild fish would adversely interact. Increased production of sockeye fry may provide an increased prey base for bull trout, but increasing the production of coho in the Baker River basin may increase potential competition between coho and bull trout. The Tribal and state Fish Co-managers, FWS and NMFS would direct the species mix, life stages and quantities of fish produced in the facilities. Harvest of bull trout is currently prohibited in the Baker River basin and the FWS and Fish Co-managers would direct future management of bull trout in the Skagit and Baker River basins.

Indirect Effects—No indirect effects are known or suspected to occur under existing conditions or under the Proposed Action.

Cumulative Effects—Cumulative effects considered for ESA effects determinations include the effects of future state, tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area (50 CFR §402.14(g)(3) and (4)). Future federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. At this time we are unaware of any specific non-federal state, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area in the future.

Conservation Measures—Under the Proposed Action, conservation measures include a suite of fish propagation, upstream and downstream fish passage, flow management and habitat improvement measures. Proposed articles for bull trout are the same as those listed for other species; however, connectivity between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake (Proposed Article 104) would likely be more important to bull trout conservation than for other species.

3-277

Effect Summary—The aggregate effects of the Proposed Action and cumulative effects in the action area, when considered in light of the environmental baseline, would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS. As previously discussed, native char in the Baker River basin and Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence are considered to be part of the Lower Skagit River subpopulation. The Lower Skagit River subpopulation is the only one considered “strong” by the FWS in the Puget Sound analysis area and improvements to bull trout habitat associated with the Proposed Action would be expected to strengthen the viability of the Lower Skagit River subpopulation.

The FWS designated the Baker River mainstem and select tributaries as critical habitat for the Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS on September 2, 2005 (50 CFR Part 17). The project reservoirs were excluded from this designation. The Proposed Action would result in construction-related impacts (see section 3.3.4) and other short-term and long-term adverse effects on bull trout designated critical habitat in the action area, but as compared to Current Operations, the overall effect would be beneficial. Under the Proposed Action, enhancements to fish passage facilities, increased fish propagation measures, flow management changes designed to benefit aquatic resources, and habitat improvement measures would improve or maintain habitat conditions for bull trout and reduce the risk of injury or mortality associated with project operations. Continued operation of the Baker River Project under the Proposed Action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS and their designated critical habitat (table 3-31). Although the overall effect of the conservation measures contained in the Proposed Action represent significant improvements in the biological requirements and habitats of Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS, it is likely that some incidental take of individuals would occur.

Anticipated Take—It is anticipated that the Proposed Action would cause some incidental take of Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout within the action area. Biologists assigned to the fish passage facilities have noted very few injuries or mortalities associated with the collection and transport of bull trout. However, during June 2004, two bull trout mortalities were observed in the holding pond of the upstream fish passage facility. The exact source of mortality is unknown, but a river otter (Enhydra lutra) was observed in the facility and may have contributed to or caused the mortalities. The relocation of bull trout entering the fish passage facilities may also be considered a form of harassment that is prohibited without a specific permit or exemption. Under proposed articles 103, 104 and 105, new facilities would be constructed, existing facilities would be renovated, and operational procedures would be reviewed and revised in coordination with federal, Tribal and state managers and subject to approval by NMFS and FWS.

3-278

In addition to bull trout that are collected and transported at the fish passage facilities, an unknown number of bull trout pass through the spillways or turbines and are exposed to potential injury and mortality. Construction impacts and initial start-up of the FSC at both Baker Lake and Lake Shannon would cause some short-term increases in turbidity that would affect bull trout habitats. Management of reservoir levels may impact redds within the drawdown zone or impede the passage of bull trout through portions of tributary channels exposed by dropping reservoir levels.

Flow fluctuations downstream of the Lower Baker powerhouse associated with project power generation may affect native char in the lower mainstem Skagit River. Adult and sub-adult char in the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence appear to be primarily using the reach as a migration corridor to move between streams in the Upper Skagit and Sauk River basins and the Skagit estuary and Puget Sound. Native char have been observed in the Middle Skagit River, but available data suggest spawning and rearing primarily occur in upstream tributaries.

The Proposed Action would cause incidental take of some Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout from the upstream end of Baker Lake downstream and into the Skagit River through the term of any new license issued. Levels of collection and transport of native char can be accurately quantified (see section 3.3.4), but despite the use of best available science, it is not possible to quantify a specific amount of take of individual fish or incubating eggs as a result of the Proposed Action.

Coho Salmon EFHAdult coho salmon primarily utilize reservoir tributary streams, and side channels

and tributaries to the mainstem Skagit River for spawning; juvenile coho salmon utilize the mainstem Baker and Skagit River systems within and upstream of the action area for rearing and migration life history strategies. Reservoir management described in the Proposed Action would continue to adversely affect coho salmon EFH within the reservoir drawdown zone, and flow fluctuations associated with power generation would continue to negatively affect coho salmon EFH in the lower Baker and Skagit Rivers. However, implementation of the conservation measures recommended in the Proposed Action would improve coho salmon EFH as compared to Current Operations. The measures that we recommend that would provide a benefit to coho salmon EFH include:

A reservoir nutrient enhancement program (Proposed Article 101).

Proposed Article 101 would provide for evaluating, planning, permitting, and implementing a reservoir nutrient enhancement program, primarily directed at increasing the carrying capacity of project reservoirs for sockeye production. As sockeye salmon production levels increase to 14.5 million sockeye fry per year, reservoir nutrient

3-279

enhancement would likely be needed and would provide increased aquatic habitat productivity for sockeye as well as coho salmon rearing in project reservoirs.

Improving upstream and downstream fish passage (proposed articles 103 and 105).

Improvements to project fish passage facilities would improve coho salmon EFH within and adjacent to these facilities by providing safe, timely and effective upstream passage. The new system would include more effective screens on water intakes and fish sorting, holding and transport systems; use water-to-water transfer methods when handling fish; and provide increased or more effective attraction flows to the trap system.

Improving flows below Lower Baker dam (Proposed Article 106).

Proposed Article 106 would likely improve coho salmon EFH, primarily by reducing the frequency and magnitude of flow fluctuations that currently lead to fish stranding and redd dewatering in the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence (section 3.3.4). Increases in anadromous fish production as a result of flow improvements in Proposed Article 106 would increase marine-derived nutrient input into the Baker and Skagit river systems, and therefore, enhance coho salmon EFH.

Augmenting gravel in the Baker and Skagit Rivers (Proposed Article 108).

Proposed Article 108 would require Puget to develop a Gravel Management Plan for evaluating sediment interruption by the project and identifying any gravel augmentation measures to be implemented by Puget. The Gravel Management Plan would focus on improving the geomorphic function of the Lower Baker River alluvial fan and the project-affected downstream reach of the Skagit River. Puget’s Gravel Management Plan in proposed Article 108 would enhance spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and possibly other fish species in the Lower Baker River. The plan would also address the relationship between substrate sizes and biological needs of aquatic organisms, including coho salmon. Gravel augmentation that is implemented as a consequence of this analysis would have the potential to benefit coho salmon EFH.

Transporting LWD from project reservoirs for future habitat enhancement projects (Proposed Article 109).

Under Proposed Article 109, Puget would develop a LWD Management Plan in consultation with the ARG and TRIG. The LWD Management Plan would provide for

3-280

the transport of LWD from project reservoirs to a stockpile area within the project boundary.

The LWD Management Plan does not specifically identify locations for installation of LWD captured in project reservoirs. However, the development and implementation of the LWD Management Plan would provide for collection of wood from the Baker River system for potential use both within the project area and for transport around the project downstream to locations in the Skagit River system for habitat enhancement projects. During Current Operations, the downstream movement of LWD in the Baker River system has been impaired by project dams. Although the potential effects on aquatic productivity, due to the lack of LWD that was historically delivered from the Baker River system have not been studied, the role of LWD in Pacific Northwest streams has been linked to channel processes that benefit fish and the aquatic community (Montgomery et al., 2003).

Coho salmon evolved in freshwater ecosystems that were historically characterized by a high degree of structural complexity including LWD complexes in streams, flood plains, braided channels, beaver ponds and, in some cases, lakes (ODFW, 1995). LWD creates habitat complexity by forming back eddies and side channels (off-channel habitats), pools, and by increasing channel meanders and hydraulic complexity (Spence et al., 1996). Off-channel habitat availability is an important factor in juvenile coho salmon over-winter survival. The complex habitats created by LWD provide refuge for over-wintering coho salmon juveniles during seasonal high flow events. Any benefits to aquatic habitat as a consequence of LWD placement within the range of anadromous fish use in the Skagit River watershed would lead to an enhancement of coho salmon EFH.

Pink Salmon EFH The Proposed Action would continue to adversely affect pink salmon EFH in the

action area; however, analysis of the effects of the IPP and the Proposed Action operations on pink salmon spawning, incubation, and migration habitats suggest that the level of protection would be improved under both scenarios as compared to Current Operations (table 3-32). The majority of pink salmon spawn in the Skagit and Sauk rivers above the Baker River confluence; however, pink salmon spawning habitat exists in the upper Baker River and extends downstream through the project to the Lower Skagit River. During the interim operating period prior to construction and operation of the additional turbines at the Lower Baker Development, Puget would conduct operations in accordance with the IPP. Project downstream flow releases would be reduced during the majority of the pink salmon spawning period and thereby minimize the risk of redd dewatering during the subsequent pink salmon incubation period. Specific conservation measures that would improve pink salmon EFH include:

3-281

Improving upstream and downstream fish passage (proposed articles 103 and 105)

Improvements to project fish passage facilities would improve pink salmon EFH within and adjacent to these facilities by providing safer and more efficient fish passage. The new fish passage system would include more effective screens on water intakes and fish sorting, holding and transport systems; use water-to-water transfer methods when handling fish; and provide increased or more effective attraction flows to the trap system. Decreased mesh size on downstream collection devices from 1/4-inch to 1/8-inch in guide nets would be especially beneficial to pink salmon juveniles because of their small body size during emigration to saltwater.

Improving flows below Lower Baker dam (Proposed Article 106)

Proposed Article 106 would likely substantially improve pink salmon EFH, primarily by reducing the frequency and magnitude of flow fluctuations that currently dewater pink salmon spawning, incubation, and migration habitats downstream of the project (section 3.3.4).

Augmenting gravel in the Baker and Skagit Rivers (Proposed Article 108)

Proposed Article 108 would require Puget to develop a Gravel Management Plan for evaluating sediment interruption by the project and identifying any gravel augmentation measures to be implemented by Puget. The Gravel Management Plan would focus on improving the geomorphic function of the Lower Baker River alluvial fan and the project-affected downstream reach of the Skagit River. Puget’s Gravel Management Plan in Proposed Article 108 would enhance spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and possibly other fish species, including pink salmon, in the Lower Baker River. The plan would also address the relationship between substrate sizes and biological needs of aquatic organisms, including pink salmon. Gravel augmentation that is implemented as a consequence of this analysis would have the potential to benefit pink salmon EFH.

Transporting LWD from project reservoirs for future habitat enhancement projects (Proposed Article 109)

Under Proposed Article 109, Puget would develop a LWD Management Plan in consultation with the ARG and TRIG. The LWD Management Plan would provide for the transport of LWD from project reservoirs to a stockpile area within the project boundary.

3-282

The LWD Management Plan does not specifically identify locations for installation of LWD captured in project reservoirs. However, the development and implementation of the LWD Management Plan would provide for collection of wood from the Baker River system for potential use both within the project area and for transport around the project, downstream to locations in the Skagit River system for habitat enhancement projects. During Current Operations, the downstream movement of LWD in the Baker River system has been impaired by project dams. Although the potential effects on aquatic productivity, due to the lack of LWD that was historically delivered from the Baker River system have not been studied, the role of LWD in Pacific Northwest streams has been linked to channel processes that benefit fish and the aquatic community (Montgomery et al., 2003).

Table 3-32. Transect-weighted, reach-averaged, effective Pink and Chum Salmon and Steelhead spawning width in the Middle Skagit River under Current Operations, Post-Licensing Interim Protection Plan, and the Proposed Action.

Energy Year


Current Operations

Post-Licensing Interim

Protection PlanProposed

ActionPink salmon (including both scour and dewatering)

1993 3.3 3.7 3.71995 3.6 4.5 3.91996 1.3 1.3 1.32001 3.0 3.6 2.82002 2.6 3.6 4.1

Five-Year, Weighted-Averagea3.1 3.8 3.5

Chum salmon (including both scour and dewatering)

1993 4.4 5.6 6.11995 8.3 9.3 8.01996 2.2 2.1 2.52001 7.4 7.7 9.62002 3.9 6.8 7.3


Steelhead (including both scour and dewatering)

1993 9.4 9.5 10.51995 11.4 11.7 11.91996 10.7 9.6 11.02001 11.7 11.5 11.6

3-283

Energy Year


Current Operations

Post-Licensing Interim

Protection PlanProposed

Action2002 10.0 10.1 10.3


a Average of 5 energy years (EY) weighted by likelihood of occurrence (EY 1993 Somewhat Dry * 0.231, EY 1995 Average * 0.462, EY 1996 Wet * 0.115, EY 2001 Dry * 0.077, EY 2002 Somewhat Wet * 0.115)

Plant Species

Golden PaintbrushWe present the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would be expected to

occur under the Proposed Action in the following subsections. Conservation measures and the overall effects determination are also described.

Direct and Indirect Effects—Golden paintbrush and its habitat are not present in the Baker River basin. The species range is restricted to low elevations in the Puget Trough ecoregion. No direct or indirect effects on the species or its habitat would occur under the Proposed Action.

Cumulative Effects—The project has not contributed, nor would it contribute in the future, to cumulative effects on golden paintbrush or its habitat. Other actions expected to occur within the basin would not affect golden paintbrush, due to the lack of habitat.

Conservation Measures—No conservation measures are proposed for the protection of golden paintbrush.

Determination of Effect—Implementation of the Proposed Action would have no effect on golden paintbrush individuals or populations or their habitat.

Wildlife Species

3-284

Oregon Spotted Frog (Candidate)We present the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would be expected to


Direct and Indirect Effects—Oregon spotted frogs are not present at the Baker River Project. Historically, one population was reported two miles northwest of the Town of Concrete (McAllister and Leonard, 1997). This population may have been located at the extreme south end of the Baker River Project area. However, surveys for this species in the Baker River watershed during the summer of 2001 (Hamer Environmental, 2002a) and general amphibian surveys in the Baker River Project reservoir area in 2002 (Hamer Environmental and R2, 2003d) did not detect any Oregon spotted frogs.

Cumulative Effects—The Proposed Action includes a measure to improve the protection and quality of wetlands in the project area and could offset some of the cumulative loss of amphibian breeding habitat in the basin. Recreational use of the basin would likely increase over time; however, during the term of the new license, land use regulations are expected to remain protective of wetland habitats.

Conservation Measures—The Proposed Action includes measures that would reduce water level fluctuations in Baker Lake and Lake Shannon and would acquire wetlands, in part, to provide breeding habitat for native amphibians.

Determination of Effect— The Oregon spotted frog is a candidate species;

therefore, no determination of effect is needed under the ESA. Nevertheless, implementation of the Proposed Action would have no effect on the Oregon spotted frog because this species is not present at the project.

Bald EagleWe present the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would be expected to


Direct Effects—Reservoir Level Management: No direct effects would be expected to occur to

wintering or breeding bald eagles as a result of the reservoir level management regime to be implemented under the Proposed Action. The reservoirs would be managed under current direction for the next 6 years, until the Lower Baker power plant modifications are completed. At that time, the new management regime would be implemented; typical

3-285

reservoir patterns of winter drawdown and summer high water levels would not change under the new regime.

Project Releases: No adverse effects are expected to occur to wintering or breeding bald eagles as a result of the project releases to be implemented under the Proposed Action. Project releases from the Upper and Lower Baker developments would remain at current levels until the Lower Baker power plant modifications are completed. At that time, increased minimum flow and seasonal ramping rate requirements would be implemented. Over time, the FIP is expected to result in reduced levels of fish stranding and redd dewatering, contributing to greater fish productivity in the Lower Skagit River. Increases in available salmonid food resources could benefit bald eagles, primarily during the winter season.

Lower Baker Power Plant Modifications: The Proposed Action includes a proposal to modify the Lower Baker powerhouse (refer to section 2.2.1 for a description of the modifications and to section 3.3.5.2 for a description of effects on terrestrial resources). Construction of the access platform and reconstruction of the powerhouse structure would require clearing of approximately one acre of young deciduous riparian forest dominated by alder. The construction activity would not be located near bald eagle nest sites and would not remove large overstory perch trees. Bald eagles have not been observed perching in trees at the powerhouse site, but they are known to use large perch trees on the right bank of the river opposite the powerhouse and to forage in the powerhouse reach of the river.

Construction activity at the powerhouse site is not expected to affect nesting bald eagles since none are present near the powerhouse site. The closest known nesting territory is approximately 2 miles distant, along the Skagit River.

The noise and human activity associated with construction could affect wintering bald eagles by temporarily displacing them from foraging and perching habitat in the Lower Baker powerhouse vicinity. Preliminary site investigations and excavation of old facilities would occur over an approximately 3-month period prior to construction; this activity is tentatively scheduled to occur from late March through late May. Construction of the powerhouse facility is expected to occur primarily during a 24-month period, with winter outdoor work shutdowns occurring between late November and early March. The proposed construction schedule would result in the majority of noise-generating activity occurring outside of the documented peak bald eagle wintering period at Lake Shannon, December through February, and outside of the generalized critical winter roost period identified for Washington State of November 15 through March 15 (Watson and Roderick, 2002). Any displacement of bald eagles resulting from the powerhouse reconstruction would be temporary and would affect a localized portion of the available

3-286

foraging and perching habitat in the basin. Therefore, this activity may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect, bald eagles.

Aquatic Measures: The Proposed Action includes aquatic resource measures that would involve construction of new facilities (proposed articles 101, 103, 104, and 105). The effects of construction of these facilities on terrestrial resources are described in section 3.3.5.2.

Upper Baker Development FSC Construction and Launch Site: Construction activities at the FSC launch site are described in section 2.2. The effects of construction of this temporary facility on terrestrial resources are described in section 3.3.5.2. Construction of the FSC construction and launch site itself is expected to take just over 4 months between early November and early March. The site would be used for FSC construction for one year, beginning the following August and concluding with breaching and floating of the FSC in August of the next year. Restoration grading and revegetation activities would occur during the fall and winter following completion of construction and would extend from November to March. Monitoring of the restoration activities would continue for 5 years to ensure successful revegetation of the site.

Construction and use of the FSC construction and launch site is not expected to affect nesting bald eagles, as no known nest sites are located in the vicinity. The nearest known bald eagle nest site is at Maple Grove, approximately 2 miles north of the FSC construction and launch site, on the east side of Baker Lake.

Wintering bald eagles could be temporarily disturbed and/or displaced from foraging or perching activity as a result of noise and human activity associated with the FSC construction and launch site. Temporary increases in noise levels would occur as a result of heavy equipment and pile-driving activities during berm construction (November through early March), and from construction vehicles and activities during the construction of the FSC (one calendar year). Operation of heavy equipment and pile driving can be disturbing or even injurious to wildlife, depending upon whether the disturbance occurs during critical life history periods and the proximity to habitat used by the species.

The FWS developed combined injury threshold distances for bald eagles, marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls (table 3-33), with potential injury described as adults flushing from a nest or aborting or postponing a feeding attempt (FWS, 2003).

Bald eagles have not been observed in trees found on the FSC site, but are commonly observed perching on trees across the lake near Anderson Point, about 0.25 mile distant. Construction noise and activity may temporarily displace foraging or

3-287

perching bald eagles in the vicinity of the FSC site during two successive winters, including portions of the critical roost period (Watson and Roderick, 2002) of November 15 through March 15. During the third winter of the construction, activity would include restoration grading as well as installation of plant materials.

Approximately 7 acres of habitat would be affected by construction of the FSC construction and launch site. The site would be located primarily within non-vegetated or sparsely vegetated areas of the reservoir drawdown zone. Shoreline habitats dominated by the invasive weed reed canarygrass and upslope, previously disturbed habitats characterized by deciduous tree and shrub species would also be affected. Portions of the site not needed for permanent facilities would be revegetated upon completion of construction. Individual trees that could be used as bald eagle perches may be removed; however, no known perch or roost trees would be cleared. No effect to bald eagle nesting habitat would be expected to occur as a result of this action.

In conjunction with downstream fish passage improvements, a series of stress relief ponds would be constructed along the Lower Baker River near its confluence with the Skagit River. The ponds would be installed within the Lower Baker compound area, which is highly disturbed and mostly non-vegetated.

Table 3-33. Effects determinations by type of disturbance (construction noise) and operating period for marbled murrelets, northern spotted owls and bald eagles. (Source: FWS, 2003)

3-288

3-289

Activity

Species Effect

Chainsaws Falling Trees and Cutting

Downed WoodHeavy Equipment/Motorized Tools Impact Pile Drivers

Marbled MurreletNo effect 9/16–3/30 8/6–9/15

NLAAb

4/1–8/5 8/6–9/15

LAAc

4/1–8/5

Any> 45 yardsa

> 45 yardsa

< 45 yards

< 45 yards

Any> 35 yardsa

> 35 yardsa

< 35 yards

< 35 yards

Any> 60 yardsa

> 60 yardsa

< 60 yards

< 60 yardsNorthern Spotted OwlNo Effect 10/1–2/28 7/16–9/30

NLAAb

3/1–7/15 7/16–9/30

LAAc

3/1–7/15

Any> 65 yards a

> 65 yardsa

< 65 yards

< 65 yards

Any> 35 yardsa

> 35 yardsa

< 35 yards

< 35 yards

Any> 60 yardsa

> 60 yardsa

< 60 yards

< 60 yardsBald Eagle No Effect 8/16–10/30

NLAAb

1/1–8/15 or

10/31–3/15

LAAc

1/1–8/15 or

10/31–3/15

>0.25-mile not in line-of-sight or

>0.50-mile line-of-site

>0.25-mile not in line-of-sight or

>0.50-mile line-of-sitea

<0.25-mile not in line-of-sight or

<0.50-mile line-of-site

> 1 mile/

>0.25 milea

< 0.25 mile

a FSC launch site distanceb Not Likely to Adversely Affectc Likely to Adversely Affect

Construction of the stress relief ponds would not be expected to affect nesting bald eagles. No bald eagle nest sites have been documented in the vicinity of the site; the closest nest site is approximately 1.5 miles away along the Skagit River.

Construction of the ponds would generate noise from heavy equipment and would involve human activity at the site for a period of relatively short duration. Short-term effects could include displacement of bald eagles that may perch or forage in the vicinity of the construction site. No overstory trees would be removed for construction of the stress relief ponds. Therefore, no removal of bald eagle perching or roosting habitat would occur.

Lower Baker Development FSC Construction and Launch Site: Construction activities at this site would be of similar type and duration as described above for the Upper Baker FSC construction and launch site. Construction of the Lower Baker FSC would occur several years after completion of the installation of the Upper Baker FSC; no overlap in construction periods is expected.

Construction of the Lower Baker FSC construction and launch site would not be expected to affect nesting bald eagles as no known nest sites are located in the vicinity. The nearest known bald eagle nest site is along the Skagit River, more than 2 miles from the proposed FSC construction and launch site and more than 2 miles from the FSC installation site at the Lower Baker dam. The Thunder Creek nest site is almost 3 miles north of the FSC construction and launch site.

Construction noise and activity at the Lower Baker FSC construction and launch site may temporarily displace foraging or perching bald eagles in the vicinity of the FSC construction and launch site during two successive winters, including portions of the critical roost period (Watson and Roderick, 2002) of November 15 through March 15. During the third winter of the construction, activity would be limited to restoration work, which would rely primarily on manual installation of plant materials, with very limited use of heavy equipment.

Approximately 7 acres of habitat would be affected by construction of the Lower Baker FSC construction and launch site. The site would be located primarily within non-vegetated or sparsely vegetated areas of the reservoir drawdown zone. Shoreline habitats dominated by the invasive weed reed canarygrass and upslope, previously disturbed habitats characterized by deciduous tree and shrub species would also be affected. Portions of the site not needed for permanent facilities would be revegetated upon completion of construction. Individual trees that could be used as bald eagle perches may be removed; however, no known perch or roost trees would be cleared. No adverse effect on bald eagle nesting habitat would be expected to occur as a result of this action.

3-290

Fish Propagation and Enhancement Programs and Facilities: Under Proposed Article 101, Sockeye Spawning Beach 4, located near the confluence of Sulphur Creek and the Baker River, would be improved. All improvements would likely occur within the existing special use permit area, which is dominated by constructed facilities and adjacent, cleared and disturbed habitats. A new hatchery facility would be constructed within the footprint of the existing facility.

Implementation of the Spawning Beach 4 improvements, including the new hatchery, is not expected to affect nesting bald eagles. No bald eagle nest sites have been documented in the vicinity of Sulphur Creek; the closest nest site is approximately 3 miles away at Maple Grove.

Construction of the facilities would generate noise from heavy equipment and would involve human activity at the site for a period of relatively short duration. Short-term effects could include displacement of bald eagles that may perch or forage in the vicinity of the construction site. No overstory trees would be removed for construction of the upgraded spawning beach and hatchery facilities. Therefore, no removal of bald eagle perching or roosting habitat would occur.

Spawning beaches 1, 2, and 3 at the upper end of Baker Lake would be decommissioned, including restoration of vegetation along Channel Creek. Noise and human disturbance associated with this activity could potentially disturb nesting bald eagles at the Baker River nest site and/or wintering bald eagles that may forage or perch in the vicinity. Decommissioning of the site would be scheduled during the low water season, due to the need for instream work, and therefore, could potentially be scheduled outside of the bald eagle breeding season. No removal of overstory trees would be expected to occur. The Proposed Action includes a measure, Proposed Article 513, to develop and implement a bald eagle nest management plan for known nest sites (refer to Conservation Measures, below). This plan would address acceptable buffers and human activity and noise limits during the breeding season.

Upstream Passage and Connectivity Upgrades: Existing upstream passage facilities on the Lower Baker River would be replaced with new attraction, capture, and transport facilities. The facilities would likely be constructed within areas already occupied by project facilities or otherwise disturbed by riprap and parking areas.

Implementation of the upstream passage facilities would not be expected to affect nesting bald eagles. No bald eagle nest sites have been documented in the vicinity of the site; the closest nest site is approximately 1.5 miles away along the Skagit River.

3-291

Construction of the upstream passage facilities would generate noise from heavy equipment and would involve human activity at the site for a period of relatively short duration. Short-term effects could include displacement of bald eagles that may perch or forage in the vicinity of the construction site.

No overstory trees are expected to be removed for construction of the upstream passage facilities. Therefore, no removal of bald eagle perching or roosting habitat would occur.

A fishway to improve connectivity between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake would be installed in the Baker River or possibly Sulphur Creek, just downstream of the Upper Baker dam. Implementation of the fishway would not be expected to affect nesting bald eagles. No bald eagle nest sites have been documented in the vicinity of the site; the closest nest site is more than 2 miles away at Maple Grove. Construction of the fishway would generate noise from heavy equipment and would involve human activity at the site for a period of relatively short duration. Short-term effects could include displacement of bald eagles that may perch or forage in the vicinity of the construction site. Few, if any, overstory trees would be expected to be removed for construction of the fishway. Therefore, it is unlikely that removal of significant amounts of bald eagle perching or roosting habitat would occur.

Recreation Measures: Dispersed campsites are present around Baker Lake and Lake Shannon; several of these are located within 1,000 feet of existing bald eagle nest sites. The Proposed Action includes a measure to manage dispersed recreation and to implement management actions to limit adverse effects of dispersed recreation use, such as monitoring, maintenance, information, and hardening of dispersed campsites by formalizing the number of tent sites and providing toilet facilities. This measure would reduce human impacts at selected dispersed sites, potentially including sites in proximity to bald eagle nest sites.

Under the Proposed Action, management plans would be developed and implemented for bald eagle nest sites near the project and any winter night roost sites identified through surveys (proposed articles 513 and 512).

The Proposed Action includes measures to increase production of sockeye and Chinook (Proposed Article 101), increase efficiency of upstream and downstream migratory fish passage (proposed articles 103, 104, and 105), modify instream flows and ramping rates to benefit aquatic resources (Proposed Article 106), and manage LWD (Proposed Article 109). These measures are expected to increase levels of fish in the project reservoirs above current levels, providing an increase in available food resources for wintering and breeding bald eagles.

3-292

Proposed Article 106 would substantially increased minimum instream flows in the Lower Baker River, just upstream of the confluence with the Skagit River, and provides a schedule of ramping rates for the protection of aquatic resources. These modifications would benefit anadromous fish in the Skagit River downstream of the Baker River and would be expected to benefit bald eagles through increased food resource availability (refer to Conservation Measures below).

Indirect Effects—Over time, increased recreational use of project reservoirs and associated recreation sites may lead to increased levels of human disturbance of bald eagle nest sites and foraging areas. The Proposed Action includes a specific measure (Proposed Article 513) to develop bald eagle management plans that would protect known and newly discovered nest sites and winter roost areas from human disturbance during the term of the new license (see Conservation Measures below).

Cumulative Effects—Bald eagle use of the Baker River basin is limited to the project reservoirs and nearby forested habitats. The Baker River Project supports an average of two pairs of breeding bald eagles by providing two year-round water bodies with suitable food resources and adjacent nesting sites. Wintering bald eagles use the project reservoirs in small to moderate numbers. Historical breeding and winter use data are not available for comparison with current use levels.

Future use of the basin would not likely modify bald eagle habitat or prey base. Lands surrounding Baker Lake would continue to be managed in the future for late successional and old-growth forest values. This management would protect forested habitats, perch trees, and fisheries resources. Lands surrounding Lake Shannon would continue to be managed for timber production; shoreline areas and streams would continue to be protected under state regulations. As discussed above, recreational pressure would likely increase in the future; however, future recreational development would be managed under specific project measures.

Conservation Measures—Puget would develop bald eagle management plans for known and newly discovered nest and winter roost sites on project land and lands acquired under the new license (Proposed Article 513). The plans would be designed to protect nest and winter roost sites from human disturbance during the sensitive nesting period per federal and state management guidelines (FWS, 1986; Watson and Rodrick, 2002). Surveys for bald eagle communal winter night roosts would be conducted in the vicinity of the project under Proposed Article 512. Two sets of surveys would be conducted during the term of the new license, under the direction of the TRIG. If winter roost sites are identified, site management plans would be developed and implemented to

3-293

protect them from human disturbance. Selected dispersed recreation sites would be managed for protection of natural resources under Proposed Article 308.

Measures to protect, mitigate, and enhance aquatic resources would be implemented under the Proposed Action. Proposed Article 101 would provide fish propagation and enhancement programs and facilities, including supplementation programs for coho and Chinook salmon, and/or rainbow trout, and expansion of the current sockeye salmon supplementation program through construction of an upgraded spawning beach and new hatchery facility. Upstream and downstream passage for migratory fish would be enhanced through development of improved facilities and through study and implementation of measures to improve connectivity between the reservoirs (proposed articles 103, 104, and 105). A flow management regime would be implemented for the project addressing minimum instream flows, ramping, amplitude, and cycling below each development (Proposed Article 106). This program would benefit fish and other aquatic resources downstream of the project, in the Skagit River basin. In combination, these measures would result in increased levels of fish resources in the project area, relative to current conditions, and would enhance potential food resources for bald eagles.

Determination of Effect—Implementation of the Proposed Action may benefit bald eagles by increasing protection of existing nest sites, existing riparian perching and foraging habitat, and communal winter night roosts (if present), and by enhancing fish prey base through a variety of actions. Short-term, temporary noise and human disturbance of habitats that could be used by bald eagles for foraging and perching would occur during construction of the Lower Baker powerhouse and aquatic facilities for downstream passage, upstream passage, connectivity, and fish propagation. Most of these facilities would be constructed in areas already cleared of vegetation; however, some loss of small numbers of overstory trees that could provide perching habitat may occur. Conservation measures would be implemented to protect bald eagle nest sites and communal winter night roosts from human disturbance and to enhance fisheries resources. The Proposed Action may affect, but would not likely adversely affect, individuals or populations of bald eagles.

Marbled MurreletWe present the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would be expected to


Direct Effects—Ten “occupancy” sites have been documented in the Baker River basin (WDFW, 2004); the majority of these were recorded in the early 1990s and have not been resurveyed since that time. Two of the occupancy sites are located within

3-294

approximately 0.25 mile of the project boundary along the southeastern shore of Baker Lake; the remaining eight sites are greater than 1 mile from the project boundary. The current status of murrelets in the basin is unknown. Critical habitat for the murrelet has been designated in the basin, coincident with the Forest Service LSRs.

Reservoir Levels and Project Releases: Reservoir operations and project releases to be implemented under the Proposed Action would not directly affect marbled murrelets. Murrelets feed in marine waters and do not use fresh water systems. Reservoir operations could influence murrelet critical habitat adjacent to the Baker Lake reservoir if suitable nest trees are lost through individual mortality or erosion of the shoreline. The reservoir operations scenario to be implemented under the Proposed Action would result in overall erosion potential for the shorelines and drawdown zones of the reservoirs similar to the current condition (refer to section 3.3.1.2). An Erosion Control Plan would be implemented (Proposed Article 110) to prioritize erosion sites, evaluate erosion control measures, and adaptively manage the implementation of erosion control measures.

Lower Baker Powerhouse Modification: Reconstruction of the Lower Baker powerhouse would not directly affect marbled murrelets or designated critical habitat. No murrelet sightings have been documented in the vicinity of the Lower Baker powerhouse. Lands at the southern end of Lake Shannon and the Lower Baker River are dominated by early and mid-seral forest habitats and are not designated critical habitat. Up to one acre of young seral stage deciduous forest would be cleared for powerhouse construction (refer to section 3.3.5.2). Suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelet consists of mature and old-growth coniferous forest (FWS, 1997); the vegetation that would be cleared at the Lower Baker powerhouse site is not suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelet. The closest suitable habitat for marbled murrelet is more than 4 miles from the powerhouse site.

Aquatic Measures: The Proposed Action includes several measures for protection, mitigation, and enhancement of aquatic resources that would involve construction of new facilities (proposed articles 101, 103, 104, and 105). Refer to section 2.2 for a description of the construction activities, and section 3.3.5.2 for a summary of effects to terrestrial resources.

Upper Baker Development FSC Construction and Launch Site: Construction and use of the Upper Baker FSC construction and launch site would not be expected to affect nesting marbled murrelets. No nest sites have been documented in the FSC construction and launch site vicinity and the FSC construction and launch site itself would be located within habitats that do not provide suitable nesting opportunities for murrelet. The

3-295

nearest known murrelet detection site is near Anderson Creek, approximately 0.5 mile from the FSC construction and launch site, on the east side of Baker Lake.

Loud noise associated with the FSC construction and launch site construction could potentially affect marbled murrelets nesting adjacent to the site. Suitable habitat, mature and old-growth coniferous forest, is located approximately 500 feet west and north of the FSC construction and launch site. These stands are interspersed with non-forested, early and mid-seral stage stands subjected to recent timber harvest (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004). Temporary increases in noise levels would occur as a result of heavy equipment and pile-driving activities during berm construction (November through early January), and from construction vehicles and activities during the construction of the FSC (one calendar year). Table 3-33 indicates that the injury threshold distance for marbled murrelet for pile drivers, which would be used at the FSC construction and launch site, is 60 yards. No suitable habitat for marbled murrelet nesting is located within 60 yards of the FSC site.

A total of approximately 7 acres of habitat would be affected by construction of the Upper Baker FSC construction and launch site. The site would be located primarily within the reservoir drawdown zone, reed canarygrass, and previously disturbed habitats characterized by deciduous tree and shrub species. Although this site is located within designated critical habitat, clearing would not affect any habitat suitable for use by marbled murrelets.


Construction of the stress relief ponds would not affect marbled murrelets or designated critical habitat. No murrelet sightings have been documented in the vicinity of the Lower Baker River. Lands at the southern end of Lake Shannon and the Lower Baker River are dominated by early and mid-seral forest habitats and are not designated critical habitat.

Lower Baker Development FSC Construction and Launch Site: Construction activities at this site would be of similar type and duration as described above for the Upper Baker FSC construction and launch site. Construction of the Lower Baker FSC construction and launch site would occur several years after completion of the installation of the Upper Baker FSC construction and launch site; no overlap in construction periods is expected.

3-296

Construction and use of the Lower Baker FSC construction and launch site would not affect marbled murrelets or designated critical habitat. No murrelet sightings have been documented in the vicinity of the FSC construction and launch site. Lands at the southern end of Lake Shannon are dominated by early and mid-seral forest habitats and are not designated critical habitat.

Fish Propagation and Enhancement Programs and Facilities: Under Proposed Article 101, Sockeye Spawning Beach 4, located near the confluence of Sulphur Creek and the Baker River, would be improved. All improvements would occur within the existing special use permit area, which is dominated by constructed facilities and adjacent, cleared and disturbed habitats. A new hatchery facility would be constructed within the footprint of the existing facility.

Construction of the improved Spawning Beach 4 and the new hatchery would not affect nesting marbled murrelets at the Sulphur Creek site. No murrelet sightings have been documented in the vicinity of Sulphur Creek. The site has been cleared previously and is dominated by vegetation typical of disturbed habitats. No trees suitable for use by nesting murrelets would be removed.

Loud noise levels from heavy equipment could potentially disturb marbled murrelets nesting adjacent to the site. Suitable habitat, mature and old-growth coniferous forest, is present approximately 200 feet away from the special use permit area at the Sulphur Creek site. These stands are interspersed with non-forested, early, and mid-seral stage stands subjected to recent timber harvest (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004). Temporary increases in noise levels would occur from use of heavy equipment during facility construction. Table 3-33 indicates that the injury threshold distance for marbled murrelet for heavy equipment, which would likely be used at the site, is 35 yards. No suitable murrelet habitat is located within 35 yards of the site.

Spawning beaches 1, 2, and 3 at the upper end of Baker Lake would be decommissioned, including restoration of vegetation along Channel Creek. Short-term increases in noise associated with this activity could potentially disturb marbled murrelets if nesting at or adjacent to the spawning beach site. No murrelet detections have been reported for the site; however, suitable mature and old-growth habitat is present at the site and in the surrounding area. Decommissioning of the site would be scheduled during the low water season, due to the need for instream work, and therefore, could potentially be scheduled outside of the murrelet breeding season. No removal of overstory trees would occur; therefore, no structural modification of critical habitat would occur.

Upstream Passage and Connectivity Upgrades: Existing upstream passage facilities on the Lower Baker River would be replaced with new attraction, capture, and

3-297

transport facilities. The facilities would likely be constructed within areas already occupied by facilities or otherwise disturbed by riprapping and parking areas.

Construction of the upstream fish passage facilities would not affect marbled murrelets or designated critical habitat. No murrelet sightings have been documented in the vicinity of the Lower Baker River. Lands at the southern end of Lake Shannon and the Lower Baker River are dominated by early and mid-seral forest habitats and are not designated critical habitat.

A fishway to improve connectivity between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake would be installed in the Baker River or possibly Sulphur Creek, just downstream of the Upper Baker dam. Implementation of the fishway would not be expected to affect nesting marbled murrelets. No murrelet detections have been recorded in the vicinity. Construction of the fishway would generate noise from heavy equipment and would involve human activity at the site for a period of relatively short duration. Short-term effects could include displacement of marbled murrelets from nesting habitats adjacent to the site. Suitable habitat for marbled murrelet, mature and old-growth forest stands, are present in the vicinity of Sulphur Creek and the Lower Baker Development. No overstory trees that provide suitable habitat for marbled murrelet are expected to be removed for construction of the fishway. Therefore, no direct effects to critical habitat for murrelet would occur.

Recreation Measures: Dispersed campsites are present around Baker Lake and Lake Shannon; several of these are located within proximity of two documented murrelet occupancy sites. The Proposed Action contains a measure to manage dispersed recreation at three to six sites, to be determined in the future. The proposed article would implement management actions to limit adverse effects of dispersed recreation use, such as monitoring, maintenance, information, and hardening of dispersed campsites by formalizing the number of tent sites and providing toilet facilities. The measure would reduce human impacts at selected dispersed sites, potentially including sites in proximity to documented murrelet occupancy sites.

Indirect Effects— Project and non-project related human use would continue to occur in the basin under the Proposed Action and would increase gradually over time. Use of both developed and dispersed recreation sites is estimated to increase in the future. The extent to which human use affects murrelet nesting success is unknown. Murrelets nest high in the canopy and are reported to be not easily disrupted from nesting activity unless confronted at or near the nest (Long and Ralph, 1998). However, human activity near nest sites could increase the risk of predation of murrelets by ravens and Steller’s jays (Marzluff et al., 2000, as cited in Hamer Environmental, 2003).

3-298

Cumulative Effects—Land uses in the Baker River basin are expected to remain the same during the term of the new license. Lands surrounding Baker Lake would continue to be managed primarily for late successional and old-growth forest habitat, and commercial timberlands surrounding Lake Shannon are expected to remain under timber management. Road densities are expected to remain at or near current levels, due to current state and Forest Service management measures for the protection of wildlife. These land uses would not likely contribute to cumulative adverse effects on marbled murrelets or their critical habitat. As noted above, recreation and human activity in the basin would likely increase gradually during the term of the new license.

Conservation Measures— Under the Proposed Action, two measures would be implemented that would provide protection and/or enhancement to marbled murrelets and designated critical habitat. First, under Proposed Article 308, Puget would thin understory trees on 321 acres of second growth forest to promote the development of late seral forest characteristics. Second, under Proposed Article 308, Puget would harden three to six dispersed campsites to reduce recreation effects to previously documented murrelet occupancy sites, depending upon which recreation sites are selected for management. Garbage and waste management would reduce attractiveness of recreational sites to corvids and other potential predators of marbled murrelets.

Determination of Effect—The Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, marbled murrelets and designated murrelet critical habitat. Minor clearing of vegetation in previously cleared and fragmented habitats would occur at the Sulphur Creek special use permit site, the fishway site, and the Upper Baker FSC launch site for the installation of aquatic resource facilities. Loud noise associated with heavy equipment and pile drivers could potentially cause short-term disturbance to murrelets using suitable habitat adjacent to these sites. The noise generated by construction would be temporary and intermittent.

Northern Spotted OwlWe present the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would be expected to


Direct Effects—Eight site centers for northern spotted owl have been documented in the Baker River basin (WDFW, 2004); the majority of these were recorded in the early 1990s and have not been resurveyed since that time. All of the site centers are located greater than one mile from the project boundary. The current status of northern spotted owl in the basin is unknown. Critical habitat for the spotted owl has been designated in the basin.

3-299

Reservoir Levels and Project Releases: Reservoir operations and project releases under the Proposed Action would not directly affect spotted owls, as they are unlikely to use reservoir habitats. No nest site centers have been recorded within one mile of the project boundary. Reservoir operations could influence spotted owl critical habitat adjacent to Baker Lake if suitable nest trees are lost through individual mortality or erosion of the shoreline. The reservoir operations scenario to be implemented under the Proposed Action would result in overall erosion potential for the shorelines and drawdown zones of the reservoirs similar to the current condition (refer to section 3.3.1.2). An Erosion Control Plan would be implemented (Proposed Article 110) to prioritize erosion sites, evaluate erosion control measures, and adaptively manage the implementation of erosion control measures.

Lower Baker Powerhouse Modification: Reconstruction of the Lower Baker powerhouse would not directly affect northern spotted owl or designated critical habitat. No spotted owl sightings have been documented in the vicinity of the Lower Baker Powerhouse. Lands at the southern end of Lake Shannon and the Lower Baker River are dominated by early and mid-seral forest habitats and are not designated critical habitat. Up to one acre of young seral stage deciduous forest would be cleared for powerhouse construction (refer to section 3.3.5.2). Suitable nesting habitat for northern spotted owl consists of mature and old-growth coniferous forest; the vegetation that would be cleared at the Lower Baker powerhouse site is not suitable nesting habitat. The closest suitable habitat for northern spotted owl is more than 4 miles from the powerhouse site.

Aquatic Measures: The Proposed Action includes several measures for protection, mitigation, and enhancement of aquatic resources that would involve construction of new facilities (proposed articles 101, 103, 104, and 105). Refer to section 2.2 for a description of the construction activities, and section 3.3.5.2 for a summary of effects to terrestrial resources.

Upper Baker Development FSC Construction and Launch Site: Construction and use of the Upper Baker FSC construction and launch site is not expected to affect nesting northern spotted owls. No spotted owls have been documented in the FSC construction and launch site vicinity and the FSC construction and launch site itself would be located within habitats that do not provide suitable nesting opportunities for spotted owl. The nearest known spotted owl detection sites are in the upper Sandy Creek and upper Anderson Creek drainages, more than one mile from the FSC construction and launch site.

Loud noise associated with the FSC launch site construction could potentially affect northern spotted owls nesting adjacent to the site. Suitable habitat, mature and old-growth coniferous forest, is located approximately 500 feet west and north of the launch

3-300

site. These stands are relatively small and are interspersed with non-forested and early seral stage stands subjected to recent timber harvest (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004). Temporary increases in noise levels would occur as a result of heavy equipment and pile-driving activities during berm construction (November through early January), and from construction vehicles and activities during the construction of the FSC (one calendar year). Table 3-33 indicates that the injury threshold distance for northern spotted owl for pile drivers, which would be used at the FSC construction and launch site, is 60 yards.

A total of approximately 7 acres of habitat would be affected by construction of the Upper Baker FSC construction and launch site. The site would be located primarily within reservoir drawdown zone, reed canarygrass, and previously disturbed habitats characterized by deciduous tree and shrub species. Although this site is located within DCA boundaries, clearing would not affect any habitat suitable for use by northern spotted owl.


Construction of the stress relief ponds would not affect northern spotted owl or designated critical habitat. No spotted owl sightings have been documented in the vicinity of the Lower Baker River. Lands at the southern end of Lake Shannon and the Lower Baker River are dominated by early and mid-seral forest habitats and are not designated critical habitat.

Lower Baker Development FSC Construction and Launch Site: Construction activities at this site would be of similar type and duration as described above for the Upper Baker FSC construction and launch site. Construction of the Lower Baker FSC construction and launch site would occur several years after completion of the installation of the Upper Baker FSC construction and launch site; no overlap in construction periods would be expected.

Construction and use of the Lower Baker FSC launch site would not affect northern spotted owl or designated critical habitat. No spotted owl sightings have been documented in the vicinity of the launch site. Lands at the southern end of Lake Shannon are dominated by early and mid-seral forest habitats and are not designated critical habitat.

Fish Propagation and Enhancement Programs and Facilities: Under Proposed Article 101, Sockeye Spawning Beach 4, located near the confluence of Sulphur Creek

3-301

and the Baker River, would be improved. All improvements would occur within the existing special use permit area, which is dominated by constructed facilities and adjacent, cleared and disturbed habitats. A new hatchery facility would be constructed within the footprint of the existing facility.

Construction of the improved Spawning Beach 4 and the new hatchery would not affect nesting northern spotted owl at the Sulphur Creek site. No spotted owl sightings have been documented in the vicinity of the Sulphur Creek. The site has been cleared previously and is dominated by vegetation typical of disturbed habitats. No trees suitable for use by nesting spotted owls would be removed.

Loud noise levels from heavy equipment could potentially disturb spotted owls nesting adjacent to the site. Suitable habitat, mature and old-growth coniferous forest, is present about 200 feet away from the special use permit area at the Sulphur Creek site. These stands are interspersed with non-forested, early-, and mid-seral stage stands subjected to recent timber harvest (Hamer Environmental et al., 2004). Temporary increases in noise levels would occur from use of heavy equipment during facility construction. Table 3-33 indicates that the injury threshold distance for northern spotted owl for heavy equipment, which would likely be used at the site, is 35 yards. No suitable habitat for spotted owl is present within 35 yards of the site.

Spawning beaches 1, 2, and 3 at the upper end of Baker Lake would be decommissioned, including restoration of vegetation along Channel Creek. Short-term increases in noise associated with this activity could potentially disturb northern spotted owl if nesting at or adjacent to the spawning beach site. No spotted owl detections have been reported for the site; however, suitable mature and old-growth habitat is present at the site and in the surrounding area. Decommissioning of the site would be scheduled during the low water season, due to the need for instream work, and therefore, could potentially be scheduled outside of the spotted owl breeding season. No removal of overstory trees would occur; therefore, no structural modification of critical habitat would occur.

Upstream Passage and Connectivity Upgrades: Existing upstream passage facilities on the Lower Baker River would be replaced with new attraction, capture, and transport facilities. The facilities would likely be constructed within areas already occupied by facilities or otherwise disturbed by riprapping and parking areas.

Construction of the upstream fish passage facilities would not affect northern spotted owl or designated critical habitat. No spotted owl sightings have been documented in the vicinity of the Lower Baker River. Lands at the southern end of Lake Shannon and the Lower Baker River are dominated by early and mid-seral forest habitats

3-302

and are not designated critical habitat. A fishway to improve connectivity between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake would be installed in the Baker River or possibly Sulphur Creek, just downstream of the Upper Baker Dam. Implementation of the fishway is not expected to affect nesting northern spotted owls. No spotted owl detections have been recorded in the vicinity. Construction of the fishway would generate noise from heavy equipment and would involve human activity at the site for a period of relatively short duration. Short-term effects could include displacement of northern spotted owls from nesting habitats adjacent to the site. Suitable habitat for spotted owl, mature and old-growth forest stands, are present in the vicinity of Sulphur Creek and the Lower Baker Development. No overstory trees that provide suitable habitat for spotted owls would be expected to be removed for construction of the fishway. Therefore, no direct effects to critical habitat for northern spotted owl would occur.

Recreation Measures: The Proposed Action contains a measure to manage selected dispersed campsites at Baker Lake, using a specific measure to evaluate and control effects on natural resources. Presently, no dispersed campsites are known to be in close proximity to documented owl sighting locations.

Indirect Effects—Project-related human use would continue to occur in the basin, and would increase gradually over time under the Proposed Action. Selected dispersed campsites at Baker Lake would be managed using a specific measure to evaluate and control effects on natural resources (Proposed Article 308). The extent to which human use currently affects spotted owl nesting success is unknown.

Cumulative Effects—During the new license period, lands surrounding Baker Lake would continue to be managed for late successional and old-growth forest habitat. Commercial timberlands surrounding Lake Shannon are expected to remain under timber management. Road densities would likely remain at or near current levels, due to current and proposed wildlife management measures. These land uses are not expected to adversely affect spotted owls or their habitats. As noted above, recreation and human activity in the basin would likely increase gradually during the term of any new license issued.

Conservation Measures— Under the Proposed Action, two measures would be implemented that would provide increased protection and/or enhancement of spotted owl habitat. Under Proposed Article 515, Puget would thin the understory of trees on 321 acres of second growth forest in the Baker River watershed, to promote the development of late seral forest characteristics. Selected dispersed campsites at Baker Lake would be managed using a specific measure to control effects on natural resources (Proposed Article 308).

3-303

Determination of Effect—Implementation of the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls and designated northern spotted owl critical habitat. Minor clearing of vegetation in previously cleared and fragmented habitats would occur at the Sulphur Creek special use permit site, the fishway site, and the Upper Baker FSC launch site for the installation of aquatic resource facilities. Loud noise associated with heavy equipment and pile drivers could potentially cause short-term disturbance to spotted owls using suitable habitat adjacent to these sites. The noise generated by construction would be temporary and intermittent.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Candidate)We present the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would be expected to


Direct and Indirect Effects—Yellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat are not present in the Baker River basin. No direct or indirect effects on the species or its habitat would occur under the Proposed Action.

Cumulative Effects—The project has not contributed, nor would it contribute in the future, to cumulative effects on yellow-billed cuckoo or their habitats. Other actions expected to occur within the basin would not affect cuckoo, due to the lack of habitat.

Conservation Measures—No conservation measures are proposed for the protection of yellow-billed cuckoo.

Determination of Effect— The Yellow-billed cuckoo is a candidate species; therefore, no determination of effect is needed under the ESA. Nevertheless, implementation of the Proposed Action would have no effect on the yellow-billed cuckoo because this species is not present at the project.

Canada LynxWe present the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would be expected to


Direct and Indirect Effects—Canada lynx and its habitat are not present in the Baker River basin. No direct or indirect effects on lynx or lynx habitat would occur under the Proposed Action.

3-304

Cumulative Effects—The project has not contributed, nor would it contribute in the future, to cumulative effects on lynx or their habitats. Other actions expected to occur within the basin would not affect lynx, due to the lack of habitat.

Conservation Measures—No conservation measures are proposed for the protection of Canada lynx.

Determination of Effect—Implementation of the Proposed Action would have no effect on Canada lynx individuals or populations or their habitat.

Fisher (Candidate)We present the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would be expected to


Direct and Indirect Effects—Fisher is believed to be extirpated from Washington State (Lewis and Hayes, 2004), and no sightings have been reported in Skagit or Whatcom counties since 1995 (WDFW, 2004). No direct or indirect effects to fisher would occur under the Proposed Action.

Suitable habitat for fisher is present in the Baker River basin. Mature and old-growth forests suitable for use by fisher would not be adversely affected by implementation of the Proposed Action. Project-related human use would continue to occur in the basin and would increase gradually over time under the Proposed Action.

Cumulative Effects—During the new license period, lands surrounding Baker Lake would continue to be managed for late successional and old-growth forest habitat. Commercial timberlands surrounding Lake Shannon are expected to remain under timber management. Road densities would likely remain at or near current levels, due to current and proposed wildlife management measures. These land uses are not expected to adversely affect fisher or their habitats. As noted above, recreation and human activity in the basin would likely increase gradually during the term of any new license issued.

Conservation Measures— Under the Proposed Action, one measure would be implemented that would provide increased protection and/or enhancement of suitable fisher habitat. Under Proposed Article 515, Puget would thin the understory of trees on 321 acres of second growth forest in the Baker River watershed, to promote the development of late seral forest characteristics.

Determination of Effect— The fisher is a candidate species; therefore, no determination of effect is needed under the ESA. Nevertheless, implementation of the

3-305

Proposed Action would have no effect on the fisher because this species is not present at the project.

Gray WolfWe present the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would be expected to


Direct Effects—The Proposed Action would not likely adversely affect gray wolves due to their infrequent occurrence in the Baker River basin. A small population of wolves in the North Cascades to the east of the Baker River basin may be the source of occasional transient wolves that travel to the Baker River basin. No permanent population in the basin is known or suspected.

Indirect Effects—The Baker River Project could potentially influence the distribution of deer and elk in the basin; these species are primary food items for gray wolf. Human disturbance of ungulates could occur as a result of project operation and maintenance activities and project-related recreational activity. This disturbance could cause displacement of deer and elk from the sites of human activity. The Proposed Action includes a proposal to acquire and manage a minimum of 300 acres of elk forage habitat during the term of any new license issued (Proposed Article 503). Implementation of this measure would provide a reliable source of elk forage over the new license period. The action would contribute to the objectives established in the WDFW Nooksack Elk Herd Management Plan (Davison, 2002). This action could positively influence wolves over time by promoting a stable food source in the Baker River basin.

Cumulative Effects—Future use of the Baker River basin would not likely reduce habitat suitability for wolves. Lands surrounding Baker Lake would continue to be managed for late successional and old-growth forests. Lands surrounding Lake Shannon would continue to be managed for timber production. Road densities are not expected to increase due to current and proposed wildlife management objectives. These lands would continue to support deer and elk, which are primary wolf prey species. As noted above, recreation and human activity in the basin would likely increase gradually during the term of any new license issued.

Conservation Measures— Potential improvements in the abundance and stability of elk populations could occur through implementation of elk forage habitat management on a minimum of 300 acres of acquired land (Proposed Article 503).

3-306

Determination of Effect—Implementation of the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, gray wolves in the Baker River basin.

Grizzly BearWe present the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would be expected to


Direct Effects—The Proposed Action would not likely directly affect grizzly bears due to their infrequent occurrence in the Baker River basin. Only two grizzly bear sightings have been documented over the past 15 years; both of these were greater than four miles from the project.

Indirect Effects— Potential foraging habitat for grizzly bears within the Baker BMU of the North Cascades Recovery Zone could be affected over time by increases in project and non-project related human activity. However, grizzly bears apparently do not use this habitat because of their infrequent occurrence in the Baker River basin.

Cumulative Effects—Future land uses in the Baker River basin are expected to remain consistent with current land uses. Lands surrounding Baker Lake would continue to be managed for late successional and old-growth forest habitat. Commercial timberlands surrounding Lake Shannon are expected to remain under timber management during the term of any new license issued. Road densities are expected to remain at or near current levels, due to current and proposed wildlife management measures. Recreation and human activity in the basin would likely increase gradually during the term of any new license issued.

Conservation Measures—None.

Determination of Effect—The Proposed Action may affect, but would not likely adversely affect, grizzly bears.

Summary of Effect Determinations for Plant and Wildlife SpeciesTable 3-34 summarizes ESA-listed terrestrial species evaluated, gives their listing

status, and presents final effect determinations.

3-307

Table 3-34. Summary of effects determinations for ESA listed plant and wildlife species, and their designated critical habitat.

SpeciesESA Listing Status/Critical

Habitat Designation Effects DeterminationGolden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta)

Threatened No Effect

Bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Threatened (proposed for delisting)

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus)

Threatened May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Designated critical habitat in Baker River basin


Northern spotted owl(Strix occidentalis spp. caurina)


Designated critical habitat in Baker River basin


Canada lynx(Lynx canadensis)

Threatened No Effect

Gray wolf(Canis lupus)


Grizzly bear(Ursus arctos)


3.3.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse EffectsRegardless of the collection efficiency level achieved by the new downstream fish

passage systems, some project related mortality would occur to threatened and endangered fish species due to the handling required to collect and transport fish, and the inability to collect all emigrating fish during variable flow scenarios, and especially during extreme flow events.

Unavoidable, short-term increases in turbidity and minor water quality impacts are likely to occur as a consequence of the construction of the powerhouse facility, upstream passage facility upgrade, FSCs, passage facility for connectivity, fish propagation facility, and the spawning beach decommissioning. Puget would minimize the potential for water quality degradation through implementation of a water quality protection plan (Proposed Article 401). This would include adoption of appropriate best management practices for all activities.

3-308

In spite of the improvements to project facilities under the Proposed Action, the project would still have the potential for short-term rapid changes in river flow and daily flow fluctuations as a consequence of hydroelectric project operations. These flow fluctuations would result in the increased potential for stranding and redd dewatering.

3.3.7 Cultural Resources

Historic Properties are defined as sites, structures, buildings, districts, traditional places, or objects that are listed or are eligible for listing in the National Register (36 CFR 60). To be considered eligible for listing in the National Register, properties must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and meet one or more of the following criteria: (A) be associated with events that may have a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; (B) be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; (C) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that (1) represent the work of a master, (2) possess high artistic values, or (3) represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and (D) have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. In some cases, properties may qualify for the National Register by meeting certain criteria exceptions (36 CFR 60.4). Historic Properties identified through surveys would be managed under the provisions of the HPMP.

3.3.7.1 Affected EnvironmentArea of Potential EffectThe Baker River Project Area of Potential Effect (APE) for archaeological

resources and historic structures includes: (1) the area within the project boundary; (2) the area occupied by project facilities (including roads, stockpiles, and buildings) and formal camping facilities that lie within the project boundary and extend out beyond it; (3) the fluctuation zone of both reservoirs, i.e., the area extending from the high-water line into the area exposed by drawdown; (4) a zone extending from the full pool mark (high-water line) to approximately 130 feet beyond the mark; (5) dispersed recreational sites that lie within a 0.25-mile zone beyond the reservoir full pool mark; (6) the area within a 100-foot-wide transect along the length of the Baker Lake Trail; and (7) areas delineated by drawing 328-foot (100 meter) polygons around the dispersed recreational sites, and drawing a line extending from the outlying edges of the polygons up to the Baker Lake Trail for those on the east side of Baker Lake. By letter dated February 4, 2003, the Washington OAHP concurred with this definition of the APE.

3-309

For ethnographic study purposes, consideration of traditional cultural properties encompassed the entire Baker River watershed with a focus on lands within the APE developed for archaeological and historic resources.

Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological ResourcesThere are no prehistoric or historic period archaeological resources, within the

project’s APE, that are currently listed in the National Register. Puget conducted an intensive archaeological survey of the project’s APE and identified six early Holocene sites, two historic period sites, and one archaeological district that are eligible for listing in the National Register (Miss et al., 2004). The survey encompassed the entire APE. Survey methods varied for the APE in the drawdown zone and outside the drawdown. All accessible areas on the rim and 100 percent of the area within the exposed drawdown zones were examined if they did not present a safety hazard. All areas of high and moderate probability and 10 percent of areas of low probability were examined in the forested areas, along Baker Trail, at dispersed campsites, and at project facilities. Probable areas were identified based on slope and proximity to various environmental and historic elements.

Survey ResultsA total of 19 prehistoric archaeological resources were identified within the APE.

Of these archeological resources, 10 are archeological sites, while the remaining 9 consist of isolated flake scatters or individual stone artifacts. Four sites (45-WH-647, 45-WH-584, 45-WH-586, and 45-WH-587) occur within the drawdown zone of Baker Lake and one site occurs within the drawdown zone of Lake Shannon (45-SK-252). One site (45-WH-636) extends from slightly above the maximum Baker Lake pool elevation. These six sites, located in or near the drawdown zones, consist of lithic scatters dating from the early Holocene period (10,800–5,000 Before Present).

During the period when surveys were conducted in 2001 and 2003, the drawdown varied from about elevation 382.5 feet msl to elevation 437 feet msl at Lake Shannon and from about elevation 685 feet msl to elevation 713 feet msl at Baker Lake. Operation of the reservoirs has the potential to reveal additional sites in areas not accessible during the surveys. On Lake Shannon, many terraces that may contain cultural material either were covered with silt or were under water during the surveys. Several locations where lithic flakes were found in the cut bank during the rim survey (45-WH-651, 45-W-652, and 45-WH-653) require further investigation.

The surveys identified 32 historic period archaeological resources. These historic period archeological resources consist of isolated artifacts, homestead and industrial artifact scatters, foundations, and other associated structural and surface remains such as roads and trails. At extremely low elevations (such as during drought conditions), project

3-310

reservoirs may reveal additional historical sites. The original Baker Lake shoreline contained the original site of the Baker Lake Resort (1935 to about 1960), which was developed on the Ruuth Homestead (1891). Along the south shore of the lake was the Baker Lake Ranger and Guard Station situated on the John Eagletrout homestead, from 1911 to 1932. Near Noisy Creek was the Baker Lake Fish Hatchery, from about 1896 to 1940. During the period 1937–1938, a Civilian Conservation Corps camp was located near the fish hatchery to rebuild it after a fire. The location of the hatchery was not exposed during the field surveys and its exact location and condition are unknown.

The Mike Morovitz Homestead was located to the west of Baker Lake outside of the APE. A USGS map of 1915 shows a “Ranger Cabin” located along the east side of the Baker River south of Anderson Creek, above the current Upper Baker dam. This was the Forest Service Baker River Ranger Station that preceded the Koma Kulshan Guard Station (listed in the National Register). The Baker River Railroad Bridge (1908–1925) crossed the river gorge just north of the current Lower Baker dam. General Land Office plats and other historical maps dating from 1881 to 1952 show a number of cabins along the river, in areas that were inundated by Lake Shannon and the current Baker Lake. The Baker River Railroad Bridge, which was located across the river near the current Lower Baker dam, was inundated by Lake Shannon.

Remnants of early industrial and agricultural development could be associated with these historical archaeological sites or might be found in other locations. Most prominent would be the remains of logging operations, such as railroad grades, trestle bridges, or debris from logging-campsites. This debris would likely consist of trash dumps, broken and discarded tools, pieces of old cable and rigging equipment, and sawdust piles. The potential for discovering the remains of permanent buildings in logging campsites is very low because most of the buildings—cook shacks, barracks, maintenance sheds—were moved from camp to camp. In addition, the debris from mining operations, tailings and the presence of old mineshafts could be found.

National Register Status Based on the survey results Puget has prepared a determination of eligibility for a

Baker River Archaeological District (Archaeological District). The Archaeological District is representative of the early human history in the Baker River Valley in the North Cascades Range and meets Criteria A and D. Under Criterion A, the Archaeological District has provided important data to help understand the prehistory of riverine and uplands adaptations in the Pacific Northwest. The record of the Baker River is especially important when considered in the light of the near absence of systematic study of similar settings. The prehistoric sites represent early settlement in the region with remains probably as old as 8,000 years. Under Criterion D, the Archaeological District has the potential for important research based on site assemblage that can provide

3-311

data to address the research domains of chronology, technology, and settlement. Eligibility is based primarily on the potential to provide information about lithic technology, including toolstone selection, reduction, and manufacture. The Washington OAHP concurred with this eligibility determination on March 30, 2004.

The Archaeological District includes 18 contributing prehistoric sites (see table 3-35). Six of the contributing prehistoric sites (45-WH-647, 45-WH-584, 45-WH-586, 45-WH-587, 45-SK-252, and 45-WH-636) are also individually eligible. Four prehistoric contributing sites (45-WH-590, 45-WH-591, 45-WH-592, and 0605010024) require further investigation to determine whether they are individually eligible. One prehistoric site (0605010060) does not contribute to the Archaeological District. All of the eligible archaeological sites are subject to the ongoing effects of shoreline erosion. At publicly accessible locations, surface collecting also is an ongoing problem affecting site integrity.

The APE includes two eligible historic period archaeological sites consisting of a lithic scatter and homestead logging camp (45-SK-252; historic component) dating from the late nineteenth century and a homestead site (45-SK-253) dating from the late nineteenth to early twentieth century. These sites also are recommended as eligible under Criterion D. Nine of the identified historic archaeological sites require further identification/assessment (45-WH-580/581, 45-WH-585, 45-WH-642, 45-WH-657, BR 0150, 45-SK-249, 45-SK-250, 45-SK-251, and 45-SK-290 (see table 3-35.)

Table 3-35. Eligible prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. (Source: Northwest Archaeological, 2004)

No.Site

DescriptionNational

Register Status ThreatsManagement

Recommendation

Prehistoric Archaeological Resources 45WH582 Lithic scatter Contributing Erosion Complete evaluation45WH584 Lithic scatter Eligible,

ContributingErosion and unauthorized artifact collection

Data recovery with emphasis on surface collection

45WH586 Lithic scatter Eligible,Contributing

Erosion and vandalism



Erosion and unauthorized artifact collection


45WH588 Lithic scatter Contributing Erosion and unauthorized artifact collection

Complete evaluation

3-312

No.Site

DescriptionNational


Recommendation45WH589 Isolate, edge

modified pieceContributing Erosion Complete evaluation

45WH590 Isolate, modified cobble

Pending,a

ContributingErosion Complete evaluation

when reservoir is drawn down near minimum pool

45WH591 Isolate, core Pending,a



45WH592 Isolate, modified cobble

Pending,a



45WH593 Isolate, flake Contributing Erosion None 45WH636 Lithic scatter Eligible,

ContributingErosion and unauthorized artifact collection



Erosion and unauthorized artifact collection


45WH650 Isolate, flakes Contributing Erosion Complete geomorphologic study and annual monitoring

45WH651 Isolate, flake Contributing Erosion Complete geomorphologic study and annual monitoring



45SK252 Lithic scatter Eligible,Contributing

Inundated by LakeShannon

Complete evaluation

0605010024 Lithic scatter Pending,a

Contributing Previously recorded but not relocated

Complete evaluation if relocated

3-313

No.Site

DescriptionNational


Recommendation

Historic Archaeological Resources 45WH580/581

Camp 1880–1925

Pending Inundated by Baker Lake

Complete evaluation when reservoir is drawn down near minimum pool.

45WH585 Ruuth Homestead, Old Baker Lake Resort


Complete evaluation when reservoir is drawn down near minimum pool

45WH642 Road, bridge, debris scatter



45WH657 Anderson Butte Trail



BR0150 Baker Lake fish hatchery

Pending Operation and maintenance activities

Complete evaluation

45SK116th Baker River Bridge

Listed Operation and maintenance activities

None

45SK249 Railroad trestle

Pending Inundated by Lake Shannon


45SK250 Debris scatter Pending Inundated by Lake Shannon


45SK251 Industrial debris



45SK252 Weston homestead, logging camp

Eligible Erosion Data recovery with emphasis on surface collection

3-314

No.Site

DescriptionNational


Recommendation45SK253 Edgar

HomesteadEligible Erosion and

unauthorized artifact collection

Monitor for erosion and vandalism

45SK290 Isolate, stove leg, ceramic fragment



Note:Eligible–Determined eligible for listing in the National Register. Contributing–Contributes to the archaeological values of a district.Pending–Additional investigation and evaluation required. a These sites contribute to the District but require further investigation to determine if they

are individually eligible.

Historic Buildings and StructuresTwo historic structures within the project’s APE are currently listed in the

National Register: the Lower Baker River Hydroelectric Power Plant and the Baker River Bridge.

The Lower Baker River Hydroelectric Power Plant was listed on July 17, 1990, as part of a multiple property nomination process for hydroelectric power plants in Washington State from 1890 to 1928. The property represents an example of medium-head hydroelectric technology from the 1920s and meets Criterion C. The nomination form identifies the dam, intake, main pressure tunnel, circular forebay or surge chamber, branch tunnel, and penstocks, all constructed between 1925 to 1929, as contributing elements. The Lower Baker powerhouse and surge tank, which were completed in 1969 to replace the original powerhouse that was destroyed by a landslide, are not contributing elements. The nomination form did not address auxiliary resources including company housing, maintenance, and warehouse facilities.

The Baker River Bridge (1916) was listed on May 4, 1975, as part of a multiple property nomination process for historic tunnels and bridges of Washington State. The bridge is an example of a long-span reinforced concrete arch that was used in highway bridge construction (Forest Service, 2002a). The bridge is located about 0.5 mile upstream from the confluence of the Baker and Skagit Rivers.

Puget surveyed the project’s APE for historic properties and identified 19 structures and buildings that contribute to two proposed historic districts associated with

3-315

the project: (1) the Baker River Hydroelectric Development Historic District and (2) the Washington Portland Cement Company Historic District.

Baker River Hydroelectric Development Historic DistrictPuget Sound Power & Light Company (Puget Power, now Puget Sound Energy)

developed the Baker River’s potential for hydroelectric power when it built the Lower Baker Development between 1924 and 1929. Construction of the dam was in response to increasing development in the Puget Sound region and the need to meet increasing peak power demands.

World War II further encouraged growth in the Puget Sound region, resulting in an increase in population and the development of infrastructure in Bellingham, Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma. To accommodate continued growth, Puget Power decided during the early 1950s to install a third 64,000-kilowatt unit in the existing Lower Baker powerhouse, while also constructing a second hydroelectric dam on the upper river. This expansion reflected a region-wide trend in water resources development. Work on the Upper Baker Development began in 1956 and was completed in 1959. In 1965, a landslide destroyed a large part of the Lower Baker powerhouse, which Puget reconstructed in 1968 with a structural design to withstand future slides.

The active management of fishery resources on the Baker River began at the end of the nineteenth century when the Washington State hatchery, located on Silver Creek along the south shore of Baker Lake, began propagating sockeye in 1896. The original facility included several buildings. Three years later, the U.S. Fish Commission (now FWS) assumed control of this facility. Biological investigations conducted at this facility were part of a regional effort to protect fisheries valuable for commercial and sport harvests. The hatchery burned three times during the early twentieth century. The hatchery ceased sockeye production in 1933, due to poor adult escapement, and closed in 1937.

This early concern about fishery resources led to the construction of fish passage facilities when the Lower Baker Development and later, the Upper Baker Development, were built. We discuss fish passage facilities in the Existing Fish Facilities and Programs section. Fish passage facilities constructed as part of the Lower and Upper Baker Developments document the process of experimentation in fish handling, resulting in the protection and enhancement of fishery resources in the Pacific Northwest. HRA (2000) provides an extensive account of this “working laboratory.”

The Baker River Hydroelectric Development Historic District (Hydroelectric District) includes seven contributing elements from the Lower Baker Development with character-defining features that link the architectural and engineering design elements of

3-316

Lower Baker to the 1920s and the rapid expansion of the regional power market that defined that era. An additional five contributing elements from the Upper Baker Development are included in the Hydroelectric District with character-defining features that provide evidence of the early phases of fish passage experimentation. Together, the contributing elements in Hydroelectric District include the: (1) Lower Baker dam and ski-jump spillway; (2) Lower Baker fish rack; (3) Lower Baker barrier dam; (4) Lower Baker fish trap; (5) Lower Baker barge (gulper) and pass-through pipeline; (6) superintendent housing at 7214 Baker River Road; (7) superintendent housing at 7208 Baker River Road; (8) Upper Baker dam; (9) Upper Baker powerhouse; (10) Upper Baker barge (gulper) and pass-through pipeline; (11) Spawning Beach 1; and (12) Spawning Beach 2 (see table 3-36).

The period of significance for the Hydroelectric District would extend from the project design in 1924 to completion of the Upper Baker dam and Spawning Beach 2 in 1959. The Hydroelectric District is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criteria A and C for its significant association with both American conservation and engineering. The Washington OAHP concurred with this eligibility determination by letter dated March 25, 2004. Both the report prepared for the Hydroelectric District that was submitted to Washington OAHP for concurrence and the project’s HPMP provide detailed discussions of the history of the facilities and the character-defining contributing components.

Washington Portland Cement Company Historic DistrictAmasa Everett’s discovery in 1891 of clay and limestone deposits north of

present-day Town of Concrete led to the rapid development of the towns of Baker and Cement City, which in 1909 merged to form the Town of Concrete. The Washington Portland Cement Company, located on the east bank of the Baker River, operated from 1905 until circa 1920, when it was purchased by its local competitor, Superior Portland Cement Company and abandoned. During its period of operation, the Washington Portland Cement Company plant included a rotary kiln room, kiln bins, a grinding room, a ball mill room, crushers, a rotary dryer room, and a clay storage area. Conveyors transported materials between buildings, and to and from auxiliary buildings and rail lines. A powerhouse and boiler room were located just north of the complex, and offices, boarding rooms, and bunkhouses were sited on the northwest and southeast edges of the property. Washington Portland Cement Company was designed to incorporate one of the most important features of twentieth century cement production - the ability to provide a continuous flow of concrete within a plant (Emmons et al., 2004).

Although many of the resources associated with cement production have been removed, surviving resources retain sufficient integrity to convey their historic significance (Emmons et al., 2004). These resources are eligible for listing in the

3-317

National Register as part of the Washington Portland Cement Company Historic District (Cement Company District) for their significant association with American industry and engineering (Criteria A and C). The period of significance extends from 1905, when the plant was developed, until circa 1920, when it was purchased and dismantled by its competitor. Seven contributing elements to the Cement Company District include the: (1) cement silos; (2) warehouse; (3) concrete storage bin; (4) conveyor system pillar; (5) club house at 46174 East Main Street; (6) company housing at 46207 East Main Street; and (7) company housing garage (table 3-36). Together, these resources encompass some of the major components necessary for early twentieth-century cement production, and their existence directly influenced the settlement and growth of the Town of Concrete. The Washington OAHP concurred with this eligibility determination by letter dated March 25, 2004.

Table 3-36. Properties contributing or non-contributing to the historic districts. (Source: Northwest Archeological, 2004)

Element Status

Baker River Hydroelectric Development Historic District (1924–1959)Lower Baker dam and ski-jump spillway (1924–1925) Contributing structure (listed on the

National Register)Lower Baker fish rack (1925) Contributing structureLower Baker barrier dam (1957) Contributing structureLower Baker fish trap (1957) Contributing structureLower Baker powerhouse and surge tank (1968) Noncontributing structuresLower Baker barge (gulper) and pass-through pipeline (1959)

Contributing structure

Lower Baker commissary, warehouse/garage (1924) Noncontributing structureLower Baker Development “Loci” shed and shops (1924) Noncontributing structuresSuperintendent housing at 7214 Baker River Road (ca. 1924)

Contributing building; individually eligible

Superintendent housing at 7208 Baker River Road (ca. 1924)

Contributing building; individually eligible

Upper Baker dam (1959) Contributing structureUpper Baker powerhouse (1959) Contributing structureUpper Baker barge (gulper) and pass-through pipeline (1959)

Contributing structure

Spawning Beach 1 (1956–1957) and Spawning Beach 2 (1959)

Contributing structures (2)

Spawning Beach 3 (1966) Noncontributing structure

Washington Portland Cement Company Historic District (1914–1925)Cement storage silos (1914) Contributing structureWarehouse (1914) Contributing building

3-318

Element StatusWarehouse #3 (pre-1925) Noncontributing buildingConcrete storage bin (1920) Contributing buildingGarage (pre-1929) Noncontributing buildingConveyor system pillar (pre-1912) Contributing structure46174 East Main Street Club House (1914) Contributing building46207 East Main Street Company Housing (1915) Contributing buildingCompany housing garage (ca. 1915) Contributing building

Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites

Traditional Use of the Baker River ValleySeveral Indian tribes have used areas within the vicinity of the project. The Upper

Skagit Indian Tribe comprises bands that lived along the Skagit, Cascade, and Baker Rivers and their tributaries. Since 1915, these bands have constituted a single tribe. The Sauk-Suiattle lives to the southeast, and the aboriginal territory of the Nooksack borders the Upper Skagit to the north. The N’lakapamux, or Thompson Indians, of British Columbia include a small portion of the Upper Baker River within their territory. The project is in the ethnohistoric territory of the Northern Lushootseed-speaking Upper Skagit. The Swinomish Tribal Indian Community is composed mostly of descendents of Skagit, Kikiallis, Swinomish, and other groups. The Swinomish Reservation, located at the mouth of the Skagit River, was created by the Treaty of Mukilteo in 1855 and provides a land base for people whose ancestors lived in the Baker Valley (Bush, 2004).

Before contact with Euro-Americans altered the aboriginal lifestyle, Indian settlement and land use in the vicinity of the project was based on a seasonal resource harvest, with salmon fishing as most important, followed by hunting and plant gathering. Groups maintained permanent winter villages along major rivers at the mouths of tributaries. Each village consisted of one or more large longhouses made from split-cedar planks and a number of associated smaller buildings. Although the villages were primarily occupied during the colder months of the year, family groups visited them frequently throughout the year to bring preserved foods they had harvested, and many of the villages were never entirely deserted.

Villages were home to extended family groups and represented an economic, social and political kinship unit. During the spring, summer, and fall, smaller family groups traveled to various locations to join groups from other winter villages in fishing, root harvesting, hunting, berry picking, and other economic pursuits (Hollenbeck, 1987). These activities were carried out from temporary camps that may have been reused seasonally (Collins, 1973; Blukis-Onat and Hollenbeck, 1981).

3-319

The large winter villages were politically autonomous, although cultural, linguistic and kinship ties existed among them. The largest and socially dominant upriver village of the Skagit Peoples was the S.baliqw centered around the current Town of Concrete, including Baker River and natural Baker Lake and extending along the Skagit River (Bush and Green, 2004). The common practice of intermarriage and the cooperative use of resource gathering areas resulted in relationships among villages in separate drainages. Kinship and marriage conferred rights to share in resource harvest in other areas, resulting in frequent travel along streams and ridge tops, between river valleys and even across the Cascade Mountains (Hollenbeck, 1987).

The spiritual life of the Upper Skagit Indians, like that of other northern Puget Sound groups, centered on guardian spirits, other spirit beings, souls, and omens. Shamans were specialists in these affairs; however, any individual could undertake a quest to obtain a guardian spirit. During these quests, an individual would travel upriver and into the mountains, often to a particular place, for a specific period (Blukis-Onat and Hollenbeck, 1981). Although religion and ritual permeated everyday life, the most important rituals were associated with birth, puberty, marriage, and death.

Several resources were important for rituals, including cedar trees, a variety of medicinal and utilitarian plants, and specific foods. Cedar was especially important because it provided materials for most ritual activities. In addition to the species of plant, the location where it was gathered was also considered to influence the efficacy of the ritual. Some areas with particular plants were considered to have religious importance (Blukis-Onat and Hollenbeck, 1981).

These types of religious beliefs and practices have seen a recent revival among Indian tribes (Blukis-Onat and Hollenbeck, 1981). Such beliefs and practices were once bound to specific territories, based on kinship rights. Modern practitioners of Northwest Tribal religions often emphasize the significance of areas that today remain relatively unaltered and accessible to elders. Thus, tribal members often use areas outside their aboriginal territories. Because these areas are limited, members from more than one tribe may use them.

Federally recognized tribes in the Baker River Project area include the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, and the Samish Tribe. Of these tribes, the Upper Skagit, Sauk-Suiattle, and Swinomish have been extensively involved in the relicensing process for the project.

Traditional Cultural PropertiesNo traditional cultural properties listed or recommended as eligible for listing in

the National Register have been identified in the project area (Bush, 2004). However, in

3-320

the interest of long-term partnership in managing cultural resources, Puget acknowledges that the project APE is an area of special concern for the tribes. Through collaborative discussion and consultation with the tribes, valuable information has been provided by identification of critical areas and effects associated with the project. Puget conducted a series of meetings with the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, and the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe to provide information concerning the identification and management of cultural resources and technical support for the implementation of the tribes’ oral history projects. As part of this process, a comprehensive cultural archive of over 300 documents was collated and provided to each tribe in 2004. This archive served as the basis for the development of an ethnographic overview of the Baker River basin that provides a conceptual framework for identifying and managing traditional cultural properties in the project area (Bush, 2004).

The Status of Traditional Cultural Property Investigations lists archaeological site types and potential traditional cultural property site types that would be expected to occur in the project area. Archaeological site types include lithic scatters, cultural depressions, culturally modified trees, rock art, earthworks, petroforms, human remains, and burials. Potential traditional cultural property site types include gathering areas for functional, medicinal, and food plants; private knowledge areas for ceremonial and spiritual activities; fishing areas for salmon, steelhead, and other fish; hunting areas for bear, beaver, deer, elk, mountain goat, grouse, and waterfowl; villages; social gathering areas; encampments for travel; trails; and burial sites (Bush, 2004).

The status report includes management area definitions for critical areas associated with the archaeological and traditional cultural property site types. Critical areas may have eligible properties within them, require additional data collection, may require mitigation for development to proceed, require consultation, may have higher planning and development costs, and are perceived to be impossible to trade or multiuse (Bush, 2004). Each tribe would develop and maintain custody of maps showing the critical areas in relation to developments in the project area. The HPMP provides for incorporation of information and measures for eligible traditional cultural properties that may be identified in the future.

3.3.7.2 Environmental EffectsEffects of Project Operations and Reservoir Level ManagementThe project’s reservoirs inundated an undetermined number of sites associated

both with the earliest inhabitants of the area and with the pre-1925 industrial development in the area. Baker Lake also inundated the location of the original Baker Lake Resort.

3-321

Operation of the project causes water level fluctuations in Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. Fluctuating water levels can erode sites located along the shoreline, including submerged terraces. Measures identified under the Proposed Action (Proposed Article 106 and Proposed Article 107) would affect reservoir elevations: (1) implementation of a new reservoir management regime that takes into account terrestrial, recreational, aquatic, and cultural resources; (2) maintenance of the current level of flood control at the Upper Baker Development; and (3) restrictions on drawdown of Lake Shannon and Baker Lake below elevations of 389 feet and 685 feet msl, respectively, to enhance water quality; and (4) operation of Lower Baker Reservoir to provide up to 29,000 acre-feet of storage for flood regulation, at the direction of the Corps.

Effects Analysis

Potential shoreline erosion is analyzed in the Geology and Soils section. This analysis indicates that daily and seasonal water level fluctuations under the Proposed Action would cause erosion similar to that which is occurring under current conditions. Around Baker Lake, high pool cut-banks undergoing active erosion are experiencing mass wasting in the form of block topple or slump due to undercutting at the base of the scarp (AESI, 2003). Therefore, erosion of eligible archaeological resources along the shoreline and within the drawdown zone would continue under the Proposed Action. At Lake Shannon, the analysis in this draft EIS indicates that under the Proposed Action there would be little change in effects from daily and seasonal water level fluctuations on the erosion potential along the shoreline and within the drawdown zone. Almost all high pool cut-banks undergoing erosion around Lake Shannon are experiencing similar erosion as are occurring at Baker Lake. Therefore, erosion of eligible archaeological resources along the shoreline and within the drawdown zone may continue under the Proposed Action in a manner similar to current conditions.

Shoreline erosion of historic properties could also occur from public access and recreational use. Implementation of an Erosion Control Plan, in concert with the HPMP, would minimize soil erosion thereby protecting historic properties.

Effects of Project Operations and ReleasesUnder the Proposed Action, Puget would release an instream flow of 1,000 cfs

from August 1 through October 20 and 1,200 cfs from October 21 through July 31 in the Baker River downstream of the project as measured at the Baker River at Concrete gage and restrict downramp rates to no more than 650 cfs per hour (Proposed Article 106). An instream flow of 1,000 to 1,200 cfs represents an increase of 920 to 1,120 cfs over the current instream flow release of 80 cfs. See section 2.0, Proposed Action and Alternatives, for further discussion.

3-322

Effects Analysis

Archaeological surveys did not identify any prehistoric or historic archeological sites or any traditional cultural properties downstream of the project that could be affected by higher minimum flows. Therefore, project releases would not affect any known historic properties.

Ongoing Cultural Resource NeedsThe Proposed Action includes significant construction, long-term maintenance

activities, and would likely increase recreation in the APE. To protect historic properties, Puget proposes: (1) implementation of the Programmatic Agreement and HPMP (Proposed Article 201), and (2) funding for cultural resources enhancement (Proposed Article 602). These efforts would be coordinated with the tribes and other interested parties concerned about historic properties affected by the project.

Historic Properties Management PlanPuget developed an HPMP in consultation with the SHPO, Forest Service, the

tribes, and other interested parties to protect historic properties at the project. The HPMP was filed on November 18, 2004, as Volume III of the license application.

The HPMP provides for: (1) individual management measures for each Historic Property, including specific protective and mitigation measures, guidelines for maintaining historic buildings and structures, and measures for avoiding effects on traditional cultural properties; (2) clearly defined policies and programs that provide for all aspects of cultural resource management, including project review and planning, Tribal coordination, assessment of new actions, a listing of excluded actions, measures to be undertaken in cases of emergency or accidental discovery of cultural material or human remains, and procedures for curation of cultural material and samples; (3) provisions for protecting known sites including annual monitoring and sponsorship of law enforcement training and presence; (4) provisions for training and education for Puget personnel about the cultural heritage of the project and for outreach to the public; and (5) provisions for implementation of the management measures, policies, and programs including: (a) schedules with priorities for site mitigation and protection and other measures and provisions; (b) reporting to the Commission and other agencies; (c) composition of a Cultural Resources Advisory Group (CRAG); (d) a new Cultural Coordinator position within Puget; and (e) dispute resolution and conflict management. The CRAG members would serve as the point of contact for communication related to cultural resources among Puget, the agencies, and the tribes.

3-323

Effects Analysis

The HPMP is designed to manage the effects of project operations and environmental measures on historic properties in the project’s APE. Recommendations of the completed archaeological and historic resource surveys are incorporated into the HPMP and provide the basis for site-specific measures as well as ongoing identification, evaluation, and protection activities during the term of any new license. A program of on-going monitoring of recorded archaeological and historic sites, historic districts, and other culturally sensitive areas, as detailed in the HPMP, would enable Puget to take protective actions when warranted by site-specific conditions. Table 3-35 summarizes the threats and management recommendations for prehistoric and historic archaeological resources considered eligible.

The HPMP sets forth a process for the CRAG and Puget staff to determine if project-related activities could affect a historic property, if additional identification efforts are required, and to identify measures necessary to avoid adverse effects on a historic property. A list of activities that would not need to be reviewed is appended to the HPMP. Implementation of the HPMP would minimize or avoid harm to historic properties within the project’s APE.

The HPMP provides for ongoing consultation with the tribes and the incorporation of information on traditional cultural property identification efforts. Although no traditional cultural properties have been identified in the project’s APE to date, the HPMP would address newly discovered or newly identified historic properties during the term of any new license. Further, the HPMP would provide the tribes with an archive and a framework within which to evaluate the effects of project -related activities on traditional cultural properties, should any be identified. Implementation of the HPMP, in conjunction with Tribal consultation, would minimize or avoid harm to properties of cultural or religious significance to the tribes.


Many proposed articles propose new or modified project facilities that would require ground-disturbing activities with the potential to affect archaeological resources. Some existing project facilities that would be modified are eligible or listed in the National Register. Significant changes that could affect historic properties are summarized below:

Construction of a new auxiliary powerhouse immediately adjacent to the existing Lower Baker powerhouse;

3-324

Planting vegetation, placing anchored logs, installing riprap, installing rock and crib walls to control shoreline erosion under Proposed Article 110;

Installing new water systems at Spawning Beach 4 and decommissioning Spawning Beach 1 and Spawning Beach 2 under Proposed Article 101;

Installing new and modifying existing upstream and downstream fish passage facilities under proposed articles 103, 104, and 105;

Acquiring and enhancing wetland habitats under Proposed Article 504;

Topping or modifying trees (that may be culturally significant) near Lake Shannon to provide osprey nesting sites under Proposed Article 506;

Hardening and upgrading disperse recreation sites under Proposed Article 308;

New recreation trails near the Lower Baker Development under Proposed Article 311; and

Planting vegetation, painting, fencing and new visual elements pursuant to an aesthetics management plan under Proposed Article 302.

Other modifications could affect the characteristics for which facilities are considered eligible or listed in the National Register. Construction of the new auxiliary powerhouse and new visual elements introduced under the aesthetics management plan could affect the characteristics for which the Lower Baker Development is listed in the National Register. Decommissioning Spawning Beach 1 and Spawning Beach 2 and new/modified fish passage facilities could affect contributing elements of the Hydroelectric District. Increased recreation from new and improved recreation sites could affect potential traditional cultural properties or could attract visitors to project-related areas not surveyed for historic properties.

All project-related construction activities would be reviewed under the HPMP, which provides a process for identifying, evaluating and mitigating actions that could affect historic properties. This review process would ensure that the new auxiliary powerhouse, shoreline erosion control measures, new and modified fish passage facilities, environmental measures, and new elements introduced pursuant to an aesthetics management plan would avoid and minimize project effects on historic properties.

3-325

3.3.7.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects Such effects as shoreline erosion may not be totally eliminated; however, adoption

and implementation of a HPMP would provide for the phased documentation and stabilization of affected archeological sites. As a result, there may be the possibility of the loss of some cultural resource material and sites by shoreline erosion, but implementation of a HPMP would minimize or mitigate such effects.

3.3.7.4 Cumulative EffectsThe Baker River Project is one of several hydroelectric projects in the Northwest

region of Washington State that affects prehistoric and historic archaeological resources located along its shorelines and in the drawdown zones. Within the Baker and Skagit River watersheds, the continued operation of the Baker River Project and the Seattle City Light’s Skagit River Project No. 533, and the erosion of shorelines associated with these projects, contribute to a cumulative adverse effect on cultural resources through the reduction of the number of potential sites that could provide information about the traditions of Indian tribes associated with the watersheds.

Both projects attract recreational use around and near the reservoirs. The increased recreational use resulting from the availability of large lakes also has contributed to the inadvertent or intentional destruction of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Seattle City Light has implemented an HPMP that includes measures to manage historic properties. These measures include stabilization of known resources from the effects of erosion and protection of resources from recreational use. Under the Proposed Action, Puget’s proposed HPMP for the Baker River Project would include similar measures to manage historic properties. While continued erosion and recreational use of the project area would be expected to affect prehistoric and historic archaeological resources, the measures currently being implemented at the Skagit River Project and on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest lands, taken in combination with the measures proposed in Puget’s Baker River Project HPMP, would cumulatively reduce adverse impacts on cultural resources.

Within the watersheds, the cultural resource surveys conducted as part of the relicensing process have identified hundreds of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources (e.g., 51 sites at the Baker River Project and 144 sites at the Skagit River Project). Other surveys conducted by developers of proposed hydroelectric projects on tributaries and site-specific surveys on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest lands have added to the number of identified sites in the Baker River watershed. These sites have the potential to contribute to public understanding of the tribes who occupied or traversed the watersheds. The prehistoric site assemblages provide data to help understand the prehistory of the tribes in non-coastal and riverine and upland settings in the Pacific Northwest (Miss et al., 2004). Measures included in Puget’s proposed Baker River

3-326

Project HPMP to complete site identification and evaluation of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, as well as culturally sensitive areas, would contribute to a beneficial effect on cultural resources in the watershed.

3.3.8 Recreational Resources

3.3.8.1 Affected EnvironmentThe Baker River basin is accessible to more than 6.5 million people in northern

Puget Sound and southern British Columbia via an approximate 2-hour drive (100 miles). The area is easily accessed by a system of county and Forest Service system roads. The mountainous terrain, project reservoirs, and water courses offer spring, summer, and fall recreational opportunities including developed and dispersed camping, fishing, picnicking, swimming, hiking, boating, mountaineering, environmental education and interpretation, and scenic driving. Winter activities, such as cross-country skiing and snowmobiling, occur near the project.

Regional Recreational SettingMore than 50 percent of the land within the Baker River basin and most of the

land surrounding Baker Lake is publicly owned. Public lands surrounding the project area include the 1.7 million-acre Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest to the north, east, and south of Baker Lake; North Cascades National Park to the east of Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest; and WDNR and other Washington State agency lands interspersed throughout the lower watershed near Lake Shannon. Special designations within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest include the Mt. Baker and Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness areas, Mt. Baker National Recreation Area and the Skagit Wild and Scenic River. The Mt. Baker Wilderness Area consists of more than 117,500 acres surrounding Mt. Baker. The Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness Area, southeast of the project area and adjacent to the North Cascades National Park, encompasses 14,133 acres. The Mt. Baker National Recreation Area consists of 8,473 acres on the south slope of Mt. Baker, within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and adjacent to the Mt. Baker Wilderness. The Skagit Wild and Scenic River is upstream of Sedro-Woolley and includes 99 scenic designation river miles and 58.5 recreation designation river miles. Special designations within the North Cascades National Park include the Stephan T. Mather Wilderness Area and adjacent Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. The Mather Wilderness, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area complex total more than 634,000 acres.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, North Cascades National Park, WDFW, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, county parks, and private campgrounds provide developed recreational facilities near the Baker River Project. These sites provide access to the water via boat ramps and hiking and camping along the

3-327

numerous lakes, streams, and rivers in the region. Eight boat ramps provide access to the Skagit River, six of which are maintained by WDFW and two by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission; there are also some areas used for launching boats which are not formally developed facilities. Vogler Lake boat launch (3 miles from the Town of Concrete) and Grandy Lake County Park (approximately 1 mile west of Vogler Lake) provide two additional boat ramps in the region.

Regional hiking opportunities include developed trails within the North Cascades National Park, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, and state and county parks. The North Cascades National Park maintains more than 386 miles of trails within the Stephan T. Mather Wilderness. The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest maintains 22 developed trails covering more than 64 miles within the Baker River basin. Other hiking opportunities are available within nearby Rasar State Park (3.7 miles of trails) and Rockport State Park (5 miles of trails) and along the Skagit County-owned Cascade Trail. Rasar State Park is approximately 7 miles west of Concrete, while Rockport State Park is 6 miles east of Concrete. The Cascade Trail is a 23.5-mile-long gravel, maintained trail on an abandoned railroad grade, which parallels Highway 20 from Sedro-Woolley to Concrete and offers hiking, biking, and equestrian uses.

Developed campsites in the region offer both forested and waterside opportunities and are provided by the North Cascades National Park, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, state parks, county parks, and private entities. The North Cascades National Park requires backpackers and climbers in the Park to camp only in designated sites in some areas with high visitation; other areas are managed as cross-country zones where visitors may choose their own campsite. The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest maintains seven campgrounds in the Baker River basin, five of which are adjacent to Baker Lake and discussed below. The other two Forest Service campgrounds (Park Creek and Boulder Creek campgrounds) are within 0.5 mile and 1.5 miles of Baker Lake, respectively. Developed camping facilities are also available at Rasar State Park, Rockport State Park, Grandy Lake County Park, Howard Millar Steelhead County Park, and the privately owned Creekside Campground. These areas provide camping opportunities for tents, trailers, and recreational vehicles (RVs) with a range of facilities for user comfort, including some with showers and RV hookups. At Lake Tyee, there is a privately owned resort where lots are leased on a long-term basis. Access to these locations is generally provided by paved roads, and there are public boat launches, fishing access and day-use sites at some of these locations. Descriptions of these facilities are included in the Recreation Needs Analysis (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004a).

Dispersed camping on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest has increased over the last two decades. The Forest Service estimates more than 370 dispersed

3-328

camping sites within the Baker Lake basin; there are more than 230 sites accessed by roads, 17 sites accessed by boat on the east side of Baker Lake, more than 80 sites accessed by trails and approximately 60 camps used by climbers on Mt. Baker and Mt. Shuksan (Forest Service, 2002a). Puget identified 213 dispersed sites near the project reservoirs; 203 sites were identified near Baker Lake and 10 sites were identified near Lake Shannon.

Facilities and Opportunities At or Near the Project The Baker River Project area offers many opportunities for recreation, including

bank and boat fishing, swimming, lakeside trails, vistas, camping, and environmental education and interpretation. Developed recreational facilities at or near the project include boat launches, designated swimming areas, a scenic vista, trails, campgrounds, the Lower Baker Visitors Center and fish handling facility, a resort, and a lodge/retreat facility. Table 3-37 summarizes the developed facilities at or near the Baker River Project. Six boat launch facilities provide boating access to project waters. Puget manages two sites with boat launch facilities (Baker Lake Resort and West Pass dike) at Baker Lake and one at Lake Shannon. At Kulshan Campground, Puget maintains a heated restroom that is available year-round for the public. Puget maintains a gravel-surfaced boat ramp and parking area at Lake Shannon and provides portable restrooms and trash dumpsters; however, there are no developed recreational facilities such as restrooms, tables or picnic sites at the boat launch to support day-use or overnight camping. The Forest Service manages three facilities with boat ramps near Baker Lake- Shannon Creek, Panorama Point, and Horseshoe Cove campgrounds. Additional water access is available at two designated swimming beaches at Baker Lake, at Horseshoe Cove Campground and the Baker Lake Resort. At each of these facilities, there are designated day-use sites and boat launches.

Table 3-37. Summary of developed recreational facilities at or near the Baker River Project. (Source: Puget, 2002b; adapted from Forest Service, 2002a)

Facility Name OperatorType of

Use

Number of Campsites/

Rooms Additional FacilitiesPanorama Point Campground

Forest Service

Overnight 16 2 day-use sites, boat launch, vault toilets, potable water

Horseshoe Cove Campground

Forest Service

Overnight 38 9 day-use sites, 3 group campsites, boat launch, swimming, vault and flush restrooms, potable water, small boat rentals

3-329


Use


Rooms Additional FacilitiesShannon Creek Campground

Forest Service

Overnight 20 2 day-use sites, vault restrooms, potable water, boat launch

Boulder Creek Campground

Forest Service

Overnight 10 1 mile from Baker Lake, restrooms

Park Creek Campground

Forest Service

Overnight 12 0.5 mile from Baker Lake, restrooms

Maple Grove Campground

Forest Service

Overnight 5 Hike or boat in only on east shore of Baker Lake

Bayview North and South Campground

Forest Service

Overnight 2 Reservation-only/2 group sites with vault restrooms

Shadow of Sentinels

Forest Service

Trailhead N/A Approximately 1 mile from Baker Lake, 0.5-mile accessible interpretative trail, restrooms, paved parking

Baker River Trailhead

Forest Service

Trailhead N/A Gravel-surfaced parking area and vault restrooms

Schreibers Meadow

Forest Service

Trailhead N/A Approximately 14 miles from Baker Lake, trail, camping and picnicking allowed

Kulshan Campground a

Puget Overnight 116 75 RV hookups (sewer and water only), restrooms, picnic area, informational exhibit

3-330


Use


Rooms Additional FacilitiesBaker Lake Resort Puget Overnight 90

campsites/11 cabin units

Day-use site, boat launch, 57 RV hookups, 9 group sites, flush and vault restrooms, showers, store, swimming

Baker Lake Lodge Puget Overnight 9 rooms in Lodge

3 rooms in Nooksack

trailer

1 cabin (Nooksack trailer), tennis, volleyball, basketball courts

Glover Mountain a Puget Day use N/A Overlook with fenced viewing area of Upper Baker dam, 0.3-mile-long trail, parking

West Pass dike a Puget Day use N/A 1 partially paved boat launch

Lower Baker Visitors Center and fish handling facility a

Puget Day use N/A 0.2-acre paved parking area with restrooms, informational exhibits, and outdoor interpretive displays

Lake Shannon boat launch a

Puget Day and overnight

use

Approximately 30

Boat launch and unpaved parking area used for dispersed day and overnight use

Note: N/A–Not available.a Currently licensed project facilities. All other facilities are non-project facilities located

within, partially within, or immediately adjacent to the current project boundary.

In addition to the boat ramps and beach access points associated with Baker Lake, Puget provides the Glover Mountain Overlook site with a view of Baker Lake, the Upper Baker dam, and the surrounding national forest. The site has a viewing area adjacent to a gravel parking lot and a 0.3-mile-long loop trail through the nearby forest. A second viewpoint near Baker Lake, known as Boulder Creek Viewpoint, is located on National Forest System land. This site is not a developed recreation facility, but rather it is a paved portion of the shoulder along the Baker Lake Highway that has space for visitors to

3-331

park and enjoy views of Mt. Baker. Another site, Rainbow Falls Overlook, is located on Forest Service Road 1130 approximately four miles from the Baker Lake Highway.

In the downstream portion of the project near Lake Shannon, Puget operates the Lower Baker Visitors Center and Fish Handling Facility. This facility provides restrooms, interpretative displays, and a parking area just below the Lower Baker dam in the Town of Concrete.

The project reservoirs offer developed lakeside camping and swimming facilities. The Forest Service and Puget operate nine developed campgrounds that have 309 campsites at or near the project; six of these campgrounds—Shannon Creek, Panorama Point, Horseshoe Cove, Maple Point, Bayview (North and South) and Baker Lake Resort—offer lakeside campsites. Puget operates the Kulshan Campground, which is approximately 1,000 feet back from the Baker Lake shoreline, and the Forest Service offers two campgrounds with forested camping: Park Creek Campground and Boulder Creek Campground.

Facilities at Kulshan Campground include 116 campsites with approximately 75 water and sewer RV hookups west of the south shore of Baker Lake near the Upper Baker dam. The Bayview North Campground, which is a reservation-only group campsite, evolved from a dispersed campsite; the Forest Service improved the site with vault restrooms and fire rings. Construction of the Bayview South Campground was postponed midway through construction; consequently, the facility was only partially completed. It was improved in 2001 and opened as a reservation-only/group site. The site has vault restrooms and loop roads with two defined group camping areas. The Forest Service Maple Grove Campground, located on the east shore of Baker Lake, is a non-fee site with five developed campsites and is only accessible via hiking or boating. The Baker Lake Resort, about 6 miles north of Upper Baker dam and operated by Puget under a special use authorization from the Forest Service, has 90 campsites. In addition to the camping opportunities, the Baker Lake Resort has 11 cabin units, a store, a swimming area, and mooring facilities.

There are also 10 dispersed sites in the vicinity of Lake Shannon and 203 dispersed sites near Baker Lake that were inventoried as part of the Dispersed Site Inventory Report (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004b). Most of the dispersed sites at Baker Lake are located on the shoreline or adjacent to tributaries near their terminus at Baker Lake.

The Puget-operated Baker Lake Lodge, located near the Upper Baker dam, offers a conference/retreat facility with a nine-room lodging facility and a separate cabin.

3-332

Recreation Resource Management manages all of the Forest Service campgrounds in the Baker River Project vicinity under a special use authorization, except for Maple Grove, which the Forest Service manages. This arrangement allows a third party to collect the fees associated with a government-owned facility in return for performing annual O&M of the facility. The concessionaire compensates the federal government for the use of the land and the facilities with a percentage of the revenue generated at the facility. A concessionaire may perform maintenance or replace components of a concessionaire-operated facility in lieu of payment of the fees payable to the federal government under terms of this arrangement. The existing special use authorization for managing these campgrounds terminates in 2007.

TrailsThe Forest Service maintains the approximately 14-mile-long Baker Lake Trail

along the east shore of Baker Lake and the 1.6-mile-long Baker River Trail, which traverses land northward into the NPS’ North Cascades National Park, as the only developed hiking trails near the project boundary. The trailhead for the Baker River Trail, which is located at the terminus of the Baker Lake Highway (FS Road 11), consists of a gravel-surfaced parking lot and a vault restroom. Nearby trails located upland from Baker Lake include the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Shadow of the Sentinels Trail and several trails accessed from the Schreibers Meadow Trailhead. About one mile of accessible trail is available on a portion or all of two trails, Baker River Trail and Shadow of the Sentinels Trail.

The Shadow of the Sentinels Trails was reconstructed as a mitigation and enhancement measure for the Koma Kulshan Project, a separate hydroelectric project with a powerhouse located on Sandy Creek in the Baker River basin. Koma Kulshan operates and maintains the trail. The Shadow of the Sentinels Trails is one of the few accessible trails located in an old-growth forest setting and it is designated as a National Recreation Trail. The trailhead consists of a vault restroom and a paved parking area that is plowed for winter recreation use.

The trails in the watershed provide hiking and equestrian use, some of which access designated wilderness areas, road-less (boat-in and hike-in) areas of the North Cascades National Park and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, National Recreation Areas, climbing routes for Mt. Baker and Mt. Shuksan, and glaciers. Trails within the Baker Lake watershed are shown in table 3-38. None of the trails are located within the project boundary.

3-333

Table 3-38. Summary of trails within the Baker River watershed. (Source: Forest Service, 2002a; adapted from Forest Service, 2001)

Trail NameLength of Trail

(miles) Designated UseEstimated Average

Annual Usea

Park Butte 3.5 Pack and saddle 5,000

Scott Paul 6.5 Hiker 800

Railroad Grade 1.0 Hiker 1,600

Blue Lake .7 Hiker 2,000

Dock Butte 1.5 Hiker 1,000

Boulder Ridge 3.6 Hiker 2,200

Baker River 1.6 Hiker (1 mile)/pack and saddle 0.6 mile)

2,600

Swift Creek 8.0 Hiker 500

Shuksan Lake 2.0 Hiker 1,500

Baker Lake 14 Pack and saddle 2,300

Noisy Creek 1.0 Hiker 300

Watson Lakes 2.3 Hiker 3,000

Anderson Butte 1.5 Hiker 300

Anderson Lakes .4 Hiker 1,000

Shadow of the Sentinels .5 Barrier free 5,500a Number of visitors

Facility Condition and AccessibilityThe Forest Service constructed campgrounds and day-use areas in the 1950s and

1960s at Baker Lake. Some modifications and repairs have been completed since their construction, but most of the facility components consist of the original structures, and the sites are in the original design. Shannon Creek Campground was constructed in 1973, and Horseshoe Cove Campground was modified in 1980. The existing Forest Service campgrounds have short spurs and narrow access road widths and turning radii that do not easily accommodate RVs and trailers.

The Forest Service recreational facilities do not provide barrier-free recreational use because they were constructed before accessibility for the disabled became a consideration. The restrooms that have been installed in the past few years at some of the facilities accommodate persons with disabilities. Accessible picnic tables have also been

3-334

installed in some locations. However, there are numerous barriers in the routes of travel between campsite features and inside many of the restrooms. There are also deficiencies related to accessibility with the water faucets, trash bins, signage, fire grills, tables, and campsite spurs (Puget Sound Energy, 2005). There are no sites designated for persons with disabilities, and there are no accessible routes to access the shoreline of the project reservoirs.

The Baker Lake Lodge and the Lower Baker Visitors Center were modified to provide access for the disabled and these facilities are in good condition.

The recreational facilities that Puget owns at Kulshan Campground have been maintained since their construction and are in good condition. There are components, particularly restrooms that do not meet the needs of the disabled. There are no sites designated for persons with disabilities, and there are no accessible routes to access the shoreline. The recreational facilities that Puget owns at the Baker Lake Resort are worn; however, Puget maintains them and regularly replaces items (such as fire pits). Portions of the dock, shower, restrooms, water system, septic system and electrical fixtures are not in good condition. There is minimal accessibility at this site for persons with disabilities.

The responses to recreation visitor surveys (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004) addressing facility standards taken in 2001 indicated a range of satisfaction levels. At Baker Lake, the types of recreation services/facilities that received comparatively large percentages of low satisfaction ratings included showers/restrooms, wheelchair access, potable water supplies, access roads, and the camp store. These concerns appear to be related to the absence of some of these facilities or services, or if the facility or service is provided, the visitors expressed dissatisfaction with its quality. Visitors to the Forest Service campgrounds also expressed dissatisfaction with the reservation system. The recreation visitor survey provides the details of the specific concerns raised by the visitors at each facility. Likewise, the ratings provided by the respondents indicate high satisfaction with campsite conditions, helpfulness of employees, and the ease of locating a site. At Lake Shannon, the visitors expressed dissatisfaction with the parking area, cleanliness, potable water, and the quality of the access road. In an earlier study (Tarrant, Erin Smith, and H. Ken Cordell, no date) conducted between 1990 and 1994, the authors find that visitor needs for information and clean facilities (particularly restrooms) are consistent with previous studies. Thus facility condition, barrier-free access, and maps, informational signs and bulletin boards continue to be important to visitors.

Recreational Use LevelsRecreational use within the Baker River watershed is seasonal, with the highest

amount of use occurring during the summer. Visitation use figures indicate that more than 50 percent of all use occurs on weekends, with July and August receiving the highest

3-335

number of users. Use during July and August weekends typically accounts for 30 to 40 percent of the annual use (Forest Service, 2002a). Huckell/Weinman Associates (2004) recreation visitor survey data for the project area in 2001 indicate that approximately 90 percent of the total of 789 survey respondents visit Baker Lake while the remaining 10 percent visit Lake Shannon. Nearly 66 percent of the people surveyed indicated they were staying overnight at Baker Lake and 24 percent were Baker Lake day users (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004c). Eight percent of all respondents were Lake Shannon overnight visitors, and the remaining 2 percent were Lake Shannon day users. The average party size of recreationists in the project area is 2.4 people (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004c).

According to the Forest Service (2005) recreation use on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest during the year 2000 was 5,006,932 visitors. Hiking or walking was listed as having a 21 percent participation rate, with 13 percent of the users reporting hiking or walking as their primary activity. Downhill skiing or snowboarding was listed as having a 64 percent participation rate, with 60 percent of the users reporting downhill skiing or snowboarding as their primary activity. Thus, the Forest Service finds that 60 percent (3,004,159 visitors) of the 5,006,932 visitors during 2000 participated in downhill skiing or snowboarding.

The most popular activities at or near the project include camping, fishing (shore and boat), RV camping, and sightseeing. Twenty-two percent of the people surveyed indicated auto/tent camping in developed sites as their primary recreational activity (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004c). Forest Service campgrounds near Baker Lake average 125 days of operation during the recreational season (from mid-May through mid-September). Table 3-39 summarizes the estimated annual overnight use associated with the Baker River Project area.

Table 3-39. Estimated annual overnight use for the Baker River Project Area. (Source: adapted from Puget, 2002b)

Overnight Facility Annual VisitorsForest Service developed facilities 10,500Puget developed facilities 18,076 (16,168 at Kulshan Campground) (11,908 at Baker Lake Resort)Dispersed sites 4,900Total 33,476

The Forest Service estimates 6,000 people fish at Baker Lake and its tributaries each year, and 3,000 people boat and bank fish at Lake Shannon per year (Forest Service, 2002a). Among the Baker Lake survey respondents who indicated they fish,

3-336

approximately 50 percent fish from shore, 40 percent fish from a boat, and 10 percent fish from both the shore and a boat (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004c).

Trail hiking is another recreational use in the project vicinity. Three difficulty classes for trails occur. Over half of the trails within the watershed are rated “moderate,” 34 percent are rated “easy,” and 15 percent are rated “difficult.” Over half of the trail use in the watershed occurs on the trails rated easy. Puget estimates that approximately 25 percent of visitors using the high country trails surrounding the project area are overnight visitors staying at Baker Lake (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004c).

The Forest Service classifies trails according to their use levels; low use is defined by 1 to 500 people; medium use as 501 to 2,500 people; heavy use as 2,501 to 5,000; and extra heavy use as over 5,000 people per year. As shown in table 5-65 estimated annual use for individual trails range from 300 to 5,500 people (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004).

The Forest Service expects regional population growth to generate increased demand for the existing recreational resources within the Baker River Project vicinity. Evidence of these expectations includes recreational site development history, visitor-use statistics, and an increase in the number of dispersed campsites. Since 1960, visitor use at Forest Service-developed campgrounds has increased by 50 percent, while capacity at Forest Service-developed facilities has only increased by approximately 33 percent (Forest Service, 2002a). The Forest Service also reports the number of dispersed campsites within the vicinity of the Baker River Project has increased by approximately 18 campsites per year and demand for such sites is expected to increase between 7 and 15 percent by 2010 (Forest Service, 2002a). Although this demand is expected to increase, much of the suitable land area at Baker Lake is already being used, potentially limiting additional use.

Washington State published estimates of future participation in outdoor recreation activities, which also indicate a growing trend for developed and dispersed recreation opportunities; however, between 2003 and 2013, this use is only expected to grow by 10 percent and 5 percent, respectively (State of Washington, 2003). Of the 14 categories of recreational activities studied by the state, those projected to have the greatest growth over the next 10 years are snowmobile use (42 percent), walking (23 percent), nature activities (23 percent), and cross-country skiing (23 percent). The report finds that all other activities will increase between 5 and 21 percent over the next 10 years, except for fishing and hunting/shooting, which are expected to decline by 5 and 15 percent, respectively. The Washington State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) (Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, 2002) concludes that most of the statewide need appears to be at the local (near population centers) level, much of which is

3-337

outside the traditional park setting. The SCORP provides estimates of the number of participants for activities in various settings; bicycling and walking are at the top of the list.

Dispersed RecreationWithin the study area for the Dispersed Site Inventory Study Report

(Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004b), Puget identified 203 dispersed sites near Baker Lake and 10 near Lake Shannon that are estimated to have combined space to accommodate approximately 614 tents and between 2,000 to 3,000 people at one time. Seventy sites (33 percent) are accessed by roads; 70 sites (33 percent) are accessed by walk-in; 52 sites (24 percent) are accessed by a nearby trail; and 70 sites (33 percent) are accessed by boat. Some of the sites, including most of the sites on the east side of Baker Lake, have both trail and boat access, so the total exceeds 100 percent. Most (165) of the dispersed sites identified by Puget are located within 50 feet of the shoreline, usually one of the project reservoirs, with most of these sites occurring at Baker Lake. There are 45 dispersed sites located below the full pool reservoir shoreline or on the Baker River floodplain.

The types of resource effects at the dispersed recreation sites include vegetation damage, vegetation loss, erosion, runoff/sedimentation, human and animal waste, and litter. A description of the types and frequencies of occurrence of these conditions at the dispersed recreation sites is presented in the Dispersed Site Inventory Report Study (Study R12) (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004b).

The observed seasonal occupancy rates for dispersed sites at Baker Lake in 2001 were less than 20 percent and the sites at Lake Shannon were typically under 10 percent. It appears that a small number of the dispersed sites receive the majority of use through the recreational season. Consequently, most of the resource effects appear to occur at a small proportion of the dispersed sites.

Public SafetyA Whatcom County sheriff deputy, a full-time Forest Service law enforcement

officer, and two to four seasonal Forest Service employees provide law enforcement for their jurisdictional lands; their patrols include Baker Lake. The Whatcom County deputy is currently responsible for the Whatcom County section of the Baker River basin and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest land in the Nooksack drainage. The Forest Service law enforcement personnel generally respond to natural resource damage and enforce the forest regulations related to wilderness, campfire permits, and woodcutting; the Whatcom County Sheriff Department generally responds to other types of law enforcement situations. In Forest Service campgrounds under concessionaire operation

3-338

and in Puget-operated campgrounds, campground hosts are responsible for enforcing campground rules, and if they need assistance, they contact either the Forest Service law enforcement officer or the Whatcom County sheriff deputy, as appropriate. The Skagit County sheriff and the Town of Concrete provide law enforcement at Lake Shannon. Officers issue an average of 710 citations per year within the basin. The majority of the citations are for violations of the forest permit programs related to the Northwest Forest Pass program27 and woodcutting with an average of 460 citations per year (Forest Service, 2002a). Law enforcement data indicate that the second highest number of citations recorded within the basin is for disorderly conduct (Forest Service, 2002a).

Communications within the Baker River Project area and surrounding areas are limited to radio and/or microwave-based telecommunication systems used by the Forest Service and Puget plant operators as well as Puget recreation staff. The steep terrain surrounding the project limits the use of cell phones at lower elevations, but cell phones can be used at higher elevations. No public, landline phones exist within the project area, but a telephone box is located at the main gate of Puget’s Upper Baker compound. There are several signs posted in the Kulshan Campground directing the public to this location where emergency calls can be made.

Project OperationsOperation of the Baker River Project involves a seasonal drawdown of the

reservoirs to accommodate power generation and provide flood storage during winter and early spring. The reservoirs are held at near-full pool during the summer.28 This operation directly affects the amount of exposed shoreline at Baker Lake and Lake Shannon and affects access to developed recreational facilities, such as boat ramps, beaches, and dispersed shoreline campsites. Visitor use is potentially affected in the spring, as the spring runoff and the filling of the reservoirs can occur after the start of fishing season in late April. Table 3-40 identifies the lake level elevations at and below which the six boat launches and two swimming beaches at the Baker River Project are unusable. Puget’s West Pass dike launch is the only boat launch at Baker Lake that is available year-round. At Lake Shannon, the boat launch is usable year-round.

27 A Northwest Forest Pass is required at trailheads in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Hikers can buy a $30 annual pass or a $5 day pass. Eighty percent of fees from the sale of Northwest Forest Passes are returned to the local national forests for maintaining facilities, providing services, or restoring ecosystems. See http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/recreation/activities/trails/index.shtml.28 Full pool elevations for Baker Lake and Lake Shannon are 727.77 and 442.35 feet msl,

respectively.

3-339

Table 3-40. The minimum lake level elevations at and below which the six boat launches and two swimming beaches at the Baker River Project are unusable. (Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004a)

LocationLake Elevation

(feet msl)Boat LaunchBaker Lake

West Pass dike 679Horseshoe Cove 711Panorama Point 715Baker Lake Resort 713Shannon Creek 719

Lake ShannonShannon boat ramp 381

Swimming Beach Baker Lake

Horseshoe Cove 719Baker Lake Resort 714

All of the boat launches at Baker Lake, except for West Pass dike, are located in one of the developed campgrounds at the project. The current operating seasons for these facilities, depending on weather and snow-melt, are as follows:

Shannon Creek and Panorama Point—one week before Memorial Day through the weekend following Labor Day;

Horseshoe Cove—second weekend in May through the third weekend in September; and

Baker Lake Resort—first weekend in May through the first weekend in October.

At the lower lake elevations, additional dispersed campsites at Baker Lake are available because more beach area is exposed. However, the distances created at low reservoir elevations are likely to make some of the dispersed sites near the high-water mark unattractive to some users. Some sites are useable only when the reservoir is drawn down and some visitors seem to prefer camping on the drawdown-zone sites because they are closer to the water’s edge.

3-340

3.3.8.2 Environmental EffectsProject OperationsReservoir levels can affect recreational activities, such as boating and swimming,

at the project reservoirs. To safely launch boats, the level of the reservoir should be above the end of the boat launching lane. Also, reservoir levels at or near the high-water mark cover rocks and stumps at swimming beaches and maintain a suitable sandy shoreline for visitor use. The recreational season, when most swimming and boating occurs, occurs between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Currently, the project is operated to support recreational uses from July 4th to Labor Day weekend by maintaining the levels of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon at or above elevation 718.77 feet msl and elevation 404.75 feet msl, respectively.

As reservoir levels drop, stumps and rocks in shallow areas are exposed, potentially creating boating hazards. In addition, there are stumps that are at or near the reservoir surface near the shoreline even at full-pool. The distances that develop between some dispersed campsites and the shoreline when reservoir levels are lowered may cause some sites to be unattractive and decrease dispersed camping opportunities. The areas where reservoir depth causes concerns related to boating safety and dispersed camping opportunities include the elbow of Baker Lake, the west shoreline of Baker Lake, and the shoreline near the inlet of the Baker River.

Under the Proposed Action, Puget would operate the Baker River Project to achieve reservoir levels specified in Proposed Article 106 (Flow Implementation). For further discussion on Proposed Article 106 see section 2.0, Proposed Action and Alternatives.

Boat Launches and Swimming Areas—An analysis of reservoir water levels is based on modeling of project operations for 5 representative years using the HYDROPS model. See section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, for a discussion about the HYDROPS data used in the following analysis. The operational effects on reservoir levels on a monthly basis for different water-year types are discussed in the Water Quality section. For recreational uses, important points of reference are the elevations of the reservoir at which the six boat ramps and the swimming beaches become unusable. The Proposed Operations would not affect the percent of time that the West Pass dike and Lake Shannon boat launches are usable during the 5 representative water years, so we exclude these launches from our discussion below.

The effects of the reservoir elevations should be considered due to the availability of the developed campgrounds for public use. Our discussion about operational effects focuses on the months from May through September, which are the months of highest recreational use. Depending on weather, the months of April, October, and November

3-341

may also be suitable for recreational use; therefore, we also include these shoulder season months in our analysis.29

Figure 3-20 shows a comparison of the percentage of time during each month, based on 5 representative water years that four of the six boat launches are usable.

Figure 3-20. Comparison of the percent time during each month, based on five representative water years, that four of the six boat launches are usable, using the elevations presented in table 3-40.

During the peak recreational season (June through August) there would be no change in boat launch usability under the Proposed Operations as compared to Current Operations. All four of the boat launches would be usable 100 percent of the time under both the Proposed and Current Operations from June 1 to August 31.

29 The campgrounds where all but one of the boat launch facilities are located are currently closed during these shoulder months.

3-342

During March, April, and May, each of these boat launches would be unusable for at least some portion of each month under both the Proposed and Current Operations. The effects during May would be more important considering that visitation begins to increase at this time. Under the Proposed Operations, there would be an increase of between 11 and 18 percent in the time when the boat launches at Shannon Creek, Panorama Point, Baker Lake Resort, and Horseshoe Cove would be usable as compared to Current Operations. During March and April, there would be less time when the boat launches would be available. However, as noted above, these months are outside of the peak recreational season and the developed recreational facilities are not operated at this time; access is limited by Forest Service gate closures outside of the recreational season. Consequently, the effects of the Proposed Action on the boat launches during March and April would not adversely affect recreation.

Noticeable increases in usability of all of the boat launches would occur in September and October under the Proposed Action. In September under Current Operations, all of the boat launches would be usable 32 to 50 percent of the time; under the Proposed Action, the boat launches would be usable 96 to 100 percent of the time. Increased availability of boat launches in September resulting from the Proposed Operations could increase recreational opportunities at the reservoir beyond Labor Day, which would be outside of the recreation season in what is considered the shoulder season.

Under Current Operations, all of the boat launches would be usable 3 to 26 percent of time during October, while under the Proposed Action the boat launches would be usable 16 to 76 percent of the time. Given that October is outside of the recreational season, this effect would not be as important as the effects on the boat launches that occur between June and August.

Analysis of the modeled reservoir levels for different types of water years shows that, in general, the Proposed Action would cause the boat launches to become usable about the same time of the year (approximately the first week in May) in dry to average types of water years and 1 to 2 weeks earlier (approximately late April) in wetter water year types as compared to Current Operations. The effects of the Proposed Action are more pronounced in the fall when the reservoir elevations would remain high enough for the boat launches to be usable approximately 2 to 3 weeks longer (approximately October 1) than under Current Operations.

Other areas that could be affected by fluctuating reservoir levels are the swimming beaches. The swimming beach at Horseshoe Cove would become unsuitable at approximately the same reservoir elevation as the elevation that the Shannon Creek boat launch would become unusable, and the swimming beach at the Baker Lake Resort would

3-343

become unsuitable at approximately the same elevation that the Baker Lake Resort boat launch would become unusable. From June to August, both swimming beaches would be usable 100 percent of the time under both the Proposed and Current Operations. As under Current Operations, the swimming beaches would be mostly affected during April, May, September, and October, when most people would not visit a beach to swim because air and water temperatures are generally cool. Also, the facilities at swimming beaches are rarely, if ever, open in April and October. Consequently, the Proposed Operations would not adversely affect the usability of the Horseshoe Cove and Baker Lake Resort swimming beaches.

Baker Lake Shoreline and Surface—Under Current Operations, there are portions of the shoreline that become exposed along the north and western shores of Baker Lake. This effect is most pronounced outside of the period between Memorial Day and Labor Day. During the shoulder season, some dispersed campsites may become less desirable because of their distance to the shoreline, thereby reducing dispersed camping opportunities at the project in low-use periods. Exposed rocks and stumps at Baker Lake are also potential boating hazards as the reservoir level drops and this effect would also be most pronounced during the shoulder season. Floating debris that comes into the reservoir with snow-melt in the spring is also a concern for boating safety.

There is also a shallow portion of Baker Lake, which at the lowest reservoir levels, transforms from flat water to a flowing channel. At the lowest reservoir levels, boat passage between the upper and lower portions of Baker Lake can be restricted. Anecdotal accounts indicate that at reservoir elevations below about 693.8 feet msl, the water depth in this channel is only 1 to 2 feet, allowing only watercraft with a low draw and experienced operators to navigate the channel. At these lower elevations, the historic natural (pre-impoundment) Baker Lake is exposed, and this channel can provide access from the reservoir pool to the natural lake for smaller and more powerful boats. Also, even at extreme low pool, this channel is reasonably short and occurs in the drawdown to the east of the Baker Lake Resort. This reservoir elevation was analyzed to determine how frequently and when this condition would likely occur. Figure 3-21 shows a comparison of the percentage of time during each month that this area of Baker Lake would be navigable, assuming an elevation of 693.8 feet msl, based on 5 representative water years under the Current and Proposed Operations. It appears that navigation through the passage could be a concern during January and December. Because this effect would not occur during the months of the recreational season or even during the shoulder season months of May or September, this would not greatly affect access to the reservoir under Current or Proposed Operations.

3-344

Figure 3-21. Comparison of the percent time that the narrow passage at Baker Lake is navigable under Current Conditions and Proposed Operations based on five representative years and a reservoir elevation of 693.77 feet msl.

Under the Proposed Operations, portions of the shoreline would be exposed as the reservoir level lowers, affecting the availability and suitability of dispersed recreation sites as well as revealing boating hazards. Compared to Current Operations, the reservoir level would generally be the same, at or near full pool, under the Proposed Action during June through August and it would be higher in May and September. Consequently, this would be an improvement during the shoulder season for dispersed recreation, resulting in a lower potential for boating hazards than would exist under Current Operations.

Furthermore, project operations have limited direct effect on the aesthetic/visual conditions of the recreation areas. Project features have no effect on the aesthetic/visual environment of these areas. The influence of project operations is limited to the areas adjacent to the reservoir and is dependent upon season and pool elevation (EDAW, Inc., 2004).

RecreationDeveloped Recreation—Baker Lake and Lake Shannon are project features that

attract visitors to the area. These project reservoirs provide visitors with the opportunity for recreational activities, such as fishing, swimming, and boating. The land adjacent to the reservoirs provides overnight and day-use recreational activities, such as camping, picnicking, hiking, observing wildlife, hunting, shoreline fishing, and scenic driving. The demand for recreational experiences supported by developed recreational facilities at the project would continue and is expected to increase into the future. Continued operation of the project would help meet this demand through Puget’s proposed measures at its recreational facilities. Based on recreation studies conducted during the relicensing

3-345

process, some of the existing facilities are probably not adequate to meet the future demand for public recreational use during peak season weekends.

Although Baker Lake and Lake Shannon are located fairly close to each other, there are two differences between them that cause different patterns of and opportunities for recreational use. Baker Lake is located almost entirely on National Forest System lands managed by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, whereas Lake Shannon is located primarily on privately owned land. At Lake Shannon, Puget owns 10 percent of the land surrounding the impoundment, whereas the remaining 90 percent of the site and the access gravel road to the site are on land owned by Glacier Northwest, Inc. (Glacier). The second difference between the two impoundments is topography. The land around Baker Lake is gently sloping, but Lake Shannon is mainly surrounded by steep hillsides. Consequently, Baker Lake is more accessible because there are roads close to the shoreline that are open to the public and suitable sites to locate recreational facilities. This circumstance has resulted in development of public recreational facilities near Baker Lake, while Lake Shannon has public access constraints to the shoreline. The steep slopes and lack of public land near Lake Shannon restrict where recreational facilities can be sited; therefore, there is currently minimal recreational development.

Bayview Campground—The Bayview Campground was scheduled for construction in 1964, but construction was never completed due to lack of funds. The resulting sites known as Bayview North and Bayview South campgrounds were added to the Forest Service concessionaire program in 2001 with minimal improvements to provide additional group camping and site management until they could be redeveloped into single and group camping sites. Although the tables and fire rings have been replaced, wildlife-resistant trash receptacles have been installed, and a few additional spurs have been opened, Puget (2005) notes that the campground’s restrooms, signs, spurs, roads, gates, and traffic barriers are in poor condition.

The Bayview Campground is available for overnight group use by reservation only. There is a $75 nightly fee for group camping (up to 25 people) at the Bayview North and Bayview South Campgrounds (http:www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/recreation/activities/campgrounds/bakerlake.shtml). Visitors to the campgrounds include groups of 1 to 6 people as well as those in a larger group. However, the facilities are not well known and receive occasional use. Consequently, the campgrounds’ contribution to supplying overnight capacity is incidental compared to the other facilities at Baker Lake.

Under Proposed Article 309, Puget would provide funds to the Forest Service to

rehabilitate and reconstruct the existing 28-unit Bayview Campground. Although the specific measures to rehabilitate the site are not identified in the Settlement Agreement,

3-346

Proposed Article 309, if implemented, would provide new infrastructure at the site (Puget Sound Energy, 2005).

Effects Analysis

Although specific measures to rehabilitate the site have not been identified, we note that Bayview South campground was rated as moderate to poor under the aesthetic/visual condition, due to site conditions or maintenance problems (primarily trash) and Bayview North campground was rated moderate to good (EDAW, Inc., 2004). Removing vegetation between the Bayview North and Bayview South campgrounds to Baker Lake would open up the areas and connect them visually to the lake. Clearing the over-story could provide more sunlight to the campgrounds, resulting in an open vegetative community (EDAW, Inc., 2004).

We discuss the cost of the Bayview Campground Rehabilitation and our recommendation in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Upper Baker Developed Recreation Maintenance Funding—Horseshoe Cove, Shannon Creek, Panorama Point, Bayview, and Maple Grove are campgrounds near Baker Lake that provide lakeside camping opportunities. The Forest Service constructed the campgrounds between 1960 and 1973 and continues to operate and maintain these facilities. Since their construction, the only major development has been the addition of eight units to the Horseshoe Cove Campground in 1980.

Over the last decade, the Forest Service has seen a decrease of about 9 percent in its recreation budget at the same time that wages, associated benefits, and costs have increased. In the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, this situation created deferred maintenance and poorly functioning recreational facilities (Forest Service, 2002a). To resolve this issue, the Forest Service turned operation and maintenance of all five campgrounds over to Recreation Resource Management; however, this action did not alleviate the problem of deferred maintenance at the recreational facilities (Puget Sound Energy, 2005).

As previously discussed, the Recreation Visitor Survey Study (Study R13)

(Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004) indicates that the existing users displayed a range of satisfaction with recreation services and facilities available at the campgrounds. Despite the range of satisfaction levels, the survey also finds that of the 48 people responding to a preferred location for overnight camping, 29 percent of the respondents indicated Horseshoe Cove campground as a preferred choice and 15 percent indicated Panorama Point; an equal amount (10 percent of the respondents) indicated their

3-347

preferred choice was Baker Lake Resort and parks outside the river basin. Eight percent of the respondents indicated Shannon Creek as a preferred location.

Under proposed Article 313 (Upper Baker Developed Recreation Maintenance

Funding), Puget would provide funds to the Forest Service for operation and maintenance at the following recreation facilities in the Upper Baker River basin: Shannon Creek; Panorama Point; Bayview; Horseshoe Cove; Maple Grove; and Baker Lake Resort. Proposed Article 313 also would require Puget to provide operation and maintenance for any future developed facilities that may be constructed as part of Proposed Articles 303, Baker Lake Resort Redevelopment Plan; 309, Bayview Campground Rehabilitation Funding; and 312, Developed Recreation Monitoring and Funding.

Effects Analysis

Baker Lake Resort and the campgrounds at Horseshoe Cove, Shannon Creek, Panorama Point, Maple Grove and Bayview North and South are located near Baker Lake and are non-project sites developed by the Forest Service to utilize the recreational opportunities created by Baker Lake.

Overnight use of the Forest Service developed campgrounds in 2001 was approximately 10 percent below the average for 1996-2001. When Puget began operating Baker Lake Resort in 1999, recreational use patterns showed an estimated 5 percent above the average for the first three seasons; resort use in 2001 was approximately 5 percent lower than reported for the 2000 season (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004).

Puget (2005) states that under Proposed Article 313, the visitor’s experience at the campgrounds would likely improve due to increased patrols by the Forest Service at the sites resulting from the additional funding. Improved visitor’s experience would likely increase recreation use at the sites. We note, however, that specific measures for the proposed article are not defined.

We discuss the cost of the Upper Baker Developed Recreation Maintenance Funding and our recommendation in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Lower Baker Developed Recreation— Current public access to Lake Shannon is across private land, and there are minimal recreational facilities and services available to the public at this reservoir. The Lake Shannon boat launch has no formally developed facilities. However, Puget provides portable restrooms and dumpsters at the site. Most of the site is an open, dirt-surfaced area with minimal shade where visitors park RVs to camp. Some users at this site also camp in tents, primarily on a grassy peninsula located to the south of the boat ramp where there are trees. The boat launch site is also close

3-348

enough to the population center of the Town of Concrete and other nearby communities to make it convenient for day use as well as overnight use, and much of the use is from local residents. Puget reports that there are instances of people staying for extended periods, being inconsiderate of other visitors, and causing adverse effects on environmental resources. Currently, Puget enforces a 14-day limit, within 30 consecutive days, for visitors at the site. Some visitors expressed low satisfaction with the access roads, availability of potable water, cleanliness of the area, facility maintenance, and the quality of the parking area.

Under Proposed Article 305, Puget would prepare a Lower Baker Developed Recreation Plan, including acquisition of land for a Lake Shannon access site. A plan provision could be identifying an access area suitable for the construction of a concrete boat launch, parking area, and day-use area with an existing access road However, if suitable and cost-effective access on Lake Shannon is not acquired within 10 years of license issuance, Puget proposes, in consultation with the appropriate parties, to identify and acquire a suitable and cost-effective access site at an alternative location away from the project that would provide similar public recreational opportunities. Within 5 years of site acquisition of the alternative access site, Puget proposes to develop a small access site at the location.

Proposed Article 305 would also provide that if the eventual property for the boat access is acquired in a manner that would allow site development to exceed small boat access site standards, or if a party other than Puget develops recreational facilities in addition to those required by the proposed article, Puget would not be required to fund maintenance above what would be required for a small boat access site.

Effects Analysis

As previously discussed, Lake Shannon provides recreational opportunities on the reservoir and the immediate surrounding areas, although most access is across private land and can be constrained by topographical and geologic features.

Since the Settlement Agreement and Proposed Articles were filed November 30,

2004, an agreement between Puget and Skagit County to continue to operate the Lake Shannon boat ramp was reached. In a May 10, 2005 filing, Puget notes that Skagit County proposes, under a separate agreement with Glacier, to maintain the road and provide flaggers to aid with the safety of vehicles using the road for public access. The agreement between Glacier and Skagit County affords the opportunity to provide public access to the existing Lake Shannon boat ramp. Given that the Lake Shannon boat ramp is a project-related facility, a Lower Baker Developed Recreation Plan could provide for continued maintenance of the site.

3-349

Pursuant to Proposed Article 401 (Water Quality), Puget would develop and implement a water quality protection plan for all in-water or near-water construction work related to the project that could impact surface -or ground-water quality. This plan would take into account portable toilets, boat ramps, and access roads. Therefore, the Lower Baker Developed Recreation Plan would best be developed in concert with Proposed Article 401. We discuss the cost of the Lower Baker Recreation Plan in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Baker Lake Resort Redevelopment Plan—The Baker Lake Resort is a recreational development located on National Forest System land approximately 6 miles north of Upper Baker dam. This site was privately operated as a commercial resort under a special use permit from the Forest Service. In 1998, Puget acquired a Forest Service special use permit to operate the resort, which includes a family campground, group campground, cabins, playground, boat launch, store, and marina with boat rentals. The resort is not a project facility and the site is not within the project boundary.

Currently, the cabins are the only accommodations of the resort that could be considered heavily used or overused. Occupancy rates are greater than 70 percent in July and August. The RV campsites have occupancy rates of about 50 percent in July and August while the standard family campsites appear to be at or below 40 percent. The capacity of the campground at the resort (90 campsites) is approximately equivalent to the entire capacity of the campgrounds owned and operated by the Forest Service at Baker Lake. Overall, the resort has additional capacity to accommodate substantially more use during the peak season of July and August (Puget Sound Energy, 2005).

The resort has aged and worn components that have a high annual operation and maintenance cost. Puget states that it has operated the facility at a loss since it acquired the special use permit in 1998 (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004a). Puget does not intend to operate the resort beyond the expiration of the current special use permit in 2008.

Instead of continuing to operate the site as a resort, Puget, under Proposed Article 303, would prepare a Baker Lake Resort Redevelopment Plan to convert the resort to a campground with between 30 and 50 sites. Further, Puget would provide funds to the Forest Service for implementing the plan. The Forest Service would operate and maintain the site with funding from Puget.

Effects Analysis

Baker Lake Resort’s location is a desirable setting for a campground near Baker Lake. But, due to the short water-related peak recreation season in western Washington, the facility is not a viable business under its current operation as a resort. Redeveloping

3-350

the site pursuant to Proposed Article 303, including decommissioning of the existing site and development of between 30 and 50 campsites, could enhance overnight recreation activities while addressing seasonal lakefront campground demand.

Rehabilitation of the Baker Lake Resort could improve the aesthetic quality of the area because existing substandard conditions at the site would be eliminated when the rundown buildings are removed. Removal of the buildings could also serve to reduce operation and maintenance costs of the resort incurred by Puget.

Although the specific measures to rehabilitate Baker Lake Resort are not defined, a change in the services and facilities provided at the site could be expected to make the site more economical to operate while still providing public recreation.

Huckell/Weinman Associates (2004) note approximately half of all local

recreation sites, boat launches, and camp sites are located within the project study area.30 According to the study, projected occupancy rates for Baker Lake Resort indicate the current supply of RV and campsites is sufficient to accommodate the expected demand over the next 20 years. The study concludes that for at least the next 10 years, the campsites at the resort represent surplus camping capacity in the Baker Lake area. We note that this surplus camping capacity may be the reason that the Forest Service proposes to decrease the existing 90 campsites at the resort to a range of 30 to 50 campsites under Proposed Article 303. Although the study indicates the existing 11 cabins are heavily utilized during the peak recreation season (July and August) these cabins would be removed under Proposed Article 303.

Study results (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004) indicate that while future capacity shortfalls are expected among the existing Forest Service facilities, the facilities that are currently operated by Puget could be available to accommodate future demand.

We discuss the cost of the Baker Lake Resort Redevelopment Plan and our recommendation in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Developed Recreation Monitoring and FundingUnder Proposed Article 312, Puget would prepare a Developed Recreation

Monitoring and Funding Plan. This plan would provide for monitoring site use and occupancy levels at the Forest Service’s Horseshoe Cove, Panorama Point, Bayview, and Shannon Creek campgrounds and at Puget’s Baker Lake Resort, which would be

30 The project study area is defined as all lands within the project boundary and adjacent lands within an approximate 0.5-mile radius.

3-351

redeveloped under Proposed Article 303. Data from the monitoring would be provided to the Forest Service annually. Monitoring results would be evaluated no later than 8 years after license issuance to determine if additional capacity should be developed. Puget proposes that the criteria for determining whether additional recreation site development at Baker Lake is necessary should be when monitoring reports document that the average combined site occupancy for Horseshoe Cove, Panorama Point, Bayview, Shannon Creek campgrounds and the Baker Lake Resort is at or exceeds 60 percent during July and August for 2 consecutive years (Proposed Article 312). Then, Puget proposes to provide funds to the Forest Service for developing the additional capacity, as specified in Puget’s proposed Recreation Implementation Schedule.

Effects Analysis

The monitoring proposed in Article 312 could provide useful estimates of total recreational use and assessments of recreational issues at the Forest Service campgrounds and at Baker Lake Resort.

Due to the potential for increased recreation demand at the project and due to the

proximity of the project to nearby population centers, we find that monitoring recreation use would allow Puget to determine the adequacy of public access and recreation facilities to meet recreational needs. This information would complement the recreational use information collected at 6-year intervals for the FERC Form 80-Recreation Report, section 8.11 of the Commission’s regulations. Information collected could be shared with the Forest Service.

We discuss the cost of the Developed Recreation Monitoring and Funding and our recommendation in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Dispersed RecreationIn addition to the developed recreational sites, there are areas with no formal,

developed facilities located near the reservoir shorelines for camping or picnicking. In some areas, there are informal pit toilets, fire rings and picnic tables that have been created by users. The dispersed sites are created by users in areas where the Forest Service allows this type of activity. The locations and patterns of use at some of these areas cause concern for water quality, cultural resources, erosion, and vegetation impacts. Types of resource impacts identified in the Dispersed Site Inventory Study (Study R12) (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004) include erosion, hatchet marks and nails in trees, and trampled vegetation. Improper disposal of human and animal waste in the area surrounding dispersed-use sites occurs because suitable restrooms and bags for animal waste are not provided. Litter is also a problem at these sites because there is no refuse

3-352

service provided. User-created fire rings that are not properly located or constructed may pose a risk of wildfires.

The demand for dispersed recreational opportunities is projected to slightly increase over the next 20 years. Continued operation of the project would help meet this demand by supplying opportunities for lakefront camping and day use. Baker Lake provides the majority of opportunities for dispersed recreation use at the project because it is located primarily on public land managed by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Dispersed recreation use at Lake Shannon is limited by steep topography and private land.

Dispersed Recreation Management FundingThe reservoir shoreline attracts recurrent recreational use that, in some cases,

adversely affects environmental resources. At Baker Lake there is a need to manage dispersed camping to protect water quality and environmental resources, thereby protecting the health and safety of the visitors to the project area.

Under Proposed Article 308, Puget would provide funds to the Forest Service for the preparation and implementation of a Dispersed Recreation Management Plan. Although no specific measures are identified, Article 308 suggests that the Dispersed Recreation Management Plan could describe management actions, operation and maintenance, monitoring objectives, and design plans for hardening31 actions at three to six high-priority, dispersed recreation sites. Proposed Article 308 also suggests that the site-specific actions to be taken and the three to six dispersed sites selected for these actions could be identified in the plan. Because the sites are located primarily on public land and are currently managed by the Forest Service, Puget proposes to provide funds to the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest for the plan and its implementation.

Effects Analysis

According to the SCORP (Interagency Committee of Outdoor Recreation, 2002), Washington State recommends the management of dispersed shoreline camping, consideration of eliminating dispersed camping, and relocating campgrounds where they have more visibility to discourage illegal uses.

Dispersed camping along the reservoir and in the surrounding areas is currently available on lands where the Forest Service permits this practice. Current recreational use at some of the dispersed sites has resulted in undesirable health, safety and aesthetic

31 The term “hardening” refers to actions such as providing sanitary facilities, installing fire rings, controlling vehicle access with barriers, providing trash receptacles, installing bear boxes and formalizing paths of travel to sites.

3-353

conditions for the public as well as adverse effects on environmental resources. Hardening of certain affected sites, such as could occur through development and implementation of a dispersed recreation management plan, could improve the quality of recreational experiences associated with these sites and protect the visitors and environmental resources.

From the Dispersed Site Inventory Study (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004b) and information from Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest staff, Puget and the stakeholders agreed that there are areas where the effects of dispersed recreation use may not be acceptable. If Proposed Article 308 is implemented, visitors could either be more or less satisfied with their visit, depending on the level of development they seek for recreation. Study results indicate that only a few sites get more use than others and are used consistently throughout the late spring, summer, and early fall. Many of the sites inventoried may have been used once or a few times per season during peak season weekends when other sites were occupied. Consequently, this intermittent use does not pose the same health and environmental concerns that occur at sites with heavier use. Although the sites to be included in the dispersed recreation management plan would be identified in the future, Proposed Article 308 would appear to reflect the level of need identified by the study.

Development and implementation of a plan could formalize dispersed recreation sites by designating sites in suitable locations and therefore, be consistent with the SCORP.

We discuss the cost of the Dispersed Recreation Management Plan in the context of the sites relative to the Baker River Project boundary and our recommendation in section 5.1, Comprehensive Alternative and Recommended Alternative.

Trails and TrailheadsVisitors to the Baker Lake and Lake Shannon area participate in a variety of

activities. Numerous trails and secondary roads provide access to dispersed recreation activities, such as camping, picnicking, hiking, backpacking, fishing, and winter sports (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004). Some hikers venture beyond Baker Lake and use trails leading into the adjacent wilderness areas and the North Cascades National Park. There are approximately 64 miles of trails within the Baker River watershed, of which approximately 17 miles are located in the lower elevations of the watershed near the project.

The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forestland resource and management plan and Whatcom County Plan recognize projected growth in the most popular activities of walking and hiking and place a priority on providing additional trails to accommodate

3-354

this use. The SCORP recognizes growth in recreation, which at times can lead to conflicts with other resource interests, including fish and wildlife. Data contained in the SCORP shows a large inventory of recreational trails; however, most trails are not located where they are needed the most (in or near town). Currently, the developed campgrounds at Baker Lake do not have trails that provide connections to other areas of recreational activity; visitors must currently drive, bike, or walk on roads. The Town of Concrete has no trail connections to the project or nearby natural resource features. In a Recreation Capacity and Suitability Analysis (Study R11) and Recreational Trail Analysis (Study R15) (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004), the studies examined desired connections and potential locations for trails within the existing Baker River Project boundary and adjacent lands within a range of approximately 0.5 mile.

Upper Baker Trail and Trailheads—Existing trail systems associated with developed sites at Baker Lake provide a limited range of opportunities for trail-based recreation. Although there are currently hiking trails in the vicinity of Baker Lake, most of these existing trails are routes that lead to destinations in the Mt. Baker Wilderness, North Cascades National Park, and the Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness rather than to recreational destinations in and around Baker Lake. Opportunities for overnight visitors to walk or hike on trails connected to the developed recreational facilities are limited.

Puget and the stakeholders determined that creating new trails would respond to the need for additional trails in the project vicinity and could be consistent with the priorities and recommendations identified by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest land and resource management plan, SCORP, and county plans. The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest land and resource management plan (Forest Service, 1990) notes that reconstruction of existing trails within wilderness is a higher priority than new construction. The plan states that trails would be reconstructed to protect wilderness from further adverse effects on environmental resources. For non-wilderness trails, the plan states that 134 miles of new trail would provide alternative recreation opportunities.

Under Proposed Article 310 Puget would provide funds to the Forest Service for up to 6 miles of new multi-season, multi-use, non-motorized Forest Service trails.

Effects Analysis

The addition of non-motorized multi-use trails could contribute to a cumulative beneficial effect on the existing trail system within the river basin. The proposed new trails, under Proposed Article 310 and Proposed Article 314, would increase the number and length of trails available for the public, and provide visitors to the project with improved access to other locations and facilities in the Baker Lake vicinity. The proposed 6 miles of new trails in the Baker Lake (Upper Baker) area could provide new hiking opportunities at existing recreation sites.

3-355

Under proposed Article 314, Puget would provide funds to the Forest Service for a percentage of the total annual funding necessary to operate, maintain, and replace facilities associated with the Baker River Trail, Baker Lake Trail, and Baker Lake North and South trailheads. Both trails and both trailheads are located outside the Baker River Project boundary.

We discuss the costs of the Upper Baker Trail and Trailheads and our recommendations in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Lower Baker Trail Construction and Maintenance—Under Proposed Article 311, Puget would develop a Lower Baker Trail Construction Plan in consultation with appropriate parties. This plan would include site selection, development criteria and construction of up to 2 miles of trail in the vicinity of the Town of Concrete. Under proposed Article 315, Puget would maintain the Lower Baker Trail at an estimated annual cost of $620.

Effects Analysis

In the vicinity of the Town of Concrete where one trail terminates, new trails would expand the opportunity for visitors at this area associated with the project and respond to the need for trails to support walking and hiking opportunities in and near communities. Lake Shannon is a project feature that attracts visitors to the project area. Other project features in the lower Baker River Project vicinity, including fish handling facilities and the Lower Baker dam, are also public attractions. Construction of a multi-use trail in this area would contribute to a beneficial effect on recreation resources in the vicinity of the Lower Baker Development.

Puget’s proposed measure to develop and implement the Lake Shannon Boat Launch under Proposed Article 305 would compliment the proposed multi-use trail by offering continued public access and improved recreation facilities. Overall, Proposed Article 311 and its associated Proposed Article 315 would enhance the recreation resources at Lake Shannon.

We discuss the cost of the Lower Baker Trail Plan and our recommendation in section 5.1, Comprehensive Alternative and Recommended Alternative.

Forest Service Roads and AccessPublic access to the reservoirs is currently by way of roads across public land

under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, and Skagit and Whatcom Counties, as well as land owned by Puget. The public also crosses privately owned land, where a public

3-356

right-of-way may or may not exist, to access the reservoirs. Because public access for recreation may require year-round motorized access, managing access for the project operations and natural resource management may require restricting the location, type, and timing of permitted access.

Under proposed Article 316, Puget would provide funds to the Forest Service for annual maintenance of up to 25 miles of existing Forest Service roads in the river basin. The Forest Service roads include FR 11 (Baker Lake Highway); FR 1106 (Depression Lake); FR 1107 (Anderson Road); FR 1118 (Horseshoe Cove and Bayview); FR 1122 (Lower Sandy Creek); FR 1136 (Lower Boulder Creek); FR 1137 (Panorama Point); FR 1142 (Baker Lake Resort); FR 1150 (Shannon Creek campground); and FR 1168 (Baker River Trailhead North). The funding is intended to be used by the Forest Service, in part, to pave the approximately 1-mile-long Forest Road 1106 during the sixth year following license issuance and for periodic resurfacing.

Under proposed Article 317, Puget would continue to provide public road access to the east side of Baker Lake on Forest Road 1106 except as may be restricted for short-term public safety or project security reasons.

Effects Analysis

The continued presence of Baker Lake is a destination for recreationists. This presents a need to provide access for land and water-based activities at recreation facilities for current and potential recreational users.

The funds to the Forest Service provided under Proposed Article 316 would include fund for paving FR 1106 and could supplement the maintenance funding used by the Forest Service with jurisdiction for other roads. The public would likely see fewer potholes and rough surfaces on roads in the project vicinity, which could improve user satisfaction. Better roads could lead to increased use at the recreational facilities.

We note FR 1106 provides public access to the east side of Baker Lake across Upper Baker dam. Public access to the east side of Baker Lake has been available across Upper Baker dam since its construction. Proposed Article 317 would continue to provide this access and provisions for restricting the access for public safety and project security, as needed.

Puget (2005) states that the Forest Service proposes to permanently or seasonally close many spur roads off FR 11 (Baker Lake Highway) near the northwest end of Baker Lake to protect wildlife (elk, mountain goat, grizzly bear, or the bald eagle) or to convert road segments to recreation trails. English and Home (1996) note that road closures

3-357

benefit people who participate in trail use, camping, day use, and snowmobiling. Road construction benefits people who participate in motor viewing and fishing.

While Proposed Article 316 identifies Forest Service roads in the project vicinity, we can not determine how the roads, except for FR 1106, are influenced by project-related operations. Although Proposed Article 316 could complement the Forest Service desire for an improved level of maintenance at the roads, we find the majority of the roads are utilized for multi-use that lead to non-project facilities.

We discuss the cost of the Forest Service Road Maintenance Funding and our recommendation in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Recreational SafetyThe project reservoirs provide visitors with the opportunity to enjoy recreational

activities, such as fishing, swimming, and boating. The land adjacent to the reservoirs hosts overnight and day-use activities such as camping, picnicking, hiking, observing wildlife, hunting, shoreline fishing, and scenic driving. While participating in these activities at the project, visitors may be involved in accidents or face unplanned events that could create a danger to them.

Recreation Water Safety Plan— Under Proposed Article 304, Puget would develop the Baker Reservoir recreation water safety plan. The plan would require Puget to (1) provide funds to the Forest Service for constructing and installing 8 to 12 bulletin boards at locations to be determined, (2) provide displays and tear-sheet maps for visitors with information about reservoir safety and provide these at specified locations, and (3) construct and install floating log booms or suitable structures to separate existing designated swimming areas from boat traffic on the reservoir at Horseshoe Cove and Baker Lake Resort. Proposed Article 304 would also require Puget to maintain the log booms, provide safety signage at swimming areas and monitor hazards that may affect reservoir recreation. In addition, Puget would provide funds to the Forest Service to contribute to its efforts in carrying out the purposes of the proposed article.

Effects Analysis

As required under the Commission’s regulations, Puget has developed and implements a public safety plan for the Baker River Project; therefore, there is no need for a separate recreation water safety plan. Any public safety measures that Puget would propose to install on project lands and waters would require Puget to consult with the Commission and modify its existing public safety plan accordingly.

3-358

For further discussion see section 2.1.2.5, Project Safety. We discuss the cost of the Baker Reservoir Recreation Water Safety Plan and our recommendation in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Law Enforcement—The presence of people and projected increased visitation near the project create a need to provide for public assistance. The types of situations that currently or potentially exist include theft, vandalism, wild fire, search and rescue, and boating and vehicle accidents. Puget (2004) notes that the northern reaches of the Baker River basin that lie within Whatcom County are physically isolated from the county, making it difficult for the sheriff’s department to maintain a continuous presence in the area and to offer an adequate response time to incidents without stationing an officer in the area.

Although counties and agencies managing the public land surrounding the project have jurisdiction and funds to provide law enforcement, these entities comment that additional funds are needed from Puget to adequately provide law enforcement attributed to visitors using the project reservoirs.

Puget (2004) notes that it currently pays taxes to three jurisdictions (Whatcom and

Skagit Counties and the Town of Concrete) in which a portion of the taxes paid are intended to support public services, including law enforcement. Puget also provides and maintains housing for a Whatcom County local deputy at the project. The Forest Service provides funds to Whatcom County to patrol National Forest System lands in the county. The Forest Service also employs one full-time law enforcement officer and two to four seasonal employees who patrol National Forest System lands.

Under Proposed Article 318 Puget would facilitate the development of a Law Enforcement Plan (LEP) with various agencies that provide law enforcement in the project vicinity and the river basin. The LEP may include provisions for law enforcement presence, other types of public contact personnel presence, enhanced emergency communication and response procedures, public safety and security, protection measures for facilities, natural resources, recreation resources, and cultural resources. Under Proposed Article 318, Puget would provide funds for the development and implementation of the LEP.

Effects Analysis

We discuss the cost of the LEP and our recommendation in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

3-359

Public Information, Interpretation, and EducationDuring the relicensing process, Puget and the stakeholders identified the need to

improve visitor information, interpretation, and education at the project. The recreation needs analysis (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004) identified a need for more information, education, and interpretation, including information signs, at the Baker River Project. In support of its finding, we note various federal, state and county agencies’ plans recognize a projected growth in public participation and interest in interpretive programs.

Visitors can obtain information about programs and facilities at the Forest Service

office in Sedro-Woolley, at the Lower Baker Visitors Center, and from information boards at campgrounds, day-use areas, and boat launches. Rules and regulations are also often included on these display boards. Interpretive programs are not generally available at Baker Lake; however, the Shadow of the Sentinels Trail is used by visitors and a salmon related interpretive program has been provided at the Baker Lake Resort. During the recreation season, Puget provides interpretive and education programs at the Lower Baker Visitors Center. Puget also provides tours of the fish handling facilities for organized groups such as schools.

As discussed below, Puget would address visitor information under Proposed Articles 306 and 307. Because these two proposed articles are interrelated, we have combined our discussion.

Upper Baker Visitor Information and Interpretive Services Funding—Under Proposed Article 306 Puget would provide funds to the Forest Service for visitor information services in the Baker River basin. The funds would be used for (1) planning, designing, and constructing a small Upper Baker Visitor Information Station (VIS); with parking, information kiosks, and sanitation facilities; (2) staffing and operations from Memorial Day through Labor Day at Baker Lake; and (3) supporting the summer recreation season from Memorial Day to Labor Day for the Mt. Baker Ranger Station in Sedro-Woolley.

Under Proposed Article 307, Puget would provide funds to the Forest Service to

(1) prepare an interpretation and education plan; and (2) plan, staff, and produce materials to provide interpretive services. Themes that may be included in the interpretation and education plan are: (a) local culture and history; (b) aquatic, terrestrial and other natural resources; and (c) stewardship and project features.

Effects Analysis

Interpretation of environmental and cultural resources, including project facilities and the importance of hydroelectric power, would fulfill a need identified during the

3-360

relicensing process. We note, however, that the proposed HPMP for the project takes into account the interpretive element of cultural resources; therefore, we do not find a need to address cultural resources separate and apart from the HPMP. Rather, this element better coordinates with an interpretation and education plan for the Baker River Project, as discussed below.

Providing the public with information about the project in relation to the environment and recreational opportunities would enhance the recreational experience of the visitors. These measures could be developed through an interpretation and education plan for the project that includes provisions for the following: (1) construction and operation of the VIS at Baker Lake on lands within the Baker River Project boundary; (2) staffing the VIS from Memorial Day through Labor Day; (3) information about the project in relation to the environment, including recreational opportunities; and (4) how the needs of the disabled are considered in the design of the VIS.

We discuss the cost of the Upper Baker Visitor Information and Interpretive Services, and our recommendation in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

Recreation Adaptive Management FundUnder Proposed Article 602, Puget would establish a Recreation Adaptive

Management (RAM) Fund and contribute $50,000 annually to the fund beginning in 2006 for the duration of a new license. Under Proposed Article 602, some possible uses of the fund include: (1) additional measures to limit the impacts of dispersed recreation at Upper Baker development; (2) aesthetic enhancements to non-project facilities; (3) unusual trail and trailhead maintenance costs associated with natural events not under the control of the licensee; (4) increased development of the Bayview Campgrounds; and (5) monitoring dispersed recreation use adjacent to Lake Shannon.

Effects Analysis

Because the geographic scope of the proposed fund extends beyond the project boundary and there is no indication of displaced recreational effects from the project to these non-project lands, we do not find a nexus between project operations and the areas outside the project boundary that would be addressed by the RAM Fund. Furthermore, the proposed fund would be used at non-project facilities.

We discuss the cost of the RAM Fund and our recommendation in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.


3-361

Lower Baker Power Plant ModificationsThe Proposed Action includes modifications at the Lower Baker powerhouse

(section 2.2.1) requiring earth moving and construction activity. Public access is not allowed beyond the gate near the Lower Baker Visitors Center, so there would be no direct effect on recreational use. However, the construction activities may cause some disruption to visitors in the form of noise and construction traffic on the roads used to access areas with recreational use. Visitors may choose not to fish and picnic in the vicinity of the reservoir near the dam to avoid noise in the short term. Traffic could be disrupted if road closures are necessary for safety, and this may reduce public access during construction. These effects would only occur during the construction period of 2 years. It may be possible to minimize these effects by scheduling road closures and other disruptive activities during the middle of the week or in winter months.

Aquatic Resources MeasuresThe Proposed Action includes proposed articles related to fish passage,

propagation, and enhancement. If the Proposed Action successfully increases fish populations in the reservoirs, visitors would likely have greater fishing success. This could draw more people to the project and increase occupancy at the developed facilities and dispersed-use areas around the reservoir. Increased use at developed and dispersed-use areas may increase the needs related to facility operation, maintenance, and replacement. Increased visitation may also cause more use of roads and trails, creating increased maintenance needs for these improvements.

Terrestrial Resources MeasuresThe Proposed Action includes proposed articles to enhance habitat for various

terrestrial and aquatic species, including elk, amphibians, osprey, loons, cavity dwellers, and bald eagles. If these actions, such as acquiring land, developing management plans and installing structures, are successful and populations of these species become more abundant, visitors to the project would likely have greater opportunities to view wildlife and amphibians. This would likely cause visitors to have a better recreational experience at the project.

There are a few aspects of the proposed articles relating to terrestrial resources that may have secondary effects on recreational resources. Proposed Article 507 would require Puget to install and maintain floating nest platforms on the project reservoirs and restrict public access with buoys or other demarcation structures. This proposed article would reduce the area where the public is allowed to boat on the reservoirs, and some visitors may resent losing access to the areas. However, depending on the size of the area that is restricted, some visitors may be able to view loons on the nesting platforms, increasing wildlife viewing opportunities for the public.

3-362

Cultural Resources MeasureMeasures to protect cultural and historical properties are included in the Proposed

Action. Proposed Article 201 sets forth a process to evaluate and protect these resources without site-specific references. Currently, there is no formalized, integrated plan for evaluating and managing historic and cultural resources associated with recreational facilities and activities at the project. The Proposed Action would establish a new process for historic and cultural resources management that may affect development of recreational facilities under the Proposed Action. If cultural or historical properties are present at proposed locations for development and if the review required by the Proposed Action reveals a conflict with recreational use, the scope or placement of proposed recreational developments could be affected. The effects could include a reduction in overnight capacity and the availability of lakefront campsites. New developments under the Proposed Action for recreation facilities such as trails, visitor education, and interpretive opportunities could be reduced or eliminated if cultural or historic resources are found during surveys and if it is determined that the proposed new recreational development or its associated visitor-use conflicts with their management. Cultural and historic resources would be an appropriate and interesting topic for visitor interpretation and education.

Aesthetic Resources Measures Project facilities have an influence on the aesthetic/visual environment of the areas

from which recreational users and other visitors can see them. Project facilities which can have an effect on the scenic integrity of their surroundings include the two project dams and their related facilities, the West Pass Dike (and nearby off-peak pump discharge pump station), the Upper Baker Operations and Maintenance Yard, and the Lower Baker River Operations Complex Center, at which the project visitors’ center is located.

Under Proposed Article 302, Puget would develop an aesthetics management plan. Measures contained in the proposed article include the following: (1) paint the pump station (off peak pump discharge facility) in neutral earth-tone colors and plant native vegetation to screen the facility from the West Pass Dike boat launch; (2) plant native vegetation to screen the yards, buildings, and fence of the Upper Baker Operations and Maintenance Yards from the Kulshan Campground and Forest Service Road 1106; (3) paint the existing crane at the Lower Baker Dam a neutral earth-tone color during the next normal painting cycle; and (4) plant landscaping in the area near the visitor’s center and associated parking area at the Lower Baker River Operations Complex Center.

Under Proposed Article 302, Puget would provide funds to the Forest Service to implement the following measures for non-project facilities in the vicinity of Baker Lake:

3-363

(1) vegetation management at Panorama Point, Horseshoe Cove, Shannon Creek, Bayview Campground, and Maple Grove Campground, and (2) vegetation management between Forest Service developed sites and/or viewpoints, and Baker Lake in two to four yet to be identified locations averaging less than 0.25-acre in size.

Effects Analysis

The proposed painting and vegetative screening at the Lower Baker dam crane, pump station, Upper Baker Operations and Maintenance Yard, and Lower Baker River Operations Complex would help to minimize the visual effects caused by those project features.

The specific vegetative management measures to be implemented at the Forest

Service sites and the two to four locations averaging less than 0.25-acre in size are not identified in the proposed article. We, therefore, are unable to analyze the benefits of these measures.

We discuss the cost of the Aesthetic Management Plan and our recommendation in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.


3.3.8.4 Cumulative EffectsMany past events have contributed to the existing condition relative to recreation

in the Baker River watershed. Native Americans and homesteaders established the first area trails, which allowed foot and horse travel. In later years, mountain climbers also used these trails in their attempts to climb Mt. Baker and Mt. Shuksan. Additional routes were established with timber harvesting and the area then became accessible to vehicles. Even more roads were constructed with development of the project and the main route to the project, the Baker Lake Highway, was eventually paved which further improved the ease of access for the public and created recreational attractions in the form of large reservoirs.

The area draws visitors from nearby communities as well as the larger Washington cities that are located farther away from the project. As the population growth in these communities has increased over time, recreational use at the project has also increased. In the 1950s as part of the Forest Service’s mission to provide quality recreational experiences for the public, recreational facilities were constructed to accommodate this use and provide comfort and conveniences for visitors. Nearby, wilderness areas and national parks were established, protecting the area from further development, timber

3-364

harvest, and road construction. The protections afforded these lands created places where people could enjoy solitude in a forested mountain setting, rely on their own physical and mental abilities, and visit a place where human-made features are not evident on the landscape. The trail systems were formalized and agencies with the authority to manage these areas were funded to improve and maintain the trails for public use. As public use of these lands continued to increase, the Forest Service and NPS instituted a permit system for wilderness visitors.

In the future, the main trend that would affect recreation at the project is the projected population increase in Washington. With an increase in population there would likely be increased urbanization of land near the project. As people live closer to the project, they have shorter distances to drive to recreate and this may translate into more people visiting the areas as well as more frequent visits from nearby residents. Increased visitation may cause public land management agencies to limit or redirect visitors (e.g., wilderness quotas, dispersed camping permit system) if recreation use grows and potentially affects natural resources or visitor experiences beyond acceptable limits. Also, there will likely be an increasing proportion of the public that will be participating in outdoor recreation activities. Specifically, the activities that are projected to have the greatest proportional increase over the next 20 years include: (1) nature activities, (2) walking, (3) visiting a beach, (4) picnicking, (5) canoeing/kayaking, (6) bicycle riding, (7) non-pool swimming, (8) sightseeing, and (9) hiking.

Continued presence of the project reservoirs would provide locations where demand for recreational activities with projected growth such as visiting beaches, swimming, and paddling may be accommodated. The project reservoirs would be an important component of the landscape that would contribute to meeting the needs for public recreation. The new trails that would be constructed under the Proposed Action would also contribute to meet the projected need for public recreation.

If agencies restrict visitation on lands adjacent to the project, displaced visitors may seek to use the project lands and waters. The Proposed Action may provide recreational alternatives for visitors who may not be able to use the adjacent wilderness and National Forest System lands if future use restrictions are imposed.

3.3.9 Aesthetic Resources

3.3.9.1 Affected EnvironmentThe project is set in a rugged forested basin of the northern Cascade Range,

incised by the Baker River and its tributaries. At its mouth, the river basin transitions to the broader Skagit River valley. The aesthetic character of the area is mixed, reflecting both the natural setting and the effects of modifications from timber harvest, hydropower

3-365

development, and the more urban characteristics of the Town of Concrete. The forested hillsides that dominate views in much of the project area are settings of outstanding natural beauty.

Two primary viewsheds comprise the project area, Baker Lake and Lake Shannon, along with a 1.2-mile reach of the Baker River within the Town of Concrete. Most visitors access the watershed on the Baker Lake Highway, which extends from Highway 20 (the North Cascades Highway) up the western side of the basin as far as the upper end of Baker Lake. A less maintained and less traveled road, the East Lake Shannon Road (or Baker River Forest Road), originating in Concrete, is the primary route to Lake Shannon. Numerous private, WDNR, and Forest Service roads provide limited access into the basin, although many of these roads are gated. From Baker Lake Highway, Lake Shannon is not visible, and Baker Lake is not visible until the road reaches Little Park Creek, shortly before transitioning to the unpaved Forest Road 11 that follows the shoreline to the head of the lake.

Upper Baker DevelopmentBaker Lake is a narrow 4,800-acre, 9-mile-long reservoir located in the center of

the Baker River watershed. It is set in dramatic terrain, surrounded by forested ridges rising to about elevation 4,100 feet msl on the west and 5,700 feet msl on the east side. The western ridges are the foothills of Mt. Baker (elevation 10,775 feet msl) and Mt. Shuksan (elevation 9,127 feet msl), which provide a backdrop to Baker Lake. The Western Hemlock Zone species form a continuous band around the eastern shore of the lake, extending to the western side where it is fragmented and interspersed with Pacific Silver Fir Zone species.

The Upper Baker Development lies within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, with the exception of about 371 acres of land owned by Puget and IP Forestry on the southwest edge of the reservoir. The 1990 Forest Plan (Forest Service, 1990), as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (Forest Service and BLM, 1994a), provide management direction for these lands. The Forest Plan uses the Forest Service Visual Management System, which includes standards and guidelines in the form of Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) (Forest Service, 1974). The VQOs reflect various degrees of acceptable alteration of the natural landscape based upon the importance of aesthetics. The Visual Management System identifies five VQOs: preservation, retention, partial retention, modification, and maximum modification. Most of the Forest Service land in the vicinity of the Upper Baker Development is assigned the VQOs of retention, partial retention, and modification. All forest lands around Baker Lake are designated as partial retention (Forest Service, 2002a), in which human activity may be evident, but should remain minimal to the natural landscape. Areas where timber has been harvested on ridges surrounding the lake have been assigned a VQO of modification, where human

3-366

activity can dominate the landscape. The mountains to the east and west are designated retention, where management activities should not be visually apparent.

To examine the aesthetic influence of activities on its lands, the Forest Service further describes viewsheds. The Baker Lake viewshed is characterized by the Forest Service (1990) as “slightly altered” by human modifications, although tributary drainages of Sulphur Creek and Anderson Creek were classified as “heavily altered.” Most landscape modification has occurred along the west side of the reservoir in conjunction with timber harvest and road construction. The most prominent feature in the viewshed is Baker Lake. Other project features are evident with many providing public access to shorelines. Upper Baker dam and Puget’s Baker Lake Resort are less visible. Other developed features along the shore of the lake are six campgrounds managed by the Forest Service, West Pass dike, and the upper extent of Forest Road 11.

EDAW (2004b) selected 19 key viewing areas (KVAs) to represent the different types of scenery that visitors experience within the Baker River Project area, 17 of which are around Baker Lake (see table 3-41). The KVAs 1 through 13 and 16 through 19 are at Baker Lake, and all are shoreline sites, except Glover Mountain (KVA 13), Boulder Creek dispersed site (KVA 5), and Kulshan Campground (KVA 12).

Also shown in table 3-41 is a Scenic Integrity Rating of landscapes viewed from a KVA. The Forest Service (1995) utilizes a Scenic Integrity Rating to determine whether a facility fits into the character of its surrounding landscape and meets the expectations of area visitors. A facility rated as “high” or “very high” would indicate that it is physically or culturally affiliated with its setting, while a rating of “moderate” to “very low” would indicate that it is out of character or in conflict with a visitor’s expectation.

Two primary project features are visible from at least one KVA, Upper Baker dam and the West Pass dike. Upper Baker dam is a 312-foot-tall concrete structure crossed by Forest Road 1100/1106. At its base is the rectangular Upper Baker powerhouse and outdoor switchyard (the switchyard is not a project facility). The Baker Lake fish collection facility, located upstream from the dam, is used to trap downstream migrating anadromous fish. Views of the dam are limited due to a steep narrow canyon and a 90-degree bend from the main body of Baker Lake. Only those driving across the dam and those visiting the remote Glover Mountain Overlook (KVA 13) would be expected to see the dam, which contrasts in material and form with the landscape.

The other Baker Lake impoundment structure is the West Pass dike, forming the 1,200-foot-long southwest embankment of the reservoir. It separates Baker Lake from the shallow Depression Lake. The dike is a visible feature from the adjacent Kulshan

3-367

Campground (KVA 12) and the West Pass boat ramp (KVA 11). It is apparent to boaters on the southern part of Baker Lake.

3-368

Table 3-41. Description of key viewing areas within the Baker River Project area. (Source: EDAW, 2004b)

Key Viewing Area

Major Prominent Aesthetic/Visual

Features Observed from Key Viewing Area

(Other than Reservoir)

Major Ownership of Viewed Lands and

Future Management Direction

Landscape Character of Viewed Area

Scenic Integrity Rating of Landscape Viewed From

Key Viewing Area

KVA 1: Baker River Trail trailhead and dispersed camp sites at river’s edge, looking east

No project facilities visible. View dominated by open river, natural floodplain, and forested ridge.

Forest Service-conservation emphasis

Natural-appearing forest lands

Background = high to very high

Middle ground = high to very high

Foreground = very high

KVA 2: Shannon Creek Campground; boat launch area, looking east at east side of north end of Baker Lake

No project facilities are visible. Some regenerating clear-cut seen in background. View is dominated by reservoir.


Natural-appearing forest lands to naturally evolving forest lands (on old Forest Service clear-cut areas)



Foreground = variable (by reservoir elevation)

3-369

Key Viewing Area








Key Viewing Area

KVA 3: Baker Lake Resort at top of boat launch, looking east

Boat launch, dock, and log boom are prominent foreground features. View comprises open reservoir, shoreline, and Cascade range.


Developed recreation and natural-appearing forest lands

Background = very high


Foreground = variable by reservoir elevation

KVA 4: Panorama Point Campground at south edge of boat ramp, looking north to east

Boat launch is prominent in foreground. View is dominated by the open reservoir, Mt. Shuksan, other cascade peaks, some regenerating, and newer clear-cut on private lands to the north.

Forest Service, private timber companies


Private timber companies-management direction likely commercial forestry

Natural-appearing forest lands to naturally evolving forest lands (on old Forest Service clear-cut)


Middle ground = high


3-370

Key Viewing Area








Key Viewing Area

KVA 5: Boulder Creek Dispersed Area north of Boulder Creek mouth, looking north

No project facilities visible. View is dominated by reservoir shore vegetation, reservoir, and Mt. Shuksan.






KVA 6: Boulder Creek at Boulder Creek Bridge, north end, looking east and west

No project facilities visible; bridge and road dominate foreground. East view is river, floodplain, and forest; west view is forest and Mt. Baker.





Foreground = high

3-371

Key Viewing Area








Key Viewing Area

KVA 7: Lower Sandy Dispersed Area at middle of beach opening at end of road, looking east

No project features visible. Some regenerating clear-cut visible on ridges beyond reservoir. View dominated by open reservoir and shoreline, ridges beyond.



Background = high



KVA 8: Lone Pine Island at north edge of island, looking west and north

No project facilities visible. Some roads and clear-cut visible on the background ridges on Forest Service and private land. View dominated by the reservoir, shoreline, and ridges and peaks of the Cascades, especially Mt. Baker.

Forest Service, WDNR, and private timber companies


WDNR and private timber companies-management direction likely commercial forestry

Natural-appearing to naturally evolving forest lands (on old Forest Service clear-cut areas)

Commercial forest lands on WDNR and private timber company lands




3-372

Key Viewing Area








Key Viewing Area

KVA 9: Bayview North Campground at shoreline at end of access road, looking northwest to northeast

No project facilities visible. View is dominated by the reservoir and the Cascades.


Developed recreation facility and natural-appearing forest




KVA 10: Horseshoe Cove Campground at boat launch, looking north to east

No project facilities visible. Boat launch, swim beach, and log boom are prominent in the foreground. View comprises reservoir, shoreline, and ridges to east.



Background = high



3-373

Key Viewing Area








Key Viewing Area

KVA 11: West Pass boat launch at shelter, looking north

Boat ramp, West Pass dike, and off-peak pump discharge buoy markers are visible. View generally consists of reservoir, shoreline, and prominent peaks.

US Forest Service FS and Puget


Puget-anticipates current management to be continued

Developed recreational facility, developed industrial, and natural-appearing forest lands




KVA 12: Kulshan Campground at west entry road, looking north

West Pass dike is visible in the foreground beyond the trees; project access road, operations facilities, and utilities are prominent features.

Forest Service and Puget



Developed recreation facility and developed industrial

Background = high

Middle ground = NA

Foreground = moderately low

3-374

Key Viewing Area








Key Viewing Area

KVA 13: Glover Mountain Overlook, looking south

Baker Lake dam and primary switchyard are prominent features. Views beyond are of forested ridges and beyond to the Skagit Valley.

Forest Service, Puget, and private timber companies


Puget-anticipates current management to be continued; site improvements planned

Private timber companies-management direction likely commercial forestry

Natural-appearing forest lands, naturally evolving forest lands, developed industrial, and commercial forestry

Background = high

Middle ground = moderate

Foreground = low

3-375

Key Viewing Area








Key Viewing Area

KVA 14: Lower Baker River Operations Complex, near the Lower Baker Visitors Center at viewing platform atop fish trap below fish barrier dam

Puget fish trap and fish barrier dam are prominent facilities as are abandoned concrete silos. Baker River Bridge also dominant feature in far foreground.


Developed industrial Background = NA

Middle ground = moderate

Foreground = low

KVA 15: Lake Shannon boat launch ramp, looking west

No project facilities visible. Commercial forestry lands behind the reservoir very visible. View is dominated by shoreline, reservoir, and hills beyond.

Private timber companies and WDNR-management direction likely commercial forestry

Dispersed recreation and commercial forest

Background = moderate

Middle ground = low to moderate


3-376

Key Viewing Area








Key Viewing Area

KVA 16: Anderson Point dispersed area at shoreline at west side of point, looking south

West Pass dike is visible in middle ground, but not prominent. Lake and Mt. Baker to the west are prominent elements. Regenerating and newer clear-cut visible on WDNR and private timber lands to south.

Forest Service, Puget, WDNR, private timber companies


WDNR, private timber companies-management direction likely commercial forestry



Background = high



KVA 17: Maple Grove dispersed area at shoreline end of floating dock, looking west

No project features visible. View is dominated by open reservoir, shoreline, and Mt. Baker in the background.




Middle ground = very high


3-377

Key Viewing Area








Key Viewing Area

KVA 18: Silver Creek dispersed area at the south shore of the point, looking west.

Baker Lake Resort visible but not obvious, appears only as a break in the shoreline vegetation. View dominated by reservoir and Mt. Baker. Regenerating clear-cut seen.


Natural-appearing forest lands and naturally evolving forest lands (on old Forest Service clear-cut areas)


Middle ground = very high to high


KVA 19: Noisy Creek dispersed area at north point beach, looking north

No project facilities visible. View is dominated by reservoir and views of prominent Cascade peaks in the background.






3-378

Lower Baker DevelopmentThe Lower Baker River basin, in which Lake Shannon and the southern end of the

project are located, is a wider, less confined valley. The river carved a narrow canyon through this valley, the lower elevations of which the 7-mile-long, 2,278-acre Lake Shannon is located. The Lake Shannon viewshed is framed by the densely forested hills that rise approximately 4,300 feet on the east and 1,075 feet on its west side. Coniferous vegetation, primarily Douglas-fir, dominates the forests and is interspersed with mixed deciduous and other coniferous species. Beyond the margins of the reservoir, modification by timber management, natural fires, and, to a lesser extent, hydroelectric facilities are evident. The Lake Shannon landscape has been altered more by timber management activities than has the Baker Lake viewshed, with second- and third-growth forests dominating the basin.

State and private ownership dominates the Lower Baker Development area, which results in a pattern of commercial forest harvest. For further discussion see the Land Management and Use section in this draft EIS.

The 285-foot-high concrete Lower Baker dam impounds Lake Shannon, spanning a steep-sided forested gorge. Approximately 1,500 feet downstream, a concrete powerhouse is built into the steep hillside. It is topped by a blue crane. A single-lane road extending along the bank of the Baker River allows vehicle access up the narrow river canyon. Between the dam and powerhouse, a concrete surge tank emerges from the tree tops. These features are visible only from the unpaved Baker River Forest Road, and then only if a traveler pulls off at a small overlook.

The Lower Baker River Operations Complex and Visitors Center are downstream from the dam. This site, designated as KVA 14, is a collection of wood and metal-sided buildings housing project offices, maintenance facilities, and a Visitors Center, as well as paved parking areas. These facilities are adjacent to the Baker River, where a low concrete barrier dam directs upstream migrating fish to the project’s fish collection and transport facility.

The only developed public access point on Lake Shannon consists of an informal access road (controlled by Glacier Northwest), a large gravel lakefront undefined parking area, and a boat ramp. Located on the southeast end of the lake, it has been designated as KVA 15. The approximately 2-acre open gravel and grassy area is used by dispersed vehicle campers and day users. Puget provides portable restrooms and site maintenance. No developed facilities are available. Views from KVA 15 are of rugged forested slopes rising from Lake Shannon with Cascade foothills and Mt. Baker in the background.

3-379

Project OperationsBaker Lake and Lake Shannon are managed for hydropower generation, flood

control, recreation, and fisheries. Reservoir pool levels fluctuate seasonally in response to flood management requirements, power generation demands, natural inflow, and recreation objectives. Under average water year conditions, Puget typically drafts Baker Lake between October and March and Lake Shannon between December and March to meet power generation demand and to create storage space for high-runoff winter storms and spring snow melt. From November 15 through March 1, Puget holds Baker Lake to a maximum elevation of 711.56 feet msl for flood management (see the Water Quantity section herein). No similar requirement applies to Lake Shannon.

Baker Lake is held near full pool (elevation 727.77 feet msl) during the summer and reaches its lowest levels between November and early April. Based on median values, the lake is kept within 10 feet of full pool from June to August, typically reaching its lowest point in the winter months. EDAW (2004b) photographically documented the visual effects of reservoir levels from 4 to 15 feet below Baker Lake’s full-pool elevation, as summarized below:

Elevation 723.75 feet msl and higher - This range is within 4 feet of full pool and typically occurs between mid-June and early October. Very little shoreline is exposed at this level, and beaches and swimming areas are inundated.

Elevation 722.75 to 718.25 feet msl - This range is from 5 to 9 feet below full pool, typically between late May and early July and again in September and October. A narrow band of exposed shoreline is visible around much of Baker Lake, with more exposure occurring on the shallower western shore and at the head of the lake. Beaches are accessible, although at the lower end of this range, the popular beach at Horseshoe Cove is less attractive.

Elevation 717.75 to 713.75 feet msl - This range is from 10 to 14 feet below full pool when Baker Lake is being filled in spring (early to mid-May) or lowered in late fall (late October to early November). The northern part of the reservoir and the western shoreline is especially exposed, and large areas of tree stumps are visible. Limited recreation use occurs during these periods.

Below elevation 712.75 feet msl - Baker Lake is drawn down to this level, 15 feet below full pool, from late November until March 1 for flood control purposes. Extensive shoreline areas are exposed as a striking light-colored band below the dense shoreline vegetation.

3-380

Lake Shannon is maintained close to its full pool level of elevation 442.35 feet msl throughout much of the year under average conditions. Based on median monthly water levels, historically Lake Shannon was within 10 feet of full pool from June to December. Monthly median levels were within 5 feet of full pool elevation from July to September and November. The lowest monthly median level was approximately 33 feet below full pool and occurred in March. Documentation of the aesthetic condition of Lake Shannon at various water levels was not collected during relicensing studies. Lake Shannon is not considered as visually sensitive because it receives only 10 percent of project area recreational use and it is visible from very few locations.

3.3.9.2 Environmental Effects Effects of Project OperationsIn general, the project blends well with its natural surroundings. To confirm this

conclusion, Puget commissioned an aesthetic study (EDAW, 2004b) and a Recreation Visitor Survey (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004c). The latter survey established viewing scenery/sightseeing as the most popular project area activity. Ninety-five percent of the 723 respondents rated the overall visual quality of the Baker Lake/Lake Shannon area as above average or excellent. Visitor satisfaction also rated highly, with nearly 91 percent of respondents rating their experience as above average or excellent. When asked about the importance of reservoir level to their experience, only 30 percent responded to the question, out of which 58 percent indicated that pool level had no influence on their visit. Another 10 percent indicated that pool level reduced the aesthetic quality of the area. When asked what they least liked about their trip, only 4 percent of respondents identified pool level as a negative attribute. In response to a question about what could have improved their trip, of the 41 percent answering, none mentioned pool levels.

Puget sought to confirm these findings by evaluating project features from KVAs (see table 3-41), along with surveying visitors to correlate pool elevation with scenic attractiveness (EDAW, 2004b). Survey respondents were asked to rate 27 images of Baker Lake at four different pool elevations (see Project Operations section herein), as well as one image of Lake Shannon at elevation 433 feet msl. The 186 completed surveys all reflected positive responses. The two highest Baker Lake water levels received the highest average scores, but no clear reservoir elevation preference emerged. A subsequent correlation analysis resulted in a score of 0.136, indicating a very weak positive relationship between pool elevation and viewer preference. Based on these results, very little relationship between scenic attractiveness and pool elevation can be established.

EDAW (2004b) conducted an evaluation of four Baker Lake pool elevations, representing conditions from 4 to over 15 feet below full pool, on the scenic integrity

3-381

rating of KVAs located near project reservoirs. Views most influenced by reservoir levels from the KVAs are those directly in front of visitors. Table 3-42 identifies the scenic integrity rating of these foreground views. Predictably, the quality of each setting declines with the water surface. At lower pool elevations, tree stumps, trash, exposed mud flats, and beaches are exposed at the reservoir perimeters. Facilities such as boat ramps and concrete barriers that are underwater at higher pool levels are revealed at low pool, contributing to the reduced scenic integrity of Baker Lake at lower pool levels.

Table 3-42. Effects of project operations on key viewing areas at Baker Lake. (Source: EDAW, 2004b).

Key Viewing Area

Scenic Integrity Rating of Foreground Shoreline by Pool Level Elevation Range (feet msl)

723.75 feet and above

722.75 to 718.75 feet

717.75 to 713.75 feet

712.75 feet and less

KVA 2: Shannon Creek Campground boat ramp

High Moderate Low Very low

KVA 3: Baker Lake Resort at top of boat launch, looking east

High Moderate Moderate Low

KVA 4: Panorama Point Campground boat ramp


KVA 5: Boulder Creek dispersed area north of Boulder Creek mouth, looking north

High Moderate Low Low

KVA 7: Lower Sandy Dispersed Area at middle of beach opening at end of road, looking east

High Moderate Moderate Low

KVA 8: Lone Pine Island at north edge of island, looking west and north

Very high High Moderate Low

3-382

Key Viewing Area

Scenic Integrity Rating of Foreground Shoreline by Pool Level Elevation Range (feet msl)

723.75 feet and above

722.75 to 718.75 feet

717.75 to 713.75 feet

712.75 feet and less

KVA 9: Bayview North Campground

Very high Moderate Low Low

KVA 10: Horseshoe Cove Campground

High Moderate Low Low

KVA 11: West Pass boat launch


KVA 16: Anderson Point dispersed area at shoreline at west side of point, looking south


KVA 17: Maple Grove dispersed area at shoreline end of floating dock, looking west


KVA 18: Silver Creek dispersed area at the south shore of the point, looking west


KVA 19: Noisy Creek dispersed area at north point beach


Similar data were not collected at KVA 15 on Lake Shannon, but it is to be expected that foreground views would be affected similarly by the water surface level changes.

3-383

Effects Analysis

Following the installation of the new generating units at Lower Baker and the initiation of the flow regime (Proposed Article 106), Baker Lake would be drafted later in the fall and refilled earlier in the spring than currently occurs to meet targeted recreational pool levels. Baker Lake water surface levels would be higher 65 percent of the time in September as fall drawdown would be delayed. In April, the lake level would be more than 10.5 feet higher and in May, more than 18 feet higher than current conditions. Water surface levels would be within 3 feet of full pool under both the Proposed Action and Current Operations from June through August. Scenic integrity ratings could be expected to increase from low to high in September, from low to moderate/high in May. The variability in water surface levels in April would result in a low scenic integrity rating under median conditions, similar to Current Operations. Summer elevations, those most observed by project area visitors, would not change perceptibly, and, therefore, the visual experience would be unchanged from Current Operations.

At Lake Shannon, variations in reservoir levels can be identified with higher pool levels from October through February, more variable levels in April and May, and levels similar to current conditions the remainder of the year. Reservoir management would not be changed substantially during the peak summer season and would not adversely affect the aesthetic experience of visitors.

The 1.2-mile-long reach downstream from Lower Baker dam would be unaffected by reservoir operational changes, but to the extent that visitors view the Baker River from this area, additional flow would be present under the Proposed Action. Under Current Operations, flows in this reach generally range from approximately 80 cfs to 5,172 cfs, while under the Proposed Action the range would be from 1,000 cfs to 5,600 cfs. The visual effect on this reach would be substantial, with higher flows in all months when modeled for 90 percent exceedance. The higher volume of water in the confined channel would add depth over the rocky substrate, giving the channel a more uniform appearance.

Effects of Project Facilities The effect of project facilities on the aesthetic experience of visitors, particularly

at lakeshore locations, was identified as an issue during the scoping process. Descriptive assessments are presented in this section and in table 3-43, with technical assessments compiled in table 3-44. Where a facility or viewpoint is on Forest Service-managed land, its scenic integrity rating and VQO compatibility are identified (table 3-44).

Topography of the Baker River area and locations of the developed facilities are such that views of facilities are restricted. When facilities are viewed, it occurs in proximity. Only five project facilities are considered visible to area visitors, as

3-384

summarized in table 3-43. Furthermore, these facilities can be seen from only six of the 19 KVAs (table 3-44).

Upper Baker Development—The mottled gray concrete surface of Upper Baker Development is similar in color to the rock walls of the gorge. Views of the dam are limited by its setting. It can be seen from Baker Lake, although a tight bend in the lake blocks the view for most boaters. The Glover Mountain Overlook (KVA 13) and Forest Road 1106/1000 across the top of the dam are the primary public viewpoints. Also visible from both of these locations is the Upper Baker fish collection facility, a floating structure anchored to the upstream face of the dam. In combination, these features result in a low scenic integrity rating (EDAW, 2004b).

Depression Lake and its associated pump station, located adjacent to West Pass dike, are visible to visitors at Kulshan Campground (KVA 12) and boat launch (KVA 11). West Pass dike is a prominent visual feature from FR 1106/1000 and parts of the Kulshan Campground, and appears as a solid horizontal line to boaters on Baker Lake. Its appearance contrasts with the surrounding forest, although the vegetation partially screens it from the campground. Depression Lake is very visible from the campground as a natural lake, while the pump station stands out in color and form. The scenic integrity ratings of these highly visible features are moderate for Depression Lake and low for the West Pass dike and pump station. West Pass dike is barely visible from the Anderson Point dispersed use area (KVA 16); scenic integrity ratings from this site are not compromised by the dike.

3-385

Table 3-43. Visibility of project features. (Source: EDAW, 2004b).

Facility CommentsFacility Visible from Key

Viewing Areas and Use AreasUpper Baker Dam and Powerhouse

Visible from very limited area (undeveloped canyon below dam, Glover Mountain Overlook, and dam access road).

Highly visible where seen due primarily to contrast in size and shape.

View duration is short term.

Glover Mountain Overlook

Forest Road 1106/1100 at dam

West Pass Dike Major visual feature visible from a number of nearby locations in an area that is largely developed.

Long, high horizontal form contrasts in shape, form, color, and texture with nearby landscape and reservoir.

Off-peak pump building and chain-link fence contrast with surroundings.

Primary viewers are campers, boaters, and anglers.

Duration of view is medium to long.

Anderson Point Campground

Kulshan Campground, West Pass boat launch

Forest Road 1106

Reservoir surface

Upper Baker Operations Compound

Visible from the main access road leading to the Upper Baker dam, Kulshan Campground, and Glover Mountain Overlook.

Fenced maintenance equipment and buildings contrast with surroundings.

Upper Baker service station building burned to the ground in 2004. One of five structures visible to public.

Primary viewers range from passersby on the road to campers.

Duration of view ranges from transitory to extend over several days.

Glover Mountain Overlook

Forest Road 1106

Kulshan Campground

Lower Baker Visible from limited area. Lake Shannon Road

3-386

Facility CommentsFacility Visible from Key

Viewing Areas and Use AreasDam and Powerhouse

Short view duration, limited to passersby; no associated recreational use area.

Lower Baker River Operations Complex

Visual feature visible from the main highway.

Long, low barrier dam and associated fish trap contrast with generally natural shoreline vegetation in shape and texture.

Primary viewers are travelers on the road and visitors stopping at the Lower Baker Visitors Center.

Duration of view is short term.

Lower Baker Visitors Center

Highway 20

3-387

Table 3-44. Effects of project facilities on key viewing areas from which project features can be seen. (Source: EDAW, 2004b).

Key Viewing Area

Project Facilities Seen from Key Viewing Area

Scenic Integrity Rating of

Landscape Viewed from Key Viewing

Area

VQO and Facility

Compatibilitya CommentsKVA 11: West Pass boat launch

West Pass dike, pump station, and buoy markers are visible

Foreground – low (variable by reservoir elevation)Middle ground – highBackground– very high

NA Project facilities are prominent visual features - difference of form, color, and texture from surrounding forest makes them visible. The dike, pump station, and buoy markers are visible and have a minor negative effect on the scenic integrity of the foreground view from this KVA, which is low.

KVA 12: Kulshan Campground

West Pass dike, Upper Baker operation and maintenance yard;Upper Baker service station building burned to the ground in 2004. One of five structures visible to public.

Foreground – lowMiddle ground – NABackground – high

NA These project facilities are prominent visual features in the foreground of the campground entrance, although partly obscured by trees. They contribute (along with other visible features) to a scenic integrity rating in the foreground of low.

3-388

Key Viewing Area




Area

VQO and Facility

Compatibilitya CommentsKVA 13: Glover Mountain Overlook

Upper Baker dam and associated generation facilities

Foreground – lowMiddle ground – lowBackground – high

NA Primary viewpoint for observing the dam. These facilities contrast in form, line, and texture with the gorge and contribute (along with other visible features such as clear-cuts) to a scenic integrity rating in the foreground and middle ground of low.

KVA 14: Lower Baker Visitors Center

Fish trap, barrier dam

Foreground – moderateMiddle ground – moderateBackground – NA

NA Viewpoint developed as interpretive exhibit to explain function of fish trap and barrier dam. These facilities contribute to a scenic integrity rating in the foreground of moderate.

KVA 16: Anderson Point dispersed area

West Pass dike Foreground – very highMiddle ground – high to very highBackground – very high

VQO = Partial Retention. Compatible with VQO.

Barely visible in middle ground as a long stretch of shoreline. Has no influence on the scenic integrity rating of the landscape seen from this KVA.

3-389

Key Viewing Area




Area

VQO and Facility

Compatibilitya CommentsKVA 18: Silver Creek dispersed area

Baker Lake Resortb Foreground – very highMiddle ground – high to very highBackground – very high

VQO = Partial Retention.Compatible with VQO.

Visible in middle ground as break in shoreline vegetation. Has no influence on the scenic integrity rating from this KVA.

a If seen from Forest Service managed facility or on Forest Service managed land.b Not a project facility but managed by Puget on Forest Service land.

3-390

Across the road from Kulshan Campground is the Upper Baker operation and maintenance yard. A chain-link fence prevents public access but does not screen views of the large gravel lot, pumps, metal buildings, and storage yard. It has a negative effect on views from Kulshan Campground, and therefore has a low scenic integrity rating (EDAW, 2004b).

Lower Baker Development—Lower Baker dam rises 285 feet out of a narrow forested gorge. A concrete powerhouse, surge tank, and blue equipment crane are adjacent to the river downstream from the dam. All contrast with the color, line, and texture of the forested canyon walls. Facilities are visible only from a viewpoint on the Baker River Forest Road, a location that receives little visitation. The scenic integrity rating is considered low (EDAW, 2004b).

The Lower Baker Operations Complex (KVA 14) includes a paved parking area, several wood- and metal-sided buildings, a Visitors Center, and upstream fish collection facilities. This cluster is on the eastern edge of the Town of Concrete and is reached by a paved road. The fish facility and its adjacent low concrete barrier dam are visible from the nearby Highway 20, although only briefly due to typical travel speeds. Overall, this complex has a scenic integrity rating of moderate (EDAW, 2004b).

Aesthetic resources in the project area would be enhanced under Proposed Article 302, Aesthetics Management Plan. The proposed plan would include provisions for landscaping; material and color selection for facility modifications; and site maintenance programs. Specific actions are proposed to enhance the appearance of the West Pass dike area, Upper Baker operation and maintenance yards, the existing crane at Lower Baker dam, and the Lower Baker Operations Complex Center.


Construction associated with several proposed measures potentially could affect project aesthetics. These measures are discussed below.

Lower Baker Power Plant ModificationsUnder the Proposed Action, a new powerhouse would be constructed adjacent to

the existing Lower Baker powerhouse. This 170- by 100-foot concrete structure would use the foundation of a former powerhouse, reducing the need for clearing and grading. This structure would range from 34 to 70 feet tall, and the existing gantry crane rails would be extended about 180 feet for installation and maintenance of the new turbines. Access improvements would be needed; therefore, a short platform would extend from the existing access road to the upstream side of the existing powerhouse. This would be a more visible new feature from the overlook on the Baker River Forest Road, as it would extend into the confined channel of the Baker River. Like the existing facilities, these

3-391

new features would contrast with the surrounding forest; however, all elements of the scenery from this viewpoint include industrial features. With Lower Baker dam in the background, this area has been zoned industrial by the Town of Concrete. The new project facilities, therefore, would be consistent with existing facilities and aesthetic conditions.

Aquatic Resources MeasuresFish Propagation Facilities—Under Proposed Article 101, facilities to expand the

production capacity of the spawning beaches would be constructed. Puget proposes to decommission Spawning Beaches 1, 2, and 3. Facilities would be constructed in proximity to existing propagation structures. This action would occur within fenced and gated areas currently inaccessible to the public. Public access would continue to be restricted to specially arranged tours or educational events.

As discussed in the Cultural Resources section in this draft EIS, Spawning Beach 1 and Spawning Beach 2 are contributing elements to the Baker River Hydroelectric Development Historic District. Spawning Beach 3 is a noncontributing element of the Historic District. Since Spawning Beaches 1 and 2 are contributing elements, Puget should consult with the Washington SHPO prior to decommissioning Spawning Beach 1 and Spawning Beach 2.

Upstream Fish Passage Facilities—Puget currently operates an upstream fish collection facility in the Baker River adjacent to its Lower Baker Operations Complex. This facility would be replaced or modified under Proposed Article 103. Until a location and design have been developed, the aesthetic effect cannot be determined. The area in which it would be located has been zoned industrial by the Town of Concrete. It is expected that the new collection-and-transport facility would appear similar to existing structures and aesthetic conditions.

Downstream Surface Collectors—Puget currently operates FSCs that attract out-migrating salmon at Upper and Lower Baker dams. Under Proposed Article 105, these facilities would be modified. Aesthetically, these features appear pieced-together and temporary. The proposed upgrades may lessen this impression, particularly if uniform materials and colors are considered during construction. These are industrial facilities and their appearance would always reflect this purpose. The upgraded facility at Lower Baker would include a new fish transfer structure, potentially on the dam.

Construction of these facilities would require development of an FSC launch site on Baker Lake and on Lake Shannon. The Baker Lake FSC launch site would be approximately 6,000 feet upstream from the dam at the site of an existing non-public boat launch, and potentially would be visible from KVAs 11 and 16. From both sites, it would be seen as a distant background element. The Lake Shannon FSC launch site would be

3-392

more visually pronounced because the existing boat launch area would be used. This site, KVA 15, would be significantly affected by the excavation, construction and operation of the fish passage fabrication site, with disturbance potentially lasting for 2.5 years.

Construction of stress relief ponds near the confluence of the Baker and Skagit rivers would be part of Proposed Article 105. Although siting and design specifics are unavailable, it is anticipated that these ponds would be excavated below grade with a paved perimeter to facilitate truck access. Perimeter fencing would preclude public access. In addition, an outfall channel or pipe would extend from the pond(s) to the river.

3.3.9.3 Unavoidable Adverse ImpactsNone.

3.3.10 Land Management and Use

3.3.10.1 Affected EnvironmentThe project vicinity is a rural setting in the Cascade foothills. Forest lands in the

lower foothills, which were initially harvested between 1900 and 1950, now support commercially mature stands of timber (Whatcom County, Washington, 2004). Some residences and farms are found in the lower elevations of the river basin, outside the Town of Concrete (or Concrete), a nearby community. The Upper and Lower Baker dams are respectively about 8 miles and 1 mile north of Concrete. From this community, two primary roads lead into the Baker River basin: the Burpee Hill Road, which leads from Concrete to the Baker Lake Highway, and a gravel secondary road, which leads to the east side of Lake Shannon. For further discussion see Land Uses and Access below.

The project area is located within the Baker River watershed except for a portion below Lower Baker dam, which is considered part of the Skagit River watershed. Federal agencies (Forest Service and NPS) manage an estimated 86 percent of the Baker River watershed; the remainder is in state and private ownership. Recreation and natural resource management are the primary uses of public land, while commercial timber production is the predominant use of private land.

Land Ownership and Management The Upper Baker Development lies entirely in Whatcom County and is

surrounded by National Forest System lands within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. To the south, the Lower Baker Development lies primarily within unincorporated Skagit County and the Town of Concrete, occupying a mix of state and private lands (table 3-45).

Federal—Federal land ownership is extensive at the Upper Baker Development, including 4,539.7 acres inundated by Baker Lake and 591.5 upland acres. Only 75.6

3-393

acres (inundated and upland) in the Lower Baker Development area (in Whatcom County) are federally administered. Federal lands adjacent to Baker Lake are managed in accordance with the direction of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest LRMP (Forest Service, 1990) and the Northwest Forest Plan (Forest Service, 1994a). These adjacent lands are designated as late successional reserve (LSR) to protect and enhance habitat for species associated with this habitat, most notably the northern spotted owl. Management objectives within this designation permit limited silviculture. For further discussion see the Terrestrial Resources section in this draft EIS.

Table 3-45. Approximate land and water area within the Baker River Project boundary. (Source: Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 2004)

Project Area Component Acres

Upper BakerBaker Lake reservoir area

Puget ownership 325.2Forest Service ownership 4,539.7Other private ownership 112.0

Subtotal reservoir area 4,976.9

Land area (all Whatcom County)a

Puget ownership 270.9Forest Service ownership 591.5Other private ownership 99.8

Subtotal land area 962.2

Upper Baker total reservoir and land 5,939.1

Lower BakerLake Shannon reservoir area

Puget ownership (Skagit County) 2,234.5Forest Service ownership (Whatcom County)

20.7

WDNR ownership (Skagit County) 3.3Other ownership (Skagit County) 14.7

Subtotal reservoir area 2,273.2

Land areab

Puget ownership (Skagit County) 220.0Forest Service ownership (Whatcom County)

54.9

WDNR ownership (Skagit County) 1.5Other ownership (Skagit County) 38.1

Subtotal land area 314.5

Lower Baker total reservoir and land 2,587.7

3-394

Project Area Component Acres

Baker River ProjectReservoir area 7,250.1Land area 1,276.7

Project total 8,526.8a Includes the area between elevation 727.77 feet (NAVD 88), the normal full-pool level

for Baker Lake, and elevation 732.77 feet (NAVD 88), which defines the project boundary for most of the Upper Baker Development, along with other areas within the project boundary.

b Includes the area between elevation 442.35 feet (NAVD 88), the normal full-pool level for Lake Shannon, and elevation 445.47 feet (NAVD 88), which defines the project boundary for most of the Lower Baker Development, along with other areas within the project boundary.

The Baker River above Baker Lake was identified as suitable and eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System in the 1990 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Forest Plan. The Forest Plan recommended the first 2.1 miles of the river above Baker Lake as a “Scenic” segment and the upper 11.2 miles (within the North Cascades National Park) as a “Wild” segment. Baker River was found to possess outstandingly remarkable scenery, fisheries, and wildlife values. Noisy Creek, from its headwaters to Baker Lake (6.1 miles), was recommended for “Wild” designation based on wildlife and ecological values. The Forest Plan requires protection of the outstandingly remarkable values of these rivers in order not to preclude a future designation. Although Congress has not adopted these recommendations, the Forest Service manages the corridors as if the designations were in place.

Two areas within the watershed, comprising 46 percent of the land, are designated as wilderness: the Mt. Baker Wilderness to the northwest of the project and the Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness to the east (Forest Service, 2002a). West of Baker Lake is the Mt. Baker National Recreation Area. The Skagit River Wild and Scenic corridor is due south of Lake Shannon, roughly paralleling Highway 20. This designation, established in 1978, classifies the Skagit River as a “Recreational” river. The Forest Service is interested in activities within the Baker River watershed as to their effect on the Skagit River and its “outstandingly remarkable” values (letter from J. Phipps, Forest Supervisor, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Forest Service, Mountlake Terrace, Washington, to L. Pernela, Manager of Licensing, Energy Production and Storage, Puget, Bellevue, Washington, dated July 22, 2002). Because the latter designation was adopted after the development of the Baker River Project, the values for which the corridor is managed reflect conditions at the time of designation, and therefore, include the effects of project operation.

3-395

State—There is a small amount of state-owned lands within the project boundary. The WDNR administers approximately 5,000 acres in parcels to the east and west of Lake Shannon. The parcels range in size from about 40 to 640 acres. WDNR’s forest lands are managed in trust for the benefit of institutions of the state of Washington, including schools and universities. Its lands in the project vicinity are part of the North Puget Planning Unit, covered by an HCP (WDNR, 1997) to maintain and conserve habitat for the northern spotted owl and other species. In addition to habitat protection, WDNR harvests timber for commercial products. An additional 4.8 acres of Washington Department of Transportation land lie within the project boundary, in the form of the road surface and ballast for Highway 20.

Counties and Town of Concrete—While the Lower Baker Development is partly within the boundary of the Town of Concrete, some of Puget’s proposed measures could include development activities within unincorporated Skagit County. The town has adopted the Skagit County Shoreline Master Program for development within its shorelines. The stakeholders note that Skagit County’s Shoreline Master Program and implementing regulations would apply to any portion of the Proposed Action that would occur in unincorporated Skagit County, as a part of the Coastal Zone Management Consistency determination process.

The Upper Baker Development is within the boundary of Whatcom County, on National Forest System land. The stakeholders note that federal lands are exempt from regulation under Whatcom County’s Shoreline Master Program. The Forest Service would continue to evaluate the special use permit for the project during the term of any license.

Private—Private lands owned by entities other than Puget are located adjacent to the project boundary on the southwest side of Baker Lake and around Lake Shannon. Ownership is primarily industrial forest product firms such as IP Forestry and Crown Pacific, as well as Glacier Northwest, which operates a quarry. Some of these entities allow public use of their roads at certain times of the year for recreational access. Dispersed camping also occurs on some private land.

Puget—Project features in the Upper Baker Development area primarily occupy federal land, but Puget owns 270.9 acres in the Upper Baker area. Included within this is a 75-acre gated area on which Upper Baker dam, powerhouse, and an operations compound are located. Below the dam, at the confluence of the Baker River and Sulphur Creek, Puget maintains a gravel access road to the Spawning Beach 4 and fish rearing facilities. These two facilities are on National Forest System land, operated by Puget under a special use permit.

Puget’s ownership is more extensive in the Lower Baker River basin, including approximately 2,234 acres inundated by Lake Shannon. The Lower Baker River

3-396

development occupies a narrow corridor extending south from the Lower Baker dam into the Town of Concrete. The dam, powerhouse, and surge tank occupy approximately 70 acres. The powerhouse is approximately 1,500 feet downstream from the dam, linked by a 1,410-foot-long buried penstock. Puget’s offices and maintenance yard, approximately 0.75-mile downstream from Lower Baker dam, occupy 6 acres. The 0.2-acre Lower Baker Visitors Center features a fish handling facility, informational exhibits, restrooms, and public parking adjacent to the river.

Land Uses and AccessHistorical use of the Baker River basin can be traced to the fur trading era of the

early 1800s followed by intensive exploration by miners in the 1870s (Puget, 2002b). The extraction of gypsum, clay, and lime rock from sources in the Baker River drainage (materials used in the production of cement) became a successful commercial enterprise. The first cement plant in the Pacific Northwest was developed in Concrete in 1906, and a second was operational by 1920; together they employed 400 workers. Cement was produced in the area until 1967 (Town of Concrete, 2003). Raw materials were hauled from the Upper Baker River basin via rail and then by overhead trolley after construction of the Lower Baker dam blocked the rail line. This rail line supported timber harvesting in the basin by the early 1920s. Development of the Lower Baker River project in 1924 to 1925 helped meet the growing demand for electrical energy from the local and regional economy. Other historical land uses in the basin include an early effort to sustain fisheries in the region when the State of Washington developed a sockeye hatchery at the historical location of Baker Lake in about 1906. Later assumed by the U.S. Fish Commission (now FWS), this facility was operational until 1937.

Commercial and industrial land uses currently include hydropower, timber production, and retail/services. Puget has operated hydropower facilities on the Baker River since 1925. In 1990, the Covanta Hydro Operations West’s Koma Kulshan Project began operation on Rocky and Sulphur creeks, discharging into Sandy Creek, a tributary of Baker Lake. These are the only industrial uses currently occurring in the upper basin. In the lower basin, Puget’s hydropower facilities and several quarry sites are the remaining industrial uses. The Town of Concrete provides retail and service outlets.

The project supports fish production and rearing facilities on and adjacent to both Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. In the vicinity of Channel Creek in upper Baker Lake, three artificial spawning beaches have been constructed; two remain operational but are used only as auxiliary facilities. At the head of Lake Shannon on Sulphur Creek, Spawning Beach 4 has been operated since 1989. Adjacent to it is a large multi-species fish production facility.

Commercial timber production remains a major land use in the lower basin, where private and state-owned timberland dominate the lower to mid-elevations. Public and

3-397

private forestlands at these lower elevations are managed primarily for production of softwood lumber in harvest rotations of 45 to 60 years. Commercial harvesting on federal lands in the upper watershed peaked in the 1960s. As the acreage of mature forest on public land declined, the effect on species dependant upon this habitat was acknowledged in the Northwest Forest Plan (Forest Service, 1994a). Because of shifts in Forest Service management objectives, no timber products are currently being removed from National Forest System lands (Forest Service, 2002a), except small amounts of firewood, Christmas trees, cedar products, and hazard tree removal from campgrounds and road corridors.

Opportunities for both developed and dispersed recreation occur in the Baker River basin. The project reservoirs provide boating and fishing opportunities in a natural setting that attract many recreationists. National Forest System lands surrounding Baker Lake are designated either Roaded Natural or Semi-primitive Motorized (Forest Service, 2002a). Most lands on the east side of Baker Lake are designated by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Forest Plan as suitable for Semi-primitive Motorized recreation, reflecting motorized boat use on the lake. Such uses may not be consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan LSR objectives or the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ASC). The predominant effect of motorized boating would be noise, which would not be expected to interfere with either the ACS or development of old-growth characteristics in LSR areas. Lands to the west of the lake are designated as Roaded Natural, accessible by the primary road system (the Baker Lake Highway).

The regional population continues to grow and is expected to place increased recreational pressure on the natural attributes of the area. Currently, nine developed recreational sites in the basin provide approximately 300 campsites. Day-use and overnight facilities, described in the Recreation Resources section herein, are operated by both Puget and the Forest Service. In addition, approximately 213 dispersed campsites were identified by Puget, most within 0.25 mile of the project boundary and along the Baker Lake Highway, primarily in the upper part of the river basin (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004d). Recreational use of the Lake Shannon area is significantly less than that of Baker Lake because lands surrounding Lake Shannon are privately owned, access is restricted, and the terrain is rugged.

Access to the Baker River basin is via Highway 20, seasonally one of the main east-west routes across the Cascade Mountains that interconnect with Interstate 5. Baker Lake Highway is the principal roadway extending north from Highway 20 into the project area. Maintained by Skagit County (up to the Skagit/Whatcom county line), this paved road follows a route roughly parallel to the lakes and then continues about 0.5 to 1.0 mile to the west. Where the highway enters the national forest, it leaves county jurisdiction and becomes Forest Road 11. Approximately 4 miles from its terminus, the road brings travelers near Baker Lake. The remaining few miles of the road are gravel-surfaced. Spur roads from this corridor lead to various Baker Lake access points.

3-398

Access to Lake Shannon is limited. No public roads extend from the Baker Lake Highway to the west shore of Lake Shannon. On the eastern side, the gravel Baker River Road extends from Concrete to the vicinity of Lower Baker dam. This unpaved road proceeds north beyond the Lower Baker River Project facilities, where a primitive spur switchbacks down steep terrain through private property to the Lake Shannon boat ramp. Glacier Northwest owns the spur and the property surrounding Puget’s recreation site. Glacier Northwest’s property is a currently inactive limestone quarry, with two primitive roads that extend to Puget’s boat ramp. One is the steep spur described above; the other is a gated road along the lakeshore from Lower Baker dam. Limited access northward on the slopes above Lake Shannon is available on a poorly maintained road, although through-access by the public along this road is not possible because most of the road is private and a damaged bridge over Thunder Creek (approximately two-thirds of the way up the lake) has not been replaced.

3.3.10.2 Environmental EffectsEffect of Project OperationsUnder the Proposed Action, operational changes would not alter areas of

inundation, change the flood management protocol, or permanently introduce new facilities in previously undisturbed areas. However, some new facilities, including fish acclimation ponds and an upper basin visitor information station, are proposed but final locations have not been determined; therefore, they are not analyzed here. This section describes the effects of continued project operation on three issues identified in the scoping process: (1) effects on farmland; (2) proximity of WDNR lands to the project; and (3) effects on the Skagit River Wild and Scenic corridor recreational uses.

Farmland in Baker River Basin—Preservation of farmland from encroaching urbanization is an important issue to many in Skagit County. As development increases, conflicts arise between established agricultural uses and non-agricultural uses and industries. Skagit County planning ordinances (Chapter 5, Agricultural Resource Policies) specifically seek to preserve this local economic base (Skagit County, 2000).

Ongoing operation of the project does not affect farmland in the Baker River basin. The Proposed Action contains several terrestrial habitat management measures that would involve acquisition of lands or easements to protect specific types of habitat, some of which typically are provided by farms. The limited amount of farmland in the Baker River basin is within areas zoned by Skagit County as Industrial Forestland.

Effects Analysis

Implementation of terrestrial resource measures (proposed articles 502, 503, and 504) potentially could affect farmlands in the basin. None would convert lands to developed uses. Under Proposed Articles 502 and 504, Puget proposes to acquire land or

3-399

establish conservation easements for specific forest or wetland habitat types, respectively. Under Proposed Article 503, Puget proposes to purchase 300 acres of elk forage habitat. However, as discussed in the Terrestrial Resources section, we believe Puget should enhance or acquire lands as close to the project as possible. Therefore, we do not expect the above proposed measures to significantly affect farmlands, since none are present in the immediate project vicinity.

Location of Project Lands in Relation to WDNR Lands and the Need for Leases or Rights-of-Way—Lands within the project boundary, other Puget-owned lands, and WDNR-managed lands are depicted on figure 5-42 of the license application (Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 2004), as are other ownership categories. Puget proposes to modify the existing Baker River Project boundary within the Town of Concrete. The proposed action would remove 0.7 acre of undeveloped WDNR land from the project and, therefore, return jurisdiction to WDNR. The remainder of WDNR land is along the shoreline of the Lake Shannon reservoir in several isolated locations where the project boundary may cross onto WDNR land.32 Detailed surveying of the project boundary in these locations would be needed to identify and remedy boundary and ownership discrepancies.

Effects Analysis

Until detailed surveys of the project boundary are conducted, terrestrial habitat management lands are identified, and recreation trail corridors are clearly identified, the potential to occupy WDNR lands cannot be determined.

Project Effects on the Values for Which the Skagit River Wild and Scenic

Reach was Designated—The Baker River flows into a reach of the Skagit River designated in 1978 for protection as a recreational segment of the Wild and Scenic River. A waterway designated under this category is considered to have recreational values that would attract regional visitation. The Forest Service manages this reach in partnership with non-federal parties, reflecting a diversity of ownership along the corridor. The reach is managed to protect fish and wildlife, primarily anadromous fish and the federally-listed bald eagle.

Effects Analysis

The primary influence of the Baker River Project on the Skagit River is its flow release regime, which has been in effect since prior to the Wild and Scenic River designation. The Proposed Action would sustain a regime that provides the same flood control requirements as under Current Operations and as under those operations in existence in 1978. Modeled flow projections indicate that the monthly hydrograph would 32 Puget (2004) notes that it is likely that the WDNR lands along the reservoir depicted in

Exhibit G of its license application as within the Project boundary, may not in fact be in the Project boundary because of small overlaps in data sets in Puget’s GIS mapping.

3-400

closely match Current Operations. When the hourly time-step is examined, project-induced flow fluctuations in the Skagit River level would be reduced in number and magnitude in comparison to current conditions (see Effects of Project Operations in this draft EIS). These overall differences are minor in comparison to the magnitude of flows in the Skagit River and demonstrate that the Proposed Action would improve operating conditions compared to those at the time of Wild and Scenic River designation for fisheries. Recreational values of the Skagit Wild and Scenic River would not be adversely affected by the project.

Effects of Proposed Project Boundary ModificationUnder the Proposed Action, Puget proposes to redraw its existing Baker River

Project boundary to remove some land below the Lower Baker facilities that are not used for project purposes. Currently, within the Town of Concrete, the FERC project boundary extends across both sides of Highway 20. Under its Proposed Action, Puget proposes to remove 38.5 acres from the FERC project boundary. As itemized in table 3-46, included within this block of land are parcels owned by Puget, WDNR, WDOT, and three private parties. Puget notes that it has contacted each party in writing about its proposal and no objections have been received. Puget’s consultation with each landowner is ongoing.

None of these lands are used for project-related purposes nor are they managed by Puget to benefit any specific resource values. They are not used for project O&M, flowage, recreation, federally listed species protection, cultural resource protection, or shoreline control, nor are they managed for fish and wildlife habitat. None have been developed for public access. Highway 20, a major cross-state highway, is the only developed feature within these parcels, and the removal of WDOT’s 4.8-acre tract from the FERC project boundary would not alter its ability to manage the highway right-of-way. All other parcels are unimproved, supporting only a few primitive gravel roads and an abandoned gravel pit.

Table 3-46. Parcels proposed for removal from project boundary. (Source: Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 2004)

Parcel OwnerParcel Size

(acres) Current Land Use

Puget 4.2 Unimproved vacant lot. Not subject to any project-related management plan.

L. Marquette 6.0 Privately owned unimproved vacant lot. Not subject to any project-related management plan.

Puget 13.2 Unimproved vacant lot; site of former gravel extraction enterprise. Not subject to any project-related management plan.

3-401

Parcel OwnerParcel Size

(acres) Current Land UseE. and V. Gates 6.8 Privately owned unimproved vacant lot. Not subject to

any project-related management plan.

WDNR 0.7 State-owned unimproved vacant lot. Not subject to any project-related management plan.

Glacier Northwest 2.8 Privately owned unimproved vacant lot. Not subject to any project-related management plan.

Washington Dept of Transportation

4.8 Occupied by Highway 20 road surface and road ballast. Not used for any project-related purposes and not subject to any project-related management plan.

Total 38.5


3.3.11 Socioeconomic Resources

3.3.11.1 Affected EnvironmentThe Region—During the 19th century, coal mines, lumber mills, and industrial

plants were developed throughout the region. In 1827 Hudson Bay Company was established and its traders explored the northern part of Whatcom County. In the late 1870’s the commercial salmon and cod fishing industries began in Skagit County, and as a result, the canning and packing industry was established (Vleming, 2002). Fish processing plants were constructed on Bellingham Bay, Washington. In 1883 two railroads, Bellingham Bay and British Columbia Railroad Company, served the logging camps and mines for transport of the materials. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries lowland areas were cleared for farms. Potatoes, lettuce, celery, and peas were the primary crops; dairy, poultry, and seed (e.g., cabbage) production also contributed to the economy. In 1936, S.A. Moffet successfully started a pre-cooling process on 50 tons of peas, which led to construction of a plant in 1940 for freezing vegetables.

Today agriculture is a significant contributor to Washington State and the local economy, which we discuss below. Tourism, fishing, hunting, and other recreational activities also contribute to the economy. A recent survey (FWS and Census, 2002) indicates that among anglers, hunters, and wildlife-watchers, there is considerable overlap in activities. In 2001, 71 percent of hunters in Washington State also fished, and 27 percent of anglers hunted. If we look at one recreational activity for Washington State, the data shows that 12,841,000 days of fishing (residents and nonresidents)

3-402

occurred in 2001. In Washington, the total expenditure 33 for fishing in 2001 was $853,761,000. In Washington, survey results indicate that of the 66,105,000 wildlife-watching participants, 4,951,000 participants are disabled (FWS and Census, 2002).

The area surrounding the existing Baker River Project is lightly developed or undeveloped. The Baker River Project is located in Whatcom and Skagit Counties, Washington. These two counties define the environment for socioeconomic resources that may be affected by the Baker River Project.

Whatcom County—Whatcom County covers an estimated 1.3 million acres, of which approximately 80 percent (1.1 million acres) is forested or managed for forest resources. A significant portion of this total (877,000 acres) is under management either by the Forest Service-Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, or the NPS-North Cascades National Park (Whatcom County, Washington, 2004).

There are 1,485 farms in Whatcom County totaling 148,027 acres. In 2002, the market value of agricultural products sold (referred to as “farm gate value”) was $287,860,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). Whatcom County produces more blueberries and raspberries than any other county in Washington State and ranks second in the production of strawberries (Greater Whatcom Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, as cited in Whatcom County, Washington, 2004).

The largest employing sectors in Whatcom County are education, health, and social services with 16,849 people; government with 12,275 people; retail trade with 11,595 people; and manufacturing with 9,807 people (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2000a). The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest’s contribution to the overall area economy is small. The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest generates about 3 percent of the area’s total employment and about 2 percent of the area’s total income (Forest Service, 1990).

Tourism contributes to the local economy. Whatcom County, Washington (2004) states that visitors spend $333 million annually in Whatcom County and there are approximately 7,120 travel and tourism jobs in the county.

Skagit County—Skagit County covers an estimated 1 million acres. The largest employing sectors in the county are education, health, and social services with 8,488 people; manufacturing with 6,170 people; and retail trade with 5,925 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b). Skagit County’s accessible ports and refineries are important to the state’s petroleum industry (Vleming, 2002).

33 Expenditures - money spent in 2001 for wildlife-related recreation trips in the United States and wildlife-related recreational equipment purchased in the United States. Expenditures include both money spent by participants for themselves and the value of gifts they receive (FWS and Census, 2002).

3-403

Agriculture is a significant contributor to the Skagit County economy (Andrews and Stuart, 2003). The primary agricultural commodities are dairy products; nursery and greenhouse; vegetables, melons, and sweet corn; and other crops (e.g., vegetable seed crops) (Andrews and Stuart, 2003). Skagit County ranks fifth in the state for producing green peas. Cabbage, beets, Brussels sprouts, and spinach seed are also grown. There are 872 farms in Skagit County totaling 113,821 acres. In 2002, the market value of agricultural products sold was $217,384,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). The agricultural sector employs 3,600 people (Vleming, 2002).

Andrews and Stuart (2003) find that tourism generates substantial revenue for Skagit County. Each April, for example, between 300,000 and 500,000 people attend the annual Skagit Valley Tulip Festival, an event sponsored by Skagit County tulip and other farmers. This event results in an annual direct economic impact of $14 million spent by participants plus indirect impacts of $2.8 million in wages, $192,000 in local tax revenue, and $848,000 in state tax revenue.34 Thus, agriculture is important to the tourism industry. Recreation, wildlife viewing, and agro-tourism activities also contribute to the economy. Direct sales in Skagit County resulting from hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreation activities contribute at least $500,000 to the county’s economy.

For Whatcom and Skagit Counties, there are 5,946 and 1,971 housing units, respectively, for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a and 2000b).

Table 3-47 shows the economic characteristics of Whatcom and Skagit Counties; however, we caution the reader that information may differ between existing reports prepared by various agencies. Further, as a comparison with the counties, the median household income for the State of Washington was $45,776.

34 Data is from the Skagit County Critical Areas Ordinance Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, February 2003, Skagit County Planning and Permit Center, Seattle, Washington, as cited in Whatcom County, Washington (2004).

3-404

Table 3-47. Economic characteristics of Whatcom and Skagit Counties. (Sources: U.S. Bureau of Census, 2000a and 2000b)

Whatcom County Skagit CountyTotal Employment 131,195 79,422Median Household Incomea $40,005 $42,381 Per Capita Personal Incomeb $20,025 $21,256Families Below Poverty Level 3,231 2,161a The term “income” can be related to “earnings.” Earnings, as defined by the U.S.

Census Bureau, are the algebraic sum of wage or salary income and net income from self-employment.

b Per capita personal income is the income that is received by persons from all sources. This measure of income is calculated as the personal income of the residents of a given area divided by the resident population of the area (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis).

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the October 2005 unemployment rate for Washington State is 5.1 percent. Whatcom County is located in the Bellingham, Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The county’s unemployment rate is 4.9 percent. Skagit County is located in the Mount Vernon-Anacortes, Washington MSA. The county’s October 2005 unemployment rate is also at 4.9 percent. Due to the seasonal industries (e.g., agricultural sector) both counties have a tendency toward a seasonal variation in unemployment. Generally, these variations occur during the same months each year and are influenced by weather-related activities, such as harvesting.

Population—The State of Washington (2005) estimates Washington’s population for 2005 is 6,256,400, an increase of 6.15 percent from the year 2000 (5,894,143 people). Various reports indicate that in-migration is a major component of the state’s growth. Between 2000 and 2005 the elderly (65 years and older) increased from 662,148 to 712,092, which shows a gain of 7.5 percent. An increase in the elderly population is expected to continue due to the current number of people at or nearing retirement age.

The population for Whatcom County in 2005 is estimated at 180,800, an 8.38 percent increase from 2000. Currently, persons age 65 and over represent an estimated 11.6 percent (20,945) of the population. By the year 2025 the population age 65 and over is expected to increase to 19.2 percent (47,476). The primary cities in the county are Bellingham (72,320), Blaine (4,240), Ferndale (9,750), and Lynden (10,480) (State of Washington, 2005). (Population estimates are in parenthesis for both counties).

The population for Skagit County in 2005 is estimated at 110,900, a 7.69 percent increase from 2000. Currently, persons age 65 and over represent an estimated 14.4 percent (16,317) of the population. By the year 2025 the population age 65 and over is expected to increase to 19.7 percent (32,605). The primary cities in the county are

3-405

Anacortes (15,700), Burlington (7,550), Concrete (815), Mount Vernon (28,210), and Sedro-Woolley (9,800) (State of Washington, 2005).

Table 3-48 identifies population growth projections at 5-year intervals for Whatcom County and Skagit County. Washington State is included for a comparison. The table identifies low, intermediate, and high projections for the identified years.

Table 3-48. Population growth projections for Whatcom and Skagit Counties, Washington. (Source: Washington State, Office of Financial Management, 2002)

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Washington StateLow 5,935,479 6,190,412 6,460,127 6,710,659 6,925,750Intermediate 6,233,345 6,648,112 7,096,501 7,545,269 7,975,471High 6,621,080 7,215,892 7,867,806 8,541,588 9,215,093

Whatcom CountyLow 171,665 181,330 192,721 202,601 211,182Intermediate 180,463 195,504 213,246 230,228 246,636High 194,449 217,009 243,634 270,518 297,813

Skagit CountyLow 106,914 113,902 121,467 130,891 139,253Intermediate 113,136 123,807 135,717 150,449 164,797High 121,451 137,054 154,785 176,627 198,992

3.3.11.2 Environmental EffectsPuget does not propose any measures that are directed specifically to

socioeconomic resources. In addition, no other stakeholders made any recommendations that specifically address socioeconomic resources.

Effects Analysis

The Baker River Project provides low-cost power to its customers, which provides a benefit to residents of Whatcom and Skagit Counties. Although there would be increased costs associated with implementing environmental, recreational, and cultural measures, the proposed project would have no adverse impacts on socioeconomic resources in the region.

Based on our independent analysis, we assume population increases to continue for the project-affected counties. The Baker River Project and its location in the river basin provide various recreational opportunities that, if a new license is issued, could contribute toward meeting future recreational needs as a result of projected population

3-406

growth. Consequently, a beneficial effect on Whatcom and Skagit Counties’ economies would occur, thereby contributing to overall economic growth for Washington State.


3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No-Action Alternative, Puget would continue to operate the Baker River Project under the terms and conditions of the current license. The environmental measures proposed in the Settlement Agreement would not be implemented, although the existing mitigation and enhancement measures (see section 2.1.3) would continue. Operation of the project under the current license would essentially maintain the natural resources of the Baker River basin in a “status quo” condition.

3.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Continued operation of the existing project under any of the alternatives considered, would continue to commit the lands and waters previously developed for energy production. This commitment of resources would not necessarily be irreversible or irretrievable because removal of the project dams and restoration of disturbed areas could return the project areas to near pre-project conditions. However, given the substantial costs and the loss of energy, recreational, and socioeconomic benefits, removal of the project is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

3.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Under all alternatives considered, the projects would continue to generate power for Puget’s customers and provide recreational and socioeconomic benefits for the duration of any new license. The Proposed Action and staff recommended alternative would provide significant long-term protection and enhancement of biological, cultural, and recreational resources in the Baker River basin, although energy generation at the project would be somewhat reduced.

3-407

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS

In this section, we look at the Baker River Project’s use of the Baker River for hydropower purposes to see what effect various environmental measures would have on the project’s costs and power benefits. Consistent with the Commission’s approach to economic analysis, the power benefit of the project is determined by estimating the cost of obtaining the same amount of energy and capacity using the likely alternative generating resources available in the region. In keeping with Commission policy as described in Mead, our economic analysis is based on current electric power cost conditions and does not consider future escalation of fuel prices in valuing the hydropower project’s power benefits.35

Our analysis includes: (1) an estimate of the net power benefit of the project for each of the licensing alternatives, and (2) an estimate of the cost of individual measures considered in the draft EIS for the protection, mitigation and enhancement of environmental resources affected by the project. To determine the net power benefit for each of the licensing alternatives, we compare project costs to the value of the power output as represented by the cost of the alternative source of power. For any alternative, a positive net annual power benefit indicates that the project power costs less than the current cost of alternative generation resources and a negative net annual benefit indicates that project power costs more than the current cost of alternative generation resources. This estimate helps to support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest with respect to a proposed license. However, project economics is only one of many public interest factors the Commission considers in determining whether, and under what conditions, to issue a license.

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT

Table 4-1 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. This information was provided by Puget in its license application. We find that the values provided by Puget are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); estimated future capital investment required to maintain and extend the life of plant equipment and facilities; relicensing costs; normal operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees.

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

4-1

Table 4-1. Parameters for economic analysis of the Baker River Project. (Source: Puget)

Base Year 2006

Period of Analysis (years) 30

Taxes and Insurance (%)Federal income tax rate 35Levy rate 66Assessment rate 1.48Insurance 0.07

Net Investment, $a $0

Future major capital cost, $b $23,634,300

Relicensing cost, $c $27,741,800

Operation and maintenance, $/yrd $3,079,000

Commission fees, $/yre $689,000

Energy Value ($/MWh) Peak Off-PeakJanuary 39.16 34.96February 37.31 33.91March 33.61 30.85April 33.41 30.61May 29.89 25.35June 27.98 25.39July 39.00 33.66August 47.92 39.13September 52.64 44.24October 46.92 42.95November 47.83 43.21December 50.93 44.24

Capacity Value ($/MW-year)f 63,500Interest rateg 6.10Discount rateh 6.10

4-2

a Net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes.

b Future major capital costs include major plant rehabilitation to maintain present-day capability scheduled between 2006 and 2035 and are expressed as a present value.

c Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses to date.

d Existing plant operation and maintenance includes operation and maintenance related to environmental measures associated with the current license.

e Commission fees are based on statements of annual charges received from the Commission for federal lands and administrative charges based on authorized capacity.

f Source: Application for New License, exhibit D, table D-6.g Based on Puget’s weighted average cost of capital.h Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate.

As currently operated, the 170.03-MW Baker River Project generates an average of 723,320 MWh36 annually and has a dependable capacity of 166.61 MW. Table 4-1 includes monthly values for generation under high-load period (peak) and low-load period (off-peak) conditions. These values represent Puget’s marginal cost of generation as determined by system load and generation resource simulation. They reflect the cost of a mixture of generation resources available to Puget. We use monthly variable peak and off-peak energy values for our analysis in order to estimate the cost (in lost energy value) of minimum flow and reservoir operating measures that are seasonal and/or constrain the hourly operation of the project for peaking.

The capacity value of $63,500/MW-year (table 4-1) is based on the amortization and fixed operation and maintenance cost for a simple-cycle combustion turbine. Some of the measures that would require operational changes reduce the dependable capacity rating of the project. We discuss the effects of proposed operational changes on power benefits in section 4.2.1.

4.1.1 Economics of the No-Action Alternative

The existing project represents the No-Action Alternative. Under this alternative there would be no change in project facilities or operations (beyond life extension of structures and equipment), and no enhancement measures would be provided. Under these conditions, the project generates an average of 723,320 MWh annually, valued at $39,366,300 ($54.42/MWh). The annual cost of producing this energy is $8,985,900 ($12.42/MWh). Therefore, the project provides a net annual power benefit of

36 Owing to recent powerhouse upgrades and water management improvements, this modeled value of average annual generation differs from the Project’s historical generation of 708,000 MWh (as reported in section 2.2, Need for Power).

4-3

$30,380,400 ($42.00/MWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available alternative generation by $42.00/MWh.

4.1.2 Economics of the Proposed Project

Under the Settlement Agreement, the project would generate an annual average of 722,019 MWh, valued at $37,440,400 ($51.86/MWh). The cost of producing this energy would be $20,734,900 annually ($28.72/MWh). Therefore, the proposed project would provide a net annual power benefit of $16,705,500 ($23.14/MWh). In other words, the proposed project would produce energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available alternative generation by $23.14/MWh.

4.1.3 Economics of the Staff Recommended Alternative

Under staff’s recommended alternative, the project would generate an annual average of 722,019 MWh, valued at $37,440,400 ($51.86/MWh). The cost of producing this energy would be $19,845,700 annually ($27.49/MWh). Therefore, the proposed project would provide a net annual power benefit of $17,594,700 ($24.37/MWh).

4.2 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

In this section, we estimate the annual costs of the various environmental measures evaluated in the draft EIS. Section 4.2.1 discusses the impact of operations-related enhancement measures on power benefits in terms of energy and capacity replacement costs. Section 4.2.2 summarizes the estimated cost of all of the measures proposed in the Settlement Agreement.

4.2.1 Cost Impacts of Operational Changes

Currently, Puget generally operates the Baker River Project in coordination with their other power supply resources to meet the power needs of their customers. On a weekly basis, the demand for electricity is generally higher Monday through Saturday than on Sunday, and, on a daily basis, the demand for power peaks during the morning (6 a.m. to 10 a.m.) and early evening (5 p.m. to 9 p.m.). Typically, the project generates power on weekdays and often on Saturday between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., which corresponds to heavy load (on-peak) hours. Depending on lake levels, inflows, weather forecasts, and system demand, the project may not generate weeknights and on weekends, particularly Sunday. During periods of high inflow, however, the project may generate continuously for several days or weeks.

Puget provides a continuous minimum release of 80 cfs at the Lower Baker Development for the operation of the adult fish trap-and-haul facility located 0.3 mile downstream of the powerhouse. Additionally, in a voluntary program to reduce the

4-4

potential for fish stranding, Puget seeks to limit the average downramping rate in the Baker River downstream of the Lower Baker powerhouse to 2,000 cfs per hour whenever the Skagit River flow falls below 18,000 cfs, as measured at the Skagit River near Concrete gage.

Operational changes, if implemented, would affect both energy generation and dependable capacity. Estimates of energy impacts were provided by Puget based on system simulation using the HYDROPS model, a hydropower operations computer optimization model. The effects of project operational changes on dependable capacity were also provided by Puget and are based on the project capacity during a critical hydrologic period. The Pacific Northwest Region adopted September 1936 through April 1937 as the critical period (Corps, 1999). The most recent period similar to the critical period reflecting current Skagit River operations is September 2000 through April 2001 at the Skagit River Project operated by Seattle City Light. Puget used this period for determining dependable capacity effects from operational changes.

The proposed operation includes a modified reservoir management regime, new minimum flows (1,000 cfs from August 1 through October 20 and 1,200 cfs from October 21 through July 31), new ramping rates, and reservoir drawdown limits (Proposed Article 106). To implement this release regime, specifically the ramping limits, and to generate power with the minimum flow releases, Puget would install two new 750-cfs turbine-generators units at the Lower Baker Development.

The effect of the proposed operation, in conjunction with the new turbine-generators, would be a decrease in on-peak energy, an increase in off-peak energy, and a substantial decrease in dependable capacity relative to the No-Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action, the project would provide average annual generation of 722,019 MWh (compared to 723,320 MWh for the No-Action Alternative) and a dependable capacity of 129.83 MW (compared to 166.61 MW under the No-Action Alternative).

The dependable capacity decreases under the Proposed Action because of two factors. First, the minimum instream flow increases from 80 cfs under Current Operations to 1,000/1,200 cfs under the Proposed Action. Furthermore, the Proposed Action includes new ramping rates which require Puget to use more water when downramping at the Lower Baker Development. Both of these factors result in less water available for generation during the high demand hours of the critical period.

In combination, the reduced annual average generation and dependable capacity of the Proposed Action result in a $1.93-million decrease in annual power benefits compared with the No-Action Alternative.

4-5

4.2.2 Cost of Environmental Enhancement Measures

Table 4-2 summarizes the effects on project economics of the proposed measures as included in the Settlement Agreement.

The staff alternative includes environmental measures as proposed in the Settlement Agreement but with certain changes. We exclude in the staff alternative measures contained in the following proposed articles: 301, 303, 304, 309, 310, 312-314, 318, 501, 505, 516, 517, 602, and 603. Further, we make more substantial modifications to measures contained in the following additional articles: 109, 302, 305-308, 311, 316, 502-504, 507-510, and 515. We discuss our proposed changes to the measures contained in the Settlement Agreement in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

4.2.3 Cost of Agency Recommendations

On March 16, and March 21, 2005, respectively, NMFS and WDFW filed two recommendations for fish protection measures not contained in the Settlement Agreement: (1) provide a flow continuation valve, and (2) schedule annual operation inspections; permit agencies and tribes other reasonable inspections; maintain and make available project operational records; and notify resource agencies of unusual operational incidents.

To achieve flow continuation from a maximum hydraulic capacity of all generating units operating (5,600 cfs) to the lowest minimum flow requirement of 1,000 cfs, we estimate that it may be necessary to equip two of the four abandoned, 8-foot-diameter penstocks at the site of the proposed new auxiliary powerhouse with regulating valves.

We estimate a levelized annual cost of $101,000 to install any flow continuation valves. Costs associated with the agencies’ recommendations for access, records, and notification procedures would be minimal, so there is no incremental cost associated with these measures.

4-6

Table 4-2. Summary of costs of environmental protection and mitigation measures as proposed in the Settlement Agreement (2006 $). (Source: Puget)37

Measure Capital CostLevelized

O&M CostTotal Levelized Annual Costa

101 Fish Propagation 9,687,800 303,300 974,000

102 Aquatics Reporting -- 13,400 13,400

103 Upstream Fish Passage 7,658,800 93,100 623,300

104 Fish Connectivity between Reservoirs 1,024,200 34,600 105,500

105 Downstream Fish Passage 41,926,400 585,900 3,488,600

106 Flow Implementation 32,176,100 195,600 2,423,200

107 Flood Regulationb -- -- --

108 Gravel Augmentation 20,000 9,600 11,000

109 Large Woody Debris 50,000 20,000 23,500

110 Shoreline Erosion 266,800 10,200 28,600

201 Programmatic Agreement -- 217,700 217,700

301 Recreation Management Reportc -- -- --

302 Aesthetics Management -- 19,200 19,200

303 Baker Lake Resort Redevelopment Plan -- 45,000 45,000

304 Baker Reservoir Recreation Water Safety -- 19,200 19,200

305 Lower Baker Developed Recreation -- 67,300 67,300

306 Upper Baker Visitor Information Services -- 27,500 27,500

37 Costs of measures as recommended by staff are identified in sections 5.1.1-5.1.3.

4-7



307 Upper Baker Visitor Interpretive Services -- 29,400 29,400

308 Dispersed Recreation Management -- 39,000 39,000

309 Bayview Campground Rehabilitation -- 71,300 71,300

310 Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead Construction -- 37,100 37,100

311 Lower Baker Trails -- 7,500 7,500

312 Developed Recreation Monitoring -- 21,300 21,300

313 Upper Baker Developed Recreation Maintenance -- 57,300 57,300

314 Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead Maintenance -- 77,400 77,400

315 Lower Baker Trail Maintenanced -- -- --

316 Forest Service Forest Road Maintenance -- 41,500 41,500

317 Access to Baker Lakec -- -- --

318 Law Enforcement -- 100,000 100,000

401 Water Quality 397,100 9,000 36,500501 Terrestrial Resource Management Plan -- 6,700 6,700

502 Deciduous Forest Habitat 355,800 1,300 25,900

503 Elk Habitat 3,436,200 50,000 287,900

504 Wetland Habitat 284,600 10,200 29,900

505 Aquatic Riparian Habitat Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement Plan

5,093,100 17,000 369,600

506 Osprey Nest Structures 16,000 1,000 2,100

507 Loon Floating Nest Platforms 34,900 2,600 5,000

4-8



508 Noxious Weeds -- 22,700 22,700

509 Special Status Plants -- 17,500 17,500

510 Carax Flava (Yellow Sedge) -- 15,000 15,000

511 Decaying and Legacy Wood -- 13,400 13,400

512 Bald Eagle Night Roost -- 2,300 2,300

513 Bald Eagle Management -- 700 700

514 Habitat Evaluation Procedures -- 8,600 8,600

515 Late Seral Forest 71,300 -- 4,900

516 Mountain Goats 62,200 -- 4,300

517 Grizzly Bears 100,000 -- 6,900

601 Baker River Coordinating Committee -- 50,000 50,000

602 Required Resource Funding -- 96,100 96,100

603 Adaptive Management -- 3,500 3,500a The annual cost is that levelized annual amount that is equivalent to the present value of planning, design, implementation,

construction, operation, and maintenance costs over the 30-year period of analysis. These numbers are derived directly from the economics provided in the Settlement Agreement.

b Under the flood storage agreement between Corps and Puget, compensation for flood storage is provided to Puget. Therefore, there are no costs associated with this measure.

c No incremental cost associated with this measure.

d Costs are reflected in the measure for Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead maintenance (Proposed Article 314).

4-9

4.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 4-3 summarizes the benefits, costs, and annual net power benefits of the alternatives.

Table 4-3. Summary of developmental costs, benefits, and annual net power benefits for the Baker River Project Alternatives. (Source: Puget and Commission staff)

No-ActionAlternative

Applicant’sproposal

Commission staff’sAlternative

Annual generation (MWh) 723,320 722,019 722,019

Annual power benefit

($)($/MWh)

39,366,30054.42

37,440,40051.86

37,440,40051.86

Annual cost ($)($/MWh)

8,985,90012.42

20,734,90028.72

19,845,70027.49

Annual net power benefit

($)($/MWh)

30,380,40042.00

16,705,50023.14

17,594,70024.37

4-10

5.0 STAFF’S CONCLUSIONS

5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. When we review a proposed project, we equally consider the environmental, recreational, fish and wildlife, and other non-developmental values of the project, as well as power and developmental values. Accordingly, any license issued shall be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for all beneficial public uses.

This section contains the basis for and a summary of our recommendations to the Commission for relicensing the Baker River Project. We weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against other proposed measures.

Based on our independent review and evaluation of the proposed project and the No Action Alternative, we select the proposed action as modified by staff, as the preferred alternative. We recommend this option because: (1) issuance of a new hydropower license by the Commission would allow Puget to operate the project as an economically beneficial and dependable source of electrical energy for its customers; (2) the 200.03-MW project would eliminate the need for an equivalent amount of fossil-fueled derived energy and capacity, which helps conserve these nonrenewable resources and limits atmospheric pollution; (3) the public benefits of this alternative would exceed those of the No Action Alternative; and (4) the recommended measures would protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and cultural resources and would improve recreation opportunities at the project.

Puget’s Settlement Agreement contains 50 proposed license articles with various protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures that Puget requests be included in any new license issued for the project. Below, we list those measures in the Settlement Agreement that we recommend including in any license (section 5.1.1). We also discuss those additional measures outside the Settlement Agreement that we recommend (section 5.1.2); our rational for any substantial modifications (section 5.1.3); and those measures in the Settlement Agreement that we do not recommend (section 5.1.4). In our analysis, we focus on the actual protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures contained in each proposed license article. Finally, many of Puget’s proposed measures would provide funding to the Forest Service or to other entities. In general, we do not recommend Puget provide funding to third parties; instead, we recommend Puget implement individual measures.

5-1

5.1.1 Proposed Measures Recommended by Staff38

We recommend including the following measures contained in the Settlement Agreement in any license issued for the project. The measures we recommend incorporate both minor and substantive changes to the proposed license articles contained in the Settlement Agreement. Substantive changes to the proposed measures are discussed in section 5.1.3.

Fish Propagation (Proposed Article 101) Develop a Fish Propagation Facilities Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) constructing ancillary facilities and/or modifying the project’s Sockeye Spawning Beach 4 to improve functionality and productivity by: (i) isolating the water supply to each of the existing segments, (ii) installing concrete walls between segments, (iii) improving alarm systems, and (iv) controlling sediment at the Sulphur Springs water supply intake site, including if necessary, capping the intake area to prevent sliding material from moving into the water supply;

(2) constructing additional fish culture facilities at the project’s Sulphur Springs site to provide a total of 20,000 pounds of instantaneous cultured fish capacity (exclusive of eggs and anadromous adults) and 7,000 pounds of egg incubation capacity (including egg incubation capacity that may be provided at Spawning Beach 4), including some or all of the following structures, facilities, and equipment necessary for adult holding, spawning, and egg incubation: (i) water chiller(s), (ii) fry starter(s), (iii) troughs or ponds, (iv) rearing ponds, and (v) loading facilities;

(3) determining: (i) the capacity of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon for the production of sockeye smolts and fry, (ii) production limits of sockeye fry from monitoring and analyses of returning broodstock and subsequent smolt production, and (iii) the limits of Sockeye Spawning Beach 4 with a goal of optimizing operations to produce about 4 million fry;

(4) operating facilities as recommended by the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Upper Skagit Tribe, and WDFW (Fish Co-managers) according to: (i) the above-stated fishery management objectives, (ii) weight, production targets, species mix, life stages and quantities up to the capacity and production limits in items (2) and (3), and (iii) production within the limits of the space available at the project’s Sulphur Springs site;

38 In many instances Puget proposes funding for measures, whereas staff recommends the measures themselves. We also note that the responsibility for approving measures called for under a Commission license lies with the Commission.

5-2

(5) decommissioning the project’s Sockeye Spawning Beaches 1, 2, and 3 by: (i) retaining, to the extent feasible, Sockeye Spawning Beaches 2 and/or 3 until replacement production from the new facilities is developed, (ii) modifying Sockeye Spawning Beaches 2 and/or 3 to reduce leaks and to keep these beaches functional prior to decommissioning, (iii) acquiring all necessary permits from the Forest Service, (iv) configuring the pond component of the spawning beaches into a channel with a natural meander to optimize fish usage, (v) removing existing structures and restoring landscaping, and (vi) initiating adult salmon returns to the project with a temporary supplementation program;

(6) implementing a reservoir nutrient enhancement program to enhance sockeye salmon production;

(7) preparing a fish facilities operations manual that includes: (i) facility layout, flow distribution schematic, and flow procedures, (ii) emergency response, emergency personnel call-out, and security procedures, (iii) current management protocols and reporting procedures, and (iv) equipment and supplier lists, operation procedures, fish distribution procedures, and hygiene procedures based on recommendations by the Fish Co-managers;

(8) operating protocols including: (i) identifying staff responsible for implementing the Fish Propagation Facilities Plan, and (ii) the process by which the Fish Co-managers would be consulted for studies to optimize fish program success; and

(9) an annual report describing the operation of the fish propagation facilities pursuant to Proposed Article 102 including: (i) financial accounting, (ii) fish handling and disease management operations, and (iii) spill prevention and control countermeasures compliance.

Aquatics Reporting (Proposed Article 102) File an annual report in accordance with the schedule in Proposed Article 102 that provides: (1) the status of implementing Proposed Articles 101, 103-106, 108-110, and 401; and (2) a summary of existing resource or other agency and tribal plans (including Endangered Species Act recovery plans and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan) and a summary of any coordination between the above proposed articles and the above resource or agency plans.

Upstream Fish Passage (Proposed Article 103) Develop an Upstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) trapping, sorting, holding, and hauling facilities for upstream migrating fish at the Lower Baker dam, (2) construction plans, specifications, and performance criteria; (3) operation and

5-3

maintenance procedures and specifications including: (i) fish handling, (ii) hauling frequencies, (iii) attraction flow magnitudes and frequencies, (iv) species protocols, (v) trap operational flows, (vi) schedules, (vii) methods for providing annual updates, and (viii) trap reporting requirements; (4) quality assurance and control procedures; (5) operational contingencies and emergency response procedures; and (6) an annual report describing the operation of the upstream fish passage facilities pursuant to Proposed Article 102 including: (i) the number, species, and disposition of fish captured in the trap, (ii) any problems and associated remedies for operating the facilities, (iii) any proposed modifications to project facilities and/or operations, and (iv) any operational compliance deviations.

Fish Connectivity between Reservoirs (Proposed Article 104) Develop a Fish Connectivity Investigation Study, which may include tagging, radio-tagging, or other methods to determine the type of fishway needed to pass native char and other native fish species between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake.

Develop a Fish Connectivity Implementation Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) constructing a fishway between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake for native char and other native fish species which may include: (i) catch and haul operations, (ii) a temporary weir and trap on Sulphur Creek or a similar facility below the Upper Baker dam, or (iii) a permanent trap and haul facility below Upper Baker dam; (2) design accommodations for other aquatic species that do not compromise the primary focus on passage for native char; (3) construction plans, specifications, and performance criteria; (4) operation and maintenance procedures and specifications including: (i) fish handling, (ii) hauling frequencies, (iii) attraction flow magnitudes and frequencies, (iv) species protocols, (v) trap operational flows, (vi) schedules, (vii) methods for providing annual updates, and (viii) trap reporting requirements; (5) quality assurance and control procedures; (6) operational contingencies and emergency response procedures; and (7) an annual report describing the operation of the fish passage facilities pursuant to Proposed Article 102 including: (i) the number, species, and disposition of fish captured in any trap, (ii) any problems and associated remedies for operating the facilities, (iii) any proposed modifications to project facilities and/or operations, and (iv) any operational compliance deviations.

Downstream Fish Passage (Proposed Article 105) Develop a Downstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) attraction, guidance, trapping, sorting, holding, and hauling facilities for downstream migrating fish at the

5-4

Upper and Lower Baker dams; (2) construction plans, specifications, and performance criteria including: (i) a guide net, (ii) a Floating Surface Collector (FSC), (iii) a transition structure between the guide net and FSC, (iv) a transportation conduit, (v) a floating fish trap, (vi) transfer facilities, (vii) hauling vehicles, and (viii) stress-relief ponds; (3) a schedule for installing downstream fish passage facilities including: (i) Upper Baker Phase 1 - installing and operating a 500-cfs FSC (with 1,000-cfs pumping capacity) and ancillary facilities by March 2008, (ii) Lower Baker Phase 1 - installing and operating a 500-cfs FSC (with 1,000-cfs pumping capacity) and ancillary facilities by March 2012; (iii) Upper Baker Phase 2 - if the facilities under the Upper Baker Phase 1 fail to meet performance criteria in the Downstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan, then, at the direction of the Commission, expanding and operating the 500-cfs FSC to 1,000 cfs within 5 years of completing Phase 1; and (iv) Lower Baker Phase 2 - if the facilities under Lower Baker Phase 1 fail to meet the performance criteria in the Downstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan, then, at the direction of the Commission, expanding and operating the 500-cfs FSC to 1,000 cfs; (4) operation and maintenance procedures and specifications including: (i) a facility operation schedule, (ii) any special FSC operations, (iii) fish sampling, (iv) fish handling protocols, (v) holding and release protocols, (vi) transport loading rates, (vii) weekly reporting of trap counts, (viii) methods for providing annual updates, and (ix) an implementation schedule; (5) quality assurance and control procedures; (6) operational contingencies and emergency response procedures; and (7) an annual report describing the operation of the downstream fish passage facilities pursuant to Proposed Article 102 including: (i) the number, species, and disposition of fish captured in the trap, (ii) any problems and associated remedies for operating the facilities, (iii) any proposed modifications to project facilities and/or operations, and (iv) any operational compliance deviations.

Flow Implementation (Proposed Article 106) Develop a Lower Baker Powerhouse Construction Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) installing two new generating units each with approximately 750 cfs capacity at the Lower Baker dam, and (2) a construction schedule that has the two new generating units operational within 6 years.

Until the two new units at the Lower Baker dam are operational, release flows at the Lower Baker dam in accordance with the Interim Protection Plan filed as Appendix C to the license application, and: (1) use best efforts to reduce Lower Baker maximum flows from 4,100 to 3,200 cfs between September 1 and December 31 annually; (2) use best efforts to follow ramping rates contained in Aquatics Table 1, and; (3) use best efforts to limit

5-5

the rate of change of incrementally decreasing flows, limit the amount of daily amplitude change, and minimize the difference between spawning and incubation flows.

Develop a Flow Implementation Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) incorporating Aquatics Tables 1 and 2 and Aquatics Ramping Rate Figures A and B contained in Proposed Article 106; (2) releasing flows at Lower Baker after the two new 750-cfs turbine-generating units are operational in accordance with: (i) Aquatic Tables 1, or (ii) Aquatics Table 2 if flood regulation storage is provided at Lower Baker in accordance with Proposed Article 107; (3) developing a process and criteria for modifying the Flow Implementation Plan including Aquatics Tables 1 and 2; (4) providing downramping rates for the Skagit River at river mile 56.5 of 0, 1, or 2 inches per hour, according to the schedule provided in Tables 1 and 2, when Skagit River flows immediately upstream of the Baker River confluence are less than or equal to 26,000 cfs; (5) temporarily suspending or modifying flows and ramping rates in the Flow Implementation Plan in the event of drought conditions or other natural events outside the licensee’s control or emergency situations where the project or public would be at risk; (6) reporting temporary modifications and deviations from the Flow Implementation Plan to the Commission and other entities; (7) an annual report describing implementation of the Flow Implementation Plan pursuant to Proposed Article 102; and (8) modifying project operations to protect aquatic resources if a conflict arises between the ramping rates or flow regimes in the Flow Implementation Plan and the flood regulation storage in Proposed Article 107.

Flood Regulation (Proposed Article 107) Operate the Upper Baker development to provide 16,000 acre-feet of flood regulation storage between October 15 and March 1 annually and an additional 58,000 acre-feet of flood regulation storage between September 1 and April 15 annually (total 74,000 acre-feet) as directed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, provided the licensee is compensated for providing any flood regulation storage above 16,000 acre-feet.

Operate the Lower Baker development to provide up to 29,000 acre-feet of flood regulation storage between October 1 and March 1 annually, as directed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, provided the licensee is compensated for this storage.

Review project operations and develop any procedures to address imminent flood events, which may include lowering project reservoirs below flood regulation storage levels, and file a report for Commission approval with: (i) any proposed changes to project operations and (ii) an analysis of how any proposed changes affect the safety and adequacy of project structures.

5-6

Notify the Commission’s Division of Dam Safety and Engineering, Portland Regional Engineer, when the Corps assumes operational control of the project for flood regulation purposes and when the Corps returns operational control to the licensee.

Gravel Augmentation (Proposed Article 108) Develop a Gravel Management Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) describing existing and proposed gravel augmentation measures intended to improve the geomorphic function of the Lower Baker River alluvial fan and Skagit River downstream of the Baker River confluence; (2) addressing location and contribution of gravel and cobble-sized material in the affected reach, condition and substrate attrition rates, and substrate sizes in relation to the biological needs of salmonids and other aquatic organisms; (3) establishing procedures for evaluating and monitoring Skagit River conditions, including tracking long-term trends in the substrate profile degradation, to determine when to provide gravel augmentation up to an annual limit of 12,500 tons; (4) establishing implementation guidelines and triggers for gravel augmentation; and (5) an annual report describing implementation of the Baker River Gravel Management Plan pursuant to Proposed Article 102.

Large Woody Debris (Proposed Article 109) Develop a Large Woody Debris (LWD) Management Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) collecting LWD, defined as wood with a diameter of at least 1 foot and a length of at least 8 feet, from project reservoirs; (2) stockpiling LWD on lands within the project boundary; (3) a 20-year target for collecting and stockpiling: (i) 2,960 pieces of LWD with a diameter of 1 to 2 feet, (ii) 540 pieces of LWD with a diameter of 2 to 3 feet, and (iii) 160 pieces of LWD with a diameter greater than 3 feet; (4) annual LWD targets designed to meet the above 20-year target; (5) reassessing the above 20-year and annual targets after the first 20 years based on actual LWD collection and stockpiling; and (6) an annual report describing implementation of the LWD Management Plan pursuant to Proposed Article 102.

Shoreline Erosion (Proposed Article 110) Develop a Shoreline Erosion Control Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) site specific plans to prevent and control erosion along both project reservoirs; (2) criteria for selecting and prioritizing sites giving first priority to recreation sites, heritage/cultural sites, and aesthetic resources and giving second priority to sites rated as severe or high in relicensing Study A14a filed April 22, 2005; (3) survey protocols including procedures to measure geology, vegetation, and erosion rates; (4) treatment methods, standards, and goals including treatment using vegetation and/or

5-7

bioengineering, anchored logs, riprap vestment, rock and crib walls, perched beaches, and drift sills; (5) monitoring to assess treatment effectiveness and to identify new sites needing treatment; and (6) an annual report describing implementation of the Shoreline Erosion Control Plan pursuant to Proposed Article 102.

Programmatic Agreement (Proposed Article 201) Implement the “Programmatic Agreement Between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that May be Affected by a License Issuing to Puget Sound Energy for the Continued Operation of the Baker River Hydroelectric Project in Skagit and Whatcom Counties, Washington - FERC Project No. P-2150,” including, but not limited to the Historic Properties Management Plan for the project.

Aesthetics Management (Proposed Article 302) Develop an Aesthetics Management Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) painting the pump station (off-peak pump discharge facility) in neutral earth-tone colors and planting native vegetation to screen this facility from the West Pass dike boat launch area; (2) planting native vegetation to screen the yards, buildings, and fence of the Upper Baker operations and maintenance yards from the Kulshan campground and Forest Service road 1106; (3) painting the existing crane at the Lower Baker dam a neutral earth-tone color during the next normal painting cycle and during subsequent painting cycles; and (4) landscaping in the area near the visitor’s center and associated parking area at the Lower Baker River operations complex center.

Lower Baker Developed Recreation (Proposed Article 305) Develop a Lower Baker Recreation Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) at the existing recreation site replace the gravel boat launch with a concrete boat launch; develop parking and day use facilities; and install portable toilets; (2) cost estimates and schematic drawings of the facilities; (3) an implementation schedule; (4) a discussion of how the needs of the disabled are considered in the design of the facilities; (5) a copy of the “Agreement Between Puget Sound Energy and Skagit County”, filed May 10, 2005, for the Lake Shannon boat ramp; and (6) a discussion of how the agreement will continue or be renewed, or if necessary, how the agreement will address pertinent land rights, easements, or other options for continued public access at the site.

5-8

Upper Baker Visitor Information Services (Proposed Articles 306 and 307) Develop an Interpretation and Education Plan for the Baker River Project that includes provisions for the following: (1) constructing and operating a Visitor Information Station (VIS) at Baker Lake on lands within the project boundary; (2) staffing the VIS from Memorial Day through Labor Day; (3) information about the project, including recreational opportunities; (4) how the needs of the disabled are considered in the design of the VIS; and (5) operation and maintenance costs.

Dispersed Recreation Management (Proposed Article 308) Develop a Dispersed Recreation Management Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) hardening of agreed-upon three to six dispersed recreation sites identified in Table 3-1 of the Dispersed Site Inventory Study (Study R-12) dated February 2004; (2) the location of any dispersed recreation sites on non-project lands relative to the project boundary and the location and acreage of any federal lands involved; (3) a proposal to modify any project facilities and boundaries; (4) vault toilet(s); (5) periodic monitoring and site clean-up at project-related dispersed recreation sites that would address adverse effects on environmental resources and improve the aesthetic resources of the area; and (6) identification of dispersed recreation sites that should be closed due to adverse effects on environmental resources, low recreational use, or other criteria established by Puget and the appropriate entities.

Lower Baker Trails (Proposed Articles 311 & 315) Develop a Lower Baker Trail Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) constructing up to two miles of trails in the Baker River Project vicinity focusing on the Lower Baker development; (2) site selection; (3) cost estimates; (4) the entity or entities that would be responsible for constructing and maintaining the Lower Baker Trails; (5) how the needs of the disabled are considered in the design of the trails; (6) the location of any proposed trails on non-project lands relative to the project boundary and the location and acreage of any federal lands involved; and (7) a proposal to modify any project facilities and boundaries.

Access to Baker Lake (Proposed Article 317) Provide public access to the east side of Baker Lake on existing Forest Service road FR 1106, except as may be restricted by short-term public safety or Baker River Project security requirements.

5-9

Water Quality (Proposed Article 401) Develop a Water Quality Monitoring Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) monitoring project waters for State of Washington water quality standards at the project for the term of the license in accordance with a specified monitoring schedule; (2) based on monitoring results, assessing consistency with State of Washington water quality standards and any proposed measures to enhance water quality; and (3) an annual report describing implementation of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan pursuant to Proposed Article 102.

Develop a Water Quality Protection Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) controlling pollutants from project construction, operation, or emergencies including, but not limited to: (i) access roads, (ii) boat ramps, (iii) transmission corridors, (iv) structures, (v) portable toilets, (vi) hatcheries and fish collection, handling, and transportation facilities, and (vii) staging areas for all activities related to project operation, maintenance, and repair; (2) stormwater pollution and prevention measures that: (i) specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other control measures to prevent contaminants from entering surface and ground waters, (ii) address pollution control measures for project activities that could lead to the discharge of stormwater or other contaminated water from upland areas, (iii) specify the management of chemicals, hazardous materials and petroleum (spill prevention and containment measures), including refueling procedures, the measures to take in the event of a spill, and reporting and training requirements, and (iv) specify water quality monitoring protocols and notification requirements; (3) in-water work protection measures that: (i) specify BMPs and other control measures for the licensee’s work within surface waters, including application of herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, disinfectants, and lake fertilization, and (ii) address water quality monitoring provisions for all in-water work; (4) an annual report describing implementation of the Water Quality Protection Plan pursuant to Proposed Article 102; and (5) maintaining minimum reservoir levels of 389 feet in Lake Shannon and 685 feet in Baker Lake to minimize the resuspension of sediments as a result of project operations.

Deciduous Forest Habitat (Proposed Article 502) Develop a Deciduous Forest Habitat Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) enhancing and/or acquiring deciduous forest habitat containing at least 40 percent deciduous tree composition as mitigation for deciduous forest habitat affected by new project construction; (2) criteria and procedures for site selection, acquisition and management; (3) identifying the number of acres to be enhanced and/or acquired; (4) any specific enhancement and management actions to be taken on any lands acquired; (5) the location of any proposed acquired parcels of non-project lands relative to the project

5-10

boundary and the location and acreage of any federal lands involved; and (6) a proposal to modify any project facilities and boundaries.

Elk Habitat (Proposed Article 503)

Develop an Elk Habitat Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) acquiring about 300 acres of elk foraging habitat with a total elk forage equivalency value of at least 1,437 units calculated by multiplying the number of acres of each habitat type enhanced and/or acquired by the corresponding elk forage equivalency score shown in the elk habitat table contained in Proposed Article 503; (2) a discussion of the feasibility of creating cultivated pastures or making other elk foraging habitat improvements on project lands or acquiring this habitat and making improvements on non-project lands as close to the project as possible; (3) criteria and procedures for site selection, acquisition and management; (4) any specific enhancement and management actions to be taken on any lands acquired; (5) the location of any proposed acquired parcels of non-project lands relative to the project boundary and the location and acreage of any federal lands involved; and (6) a proposal to modify any project facilities and boundaries.

Wetland Habitat (Proposed Article 504) Develop a Wetland Habitat Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) enhancing and/or acquiring wetlands to benefit wetland-dependent species including native amphibians; (2) a discussion of the feasibility of enhancing wetlands adjacent to Baker Lake or Lake Shannon on project lands or acquiring this habitat and making improvements on non-project lands as close to the project as possible; (3) the number of acres to be enhanced and/or acquired; (4) criteria and procedures for site selection, acquisition and management; (5) any specific enhancement and management actions to be taken on any lands acquired; (6) the location of any proposed acquired parcels of non-project lands relative to the project boundary and the location and acreage of any federal lands involved; and (7) a proposal to modify any project facilities and boundaries.

Osprey Nest Structures (Proposed Article 506) Provide and maintain a minimum of 10 artificial nesting structures at Lake Shannon consisting of nine existing structures and at least one new structure installed at the site of a former natural snag nest or artificial nesting structure with the goal of producing seven breeding pairs of osprey at Lake Shannon.

5-11

Select and modify 10 mature trees at Lake Shannon to promote their eventual use as osprey nesting structures. Trees may be modified by topping, killing, or other appropriate techniques based on site-specific evaluations.

Monitor osprey nesting and productivity annually between April 1 and August 31 at Lake Shannon and Baker Lake and inspect and maintain the 10 artificial nesting structures every two years to ensure continued availability for osprey.

File a monitoring report with the Commission by June 1 of the year following each two-year inspection and maintenance cycle. The report should describe inspection results, maintenance performed, and nesting activity at both artificial nesting structures and modified trees at Lake Shannon and Baker Lake during the preceding two years and should determine whether additional artificial nesting structures or modifications to the placement and design of existing artificial nesting structures are needed to achieve the goal of seven breeding pairs of osprey at Lake Shannon.

Floating Loon Nest Platforms (Proposed Article 507) Install and maintain three floating nesting platforms for common loons on Lake Shannon and/or Baker Lake with the goal of establishing common loon nesting on project reservoirs.

Log booms, boundary buoys or other appropriate devices should be placed around nesting platforms, as needed, to restrict public access. Nesting platforms and any devices to restrict public access should be installed April 1 to July 31 annually.

Monitor all nesting platforms twice a month April 1 to July 31 annually to determine nesting activity, nesting attempts, nest productivity and the effectiveness of public access restrictions and file a report with the Commission by June 1 each year summarizing monitoring data and platform maintenance activities.

Install three additional nesting platforms (total six) on Lake Shannon and/or Baker Lake if loons successfully nest on platforms. If loons do not successfully nest on platforms within 15 years, the nesting platform program should be discontinued.

Noxious Weeds (Proposed Article 508) Develop a Noxious Weed Control Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) controlling noxious weeds on project lands pursuant to applicable state and federal regulations; (2) site-specific and species-specific management and monitoring programs for project lands based on the guidelines and treatment options identified in Appendix A-1 of the Settlement

5-12

Agreement; (3) controlling noxious weeds on lands surveyed and identified in study T-6 (figures 1 and 2) and including these lands in the project boundary; (4) controlling noxious weeds, with priority on controlling reed canarygrass, at wetlands identified as WB 17, 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, and 30 in studies T-2 and T-5 (figure 5), and including these lands in the project boundary; and (5) controlling noxious weeds on any lands acquired and added to the project boundary in the future as directed by the Commission.

Special Status Plants (Proposed Article 509) Develop a Special Status Plants Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) managing special status plants on project lands surveyed and identified in study T-16 (figures 1 and 2) and Appendix A-2 of the Settlement Agreement that are: (i) listed as endangered, threatened or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act, (ii) listed as endangered, threatened or sensitive by the State of Washington, and (iii) listed by the Forest Service on the Pacific Northwest Regional Forester’s sensitive species list; (2) site-specific and species-specific management and monitoring programs for project lands based on the guidelines identified in Appendix A-3 of the Settlement Agreement; and (3) managing special status plants on any lands acquired and added to the project boundary in the future as directed by the Commission.

Carex flava (Proposed Article 510) Develop a Carex flava (yellow sedge) Management Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) surveying and mapping Carex flava populations at Baker Lake; (2) managing and protecting identified Carex flava populations on project lands especially in areas where reed canarygrass on project lands exists; (3) strategies to control reed canarygrass near Carex flava populations; and (4) site-specific management and monitoring programs based on the guidelines identified in Appendix A-4 of the Settlement Agreement including a planting program if Carex flava populations decline.

Decaying and Legacy Wood (Proposed Article 511) Develop a Decaying and Legacy Wood (old growth) Management Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) managing snags, logs and residual live trees on project lands for snag and log dependent species including cavity excavators; (2) retaining existing snags, logs and residual live trees or promoting the development of these features when necessary; (3) specific management objectives; (4) providing artificial structures where natural snags, logs and residual live trees are not present and are not expected to develop during the term of any license; and (5) managing snags, logs and residual live trees on any lands acquired and added to the project boundary in the future as directed by the Commission.

5-13

Bald Eagle Night Roosts (Proposed Article 512) Conduct two surveys 15 years apart to identify the location of any bald eagle night roosts on project lands or in the immediate vicinity of the project and file the survey results and any proposals to protect identified roosting areas with the Commission.

Bald Eagle Management (Proposed Article 513) Develop a Bald Eagle Management Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) managing bald eagle nest and night roosts on project lands to protect bald eagles; (2) periodic surveys of project lands to identify new nests or night roosts which should be added to the plan; and (3) surveys of any lands acquired and added to the project boundary in the future as directed by the Commission.

Habitat Evaluation Procedures (Proposed Article 514) Develop a Habitat Evaluation Procedures Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) monitoring the effectiveness of implementing Proposed Articles 502-504, 506, 507, and 513 through periodic assessments of habitat quantity and quality using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Habitat Evaluation Procedures or other appropriate methodology; (2) monitoring should determine the current conditions of any lands acquired and assess the effectiveness of any enhancement and management actions taken on those lands; and (3) a schedule for specific monitoring actions, monitoring criteria, and the format for monitoring reports.

Late Seral Forest (Proposed Article 515) Develop a Late Seral Forest Enhancement Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) thinning trees on 321 acres of second-growth forest to accelerate late-seral forest growth and increase nesting success and/or survival of spotted owls and marbled murrelets; (2) a discussion of the feasibility of thinning trees on project lands or making these improvements on non-project lands as close to the project as possible; and (3) criteria and procedures for site selection.

Baker River Coordinating Committee (Proposed Article 601) Develop a Technical Committee Plan that includes provisions for the following: (1) creating a Terrestrial Resources Implementation Group, a Recreation Resources Group, an Aquatics Resources Group, and a Cultural Resources Advisory Group - each responsible for providing technical comments and recommendations on the licensee’s implementation of the terms

5-14

and conditions in the license; (2) creating a Baker River Coordinating Committee responsible for providing policy level comments and recommendations on the licensee’s implementation of the terms and conditions in any license issued for the project and for resolving disputes within the above four technical committees; (3) procedures for designating representatives, setting agendas, providing notices, holding meetings, recording decisions, and setting schedules for the above committees; (4) resolving disputes; and (5) providing annual reports.

5.1.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff

We recommend including the following additional measures not contained in the Settlement Agreement in any license issued for the project.

Flow Continuation Valve EvaluationNMFS and WDFW recommend Puget provide a flow continuation valve at the

Lower Baker development to ensure compliance with new downramping rates, amplitude, and minimum flows contained in the Settlement Agreement. Flow continuation would require a valve or valves designed to provide flows from 5,600 cfs (the maximum generation with the new units installed) to 1,000 cfs (the lowest minimum flow). Any valve(s) would also have to be capable of meeting ramping rates contained in proposed Article 106 that specifies downramping rates as low as one inch per hour.

As discussed in section 3.3.2.2, partial flow continuation would be provided at the Lower Baker development through the use of the two new 750-cfs turbine-generator units in the proposed new auxiliary powerhouse. As designed, the two new units would add redundancy at Lower Baker enabling Puget to maintain minimum flows despite the loss of any one unit or the loss of the two new 750-cfs units.

Despite this added redundancy, it’s quite likely that over the term of any new license, circumstances would periodically force more than one unit off-line thus preventing Puget from meeting the new minimum flow and ramping rates proposed in the Settlement Agreement. As discussed in section 3.3.2.2, there have been 29 instances of unscheduled outages at the Lower Baker development from 1998 to 2002. A flow continuation valve(s) would greatly enhance Puget’s ability to guarantee meeting their minimum flow and ramping rate requirements during times of outages.

We reviewed Puget’s Exhibit F drawings of the proposed new auxiliary powerhouse that would be built on the site of the abandoned powerhouse at the Lower Baker development. Puget’s preliminary plans are to add two new 750-cfs turbine-generator units on two of the four existing but abandoned 8-foot diameter penstocks that are located at the site. We considered the scenario of adding regulating valves on the two

5-15

remaining penstocks that would not be tapped for use by the new units. Such valves could provide the needed 5,600 to 1,000 cfs range of flows in accordance with the most restrictive ramping rate of one inch per hour contained in Proposed Article 106. We estimate the cost of these valves and ancillary equipment to be $101,000 annually.

Puget has signed the Settlement Agreement which sets forth new minimum flows and ramping rates to improve conditions in the Lower Baker River and Skagit River for fish, including the threatened Chinook salmon. These proposed flows and ramping rates, and the two new 750-cfs turbine-generator units in the new auxiliary powerhouse, are substantial investments with an estimated annual cost of $2,423,200. Other staff-recommended fishery enhancement measures including fish propagation (Proposed Article 101), upstream fish passage (Proposed Article 103), and downstream fish passage (Proposed Article 105) would have an additional total estimated annual cost of $5,085,900. Based on current information, it appears that future outages may prevent these investments from being fully realized, and could lead to desiccation or freezing of some salmonid eggs and pre-emergent alevins. However, we are uncertain about how often these future outages may actually occur and lead to a loss of minimum flows below the project once the new units are installed.

Further, there is a high annual cost ($101,000) associated with construction of flow continuation facilities; therefore, we recommend that Puget first conduct an analysis of the benefits and need for these facilities.

We recommend Puget consult with NMFS, FWS, WDFW and the tribes and provide an analysis to determine the actual benefits of flow continuation at Lower Baker dam. The analysis should include: (1) the expected frequency of not being able to meet the minimum flows and ramping rates below the Lower Baker dam during project outages without installing flow continuation facilities, (2) the potential change in water surface elevations in the Baker and Skagit Rivers during project outages without installing flow continuation facilities, (3) the potential environmental impacts associated with items 1 and 2, and (4) an estimate of the improved project compliance capability associated with installing flow continuation facilities at the Lower Baker dam.

We recommend that the Commission reserve the right to require Puget to install such equipment based on this analysis.

Inspection, Reports and NotificationNMFS and WDFW recommend Puget schedule annual operation inspections for

agencies and tribes to ensure that fish protection measures are functioning as expected. NMFS and WDFW also recommend Puget permit the agencies and tribes to inspect the project at any reasonable time before, during or after construction to evaluate activities that may affect fish and wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. Both

5-16

agencies recommend Puget maintain and make available a record of project operations including the daily amount of diversion, spill and fluctuation for all flows. In addition, NMFS recommends Puget document all unusual occurrences such as load rejections; powerhouse mechanical problems; turbine, intake and fish screen failures; and sedimentation events. NMFS says such events should be brought to the agencies’ attention immediately.

Determining compliance with the terms and conditions in a license is the Commission’s responsibility; therefore, we do not recommend that Puget demonstrate operational compliance to entities other than the Commission. The Commission already conducts periodic safety and environmental compliance inspections as part of the administration of issued licenses.

However, providing the agencies and tribes with copies of operational records upon request and allowing access to the project in the performance of their official duties would help ensure that the agencies and tribes remain informed about the construction and operation of fish protection measures at the project. Agencies and tribes could then provide Puget with timely feedback which should help Puget implement fish protection measures contained in any license issued for the project. We estimate that there would be minimal additional costs for the above recommended measures, because we anticipate that many of these measures would be contained in Puget’s proposed fish protection plans under the Settlement Agreement, including Puget’s: (1) Fish Propagation Facilities Plan (Proposed Article 101); (2) Upstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan (Proposed Article 103); (3) Fish Connectivity Implementation Plan (Proposed Article 104); (4) Downstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan (Proposed Article 105); and (5) Flow Implementation Plan (Proposed Article 106). We find that the benefits of providing access, reports and notifying the agencies, as recommended by NMFS and WDFW, justify the minimal additional costs and would be in the public interest.

5.1.3 Modifications Recommended by Staff

Staff-recommended modifications to those measures in the Settlement Agreement we recommend (section 5.1.1) are discussed below:

Flood RegulationProposed Article 107 addresses flood control at the project and requires Puget, in

part, to review project operations and develop any procedures to address imminent flood events. Puget must file a report with any new procedures for Commission approval.

Should Puget’s above review result in new procedures to address imminent flood events, Puget should include in its report to the Commission, an analysis of how these

5-17

new procedures would affect the safety and adequacy of project structures. Such an analysis would be needed before the Commission could act on Puget’s report.

Large Woody DebrisProposed Article 109 would require Puget to develop a Large Woody Debris

(LWD) Management Plan for collecting and stockpiling LWD intercepted by the project. LWD could be stockpiled on lands anywhere within the Baker River basin and would be made available for others to use in various fishery and aquatic enhancement projects in the Baker and Skagit River basins.

We recommend this measure except for the provision that would allow Puget to stockpile LWD on lands anywhere within the Baker River basin. We recommend Puget stockpile LWD on lands within the project boundary, because suitable project lands exist for this purpose.

Aesthetic ManagementProposed Article 302 would require Puget to develop an Aesthetic Management

Plan for painting certain project facilities in neutral, earth-tone colors and for planting vegetation and landscaping around various project features. The article also requires Puget to provide funds to the Forest Service for vegetation management at Forest Service campgrounds, including Panorama Point, Horseshoe Cove, Shannon Creek, Bayview, and Maple Grove, and funds for two to four yet to be identified Forest Service developed sites and/or viewpoints that average less than 0.25-acre in size.

We recommend this measure except for the provision that requires Puget to provide funds to the Forest Service for vegetation management at Forest Service campgrounds and other Forest Service facilities. We find that these sites are not project facilities and would not fill any demonstrated project need. According to notes of a stakeholders meeting conducted on June 28, 2004, there is an uncertainty regarding how much money would be allocated for project and non-project facilities. To further support our finding, Proposed Article 302 states the funds provided to the Forest Service would be used to implement actions for non-project facilities and cites the above-mentioned campgrounds and the other Forest Service sites. We, therefore, do not recommend the Forest Service funding component of the measure.

At an estimated cost of $43,200 annually, we find the benefits of an Aesthetic Management Plan would justify the cost, and therefore, recommend that Puget develop and implement an Aesthetic Management Plan for the project.

Lower Baker Developed RecreationProposed Article 305 would require Puget to prepare a Lower Baker Developed

Recreation Plan, including acquisition of land for a Lake Shannon access site. The action

5-18

would entail identifying an additional access area suitable for the construction of a concrete boat launch, parking area, and day-use area, that has an existing access road. Puget would be allowed to construct this facility at an alternative, off-site location should Puget be unable to acquire a suitable and cost-effective access site on Lake Shannon.

Although a gravel boat launch exists at Lake Shannon and provides access to 0.1-mile of shoreline, public road access to the site is limited due to land ownership.

Since the Settlement Agreement and Proposed Articles were filed November 30, 2004, an agreement between Puget and Skagit County to continue to operate the Lake Shannon boat ramp was reached. In a May 10, 2005, filing, Puget notes that Skagit County proposes, under a separate agreement with Glacier Northwest, Inc. (Glacier), to maintain the road and provide flaggers to aid with the safety of vehicles using the road for public access. Puget owns 10 percent of the site, whereas the remaining 90 percent of the site and the access gravel road to the site are on land owned by Glacier. The agreement between Glacier and Skagit County affords the opportunity to provide public access to the existing Lake Shannon boat ramp. Given that the Lake Shannon boat ramp is a project-related facility in the lower Baker River basin, we recommend that Puget develop and implement a Lower Baker Developed Recreation Plan, which would provide for continued maintenance of this site.

At an estimated cost of $67,300 annually, we recommend that Puget develop and implement a Lower Baker Developed Recreation Plan for the project.

Upper Baker Visitor Information ServicesProposed Article 306 would require Puget to provide funds to the Forest Service

for: (1) constructing and operating an Upper Baker Visitor Information Station (VIS) with parking, information kiosks, and sanitation facilities at Baker Lake, (2) Forest Service staff for visitor information services at Baker Lake from Memorial Day through Labor Day, and (3) Forest Service staff at its VIS in Sedro-Woolley, Washington from Memorial Day through Labor Day.

Proposed Article 307 would require Puget to provide funds to the Forest Service for the planning, staffing, and production of materials to provide interpretive services in the project area, with an emphasis on Baker Lake. These funds would also be used by the Forest Service to prepare a comprehensive Interpretation and Education Plan to facilitate the above interpretive services.

As discussed in this DEIS, a need exists for interpretive services at the Baker River Project, which could be met through an Interpretation and Education Plan. Rather than Puget providing funds to the Forest Service as stipulated by Proposed Articles 306 and 307, we recommend Puget prepare an Interpretation and Education Plan for the

5-19

project and be responsible for its implementation. The plan should include provisions for the following: (1) constructing and operating the VIS at Baker Lake on lands within the project boundary; (2) staffing the VIS from Memorial Day through Labor Day; (3) information about the project, including recreational opportunities; (4) how the needs of the disabled are considered in the design of the VIS; and (5) operation and maintenance costs. The plan could be developed in concert with the cultural resources interpretive component of the HPMP.

Forest Service staffing at its VIS in Sedro-Woolley, Washington is unrelated to the project. We do not find a nexus between this VIS and the project because the VIS is located approximately 30 miles to the west of the project; thus, it would not fill any demonstrated project need. We do not consider Proposed Article 307 (provisions to provide funds to the Forest Service) in our comprehensive development determination for the project.

However, we do recommend, at an estimated cost of $20,900 annually, that Puget develop and implement an Interpretation and Education Plan for the Baker River Project.

Lower Baker TrailsProposed Article 311 would require Puget to develop a Lower Baker Trail Plan

and construct up to two miles of trails in the vicinity of the Town of Concrete. Proposed Article 315 would require Puget to maintain these trails once constructed.

We recommend the above measures be combined into one plan that addresses both the construction and maintenance of the trails. Trails could expand upon existing or proposed project recreation facilities, including our recommended recreation site on Lake Shannon, to the extent possible. The potential trail route should take into consideration potential effects on sensitive habitats, such as grizzly bear habitat, wetlands, ancient forests and areas with species of special concern. We note that if measures on non-project lands are found to be necessary for the project purposes, then those lands must be included in the project boundary.

At an estimated cost of $7,500 annually, we recommend Puget develop and implement a Lower Baker Trail Plan.

Dispersed Recreation ManagementProposed Article 308 would require Puget to provide funds to the Forest Service to

develop and implement a Dispersed Recreation Management Plan. The plan would provide for hardening three to six high priority sites identified in exhibit R-2 of the Dispersed Site Inventory Study (Study R-12).

5-20

The Dispersed Site Inventory Study indicates there are 10 dispersed sites in the vicinity of Lake Shannon and 203 dispersed sites near Baker Lake. Study results indicate that: (1) overall the occupancy rates for dispersed sites at Baker Lake did not exceed 20 percent of the total capacity in any season; for Lake Shannon, typically less than 10 percent; (2) there is evidence of vegetation loss, soil erosion, litter, and waste associated with the dispersed sites; and (3) there is inconsistent maintenance of the sites.

While we recognize dispersed recreation is an opportunity afforded by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, including in the project vicinity, demand for dispersed recreation is projected to slightly increase; thus, there is a need to manage dispersed recreation. Rather than Puget providing funds to the Forest Service, we recommend that Puget develop and implement a Dispersed Recreation Management Plan for three to six dispersed sites that would include hardening of the sites. Given the nexus between the project and recreational use at the dispersed recreation sites, Puget’s potential ability to manage three to six dispersed sites would compliment the Forest Service’s efforts to provide dispersed sites on Forest Service land in the project vicinity and subsequently protect environmental resources. The three to six dispersed sites to be improved and maintained should be brought into the Baker River Project boundary and made project facilities. In addition, as part of a Dispersed Recreation Management Plan, Puget and the appropriate parties should also identify any dispersed site(s) in the project boundary to be permanently closed due to low recreation use, adverse effects on environmental resources, or other criteria. These actions would ensure availability and maintenance of sites where they are likely to be utilized and have the least impact on environmental resources.

At an estimated cost of $39,000 annually, we recommend Puget develop and implement a Dispersed Recreation Management Plan.

Forest Service Road MaintenanceProposed Article 316 would require Puget to provide funds to the Forest Service

for routine maintenance of portions of up to 25 miles of Forest Service roads in the project vicinity. The Forest Service roads include FR 11 (Baker Lake Highway); FR 1106 (Depression Lake); FR 1107 (Anderson Road); FR 1118 (Horseshoe Cove and Bayview); FR 1122 (Lower Sandy Creek); FR 1136 (Lower Boulder Creek); FR 1137 (Panorama Point); FR 1142 (Baker Lake Resort); FR 1150 (Shannon Creek campground); and FR 1168 (Baker River Trailhead North).

Proposed Article 316 would also require Puget to provide funds to the Forest Service for paving FR 1106.

5-21

Proposed Article 317 would require Puget to continue to provide public access to the east side of Baker Lake using FR 1106 across Upper Baker dam, except as may be restricted by short-term public safety or project security requirements.

The Forest Service has not identified what project facilities are served by the above-mentioned roads; but, it has identified the actions to be funded for non-project facilities. Based on existing information, we do not find a nexus between the Baker River Project and any funded action required under Proposed Article 316. We find the roads, except for FR 1106, would serve non-project facilities, and therefore, we do not recommend including this measure in any license issued for the project.

In the license application (Puget Sound Energy, 2005), a reference is made that the Forest Service intends to permanently or seasonally close many spur roads off FR 11 near the northwest portion of Baker Lake to protect wildlife (such as, elk, mountain goat, and grizzly bear) or to convert road segments to recreation trails.

As discussed in this DEIS, the approximate 1-mile-long FR 1106 is located within the existing Baker River Project boundary and is used to service the project’s Kulshan Campground and West Pass Dike recreation facility. Upgrading and maintaining this road as identified under Proposed Article 316 would provide for continued and improved public access to Baker Lake. We find FR 1106 necessary to support recreation at, and provide access to, the project. Therefore, Puget should provide project-related road upgrades and maintenance on FR 1106 as a component of an Aesthetic Management Plan, which would address the need for maintenance at project access roads.

Water QualityProposed Article 401 would require Puget to comply with the terms and conditions

of any WQC and with certain water quality criteria for temperature, dissolved oxygen, total dissolved gas, and turbidity. However, Proposed Article 401 does not specify actual water quality criteria for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and total dissolved gas. Instead, it states that the “natural condition” for temperature and dissolved oxygen would be developed within 5 years of any license and that a site-specific standard may be needed for total dissolved gas. Further, it indicates that the above criteria are general and preliminary in that they would be modified by any future WQC.

Because the above water quality criteria have not been defined, are general and preliminary, and would be modified by any WQC issued for the project, we do not include these criteria in our recommended measures for water quality.

Deciduous Forest HabitatFluctuating water levels in the project’s reservoirs contribute to ongoing shoreline

erosion which affects deciduous forest habitat adjacent to project shorelines. In addition,

5-22

about 1 acre of deciduous forest habitat would be cleared to build the new auxiliary powerhouse at the Lower Baker development. Further, several staff-recommended fishery enhancement measures also have the potential to result in disturbance and/or clearing of deciduous forest, including fish propagation facilities, downstream fish passage facilities at both the Upper and Lower Baker developments, and fishway connectivity facilities between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake. In total, these fishery measures are expected to disturb about 19 acres of which a small portion would likely be deciduous forest habitat.

Proposed Article 502 would require Puget to acquire and manage deciduous forest habitat having 40 percent or greater deciduous tree composition for the purpose of increasing, protecting and enhancing habitat for deciduous forest dwelling species, including neotropical birds. This measure was included to mitigate the above mentioned impacts and, in large part, to mitigate for deciduous forest habitat lost by original project construction. Puget does not identify where it would acquire proposed parcels of lands nor does it identify the management actions that would be taken on these lands once acquired, or how many acres would be acquired. Implementing this measure, as appropriate, would cost an estimated $25,900 annually.

Deciduous forest habitat is in short supply in the Baker River basin and surrounding areas. Deciduous forest stands along riparian zones can provide locally unique wildlife habitat when certain structural features are present. Locally unique features can include variation and patchiness of understory vegetation, snags and downed logs, seasonal canopy cover, and stream shading.

We recommend Puget mitigate for those lands affected by the construction of new project facilities. However, we do not recommend that mitigation be provided for deciduous forest habitat lost by original project construction. The baseline for relicensing a project is the existing environment, not the environment as it existed before the project was built. Further, it is not necessary for Puget to mitigate for that deciduous forest habitat affected by shoreline erosion because our recommended Shoreline Erosion Control Plan addresses these impacts.

We recommend Puget develop a Deciduous Forest Habitat Plan that identifies that deciduous forest affected by the construction of new project facilities and mitigates for this loss by either enhancing existing deciduous forest on project lands or acquiring and managing this habitat on non-project lands as close to the project as possible. This plan should identify the number of acres to be enhanced or acquired, any management action to be taken on these lands, and the location of any proposed acquired parcels of non-project lands relative to project boundaries. Any non-project lands should be included in the project boundary. We estimate the annualized cost for preparing and implementing this plan to be $4,900, which is $21,000 less than Puget’s proposal.

5-23

Elk HabitatProposed Article 503 would require Puget to acquire about 300 acres of elk

foraging habitat in the Baker River basin or other areas of Washington State occupied by the Nooksack Elk Herd. Puget proposes this measure to mitigate for project-related recreation disturbance to elk and elk foraging habitat on project lands and lands adjacent to Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. Implementing this measure would cost an estimated $287,900 annually.

In its studies, Puget identified elk winter foraging habitat, rated from good to poor, on project and adjacent non-project lands to the west of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. Located on these lands, particularly adjacent to Baker Lake, are various project and non-project recreation facilities that are regularly used by recreationists, especially during the summer. Recreational use at these project and non-project recreational facilities disturbs elk in the vicinity of the project, displacing elk from foraging habitat. Moreover, new construction would require clearing some vegetation at the project which may currently provide habitat for elk.

Elk using project and adjacent non-project lands in the Baker River basin are part of the Nooksack Elk Herd which provides important recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual values to the residents of northwestern Washington. The Nooksack Elk Herd is the smallest herd in Washington and has decreased in size over the past 15 years.

We recommend Puget provide elk foraging habitat consistent with Proposed Article 503 with some modifications. Puget should first assess the feasibility of creating cultivated pastures or making other elk foraging habitat improvement on project lands, and secondarily consider acquiring foraging habitat and making improvements on non-project lands as close to the project as possible. According to Puget’s Elk Habitat Mapping Study (T-21), ample land rated as poor or marginal elk foraging habitat exists between the western shore of the project’s reservoirs and the Baker Lake highway. We recognize that much of this habitat would still be subject to project and non-project recreation disturbance but may be nevertheless suitable for elk foraging depending on the accuracy of Puget’s disturbance buffers contained in this study. Other habitat enhancement opportunities also exist between the Baker Lake highway and Mount Baker which are still relatively close to the project. We do not recommend Puget enhance habitat or acquire lands in accordance with the geographic preferences stated in Proposed Article 503 because it appears opportunities exist closer to the project to accomplish this measure.

We recommend Puget develop an Elk Habitat Plan with the above modifications. This plan should identify the number of acres to be enhanced or acquired and managed, any management action to be taken on these lands, and the location of any proposed

5-24

acquired parcels of non-project lands relative to project boundaries. Any non-project lands should be included in the project boundary.

Wetland HabitatProposed Article 504 would require Puget to acquire wetlands and to conserve

wetland-dependent species including native amphibians. Puget proposes this measure to mitigate the effects of fluctuating water levels on wetlands adjacent to Baker Lake and Lake Shannon and the effects to amphibians that use these habitats. Implementing this measure would cost an estimated $29,900 annually.

We recommend Puget enhance or acquire wetlands consistent with Proposed Article 504 with some modifications. Puget should first assess the feasibility of enhancing wetlands adjacent to Baker Lake or Lake Shannon or otherwise within current project boundaries. Other habitat enhancement and acquisition opportunities may exist in the Baker River basin or just downstream adjacent to the Skagit River, close to the project. We do not recommend Puget enhance habitat or acquire lands in accordance with the geographic preferences referenced in this measure because it appears opportunities exist closer to the project to accomplish this measure. Also, Puget has not identified how many acres of wetlands would be acquired or what management actions would be taken on those lands, once acquired. We recommend Puget prepare a Wetland Habitat Plan that provides this information and identifies where it would enhance or acquire proposed parcels of land. Any non-project lands should be included in the project boundary.

Floating Loon Nest PlatformsFluctuating water levels prevent common loons from successfully nesting adjacent

to Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. Proposed Article 507 would require Puget to install floating nest platforms on project reservoirs as mitigation for these effects. Implementing this measure would cost an estimated $5,000 annually.

We recommend Puget install floating nest platforms for common loons substantially in conformance with Proposed Article 507. However, this proposed article would allow Puget to provide funds to an unspecified third party for one common loon nesting platform on a non-project reservoir in lieu of one nesting platform on Baker Lake or Lake Shannon. We do not recommend installing a nesting platform on a non-project reservoir because opportunities exist on project reservoirs for these platforms.

Noxious Weeds, Special Status Plants and Carex flava

Proposed Articles 508, 509, and 510 would require Puget to control noxious weeds, manage special status plants, and manage Carex flava (yellow sedge), respectively, on lands adjacent to Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. Project lands that would be managed pursuant to the above three articles are identified in Puget’s

5-25

relicensing studies and in Appendix A-2 in the license application. Implementing these measures would cost an estimated $55,200 annually.

We recommend that Puget manage the above species but note that some of the identified lands to be managed extend beyond project boundaries. We recommend Puget include in the project boundary any lands it would manage for noxious weeds, special status plants, and Carex flava adjacent to Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. In addition, Appendix A-4 referenced in Proposed Article 510 refers to an off-site seed and/or plant collection program to reestablish Carex flava populations if necessary. We recommend any such program, if needed, be established on-site and within project boundaries. Finally, we recommend Puget develop a separate plan for each of the above proposed measures.

Late Seral ForestProposed Article 515 would require Puget to provide funding to the Forest Service

for its actual cost in thinning trees on 321 acres of second-growth forest on Forest Service lands within the Baker River basin. Current project operation has minor effects on existing late seral forest habitats through the influence of fluctuating reservoir water levels. Erosion occurs along portions of the reservoir shorelines under current conditions and can result in disturbance and loss of shoreline vegetation. In addition, Puget says the habitat edge created along the interface of reservoir shorelines and late seral forest may increase the risk of predation for mature and old-growth dependent species such as marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl by hawks, owls and corvids. Implementing this measure would cost an estimated $4,900 annually.

Although Puget’s studies indicate that shoreline erosion is occurring along 15.3 miles of Baker Lake and 20.5 miles of Lake Shannon, no information exists to indicate that this erosion is reducing the amount of late seral forest habitat adjacent to project reservoirs. In addition, the edge effects created by project reservoirs have been in place since the project’s original construction.

Nevertheless, we recommend the above measure because of staff-recommended new construction at the project. New construction would require clearing some vegetation at the Sulphur Creek site and at other locations for various fishery enhancements measures. Further, loud noise associated with heavy equipment and pile drivers could disturb both species which may nest adjacent to these sites. Even though the above effects would be minor and temporary, both the marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl are federally listed threatened species and the proposed measure would enhance habitat for these species and promote their recovery.

We recommend Puget prepare a Late Seral Habitat Enhancement Plan to thin trees on 321 acres of second-growth forest to enhance habitat for marbled murrelets and

5-26

northern spotted owls. Puget should be responsible for ensuring that this work is completed, not just responsible for providing funds to the Forest Service. Puget may contract with the Forest Service or any other third party to perform this work. We recommend Puget first assess thinning trees on lands within the project boundary. If suitable lands do not exist, we recommend Puget thin trees on lands as close to the project as possible. Our recommended Late Seral Forest Enhancement Plan should identify the location of any proposed parcels of non-project lands for enhancement, relative to project boundaries. We do not, however, recommend these lands be included in the project boundary because this measure would be a one-time action that would provide long-term benefits to both species.

5.1.4 Proposed Measures Not Recommended by Staff

We do not recommend the following proposed measures in the Settlement Agreement because they do not exhibit sufficient nexus to project resources or effects, would not result in benefits to non-power resources that would be worth their cost or would not contribute to the best comprehensive use of the basin.

Recreation Management ReportProposed Article 301 would require Puget to consult with the Recreation

Resources Group and file a report with the Commission each year that would contain, in summary: (1) the implementation status of Proposed Articles 302-315; (2) a compilation of the plans required by Proposed Articles 302-305, 311 and 318; (3) an updated Appendix A-5 showing any revisions to proposed funding; and (4) a summary of expenditures, earned interest, disbursements, adjustments for inflation, and other accounting information.

As discussed herein, we do not recommend the measures in the following Proposed Articles: 303-304, 309-310, 312-314, 316 and 318. For the remaining articles (302, 305-308, 311, and 315) that would be covered by Proposed Article 301, we recommend an individual plan for each article. Consequently, Proposed Article 301 is unnecessary.

Baker Lake Resort RedevelopmentProposed Article 303 would require Puget to prepare a plan to redevelop the Baker

Lake Resort into a campground with 30 to 50 campsites. Puget would also be required to provide funds to the Forest Service for redeveloping the resort. Implementing this measure would cost an estimated $45,000 annually.

Although Puget acquired a Forest Service special use permit in 1998 to operate the Baker Lake Resort, Puget states the resort has high annual operation and maintenance costs resulting in the facility operating at a loss. Puget does not intend to operate the

5-27

resort beyond the expiration of the current special use permit in 2008. It is our understanding that upon completion of redeveloping the resort, the Forest Service intends to operate and maintain the facility with funding from Puget.

Huckell/Weinman Associates (2004) note approximately half of all local recreation sites, boat launches, and camp sites are located within the project study area.39 According to the study, projected occupancy rates for Baker Lake Resort indicate the current supply of RV and campsites is sufficient to accommodate the expected demand over the next 20 years. The study concludes that for at least the next 10 years, the campsites at the resort represent surplus camping capacity in the Baker Lake area. We note that this surplus camping capacity may be the reason that the Forest Service proposes to decrease the existing 90 campsites at the resort to a range of 30 to 50 campsites under Proposed Article 303. Although the study indicates the existing 11 cabins are heavily utilized during the peak recreation season (July and August), under Proposed Article 303 these cabins would be removed.

Study results (Huckell/Weinman Associates, 2004) indicate that while future capacity shortfalls are expected among the existing Forest Service facilities, the facilities that are currently operated by Puget could be available to accommodate future demand. We find that redevelopment of Baker Lake Resort would not fill any demonstrated project need. Further, sufficient recreation is provided at the project through the other measures recommended by the staff. Therefore, we do not recommend including these measures in any license issued for the project.

Baker Reservoir Recreation Water SafetyProposed Article 304 would require Puget to: (1) develop a Water Safety Plan; (2)

provide funds to the Forest Service to install 8 to 12 bulletin boards at locations to be listed in the plan; (3) provide displays and tear-sheet maps at specified and non-specified sites; (4) install log booms and buoys to define swim areas at Horseshoe Cove and Baker Lake Resort and possibly other sites; and (5) provide funds to the Forest Service for implementing the plan. We estimate implementing this measure would cost $19,200 annually.

As required under the Commission’s regulations, Puget has developed and implements a public safety plan for the Baker River Project. Any additional public safety measures that Puget would propose to install on project lands and waters would require Puget to consult with the Commission and modify its existing public safety plan accordingly. We find the measures contained under Proposed Article 304 are not project-related and therefore, Puget should not be responsible for providing funds to the Forest

39 The project study area is defined as all lands within the project boundary and adjacent lands within an approximate 0.5-mile radius.

5-28

Service for such measures. Therefore, we do not recommend including these measures in any license issued for the project.

Bayview Campground RehabilitationProposed Article 309 would require Puget to provide funds to the Forest Service

for rehabilitating and reconstructing the Forest Service 28-unit Bayview Campground. Implementing this measure would cost an estimated $71,300 annually.

Proposed Article 602 (Required Funding) has a component entitled Recreation Adaptive Management (RAM) Fund that would provide funds to address increased development of Bayview Campground, the redeveloped Baker Lake Resort, and other Forest Service developed campgrounds. The RAM Fund would provide for enhancements at non-project facilities and “unusual trail and trailhead maintenance costs associated with natural events not under the control of the licensee.” See our discussion of the RAM Fund and other funds herein.

The Forest Service constructed Bayview Campground and continues to operate and maintain it. As noted in Puget’s license application (Puget Sound Energy, 2005; Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc., 2004), Bayview Campground, located near Baker Lake, is not well known and as a result, receives occasional use. In order to quantify “occasional use,” we reviewed a recreation visitor survey study (R13) (Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc., 2004); however, we were unable to find any survey results applicable to Bayview Campground. Regardless, we find that sufficient recreation is provided at the project through the other measures recommended by the staff and therefore, Bayview Campground would not fill any demonstrated project need. Therefore, we do not recommend including this measure in any license issued for the project.

Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead ConstructionProposed Article 310 would require Puget to provide funds to the Forest Service

for developing up to 6 miles of new trails in the project vicinity.

Under Proposed Article 314 (Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead Maintenance Funding) Puget would be required to provide funds to the Forest Service for operation and maintenance and facility replacement at the following Forest Service trails and trailheads: (1) the Baker River Trail; (2) Baker Lake Trail; and (3) Baker Lake North and South Trailheads. Implementing this measure would cost an estimated $37,100 annually.

We note, in particular, that the approximate 1.6-mile-long Baker River Trail does not provide access to project lands and waters, but rather traverses land northward into the National Park Service’s North Cascades National Park. The Forest Service (1990) does not appear to identify either the Baker Lake Trail or the Baker Lake North and South Trailheads in its system trail inventory. Nevertheless, information from the license

5-29

application (Puget Energy, 2005) indicates that both the trail and trailheads provide access to Maple Grove Campground and dispersed recreation sites. As previously noted, Maple Grove Campground is not a project facility.

We find that the above-mentioned trails would not fill any demonstrated project need. In addition, sufficient recreation is provided at the project through other measures recommended by the staff. Therefore, we do not recommend including these measures in any license issued for the project.

Developed Recreation MonitoringProposed Article 312 would require Puget to: (1) develop an Upper Baker

Developed Recreation Monitoring and Funding Plan; (2) monitor site use and occupancy levels at Horseshoe Cove, Panorama Point, Bayview, Shannon Creek, and Baker Lake Resort; and (3) expand capacity when the combined occupancy exceeds 60 percent of available sites. Data from monitoring the facilities in (2) would be provided to the Forest Service annually. Proposed Article 312 also requires Puget to provide funds to the Forest Service after consultation with the Forest Service in the event additional recreation sites are needed. Implementing this measure would cost an estimated $21,300 annually.

As previously discussed, the aforementioned sites are not project-related facilities. Under the Commission’s regulations at section 8.11, Puget would be required to monitor recreation use of the Baker River Project to determine whether existing recreation facilities are meeting recreation needs. Monitoring studies include the collection of annual recreation use data and every 6 years during the term of a license, a licensee files a report with the Commission on the monitoring results. Monitoring of recreation use is conducted at a licensee’s recreation facilities located at the project.

Puget should not be responsible for monitoring recreation use at non-project facilities. Therefore, we do not recommend including this measure in any license issued for the project.

Upper Baker Developed Recreation MaintenanceProposed Article 313 would require Puget to: (1) provide funds to the Forest

Service to operate and maintain Shannon Creek, Panorama Point, Bayview, Horseshoe Cove, Maple Grove, Baker Lake Resort, and any future recreation sites developed under Proposed Articles 303, 309, and 312; and (2) enter into a reimbursable maintenance agreement with the Forest Service concerning funding. The agreement, according to the proposed article, would set forth how Puget funds and receives credit for maintenance expenditures at Forest Service developed campgrounds. Implementing this measure would cost an estimated $57,300 annually.

5-30

As previously discussed the aforementioned sites are not project-related facilities and would not fill any demonstrated project need. Sufficient recreation is provided at the project through other measures recommended by the staff. Therefore, we do not recommend including this measure in any license issued for the project.

Law EnforcementProposed Article 318 would require Puget to coordinate and fund the development

of a Law Enforcement Plan for law enforcement personnel with jurisdiction in the project area and the river basin. The intent of the plan is to address law enforcement presence and public contact, emergency communications and response procedures, public safety and security, and protection measures for facilities and resources within the project area and the river basin. Implementing this measure would cost an estimated $100,000 annually.

While enforcement of the requirements of any license would be Puget’s responsibility, enforcement of local laws within the project area and the river basin is not a matter of Commission jurisdiction but is the responsibility of local law enforcement agencies. Therefore, we do not recommend including this measure in any license issued for the project.

Terrestrial Resources ManagementProposed Article 501 would require Puget to develop a Terrestrial Resource

Management Plan that would include the substantive planning and implementation requirements contained in Proposed Articles 502-504 and 506-514; provisions for monitoring and filing annual reports with the Commission; provisions for periodically reviewing the plan and; a summary of expenditures, earned interest, disbursements, adjustments for inflation, and other accounting information.

This proposed measure does not contain substantive requirements but instead would consolidate the planning and implementation requirements of most other proposed terrestrial measures into one plan.

We recommend each proposed terrestrial resource measure have it own plan with it own substantive requirements, monitoring and reporting provisions. We agree it may be advantageous to consolidate terrestrial resource reports into one annual filing for administrative purposes, but we do not recommend consolidating substantive requirements from multiple license articles into one plan. Consequently, we do not recommend including this measure in any license issued for the project.

Aquatic Riparian Habitat Protection, Restoration and EnhancementProposed Article 505 would require Puget to develop an Aquatic Riparian Habitat

Protection, Restoration and Enhancement Plan to acquire, protect and enhance low-

5-31

elevation bottomland ecosystems in the Skagit River basin focusing on habitat for anadromous salmonids, other aquatic species and riparian-dependent birds and amphibians. Implementing this plan would cost an estimated $369,600 annually.

Puget proposes this measure for multiple reasons, including: (1) to protect and enhance low-elevation bottomland ecosystems including backwater sloughs and other off-channel habitats supporting juvenile Chinook rearing; (2) to protect, mitigate any damage to, and enhance Skagit River riparian habitats that may be affected by modifications of project releases under the Proposed Action; (3) to enhance conditions in the project area and to substantially exceed any negative effects of fluctuating water levels on within-reservoir amphibian breeding habitats; (4) to acquire and enhance substantial acreage of bottomland habitats, including riparian forest; (5) to offset some of the unavoidable effects of the Proposed Action on bull trout habitat in the middle Skagit River; (6) to benefit the Oregon spotted frog if present, or reintroduced, to the Skagit River basin; (7) to acquire a substantial amount of habitat, including low elevation riparian forest habitat, used by bald eagles for perching and foraging; and (8) to provide habitat for bald eagle foraging and perching.

Our analysis indicates that fluctuating water levels in Baker Lake and Lake Shannon affect shoreline wetlands and wetland-dependent amphibians. In addition, fluctuating flows from the Lower Baker powerhouse affect anadromous salmonids in the Baker and Skagit Rivers. The impacts in the Skagit River decrease with distance downstream of the Baker River confluence (RM 56.5), and the interactive effects of both the Skagit River and Baker River Projects are largely attenuated near Mt. Vernon at RM 15.7. The measures in Proposed Article 505 are to be implemented within the low-elevation habitats of the Skagit River basin, which includes the Baker River and middle Skagit River basins – areas most affected by the Baker River.

The plan does not include enough detail to allow staff to assess the potential benefits of the specific measures that would be implemented by the plan, or the nexus of these measures to project impacts. We also note the high cost of the proposed Aquatic Riparian Habitat Protection, Restoration and Enhancement Plan ($369,600 annually). Moreover, we already recommend other enhancements for Chinook salmon, bull trout, amphibians and bald eagles in our recommended measures for upstream and downstream fish passage; increased minimum flows and ramping rates; fish passage between Baker Lake and Lake Shannon; more stable water levels in these two reservoirs; wetland enhancements; and bald eagle management as discussed. For these reasons, we are not recommending implementation of Proposed Article 505.

Mountain GoatsMountain goats are an important native game species in Washington, a WDFW

priority species, and a Forest Service management indicator species. Mountain goat

5-32

populations in the area around Mt. Baker have declined gradually over the past several decades. A shortage of usable summer habitat has been proposed as a factor contributing to this situation. Summer foraging habitat is composed of alpine shrubs and grasses; this habitat is believed to have decreased in area over the past 100 years due to encroachment by closed-canopy mountain hemlock forest. Goats may be restricted from using remaining suitable habitat by the presence of high-country recreationists.

According to Puget, existing project-induced recreation may account for a portion of the recreational use impact believed to be affecting mountain goats on their summer range in the Baker River basin and adjacent areas. Ongoing operation of the project is expected to continue to indirectly contribute somewhat to backcountry recreational activity at levels similar to current levels.

Proposed Article 516 would require Puget to provide funding to the Forest Service for its actual costs in making habitat improvements on 194 acres of mountain hemlock forest on Forest Service lands in or adjacent to the Baker River basin. This measure was included in the Settlement Agreement to mitigate for apparent backcountry hikers which may originate from the project. Implementing this measure would cost an estimated $4,300 annually.

Backcountry hiking and recreation activities which occur in high-elevation areas away from the project are not project effects. All existing project recreation facilities are in the immediate vicinity of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. All staff-recommended trails would also be in the lower elevations of the Baker River valley and not in elevations that would affect mountain goats. Therefore, we do not recommend this measure in any license issued for the project.

Grizzly BearsProposed Article 517 would require Puget to provide funding to the Forest Service

for its actual costs to implement a road closure program on Forest Service lands within the North Cascade Grizzly Bear Recovery Area. Puget proposes this measure to mitigate project-related recreation disturbance to available grizzly bear spring foraging habitat on project lands adjacent to Baker Lake and Lake Shannon. Implementing this measure would cost an estimated $6,900 annually.

In its studies, Puget identified potential grizzly bear spring foraging habitat including deciduous forest and lacustrine intermittent wetland habitats on project lands including lands occupied by project and non-project recreation facilities. Despite the availability of this habitat, grizzly bears do not appear to use project lands. The most recent grizzly sightings in the project vicinity include an observation of one adult and one young in the Baker River headwaters in 1991, over 10 miles from the project area, and a

5-33

grizzly bear track recorded in 1989 near Watson Peak, about 4.5 miles east of the Upper Baker dam.

Since grizzly bears apparently do not use project lands, we do not see a nexus between project effects and this species. Further, in this instance, we cannot require Puget to implement this measure (in lieu of providing funding to the Forest Service) because only the Forest Service can implement a road closure program on Forest Service lands as specified in the proposed article. Therefore, we do not recommend including this measure in any license issued for the project.

Contingency FundsPuget proposes to establish the TERF, RAM, HERC and CREF funds under

Proposed Article 602 primarily to mitigate unforeseen impacts not otherwise addressed in other proposed license articles. Funds may also be used to implement “alternative strategies” for resource protection, mitigation, and enhancement identified via adaptive management.

Each of the above funds would be used for actions to enhance, conserve, acquire and/or restore habitat for either terrestrial or aquatic species, cultural or recreation resources. Puget provides a few examples of how the above funds may be used, but does not provide specific measures to be implemented using the funds.

There is uncertainty as to whether the TERF, RAM, HERC and CREF funds would be needed or how the funds would be used; therefore, we are not able to evaluate the merits of specific measures or the nexus with project effects and we do not recommend including this measure in any license issued for the project. We are already recommending a comprehensive set of measures designed to protect, mitigate and enhance environmental resources at the project. Should unanticipated impacts occur in the future, the Commission could reopen the license for the purpose of considering additional measures.

Adaptive ManagementProposed Article 603 would require Puget to use adaptive management in its

implementation of all other proposed articles in the Settlement Agreement. Puget would be required to use “alternative strategies” when developing objectives, criteria and when using funds and would be required to use a “plan amendment process” when changed circumstances warrant.

The provisions in this article are too vague to be enforceable; they lack specificity regarding the implementation of individual measures. Consequently, we do not recommend including this measure in any license issued for the project.

5-34

5.2 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS

Under provisions of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project.

Section 10(j) of the FPA states that whenever the Commission believes that any fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency.

On March 16, 2005, NMFS filed Section 10(j) recommendations for the project. FWS40 and WDFW filed section 10(j) recommendations on March 21, 2005. We have preliminarily determined that one recommendation that is within the scope of section 10(j) may be inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA.

FWS and WDFW recommend Puget develop an Aquatic Riparian Habitat Protection, Restoration and Enhancement Plan (Proposed Article 505). This measure would require Puget to acquire, protect, and enhance low-elevation bottomland ecosystems in the Skagit River basin focusing on habitat for anadromous salmonids, other aquatic species, and riparian-dependent birds and amphibians. However, as discussed in section 5.1.4 of the draft EIS, the plan does not include enough detail to allow staff to assess the potential benefits of the specific measures that would be implemented by the plan, or the nexus of these measures to project impacts. We also note the high cost of the proposed Aquatic Riparian Habitat Protection, Restoration and Enhancement Plan ($369,600 annually). Therefore, we do not recommend this measure. We do recommend, however, improved upstream and downstream fish passage facilities (Proposed Articles 103 and 105); new minimum flows and ramping rates (Proposed Article 106); gravel and large woody debris augmentation (Proposed Articles 108 and 109); a shoreline erosion control plan (Proposed Article 110); a wetland habitat plan (Proposed Article 504); and a bald eagle management plan (Proposed Article 513), which would provide enhancement to similar resources targeted by the Aquatic Riparian Habitat Protection, Restoration and Enhancement Plan. Based on this information, we find that this recommendation may be inconsistent with the comprehensive planning standard of section 10(a) and the equal consideration provision of section 4(e) of the FPA.

Additionally, we do not recommend six measures that are outside the scope of section 10(j). Developing a Law Enforcement Plan (Proposed Article 318), adaptive management (Proposed Article 603), funding for mountain goats (Proposed Article 516),

40 Interior filed these recommendations on behalf of FWS.

5-35

funding for a grizzly bear road closure program (Proposed Article 517), and funding for the TERF, RAM, HERC, and CREF funds (Proposed Article 602), are not specific measures to protect fish and wildlife. Finally, the proposed Terrestrial Resource Management Plan, as described in Proposed Article 501, does not contain any substantive fish and wildlife measures but instead is an administrative plan that does not contain specific measures to protect fish and wildlife.

By letters filed March 21, 2005, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community made two recommendations pursuant to sections 10(j) and 10(a) of the FPA. The tribes recommend: (1) adopting the Settlement Agreement without material modification, and (2) issuance of a license before the current license expires on April 30, 2006. We consider the tribes’ recommendations under section 10(a) but not under section 10(j), because the tribes are not fish and wildlife agencies within the meaning of 18 CFR §4.30(b)(9)(i) of our regulations.

Table 5-1 summarizes federal and state recommendations, our conclusions on

whether or not the recommendations are within the scope of section 10(j), and whether or not we adopt the recommendations. Recommendations we consider to be outside the scope of Section 10(j) have been considered under Section 10(a) of the FPA and are addressed in the appropriate resource sections.

Table 5-1. Fish and wildlife agency recommendations. (Source: Staff)

Proposed Article Recommendation Agency

Within the scope of 10(j)?

Total Levelized Annual

Cost (2006$)

Recommend adopting?

101

Develop a Fish Propagation Facilities

Plan

NMFS, FWS,

WDFW Yes 974,000 Yes

102 Annual Report for Aquatic Measures

FWS, WDFW

No, not a specific measure to protect fish and wildlife.

13,400 Yes

5-36




Cost (2006$)

Recommend adopting?

103Develop an Upstream

Fish Passage Implementation Plan

FWS, WDFW Yes 623,300 Yes

104 Develop a Fish Connectivity Plan WDFW Yes 105,500 Yes

105Develop a Downstream

Fish Passage Implementation Plan

FWS, WDFW Yes 3,488,600 Yes

106 Develop a Flow Implementation Plan

NMFS, FWS,

WDFWYes 2,423,200 Yes

107 Flood Storage Operation WDFW


None Yes

108 Develop a Gravel Management Plan

NMFS, FWS,

WDFWYes 11,000 Yes

109 Develop a Large Woody Debris Management Plan

NMFS, FWS,

WDFWYes 23,500 Yes

5-37




Cost (2006$)

Recommend adopting?

110 Develop a Shoreline Erosion Control Plan


305Develop a Lower Baker Developed Recreation

PlanWDFW


67,300 Yes

318 Develop a Law Enforcement Plan WDFW


100,000 No

401Water Quality

Monitoring and Protection Plan

NMFS, FWS,

WDFWYes 36,500 Yes

501Develop a Terrestrial

Resource Management Plan

FWS, WDFW


6,700 No

502 Acquire and Manage Deciduous Forest Habitat


503 Acquire Elk Foraging Habitat


5-38




Cost (2006$)

Recommend adopting?

504 Acquire Wetland Habitat FWS, WDFW Yes 29,900 Yes

505

Develop an Aquatic Riparian Habitat

Protection, Restoration and Enhancement Plan

FWS, WDFW Yes 369,600 No

506 Osprey Nest Structures FWS, WDFW Yes 2,100 Yes

507 Loon Floating Nest Platforms


508 Manage Noxious Weeds FWS, WDFW Yes 22,700 Yes

509 Manage Special Status Plants FWS


17,500 Yes

511 Manage Decaying and Legacy Wood


512 Bald Eagle Night Roost Surveys


513 Develop a Bald Eagle Management Plan

FWS, WDFW Yes 700 Yes

5-39




Cost (2006$)

Recommend adopting?

514 Use Habitat Evaluation Procedures


515 Funding for Late Seral Forest Growth WDFW

No, funding is

not a specific measure to protect fish and wildlife.

4,900 Yes

516 Funding for Mountain Goat Habitat WDFW

No, funding is


4,300 No

517Funding for Grizzly Bear

Road Management WDFW

No, funding is


6,900 No

5-40




Cost (2006$)

Recommend adopting?

601 Baker River Coordinating Committee

NMFS, FWS,

WDFW


50,000 Yes

602Funding for TERF,

RAM, HERC, and CREF funds

FWS, WDFW

No, funding is


96,100 No

603 Adaptive Management FWS, WDFW


3,500 No

N/A Flow Continuation Valve NMFS, WDFW Yes 101,000 Yes

N/A Inspections, Records and Notification

NMFS, WDFW


None Yes

5.3 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

5-41

Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. section 803(a)(2)(A), requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by a project. Under section 10(a)(2)(A) of the FPA, federal and state agencies filed 75 comprehensive plans that address various resources in Washington. We determined that 24 comprehensive plans are relevant to the Baker River Project (table 5-1). We found no inconsistencies.

Table 5-1. Comprehensive Plans relevant to the Baker River Project.

Comprehensive Plan Agency

General management plan: North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. June 29, 1988.

National Park Service, Sedro Woolley, Washington

The fifth northwest electric power and conservation plan. Council Document 2005-07.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon.

Protected areas amendments and response to comments. Council Document 88-22.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon

Eighth amendment to the fishery management plan for commercial and recreational salmon fisheries off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California commencing in 1978. January 1978.

Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon

Statute establishing the State scenic river system, Chapter 79.72 RCW. 1977.

State of Washington, Olympia, Washington

Skagit County shoreline management master program. June 29, 1976.

Skagit County Planning Department, Mount Vernon, Washington

Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. April 1994.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest land and management plan. June 1990.

U.S. Forest Service, Seattle, Washington.

North American waterfowl management plan. May 1986.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Service

Fisheries USA: The recreational fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC

5-42

Comprehensive Plan Agency

Resource protection planning process (RP3) study unit transportation. August-September 1986.

Washington State Department of Community Development. Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington

Application of shoreline management to hydroelectric developments. September1986.

Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington

State wetlands integration strategy. December 1994. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington

Hydroelectric project assessment guidelines. 1987. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington

Strategies for Washington’s wildlife: 1987-1993. May 1987.

Washington State Department of Game, Olympia, Washington

State of Washington natural heritage plan. 1987. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington

Final habitat conservation plan. September 1997. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington

Washington State hydropower development/resource protection plan. December 1992.

Washington State Energy Office, Olympia, Washington

An assessment of outdoor recreation in Washington State: A State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning (SCORP) Document 2002-2007. October 2002.

Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Olympia, Washington

Voices of Washington: Public opinion on outdoor recreation and habitat issues. November 1995.

Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Olympia, Washington

State of Washington outdoor recreation and habitat: Assessment and policy plan 1995-2001.November 1995.

Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Tumwater, Washington

Washington State trails plan: policy and action document. June 1991.

Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Tumwater, Washington

Washington State scenic river assessment. September Washington State Parks & Recreation

5-43

Comprehensive Plan Agency1988. Commission, Olympia, Washington

Scenic rivers program-report. January 1988. Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission, Olympia, Washington

5.4 RELATIONSHIP OF LICENSCE PROCESS TO LAWS AND POLICIES

5.4.1 Water Quality Certification

Pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Commission regulations, Puget is required to file as part of its license application a copy of any WQC provided by the State of Washington or proof that such a certificate has been applied for or the requirements waived. On March 8, 2005, Puget submitted an application for a WQC to Ecology as required by section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Puget then withdrew and refilled its WQC application with Ecology by letter dated March 7, 2006. Ecology has one year to issue either a WQC, a waiver or deny Puget’s WQC application.

5.4.2 Coastal Zone Consistency Certification

Section 307(c)(3) of the Coastal Zone Management Act 16 U.S.C. § 1456 (c)(3)(A), requires all federally licensed and permitted activities to be consistent with approved state coastal zone management programs. If a project is located within a coastal zone boundary or if a project affects a resource located in the boundaries of the designated coastal zone, an applicant must certify that the project is consistent with the state’s coastal zone management program.

On April 5, 2005, Puget submitted a request for coastal zone consistency determination to Ecology which has 6 months or until October 5, 2005, to act upon Puget’s request. However, by letters dated October 4, 2005, and February 2, 2006, Puget and Ecology mutually agreed, pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 930.60 (a)(3), to extend Ecology’s time to act on Puget’s request until June 2, 2006.

5.4.3 Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or cause the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. Our analyses of project effects on these species are presented in section 3.3.6.2, Threatened and Endangered Species, and our final recommendations are presented in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

5-44

The following fish and wildlife species are federally listed under the ESA and are known to exist in the project area: Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS (Salvelinus confluentus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis), gray wolf (Canis lupus), and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos). No federally listed plant species are known to occur in the project area.

The Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU is known to occur in the Baker and Skagit River basins and is listed as threatened under the ESA. The majority of Chinook salmon returning to the project are part of the Skagit River population. A limited numbers of spring Chinook salmon returning to the Lower Baker fish trap have been introduced on an experimental basis into the upstream Baker watershed. The Proposed Action would improve habitat conditions for Chinook salmon downstream of the project. Improved fish passage, handling, and transport facilities, and reduced duration of exposure of the reservoir inundation zone would improve the potential for increasing the number of Chinook salmon produced in the upper watershed. It is likely that some incidental take of Chinook salmon would occur due to operation and construction at the project. Therefore, the Proposed Action may affect and is likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon and designated critical habitat for this species.

The Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS is found in the project area and is listed as threatened under the ESA. Bull trout found in project reservoirs and tributaries are considered part of the Lower Skagit River subpopulation, which is the only one considered “strong” by the FWS in the Puget Sound analysis area. The Proposed Action would improve migration conditions for adult and subadult bull trout in the Skagit River downstream of the project. Improved fish passage, handling, and transport facilities, and reduced duration of exposure of the reservoir inundation zone would improve conditions for bull trout upstream of the Lower Baker Development. It is likely that some incidental take of bull trout would occur due to operation and new construction at the project. Therefore, the Proposed Action may affect and is likely to adversely affect Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout and designated critical habitat for this species.

We conclude that construction of the new powerhouse could temporarily displace bald eagles. However, the Proposed Action would result in reduced levels of fish stranding and redd dewatering, which would help contribute to greater fish production and provide salmonid food resources for bald eagles. The Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles.

Minor clearing of vegetation during project construction activities and increased noise levels associated with heavy equipment use could potentially cause short-term disturbances to marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls. Overall, the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls.

5-45

The occurrence of gray wolves and grizzly bears in the Baker River basin is very infrequent. The project could influence the distribution of deer and elk which are primary prey for the gray wolf and could result in increased human activity which could affect foraging habitat for grizzly bears. The Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect gray wolves and grizzly bears.

5.4.4 Essential Fish Habitat

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce regarding all actions or proposed actions that are authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH.

The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for three species of Pacific salmon: Chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon. Essential Fish Habitat for coho and Chinook salmon includes all those streams, ponds, lakes, wetlands, and other waterbodies currently or historically accessible to coho and Chinook salmon in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and California, except upstream of impassable barriers identified by the PFMC. EFH for pink salmon includes all currently or historically accessible waters in the Puget Sound region.

Currently, the Baker River Project adversely affects Chinook, coho, and pink salmon EFH, specifically by modifying flow in the downstream Skagit River. However, staff-recommended measures for the project would improve conditions for Chinook, coho, and pink salmon EFH. As discussed in section 3.0, we recommend the following enhancement measures that would also enhance Chinook, coho, and pink salmon EFH: (1) continuing and expanding fish propagation and enhancements (Proposed Article 101); (2) improving upstream fish passage (Proposed Article 103); (3) improving downstream fish passage (Proposed Article 105); (4) improving flows below Lower Baker dam (Proposed Article 106); (5) augmenting gravel in the Baker and Skagit Rivers (Proposed Article 108); and (6) transporting LWD from project reservoirs to stockpile areas for future habitat enhancement projects (Proposed Article 109).

In summary, we conclude that relicensing the project would continue to adversely affect Chinook, coho, and pink salmon EFH, but that the above staff-recommended measures would reduce these effects compared to current conditions.

5.4.5 National Historic Preservation Act

The NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) (as amended) requires federal agencies to manage cultural resources under their jurisdiction and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a National Register. The law also provides for the creation of SHPOs

5-46

to facilitate the implementation of federal cultural resource policy at the state level, and for the responsible federal agency (i.e., agency official) to consult with Native American tribes who attach religious or cultural importance to cultural resources under their jurisdiction. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed in, or eligible for listing in the National Register. If the agency official determines that the undertaking may have adverse effects on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register, the agency official must afford an opportunity for the Advisory Council to comment on the undertaking. The relicensing of the Baker River Project is considered an undertaking, and the Commission acts as the agency official.

Puget, under the authority of the Commission, has conducted Section 106 consultation with the OAHP, Forest Service, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, and Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, and other interested parties since 2000. This consultation included scheduled collaborative cultural resource workgroup meetings, as well as individual meetings conducted by the applicant. Commission staff will be continuing Section 106 consultations. Under the Proposed Action, Puget would implement its HPMP which would provide specific guidance to applicant personnel about the treatment of historic, archaeological, and traditional cultural resources during the term of any new license. Puget would also train field and supervisory staff in appropriate procedures to follow in the event of unanticipated discoveries of cultural resource material.

5-47

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

Abbe, T.B. and D.R. Montgomery. 1996. Large woody debris jams, channel hydraulics and habitat formation in large rivers. Regulated Rivers: Resources and Management 12:201–221.

AESI (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.). 2003. Baker River Hydroelectric Project, reservoir shoreline erosion and deposition Study A-14a, Skagit and Whatcom Counties, Washington. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Bellevue, Washington. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., Kirkland, Washington. March 31, 2003.

Almack, J.A., W.L. Gaines, P.H. Morrison, J.R. Eby, R.H. Naney, G.F. Wooten, S.H. Fitkin, and E.R. Garcia. 1993. North Cascades grizzly bear ecosystem evaluation. Final Report. Denver, Colorado.

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for land birds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon and Washington. Prepared for Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. Prepared by American Bird Conservancy, Corvallis, Oregon. March 2000.

Andrews, A. and D. Stuart. 2003. Economic impacts of agriculture in Skagit County, WA. American Farmland Trust, Puyallup, Washington. October 10, 2003.

Anthony, R. G. and F. B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(1):148–159.

Applegarth, J.S. 1994. Wildlife surveying and monitoring methods: Amphibians and reptiles of the Eugene District. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Eugene, Oregon.

Bain, M.B., J.T. Finn, and H.E. Booke. 1988. Streamflow regulation and fish community structure. Ecology 69:382–392.

Bauersfeld, K. 1978. Stranding of juvenile salmon by flow reductions at Mayfield dam on the Cowlitz River, 1976. Technical Report 36. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.

Baxter, J.S., E.B. Taylor, R.H. Devlin, J. Hagen, and J.D. McPhail. 1997. Evidence for natural hybridization between Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in a North central British Columbia Watershed. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:421–429.

Beak (Beak Consultants, Inc.) 1992a. 1991 marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) surveys, Hydro West: Skagit County, Washington. Beak Consultants, Inc., Kirkland, Washington.

6-1

Beak. 1992b. Wildlife surveys on proposed small hydro projects: Park Creek, O’Toole Creek, Irene Creek, Anderson Creek. Beak Consultants, Inc., Kirkland, Washington.

Beak. 1992c. Report on spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) surveys in the Anderson Creek drainage, Whatcom County, Washington. Beak Consultants, Inc., Kirkland, Washington.

Beak. 1992d. Report on spotted owl surveys in the Park Creek drainage, Whatcom County, Washington. Beak Consultants, Inc., Kirkland, Washington.

Beamer, E.M. and R.A. Henderson. 1998. Juvenile salmonid use of natural and hydromodified stream bank habitat in the mainstem Skagit River, Northwest Washington. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington.

Beamer, E., T. Beechie, B. Perkowski, J. Klochak. 2000. Application of the Skagit Watershed Council’s strategy, river basin analysis of the Skagit and Sammamish basins: Tools for salmon habitat restoration and protection. Prepared by Habitat Restoration and Protection Committee of the Skagit Watershed Council, Mt. Vernon, Washington. February 2000. http://www.skagitwatershed.org/pdf, accessed July 23, 2003.

Beauchamp, D.A. 1995. Riverine predation on sockeye salmon fry migrating to Lake Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15:358–365.

Beck and Associates. 1989. Skagit River salmon and steelhead fry stranding studies. Report to Seattle City Light, Seattle, Washington. March 1989.

Beechie, T., E. Beamer, and L. Wasserman. 1994. Estimating Coho salmon rearing habitat and smolt production losses in a large river basin, and implications for habitat restoration. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:797–811.

Benda, L.E. and J.C. Sias. 1998. Landscape controls on wood abundance in streams. Earth Systems Institute, Seattle, Washington.

Berejikian, B.A., E.P. Tezak, S.L. Schroder, C.M. Knudsen, and J.J. Hard. 1997. Reproductive behavioral interactions between wild and captive reared Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). ICES Journal of Marine Science 54:1,040–1,050.

Bilby, R.E. and G.E. Likens. 1980. Importance of organic debris dams in the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Ecology 61:1107–1113.

8-2

Biota Pacific and R2 (Biota Pacific Environmental Sciences and R2 Resource Consultants). 2003. Potential future vegetation of the Baker River Project area. Relicense Study T7-B. Final Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Biota Pacific Environmental Sciences, Inc., Bothell, Washington, and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. August 5, 2003.

Biota Pacific, R2, and AESI (Biota Pacific Environmental Sciences, R2 Resource Consultants, and Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.). 2003. Historic vegetation of the Baker River Project area. Relicense Study T7. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Biota Pacific Environmental Sciences, Inc., Bothell, Washington; R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington; and Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., Kirkland, Washington. February 20, 2003.

Bishop, S. and A. Morgan. 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural Chinook stocks in the coastal and Puget Sound areas of Washington State. Prepared for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, Washington. January 8, 1996.

Bisson, P.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Bryant, C.A. Dolloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, M.L. Murphy, K.V. Koski, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: Past, present, and future. In: Streamside Management: Forestry and Fisheries Interactions. E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy (eds.). University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. pp. 143–190.

Black, S.H., M. Shepard, and M.M. Allen. 2001. Endangered invertebrates: The case for greater attention to invertebrate conservation. Endangered Species Update 18:41–49.

Blakley, A., B. Leland, and J. Ames. 2000. 2000 Washington State salmonid stock inventory coastal cutthroat trout. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Blukis-Onat, A. and J.L. Hollenbeck. 1981. Inventory of Native American religious use, practices, localities, and resources, study area on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Washington State. Report prepared for the Forest Service, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Seattle, Washington.

Borland, W.M. 1971. Reservoir sedimentation, Chapter 29. In: River Mechanics, Volume II. H.W. Shen (ed). Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Bortleson, G.C., R.T. Wilson, and B.L. Foxworthy. 1977. Water-quality effects on Baker Lake of recent volcanic activity at Mount Baker, Washington. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1022-B. Prepared in cooperation with Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.

8-3

BRC. 1999. Minutes of the Baker River Committee meeting number 99-3. June 10, 1999.

BRC. 2001. Minutes of the Baker River Committee meeting number 01-2. June 20, 2001.

BRC. 2002a. Minutes of the Baker River Committee meeting number 02-4. September 18, 2002.

BRC. 2002b. Minutes of the Baker River Committee meeting number 02-3. June 19, 2002.

Brusven, M.A. 1984. The distribution and abundance of benthic insects subjected to reservoir-release flows in the Clearwater River, Idaho, USA. pp. 167–180. In: Regulated Rivers. A. Lillehammer and S.J. Saltveit (eds.). Universitetsforlaget AS, Norway.

Burkett, E.E. 1995. Marbled murrelet food habitats and prey ecology. pg. 223–246. In: Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds.). Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.

Bush, K. 2004. Baker River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing, FERC Project No. 2150, status of traditional cultural properties investigations. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Equinox Research and Consulting International, Inc., Sedro Woolley, Washington. March 2, 2004. (Contains privileged information and not released to the public.)

Bush, K. and J. Green. 2004. Baker River Hydroelectric Project relicensing process FERC Project No. 2150: Technical Report - Ethnographic Overview. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Equinox Research and Consulting International, Inc., Sedro-Woolley, Washington. April 2004.

Cannamela, D.A. 1993. Hatchery steelhead smolt predation of wild and natural juvenile Chinook salmon fry in the upper Salmon River, Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Carlson, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 22:361–369.

Cederholm, C.J., M.D. Kunze, T. Murota, and A. Sibatani. 1999. Pacific salmon carcasses: Essential contributions of nutrients and energy for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Fisheries 24(10):6–15.

8-4

Census (U.S. Census Bureau). 2000a. Summary File 3 (SF 3), Whatcom County, Washington, available at http://factfinder.census.gov, accessed December 12, 2005.

Census. 2000b. Summary File 3 (SF 3), Skagit County, Washington, available at http://factfinder.census.gov, accessed December 12, 2005.

Census. 2002 Census of agriculture - county data. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service.

Chapman, D.W., D.E. Weitkamp, T.L. Welsh, M.B. Dell, and T.H. Schadt. 1986. Effects of river flow on the distribution of Chinook salmon redds. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:537–547.

Chen, C.N. 1975. Design of sediment retention basins. pp. 285–298. In: Proceedings of the National Symposium on Urban Hydrology and Sediment Control, Lexington, Kentucky.

City of Seattle. 2001. Seattle’s urban blueprint for habitat protection and restoration review draft. City of Seattle’s Salmon Team, Seattle, Washington. June 2001.

Collins, B.D., D.R. Montgomery, and A.D. Haas. 2002. Historical changes in the distribution and functions of large wood in Puget Lowland rivers. Canada Journal of Fisheries and Aquatics Science 59:66–76.

Collins, J. 1973. Valley of the Spirits, the Upper Skagit Indians of Western Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Concrete. 2001. Comprehensive plan, adopted May 1999, amended 2001. Town of Concrete, Washington.

Concrete. 2003 Town of Concrete web page. www.concrete-wa.com, accessed March 14, 2003. Concrete, Washington.

Connor, E.J. and D.E. Pflug. 2004. Changes in the distribution and density of pink, chum, and Chinook salmon spawning in the upper Skagit River in response to flow management measures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:835–852.

Coombs, H.A. 1989. The Baker Project. pp. 174–186. In: Engineering Geology in Washington, Volume I. R.W. Glasser (ed). Bulletin 78. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Olympia, Washington. (as cited in Puget, 2002c).

8-5

http://www.concrete-wa.com/

http://factfinder.census.gov/

http://factfinder.census.gov/

Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2000. Biological assessment for the Upper Baker Lake flood control agreement, 2000–2006 extension. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. August 2000.

Corps. 2001. Section 206 preliminary restoration plan web page. http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/Little_baker_ PRP.pdf, accessed December 10, 2004.

Cramer, S.P., J.Norris, P.R.Mundy, G.Grette, K.P. O’Neal, J.S. Hogle, C.Steward, and P. Bahls. 1999. Status of Chinook salmon and their habitat in Puget Sound: Volume 1 Executive Summary and synthesis of driving factors. Prepared for the Coalition of Puget Sound Businesses. June 1999.

Cuenco, M.L., T.W.H. Backman, and P.R. Mundy. 1993. The uses of supplementation to aid in natural stock restoration. In: Genetic Conservation of Salmonid Fishes. J.G. Cloud and G.H. Thorgaard (eds.). Plenum Press, New York, New York.

Dambacher, J.M., M.W. Buktenica, and G.L. Larson. 1992. Distribution, abundance and habitat utilization of bull trout and brook trout in Sun Creek, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. pp. 30–36. In: Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. P.L. Howell and D. V. Buchanan (eds.). Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon.

Davison, M.A. 2002. Washington State elk herd plan: North Cascade (Nooksack) elk herd. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Dean, T., Z. Ferdana, J. White, and C. Tanner. 2000. Skagit estuary restoration assessment Puget Sound, Washington. People for Puget Sound; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Seattle, Washington. May 30, 2000.

Drost, B.W. and R.E. Lombard. 1978. Water in the Skagit River Basin, Washington. Water-Supply Bulletin 47. Washington Department of Ecology; U.S. Geological Survey, Lacey, Washington. (as cited in Puget, 2002a).

Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2000. Final 1998 303(d) list—WRIA 4 web page. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/ wq/303d/1998/wrias/wria4.pdf, accessed March 14, 2003.

Ecology. 2004. River and stream water quality monitoring web page. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ programs/eap/fw_riv/rv_main.html, accessed December 10, 2004. Washington Department of Ecology.

EDAW. 2004a. Evaluation report for the 5-year status review of the marbled murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

8-6

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/%20wq/303d/1998/wrias/wria4.pdf

http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/Little_baker_%20PRP.pdf

http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/Little_baker_%20PRP.pdf

Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon. Prepared by EDAW, Seattle, Washington. March 2004.

EDAW. 2004b. Baker River Project aesthetic/visual resource study. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by EDAW, Seattle, Washington. May 2004.

EDAW, Hamer Environmental, and R2. 2003. Grizzly bear spring foraging habitat study. Relicense Study T12. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by EDAW, Inc., Seattle, Washington; Hamer Environmental, Mt. Vernon, Washington; and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. November 12, 2003.

EDAW and University of Illinois. 2003. Elk habitat mapping study. Relicense Study T21. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by EDAW, Inc., Seattle, Washington and University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. December 31, 2003.

Edmundson, J.A. and A. Mazumder. 2001. Linking growth of juvenile sockeye salmon to habitat temperature in subarctic Alaskan lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:644–662.

Egan, R. 1978. Salmon spawning ground data report. Project Report No. 51. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. April 1978.

Einum, S. and I.A. Fleming. 2001. Implications of stocking: ecological interactions between wild and released salmonids. Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research 75:56–70.

Emmons, A., C.W. Gray, and P. O’Bannon. 2004. Historic resource survey for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Relicensing of the Baker River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2150), Skagit and Whatcom counties, Washington. Unpublished Final Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Historical Research Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. February 2004.

English, D. and A. Home. 1996. Estimating Recreation Visitation Response to Forest Management Alternatives in the Columbia River Basin. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 21(4):313-314.

Erman, N.A. 1996. Status of aquatic invertebrates—Sierra Nevada ecosystem project. Final report to Congress. Volume II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. University of California Davis, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Davis, California.

8-7

Esser, K. 1999. Landslide hazard in the Himalaya. Noragric Centre for International Environment and Development Studies, Agricultural University of Norway, Norway. Noragric Brief No. 99/4. February 1999.

Everest, F.H. and D.W. Chapman. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial interaction by juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:91–100.

Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants. 2004. Hydrologic monitoring of wetland WB-30 (Baker River Project relicense study T-23). Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Evergreen Aquatic Resource Consultants, Kirkland, Washington. December 20, 2004.

Farrow, L. 1995. Baker Lake administrative elk study. U.S. Forest Service, Mt. Baker Ranger District, Sedro Woolley, Washington. September 1995.

Fausch, K.D. 1984. Profitable stream positions for salmonids relating specific growth rate to net energy gain. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62:441–451.

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1991. Offer of settlement filed April 30, 1991 by the City of Seattle, Washington, application for new license for Skagit River Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 553-000 and EL 78-36-000. City of Seattle, Washington.

Flagg, T.A. and C.E. Nash (eds.). 1999. A Conceptual framework for conservation hatchery strategies for Pacific salmonids. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-38. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1993. Flora of North America, Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.

Forest Service (U.S. Forest Service). 1974. Agriculture handbook 462: National Forest landscape management, Volume II.

Forest Service. 1988. Record of decision for the management of competing and unwanted vegetation in the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.

Forest Service. 1989. Mediated agreement for managing competing and unwanted vegetation in the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.

8-8

Forest Service. 1990. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest land and resource management plan. Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. June 1990.

Forest Service. 1995. Agriculture handbook 701: Landscape aesthetics, a handbook for scenery management.

Forest Service. 1999. Forest-wide environmental assessment for noxious weed management on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.

Forest Service. 2001. Mount Baker Ranger District visitor information map. Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Mountlake Terrace, Washington. 2001.

Forest Service. 2002a. Baker River watershed analysis. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. August 2002.

Forest Service. 2002b. Existing information assessment, Baker Lake Relicensing, wildlife resources. Mt. Baker Ranger District, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. November 7, 2002.

Forest Service. 2003a. Existing information assessment, Baker Lake Relicensing, botanical resources: Continuing impacts from habitat inundation. Mt. Baker Ranger District, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. February 10, 2003.

Forest Service. 2003b. Existing information assessment, Baker Lake Relicensing, botanical resources: Effects to suitable habitat and species of concern from project operations. Mt. Baker Ranger District, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. February 12, 2003.

Forest Service. 2003c. Existing information assessment, Baker Lake relicensing, botanical resources: Noxious weeds. Mt. Baker Ranger District, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. February 10, 2003.

Forest Service. 2004a. Regional Forester sensitive species list web page. http://www.or.blm.gov/ ISSSP/USFSPolicy.htm, accessed July 21, 2004. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Forest Service. 2004b. Draft environmental impact statement for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program preventing and managing invasive plants. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. August 27, 2004.

Forest Service. 2005. The Summit at Snoqualmie - Master Development Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. King County, Washington. December 2005.

8-9

Forest Service and BLM (U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management). 1994a. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Volumes I and II. Portland, Oregon.

Forest Service and BLM. 1994b. Record of decision for the amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland Oregon.

Forest Service and BLM. 2001. Record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation measures standards and guidelines. Portland, Oregon.

Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1980. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.

FWS. 1982. Grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. January 29, 1982.

FWS. 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

FWS. 1987a. The northern spotted owl status review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. December 14, 1987.

FWS. 1987b. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. August 3, 1987.

FWS. 1992. Recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. Final Draft. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. December 1992.

FWS. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. September 1993.

FWS. 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

FWS. 1998. Bull trout interim conservation guidance. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington. December 9, 1998.

8-10

FWS. 2001. Upper Baker River delta bull trout survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington.

FWS. 2003. Biological opinion and letter of concurrence for effects to bald eagles, marbled murrelets, northern spotted owls, bull trout, and designated critical habitat for marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls from Olympic National Forest program of activities for August 5, 2003, to December 21, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington. Revised September 2004.

FWS. 2004a. Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species and critical habitat; candidate species; and species of concern in western Washington web page. http://westernwashington.fws.gov/se/SE_List/endangered_ Species.asp, accessed November 29, 2004. Olympia, Washington.

FWS. 2004b. Marbled murrelet five-year review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. August 31, 2004.

FWS. 2004c. Marbled murrelet web page. http://arcata.fws.gov/es/birds/m_murrelet.html, accessed January 4, 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, California.

FWS. 2004d. Northern spotted owl five-year review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. November 15, 2005

FWS. 2004e. Recovery plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound distinct population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Draft. Volume I (of II): Puget Sound Management Unit. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

FWS. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bull Trout; Final Rule. September 26, 2005.

FWS and Census (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau). 2001. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, DC. October 2002.

Gardner, C.A., K.M. Scott, C.D. Miller, B. Meyers, W. Hildreth, and P.T. Pringle. 1995. Potential volcanic hazards from future activity of Mount Baker, Washington. USGS Open-File Report 95-498.

Gislason, J.C. 1985. Aquatic insect abundance in a regulated stream under fluctuating and stable diel flow patterns. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:39–46.

8-11

http://westernwashington.fws.gov/se/SE_List/endangered_Species.asp

Goetz, F. 2002. Unpublished data on bull trout research in the Snohomish River and Puget Sound (in progress). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington.

Hagen, J. and E.B. Taylor. 2001. Resource Partitioning as a Factor Limiting Gene Flow in Hybridizing Populations of Dolly Varden Char (Salvelinus malma) and Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:2,037–2,047.

Hallock, D. 2002. A water quality index for Ecology’s stream monitoring program. Ecology Publication No. 02-03-052. Washington Department of Ecology, Bellevue, Washington. November 2002.

Hamer Environmental. 2002a. Oregon spotted frog inventory of the Baker River watershed. Relicense Study T11. Final Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA. Prepared by Hamer Environmental, Mt. Vernon, Washington. November 20, 2002.

Hamer Environmental. 2002b. Terrestrial mollusk surveys for survey and manage species in the Baker Lake Project area. Relicense Study T13. Final Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Hamer Environmental, Mt. Vernon, Washington. November 15, 2002.

Hamer Environmental. 2003. Wildlife analysis species accounts. Relicense Study T4. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Hamer Environmental, Mt. Vernon, Washington. August 24, 2003.

Hamer Environmental. 2004. Rare plant surveys for the Baker River floating surface collector (FSC) and Lower Baker powerhouse expansion sites. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Hamer Environmental, Mt. Vernon, Washington. August 1, 2004.

Hamer Environmental and R2 (Hamer Environmental and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.). 2003a. Rare plant surveys for the Baker River Project area. Relicense Study T16. Final Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Hamer Environmental, Mt. Vernon, Washington, and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. August 22, 2003.

Hamer Environmental and R2. 2003b. Rare plant addendum for the Baker River Project area. Relicense Study T16. Final Addendum. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Hamer Environmental, Mt. Vernon, Washington and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. December 16, 2003.

8-12

Hamer Environmental and R2. 2003c. Invasive weed surveys in the Baker River Hydroelectric Project area. Relicense Study T6. Final Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Hamer Environmental, Mt. Vernon, Washington and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. December 23, 2003.

Hamer Environmental and R2. 2003d. Amphibian surveys in the reservoir fluctuation zones of Baker Lake. Relicense Study T17. Final Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Hamer Environmental, Mt. Vernon, Washington and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. October 27, 2003.

Hamer Environmental, AESI, and R2 (Hamer Environmental, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.). 2004. Vegetation mapping in the Project Area and wetland inventory. Relicense studies T2 and T5. Final Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Hamer Environmental, Mt. Vernon, Washington; Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., Kirkland, Washington; and R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. January 22, 2004.

Hamilton J.A.R. and F.J. Andrew. 1954. An investigation of the effect of Baker dam on downstream migrant salmon. International Pacific Salmon Comm., Bulletin VI, 1954.

Hard, J.J., R.P. Jones, M.R. Delarm, and R.S. Waples. 1992. Pacific salmon and artificial propagation under the Endangered Species Act. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-2. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.

Hayes, G.E. and J.B. Buchanan. 2002. The Washington State status report for the peregrine falcon. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

HDR (HDR Engineering, Inc.). 2004. Baker River Project relicense, FERC Project No. 2150, Study A05– Water quality. Final Study Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. April 23, 2004.

Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). pp. 311–393. In: Life History of Pacific Salmon. C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds). University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Heller, P.L. 1978. Paleocene geology and related landslides in the Lower Skagit and Baker valleys, North Cascades, Washington. Thesis. Western Washington

8-13

College, Bellingham, Washington. 154 pp. (as cited in U.S. Forest Service, 2002a).

Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Hollenbeck, J.L. 1987. A cultural resources overview: prehistory, ethnography, and history, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. U.S. Forest Service, Seattle, Washington.

HRA (Historical Research Associates, Inc.). 2000. Salmon on the Baker River: A history of fisheries management at Puget Sound Energy’s Baker River Project. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Historical Research Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington.

HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group). 2003. Hatchery reform recommendations Skagit River Basin, Nooksack and Samish Rivers, central Puget Sound. Seattle, Washington.

Huckell/Weinman Associates. 2004a. Recreation needs analysis (Study R-16). Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Huckell/Weinman Associates, Kirkland, Washington. June 2004.

Huckell/Weinman Associates. 2004b. Dispersed site inventory study (Study R-12). Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Huckell/Weinman Associates, Kirkland, Washington. February 2004.

Huckell/Weinman Associates. 2004c. Recreation visitor survey study (Study R-13). Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Huckell/Weinman Associates, Kirkland, Washington. March 2004.

Huckell/Weinman Associates. 2004d. Recreation suitability analysis (Study R-11) and recreational trail analysis (Study R-15). Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Huckell/Weinman Associates, Kirkland, Washington. April 2004.

Hunter, M.A. 1992. Hydropower flow fluctuations and salmonids: a review of the biological effects, mechanical causes, and options for mitigation. Technical Report No. 119. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.

Hurd, E.G., N.L. Shaw, J. Mastrogiuseppe, L.C. Smithman, and S. Goodrich. 1998. Field guide to intermountain sedges. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-10. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.

8-14

Hyde, J.H. and D.R. Crandell. 1978. Postglacial volcanic deposits at Mt. Baker, Washington, and potential hazards from future eruptions. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1022-C. (as cited in Puget, 2002c).

Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 2002. An assessment of outdoor recreation in Washington State: A state comprehensive outdoor recreation (SCORP) planning document 2002-2007. Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Olympia, Washington. October 2002.

ISG (Independent Scientific Group). 1996. Return to the river: Restoration of salmonid fishes in the Columbia River ecosystem. Portland, Oregon.

Jenkins, T.M. 1969. Social structure, position choice and micro-distribution of two trout species (Salmon trutta and Salmo gairdneri) resident in mountain streams. Animal Behavior Monographs 2:57–123.

Johnson, O.W., M.H. Ruckelshaus, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, A.M. Garrett, G.J. Bryant, K. Neely, and J.J. Hard. 1999. Status review of coastal cutthroat trout from Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-37. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.

Johnson, R. 1986. Assessment of the Skagit River system’s Coho rearing potential. Technical Report No. 95. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.

Johnson, R.L. 1977. Status and management of mountain goat in Washington. Proceedings of the International Mountain Goat Symposium 1:41–46.

Jonasson, B.C., R.W. Carmichael, and T.A. Whitesel. 1994. Residual hatchery steelhead: Characteristics and potential interactions with spring Chinook salmon in northeast Oregon, Progress Report 1994. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

Jonasson, B.C., R.W. Carmichael, and T.A. Whitesel. 1995. Residual hatchery steelhead: Characteristics and potential interactions with spring Chinook salmon in northeast Oregon, Progress Report 1995. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

Jonasson, B.C., R.W. Carmichael, and T.A. Whitesel. 1996. Residual hatchery steelhead characteristics and potential interactions with spring Chinook salmon in northeast Oregon, Progress Report 1996. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

8-15

Jones & Stokes (Jones & Stokes and Associates). 1985. Salmon and steelhead fry trapping and stranding in potholes on the Skagit River, 1984. Prepared for Seattle City Department of Lighting, Seattle, Washington. Prepared by Jones & Stokes and Associates, Bellevue, Washington.

Kemmerich, J. 1945. A review of artificial propagation and transplantation of the sockeye salmon of the Puget Sound Area in the State of Washington conducted by the federal government from 1896 to 1945. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. October 31, 1945.

Kraemer, C. 1994. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char, Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) of the north Puget Sound region. Draft. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington.

Kraemer, C. 1996. Grandy Creek biological assessment. Draft. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington.

Kraemer, C. 2003. Management brief, Lower Skagit bull trout age and growth information developed from scales collected from anadromous and fluvial char. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington. January 2003.

Kuntz, R.C., and R.G. Christopherson. 1996. A survey of spotted owls in the North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Washington. Technical Report NPS/CCSONOCA/ NRTR-96/05. National Park Service, Pacific West Region.

Larsen, E.M., E. Rodrick, and R. Milner (eds). 1995. Management recommendations for Washington priority species. Volume 1, Invertebrates. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Laymon, S.A. 2000. Supporting information for the listing of the yellow-billed cuckoo webpage. www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/species/cuckoo/layman.pdf, accessed February 27, 2004.

Lehmkuhl, D.M. 1972. Change in thermal regime as a cause of reduction of benthic fauna downstream of a reservoir. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board Canada 29:1,329–1332.

Leider, S.A., P.L. Hulett, J.J. Loch, and M.W. Chilcote. 1990. Electrophoretic comparison of the reproductive success of naturally spawning transplanted and wild steelhead trout through the returning adult stage. Aquaculture 88:239–252.

8-16

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/species/cuckoo/layman.pdf

Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington.

Lewis, J.C. and D.W. Stinson. 1998. Washington State status report for the fisher. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. September 1998.

Lewis, J. C. and G. E. Hayes. 2004. Feasibility assessment for reintroducing fishers to Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Lichatowich, J.A. and J.D. McIntyre. 1987. Use of hatcheries in the management of Pacific anadromous salmonids. American Fisheries Society Symposium 1: 131–136.

Linsley, R.K., M.A. Kohler, and J.L.H. Paulhus. 1982. Hydrology for engineers. Third edition. McGraw-Hill Inc., San Francisco, California.

Long, L.L. and C.J. Ralph. 1998. Regulation and observations of human disturbance near nesting marbled murrelets. U.S. Forest Service, Arcata, California.

MacCracken, J.G. and J. O’Laughlin. 1998. Recovery policy on grizzly bears: An analysis of two positions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:899–907.

Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, K. Ake, and W.T. Wittinger. 1999. Landscape evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in western Montana. Conservation Biology 13:367–377.

Marzluff, J.M., M.G. Raphael, and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Understanding the effects of forest management on avian species. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: 1,132–1,143. (as cited in Hamer Environmental, 2003)

Mazumder, A. 2004. Sockeye and reservoir production potential. Study A26a. Draft Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. January 2004.

McAllister, K.R. and W.P. Leonard. 1997. Status of the Oregon spotted frog. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

McKelvey, K.S., J. J. Claar, G.W. McDaniel, and G. Hanvey. 1999. National lynx detection protocol. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana.

8-17

McPhail, J.D. and E.B. Taylor. 1995. Skagit char project. Final Report to Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission.

McPhail, J.D. and E.B. Taylor. 1999. Morphological and genetic variation in northwestern Longnose suckers (Catostomus catostomus): The Salish sucker problem. Copeia 9(4):884–893.

McPhee, C. and M.A. Brusven. 1976. The effect of river fluctuations resulting from hydroelectric peaking on selected aquatic invertebrates and fish, September 1976. Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Meehan, W.R. and T.C. Bjornn. 1991. Salmonid distributions and life histories. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:47–82.

Miss, C., C. Hodges, and K. Juell. 2004. Results of archaeological survey and National Register evaluation of archaeological resources. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Northwest Archeological Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. February 2004.

Montgomery, D.R., S. Bolton, D.B. Booth, and L. Wall. 2003. Restoration of Puget Sound rivers. Center for Watershed Studies, Seattle, Washington.

Murphy, M.L. and K.V. Koski. 1989. Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska streams and implications for streamside management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:427–436.

MWH (Montgomery Watson Harza). 2005. Stormwater pollution prevention and water quality plan, Baker Lake Project, Temporary fish passage structure launch site. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Montgomery Watson Harza, Boise, Idaho. January 2005.

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-35. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.

Naiman, R.J., R.E. Bilby, D.E. Schindler, and J.M. Helfield. 2002. Pacific salmon, nutrients, and the dynamics of freshwater and riparian ecosystems. Ecosystems 5:399–417.

National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. Report to the Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific

8-18

Northwest Anadromous Salmonids for the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. National Marine Fisheries Service.

NMFS. 2000a. Endangered Species Act reinitiated section 7 consultation: Biological Opinion on the effects of Pacific Coast Ocean and Puget Sound salmon fisheries during the 2000–2001 annual regulatory cycle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.

NMFS. 2000b. Passage of juvenile and adult salmonids past Columbia and Snake River dams. White Paper. National Marine Fisheries Service.

NMFS. 2000c. Summary of research related to transportation of juvenile anadromous salmonids around Snake and Columbia Rivers. White Paper. National Marine Fisheries Service.

NMFS. 2003. Environmental assessment Puget Sound Chinook harvest resource management plan. Draft Report. Prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service with assistance from Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Seattle, Washington. May, 2003.

NMFS. 2004a. Biological opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act consultation, license amendment for operation of the Baker River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No.2150) through April 2006. Seattle, Washington. October 25, 2004.

NMFS. 2004b. Endangered Species Act status of west coast salmon and steelhead web page. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/pubs/1pgr.pdf, accessed December 2, 2004.

NMFS. 2005. Critical Habitat for ESUs in Washington web page. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Habitat/Critical-Habitat/Index.cfm, accessed March 8, 2006.

Northwest Archeological (Northwest Archeological Associates, Inc.). 2004. The Historic Properties Management Plan for the Baker River Hydroelectric Project FERC 2150, Skagit and Whatcom Counties, Washington–Draft 2. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Northwest Archeological Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. March 2004.

8-19

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Habitat/Critical-Habitat/Index.cfm

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/pubs/1pgr.pdf

NWPPC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2003. Preliminary reliability assessment, winter season 2003–06. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon. January 14, 2003.

NWS (National Weather Service). 2003. Flood summary October 2003 web page. www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/presentations/html/Oct_2003_flooding/flood_2003/, accessed March 23, 2004. National Weather Service.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1995. Biennial report on the status of wild fish in Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Paulson, K.M. 1997. Estimating changes in sediment supply due to forest practices: a sediment budget approach applied to the Skagit River basin in Northwestern Washington. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Paulson, K.M. 1999. Baker River basin landslide mapping. FERC No. 121750. Estimates of land-use effects on sediment delivery within the Baker River basin. Fulfillment of Order No. 43-035M6-8-0231. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Mt. Baker Ranger District, Sedro Woolley, Washington. (as cited in U.S. Forest Service, 2002a)

Pelto, M.S. and P. Hartzell. Undated. North Cascade Glacier Climate Project: Impact of glacier runoff on Baker Lake and the Baker River Project web page. www.nichols.edu/ departments/glacier/impact_of_glacier_runoff_on_bake.htm, accessed March 28, 2003. Nichols College, Dudley, Massachusetts, and Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts.

Perkins, J.M. 1988. Three year bat survey for Washington National Forests: Results of year two—Olympic and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests. Unpublished report. U.S. Forest Service.

Pert, E.J., and D.C. Erman. 1994. Habitat use by adult rainbow trout under moderate artificial fluctuations in flow. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123(6):913–923.

Petts, G.E. 1984. Sedimentation within a regulated river. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 9(2):125–134.

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2003. Review of 2002 ocean salmon fisheries. Portland, Oregon. February 2003.

Piper, W.H., M.W. Meyer, M. Klich, K.B. Tischler and A. Dolsen. 2002. Floating platforms increase reproductive success of common loons. Biological Conservation 104:199–203.

8-20

http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/impact_of_glacier_runoff_on_bake.htm

http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/presentations/html/Oct_2003_flooding/flood_2003/

PNUCC (Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee). 2003. 2003 Northwest regional forecast. Portland, Oregon.

Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon (eds). 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest coast. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Potash, L.L. and C.A. Aubry. 1997. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest native plant notebook. Second edition. U.S. Forest Service, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and North Cascades Institute, Sedro Woolley, Washington.

Puget (Puget Sound Energy). 1982a. Application for license to authorize the construction of Sandy Creek Project, FERC Project Number 3239. Bellevue, Washington. May 1982.

Puget. 1982b. Application for license to authorize construction of the Bear Creek Project, FERC Project No. 3286. Bellevue, Washington. August 1982.

Puget. 1983a. Application for license to authorize construction of the Swift Creek Project, FERC Project No. 4221. Bellevue, Washington. July 1983.

Puget. 1983b. Application for license to authorize the construction of Park Creek Project, FERC Project Number 4220. Bellevue, Washington. July 1983.

Puget. 1983c. Application for license to authorize the construction of Thunder Creek Project, FERC Project Number 3913. Bellevue, Washington. July 1983.

Puget. 2002a. Alternative licensing procedures communications protocol process document. Bellevue, Washington. August 2002.

Puget. 2002b. Baker River Project relicense initial consultation document. Bellevue, Washington. March 2002.

Puget. 2002c. Biological assessment of proposed interim conservation measures for Puget Sound Chinook salmon pending relicensing. Bellevue, Washington. May 8, 2002.

Puget. 2002d. Assessment of the effects of interim Project operations on bull trout and bald eagle, addendum to: biological assessment of proposed interim conservation measures for Puget Sound Chinook salmon pending relicensing. Bellevue, Washington. December 2002.

Puget. 2002e. (Unpublished data). Baker River spawning beach production, 1957 through 2001 brood year. Bellevue, Washington.

8-21

Puget. 2002f. Wildlife survey database 1980–2002. Unpublished survey data. Bellevue, Washington. December 11, 2002.

Puget. 2003a. 2002 annual report. Bellevue, Washington.

Puget. 2003b. April 2003 least cost plan. Bellevue, Washington. April 30, 2003.

Puget. 2003c. Aquatic Resources Working Group meeting notes, dated August 14, 2003. Bellevue, Washington. August 14, 2003.

Puget. 2004a. Baker River Hydroelectric Project relicensing comprehensive Settlement Agreement. Bellevue, Washington. November 30, 2004.

Puget. 2004b. Biological assessment and Essential Fish Habitat consultation, floating surface collector construction and launch site facility. Draft. Bellevue, Washington. November 2004.

Puget. 2004c. Wildlife survey database 1980–2004. Unpublished survey data. Bellevue, Washington. December 2, 2004.

Quistorff, E. 1960. Preliminary report, Baker Lake artificial sockeye spawning beach, 1959–60. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

R2 (R2 Resource Consultants, Inc.). 2002. Habitat surveys of Baker Basin tributary reaches accessible to anadromous salmonids Study A-01a. Interim Project Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. May 8, 2002.

R2. 2003a. Baker River Project Relicense, Master No. 1 CD of data containing: Baker River daily flow record unregulated condition 1975 to 2002 (adjusted for reservoir storage-elevation changes); reservoir storage-elevation relationships; dam schematics; datum conversion table; and Upper and Lower Baker daily reservoir levels 1975 to 2002. Part 1 of 2. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. June 12, 2003.

R2. 2003b. Habitat conditions of tributary reaches accessible to anadromous and adfluvial salmonids and estimated salmonid production potentials: Baker River basin. Study A01. Draft Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. October 2003.

R2. 2003c. Habitat conditions of tributary reaches accessible to anadromous and adfluvial salmonids and estimated salmonid production potentials: Baker River

8-22

subbasin. Study A0-1a. Draft Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. October 2003.

R2. 2003d. Baker River Project relicensing large woody debris budget. Relicense Study A-20. Draft Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington.

R2. 2003e. Hydrology and geomorphology of the Baker and Middle Skagit Rivers (Study A-24). Part 2: Sediment transport and channel response draft report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. May 8, 2003.

R2. 2003f. Middle Skagit River salmonid spawning surveys. Study A-09c. Draft Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. October 2003.

R2. 2003g. Middle Skagit River juvenile salmonid timing and distribution. Study A-09d (in progress). Presented at the October 9, 2003, meeting of the Aquatic Resources Working Group. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. October 9, 2003.

R2. 2003h. Effects of Baker River Project on native non-salmonid fishes aquatic study request A-39, reconnaissance-level analysis. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. March 10, 2003.

R2. 2003i. Native char investigations, Baker River watershed. Draft Study Plan A-38. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. May 6, 2003.

R2. 2003j. Baker River basin vegetation mapping. Study T-15. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. January 15, 2003.

R2. 2004a. Hydrology and geomorphology of the Baker and Middle Skagit rivers. Study A-24. Part 2: Sediment transport and channel response final draft report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. February 2004.

R2. 2004b. Upper Baker delta scour assessment and spawning evaluation. Study A-15. Draft Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. June 2004.

8-23

R2. 2004c. Feasibility assessment of potential protection, mitigation and enhancement measures for the Lower Baker alluvial fan. Study A-16. Final Draft. Prepared for Aquatic Resources Working Group and Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. December 2004.

R2. 2004d. Hydrology and geomorphology of the Baker and Lower Skagit Rivers. Study A-24, Part 1: Hydrology. Final Draft Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington. May 2004.

Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds). 1995. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152, Albany, California.

Ralph, C.J., S.K. Nelson, M.M. Shaughness, S.L. Millar, and T.M. Hamer. 1994. (Unpublished report). Methods for surveying for marbled murrelets in forests: A protocol for land management and research. Pacific Seabird Group, Marbled Murrelet Technical Committee.

Raudkivi, A.J. 1993. Sedimentation–exclusion and removal of sediment from diverted water. IAHR Hydraulic Structures Design Manual 6. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Brookfield, Vermont.

Reisenbichler, R.R. and S. P. Rubin. 1999. Genetic changes from artificial propagation of Pacific salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations. I CES Journal of Marine Science 56:459–466.

Richardson, S., D. Hays, R. Spencer and J. Stofel. 2000. Washington State status report for the common loon. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Richter, K.O. 1995. Criteria in the restoration and creation of wetland breeding amphibian habitat. In: Proceedings of Society for Ecological Restoration Conference, September 14–16, 1995, Seattle, Washington.

Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1995. Occurrence of bull trout in naturally fragmented habitat patches of various size. Transactions of American Fisheries Society. 124(3):285–296.

8-24

Seiler, D., L. Kishimoto, and S. Neuhauser. 2002. Skagit River wild 0+ Chinook production evaluations. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Servheen, C. 1997. Grizzly bear recovery plan supplement: North Cascades ecosystem recovery plan chapter. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana.

Shannon &Wilson (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.). 1979. Geotechnical report, sink hole study, Upper Baker River Project. Prepared for Puget Sound Power and Light Company, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Washington.

Skagit County (Skagit County Planning Department). 2000. Skagit County comprehensive plan. Skagit County Planning Department, Mt. Vernon, Washington. December 6, 2000.

Skagit County Noxious Weed Control Board. 2004. Skagit County noxious weed list. Skagit County Noxious Weed Control Board, Mt. Vernon, Washington.

SSC (Skagit System Cooperative). 1996. Sockeye salmon draft expanded stock report. LaConner, Washington. February 6, 1996.

Smith, C.J., D. Smith, and T. Waldo. 2003. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors water resource inventory areas 3 and 4, the Skagit and Samish basins. Washington State Conservation Commission, Lacey, Washington.

Snyder, R.V. and J.M. Wade. 1970. Mt. Baker National Forest soil resource inventory. U.S. Forest Service, Mt. Baker National Forest. (as cited in Puget, 2002c)

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmon conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corporation, Corvallis, Oregon.

Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York, New York.

State of Washington. 2003. Estimates of future participation in outdoor recreation in Washington State. Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Olympia, Washington. March 2003.

State of Washington, Office of Financial Management. 2002. Washington State County population projections for growth management: 2000-2025. Olympia, Washington. January 2002.

8-25

State of Washington, Office of Financial Management. 2005. 2005 Population trends for Washington State. Olympia, Washington. December 2005.

Stinson, D.W. 2001. Washington State recovery plan for the lynx (Lynx canadensis). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K.R. McAllister. 2001. Washington State status report for the bald eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Stober, Q.J., S.C. Crumley, D.E. Fast, E.S. Killebrew, R.M. Woodin, G.E. Engman, and G. Tutmark. 1982. Effects of hydroelectric discharge fluctuation on salmon and steelhead in the Skagit River, Washington. Final report for period December 1979 to December 1982. Fish Research Institute. FRI-UW-8218, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Stutchbury, B.J. and R.J. Robertson. 1985. Floating populations of female tree swallows. The Auk 102:651–654.

Tarrant, Michael A., Erin Smith, and H. Ken Cordell. No date. Recreation visitor preferences for and perceptions of outdoor recreation setting attributes. Athens, Georgia.

Taylor, E.B., Z. Redenbach, A.B. Costello, S.M. Pollard, and C.J. Pacas. 2001. Nested analysis of genetic diversity in Northwestern North American char, Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 406–420.

Trotzky, H.M. and R.W. Gregory. 1974. The effects of water flow manipulation below a hydroelectric power dam on the bottom fauna of the upper Kennebec River, Maine. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:985–998.

Uehlinger, U., K. Tockner, and F. Malard. 2002. Ecological windows in glacial stream ecosystems. EAWAG News 54:20–21.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional economic accounts: Per capita personal income, available at: http://www.bea.gov/regional/definitions/nextpage.cfm, accessed December 15, 2005.

Vaughn, D.M. 2002. Potential impact of road-stream crossings (culverts) on the upstream passage of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Prepared by the Xerces Society for U.S. Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, Portland, Oregon.

8-26

http://www.bea.gov/regional/definitions/nextpage.cfm

Vleming, Jim. 2002. Skagit County profile. Washington State Employment Security Department. Olympia, Washington. January 2002.

Volk, E.C. 2000. Using otolith strontium to infer migratory histories in bull trout and Dolly Varden from several Washington State rivers. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Wahl, T.R. and D.R. Paulson. 1981. A guide to bird finding in Washington. T.R. Wahl, Bellingham, Washington.

Waples, R.S. 1999. Dispelling some myths about hatcheries. Fisheries 24(2):12–21.

Ward, J.A. and J.A. Stanford (eds). 1979. The ecology of regulated streams. Plenum Press, New York, New York.

Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 2004. Washington State noxious weed list for 2004. Washington State Noxious Wed Control Board, Olympia, Washington.

Watson, J.W. and E.A. Rodrick. 2002. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In: Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species, Volume 4: Birds [On-line]. E.M. Larson and N. Nordstrom (eds). http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phs/vol4/baldeagle.pdf

WCC (Washington Conservation Commission). 2003. Salmon and steelhead limiting factors, Water Resource Inventory Areas 3 & 4, Skagit River System. Washington Conservation Commission, Olympia, Washington.

WCSBRT (West Coast Salmon Biological Review Team). 2003. Preliminary conclusions regarding the updated status of listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead. West Coast Biological Review Team. Seattle, Washington.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington. Unpublished report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

WDFW. 1998. 1998 Washington salmonid stock inventory appendix bull trout and Dolly Varden. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

WDFW. 2001a. 2001 Washington big game harvest report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

8-27

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phs/vol4/baldeagle.pdf

WDFW. 2001b. 2001 Game status and trend report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

WDFW. 2002a. Sport fish investigations in Washington State, July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001 progress report Westside volume. Fish Program Report FPA 02-04. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

WDFW. 2002b. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife news release: Commission down-lists peregrine falcon. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. April 15, 2002.

WDFW. 2002c. 2002 Washington big game harvest report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

WDFW. 2003a. Priority habitats and species and species of concern web page. www.wa/gov/wdfw/hab/phspage.htm, accessed January 29, 2003. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

WDFW. 2003b. Priority habitat and species database search dated May 22, 2003. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2004. Priority habitat and species digital data December 2, 2004. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

WDFW and WWTIT (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes). 1994. 1992 Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory. Appendix I: Puget Sound stocks. North Puget Sound Volume. Olympia, Washington.

WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 1997. Final habitat conservation plan. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. September 1997.

Westley, R.E. 1966. Limnological study of Merwin, Upper Baker, and Lower Baker reservoirs, summary report. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. June 1966.

Whatcom County Noxious Weed Control Board. 2004. Whatcom County noxious weed list. Whatcom County Noxious Weed Control Board, Bellingham, Washington.

Whatcom County, Washington. 2004. Whatcom County comprehensive plan, available at: http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/planning/comp_plan/comp_plan.jsp, accessed December 12, 2005.

8-28

http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/planning/comp_plan/comp_plan.jsp

http://www.wa/gov/wdfw/hab/phspage.htm

Whitesel, T.A., B.C. Jonasson, and R.W. Carmichael. 1994. Residual hatchery steelhead: Characteristics and potential interactions with spring Chinook salmon in Northeast Oregon, progress report 1993. AFF1-LSR-94-11. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Whitesel, T.A., J. Brostrom, T. Cummings, J. Delavergne, W. Fredenberg, H. Schaller, P. Wilson, and G. Zydlewski. 2004. Bull trout recovery planning: A review of the science associated with population structure and size. Science Team Report No. 2004-01, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization Volume 1 Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.

Witty, K., C. Willis, and S. Cramer. 1995. A review of potential impacts of hatchery fish on naturally produced salmonids in the migration corridor of the Snake and Columbia Rivers. Comprehensive Environmental Assessment. Final Report. S.P. Cramer and Associates, Gresham, Oregon.

WOFM (Washington Office of Financial Management). 2001. Information from agency website. www.ofm.wa.gov. (as cited in Puget, 2002b)

WNHP (Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program). 2004a. WNHP rare plant species list for Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, Washington.

WNHP. 2004b. Digital data for the Baker River Project vicinity. Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, Washington. February 4, 2003.

Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 2003. Inland fishes of Washington. Second Edition. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

8-29

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Steve Hocking - Project Coordinator; Terrestrial Resources; Threatened and Endangered Species (B.S., Natural Resource Management)

Mike Henry - Water Quality, Water Quantity, and Aquatic Resources (Fishery Biologist; B.S., Fisheries)

Matt Cutlip - Threatened and Endangered Species and Essential Fish Habitat (Fishery Biologist; B.S., Fisheries Science)

Linda Lehman - Engineering and Economic Analysis (Civil Engineer; B.S., M.S., Civil Engineering)

Patricia Leppert - Recreational, Land Use, and Aesthetic Resources (Recreation Specialist/Biologist; M.A., Recreation and Partks/Biology)

Frank Winchell - Cultural Resources (Archeologist; Ph.D., M.A., Anthropology and Archeology; B.A., Anthropology)

7-1

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS

Brett Swift American Rivers, Inc. 320 SW Stark St., Suite 418 Portland, OR 97204

Blane L Bellerud National Marine Fisheries Service 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97232

Bonneville Power AdministrationDirector P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208

Brett Joseph Attorney Advisor National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration1315 E West Hwy., Suite 15752 Silver Spring, MD 20910

Columbia River Gorge CommissionChairman P.O. Box 730 White Salmon, WA 98672

Christopher Fontecchio National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115

Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionRegional Engineer Portland Regional Office 101 SW Main St., Suite 905 Portland, OR 97204

Richard Roos-Collins Natural Heritage Institute 100 Pine St., Suite 1550 San Francisco, CA 94111

Edward J. PerezFederal Energy Regulatory Commission101 SW Main St., Suite 905 Portland, OR 97204

Len Barson Nature Conservancy 217 Pine St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National ForestFERC Coordinator 21905 64th Ave. W Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043

William G. Laitner Olympic National Park 600 E Park Ave. Port Angeles, WA 98362

Steven FransenNational Marine Fisheries Service 510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 103 Olympia, WA 98503

Pamela W. Krueger Attorney Perkins Cole, LLP 10885 NE 4th Street, Suite 700 Bellevue, WA 98004

Keith KirkendallNational Marine Fisheries Service 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97232

Robert G. Lutz Attorney Perkins Cole, LLP 10885 NE 4th Street, Suite 700 Bellevue, WA 98004

8-1

Kendall J. Cammermeyer Puget Sound Energy, Inc. P.O. Box 97034 Bellevue, WA 98009

Liz Frenkel Conservation Coordinator Sierra Club Oregon Chapter 2950 SE Stark St., Suite 110 Portland, OR 97214

Lloyd M. Pernela Manager Hydro Licensing Puget Sound Energy, Inc. P.O. Box 90868 Bellevue, WA 98009

Daniel M Adamson Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP 1500 K St. NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20005

Edward R. SchildPuget Sound Energy, Inc. P.O. Box 97034 Bellevue, WA 98009

Chal A. Martin Skagit County Public Works Dept. 1800 Continental Place Mount Vernon, WA 98273

Stan M. Walsh Fisheries Biologist Skagit River System Cooperative P.O. Box 368 La Conner, WA 98257

Environmental SpecialistStillaguamish TribeP.O. Box 277 Arlington, WA 98223

Rebecca H. Leonard Sauksuiattle Indian TribeAttorney 5318 Chief Brown Lane Darrington, WA 98241

Brian Cladoosby Tribal Chairman Swinomish Indian Tribal CommunityP.O. Box 817 LaConner, WA 98257

Jason Joseph Sauksuiattle Indian Tribe5318 Chief Brown LaneDarrington, WA 98241

Martin Loesch Swinomish Indian Tribal CommunityP.O. Box 817 La Conner,WA 98257

William H Patton Assistant City Attorney Seattle City Attorney's Office 600 4th Ave., Suite Fl4 Seattle, WA 98104

Julie A. Gantenbein Staff Attorney Natural Heritage Institute 2104 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704

William C Foster Assistant City Attorney Seattle City Attorney's Office P.O. Box 94769

Dan Haas U.S. National Park Service 909 1st Avenue Seattle, WA 98104

8-2

Seattle, WA 98124

Scott SchuylerUpper Skagit Indian Tribe 25944 Community Plaza Way Sedro Woolley, WA 98284

Nolan Shishido U.S. Department of the Interior Office of the Regional Solicitor 500 NE Multnomah St., Suite 607 Portland, OR 97232

Harold ChesninUpper Skagit Indian Tribe 25944 Community Plaza Way Sedro Woolley, WA 98284

Stanley SpeaksDirector U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 911 NE 11th Ave. Portland, OR 97232

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ChiefP.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124

Ken Berg U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers SecretaryP.O. Box 2870 Portland, OR 97208

Rory Westberg Superintendent National Park Service 909 1st Ave. Seattle, WA 98104

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs DirectorPortland Area Office911 NE 11th Ave. Portland, OR 97232

Terence N. Martin Team Leader U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C St. NW (MS-2340-MIB) Washington, DC 20240

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs DirectorP.O. Box 48 Aberdeen, WA 98520

Don Haley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 215 Melody Lane, Suite 119 Wenatchee, WA 98801

U.S. Bureau of Land ManagementState Director (OR-936.1) P.O. Box 2965 Portland, OR 97208

Craig Hansen U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 510 Desmond Drive SE Lacey, WA 98503

U.S. Bureau of Land ManagementDirector Wenatchee Resource Area (OR-134) 915 Walla Walla Ave. Wenatchee, WA 98801

Walt Dortch Hydropower Coordinator U.S. Forest Service Darrington Ranger District 1405 Emens Ave. N Darrington, WA 98241

8-3

Patty Murray U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510

Washington State Office of ArchaeologySHPO P.O. Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504

Steve Kramer RHAT- Heritage U.S. Forest Service 765 S. Main St. Colville, WA 99114

Christine O. GregoireWashington Office of Attorney General P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504

John Phipps Forest Supervisor Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest 21905 64th Ave. W Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043

Lynn C. Jordan Legal Assistant to Bill FrymirWashington Office of Attorney General P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504

Jocelyn Somers U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the General Counsel 1734 Federal Bldg.1220 SW 3rd Ave. Portland, OR 97204

William C. Frymire Washington Office of Attorney General P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504

Gary Sprague Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, WA 98501

Christa L. Thompson Washington Office of Attorney General P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504

William C. Frymire Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504

Washington State Dept. of Agriculture 406 General Administration Building Olympia, WA 98504

Lee Van Tussbrook ManagerWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2108 Grand Blvd. Vancouver, WA 98661

Jeff J. Marti Washington State Dept. of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Habitat DivisionChief 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, WA 98504

Brian V. Faller Assistant Attorney General Washington Office of Attorney General P.O. Box 40117 Olympia, WA 98504

8-4

Alison Evans Washington State Dept. of Ecology 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008

Daniel J. Rohlf Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center 10015 SW Terwilliger Blvd. Portland, OR 97219

Steve Jennison Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources Northwest Region 919 N Township St. Sedro Woolley, WA 98284

Kurt Beardslee Washington Trout P.O. Box 402 Duvall, WA 98019

Christa L. Thompson Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504

Washington Utilities and Transportation SecretaryP.O. Box 47250 Olympia, WA 98504

Boyd Powers External SEPA Coordinator Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources 1111 Washington St. SE Olympia, WA 98504

Washington Utilities and Transportation,Electric Section Specialist P.O. Box 47250 Olympia, WA 98504

Omroa Bhagwadin Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources 1111 SE Washington Street Olympia, WA 98504

John P. Williams Researcher 19815 NW Nestucca Dr. Portland, OR 97229

SEPA Center Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources P.O. Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504

Washington State Dept. of Natural ResourcesForest Practice Coordinator 950 Farman St. N Enumclaw, WA 98022

Bill KossManagerWashington State Dept. of Parks & Recreation P.O. Box 42668 Olympia, WA 98504

8-5

APPENDIX A

PROPOSED LICENSE ARTICLES

A-1

Article 101Fish Propagation

The licensee shall be responsible for fish propagation and enhancement programs and facilities at the Baker River Project during the term of the license, as described in this article.

Plan and Requirements. Within six months following license issuance, licensee shall, following consultation with FWS, NMFS, WDFW, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (“Fish Resource Parties”), and Forest Service, develop a fish propagation Facilities Plan (“FPFP”) that contains detailed requirements for licensee’s implementation of the facilities and programs required by this article, including the following:

(a) Licensee shall construct ancillary facilities and/or modify Sockeye Spawning Beach 4 for improved functionality and productivity, by doing the following: 1) isolating the water supply to each of the existing segments, 2) installing concrete walls between segments, 3) improving alarm systems, and 4) reviewing conditions of Sulphur Springs water supply intake site and developing a plan to control sediment infusion that may include capping the intake area to prevent sliding material from moving into the water supply;

(b) Licensee shall construct additional fish culture facilities at the Sulphur Springs site, to provide for a total of 20,000 pounds of instantaneous cultured fish capacity (exclusive of eggs and anadromous adults) and 7,000 pounds of egg incubation capacity (including egg incubation capacity that may be provided in Beach 4), which shall include some or all of the following structures, facilities, and equipment necessary for adult holding, spawning, and egg incubation: water chiller(s), fry starter(s), troughs or ponds, rearing ponds, and loading facilities;

(c) Licensee shall provide for fishery facility operations in a manner that will enable the sequential development of population enhancement for sockeye, based upon: 1) a study completed no later than two years following license issuance evaluating and, if possible, determining the capacity of Baker Lake and Lake Shannon for the production of sockeye smolts from fry, 2) a phased approach for increasing sockeye fry capacity from production limits derived empirically from monitoring and analyses of returning broodstock and subsequent smolt production, and 3) operational tests of the limits of Sockeye Spawning Beach 4 productivity to optimize output toward the goal of producing approximately four (4) million fry;

(d) Licensee shall decommission the site of Sockeye Spawning Beaches 1, 2 and 3, in accordance with the following: 1) to the extent feasible, retain Beaches 2 and/or 3 until replacement production from new facilities required by this article are developed, which retention may require modifications, such as leak reduction,

A-2

to keep them functional and improve their performance prior to decommissioning, 2) decommissioning shall not occur until approval from the Forest Service is obtained, and 3) decommissioning may include: configuring the ponds into a channel with a natural meander to optimize fish usage, removing existing structures and restoring landscaping, and initiating adult salmon returns to the site with a temporary supplementation program;

(e) Licensee shall continue the existing programs described in the schedule below, unless modified or terminated at the direction of the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, and WDFW (“Fish Co-managers”). Licensee shall fund and implement fish propagation and enhancement programs, when and if directed by the Fish Co-managers according to the following: 1) fisheries management objectives provided to licensee by the Fish Co-managers, 2) weight and production targets established by the Fish Co-managers, within the capacity and production limits (maximum of 20,000 pounds for no more than three months annually) of the facilities required by this article, 3) species mix, life stages, and quantities, based on Fish Co-managers’ direction, within the capacity and production limits of the facilities required by this article, and 4) facility production is limited to the space available at the Sulphur Springs site;

(f) Licensee shall, beginning no later than five years following license issuance, make funding available to the Fish Co-managers for the purpose of evaluation, planning, permitting and implementation of a reservoir nutrient enhancement program in an amount not to exceed $60,000 annually during the term of the license. Any funds not expended in one year may be carried over into succeeding years, or, at the direction of the Fish Co-managers, due to program assessment potential or other relevant biological factors, may be transferred to the Habitat, Enhancement Restoration and Conservation (HERC) Fund;

(g) Within six months following license issuance for the existing facilities, and within six months following completion of construction of facilities required by this article, licensee shall prepare, and update periodically as needed, a fish facility operations manual that includes the following elements, as appropriate: facility layout, flow distribution schematic and plan, emergency response plan, emergency personnel call-out procedures, security plan, any current management protocols provided by the Fish Resource Parties, reporting procedures, any operations plan approved by the Fish Co-managers, an equipment and suppliers’ list, any fish distribution plan approved by the Fish Co-managers, any spill containment plan approved by the Fish Co-managers, and any hygiene plan for disease control approved by the Fish Co-managers;

(h) Licensee shall develop and implement a set of operational protocols for the fisheries enhancement program to be approved by the Fish Co-managers that contains at least the following elements: 1) the method for selecting and engaging

A-3

an annual contractor, who is required to be accountable to the Fish Co-managers and qualified to implement the program required by this article, 2) the form of annual contract and budget, to be issued for 5-year periods, with each 5-year contract commitment to be secured 12 months prior to the expiration of the current 5-year contract, 3) the process by which the Fish Co-managers will consider and approve studies to be performed by licensee or other entities to optimize fish program success, 4) the method for preparing an annual audit, to be provided to the Aquatics Resource Group ("ARG") December 31 of each year, of the operation of the facilities based on a June 1 to May 31 operating year, and 5) a method for developing a report format to include in the contract for facility operation by June 1 of each year, containing information regarding operations, problems, facility status, future need, and results of the program; and

(i) Licensee shall make funds available to the Fish Co-managers to hire an on-site manager for the fisheries enhancement program required by this article, following notification of selection of an on-site manager by the Fish Co-managers and based upon any agreement between the Fish Co-managers and the licensee. The manager will be selected by the Fish Co-managers.

After required consultation in the development of the FPFP, licensee shall provide a minimum of 30 days for the consulted parties and other members of the ARG to comment and to make recommendations before filing the FPFP with the Commission. The licensee shall include with the FPFP, documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the FPFP after it has been prepared and provided to the consulted parties and other members of the ARG, and specific descriptions of how the comments are accommodated by the plan. If licensee does not accept a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

Schedule. Licensee shall comply with the requirements of this article according to the following initial schedule, which may be revised following consultation with the Fish Resource Parties:

A-4

Schedule for implementation of fish propagation/enhancement programs for the Baker River Project.

Estimated Start Year

Year of License

Actions

2005 -1 Initiate design and permitting for Phase 1 hatchery construction with a capacity for 7 million fry (egg capacity ~ 7.8 million) (Phase 1 Hatchery).

Initiate design and permitting rearing facilities for up to 20,000 lbs. instantaneous capacity (Phase 1 Hatchery).

Initiate design and permitting for holding and handling facilities for 6,000 adult sockeye hatchery broodstock (Phase 1 Hatchery).

Initiate design and permitting for improvements to Spawning Beach 4 (SB4).

Continue the following existing programs:

Operation of Sockeye Spawning Beaches 2 or 3, and 4.

Artificial incubation of 1,000,000 + sockeye eggs.

Rearing of 130,000 sockeye for releases in June (~60,000), fall (~60,000), and the following spring (5,000 – 10,000).

Spawning, incubation and rearing of coho. The egg take is the result of sampling for tag recovery from adults and stocking needs of Lake Shannon. Fifteen thousand are reared for a year and release for fish passage testing.

20,000 rainbow trout for release into Depression Lake.

2006 0 Construct Phase 1 Hatchery and SB4 improvements.

Resume basin Sockeye fry productivity study.

2007-2012 ~ 1- 6 Initiate Baker system capacity test by sequential increases in production currently estimated at ~1 million fry per year until the sockeye fry capacity of SB4 plus Phase 1 hatchery or the Baker system carrying capacity is reached (1st hatchery fry expected spring 2008).

2009-2011 ~ 3- 5 Initiate and implement decommissioning of site of Sockeye Spawning Beaches 1, 2, and 3.

2012-2016 ~ 6-10 Hold production stable for Baker system capacity testing at Phase 1 Hatchery and SB4 capacity (total anticipated fry production ~10.5

A-5

million).

2015 ~ 9 Based on previous capacity study results initiate design and permitting for:

Hatchery expansion to a capacity of 11 million fry (total facility fry capacity ~14.5 million) Phase 2 Hatchery.

Additional holding and handling facilities for and additional 2,500 adult sockeye hatchery broodstock (total 8,500 adults) Phase 2 Hatchery.

~ 2016 ~ 10 Construct Phase 2 Hatchery improvements (as appropriate).

~ 2017- license term

~ 11 Resume sequential increases in production currently estimated at ~1 million fry per year until the sockeye fry capacity of SB4 plus Phase 2 Hatchery or the Baker system carrying capacity is reached.

Reporting. After consultation with the ARG, the WDFW, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe and Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, licensee shall submit a final annual report that includes an annual audit on fish propagation facilities and programs required by this article, based on a June 1 to May 31 operating year, which shall be submitted to the Commission in accordance with Article 102. For the purposes of this article, the audit shall involve a periodic review and report on operational indices that includes financial accounting, fish handling and disease management operations, hazardous materials handling, Spill Prevention and Control Countermeasures compliance, and other parameters that may be designated from time to time. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the Parties to comment and to make recommendations before filing the report of operations with the Commission, and comments will be provided on or before November 30. The licensee shall include with the audit or report, documentation of comments and recommendations on the annual report, and specific descriptions of how any comments are accommodated in the report. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on Project-specific information.

A-6

Article 102Aquatics Reporting

Within one year of license issuance the licensee shall prepare and file with the Commission a report regarding plans and other measures for the restoration, management and enhancement of fish species in the Baker River basin. Licensee shall submit the report annually, and provide updates and revisions as required by the schedule below. The licensee shall allow a minimum of thirty (30) days for the ARG to comment before filing the report with the Commission, in accordance with the schedule below. The licensee shall include with the report, documentation of comments, and specific descriptions of how comments are accommodated in the report. If the licensee does not adopt a comment, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

The report, at a minimum, shall: summarize existing plans or other measures of agencies and tribes, including Endangered Species Act recovery plans and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan; and describe how the licensee, agencies, and tribes coordinate in the implementation of their respective plans and measures. The licensee shall consider this report in the course of implementing Article 101 (Fish Propagation), Article 103 (Upstream Fish Passage), Article 104 (Connectivity), Article 105 (Downstream Fish Passage), Article 106 (Flow Implementation), Article 109 (LWD), Article 505 (Riparian/Aquatic Habitat), and Article 602 (HERC Fund). The report shall also include the status of development or implementation of plans or other measures and annual reporting required by Articles 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 401, 505, and 602 according to the Aquatics Reporting Schedule, as follows;

A-7

Aquatics Reporting Schedule

Article Number

AnnualReport due?

UpdateReport from Article 102 Reporting period Draft report due date

101 x Previous 12 months,June 1 to May 31

October 31

102 x Varies - 12 Months January 31103 x x Previous 12 months,

June 1 to May 31August 31

104 x x Previous 12 months,June 1 to May 31

August 31

105 x Previous 12 months,September 1 - August 31

November 30

106 x Previous 12 months,October 1 - September 30

November 30

108 Previous 12 months,January 1 - December 31

March 31

109 x Previous 12 months,January 1 - December 31

March 31


March 31

401 x Previous 12 months,April 1 - March 31

June 30


July 31

602 x x Previous 12 months,January 1 - December 31

July 31

A-8

Articles Draft report due date Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

FPEP 101 October 31

Overall Rept 102 January 31Upstream Passage 103 August 31Upstream Connect 104 August 31

Downstream Pass 105 November 30

Instream Flow 106 November 30

Gravel 108 March 31

LWD 109 March 31

Erosion control 110 June 30

WQ 401 March 31

HERC 602 July 31

Reporting Period

Draft due

Party comment period

Draft FERC Report due

Final due to FERC

30 day Party Review Period

Draft Article Report

Preparation12 Month

Reporting Period

Final Annual Report due to

FERCDraft Annual Report

Preparation

In complying with the reporting schedule, licensee shall be governed by the following illustration of plan drafting, commenting, and reporting:

Reporting Schedule for Aquatics Articles 101-110, 401, and 602

A-9

Article 103Upstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan

Licensee shall provide safe and effective upstream passage at the Baker River Project by using trapping, sorting, holding and hauling facilities located on the Baker River and other operations and facilities as appropriate for the Baker River Project, in accordance with the plan described in this article. Facilities include new facilities and renovations to existing facilities.

Licensee shall develop, submit to NMFS and FWS for approval, and file with the Commission for approval, an Upstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan (UFPIP). The licensee shall develop the UFPIP in consultation with the ARG and specifically with NMFS, FWS, WDFW, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community.

Licensee shall develop and submit the UFPIP in phases, according to the schedule that follows, or on an alternative schedule specified in the UFPIP within six months of license issuance:

UFPIP – Upstream Passage Construction & Design . No less than 60 days before initiation of construction and no later than 2 years after license issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission its complete plans and specifications and schedule for construction of facilities for attraction, capture, and transport of upstream migrating fish at the Lower Baker Development.

UFPIP – Upstream Passage Operation & Maintenance (O&M). No less than 60 days before initiation of operation, the licensee shall file with the Commission its complete plans and specifications for O&M of upstream passage facilities. The O&M plan shall include at least the following elements: a) fish handling, b) hauling frequencies, c) frequency and magnitude of attraction flows, d) species protocol, e) trap operational flows, f) a schedule, g) the method for providing annual updates, and h) trap reporting requirements.

UFPIP – Upstream Passage Quality Assurance/Quality Control. No less than 60 days before initiation of operation, licensee shall file with the Commission for approval a quality assurance/quality control plan for the upstream passage facilities to confirm that the approved plans will be constructed as approved.

UFPIP – Upstream Passage Emergency Response Plan . No less than 120 days prior to the initiation of operation of any of the fish passage facilities required by this article, licensee shall file with the Commission a preliminary response plan addressing operational

A-10

contingencies and emergencies, and shall file a final plan with the Commission within 120 days from startup testing.

UFPIP – Fish Passage Annual Reporting . The licensee shall file with the Commission an annual report describing the operation of the upstream fish passage facilities for the past year at the Lower Baker Dam, pursuant to Article 102. The report shall include the numbers and species of fish captured in the trap and the associated disposition of those fish. The report shall include a description of problems and associated remedies for such problems, describe any modifications of the facilities implemented in the prior year, and audit and report operational compliance.

The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the consulted parties to comment and to make recommendations before filing each of the above plan components with the Commission. The licensee shall include with each of the plan components and reports required by this article, documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan component, documentation of the approval of FWS and NMFS or documentation of the status of the review by FWS and NMFS, and specific descriptions of how the other consulted parties’ comments are accommodated by the plan. If the licensee does not accept a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

Licensee shall make funding available in an amount not to exceed $20,000 annually during the term of the license for beneficial modifications beyond the scope of any modifications required to meet performance standards. The licensee may, in consultation with the ARG, modify facilities or operations as a result of performance reporting, changing needs and new technologies, provided that such modifications shall not proceed without the approval of the NMFS and FWS. Modifications shall be submitted to the Commission for approval.

A-11

Article 104Connectivity between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake

Licensee shall provide a fishway between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake for native char and other native fish species that become isolated by the project. No later than three years after license issuance, the licensee shall conduct an investigation, in consultation with the ARG, and specifically with NMFS, FWS, WDFW, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, to develop and initiate studies with regard to the type of fishway, its location and timing, and the species and numbers of fish to be collected and transported upstream of Upper Baker Dam, following approval from NMFS and FWS. The investigation may include tagging, radio-tagging or other methods.

Fishways provided according to this article may range from, but may not necessarily be limited to, collect and haul operations, a temporary weir and trap on Sulphur Creek or a similar facility installed below Upper Baker Dam, up to a more permanent trap and haul facility below Upper Baker Dam. The facility shall include design accommodations for other aquatic species that do not compromise the primary design focus on native char and may be significantly lesser in scope and complexity than the adult fish trap downstream of Lower Baker Dam. Investigation is necessary to narrow the range of prospective fishway alternatives within this range.

If testing demonstrates that the approved prototype fishway does not appropriately achieve fish species connectivity, licensee shall propose an alternative plan to the ARG for approval by FWS and NMFS.

Licensee shall develop, submit to NMFS and FWS for approval, and file with the Commission for approval, a Fish Connectivity Implementation Plan (FCIP). The licensee shall develop the FCIP in consultation with the ARG and specifically with NMFS, FWS, WDFW, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community.

The licensee shall develop and submit the FCIP in phases, according to the schedule that follows, or on an alternative schedule submitted to the Commission for approval by licensee within six months of license issuance:

FCIP – Fish Connectivity Construction & Design . No less than 60 days before initiation of construction and no later than 3 years after license issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission its complete plans, specifications, and schedule for construction of facilities and/or operations for attraction, capture, and transport of upstream migrating fish from Lake Shannon to Baker Lake.

A-12

FCIP – Fish Connectivity Operation & Maintenance (O&M) . No less than 60 days before initiation of operation, the licensee shall file with the Commission its complete plans and specifications for O&M of upstream passage facilities. The O&M plan shall include at least the following elements: a) fish handling, b) hauling frequencies, c) frequency and magnitude of attraction flows, d) species protocol, e) trap operational flows, f) a schedule, g) the method for providing annual updates, and h) trap reporting requirements.

FCIP – Fish Connectivity Quality Assurance/Quality Control. No less than 60 days before initiation of operation, licensee shall file with the Commission for approval a quality assurance/quality control plan for the upstream passage connectivity facilities and/or operations to confirm the approved plans will be constructed and/or operated as approved.

FCIP – Fish Connectivity Emergency Response Plan . No less than 120 days prior to the initiation of operation of any of the fish passage facilities required by this article, licensee shall file with the Commission a preliminary response plan addressing operational contingencies and emergencies, and shall file a final plan with the Commission within 120 days from startup testing.

FCIP – Fish Connectivity Annual Reporting . Licensee shall file with the Commission an annual report describing the operation of the upstream fish passage connectivity facilities for the past year at the Upper Baker and Lower Baker Developments, pursuant to Article 102. The report shall include the numbers and species of fish captured in the trap and the associated disposition of those fish. The report shall include a description of problems and associated remedies for such problems, any modifications of the facilities implemented in the prior year, and audit and report operational compliance.

The licensee shall provide a minimum of 30 days for the consulted parties to comment and to make recommendations before filing each of the above plan components with the Commission. The licensee shall include with each of the plan components and reports required by this article, documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan component after it has been prepared and provided to the consulted parties, documentation of the approval of FWS and NMFS or documentation of the status of the review by the FWS and NMFS, and specific descriptions of how the other consulted parties’ comments are accommodated by the plan. If the licensee does not accept a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

A-13

Article 105Downstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan

Licensee shall provide safe and effective downstream passage at the Baker River Project by using attraction, guidance, trapping, sorting, holding and hauling facilities located on the project reservoirs and other operations and facilities as appropriate for the Baker River Project, in accordance with the plan described in this article. Required facilities include new facilities and may include renovation of some existing facilities.

Licensee shall develop, submit to NMFS and FWS for approval, and file with the Commission for approval, a Downstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan (DFPIP). The licensee shall develop the DFPIP in consultation with the ARG and specifically with NMFS, FWS, WDFW, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community.

The plan shall be implemented in phases, according to the schedule that follows, or on an alternative schedule to be submitted to the Commission for approval by licensee within six months of license issuance:

DFPIP – Downstream Passage Construction & Design . No less than 60 days before initiation of construction and no later than 2 years after license issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission its complete plans and specifications for construction of facilities for attraction, capture, and transport of downstream migrating fish at the Upper Baker and Lower Baker Developments.

The downstream passage construction and design actions shall include licensee’s provision of safe and effective downstream passage at the Upper Baker and Lower Baker Developments, which may include the following features: a) a guide net; b) a FSC; c) a transition structure between the guide net and FSC; d) a transportation conduit; e) a floating fish trap; f) transfer facilities; g) hauling vehicles, and h) stress-relief ponds, in accordance with the plan described in this article. The downstream passage facilities shall be developed and installed according to the following sequence:

1) Upper Baker phase one shall include a 500 cfs capacity FSC (with 1,000 cfs pumping capacity) and ancillary facilities, to be scheduled to be operational by March 2008;

2) Lower Baker phase one shall include a 500 cfs capacity FSC (with 1,000 cfs pumping capacity) and ancillary facilities, to be operational by March 2012;

A-14

3) Upper Baker phase two shall be provided if Upper Baker phase one fails to meet performance criteria described in the DFPIP and the Services’ section 18 prescription, and shall include a 1,000 cfs capacity FSC to be installed no later than five (5) years after completion of phase one, if needed; and

4) Lower Baker phase two shall be provided if Lower Baker phase one fails to meet performance criteria described in the DFPIP and the Services’ section 18 prescription, and shall include expansion of the existing 500 cfs FSC to 1,000 cfs capacity, if needed.

5) If at any time before a phase two expansion segment is constructed for either the Upper Baker or Lower Baker FSC, NMFS and the FWS determine that phase two is not required as a prescriptive measure due to the success of phase one downstream passage, and both NMFS and FWS provide documentation to the licensee and to FERC that no further prescriptive measures are required, $800,000 will be made available to fund projects identified pursuant to Article 505 for each unnecessary expansion.

DFPIP – Downstream Passage Operation & Maintenance (O&M). No less than 60 days before initiation of operation, the licensee shall file with the Commission its complete plan and specifications for O&M of downstream passage facilities. The O&M plan shall include at least the following elements: a) the seasonal period of operation, b) special FSC operations, c) fish sampling, d) fish handling protocols, e) holding and release protocols, f) transport loading rates, g) trap counts reported weekly, h) a schedule, and i) the method for providing annual updates.

DFPIP – Downstream Passage Quality Assurance/Quality Control. No less than 60 days before initiation of operation, licensee shall file with the Commission for approval a quality assurance/quality control plan for the downstream passage facilities to confirm the approved plans will be constructed as approved.

DFPIP – Downstream Passage Emergency Response Plan . No less than 120 days prior to the initiation of operation of any of the fish passage facilities required by this article, licensee shall file with the Commission a preliminary response plan addressing operational contingencies and emergencies, and shall file a final plan with the Commission within 120 days from startup testing.

DFPIP – Fish Passage Annual Reporting . Licensee shall file with the Commission an annual report describing the operation of the

A-15

downstream fish passage facilities for the past year at the Upper Baker and Lower Baker Developments, pursuant to Article 102. The report shall include the number and species of fish captured in the trap and the associated disposition of those fish. The report shall include a description of problems and associated remedies for such problems, any modifications of the facilities implemented in the prior year, and audit and report operational compliance.

If there are any unexpected delays for the schedules set forth in this article, licensee shall convene a meeting of the ARG to identify an acceptable alternative to properly protect, mitigate and enhance downstream fish passage in the context of the schedule for all downstream passage facilities, which may include, without limitation, an accelerated schedule for fish passage at one reservoir if the schedule is delayed for fish passage at the other reservoir.

The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the consulted parties to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. The licensee shall include with the plan, documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the consulted parties, documentation of the approval of FWS and NMFS or documentation of the status of the review by the FWS and NMFS, and specific descriptions of how the consulted parties’ comments are accommodated by the plan. If the licensee does not accept a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

If licensee needs to submit an alternative schedule to the Commission, licensee shall prepare the schedule in consultation with the ARG. Licensee shall provide a copy of the proposed alternative schedule to the Commission, and shall forward any comments on the alternative schedule to the Commission along with the proposed alternative schedule. Upon approval, the alternative schedule becomes a requirement under the license, and the licensee shall implement the alternative schedule, including any changes required by the Commission.

Licensee shall make funding available in an amount not to exceed $20,000 annually during the term of the license for beneficial modifications beyond the scope of any modifications required to meet performance standards. The licensee may, in consultation with the ARG, modify facilities or operations as a result of performance reporting, changing needs and new technologies, provided that such modifications shall not proceed without the approval of the NMFS and FWS. Modifications shall be submitted to the Commission for approval.

A-16

Article 106Flow Implementation

Licensee shall release flows and manage reservoirs at the Baker River Project for the protection, restoration and/or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources, riparian vegetation, aesthetic resources, water quality, recreation resources, flood control and health and safety, as described in this article and Article 107.

(A) Interim Operations. Until the new units described in this article are constructed, licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with the Interim Protection Plan (IPP) analyzed in the Biological Opinion for Endangered Species Act section 7 Consultation for the Baker River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2150), NMFS Consultation No. 2002/01040, or as approved by the Commission. During this interim period, licensee shall use best efforts to protect other species of salmonids not addressed in the IPP by reducing the maximum flow from generation of 4,100 cfs to 3,200 cfs from the Lower Baker Development, or less if possible, during the spawning season, from September 1 to December 31. The licensee shall investigate methods and make best efforts to reduce ramping rates toward the standards established in Aquatics Table 1 below. In making its best efforts, licensee shall consider the best interests of the fish resources by limiting the rate of change of incrementally decreasing flows, limiting the amount of daily amplitude change, and minimizing the difference between spawning and incubation flows. These flows may not necessarily be preferred for energy generation, but will be within the operational limitations of the existing Lower Baker dam and powerhouse.

(B) Flow Implementation Plan. Within four years of license issuance, the licensee shall prepare and submit for the Commission’s approval a Flow Implementation Plan (FIP). The FIP shall: 1) specify the schedule for construction of two new generating units each with 750 cfs capacity, as provided in subsection (E); 2) require the implementation of Aquatics Table 1 or 2 as provided in sub-section (C), following construction; 3) provide the process and criteria for proposing modifications to Aquatics Table 1 or 2; and 4) provide the process and criteria for amending the FIP. The licensee shall develop the plan in consultation with the ARG, including specifically Ecology, FWS, NMFS, Forest Service, WDFW, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, and Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 60 days for the consulted entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. The plan shall include documentation of consultation, copies of comments and recommendations, and the licensee’s responses. If the licensee does not accept a recommendation, the plan shall include the licensee’s reasons based on project-specific information.

A-17

(C) Plan Implementation. Following construction of the facilities required by this article, the licensee shall release flows as provided in Aquatics Table 1. In the event that the Corps District Engineer directs the licensee to operate the Lower Baker reservoir to provide up to 29,000 acre-feet of storage in accordance with Article 107, licensee shall implement Aquatics Table 2, following the construction of any necessary facilities modifications, and the FIP shall be revised to incorporate Aquatics Table 2.

(D) Aquatics Table 1 or 2 Modifications. Aquatics Table 1 or 2 may be modified, as appropriate to protect, mitigate, and enhance aquatic resources. If licensee obtains or receives new information that suggests different flows may better protect, mitigate, and enhance aquatic resources, then licensee will provide the new information to the ARG to allow consideration of a modification to Aquatics Table 1 or 2. The ARG may propose a modification provided that the modification shall not require licensee to make additional funds available or to increase the total expected cost or other impact on project generation or capacity, subject to the reserved authority of the Commission or Ecology. Modifications may be proposed at any time prior to completion of the FIP or through the plan amendment process thereafter. Following approval by the Commission, the licensee shall implement the modifications as required by the FIP.

A-18

Settlement AgreementBaker River Hydroelectric Project

Aquatics Table 1. Flows and reservoir elevations proposed for the Baker River Project, FERC No. 2150.Lower Baker Development

Engineering Module: Three turbines (one 4,100 cfs turbine, two 750-cfs turbines)Upper Baker DevelopmentNo changes to turbine configuration

PeriodMin. Instream


Flow (cfs) (1)

Downramping Rates (2)

Flood Control Storage (AF)

Max Pool Level (ft)

(NAVD 88)

Min Pool Level (ft)

(NAVD 88) PeriodFlood

Control Storage (AF)

Max Pool (3)

Level (ft)(NAVD 88)

Min Pool Level (ft)

(NAVD 88)


ChangeAug 1-31 1,000 3,600


No flood control requirement

442.35 404.75 Aug 1-31No flood control


727.77 724.8 Max pool fluctuation <

0.5 ft per rolling 24-hr

period

Sep 1-3 1,000 3,600 442.35 404.75 Sep 3 727.77 724.8

4-9 1,000 3,600 442.35 404.75 Sep 9 727.77 720.8

10-30 1,000 3,200 442.35 404.75 Sep 30 727.77 718.8

No constraints

on max daily pool level changes

Oct 1-7 1,000 3,200 (1) 442.35 389 Oct 7Gradual

drawdown to 74,000 AF by

11/15

727.11(4) 713.88-15 1,000 3,200 (1) 442.35 389 Oct 15 726.23(4) 685

16-20 1,000 3,200 (1) 442.35 389 Oct 20 725.68(4) 68521-31 1,200 3,600 (1) 442.35 389 Oct 31 724.47(4) 685

Nov 1-15 1,200 3,600 (1)

2-inches per hour day and

night

442.35 389 Nov 14 712.42(4) 68516-30 1,200 3,600 (1) 442.35 389 Nov 15-30

74,000 AF 11/15 to 03/01

711.56 685Dec 1-31 1,200 3,600 (1) 442.35 389 Dec 1-31 711.56 685Jan 1-31 1,200 5,600 442.35 389 Jan 1-31 711.56 685Feb 1-15 1,200 5,600 442.35 389 Feb 1-15 711.56 685

16-28 1,200 5,600

0 inches per hour day and 2 inches per hour

night

442.35 389 16-28 711.56 685Mar 1-31 1,200 5,600 442.35 389 Mar 1-31 Gradual refill 718 685Apr 1-30 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 Apr 1-30

No flood control requirement after 04/01

718 685May 1-8 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 May 1-8 727.77 685

9-14 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 9-14 727.77 713.815-22 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 15-22 727.77 718.823-31 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 23-31 727.77 724.8 Max pool

fluctuation < 0.5 ft per

rolling 24-hr period

Jun 1-15 1,200 5,600 442.35 404.75 Jun 1-15 727.77 724.816-30 1,200 5,600 1-inch /hour

day and night

442.35 404.75 16-30 727.77 724.8

Jul 1-31 1,200 5,600 442.35 404.75 Jul 1-31 727.77 724.8(1) Maximum release constraints eliminated when Baker Lake inflow > 10 % monthly exceedance flow OR Skagit River above the Baker River confluence > 24,000 cfs October through December. No minimum flow requirements.

No maximum instream flow constraint.No downramping limitations for environmental interests.(4) Daily reservoir elevations between October 1, November 1, and November 15 shall be at or below straight lines drawn between 727.77 and 724.47 and between 724.47 and 711.56 for those respective dates with a gradual refill after March 1.


NOTE: All elevations are referenced to NAVD 88. Operations in effect for all years (no special dry year conditions)

A-19

Aquatics Table 2. Flows and reservoir elevations proposed for the Baker River Project, FERC No. 2150 if Proposed Article 107 is adopted.Lower Baker Development



PeriodMin. Instream




Max Pool (3)

Level (ft)

(NAVD 88)


Flood Control

Storage (AF)

Max Pool (3)

Level (ft)(NAVD 88)



ChangeAug 1-31 1,000 3,600


No flood control





Sep 1-3 1,000 3,600 442.35 404.75 Sept 3 727.03 (4) 724.8

4-9 1,000 3,600 442.35 404.75 Sept 9 724.82 (4) 720.810-30 1,000 3,200 442.35 404.75 Sept 30 717.09 (4) 718.8

No constraints

on max daily pool

level changes

Oct 1-7 1,000 3,200 (1)

29,000 AF 10/01 to 03/01

428.55 389 Oct 7

Gradual drawdown

to 74000 AF by 10/15 (4)

74,000 AF 10/15 to

03/01

714.51 (4) 713.88-15 1,000 3,200 (1) 428.55 389 Oct 15 711.56 (4) 685

16-20 1,000 3,200 (1) 428.55 389 16-20 711.56 68521-31 1,200 3,600 (1) 428.55 389 21-31 711.56 685

Nov 1-15 1,200 3,600 (1)


428.55 389 Nov 1-15 711.56 68516-30 1,200 3,600 (1) 428.55 389 16-30 711.56 685

Dec 1-31 1,200 3,600 (1) 428.55 389 Dec 1-31 711.56 685Jan 1-31 1,200 5,600 428.55 389 Jan 1-31 711.56 685Feb 1-15 1,200 5,600 428.55 389 Feb 1-15 711.56 685

16-28 1,200 5,600



night

428.55 389 16-28 711.56 685Mar 1-31 1,200 5,600

No flood control


442.35 389 Mar 1-31 Gradual refill 718 685Apr 1-30 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 Apr 1-30

No flood control


718 685May 1-8 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 May 1-8 727.77 685

9-14 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 9-14 727.77 713.815-22 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 15-22 727.77 718.823-31 1,200 3,600 442.35 389 23-31 727.77 724.8 Max pool


Jun 1-15 1,200 5,600 442.35 404.75 Jun 1-15 727.77 724.816-30 1,200 5,600 1-inch /hour

day and night

442.35 404.75 16-30 727.77 724.8

Jul 1-31 1,200 5,600 442.35 404.75 Jul 1-31 727.77 724.8




(4) Daily reservoir elevations between October 1 and October 15, shall be at or below straight lines drawn between 727.77 and 711.56 for those respective dates with a gradual refill after March 1.

A-20

Baker River Flow (cfs)

Skagit River Flow (cfs)

1,500 and Less

2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,5005000 and

Greater

Ramp rates as measured at the Baker

at Concrete Gage in inches per hour

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000

17,000

18,000

19,000

20,000

21,000

22,000

23,000

24,000

25,000

26,000

27,000

28,000

29,000

30,000

2.0

1.0

3.0

4.05.06.0

2.0

3.0

4.0.0

5.05.06.0


Aquatics Ramping Rate Figure A: Relationship between flows in the Baker River and Skagit River (Transect 1/Dallas Gage) and resulting in ramping schedule for the Baker River Project as measured at the Baker River at Concrete Gage to effect the Skagit river for seasons requiring 1 inch per hour.

A-21

Baker River Flow in CFS

Skagit River Flow (cfs)

1,500 and less 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

5,000 and

Greater

Ramp rates as measured at the

Baker at Concrete Gage in

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000

17,000

18,000

19,000

20,000

21,000

22,000

23,000

24,000

25,000

26,000

27,000

28,000

29,000

30,000

10.011.0 9.012.08.0

4.0.0

3.0

5.05.0

6.0

7.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

4.0.0

5.05.06.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

Aquatics Ramping Rate Figure B. Relationship between flows in the Baker River and Skagit River (Transect 1/Dallas Gage) and resulting in ramping schedule for the Baker River Project as measured at the Baker River at Concrete Gage to effect the Skagit river for seasons requiring 2 inch per hour.

A-22

(E) Construction of New Units. To achieve this flow regime and meet these ramping rates, the licensee shall, upon Commission approval of a construction plan and schedule: 1) install two new generating units with approximately 750 cfs capacity each at the Lower Baker Development, to come on line within six years after license issuance; and, if needed, 2) alter the existing facilities.

(F) Ramping Rates. The licensee shall, beginning as early as reasonably practicable following license issuance and installation of the two new generating units at the Lower Baker Development, change the ramping rates for all licensee-controlled streamflow releases per Aquatics Table 1 or 2. The ramping rates shall apply on the Skagit River at transect 1, but will be measured on the Baker River based upon an established relationship shown on a table or curve to be developed by licensee by seeking input from the ARG, WDFW, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, the Swinomish Indian Tribal, the FWS, NMFS, and Forest Service, and in consultation with Ecology, and in accordance with any approval received from Ecology.

These ramping restrictions are to be in effect whenever the flow, as calculated at the Skagit River above the Baker River confluence, is less than or equal to 26,000 cfs. The relationship between flows and ramping is depicted on Aquatics Ramping Rate Figures A and B above.

(G) Monitoring Flows and Ramping Rates. Instream flows and ramping rates shall be monitored at the USGS gage (Station 12193500) Baker River at Concrete or via other approved means. Results of monitoring shall be made available to the Commission as part of the report required by this article. In the event that the gaging site USGS #12193500 Baker River at Concrete is no longer operable and another gage is used which is influenced by extraneous conditions (gages of the Skagit River, or tributaries, wind action, fluctuations in flow from upstream projects, for example), these ramping compliance conditions will be revisited.

(H) Temporary Modification to Flows and Ramping Rates – Natural Events. The flow regime required by this article may be temporarily suspended and modified in the event that drought conditions, or some other natural event outside of the control of licensee, limit licensee’s ability to comply with the requirements of this article. Prior to operating outside of the conditions of this article, licensee shall: 1) notify the ARG and, at least, NMFS, FWS, Ecology, WDFW, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, and Skagit County; 2) hold a meeting to identify potential options and solutions, which may include, but not be limited to, controlled generation and specified release patterns to protect fish to the extent practicable; and 3) obtain approval from Ecology. Controlled generation and specified release pattern solutions include, but are not limited to, the following:

A-23

If the total project live storage (Baker Lake and Lake Shannon combined) drops below 160,000 acre-feet, licensee shall notify the ARG and reduce generation at the Lower Baker Development to the minimum instream flow in effect at that time until project storage has been restored above 160,000 acre-feet.

(I) Temporary Modification to Flows and Ramping Rates – Emergencies. In the event that a condition affecting the safety of the project or project works, as defined by 18 C.F.R. § 12.3(b)(4), occurs and does not allow for consultation to occur before responding, then flows and ramping rates may be temporarily modified following any consultation with Ecology that is possible given the exigencies of the event. If the flow is so modified, the licensee shall notify Ecology, the Commission and the ARG as soon as practicable after the condition is discovered, without unduly interfering with any necessary or appropriate emergency repair, alarm, or other emergency action procedure. Licensee shall provide all members of the ARG with a copy of any written report required by 18 C.F.R. § 12.10(a)(2) within ten (10) days of filing with the Commission.

(J) Reporting Violations. In the event of a violation of the flow release or ramping schedule, the licensee shall report such violations as soon as discovered, but no later than 24 hours. Email notification, or other reporting mechanisms, agreeable to the parties, shall be made to the Commission, Ecology, and the ARG. The licensee shall provide a follow-up report to the Commission, Ecology, and the ARG within two weeks of the incident stating what occurred, licensee’s response, and any measures licensee proposes to reduce future similar occurrences.

(K) Annual Reporting. Within two years of license issuance and annually thereafter according to the schedule set forth in Article 102, the licensee shall prepare and submit a Flow Implementation Report (FIR) regarding implementation of this article’s requirements. The licensee shall develop the report in consultation with the ARG, including specifically Ecology, FWS, NMFS, Forest Service, WDFW, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe and Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. The licensee shall provide a minimum of 60 days for the consulted entities to comment before filing the FIR with the Commission. The FIR shall include documentation of consultation, copies of comments, and licensee’s responses based on project-specific information.

(L) Conflicts. If a conflict arises between the ramping rates or flow regimes in Article 106 and the additional flood control measures implemented as a part of Article 107(b) or (c), then the licensee shall modify its operations to the minimum extent necessary to avoid the conflict in a manner to protect aquatic resources.

A-24

Article 107Flood Storage

(a) The licensee shall so operate the Upper Baker River reservoir as to provide each year 16,000 acre-feet of space for flood regulation between October 15 and March 1 as replacement for the valley storage eliminated by the development. Utilization of this storage space shall be as directed by the District Engineer, Corps. In addition to the above-specified 16,000 acre-feet, the licensee shall provide in the Upper Baker River reservoir space for flood control during the storage drawdown season (about September 1 to April 15) up to a maximum of 58,000 acre-feet as may be requested by the District Engineer, provided that suitable arrangements shall have been made to compensate the licensee for the reservation of flood control space other than the 16,000 acre-feet specified herein.

(b) Additionally, from October 1 to March 1, licensee shall operate the Lower Baker storage reservoir to provide up to 29,000 acre-feet of storage for flood regulation, at the direction of the District Engineer, Corps, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Department of the Army, subject to the following: (i) such storage shall be provided only in accordance with arrangements that are acceptable to the Corps; and (ii) such storage shall be provided only after suitable arrangements have been made to compensate the licensee for the 29,000 acre-feet of storage for flood regulation specified herein.

(c) Licensee shall consult with the ARG, and specifically Skagit County and the Corps, to develop means and operational methods to operate the project reservoirs in a manner addressing imminent flood events and consistent with the requirements of the license. Appropriate means and methods may include, without limitation, additional reservoir drawdown below the maximum established flood pool. Licensee shall submit a report to the Commission within three years following license issuance describing any operational changes developed as a result of this consultation.

A-25

Article 108Gravel

Within two years of license issuance, or on an alternative schedule submitted to the Commission for approval, the licensee shall develop and file with the Commission for approval a Gravel Management Plan for the purposes of evaluating sediment interruption by the Baker River Project and identifying any gravel augmentation measures to be implemented by the licensee. Gravel augmentation identified in the plan shall not exceed 12,500 tons annually. Licensee shall develop the plan in a manner that considers cost-effective evaluation measures and does not require a comprehensive assessment of sediment dynamics in the Skagit River Basin. The Gravel Management Plan, at a minimum, shall describe the existing and proposed:

1. Gravel augmentation measures intended to improve the geomorphic function of the Lower Baker River alluvial fan and affected downstream reach of the Skagit River to the extent of project impediment to sediment transport, which includes the mainstem river channel and associated depositional features located within the Skagit River floodplain and may address the following: 1) location and contribution of gravel/cobble-sized material in the affected reach, 2) condition and substrate attrition rates in the reach immediately upstream, 3) substrate attrition rates within the affected reach, and 4) substrate sizes in relation to biological needs of salmonids and other aquatic organisms;

2. Procedures for evaluating and monitoring the conditions in the Skagit River to determine when and if gravel augmentation is or becomes warranted and to track long-term trends in substrate profile degradation; and

3. Implementation guidelines and triggers for gravel/cobble augmentation. Triggers may be based on various factors, which may include, without limitation, the condition of the middle Skagit River absent project influence, fluvial geomorphic changes throughout the term of the license, and/or habitat suitability for salmonids or other aquatic organisms using the middle Skagit River.

The licensee shall develop the Gravel Management Plan following consultation with the ARG. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 60 days for the consulted entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. The licensee shall include with the plan, documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the ARG, and specific descriptions of how ARG comments are accommodated by the plan. If

A-26

the licensee does not accept a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

If licensee needs to submit an alternative schedule to the Commission, licensee shall prepare the schedule in consultation with the ARG. Licensee shall provide a copy of the proposed alternative schedule to the ARG at least 30 days prior to submitting the alternative schedule to the Commission, and shall forward any comments on the alternative schedule to the Commission along with the proposed alternative schedule. Upon approval, the alternative schedule becomes a requirement under the license, and the licensee shall implement the alternative schedule, including any changes required by the Commission.

Licensee shall perform the evaluation and monitoring, and gravel augmentation measures as required by the plan.

A-27

Article 109Large Woody Debris

Within two years of license issuance, or on an alternative schedule submitted to the Commission for approval, the licensee shall develop and file with the Commission for approval a LWD Management Plan. The LWD Management Plan shall provide for the reasonable transport of large woody debris (wood over 12 inches (30 cm) in diameter and over 8 feet (244 cm) long) from project reservoirs to mutually agreeable stockpile areas in the Baker basin to be identified in the plan. The plan shall identify the following 20-year targets for transport: 1) 2,960 pieces 30-60 cm diameter, 2) 540 pieces 60-90 cm diameter, and 3) 160 pieces greater than 90 cm diameter. The plan shall set forth specific annual transport requirements that will allow licensee to achieve the 20-year targets if LWD is available. Licensee’s obligation shall not extend to security of the stockpiled LWD, unless located on project lands. The plan shall establish (i) wood transfer quantities for the first twenty years of the license term and (ii) a formula for reconfiguring the quantities relating to size and piece number allocation within the period after the first twenty years that is based on actual LWD accumulation over the first twenty years of the license. The plan shall include an implementation schedule.

The licensee shall develop the LWD Management Plan after consultation with the ARG and Terrestrial Resources Implementation Group (TRIG). The licensee shall allow a minimum of 60 days for the consulted entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. The licensee shall include with the plan, documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the ARG and TRIG, and specific descriptions of how the ARG and TRIG comments are accommodated by the plan. If the licensee does not accept a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.


A-28

Article 110Shoreline Erosion

Within one year of license issuance, or on an alternative schedule to be submitted to the Commission for approval, the licensee shall develop and file with the Commission for approval an Erosion Control Plan Implementation Schedule, defining the measures the licensee shall undertake to control shoreline erosion in a manner consistent with Article 201. The plan shall incorporate the results of prefiling relicensing Study A14a, Reservoir Shoreline Erosion and Deposition, and shall define the measures that licensee will undertake to control shoreline erosion.


The Erosion Control Plan, and any subsequent updates, shall require the licensee to develop site-specific plans for erosion control, erosion prevention, and/or remediation activities wherever Forest Service lands or resources may be affected. Prioritization for treatment of identified sites that are at risk of harm shall be in accordance with plans developed in consultation with the Forest Service, and shall include the first priority for the following: recreation sites, heritage resources, and aesthetic/cultural sites and the second priority for Severe and High Erosion Categories and any sites affecting facilities or resources that emerge during the term of the license. The Erosion Control Plan shall include:

survey protocols, fieldwork schedules, and reporting requirements for site-specific evaluation (to be used in the design of the treatments), including measurements of geology, vegetation, erosion rates and mechanisms, documented with photographs, maps and GPS locations;

selection criteria and prioritization of sites for treatment;

descriptions of appropriate treatment techniques including treatment standards and goals, methods, materials, costs and timing;

evaluation of the probability of success for treatments and consideration of alternatives;

schedules for treatment implementation, including all necessary NEPA/SEPA and permitting;

A-29

schedules for maintenance of treatments as needed;

development and implementation of a monitoring plan to assess the effectiveness of erosion control treatments and to monitor erosion trends at untreated sites;

evaluation and treatment of erosion at newly emergent sites that are affecting resources;

annual reporting requirements; and

provisions for updating the Plan at five year intervals utilizing adaptive management and monitoring to assess future treatment and maintenance actions.

Appropriate erosion treatment techniques will be determined based on potential effectiveness and safety. Erosion control measures may include, but are not limited to: a) vegetation and/or bioengineering; b) anchored logs; c) riprap vestment; d) rock wall; e) crib wall; f) perched beach; and g) drift sills.

The licensee shall develop the Erosion Control Plan in consultation with the Forest Service. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the Forest Service to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with the Commission. The licensee shall include with the Erosion Control Plan, documentation of consultation and copies of comments and recommendations on the Erosion Control Plan after it has been prepared and provided to the agency, and specific descriptions of how the agency’s comments are accommodated by the Erosion Control Plan. If the licensee does not accept a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

Licensee shall make funding available in an amount not to exceed $600,000, in accordance with the following schedule: $100,000 in each of Years 2, 3, and 4 following license issuance and $100,000 every ten years thereafter during the term of the license.

A-30

Article 201Programmatic Agreement

The licensee shall implement the “Programmatic Agreement Between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer for Managing Historic Properties that May be Affected by a License Issuing to Puget Sound Energy for the Continued Operation of the Baker River Hydroelectric Project in Skagit and Whatcom Counties, Washington - FERC Project No. P-2150” (Programmatic Agreement)[Note: Title to be Determined], executed on ***[to be filled in by FERC], including, without limitation, but not limited to the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) attached to the Programmatic Agreement. The HPMP is approved and the licensee shall implement its provisions.

For license Article 201, licensee shall provide an annual summary of expenditures made during the preceding year in conformance with the requirements of the license, as well as an accounting of funding expenditures, interest earned, disbursements made as required by any article, and a report indicating adjustments made for inflation in accordance with Article 602. The figure below depicts the annual reporting schedule.

A-31

Articles Draft report

due date Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

HPMP 201 July 31

CRAG 602 July 31

Reporting PeriodDraft dueAgency comment period

Draft FERC rept due Final due to FERC


12 Month Reporting Period

Final Annual Report due to FERC

Draft Annual Report Preparation


Draft Article Report Preparation

Reporting schedule for cultural Articles 201 and 602

A-32

Article 301Recreation Management Report

Within three years following license issuance, and annually thereafter, the licensee shall prepare and file with the Commission a Recreation Management Report (“RMR”) regarding plans and other measures for protection, mitigation, and enhancement of recreation resources in the project area.

The RMR, at a minimum, shall: (1) report on the status of development or implementation of plans or other measures required by: (a) Article 302 (Aesthetic Management), (b) Article 303 (Baker Lake Resort), (c) Article 304 (Water Recreation Safety), (d) Article 305 (Lake Shannon Access), (e) Article 311 (New Facilities) , and (f) Article 315 (Law Enforcement Planning); (2) report on the status and development of plans and other measures being undertaken by the Forest Service with funding provided by licensee, based on any information provided to licensee by the Forest Service, pursuant to (a) Article 306 (Visitor Information), (b) Article 307 (Visitor Interpretation), (c) Article 308 (Dispersed Recreation), (d) Article 309 (Forest Service Bayview Campground), (e) Article 310 (Forest Service New Trails and Trailheads), (f) Article 311 (Forest Service New Campgrounds), (g) Article 312 (Forest Service Campground Maintenance), (h) Article 313 (Forest Service Trail and Trailhead Maintenance), and (i) Article 314 (Forest Service Forest Roads, Road Maintenance); and (3) contain a list, summary, or compilation of previously reviewed plans required by (a) Article 302 (Aesthetic Management Plan for Project Facilities), (b) Article 303 (Baker Lake Resort Plan), (c) Article 304 (Water Recreation Water Safety Plan), (c) Article 305 (Lake Shannon Recreation Plan), (d) Article 311 (Developed Recreation Monitoring Plan), and (e) Article 315 (Law Enforcement Plan).

The RMR shall also include an implementation schedule, substantially in the form attached as Appendix A-5 entitled “Recreation Implementation Schedule.” The licensee shall review the Recreation Implementation Schedule annually in consultation with the Recreation Resources Group (“RRG”), and shall update it if there are: a) any changes in priorities for use of funding, b) acknowledgement of satisfaction of licensee’s funding obligation related to completion of any action required by a specific article, c) any new or modified Forest Service management objectives that may change uses of funding, d) any change in Forest Service priorities due to funding sources from third parties and the effect, if any, on the Recreation Implementation Schedule, and e) any reports accounting for funds expended by all parties under this article. Any Recreation Implementation Schedule update shall be submitted to the Commission for approval.

The licensee shall include documentation of consultation on the Recreation Implementation Schedule, copies of review comments by the Forest Service and

A-33

RRG on the completed RMR and updates to the RMR, and specific descriptions of how the comments of the Forest Service and the RRG are accommodated in the RMR or update. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 60 days for the Forest Service and RRG to comment before filing the RMR or update with the Commission.

For license Articles 301-318 and 602, licensee shall provide an annual summary of expenditures made during the preceding year in conformance with the requirements of the license, as well as an accounting of funding expenditures, interest earned, disbursements made as required by any article, and a report indicating adjustments made for inflation in accordance with Article 602. The figure below depicts the annual reporting schedule.

A-34

Reporting schedule for recreation Articles 301-318, and 602

A-35

Article 302Aesthetics Management

Within two years of license issuance, or on an alternative schedule to be submitted to the Commission for approval, the licensee shall file the Aesthetics Management Plan (AMP) with the Commission for approval.

If licensee needs to submit an alternative schedule to the Commission, licensee shall prepare the schedule in consultation with the RRG. Licensee shall provide a copy of the proposed alternative schedule to the RRG at least 30 days prior to submitting the alternative schedule to the Commission, and shall forward any comments on the alternative schedule to the Commission along with the proposed alternative schedule. Upon approval, the alternative schedule becomes a requirement under the license, and the licensee shall implement the alternative schedule, including any changes required by the Commission.

The licensee shall develop the AMP in consultation with the RRG and specifically the Forest Service. Within eighteen months of license issuance, the licensee shall submit a draft of the AMP to the RRG for review and comment. The licensee shall include, with the AMP filed with the Commission, an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of consulting entity comments and recommendations on the completed plan and schedule, after they have been prepared and provided to consulting entities, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan and schedule. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan revision and schedule with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

The AMP shall contain an implementation schedule, a list of local native plants species that may be used for landscaping, and a list of approved exterior colors and materials for selected project facilities. The AMP shall include provisions for the licensee to implement the following actions to reduce visual effects: 1) paint the pump station (off peak pump discharge facility) in neutral earth-tone colors and plant native vegetation to screen the facility from the West Pass Dike boat launch area, 2) plant native vegetation to screen the yards, buildings, and fence of the Upper Baker Operations and Maintenance Yards from the Kulshan Campground and Forest Service Road 1106, 3) paint the existing crane at the Lower Baker Dam a neutral earth-tone color during the next normal painting cycle, and 4) plant landscaping in the area near the visitor’s center and associated parking area at the Lower Baker River Operations Complex Center. The AMP shall not require the licensee to implement any action in a manner that would prevent the safe operation of the project and associated facilities or interfere with dike and road maintenance.

A-36

The licensee shall make funds available to the Forest Service in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule required by Article 301. The funds will be used to implement the following actions for non-project facilities in the vicinity of Baker Lake: 1) vegetation management at Panorama Point, Horseshoe Cove, Shannon Creek, Bayview Campground, and Maple Grove Campground, and 2) vegetation management between Forest Service developed sites and/or viewpoints, and Baker Lake in two to four locations averaging less than ¼ acre in size.

A-37

Article 303Baker Lake Resort Redevelopment Plan

Within two years of license issuance or on an alternative schedule to be submitted to the Commission for approval, the licensee shall file the Baker Lake Resort Redevelopment Plan (BLRP) with the Commission for approval.


The licensee shall develop the BLRP in consultation with the RRG and TRIG and specifically the Forest Service. Within eighteen months of license issuance, the licensee shall submit a draft of the BLRP to the RRG and Forest Service for review and comment. The licensee shall include, with the BLRP filed with the Commission, an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of consulting entity comments and recommendations on the completed plan and schedule, after they have been prepared and provided to consulting entities, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan and schedule. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan revision and schedule with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

The plan shall provide for redevelopment of the resort to a Forest Service “Development Level 3” campground, as defined in the Forest Service “Recreation Management Systems Meaningful Measures for Quality Recreation Management,” dated January 2002, as amended, and the “Built Environment Image Guide for National Forests and Grasslands,” dated December 2001 and shall, at a minimum, provide for the necessary decommissioning of the existing site in addition to what would be required under the termination of the Special Use Authorization, including building removal and the development of between 30-50 campsites.

The licensee shall, for the purpose of contributing to the redevelopment of Baker Lake Resort, make funding available to the Forest Service in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5. In the event licensee has taken any action to redevelop or decommission the site pursuant to the Special Use Authorization, any expenditures

A-38

related to the actions taken will be credited against the required funding for this article.

A-39

Article 304Baker Reservoir Recreation Water Safety Plan

Within one year of license issuance, or on an alternative schedule to be submitted to the Commission for approval, the licensee shall file Baker Reservoir Recreation Water Safety Plan (BRRWSP) with the Commission for approval.


The licensee shall develop the BRRWSP in consultation with the RRG. Within six months following license issuance, the licensee shall submit a draft of the BRRWSP to the RRG for review and comment. The licensee shall include, with the BRRWSP filed with the Commission, an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of consulting entity comments and recommendations on the completed plan and schedule, after they have been prepared and provided to consulting entities, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan and schedule. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan revision and schedule with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

The BRRWSP shall require the licensee to:

1) Within one year of license issuance, make funds available to the Forest Service for the purpose of constructing and installing eight to twelve (8-12) bulletin boards at locations listed in the Recreation Water Safety Plan, in accordance with the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5.

2) Within two years of license issuance, prepare, in consultation with the RRG, information about the Baker Lake area including reservoir safety and provide displays and tear-sheet maps for visitors at the following specific sites: the Forest Service /National Park Service office in Sedro-Woolley, all developed lake shore campgrounds at Baker Lake, the West Pass Dike public boat launch, PSE’s Concrete Visitor Information Center if the facility is being operated, and two to four selected boat-in access points. Licensee shall review the maps and displays every sixth year of the license term and revise them to include any

A-40

additional boat launches, developed sites, or other recreation facilities and pertinent information.

3) Within three years of license issuance, construct floating log booms, buoys, or functionally equivalent structures to separate existing designated swimming areas from boat traffic at Horseshoe Cove and Baker Lake Resort. If there are remaining funds available during the construction of any new designated swimming areas, or if selected as a proper use of RAM funds, in accordance with Article 602, similar floating log booms, buoys, or functionally equivalent structures may be constructed to separate swimming areas from boat traffic. For the term of the license, licensee shall maintain such structures and provide adequate safety signage demarking swimming areas at Horseshoe Cove and Baker Lake Resort, and annually monitor reservoir hazards to recreation.

The licensee shall make funding available to the Forest Service to contribute to its efforts in carrying out the purposes of this article in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5.

A-41

Article 305Lower Baker Developed Recreation

Licensee shall file Lower Baker Developed Recreation Plan (LBDRP) with the Commission for approval in accordance with this article.

Within one year of license issuance, licensee shall, in cooperation with Skagit County, initiate efforts to acquire a public access site on Lake Shannon for the purpose of providing additional recreational project access. Site acquisition and selection criteria shall be developed in consultation with the RRG. This action shall include, and may be limited to, identifying an access area suitable for the construction of a concrete boat launch, parking area, and day use area, that has an existing access road, commensurate with the States Organization for Boating Access (“SOBA”) Design Handbook for Recreational Boating and Fishing Facilities standards for “small access sites.” The development of the small access site shall not conflict with the implementation of the FSC required by Article 103, if the staging and launch is in the same location as the identified small access site.

Licensee shall acquire land for a Lake Shannon access site within ten years of license issuance. If licensee is unable to acquire a suitable and cost-effective access site on Lake Shannon, licensee shall, in consultation with the RRG and specifically Skagit County, identify and acquire a suitable and cost-effective access site at an alternative location that provides equivalent public opportunities for water access in the general vicinity of the project as could be provided on Lake Shannon. If licensee identifies a location that is not along the shoreline of Lake Shannon, licensee shall submit the alternate location to the Commission for approval. Within five years of site acquisition, licensee shall develop the site acquired according to SOBA standards for small access sites, and in accordance with the LBDRP.

The licensee shall develop the LBDRP in consultation with the RRG and ARG and specifically Skagit County. Within one year of site and access acquisition, the licensee shall submit a draft of the LBDRP to the RRG, ARG, and specifically Skagit County for review and comment. The licensee shall include, with the LBDRP filed with the Commission, an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of consulting entity comments and recommendations on the completed plan and schedule, after they have been prepared and provided to consulting entities, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan and schedule. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan revision and schedule with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

A-42

If the licensee needs to vary any of the timing requirements of this article, licensee shall submit an alternative schedule to the Commission for approval. If licensee needs to submit an alternative schedule to the Commission, licensee shall prepare the schedule in consultation with the RRG, ARG, and specifically Skagit County. In the event the licensee elects to submit an alternative schedule, the licensee shall forward a copy of the proposed alternative schedule to the RRG, ARG, and Skagit County at least 30 days prior to submitting the alternative schedule to the Commission, and shall forward any comments to the alternative schedule to the Commission along with the proposed alternative schedule. Upon approval, the alternative schedule becomes a requirement under the license, and the licensee shall implement the alternative schedule, including any changes required by the Commission.

Following site development, licensee shall operate and maintain this access area for the term of the license also in accordance with the approved plan. If property is acquired in a manner that allows development to exceed small boat access site standard, or in the event a party other than licensee develops recreational facilities in addition to those required by this article, following proper approval of any related use or conveyance of project lands under Article 44(d)(6) of the previous license, or current Article ___ [FERC to fill in], licensee shall not be required to fund maintenance above what would be required for a small boat access site.

The licensee shall make funding available in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule required by Article 301 for the planning, acquisition, and development of the new access area required by this article. Any funding not required for planning, acquisition, and development shall be made available to supplement the operation and maintenance of the access area. In addition to any funds remaining after completion of planning, acquisition, and development of the new access area, funding for operation and maintenance of the new project access area required by this article shall not exceed the annual amounts set forth on the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5 for the term of the license.

A-43

Article 306Upper Baker Visitor Information Services Funding

Within one year of license issuance, the licensee shall make funds available to the Forest Service for the purpose of contributing to visitor information services provided by the Forest Service in the Baker River basin. The funds will contribute to the following: 1) planning, design, and construction of a small Upper Baker Visitor Information Station (VIS), with a small parking area, information kiosks, and sanitation facilities commensurate with available funding; 2) support with staffing and operations from Memorial Day through Labor Day for visitor information services at Baker Lake during peak use periods; and 3) summer recreation season support from Memorial Day through Labor Day for the Mt. Baker Ranger District VIS in Sedro-Woolley during peak use periods, commensurate with available funds. The licensee shall make funding available in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5.

A-44

Article 307Upper Baker Visitor Interpretive Services Funding

Within one year following license issuance, the licensee shall make funds available to the Forest Service for the purpose of contributing to the planning, staffing, and production of materials to provide interpretive services in the project area, with an emphasis on Baker Lake. The funds will be used for the preparation of a comprehensive Interpretation and Education Plan (“IEP”) by the Forest Service to facilitate the performance of interpretive services, including production of support materials. Themes of the IEP may include: 1) local culture and history; 2) aquatic, terrestrial and other natural resources; and 3) stewardship and project features. The licensee shall make funding available in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5.

A-45

Article 308Dispersed Recreation Management Funding

Within one year of license issuance, licensee shall make funds available to the Forest Service for the purposes of contributing to the preparation and implementation of a Dispersed Recreation Management Plan (DRMP). The DRMP may describe management actions, routine O&M, monitoring objectives, and design plans to carry out hardening actions at three to six high priority sites identified on Exhibit R-2 of the Dispersed Site Inventory Study, Study R-12, attached as Appendix A-6. The DRMP may also include descriptions of initial management actions which are intended to limit the adverse impacts of dispersed recreation use through increased monitoring, routine maintenance, information, and site hardening. The licensee shall make funding available in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5.

A-46

Article 309Bayview Campground Rehabilitation Funding

Within one year of license issuance, license shall make funds available to the Forest Service for the purpose of contributing to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the 28-unit Bayview Campground. Funds may be used to contribute to rehabilitation and reconstruction of the existing campground to a similar level of development as other Forest Service sites developed according to Forest Service “Development Level 4,” as defined in “Recreation Management Systems, Meaningful Measures for Quality Recreation Management, dated January 2002, as amended, and “Built Environment Image Guide for National Forests and Grasslands,” dated December 2001. The licensee shall make funds available in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5.

A-47

Article 310Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead Construction Funding

Within four years following license issuance, licensee shall make funds available to the Forest Service for the purpose of contributing to trail-based recreation in the project vicinity. The funds are intended to contribute to Forest Service efforts to provide up to six miles of new multi-season, multi-use, non-motorized trails. Funds made available may be used for trail planning and construction consistent with the Forest Service trail development standards, as set forth in the Trails Management Handbook, FSH 2309.18. The licensee shall make funding available, for the purpose of contributing to trail based recreation at Upper Baker, in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5.

A-48

Article 311Lower Baker Trail Construction

Within twelve years of license issuance, or on an alternative schedule to be submitted to the Commission for approval, the licensee shall file Lower Baker Trail Construction Plan (LBTCP) with the Commission for approval.

If licensee needs to submit an alternative schedule to the Commission, licensee shall prepare the schedule in consultation with the RRG. In the event the licensee elects to submit an alternative schedule, the licensee shall forward a copy of the proposed alternative schedule to the RRG and Skagit County at least 30 days prior to submitting the alternative schedule to the Commission, and shall forward any comments on the alternative schedule to the Commission along with the proposed alternative schedule. Upon approval, the alternative schedule becomes a requirement under the license, and the licensee shall implement the alternative schedule, including any changes required by the Commission.

The licensee shall develop the LBTCP in consultation with the RRG. Within six years of license issuance, the licensee shall submit a draft of the LBTCP to the RRG for review and comment. At least 30 days prior to submitting the LBTCP to the Commission for approval, the licensee shall provide a revised draft of the LBTCP to the RRG for review and comment. The licensee shall include, with the LBTCP filed with the Commission, an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of consulting entity comments and recommendations on the completed plan and schedule, after they have been prepared and provided to consulting entities, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan and schedule. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan revision and schedule with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

The LBTCP shall include provisions for site selection, development criteria and construction of up to two miles of trail in the vicinity of the Town of Concrete, in a manner consistent with the requirements of Articles 201, 508 and 509. The licensee shall make funding available in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5.

A-49


Article 312Developed Recreation Monitoring and Funding

Within five years of license issuance, or on an alternative schedule to be submitted to the Commission for approval, the licensee shall file the Upper Baker Developed Recreation Monitoring and Funding Plan (DRMFP) with the Commission for approval.

If licensee needs to submit an alternative schedule to the Commission, licensee shall prepare the schedule in consultation with the RRG. In the event the licensee elects to submit an alternative schedule, the licensee shall forward a copy of the proposed alternative schedule to the RRG at least 30 days prior to submitting the alternative schedule to the Commission, and shall forward any comments on the alternative schedule to the Commission along with the proposed alternative schedule. Upon approval, the alternative schedule becomes a requirement under the license, and the licensee shall implement the alternative schedule, including any changes required by the Commission.

The licensee shall develop the DRMFP in consultation with the RRG and specifically the Forest Service. Within four years of license issuance, the licensee shall submit a draft of the DRMFP to the RRG and Forest Service for review and comment. The licensee shall include, with the DRMFP filed with the Commission, an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of consulting entity comments and recommendations on the completed plan and schedule, after they have been prepared and provided to consulting entities, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan and schedule. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan revision and schedule with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

The plan shall provide for monitoring of site use and occupancy levels at the following fee campgrounds: Horseshoe Cove, Panorama Point, Bayview, Shannon Creek, and Baker Lake Resort. Data from this monitoring shall be provided annually to Forest Service. Licensee shall not be required to provide data readily available to the Forest Service or duplicative of information collected routinely by the Forest Service in conjunction with its monitoring and maintenance of the listed campgrounds.

The plan shall require the licensee to evaluate monitoring results no later than eight (8 ) years following license issuance, and annually thereafter until additional recreational development is implemented, in order to determine, in consultation with the Forest Service and based on monitoring results, whether the

A-50


licensee shall contribute to expansion of recreation site capacity in a manner compatible with the existing levels of development on Forest Service lands adjacent to Baker Lake. The determination of whether additional recreation site development at Baker Lake is necessary shall be based upon monitoring reports that document site use levels reaching or exceeding 60% of combined site occupancy for Horseshoe Cove, Panorama Point, Bayview, Shannon Creek, and Baker Lake Resort campgrounds during the months of July and August for two consecutive years.

The licensee shall make funds available in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5 following consultation with the Forest Service indicating that additional recreation sites are needed.

A-51


Article 313Upper Baker Developed Recreation Maintenance Funding

Within one year of license issuance, and annually thereafter, in order to continue to provide recreation opportunities on National Forest System lands at Baker Lake, licensee shall make funds available to the Forest Service for the purpose of contributing to the Forest Service efforts in the operation and maintenance in a manner commensurate with maintenance routinely provided by the Forest Service in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest at the following developed facilities: Shannon Creek (development level 3); Panorama Point (development level 3); Bayview (development level 4); Horseshoe Cove (development level 4); Maple Grove (development level 2); and Baker Lake Resort (development level 3) (if under Forest Service management) and future developed facilities constructed in accordance with Articles 303, 309, and 312.

For any license term exceeding 30 years, licensee shall consult with the Forest Service to establish the actual level of funding required to accomplish rehabilitation or replacement of developed recreation facilities estimated in the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5. The licensee shall provide such funding for the purpose of maintaining these sites to the standard of development identified above in accordance with “Recreation Management Systems, Meaningful Measures for Quality Recreation Management,” dated January 2002, as amended, and “Built Environment Image Guide for National Forests and Grasslands,” dated December 2001 or the equivalent standards and legal requirements in place at the time replacement is required.

Funding provided by this article is intended to contribute to the Forest Service efforts to attain National Quality Standards as generally described in Appendices A and B of the Forest Service, Recreation Management Systems Meaningful Measures, January 2002 Publication, and the “Built Environmental Image Guide for National Forests and Grasslands,” dated December 2001, as they may be amended from time to time, to the extent possible with available funding, and also for the purpose of allowing the Forest Service to conduct deferred maintenance of these existing facilities.

Licensee’s obligation for funding is estimated in an amount shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule required by Article 301. Maintenance and operations funds shall be provided in fixed amounts for the first 10 years of the license in accordance with the RMR Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5. At the end of license year 10, licensee shall consult with the Forest Service to adjust the required maintenance and operations funds to be provided to the Forest Service for years 11-15 following license issuance, based

A-52


upon an assessment of licensee’s average obligations for the preceding 5 years. Following the establishment of the adjusted amount, operations and maintenance funds shall be fixed consistent with the preceding analysis and shall remain in effect until the end of license year 15. At the end of license year 15, licensee shall consult with the Forest Service to adjust the required operations and maintenance funds to be provided to the Forest Service for years 16-20 using the same procedures as in year 11. Following the establishment of the adjusted amount, operations and maintenance funds shall be fixed consistent with the preceding analysis and shall remain in effect until year 20. At the end of license year 20, licensee shall consult with the Forest Service to adjust the required operations and maintenance funds to establish a fixed annual payment for the remaining period of the license based upon the analysis of the prior 20 years.

The licensee shall enter into and file with the Commission a reimbursable maintenance agreement with the Forest Service, on terms and conditions satisfactory to both the Forest Service and licensee and consistent with the requirements of this article, that sets forth how the licensee funds and receives credit for maintenance expenditures at Forest Service developed campgrounds. If the Forest Service collects fees directly or from services provided by a third party concessionaire, and has the Congressional approval to retain the fees, then the collected fees will be directly spent on either maintenance or capital improvements at the facility at which they were collected unless directed otherwise by Congress. Funds collected less overhead retained and expended at the site by Forest Service shall commensurately reduce the licensee’s annual obligation at the site, in accordance with the mutually acceptable agreement between licensee and the Forest Service.

A-53


Article 314Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead Maintenance Funding

Within one year of license issuance and annually thereafter, the licensee shall make funds available to the Forest Service for the purpose of contributing to the Forest Service efforts to provide for recreation use on trails and trailheads on Forest Service lands in the vicinity of Baker Lake. The funds will be used for routine operation, maintenance, and facility replacement of the following Forest Service trails and trailheads: Baker River Trail (#606); Baker Lake Trail (#610); and Baker Lake North and South trailheads. The licensee shall make funding available to the Forest Service in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5.

A-54


Article 315Lower Baker Trail Maintenance

Following the development of the trail required by Article 311, licensee shall maintain the trail with available funds, in an amount not to exceed $620 annually during the remaining term of the license, in accordance with the Recreation implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5.

A-55


Article 316Forest Service Forest Road Maintenance Funding

Within six months of license issuance, and annually thereafter, licensee shall make funding available to the Forest Service for the purpose of contributing to the routine maintenance of portions of up to 25 miles of the following existing Forest Roads directly providing access to the project and project-related facilities: FR 11 (Baker Lake Highway); FR 1106 (Depression Lake); FR 1107 (Anderson Road); FR 1118 (Horseshoe Cove and Bayview); FR 1122 (Lower Sandy Creek); FR 1136 (Lower Boulder Creek); FR 1137 (Panorama Point); FR 1142 (Baker Lake Resort); FR 1150 (Shannon Creek Campground); and FR 1168 (Baker River Trailhead North). Funding is intended to be used, in part, for contributing to the Forest Service to pave FR 1106 during the sixth year following license issuance and for periodic resurfacing. Licensee shall make funds available in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5.

A-56


Article 317Access to Baker Lake

During the term of the license, licensee shall provide public road access to the east side of Baker Lake on existing FR 1106, except as may be restricted by short-term public safety or project security requirements.

A-57


Article 318Law Enforcement

Within one year of license issuance, licensee shall invite federal, state, and local enforcement agency personnel identified by Forest Service, NPS, Skagit and Whatcom Counties and Town of Concrete law enforcement departments, and WDFW to a meeting or meetings convened for the purpose of developing a Law Enforcement Plan (LEP) to provide for the coordination of the activities of law enforcement personnel with jurisdiction in the project area and the Baker Basin. The LEP is intended to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of law enforcement. The LEP may include provisions for law enforcement presence, other types of public contact personnel presence, enhanced emergency communication and response procedures, public safety and security, protection measures for facilities, natural resources, recreation resources, and heritage resources within the project area and Baker Basin generally. The actual elements of the LEP will be determined by the designated participating agency and law enforcement personnel.

Within two years of license issuance, licensee shall file a report on the LEP (LEP Report) with the Commission. At least 30 days prior to submitting the LEP Report to the Commission, the licensee shall provide a draft of the LEP Report to the RRG for review and comment. The licensee shall include, with the LEP Report filed with the Commission, copies of comments on the LEP Report and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the LEP Report. If the licensee does not adopt a comment, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

Licensee shall make funding available for the development and implementation of the original LEP and subsequent revisions as provided for in the LEP in an amount not to exceed that shown in the Recreation Implementation Schedule attached as Appendix A-5. In the event an LEP is not developed by participating agencies and law enforcement personnel within three years following license issuance, licensee shall retain the accumulated specified funding until the LEP is completed. Expenditures in preparation of the LEP and any subsequent monitoring and updates shall not exceed $55,000, in accordance with the Recreation Implementation Schedule Costs attached as Appendix A-5 for participation in the development of the plan, subsequent revisions, and generally in the planning process shall not be considered an authorized use of the funding.

A-58


Article 401Water Quality

Licensee shall comply with the terms and conditions of the 401 Certification issued by Ecology. Prior to the issuance of the 401 Certification, numeric water quality parameters of concern were identified to include but not be limited to: temperature, dissolved oxygen, total dissolved gas, and turbidity. With respect to these parameters, licensee shall also comply with the terms and conditions of the 401 Certification and to the extent the 401 Certification modifies the following, the following generally stated requirements shall be modified:

1) Temperature

The natural condition for temperature will be determined using studies and analyses performed within the first five years (or such other period determined by Ecology) following license issuance with the objective of meeting the water quality standards. Designated and existing uses include but are not limited to: salmon and trout spawning, core rearing, and migration; primary contact recreation; domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply; stock watering; wildlife habitat; harvesting; commerce and navigation; boating; and aesthetic values for Lake Shannon and Baker Lake, and specifically, native char for Baker Lake and all tributaries, and extraordinary primary contact recreation for Baker Lake.

Compliance is anticipated to be measured at the following compliance points: for Baker Lake, upstream of the Baker River dam forebay and Upper Baker tailrace; and for Lake Shannon, at Lower Baker dam forebay, Lower Baker tailrace, and Lower Baker fish weir. Additional or alternative compliance points may be deemed necessary by Ecology in the 401 certification.

2) Dissolved Oxygen

The natural condition for dissolved oxygen will be determined using studies and analyses performed within the first five years (or such other period determined by Ecology) following license issuance with the objective of meeting the water quality standards.

Compliance is anticipated to be measured at the following compliance points: for Baker Lake, the forebay and Upper Baker tailrace, and for Lake Shannon, the forebay and Lower Baker fish weir. Additional or alternative compliance points may be deemed necessary by Ecology in the 401 certification.

3) Total Dissolved Gas (TDG)

Licensee shall comply with water quality standards for TDG, except when flows in the Baker River exceed the rate equivalent to the seven-day, ten-year

A-59


flood frequency, as defined in WAC 173-201A-060(4)(a), and no further action beyond all known and available prevention, control, and treatment (AKART) shall be required unless monitoring detects non-exempt TDG exceedances, at which time licensee shall be required to propose appropriate action as authorized by Ecology. This action may involve a site-specific standard to achieve compliance with applicable water quality standards. Further studies may be required during the term of the license regarding the appropriate methods to reduce overall TDG production. Licensee shall minimize TDG production through the use of AKART, including at least the installation of two new generating units as required by Proposed Article 106(E), and the utilization of the new generating units in a manner consistent with reducing overall TDG production.

4) Turbidity

Licensee shall operate the project reservoirs to maintain a minimum surface elevation of 389 feet at Lake Shannon and 685 feet at Baker Lake to minimize the resuspension of sediments as a result of project operations, and discharges from the project shall not exceed background levels of turbidity occurring within tributaries that discharge into the project reservoirs as provided in applicable regulations.

Compliance shall be measured at the following compliance points: Upper and Lower Baker tailraces, except as otherwise exempted under WAC 173-201A-110. Additional or alternative compliance points may be deemed necessary by Ecology in the 401 Certification.

Required Plans

The licensee shall develop in consultation with Ecology, a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, and shall, following approval by Ecology, submit the plan to the Commission for approval. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan shall assess compliance with water quality standards, and summarize the monitoring schedule that will be employed to monitor compliance with the standards. The plan shall include monitoring throughout the life of the license, and require summary reports to be submitted annually to the Commission and Ecology. The plan may allow that requests for reduction in sampling frequencies and/or parameters be made to Ecology for consideration.

The licensee shall develop in consultation with Ecology, a Water Quality Protection Plan, and shall, following approval by Ecology, submit the plan to the Commission for approval. The Water Quality Protection Plan shall address the control of potential sources of pollutant releases from project construction, operations or emergencies. The plan shall include all project-related facilities, including, but not limited to, access roads, boat ramps, transmission corridors, structures, portable toilets, hatcheries and fish collection, handling and

A-60


transportation facilities, and staging areas for all activities related to project operation, maintenance and repair. The format and content of the Water Quality Protection Plan shall be prepared at the direction of Ecology, but it shall include, and may not be limited to, the following individual plan elements:

1. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other control measures to prevent contaminants entering the project 's surface water and groundwaters. The SWPPP shall address the pollution control measures for licensee's activities that could lead to the discharge of stormwater or other contaminated water from upland areas. The SWPPP should also specify the management of chemicals, hazardous materials and petroleum (spill prevention and containment procedures), including refueling procedures, the measures to take in the event of a spill, and reporting and training requirements. The SWPPP shall include appropriate water quality monitoring protocols and notification requirements.

2. In-water Work Protection Plan. The In-Water Work Plan shall be consistent with the SWPPP and shall specifically address the BMPs and other control measures for licensee activities that require work within surface waters. In addition to construction projects, this work includes, but is not limited to, the application of herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, disinfectants, and lake fertilization. An appropriate water quality monitoring plan shall be developed and implemented for all in-water work.

A-61


Article 501Terrestrial Resource Management Plan

Within one year from license issuance, or on an alternative schedule to be submitted to the Commission for approval, the licensee shall file the Terrestrial Resource Management Plan (TRMP) with the Commission for approval.

If licensee needs to submit an alternative schedule to the Commission, licensee shall prepare the schedule in consultation with the Terrestrial Resources Implementation Group (TRIG). In the event the licensee elects to submit an alternative schedule, the licensee shall forward a copy of the proposed alternative schedule to the TRIG at least 30 days prior to submitting the alternative schedule to the Commission, and shall forward any comments on the alternative schedule to the Commission along with the proposed alternative schedule. Upon approval, the alternative schedule becomes a requirement under the license, and the licensee shall implement the alternative schedule, including any changes required by the Commission.

The licensee shall develop the TRMP in consultation with the TRIG, and shall review the TRMP annually thereafter during the first ten years of the license, and every fifth year for the remaining term of the license. Within six months from license issuance, the licensee shall submit a draft of the TRMP to the TRIG for review and comment. At least 30 days prior to submitting the TRMP (or any revisions to the TRMP) to the Commission for approval, the licensee shall provide a revised draft of the TRMP (or any revisions to the TRMP) to the TRIG for review and comment. The licensee shall include, with the TRMP (or any revisions to the TRMP) filed with the Commission, an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of consulting entity comments and recommendations on the completed plan and schedule, after they have been prepared and provided to consulting entities, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan and schedule. The licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for entities to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan and schedule with the Commission. If the licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

The TRMP shall include the planning and implementation requirements identified in the following Articles: Article 502 (Forest Habitat); Article 503 (Elk Habitat); Article 504 (Wetland Habitat); Article 506 (Osprey Nest Structures); Article 507 (Loon Floating Nest Platforms); Article 508 (Noxious Weeds); Article 509 (Plants of Special Status); Article 510 (Carex flava); Article 511 (Decaying and Legacy Wood); Article 512 (Bald Eagle Winter Roost Surveys); Article 513 (Bald Eagle Management Plans); and Article 514 (Use of Habitat Evaluation

A-62


Procedures). The TRMP shall be consistent with Articles 502-517. Planning shall not be required for Articles 505, 515, 516, and 517. The TRMP shall include a schedule for monitoring only as required by Articles 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, and 514.

For license Articles 501-517, licensee shall provide an annual summary of expenditures made during the preceding year in conformance with the requirements of the license, as well as an accounting of funding expenditures, interest earned, disbursements made as required by any article, and a report indicating adjustments made for inflation in accordance with Article 602. The figure below depicts the annual reporting schedule.

A-63


Reporting Schedule for Recreation Articles 501-517, and 602

A-64


Article 502Forest Habitat

The licensee shall acquire and manage deciduous forest bird habitat, such as: deciduous forest land, mixed forest land, and riparian forest land, for the purpose of increasing, protecting, and/or enhancing habitat for deciduous forest dwelling species, including, without limitation, populations of neotropical migratory bird species that are in decline in the Puget Sound region. Qualifying deciduous forest habitat land shall be comprised of land with 40% or greater deciduous tree composition. In the plan required by Article 501, the licensee shall include criteria and procedures for site selection, acquisition, and management, developed in consultation with the TRIG. Such criteria and procedures shall: (A) consider any potential to impair, diminish, or abrogate tribal treaty or cultural rights, by providing that the licensee shall identify suitable alternative sites or management activities if the designated representative of any affected tribe notifies the TRIG of its conclusion that a particular site or management activity will impair, diminish, or abrogate specific tribal treaty or cultural rights and describes the basis for its conclusion; (B) consider the potential for integration of the site acquisition and management required by this article and other articles to optimize the resulting ecosystem benefits; (C) consider appropriate land acquisition costs; (D) consider the potential to secure grant funds to supplement the funds otherwise for implementation of this article; (E) consider whether any sites so acquired are appropriately included in the project boundary, and if so, provide for the filing of an appropriate request to the Commission; and (F) provide for continuing consultation with the TRIG in the implementation of the approved plan. Licensee shall undertake habitat planning, acquisition, and enhancement activities consistent with the purposes of this article in consultation with the TRIG. Licensee shall, when considering land acquisition or management activities, evaluate the extent of required noxious weed management in accordance with criteria developed in Article 508.

Funding for the acquisition, planning, and habitat enhancement and management (including noxious weed management) required by this article is not to exceed $450,000 (2006$), and shall be made available according to the following schedule: 1) $430,000 shall be made available within three years of license issuance, and 2) $5,000 shall be made available in each of years 4-7 from license issuance.

If funds are available twenty-five years following license issuance, and licensee, in consultation with the TRIG, determines lands are not available and/or habitat enhancement or management actions are not feasible for any of the intended purposes of this article, the remaining funds required by this article may be made available to the Terrestrial Enhancement and Research Fund (TERF)

A-65


established pursuant to Article 602. Unless otherwise approved by the Commission in accordance with the requirements of Article 601, acquired lands shall remain in licensee’s ownership during the term of the license.

For license Articles 501-517, licensee shall provide an annual summary of expenditures made during the preceding year in conformance with the requirements of the license, as well as an accounting of funding expenditures, interest earned, disbursements made as required by any article, and a report indicating adjustments made for inflation in accordance with Article 602.

For the purposes of this article, acquisition costs may include: transaction costs, such as completion of appropriate site assessments for hazardous materials and noxious weeds; land surveys, including timber cruise if needed; appraisals; habitat surveys; filing fees; excise taxes; title searches, reports, fees and insurance; closing costs; preparation of land acquisition agreements and any required governmental approvals. Acquisition costs may exclude: internal personnel and administrative costs of the parties associated with land acquisitions, such as staff salaries and benefits; attorney fees and other legal expenses incurred by the licensee or any other party not related to the preparation of land acquisition agreement and any required government approvals; and fees paid by the licensee to third parties for administrative costs associated with a third parties’ acquisition of interests in land on behalf of the licensee. Prior to completing any transaction, the licensee will notify the TRIG and ARG, as appropriate, if it appears that transaction costs will be significantly higher than expected at the time of license issuance, and shall, in consultation with the TRIG and ARG, determine whether to proceed with a transaction with significant transaction costs.

A-66


Article 503Elk Habitat

Within one year of license issuance, or on an alternative schedule to be submitted to the Commission for approval, the licensee shall begin efforts to acquire elk foraging habitat land for the purpose of providing significant and reliable foraging resources for the Nooksack Elk Herd during the term of the license, to improve habitat conditions for its recently declining population.

If licensee needs to submit an alternative schedule to the Commission, licensee shall prepare the schedule in consultation with the TRIG. In the event the licensee elects to submit an alternative schedule, the licensee shall forward a copy of the proposed alternative schedule to the TRIG at least 30 days prior to submitting the alternative schedule to the Commission, and shall forward any comments on the alternative schedule to the Commission along with the proposed alternative schedule. Upon approval, the alternative schedule becomes a requirement under the license, and the licensee shall implement the alternative schedule, including any changes required by the Commission.

The licensee, in consultation with the TRIG, shall develop site acquisition and selection criteria, in order to obtain lands suitable for long-term management as elk habitat. Such criteria and procedures shall: (A) consider any potential to impair, diminish, or abrogate tribal treaty or cultural rights, by providing that the licensee shall identify suitable alternative sites or management activities if the designated representative of any affected tribe notifies the TRIG of its conclusion that a particular site or management activity will impair, diminish, or abrogate specific tribal treaty or cultural rights and describes the basis for its conclusion; (B) consider the potential for integration of the site acquisition and management required by this article and other articles to optimize the resulting ecosystem benefits; (C) consider appropriate land acquisition costs; (D) consider the potential to secure grant funds to supplement the funds otherwise for implementation of this article; (E) consider whether any sites so acquired are appropriately included in the project boundary, and if so, provide for the filing of an appropriate request to the Commission; and (F) provide for continuing consultation with the TRIG in the implementation of the approved plan.

Initially site selection criteria should be based on the following geographic criteria in order of priority: a) within the core area of the Nooksack Elk Herd, b) within the peripheral area of the Nooksack Elk Herd if consultation with WDFW determines that animal damage complaints are unlikely to occur, and c) in the Sauk Game Management Unit if consultation with WDFW determines that animal damage complaints are unlikely to occur. Based on consensus within the TRIG, these geographic priorities should be revisited in response to changes in scientific

A-67


information, landownership patterns, game management agreements or WDFW’s elk management plan. Licensee shall, when considering land acquisition or management activities, evaluate the extent of required noxious weed management in accordance with criteria developed in Article 508.

Phase I. Initial acquisition. The licensee shall make good faith efforts to acquire, if possible, tract(s) having a total area of approximately 300 acres, and a combined elk forage equivalency value of at least 1,437, calculated as described in the Elk Habitat Table below. If the licensee is unable to acquire initial tract(s) with the required elk forage equivalency value, funding made available for the initial tract(s) shall be carried over for general acquisition purposes consistent with this article.

General. Funding for the total costs associated with acquisition is not to exceed $3,700,000 (2006$), with the first phase of acquisitions not to exceed $1,200,000. Funding shall be made available for the following acquisition periods: $1,200,000 within three months of license for the initial tract(s), another $1,250,000 within one year following license issuance, and the remaining $1,250,000 within five years following license issuance. Any funding not required for acquisition purposes may be made available to supplement the enhancement, management, and maintenance of acquired elk forage lands. If funds are available twenty-five years following license issuance, and licensee, in consultation with the TRIG, determines lands are not available and/or habitat enhancement or management actions are not feasible for any of the intended purposes of this article, the remaining funds required by this article may be made available for the TERF, as described in Article 602.

Within one year of each acquisition, the licensee shall prepare, or update, the elk forage habitat enhancement and management element of the Terrestrial Resources Management Plan, in accordance with Article 501. Acquired lands shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the plan developed in accordance with Article 501.

The licensee’s annual obligation for total costs associated with planning, habitat enhancement, management (for elk forage purposes and noxious weed management purposes), and maintenance of acquired lands is not to exceed $50,000 per year during the term of the license. In the event of a shortfall in acquisition funds, the funds to be made available for planning, habitat enhancement, management (for elk forage purposes and noxious weed management purposes), and maintenance of acquired lands may be converted for use for acquisition purposes following the licensee’s consultation with the TRIG in accordance with Article 501.

The licensee shall use the following Elk Habitat Table below to calculate the elk forage equivalency value for the initial tract(s) by multiplying the acres of

A-68


each habitat type by the corresponding elk forage equivalency score, and summing the products for all habitat types in the tract(s).

Elk Habitat TableElk forage equivalency rankings of habitat types in the Baker River basin.

Habitat Type; Successional Stage

Elk Forage Equivalency Rank

Elk Forage Equivalency Score per acre

Upland Conifer Forest; Shrub/Seedling Stage Good 3

Riparian Conifer Forest; Shrub/Seedling Stage Good 3

Upland Mixed Forest; Shrub/Seedling Stage Good 3

Riparian Mixed Forest; Shrub/Seedling Stage Good 3

Upland Deciduous Forest; Shrub/Seedling Stage Good 3

Upland Deciduous Forest; Sapling/Pole and Small Tree Stages Moderate 1

Riparian Deciduous Forest; Shrub/Seedling Stage Good 3

Riparian Deciduous Forest; Sapling/Pole and Small Tree Stages Moderate 1

Forested Wetland; Shrub/Seedling Stage Good 3

Shrub Wetland; Grass/Forb and Shrub/Seedling Stages Good 3

Wet Meadow; Herbaceous Wetland Stage Good 3

Cultivated Pasture (under management to provide elk forage) Excellent 9

All Other Habitats To be determined by TRIG

Unless otherwise approved by the Commission in accordance with the requirements of Article 601, all lands acquired in accordance with this article shall remain in licensee’s ownership during the term of the license.

For the purposes of this article, acquisition costs may include: transaction costs, such as completion of appropriate site assessments for hazardous materials and noxious weeds; land surveys, including timber cruise if needed; appraisals; habitat surveys; filing fees; excise taxes; title searches, reports, fees and insurance; closing costs; preparation of land acquisition agreements and any required governmental approvals. Acquisition costs may exclude: internal personnel and administrative costs of the parties associated with land acquisitions, such as staff

A-69


salaries and benefits; attorney fees and other legal expenses incurred by the licensee or any other party not related to the preparation of land acquisition agreement and any required government approvals; and fees paid by the licensee to third parties for administrative costs associated with a third parties’ acquisition of interests in land on behalf of the licensee. Prior to completing any transaction, the licensee will notify the TRIG or ARG, as appropriate, if it appears that transaction costs will be significantly higher than expected, and shall, in consultation with the TRIG or ARG, determine whether to proceed with a transaction with significant transaction costs.

A-70


Article 504Wetland Habitat

The licensee shall acquire wetland habitat lands for conservation of wetlands and wetland-dependent species, placing a priority on acquiring high quality, functioning wetland breeding habitat for native amphibian and other native species, for the purpose of conserving wetlands and providing long-term protection for species using the wetland habitat. The licensee shall, in consultation with the TRIG, develop site acquisition and selection criteria in accordance with the general geographic preferences set forth in Article 505(b). Such criteria and procedures shall: (A) consider any potential to impair, diminish, or abrogate tribal treaty or cultural rights, by providing that the licensee shall identify suitable alternative sites or management activities if the designated representative of any affected tribe notifies the TRIG of its conclusion that a particular site or management activity will impair, diminish, or abrogate specific tribal treaty or cultural rights and describes the basis for its conclusion; (B) consider the potential for integration of the site acquisition and management required by this article and other articles to optimize the resulting ecosystem benefits; (C) consider appropriate land acquisition costs; (D) consider the potential to secure grant funds to supplement the funds otherwise for implementation of this article; (E) consider whether any sites so acquired are appropriately included in the project boundary, and if so, provide for the filing of an appropriate request to the Commission; and (F) provide for continuing consultation with the TRIG in the implementation of the approved plan. Licensee shall, when considering land acquisition or management activities, evaluate the extent of required noxious weed management in accordance with criteria developed in Article 508. Following acquisition, the licensee shall undertake habitat enhancement and management (including noxious weed control) activities in accordance with a plan prepared after consultation with the TRIG and in accordance with Article 501.

Funding for acquisition is not to exceed $340,000 (2006$), and shall be made available within four years of license issuance. Funding for planning and for habitat enhancement, habitat management, and noxious weed management of existing or acquired parcels is not to exceed $190,000 and shall be made available according to the following schedule: $10,000 shall be made available within four years of license issuance, $140,000 shall be made available in the fifth year following license issuance, and $20,000 shall be made available in each of the sixth and seventh years following license issuance. If funds are available twenty-five years following license issuance, and licensee, in consultation with the TRIG, determines lands are not available and/or habitat enhancement or management actions are not feasible for any of the intended purposes of this article, the remaining funds required by this article may be made available to the TERF

A-71


established pursuant to Article 602. Unless otherwise approved by the Commission in accordance with the requirements of Article 601, acquired lands shall remain in licensee’s ownership during the term of the license.

For the purposes of this article, acquisition costs may include: transaction costs, such as completion of appropriate site assessments for hazardous materials and noxious weeds; land surveys, including timber cruise if needed; appraisals; habitat surveys; filing fees; excise taxes; title searches, reports, fees and insurance; closing costs; preparation of land acquisition agreements and any required governmental approvals. Acquisition costs may exclude: internal personnel and administrative costs of the parties associated with land acquisitions, such as staff salaries and benefits; attorney fees and other legal expenses incurred by the licensee or any other party not related to the preparation of land acquisition agreement and any required government approvals; and fees paid by the licensee to third parties for administrative costs associated with a third parties’ acquisition of interests in land on behalf of the licensee. Prior to completing any transaction, the licensee will notify the TRIG, as appropriate, if it appears that transaction costs will be significantly higher than expected at the time of license issuance, and shall, in consultation with the TRIG, determine whether to proceed with a transaction with significant transaction costs.

A-72


Article 505Aquatic Riparian Habitat Protection, Restoration and Enhancement Plan

Within two years of license issuance, licensee shall submit an Aquatic Riparian Habitat Protection, Restoration and Enhancement Plan (“ARP”) to the Commission for approval for the purpose of identifying actions to protect and enhance low-elevation bottomland ecosystems in the Skagit River basin, which includes the Baker River sub-basin, focusing on habitat for protection, acquisition, restoration and maintenance for anadromous salmonids, other aquatic species and riparian-dependent birds and amphibians.

Licensee shall develop the ARP in consultation with the TRIG and ARG, specifically including the Forest Service, WDFW, WDNR, The Nature Conservancy, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. Within one year of license issuance, licensee shall submit a draft of the ARP to the TRIG and the ARG for review and comment. At least 30 days prior to submitting the ARP to the Commission for approval, licensee shall provide the ARP to the TRIG and the ARG for review and comment. Licensee shall include, with the ARP, an implementation schedule, documentation of consultation, copies of consulting entity comments and recommendations on the completed plan and schedule, and specific descriptions of how the entities’ comments are accommodated by the plan and schedule. If licensee does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the licensee’s reasons, based on project-specific information.

The ARP shall be prepared based on the following criteria:

(a) candidate sites shall be examined for their potential to provide long-term benefits. Implementation proposals shall be based on a comparison of the predicted benefits arising at a specific site in relation to the costs of the action or actions proposed for the site, with the same factors for other sites with similar potential, based on a reasonable range of options for alternative sites;

(b) the location of sites for the purposes of implementation shall be used to aid in prioritizing locations in the following order: i) within the Baker River basin, ii) within the middle Skagit River and tributaries immediately downstream of the Baker River (from the confluence with the Baker River to the Pipeline Crossing at RM 24.3), iii) within the lower Skagit River and estuary, and iv) elsewhere in the Skagit River basin, or as may otherwise be established in the ARP;

(c) i) consideration of any potential to impair, diminish, or abrogate tribal treaty or cultural rights, by providing that the licensee shall

A-73


identify suitable alternative sites or management activities if the designated representative of any affected tribe notifies the TRIG and ARG of its conclusion that a particular site or management activity will impair, diminish, or abrogate specific tribal treaty or cultural rights and describes the basis for its conclusion; ii) consideration of the potential for integration of the site acquisition and management required by this article and other articles to optimize the resulting ecosystem benefits; iii) consideration of appropriate land acquisition costs; iv) consideration the potential to secure grant funds to supplement the funds otherwise for implementation of this article; v) consideration of whether any sites so acquired are appropriately included in the project boundary, and if so, provide for the filing of an appropriate request to the Commission; and vi) providing for continuing consultation with the TRIG and ARG in the implementation of the approved plan;

(d) the plan shall be structured to allow for flexibility in revising site selection criteria and reprioritizing types of habitat lands to be protected, acquired, restored and/or managed in response to changing needs and conditions over the term of the license;

(e) when considering land acquisition or management activities, evaluate the extent of required noxious weed management in accordance with criteria developed in Article 508;

(f) to aid in the evaluation of a specific resource project and site selection proposed under the ARP, licensee shall provide information to the TRIG and ARG regarding any other resource projects being considered pursuant to other license article requirements similar to the project being considered, or that provide similar potential biological benefits and have the potential for integration with related enhancement actions; and

(g) monitoring needs.

In addition to these general guidelines, the ARP shall require that up to $1,000,000 of the funds available for implementation of the ARP be expended within the Baker River watershed, as established in the ARP. For funds expended outside the Baker Basin, a minimum of 50% shall be spent on riverine/riparian habitat acquisition with anadromous fish benefits. A minimum of 50% of the funds so spent on riverine/riparian habitat shall be spent on habitat that benefits both anadromous species and deciduous forest/wetland species, unless otherwise agreed by the TRIG and ARG.

A-74


Licensee shall provide funding for implementation of the ARP in a total amount not to exceed $10,200,000, according to the following schedule for funding: $50,000 available annually starting the first year following license issuance and concluding in the sixth year following license issuance for planning and site evaluation activities; $300,000 available within two years following license issuance for initial protection, restoration, enhancement, and management activities; and $2,000,000 available in each of years 3, 8, 13, and 18 following license issuance, and up to $1,600,000 if phase two of Article 105 is not implemented.

For the purposes of this article, acquisition costs may include: transaction costs, such as completion of appropriate site assessments for hazardous materials and noxious weeds; land surveys, including timber cruise if needed; appraisals; habitat surveys; filing fees; excise taxes; title searches, reports, fees and insurance; closing costs; preparation of land acquisition agreements and any required governmental approvals. Acquisition costs may exclude: internal personnel and administrative costs of the parties associated with land acquisitions, such as staff salaries and benefits; attorney fees and other legal expenses incurred by the licensee or any other party not related to the preparation of land acquisition agreement and any required government approvals; and fees paid by the licensee to third parties for administrative costs associated with a third parties’ acquisition of interests in land on behalf of the licensee. Prior to completing any transaction, the licensee will notify the TRIG and ARG, as appropriate, if it appears that transaction costs will be significantly higher than expected, and shall, in consultation with the TRIG and ARG, determine whether to proceed with a transaction with significant transaction costs.

If funds are available twenty-five years following license issuance, and licensee, in consultation with the TRIG and ARG, determines lands are not available and/or habitat enhancement or management actions are not feasible for any of the intended purposes of this article, the remaining funds required by this article may be made available to the HERC and/or TERF funds.

A-75


Article 506Osprey Nest Structures

Within one year following license issuance, the licensee shall provide and maintain a minimum of ten artificial osprey nest structures at Lake Shannon. The ten nest structures shall consist of up to nine of the artificial structures currently maintained by licensee, and one or more new artificial structures to be installed at the site of a former natural snag nest or artificial nest structure. The licensee shall place the structures in a manner that is designed to provide a sufficient number of suitable osprey nest sites at Lake Shannon to support an estimated seven breeding pairs.

Within two years following license issuance, the licensee, in consultation with the TRIG, shall select and modify ten existing trees near Lake Shannon to promote their eventual use as osprey nest sites. The licensee shall select ten mature trees on lands suitable for osprey nesting owned and/or controlled by the licensee. Modification of the trees may involve topping, killing, or other appropriate techniques, based on site-specific evaluations, to promote the development of tree and snag nest sites available for osprey nesting at Lake Shannon.

During the term of the license, the licensee shall monitor osprey nesting and productivity annually between April 1 and August 31 at both Lake Shannon and Baker Lake, in accordance with the TRMP required by Article 501. At two-year intervals during the term of the license, the licensee shall inspect the ten artificial nest structures at Lake Shannon and maintain the structures in conditions suitable for use by nesting osprey. By December 31 in the second year of each two-year inspection and maintenance cycle, the licensee shall submit a draft nest inspection and monitoring report to the TRIG for a 30-day review and comment period. The report shall describe inspection results, maintenance activity, and nesting activity at both natural and artificial nests on Lake Shannon and Baker Lake during the preceding two years. During each report review period, the licensee, in consultation with the TRIG, shall determine whether additional artificial nest sites or modifications to the placement and design of new structures are needed to achieve the goal of seven breeding pairs on Lake Shannon to increase nesting success to meet the goal. This evaluation will include consideration of results of site evaluation, site monitoring, and best available science. The licensee shall file final nest inspection and monitoring reports with the Commission by June 1 of the year following each two-year inspection and maintenance cycle, allowing for a minimum of thirty days review and comment by the TRIG prior to filing.

A-76


Article 507Loon Floating Nest Platforms

Within one year after license issuance, licensee shall, in consultation with the TRIG, install and maintain three common loon floating nest platforms in suitable locations, consistent with the requirements of Article 304, on one or both of the project reservoirs, in accordance with the Terrestrial Resources Management Plan required by Article 501, for the purpose of establishing nesting use on the project reservoirs to increase nesting loon populations in Western Washington.

Licensee, in consultation with the TRIG, may substitute the placement of one floating nest platform on project reservoirs with making funding available to a third party for the purpose of placing and maintaining a floating nest platform on non-project lands. Funding made available for this purpose is not to exceed $2,500 for construction and placement of the nest platform, and $1,000 annually for maintenance.

Following installation of any floating nest platforms on project reservoirs, licensee shall place log booms, boundary buoys, or other appropriate devices to establish use restriction zones around each nesting platform to restrict public access. The nest platforms and public access restriction devices on project reservoirs shall be in place between April 1 and July 31 of each year. Licensee may remove and store the nest platforms required by this article when they are not required to be in place. Following review and comment by the TRIG, licensee shall install three additional floating nest platforms in the project reservoirs if nesting success is determined at any time during the term of the floating nest platform program.

During the first fifteen years following platform installation, licensee shall monitor all floating nest platforms installed in the project reservoirs twice per month between April 1 through July 31 to determine nesting activity, and the effectiveness of access restriction devices. By December 31 of each year, licensee shall file draft monitoring reports with the TRIG for a 30-day review and comment period. Annual monitoring reports shall summarize loon observations, nesting attempts, nesting activity, nest productivity, and platform maintenance activity within the project reservoirs during the previous breeding season. Final reports shall be filed with the Commission by June 1 of the following year.

During the sixteenth year following platform installation, licensee shall submit a draft effectiveness report summarizing the results of the 15-year monitoring period to assess loon breeding success on the installed nesting platforms. The report shall make recommendations as to the continuation of the floating nest platform program based on the presence or absence of nesting

A-77


activity, according to the following general criteria: observed loon nest-building activity or use of nests suggests loon nesting success, and a lack of breeding attempts on one or more of the platforms by the end of the 15-year period suggests lack of platform success. If the floating nest platform program is continued past year 15, annual monitoring and reporting shall continue.

If the report determines the program is unsuccessful, licensee shall, following consultation with the TRIG, either remove the loon nesting platforms and make the remaining funds available from the program to the TERF, or make the remaining funds available for a similar program by a third party at another location on non-project lands. Any funds made available to third parties for nesting platforms installations, monitoring, and management for a similar program on non-project lands shall terminate licensee’s obligations under this article. For purposes of this article, “remaining funds” shall be calculated by multiplying the number of years remaining in the license term by the actual average annual cost of maintenance and monitoring during years 6 through 15 following nest platform installation.

A-78


Article 508Noxious Weeds

During the term of the license, the licensee shall manage noxious weeds on project lands pursuant to the most restrictive applicable federal and state regulations, including, but not limited to: 1) Washington’s State Noxious Weed Control regulations found at WAC 16-750, 2) Best Management Practices published by the Forest Service (for weed control on Forest Service lands) for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, and 3) noxious weed control regulations adopted by Skagit or Whatcom Counties, in accordance with a plan developed in consultation with the TRIG as required by Article 501. The licensee shall file the plan with the Commission for approval, following consultation in accordance with Article 501. The plan shall address site-specific and species-specific management and monitoring programs, based on the guidelines and treatment options identified in the tables attached as Appendix A-1, which are based upon the results of pre-licensing Terrestrial Study T-6 and the Forest-Wide Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, published by the Forest Service in May 1999. The initial plan shall adjust treatment of all lands within the project boundary, and those lands outside the project boundary that were surveyed for noxious weeds during pre-licensing studies, as documented in the T-6 Final Study Report, December 23, 2003. The plan shall address how noxious weed management considerations will be addressed when evaluating land acquisition proposals or other activities pursuant to Articles 502, 503, 504, and 505.

The portion of the plan addressing the seven high quality wetland areas located on Forest Service lands, as identified in pre-licensing Terrestrial Study T-2/T-5 as WB 17, 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, and 30, shall place priority on the control of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) for the protection and enhancement of these wetlands. Licensee shall provide funding for the portion of the plan addressing these seven identified wetlands in an amount not to exceed $25,000 in each of years 1-5 following license issuance, and shall provide $15,000 annually thereafter during the term of the license.

Funding for noxious weed surveys and management for lands acquired following license issuance pursuant to Articles 502, 503, 504, and 505 shall be drawn from the funds of these articles.

A-79


Article 509Plants of Special Status

Within six months following license issuance, the licensee shall file with the Commission a plan for the management of plants of special status on existing project lands and the following non-project lands, to be more precisely identified during the development of the plan: 1) areas with potential to have impact from project activities, based on Forest Service pre-field review process, and 2) areas surveyed during pre-licensing rare plant surveys, as indicated by Baker River Project Relicense Study, T-16, as amended.

The licensee shall prepare the plan in consultation with the TRIG, and specifically, the FWS, Forest Service, and the WNHP of the WDNR, as required by Article 501, and in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix A-3. The plan shall be consistent with the noxious weed management plan described in Article 508. Amendments to the plan associated with the acquisition of new lands that result in a revision to the project boundary are not mandatory, but will be determined on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with the TRIG, in conformance with Article 501.

For the purposes of this article, “Plants of Special Status” shall include: 1) plant species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Proposed for Listing under the federal Endangered Species Act; 2) plant species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive by the State of Washington; and 3) on federal lands administered by the Forest Service, plant species on the Pacific Northwest Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. The plant species that were known to occur at the time of license application that required site-specific management plans are listed in Appendix A-2, and shall provide the initial basis for planning actions. A site-specific management plan shall be included in the overall plan for Carex flava, in accordance with Article 510.

A-80


Article 510Carex flava

During the term of the license, licensee shall manage yellow sedge (Carex flava) at Baker Lake for its protection, especially in areas where it is located in close proximity to reed canarygrass, according to a plan developed in accordance with Article 501 and filed with the Commission for approval within six months of license issuance, following consultation with the TRIG, including specifically the FWS, Forest Service and the WNHP of the WDNR. The plan shall require inventorying and mapping of known Carex flava populations, the development of control strategies for reed canarygrass around Carex flava populations, a method for monitoring and evaluating success of the plan, a planting plan if 20% or more of the Carex flava population decreases from the time of license issuance, and additional measures that are identified as a result of plan monitoring, as described in more detail in Appendix A-4. Plan updates shall be completed at least every ten years, or more regularly if needed to address monitoring and evaluation results, or when the species is no longer a State or federal sensitive species.

A-81


Article 511Decaying and Legacy Wood

Within three years following license issuance, and annually thereafter, the licensee shall manage snags, logs and residual live trees (“Decaying and Legacy Wood”) located on existing or acquired project lands for the purpose of enhancing Decaying and Legacy Wood structure to increase its value to snag and log dependent species. The management will be conducted in accordance with a plan filed with the Commission for approval in accordance with Article 501 within one year from license issuance. The licensee shall develop the plan in consultation with the TRIG, and will provide a 90-day review and comment period on a draft prior to filing with the Commission as required by Article 501.

In preparing the plan, licensee shall refer to Johnson, D.H. and O’Neil, T.A., “DecAID Model, Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington,” Oregon State University Press, 2001.

The Decaying and Legacy Wood Plan shall address the snag, log and residual live tree habitats of vertebrate species likely to inhabit the lands on a seasonal or year-round basis. The plan shall include measures to retain snags, logs and residual live trees where they already exist, and to promote the development of these features where they do not exist. The plan may also include measures to provide artificial structures to meet short-term habitat needs where natural snags, logs and residual live trees are not present and are not expected to develop over the term of the license. All measures in the plan shall be appropriate to the habitat types present on the lands. Existing snags, logs and residual live trees shall be retained in appropriate numbers as determined by land management objectives for each site in conformance with the plan. If existing snags and logs are insufficient to support the land management objectives in the plan to support population densities of primary cavity excavators, and live trees of appropriate size are present, the licensee shall create additional snags or downed logs from live trees, or alternative methods. The licensee shall file any amendments to the Decaying and Legacy Wood element of the plan, as required by Article 501, that result from the acquisition of any new project lands.

Funding for preparing the plan and managing Decaying and Legacy Wood according to the plan is not to exceed $35,000 each year in the first two years following license issuance, to allow for planning and initial site work, and is not to exceed $10,000 each year throughout the remaining term of the license. If funds are available twenty-five years following license issuance, and licensee, in consultation with the TRIG, determines habitat enhancement or management actions are not feasible for any of the intended purposes of this article, any

A-82


remaining funds required by this article may be made available to the TERF established pursuant to Article 602.

A-83


Article 512Bald Eagle Night Roost Surveys

During the first three years after license issuance, and again between years 15-17 from license issuance, licensee, in consultation with TRIG, shall design and conduct surveys to identify bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) communal winter night roosts in the vicinity of the Baker River Project. The purpose of the surveys will be to systematically determine the location of bald eagle night roosts in the Baker River basin in the project vicinity, and to assist WDFW, FWS, and Forest Service with the identification of areas in need of bald eagle protection. Licensee shall provide the results of the surveys to affected landowners, WDFW, FWS and the Forest Service within three months of completion of each round of surveys, and shall file survey results with the Commission annually.

Licensee’s funding for the surveys is not to exceed $25,000 for each 2-3 year survey period. To the extent the first $25,000 is not expended for the first survey period, any remaining funds shall be carried over to the succeeding survey period. Any funds remaining following completion of the second survey period shall be made available to the TERF, as described in Article 602.

A-84


Article 513Bald Eagle Management Plans

Within one year following license issuance, licensee shall develop a management plan for each bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest site and communal winter night roost known to exist on lands within the project boundary at the time of license issuance, to provide for the long-term protection of and management for bald eagles, as required by Article 501. The plan shall identify measures to protect and manage known nesting or winter roost sites on licensee owned lands within the project boundary and methods to survey for and protect these sites on lands acquired during the license term.

Within one year after acquiring new project lands, licensee shall develop a management plan for each bald eagle nest site and communal winter night roost known to occur on the land acquired. During the term of the license, the planning requirement shall apply to the discovery of new bald eagle nest sites or communal winter night roosts, and shall be in conformance with the plan developed in accordance with Article 501.

All plans, and any amendments to plans, shall be consistent with recommendations contained in the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (FWS, 1986), Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292), and Watson, J.W., and E.A. Rodrick, Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia (2002) (editors Larsen, E.M., J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, 2004), or similar guidance or rules in effect at the time any plan is developed. Final plans, and any plan amendments, shall be filed with the Commission. Within one year of any change in the state or federal status of the bald eagle, licensee, in consultation with the WDFW and FWS, shall review all plans prepared under this action and determine whether the plans need to be continued or modified.

A-85


Article 514Use of Habitat Evaluation Procedures

Within one year of license issuance, the licensee shall, in consultation with the TRIG, develop and prepare in accordance with Article 501 a monitoring plan to determine the effectiveness of the implementation of Articles 502, 503, 504, 506, 507 and 513. The plan shall require licensee to monitor the effectiveness of the implementation of Articles 502, 503, 504, 506, 507 and 513 through periodic assessments of habitat quantity and quality, using the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Ecological Service Manuals ESM 101, 102, 103 (Division of Ecological Services, Washington D.C. 1980), Habitat Evaluation Procedures (“HEP”), or another appropriate methodology selected in consultation with the TRIG. Monitoring is intended to assist resource managers in determining the current conditions of the lands acquired and assess management activities over the term of the license. Licensee shall consider the monitoring results in implementing Articles 502, 503, 504, 506, 507 and 513, in consultation with the TRIG.

Within five years of license issuance, licensee shall develop, in consultation with the TRIG, the schedule for specific monitoring actions, the timing of each monitoring period, monitoring criteria, the scope of monitoring given available funding, and the format for monitoring reports in accordance with the consultation requirements of Article 501.

Funding for all aspects of monitoring is not to exceed $200,000 (if license is 30 years or shorter) or $300,000 (if license is 40 years or longer)(2006$). The licensee shall make the funding available in $100,000 increments according to the following schedule: the first $100,000 available during the first 10 years of the license term, the second $100,000 available between years 20 and 30 of the license term (and the third $100,000 available after year 30 if the license is issued for a term of 40 years or longer). If funds are available forty years following license issuance, and licensee, in consultation with the TRIG, determines further use of the HEP is not feasible for any of the intended purposes of this article, any remaining funds required by this article may be made available to the TERF established pursuant to Article 602.

A-86


Article 515Late Seral Forest Growth

Within two years of license issuance, or December 31, 2008, whichever is earlier, the licensee shall make funds available to the Forest Service for its actual costs incurred in thinning trees on up to 321 acres of second-growth forest on Forest Service lands in the Baker River watershed. The funds may be used for the purpose of reducing edge effects by enhancing the acceleration of late-seral forest growth, which may increase the nesting success and/or survival of federally listed spotted owls and marbled murrelets. Funds made available to the Forest Service shall not exceed $80,250. If the Forest Service does not incur these costs within two years following license issuance, funds shall be held until requested by the Forest Service, or converted to use for the TERF described in Article 602, when and if directed by the Forest Service.

A-87


Article 516Mountain Goats

Within three years following license issuance, licensee shall make funds available to the Forest Service for its actual costs incurred in making habitat improvements in mountain hemlock forest in occupied mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) summer range on National Forest System lands in or adjacent to the Baker River Watershed. Funding for licensee’s contribution to the cost of planning, environmental review and implementation, for up to 194 acres of mountain hemlock forest land is not to exceed $70,000. The improvements funded with this measure may provide additional summer forage habitat by prescribed burns or other means in high elevation forest areas away from established recreation areas in the project vicinity.

If the Forest Service does not incur these costs within one year following license issuance, funds shall be held until requested by the Forest Service, or converted to use for the TERF described in Article 602, when and if directed by the Forest Service.

A-88


Article 517Grizzly Bear Road Management

Within six months of license issuance, or within sixty days of request by the Forest Service, whichever is earlier, licensee shall make funds available to the Forest Service for its actual costs incurred in planning, environmental review and implementation of a road closure program in the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Area of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, to reduce human use disturbance in the area and increase the effectiveness of spring and early summer grizzly bear foraging habitat. Funding for licensee’s contribution to the cost of planning, environmental review and implementation for this purpose is not to exceed $120,000. If the Forest Service does not incur these costs within the first six months of license issuance, funds shall be held until requested by the Forest Service, or converted to use for the TERF described in Article 602, when and if directed by the Forest Service.

A-89


Article 601Baker River Coordinating Committee

Creation of Baker River Coordinating Committee

Within six months of license issuance, licensee shall convene an initial meeting of the licensing implementation entity to be referred to as the “Baker River Coordinating Committee” (BRCC). Licensee shall provide each signatory to the Settlement Agreement a minimum of 30 days notice and invite each signatory to designate a representative, and an alternate representative. The purpose of the BRCC and Resource Groups is to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement and participate on license implementation committees. In the event that an agency, tribe, non-governmental organization, or individual who was not a party to the Settlement Agreement seeks membership on the BRCC, licensee shall allow participation by a non-party only upon the unanimous approval of the BRCC, as defined in this article.

Meeting Procedures of the BRCC and Resource Groups

During the term of the license, licensee shall convene meetings of the BRCC, as necessary, to comply with the consultation requirements of the license. Licensee shall convene a meeting of the BRCC at least once annually. Licensee shall provide each representative on the BRCC with at least ten days notice of any meeting of the BRCC, and shall include a proposed agenda for each meeting.

At the first meeting of the BRCC, licensee shall establish individual resource technical groups that are anticipated to be involved in addressing ongoing license implementation issues as licensee carries out the terms and conditions of the license, including, without limitation: the Terrestrial Resources Implementation Group (TRIG); the Recreation Resources Group (RRG); the Aquatics Resources Group (ARG); and the Cultural Resources Advisory Group (CRAG) (Resource Group(s)). Other sub-groups may be established by the BRCC as needed to address license issues that arise during the term of the license. Each party to the Settlement Agreement can be a member in a Resource Group or Group(s) and the BRCC, upon notifying the licensee in writing of its designated representative(s). A party may designate its primary representative, and any alternate representatives. Licensee shall establish meeting notice requirements and protocols for meetings of the TRIG, RRG, ARG, and CRAG at the first annual meeting of the BRCC, following consultation with all members of the BRCC. In the event of any conflict between license articles and any meeting protocols established, the terms of the license shall control.

A-90


Licensee shall arrange for the services of a neutral, non-BRCC member to record and distribute minutes of BRCC and Resource Group meetings, if agreed to by the BRCC at any time.

License Implementation Framework

For the term of the license, licensee shall consult with and schedule regular meetings of all Resource Groups, who will be invited to participate in all licensing implementation decisions pertaining to the resource area assigned to the Resource Group. The focus of license implementation decision-making will be within the Resource Groups. Meetings of the BRCC will be established to address issues affecting overall license implementation issues, annual updating, and other issues identified in this article or by the Resource Groups. The Resource Groups are intended to function as technical groups convened on an ongoing basis to address ongoing implementation issues throughout the term of the license. The BRCC is intended to function as a policy level group for decision-making issues that are not resolved in Resource Groups, as described in this article, and otherwise as a way of communicating with all signatories.

Licensee Implementation and Decision-Making

In carrying out licensee’s obligations under the license, licensee shall work collaboratively with all members of the BRCC to comply with license articles and make informed decisions related to the operation of the Baker River Hydroelectric Project. Specifically, licensee shall:

a) document the initial members of the BRCC and Resource Group representatives by compiling a list of all parties who have provided licensee of notice of their BRCC representatives and Resource Group representative(s);

b) record any votes taken by the BRCC or Resource Groups by giving each BRCC member one vote on all matters to be decided by the BRCC, and each Resource Group member with one vote on all matters to be decided by the Resource Group;

c) establish, and keep updated, a membership list of the BRCC as a whole and each of the Resource Groups established for the term of the license, including, without limitation, the TRIG, RRG, ARG, and CRAG. Each list shall contain the name of the party to the Settlement Agreement, the party’s designated representative and alternates, and relevant contact information;

d) chair the meetings of the BRCC, TRIG, RRG, ARG, and CRAG;

e) submit decisions to the BRCC as follows:

Licensee shall only offer a vote to be taken on any license implementation issue at a regularly convened meeting of the BRCC, after the licensee has provided a minimum of two weeks written notice including an agenda

A-91


and any issues on which a decision will be requested, made in accordance with the following decision-making protocol:

Decisions shall be made by consensus, defined as lack of objection. If consensus is not achieved at the Resource Group level, the BRCC may take a vote after licensee has complied with subsection (f) of this article and, for Articles 108, 109, 305, 502-505, 602, and 603 only, after affected resource agencies and tribes take an advisory vote.

For decisions related to implementation of plans for Articles 108, 109, 305, 502-505, 602, and 603 only, the BRCC may approve a proposal on a majority vote of the BRCC. If an advisory vote is not adopted by a majority vote at the BRCC, the meeting notes shall contain an explanation for not adopting the advisory vote.

For any decision related to a plan required by any article, consensus shall be required prior to filing the plan with the Commission, but licensee may timely file the proposed plan if consensus has not been achieved and licensee would risk noncompliance with a timing requirement. Licensee shall include in any plan submitted to FERC for which consensus was not achieved an explanation of any dispute relating to the proposed plan, along with the review and comments received in accordance with individual articles. If, following discussion at a BRCC meeting convened in accordance with the notice requirements of this article, a proposal does not achieve consensus, the proponent may request a vote. Each member of the BRCC will have one vote and only designated representatives will vote. Licensee shall record all votes, and any consensus achieved, in the minutes of the meeting during which a vote is taken.

After one vote, if consensus is not achieved, the proponent(s) may request a second vote. Any member voting against the proposal will explain the basis for the vote that specifically addresses the reason for the opposition and other relevant requirements of the license article(s) prompting the vote.

Licensee shall only offer a vote to be taken on any matter assigned for consultation with the BRCC, at a regularly convened meeting with a quorum present at the meeting. A quorum for a meeting of the BRCC, shall include at least one representative, or proxy, of each of the following to be present: licensee, the federal agencies (Forest Service, FWS, NPS, NMFS), the state agencies (Ecology, WDFW, DNR), and the tribes (SSIT, SITC, USIT).

f) submit matters to the BRCC if the Resource Groups are unable to reach consensus decisions on a resource issue, or a quorum cannot be established as described in subsection (e) of this article, after complying with the following procedures:

A-92


1. Licensee shall provide at least two weeks notice of Resource Group meetings and the notice shall include a draft agenda and any issues on which a decision will be requested;

2. Only a member of the Resource Group may make a proposal for a decision, although this is not intended to preclude the source of the proposal coming from a person or entity other than a member as long as a Resource Group member sponsors the proposal;

3. Resource Group decisions shall be made by consensus, defined as the lack of objection by members present at the meeting;

4. If consensus for a particular decision does not exist, the proponent of the proposal may request a vote, with each member having one vote per designated representative;

5. Licensee shall cause meeting minutes for each meeting where a vote is taken to contain a record of the votes and any consensus achieved;

6. After one vote, if consensus is not achieved, any member of the Resource Group may request a second vote; and

7. If consensus is not achieved after the second recorded vote, licensee, at the request of the proponent, shall refer the disputed proposal to the BRCC in accordance with subsection (e) of this article. The proponent may provide notice of the intent to refer at the time of second vote, or subsequently. Licensee shall not be required to include the decision on the agenda for a meeting of the BRCC to consider the proposal until the proponent(s); a) provides actual notice of the dispute at least three weeks prior to the date of the requested BRCC meeting at which the referred proposal is to be heard, and b) provides a written explanation of its vote at least two weeks prior to the requested meeting of the BRCC. Any member voting against the proposal will explain the basis for the vote that specifically addresses the reason for the opposition and other relevant requirements of the license article(s) prompting the vote.

g) for any articles requiring consultation with Resource Groups and/or specific parties, and for the purposes of the implementation of the license and Settlement Agreement only, licensee shall be deemed to have complied with the requirement to consult if licensee has communicated in writing with the party the licensee is required to consult with and provided information required by any specific article; and

h) only offer a vote to be taken on any matter assigned for consultation with the Resource Groups, at a regularly convened meeting with a quorum present at the meeting. A quorum for a meeting of the Resource Groups, or any of its resource groups, shall include at least one representative, or proxy, of each of the

A-93


following to be present: licensee, the federal agencies (Forest Service, FWS, NPS, NMFS), the state agencies (Ecology, WDFW, DNR), and the tribes (SSIT, SITC, USIT), or as otherwise defined by consensus of the BRCC.

Licensee may not rely on any decisions made by the BRCC, or Resource Groups, for any other purpose than complying with the requirements of the license. Licensee shall obtain any approvals required under applicable law related to any decision made by the BRCC for purposes of enabling licensee to comply with the requirements of the license.

Subject Matters for BRCC, Resource Group Communications and Meetings

Licensee may convene meetings of the BRCC, TRIG, RRG, ARG, and CRAG, respectively, for the following purposes, or for any other purpose consistent with the license, or at the request of two or more members of the BRCC:

a) TRIG meetings may be convened to address one or more of the following issues or other issues identified by the TRIG: 1) licensee’s implementation of Articles 501-517 (the Terrestrial Articles), 2) planning required by the Terrestrial Articles, 3) the scope, design, and conduct of any studies required to implement the Terrestrial Articles, 4) the discussion of study results pertaining to the implementation of the Terrestrial Articles, 5) land acquisition and selection criteria, required by any articles, 6) resource project funding decisions, as described in Article 602 related to the Terrestrial Articles, 7) any issues identified during any required monitoring related to the Terrestrial Articles, and 8) any required annual reporting for the Terrestrial Articles;

b) RRG meetings may be convened to address one or more of the following issues or other issues identified by the RRG: 1) licensee’s implementation of Articles 301-318 (the Recreation Articles), 2) planning required by the Recreation Articles, 3) the scope, design, and conduct of any studies required to implement the Recreation Articles, 4) the discussion of study results pertaining to the implementation of the Recreation Articles, 5) resource project funding decisions, as described in Article 602 related to the Recreation Articles, 6) any issues identified during any required monitoring related to the Recreation Articles, and 7) any required annual reporting for the Recreation Articles;

c) ARG meetings may be convened to address one or more of the following issues or other issues identified by the ARG: 1) licensee’s implementation of Articles 101-111, 401 and 505 (the Aquatics Articles), 2) planning and design review required by the Aquatics Articles, 3) the scope, design, and conduct of any studies required to implement the Aquatics Articles, 4) the discussion of study results pertaining to the implementation of the Aquatics Articles, 5) land acquisition and selection criteria, as described in any article, 6)

A-94


resource project funding decisions, as described in Article 602 related to the Aquatics Articles, 7) any issues identified during any required monitoring related to the Aquatics Articles, and 8) any required annual reporting for the Aquatics Articles;

d) CRAG meetings may be convened to address one or more of the following issues or other issues identified by the CRAG: 1) licensee’s implementation of Article 201 (the Cultural Article), 2) planning required by the Cultural Article, 3) the scope, design, and conduct of any studies required to implement the Cultural Article or implement the HPMP, 4) the discussion of study results pertaining to the implementation of the Cultural Article, 5) the development of any needed information or reports for the completion of the section 106 process, 6) any meetings required for pre-construction or land disturbance activities; 7) any issues identified during any required monitoring related to the Cultural Article, and 8) any required annual reporting for the Cultural Article; and

e) BRCC meetings may be convened to address one or more of the following issues or other issues identified by the BRCC or Resource Groups: 1) any matter requiring a vote of the BRCC, as submitted by any of the Resource Groups in accordance with the requirements of this article, 2) overall project implementation status and reporting, and 3) disputes arising from meetings of the Resource Groups not resolved by the Resource Group.

Dispute Resolution

In the event licensee is unable to document the consensus of a Resource Group related to the subject matter addressed by a Resource Group and required by a license article, licensee shall notify the BRCC of the nature of the issue, the efforts taken to resolve the issue, and any recommendation or agreed written statement of the issue developed by the Resource Group, as described in this article. In the event the BRCC resolves the issue, licensee shall communicate the results to the Resource Group members. In the event the BRCC does not resolve the issue, licensee shall notify all signatories of the Settlement Agreement of the failure of the BRCC to resolve the issue. Licensee shall stay the implementation of any decision reached by majority vote concerning Articles 108, 109, 305, 502-505, 602, and 603 at the request of any member of the minority who provides notice they are invoking the dispute resolution procedures authorized in section 4 of the Settlement, unless licensee is required to proceed with implementation by the license or other applicable law.

Disputes submitted to the Commission for consideration shall be limited to alleging an inconsistency: 1) between a proposed plan and an article; 2) between a proposed implementation action and an approved plan; or 3) between proposed

A-95


implementation action and the intent of an article, even if consistent with the approved plan.

Reporting and Auditing

Licensee shall provide an annual report generally summarizing the activities of the BRCC, TRIG, RRG, ARG, and CRAG during the preceding year as required by Articles 102, 201, 301, 501, 601, and 602 to each of the members of the BRCC, any of the Resource Group members who request a copy, and to the Commission.

Licensee shall allow a minimum of 30 days for BRCC members to comment and make recommendations before filing the annual report with the Commission no later than 90 days following the anniversary of the effective date of the license. Licensee shall include with the final report documentation of submission to all BRCC members for review and comment and descriptions of how any comments were addressed in the final report, or reasons for not addressing any comments, based on project-specific information.

A-96


Article 602Required Funding

Within one year of license issuance, licensee shall establish the Baker River Project Funds (the Baker Funds) to support resource protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures identified during the term of the license, consisting of four separate funds: the Terrestrial Enhancement and Research Fund (TERF), the Recreation Adaptive Management Fund (RAM), the Habitat Enhancement, Restoration and Conservation Fund (HERC), and the Cultural Resources Enhancement Fund (CREF). Each of the Baker Funds shall be a tracking account maintained by licensee. The total amount, excluding interest, to be credited to the Baker Funds, shall be the amounts set forth in Table 1, based on the term of the license, stated in 2006 dollars, which amount licensee shall credit to the individual funds as follows during the term of the license:

Table 1.

FUND NAME YEAR OF FIRST DEPOSIT

ANNUAL DEPOSIT AMOUNT (2006$)

TERF 2016 $25,000

RAM 2006 $50,000

HERC 2015 $50,000

CREF 2016 $20,000 through 2020$25,000 2021 through 2024$30,000 2025 through 2030

For years 30 to 50 of a new license term greater than 30 years, the schedule of payments to the funds listed in Table 1 shall be based on a calculation of the number of years for the new license divided by 30 + a 10% risk uncertainty factor multiplied by the 30th year payment value in the fund. For example, for a 50-year license, the calculation for the 50th year payment in the TERF fund would be (50/30) +.1 x $25,000 = (1.67+.1) x $25,000 = $44,167 (2006$). For the CREF fund which does not have a payment in the 30th year, the calculation for years 31 and following shall be based on the average of the payments years 10 through 25 ($25,000).

A-97


License shall make additional funds available according to the schedule set forth on Table 2 for each year of the term of the license in excess of 30 years, stated in 2006$, and the same formula shall apply for any annual licenses. If the license is not issued in 2006, the years shown in Table 2 shall be adjusted for funding to begin in the first year of license issuance and carry forward through the term of the license.

Table 2.

Year of license TERF RAM HERC CREF

30 2035 $ 25,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,00031 2036 $ 28,333 $ 56,667 $ 56,667 $ 28,33332 2037 $ 29,167 $ 58,333 $ 58,333 $ 29,16733 2038 $ 30,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 30,00034 2039 $ 30,833 $ 61,667 $ 61,667 $ 30,83335 2040 $ 31,667 $ 63,333 $ 63,333 $ 31,66736 2041 $ 32,500 $ 65,000 $ 65,000 $ 32,50037 2042 $ 33,333 $ 66,667 $ 66,667 $ 33,33338 2043 $ 34,167 $ 68,333 $ 68,333 $ 34,16739 2044 $ 35,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 35,00040 2045 $ 35,833 $ 71,667 $ 71,667 $ 35,83341 2046 $ 36,667 $ 73,333 $ 73,333 $ 36,66742 2047 $ 37,500 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 37,50043 2048 $ 38,333 $ 76,667 $ 76,667 $ 38,33344 2049 $ 39,167 $ 78,333 $ 78,333 $ 39,16745 2050 $ 40,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 40,00046 2051 $ 40,833 $ 81,667 $ 81,667 $ 40,83347 2052 $ 41,667 $ 83,333 $ 83,333 $ 41,66748 2053 $ 42,500 $ 85,000 $ 85,000 $ 42,50049 2054 $ 43,333 $ 86,667 $ 86,667 $ 43,33350 2055 $ 44,167 $ 88,333 $ 88,333 $ 44,16730 year total $ 500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 375,00050 year total $ 1,225,000 $ 2,950,000 $ 2,550,000 $ 1,100,000 Total 30-50 year incremental increase

$ 725,000 $ 1,450,000 $ 1,450,000 $ 725,000 $ 4,350,000

A-98


Unless otherwise indicated, all costs or payment amounts specified in dollars in any article shall be deemed to be stated as of the year 2006, and the licensee shall escalate such sums as of January 1 of each following year (starting in January 2006) according to the following formula:

AD = D x (NGDP÷IGDP)

WHERE:

AD = Adjusted dollar amount as of January 1 of the year in which the adjustment is made

D = Dollar amount prior to adjustment

IGDP = GDP-IPD for the third quarter of the year before the previous adjustment date (or, in the case of the first adjustment, the third quarter of the year before the effective date of the license)

NGDP = GDP-IPD for the third quarter of the year before the adjustment date

“GPD-IPD” is the value published for the Gross Domestic Product Price Deflator by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis in the publication Survey of Current Business, Table 7.1 (being on the basis of 2000 = 100), in the third month following the end of the applicable quarter. If that index ceases to be published, any reasonably equivalent index published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis may be substituted by the agreement of the parties. If the base year for GPD-IPD is changed or if publication of the index is discontinued, the licensee shall promptly make adjustments or, if necessary, select an appropriate alternative index acceptable to the parties to achieve the same economic effect.

Each deposit shall be credited to the tracking account on the anniversary of the effective date of the license.

Funds credited to the tracking account but not spent on specific projects shall accrue interest, which shall be credited to the appropriate fund to be used for the purposes described in this article for the fund. Any funds intended to be applied for the purposes of a specific article that remain at the end of any year shall be carried over into succeeding years during the term of the license.

The accrued interest rate on all funds required by the license shall be the 90-day T-Bill rate. An accounting of interest accrued using this rate shall be provided by licensee when the annual report required by this article is provided to the BRCC. If the 90-day T-Bill rate ceases to be published in the Wall Street Journal, the Parties shall meet and agree upon an alternate source for the interest rate. If at the end of the license term, including any annual licenses, contributions

A-99


and accrued interest remain unallocated or uncommitted to a specific project, they shall be retained by the licensee and licensee’s funding obligation shall cease.

Funds may be used for resource projects as described in this article on an annual basis or may accumulate for future use. If a resource project is identified that cannot be accomplished with the balance available in the related fund, licensee shall deposit an advance payment of up to 50% of the amount required for the succeeding year, except that advance funding will be required in no more than three consecutive years and shall not increase the overall total funding required for any article, unless otherwise agreed by licensee for additional years.

Funds may not be used to enforce licensee’s compliance with any article, and licensee shall not be required to compensate BRCC members’ routine participation expenses through any of the Baker Funds except as otherwise required by a specific license article or as agreed by consensus of BRCC. Licensee shall bear its own costs for all administrative, legal and overhead costs associated with management of the funds, including, without limitation, calculation of interest and reports to the BRCC and the Commission, and shall not assess any costs against the funds required to be made available. In making funds available as required by any license article, licensee may provide funds through grants or other means that are consistent with the purpose of the funds in order to carry out the stated purpose(s) of the article.

TERF FUND – Terrestrial Enhancement Resource Fund

The TERF Fund may be used for actions to enhance, conserve, acquire and/or restore habitat for terrestrial species. Actions funded by the TERF will be reviewed and approved by the TRIG subject to the decision making and dispute resolution procedures described in Article 601. projects may be considered based upon any written requests to the TRIG sponsored by any member of the BRCC and following review and comment by all members of the TRIG. Projects funded will be located in the Skagit River basin, including, and with emphasis on, the Baker River basin. TERF Funds may be used for necessary studies designed to evaluate and monitor the potential benefits or environmental effects of any requested project.

RAM FUND – Recreation Adaptive Management Fund

The RAM fund may be used for actions to address recreation management resource needs in the Baker Basin and immediately within the hydraulic influence of the Baker Basin that are not otherwise identified and addressed at the time of license issuance. Actions funded by the RAM Fund will be reviewed and approved by the RRG subject to the decision making and dispute resolution procedures described in Article 601. Projects may be considered based upon any written requests to the RRG sponsored by any member of the BRCC and

A-100


following review and comment by all members of the RRG. Some possible uses of RAM funds may include, without limitation, reservoir hazard management needs in excess of the funding limitation of Article 304, additional measures to limit the impacts of dispersed recreation at Upper Baker not addressed by the funding limitation of Article 308, aesthetic enhancements to non-project facilities not addressed by the funding limitation of Article 302, unusual trail and trailhead maintenance costs associated with natural events not under the control of licensee and not addressed under the routine maintenance requirements of Articles 314, and increased development of the Bayview Campground, the redeveloped Baker Lake Resort, other Forest Service developed campgrounds, and to monitor dispersed recreation use adjacent to Lake Shannon for desired improvements in excess of improvements that can be made within funding limitations of Articles 303, 305, 308, and 309. RAM Funds may be used for necessary studies designed to evaluate and monitor the potential benefits or environmental effects of any requested project.

HERC FUND – Habitat Enhancement, Restoration, and Conservation Fund

The HERC fund may be used for actions to enhance, conserve and/or restore aquatic species. Actions funded by the HERC Fund will be reviewed and approved by the ARG subject to the decision making and dispute resolution procedures described in Article 601. Projects may be considered based upon any written requests to the ARG sponsored by any member of the BRCC and following review and comment by all members of the ARG. Eight years after license issuance the licensee, in consultation with the ARG, will develop: 1) a protocol for proposing projects to be considered for the use of these funds, including a timetable for presenting the proposal to the ARG and final selection of projects on an annual basis; 2) criteria for selecting projects; 3) a process for evaluating implemented project benefits to aquatic species; and 4) reporting and audit requirements. The following geographic priority will be considered in this selection process in addition to other criteria developed by the ARG for the HERC Fund: a) within the Baker River basin; b) within the Middle Skagit River immediately downstream of the Baker River; c) in the lower Skagit River/estuary; and d) elsewhere in the Skagit River basin. Possible uses of the HERC funds may include, without limitation, resident salmonid programs, native species initiative, recreational fishing opportunities, non-native or invasive aquatic animal species, water quality enhancement, riparian enhancement, channel modification, noxious weed control, modifications to fish passage facilities and supplementation programs in the basin not required by other articles, LWD placement projects independent of Article 109, and aquatic habitat restoration and conservation measures.

A-101


In license year ten, $50,000 shall be made available from the HERC Fund for a study or protection, mitigation and enhancement measures to benefit native, non-salmonid species that may be isolated between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake. If the ARG does not approve a study or measures for year 2016 HERC funding in year 2015, the allocation of $50,000 will be available in subsequent years and 2016 funding can be applied to other approved projects. The determination of HERC Fund use for this purpose in a given funding year shall be made prior to the year in which the fund would be expended.

CREF – Cultural Resources Enhancement Fund

The CREF Fund may be used for actions for the enhancement, conservation, and/or restoration of cultural resources. Actions funded by the CREF Fund will be reviewed and approved by the CRAG subject to the decision making and dispute resolution procedures described in Article 601. Projects may be considered based upon any written requests to the CRAG sponsored by any member of the BRCC and following review and comment by all members of the CRAG. CREF Funds may not be used for purposes of funding costs required by the HPMP.

Evaluation Process for Use of Baker Funds

Proposed projects must be consistent with applicable laws and, to the extent feasible, will be consistent with policies and comprehensive plans in effect at the time the project is proposed. Within two years following license issuance, licensee shall, in consultation with the BRCC, develop a system to evaluate potential resource projects that is to be approved by each of the ARG, TRIG, RRG, and CRAG (Project Evaluation System). The Project Evaluation System shall include criteria and procedures for fund expenditures required by this article.

For each project proposed, licensee shall apply the factors and criteria established in the Project Evaluation System and submit a written recommendation to the Resource Group(s) charged with funding review, and request a meeting of the Resource Group(s) to discuss the proposed project. Decisions and/or disputes of each Resource Group related to a proposed project shall be documented. The development of criteria for evaluating projects in the Project Evaluation System may include, without limitation, the following considerations:

a) timeframe for project implementation and permitting requirements and cost;

b) horizon and scope for benefits (long-term multiple benefits best);

c) whether the project could be cost shared with other funding sources;

d) probability of success based on prior implementation; and

e) cost-effectiveness.

A-102


Fund Commitment

Once a project is approved, licensee shall authorize and commit the expenditure of funds for the approved project.

Fund Disbursement

Funds shall be disbursed by licensee for approved resource projects at the time of receipt of invoices for actual expenditures incurred in conformance with the approved project and implementation schedule, unless otherwise provided by licensee.

Land Ownership and Transfer

All lands within the project boundary shall be owned by licensee, or licensee shall have sufficient interests in any such land to carry out the License, unless otherwise approved by the Commission. Lands within the project boundary may not be transferred to a third party without the Commission’s approval. At the time of submitting a proposed transfer to the Commission, licensee shall include: all comments received from BRCC representatives; a description of all proposed interests in lands; proposed assurances that the land will be managed consistent with the requirements of the license; and all other information considered by the BRCC or appropriate Resource Group(s) in evaluating the proposed transfer.

Lands Outside of Project Boundary Related to License

The licensee may purchase land outside of the project boundary, and it may provide for transfer of such land to a third party, pursuant to this or other articles. Any purchase or transfer pursuant to another article shall be consistent with the requirements of that article, including any approved plan. Any purchase or transfer through a Fund in this article shall be consistent with the selection criteria and other requirements of this article.

Assurances by Third Party

Regardless of whether land related to the license is located within or outside of the project boundary, licensee may transfer land to a third party only if the third party provides appropriate assurances, developed by licensee in consultation with, and following approval by, the BRCC or appropriate Resource Groups, that the land will be owned and maintained consistent with the requirements of the applicable article, at least for the term of the license. Appropriate constraints may include, without limitation, restrictive covenants, conservation easements, or conveyances that provide for licensee’s continuing right of use or right to recapture the land if not maintained as required by the relevant article.

A-103


Article 603Adaptive Management

In the development of land management objectives, land acquisition selection criteria, and utilization of funds available for the enhancement of various resources, licensee shall consider alternative strategies for meeting measurable goals and objectives. If changed environmental or regulatory conditions require different means and methods for adequate resource enhancement and management, then acquisition, enhancement, and management actions developed in various plans shall be adjusted according to the changed conditions through a plan amendment process for each article requiring planning, provided that licensee shall not be required to make additional funds available for these purposes unless specifically required in an article. Alternative strategies that require additional funding may occur only if funding is available and approved for use from one of the research and enhancement funds identified in Article 602.

A-104


Appendix A-1 to Articles.

Noxious Weed Management Guidelines and Treatment OptionsSpecific guidelines for actions in the Noxious Weed Management Plan

Species Or Class

Management Action Within The Plan Area

Federal Lands Non-federal Lands

Class A Eradicate Eradicate

Class B Designate Eradicate Control

Class B Contain (unless county raises priority, or as noted below for English ivy and reed canarygrass)

Contain (unless county lists species for control, or as noted below for English ivy and reed canarygrass)

Class C Contain (unless county raises priority, or as noted below for English ivy and reed canarygrass)

Contain (unless county lists species for control, or as noted below for English ivy and reed canarygrass)

English ivy Eradicate Eradicate

Reed canarygrass Contain, except as specified below for the seven wetlands.

Carex flava site: manage and fund as per Article 510

Contain

Treatment methods available under the Noxious Weed Management Plan.

SpeciesCommon Name Potential Treatment Methodsa

Cirsium arvenseb Canada thistle Manual control: hand pulling, mowingBiological controlHerbicide application: Aquatic formulation of GlyphosateShade planting

Cirsium vulgareb Bull thistle Manual control: hand pulling, mowingBiological controlHerbicide application: Aquatic formulation of GlyphosateShade planting

Cytisus scopariusb Scotch broom Manual control: hand pulling, cutting, mowingBiological control

A-105


SpeciesCommon Name Potential Treatment Methodsa

Herbicide application: Aquatic formulation of GlyphosateShade plantings in conjunction with other treatments

Geranium robertianumb

Herb Robert Manual control: hand pulling, mowingHerbicide application: Aquatic formulation of Glyphosate

Hedera helixb English Ivy Manual control: cutting, hand pulling and grubbingHerbicide application with surfactants

Phalaris arundinaceab Reed canarygrass

Manual control: hand pulling, mowing, mulchHerbicide application: Aquatic formulation of GlyphosateSteam treatmentShade Plantings

Senecio jacobaeab Tansy ragwort Manual control: hand pullingBiological controlHerbicide application: Aquatic formulation of GlyphosateShade plantings and healthy plant communities

Polygonum cuspidatumc

Japanese knotweed

Manual control: cutting/bending stems, mowingHerbicide application: Aquatic formulation of GlyphosateShading

a If new, high priority (e.g., Class A or B designate) noxious weeds are discovered within the project area, they will be treated in the most effective manner possible, within the guidelines and recommendations of the Region 6 EIS for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants.b Species identified in the T-6 Noxious Weed Study.c Species not identified in the T-6 Noxious Weed Study.

In addition, the TRIG shall evaluate other invasive species management in the plan area periodically to determine if changes are warranted due to factors such as additions to the noxious weed lists; changes in federal, state or county regulations; or the discovery of new treatment methods. Licensee shall monitor changes to the Skagit County and Whatcom County noxious weed lists through annual acquisition of the updated noxious weed lists, typically available during the first quarter of the year from each county’s Noxious Weed Control Board.

A-106


The Noxious Weed Management Plan shall be designed to manage specified invasive non-native plants and noxious weeds within the plan area on a 5-year cycle of treatment and monitoring, and reduce the potential for new introductions or reintroductions for the remainder of the license term. During these periods, designated portions of the plan area shall be resurveyed, and treatment methods re-evaluated. Options for management of existing weeds shall be evaluated and implemented during each 5-year cycle. Current county, state and federal weed control regulations and policies, as well as noxious weed lists, shall be used as guidelines for weed management, and shall be updated for each 5-year cycle.

Prevention on National Forest System lands in the plan area shall be accomplished by implementing the specific measures listed in the Forest Service Forest Plan Amendment #14: Best Management Practices for Prevention of Noxious Weeds (Appendix C in: Potash, L. 1999. Forest-Wide Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Forest Service, Mountlake Terrace, WA). Any updates to BMPs on National Forest System lands shall be implemented by licensee within six months of receipt from the Forest Service.

Active restoration measures shall be implemented to decrease “weed-friendly” habitat associated with licensee ground-disturbing activities. All revegetation on Forest Service lands shall follow Forest Service Pacific Northwest regional policy regarding native plant movement guidelines. Use of desirable non-native species shall follow the recommendations in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Native Plant Notebook, Second Edition (Potash and Aubry, 1997), or as superseded by Region 6 guidance.

A-107


Appendix A-2 to Articles.Species and locations requiring site-specific management plans in the Baker River Project Plan for the Management of Plants of Special Status.

Species Location Identification NumberCarex flava North end of Baker Lake, near

mouth of Baker RiverWNHP Element Occurrence # 37

Schistostega pennata Wetland WB-22, near mouth of Little Sandy Creek

ISMS Location ID # 1704960

Tetraphis geniculata Wetland WB-22, near mouth of Little Sandy Creek


Schistostega pennata Wetland WB-24, near mouth of Little Sandy Creek


Schistostega pennata Sites BN17-1 and BN17-2, along Swift Creek


Schistostega pennata Wetland WB-18, ~ ½ mile south of the mouth of Boulder Creek


Schistostega pennata Wetland WB-2, along West Pass Dike


Schistostega pennata Wetland WB-11 ISMS Location ID # not yet assigned

Platanthera sparsiflora Baker Lake Trail near Noisy Creek

WNHP Element Occurrence # 3

Schistostega pennata Panorama Point ISMS Location ID # 1563670

A-108


Appendix A-3 to Articles.Additional Guidelines for Plan for Plants of Special Status.

The plan shall require the licensee to:

(a) Survey all areas of proposed new project activity or existing and future disturbance where there is the potential to impact plant species of special status. Determinations of the potential to impact plant species on federal lands shall be made by the Forest Service using their pre-field review process. Determinations of the potential to impact plant species on non-federal lands shall be made by licensee, in consultation with the TRIG. Surveys shall be conducted and documented according to the methods used for pre-licensing rare plant surveys and described in the final rare plant survey report.

(b) Implement individual site-specific management plans and associated actions for the species and locations identified in table below. For Carex flava, specifications are addressed in Article 510.

(c) Describe the steps that will be taken if additional populations of plants of special status are discovered during the term of the license and the Forest Service (for federal lands) or licensee and the TRIG (for non-federal lands) determine there is the potential for project-related activities to impact the plants. The area covered by this item shall not exceed the area within the project boundary plus areas outside the project boundary surveyed during pre-licensing rare plant surveys or surveys conducted in accordance with subsection (a) of this Article.

(d) Implement a monitoring and evaluation program for plant species of special status within the area affected by the project, which shall be defined as the area encompassed by surveys conducted to satisfy the other requirements of this action. The plan shall identify the frequency of monitoring and specify measures that will be taken if monitoring indicates the population of a plant of special status is declining within the area affected by the project.

(e) Update the plan within one year of the addition of a species to any of the categories of special status listed above, if that species is known to occur or has the potential to occur within the area affected by the project. Changes to the plan made to satisfy this item shall be limited to measures needed to address the newly added species. If a species is de-listed, the TRIG will determine what measures will continue for this species.

A-109


Appendix A-4 to articles.Carex flava Guidelines.

The plan shall require licensee to:

1. Inventory and map all areas of known Carex flava populations and the distribution of reed canarygrass within 200 feet of those populations around Upper Baker Lake. Inventories shall be conducted and documented in sufficient detail, as determined through consultation with botanists with expertise on the species, to assess the baseline population status of Carex flava over time and to determine the effectiveness of management actions.

2. Develop and implement control strategies for reed canarygrass in and around the Carex flava populations. These control strategies shall be developed in consultation with botanists with expertise on Carex flava and reed canarygrass, and shall be designed to eliminate all direct competition between the two species, at a minimum.

3. Develop and implement a monitoring and evaluation program for the entire license term that answers the following questions:

a. Is the Carex flava population increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable?

b. How effective are the control measures for reed canarygrass?

c. Do the control measures for reed canarygrass result in beneficial or adverse effects to Carex flava?

d. What are “suitable sites” for the establishment of Carex flava (microsite characteristics, etc.)?

e. Is treatment effectiveness influenced by hydroperiod (frequency, duration, timing, depth of flooding/saturation) associated with fluctuations in reservoir levels?

f. Are the reed canarygrass control measures necessary for the protection of Carex flava? If the answer to this is no, the control measures may be discontinued.

g. Are there other factors affecting the health of the Carex flava population?

h. What should replace reed canarygrass in areas where it has been eliminated?

A-110


4. If there is greater than a 20 percent reduction in the Carex flava population from the original baseline, licensee shall implement a seed and/or plant collection program to raise plants off-site, and establish and/or re-establish Carex flava populations at suitable “planting sites” around upper Baker Lake. Since it is unclear how to distinguish an “individual” of this species, guidance on how to determine what constitutes 20 percent shall be in the management plan.

5. If the reed canarygrass control is not effective, or is determined through monitoring not to be needed, and the planting program described in Item 4 is not successful in maintaining or expanding the Carex flava population, licensee shall develop and implement additional management measures for the species. Additional management measures shall be funded from the Terrestrial Enhancement and Research Fund (TERF).

A-111


Appendix A-5. Recreation Implementation Schedule.

Fifty-year Recreation Implementation Schedule for articles 302 through 308 specifying cost allocation for the Baker River Project License with funds designated to action agent.

302 303* 304 305 306* 307 308Year of

License

Year Aesthetics

management

PSE Actions U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Baker Lake

Resort Re-

development

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Baker Reservoir Recreation Water Safety Plan


Service

Actions

Lower Baker Developed Recreation

PSE ActionsUpper Baker Visitor Information Services Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Upper Baker Visitor Interpretive Services Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Dispersed Recreation ManagementFunding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total

1 2006 64357 34357 30000 50453 41000 9453 2500 2500 52138 52138 47621 476212 2007 24000 4000 20000 128000 39000 89000 250000 250000 2500 2500 27200 27200 81000 810003 2008 30500 4000 26500 91526 91526 4000 4000 2500 2500 27200 27200 81400 814004 2009 24000 4000 20000 680000 680000 4000 4000 2500 2500 27200 27200 27400 274005 2010 24000 4000 20000 4000 4000 2500 2500 27200 27200 27400 274006 2011 106000 106000 4000 4000 323190 323190 27200 27200 27400 274007 2012 4000 4000 8000 8000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 274008 2013 4000 4000 4000 4000 851084 851084 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 274009 2014 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740010 2015 10500 4000 6500 4000 4000 20500 20500 11680 11680 33200 33200 27400 2740011 2016 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740012 2017 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 59400 5940013 2018 4000 4000 55000 8000 47000 20500 20500 24680 24680 27200 27200 59400 5940014 2019 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740015 2020 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740016 2021 4000 4000 4000 4000 40500 40500 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740017 2022 10500 4000 6500 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740018 2023 4000 4000 4000 4000 25000 25000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740019 2024 4000 4000 8000 8000 20500 20500 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740020 2025 4000 4000 46000 4000 42000 20000 20000 11680 11680 33200 33200 27400 2740021 2026 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740022 2027 4000 4000 4000 4000 20500 20500 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740023 2028 4000 4000 51000 4000 47000 20000 20000 124680 124680 27200 27200 59400 5940024 2029 10500 4000 6500 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 59400 5940025 2030 4000 4000 8000 8000 20500 20500 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740026 2031 4000 4000 4000 4000 45000 45000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740027 2032 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 27400

A-112


302 303* 304 305 306* 307 308Year of

License

Year Aesthetics

management


Service

Actions

Baker Lake

Resort Re-

development

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Baker Reservoir Recreation Water Safety Plan


Service

Actions

Lower Baker Developed Recreation

PSE ActionsUpper Baker Visitor Information Services Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Upper Baker Visitor Interpretive Services Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Dispersed Recreation ManagementFunding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total

28 2033 4000 4000 4000 4000 20500 20500 12549 12549 27200 27200 27400 2740029 2034 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740030 2035 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 33200 33200 27400 2740031 2036 10500 4000 6500 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740032 2037 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 59400 5940033 2038 4000 4000 55000 8000 47000 20500 20500 24680 24680 27200 27200 59400 5940034 2039 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740035 2040 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740036 2041 4000 4000 4000 4000 40500 40500 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740037 2042 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740038 2043 10500 4000 6500 4000 4000 25000 25000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740039 2044 4000 4000 8000 8000 20500 20500 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740040 2045 4000 4000 46000 4000 42000 20000 20000 11680 11680 33200 33200 27400 2740041 2046 24000 4000 20000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740042 2047 24000 4000 20000 4000 4000 20500 20500 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740043 2048 4000 4000 51000 4000 47000 20000 20000 124680 124680 27200 27200 59400 5940044 2049 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 59400 5940045 2050 10500 4000 6500 8000 8000 20500 20500 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740046 2051 4000 4000 4000 4000 45000 45000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740047 2052 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740048 2053 4000 4000 4000 4000 20500 20500 12549 12549 27200 27200 27400 2740049 2054 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 27200 27200 27400 2740050 2055 4000 4000 4000 4000 20000 20000 11680 11680 33200 33200 27400 27400

Total 527,857 771,526 670,453 2,047,584 1,103,348 1,414,938 1,753,821

*After ______ of the new license PSE and the Forest Service will review specified campground and visitor information sites for appropriate refurbishment as necessary to restore to agreed standards identified in Articles 303, 306, 309 and 313. In years 30-36 the additional costs for such purposes are estimated at $2,464,600, and in years 36-50 $2,143,009.

A-113


Appendix A-5. Recreation Implementation Schedule (cont.).

Fifty-year Recreation Implementation Schedule for articles 309 through 318 specifying cost allocation for the Baker River Project License with funds designated to action agent.

309 310 311 312 313* 314** 315 316 318Year of License

Year Bayview Campground

Rehabilitation Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead Construction Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Lower Baker Trail Construction Funding

PSE Actions Developed Recreation Monitoring and Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Upper Baker Developed Recreation Maintenance Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead Maintenance Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Lower Baker Trail Maintenance

PSE Actions Forest Road Maintenance

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Law enforcement


Service

Actions

Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total

1 2006 30000 30000 70808 70808 17500 17500 135000 62000 730002 2007 114710 114710 51874 51874 70808 70808 17500 17500 95000 22000 730003 2008 940000 940000 146000 146000 70808 70808 17500 17500 124383 51383 730004 2009 47134 47134 82000 82000 70808 70808 17500 17500 95000 22000 730005 2010 347140 347140 148000 148000 70808 70808 17500 17500 95000 22000 730006 2011 300000 300000 120300 120300 70808 70808 284417 284417 95000 22000 730007 2012 35000 35000 81420 81420 17500 17500 98000 25000 730008 2013 29000 29000 35000 35000 81420 81420 17500 17500 95000 22000 730009 2014 200000 200000 35000 35000 81420 81420 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300010 2015 35000 35000 81420 81420 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300011 2016 35000 35000 81420 81420 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300012 2017 200000 200000 35000 35000 81420 81420 17500 17500 98000 25000 7300013 2018 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 167500 167500 95000 22000 7300014 2019 30000 30000 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300015 2020 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300016 2021 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300017 2022 44488 44488 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 98000 25000 7300018 2023 400000 400000 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300019 2024 130000 130000 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300020 2025 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300021 2026 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 167500 167500 95000 22000 7300022 2027 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 98000 25000 7300023 2028 43000 43000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300024 2029 50000 50000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300025 2030 55000 55000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300026 2031 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300027 2032 130000 130000 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 98000 25000 73000

A-114


309 310 311 312 313* 314** 315 316 318Year of License

Year Bayview Campground

Rehabilitation Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead Construction Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Lower Baker Trail Construction Funding

PSE Actions Developed Recreation Monitoring and Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Upper Baker Developed Recreation Maintenance Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead Maintenance Funding

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Lower Baker Trail Maintenance

PSE Actions Forest Road Maintenance

U.S. Forest

Service

Actions

Law enforcement


Service

Actions

Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total Action Total

28 2033 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300029 2034 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 167500 167500 95000 22000 7300030 2035 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300031 2036 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300032 2037 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 98000 25000 7300033 2038 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300034 2039 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300035 2040 130000 130000 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300036 2041 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300037 2042 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 167500 167500 98000 25000 7300038 2043 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300039 2044 35000 35000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300040 2045 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300041 2046 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300042 2047 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 98000 25000 7300043 2048 130000 130000 43000 43000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300044 2049 50000 50000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300045 2050 55000 55000 80800 80800 620 620 167500 167500 95000 22000 7300046 2051 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300047 2052 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 98000 25000 7300048 2053 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300049 2054 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 7300050 2055 40000 40000 80800 80800 620 620 17500 17500 95000 22000 73000

Total 1,604,710 694,274 200,000 673,488 2,284,174 3,983,768 23,560 1,891,917 4,846,383

*After ______ of the new license PSE and the Forest Service will review specified campground and visitor information sites for appropriate refurbishment as necessary to restore to agreed standards identified in Articles 303, 306, 309 and 313. In years 30-36 the additional costs for such purposes are estimated at $2,464,600, and in years 36-50 $2,143,009.

** Proposed Article 314: Puget’s settlement errata filed May 10, 2005, contained different figures for the Forest Service for years 1 through 12 which do not equal the “Action Total” dollar amount. Commission staff have corrected these figures based on Appendix A-5 contained in the Settlement Agreement filed November 30, 2004.

A-115


A-116


Appendix A-6.Baker River Relicense Recreation

StudiesStudy R12 Dispersed Site

InventoryLocation Terminology

Location Code Old Name/Location Description Revised NameBN1 Baker River Trailhead Baker River Trailhead NorthBN2 Right side of parking lot Baker River Trailhead SouthBN3 Spur road Baker River Trailhead WestBN4 Berms Rd 11/1168 BarrierBN5 Road to lake bed Channel CreekBN6 Drain Pipe Elbow Ck. CulvertBN7 Aerial marker Rd 11 Mile 23.7BN8 Mossy -boat/ land Shannon Creek FanBN9 #1152 - gravel pit Rd 1152 Rock PitBN10 Bump out straight down Rd 11 Mile 22.5BN11 North of Blue tarp Blue Tarp NEBN12 Fish planting road - blue tarp Blue TarpBN13 Bump out - motorcycle Section 34 SWBN14 Lakeside LakesideBN15 Scott Camp Scott CampBN16 #1146 Rd 1146BN17 Swift Creek Swift Creek

BW1 Park Creek Park Creek DispersedBW2 Nowhere Circle Nowhere CircleBW3 Fish Ladder Fish LadderBW4 #1136 Boulder NorthBW5 #1136 at barrier Rd 1136 BarrierBW6 #0112 at # 1136 1136 Spur 012 EndBW7 entrance to # 0112 1136 Spur 012 JunctionBW8 Across from # 1130 - Mossy Rd 1130 JunctionBW9 Boulder Creek Bridge Boulder Creek Bridge

BW10 Rd. before boulder c.g. spurBoulder Creek CG South (Rd 1128)

BW11 Upper Sandy Upper SandyBW12 Lower Sandy Lower SandyBW13 Spur off # 1122 Rd 1122 SpurBW14 Road #1120 Rd 1120 JunctionBW15 off #1118 - Dopers Road Rd 1118 Spur 014BW16.5 - OMIT #1118. 011 - Bayview Bayview Dispersed - OMITBW16 Depression Depression LakeBW17 - OMIT Chris and Andy site Sno Park West - OMITBW18 Trailhead Parking Baker Lake Trailhead SouthBW19.5 So of Trailhead Parking BL Trailhead AnnexBW19 East side of Dam along #1107 Forebay PeninsulaBW20 East of Dam-parking lot UB Left Abutment

A-117


Appendix A-6.Baker River Relicense Recreation

StudiesStudy R12 Dispersed Site

InventoryLocation Terminology

Location Code Old Name/Location Description Revised NameBE1 Noisy Creek Noisy CreekBE2 So. Noisy Creek Noisy Creek WestBE3 Silver Creek (bridge) Silver CreekBE4 Ermine Creek Ermine CreekBE5 Across from old Resort Underwater BridgeBE6.5 Triangle Marker White Rocks EastBE6 - OMIT Maple Grove Maple Grove - OMITBE7 Anderson Cove Anderson CoveBE8 Anderson Point Anderson PointBE9 North of Welker Creek Welker NorthBE10 Welker Creek Welker CreekBE11 South of Boulder Creek Boulder South Boat-inBE12 Lone Pine Island Lone Pine IslandBE13 Gilligan Island Baker River DeltaBE14 On lake next to Baker River Hollow TrunkBE15 North of Noisy Noisy East

SR1 - OMIT Shot Gun Point 691 - OMITSR2 - OMIT Everett Lake Everett Lake - OMITSR3 Lake Shannon Bank Fishing LB Bank Fishing

SB1 Thunder Creek Thunder CreekSB2 Nice Spot West Bank Mile 7.25SB3 Slide Miner's Creek Slide

A-118


APPENDIX B

INTERIM PROTECTION PLAN

B-1

Proposed Article 106(A) of the Settlement Agreement specifies reliance on an interim operating plan pending the installation of the 2 new turbines required for implementing the long-term flow implementation plan. Until the new turbine/generator units are operational, Puget would operate the project in keeping with the Interim Protection Plan (IPP) analyzed in the Biological Opinion for Endangered Species Act section 7 Consultation for the Baker River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2150), NMFS Consultation No. 2002/01040, or as approved by the Commission. The IPP has two aspects: (1) a Baker River flow reduction rate limitation; and (2) an enhanced storage/split Chinook salmon spawning season flow management plan.

1. Baker River Flow Reduction Rate Limitation. Whenever the total Skagit River flow falls below 18,000 cfs as measured at the Skagit River USGS Gage No. 12194000 near Concrete, WA, operate the Baker Project to limit the average hourly rate of Baker River flow reduction attributable to the Baker Project to a rate not greater than 2,000 cubic feet per second (cfs).

2. Enhanced Storage/Split Chinook Spawning Season Flow Management Plan. Subject to and so as not to affect the existing Puget/Corps flood control agreement (and absent circumstances beyond Puget’s reasonable control), operate the Baker Project during late summer/fall as follows:

a. Enhanced Storage:

Create 115,000 acre-feet of flood storage at the Baker Project by October 1. From October 1 through November 15, available flood storage will not, by virtue of fisheries directed operations, exceed 156,000 acre-feet (i.e., Puget will reserve up to 41,000 acre-feet of reservoir storage as a hedge against dry conditions). If the Skagit River flow measured at the USGS gage near Concrete is greater than 40,000 cfs during this period, and Baker Project storage exceeds 74,000 acre-feet, Puget will consult with the Corps regarding the timing of flow releases to reduce peak flow. If the flood peak can be significantly reduced, Puget will shut off all generation and store inflow until the flood crest estimated by the Corps passes the Baker River/Skagit River confluence.

b. Early Chinook Spawning Period September 15–October 15:

1) When flow in the Skagit River, measured immediately above the confluence of the Baker River, is greater than 4,200 cfs, and inflow to Baker Lake is less than 2,500 cfs, Puget will store inflow to the Baker Project and avoid generation at the Lower Baker Development unless generation is needed to satisfy the Enhanced Storage measure.

2) During periods of low flow (less than 4,200 cfs measured in the Skagit River immediately above the Baker River confluence), Puget will generate at least 3,200 cfs on a continuous basis not to exceed 156,000 acre-feet of evacuated reservoir storage. If Puget cannot meet the amplitude limitation

B-2

without violating storage directives, Puget will still try to release no more water than the volume of the Skagit Project load-following troughs (subject to high flow conditions outlined below).

3) During periods of high inflow to Baker Lake (greater than 2,500 cfs), Puget will generate power at the Lower Baker Development to restore available flood storage. Puget will initially generate to fill Skagit Project load-following troughs or generate continuously at the Lower Baker Development if needed to maintain 115,000 acre-feet of total flood storage.

c. Late Chinook Spawning Period October 16–November 15:

1) During the majority of the 31-day late spawning period, Puget will generate power at the Lower Baker Development to restore available flood storage. Depending on the level of available flood storage on October 16, Puget will initially generate into Skagit Project load-following troughs or generate continuously at the Lower Baker Development if needed to restore available flood storage. If available flood storage capacity on October 16 is less than 74,000 acre-feet, Puget will generate continuously to restore flood storage capacity to that level. If the available flood storage capacity is greater than 74,000 acre-feet but less than the target level of 115,000 acre-feet, Puget will evacuate storage through generation at a rate needed to achieve the target storage level by November 15. Flow will preferentially be released during the Skagit Project troughs prior to releasing flows outside of these time periods.

2) During periods of low flow (less than 6,000 cfs measured in the Skagit River immediately above the Baker River confluence), Puget will generate at least 3,200 cfs at the Lower Baker Development into Skagit Project load-following troughs or will generate at 3,200 cfs on a continuous basis not to exceed 156,000 acre-feet of evacuated reservoir storage.

3) During periods of high inflow to Baker Lake (greater than 3,400 cfs), Puget will generate power at the Lower Baker Development to restore available flood storage. Puget will initially generate into Skagit Project load-following troughs or generate continuously at the Lower Baker Development if needed to maintain 115,000 acre-feet of total flood storage.

Emergency ExclusionFlood control measures required to protect human life and property will override

requested releases for fisheries benefits. In the event of an emergency power shortage, all available water stored behind the Baker Project reservoirs may be used to generate power.

B-3

Monitoring and ReportingBi-annually, the licensee shall submit a report to the Commission and NMFS

identifying and describing any instances of project operations that deviate from the proposed conservation measures.

B-4

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Puget … · Web viewInstead, reservoir drawdown causes sediments...

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Puget … · Web viewInstead, reservoir drawdown causes sediments...