site by burial is ensured.'' If the processes that result from burial
are deemed to be detrimental to the site components, other preservation
techniques should be considered (Mathewson et al., 1992). While capping
of site 45OK532 may be viewed as a protective measure, further
consideration of this measure within the HPMP, particularly as it may
relate to site preservation, would ensure that archaeological materials
contained within the site are not inadvertently damaged over the long
term.
    Okanogan PUD identifies measure ARCH-05 (Determine Potential
Recreational Impacts to Archaeological Sites) and states that it is
``discussing the proposed recreation plan with the CRWG to determine if
there would be impacts on archaeological sites in the vicinity of the
recreation facilities'' (Okanogan PUD, 2008a). Okanogan PUD further
explains that the HPMP would specify necessary mitigation and treatment
measures to protect prehistoric sites from recreational effects and
that its staff would be provided with information about the potential
for archaeological deposits to be found. While the HPMP includes
employee training and a protocol for pre-project review, the HPMP does
not specifically address measure ARCH-05 and it does not address
proposed or future recreational improvements. Revision of the HPMP to
specifically address recreational use and currently proposed or future
project recreation sites would be consistent with ARCH-05 and would
ensure that cultural sites are considered during recreation planning.
    Also, Okanogan PUD explains in its May 2009 HPMP that because site
45OK566 is situated on a terrace outcrop above the river, the potential
for project-related erosion at the site is limited. However, Okanogan
PUD acknowledges that the site may also be affected by increased public
use. The site sketch map contained within the site record depicts a
foot path leading to the site; however, the HPMP concludes that there
would be no adverse effects on site 45OK566 resulting from project
operation. Absent information related to the assessment of effects at
this site, it is uncertain how the determination of ``no adverse
effects'' to this site was made. A discussion of this assessment within
a revised HPMP and how it may related to measure ARCH-05 would provide
clarification.
    In its HPMP, Okanogan PUD acknowledges that modifications to Enloe
dam would affect this historic structure, but recommends that, if
undertaken in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation, effects would not be adverse. Implementation of
Okanogan PUD's proposed guidance contained within the HPMP with respect
to construction and maintenance standards would ensure that the
qualities of this property that make it eligible for the National
Register are not diminished over the license term. However, in its
HPMP, Okanogan PUD states that HAER documentation of Enloe dam has been
previously undertaken, but does not discuss the purpose of the Enloe
dam HAER documentation nor does it provide evidence of Washington SHPO
or Park Service acceptance of the documentation as a resolution of an
adverse effect. Typically, HAER documentation is completed as
mitigation of an adverse effect on a historic property. If HAER
documentation was undertaken to resolve such effects, and agency
concurrence has been received, additional measures may not be
necessary. Including a discussion in a revised HPMP regarding the
purpose of HAER documentation and agency consultation would provide
clarification.
    In section 4.2 of the HPMP, Okanogan PUD states that under this
plan, the existing Enloe powerhouse would be demolished. However, in
section 5.14 of the HPMP, Okanogan PUD explains that it is soliciting
outside parties to assume ownership of the structure. Revision of the
HPMP to correct and clarify Okanogan PUD's intent with regard to the
powerhouse would be appropriate. Additionally, Appendix C of the HPMP
states that the transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal
ownership without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or
conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property's historic
significance would be an adverse effect in accordance with the
implementing regulations of the NHPA found at 36 CFR800.5(a)(2)(vii).
Consequently, consultation with the CRWG regarding the resolution of
adverse effects on the historic Enloe powerhouse prior to any transfer
or demolition would ensure compliance with section 106.
    Two TCPs have been identified within the project boundary APE. In
its Section 106 Technical Report, Okanogan PUD (2008b) states that
short-term effects on one of the identified TCPs would not be adverse
and that construction of the new powerhouse would have an adverse
visual effect. In its HPMP, Okanogan PUD also implies that there would
be a potential adverse effect on this resource as a result of any
demolition activities at the historic Enloe powerhouse. While Okanogan
PUD does not propose any measures to mitigate visual effects on this
TCP in its HPMP, it proposes to monitor this resource during any
powerhouse demolition activities. Inclusion of measures within the HPMP
to mitigate adverse visual effects and a requirement to consult with
the Colville prior to initiating demolition activities, in addition to
monitoring, would ensure that this resource is addressed in accordance
with section 106.

3.3.9 Socioeconomics
<IP_ADDRESS> Affected Environment
    The City of Oroville is the nearest community, with an estimated
population of 1,653 in 2000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2009a). The
U.S. Bureau of the Census reports that the top three industries in the
City of Oroville in terms of employment were educational, health, and
social services (18.2 percent); retail trade (17.1 percent); and
agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining (11.2 percent).
    Table 19 presents population and other demographic data for the
City of Oroville, Okanogan County, and for Washington from the U.S.
Bureau of the Census.

          Table 19--Population Characteristics of the City of Oroville, Okanogan County, and Washington
                                  [Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2009a,b]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Private
                                    Population      Population        nonfarm         Median       Persons below
                                       2000        estimate 2008    employment       household     poverty level
                                                                       2007        income  2008   2008 (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Oroville................           1,653  ..............  ..............     \a\ $30,114        \a\ 28.9
Okanogan County.................          39,564          40,033           8,718          37,900            19.6
Washington......................       5,894,143       6,549,224   \b\ 2,501,684          58,081            11.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\1999 statistics.
\b\Includes data not distributed by county.

    The U.S. Census Bureau reports that in 2000 there were
approximately 7.5 persons per square mile in Okanogan County and 88.6
persons per square mile in Washington as a whole. Population increases
between 2000 and 2008 have shown a slight 1.2 percent increase in
Okanogan County (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2009b). The very slow
growth in Okanogan County can be accounted for by the remoteness of
most of the county from population centers.
<IP_ADDRESS> Environmental Effects
    In terms of construction employment, Okanogan PUD estimates a small
increase in engineering and construction management employment of 1
person or 0.4 full-time equivalents (FTE) in year one, ramping up to
3.5 FTE at the start of year two. It would peak at 4 FTE during that
year, and then stabilize throughout year three at 3 FTE. Construction
employment requirements begin at the start of year two, with 2.5 FTE,
increasing to 46.5 FTE near the end of year two. Construction during
year three would require 27 FTE at the start of the year, ramping down
to 9 FTE by the end of the three-year construction phase.
    The Enloe Project would have an unmanned power station. The
increased human-hours associated with the operation and maintenance of
the project would be 8,000 hours (or approximately 4 FTE) per year.
However, due to the ability of current Okanogan PUD staff to
accommodate these needs, there would be no long-term increase in on-
site employment or payroll due to the operation of the project.
    The Enloe Project would benefit the local economy by providing a
reliable source of power and by providing recreational opportunities.
Okanogan PUD did not propose any measures specifically associated with
socioeconomic resources.

Our Analysis

    Operation of the proposed project by Okanogan PUD would provide an
economical source of power to the region, helping to support future
economic growth. The additional spending associated with implementing
various resource measures, such as the rehabilitation of degraded
vegetation and the improvement of developed and dispersed recreation
areas, would provide for some additional employment during the period
of construction and monitoring.

3.4 No-Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, the Enloe Project would not be
constructed. There would be no changes to the physical, biological, or
cultural resources of the area and electrical generation from the
project would not occur. The power that would have been developed from
a renewable resource would have to be replaced from nonrenewable fuels.

4.0 Developmental Analysis

    In this section, we look at the Enloe Project's use of the
Similkameen River for hydropower purposes to see what effect various
environmental measures would have on the project's costs and power
generation. Under the Commission's approach to evaluating the economics
of hydropower projects, as articulated in Mead Corp.,\41\ the
Commission compares the current project to an estimate of the cost of
obtaining the same amount of energy and capacity using a likely
alternative source of power for the region (cost of alternative power).
In keeping with Commission policy as described in Mead Corp., 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.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each of the licensing alternatives, our analysis includes an
estimate of: (1) The cost of individual measures considered in the EA
for the protection, mitigation and enhancement of environmental
resources affected by the project; (2) the cost of alternative power;
(3) the total project cost (i.e., for construction, operation,
maintenance, and environmental measures); and (4) the difference
between the cost of alternative power and total project cost. If the
difference between the cost of alternative power and total project cost
is positive, the project produces power for less than the cost of
alternative power. If the difference between the cost of alternative
power and total project cost is negative, the project produces power
for more than the cost of alternative power. 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 20 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use
in our analysis. This information was provided

by Okanogan PUD in its license application. We find that the values
provided by Okanogan PUD 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. We do not include, in our analysis, any
measures with minimal, zero, or unknown costs.

       Table 20--Parameters for the Economic Analysis of the Enloe
                          Hydroelectric Project
           [Source: Okanogan PUD, 2008a, as modified by Staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Parameter                              Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of analysis (years)............................                30
Initial construction cost, $\a\.......................        28,887,550
Operation and maintenance of project, $/year\b\.......           894,470
Energy value ($/MWh)\c\...............................             67.88
Capacity rate ($/kilowatt-year)\d\....................               157
Interest rate (%)\e\..................................               4.5
Discount rate (%)\f\..................................               4.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ License application, table D-1, adjusted to 2010 dollars.
\b\ License application, table D-1, adjusted to 2010 dollars.
\c\ License application, table D-4, total value divided by total average
  annual generation.
\d\ Staff based on Energy Information Administration Annual Outlook for
  2010. This value is based on the amortization and fixed operation and
  maintenance cost for a simple-cycle combustion turbine.
\e\ License application, table D-2.

4.2 Comparison of Alternatives

    Table 21 summarizes the installed capacity, annual generation, cost
of alternative power, estimated total project cost, and difference
between the cost of alternative power and total project cost for each
of the alternatives considered in this EA: Okanogan PUD's proposal and
the staff alternative.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ There are no mandatory conditions filed at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.2.1 No-Action Alternative
    Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be
constructed as proposed. The dam is managed by the Okanogan PUD, but
because there are no operational generating facilities, the project is
not subject to a Commission license.

Table 21--Summary of Annual Cost of Alternative Power and Annual Project
      Cost for the Alternatives for the Enloe Hydroelectric Project
                             [Source: Staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Okanogan PUD's         Staff
                                          Proposal         Alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installed capacity (MW).............               9.0               9.0
Annual generation (MWh).............            44,409            44,409
Dependable capacity (MW)............              1.14              1.14
Annual cost of alternative power....        $3,193,460        $3,193,460
($/MWh).............................             71.91             71.91
Annual project cost.................        $3,086,990        $3,109,540
($/MWh).............................             69.51             70.02
Difference between the cost of                $106,470           $83,920
 alternative power and project cost.
($/MWh).............................              2.40              1.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.2.2 Okanogan PUD's Proposal
    Okanogan PUD proposes to construct a new hydroelectric project
using the existing Enloe dam. Okanogan PUD also proposes to implement
numerous environmental measures, as presented in table 23, prior to
initial construction, during construction, and after construction once
the proposed project is operational. Under Okanogan PUD's proposal, the
project would have an installed capacity of 9 MW, and generate an
average of 44,409 MWh of electricity annually. The average annual cost
of alternative power would be $3,193,460, or $71.91/MWh. The average
annual project cost would be $3,086,990, or $69.51/MWh. Overall, the
project would produce power at a cost that is $106,470, or $2.40/MWh,
less than the cost of alternative power.
4.2.3 Staff Alternative
    The staff alternative includes all of Okanogan PUD's proposed
environmental measures except for its proposal to place boulder
clusters in riffles or in plain-bed portions of the river and
entrainment and resident fish monitoring. Additionally, staff made
modifications and recommended additional measures. Table 22 shows the
staff-recommended additions, deletions, and modifications to Okanogan
PUD's proposed environmental protection and enhancement measures and
the estimated cost of each. The staff alternative would have the same
capacity and energy attributes as Okanogan PUD's proposal. Under the
staff alternative, the average annual cost of alternative power would
be

$3,193,460, or $71.91/MWh. The annual project cost would be $3,109,540,
or $70.02/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost that
is $83,920, or $1.89/MWh, less than the cost of alternative power.

4.3 Cost of Environmental Measures

    Table 22 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement
measures considered in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal
annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period of analysis to give a
uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost.

  Table 22--Cost of Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Considered in Assessing the Environmental
                 Effects of Constructing and Operating the Proposed Enloe Hydroelectric Project
                                                 [Source: Staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Capital cost       Annual cost      Levelized annual
Enhancement/Mitigation measures          Entity             (2010$) \a\        (2010$) ;\a\      cost  (2010$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Geology and Soils Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Develop and implement an      Okanogan PUD,.........  $21,510..........  $0...............  $1,460
 ESCP (WQ-06).                   Interior--10(j),......
                                 NMFS--10(j),..........
                                 Staff.................
2. Develop and implement a CSMP  Okanogan PUD, Staff...  80,660...........  0................  5,460
 (WQ-08).
3. Develop and implement a       Interior, Washington    5,000 \b\........  0................  340
 Spoil Disposal Plan.             DOE, Staff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Water and Water Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Monitor water temperatures    Okanogan PUD,           0................  580..............  580
 at three locations for a         Interior--10(j),
 period of 5 years (WQ-01).       NMFS--10(j), Staff.
2. Provide aeration in the       Okanogan PUD, NMFS--    43,020...........  2,150............  5,060
 turbine draft tubes (WQ-03).     10(j), Staff.
3. Monitor TDG and DO at the     Okanogan PUD, Staff...  26,890...........  7,000 for 1st 5    3,850
 project intake and in the pool                                              years.
 below the falls for a period
 of 5 years (WQ-04).
4. Monitor DO at the project     NMFS..................  0................  7,000 for years 6- 5,500
 intake and in the pool below                                                30.
 the falls for the term of
 license.
5. Develop and file with the     Staff.................  10,000 \b\.......  0................  680
 Commission, in consultation
 with the TRG, a water quality
 monitoring plan including:
 Selecting the monitoring
 locations; filing a report at
 the end of year 5 documenting
 the results of monitoring and
 recommendations for the need
 for continued monitoring
 development, and conducting
 water temperature, TDG, and DO
 monitoring for a period longer
 than 5 years if needed.
6. At project initiation,        Okanogan PUD, NMFS--    26,890...........  0................  1,820
 develop and implement the        10(j), Staff.
 Spill Plan including a
 hazardous substance plan (WQ-
 07).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Aquatic Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Implement a Blasting Plan     Okanogan PUD, Staff...  107,540..........  0................  7,280
 and use BMPs (FISH-01).
2. Place two boulder clusters    Okanogan PUD..........  64,520...........  0................  4,370
 in riffles or in flat sections
 of the river (FISH-02).
3. Ensure that logs and other    Okanogan PUD,           0................  4,300............  4,300
 large woody debris can pass      Interior--10(j),
 over the dam spillway during     Staff.
 the annual flood and, if
 needed, transport some large
 woody debris around the dam
 and place it in the river
 downstream of the dam to
 provide fish habitat (FISH-03).
4. Design and construct the      Okanogan PUD, Staff...  32,260...........  0................  2,180
 intake trashracks with a 1-
 inch bar spacing (FISH-04).

5. Design, construct, and file   Interior, Washington    16-24M...........  0................  1.1-1.6M
 detailed drawings of the         DFW.
 intake fish screen with a
 schedule to build the facility
 before commercial operation
 starts.
6. Monitor seasonal variation    Okanogan PUD, Interior  107,540..........  0................  7,280
 in entrainment susceptibility;
 observe trauma and mortality
 caused by entrainment, and
 monitor fish population
 distribution and abundance in
 the reservoir (FISH-05).
7. Install tailrace barrier      Okanogan PUD,           26,510...........  5,380............  7,180
 nets in the powerhouse draft     Interior--10(j),
 tubes including annual           NMFS--10(j),
 inspection and maintenance       Washington DFW--
 (FISH-06).                       10(j), Staff.
8. File detailed design          Okanogan PUD,           2,000 \b\........  0................  140
 drawings of the conical net      Interior--10(j),
 barrier at least 1 year before   NMFS--10(j),
 the start of land-disturbing     Washington DFW--
 or land-clearing activities.     10(j), Staff.
9. Monitor tailrace barriers     Okanogan PUD,           0................  1,240............  1,240
 with video cameras (FISH-07).    Interior--10(j),
                                  Staff.
10. Develop and implement a      Okanogan PUD,           5,000 \b\........  0................  340
 written operation plan for the   Interior--10(j),
 tailrace barriers.               NMFS--10(j), Staff.
11. Develop and implement a      Okanogan PUD,           10,000 \b\.......  0................  680
 postconstruction evaluation      Interior--10(j),
 and monitoring plan for the      NMFS--10(j), Staff.
 tailrace barrier.
12. Develop and implement an     Okanogan PUD,           5,000 \b\........  0................  340
 inspection and maintenance       Interior--10(j),
 plan for the tailrace barrier.   NMFS--10(j), Staff.
13. Develop a powerhouse         Interior..............  5,000 \b\........  0................  340
 operation plan to provide 48
 hours of flow continuation in
 the event of emergency project
 shutdown.
14. Develop and implement a      Staff.................  10,000 \b\.......  0................  680
 project operations and
 compliance monitoring plan.
15. Design and construct the     Okanogan PUD, Staff...  120,450..........  0................  8,150
 tailrace to avoid effects on
 fish (FISH-09).
16. Enhance an existing side     Okanogan PUD,           397,510..........  3,310............  30,210
 channel (FISH-10).               Interior--10(j),
                                  NMFS--10(j),
                                  Washington DFW--
                                  10(j), Staff.
17. Implement a gravel           Okanogan PUD,           0................  11,950...........  11,950
 supplementation program (FISH-   Interior--10(j),
 11).                             NMFS--10(j),
                                  Washington DFW--
                                  10(j), Staff.
18. File a Resident Fish         Interior..............  5,000 \d\........  50,000 \d\.......  50,340
 Habitat Management Plan that
 includes provisions for WQ-01,
 FISH-05, BOTA-01, -02, -04, -
 05, to stock sterile triploid
 trout, and to implement a fish
 habitat monitoring plan.
19. File a Fisheries             Washington DFW........  0................  50,000 \d\.......  50,000
 Enhancement Plan that includes
 provisions for FISH-10, FISH-
 11, and to stock sterile
 triploid trout.
20. File a Fisheries             Interior..............  0 \d\............  0 \d\............  0 \d\
 Enhancement Plan that includes
 provisions for FISH-03, FISH-
 10, and FISH-11.
21. Develop a biological review  Okanogan PUD,           16,130...........  10,750...........  11,840
 process which includes           Washington DFW, Staff.
 provisions for establishing a
 TRG to provide ongoing
 refinement and measure
 effectiveness of environmental
 measures (FISH-12).

22. Develop a fisheries          Okanogan PUD, Staff...  48,390...........  0................  3,280
 monitoring database for
 organizing and storing
 monitoring data related to
 aquatic resources for use by
 the TRG to monitor
 effectiveness of measures
 (FISH-13).
23. Develop an adaptive          Washington DFW........  10,000 \b\.......  0................  680
 management plan within 1 year
 of license issuance for the
 protection and mitigation of
 impacts to fish and wildlife
 resources.
24. Conduct a paleolimnological  CRITFC................  100,000 \b\......  0................  6,770
 study of historical anadromy
 above Enloe dam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Minimum Flow Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Provide a minimum flow of 10  Okanogan PUD,           5,000 \b\........  37,610 \b\.......  37,940
 cfs year-round and 30 cfs from   Washington DFW,
 mid-July to mid-September,       Washington DOE, Staff.
 monitor temperature and DO,
 select an appropriate minimum
 flow release location, and
 make appropriate project
 modifications to provide
 minimum flow releases for the
 bypassed reach.
2. Determine appropriate         Okanogan PUD,           5,000 \b\........  0................  340
 thresholds for downramping       Washington DFW,
 rates after emergency shutdown   Washington DOE, Staff.
 immediately downstream of
 Enloe dam.
3. Establish minimum instream    American Rivers et al.  0................  1,295,830 \b\....  1,295,830
 flows in the bypassed reach
 varying from 400 cfs to 3,400
 cfs depending on the month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Terrestrial Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Implement the Vegetation      Okanogan PUD,           32,260...........  0................  2,180
 Plan, including goals, the       Interior--10(j),
 species to be used, methods,     Washington DFW--
 and benchmarks of success for    10(j), Staff.
 botanical resources (BOTA-01).
2. Develop a Vegetation          Interior--10(j),        10,000 \b\.......  0................  680
 Resource Management Plan.        Washington DFW--10(j).
3. Develop a Wildlife            Interior, Washington    10,000 \b\.......  0................  680
 Management Plan including        DFW.
 planting native riparian
 trees, grasses, and shrubs.
4. Plant riparian vegetation     Okanogan PUD,           32,260...........  0................  2,180
 along the west and east banks    Interior--10(j),
 of the reservoir shoreline       Washington DFW--
 (BOTA-02).                       10(j), Staff.
5. Return existing shoreline     Okanogan PUD,           376,390..........  1,450............  26,920
 road to natural conditions,      Interior--10(j),
 eliminate the current            Washington DFW--
 interruption between the         10(j), Staff.
 shoreline and upland habitat,
 relocate access road segment,
 and develop trail to provide
 recreation access to the river
 below the dam on the east bank
 (BOTA-03 and part of REC-13).
6. Plant woody riparian species  Okanogan PUD,           16,130...........  0................  1,090
 in the riparian area along the   Interior--10(j),
 abandoned road corridor (BOTA-   Washington DFW--
 04).                             10(j), Staff.
7. Plant woody riparian          Okanogan PUD,           21,510...........  0................  1,460
 vegetation along the east and    Interior--10(j),
 west banks of the reservoir      Washington DFW--
 downstream of Shanker's Bend     10(j), Staff.
 (BOTA-05).

8. Install grazing control       Okanogan PUD,           26,890...........  0................  1,820
 measures including fencing       Interior--10(j),
 (BOTA-06).                       Washington DFW--
                                  10(j), Staff.
9. Monitor restored areas        Okanogan PUD, Staff...  16,130...........  2,900............  3,990
 annually for 5 years and
 replant as necessary, and
 provide annual reports of the
 monitoring results (BOTA-07).
10. Additional monitoring of     Interior--10(j),        100,000 \b\......  0................  6,770
 restored areas.                  Washington DFW--10(j).
11. Employ BMPs including        Okanogan PUD,           2,690............  0................  180
 measures such as flagging and    Interior--10(j),
 temporarily fencing any          Washington DFW--
 wetland and riparian             10(j), Staff.
 vegetation in the vicinity of
 the project, and limiting
 construction and maintenance-
 related disturbance of
 sensitive habitats to the
 extent possible (BOTA-08).
12. Develop and implement an     Okanogan PUD, Staff...  5,380............  0................  360
 environmental training program
 (BOTA-09).
13. Provide a biological         Okanogan PUD,           77,430...........  0................  5,240
 monitor during construction      Interior--10(j),
 (BOTA-10).                       Washington DFW--
                                  10(j), Staff.
14. Implement the Noxious Weed   Okanogan PUD,           13,980...........  1,340............  2,290
 Control Program (BOTA-11).       Interior--10(j),
                                  Washington DFW--
                                  10(j), Staff.
15. Survey disposal sites and    Okanogan PUD, Staff...  3,230............  0................  220
 control noxious weeds by
 implementing control measures
 prior to spoil disposal (BOTA-
 12).
16. Hydroseed disposal sites     Okanogan PUD, Staff...  14,200...........  0................  960
 using native upland species
 (BOTA-13).
17. Conduct survey for Ute       Okanogan PUD..........  0................  1,820............  1,820
 ladies'-tresses prior to,
 during, and postconstruction
 (BOTA-14) for 3 years.
18. Develop an Ute ladies'-      Staff.................  10,000 \b\.......  0................  680
 tresses plan after agencies
 consultation, and if present
 in project areas, develop plan
 to avoid or minimize effects.
19. Conduct survey for Ute       Interior--10(j),        70,000 \b\.......  0................  4,740
 ladies'-tresses within 1 year    Washington DFW--10(j).
 of license issuance, and every
 5 years thereafter.
20. GIS mapping and development  Interior..............  15,000 \b\.......  0................  1,020
 of a digital database for
 sensitive species, noxious
 weeds, and habitat restoration
 sites.
21. Place the project            Okanogan PUD,           540..............  0................  40
 transmission line in location    Interior--10(j),
 to reduce adverse effects of     Washington DFW--
 the line on raptors and other    10(j), Staff.
 birds (WILD-01).
22. Concentrate construction     Okanogan PUD,           134,430..........  0................  9,100
 activities to occur in summer    Interior--10(j),
 and early fall (WILD-02).        Washington DFW--
                                  10(j), Staff.
23. Conduct pre-disposal site    Okanogan PUD, Staff...  3,230............  0................  220
 survey for wildlife and time
 clearing vegetation at spoil
 disposal sites (WILD-03).
24. Install nest boxes for       Interior, Washington    25/box...........  0................  minimal
 small birds in areas that lack   DFW.
 snags or natural tree cavities.
25. Retain dead tress and        Interior, Washington    10,000 \b\.......  0................  680
 install 10 artificial perch      DFW, Staff.
 poles along the reservoir
 shoreline.
26. Install barriers on          Interior, Washington    2,000 \b\........  0................  140
 irrigation canal tunnels to      DFW.
 prevent human entry while
 still allowing use by bats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                        Recreation and Land Use Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Revise and implement the      Okanogan PUD,           91,410 \c\.......  0................  6,190
 Fence Plan in coordination       Interior, Staff.
 with the Recreation Management
 Plan to include (a)
 installation of barricades and
 fencing on the east side of
 the dam and the area below the
 dam; (b) use of non-barbed
 wire at the recreation area;
 and (c) installation of a
 stock watering tank north of
 the proposed recreation site
 as an alternative source of
 drinking water for all grazing
 cattle with rights to this
 area (REC-01).
2. Provide recreation access     Okanogan PUD,           5,000............  2,000............  2,340
 below Enloe dam on the east      Interior, Staff.
 bank by developing a trail to
 the river below the dam (REC-
 02).
3. Transfer to Okanogan County   Okanogan PUD,           10,750...........  0................  730
 ownership rights to the          Interior, Staff.
 trestle bridge that is located
 on the west side of the river
 with certain conditions (REC-
 03).
4. Improve the existing          Okanogan PUD,           80,660...........  0................  5,460
 informal boat ramp located on    Interior, Staff.
 the east bank upstream of the
 dam (REC-04).
5. Clean up and restore wooded   Okanogan PUD,           10,750...........  0................  730
 area on east bank of the         Interior, Staff.
 reservoir (REC-05).
6. Develop an interpretive       Okanogan PUD,           5,380............  0................  360
 publication including a map      Interior, Staff.
 illustrating public access and
 recreation sites (REC-06).
7. Remove existing trash and     Okanogan PUD,           5,380............  1,610............  1,970
 conduct annual cleanup           Interior, Staff.
 activities (REC-07).
8. Develop parking area and      Okanogan PUD,           107,540..........  0................  7,280
 install a vault toilet on the    Interior, Staff.
 east bank and upstream of
 Enloe dam (REC-08).
9. Install picnic tables near    Okanogan PUD,           16,130...........  0................  1,090
 the parking area taking          Interior, Staff.
 advantage of existing trees
 for shading (REC-09).
10. Develop primitive campsites  Okanogan PUD,           26,890...........  0................  1,820
 near the parking and picnic      Interior, Staff.
 area (REC-10).
11. Install one interpretive     Okanogan PUD,           5,380............  0................  360
 sign near the parking and        Interior, Staff.
 picnic area and one sign near
 the abutment of the old
 powerhouse access bridge (REC-
 11).
12. Place an information board   Okanogan PUD,           2,690............  0................  180
 near Enloe dam (REC-12).         Interior, Staff.
13. Finalize and implement the   Okanogan PUD,           43,020...........  0................  2,910
 Recreation Management Plan       Interior, Staff.
 (REC-13).
14. Implement major              Interior..............  125,000 \b\......  15,000 \b\.......  23,460
 recreational development at
 the BLM-owned Miner's Flat
 site and bring into project
 boundary.
15. Develop a formal boater      BLM, Staff............  35,000 \b\.......  1,000 \b\........  3,370
 take-out area at Miner's Flat,
 upgrade the access roads to
 the take-out if necessary, and
 include approximately 1 acre
 on which the take-out would be
 located within the project
 boundary.
16. Conduct recreation           Interior, Staff.......  0................  5,000 \b\........  5,000
 monitoring and provide
 Recreation Management Plan
 updates.

17. Provide for recreation site  Interior..............  0................  50,000 \b\.......  50,000
 grounds maintenance.
18. Rebuild the footbridge       Interior..............  10,000 \b\.......  500 \b\..........  1,180
 across the Similkameen River.
19. Develop and post a snow      Staff.................  1,000 \b\........  0................  70
 plowing schedule annually for
 the project access road.
20. Remove the small,            BLM...................  2,500 \b\........  0................  170
 deteriorated, privately-owned
 pump house at the north end of
 the proposed Enloe dam
 recreation area.
21. Remove the one small,        BLM, Staff............  2,500 \b\........  0................  170
 deteriorated building on
 Okanogan PUD land at the north
 end of the proposed Enloe dam
 recreation area.
22. Maintain the existing signs  Okanogan PUD, Staff...  10,750...........  2,690............  3,420
 and system of safety cables
 and grab ropes above the dam,
 install canoe/kayak take-out
 signs, install dam safety/
 warning signs for boaters, and
 install a log boom access the
 powerhouse intake channel to
 protect boaters (SAFETY-01).
23. Identify options for         Okanogan PUD, Staff...  10,750...........  0................  730
 preventing public access to
 the old powerhouse (SAFETY-03).
24. Develop and implement the    Okanogan PUD,           5,000 \b\........  0................  340
 Safety During Construction       Interior, Staff.
 Plan.
25. Develop and implement a Law  Interior..............  5,000 \b\........  15,000 \b\.......  15,340
 Enforcement, Fire, and
 Emergency Services Plan.
26. Develop a Fire Suppression   Staff.................  2,000 \b\........  5,000 \b\........  5,140
 Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Aesthetic Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Use visually-compatible       Okanogan PUD,           10,750...........  0................  730
 colors and building materials    Interior, Staff.
 for construction (AES-01).
2. Consult with the Colville     Okanogan PUD,           21,510...........  0................  1,460
 during restoration activities    Interior, Staff.
 (AES-02).
3. Revise and implement the      Interior, Staff.......  5,000 \b\........  0................  340
 Aesthetics Management Plan,
 including provisions of AES-
 01, AES-02, and AES-04, and
 consultation with BLM on the
 revision of the aesthetic
 analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Cultural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Solicit a new owner of the    Okanogan PUD,           5,380............  0................  360
 existing historic Enloe          Interior, Staff.
 powerhouse within 4 years from
 issuance of a license (HIST-
 01).
2. Allow at least 5 years        Interior..............  4,390 \b\........  0................  300
 during which Okanogan PUD
 would solicit and review
 offers to parties that might
 be interested in acquiring the
 historic Enloe powerhouse.
3. If a qualified owner is not   Okanogan PUD, Staff...  129,050..........  0................  8,730
 identified for the existing
 historic powerhouse, consult
 with the CRWG, which includes
 the Commission, prior to
 demolition of the historic
 Enloe powerhouse (HIST-02).

4. Install interpretive panels   Okanogan PUD,           26,890...........  0................  1,820
 about the historic powerhouse    Interior, Staff.
 (HIST-03).
5. Review and reach agreement    Okanogan PUD..........  5,000 \b\........  0................  340
 on the May 2009 HPMP and
 incorporate information into a
 PA (HIST-04).
6. Monitor effects of shoreline  Okanogan PUD,           69,900...........  0................  4,730
 fluctuations on archaeological   Interior, Staff.
 sites in shoreline areas, and
 mitigate, as needed (ARCH-01).
7. Avoid known National          Okanogan PUD,           16,130...........  0................  1,090
 Register-eligible                Interior, Staff.
 archaeological sites to
 prevent damage during
 construction (ARCH-02).
8. Monitor eligible sites        Okanogan PUD,           20,000 \b\.......  0................  1,350
 during construction activities   Interior, Staff.
 to avoid damage to these sites
 (ARCH-03).
9. Develop and implement an      Okanogan PUD,           16,130...........  0................  1,090
 inadvertent discovery plan if    Interior, Staff.
 a site is discovered during
 construction and include
 training of staff and
 construction workers about the
 potential for discovery of
 archaeological deposits (ARCH-
 04).
10. Determine if there would be  Okanogan PUD,           10,000 \b\.......  0................  680
 effects on archaeological        Interior, Staff.
 sites in the vicinity of
 recreation facilities (ARCH-
 05).
11. Revise the May 2009 HPMP     Interior, Staff.......  16,000 \e\.......  10,000 \e\.......  11,080
 (as identified in section 3).
12. Include in the revised HPMP  Staff.................  52,000 \b\.......  5,000 \b\........  8,520
 provisions for: (a) Further
 consideration of capping site
 45OK532; (b) a description of
 the proposed side-channel
 enhancement site; (c) two
 separate defined APEs; (d)
 consultation with the CRWG
 regarding the resolution of
 adverse effects on the
 historic Enloe powerhouse; and
 (e) re-evaluating the Oroville-
 Tonasket Irrigation Canal for
 National Register-eligibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Unless otherwise noted, all cost estimates are from Okanogan PUD.
\b\ Cost estimated by Staff.
\c\ Cost estimated by Okanogan PUD and Staff.
\d\ Cost estimated by Staff and includes only addition measures not proposed by Okanogan PUD.
\e\ This staff-estimated cost includes all of the revisions to the HPMP that Interior recommends. Staff does not
  recommend that Okanogan PUD needs to allow 5 years to solicit entities that might be interested in acquiring
  the historic Enloe powerhouse; there is no additional cost for this measure.

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Comparison of Alternatives

    In this section we compare the development and non-developmental
effects of Okanogan PUD's proposal and Okanogan PUD's proposal as
modified by staff (staff alternative).
    We estimate the annual generation of the project under the two
alternatives identified above. Our analysis shows that the annual
generation would be 44,409 MWh for the proposed action and the staff
alternative.
    We summarize the environmental effects of the action alternatives
in Table 23.

    Table 23--Summary of Key Differences in the Potential Effects of
            Okanogan PUD's Proposal and the Staff Alternative
                             [Source: Staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Okanogan PUD
       Resource/issue               proposal          Staff alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoil Disposal Plan.........  No provisions for     Spoil Disposal Plan
                               spoil disposal..      to address disposal/
                                                     storage of waste
                                                     soil and/or rock
                                                     materials (spoils)
                                                     generated by road
                                                     maintenance, slope
                                                     failures, and
                                                     construction
                                                     projects.
Water Quality...............  Reduced TDG from      Same as Okanogan
                               diversion of water    PUD's proposal, but
                               around falls, and     with Water Quality
                               adequate DO from      Monitoring Plan to
                               aeration of the       provide more
                               draft tube            specificity and
                               downstream.           oversight to ensure
                               Adequate              intended results.
                               temperature and DO
                               in bypassed reach
                               from minimum flows.
                               Adequate levels
                               ensured by
                               monitoring, with
                               potential for
                               additional
                               measures.
                               Protections from
                               erosion and
                               sedimentation
                               during construction.
Project Operations and        Protection of         Same as Okanogan
 Compliance Monitoring Plan.   aquatic,              PUD's proposal, but
                               recreation, and       with Project
                               aesthetics            Operations and
                               resources from run-   Compliance
                               of-river operation,   Monitoring Plan to
                               minimum flows in      further define
                               the bypassed reach,   protective
                               and ramping rates     operations and
                               both in the project   ensure compliance.
                               tailrace and in the
                               bypassed reach.
Aquatic Resources...........  Potential minor       Same as Okanogan
                               losses of fish from   PUD's proposal, but
                               blasting and          without further
                               increased turbidity   evaluation of
                               and sedimentation     potential effects
                               during                to resident
                               construction.         fishery, and no
                               Enhanced anadromous   potential limited
                               fish habitat          benefit to
                               downstream of         whitefish or
                               project (including    adverse effects
                               critical habitat      from boulder
                               for threatened UCR    placement in river
                               steelhead) due to     upstream of
                               decrease in TDG and   project.
                               maintenance of
                               adequate DO levels
                               and temperature,
                               enhanced side
                               channel habitat,
                               woody debris
                               transfer
                               downstream, gravel
                               augmentation, and
                               new riparian
                               vegetation. Reduced
                               aquatic habitat in
                               short bypassed
                               reach for resident
                               fish. Minor losses
                               to fish
                               entrainment, with
                               further evaluation
                               of potential
                               effects to resident
                               fishery. Potential
                               limited benefits to
                               whitefish in river
                               upstream of
                               project, but
                               potential negative
                               effect on
                               recreational
                               boating and water
                               temperatures.
Raptor and Other Avian        Retention of non-     Same as Okanogan
 Perching Habitat.             hazard dead trees     PUD's proposal, but
                               along the reservoir.  with addition of 10
                                                     artificial perch
                                                     poles along the
                                                     reservoir
                                                     shoreline.
Vegetation..................  Vegetation Plan and   Same as Okanogan
                               control of noxious    PUD's proposal, but
                               weeds.                with additional
                                                     oversight.
Ute Ladies'-Tresses Plan....  Protection of Ute     Same as Okanogan
                               Ladies'-Tresses       PUD's proposal, but
                               during initial        protection measures
                               construction and      postconstruction if
                               continued             warranted.
                               monitoring.
Recreation Management Plan..  Recreation            Same as Okanogan
                               Management Plan,      PUD's proposal, but
                               including numerous    with additional
                               measures to protect   provisions for fire
                               and enhance           suppression,
                               recreation at the     monitoring to
                               project. Potential    ensure resource
                               negative effect on    protection, added
                               recreational          assurance of O&M of
                               boating in river      the entire length
                               upstream of project   of the public
                               from boulder          access road from
                               placement.            the Loomis-Oroville
                                                     Road to Enloe dam
                                                     (5 acres),
                                                     additional river
                                                     access take-out
                                                     point at Miner's
                                                     Flat, and removal
                                                     of one small,
                                                     deteriorated
                                                     building. No
                                                     potential negative
                                                     effect on
                                                     recreational
                                                     boating from
                                                     boulder placement
                                                     in river upstream
                                                     from project.
Aesthetics..................  Aesthetics            Same as Okanogan
                               Management Plan,      PUD's proposal, but
                               including numerous    with additional
                               measures to address   provisions to
                               aesthetics, and new   ensure oversight
                               riparian vegetation   and compliance, and
                               enhancing             ensure other
                               appearance of         resource measures
                               shoreline over        do not detract
                               existing condition    significantly from
                               with trees lost to    aesthetics.
                               fire. Restoration     Additionally,
                               of a shoreline road   removal of a
                               to a natural          deteriorated
                               condition.            building.
                               Reduction of flows
                               in short bypassed
                               reach and over
                               falls.
Cultural Resources..........  May 2009 HPMP.......  Same as proposed,
                                                     but with greater
                                                     detail, evaluation,
                                                     consultation, and
                                                     oversight to ensure
                                                     protection of
                                                     cultural resources.
Consultation and Commission   Limited consultation  Oversight of
 approval.                     and Commission        resource plans to
                               approvals for plans.  ensure intended
                                                     results.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.2 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 hydropower project, we consider
the water quality, fish and wildlife, recreation, cultural, and other
non-developmental values of the involved waterway equally with its
electric energy and other developmental values. In deciding whether,
and under what conditions a hydropower project should be licensed, the
Commission must determine that the project would be best adapted to a
comprehensive plan for improving or developing the waterway. This
section contains the basis for, and a summary of, our recommendations
for licensing the Enloe Project. We weigh the costs and benefits of our

recommended alternative against other proposed measures.
Recommended Alternative
    Based on our independent review and evaluation of the environmental
and economic effects of the proposed action, the proposed action with
additional staff-recommended measures, and the no-action
alternative,\43\ we recommend the proposed action with staff-
recommended measures as the preferred alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ BLM stated that it would require Okanogan PUD to remove the
dam and all associated facilities from the public lands under the
existing right-of-way permit if a license is be issued. We discussed
dam removal under cumulative effects Section 3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recommend the staff alternative because: (1) Issuance of a new
license would allow Okanogan PUD to construct and operate the project
as a beneficial and dependable source of electrical energy; (2) the 9.0
MW of electric capacity available comes from a renewable resource which
does not contribute to atmospheric pollution; and (3) the recommended
environmental measures would protect water quality, enhance fish and
wildlife resources, protect cultural resources, and improve public use
of the project's recreational facilities and resources.

Measures Proposed by Okanogan PUD

    Based on our environmental analysis of Okanogan PUD's proposal
discussed in section 3 and the costs discussed in section 4, we
conclude that the following measures proposed by Okanogan PUD would
protect and enhance environmental resources and would be worth the
cost. Therefore, we recommend including these measures in any license
issued for the project.
     Develop and implement an ESCP to minimize the effects of
construction, repair, and operation of the dam and intake, penstocks,
powerhouse, tailrace, impoundment, access roads, powerline, and
construction camp (WQ-06).
     Develop and implement a CSMP to minimize sediment
disturbance and maximize sediment containment during construction (WQ-
08).
     Operate the project in a run-of-river mode so that there
are no detectable changes in flows below Similkameen Falls (FISH-08)
and avoid flow fluctuations that might affect downstream resources by
complying with ramping rate restrictions as recommended by resource
agencies.
     Monitor water temperatures at three locations for a period
of 5 years to determine if the operation of the new crest gates causes
an increase in the water temperatures when compared with upstream of
the reservoir (WQ-01) (as modified below).
     Design the powerhouse tailrace so that it discharges to
and circulates water in the plunge pool downstream of Similkameen
Falls, preventing stagnation and consequently water quality degradation
of the pool habitat (WQ-02).
     Provide aeration in the powerhouse turbine draft tubes
during low flow summer months (WQ-03).
     Monitor total TDG and DO at the project intake and in the
pool below Similkameen Falls for a period of 5 years to assess TDG and
DO levels under project operations (WQ-04) (as modified below).
     Design a broad, shallow intake structure and channel to
minimize sediment disturbance from project construction and operation
in the reservoir near the intake (WQ-05).
     Develop and implement at project initiation a Spill Plan
to reduce potential effects from accidental spills when heavy machinery
is operating near the river and reservoir (WQ-07).
     Implement the Blasting Plan and use BMPs to avoid and
minimize potential blasting effects on aquatic resources, including
federally listed or sensitive species, associated with blasting (FISH-
01).
     Ensure that logs and other large woody debris can pass
over the dam spillway during the annual flood and, if needed, transport
some large woody debris around the dam and place it in the river
downstream of the dam to provide fish habitat (FISH-03).
     Design the intake trashrack with 1-inch bar spacing so
that smaller fish would be able to pass safely through the trashrack
and larger fish would be discouraged or prevented from passing through
the trashracks and turbines (FISH-04).
     Install tailrace barrier nets in the powerhouse draft
tubes to prevent fish in the tailrace from swimming upstream into the
draft tubes during low flows and maintain the nets (FISH-06).
     Monitor barrier nets with video cameras to observe if
adult salmonids are able to enter the draft tubes past the barrier nets
(FISH-07). Develop and implement a written operation plan, a
postconstruction evaluation and monitoring plan, and an inspection and
maintenance plan to ensure that the tailrace barrier operates
effectively.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Okanogan PUD proposed these additional plans as modified
(April 9, 2010) from NMFS recommendations (February 26, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Design and locate the tailrace in an area to avoid effects
on fish that use the plunge pool below Similkameen Falls (FISH-09).
     Enhance an existing side channel to improve spawning,
rearing, and summer thermal refugia downstream of the powerhouse
tailrace (FISH-10).
     Implement a gravel supplementation program to increase the
amount of gravel in the river downstream of Enloe dam and improve
spawning habitat (FISH-11).
     Develop a biological review process which includes
establishing a TRG to provide ongoing refinement and evaluate
effectiveness of environmental measures (FISH-12).
     Develop a fisheries monitoring database for organizing and
storing monitoring data related to aquatic resources for use by the TRG
to monitor effectiveness of measures. (FISH-13).
     Provide minimum flows of 30 cfs from mid-July to mid-
September, and 10 cfs rest of the year in the bypassed reach for
resident fish using the plunge pools.
     Monitor DO and water temperature in the bypassed reach for
a period of time postconstruction to be determined in consultation with
the TRG, and adopt an adaptive management program to enhance DO and
water temperatures should monitoring indicate that state water quality
standards are not being met (as modified below).
     Determine appropriate thresholds for downramping rates in
the bypassed reach based on monitoring and field observations prior to
operations (as modified below).
     Select an appropriate minimum flow release location in
consultation with fisheries resource agencies (Washington DOE,
Washington DFW, Interior, NMFS, BLM, and the Colville), and make
appropriate project modifications to provide minimum flow releases for
the bypassed reach (as modified below).
     Implement the Vegetation Plan to minimize effects on
riparian and wetland vegetation, including goals, the species to be
used, methods, and benchmarks of success for botanical resources (BOTA-
01) (as modified below).\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The Vegetation Plan (BOTA-01) contains the measures BOTA-2
through BOTA-7, BOTA-11, REC-01, and AES-04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Plant riparian vegetation along the west and east banks of
the reservoir shoreline to mitigate the temporary loss of habitat due
to higher reservoir levels while fringe riparian vegetation establishes
along the new water line (BOTA-02).
     Return the existing shoreline road to natural conditions
after project construction to improve wildlife habitat along the
reservoir and eliminate the current interruption between the

shoreline and upland habitat (BOTA-03, also analyzed as part of REC-
13).
     Plant woody riparian species in the riparian area along
the abandoned road corridor (BOTA-04).
     Plant woody riparian vegetation along the east and west
banks of the reservoir downstream of Shanker's Bend and upstream of the
reservoir (BOTA-05).
     Install grazing control measures, including fencing, to
protect riparian plantings and sensitive areas from cattle grazing
(BOTA-06, also analyzed as part of REC-1).
     Monitor restored areas annually for 5 years and then once
again at 8 years, and plant additional willows if performance criteria
are not met; provide annual reports of the monitoring results to the
Corps and Washington DOE (BOTA-07) (as modified below).
     Employ BMPs to protect riparian and wetland vegetation,
including measures such as flagging and temporarily fencing any wetland
and riparian vegetation in the vicinity of the project that would
reduce or avoid accidental impacts, and limiting construction and
maintenance-related disturbance of sensitive habitats to the extent
possible to protect these resources (BOTA-08).
     Develop and implement an environmental training program to
inform employees and contractor employees who work on the project site
or related facilities during construction and operation about the
sensitive biological resources associated with the project area (BOTA-
09).
     Provide a biological monitor to check construction sites
on a weekly schedule to ensure that protected areas are not disturbed
and that fencing and other control measures are intact (BOTA-10).
     Implement the Noxious Weed Control Program to control
weeds along roads and construction sites (BOTA-11).
     Survey disposal sites and control noxious weeds by
implementing control measures prior to spoil disposal (included in
Okanogan PUD, 2009d) (BOTA-12).
     Hydroseed disposal sites using native upland species,
following completion of spoil disposal (included in Okanogan PUD,
2009d) (BOTA-13).
     Place and install the project transmission line to
minimize effects on raptors and other birds (WILD-01).
     Concentrate construction activities to occur in summer and
early fall to minimize effects on overwintering birds and bald eagles
(WILD-02).
     Conduct pre-disposal site survey for wildlife and time the
clearing of vegetation at spoil disposal sites to minimize wildlife
impacts (WILD-03), (included in Okanogan PUD, 2009d).
     Conduct surveys for Ute ladies'-tresses prior to, during,
and postconstruction to either confirm that the species does not occur
in areas affected by the project or guide the development of avoidance
or mitigative measures (BOTA-14) (as modified below).
     Revise and implement the Recreation Management Plan which
includes 12 measures for recreation and four measures for safety of and
access to the project areas (REC-13) (as modified below).
     Revise and implement the Fence Plan in coordination with
the Recreation Management Plan to include: (a) Installation of
barricades and fencing on the east side of the dam and the area below
the dam; (b) use of non-barbed wire at the recreation area; and (c)
installation of a stock watering tank north of the proposed recreation
site as an alternative source of drinking water for all grazing cattle
with rights to this area (REC-01).
     Provide public access below Enloe dam on the east bank by
developing a trail to the river below the dam (REC-02).
     Transfer to Okanogan County ownership rights to the
trestle bridge for the development of a future public trail located on
the west side of the river downstream of the dam with certain
conditions (REC-03).
     Improve the existing informal boat ramp located on the
east bank upstream of the dam (REC-04).
     Clean up and restore the wooded area on the east bank of
the reservoir (REC-05).
     Develop an interpretive publication, in collaboration with
Okanogan County, the Water Trail Committee, and other interested
parties, including a map illustrating public access and recreation
sites (REC-06).
     Remove existing trash and conduct annual cleanup
activities within the wooded area on the east bank of the reservoir and
along the OTID Ditch Road leading from the Loomis-Oroville Road to the
dam site (REC-07).
     Develop an accessible parking area and install a vault
toilet on the east bank and upstream of Enloe dam (REC-08).
     Install picnic tables, at least one of which should
incorporate universal design principles, near the parking area taking
advantage of existing trees for shading (REC-09).
     Develop primitive campsites near the parking and picnic
area (REC-10).
     At a minimum, install one interpretive sign near the
parking and picnic area and one sign near the abutment of the old
powerhouse access bridge, below Similkameen Falls (REC-11).
     Place an information board near Enloe dam to depict public
access areas and information concerning visitor use of the project area
(REC-12).
     Maintain the existing signs and system of safety cables
and grab ropes above the dam, install dam safety/warning signs for
boaters, and install a log boom across the powerhouse intake channel to
protect boaters (SAFETY-01).
     Allow limited public access to the project during
construction (SAFETY-02).
     Coordinate with BLM and other land owners, as appropriate,
to identify options for preventing public access to the old powerhouse
(SAFETY-03).
     Develop and implement a Safety During Construction Plan.
     Implement the Aesthetics Management Plan (as modified
below), including:
    [cir] Using visually-compatible colors and building materials for
construction occurring on the east bank (AES-01).
    [cir] Consulting with the Colville and other stakeholders during
restoration activities (AES-02).
    [cir] Using non-reflective surfaces where possible during
construction (AES-03).
    [cir] Grading and repairing all slopes where buildings are removed
and plant native grasses and other riparian vegetation (AES-04).
     Solicit a new owner for the existing historic powerhouse
(HIST-01).
     If a qualified owner is not identified for the existing
historic powerhouse, demolish the existing historic powerhouse and
create an interpretive site (HIST-02).
     Install interpretive panels about the existing historic
powerhouse (HIST-03).
     Review and reach agreement on the draft HPMP and
incorporate information into a PA (HIST-04) (as modified below).
     Monitor effects of shoreline fluctuations on
archaeological sites in shoreline areas, and mitigate, as needed.
(ARCH-01).
     Avoid known National Register-eligible archaeological
sites to prevent effects during construction (ARCH-02).
     Monitor eligible sites during construction activities to
avoid effects on these sites (ARCH-03).
     Develop and implement an inadvertent discovery plan,
specifying required actions and procedures if a site is discovered
during construction and including training staff and construction
workers about the potential for discovery of archaeological deposits
(ARCH-04).

     Determine if there would be effects on archaeological
sites in the vicinity of recreational facilities (ARCH-05).

Additional Staff-Recommended Measures

    We recommend the measures described above, along with nine
additional staff-recommended measures/modifications. The additional
staff-recommended measures include the following: (1) A spoils disposal
plan; (2) consultation and approval of plans; (3) a water quality
monitoring plan; (4) a project operations and compliance monitoring
plan; (5) modifications to the proposed Vegetation Plan; (6) provision
for eagle perching habitat; (7) modifications to the Recreation
Management Plan; (8) modifications to the Aesthetics Management Plan;
(9) modifications to the Ute ladies'-tresses survey proposal; and (10)
modifications to the proposed HPMP. Below, we discuss the rationale for
our modifications and our additional staff-recommended measures.
Spoil Disposal Plan
    Although Okanogan PUD proposed to implement an ESCP and a CSMP
which would lessen the potential effects associated with land-
disturbing activities during project construction and operation, they
do not propose anything for spoil disposal. Interior recommends that
Okanogan PUD develop and implement a Spoil Disposal Plan prior to any
construction activities that may affect the BLM-administered public
lands. The plan would address disposal and/or storage of waste soil
and/or rock materials (spoils) generated by road maintenance, slope
failures, and construction projects. Introduction of waste soil or rock
into the Similkameen River would have negative effects on water
quality. Implementation of the measures in a Spoil Disposal Plan would
minimize effects from excavated materials on water quality or the
surrounding environment within the project boundary and that such a
plan would be worth the estimated levelized annual cost of $340.
Consultation and Approval of Plans
    Okanogan PUD proposes a Blasting Plan, a plan for woody debris, a
plan for the side-channel enhancement, a gravel supplementation
program, and a Spill Plan. We recommend consultation with the TRG and
Commission approval prior to implementation of these plans to ensure
that these plans are developed with expertise and recommendations from
the TRG. The cost of this additional measure would be minimal.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
    Okanogan PUD's water quality monitoring proposals include a number
of aspects that need to be clarified. These include: (1) A description
of the methods, equipment, maintenance and calibration procedures, and
specific locations that will be used to monitor water temperature, TDG,
and DO above the dam and below the dam in both the bypassed reach and
in the tailrace; (2) a description of the protocol for annually
reporting monitoring data to the Commission and Washington DOE; and (3)
an implementation schedule. Therefore, we recommend that Okanogan PUD
develop a Water Quality Monitoring Plan for the Enloe project, in
consultation with the TRG, to be filed for Commission approval that
includes these measures and with this level of detail.
    Okanogan PUD proposes to monitor temperature at three unspecified
locations in the reservoir for a period of five years and in the
bypassed reach to determine if state water quality standards are being
met. Additionally, Okanogan PUD proposes to monitor TDG and DO at the
project intake and in the project tailrace for the same time period, as
well as DO monitoring in the bypassed reach. Interior and NMFS have
recommended these same provisions, and NMFS further recommends that DO
be monitored for the life of any license granted. Monitoring
temperature, TDG, and DO during the first 5 years of operation would
provide information on possible project effects on these parameters,
but if water quality standards are not met regularly, additional
monitoring and alternative measures may be necessary. A report at the
end of five years evaluating the need for continued monitoring and/or
measures, and implementation of any additional measures as needed,
would ensure that water quality is maintained at a level that will
support aquatic resources at the project. Therefore, we recommend that
the Water Quality Management Plan includes provisions for Okanogan PUD
to file a report with the Commission for approval at the end of the
five-year monitoring period, developed in consultation with the TRG,
documenting the results of the monitoring and any proposals and
recommendations for the need for continued monitoring and/or measures.
This plan would ensure that water quality at the project is effectively
monitored and maintained, and would be worth the estimated levelized
annual cost of $680.
Project Operations Compliance and Monitoring Plan
    Okanogan PUD proposes to operate the project in a run-of-river
mode, to provide minimum flows in the bypassed reach, and to implement
ramping rates both in the project tailrace and in the bypassed reach.
The proposal includes many details which are yet to be determined,
including: (1) How to document compliance with the run-of-river
operations, minimum flow requirements (including exact dates to provide
the minimum flows), and ramping rates requirements; (2) critical flow
thresholds for downramping of flows in the bypassed reach; and (3) the
means of flow delivery to the bypassed reach. Therefore, we recommend
that Okanogan PUD develop a project operations compliance and
monitoring plan for the Enloe project, in consultation with the TRG, to
be filed for Commission approval that includes the details above. This
plan would ensure that the project operation is clearly defined and
that compliance could be demonstrated. The benefit of such a plan would
be worth the estimated levelized annual cost of $680.
Reporting Monitoring Results for Restored Areas
    In its Vegetation Plan, Okanogan PUD proposes to provide to the
Corps and Washington DOE an annual report on its monitoring of restored
areas annually for 5 years and then once again at year 8. Comments
provided by the FWS, BLM, and Washington DFW indicate interest in
reviewing the reports on the restoration efforts, given the agencies'
responsibilities. In addition, the Commission would need to be apprised
of the success of restoration and the need for any further measures to
meet the Vegetation Plan's performance criteria. Therefore, Okanogan
PUD should revise its Vegetation Plan to include providing FWS, BLM,
and Washington DFW with its monitoring reports at the same time it
provides them to the Corps and Washington DOE. In addition, the
Vegetation Plan should be revised to include filing with the Commission
its monitoring reports for years 1 through 5 and 8, and for approval,
any proposals for further measures, developed in consultation with the
agencies.
Eagle Perching Habitat
    A previous fire resulted in a loss of large shoreline cottonwoods
and other trees that could be used by bald eagles and other raptors.
Interior and Washington DFW recommend retaining dead trees along the
reservoir for bald

eagle perching habitat, with the exception of trees that pose a hazard.
Okanogan PUD agrees with this measure in their reply comments. Interior
and Washington DFW also recommend installation of 10 artificial perch
poles for perching habitat along the reservoir shoreline. The retention
of dead trees, until such time as they pose a hazard, and installation
and maintenance of artificial perch poles, would enhance the use of the
project area by bald eagles and other raptors. We estimate that
retaining non-hazard dead trees would have no additional cost than
typical maintenance, and the levelized annual cost of the perch poles
would be $680. We conclude that the potential benefits of these
measures would justify the low cost, and therefore would be in the
public interest.
Ute Ladies'-Tresses Plan
    Okanogan PUD proposes to conduct additional surveys prior to,
during, and postconstruction for the threatened Ute ladies'-tresses.
Okanogan PUD should prepare a plan, after consulting with FWS, BLM, and
Washington DFW, for conducting these additional surveys, and should
include in the plan a provision to provide each year's survey results
to the Commission and the consulted agencies. The plan should also
include a provision to file with the Commission for approval, an
additional plan, after consultation with the agencies, with measures to
avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on Ute ladies'-tresses or other
listed species if the surveys identify a listed species in areas that
would be affected by the proposed project or side channel enhancement.
Development of the plan would have an estimated levelized annual cost
of $680. Therefore, we recommend development of the plan to ensure that
the additional surveys to confirm the presence or absence of Ute
ladies'-tresses are conducted and adequate, and that appropriate
measures are developed to avoid or mitigate impacts to the species.
Recreation Management Plan
    Okanogan PUD proposes to implement a Recreation Management Plan.
Staff recommends that Okanogan PUD revise the proposed Recreation
Management Plan to coordinate with other proposed plans for the project
(specifically, the Aesthetics Management Plan and the HPMP) and include
consultation with stakeholders. In addition to Okanogan PUD's proposal,
staff recommends Okanogan PUD establish a snow plowing schedule to
allow visitors winter access to project lands and waters; develop and
implement a recreation use monitoring plan to include monitoring at the
falls; develop and implement a fire suppression program; add
approximately 5.0 acres to the project boundary incorporating the
entire length of the public access road from the Loomis-Oroville Road
to Enloe dam; develop a river access take-out point at Miner's Flat and
incorporate approximately 1 acre into the project boundary; and removal
of the one small, deteriorated building on Okanogan PUD land at the
north end of the proposed Enloe dam recreation area. Including
consultation with stakeholders and coordinating the Recreation
Management Plan with other proposed plans for the project would ensure
proposed measures would not adversely affect other environmental
resources at the project. Including these measures in the proposed
Recreation Management Plan would improve access to existing
recreational facilities and opportunities at the project, prevent
wildfire on project lands and adjoining wildlife areas, and would be
worth the estimated levelized annual cost of $13,580.
Building Removal
    BLM recommends that Okanogan PUD remove two small, deteriorating
buildings at the north end of the proposed Enloe Dam Recreation Area.
Okanogan PUD states that one of two small structures on the north end
of the proposed Enloe dam recreation area is owned by a private
landowner that maintains a lease with BLM. Okanogan PUD states it is
not in a position to remove the BLM-leased structure, however, it will
take reasonable measures to secure existing structures from
unauthorized entry. Removal of the BLM-leased structure is discussed
later in this section under Measures Not Recommended. Because the
remaining structure is not currently being used as a pump house, nor is
it being used for project purposes, staff recommends Okanogan PUD
remove this building from the north end of the proposed Enloe Dam
Recreation Area. Removal of this deteriorating building would improve
visual aesthetics at the proposed Enloe Dam Recreation Area, improve
safety at the site, and would be worth the estimated levelized annual
cost of $170.
Aesthetics Management Plan
    Okanogan PUD proposes to implement an Aesthetics Management Plan.
Staff recommends that Okanogan PUD revise the Aesthetics Management
Plan to coordinate with other proposed plans for the project
(specifically the Recreation Management Plan and the HPMP). Staff also
recommends Okanogan include consultation with the Colville and BLM, and
file with Commission for approval, to ensure the project area has been
appropriately evaluated and that appropriate measures are undertaken to
preserve the aesthetic character of the area at a minimal cost of $340.
Cultural Resources
    Okanogan PUD proposes to implement its May 2009 HPMP; however, the
May 2009 HPMP does not include consideration of Okanogan PUD's proposed
side-channel enhancement site. We recommend that Okanogan PUD revise
its May 2009 HPMP to include the proposed side-channel enhancement site
and additional measures for the protection of historic properties at
the Enloe Project. These measures include: (1) Further consideration of
the potential effects of capping site 45OK532; (2) a description of the
proposed side-channel enhancement site; (3) two separate defined APEs
that delineate the proposed Enloe project and the proposed side-channel
enhancement site; (4) consultation with the Cultural Resources Working
Group (CRWG) regarding the resolution of adverse effects on the
historic Enloe powerhouse; (5) re-evaluating the Oroville-Tonasket
Irrigation Canal for National Register-eligibility; (6) completing
determinations of eligibility for unidentified cultural resources on
BLM lands; (7) periodic review of the HPMP; (8) a site monitoring
program; (9) cultural interpretative and education measures; and (10)
revising the APEs to accommodate modifications to the project boundary,
if any. These additional measures would ensure protection of historic
properties and would be worth the estimated levelized annual cost of
$19,600.

Measures Not Recommended

    Some of the measures proposed by Okanogan PUD and recommended by
other interested parties would not contribute to the best comprehensive
use of the Similkameen River water resources, do not exhibit sufficient
nexus to project environmental effects, or would not result in benefits
to non-power resources that would be worth their cost. The following
discusses the basis for staff's conclusion not to recommend some of the
measures proposed by Okanogan PUD and recommended by other entities.

DO Monitoring for Term of License

    NMFS recommends that DO be monitored at the project intake and in
the tailrace for the life of any license

granted. Monitoring DO during the first 5 years of operation would
provide good information on possible project effects on DO, but if
water quality standards are not met regularly, additional monitoring
and alternative measures may be necessary. For this reason, we
recommend that Okanogan PUD file a report with the Commission at the
end of five years evaluating the need for continued monitoring and/or
measures as part of the Water Quality Management Plan. This plan would
be developed in consultation with the TRG and would ensure that the
water quality monitoring effort would be designed and implemented in an
effective manner. This approach would be sufficiently protective of
water quality in the area; therefore, we do not recommend that Okanogan
PUD be required to monitor DO for the life of any license that may be
granted.

Minimum Flows

    Washington DFW, American Rivers et al., Interior, and CRITFC
recommend a minimum flow be provided in the bypassed reach immediately
downstream of Enloe dam. Washington DFW, Interior, and CRITFC did not
specify a recommended minimum flow, but American Rivers et al.
recommended a minimum flow that would range from 400 cfs to 3,400 cfs
depending on the month. In a filing with the Commission on October 28,
2010, Okanogan PUD stated that it has agreed with Washington DOE and
Washington DFW to provide a minimum flow of 10 to 30 cfs downstream of
Enloe dam. Although American Rivers et al. states that their
recommended flow is based on Washington regulations to ensure that
state water quality standards are met, neither of the Washington
agencies has recommended this flow, nor has American Rivers et al.
provided a technical justification for its flows beyond stating that
its flow would provide adequate depth, substrate, cover and velocity in
the bypassed reach. The bypassed reach is only 370-feet long and there
is no evidence that this short reach provides habitat that is critical
for the life stages of any fishes. In addition, anadromous fish do not
occur in the bypassed reach because they are unable pass Similkameen
Falls. Therefore, American Rivers et al.'s recommended minimum flows
would not result in benefits that would justify the estimated levelized
annual cost of $1,295,830.

Boulder Clusters

    Okanogan PUD proposes (FISH-02) to construct and install boulder
clusters to improve mountain whitefish habitat and recreational
fisheries in the river upstream of the reservoir. Interior does not
recommend the boulder clusters because they could be a hazard to
recreational boaters and may further increase water temperatures in the
reservoir by creating further heat sink. Washington DFW also does not
recommend the boulder cluster placement, as it states that boulder
clusters are an insufficient measure to mitigate for project impacts on
resident fish.
    As discussed in section <IP_ADDRESS>, the current reservoir and the
river upstream of the reservoir is shallow, has little habitat
diversity, and habitat quality is the limiting factor for resident
fishes. Most of the fish in the reservoir are non-native species that
are better adapted to warmer, slower velocity water than native
coldwater fishes, such as the mountain whitefish. The project would
raise the elevation of the reservoir by 4 feet, which would result in
more warm, slow water habitat and less riverine habitat suitable for
coldwater, resident fishes. Okanogan PUD's proposal to add boulder
clusters upstream of the reservoir to provide habitat for resident,
coldwater fish may create a small amount of pool habitat behind the
clusters that could be used by native coldwater fishes, such as the
mountain whitefish. However, very few whitefish (0 in 2006; 2 in 2007)
have been found in the reservoir during recent surveys, probably due to
a combination of northern pikeminnow predation, warm water
temperatures, lack of cover, and the sand-silt substrate It is unlikely
that the proposed boulder clusters would provide much if any benefit to
the limited mountain whitefish fishery due to these limiting factors,
while creating additional negative effects on recreational boating and
water temperatures. We do not recommend this measure at an estimated
levelized annual cost of $4,370.

Entrainment and Resident Fish Population Monitoring

    Okanogan PUD proposes to monitor seasonal variation in entrainment
susceptibility, to observe trauma and mortality caused by entrainment,
and to monitor reservoir fish populations to relate the entrainment
observations with the fish distribution and abundance in the reservoir.
Interior recommends monitoring resident fish populations in the
reservoir as part of its Resident Fish Habitat Management Plan, which
is discussed below. As discussed in section 3, both entrainment levels
and mortality of entrained fish are expected to be very low since there
are very few small fish in the area of the intake due to unsuitable
habitat. Likewise, effects of project entrainment on reservoir
populations are expected to be nominal for the same reason. Therefore,
these data collection efforts likely would not produce useful data.
Additionally, Okanogan PUD did not specify if these monitoring efforts
could lead to potential additional measures to adjust the proposed
measures to reduce any adverse effects associated with operation of the
intake. Therefore, we conclude that this monitoring would not be worth
the estimated levelized annual cost of $7,280.

Fisheries Enhancement Plan and Resident Fish Habitat Management Plan

    Washington DFW recommends a Fisheries Enhancement Plan that would
consist of three measures: (1) Side channel enhancement at locations in
the lower Similkameen River; (2) gravel supplementation downstream of
the tailrace; and (3) stocking of sterile triploid trout above Enloe
Dam. Interior also recommends a Fisheries Enhancement Plan that
contains three measures, the first two of which were identical to the
measures proposed by Washington DFW. The third measure of Interior's
recommended plan provides for downstream transport and placement of
large woody debris captured at the project intake and trashrack. The
first two measures of the Washington DFW plan and all three of the
measures in Interior's recommended plan are identical to measures
proposed by Okanogan PUD (FISH-10, FISH-11, and FISH-03) and are
recommended by staff. We discuss the third measure recommended by
Washington DFW (stocking of sterile triploid trout) below.
    Interior recommends a Resident Fish Habitat Management Plan. This
plan consists of six measures including: (1) A study of resident fish
populations and habitat conditions in the project reservoir; (2) a
study of the impacts of the project on water temperatures; (3) an
evaluation of the possible solutions for lowering water temperatures
and improving fish habitat in the Similkameen River, particularly
through riparian plantings; (4) the possible stocking of sterile
rainbow trout in the reservoir; and (5) a monitoring plan for fish
habitat in the project reservoir. Recommendation 1 is identical to
Okanogan PUD's proposal for resident fish population monitoring (FISH-
05), which we do not recommend as discussed above. Recommendation 2
would be accomplished by Okanogan PUD's proposal to monitor water
temperatures at the project for 5 years (WQ-01), which we recommend
with the option of continued monitoring after

the preparation of a report at the end of the five years of monitoring.
Recommendations 3 and 4 are consistent with Okanogan PUD's
recommendations for riparian plantings in the project area (BOTA-01, -
02, -04, -05), which we recommend. Recommendation 5 is discussed below.
Regarding recommendation 6, the proposed run-of-river operation of the
project would likely have no effect on reservoir species, and would
have little effect on the riverine habitat upstream of the reservoir.
The raising of the reservoir would have short-term effects, but the
system would stabilize over time and the habitat would be enhanced by
the planting of riparian vegetation. Therefore, we do not recommend the
measure because it is not worth the estimated levelized annual cost of
$65,110.
    As mentioned above, Interior and Washington DFW recommend stocking
sterile triploid rainbow trout to support a recreational fishery
upstream of Enloe dam. This recommendation could result in a number of
adverse effects. While these fish would not live long and cannot
reproduce, there is a potential that stocking of fish could introduce
disease into native fish populations. The British Columbia Ministry of
Environment opposes stocking of fish in the Similkameen River above the
falls citing concerns that stocking could introduce disease into
upstream native populations. Stocking rainbow trout would also not
substantially contribute to the recreational fishery, in that the
fishery would be limited to a brief time during cooler months, because
of the high water temperatures in the reservoir. Stocked rainbow trout
would also compete with resident fishes for resources and could
negatively affect their populations. Due to the potential adverse
effects and limited benefit to the fishery, we do not recommend the
stocking of triploid trout in the project reservoir at an estimated
levelized annual cost of $50,000.

Intake Fish Screen

    Okanogan PUD proposes to install a modified, narrow-spaced
trashrack to prevent fish entrainment. Interior and Washington DFW
recommend that Okanogan PUD install a fish screen at the project
intake, instead of the narrow-spaced trashrack, but do not specify the
kind of screen. Okanogan PUD's proposed trashrack would have a 1-inch
spacing between its bars, which would physically exclude most larger
fish (greater than 6 inches in length) from entrainment. As discussed
in Section <IP_ADDRESS>, smaller fish which would be unable to swim away
from the trashrack and would fit though the one-inch spacing would
become entrained, but it is estimated that their survival rate would be
in the range of 84-95%. Additionally, fish surveys have shown that few
fish reside in the area of the proposed intake. A fish screen would
likely exclude smaller fish from entrainment, but at a much higher cost
to build, install, and maintain. Okanogan PUD estimates that a fish
screen in its proposed intake channel would cost between $16 and $24M,
or $1.1 and $1.6M annualized, to construct.\46\ While we can not verify
this number due to the agencies' lack of specificity in their
recommendations, we can assume that a fish screen would cost much more
than the $32,260 annualized cost of Okanogan PUD's proposed narrow-
spaced trashrack. Given the analysis above, and that the proposed
narrow-spaced trashrack would provide a sufficient level of protection
to resident fish, and at a much lower cost, we do not recommend a fish
screen at the project intake. We do, however, recommend that Okanogan
PUD consult with Interior and Washington DFW during the final design of
the intake structure and trashrack with 1-inch spacing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Okanogan PUD's response to REA comments filed on April
9, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fish Passage

    CRITFC and BIA recommended that production potential estimates for
salmon and UCR steelhead upstream of Enloe dam be included as part of a
fish passage alternative in the current licensing proceeding, and
CRITFC recommended a paleolimnological study of historical anadromy
above Enloe dam. The BIA also commented that cost estimates for
designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining upstream and
downstream fish passage facilities for the term of any license need to
be developed in case such an action is required in the future.
    Both FWS and NMFS recommend that upstream anadromous fish passage
facilities not be required now, and have reserved their authority to
require fish passage under section 18 in the future. The British
Columbia Ministry of the Environment states that it does not support
fish passage at Enloe Dam because the introduction of anadromous fishes
above Enloe dam would have adverse effects on the ecosystem, in the
form of disease transfer and competition for food and space with native
fishes.
    As discussed in section <IP_ADDRESS>, there are no documented accounts
of Chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, UCR steelhead, or Pacific lamprey
above Similkameen Falls. In addition, Native Americans who have
inhabited the area for thousands of years believe that Similkameen
Falls has been a barrier to anadromous fish passage since the beginning
of their history. The Okanogan Sub-basin Plan, which was prepared for
the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, concluded that
Similkameen Falls is an impassable historic barrier to upstream salmon
migration. The Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board issued a recovery
plan that does not identify upstream and downstream passage of fish at
Enloe dam as being a short-term or long-term action that would
contribute to the restoration of these fish stocks, based on the
uncertainty of fish being able to ascend Similkameen Falls. Further,
there have been no verified accounts of a sighting of an anadromous
fish above the falls. We, therefore, have insufficient evidence to
conclude that Enloe dam blocks anadromous fish passage into the upper
Similkameen River. Additionally, due to the absence of anadromous fish
and the potential adverse effects that could occur upstream if
anadromous fish were to be passed, we conclude that any additional
studies of historical anadromy above Enloe dam are not worth the
estimated levelized annual cost of $6,770.

Flow Continuation

    Interior recommends the development of a plan to provide 48 hours
of flow continuation in the event of an emergency project shutdown at
the unmanned, remotely operated powerhouse. In the case of an unplanned
outage, the power plant control system, using battery and diesel
generator back-up, would automatically start opening the crest gates to
maintain tailwater elevation at the powerhouse within the proposed
ramping rate criteria. This would ensure an uninterrupted flow of water
downstream of the project tailrace. The proposed crest gate operations,
as proposed by Okanogan PUD, would protect and maintain aquatic habitat
downstream of the project. Downstream aquatic habitat, including UCR
steelhead designated critical habitat and Chinook salmon EFH below
Similkameen Falls, would be protected in the event of operating
emergencies or planned outages. Based on this, we conclude there would
be no need for a specific flow continuation plan as recommended by
Interior.

Evidence of Financial Capability for Project Decommissioning

    Washington DFW recommends that Okanogan PUD provide evidence of

financial securities to ensure that at the end of any license, they
would be capable of decommissioning the project. The Commission has
consistently denied requests for decommissioning cost studies and
establishment of decommissioning funds in licenses where the project is
determined to be economically and physically sound, not to have
significant adverse environmental impacts, no party has suggested
decommissioning in the foreseeable future after project construction,
and there is no indication that the licensee would lack the financial
resources to decommission the project if it were to be decommissioned.
Commission policy states that a theoretical risk of licensee's
inability to pay for decommissioning is insufficient basis for
requiring a decommissioning fund or evidence of financial securities.
Therefore, we do not recommend this measure.

Vegetation Resources Management Plan

    Interior and Washington DFW recommend the development of a
Vegetation Resources Management Plan that would include the measures
contained in Okanogan PUD's Vegetation Plan, but also include
additional measures, such as long-term monitoring of restored areas,
GIS mapping, and creation of a digital database. We discuss the
agencies' recommended additional measures in the following sections and
conclude that they are not necessary. Therefore, the levelized annual
cost of $680 to develop a Vegetation Resources Management Plan that
contains those additional measures is not justified, and we do not
recommend development of such a plan.

Long-Term Monitoring for Restored (Revegetated) Areas and Surveys for
the Ute Ladies'-Tresses

    Interior recommends a long-term survey effort for restored
(revegetated) areas and threatened and endangered plants. Specifically,
Interior recommends that Okanogan PUD monitor restored upland,
riparian, and wetland habitat sites every year for 5 years, continue
monitoring every 5 years thereafter, and replant sites as needed; and
survey for threatened and endangered plants within 1 year of license
issuance and every 5 years thereafter for the duration of any license.
    Okanogan PUD proposes in its Vegetation Plan to monitor restored
areas annually for 5 years and to plant additional willows if
performance criteria are not met, but states that monitoring should be
discontinued once the criteria are met. We estimated that the levelized
annual cost of Interior's recommended monitoring schedule would be
$6,770. Monitoring restored areas after the new plantings have met
performance criteria would serve no purpose, would not warrant the
cost, and would not be in the public interest. Therefore, we cannot
support this recommendation.
    The only threatened or endangered plant with suitable habitat in
the project area is Ute ladies'-tresses, and Okanogan PUD's surveys did
not locate any individuals of this species. Monitoring for Ute ladies'-
tresses for an additional 3 years, as Okanogan PUD proposes, would be
adequate to confirm the presence or absence of this plant. If the
surveys identify Ute ladies'-tresses in areas that could be affected by
the proposed project, developing a plan, after consultation with the
agencies, to avoid or minimize adverse impacts, as staff recommends,
would be appropriate to protect these plants. Monitoring according to
Interior's recommended schedule would have a levelized annual cost of
$4,740, and because the additional monitoring would not be expected to
provide greater protection to the species, the cost is not warranted.
Therefore, we do not recommend Interior's schedule for threatened and
endangered plant monitoring.

GIS Mapping and Digital Database

    Interior recommends GIS mapping and development of a digital
database for sensitive species, noxious weeds, and habitat restoration
sites, to assist in associated management activities at the project.
Sufficient information exists on the location of sensitive species,
noxious weeds, and habitat, with the exception of the side channel
enhancement site that would be included in the proposed 3 years of
surveys for Ute ladies'-tresses. Staff estimates that GIS mapping and
the creation of a digital database would have an estimated levelized
annual cost of $1,020. Staff supports Okanogan PUD's proposals for
monitoring restored areas and noxious weeds and conducting Ute ladies'-
tresses surveys, but finds that using the monitoring and survey results
to create GIS mapping and a digital database is not needed to manage
project lands and their cost do not justify the benefits. Therefore,
staff does not recommend these measures.

Wildlife Management Plan

    Interior and Washington DFW recommend the development of a Wildlife
Management Plan that would include Okanogan PUD's proposed wildlife
habitat mitigation measures, but also include additional measures, such
as visually marking the transmission line, installing a maintaining
nest boxes and artificial perch poles, placing seasonal restrictions on
project activities, installing barriers on irrigation tunnels, and
creating a 200-foot wetland/riparian buffer. We discuss each of the
agencies' individual additional measures separately, and conclude that,
with the exception of the artificial perch poles as discussed above,
the measures are not necessary. Therefore, the levelized annual cost of
$680 to develop a Wildlife Management Plan that contains those
additional measures is not justified, and we do not recommend
development of such a plan.

Visual Marking of Transmission Line

    Interior and Washington DFW recommend visual marking of the
transmission line crossing the Similkameen River to prevent bald eagles
and other birds from colliding with the line. We do not recommend this
measure because the line would not cross the Similkameen River.

Nest Boxes

    Interior and Washington DFW recommend installing and maintaining
nest boxes for small birds in areas that lack natural tree cavities.
The agencies have not specified the number of nest boxes or the target
species, nor have they documented the need for enhancing such species
at the project. Therefore, we cannot estimate the total cost or support
this recommendation at this time.

Seasonal Restrictions on Project Activities

    Interior and Washington DFW recommend excluding project activities
during the winter hibernation period for Townsend's big-eared bats.
This recommendation lacks specific activities that would be excluded
and could result in Okanogan PUD's inability to operate and properly
maintain the project facilities. Therefore, we do not recommend this
measure.

Barriers on Tunnels

    Interior and Washington DFW recommend installing barriers on the
OTID's abandoned irrigation tunnels to prevent human disturbance of
Townsend's big-eared bats in the tunnels. Only one OTID tunnel has an
entrance within the project boundary. Entrance to this tunnel is
prevented due to landslide blockage. Tunnels with greater bat habitat
potential are located near Shanker's Bend and further upstream, and are
far enough from the

project site that recreational or construction activity associated with
the project would be unlikely to affect bats using those tunnels.
Therefore, we do not recommend installing barriers on the abandoned
irrigation tunnel.

200-Foot Wetland/Riparian Buffer

    Washington DFW recommends providing a 200-foot wetland/riparian
buffer to protect and enhance wildlife habitat. Under existing
conditions, wetlands occur in scattered patches along the reservoir,
and riparian shrub and forest communities occur in a narrow fringe
along the reservoir, with the largest stand consisting of riparian
forest on the east side of the reservoir just upstream from Enloe dam.
With the exception of the riparian forest area just upstream from the
dam, there are no 200-foot-wide areas of wetland/riparian habitat
within the project boundary, and we do not expect the use of
flashboards on the dam to foster a 200-foot-wide zone of wetland/
habitat area around the reservoir. The substrate along the reservoir is
unsuitable in places (i.e., rocks) for wetland/riparian habitat.
Therefore, providing a 200-foot wetland/riparian buffer around the
entire reservoir would be impossible. Further, we conclude that the
measures in the Vegetation Plan, including the planting of riparian
vegetation and restoration of the existing shoreline road segment that
traverses riparian forest, are adequate to protect and enhance riparian
wildlife habitat, and a 200-foot buffer is not warranted.

Recreation and Land Use

    BLM recommends that Okanogan PUD provide a footbridge to the west
side of the Similkameen River at the project. Access to the west side
of the Similkameen River is not needed due to the lack of public
facilities and recreation opportunities (existing or proposed) on that
side. Therefore, the provision for adding a footbridge to the west side
of the Similkameen River downstream of the dam is not warranted because
there is no project effect or need that would benefit from the measure
BLM recommends.
    BLM recommends that Okanogan PUD remove two small, deteriorating
buildings at the north end of the proposed Enloe Dam Recreation Area.
Okanogan PUD states that one of two small structures on the north end
of the proposed Enloe dam recreation area is owned by a private
landowner that maintains a lease with BLM. Okanogan PUD states it is
not in a position to remove BLM-leased structure. Although staff
recommended removal of the unused pump house earlier in this section
under Additional Staff-Recommended Measures, removal of the BLM-leased
pump house at the north end of the proposed recreation area is not
warranted because it does not interfere with the project operation and
it is being used for private purposes. We conclude that these measures
would not be worth the estimated levelized annual cost of $1,350.
    Interior recommends that Okanogan PUD provide recreational
development at the Miner's Flat site, including parking areas, water
access for launching and landing boats, installing an information kiosk
with a map, establishing primitive campsites, including picnic tables
and steel fire rings, and installing a vault toilet.\47\ Miner's Flat
is BLM-owned and operated, and it is reasonable to assume BLM will
continue to operate and maintain the site throughout a new license
term. Moreover, Okanogan PUD has proposed to develop formalized
campsites within the project boundary and staff is recommending a river
access site within BLM's Miner's Flat recreation site for a boating
take-out. These measures provide sufficient access to formal campsites
and water-based recreation at the project. Therefore, making BLM's
Miner's Flat recreation area a project feature and bringing the entire
site into the project boundary would not be justified. We conclude that
the cost for BLM's recommendation would not be worth the estimated
levelized annual cost of $23,460.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ BLM also recommends Okanogan PUD provide recreation site
grounds maintenance. Grounds maintenance is included in Okanogan
PUD's proposal and is included in the normal, day-to-day O&M costs
for the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BLM recommends that Okanogan PUD provide for law enforcement and
emergency services plan, including funds. The Commission is concerned
with protecting resources through specific measures enforceable as to
the licensee, rather than requiring a licensee to provide funding to
another entity, because the Commission would have no way of assuring
that the activity paid for by the licensee would actually serve a
project purpose or ameliorate a project effect. Moreover, while
enforcement of the requirements of any license would be Okanogan PUD'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 this provision with an estimated levelized annual cost of
$15,140.

Cultural Resources

    Interior recommends Okanogan PUD revise its May 2009 HPMP to allow
at least 5 years during which Okanogan PUD would solicit and review
offers to parties that might be interested in acquiring the historic
Enloe powerhouse. We do not recommend this measure. Instead, Okanogan
PUD's May 2009 HPMP proposes, and we recommend, a 4-year provision. If
a new owner is not identified within 4 years, Okanogan PUD would
consult with the CRWG, which includes the Commission, to identify
appropriate mitigation options prior to demolishing the structure. If
demolition is determined necessary, a Memorandum of Agreement between
the Commission and the Washington SHPO would be developed that would
identify agreed-upon mitigation measures. We conclude that Interior did
not provide any evidence to indicate why 4 years is insufficient to
allow parties to come forward with an offer for acquiring the historic
Enloe powerhouse.

Conclusion

    Based on our review of the agency and public comments filed on the
project and our independent analysis pursuant to sections 4(e),
10(a)(1), and 10(a)(2) of the FPA, we conclude that licensing the Enloe
Project, as proposed by Okanogan PUD (with the exception of the boulder
clusters and entrainment and resident fish monitoring), with additional
staff-recommended measures, would be best adapted to a plan for
improving or developing the Similkameen River watershed.

5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

    Although Okanogan PUD proposes to implement a Blasting Plan and
BMPs, it is expected that blasting would cause short-term disturbance
to fish. It is not expected that there would be any long-term effects.
    Although Okanogan PUD proposes to implement an ESCP, a CSMP, and
use appropriate BMPs, it is expected that sediment transport created by
project construction would cause short-term disturbances to fish and
aquatic species in the project area. These effects are expected to be
short-term and should have no lasting impact.
    There would be a short-term loss of riparian and wetland habitats
resulting from the change in reservoir elevation. The long-term effect
of this change would be minimal due to the planting of native riparian
species.
    There would be a reduction of flow in the bypassed reach which
would reduce fish habitat and DO in this short reach

and reduce the aesthetics of flows over Similkameen Falls. Raising of
the reservoir by 4 feet would convert 16 acres of riparian habitat to
aquatic habitat; however, new riparian habitat would be established and
enhanced with vegetative planting.

5.4 Fish and Wildlife Agency 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) 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 will attempt to resolve
any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations,
expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency.
    In response to our REA notice, the following fish and wildlife
agencies submitted recommendations for the project: NMFS (letter filed
February 26, 2010); Interior, on behalf of BLM and FWS (letter filed
February 26, 2010); and Washington DFW (letter filed February 26,
2010). Table 23 lists the federal and state recommendations filed
subject to section 10(j) and whether the recommendations are adopted
under the staff alternative. Environmental recommendations that we
consider outside the scope of section 10(j) have been considered under
section 10(a) of the FPA and are addressed in the specific resource
sections of this document and the previous section.
    Of the 35 recommendations that we consider to be within the scope
of 10(j), we wholly include 28, include 1 in part, and do not include
6. We discuss the reasons for not including those recommendations below
in table 24.

             Table 24--Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations for the Enloe Hydroelectric Project
                                                 [Source: Staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Within the scope                         Adopted or not
         Recommendation                 Agency             of 10(j)         Annualized cost         adopted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Downstream Water Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve DO concentrations during  NMFS..............  Yes...............  $5,060............  Adopted.
 low flow period by providing
 aeration in the draft tubes.
Monitor and report water          NMFS..............  Yes...............  $3,850............  Adopted.
 temperature and TDG
 concentrations for 5 years.
Monitor and report DO             NMFS..............  Yes...............  $5,500............  Not adopted--5
 concentrations for life of the                                                                years of
 license.                                                                                monitoring likely
                                                                                would be adequate
                                                                                to characterize
                                                                                DO conditions.
                                                                                Also, monitoring
                                                                                could be extended
                                                                                if needed by the
                                                                                TRG after the
                                                                                first 5 years.
Implement the ESCP..............  NMFS..............  Yes...............  $1,460............  Adopted.
Implement the spill prevention,   NMFS..............  Yes...............  $1,820............  Adopted.
 containment and clean-up plan.
Allow Washington DFW, tribes,     Washington DFW....  No--not a specific  n/a...............  Adopted--provided
 and other interested resource                         measure to                              that adequate
 agencies to inspect the project                       protect fish and                        notice is given.
 site during construction and                          wildlife.
 operation.
Develop an adaptive management    Washington DFW....  No--not a specific  n/a...............  Adopted--Okanogan
 plan.                                                 measure to                              PUD's proposed
                                                       protect fish and                        biological review
                                                       wildlife.                               process appears
                                                                                to fulfill the
                                                                                recommendation.
Provide evidence of financial     Washington DFW....  No--not a specific  n/a...............  Not adopted--
 security to ensure that                               measure to                              theoretical risk
 Okanogan PUD would be capable                         protect fish and                        of applicant's
 of project decommissioning at                         wildlife.                               inability to pay
 the end of any license.                                                                       for
                                                                                decommissioning
                                                                                is insufficient
                                                                                basis for
                                                                                requiring.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Fisheries Enhancement Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construct and file detailed       Interior,           Yes...............  $16-$24M..........  Not adopted--
 design drawings of an intake      Washington DFW.                                             Okanogan PUD's
 fish screen.                                                                                proposed trash
                                                                                rack will provide
                                                                                adequate
                                                                                protection at
                                                                                significantly
                                                                                less cost.
Implement a powerhouse            Interior..........  Yes...............  $340..............  Adopted.
 operational plan.

Provide continuous instream       Washington DFW....  Yes...............  $37,940...........  Adopted.
 flows in the bypassed reach.
Design and construct tailrace     Interior, NMFS,     Yes...............  $9,580............  Adopted.
 net barriers and implement        Washington DFW.
 associated plans.
Implement side-channel/off-       Interior, NMFS,     Yes...............  $30,210...........  Adopted.
 channel development/              Washington DFW.
 enhancement at locations in the
 lower Similkameen River or near
 the Okanogan River.
Implement gravel supplementation  Interior, NMFS,     Yes...............  $11,950...........  Adopted.
 downstream of Enloe dam.          Washington DFW.
Transport downstream and place    Interior..........  Yes...............  $4,300............  Adopted.
 large woody debris captured at
 the project's intake and
 trashrack.
Stock sterile triploid rainbow    Interior,           Yes...............  $10,340...........  Not adopted--
 trout to support a recreational   Washington DFW.                                             Stocked trout
 fishery upstream of Enloe dam.                                                                pose a disease
                                                                                and competition
                                                                                risk to native
                                                                                populations.
Provide ramping rates during      Interior, NMFS,     Yes...............  $0................  Adopted.
 project start-up and shut-down.   Washington DFW.
Select the location for ramping   Interior, NMFS,     Yes...............  n/a...............  Adopted.
 rate monitoring in consultation   Washington DFW.
 with NMFS, FWS, Washington DFW,
 the Yakima, and the Colville.
Develop a Wildlife Management     Interior,           Yes...............  $680..............  Adopted (for
 Plan including the following      Washington DFW.                                             preparing plan).
 measures:
Restore the existing unimproved   Interior,           Yes...............  \b\ $26,920.......  Adopted.
 shoreline road along Enloe        Washington DFW.
 reservoir to a natural
 condition, eliminating the
 current interruption between
 the shoreline and upland
 habitat.
Relocate access road to the       Interior,           Yes...............  Cost included in    Adopted.
 reservoir.                        Washington DFW.                         measure above.
Locate the project's existing     Interior,           Yes...............  minimal...........  Adopted.
 and proposed transmission lines   Washington DFW.
 and pole to prevent raptor
 electrocution and include the
 line within the project
 boundary.
Include a provision to avoid      Interior,           Yes...............  $9,100............  Adopted.
 disturbing foraging bald eagles   Washington DFW.
 between October 31 and March 31
 in the schedules for project
 and transmission line
 construction.

Retain dead trees along the       Interior,           Yes...............  \a\ $680..........  Adopted.
 reservoir unless they become a    Washington DFW.
 hazard, and install 10
 artificial perch poles along
 the reservoir shoreline and in
 places where perch trees are
 sparse or lacking, and
 maintain, repair, or replace
 perch poles as necessary.
Plant native riparian trees,      Interior,           Yes...............  $6,730............  Adopted.
 grasses, and shrubs, when they    Washington DFW.
 are called for. Part of BOTA-
 02, 04, and 05.