UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

 

(License Applicant Pacific Corp)

 

 

 

         DOCKET NUMBER

 

             2006-NMFS-0001

 

 

 

 

FERC PROJECT NUMBER:

 

                          2082            

 

DECISION

Dated:  September 29, 2006

Issued By:

  Hon. Parlen L. McKenna, Presiding

APPEARANCES:

For PacifiCorp (License Applicant)

      Michael A. Swiger, Esq.

      Steven Richardson, Esq.

      Matthew A. Love, Esq.

      Julia Wood, Esq.

      Ivy Anderson, Esq.

      Van Ness & Feldman

For Siskiyou County , California

       Frank DeMarco, Esq.

        County Counsel , Siskiyou County

       Roger A. Berliner, Esq.

       Berliner Law , PLLC


APPEARANCES (continued)

For the National Marine Fisheries Service

      Ruth Ann Lowery, Esq.

      Dan Hytrek, Esq.

      Samuel Chi, Esq.

      Christopher Fontecchio, Esq.

      National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Office of General Counsel

For the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

       Kerry O’Hara, Esq.

       United States Department  of Interior

      Office of the Regional Solicitor

       Luke Miller, Esq.

       Veronica Rowan, Esq.

       James Monroe, Esq.

        United States Fish & Wildlife Service

For the Bureau of Land Management

      Nolan Shishido, Esq.

      Frank Wilson, Esq.

      Michael A. Schoessler, Esq.

      Michael Tressman, Esq.

      United States . Department of Interior

       Office of the Regional Solicitor

For California Department of Fish & Game

       Stephen Puccini, Esq.

       Office of the General Counsel

For Yurok Tribe

      John Corbett, Esq.

      Office of the Tribal Attorney

      Scott W. Williams, Esq.

      Alexander, Berkey, Williams &

      Weathers, LLP

 

For Conservation Groups

       Richard Roos-Collins, Esq.

       National Heritage Institute

               On Behalf of Trout Unlimited

For  Hoopa Valley Tribe

      Thomas P. Schlosser, Esq.

      Thane Somerville, Esq.

      Pirtle, Morisset, Schlosser & Ayer

      Charlton H. Bonham, Esq.

      Brian J. Johnson, Esq.

               On Behalf of California Water

               Project/Trout Unlimited

For Klamath Tribes

      Carl Ullman, Esq.

For PCFFA/IFR

               Glen Spain, Esq.

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

APPEARANCES: i

TABLE OF CONTENTS. iii

SUMMARY OF THE CASE. 3

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 3

DISPUTED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. 3

1.     USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 2(A): Whether stocks of anadromous fish suitable to conditions above Iron Gate are available to use prescribed fishways?. 3

2.     USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 2(B): To what extent facilitating the movement of anadromous fish via prescribed fishways presents a risk of introducing pathogens to resident fish inhabiting the basin above Iron Gate?  3

3.     USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 2(C):  To what extent facilitating the movement of steelhead above Iron Gate Dam via prescribed fishways presents a risk of residualizing, and whether and to what extent that [residualization] would pose adverse effects to the resident trout fishery resource?. 3

4.     USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 3:  Whether and how current Project operations affect the resident trout fishery resource in the absence of passage?. 3

5.     USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 4:  Whether entrainment at Project facilities is adversely affecting resident fishery resources?. 3

6.     USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 6:  Whether 58 miles of habitat suitable for use by anadromous fish exists with[in] the Project?. 3

7.     USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 7:  Whether access to habitat within the Project would benefit coho salmon, and if so, to what extent?. 3

8.     USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 8:  Whether access to habitat within the Project would benefit Pacific lamprey, and if so, to what extent?. 3

9.     BLM ISSUE 10:  Whether the seasonally high flows will help to improve riparian conditions in the J. C. Boyle bypass reach; and if so, whether and to what extent such improved riparian conditions will affect native riparian-focal bird species?. 3

10.   BLM ISSUE 11:  Whether project operations adversely affect riparian resources and native riparian-focal bird species in the J.C. Boyle peaking and bypass reaches?. 3

11.   BLM ISSUE 14:  Whether the seasonal high flow specified in BLM Conditions 4 A.1(c) will have a net adverse effect on redband trout spawning?. 3

12.   BLM ISSUE 16:  Whether and how current Project operations affect the redband trout fishery resources, insofar, as that resource would be addressed by the River Corridor Management Condition?. 3

13.   BLM ISSUE 17:  Whether and to what extent BLM’s two-inch-per-hour upramp rate for the J.C. Boyle facility will affect fish resources and other aquatic organisms?. 3

14.   BLM ISSUE 19:  How the flows proposed by BLM may affect the existing whitewater boating and flyfishing in the J.C. Boyle peaking reach?. 3

RULINGS ON PENDING MOTIONS. 3

1.     Motions to Strike and Motion for Reconsideration are DENIED. 3

2.     Klamath Tribes Motion to Strike Errata of Mr. Malone’s Direct Testimony is DENIED. 3

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT. 3

A.    BACKGROUND.. 3

B.     USFWS/NMFS DISPUTED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. 3

1.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 2(A) 3

a.     Historically, Anadromous Fish were distributed above Iron Gate Dam.. 3

b.     Project Dams Have Changed the Migratory Behavior of Anadromous Fish in the Klamath River  3

c.     The Habitat above Iron Gate Dam is Similar to the Habitat in Some Tributaries below Iron Gate Dam.. 3

d.     There are Stocks of Fish Suitable to Conditions above Iron Gate Dam.. 3

i.      Stocks of fall-run Chinook salmon Suitable to Conditions above Iron Gate Dam are Available to use Prescribed Fishways. 3

ii.     Minimal stocks of spring-run Chinook salmon Suitable to Conditions above Iron Gate Dam are Available to use Prescribed Fishways. 3

iii.    Stocks of Coho Salmon Suitable to the Conditions above Iron Gate Dam are Available to use Prescribed Fishways. 3

iv.    Stocks of Steelhead Suitable to the Conditions above Iron Gate Dam are Available to use Prescribed Fishways. 3

2.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 2(B) 3

3.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 2(C) 3

4.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 3. 3

5.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 4. 3

6.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 6. 3

7.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 7. 3

8.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING USFWS/NMFS ISSUE 8. 3

C.    BLM DISPUTED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. 3

1.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING BLM ISSUE 10. 3

2.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING BLM ISSUE 11. 3

3.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING BLM ISSUE 14. 3

4.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING BLM ISSUE 16. 3

a.     Low Flows Reduce Fish Habitat 3

b.     Stranding. 3

c.     Downstream Displacement 3

d.     Energetic Costs/Size. 3

e.     Macroinvertebrate. 3

f.     Keno vs. Peaking Reach. 3

5.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING BLM ISSUE 17. 3

6.     FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING BLM ISSUE 19. 3

a.     Current Flow Regime. 3

b.     BLM’s Proposed Flows. 3

c.     Whitewater Boating. 3

d.     Fly-fishing. 3

DISCUSSION.. 3

A.    USFWS/NMFS DISPUTED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT DISCUSSIONS.