Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

PacifiCorp Electric Operations

) Project No. 2643-001
) Oregon

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

(July 17, 1995)

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission’s) Regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897), the Office of Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the application for a subsequent license for the existing Bend Hydroelectric Project, located on the Deschutes River, in Deschutes County, Oregon, in the City of Bend, and has prepared a final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. In the EA, the Commission’s staff has analyzed the existing and potential future environmental effects of the project and concludes that either issuance of a new license for the proposed project, with staff preferred measures, or retiring the project with staff preferred measures, would not be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Copies of the EA are available for review in the Public Reference Branch, Room 3104, of the Commission’s offices at 941 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.

 

Lois D. Cashell
Secretary

Pacific Power: “No purpose would be served by our signing the MOA”

Mr. John H. Clements, Director
Division of Project Review
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
825 North Capitol Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426

Dear Mr. Clements:

Your letter dated March 22, 1995 requested PacifiCorp to sign a memorandum of agreement (MOA) relative to the implementation o the Cultural Resources Management Plan for the Bend Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 264 . The Plan was prepared by PacifiCorp in association with our December, 1991 Application· tor Subsequent License.

In response to the filing of the application, resource agencies have provided the Commission mandatory project conditions and other recommendations relative to fish and wildlife enhancements that would be required by a new license. The cost for these measures in addition to the costs necessary to rehabilitate the project generation equipment and spillway would clearly make the project uneconomic to operate. PacifiCorp is not likely to accept a new license proffered by the Commission for the Bend Project if such conditions are included. For this reason, no purpose would be served by our signing the MOA at this time.

Very truly yours,

S. A. deSousa
Director, Hydro Resources

 Document: Pacific Power refuses to sign MOA (PDF)

Historic Preservation MOA

Dear Ms. Nissley, Dr. Gilsen, Mr. deSousa, Mr. Drapela, Mr. Hossick, and Mr. Isham:

PacifiCorp Electrical Operations (PacifiCorp) has applied for a new license for the continued operation of the Bend Hydroelectric Project located in the City of Bend, Deschutes County, Oregon. PacifiCorp is the current licensee.

The project facilities are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. No other historic or archeologiral sites are located in the project area.

Proposed modifications to project facilities, and installation of fishways required by the U. S. Department of the Interior (Interior), would have an effect on the historical integrity of the project facilities. Maintenance and future repair work may have an effect as well.

PacifiCorp prepared a Cultural Resources Management Plan (Plan) to avoid or minimize the effects. The Plan has been reviewed and accepted by the Oregon State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), the National Park Service (Western Region, San Francisco) (NPS), and my cultural resources staff.

My cultural resources staff has prepared a memorandum of agreement (MOA) for implementation of the Plan, pursuant to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 36 CFR 800 for the National Historic Preservation Act. The MOA would be a condition of any license issued for the project. The MOA basically says concerned parties agree the Plan should be implemented to avoid or mitigate effects of issuing a new license on the historic project facilites. The MOA also says the parties agree on procedures outlined in the MOA for resolving disputes and amending and terminating the MOA, and the Commission has complied with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and the regulations of the the Advisory Council. The MOA follows a format recommended by the Advisory Council for relicensing hydroelectric projects.

Enclosed for your review are: (1) the MOA; (2) the Plan (Attachment A of the MOA); (3) National Register documentation for the project facilities; (4) a cultural resources survey report for the project (MOA Attachment A: Appendix A); (5) copies of letters from the SHPO and the NPS accepting the Plan; (6) the cultural resources report contained in the exhibit E of PacifiCorp’s application for license; and (7) the draft EA issued for the Project, where the project is described, effects are evaluated, and alternatives considered.

The draft EA recommends licensing the proposed project without installing downstream fishway passage and deferring installation of upstream fishways. Interior, however, has declined to withdraw the mandatory fishway prescription. Therefore, any new license for the project would consist of the
proposed project (as described in the draft EA) (pp. 3-5) with installation of upstream and downstream fishway facilities.

Cultural resources are evaluated and recommendations made on pp. 49-51 and 70 of the draft EA, including the effects of fishways. The draft EA was circulated for public comment. No comments on cultural resources were received. No changes to the cultural resources text for the final EA are planned based on comments received on the draft EA.

I am requesting you sign the signature page of the MOA with your name on it and return the original signature page (not a copy) to me within 30 days from the date of this letter. Also by copy of this letter, I am formally requesting the Advisory Council to comment on the effect of the project on the project facilities pursuant to their regulations 36 CFR 800.

Please send the signed signature page directly to the following staff person:

Dr. Edwin D. Slatter, Archeologist
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Room 1069, 810 UCP
825 North Capitol Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426

I need to collate the original signature pages and send them to the Advisory Council for their file. Do not send this page to the Commission Secretary, because the page will be placed permanently in our files, and cannot be removed and sent to the Advisory Council. Make another original signed copy for your files, in case the page is lost in the mail and I need another copy.

The Advisory Council may not sign the MOA until it receives original signatures pages for the other parties to the MOA from me.

If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Slatter at 202-219-2835, or fax 202-219-0125.

Sincerely.

Edward A. Abrams for
John H. Clements
Director, Division of Project Review

 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR § 800.6(a)

WHEREAS, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or its staff, on delegated authority, (hereinafter Commission) has determined that issuing a subsequent license for the Bend Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2643 (Project), may have an effect on the Project facilities, which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and has consulted with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 u.s.c. 470f); and

WHEREAS, the PacifiCorp Electrical Operations (PacifiCorp), the existing licensee and applicant for a new license for the Project, the City of Bend (City), Deschutes County (County), and the Bend Metropolitan Park and Recreation District (District) participated in the consultation and have been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) ;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission and the SHPO agree that, if a subsequent license is issued, the Project will be licensed in accordance with the following stipulations to take into account the effect of this licensing on the Project facilities.

STIPULATIONS

The Commission will ensure that PacifiCorp carries out the following measures as a condition of licensing the Project:

1. PacifiCorp will implement its Cultural Resources Management Plan (Plan) to avoid or mitigate any effects of continued Project operation on the historical integrity of the Project facilities (Attachment A) .

2. PacifiCorp will file, for Commission approval, a detailed plan on procedures for avoiding and mitigating modifications to the Project facilities authorized in the Project license, within 1 year after the date of the license. PacifiCorp will afford the SHPO, the City, the County, the District, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Councill an opportunity to comment on the detailed plan, and will file any letters received from these parties with the Commission together with the detailed plan.

The Commission will review filings made by PacifiCorp pursuant to the MOA within 45 days after receipt of the information. Unless PacifiCorp is notified that the filings must be revised or that additional work is required to satisfy the requirements of the MOA, the Commission will take action to approve the filing. Upon notification that the Commission has approved the filing, PacifiCorp will proceed with its undertaking.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Should any party to this MOA object to any actions undertaken pursuant to the MOA, the dispute will be resolved as follows:

1. PacifiCorp shall first consult with the SHPO, the Commission, and other parties as necessary to resolve the objection. If any party determines that the objection cannot be adequately resolved, PacifiCorp will forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to the Commission.

2. Upon receipt of documentation regarding the dispute, the Commission will review the dispute, discuss the issue with PacifiCorp and the SHPO, and at the discretion of the Commission, with the Council and other parties to the MOA, and will within 45 days after receiving the complaint forward its recommendations for resolving the dispute to PacifiCorp, the SHPO, the City, the County, the District, and the Council.

3. If any party to the dispute notifies the Commission within 30 days that the resolution proposed by the Commission is not acceptable, the Commission will forward all documents relevant to the dispute to the Council. Within 45 days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Council will either:

a. Provide the Commission with recommendations, which the Commission will take into account in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute; or

b. Notify the Commission that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(b), and proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such a request will be taken into account by the Commission in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(c) (2) with reference to the subject of dispute.

Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be understood to pertain only to the subject of the dispute; the Commission’s responsibility to carry out all actions under this MOA that are not the subject of the dispute will remain unchanged.

AMENDMENTS

The Commission, the SHPO, PacificCorp, the Council, or other parties may request that this MOA be amended, whereupon the parties will consult in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6 to consider such amendment.

TERMINATION

Either the Commission, the SHPO, PacifiCorp, or the Council may terminate this MOA by providing 30 days notice, in writing, to the other parties, provided that the parties will consult during the period prior to termination to seek agreement or amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. In the event of a termination, the Commission will comply with 36 CFR 800.4 through 800.6 with regard to this undertaking.

Execution of this MOA by the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, is anticipatory, and has no independent legal effect unless and until a license is issued for the Project that incorporates this MOA by reference. Execution and implementation of this MOA evidence that the Commission has satisfied its responsibilities pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, for issuing a subsequent license for the Project.

Document: Historic Preservation MOA (PDF)

Statement of Generation in KWhs for Hydropower 1994

Subject: RIMS Code TRANKW
Statement of Generation in KWhs for Hydropower Annual Charges for all PacifiCorp Licensed Projects

Dear Ms. Cashell:

I, Stanley A. deSousa, being duly sworn, depose and say: That I am the Director of Hydro Resources of PacifiCorp, and make this affidavit for and on behalf of PacifiCorp; that the total gross electric generation at the licensed hydroelectric projects, for the period of October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1994, as shown on the books and records of PacifiCorp, is 3,020,545,000 kilowatt hours as detailed on the attached table which lists the generation at each project.

Very truly yours,

S. A. deSousa
Director, Hydro Resources

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 24 day of October 1994

PACIFICORP
Licensed Project Gross Generation
October 1, 1993- September 30, 1994
KWH

kwh1994
Bend — 2643-001 — 4,358,000
Total: 3,020,545,000

Mirror Pond Editor Note: The Bend Hydro Project accounts for 4,358,000 KWH / 3,020,545,000 KWH or 0.14% of PP&L’s gross hydro generation for 1994.

Document: Hydro-KWH-1994

PacifiCorp Letter to FERC Regarding Final Environmental Assessment

Lois D.Cashell, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Mail Code: DPCA, HL-21.1
825 North Capitol Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426

Dear Ms. Cashell:

Mr.John H. Clemens’ letter dated May 9,1994 indicated that the Commission plans to issue a final Environmental assessment (EA) during the summer of 1994 for the Bend Project, FERC No 2643. Th etter also indicates that the Commission will likely recommend project retire n based on the preliminary assessment of the draft EA comments.

Although PacifiCorp does not concur totally with the economic analysis included in the draft EA, we do agree that the project would not be economically sound given the prevailing recommended agency terms and conditions for the new license, the required facility restorations and PacifiCorp’s cost of financing the project improvements. We have continued, however, to explore possibilities for both the continued operation and the retirement of the project as we had indicated we would in our letter to the Commission dated March 29, 1994. Our ongoing efforts in this matter have included several joint meetings with representatives from the city of Bend, Deschutes County, Bend Parks & Recreation, Oregon Water Resources Department, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife and U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service.

Mr. Yapuri of the Commission’s staff recently indicated that the pending final EA would be issued independently from the Commission’s final order.The timing of the issuance of the licensing order is of importance to PacifiCorp and the agencies we have been meeting with. Sufficient time is requested between issuance of the final EA and the licensing order to allow all parties to review the EA and for agency consultations to continue with the intent of reaching an agreement or conclusion regarding the future status of the project. Each of the agencies involved in the joint meetings has verbally indicated concurrence with this position. Results of these consultations could assist the Commission with the preparation of an appropriate licensing order.

If you have any questions regarding our ongoing efforts in this matter, please contact Mr. Randy Landolt on 503/464-5339. Enclosed are eight copies of this letter.

Very truly yours,

S.A. deSousa
Director, Hydro Resources

Enclosures

cc: Mr. Rick Craiger, OWRD
Mr. Chip Dale,ODFW
Mr. Jim Noteboom, Attorney for Bend Parks & Recreation, Deschutes County
Mr. Marv Yoshinaka, USFWS

Document: PPL-FERC-EA-letter (PDF)

FERC to Pacific Power: “We plan to issue a final EA in the summer of 1994.”

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20426

Mr. S. A. DeSousa
Director, Hydro Resources
PacifiCorp Electric Operations
920 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204

Project No. 2643-001-0regon Bend Hydroelectric Project

Dear Mr. DeSousa:

Thank you for your letter dated March 29, 1994, in which you comment on the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Bend Hydroelectric Project, No. 2643-001, dated August 31, 1993. Among other things, you say that if Interior doesn’t withdraw its fishway prescription, you may decide to decommission the project.

We’re in the process of addressing all comments received on the draft EA and plan to issue a final EA in the summer of 1994. Our preliminary assessment of the comment letters shows that we’ll probably be recommending project retirement.

If we recommend retirement in the final EA, we would prefer to consider decommissioning issues in the relicensing proceeding. However, we agree that the parties need more time to consider these issues.

We encourage you to take this opportunity to examine retirement alternatives–including any not analyzed in the draft EA–and to explore settlement options. We’d be glad to work with you if that would be useful. If you conclude that decommissioning is appropriate, we request that you file decommissioning plan within 120 days after we issue the final EA.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please call Mr. Joe Davis at (202) 219-2865.

Sincerely,

John H. Clements
Acting Director, Division of Project Review

Enclosure: letter to parties on project mailing list

Document: EA-coming-summer-1994 (PDF)

FERC to ODFW: “We need more information”

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Washington DC 20425

Project No. 2643-091-Oregon
Bend Hydroelectric Project
PacifiCorp Electric Operations

Mr.Randy Fisher, Director
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
2501 SW First Street
P.O. Box 59
Portland d, OR 97207

Dear Mr. Fisher:

In a letter dated January 14, 1994, you commented on our Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the Bend Hydroelectric Project, No. 2643-001, dated August 31, 1993.

We’re in the process of addressing all comments received on the DEA and will be issuing a final EA in the near future. To adequately reevaluate the issues you’ve commented on, we need more information concerning your analysis and recommendations. our questions (in schedule A) concern (1) your efforts to require upstream fish passage at the North Canal Dam (2) your assessment of the Bend Project’s effect on trout, and (J) the status of the habitat improvement projects on the upper Deschutes River.

Please file your response with the Secretary of the commission within JO days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions concerning this request, please call Joe Davis at (202) 219-2865.

Sincerely,

John H. Clements
Acting Director, Division of Project Review

Schedule A

1. You say the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has the statutory authority to require upstream and downstream passage facilities at dams, and you have instructed your staff to pursue and achieve installation of upstream passage facilities at the North canal Dam and Bend Hydro Dam.

Please tell us the schedule for installing upstream passage facilities at the North Canal Dam.

2. You estimate that either 14,674 or 18,026 wild rainbow and brown trout (page 2 and 16 respectively, of your Jan. 14, 1994 letter) moved downstream past the Bend Project from January through October, 1990, and a total of 170,961 fish migrated past the (Central Oregon Irrigation District) COID project between April 1 to October 31, 1990. Following installation of screens at the COID project, you estimate that 17,515 trout will pass the Bend project.

Your analysis is based on sampling data of fish movement and size distribution in the Deschutes River at the COID diversion. We need the assumptions and computations on which these estimates are based to complete our analysis.

Therefore, please provide one copy of the sampling data used and the assumptions on which these estimates are based.

Please describe all backup and intermediate computations and explicit and implicit assumptions at each stage. If a computer spreadsheet was used, please provide a copy of the spreadsheet (both hard copy and DOS floppy disk), with the formulas and any linked or associated files or sheets on which the computations are based.

3. You compute spill at the Bend Project using two different methods (Tables 1 and 2 in your January 14, 1994 letter).

Please provide copies of the flow data and computations used in developing these tables. If a computer spreadsheet was used, please provide a copy of the spreadsheet (both hard copy and DOS floppy disk), with the formulas and any linked or associated files or sheets on which the computations are based.

4. You determined that the sweep velocity across the face of the vertical plate screen would be between 3 and 4 fps. We need the assumptions and computations on which these estimates are based to do our analysis.

Therefore, please provide the spreadsheets computations and assumptions on which these estimates are based.

5. You indicate that many habitat improvement projects have been completed in the upper Deschutes River and plans exist for future projects. Please provide more information on the following:

(a) The Bureau of Reclamation’s Upper Deschutes water Conservation Project, which includes canal lining, proposed off-site storage and reregulation reservoirs, etc. Have funds been appropriated for any of this work? When will enough water be conserved to begin increased flow releases below the North Canal Dam?

(b) You say that letters have been sent to all operators of water diversions in Oregon that divert more than 30 cfs, notifying them of the need to provide intake screens and respond with their plans for complying with the screening requirements. Please provide the expected completion date of screen installation for each facility located on the upper Deschutes River.

(c) Please tell us when the following projects are scheduled to be completed:

  • Installing natural materials, such as logs, at Dillon Falls
  • Rebuilding the existing ladder at Cline Falls
  • Installing a vertical slot fishway at the Colorado Street Bridge Dam

Document: ODFW-additional-comments

Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

PacifiCorp Electric Operations ) Project No. 2643-001
Bend Hydro Project

On December 24, 1991, PacifiCorp, licensee for the Bend Project No. 2643, filed an application for a new or subsequent license pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission’s regulations thereunder. Project No. 2643 is located on the Deshutes River in Deshutes County, Oregon.

The license for Project No. 2643 was issued for a period ending December 31, 1993. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year to year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in Section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project’s prior license waived the applicability of Section 15 of the FPA, then, based on Section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 C.F.R. 16.21(a) (1993), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. 16.21(b) (1993), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.

If the project is subject to Section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2643 is issued to PacifiCorp for a period effective January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1994, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before December 31, 1994, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. 16.18(c) (1993), an annual license under Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.

If the project is not subject to Section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that PacifiCorp is authorized to continue operation of the Bend Project No. 2643 until such time as the Commission acts on its application for subsequent license.

Lois D. Cashell
Secretary

Comment Letter from Leonard W. Peoples

Leonard W. Peoples
708 NW Riverside
Bend, Oregon, 97701

Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
823 N Capitol Street NE
Washington DC 10426

Subject: Bend Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2643

These comments represent a private citizen who was born in Bend, raised in a house that faces Mirror Pond and has returned to the same house after retirement.

I request that you reissue the operating license to Pacific Power and Light for the continued use of their generating facilities for the following reasons:

  1. PP&L built this dam and maintains it without any expense to the tax payer.
  2. It provides employment at skilled jobs that pay more than minimum wage.
  3. With all the pressure on the local fishing areas by the sport fishermen, it is unlikely that the few additional fish that would benefit from the removal of the turbines would survive of even be noticed.
  4. The cost of the environmental impact statement would be a waste of money as the EIS is intended to ensure that all aspects of a project are properly evaluated before it is built. Since this project has been built for 70 years, it is just a little late.
  5. The residents of Bend would never let the dam be removed as it would drain Mirror Pond and reduce the river to a small stream with large mudflats on each side. Since the dam would remain and without PP&L to maintain the dam, it would fall to local taxpayers to assume this cost. This would result in more government agencies and more taxes. This is an activity that should be avoided in this time of large governmental deficits.

Sincerely yours,

Leonard M. Peoples

 

Sam and Leonard Peoples with their swan boar on Mirror Pond, circa 1934. Courtesy Des Chutes Historical Museum
Sam and Leonard Peoples with their swan boat and the neighbor girls on Mirror Pond, circa 1934.
Courtesy Des Chutes Historical Museum

 

Notice Granting Extension of Time

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

PacifiCorp Electric Operations ) Project No. 2643-001
Bend Hydro Project

A number of commenters have requested additional time for filing comments in response to the Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment, issued in this project on September 1, 1993. The time for filing comments is extended to and including November 15, 1993. No further extensions will be granted.

Lois D. Cashell
Secretary