Coalition for the Deschutes


July 2, 1992

Ms Lois Cashell, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
825 North Capital Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426

Re: Project No. 2643 -001
Relicensing Bend hydroelectric

Dear Ms Cashell:

Enclosed please find the original and 14 copies of Motion to Intervene in the Bend Hydroelectric Project Relicensinq submitted by the Coalition for the Deschutes.

Thank you for your attention.

Ted Wise
Coalition for the Deschutes
POB 5183
Bend, OR 97708


Motion to Intervene in the Bend Hydroelectric Project Relicensinq

Relicensing FERC No. 2643-001

Pursuant to Section 385.214 of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations [18 C.F.R., Sec. 385.214 (Rule 214)] THE COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES hereby moves to intervene in these hydroelectric dam licensing proceedings.

THE COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the Oregon Non-Profit Corporation Act on 8 January 1985 for “the organization and implementation of educational and advocacy activities which promote and protect the economic, recreational, and environmental future of the Deschutes River basin.” (from Article III .. Articles of Incorporation, copy enclosed).

THE COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES has been involved with land use actions on the Upper Deschutes since its inception. We have advocated for the protection in zoning variance hearings with Deschutes County. We have advocated for enhancement with the Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife. We have advocated for flow restoration with the Bureau of Reclamation, the State Joint Water Legislative Committee, Division of State Lands and the Oregon Dept of Water Resources.. We have advocated for the judicious application of hydroelectric sitings on the Upper Deschutes with your own Commission.

 Full Document: coalition-for-the-deschutes-letter

Notice of Application Filed with the Commission


Notice of Application Filed with the Commission
(May 6, 1992)

Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available for public inspection.

a. Type of Application: Subsequent License (see 18 CFR 16.2(e) for definition)

b. Project No.: 2643-001

c. Date filed: December 24, 1991

d. Applicant: PacifiCorp Electric Operations

e. Name of Project: Bend Hydroelectric Project

f. Location: On Deschutes River in Deschutes County, Oregon.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 usc 79l(a) – 825(r)

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Stanley A. deSousa, Director
Hydro Resources PacifiCorp Electric Operations
920 s.w. Sixth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 464-5343

i. FERC contact: Mr. Surender M. Yepuri, P.E.
(202) 219-2847

j. Comment Date: July 9, 1992

k. Status of Environmental Analysis: This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time – see attached paragraph E1.

l. Description of Project: The project as proposed for licensing consists of: (1) the 14-foot-high, 252-foot-long rock filled timber crib dam impounding the 40-acre Mirror Pond Reservoir; (2) a 42-inch-high inflatable rubber crest control structure which will replace the existing stoplog sections; (3) the 56-foot-wide, 59-foot-long, 25-foot-high powerhouse containing three turbine generator units with a total installed capacity of 1.1 MW; and (4) other appurtenant structures. The average annual generation is 5.28 GWh. The applicant is proposing rehabilitation of certain project works without modifying the existing project.

m. Purpose of Project: Power generated at the project is delivered to customers within the applicant’s service area.

n. This notice also consists of the following standard paragraphs: B1 and E1.

o. Available Locations of Application: A copy of the application  as amended and supplemented, is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission’s Public Reference and files Maintenance Branch, located at 941 North Capitol Street, N.E., Room 3104, Washington, D.C. 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the applicant’s office (see item (h) above).

B1.  Protests or Motions to Intervene–Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Rules of Practice and Procedures, 18 c.F.R. sections 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission’s rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.

Document: Notice-of-Application-Filed (PDF)

Bend Metro Park and Recreation District Request For Additional Studies


March 11, 1992

Ms. Lois Cashell, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
825 North Capitol Street, NE
Washington, DC 20425

Bend Hydroelectric Project, FERC N. 2643

Dear Ms. Cashell:

We are filling this letter with respect to the PacificCorp application for relicensing of the Bend Hydro Electric Project, FERC Project #2643, in response to the FERC notice of deadline for submitting additional study requests. We have reviewed the application and found it to be deficient in several areas:

  1. The remarkable values and special importance of Mirror Pond on the Deschutes River to the community of Bend require that a full Environmental Impact Statement, (EIS) accompany the relicensing process. A simple Environmental Assessment (EA) is not adequate to address the potential for impact to this most prominent riverfront site in our urban center.
  2. The application fails to adequately explore the “retirement option” endorsed by a council of public agencies in the Bend area and the National Park Service. The council favors decommissioning the power plant while leaving the dam in place. This option is given only cursory examination in the application, while the extreme action of removing the dam is proposed as a viable alternative.
  3. Adopted community plans and goals as apply to land use, recreational access and aesthetics in the project area have been disregarded. Additional riverfront parks, trail easements, boating access, historical preservation, wetland and fishery enhancement are all elements of those plans that have been given less than satisfactory attention in the application.
  4. The application fails to adequately address fish passage issues raised by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  5. The license application does not identify the input provided by our park district during the early phases of consultation. In particular, we take issue with statements in Exhibit E, Sec., Stage I Consultation and Sec., Stage II Consultation that “No response was received from the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District.” In fact, park district staff were directly involved with the application process from the onset, attending numerous meetings with Pacific Power representatives and facilitating their on-sight visits. We have on file, both written correspondence and notes of numerous conversations with representatives of Pacific Power, as evidence of our participation in both stages of consultation. We also met regularly with a council of public agencies, including the City of Bend, Deschutes County, the Bend Development Board, the Deschutes Basin Resource Committee, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife during the consultation period and helped to formulate the community response to Pacific Power’s proposal.


Ernie Drapela
General Manager

cc: Tom Throop, Deschutes County Commissioner
Dave Leslie, Deschutes County Planning
Jim Bussard, Deschutes River Basin Resource Committee

Document: bmprd-ferc-letter

Fish and Wildlife Service Letter to Pacific Power

Mr. S.A. deSousa, Director,
Hydro Engineering and Licensing
Pacific Power
920 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204

RE: Bend Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2643

Dear Mr. deSousa:

The Fish and Wildlife Service has received your March 24, 1989 letter initiating agency consultation for the Bend Hydroelectric Project. At this time we will be unable to participate in the review of this project because of funding and manpower limitations. We, therefore, will rely on comments provided by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife during the consultation process.–Please keep us informed as to the progress of relicensing for this project.


Roger E. Vorderstrasse
Acting Field Supervisor

cc: ODFW, Portland
ODFW, Bend
FERC, Washington, D.C.
FERC, Portland

Document: USFWS-letter-to-FERC-1989

Barks and Quacks

To the Ed!tor:

Your editorial on the Duck and Dog situation is all in favor of the ducks and therefore the case is half stated from your point of view. As to your solution it would merely mean another law as to whether dogs would be tied up or not; an arbitrary imposition of a mere majority over a large minority.

The mirror pond and the ducks are public property. The interest in these things of beauty is very intense to those owning property along the water front. But the interest decreases, in the same proportion with the distance, to those not on the river. To these latter the interest in dogs and their freedom is intense, and to prove it they pay a dog license. It is quite safe to say that there isn’t one dog out of 50 in these districts who ever gets to the river and molests the ducks. On the other hand it is safe to say that out of 10 dogs whose owners live near the river two of them will be guilty of bothering the ducks. To tie up eight dogs for the sins of two might be reasonable enough but to tie up 49 dogs for the sins of one is going too far.

To those who live near the water ducks are an asset to the scenery but to the majority a duck is something to kill and put in the pot. It is different with dogs. Dogs are one of the family. The parents of children might not be so devoted to the dogs but the children are. A pet dog eats candy and cookies, drinks from the same cup and many times sleeps in the same bed as does the child. You can’t say that for a duck! And to tie up such a dog in marble time is as painful to the child as tying up his kid brother. After all a duck is only a duck but a dog is a dog in anyones’s yard and in the heart of the owner. And I think the city papas will do well to remember this if they would get along with the municipal family.

Yes, I have a solution and if it is put into effect I promise to abide by it just as willingly as I will fight against the present set-up. Here it is: Put a $25 fine on the owner of a dog caught on the river and if he doesn’t pay, kill the dog. Give half or all the fine to someone hired to patrol the mirror pond.

In this way the guilty will pay and at the same time do away with the present tactics of punishing one hundred for the sins of one.

Signed, Geo R. Brick.


Source: The Bend Bulletin ©1938