Subject: Prospect 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC 2337-076) Comments on Preliminary Application Document and Scoping Document; and Study Requests

Oregon John A. Kitzhaber, MD, Governor November, 14, 2013 Department of Fish and Wildlife Umpqua Watershed District Office 4192 North Umpqua Highway Roseburg, OR 97470 (541) 440-3353 FAX (541) 673-0372 Kimberly Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Subject: Prospect 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC 2337-076) Comments on Preliminary Application Document and Scoping Document; and Study Requests Dear Secretary Bose: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is filing the attached comments on the Preliminary Application Document, comments on the Scoping Document, and study requests in response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission s Notice of Intent to File License Application, Filing of Pre-application Document (PAD), Commencement of Pre-filing Process, and Scoping: Request for Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Study Requests, dated August 30, 2013 for the above reference project. Sincerely, David A. Harris Southwest Hydropower Coordinator Service List (P-308) C (electronic mail): Kristen Bonanno-USFS Ken Homolka-ODFW Salem Dan Van Dyke-ODFW Central Point Mark Vargas-ODFW Central Point Chris Stine- ODEQ Rob Burns- FWS Mary Grainey- OWRD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PacifiCorp Energy ) FERC Project 2337-076 ) Notice of Intent to File License Application, ) Filing of Pre-application Document (PAD), ) Commencement of Pre-filing Process, and ) Prospect 3 Scoping: Request for Comments on the PAD ) Hydroelectric Project and Scoping Document, and Identification ) of Issues and Study Requests OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS ON PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT, COMMENTS ON SCOPING DOCUMENT 1, AND STUDY REQUESTS INTRODUCTION PacifiCorp Energy ( PacifiCorp or Applicant ) plans to file an application for a new license to continue operating the Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (Project) FERC No P-2337, on the South Fork Rogue River in Jackson County, Oregon. The current license will expire on December 13, 2018. The Project has a generation capacity of 7,200 kilowatts (kw) and is located on both private lands owned by PacifiCorp and federal lands managed by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The project consists of: (1) a 172-foot-long, 24-foot-high concrete diversion dam with a 98-foot-long uncontrolled ogee on the South Fork Rogue River, (2) a 1-acre impoundment at elevation 3,375 feet with a gross capacity of 10-acre-feet, (3) a fish passage facility, including (a) an 86-foot long, 14-pool concrete ladder for upstream fish passage over the diversion dam; and (b) a 0.25-inch wedge-wire, inclined-plane fish screen with a surface area of 199 square feet located with the Project diversion facilities, which transitions to a bypass pipe to return fish to the ladder and facilitate downstream passage: (4) a 15,894-footlong conduit system consisting of, in order, (a) 1 273-foot-long concrete-lined canal section; (b) a 66-inch-diameter, 5,448-foot-long woodstave pipe; (c) a 5,805-foot-long concrete-lined canal 1

section; (d) a 5-foot-wide by 6.5-foot high, 698-foot-long, concrete-lined, horseshoe type tunnel; (e) a 416-foot-long canal to penstock transition (i.e. forebay) with a 2,486-foot-long side channel spillway; and (f) a 66-inch to 68-inch diameter, 3,254-foot-long, riveted steel penstock; (5) a powerhouse containing one generating unit with a rated capacity of 7,200 kw operating under a static head of 740 feet and producing an average annual energy output of 37,125 megawatt hours (mw h); (6) a concrete tailrace structure approximately 20 feet by 20 feet by 5 feet with a 172-foot-long concrete lined overflow spillway; (7) a 66-inch, 887-foot-long woodstove siphon that routes flows from the tailrace to the Middle Fork Canal of the Prospect Nos. 1,2 and 4 Project (FERC No. P-2630): and (8) a 6.97-mile-long, 69-kilovolt (kv) transmission line that connects to Prospect Central substation. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) exercises statutory oversight and possesses management expertise regarding the natural resources in the Rogue River Basin that may be affected by this relicensing. ODFW is extensively involved in a variety of fish and wildlife management issues in the Rogue watershed, including big game management, fish and fishery management, and nongame protection at hydroelectric projects. The Applicant filed its Notice of Intent to File License Application for a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process on August 30, 2013. Staff from ODFW attended the Project site visit held on September 24, 2013 and the Commission s Daytime Scoping Meeting held on September 24, 2013 in Medford, Oregon. 2

COMMENTS ON PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT The Pre-Application Document (PAD) provides the basic information that is relevant to the Project proposal that is currently available, and it will assist ODFW to identify issues and additional information needs. ODFW s main interest in Project relicensing is to ensure that any ongoing impacts are identified and mitigated, new impacts are avoided, and to ensure the Project is consistent with Oregon s Wildlife Policy (ORS496.012) and other statutes, rules, guidelines, and plans. Section 2.4 explains that the project is not operated with any specific daily or seasonal ramping rates. ODFW believes it is important to understand the frequency and magnitude of ramping in the tailrace and bypass reach from planned and unplanned project shutdowns. The frequency of past shutdown events should be readily available for analysis. Information on the magnitude of current ramping will need to be collected during relicensing when maintenance shutdowns or other events are initiated. This information will assist in evaluating the effects of current project operations on trout spawning, incubation, and rearing. Section 2.5 describes the Project operations and existing license. Generating unit trips or operational balancing infrequently (approximately 5 times per year) results in Project waters discharging to the Middle Fork Rogue via the forebay spillway and tailrace overflow channel, respectively. ODFW believes it is important to determine the month(s) these water discharges are occurring. Information will assist in the evaluation of impacts (ramping and turbidity) to spawning native trout in the Middle Fork Rogue below Daniel Creek. Egg incubation, fry emergence and fry stranding all may be impacted by these events. 3

Section 2.6 The Applicant indicates in Section 2.6 that it is not planning to install new facilities or implement capital upgrades; however, based on ODFW s observations during the scoping site visit it is likely that some fish and wildlife facilities will need to be modified or replaced; such as: (1) upgrading the fish ladder to meet current upstream passage criteria, (2) upgrading the fish bypass screen to meet current ODFW fish screening criteria, and 3) widening the existing big game crossings. Section 3.3.1 is a summary of the available habitat information from 1986. The summary states that the 3.5 miles of the South Fork immediately below the dam represents the portion of the bypass reach directly influenced by project operations. Of course, project influence is not limited to the first 3.5 miles below the facility, and likely extends to the confluence with the North Fork Rogue. ODFW feels that the distance analyzed in the current relicensing effort should at a minimum include 6.3 miles (diversion dam downstream to the confluence of the Middle Fork of Rogue River. Field work should confirm that accretion rates have not changed in amount per month since the 1986 study. ODFW agrees that there is minimal habitat data available between River Mile (RM) zero to RM 7.5. Ideally physical habitat data should be collected all the way to the mouth in order to fully assess the potential native trout population. Native trout in the South Fork Rogue River are migratory and must make lengthy instream movements in order to fulfill life history phases. This additional information will be necessary to evaluate instream minimum flows that provide both protection and enhancement. This section refers to barriers to fish passage in the 3.5 miles below the dam, but ODFW has records of anadromous fish in the vicinity of the projects (see below). It is important to note that 4

while debris jams and boulders reported in the habitat survey create jumps, they rarely create barriers to fish migration because of gaps and even movement over time. In addition, the habitat survey conducted in 1986 was conducted when flows below the dam were approximately 4 cfs (see graph below). Flows this August were 13 cfs, and ambient flows even in August would be around 100 cfs upstream of the project (according to the 1986 report). High flows mean higher water levels and reduced jump heights. Fish passage should be expected through this area. ODFW agrees with FERC s request for PacifiCorp to conduct a fish and aquatic habitat survey; however, we disagree that the survey should only be conducted in the upper 3.5 miles of the bypass reach. ODFW recommends that the fish and aquatic habitat survey cover a total of at least the upper 6.3 miles of the bypass reach, and as part of this survey accretion rates be assessed. Section 3.3.2 the PAD refers to a statement from a watershed analysis in stating that the project area is outside the historic range of anadromous fish species. The geologic landform barriers near Prospect actually refers to the Avenue of the Boulders, which is believed to have blocked anadromous fish from entering the mainstem (or North Fork) of the Rogue River. The South and Middle Forks are known to have been used by anadromous species. 5

The dam on the South Fork was built around 1932. Unfortunately the first biological observations were not made until roughly ten years later. In his report History and Development of the Rogue River Basin as Related to its Fishery Prior to 1941, Cole Rivers (1963) wrote of the then Copco dams: Occasionally there are a few steelhead found at the base of the dams on the south and middle forks. ODFW observed large numbers of spawning spring chinook using the South Fork of the Rogue River in October 1965. A total of 997 chinook and 420 redds were observed from the mouth of the South Fork up to the confluence with the Middle Fork Rogue River. In October 1969, ODFW observed 13 spring chinook and 8 redds on the Middle Fork under the Prospect-Butte Falls Road Bridge. So while William Jess Dam (Lost Creek Reservoir) does block anadromous fish today, ODFW emphasizes that historically this area supported a variety of native migratory fish species. The presence of Chinook salmon implies that all other anadromous fish in the Rogue could have been present historically. Section 3.3.3 is a summary of the available information for the fish community in the Project area. ODFW believes that native migratory fish species, primarily wild rainbow trout and potentially cutthroat trout, migrate out of Lost Creek Reservoir and enter the lower South Fork Rogue and the South Fork bypass reach, and must be able to pass the dam and diversion to use habitat upstream of the project. The Applicant states that since a 1986 study on downstream entrainment, considerable improvements and updates to fish passage and screen facilities have been completed and tested, so 1986 passage and entrainment figures are no longer applicable. ODFW agrees that fish passage conditions were improved during the last relicensing, but believes it is important for 6

the Applicant to conduct an analysis of the design and operation of these facilities during this relicensing to determine whether they meet current fish passage criteria, or can be upgraded to meet current criteria. The Applicant indicates that suitable spawning area in the bypass reach may be an important limiting factor to rainbow trout population. The PAD states that immigrant additions to the population from downstream rainbow trout communities are precluded by a number of natural passage barriers in the bypass reach preventing additions to the population by upstream movement. ODFW disagrees with this statement, and is not aware of any evidence that confirms that the fish are blocked by the reported barriers listed in the 1986 study. As stated above, anadromous fish were known historically in the project area. Flow reduction below the project likely makes passage more difficult, but fish passage should be expected. ODFW agrees with the Applicant that native trout in South Fork Rogue River are migratory and need to safe upstream passage in order to reach suitable spawning areas. Based on observations during the Scoping site visit ODFW is concerned that hydraulic conditions in the fish ladder blocks, partially blocks, or delays upstream passage for trout. Also fish produced above the South Fork Diversion dam, particularly young of the year, which migrate downstream to contribute to the population, may be injured at the screen facility and at the exit pool of the bypass pipe. Section 3.3.5 describes that an environmental minimum flow of 10 cfs was established in the last relicensing pursuant to License Article 402. Current minimum flows address juvenile fry in the bypass reach. ODFW believes that fry survival in the bypass reach, although is important, is not as critical as juvenile to adult survival. Juvenile to adult survival rate is higher than the fry to 7

adult survival rate. Fry production above the diversion dam will continue to produce fry that can seed downstream bypass habitats, and improving the fish screen will likely provide a more balanced benefit than focusing the bypass flow to increase fry habitat. Section 4.1.2.1 ODFW believes that new information has been collected since the 1986 relicensing that will affect the results of the instream flow study. The Applicant should incorporate updated habitat suitability criteria (HSC) to estimate weighted useable area at various stream flows. ODFW recommends that the 1986 data be analyzed using the same HSC used on the Prospect 1, 2, & 4 project. ODFW recommends that the Applicant provide electronic files of the original 1986 instream flow data to the agencies and collaborate in rerunning the flow analysis using the more recent HSC. Section 4.1.3 ODFW agrees with the Applicant that the previous instream flow study was coarse and supports an updated model to re-examine usable fish habitats at various life stages. ODFW also believes that both upstream and downstream fish passage is outdated and needs to be studied to determine suitable upgrades. Section 4.1.4 ODFW believes that current wildlife crossings should be widened. Although information suggest both small and big game animals are using the crossings, added width ensures safe timely passage of herd animals that stack up and are forced to cross single file. Section 4.1.6 ODFW with aid from federal agencies has radio collared several wolves in the state of Oregon. Migration routes and locations of one particular wolf have been documented in the South fork Rogue basin and Project area. ODFW believes that wolves should be added to the survey and manage list. 8

Section 4.2.3 ODFW agrees with the Applicant s proposed study to conduct a fine-scale habitat duration analysis on existing habitat flow relationships for native trout in the South Fork bypass reach, and ODFW recommends that the Applicant collaborate with the agencies to re-analyze the existing 1986 instream flow data using updated HSC. ODFW also suggests re-examination of the design and hydraulics of the fish ladder and screen facilities and development of a plan to ensure they meet current ODFW fish passage criteria. The Applicant should consider ramping study to assess impacts. Section 4.3.1 ODFW has filed its Wolf Management Plan with the Commission to have it considered as a comprehensive plan pursuant to Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). We believe the Wolf Management Plan would be applicable to the Project area. Appendix A: ODFW recommends that the siphon be considered a feature of the Prospect 3 project because in the event of a catastrophic failure of the loss of the siphon the loss of water could damage the hillside under the powerhouse, and in the event of such a failure the project should not be allowed to restart without a thorough evaluation of the environmental damage to the Middle Fork Rogue River. COMMENTS ON SCOPING DOCUMENT 1 Section 4.2.1 proposes to address effects of project operations and maintenance on soil erosion. ODFW recommends that this section include analysis of the effects of penstock failures, unit trips and maintenance outages on Daniels Creek and the Middle Fork Rogue River; and the timing of forebay maintenance sluicing. ODFW has collected information from statewide 9

trout surveys that show erosion and fine sediment has a negative association with trout presence. ODFW recommends that the siphon be considered a feature of the Prospect 3 project because in the event of a catastrophic failure of the loss of the siphon the loss of water could damage the hillside under the powerhouse, and in the event of such a failure the project should not be allowed to restart without a thorough evaluation of the environmental damage to the Middle Fork Rogue River. Section 4.2.3 proposes to address effects of minimum flow releases, Project effects on upstream and downstream fish passage, and flow fluctuations in the bypassed reaches and Daniel Creek. ODFW suggests that PacifiCorp re-analysis the existing 1986 instream flow data using the same HSC used on the Prospect 1, 2, & 4 project. ODFW requests a copy of the existing 1986 instream flow data in electronic format and will collaborate with the Applicant in order to run flow analysis using the updated HSC. Effects on upstream passage should include fish ladder entrance jump heights and attraction flows, in-ladder flows (including the fish bypass pipe flow into the ladder), in-ladder jump heights, and flow though the submerged orifice at the ladder exit. Downstream passage should include screen size, approach and sweeping velocities, screen maintenance (cleaning), and bypass pipe flows. Section 4.2.4 proposes to address effects of deer and elk movement and maintenance activities. ODFW recommends that any analysis of the width of animal crossings be examined. Other animal crossings in the Umpqua and Rogue watersheds have been increased in width to accommodate herd animals. ODFW would also recommend that all transmission lines on the Project be analyzed for risk of electrocution by avian species. 10

STUDY REQUEST ODFW s study requests are formatted to follow the requirements of 18 CFR Section 5.9(b) 1. Ramping Recommended Study and Basis for Request ODFW recommends that PacifiCorp perform ramping studies in Project bypass reaches to determine rates necessary to protect fish and aquatic resources from adverse effects resulting from upramping and downramping. Sudden flow changes in stream reaches due to Project operations can adversely impact fish and aquatic resources. Significant rapid flow reduction in bypass reaches can affect fish populations by dewatering redds and stranding fry or juvenile fish. Rapid flow increases in bypass reaches can wash out existing redds, displace fry, displace macroinvertebrates, or adversely impact amphibian populations in these reaches. One very significant ramping event at a very unusual time can cause a significant limiting condition for one or more age classes of fish, or a section of habitat to be impacted for a long period. The current FERC license does not include conditions requiring PacifiCorp to apply specific ramping rates to operations. ODFW believes that in order to form an adequate factual basis for complete analysis of the application, information needed to achieve the study objectives must be included. For these reasons, a ramp rate study at the South Fork Dam should be conducted. Study Participants ODFW does not take a position on who should conduct the study. We are confident that PacifiCorp can conduct the work in-house, though they may prefer to contract with a reputable 11

consultant. PacifiCorp needs to consult with the resource agencies during development of study designs and analysis of data collected. Study Methods and Objectives All the information below will need to be collected for the reach below the South Fork Dam. 1) Magnitude of ramping event (inches/hr); 2) Duration the event occurred (time in minutes); 3) Frequency of events (completed by reviewing production log books)*; 4) Ramp rate as measured on staff gages (nearest 0.01 inches); 5) Ramp rate estimates for maintenance activities (planned outages) based on mechanical constraints. ODFW recommends employing the methods proposed and implemented for relicensing studies on the Prospect 1, 2, & 4 project. Use the same methods used at the Middle Fork and Red Blanket bypass reaches) to obtain the information. Study Objectives All objectives need to be achieved for the reach below the South Fork Dam. 1) Document the frequency and duration of scheduled and unscheduled ramping events*; 2) Categorize ramping events by month or hydrologically similar periods*; 3) Document magnitude and rate of ramping using current operational procedures*; 4) Assess the level of control Project works can impart on ramp rate measured at sites where effects of changing flows on aquatic resources would be pronounced; and, 5) Determine the physical capabilities of the Project structures in controlling ramp rates. 12

How the Study will be useful in Furthering ODFW Resource Management Goals ODFW s request is to ensure proposed studies are completed, that PacifiCorp collects all the information that they have proposed, and that the information is made available for analysis. ODFW will use the study results to assess the aquatic impacts of project ramping. This information will also serve as the evidentiary basis to support recommendations for project ramping rates that will avoid or minimize impacts to aquatic organisms. ODFW s overarching goal is to prevent or minimize project-caused flow fluctuations to protect fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources. The study results will further ODFW s resource management goals by providing information regarding the effect of the project on aquatic habitat in the upper Rogue and what kinds and levels of mitigation measures would be most appropriate to include in the new license to support protection and restoration of aquatic organisms and their habitat. Time Required for Study PacifiCorp should be able to conduct the field data collection as proposed for the areas below the South Fork Dam with several weeks of effort. Field data collection should occur when spill over the dam is minimal, but diversion into the South Fork power canal is near capacity. Several weeks of effort will be needed to 1) collect records from log books to document the frequency and duration of scheduled and unscheduled ramping events, 2) categorize ramping events by month or hydrologically similar time periods, and 3) organize and analyze the data. Existing Information and the Need for Additional Information PacifiCorp has conducted the field phase of a ramp rate study for bypass reaches below the Middle Fork and Red Blanket Diversions, and the South Fork bypass below the confluence with 13

the Middle Fork as related to operation of the Prospect 1, 2, and 4 project, but areas affected by the Prospect 3 project have not been assessed. Additional information is needed to: 1) Document the frequency and duration of scheduled and unscheduled ramping events for the bypass reach. 2) Categorize ramping events by month or hydrologically similar periods for all of the bypass reach. 3) Document magnitude and rate of ramping using current operational procedures for all bypass reach. 4) Assess the level of control Project works can impart on ramp rate measured at sites where the effects of changing flows on aquatic resources would be pronounced in the South Fork reach. 5) Determine the physical capabilities of the Project structures in controlling ramp rates in the North Fork reach. 2. Wildlife Connectivity Recommended Study and Basis for Request ODFW recommends that studies be conducted to determine the movements of animals in the vicinity of Project facilities, entrapment into canals, and evaluation of the existing wildlife crossings to determine whether the Project adversely impacts habitat connectivity for big game and small animals. ODFW is interested in determining the effects of the existing canals on the small vertebrates. While the fencing that surrounds the canals probably protects large mammals from becoming entrapped, small animals are probably able to pass through the fence mesh and become vulnerable to entrapment. Seasonal movements of reptiles and amphibians 14

are a well-documented aspect of their life history. The canals could represent an important cause of mortality or block dispersion and genetic flow for some species. ODFW feels that the current wildlife crossings are probably too narrow to provide adequate passage for big game and may not be strategically located. ODFW recommends the use of the crossings by wildlife be quantified and documented by monitoring with video cameras. In addition, PacifiCorp has proposed a major maintenance event by replacing the wood stave flowline. Wildlife underpass locations should be identified and implemented during replacement to ensure wildlife connectivity. The information gained from this study is essential for assessing wildlife connectivity in the Project area and determining whether adverse impacts are occurring. ODFW s basis for obtaining this information is to assist in identifying project impacts on wildlife populations, determine whether the project is consistent with ODFW s resource goals, and provide evidentiary fact for recommending measures for protection, mitigation, and enhancement. Study Participants ODFW does not take a position on who should conduct the study. We are confident that PacifiCorp can conduct the work in-house, though they may prefer to contract with a reputable wildlife consultant. PacifiCorp needs to consult with the resource agencies during development of study designs and analysis of data collected. Study Methods and Objectives Study methods should follow those described in Corn and Bury (1990). ODFW, other agencies, and researchers have employed video cameras, still cameras, radio telemetry, and capture and release methodology to monitor animal movements and behavior. Remote sensing with video 15

cameras can be used with bait stations to observe pine marten and fisher. Video cameras can be used to record animal behavior at canal crossings. Radio telemetry and capture/release/observation methods can be used to assess habitat connectivity, the avoidance of canals to crossing, and an animal s ability to cross canals to other Project features. The objective of the study would be to provide information on the movements of large and small animals near Project canals, to estimate the extent of entrainment mortality, and to determine the efficiency of the existing canal crossings. How the Study will be useful in Furthering ODFW Resource Management Goals Study information would be used to determine if the movements of small and large animals are being restricted by Project facilities and whether project facilities or operations have affected habitat conditions or connectivity. ODFW s overarching goal for relicensing the Project is to maintain terrestrial habitat connectivity so that dispersal, migration, and interbreeding among subpopulations can occur and to create a waterway system that has insignificant effects on populations. The study will further ODFW s resource management goals by providing information regarding the effect of the project on wildlife populations in the upper Rogue and help to identify what kinds and levels of mitigation measures would be most appropriate to include in the new license to support protection and restoration of wildlife populations. ODFW s goals and objectives for the fish and wildlife populations in the upper Rogue River basin are found in the following statutes (ORS) and rules (OAR) Wildlife Policy (ORS 496.012) Establishes wildlife management policy to prevent serious depletion of any indigenous species and maintain all species of fish and wildlife at optimum levels. 16

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy (OAR 635-415-0000-0030) Require or recommend mitigation for losses of fish and wildlife habitat. Oregon s Elk Management Plan Protect and enhance elk populations in Oregon to provide optimum recreational benefits to the public and to be compatible with habitat capability and primary land uses. Oregon s Black Bear Management Plan Maintain healthy populations of black bear consistent with public desires and state law. Oregon s Cougar Management Plan Maintain healthy populations of cougar consistent with public desires and state law. Wildlife Diversity Plan (OARs 635-100-0001 through 0030) Maintain Oregon s wildlife diversity by protecting and enhancing populations and habitats of native wildlife at self-sustaining levels throughout natural geographic ranges. Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (OAR 635-110-000) Ensure the conservation of gray wolves as required by Oregon law while protecting the social and economic interests of all Oregonians. Black-tailed Deer Management Plan Maintain healthy populations of Black-tailed Deer consistent with public desires and state law. Time Required for Study The time required for collecting sufficient data on these species is not known. ODFW recommends that the study schedule be prepared by PacifiCorp in cooperation with researchers familiar with studies of these species. Existing Information and the Need for Additional Information PacifiCorp conducted surveys on canals for the Prospect 1, 2, & 4 project relicensing. PacifiCorp widened 6 foot wide crossings to 12 foot wide and observed usage by a number of animal species. PacifiCorp s North Umpqua Hydropower Project widened animal crossings from 6 feet to 36 feet in width with small animal cover constructed on the edges. Information collected by PacifiCorp suggests heavy usage of these larger width crossings by both large and small animals. 17

ODFW has collected evidence to suggest that deer and other animals migrate from areas of the Cascades above the Project to areas below the Project. There is uncertainty as to the extent the canals and fencing effect migration, and whether the crossings are ameliorating possible negative effects. ODFW again recommends evaluating use/non-use of the crossings by monitoring animal behavior with video cameras. Some data were collected at existing wildlife crossing structures. However, minimal information was collected to examine the success of animal movement or the effects of canals and other structures on dispersion of small animals. 3 Minimum Flows in Bypass Reaches Recommended Study and Basis for Request The current minimum flow requirement was established during the last Project relicensing in 1986. The current relicensing provides the opportunity to reassess the adequacy of the existing mitigation measures for meeting the current and updated standards and criteria for fish and wildlife mitigation and protection. Under the current license the minimum flow requirement in the Project bypass reach is 10 cfs (License Article 402). Relicensing should result in ensuring that minimum flows in the project bypass reach are consistent with fish management goals and objectives to provide adequate stream habitat for fish production. ODFW s goals and objectives for the Prospect area fish populations of the Rogue River are found in the following statutes (ORS) and rules (OAR): Wildlife Policy (ORS 496.102) Policy to Restore Native Stocks (ORS 496.435 General Fish Management Goals (OAR 635-007-0510) 18

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (ORS 541.405) Native Fish Conservation Policy (OAR 635-007-0502-0509) Trout Management (OAR 635-500-0100-0120) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy (OAR 635-415-0000-0030) Study Participants ODFW does not take a position on who should conduct the study. We are confident that PacifiCorp can conduct the work in-house, though they may prefer to contract with a qualified fisheries consultant. ODFW recommends that the Applicant consult with the resource agencies to accomplish the reanalysis of the 1986 transect data using the HSC from the Prospect 1, 2, and 4 relicensing. Study Methods and Objectives This study will require PacifiCorp to acquire and provide to the resource agencies the existing 1986 IFIM data in electronic format. The Applicant should re-run the 1986 transect data using the HSC for cutthroat and rainbow trout as agreed by the Applicant and the resource agencies for the Prospect 1, 2, and 4 relicensing. The reanalysis of the existing transect data with the more recent HSC will likely result in modification of the predicted weighted useable area and habitat duration. (See ODFW caveat on habitat duration on page 23) The Applicant should use stream hydrograph data from the last 20 years as available from USGS or a synthesized hydrograph if necessary. ODFW recommends that the Applicant conduct field work to reassess the contribution of accretion in the lower Project bypass reach to document any changes since the last assessment for the 1986 IFIM study. The Applicant should collaborate with the resource agencies on the IFIM/PHABSIM results to identify appropriate minimum bypass flows for the species and life stages identified by the fish management agencies. The methods are 19

intended to be consistent with conducting a complete new IFIM/PHABSIM, however in this case new transect data will not be collected. How the Study will be useful in Furthering ODFW Resource Management Goals Study information would be used to determine what minimum flows will provide the greatest life history stage protection and enhancement. Native trout life history stages include: spawning, egg, fry, juvenile, and adult. Based on habitat measurements over a wide variety of flows, a determination of monthly or seasonal minimum bypass flows will be recommended that may overlap several life history stages but provide an overall protective/enhancement flow. These minimum flow(s) will help maintain aquatic habitat connectivity so that dispersal, migration, and interbreeding among subpopulations can occur. The study will further ODFW s resource management goals by providing information regarding the effect of the project on native trout populations in the upper Rogue and help to identify what kinds and levels of mitigation measures would be most appropriate to include in the new license to support protection and restoration of trout populations. Time Required for Study The time required for collecting sufficient data on these species is not known because ODFW is uncertain of the availability of the 1986 IFIM/PHABSIM data files. If these are readily available the rerun of the existing data with the more recent HSC could occur over a few weeks. Obtaining the hydrograph information including documenting accretion, drafting a report of the results, and collaboration and negotiation could potentially be completed within one year. Existing Information and the Need for Additional Information Current license article allows PacifiCorp to divert up to 150 cfs and leave at least 10 cfs to the bypass reach using the fish ladder as the conduit 20

Establishing minimum flow in the project-affected reaches is related to ODFW s management goals and objectives in that adequate flow for juvenile and adult rearing and spawning must be provided to meet goals and objectives of ODFW s trout management. Evaluating the relationship between stream flow and habitat in project affected reaches is necessary to assist in developing minimum flow requirements in project bypass reaches. PacifiCorp s proposes a fine scale habitat duration analysis on existing habitat-flow relationships for native trout in the South Fork bypass reach (IFIM). ODFW will review habitat duration analysis, but with the following caveats: WUA often reaches a peak at some intermediate flow level, then decreases at higher flows. Habitat duration analysis generally counts flow removal at these higher flows as a habitat benefit, since WUA is increased. This computed benefit is then used to offset WUA losses that occur when flow is reduced during the lower-flow times of the year. ODFW will not accept this type of interpretation because: a) Flows above the peak WUA flow provide many other functions to a healthy stream ecosystem. The benefits of these elevated flows are not captured by standard WUA output, but have been abundantly documented in the scientific literature. b) Use of physical habitat space by fish at elevated flows is not well documented. Higher velocity and increased depth does not necessarily decrease fish populations, despite the WUA output. 21

Any flow study conducted as part of relicensing for the Prospect 3 project must incorporate all necessary life stages/needs of all species of concern in the project area. The species of primary concern to ODFW are cutthroat trout and rainbow trout and the life stages are juvenile and adult. Because IFIM involves a number of important subjective decisions, PacifiCorp should involve ODFW and the other agencies in the study team to make decisions on techniques of IFIM and interpretation of results. IFIM is a group decision-making process, not simply a computer model, which requires input from all stakeholders throughout the entire process. A final study plan needs to be developed and submitted to the agencies for review; comment and approval before initiating the bypass reach flow studies. The study plan will be necessary to document the agreed upon techniques and analytical procedures to be used. ODFW recommends the following be considered in developing and conducting the flow study: Modeling incorporates a number of assumptions and uncertainties. These assumptions and uncertainties should be addressed in the interpretation and report. In particular, the effects of these uncertainties in determining instream flow requirements should be discussed, and quantified if possible. 1. Develop WUA curves per individual transect to determine if a particular habitat type is more impacted. 22

2. Make accurate representations of habitat the highest priority in the hydraulic modeling 3. Use the same spatial resolution for hydraulic simulation, habitat suitability index development, and habitat criteria testing. 4. ODFW will provide additional comments when a detailed study plan is distributed for review. 4 Upstream Passage Recommended Study and Basis for Request PacifiCorp was required to design and implement safe upstream passage per Article 404 of the current license. In 1993 ODFW requested that PacifiCorp proceed with the design of the facility utilizing interim design criteria to be provided by ODFW in the future. PacifiCorp filed the final upstream and downstream fish passage designs along with monitoring plan on December 28, 1995. The plans and design were accepted by FERC order on May 21, 1996. The construction of the upstream and downstream fish passage facilities was completed in November 1996. According to ORS509.585, a fishway is required for artificial obstructions across any body of water in the state. Fishways must be provided to maintain adequate upstream and downstream passage of game fish. In addition, the policy goals of the Native Fish Conservation include; prevent the serious depletion of any native fish species by protecting natural ecological communities, conserving genetic resources, managing consumptive and non consumptive fisheries; and maintain and restore naturally produced native fish species, taking full advantage of the productive capacity of natural habitats, in order to provide substantial ecological, economic, and cultural benefits. 23

ODFW s main concern regarding fish passage is to bring the project into compliance with present day statutes and standards for fish and wildlife mitigation measures. We will work with PacifiCorp to identify the required fish passage criteria for the existing fishway. PacifiCorp should include plans for evaluating the effectiveness of fish passage facilities. Study Participants ODFW does not take a position on who should conduct the study. We are confident that PacifiCorp can conduct the work in-house, though they may prefer to contract with a reputable fisheries consultant. PacifiCorp needs to consult with the resource agencies during development of study designs and analysis of data collected Study Methods and Objectives This study will require PacifiCorp conduct field sampling. Fish ladder hydraulics and steps will need to be determined and compared to existing ODFW fish passage criteria. Those criteria that do not meet current ODFW standards should be updated to ensure safe and timely upstream passage. The energy dissipation factor EDF should be one component of the hydraulic analysis, in addition to measuring operational flow, flow design range, jump heights, and pool dimensions. How the Study will be useful in Furthering ODFW Resource Management Goals Study information would be used to determine what flow will provide safe and timely upstream passage. Also, jump heights at each fish ladder weir may need to be adjusted to allow passage. Lastly, flows through the submerged orifice at the ladders exit may be preventing or delaying trout movement out of the ladder into the reservoir. The goal is to maintain aquatic habitat connectivity so that dispersal, migration, and an exchange of genetic material can occur. 24

The study will further ODFW s resource management goals by providing information regarding the effect of the project on native trout populations in the upper South Fork Rogue River. Time Required for Study The time required for collecting sufficient data on these species should be complete during the spring and fall months of 2015 and 2016. Two seasonal survey periods will cover migration periods of trout species present in the South Fork Rogue River and check for a possible second seasonal peak upstream migration. ODFW recommends that the study schedule be prepared by PacifiCorp in cooperation with researchers familiar with studies of these species. Existing Information and the Need for Additional Information Current ladder at the South Fork diversion dam was designed and constructed using interim design criteria. The ladder was evaluated with upstream fish passage observed, Since 1997, information pertaining to correct step heights (6 inches), proper cfs though the ladder, energy dissipation, and continued safe upstream passage has not be documented. ODFW recommends the following be considered: 1. Updated fish ladder measurements to determine jump height 2. Accurate in ladder flow measurements (cfs) to determine if trout criteria are being met 3. Updated fish evaluation plan that outlines a study to determine safe upstream fish passage 4. Updated information on the physical condition of the fish ladder (concrete cracks, vegetation growth on ladder, etc.), 25

5 Fish Entrainment in the Power Canal Recommended Study and Basis for Request In 1993 ODFW requested that PacifiCorp proceed with the design of the facility utilizing interim design criteria to be provided by ODFW in the future. ODFW provided a Fish Screen Policy with interim design standards to PacifiCorp on September 7, 1994. PacifiCorp filed the final upstream and downstream fish passage designs along with monitoring plan on December 28, 1995. The plans and design were accepted by FERC order on May 21, 1996. The construction of the upstream and downstream fish passage facilities was completed in November 1996. ODFW has responsibility to protect downstream migrating fish through ORS 498.311 and 509.585. These statutes may require installation, operation, and maintenance of a fish screen on any diversion of water in the state and downstream passage for native migratory fish. ODFW will work with PacifiCorp to provide advice on conducting entrainment studies, to determine if an updated fish screen criterion is being met. ODFW will help develop new screening design and developing study plans for screen evaluation if determined that the existing screen does not meet criterion. Study Participants ODFW does not take a position on who should conduct the study. We are confident that PacifiCorp can conduct the work in-house, though they may prefer to contract with a reputable fisheries consultant. PacifiCorp needs to consult with the resource agencies during development of study designs and analysis of data collected Study Methods and Objectives This study will require PacifiCorp conduct field sampling, and re-use existing fish passage studies conducted in the 1980 and 1990 s. Fish screen hydraulics and bypass pipe will need to 26

be studied then compared to existing ODFW fish passage criteria. Those criteria that do not meet current ODFW standards should be updated or replaced to ensure safe and timely downstream stream passage. Trout of various sizes should be placed at the entrance of the fish screen (in the canal) to determine if: 1) screen approach and sweeping velocities meet criteria, 2) passage through the screen is safe and completed in a timely matter, and 3) passage through the bypass pipe and exit from the pipe does not delay or injure trout. How the Study will be useful in Furthering ODFW Resource Management Goals Study information would be used to determine what if the current screen facility meets ODFW criteria and provides safe and timely downstream passage. The goal is to maintain aquatic habitat connectivity so that dispersal, migration, and an exchange of genetic material can occur to downstream habitats below the diversion dam. The study will further ODFW s resource management goals by providing information regarding the effect of the project on native trout populations in the upper South Fork Rogue River. Time Required for Study The time required for collecting sufficient data on these species should be complete during the spring of 2015 and 2016. ODFW recommends that the study schedule be prepared by PacifiCorp in cooperation with researchers familiar with studies of these species. Existing Information and the Need for Additional Information Current fish screen at the South Fork diversion dam was designed and constructed using interim design criteria. The screens were evaluated in the late 1990 s and did not meet criteria. The screen was repaired and updated by PacifiCorp and met criteria standards for 2000-2001. Since then no additional testing has been completed at the screening facility. 27

ODFW recommends the following be considered: 1. Updated approach and sweeping velocity studies 2. Updated screen spacing size 3. Updated fish screen evaluation plan that outlines a study to determine safe downstream fish passage 4. Updated information on the physical condition of the fish screen facility (concrete cracks, vegetation growth, screen condition, etc.), 6 Wildlife Species Composition Survey ODFW proposes a study to characterize the existing wildlife and amphibian communities of the project area in order to improve the understanding of the wildlife species currently inhabiting project landscape during different times of the year, including their distribution, and relative abundance. Study Participants ODFW does not take a position on who should conduct the study. We are confident that PacifiCorp can conduct the work in-house, though they may prefer to contract with a reputable wildlife consultant. PacifiCorp needs to consult with the resource agencies during development of study designs and analysis of data collected Study Methods and Objectives Study methods should be current acceptable to ODFW and other agencies. Studies may include the use of video cameras, still cameras, radio telemetry, and capture and release methodology to monitor animal movements and behavior. Remote sensing with video cameras can be used with bait stations to observe species such as pine marten and fisher. Video cameras can be 28

used to record animal behavior at canal crossings. Radio telemetry and capture/release/observation methods can be used to assess habitat connectivity, the avoidance of canals to crossing, and an animal s ability to cross canals to other Project features. The objective of the study would be to provide information on the species composition of large and small animals near Project. How the Study will be useful in Furthering ODFW Resource Management Goals Study information would be used to determine what current and future project impacts may have on wildlife resources in the area. The study will further ODFW s resource management goals by providing information regarding the effect of the project on native trout populations in the upper Time Required for Study The time required for collecting sufficient data on these species should be complete during the spring of 2015 and 2016. ODFW recommends that the study schedule be prepared by PacifiCorp in cooperation with researchers familiar with studies of these species. Existing Information and the Need for Additional Information Species information gathered by other agencies appears to cover large landscapes and are not specific to the Prospect 3 project area. In order to implement specific species management plans, a detailed wildlife species composition list is needed. 29

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PacifiCorp Energy ) FERC Project 2337-076 ) Notice of Intent to File License Application, ) Filing of Pre-application Document (PAD), ) Commencement of Pre-filing Process, and ) Prospect 3 Scoping: Request for Comments on the PAD ) Hydroelectric Project and Scoping Document, and Identification ) of Issues and Study Requests CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have made service of the foregoing OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS ON THE PREAPPLICATION DOCUMENT AND SCOPING DOCUMENT NO. 1, AND STUDY REQUESTS Prospect 3 Hydroelectric Project - Oregon - FERC Project No. 2337-076 upon the parties designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding: Dated November 14, 2013 David A. Harris Southwest Region Hydropower Coordinator 30