FERC OCT 27 2015 Mason Dam Hydro EA.3.Pdf

1.2.2 Need for Power

The Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project would provide hydroelectric generation to meet part of Baker County’s and the region’s power requirements, resource diversity, and capacity needs. The project would have an installed capacity of 3.4 MW and generate approximately 7,510 MWh per year.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) annually forecasts electrical supply and demand nationally and regionally for a 10-year period. The Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project is located within the boundaries of the Northwest Power Pool (NWPP) within the Western Energy Coordinating Council of the NERC. According to the 2014 forecast, the total internal demand for the NWPP region is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 1.63 percent for summer and 1.36 percent for winter during the period from 2015 through 2024 (NERC, 2014). NERC projects that resource capacity margins (generating capacity in excess of demand) will range from 21.78 percent in 2015 to 13.18 percent in 2024 (target 15.5 percent) for summer and range from 16.82 percent for the winter of 2015/2016 to 16.86 percent for the winter of 2024/2025 (target 16.75 percent).

We conclude that power from the proposed project would help meet a need for power in the NWPP region in both the short and long term. The project would provide power that will displace generation from non-renewable resources. Displacing the operation of non-renewable facilities may avoid some power plant emissions, thus creating an environmental benefit.

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

A license for the proposed project is subject to numerous requirements under the FPA and other applicable statues. Below we discuss the status of complying with the statutes.

1.3.1 Federal Power Act

1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions

Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission is to require construction, operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce or the Interior.

Interior, by letter filed on October 10, 2014, requests that a reservation of authority to prescribe fishways under section 18 be included in any license issued for the project.

1.3.1.2 Section 4(e) Federal Land Management Conditions

Section 4(e) of the FPA provides that any license issued by the Commission for a project within a federal reservation shall be subject to and contain such conditions as the Secretary of the responsible federal land may prescribe. The project would occupy federal land managed by Forest Service and Reclamation. Forest Service and Reclamation filed preliminary conditions pursuant to section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act by letters dated October 8, 2014 (Appendix B) and October 10, 2014 (Appendix C), respectively. All of the conditions are included in Baker County’s Offer of Settlement (Settlement) filed on October 10, 2014. The Settlement amended Baker County’s proposed measures in its license application. Therefore, these measures are described in section 2.2.4 – Proposed Environmental Measures.

1.3.1.3 Section 10(j) Recommendations

Under section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. The Commission is required to include these conditions unless it determines that they are inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an agency recommendation, the Commission is required to attempt to resolve any such inconsistency with the agency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency.

On October 9, and October 10, 2015, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Oregon DFW) and Interior, respectively, timely filed recommendations under section 10(j), as summarized in Table 11, in section 5.3.1, Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations. In section 5.3, we also discuss how we address the agency recommendation and comply with section 10(j).

1.3.2 Clean Water Act

Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a license applicant must obtain certification from the appropriate state pollution control agency verifying compliance with the CWA. On May 28, 2013, Baker County applied to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon DEQ) for 401 water quality certification (WQC) for the Mason Dam Project. Oregon DEQ received this request on May 28, 2013. Oregon DEQ timely issued the section 401 WQC on May 6, 2014.12 The conditions of the certification

12 Water Resources section 401 water quality certification for the Mason Dam Project was filed by Baker County on July 7, 2015.

are included in Baker County’s Settlement filed on October 10, 2014. The Settlement amended Baker County’s proposed measures in its license application. Therefore, we describe these measures under section 2.2.4 – Proposed Environmental Measures.

1.3.3 Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species.

One federally-listed aquatic species, bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), is known to occur in the Mason Dam Project vicinity. Critical habitat for bull trout is also present upstream of the project. Our analysis of potential project effects on bull trout is presented in section 3.3.3, Fisheries Resources, and section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species, and our recommendations are in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. We conclude that licensing of the Mason Dam Project, as provided for in the staff alternative or the staff alternative with mandatory conditions, is not likely to adversely affect bull trout because bull trout entrainment is unlikely and any potential effects of the project would be insignificant. We will seek concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on our conclusion regarding bull trout.

We also conclude that licensing the Mason Dam Project, as provided for in the staff alternative, would have no effect on the biennial plant Howell's spectacular thelypody (Theylpodium howelli spp. spectabilis), which is federally listed as threatened. As discussed in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species, habitat for this species is not found in the project area or areas disturbed by construction and maintenance of the project. Therefore, no further consultation is required under the ESA for this species.

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act

Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. § 1456(3)(A), the Commission cannot issue a license for a project within or affecting a state's coastal zone unless the state CZMA agency concurs with the license applicant's certification of consistency with the state's CZMA program, or the agency's concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of its receipt of the applicant's certification.

As described by Oregon’s Coastal Management Program, Oregon’s federally approved Coastal Zone encompasses almost all watersheds that drain to the Pacific Ocean. It extends from the Washington border on the north to the California border on the south, seaward to the extent of state jurisdiction as recognized by federal law (the

Territorial Sea, which extends three nautical miles offshore), and inland to the crest of the coastal mountain range except to the downstream end of Puget Island on the Columbia River, to Scottsburg on the Umpqua River, and to Agness on the Rogue River.13

The Mason Dam Project and Baker County, Oregon are located east of the crest of the coastal mountain range, and are well outside of Oregon’s federally approved Coastal Zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect Oregon’s federally approved Coastal Zone.14

1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires that every federal agency "take into account" how each of its undertakings could affect historic properties. Historic properties are districts, sites, buildings, structures, traditional cultural properties, and objects significant in American history, architecture, engineering, and culture that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register).15

No historic properties were located within the project’s area of potential effects (APE) and as a result, the proposed project would have no effect on such properties. The Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was consulted and concurred with the finding that no historic properties would be affected by the proposed project. Commission staff also concurs with this finding, and as a result, the section 106 process has been completed for this undertaking. In the case of any future historic property being inadvertently discovered by project construction, or ongoing operation and maintenance activities, the Commission would require Baker County to consult with the Oregon SHPO, Forest Service, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) to resolve any potential adverse effect to such properties through the development and implementation of a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP).

13 Retrieve from http://www.oregon.gov/lcd/ocmp/pages/cstzone_intro.aspx; on June 22, 2015. 14 Subsequent to the issuance of this EA, Commission staff will issue a letter to the Oregon Coastal Management Program, Department of Land Conservation and Development seeking its concurrent with this finding. 15 In the case that human remains are discovered on federal lands, and that such remains are native and not associated with a crime, the Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1992 (NAGPRA) would be implemented by the federal land manager where the remains were located. With this proposed project, the Forest Service would have jurisdiction under NAGPRA and would secure the remains and contact the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation who would be the likely descendants.

Commission staff would make Baker County carry-out such contingencies through a license article for any original license for this project.

1.3.6 Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act

Under section 4 (h) of the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (Council) developed the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (Program) to protect, mitigate, and enhance the operation of the hydroelectric projects within the Columbia River Basin. Section 4(h) states that responsible federal and state agencies should provide equitable treatment for fish and wildlife resources, in addition to other purposes for which hydropower is developed, and that these agencies shall take into account, to the fullest extent practicable, the program adopted under the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act.

The program directs agencies to consult with federal and state fish and wildlife agencies, appropriate Indian tribes, and the Council during the study, design, construction, and operation of any hydroelectric development in the basin. At the time the application was filed, our regulations required the applicant to consult with the appropriate federal and state fish and wildlife agencies and tribes before filing, and after filing, to provide these groups with opportunities to review and comment on the application. Baker County has followed this consultation process, and the relevant federal and state fish and wildlife agencies and tribes have reviewed and commented on the application.

To mitigate harm to fish and wildlife resources, the Council has adopted specific provisions to be considered in the licensing or relicensing of non-federal hydropower projects (Appendix B of the Program). The specific provisions that apply to the proposed project call for: (1) specific plans for fish facilities prior to construction; (2) assurance that the project will not degrade fish habitat or reduce numbers of fish; (3) assurance all fish protection measures are fully operational at the time the project begins operation; (4) timing construction activities, insofar as practical, to reduce adverse effects on wintering grounds; and (5) replacing vegetation if natural vegetation is disturbed.

The recommendations of the staff alternative discussed in this EA (section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative) are consistent with the applicable provisions of the program, listed above. Further, a condition of any license issued would reserve to the Commission the authority to require future alterations in project structures and operations to take into account, to the fullest extent practicable, the applicable provisions of the program.

As part of the Program, the Council has designated over 40,000 miles of river in the Pacific Northwest region as not being suitable for hydroelectric development

("protected area"). The proposed project is not located within a designated protected area.

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

The Commission’s regulations, 18 C.F.R., sections 5.1 – 5.16, require that applicants consult with appropriate resource agencies and other entities before filing an application for a license. This consultation is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, ESA, NHPA, and other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation must be complete and documented according to the Commission’s regulations.

1.4.1 Scoping

Before preparing this EA, we conducted scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be addressed. A scoping document (SD1) was distributed to interested agencies and others on June 26, 2006. It was noticed in the Federal Register on July 13, 2006. Two scoping meetings, both advertised in a local newspaper published in Baker County, were held on October 27, 2000, in Baker City, Oregon, to request oral comments on the project. A court reporter recorded all comments and statements made at the scoping meetings, and these are part of the Commission’s public record for the project. In addition to comments provided at the scoping meetings, the following entities provided written comments:

Commenting Entities Date Filed

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation August 25, 2006 U.S. Forest Service August 25, 2006 The State of Oregon Hydroelectric Application Review Team August 25, 2006 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 28, 2006

A letter in lieu of Scoping Document (SD2), which addressed these comments and identified modifications to SD1 and the scope of our analysis, was issued on October 6, 2006.

1.4.2 Interventions

On August 11, 2014, the Commission issued a notice that Baker County had filed an application for an original license for the Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project. This notice set October 10, 2014, as the deadline for filing protests, and motions to intervene. In response to the notice, the following entities filed for intervenor status:

Intervenor Date Filed

U.S. Forest Service August 26, 2014 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife August 28, 2014 Oregon Water Resources Department September 2, 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior October 9, 2014

None of the interventions filed were in opposition to the proposed project.

1.4.3 Comments on the Application

The August 11, 2014 notice of Baker County’s application for an original license also set October 10, 2014, as the deadline for filing conditions, recommendations, and comments on the application. In response to the notice, the following entities filed comments:

Commenting Entity Date Filed

U.S. Forest Service October 8, 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 9, 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior October 10, 2014 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife October 10, 2014 Oregon Department of Water Resources September 2, 2014

No reply comments were filed.

1.4.4 Offer of Settlement

On October 10, 2014, Baker County amended its license application with the filing of an Offer of Settlement for the Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project.16 On October 21, 2014, the Commission issued a notice that Baker County had filed the Settlement. That notice set November 20, 2014, as the deadline for filing comments, and December 5, 2014, as the deadline to file reply comments. In response to the notice, the following entities filed comments:

16 The parties to the Settlement are Baker County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Water Resources, and the U.S. Forest Service.

Commenting Entity Date Filed

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife November 7, 2014 Oregon Department of Water Resources November 12, 2014

No reply comments were filed.

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, the Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project would not be constructed and would not generate an estimated average annual generation of 7,510 MWh. Under this alternative, environmental resources in the project area would not be affected, and none of the mitigation or enhancement measures that were proposed as part of the license application would be implemented.

2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL

2.2.1 Project Facilities

The proposed project would be located on the Powder River at Reclamation’s existing 173-foot-tall, 895-foot-long rolled-earth and rockfill Mason Dam. Mason Dam impounds the 2,235-surface-acre Phillips Reservoir, also known as Phillips Lake. The reservoir outlet works at Mason Dam have a maximum discharge capacity of 875-cubic feet per second (cfs). Water is withdrawn from the reservoir through an intake located approximately 48 feet below the reservoir surface at a normal water surface elevation of 4,070.5 feet mean sea level.17 The intake structure is attached to a 325-foot-long concrete lined vertical intake tunnel. The intake tunnel terminates at the centerline of the dam where it connects to a 350-foot-long, 56-inch-diameter discharge conduit. The discharge conduit splits into two branches, each fitted with a 35-inch-high pressure slide gate. The gates are mounted in a downward sloping conduit and water is discharged into the dam’s outlet works and stilling basin. Mason Dam is also equipped with an ungated spillway with a crest elevation of 4,070.5 feet and a concrete channel on down the left abutment ending in a pool/stilling basin near the outlet works discharge.

The project would use Reclamation’s existing reservoir outlet works and would require modification of its discharge conduit with a bifurcation to new 105-foot-long, 72- inch-diameter penstock. The penstock would deliver flows to a new 40-foot by 28-foot powerhouse that would house a single 3.4 MW horizontal shaft Francis Turbine/generator

17 Unless otherwise indicated, all elevations are referenced to mean sea level.

unit. The proposed project would require the modification of the existing stilling basin to incorporate the project’s tailrace, and the construction of a new 0.8-mile-long, 12.47-kV overhead transmission line and a new substation and appurtenant facilities (Figure 2). Construction is anticipated to occur from October to May.

The proposed project boundary would be limited to the footprint of the bifurcation, penstock, powerhouse, tailrace, transmission line, and the substation necessary to interconnect to the existing Idaho Power 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. All land included within the proposed project boundary is owned by the United States, and is administered by Reclamation or the Forest Service.

2.2.2 Project Safety

As part of the licensing process, the Commission would review the adequacy of the proposed project facilities. Special articles would be included in any license issued, as appropriate. Commission staff would inspect the licensed project both during and after construction. Inspection during construction would concentrate on adherence to Commission–approved plans and specifications, special license articles relating to construction, and accepted engineering practices and procedures. Operational inspections would focus on continued safety of the structures, identification of unauthorized modifications, efficiency and safety of operations, compliance with the terms of the license, and proper maintenance.

2.2.3 Project Operation

Mason Dam was built on the Powder River by Reclamation to provide for irrigation, water delivery, and flood control. Baker Valley provides the day-to-day operation and maintenance of Mason Dam and controls the flow releases from Phillips Reservoir at Mason Dam to the Powder River under an agreement with Reclamation. The proposed hydroelectric project would be operated in a run-of-release mode using flows made available by Reclamation and/or Baker Valley, with no proposed change to Reclamations’ facility operation and flow regime of the Powder River. Under current conditions, all flow releases up to 875 cfs are made through the dam’s existing outlet works. Releases in excess of 875 cfs would pass over the dam’s emergency spillway; however, use of the spillway is avoided and as of April 30, 2013, the spillway has never been utilized.

Figure 2. Location of proposed and existing project features for the mason Dam Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12686 Oregon (Source: Baker County, as modified by staff). Note: Dimensions of project features are approximate.

Typical irrigation flow releases begin around April 15 and last until September 30. During the irrigation season, flow releases generally remain between 100 and 200 cfs but may be as high as 350 cfs. During the non-irrigation season and between October and January, Baker Valley releases about 10 cfs to provide for aquatic habitat in the Powder River; in February and March flow releases are increased to about 20 to 50 cfs to increase the flood storage capacity within Phillips Reservoir.

To facilitate the seamless transfer of water between the project and Reclamation’s existing outlet works, Baker County proposes to install a steel bifurcation immediately upstream of where Reclamation’s existing discharge conduit splits into two branches. Baker Valley, in conjunction with Reclamation would continue to set flow releases through Mason Dam on a daily basis and according to the practice currently employed for the dam. The Mason Dam Project would operate in a run-of-release mode and utilize the established flows for power generations.

The project would have a minimum and maximum hydraulic capacity of 120- and 300 cfs, respectively, and all flow release requirements would be specified by Reclamation and/or Baker Valley. When flow releases fall below 120 cfs, the project would not operate and all flow releases would be made through Reclamation’s existing outlet works. At flows between 120 and 300 cfs, Reclamation’s existing outlet works would be closed and the flow would be released through the project turbine. If required flow releases exceed the turbine capacity of 300 cfs, the additional releases would be made through Reclamation’s existing outlet works, up to a combined total release of 875 cfs through the project powerhouse and Reclamation’s outlet works. Releases in excess of 875 cfs would be made through the emergency spillway.

Baker County proposes to install a synchronous bypass at the project. If the powerhouse unexpectedly goes offline, the existing slide gates on Reclamation’s outlet works would automatically open to bypass flows away from the turbine until the powerhouse is brought back online.

2.2.4 Proposed Environmental Measures

The following list of environmental measures is proposed by Baker County in its license application, as amended by the Settlement filed on October 10, 2014. The Settlement included the mandatory conditions of Oregon DEQ’s 401 water quality certification, all of Forest Service’s and Interior’s 4(e) conditions.

2.2.4.1 Geology and Soils

• Implement the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan filed December 5, 2013, to decrease erosion and sedimentation during construction and operation

of the project, including turbidity monitoring during construction and with the following revisions specified in the Offer of Settlement:

o Monitor disturbed sites for three years of operation, post construction;

o Consult with the Forest Service to identify and implement remedial measures if revegetation of disturbed sites have not met specific performance measures;

o Restrict in water work downstream of mason dam to July 1 through October 31;

o Notify the Forest Service 90 days before commencing any project related land clearing activities; and

o File an annual report with the Forest Service on all mitigation actions.

2.2.4.2 Aquatic Resources

2.2.4.2.1 Water Quantity

• Operate the project in a run-of-release mode and only generate power from existing water releases for flood control and irrigation as provided by Reclamation and/or Baker Valley Irrigation District (Baker Valley).

• Implement the Bypass Flow Plan to ensure the maintenance of downstream flow during project construction, operation, and scheduled and unscheduled turbine outages.

2.2.4.2.2 Water Quality

• Implement the DO Compliance Plan filed December 5, 2013, to monitor and regulate dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the Powder River downstream of Mason Dam, including use of a turbine aeration system, releases from the existing outlet works, and aerating rock weirs (if needed), to ensure that DO levels in the Powder River meet state water quality standards and with the following revisions specified in the Offer of Settlement:

o Consult with Oregon DEQ to establish applicable DO and TDG criteria, monitoring methodology and reporting procedures and procedures for shutting down the project during DO or TDG violations.

o Measure TDG for a minimum of 72 hours under minimum flow and maximum flow conditions.

• Implement the Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan filed December 5, 2013, to prevent the spill or release of hazardous substances to the Powder River.

2.2.4.2.3 Fisheries Resources

• Replace an undersized, perched culvert on Silver Creek with a 12-foot-wide open-bottom arch culvert to improve upstream fish passage, especially for bull trout.

• Modify a box culvert on McCully Fork to provide a suitable gradient and flow velocities for upstream fish passage, especially for redband trout.

• Monitor and maintain the culvert enhancement sites to ensure proper function throughout any FERC-issued license term.

• Contribute $1,000 per year to a Phillips Reservoir stocking supplementation fund to mitigate for the entrainment and potential turbine mortality of rainbow trout.

• Screen the Shaw-Stewart irrigation diversion located on the Powder River, eleven miles downstream of Mason Dam, to partially mitigate for the entrainment of redband trout through the project and establish a $90,000 Powder River diversion screening fund and mitigate for the remaining portion of redband trout that may be entrained through the project.

• Take immediate and appropriate actions in the event of a project-related emergency which threatens or harms fish or wildlife to prevent further loss, notify appropriate agencies within 24 hours of the event, and notify the Commission within 10 days of the event.

2.2.4.3 Terrestrial Resources

2.2.4.3.1 Botanical Resources

• Implement the Revegetation/Noxious Weed Management Plan filed April 2013, which includes reseeding areas disturbed by construction with seed mixes beneficial to wildlife, clean project equipment to prevent spread of

noxious weed species, and use of an adaptive management approach to weed control and with the following revisions to the plan specified in the Offer of Settlement:

o Monitor the success of the revegetation and control of invasive plant species for a period of 3 years after completion of construction and implementation of corrective action if revegetation goals are not met.

o Incorporate noxious weed control measures found in the invasive plant management direction for the Pacific Northwest Region and/or Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

o Report all mitigation activities and implementation and monitoring of these measures in an annual report.

o Provisions to ensure that no invasive species eggs, larvae, seeds or spores are brought onto site during construction.

o Ensure that all newly disturbed land areas are revegetated with plant species indigenous to the area within 6 months of completion of project construction.

2.2.4.3.2 Wildlife Resources

• Develop a wildlife mitigation plan that includes the following provisions:

o Design transmission line poles in accordance with industry guidelines to minimize avian electrocutions.

o Provide onsite in-kind habitat replacement to mitigate the loss of up to 2 acres of grassland and forest habitats.

o Avoid all construction, operation, and maintenance activities within ¼ mile (1 mile for the use of explosives) of an active bald eagle nest site between January 1 and August 31 and time transmission line construction outside the bald eagle nesting season.

o Report all mitigation activities and implementation and monitoring of these measures in an annual report.

2.2.4.4 Recreation and Land Use

• Install an interpretation kiosk within the Powder River Recreation Area to inform the public of project construction information that may affect recreation access to the site.

• Develop a transportation management plan to minimize the impacts of project construction on visitor recreation and timber hauling use of Black Mountain Road (USDA Forest Service Road #1145) and recreation access to the Powder River Recreation Area.

2.2.4.5 Aesthetic Resources

• Use appropriate colors for the proposed powerhouse to blend in with the surrounding area and minimize the effects on aesthetics.

2.2.4.6 Cultural Resources

• Consult with the Oregon SHPO, Forest Service, and CTUIR to address any potential effects on a discovered cultural resource during construction of the project.

2.2.5 Modification to Applicant’s Proposal – Mandatory Conditions

Each of the Forest Service’s and Interior’s section 4(e) Land Management Conditions and the 401 WQC conditions filed by Oregon DEQ are included in the provisions of the Settlement; and therefore, they have been incorporated into Baker County’s proposal. As a result, Baker County’s proposal is not modified by these mandatory conditions.

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE

Under the staff alternative, the project would include Baker County’s proposed measures, except for the following:

• Replace an undersized, perched culvert on Silver Creek with a 12-foot-wide open- bottom arch culvert to improve upstream fish passage, especially for bull trout.

• Modify a box culvert on McCully Fork to provide a suitable gradient and flow velocities for upstream fish passage, especially for redband trout.

• Monitor and maintain the culvert enhancement sites to ensure proper function throughout any FERC-issued license term.

• Contribute $1,000 per year to a Phillips Reservoir stocking supplementation fund to mitigate for the entrainment and potential turbine mortality of rainbow trout.

The staff alternative would modify two of Baker County’s proposed measures. Staff-recommended modifications to the measures are indicated in bold and italics:

• Take immediate and appropriate actions in the event of a project-related emergency which threatens or harms fish or wildlife to prevent further loss, and Notify the Commission and other agencies as appropriate, within 24 hours of an emergency event which threatens or harms fish or wildlife, and file, with the Commission, a detailed report of the incident within 10 days of the notification.

• Consult with the Oregon SHPO, Forest Service, and CTUIR to address any potential effects on a discovered cultural resource during construction of the project and develop and implement a HPMP to resolve any project-related adverse effect to the discovered cultural resource if it is determined to be eligible for inclusion to the National Register.

The staff alternative would also include the following additional measures:

• Plant and maintain native vegetative screening (approximately 50 to 75 linear feet) between Mason Dam Picnic Area and the powerhouse to protect aesthetic resources.

2.4 STAFF ALTERNATIVE WITH MANDATORY CONDITIONS

We recognize that the Commission is required to include valid Forest Service and Interior section 4(e) conditions and Oregon DEQ 401 WQC conditions in any license issued for the project. The staff alternative with mandatory conditions includes the measures under the staff alternative with the addition of the proposed measures not included in the staff alternative, as outlined above, all of which are also mandatory conditions. As discussed in section 5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff, while the

specified conditions would benefit fisheries resources, the measures would not mitigate for effects of the project; and therefore, are not included in the staff alternative.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN

The project would be located at Reclamation’s Mason Dam on the Powder River at RM 131, in Baker County, Oregon. Phillips Reservoir and Mason Dam are Reclamation facilities used for flood control and irrigation water storage and release.

The Powder River is a tributary of the Snake River in northeastern Oregon. The Powder River watershed is bordered by the Blue Mountains to the west, the Wallowa Mountains to the northeast, the Malheur River basin to the south, and the Snake River canyon to the east (Figure 3). The Powder River flows predominantly east, the headwaters start at an elevation of about 9,600 feet in the Elkhorn Mountains to about 2,000 feet at Brownlee Dam on the Snake River.18 The Powder River basin encompasses approximately 1,077 square miles, of which approximately 168 square miles occurs upstream of Mason Dam. Annual discharge from the basin averages 74,385 acre-feet.

The climate of the Project area is typical of the semiarid western intermountain area and characterized by warm sunny days and cool nights with light and variable precipitation through the summer months. Average temperatures in the Mason Dam area range from a high of about 82 degrees Fahrenheit (˚F) in August to low of about 13˚F in January. The average annual precipitation in the project area is about 17 inches and the average annual snowfall is 38 inches.

The U.S. Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, manages most of the land surrounding Mason Dam and Phillips Reservoir and all project facilities would be located on federal lands. The Forest Service maintains a recreation area 1 mile below the dam but there are no Forest Service developments within the proposed project boundary. The area around the project is mostly undeveloped and is used mainly for fish and wildlife habitat and dispersed recreation activities.

18 Brownlee Dam is a development of the Hells Canyon Complex Project FERC No. 1971.

Figure 3. Powder River Watershed (Source: Baker County, as modified by staff).

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 C.F.R., section 1508.7), cumulative effect is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities.

Through scoping, agency consultation, and Commission staff’s independent analysis we have identified bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) as having potential to be cumulatively affected by the project in combination with other past, present, and future activities. The bald eagle was selected because habitat loss, human disturbance, and effects on prey species have affected eagle nesting and foraging in the Powder River Basin. Redband and bull trout were selected because irrigation diversions, fish passage barriers, and historical impacts of mining have affected trout populations by

altering flows, habitat availability, and water quality in the vicinity of the proposed project.

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES

In this section, we discuss the effects of the project alternatives on environmental resources. For each resource, we first describe the affected environment, which is the existing condition and baseline against which we measure effects. We then discuss and analyze the site-specific environmental issues.

Only the resources that would be affected are addressed in this EA. Based on this, we have determined that geology and soils, aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, recreation and land use resources, aesthetic resources, and cultural resources may be affected by the proposed action and action alternatives. We present our recommendations in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative.

3.3.1 Geology and Soils

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment

Mason Dam is located at the southeastern end of the Sumpter Valley. The Powder River flows east out of the Sumpter Valley and the surrounding Greenhorn Mountains and then turns north toward Baker City where it is bordered by the Walla Walla Mountain range to the northeast. Both the Walla Walla and Greenhorn Mountains are within the Blue Mountain physiographic province. The Blue Mountains are composed of primarily Paleozoic volcanic rocks, with minor sedimentary, metamorphic and granitic rocks.

Construction of the powerhouse and penstock would occur near the base of the Mason Dam in an area already disturbed by dam construction and next to the dam’s concrete-lined stilling basin. The base of the dam is covered with 3 foot thick selected rock blanket. Bedrock in the powerhouse construction area is a greenish-gray fine grained, very hard fresh intrusive andesite that has metamorphosed.

Construction of the 0.8- mile-long transmission line would occur mostly adjacent to an existing access road (to Black Mountain Road) and along an existing Idaho transmission line right of way. Soils in the area of the transmission line are classified as a Marack-Badland complex.

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects

Construction activities, such as excavation of soil, use of roads and parking areas, and stockpiling of top soil and spoil materials, could potentially cause sediment runoff into the river.

Some minor erosion and sedimentation might occur to the 3-foot thick selected rock blanket at the base of the dam during construction of the penstock and powerhouse. Within the project boundary, construction of the penstock, powerhouse and tailrace would disturb an area of 0.042 acres near the base of the dam. Baker County would use cofferdams around the powerhouse area to isolate the area and keep it dry during construction. Minor erosion and sedimentation would occur during the construction of a new rip-rap armored streambank extending downstream approximately 140 feet from the powerhouse. In addition, about 0.36 acres of vegetation could be temporarily disturbed by construction of a staging area next to the powerhouse, burial of the penstock behind the powerhouse, burial of the transmission line connecting the project to the existing right-of-way, and utilize the existing Reclamation-maintained parking area as a second construction staging area.

A small portion of the lands within the project’s transmission line right-of-way would be disturbed because the transmission line would be built along an existing road and most of the disturbance would involve the placing of new transmission line poles. Maintenance and any clearing of the right of way would be done with chain saws.

Baker County proposes to implement its Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation at the construction site. Baker County’s Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan as modified by agency recommendations is consistent with Oregon DEQ WQC 10, Reclamation section 4(e) condition 3 and Forest Service section 4(e) condition 5. Measures specified in the plan include: limiting vehicle traffic to approved construction areas; using displaced soils as backfill; placing silt fences or fiber rolls between construction areas and adjacent wetlands, and reseeding disturbed areas with native and desirable non-native seed mixes to benefit wildlife and prevent erosion (revegetation measures are discussed in more detail in section 3.3.4, Terrestrial Resources). Our Analysis The long-term erosion rates of the Powder River streambanks below the dam would not change due to project discharges, because flow rates and the discharge location would remain the same as for existing conditions and the powerhouse discharge would be to an existing concrete lined stilling basin. The new armored streambank protected by rip rap would further ensure that no new erosion would be caused by the project’s discharges.

The County’s Erosion Sediment Control Plan, together with other measures included in Baker County’s Revegetation Management Plan, would limit or prevent erosion and sedimentation during construction. In the Settlement, Baker County proposes to revise the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to include three years of monitoring of the disturbed areas and remedial action should revegetation efforts on the disturbed areas not attain 80 percent vegetative coverage (consistent with Forest Service’s 4(e) condition 8, FWS 10(j) recommendation 4, and Oregon DFW 10(j) recommendation 4). Revising the County’s Erosion Sediment Control Plan to include three years of monitoring and remedial action would ensure the successful recovery of disturbed areas post-construction.

3.3.2 Water Resources

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment

Water Quantity

Mason Dam/Phillips Reservoir

Mason Dam impounds Phillips Reservoir on the Powder River at River mile 131. Phillips Reservoir is the largest reservoir in the Powder River Basin with a total storage capacity of 95,570 acre-feet divided into 73,750 acre-feet of irrigation storage, 17,000 acre-feet of flood control storage and 5,000 acre-feet of inactive storage. At its normal maximum elevation of 4,070.5 feet above mean sea level, Phillips Reservoir has a surface area of 2,235 acres. The project is operated by the Baker Valley Irrigation District which supplies water to 19,000 acres of irrigated farm land in the Baker Valley. Typically the reservoir stores water from October through March and releases water for irrigation supply from April through September.

During the irrigation season releases from Baker Dam to the Powder River generally remain between 100 to 200 cfs and can go up to 350 cfs. From October through January, the project releases enough water to meet a 10 cfs minimum flow at Smith Dam about 10-miles downstream of Baker Dam. This minimum release increases to an average of 20 to 50 cfs from February through March as the project releases more water than the natural inflow to gain flood control storage in anticipation of the spring snowmelt runoff. Releases then gradually increase to 100 cfs during April to early May with the beginning of the irrigation season. The reservoir will typically reach its seasonal maximum elevation of between 4,060 to 4,070 feet above mean sea level (msl) in June and drop to its lowest elevation of about 4,030-feet msl at the end of October. The date and magnitude of peak reservoir elevation, and the total drop in elevation varies from year to year depending on the amount of precipitation received.

Powder River

The drainage area of the Powder River at Mason Dam is approximately 168 square miles. Based on hydrologic data from the USGS Powder River near Sumpter gaging station, the mean flow at the project site is approximately 115 cfs. The gage is located 1,200 feet downstream of the proposed project. Snowmelt in the Powder River basin and releases for irrigation significantly influence the timing of stream flow in the Powder River with 85 percent of the flow occurring between April and August. Table 1 shows the average monthly stream flow in cfs in the Powder River below Mason Dam. The four highest flow months, May through August, coincide with the peak irrigation season.

Table 1. Average Monthly Flows Powder River below Mason Dam (Source: USGS Surface Water Data, Gage #13275300, Powder River near Sumpter Oregon 1967 to 1995). Month Average Flow (cfs) January 13 February 15 March 48 April 121 May 283 June 266 July 204 August 215 September 83 October 11 November 8 December 8

Water Quality

Historically, the Powder River has met Oregon’s water quality standards and designated beneficial uses. There are no significant point sources of pollution on the Powder River upstream or downstream of the project until Baker City which is 17 miles downstream. Impacts to Powder River water quality are primarily from non-point sources such as logging, mining, (dredge tailings) and grazing. The closest routinely monitored water quality site is in Baker City. The Oregon DEQ uses the Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI) to assess a river’s overall water quality, assigning scores ranging from 10 (worst case) to 100 (ideal). The Powder River at Baker City exhibits good water quality throughout the year with an OWQI of 89 in the summer and 85 in the fall through spring (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2009).

The water quality parameters most often impacted by hydropower projects are dissolved oxygen and temperature. According to the Oregon DEQ, the waters of the Powder River one mile downstream of the reservoir are designated as “Cold Water” for the purpose of applying Oregon’s water quality criteria for DO. Oregon DEQ designates the Powder River downstream of Mason Dam as suitable for use by redband and Lahontan Cutthroat trout. This designation requires a DO concentration of 11 milligrams per Liter (mg/L) or 95 percent saturation during the January 1st through May 15th spawning season to meet water quality standards. Table 2 shows the complete water quality standards for dissolved oxygen applicable to the Powder River in the one mile cold water reach below Mason Dam.19

Table 2. Oregon Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Oxygen (Source Oregon Administrative Rule 340-041-0260).

Class 30-day 7-day 7-day mean Minimum minimum

Salmonid 11.0 mg/L or Spawning 95% saturation

Cold Water 8.0 mg/L 6.5 mg/L 6.0 mg/L

Phillips Reservoir

Baker County measured temperature and dissolved oxygen in Phillips Reservoir from May 11 through October 12, 2007 at the dam’s intake to characterize the physical properties of the water that is drawn through the dam and released to the Powder River. Temperature measurements showed that Phillips Reservoir had begun to stratify by May 11 when monitoring began and distinct thermal stratification developed by July. Figure 4 shows the distinct development of the thermocline in July and August. Water temperature next to the intake is in the range of 12º to 15º C in July and 15º to 20º C in August. By August, the lake level has fallen due to irrigation demands and the intake is withdrawing water from the warmer transition zone instead of the cooler hypolimnion. Around October the reservoir de-stratified as a result of fall turnover. The epiliminion reached a maximum temperature of about 23º C in July while the deeper hypolimnion remained at or below15º C throughout the monitoring period.20

19 Water temperature must be below 20º C at all times to meet Oregon’s water temperature criteria for cold water streams. 20 The dense, bottom layer of water in a thermally stratified body of water is (continued ...)

DO levels in the hypolimnion of Philips Reservoir falls below 3 mg/L by mid- summer. Figure 5 below shows DO levels in the water column in front of the intake ranging between1 and 3 mg/L on July 24 and July 27, 2007. DO at the intake remains low until the lake turns over in the fall. By October the DO was generally around 7.5 mg/L throughout the water column.

known as the hypolimnion. The upper layer is known as the epilimnion. Separating the two layers is the thermocline, which is also known as the metaliminion. The hypolimnion is usually the coldest layer in the waterbody during the summer months

Figure 4. Water Temperature versus Depth in Phillips Reservoir July and August 2007. (Source: Baker County, as modified by staff)

Figure 5. Phillips Reservoir Mid-July Dissolved Oxygen Profile (Source: Baker County, as modified by staff).

Powder River below Mason Dam

Baker County recorded temperature and DO measurements below Mason Dam from May11 through October 12, 2007 at four stations. Station 4 is in the stilling basin right below the dam; station 3 is 1.2 miles below the dam; station 2 is 1.7 miles downstream and station1 is 2.8 miles downstream from the dam.

Figure 6. Water Temperature in the Powder River below Mason Dam (Source: Baker County, as modified by staff).

Results of water temperature monitoring are shown in Figure 6 above. Water temperatures in this reach of the Powder River peaked around 19º C at all four stations in late August thereby staying below the maximum 20º C temperature criteria. Starting in September water temperature decreases 2 to 3º C with the increasing distance from the dam.

Despite low DO concentrations in the reservoir at the intake during the summer, DO in the Powder River a short distance downstream for the outlet recovers to the point where the DO standard of 8.0 mg/l is generally met. DO in the 2.8 mile reach below Mason Dam ranged between 7.0 and 11.0 mg/L in the 2007 sampling period. DO fell to a low in June and then gradually increased from July to October (Figure 7). With the exception of early June, there is very little difference in dissolved oxygen concentrations between stations. In early June, when irrigation releases are large, DO concentration increases with distance away from the dam as a result of reaeration caused turbulent flow.

Figure 7. Existing DO Concentration in the Powder River downstream of Mason Dam (Source: Baker County, as modified by staff).

Baker County did not collect DO data that would sufficiently characterize conditions in the January1 through May 15 spawning period. However as figure 7 indicates on May11, 2007 dissolved oxygen concentration varied between 11 mg/L near the dam to over 14 mg/L at the furthermost downstream station, 2.8 miles downstream from the dam.

Plunging and turbulent discharges from releases at dams can cause high levels of total dissolved gases (TDG) in the water column. High levels of TDG can cause gas bubble trauma in fish. Baker County did not measure total dissolved gas in the Powder River below Mason Dam. During existing project operations water is released from the high pressure gate valves at relatively high flows of up to 200 to 300 cfs. The resulting turbulent conditions contribute to raising the level of TDG. TDG must be less than 110- percent saturation to meet Oregon’s water quality standards.

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects

Water Quantity

Baker County proposes and Oregon DEQ (WQC condition 1) and Reclamation (4(e) condition 6) would require that the proposed project operate in run-of- release mode by generating power from existing water releases for flood control and irrigation.

Our Analysis Because the proposed project would not alter water volumes currently used for irrigation or flood control purposes, it would have no effect on the storage capacity or water levels of Phillips Reservoir or on the amount and timing of water released from the reservoir into the Powder River. Water surface elevations in Phillips Reservoir would continue their seasonal fluctuations, rising in the winter and early spring and falling in the

summer. Also, by maintaining the existing storage and release operations, the flow regime in the Powder River and the delivery of water to Baker Valley or other downstream users would not change.

The project would generate power from a Kaplan turbine using releases between 120 and 300 cfs. When flow releases are less than 120 cfs, the project would not operate and all flows would bypass the powerhouse and discharge through Reclamation’s existing outlet works through high pressure gate valves. Any releases over 300 cfs, which exceeds the turbines’ capacity, would also discharge through Reclamation’s existing outlet works. Based on historical flow data the proposed project would operate primarily from April through September. During the late fall, winter, and early spring, generation would be unlikely.

Baker County filed a Bypass Flow Plan to ensure the maintenance of downstream flow during construction and operation of the project. Mason Dam has two outlet pipes, a main 56-inch-diameter pipe for normal irrigation releases, and a smaller 12-inch- diameter pipe for low flow releases during the non-irrigation season. Construction of the power house would occur between October and December with flow from the reservoir released using the existing 12-inch-diameter low flow pipe. Mason County would extend the outlet of the pipe to release flows into the Powder River downstream of the construction area and maintain flow in the river during the time needed for instream construction.

Normally the project releases water for irrigation and other high flow releases through the 56-inch main pipe to two 33-inch-high pressure gate valves. During proposed hydroelectric operations, when flows are less than the capacity of the turbine, these high pressure gate valves would close forcing all flow to the turbine. In case of turbine shut down or if the system goes off line, a high pressure unit would automatically open the existing high pressure gate valves restoring flow downstream of the project. In conclusion, proposed project operations would ensure that there are no changes to flow in the Powder River during project operations and implementation of the applicant’s Bypass Flow Plan would maintain stream flow during project construction and project shutdown.

Water Quality

Passing water through a turbine instead of through the existing high pressure gate valves has the potential to decrease DO concentrations by reducing the degree of aeration that occurs when the water that is discharged below the dam through a turbine. To compensate for the lower rate of aeration, Baker County proposes to implement its DO Compliance Plan to ensure that discharges meet the DO standards of 11.0 mg/L or 95 percent of saturation from January 1st through May 15th and 8.0 mg/L or 90 percent saturation from May 16th through December 31st.

The DO Compliance Plan would monitor DO one mile downstream of the dam and, if needed, take additional steps to increase the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water released from the project. The plan includes three successive steps designed to increase DO levels. If DO standards are not met, the first corrective step would be to aspirate air into the turbine’s draft tube through an air inlet and diffusers fitted to the turbine draft tube. If DO levels still do not meet the standard, then Baker County would inject air into the draft tubes using a blower. If use of a blower does not raise DO to meet the standard, then Baker County would reduce the amount of flow through the turbine and redirect flow through the high pressure gate valves until either the DO standard is met or until all the flow passes through the high pressure gate valves. Passing water through the high pressure gate valves is expected to increase the DO concentration by the process of turbulent reaeration.

Monitoring and testing the efficacy of Baker County’s DO Compliance plan would occur after the project is constructed. If the first three steps do not result in adequate DO levels, Baker County proposes to construct up to three two-foot-high rock reaeration weirs across the Powder River that would create an artificial rapids over which flow would cascade thereby increasing DO. The rock reaeration weirs would only be constructed if the other measures were unsuccessful in meeting DO criteria.

The construction and subsequent operation of the project has the potential for the accidental spill of lubricants, petroleum or other hazardous substances to the Powder River. Baker County filed a Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan to prevent accidental introductions of contaminants to project waters. The goals of the plan are to: (1) transport, store, handle, and dispose of oil, fuels, lubricant products and hazardous liquid substances in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner; (2) institute a responsive alert procedure in the event of a spill and be prepared to rapidly respond in the containment and cleanup of a spill; and (3) plan for and cooperate with other federal, state, and local government agencies to ensure that the public health and welfare are provided adequate protection from discharge of oils and other hazardous liquid substances.

Baker County proposes and Oregon DEQ (WQC condition 2) would require that Baker County submit a water quality management and mitigation plan (WQMMP) to Oregon DEQ for approval within 90 days of issuance of a FERC license. The requirements for the WQMMP are similar to the proposed actions in Baker County’s DO Compliance Plan but also include a requirement that Baker County monitor total dissolved gases.

Our Analysis

In general, current operations of the Mason Dam project result in releases to the Powder River that meet the cold water maximum temperature standard of 20º C at all

times. Because the project would not impact the timing or volume of the releases or the depth from which water is released, we conclude that the proposed hydroelectric operations should have no impact on water temperature in either the reservoir or in the Powder River. Likewise, because project releases would come from the same depth and in the same amounts, the project would not alter DO levels in Phillips Reservoir.

However, the proposed project could change DO and TDG levels in the Powder River below the project. Under existing conditions, water is under high pressure and subject to aeration as it exits the outlet works and spills into the stilling basin. The cold water from the bottom of the reservoir, the high pressure release and the high rates of discharge combine to raise DO levels downstream so that they generally exceed the DO standard from mid-May through mid-October. There was a brief period in early June when DO levels dropped to 7.0 mg/L before consistently rising to about 9.0 mg/L in mid- October (Figure 7). Meeting the DO standard in the Powder River occurs in spite of the fact that the water originates in the hypolimnion and initially contains very low DO concentrations. DO at the intake level averaged 1.8 mg/L in July and 0.8 mg/L in August.

Although no measurements were taken after mid-October we expect DO levels in the Powder River to consistently exceed DO standard of 8.0 mg/L from October through December because by October the reservoir had experienced fall turnover and DO levels would be uniformly high throughout the water column; the water would be cold enhancing its oxygen carrying capacity, and with irrigation season over, the turbine would be out of service and the minimum releases would be made through the existing high pressure gate valves.

To protect salmonid spawning, on January 1st the DO standard increases to 11.0 mg/l and remains at that level until May 15th. For similar reasons as stated above, we expect DO levels to meet this standard the majority of the time because the water would be cold enhancing its oxygen carrying capacity; the turbine would be out of service most of the time with releases would be made through the existing high pressure gate valves. Toward the end of the salmonid spawning period water warms and its ability to hold oxygen lessens. Beginning around April or May, the reservoir has refilled, irrigation is starting and releases are high enough to operate the project’s turbine. It is during the initial startup of hydroelectric operations each spring that the failure to meet the 11.0 mg/L DO standard is most likely. DO monitoring that begins with the start of the hydroelectric operations and continues through the summer when the project would be in operation and withdrawing low DO water from the reservoir’s hypolimnion would detect any DO violations of the water quality standards.

Baker County’s proposed DO Compliance Plan would allow the effectiveness of the proposed DO aeration system and compliance with state DO standards to be evaluated and would help to guide operation of the turbine aeration system. Monitoring

data would provide feedback to project operators, allowing operators to adjust the operation of the turbine and turbine aeration system to comply with DO standards. If any deviations from state standards occur, notifying Oregon DEQ as soon as possible would enable quick consultation with Oregon DEQ to assist with developing appropriate response actions, which may include adjustments to operation or implementation of additional DO enhancement measures.

We expect that the proposed adaptive management approach in the revised DO Compliance Plan would enable compliance with water quality standards. However, should further measures such as the rock weirs be necessary, Baker County would also need to notify the Commission and file an application to amend the license if it proposes to modify project facilities.

High TDG levels are caused by entrainment of air into the water due to turbulence at the release point, with gases being forced into solution in this high pressure, high energy, turbulent environment. Under existing conditions, TDG levels downstream of the outlet structure might exceed Oregon DEQ’s standard of 110 percent saturation because the high pressure gate valves are used to release irrigation water at a high rate of flow. With the proposed project in operation flows released from the turbine would have substantially reduced energy and turbulence, reducing the potential for air entrainment and absorption. It is reasonable to expect that water released through the turbine would not exceed the State standard during periods if the turbine aeration system is not operating. TDG levels would likely increase when the turbine aeration system is operating; however, we expect that any potential exceedances of the state standard would be lower in magnitude than any exceedances that currently occur below the outlet of Reclamation’s high pressure gate valves. Either operational mode would therefore provide an enhancement to existing TDG conditions by lowering elevated TDG concentrations in the Powder River. The monitoring specified by Oregon DEQ’s WQC would test this conclusion.

Construction and operation of hydroelectric projects involve the use and storage of petroleum products and other hazardous substances. Implementation of Baker County’s proposed Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan, as specified by Oregon DEQ’s WQC condition 5, would reduce the likelihood of any accidental introductions of contaminants to project waters and provide for a rapid cleanup response in the case of any such occurrence.

3.3.3 Fisheries Resources

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment

Mason Dam is one of two dams on the Powder River which are owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and operated by local irrigation districts. Mason Dam is located at RM 131 and forms Phillips Reservoir which has a maximum operational depth of 125 feet. At full pool the water surface elevation is 4,062 feet above mean sea level, and the intake for the outlet works, as measured to the bottom sill of the intake, is at 3,975 ft msl. Highest water levels typically occur in the spring, and the reservoir is drawn down to its lowest levels in the fall. High and low pool varies from year to year depending on precipitation, but low pool is typically maintained at or above 4,035 ft msl or 60 feet above the intake. Irrigation of agricultural lands in Baker Valley generally occurs from April 15 to September 30; thus, water releases from Mason Dam typically range between 100- and 300 cfs during the irrigation season. During the winter months (October to January) about 10 cfs is released downstream of Mason Dam with 20 to 50 cfs released in February and March.

3.3.3.1.1 Aquatic Habitat

Upper Powder River

Upstream of Phillips Reservoir, the Powder River watershed has been severely altered by placer and dredge mining. Mining activities have straightened and steepened streams, resulting in loss of floodplain connectivity. Erosion of fine materials associated with mining activity has resulted in degradation of pool and spawning habitats leading to a high proportion of embedded substrate throughout the watershed. In addition to mining, irrigation diversions and culverts have also impacted fish habitat. Currently, there are more than 25 culverts and more than 22 irrigation diversions (most of which are not screened to prevent fish entrainment), on the Powder River upstream of Mason Dam and Phillips Reservoir, that likely affect fish and access to stream habitat. In 2001, the Powder River Watershed Council, in conjunction with the Forest Service, FWS, and Oregon DFW identified numerous limiting factors affecting stream habitat upstream of Mason Dam. These factors include: high water temperature, low DO, instream sedimentation, poor substrate and streambank conditions, lack of off-channel habitat, and lack of adequate pool quality and quantity.

A total of 127.7 miles of perennial fish-bearing stream habitat exists upstream of Mason Dam, although much of this habitat is water-quality or habitat limited, or not accessible to native fish. Of the perennial fish-bearing streams, 34 miles lack water quality issues, and of these 34 miles, only 16.4 miles provide high quality structural habitat. Native fish access is limited to just 10.8 miles of stream with high quality water and structural habitat.

Most streams in the upper watershed provide at least some suitable habitat for redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) and other native fishes. McCully Fork provides high quality habitat for redband trout, although an existing box culvert approximately 2 miles upstream from the confluence with Cracker Creek completely blocks upstream movement of redband trout and other native fish species. Currently, redband trout exist above and below the culvert, but migratory redband trout are not able to access the 5.6 miles of high quality habitat upstream of the culvert. Other native species including largescale and bridgelip suckers and northern pikeminnow may also utilize McCully Fork.

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and redband trout utilize habitat in the Cracker Creek drainage, especially Silver Creek. Silver Creek contains most of the suitable spawning habitat for bull trout, but habitat access in Silver Creek is limited by an undersized, perched culvert located 0.75 mile upstream from the mouth of Silver Creek. Of the 5.8 miles of bull trout spawning habitat known to occur in the Cracker Creek drainage, 5.3 miles of spawning habitat is located upstream of the Silver Creek culvert.

Silver Creek is located high in the watershed and flows into Cracker Creek. Approximately 4 miles downstream of the Silver Creek/Cracker Creek confluence, the McCully Fork joins Cracker Creek to form the Powder River in the town of Sumpter (see Figure 8 below). Dredge mining has occurred on Cracker Creek and McCully fork near the town of Sumpter and along the Powder River downstream to Phillips Reservoir. As a result, this 8-mile-long reach is highly degraded and constrained within a maze of dredge tailings. During the summer months, this reach typically lacks surface water and the reservoir becomes disconnected from upstream habitat.

Phillips Reservoir

Shoreline vegetation along Phillips Reservoir is dominated by a dry coniferous forest, mainly Ponderosa Pine. The littoral zone generally lacks aquatic vegetation, woody debris, and other complex habitat. Substrate appears to range from sand to coarse rock and some boulders along the littoral zone. As described above in Water Resources (section 3.3.2), the reservoir stratifies from early May through early October. During the winter, water quality is more uniform throughout the reservoir. During any season, temperature and DO concentration is sufficient to support cold water fish species such as redband trout and bull trout; although, some depths may be more suitable than others depending on changes in thermal and DO stratification throughout the year.

Downstream of Mason Dam

The Baker Valley Irrigation District draws all water from Phillips Reservoir through a deep intake structure and discharges it immediately below Mason Dam.

Downstream of the dam, the Powder River is heavily diverted for irrigation throughout the Baker Valley. Water in the Powder River basin is fully appropriated and water levels in the Powder River become very low in the late summer. Eleven miles downstream of Mason Dam is the Shaw-Stewart irrigation diversion. The Shaw-Stewart diversion utilizes a stanchion dam to back up water and supply an irrigation ditch with up to 12 cfs of flow. The dam has a concrete apron and a fish jump height of about 18 inches. The Oregon DFW considers the Shaw-Stewart diversion a complete barrier to fish moving upstream. Downstream of this diversion, a range of fish barriers exist at the numerous other diversions on the Powder River

Approximately 50 miles downstream of the Shaw-Stewart Diversion the Powder River flows into Thief Valley Reservoir formed by Thief Valley Dam, a 73-foot-high concrete Bureau of Reclamation dam without fish passage facilities. Downstream of Thief Valley Dam, the Powder River flows into Brownlee Reservoir on the Snake River. Brownlee Reservoir is formed by Brownlee Dam, the upper most dam within Idaho Power Company’s Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Complex. Downstream of Brownlee Dam, are the Oxbow Dam and the Hells Canyon Dam. None of these facilities provide upstream passage for fish. Hells Canyon Dam is the lowest dam within the complex and constitutes the upper extent of anadromous fish distribution in the Snake River.

Baker County evaluated aquatic habitat in an 850-foot-long reach from Mason Dam to the Bureau of Reclamation’s gaging station to determine if the area is suitable for redband trout spawning, incubation and/or rearing. Baker County observed very little gravel of suitable size for redband trout spawning and indicated that most substrate was embedded or “cemented” in place. The high energy release of water at the dam has led to armoring of the river channel, a process which commonly occurs downstream of dams where the discharge from the dam scours the channel and stream banks removing smaller sediments and leaving behind only coarse substrate and bedrock. Overall, this reach downstream of Mason Dam does not provide suitable habitat for spawning, incubation, or rearing of redband trout. However, moderately suitable habitat for juvenile and adult redband trout is present in this reach. Habitat complexity, substrate quality, and macroinvertebrate abundance improves substantially downstream of the gaging station.

Water quality in the Powder River downstream of Mason Dam may also limit aquatic resources. In 2012 the river was added to Oregon DEQ 303(d) list for low DO during the resident trout spawning period (January 1-May 15).21 Reaches of the river downstream of Mason Dam are also listed for regularly exceeding temperature criteria for rearing salmonids during the summer months. These water quality limitations are closely

21 Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop a list of impaired water bodies. This list is then used to prioritize pollution control planning so that the impaired water bodies may achieve the state’s water quality standards.

linked to agricultural land uses and low water availability which are prevalent issues throughout the Powder River basin.

3.3.3.1.2 Fish Community

Historically, the Powder River supported populations of anadromous salmon and steelhead. In 1931, the completion of Thief Valley Dam eliminated anadromous fish species from reaching the headwaters of the Powder River. Construction of Brownlee Dam on the Snake River eliminated the last of the anadromous species from the Powder River in the late 1950s. Despite the lack of these species, the Powder River Basin does support a diverse fish assemblage and an active recreational fishery for both native and introduced species.

Upstream of Mason Dam, in Phillips Reservoir, numerous game fish species are present including stocked rainbow trout, redband trout, crappie, bass, and walleye. Stocked sub-legal rainbow trout have clipped adipose fins, but legal-sized rainbow trout are stocked unmarked. All Oncorhynchus mykiss individuals without clipped adipose fins, including recently stocked unmarked rainbow trout and all wild trout are considered redband trout by Oregon DFW. All fish species known to occur in Phillips Reservoir are listed below in Table 3.

Table 3. Fish species known to occur in Phillips Reservoir (Source: License Application, Oregon DFW 2012 Fish Introduction Proposal). Common Name Scientific Name Native (Yes/No) Black crappie Poxomis nigromaculatus No Bridgelip sucker Catostomus columbiamus Yes Brown Bullhead Ameriurus nebulosus No Bulltrout Salvelinus confluentus Yes Chislemouth Acrocheilus alutaceus Yes Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides No Largescale sucker Catostomas macrocheilus Yes Northern pikeminnow Pytchoeilus oregonensis Yes Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Yes Redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Yes gairdneri Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus Yes balteatus Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui No Walleye Stizostedion vitreum No Yellow Perch Perca flavescens No

The fish community in Phillips Reservoir has been actively managed by Oregon DFW to maintain the fishery. In 1977, Oregon DFW treated the reservoir with rotenone and restocked it in 1978 with 150,000 hatchery rainbow trout and an undetermined number of largemouth bass, crappie, and coho salmon. Yellow perch and walleye were illegally introduced in the 1980s. In 1993, Oregon DFW stocked smallmouth bass and black crappie, although both species were present since at least 1985. Currently, Oregon DFW stocks 33,600 8-inch adult rainbow trout throughout the summer and 24,600 6-inch rainbow trout in September (58,200 total). No fingerlings are currently stocked. All rainbow trout stocking occurs at the Union Creek boat launch approximately 1.1 miles away from Mason Dam. The total population size of rainbow/redband trout, including annually stocked trout, in Phillips Reservoir is estimated to be between 60,000 and 100,000 individuals. In order to help provide a sport fishery for trophy-sized trout, Oregon DFW introduced 1,600 sterile tiger trout (brown trout x brook trout) in 2011.

Between 1985 and 1999, the densities of smallmouth bass and crappie declined dramatically while the yellow perch population increased by 245 percent. In 2009, Oregon DFW initiated efforts to manage the number of yellow perch in Phillips Reservoir. Oregon DFW focused on trap netting perch when the fish are concentrated in their littoral spawning areas each spring. In 2011, Oregon DFW removed a high of 354,468 perch. Based on netting mark-recapture estimates and other studies, Bailey (2012) estimated a total population of more than 1.6 million yellow perch in the reservoir. Other species thought to be fairly abundant include suckers and northern pikeminnow. Populations of crappie, bass, and walleye are thought to be very low. During the 2011 perch removal effort, 2 sub-adult bull trout (8.4 and 9.2 inches long) were captured. This occurrence is the only documented record of bull trout using the reservoir in recent decades.

In 2013, Oregon DFW released 25,000 5-inch-long tiger muskie (northern pike x muskellunge) to help control the yellow perch population. In the short term, Oregon DFW plans to continue stocking 6 to 8-inch rainbow trout, tiger trout, and tiger muskie in Phillips Reservoir. If the yellow perch population can be substantially reduced, Oregon DFW would return to stocking a variety of rainbow trout age classes, including fingerlings.

3.3.3.1.3 Bull Trout

Bull trout are a char species native to the Pacific Northwest and western Canada. The habitat requirements for bull trout include cold water temperatures (0-22 °C, with 2- 15 °C preferred), clean water that is relatively free of fine sediments or other contaminants, complex channel characteristics including undercut banks and abundant large woody debris, and large patches of such habitat that are well-connected by suitable migratory pathways.

Bull trout exhibit a variety of life history strategies, including some that utilize migration between small headwater streams, where spawning occurs, and large rivers or lakes, where sub-adults and adults typically forage. In lakes and reservoirs, bull trout utilize different habitats depending on season and type of lake. In mesotrophic reservoirs, like Phillips Lake, bull trout would likely migrate out of the reservoir in the spring and return in the fall, primarily using the reservoir as overwintering habitat. Other bull trout may remain within the cool, well-oxygenated waters found in tributary arms. Bull trout in the Powder River Basin seem to exhibit a fluvial (resident) life history strategy where the entire life cycle is completed within riverine habitats. However, the two bull trout documented in Phillips Reservoir during the 2011 perch removal efforts indicate that migratory forms may be present. It is unclear whether or not these fish actively migrated downstream to the reservoir or they were simply flushed downstream after a storm.

Throughout its range, bull trout are affected by habitat degradation, habitat fragmentation, and non-native species introductions. In the Powder River Basin, bull trout populations have been affected by a variety of activities including construction of dams and other barriers, water quality limitations, dewatering of habitat, and the introduction of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) which can hybridize with bull trout. In total, there are 10 isolated populations of bull trout in the Powder River Basin. All populations are located in headwater streams and persist where habitat is still suitable. In 2008, the FWS estimated that the total number of adult bull trout within the entire basin is less than 1,000 individuals.

In the vicinity of the proposed hydropower project, downstream of Mason Dam, no known populations of bull trout occur. As discussed above in the description of aquatic habitat, bull trout do occur in tributaries to the Powder River upstream of Mason Dam. These tributaries include Silver Creek and Little Cracker Creek as well as Lake Creek/Deer Creek which flows directly into Phillips Reservoir. Based on redd counts, snorkel surveys, and electrofishing efforts in the late 1990s, Silver Creek seems to support the largest number of bull trout in the basin (estimated at 845 individuals in 1999; FWS 2002). No bull trout have been documented in Cracker Creek, but individuals may move between Silver and Little Cracker creeks and/or utilize Cracker Creek habitat. Historically, bull trout occurred in Fruit Creek and are likely still present. Bull trout do not occur in McCully Fork.

Recovery Plan and Critical Habitat

In 1999, the FWS listed the coterminous United States population of bull trout as threatened under the endangered species act. In 2002, the FWS issued a draft recovery plan which was recently updated in September, 2014. The latest draft identifies the Powder River drainage as one of the core areas within the Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit. Within this core area, the FWS identified several threats to bull trout populations

including barriers to bull trout movement. Additional information on the current status and recovery plan for bull trout can be found in the recovery plans referenced above.

In 2010, the FWS designated critical habitat for bull trout. In general, the critical habitat designation should help protect large areas of quality habitat that are important to the survival and recovery of the species. Critical habitat for bull trout usually attains one or more primary constituent elements that are essential for the biological needs of foraging, migration, overwintering, spawning, and rearing of young. The FWS identified nine primary constituent elements including thermal refugia, an abundant food base, a natural hydrograph, and other bull trout habitat requirements discussed above. In the Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit, the FWS identified the Powder River Basin as a single critical habitat unit. In the vicinity of the project, the FWS included all of Phillips Reservoir, Lake Creek, Deer Creek, the main stem of the Powder River upstream of Mason Dam, Silver Creek, Fruit Creek, Cracker Creek, and Little Cracker Creek in its critical habitat designation (Figure 8). The Powder River downstream of Mason Dam was not included in the designation.

Figure 8. 2010 Bull Trout Critical Habitat Designations (Source: Baker County, as modified by staff).

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects

3.3.3.2.1 Project Construction

Construction of the powerhouse and tailrace has the potential to cause temporary sedimentation increases in the Powder River, downstream of Mason Dam and affect aquatic species and their habitat. As discussed above in section 3.3.1 Geology and Soils, during construction activities, Baker County proposes to implement a revised Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, consistent with Forest Service’s 4(e) condition 8, FWS 10(j) recommendation 4, and Oregon DFW 10(j) recommendation 4, that would minimize sediment release into the Powder River.

Our Analysis

According to Baker County’s proposed construction schedule, construction of the powerhouse foundation (and tailrace) would occur over a period of three months from October through December. During this time, Baker County would install a temporary coffer dam to dewater about one-third of an acre to construct the tailrace. Construction activity may result in some additional sediment input to the Powder River during construction which could temporarily increase turbidity or decrease habitat suitability for fish and macroinvertebrates for several hundred feet downstream.

As described in the affected environment section above, stream habitat in this area is poor or marginal for both fish and macroinvertebrates. It is unlikely that temporary dewatering of such a small area or small temporary increases in sedimentation and turbidity would have a notable effect on downstream aquatic species or their habitat. In addition, Baker County’s revised Erosion and Sediment Control Plan includes measures such as routing flow away from the construction area by utilizing an existing bypass pipe, dewatering the stilling basin during construction, and placement of silt fencing and fiber rolls between construction areas and the adjacent stream channel to limit the potential effects of construction activities on aquatic resources.

Baker County’s implementation of the revised plan would limit any sediment or turbidity effects associated with construction of the project on aquatic resources.

3.3.3.2.2 Project Operation

As described above in section 3.3.2 Water Resources, no change to the flow regime would occur as a result of project operation; thus no physical change to aquatic habitat in Phillips Reservoir or the Powder River downstream of Mason Dam as a result of project operations is expected. However, routing water through the powerhouse would decrease the DO concentration relative to discharge through the slide gates, which provide a substantial aeration benefit. Baker County’s proposed water quality monitoring

and management plan (discussed in more detail above in section 3.3.2 Water Resources) is consistent with Oregon DEQ’s WQC condition 2 and Oregon DFW’s 10(j) recommendation 3, and includes the installation of an aeration system that supplies air to water passing through the turbine’s draft tube as well as DO and TDG monitoring. If water quality standards still cannot be met, Baker County would then initiate other actions, including the addition of a blower that would force air into the draft tube and construction of rock weirs within the Powder River to provide additional aeration and meet the water quality standards specified in the 401WQC issued by Oregon DEQ.

Baker County proposes to take immediate and appropriate actions in the event of an emergency which threatens or harms fish or wildlife, notify appropriate agencies within 24 hours of the event, and notify the Commission within 10 days. Baker County’s emergency response and notification measure is consistent with FWS’s 10(a) recommendation 2 and Oregon DFW’s 10(j) recommendation 7.

Our Analysis

As discussed above in section 3.3.2 Baker County conducted a water quality assessment in 2007. Most measurements indicate that aeration at the dam and DO concentration downstream is sufficient to support salmonids and meet state water quality standards in the Powder River. Routing water through the powerhouse would eliminate the aeration benefit of the existing slide gates resulting in the release of water with low DO concentrations and similar to that observed at the intake. When Phillips Reservoir stratifies in the summer, hypoxic conditions occur near the intake, especially in July and August. Without mitigation, discharge from the powerhouse would not provide suitable conditions for salmonids or other fish species downstream from Mason Dam.

The analysis in section 3.3.2 Water Resources indicates that Baker County’s proposed water quality monitoring and management plan would protect water quality and meet state standards. Monitoring DO and TDG concentrations would verify the effectiveness of the proposed aeration strategies, and allow for the calibration of the turbine aeration system to ensure that appropriate DO levels are provided without causing unacceptable levels of gas supersaturation. The monitoring would also support the proposed adaptive management approach (i.e., the possible addition of a blower and aeration weirs), if needed.

If the implementation of the water quality monitoring and management plan demonstrates a need for the installation of rock weirs to improve DO levels, these weirs would affect fish habitat. As proposed, the rock weirs would be installed over 0.16 mile- long reach between the dam and the USGS gage station; hence only a small portion of fish habitat would be altered. However, as described in the affected environment section above, the existing aquatic habitat is marginal or poor in this reach, and rock weirs would likely improve pool habitat and foraging opportunities for fish. If rock weir installation

occurs, some short-term increases in sediment and turbidity would occur at the installation site and for several hundred feet downstream during construction. Installation of each weir would take approximately 1 day to complete and should occur during an appropriate in-water work period as determined in consultation with Oregon DFW to protect aquatic resources in the Powder River.

Baker County’s proposed Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan, discussed in section 3.3.2 Water Resources, includes provisions for prompt notifications in the event of a spill.

We note that the potential exists for unexpected operation or maintenance emergencies, equipment failures, or other circumstances that could cause harm to fish or wildlife. Initiating appropriate actions in response to such events, as proposed by Baker County, should help to protect fish and wildlife resources

We note that Baker County identifies/would develop specific actions in various plans22 that would protect fish and wildlife resources. For example, in the event of low DO concentration in the project discharge, Baker County may need to alter operations in accordance with the WQMMP to protect water quality for fish. In addition, notifying the Commission as well as Reclamation, FWS, Forest Service, Oregon DEQ, Oregon DFW, and Oregon Water Resources Department (as appropriate) within 24 hours of a project- related emergency should provide an additional safeguard to fish and wildlife resources. For instance, the prompt notification would afford the agencies and the Commission the opportunity to be responsive to the situation, assess the effects, provide guidance to Baker County on additional protective actions to take, and make recommendations to prevent future like-events.

In summary, Baker County’s proposed water quantity and quality protection measures would protect aquatic resources in the Powder River downstream of Mason Dam.

22 Water quality monitoring and management plan, Hazardous Substances and Spill Prevention Plan, Bypass Flow Plan, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, and the terrestrial wildlife resource management plan.

3.3.3.2.3 Fish Passage

Oregon DFW asserts that the proposed project triggers a requirement for fish passage mitigation under Oregon State law (ORS 509.585).23 In lieu of developing fish passage facilities at Mason Dam, Baker County, as described in the Settlement, proposes to replace a culvert on Silver Creek and enhance a culvert on McCully Fork. Baker County also proposes to monitor these sites to ensure fish passage conditions are maintained for the duration of its license. Baker County’s proposal is consistent with the FWS’s and Oregon DFW’s 10(j) recommendations and the Forest Service’s 4(e) conditions. Baker County’s proposed measures, agency recommendations, and our analysis of each measure are discussed in detail below.

Silver Creek Culvert Replacement

Baker County proposes to replace the Forest Service’s undersized, perched culvert on Silver Creek at U.S. Forest Service Road 5540-030. Baker County would install a 12- foot-wide open bottom arch culvert at a slope equal to that of the adjacent stream channel to improve upstream passage of fish, especially bull trout. Baker County’s proposal is consistent FWS’s 10(j) recommendation 2A, Forest Service’s 4(e) condition 6D, Oregon DFW’s 10(j) recommendation 2A, and Oregon DEQ’s WQC condition 3.

Our Analysis

As described above in section 3.3.3.1, Affected Environment, Silver Creek supports bull trout (~845 individuals) and redband trout, but access to about 5.3 miles of quality spawning habitat is limited due to a perched culvert. The Forest Service’s Silver Creek culvert is a 40-foot-long, 7-foot-wide, flat bottom corrugated metal pipe with a 6 to 12 inch drop at its outlet. Oregon DFW characterized this culvert as a “level 3” fish barrier, which means it is a barrier to some native migratory fish adults and/or species for only part of the migration period. It is not clear under what conditions the culvert is a barrier, but it seems likely that it could obstruct the movement of bull trout and redband trout as well as other species.

The agencies recommend the new culvert meet several criteria for width, slope, vertical clearance, average depth and velocity, and substrate. The agencies also recommend that Baker County consult with Oregon DFW to ensure these criteria are met and that fish passage is effective. Baker County indicates that it will work with the Forest Service and Oregon DFW to meet all fish passage criteria at the Silver Creek culvert site.

23 See Oregon DFW letter to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation filed April 6, 2007, and Oregon DFW’s comments and recommendations filed October 10, 2014.

Replacing the Silver Creek culvert would generate several benefits for the local bull trout population. Installation of a large open-bottom arch culvert, a design widely acknowledged as “fish friendly,” would improve access to 5.3 miles of high quality spawning habitat for bull trout and redband trout. Improved access to quality habitat in Silver Creek may increase bull trout production, improve connectivity with bull trout in Little Cracker Creek, and reduce the bull trout population’s vulnerability to random events, such as droughts and floods. This measure would enhance a migratory corridor within critical habitat and address recovery actions (e.g., restoring habitat connectivity) identified in the Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2014).

Redband trout and native suckers occupy Silver Creek and would benefit from culvert replacement and increased habitat connectivity. Redband trout often exhibit migratory life history strategies and would likely utilize similar spawning habitat as bull trout upstream of the culvert.

Brook trout are known to occur in Little Cracker Creek (USFWS, 2010) and other sources indicate this species is widespread in the upper Powder River Basin (Nowak, 2004 and Hemmingsen et al., 1997). Therefore, it is likely brook trout occur in Silver Creek as well. Brook trout can hybridize with bull trout and facilitating fish passage could lead to an increase in hybridization. Since the barrier on Silver Creek is only a partial barrier, we expect brook trout would already have access to upper Silver Creek and improving fish passage would not likely change existing brook trout distribution or hybridization patterns with bull trout.

We expect the removal of the old culvert and installation of the new culvert to be completed within 1 to 2 days, with additional work such as adding substrate inside the culvert and stabilizing any disturbed areas to continue for an additional 1 to 3 days. Baker County would likely divert the stream channel around the construction area until the new culvert is installed to reduce the potential for sediment to enter Silver Creek. Some fish may be temporarily displaced due to dewatering of habitat adjacent to the culvert, and some may suffer direct mortality if they are caught in the dewatered channel.

Bull trout are sensitive to sediment impacts and culvert replacement may increase sediment loading in Silver Creek. During the installation of the culvert, a small increase in sedimentation and turbidity would likely occur, but Baker County proposes to utilize best management practices to minimize any impacts on fish habitat or water quality during the installation. Baker County indicated that it would also revise its Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to specifically include the Silver Creek site. Additionally, Baker County would install the culvert during an approved in-water work period to avoid impacts on native fish. The work period should be well outside of redband and bull trout spawning periods and would likely occur between July 1 and August 31.

Despite short term effects of temporary displacement and direct mortality of individual fishes, no long term negative effects on the fish community in Silver Creek are expected. Some additional sediment may enter the creek during culvert replacement which may decrease habitat suitability for fish, but any increases in sedimentation would be minor and short in duration, likely much less intense than would occur during a rainstorm. As a result, replacing the culvert would increase habitat connectivity for bull trout and other fish species. Minor short term impacts would occur, but this measure would provide a net benefit for bull trout and other fish in Silver Creek.

We note, however, that the proposed hydroelectric project would not alter fish passage of redband or bull trout or any other fishes, nor would it cause greater mortality to fish entrained through Mason Dam. In fact, as described below under Fish Entrainment, operation of the proposed turbine would likely reduce the mortality rate of fish passing through Mason Dam. As such, on or off-site fish passage mitigation of any kind, including the proposed Silver Creek culvert replacement, is not needed for the proposed hydroelectric project, and therefore, the measure would serve no project purpose. If this enhancement measure was not implemented, the distribution and productivity of bull and redband trout in Silver Creek would remain the same and access to upper Silver Creek would remain partially limited.

McCully Fork Culvert Enhancement

Baker County proposes, consistent with FWS’s and Oregon DFW’s 10(j) recommendations 2B, Forest Service’s 4(e) condition 6E, and Oregon DEQ WQC condition 3, to modify the County’s existing box culvert located on McCully Fork at Granite Hill Highway 520. Specifically, Baker County would develop a roughened channel downstream of the culvert and install baffles and rock substrate within the culvert to restore a gradual slope and provide suitable flow velocities for fish passage, especially passage of redband trout

Our Analysis

As described above in section 3.3.3.1, Affected Environment, approximately 5.6 miles of quality habitat is located upstream of the McCully Fork culvert. The culvert is located at the crossing with Granite Hill Highway 520 approximately 2.3 miles northwest of the town of Sumpter. The culvert is an 88-foot-long, 10-foot-wide, cement box culvert with a 2.2-foot outlet drop into a shallow pool. Oregon DFW classified this culvert as a “level 5” fish barrier, a complete barrier to all upstream fish movement. Oregon DFW also identified the McCully Fork culvert as the highest priority site for fish passage improvement in Baker County.

The agencies recommend that the McCully Fork culvert meet certain fish passage criteria and that Baker County consult with Oregon DFW to ensure passage conditions

are adequate. Baker County states that it will work with Oregon DFW and the Forest Service to meet fish passage criteria at the McCully Fork culvert. Baker County also plans to complete this measure during an Oregon DFW approved in-water work period to avoid effects on redband trout spawning and would also include specific best management practices for this site in its Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

Currently, redband trout only have access to a total of 10.8 stream miles with good structural habitat and excellent water quality. Enhancing the McCully Fork culvert would allow migratory redband trout to access an additional 5.6 miles of high quality habitat. This measure would likely improve redband trout production and allow the migratory population of fish to expand within the McCully Fork drainage. Native suckers and northern pikeminnow would also benefit from increased access to high quality habitat. Bull trout would not be affected by this measure because they are not currently present in McCully Fork. However, if bull trout populations reestablish within the McCully Fork drainage these fish would be able to access high quality habitat if the culvert enhancement is completed.

Baker County’s proposal to roughen the channel includes using tree trunks, boulders, and cobbles to build up the streambed elevation and eliminate the 2-foot plunge at the culvert outlet. Baker County would establish a new streambed grade of 5 percent and create a more natural transition for water passing from the culvert to the stream channel. Baker County would also install 6-inch-tall baffles, boulders, and other substrate within the culvert to slow water velocity, increase water depth, and simulate a natural stream channel along the entire length of the culvert. While working in the stream, Baker County would cause an increase in sedimentation and turbidity. Some sediment may enter the stream from the adjacent banks, but most sediment would be disturbed from existing deposits in the stream channel as Baker County sets logs and boulders in place. Some instream excavation and redistribution of substrate would likely be needed to properly construct the roughened channel and some sediment would be carried downstream.

Construction of the roughened channel would likely be complete within a single day during an approved in-water work period determined by Oregon DFW. During this time, sediment would be disturbed from the bottom of the stream and disbursed downstream during short periods when excavation or substrate placement is occurring. Suspended sediment concentration and turbidity would be the greatest near the work site but would dissipate as the water flows downstream. Increases in turbidity may be apparent for several hundred feet downstream, but it is unlikely that any increase sediment or turbidity would be measurable further downstream near the town of Sumpter.

Installation of baffles and substrate within the culvert would be done by hand and may take 1 to 3 days. It is not clear if Baker County plans to divert the stream to complete this work, but it may be necessary to complete the in-culvert work. If the

stream is diverted, less sediment would enter the stream channel but a few fish may be exposed or temporarily displaced. Sediment impacts from the in-channel work and baffle installation would be temporary and it is unlikely Baker County’s actions would alter fish habitat downstream of the work site. The stream channel would likely consist of riffle habitat and small pocket or step pools once the enhancement work is complete. This would be similar to the existing pool and riffle habitat that currently exists immediately below the culvert.

Although some short term impacts are expected, this measure would ultimately provide a benefit to native fishes in McCully Fork by increasing access to some of the highest quality stream habitat in the upper Powder River basin. Redband trout would benefit the most because migratory individuals could access a large reach that contains suitable spawning habitat.

However, similar to the Silver Creek culvert replacement, this enhancement measure is unrelated to potential effects of the proposed hydroelectric project, and therefore, is not needed for the proposed project and would not serve a project purpose. If the McCully Fork culvert enhancement was not implemented, redband trout and other native species would continue to persist in accessible stream segments, and the culvert on McCully Fork would continue to be an impassable barrier for upstream fish migration.

Culvert Monitoring

Upon completion of the Silver Creek and McCully Fork culvert enhancement measures, routine maintenance and monitoring would be needed to ensure the culverts are functioning properly and suitable fish passage conditions are maintained. Baker County’s proposal to monitor and maintain both sites throughout the term of any FERC- issued license is consistent with FWS’s 10(j) recommendation 2C, Forest Service’s 4(e) condition 6F, Oregon DFW’s 10(j) recommendation 2C, and Oregon DEQ’s WQC condition 3.

Our Analysis

If culvert enhancement measures are completed, some maintenance and monitoring would be needed to ensure the sites remain stable and suitable for fish passage. High stream flows, during spring run-off or storm events, could scour the streambed at the outlet or cause debris jams at the inlet which may impede fish passage or cause erosion of the adjacent stream banks. Routine maintenance and monitoring would prevent debris build-up and ensure fish passage conditions are met.

The agencies, consistent with Baker County’s proposal, recommend that Baker County monitor these sites annually for the first five years after the culvert measures are complete and continue to monitor both culverts once every five years thereafter for the

entire term of any FERC-issued license. If additional modification is needed, then Baker County would consult with the agencies and rectify the problem(s) as necessary.

Baker County currently owns the McCully Fork culvert and routine maintenance and monitoring would continue to occur at this site regardless of whether or not enhancements are made. The Silver Creek culvert is owned by the Forest Service, but Baker County would monitor this site if the culvert replacement is completed.

Baker County’s proposed monitoring appears to consist of a visual inspection for any abnormalities such as debris build up or the formation of a plunge pool. Routine maintenance would include removing any debris from either end or within the culvert. These activities would not substantially affect habitat or water quality. Removing debris may suspend some sediment and cause a pulse of turbidity immediately downstream of the culvert, but this would not have a measurable effect on the aquatic community. Maintenance work would be less intense and shorter in duration than the initial enhancements and would not have any substantial negative effect on the fish community or fish habitat including bull trout or bull trout critical habitat.

If additional in-water work is needed to modify the culverts and improve fish passage, then effects would be similar to those described above for each site. Prior to any culvert or stream channel modifications, Baker County would consult with Oregon DFW and other stakeholders as necessary to determine an appropriate in-water work period and ensure fish passage conditions are restored.

3.3.3.2.4 Fish Entrainment

Oregon DFW indicated that screening at the Mason Dam intake may be required to prevent entrainment of fish pursuant to Oregon State Law (ORS 498.306).24 Baker County proposes to operate the project in run-of-release mode which would not alter the existing entrainment rate. Further, in lieu of screening the intake at Mason Dam, Baker County proposes to contribute to a Phillips Reservoir stocking fund, screen an irrigation diversion downstream of Mason Dam, and establish a fish screening fund for other diversions in the Powder River Basin.

Baker County’s proposals are consistent with the FWS’s 10(j) recommendation 1, Forest Service’s 4(e) condition 6, Oregon DFW’s 10(j) recommendation 1, and Oregon DEQ WQC condition 3 as discussed in more detail below.

24 See Oregon DFW’s comments and recommendations filed October 10, 2014 and supplemental information filed on October 17, 2014.

Our Analysis

Run-of-release operation would not alter the existing entrainment rate, but mortality rates of entrained fish could change with hydropower development. Therefore, Baker County generated estimates of existing fish entrainment and mortality as well as potential turbine-induced mortality for Mason Dam by examining similar dams and hydropower projects (Appendix G of the license application). Based on this analysis, the average number of fish that would be entrained by the project’s intake would be approximately 29,000, of which 96 percent would be non-native yellow perch. Entrainment rates would fluctuate depending on annual precipitation and reservoir water levels with more fish (~49,000) entrained in dry years and less fish (~17,000) entrained in wet years. This level of entrainment is the same with or without the proposed project.

Phillips Reservoir stratifies during the summer months (both chemically and thermally) and trout species typically avoid water depths near the intake because the DO concentration is too low. Yellow perch can tolerate low DO levels down to 2 milligrams per liter and are the most common species present in Phillips Reservoir; thus, yellow perch are more likely to be entrained than any other species. Rainbow and redband trout may occur near the intake in the fall when DO and temperature conditions are suitable, but Baker County’s review suggests that entrainment of rainbow trout is typically low (often less than 1 percent of the population), regardless of intake depth.

Bull trout in the basin are primarily fluvial and rarely occur in Phillips Reservoir, except during random situations when they are washed downstream by floods. Because bull trout prefer cold, well-oxygenated water, any bull trout in the reservoir would not likely occur near the intake under most reservoir conditions where DO concentrations near the intake are low. In the applicant-prepared draft biological assessment, incorporated here by reference,25 Baker County identified mid-March through May as the most likely months where water quality conditions would be suitable for any bull trout near the intake. During this time, water surface levels would be high and there would be abundant habitat for bull trout throughout the reservoir, not only in the vicinity of the intake. During the summer months low DO concentration near the intake would deter any bull trout from using this area. In addition, the proposed project would not likely operate from October through mid-March; thus, the project would not affect any bull trout located in the reservoir during the winter months.

If bull trout would occur near the intake, approach velocities at the intake would be less than 1.0 foot per second. Adult bull trout (> 300 mm) have swimming speeds of 15 to 22 feet per second (Taylor and Lewis 2010) and would easily be able to avoid

25 Draft Final Biological Assessment filed on May 5, 2013.

entrainment. Juvenile bull trout (< 200 mm) are weaker swimmers, but should still be able to outswim approach velocities of 1.0 foot per second. It is unlikely that small juvenile bull trout would occur in the reservoir because juveniles typically rear in stream habitat and then migrate to larger rivers and lakes after they have reached a larger size.

However, in the unlikely event that bull trout are entrained, Baker County did examine entrainment mortality rates for both existing and post-project conditions. Baker County concluded that the average mortality rate for fish entrained through the slide gates at Mason Dam is approximately 41 percent based on the results of a fish entrainment and mortality study at Fall Creek Reservoir, a similar dam with high head and slide gates that control discharge. Mortality rates at Fall Creek Reservoir averaged 41 percent and ranged from 6.8 percent when head was 18 feet to 57 percent when head was over 80 feet. According to the mortality trends at Fall Creek Reservoir, the baseline mortality rate at Mason Dam would also fluctuate with reservoir levels, and a higher rate of fish mortality would be expected when head pressure and discharge velocity are greatest (e.g., wet years). Head pressure and discharge velocity at Mason Dam exceed values observed at Fall Creek; therefore, an average mortality rate of 41 percent is likely a conservative minimum estimate.

Based on runner velocity of the proposed turbine26, Baker County estimated the mortality rate would decrease by 16 percent (a 25-percent average mortality rate) when the proposed hydroelectric project is operating. The average baseline and post-project mortality estimates for notable fish species are presented in Table 4 below.

26 Percent Mortality = 0.4965 * Runner Velocity – 17.919 (from Hardin, 2001)

Table 4. Estimated Changes in Mortality for the Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project (Source: Appendix G of License Application as modified by Staff). Estimated Mean Number of Fish Species Annual Baseline Project Difference in Entrainment Mortality Mortality Survival Redband trout 327 134 81 + 53 Stocked rainbow 622 255 154 + 101 trout Yellow perch 27,822 11,407 6,900 + 4507 Other fish 200 82 50 + 32 Total Fish 28,970 11,878 7,185 + 4,693

Estimating the number of entrained bull trout is difficult, but the available information clearly shows that very few bull trout utilize Phillips Reservoir. In the extremely unlikely event that bull trout are entrained at Mason Dam, the proposed project would likely increase their survival rate.

In another mortality study conducted at Tieton Dam, a high head facility similar to Mason Dam, a large change in pressure and high discharge velocity likely contributed to the observed ~80 percent mortality rate of entrained kokanee salmon prior to hydroelectric development. In 2006, Francis turbines were installed at Tieton Dam and the mortality rate of kokanee salmon dropped to 45 percent on average when water was routed through the turbines. Based on a runner velocity of 93 feet per second, the expected turbine mortality rate at Tieton Dam was 28 percent or 17 percent lower than observed mortality. Thus, some uncertainty is expected when estimating turbine mortality rates because there are many factors (e.g., pressure changes, cavitation, number of runner blades, size and species of fish) that could influence mortality rates.

Considering the information above, it is likely the proposed project would reduce fish mortality at Mason Dam by a small or negligible amount up to 16 percent. In addition, Baker County proposes additional mitigation measures, in lieu of screening the intake at Mason Dam, as mitigation for fish entrainment at Mason Dam. These proposed measures are described in detail below.

Phillips Reservoir Stocking Supplementation Fund

Baker County proposes to provide the Oregon DFW with $1,000 per year for the Phillips Reservoir stocking supplementation fund to mitigate for all stocked rainbow trout potentially entrained through the proposed hydroelectric project.27 This proposal is consistent with the FWS’s 10(j) recommendation 1C, Forest Service’s 4(e) condition 6C, Oregon DFW’s 10(j) recommendation 1C, and Oregon DEQ’s WQC condition 3.

Our analysis

As demonstrated in Table 4 above, an estimated 622 stocked rainbow trout are currently entrained through the dam in an average year. In a dry year, a combination of lower pool volume, shallow intake depth, and better water quality at the intake Baker County’s Fish Entrainment and Mortality Study estimated 828 rainbow trout would be entrained. As discussed above, the mortality rate of entrained fish would likely decrease from 41 percent to approximately 25 percent when the proposed turbine is operating. Baker County conservatively assumes 1,000 stocked rainbow trout may be entrained and potentially killed due to hydroelectric operation. At a cost of $1 per hatchery raised trout, Baker County’s proposed contribution to the stocking fund would allow Oregon DFW to stock an additional 1,000 rainbow trout into Phillips Reservoir each year.

As discussed above in section 3.3.3.1, Oregon DFW stocks 58,200 hatchery rainbow trout into Phillips Reservoir annually. The resident population of rainbow and redband trout combined is estimated between 60,000 and 100,000 individuals. Downstream of the dam, the population density of rainbow/redband trout is unknown. Based on the average existing entrainment and mortality estimates (listed in table 4 above), 367 stocked rainbow trout and 193 redband trout would pass downstream and supplement the number of trout in the Powder River. Once the turbine is operational, 468 rainbow and 246 redband trout may survive entrainment and persist downstream in the Powder River (a total increase of 154 trout).

The number of stocked rainbow trout entrained would be the same with or without the proposed project and survival of entrained fish would likely increase with hydropower operation. Therefore, it is unclear why additional rainbow trout are needed to mitigate potential effects of the proposed hydropower project. There is some uncertainty in Baker County’s estimates of entrainment and mortality, but there is no data

27 As indicated in the Mason Dam Fish Screening Exemption Agreement filed on July 21, 2014, Baker County would provide and annual sum of $1,000 to the Oregon DFW, and Oregon DFW would manage and utilize the funds to support the Phillips Reservoir Stocking Program.

to suggest that an additional 1,000 hatchery stocked fish are needed to maintain the local fishery after hydropower operations commence.

Similar to the fish passage measures at Silver Creek and McCully fork, providing funding to supplement rainbow trout is unrelated to the potential effects of the proposed project. Considering the large number of rainbow trout already stocked by Oregon DFW, and the estimated resident population of 60,000 to 100,000 rainbow/redband trout, we believe that stocking an additional 1,000 rainbow trout would not lead to a measurable increase in the stocked rainbow trout population in Phillips Reservoir or the Powder River downstream of Mason Dam.

Shaw-Stewart Diversion Screen

Downstream of Mason Dam, Baker County proposes to screen the Shaw-Stewart diversion to mitigate for a portion of redband trout and other native fish potentially entrained through the proposed project.

The FWS’s 10(j) recommendation 1A, Forest Service’s 4(e) condition 6A, Oregon DFW 10(j) recommendation 1A, and Oregon DEQ’s WQC condition 3 are consistent with Baker County’s proposal.

Our analysis

In the reservoir, Oregon DFW defines a redband trout as any O. mykiss sp. without fin clips including unmarked stocked trout (legal-sized stocked trout do not have clipped fins) and the offspring of stocked rainbow trout. The total number of native redband trout in Phillips Reservoir is unknown. However, Baker County did estimate a total of 60,000 to 100,000 redband and rainbow trout including the ~58,000 annually stocked rainbow trout.

Based on the potential numbers of redband trout in Phillips Reservoir, Baker County generated a worst-case entrainment estimate of 957 redband trout each year.28 To mitigate for a portion of entrained redband trout, Baker County proposes to install a rotary self-cleaning screen that would exclude juvenile and adult trout from entering the Shaw-Stewart diversion. Trap box data from similar sites in the John Day River Basin indicate that screening diversions like Shaw-Stewart would protect 31.4 trout per cfs of flow each year. Flow into the Shaw-Stewart diversion is a maximum of 12 cfs; therefore,

28 Worst-case entrainment would occur in a dry year with up to 870 entrained redband trout plus a “10% conservation factor” resulting in an estimate of 957 entrained redband trout (see Mason Dam Fish Screen Exemption Proposal filed on July 7, 2014).

screening would prevent the entrainment of about 376 trout from the Powder River each year.

Baker County’s estimate of redband entrainment at Mason Dam is much higher than the 327 redband trout expected to be entrained under average conditions (see Table 4). Due to a lack of information on redband trout population size, a higher estimate of redband trout entrainment may be warranted. However, Baker County does not consider existing and post-project mortality rates in its license application. As discussed above, entrainment rates for all fish would remain the same with or without hydropower development. However, post-hydropower development mortality of entrained fish may decrease by as much as 16 percent (approximately 50 to150 redband trout depending on reservoir conditions). Considering this information, there would be no need to further mitigate for the proposed project effects, as entrained redband trout are more likely to survive entrainment at Mason Dam after the project is operational.

If the Shaw-Stewart diversion screen was not installed, fish would continue to enter the diversion at the existing rate of entrainment. However, the local trout population in the Powder River downstream of Mason Dam would also benefit from the added recruitment (about 53 redband trout and 101 stocked rainbow trout annually) as a result of the improved survival rate of fish entrained from Phillips Reservoir. Therefore, the screening of the Shaw-Stewart diversion is unrelated to potential effects of the proposed hydroelectric project, and therefore, is not needed for the proposed project and would not serve a project purpose.

However, installation of the screen would have minor short term impacts on the aquatic environment as we expect that some in-water work would be necessary and bottom sediments could be disturbed and distributed downstream. Work activity may displace a few fish and temporarily decrease habitat suitability.

Powder River Screening Fund

To mitigate for the remaining portion of entrained redband trout, Baker County proposes to establish a Powder River screening fund totaling $90,000 and ultimately screen other diversions in the basin. Baker County’s proposal is consistent with the FWS’s and Oregon DFW’s 10(j) 1B recommendations, Forest Service’s 4(e) condition 6B, and Oregon DEQ’s WQC condition 3.

Our analysis

Similar to our analysis above, there is no evidence that current entrainment rates at Mason Dam are adversely affecting fish populations in the basin, and regardless, construction and operation of the proposed project would reduce entrainment-related mortality. Therefore, there is no demonstrated need for installing fish screens at the

proposed project to mitigate for anticipated entrainment and mortality. Likewise, there is no need for off-site mitigation for entrainment and turbine mortality related to the proposed project.

We note there are a large number of diversions within the Powder River Basin. However, because specific screening projects have not been proposed, we are unable to fully evaluate those projects in this EA.

3.3.3.3 Cumulative Effects

In our Scoping Document 2, issued on October 6, 2006, we identified bull trout (discussed below in section 3.3.5.3) as the only aquatic species that may be cumulatively affected by the proposed action and associated protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. However, Baker County included additional enhancement measures in its updated license application filed on December 5, 2013, and the Settlement Agreement filed on October 10, 2014. Upon review of the Settlement, license application, comments on the application, and licensing studies we believe that redband trout, as well as bull trout, may be cumulatively affected as a result of Baker County’s proposal. Because bull trout are federally listed as threatened we discuss the cumulative effects of the proposed project on bull trout in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species.

The geographic scope of our cumulative effects analysis for red band trout includes the Powder River Basin upstream of Phillips Reservoir, the reservoir itself, and the Powder River downstream of Mason Dam to Baker City.

3.3.3.3.1 Redband Trout

Development and operation of the proposed hydroelectric project would not affect the entrainment rate of redband trout or other fish, but the project would likely increase the survival rate of any fish entrained. Because there is no evidence of a population level effect on red band trout or other fish owing to entrainment at Mason Dam, this benefit would, at best, have very minimally influence the number of redband trout in the Powder River downstream of Mason Dam. Aeration of the project’s discharge, and potentially rock weirs, would ensure water quality is adequate to meet state standards and support trout. The project would not affect water quality, habitat, or fish populations in the reservoir.

The culvert enhancement measures would improve access to 10.9 miles of high quality habitat for redband trout in the Upper Powder River Basin. This would allow migratory redband trout to access spawning habitat and improve spawning success in McCully Fork and Silver Creek. However, issues with water quality, irrigation diversions, other existing barriers, and historical impacts of mining will continue to limit habitat suitability for redband trout throughout most of the Upper Powder River Basin.

Stocking an additional 1,000 hatchery-raised rainbow trout would not likely alter the existing redband trout population. Native redband trout and stocked rainbow trout can interbreed and compete for resources. However, the number of additional stocked trout likely too small to alter existing patterns of competition or breeding. Native redband trout and stocked rainbow trout also compete with a very large non-native yellow perch population, and therefore, are more likely to be influenced by the yellow perch population than by each other. Oregon DFW is actively removing yellow perch and stocking tiger muskie and tiger trout, which may reduce the yellow perch population. Some additional predation of redband trout may occur as more predatory fish are stocked, but the beneficial effect of reducing the perch population should outweigh any negative effects on redband trout.

Screening the Shaw-Stewart diversion would protect approximately 360 redband trout from entering an irrigation ditch about 9 miles downstream of Mason Dam. These fish and other native fish would remain in the river and be able to complete their life cycle. Baker County did not propose specific sites for the remaining screening effort, but screening additional diversions would likely result in a similar benefit redband trout in the Powder River.

The proposed project, along with the culvert enhancements, diversion screening, and yellow perch removal efforts would likely result in a cumulative, net beneficial effect for redband trout. If the enhancement measures were not completed, the proposed hydroelectric project alone would still result in a net beneficial effect, albeit to a lesser extent, for the native redband trout.

3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment

3.3.4.1.1 Vegetation

The project area is dominated by dry coniferous and mixed coniferous forest with lesser amounts of dry grassland habitat (Table 5). Riparian habitat (shrub-cottonwood) is found along the Powder River. Herbaceous wetlands occur in three small patches (totaling 0.07 acre) within the Powder River riparian zone. Spring-fed riparian wetlands also occur along a small unnamed stream east of Black Mountain Road that enters Phillips Lake.

EcoWest Consulting (2009) conducted a noxious weed survey of the project area during 2007-2008, including 100 feet beyond the area that contains the powerhouse and tailrace facilities, and the substation to the interconnect with the Idaho Power Company transmission line. It also included 50 feet on each side of the power line that would be

placed within the Black Mountain Road right of way. Thirteen noxious weed species were identified (Table 6).

Special-status Plant Species

Federal or state special-status species29 with potentially suitable habitat in the project area include the Oregon semaphore grass (state threatened), a riparian herbaceous wetland species, and clustered lady’s slipper (federal species of concern and state candidate for listing), a mixed coniferous forest species. Forest Service sensitive vascular plant species with suitable habitat in project area include the following wetland/riparian plants--slender sedge, retrorse sedge, Great Plains flatsedge, Bolander's spikerush, dwarf phacelia, small northern bog-orchid, Douglas' clover; upland forest plants-many-flowered phlox, gray moonwort; and rock slopes/cliffs/talus species-Steller's rockbrake.

In 2006 and 2007, EcoWest Consulting (2009) conducted surveys for federally listed threatened and endangered species, candidate species, and species of concern, state- listed species, and Forest Service sensitive species that are likely to occur in the project area (suitable habitat and elevation). No special-status species were identified.

In addition, Forest Service sensitive non-vascular plants with suitable habitat in the project area include 2 mosses-Rhizomnium nudum, Schistostega pennata, and 3 lichens-Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum, Leptogium burnetiae, and Leptogium cyanescens. An intensive survey of non-vascular plant species of the Powder River below Mason Dam, riparian habitat, and adjacent forest did not identify any special-status species (EcoWest Consulting, 2009).

29 Special status species include federally listed threatened and endangered species, candidate species, and species of concern, state-listed threatened and endangered, critical, or vulnerable species, and Forest Service sensitive species.

Table 5. Summary of Vegetation Types Found in the Project Area (Source: Baker

HABITAT ACRES LOCATION DESCRIPTION TYPE WITHIN PROJECT AREA Open Water 0.78 Powder River Open waters of dam tailrace and Powder River below Mason dam Powder 0.59 Both sides of Narrow zone on river banks; primarily River Powder River shrub/cottonwood wetland dominated by black riparian below Mason cottonwood and alder; includes small herbaceous dam wetlands dominated by creeping bentgrass and big leafed sedge Unnamed 1.04 Along spring at Narrow zone flanking 1- 3 feet wide water channel; spring riparian south end of dominant species are creeping bentgrass, alder and transmission dogwood; shaded by adjacent dry coniferous route forest habitat type Dry 4.14 Along access Mostly non-native species including intermediate grassland road to tailrace; and bearded wheatgrass; scattered Ponderosa pine, beneath Idaho sagebrush and rabbitbrush also occur, with Oregon Power grape beneath transmission line transmission line Bare 7.33 Face of dam; Disturbed areas roadways Mixed 7.52 Upper portion Canopy dominated by Douglas fir (45%) with coniferous of transmission Ponderosa pine sub-dominant (15%) and small forest line route amount of larch and grand fir; shrub cover variable from 15% to 35% cover, dominated by young conifers and snowberry; herbaceous layer a mixture of pine grass, elk sedge, and blue wild rye Dry 31.97 Hillside above Relatively open canopy (≤50%); Ponderosa pine coniferous south bank of dominated with small (<1% - 10% canopy cover) forest Powder River; provided by Douglas fir and lodgepole pine; transmission dominant shrub species variable including line route; lands snowberry, Oregon grape and young conifers; flanking Idaho dominant herbaceous species variable including Power Idaho fescue, pine grass, Geyer’s sedge transmission line right-of way TOTAL 54.43 County, 2013).

Table 6. Noxious Weeds Observed in the Project Area (Source: Baker County, 2013).

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC BAKER FOREST REGIONAL NAME COUNTY SERVICE FOREST RANGER SERVICE FOR DISTRICT PACIFIC NORTHWEST Spotted knapweed Centaurea macalusa A 1 - Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa A 1 - Scotch thistle Onopordum A 2 - Canada/bull thistle Cirsiumacanthium valgare B 4 - Teasel Dipsacus fullonum B 2 - Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta B 2 - Common mullein Verbascum thapsis C - - Canada thistle Cirsium arvense - 2 - Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum - - X Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata - - X Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola - - X Yellow sweetclover Melilotus officinale - - X Stinging nettle Urtica dioica - - X KEY: A = mandatory control county wide; B = widespread and/or high concern; C = widespread and/or moderate concern; 1 = Goal is to eradicate new populations and/or control existing populations of these aggressive species; 2 = Goal is to contain existing populations of aggressive species; 4 = Goal is to contain existing populations of less aggressive species; X = not categorized

3.3.4.1.2 Wildlife

Nesting birds identified during 2007-2008 surveys and habitat assessments include American robin, hummingbird sp., and rock wren (EcoWest Consulting, 2009). Raptor species in the general project area include bald and golden eagle, osprey, and red-tailed hawk. Other bird species identified in various habitats in the project vicinity include: open water—mallard, common merganser, American dipper, and Caspian tern; coniferous and mixed forest—Stellar’s jay, black-capped chickadee, mountain chickadee, downy woodpecker, red-breasted nuthatch, pygmy nuthatch, and brown creeper; grassland—black-billed magpie and red-naped sapsucker; and rock-talus—common raven and Vaux’s swift.

FWS has identified Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), species that represent FWS’s highest conservation priorities (FWS, 2008). BCC that could potentially be found in suitable habitat in the project vicinity include bald eagle, golden eagle, willow flycatcher, Lewis’s woodpecker, and white-headed woodpecker. The bald and golden eagles are the only BCC identified during 2007-2008 surveys. Potential habitat for the willow flycatcher along the Powder River occurs about a mile downstream of the project. The bald eagle is discussed below.

Mammal species known to occur in the project area include mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, beaver, badger, yellow pine chipmunk, Douglas squirrel, and northern pocket gopher. Elk forage and overwinter in the Blue Mountains adjacent to Mason Dam.

Special-status Wildlife Species

The following special-status wildlife species are known to occur or can potentially occur in the project area.

Bald eagle

Bald eagles nest and overwinter around Phillips Reservoir upstream of the Mason Dam project area. Depending on food availability, wintering eagles may move to Unity Reservoir (about 13 miles southwest of Phillips Reservoir), elsewhere on the Powder River, the Burnt River, or nearby agricultural fields. Between zero to four eagles have been documented wintering at Phillips Reservoir and Unity Reservoir, with up to 15 eagles documented using the Powder and Burnt River watersheds during the winter (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005). The eagles tend to forage along the rivers in January and early February while the lakes are still frozen, and move to agricultural areas in February and March where they feed on cow after-birth. In addition, wintering eagles also feed on carrion.

A pair of bald eagles has nested on the south shore of Phillips Reservoir in most years since at least 1989. The nest has fledged one to two young in most years. The area around the nest is managed by Wallowa Whitman National Forest consistent with the 1993 management plan (USDA Forest Service, 1993).

The bald eagle breeding season generally extends from January through August. The eagles arrive at Phillips Reservoir in January, with mating during January and February. Egg laying occurs from mid-February through April, hatching from late March through early May, and fledging from late June through mid-August. The adults generally leave the nest at the end of August, after fledging occurs.

Gray wolf

The Northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment (DPS), found in northeastern Oregon, was federally delisted on April 2, 2009. Wolves are considered endangered statewide by Oregon’s Endangered Species Act.

Wolves are habitat generalists and will establish territories anywhere there is a sufficient food source. When setting out to establish new territories, young male wolves disperse an average of 50 to 60 miles from their source pack, and females disperse an

average of 40 miles. However, dispersals of more than 500 miles have been reported (Oregon DFW, 2015a).

Pack boundaries and territory sizes vary from year to year depending on changes in prey availability, distribution, conflict with nearby wolf packs, or the establishment of a new neighboring pack. Researchers have reported wolf territories ranging in size from 25 square miles to more than 1,000 square miles (Oregon DFW, 2015a).

Wolves are opportunistic carnivores whose primary prey species are deer, elk, and moose. When these species are not available, wolves will feed on smaller animals such as rabbits, beavers, grouse, ravens, skunks, coyotes, porcupines, eagles, and fish. Wolves also may kill and feed upon domestic livestock. When necessary, wolves also will eat insects, nuts, and berries (Oregon DFW, 2015a).

The gray wolf has naturally dispersed into Oregon from Idaho. At the end of 2014, there were 13 wolf packs (minimum of 70 individuals and 7 breeding pairs) in northeastern Oregon, an increase from two at the end of 2009 (minimum of 14 individuals and 1 breeding pair) (Oregon DFW, 2015b). The Snake River Pack, Catherine Pair, and Imnaha Pack wolf use or estimated wolf use areas include northeastern Baker County.

There are no known occurrences of the gray wolf in the project area. The forested habitats surrounding the project, with an abundance of deer and other prey species, however, provides potentially suitable habitat for the wolf.

Columbia spotted frog

The Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) is a candidate for federal listing as threatened or endangered. Spotted frogs live in spring seeps, meadows, marshes, ponds and streams, and other areas where there is abundant vegetation. They often migrate along riparian corridors between habitats used for spring breeding, summer foraging, and winter hibernation (FWS, undated). Individuals are capable of travelling relatively large distances of 3 miles or more if adequate habitat is available (Funk et al., 2005).

There is known habitat for the spotted frog upstream of Phillips Lake and adjacent to the Forest Service campgrounds on the south shore of the lake, more than 2.5 miles upstream of the project area. No suitable habitat was identified in the project area (EcoWest Consulting, 2009) based on the following criteria:

• Provides semi-permanent or permanent shallow water with a relatively constant water level; • Known to lack, or likely lack frog or fish predators; • Provides cover (wetland or upland, or dense litter);

• Within a potential travel route to or from the above habitat; and • Able to provide hibernating habitat (deep silt or muck substrate, undercut streambank, or spring head).

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects

3.3.4.2.1 Vegetation

Revegetation and Invasive Plant Species Control

Project construction could result in the loss or disturbance of vegetative communities and the spread of invasive plant species. Baker County proposes to implement its proposed Revegetation/Noxious Weed Management Plan, filed in April 2013 as part of the final license application, which provides for the revegetation of areas disturbed by project construction and control of noxious weed species that could be introduced or spread by project construction and/or operation.

Baker County proposes the following specific measures that would be applied to all lands within the project boundary along with an additional 100 feet beyond the project boundary in the vicinity of the powerhouse, and an additional 25 feet on each side of the transmission line corridor.

• All disturbed areas would be reseeded with native and desirable non-native seed mixes to benefit wildlife and to prevent spread of noxious weeds. The seed mix would be determined through consultation with the Forest Service and Oregon DFW. • No disturbance to wetland habitats is anticipated, however in the event that disturbance is unavoidable, wetland habitat would be re-contoured and reseeded. • To prevent the introduction of noxious weed, construction equipment would be cleaned to remove any seeds prior to entry into construction areas.

To control weed species, Baker County would follow an adaptive management approach to ensure early detection and rapid response. The project area would be grid surveyed in June and again in September for the first 2 years after completion of project construction for all “A” (mandatory control county wide) and “B” (widespread and/or of high concern) listed weeds. All noxious weeds observed during grid surveying would be treated using site appropriate herbicides. The plan would be updated annually.

Baker County also proposes, the Forest Service would require (4(e) condition 9), and the FWS and Oregon DFW recommend that Baker County revise its management plan to include the following provisions:

• Monitor noxious weed control and re-vegetation efforts for 3 years post construction during spring and fall, and every third year thereafter on all lands within the project boundary and associated buffers. • Ensure that ground cover in disturbed areas equals or exceeds 80 percent of that in an undisturbed control area with similar vegetation and is adjacent to the project area; and species composition in disturbed areas equals or exceeds 75 percent non- weedy species. • If re-vegetation requirements are not met within 3 years following construction, identify and implement measures including, but not limited to reseeding, additional mulch, soil amendments, and supplemental irrigation to ensure establishment of vegetation where required.

As proposed by Baker County, the Forest Service would require that the plan include implementation of the noxious weed control measures found in current invasive plant management direction for the Pacific Northwest Region and/or the Wallowa- Whitman National Forest and development of treatment plans consistent with current management direction. In addition, Baker County proposes and the Forest Service would require that Baker County report all mitigation activities identified in Forest Service’s 4(e) condition 9, and implementation and monitoring of those mitigation actions in the Annual Report (4(e) condition 5).

In addition, Reclamation would require and Baker County proposes, that all newly disturbed land areas would be revegetated with plant species indigenous to the area within 6 months of completion of project construction (4(e) condition 10) and all equipment entering the project area is free of terrestrial invasive species (4(e) condition 11).

Our Analysis

The project would result in the clearing or disturbance of less than 2 acres of habitat (Table 7). The majority of the disturbance would affect disturbed areas of barren vegetation in the vicinity of Mason Dam. Construction of the transmission line would require the removal of scattered trees, mostly ponderosa pine. The substation would result in the long-term loss of about 0.2 acre of grassland habitat. Routine project maintenance, including keeping the transmission right-of-way clear of large trees, would have minimal long-terms effects on vegetation.

Soil and habitat disturbance and use of construction equipment and vehicles could result in the spread of invasive plant species. Diffuse knapweed, creeping and bull thistles, teasel, and sulfur cinquefoil are the species of greatest concern in the study area because of their highly invasive nature, proximity to special habitats, and proximity to construction or staging areas. Invasive species can alter wildlife habitat by outcompeting more desirable native species.

The prompt revegetation of disturbed areas, as proposed, would minimize effects to soil resources, control the spread of noxious weeds, and speed the regrowth of desirable plant species. The cleaning of construction activities as proposed and specified by Reclamation (4(e) condition 11) would further halt the spread of invasive species.

The inclusion of monitoring the success of the revegetation and control of invasive plant species for a period of 3 years after completion of construction and implementation of corrective action, if needed, as recommended by the agencies and specified by the Forest Service, would ensure the long-term success of the revegetation and weed control efforts.

Table 7. Description of habitat disturbed by construction of the proposed Mason Dam Project (Source: Baker County, 2013, as modified by staff). Facility Description Disturbance Powerhouse, Disturbance near Mason Dam 1-1.5 acres of previously penstock, and disturbed areas barren of tailrace vegetation Construction Existing recreation parking area No additional disturbance needed staging located just downstream of Mason Dam on the north side of the river. Transmission The route would follow Black 40- to 50-foot-wide cleared line Mountain Road and interconnect corridor; less than 0.05 acre total with an existing Idaho Power 138- for the power poles (100 square kV transmission line feet around each of the 18 poles) Segment 1 150 feet across open space at the No tree clearance base of the dam Segment 2 500 feet through sparse trees to 40-foot-wide x 500-foot-long Black Mountain Road corridor clearance through sparse trees Segment 3 1,900 feet along Black Mountain Clearance of few trees-- crossing Road to the unnamed tributary the road as necessary to minimize tree clearance Segment 4 1,300 feet on the west side of Black Clearance of a few trees on the Mountain Road to the Idaho Power northern end of the segment and Corridor a 20-foot-wide x 900-foot-wide corridor on the southern end of the segment Segment 5 550 feet along the Idaho Power No tree clearance Company corridor to a new substation and interconnect Substation Within the Idaho Power Company Permanent loss of less than 0.2 corridor acre of dry grassland

3.3.4.2.1 Wildlife

Terrestrial Wildlife Management

The project could affect terrestrial wildlife populations and their habitat as a result of the clearing of habitat, disturbance from construction activities, and potential avian interactions with the proposed transmission line.

Baker County proposes, the Forest Service would require (4(e) condition 10), and FWS and Oregon DFW recommend that Baker County develop a terrestrial wildlife resource management plan that includes the following provisions to protect wildlife, as described below.

FWS and Oregon DFW recommend that Baker County implement measures to avoid disturbance to nesting bald eagles by timing power line construction outside the nesting season (January 1 and August 31). The Forest Service would require that Baker County avoid all construction, operation, and maintenance activities within 0.25 mile (1 mile for the use of explosives) of the active bald eagle nest site between January 1 and August 31 (4(e) condition 10).

The Forest Service would require and FWS and Oregon DFW recommend that all new or rebuilt power poles be constructed and maintained in accordance with the Avian Protection Plan Guidelines (APLIC and FWS, 2005), which is intended to be used in conjunction with Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 (APLIC, 2006) and Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012 (APLIC, 2012); and these standards should be applied to all transmission line upgrades (4(e) condition 10).

The Forest Service would require Baker County to identify onsite locations to mitigate for the permanent loss of terrestrial habitat associated with construction of the powerhouse, tailrace channel, penstock, parking area, transmission line and substation area; and remove noxious weeds and revegetate the mitigation site(s) (4(e) condition 9). FWS and Oregon DFW recommend similar measures and include no-net loss of habitat.

The Forest Service also would require that Baker County report all mitigation activities identified in its 4(e) condition 10, and implementation and monitoring of those mitigation actions in the Annual Report (4(e) condition 5).

Our Analysis

Bald eagle construction impacts

An existing bald eagle nest is located about 2.5 miles from the proposed construction site. Construction noise and activities during the 1- to 2-year construction period could potentially result in abandonment of the nest or interfere with incubation or feeding of young. A mix of equipment including bulldozers, loaders, graders, compactors and cement trucks would be used during construction, typically producing noise in the range of 70 to 96 decibels, with a nominal noise level between 80 to 85 decibels at a distance of 50 feet from the source (Baker County, 2013). There is no anticipated blasting or helicopter use.

Eagles are the most sensitive to disturbance during the early stages of the nesting period—courtship, nest selection, egg laying, and incubation. Eagles will readily abandon their nests when disturbed, which may cause nest failure. After that period, fledglings are not as susceptible to minimal disturbance. No construction activities or loss of habitat, however, would occur within a 660-foot-wide buffer zone developed by the Service to protect nesting eagles from disturbance (FWS, 2007). If the location of the eagle nest should change to the point that construction would occur within the 660-foot- wide buffer zone, avoiding construction during the nesting season (January through August) would protect nesting activities. Construction activity, however, may cause bald eagles to avoid foraging near the dam on a temporary basis.

The buffers surrounding all construction activities specified by the Forest Service (0.25 mile) are more protective than the FWS guidelines and would protect bald eagle nesting activities. The Forest Service also would require a buffer of 1 mile for the use of explosives, consistent with the FWS management guidelines. The recommendation by FWS and Oregon DFW would prohibit construction activities associated with the transmission line (installation of 18 poles and clearing of some trees) between January 1 and August 31; this measure would add limited additional protection to nesting bald eagles given the distance between construction activities associated with transmission line and the nest, but would might provide limited benefits to perching or foraging eagles. The measure would also avoid impacts to forest and grassland birds that might nest in the vicinity of the transmission line right-of-way.

Transmission line

The proposed 12.47-kV, 0.8-mile-long overhead transmission line has the potential to result in avian mortality from electrocution of large birds and collisions with the line. Most electrocutions are associated with lines carrying 69 kV or less because the spacing of hardware is often not sufficient to prevent birds from spanning between conductors or between a conductor and a ground (APLIC, 2006). The 0.8-mile-long line

would require the construction of 18 40-foot-tall power poles. Construction of the new power poles in accordance with current APLIC standards (2006), as proposed, would eliminate or minimize the potential for electrocution of large birds. Risk of avian collisions with the proposed line would be low given that the line would not cross known flight paths, the line would be mostly at or below the height of nearby trees, and lack of large concentrations of birds in the vicinity of the right-of-way (APLIC, 2012).

Habitat Mitigation

The loss or disturbance of vegetation could affect wildlife use of the habitat The project would result in permanent loss of about 0.2 acre of dry grassland habitat due to construction of the new substation located in the Idaho Power corridor. Minimal tree clearing (mostly Ponderosa pine) would be required for transmission line construction and would not significantly impact the amount and quality of forest habitat in the project area. Both grassland and forest habitat types are prevalent in the project area and the projected habitat loss is not expected to have a measurable long-term adverse effect on wildlife populations. The onsite in-kind replacement of habitat losses, as specified by the Forest Service, and recommended by FWS and Oregon DFW, would replace lost habitat value for wildlife. Although not specified in the condition or recommendations, we assume that mitigation would consist primarily of planting native trees and grasses. The removal of invasive weed species from the mitigation lands and revegetation as needed would help ensure the success of the mitigation.

Special Status Species

Based on surveys of the project area (EcoWest Consulting, 2007), the gray wolf and bald eagle are the only special status species that could be affected by construction and operation of the project. Effects to bald eagles were discussed in the previous section.

Although the gray wolf is not known to occur in the project area, potential habitat for could be affected by the project as a result of impacts to the wolf food base (primarily deer). Deer is abundant throughout and adjacent to the project area, with the exception of the area along the dam face where the powerhouse would be constructed. Construction of the powerhouse would not affect any deer habitat. During construction, human activity and machinery noise would likely displace deer from forested habitats immediately adjacent to the construction. However, this displacement would be temporary and would not affect the long-term availability of deer as wolf prey in the future. In the event wolf packs or individuals move into the project vicinity, long-term impacts to the wolf would be minimal given the limited increases in noise levels, traffic, or human activity and negligible effects to local deer populations.

3.3.3.4 Cumulative Effects

Bald Eagles

Bald eagles could be affected by construction of the project in combination with other activities in the Powder River Basin. The geographic scope of our analysis includes the Powder River Basin, but focuses on bald eagle nesting in the Phillips Lake area.

Bald eagles are found in the Powder River basin year-round. Mid-winter surveys counted 407 bald eagles in 2015. Surveys between 2007 and 2015 averaged 280 birds (Bureau of Land Management, 2015). About 10 to 12 bald eagles pairs nest in the Powder River Basin (Bureau of Land Management, 2015). As discussed above, one nesting territory is located at Phillips Lake and small numbers of eagles winter at the lake.

Loss of habitat and human disturbance in the basin represent potential threats to nesting and wintering eagles. Habitat loss from urban sprawl, logging, recreation, grazing of riparian areas, road construction, vacation home development, industrial development and other construction activities are expected to occur in the future. Noise and human disturbance associated with construction and recreational activities (e.g., hiking and boating) can affect eagle productivity. Activities that impact water quality can result in bald eagle fish prey populations followed by reductions in the number of eagles.

Within the Phillips Lake area, construction and operation of the Mason Dam Project, in combination with operation and maintenance of the Bureau project, timber operations on the surrounding Forest Service lands, and recreational use of the lake, have the potential to cumulatively affect nesting and wintering eagles.

The presence of a successful breeding pair of eagles at Phillips Lake is an indication that Reclamation’s past operations have maintained suitable populations of prey (fish and waterfowl) to sustain these birds and their offspring. The bald eagle pair is expected to continue to benefit from this operation and maintain a productive breeding territory.

Recreational activities at the lake include day-use, boating, fishing, off-road vehicle use, overnight camping, and hiking and can have minor effects on eagle nesting activities. Timber operations would likely be designed to avoid impacts to eagles. Given that construction activities associated with the proposed project would be avoided during the nesting season or close to an active nest would minimize or eliminate potential effects to eagle nesting and therefore not add to potential cumulative effects. In addition, the proposed project would have no effects on the fish population in Phillips Lake.

Based on the above, we do not expect any cumulative impacts to bald eagle nesting at Phillips Lake as a result of construction and operation of the Mason Dam Project.

3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment

Howell's spectacular thelypody

The Howell's spectacular thelypody is federally listed as threatened.30 It occurs in moist, moderately well-drained, somewhat alkaline meadow habitats, typically growing with salt tolerant species such as greasewood, giant wild rye, and goosefoot (FWS, 2009), within the fairly narrow elevation range of 3,000-3,500 feet (state fact sheet). This species is a member of the mustard family, occurring on private lands near North Powder and Haines in eastern Oregon (Baker and Union Counties) about 20 miles north of the project area. It is known to occur at 16 sites in the Baker-Powder River Valley, though some of these populations may have been extirpated (FWS, 2010). This species was not observed in the Mason Dam Project area during the 2007 and 2008 rare plant surveys (EcoWest Consulting, 2009).

Bull trout

As described above in section 3.3.3, bull trout are federally listed as threatened. Bull trout require clean, cold, complex, and connected stream habitat to thrive. Bull trout may migrate between large rivers or lakes to streams to spawn; however, bull trout in the Powder River Basin typically remain in stream channels as resident fish (USFWS, 2008b). However, with the capture of two bull trout captured in Phillips Reservoir during 2011, demonstrates that it is possible the migratory forms to utilize the reservoir. In total, there are 10 isolated populations of bull trout in the Powder River Basin. All populations persist in headwater streams where the habitat is still suitable. In the vicinity of the proposed hydropower project, downstream of Mason Dam, no known populations of bull trout occur. Upstream of Mason Dam, several of these tributaries, as well as Phillips Reservoir, are designated as bull trout critical habitat. The largest population of bull trout upstream of Mason Dam resides in Silver Creek.

30 This species is also state-listed as endangered.

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects

Howell's spectacular thelypody

The spectacular thelypody requires low elevation, moist, alkaline meadows. This specialized habitat does not occur in the project area. Further, the closest known populations are about 20 miles from the project area. Therefore, the project would have no effect on the spectacular thelypody.

Bull Trout

Bull trout are not likely to be entrained by the proposed hydroelectric project. However, if bull trout entrainment occurs at Mason Dam, the entrainment survival rate would increase when the project is operating. The project’s discharge would be aerated to ensure state DO standards are met and suitable water quality conditions for bull trout would be maintained. No bull trout currently inhabit the Powder River downstream of Mason Dam, but this project would not measurably affect habitat suitability for bull trout in this area should bull trout pass through the project. Additionally, because the proposed project would not alter the operation of Phillips Reservoir, it would have no effect on the bull trout critical habitat found there. Only one of the proposed enhancement measures is likely to affect bull trout and bull trout critical habitat. The Silver Creek culvert replacement measure would increase connectivity and allow bull trout to better access upstream spawning habitat. Some temporary disturbance would occur during installation of the new culvert, but the long-term positive effects of replacing the culvert would benefit the Silver Creek bull trout population. Therefore, the project, including the proposed enhancement measures, is not likely to adversely affect bull trout or bull trout critical habitat.

3.3.5.3 Cumulative Effects

Bull Trout

Water quality issues, especially high temperatures, land use practices, irrigation diversions, barriers, and other habitat inadequacies, described above in section 3.3.3, would likely continue to limit bull trout habitat and distribution in the Upper Powder River Basin. Historical dredge mine impacts have altered the main stem of the Powder River upstream of Phillips Reservoir substantially, and now this section routinely dries up during summer months which may prohibit the movement of bull trout between the reservoir and upstream tributaries. In Phillips Reservoir, tiger trout and tiger muskie may compete with adult bull trout for resources or directly prey upon sub-adult bull trout.

Despite these ongoing limitations, the proposed project and the Silver Creek culvert replacement would have an overall cumulative effect that would benefit bull trout.

The operation of the hydroelectric project would reduce the mortality rate for any fish entrained by the project relative to current conditions and the Silver Creek culvert replacement would improve bull trout access to high quality habitat. If the Silver Creek measure was not completed, the Silver Creek bull trout population would likely continue to persist but access to quality habitat would remain partially limited. Bull trout do not occur in McCully Fork and the proposed culvert enhancement in McCully Fork would not affect bull trout. If bull trout move into McCully Fork in the future, then the proposed enhancement measure would allow access to high quality spawning habitat.

3.3.6 Recreation and Land Use

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment

The proposed project would occupy federal lands managed by Reclamation and the Forest Service. Lands surrounding the proposed project are mostly Forest Service lands, which includes numerous recreation sites. Upstream of Mason Dam is the 2,235 acre Phillips Reservoir, also known as Phillips Lake. The Forest Service also manages the lands around the proposed project location for grazing, timber harvesting, and fish and wildlife habitat.

3.3.6.1.1 Recreation Facilities

The majority of recreation sites in the project area serve Phillips Lake, including day use, overnight camping, and boat launches. However, these facilities are upstream of Mason Dam and would not be affected by the proposed project.

There are six recreation areas directly within the proposed project area or directly downstream of the project (Figure 9). Sites 1-4 are generally referred to as the Powder River Recreation Area. The Powder River Interpretative Trail (Site 1) and the Powder River Lower Trailhead (Site 2) are located on Highway 7 approximately one mile downstream of the proposed project. Facilities and amenities at these sites include parking, interpretative signage, and a bridge crossing the Powder River. The Powder River Upper Trailhead (Site 3) is located on Mason Dam Road (Figure 10) approximately 0.6 mile downstream of the proposed project. The Upper Trailhead facilities and amenities include accessible vaulted toilets, accessible parking, recreational vehicle (RV) parking, accessible trails, and a bridge that crosses the Powder River. The Mason Dam Picnic Area (Site 4) is located on Mason Dam Road approximately 600 feet downstream of the proposed project. Facilities and amenities at this site include picnic sites, accessible vault toilets, accessible parking, and a bridge crossing the Powder River.

Figure 9. Recreation sites near the proposed project (Source: Baker County, as modified by staff).

There are two additional recreation sites located on Black Mountain Road near the proposed transmission line route (Figure 10). These sites are relatively informal, with no formal facilities. The Southeast Shore Phillips Lake Trailhead (Site 5) provides undeveloped parking for 3-4 vehicles and adequate space for trailers. The Southeast Shore Phillips Lake Day Use Area provides informal access to Phillips Lake.

Figure 10. Identification of developed infrastructure in the project area (Source: Baker County, as modified by staff).

Mason Dam Road is plowed of snow during the winter from Highway 7 to the dam operator’s house that includes portions of the Mason Dam Picnic Area, which is used as a turn around. The parking areas for the other recreation areas are not plowed.

3.3.3.6.2 Recreation Use

A recreational survey of visitor use to the Powder River Recreation Area was conducted from May to September 2007.31 Surveys were distributed at the Power River Upper Trailhead and Mason Dam Picnic Area over a period of 20 days. Recreational use

31 Mason Dam Recreation Technical Memorandum filed June 16, 2008.

activities in the proposed project area are reported to include fishing, sightseeing, picnicking, camping, hunting, off-highway vehicle access, and snowmobiling. The majority of visitors participated in fishing (37 percent), sightseeing (25 percent), picnicking (14 percent), and camping at other nearby facilities (12 percent).

Seventy-eight percent of visitors to the area were day use only visitors. The mean stay was 0.9 hour, with 37 percent of visitors staying less than 2 hours. Many of the visitors were repeat visitors, using the site an average of four times per year and coming regularly over a 6-year period. For those first-time visitors, the majority (89 percent) indicated that they would return.

Recreation to the Powder River Recreation Area is reported to occur year-round. The majority of the people surveyed used the site in spring (25 percent) and summer (42 percent), with lesser amounts in the fall (22 percent) and winter (11 percent).

3.3.3.6.3 Recreational Fishery

The fish community in Phillips Reservoir has been actively managed by Oregon DFW to maintain the recreational fishery (discussed above in section 3.3.3.1, Aquatic Resources). Oregon DFW has stocked Phillips Reservoir since 1978 with a variety of sport fish including rainbow trout, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, black crappie, crappie, and coho salmon.

Currently, for recreational angling, Oregon DFW stocks 33,600 8-inch adult rainbow trout throughout the summer and 24,600 6-inch rainbow trout in September (58,200 total). All rainbow trout stocking occurs at the Union Creek boat launch approximately 1.1 miles from Mason Dam. In order to help provide a sport fishery for trophy-sized trout, Oregon DFW introduced 1,600 sterile tiger trout (brown trout x brook trout hybrid) in 2011.

According to Baker County’s Fish Entrainment and Mortality Study, an estimated 622 stocked rainbow trout and 327 native redband trout are entrained through the dam in an average year.

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects

The proposed transmission line would extend 0.8 mile from the powerhouse along Black Mountain Road to the existing Idaho Power 138 kV line south of the proposed project (Figure 10).

Baker County proposes to use the Mason Dam Picnic Area as the construction staging area for the project. Baker County proposes to develop a transportation management plan in consultation with the Forest Service (consistent with Forest Service’s 4(e) condition 13) that would include construction timelines and other procedures to minimize the impacts of project construction to recreation use and access, including conducting most of the construction during the winter and ensuring ample parking space for recreation during all construction stages.

The applicant also proposes, in consultation with the Forest Service, to design, construct, and install a recreational visitor interpretation kiosk within the Powder River Recreation Area consistent with Forest Service’s 4(e) condition 12. During the construction period for the project, the applicant would display updated project construction dates/timelines that are pertinent to recreation access for the Powder River Recreation Area. As proposed, and consistent with Forest Service’s 4(e) condition 12, upon completion of the kiosk, the kiosk would become the property of the Forest Service, which would then assume responsibility for its operation and maintenance.

Our Analysis

Recreation resources in the area of the project are abundant. However, many of the recreation sites in the area service Phillips Lake and have no nexus to the project. However, six recreation sites near the proposed project area may be affected by project construction, including (1) Mason Dam Picnic Area, (2) Powder River Upper Trailhead, (3) Powder River Lower Trailhead, (4) Powder River Interpretative Trail, (5) Southeast Shore Phillips Lake Trailhead, and (6) Southeast Shore Phillips Lake Day Use Area.

Construction of the project is reported to take between 1 and 2 years. There are two primary impacts of construction on recreation access to the project and the area surrounding the project. First, is parking at the Mason Dam Picnic Area (which is the proposed construction staging area) and second, is gaining access on Black Mountain Road through and past the construction areas.

The Mason Dam Picnic Area is at the dead end of Mason Dam Road and contains the largest parking area (30 spots) of the four recreation sites that comprise the Powder River Recreation Area. The Powder River Upper Trailhead has nine regular spots and four accessible parking spots, and is located approximately 0.5 mile down Mason Dam Road from Highway 7. The recreation sites of the Powder River Lower Trailhead and the Powder River Interpretative Trail combine for an additional eight parking spots. In total, the Powder River Recreation Area provides more than 50 formal parking spaces all within a 1.5 mile stretch. During the sampling period (May 1 through September 30 which is peak season) weekend use was between 16.5 and 33.9 groups visiting the area, with most groups consisting of three or fewer people traveling in a single vehicle.

Assuming use was spread evenly over Saturdays and Sundays, these estimates suggest that under normal conditions ample parking is available at the Powder River Recreation Area. However, because the applicant proposes to use the Mason Dam Picnic Area as the construction staging area, parking availability would decrease during the project’s construction (the majority of construction is proposed to occur during winter months). Because there is currently ample parking during peak season, during the winter months even more parking would be available (only 11 percent of use occurs during the winter). Therefore, performing construction during the winter months and using the recreation area with the most parking spaces (30 spots) as proposed would have the least impact upon recreation.

Baker County proposes multiple measures to mitigate for the reduction in parking availability and reduced recreational access through and past the construction areas. First, as specified in Forest Service Condition 13, Baker County proposes to develop a transportation management plan in consultation with the Forest Service. Two critical aspects of the plan would include conducting most of the construction during the winter and maintaining ample parking space for recreation during all construction stages. These two measures would ensure impacts to recreational access to the parking area are minimal.

Another portion of the transportation management plan would specifically deal with providing vehicle passage through the construction area for both recreational access and timber harvesting operations. Project construction may affect access to the Southeast Shore Phillips Lake Trailhead and the Southeast Shore Phillips Lake Day Use Area, which are located along Black Mountain Road where the transmission line route is proposed (Figure 9 and Figure 10). Construction of the transmission line along Black Mountain Road may limit traffic to a single lane during certain periods, the timing of which should be outlined in the proposed transportation management plan. While each of these recreation sites are generally informal and the precise amount and timing of recreation use is unknown, the Southeast Shore Phillips Lake Day Use Area does receive heavy use.32 Black Mountain Road also provides access to timber harvesting operations on Forest Service lands. Therefore, it is important that the transportation management plan also include construction timelines and other procedures to minimize the impacts of project construction to timber harvesting operations and recreation use at sites along Black Mountain Road

A second proposed measure includes designing, constructing, and installing an interpretation kiosk within the Powder River Recreation Area (Forest Service 4(e)

32 Forest Service website describing the Southeast Shore Phillips Day Use Area visited March 25, 2015 at http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/wallowa- whitman/recarea/?recid=52673

condition 12) that displays updated project construction dates and timelines that are pertinent to recreation users. The combination of the transportation management plan to minimize negative impacts (i.e., parking and access) to recreation users during the construction period and the installation of a kiosk that would inform visitors about how project construction may affect parking at the Mason Dam Picnic Area are important steps in minimizing negative impacts to recreation users during construction.

Once project construction is complete, the proposed operation of the project is run-of-release. A run-of-release operation would have no effect on reservoir levels for Phillips Lake, or flow timing and volume for recreational use on Powder River.

Through a financial contribution to the Phillips Reservoir stocking supplementation fund, the applicant proposes to replace any loss of rainbow trout due to the hydropower turbine by stocking an additional 1,000 rainbow trout into Phillips Reservoir each year (See Section 3.3.3.2.4 Fish Entrainment above). As stated above, the majority of recreation uses to the project area were fisherman (37 percent). Stocking of 1,000 rainbow trout into Phillips Lake would increase the number of fished stocked for the recreational fishery there by only 1.7 percent, it would also only result in the recruitment of about seven additional stocked rainbow trout from Phillips Lake to the Powder River downstream of Mason Dam, which does not constitute a material change to recreation fishing above or below Mason Dam.

3.3.7 Aesthetic Resources

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment

The proposed project is located in a rural region of northeast Oregon and is surrounded by the Wallowa-Whiteman National Forest. The area is mostly characterized by a natural setting with Ponderosa pines and mixed coniferous forests.

Developed infrastructure in the immediate project area is limited, but includes Mason Dam, Highway 7, Black Mountain Road, Mason Dam Road, and the four recreation sites that comprise Powder River Recreation Area (Figures 9 and 10). Mason Dam is an earthen dam covered with large cobble. The dam also includes the tailrace and overflow spillway that are made from concrete. The dam stands in contrast to an otherwise natural area.

The portion of Highway 7 that runs near the project is part of the Elkhorn Scenic Byway (Byway). The Byway is an Oregon State and National Forest designated 106- mile loop used to connect historical, cultural, and recreational sites.33

33 Retrieved from Forest Service website May 28, 2015 at (continued ...)

The current Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (1990) sets Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) for the project area.34 VQOs identify the degree of disturbance allowed in specific areas related to the scenic attractiveness, concern level, and the distance from which the area is seen from particular routes. There are three descriptive standards for the management of visual scenery including: preservation, retention, and partial retention. The current VQO standard for the entire project area is retention.35

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects

The applicant proposes to build a 40-foot by 28-foot powerhouse located at the base of Mason Dam. The powerhouse would be adjacent to the current valve house, tailrace, and overflow spillway. The proposed transmission line would extend 0.8 mile from the powerhouse to Black Mountain Road, and then along Black Mountain Road to the existing Idaho Power 138-kV transmission line and right-of-way south of the proposed project.

The powerhouse would be located approximately 600 feet west of the Mason Dam Picnic Area and, along with the existing structures, would be visible from both the picnic area and a portion of the Black Mountain Road. Baker County states that the powerhouse would not be visible from Phillips Reservoir or Highway 7. Baker County proposes to consult with the Forest Service on the appropriate paint colors to make project facilities blend with the surrounding area. The addition of the powerhouse would increase the size, amount, and intensity of industrial-looking infrastructure in an otherwise natural area.

The Forest Service’s draft Visual Resources report36 states that the proposed project facilities at the base of Mason Dam would be subordinate to and visually similar to the existing facilities. However, the Forest Service states that the proposed transmission line extending 0.8 miles along Black Mountain Road would not meet the VQOs of the Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) because the transmission line would alter the form, line, and color of the characteristic landscape in the foreground and middle ground views as seen from Black Mountain Road.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/wallowa-whitman/specialplaces/?cid=stelprdb5220745 34 See Forest Service’s Visual Resource report filed on March 31, 2015. 35 Retention is defined as “management activities are not visually evident. Activities may only repeat form, line, color, and texture which are frequently found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., should not be evident.” 36 See Forest Service’s draft Visual Resource report filed on March 31, 2015.

The applicant states that noise from the powerhouse turbine/generator unit would be less than the noise level currently produced by water discharge from the current high pressure slide gate valves.

Our Analysis

Most of the permanent effects on aesthetics resources for the proposed project would be the powerhouse and transmission line. These proposed project features would be in a direct line of site with the Mason Dam Picnic Area. However, the powerhouse and first segment of the transmission line would be placed at the base of the dam surrounded by other man-made, industrial-looking infrastructure – the dam, valve house, tailrace, and spillway. Placing the powerhouse directly adjacent to these existing facilities would concentrate the industrial-looking features of the proposed project and mitigate any additional effects to the visual quality of the area. The proposed powerhouse would be located approximately 600 feet from a recreation area and would be visible from the Black Mountain Road, however the use of colors, forms, and textures in the design process of the powerhouse that closely matches the existing structures would minimize the visual impact of the new facilities. Additionally, the use of native landscaping vegetation between the powerhouse and Manson Dam Picnic Area would help to screen the powerhouse visually from recreationist utilizing the picnic area, thus protecting aesthetic resources. The area benefitting from vegetative screening ranges between 50 and 75 linear feet, between the Powder River and the Mason Dam Road.

The transmission line may influence aesthetic resources as well. In the Forest Service’s draft Visual Resources report, the Forest Service states that the proposed transmission line would not meet the VQOs established for the project area along Black Mountain Road. However, the first section of the line would be adjacent to the dam and visually similar to the existing facilities. The remaining portion of the transmission line is proposed to follow the Black Mountain Road and is limited in length to 0.8 mile (including the first segment). By following an established right-of-way, effects of the transmission line would be limited to the vegetative clearing required for public safety. It should be noted that the majority of the transmission line is on Reclamation lands, not Forest Service lands. Specifically according to the Exhibit G, only approximately .05 mile of the transmission line would occur along Black Mountain Road on Forest Service lands.

The proposed facilities near the dam would have limited visual impacts on the viewshed from Highway 7. Black Mountain Road (and the associated transmission line route) is screened by a cut bank and not visible from Highway 7. The portion of the transmission line that may be visible is along the left side of the dam and visually similar to the existing facilities.

The noise level of the powerhouse may also reach the visitors recreating around the Mason Dam Picnic Area. However, outdoor noise attenuates rapidly from its source, and we estimate that within 200 feet of the powerhouse the sound level would dissipate to about 45 decibels, a level that is not likely to negatively affect recreationists.

3.3.8 Cultural Resources

3.3.8.1 Affected Environment

Section 106 of the NHPA requires the Commission to take into account the effects of licensing a hydropower project on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register and allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) a reasonable opportunity to comment if any adverse effects on historic properties are identified within the project’s area of potential effects (APE).

Historic properties are defined as any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. In this document, we also use the term “cultural resources” to include properties that have not been evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register. In most cases, cultural resources less than 50 years old are not considered eligible for the National Register. Cultural resources need enough internal contextual integrity to be considered historic properties. For example, dilapidated structures or heavily disturbed archaeological sites may not have enough contextual integrity to be considered eligible. Traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are a type of historic property eligible for listing in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that: (1) are rooted in that community’s history or (2) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community (Parker and King, 1998). Section 106 also requires that the Commission seek concurrence with the Oregon SHPO on any finding involving effects or no effects on historic properties. If TCPs have been identified, section 106 also requires that the Commission consult with interested Native American tribes that might attach religious or cultural significance to such properties.

If existing or potential adverse effects have been identified on historic properties, license applicants need to develop a HPMP to seek to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the effects. Potential effects that may be associated with a hydroelectric project include any project-related effects associated with construction, or the day-to-day operations and maintenance of the project after issuance of an original license.

3.3.8.1.1 Cultural Historic Overview

Culturally, the project area falls within the southeastern portion of the Blue Mountains physiographic region and encompasses two culture areas, the Columbia Plateau and Great Basin (this overview is mainly summarized from Boula, 2009). The

primary river drainage within the project area is the Powder River which drains eastward into the Snake River that runs along the Oregon-Idaho border. Prior to European contact, the native inhabitants of the area were Cayuse, Umatilla, Nez Perce, and Walla Walla (tribes of the Columbia Plateau), and to a lesser extent, peoples affiliated with the Northern Paiute (tribes of the Great Basin).

Peoples associated with all of these tribes moved in and around the area on a seasonal basis where small groups principally collected tubers and roots, fruits and berries, hunted deer and elk, and fished for salmon. The earliest evidence for occupation in the region dates between 11,000 to 8,000 years before present (BP) at the Pilcher Creek archaeological site, which lies about 25 miles north of the project area. The early occupants at this site were highly mobile hunter-gatherers associated with the widespread Paleo-Indian tradition, who used characteristic lanceolate and stemmed points, known as Cascade and Windust points, respectively. Peoples of the Paleo-Indian tradition were probably the first Native Americans to enter the Western Hemisphere, coming originally from Eurasia at the end of the Pleistocene across Beringia and into Alaska. About 27 miles north of the project area, another archaeological site, known as Stockhoff quarry, contains later occupations dating between 4000 and 7600 BP associated with the Archaic tradition. Like the earlier Paleo-Indians, Archaic peoples were hunter-gatherers who used projectile points (both lanceolate and side-notched types) to dispatch larger mammals, but also incorporated ground stone, thought to have been used as net weights, but also for other purposes such as grinding and processing plant foods. Having occupied the region for thousand years, Archaic peoples became more adapted to the local environment, and did not range as far as their Paleo-Indians ancestors. Other nearby archaeological sites, such as Marshmeadow and Ladd Canyon, attest to the seasonal collecting of camas in mountain meadows as early as 7000 BP, an uninterrupted practice continued by native peoples in the region as late as the 1930s.

In 1855, a treaty by the United States government joined the Umatilla, Cayuse, and Walla Walla into one federally recognized tribal entity called the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). From the 1855 treaty, a reservation (reduced over time) was formed east of Pendleton, Oregon where the CTUIR live today. Like their ancestors thousands of years before, peoples of the CTUIR were well-adapted hunter-gatherers, whose culture centered on the seasonal fishing of salmon and collecting of camas, augmented with a host of other plants and animals local to the area. The Powder River was an especially important place to the CTUIR peoples for subsistence, as well as for their spiritual well-being and cultural identity.

After the United States acquired lands from France with the Louisiana Purchase in 1804, and with the expedition of Lewis and Clark shortly thereafter, the Blue Mountain region and surrounding areas began to be explored by Euro-Americans, consisting mostly of trappers who were attracted to the region for animal pelts. At this time, trappers began to make contact with the local native inhabitants, trading European goods in exchange for

furs and other food resources. Horses were also introduced to the local Indians at this time which allowed the Indians greater mobility throughout the region. Some of the Native American groups local to the Blue Mountain region would venture further to the east on horseback hunting bison. The continued presence of Euro-Americans in the region began with religious conversions of the native populations by both Catholic and Protestants missionaries. Other Euro-American settlers moved in after the missionaries, taking lands and interfering with the traditional movements and practices of the native peoples, resulting in hostilities between the two groups, and finally culminating in the Cayuse War of 1848-1850. After the war, and with the signing of the 1855 Treaty and concentrating the CTUIR on a single reservation, the region was essentially pacified, allowing for the permanent settlement of Euro-Americans who began trekking out to the newly formed Oregon Territory by way of the Oregon Trail. Oregon Territory was created in 1848 and became the 33rd state of the United States in 1859.

In the early 1860s, gold was discovered near present-day Baker City, which began an explosion of Euro-American settlement resulting in the establishment of mining towns, such as Auburn in 1864. Within six months of its establishment, Auburn had a population of more than 5,000 people and was laid out on a street grid with hundreds of cabins and tents, general stores, livery stables, saloons, a saw mill, and a jail. At this time, Auburn became the county seat of Baker County (established in 1862), but after the nearby gold deposits played out, the county seat was moved to Baker City in 1868. As in other parts of the West during the early mining period, Chinese immigrants came to region and re-worked the gold deposits in and around the Auburn area, and the town continued for another couple of decades until the remaining gold deposits were exhausted. The Auburn post office closed in 1903. Other mining towns, such as Granite, Greenhorn, and Sumpter sprang up as a result of the more intense hard rock and systematic dredging operations which lasted into the mid-20th century. Fire decimated Sumpter in 1917, and it never recovered from its boomtown heyday. Nevertheless, all of the past mining activities in the region, including abandoned mines, placer deposits, old mining towns, bridges and railroads, have created a rich historic landscape where recreationalists and tourists visit today. Sumpter Valley Dredge State Historic Heritage Area and the Sumpter Valley Railroad are the results of this rich mining history, both of which are listed on the National Register.

With the active mining industry in the region and subsequent settlement, other natural resources, such as large stands of virgin pine, became valuable commodities, resulting in a burgeoning lumber industry that lasted into the late 1800s. In 1890, the Oregon Lumber Company had established a saw mill in Baker City. Railroads were built to carry the lumber out of the area, which in turn, aided the transport of other products such as cattle. Thus, by the turn of the 19th century, homesteads were established all across northeastern Oregon resulting in cattle and sheep ranches. National forests, such as Umatilla, Wallowa, Whitman, and Malheur, were established shortly afterwards (all organized in 1908) to control overgrazing and in aiding the conflicts between cattle and

sheep producers. Wallowa and Whitman were joined into one national forest (Wallowa- Whitman National Forest) in 1954.

Mason Dam, creating Phillips Reservoir, was built between 1965 and 1968 by the Bureau of Reclamation to provide irrigation water to the ranches and farms downstream and for flood control. The project is presently located within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

3.3.8.1.2 Area of Potential Effects

Pursuant to section 106, the Commission must take into account whether any historic property could be affected by issuance of a new license within a project’s APE. The APE is defined as the geographic area or areas that an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE for the proposed project encompasses approximately 39 acres and includes all lands affected by clearing, construction, and maintenance, including a 100 foot buffer zone around the proposed powerhouse, tailrace facility, and substation, and a 50 foot zone on each side of the proposed underground power line route.

3.3.8.1.3 Cultural Resources Investigations

A systematic pedestrian survey was done within the APE on July 28, 2008 by Baker County’s archaeological contractor, Kathryn Boula (Boula 2009). Exposed sediments were also examined and systematically screened for artifacts. As a result of the systematic investigations involving this licensing process, no cultural resources were located within the APE.

A TCP study was also done by the CTUIR for the proposed project in the area in and around the proposed project’s APE (Karson 2009). The TCP study encompassed an ethnographic and historic review of the traditions and practices of the CTUIR in and around the proposed project area, including a review of oral histories collected from tribal members over the years. Despite the significance of the Powder River basin to the CTUIR and extensive use of the area by the tribal members, no TCPs were located within the immediate APE. There are, however, historic properties of traditional and cultural importance to the CTUIR in the Powder River Basin.

3.3.8.2 Environment Effects

Baker County submitted the cultural resources finding to the Oregon SHPO for concurrence that the proposed project would have no effect on historic properties. The Oregon SHPO concurred with the findings that the proposed project would have no effect on historic properties (letter from Dennis Griffin, Oregon State Archaeologist, filed on June 5, 2013). Baker County proposes, consistent with Forest Service’s 4(e) condition

11, that in the event cultural resources are accidentally encountered during project construction, all construction activities would cease and the Forest Service archaeologist, Oregon SHPO, and CTUIR would be contacted immediately for further instruction and consultation.

The CTUIR in their TCP study (Karson 2009) stated that the Powder River Basin and associated historic properties within the basin are eligible for the National Register, and are considered important aspects to the CTUIR culture. However, the CTUIR concluded that construction and retrofitting of the Mason Dam for the proposed hydroelectric project would not have a direct adverse effect to these cultural resources.

Our Analysis

The proposed project would have no effect any known historic properties; however, there is always a possibility that unknown archaeological resources may be discovered in the future as a result of the project’s construction, operation, or project- related activities. Consulting with the Oregon SHPO, Forest Service, and CTUIR in the event that a significant cultural resource is inadvertently discovered during construction, operation, or maintenance activities would ensure that any adverse effects to it can be avoided, lessened, or mitigated.

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative (denial of the application), the Mason Dam Project would not be constructed and would not generate an estimated average annual generation of 7,510 MWh. Under this alternative, environmental resources in the project area would not be affected, including any enhancement measures that were proposed as part of the license application.

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS

In this section, we look at the proposed project’s use of the Mason Dam 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 Corporation,37 the Commission compares the current project cost to an estimate of the cost of obtaining the same amount of energy and capacity using a likely alternative source of power for the

37 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.

region (cost of alternative power). In keeping with Commission policy as described in Mead Corporation, 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.

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 DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT

Table 8 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. This information, except as noted, was provided by Baker County in its license application (Baker County, 2013). We find that the values provided by Baker County are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; estimated future capital investment required to maintain and extend the life of plant equipment and facilities; licensing costs; normal operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. Costs are provided in 2014 dollars unless otherwise noted.

Table 8. Parameters for the economic analysis of the proposed Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project (Source: Baker County, 2013, as modified by Staff).

Parameter Value Period of analysis (years) 30

Financing period (years) 30 Initial construction cost, $ $4,650,700d Licensing cost, $ $250,000 Operation and maintenance, $/year $50,881d Commission fees, $/year a $7510 Insurance $25,440d Energy plus capacity value ($/MWh)b $52.71 Interest rate (%) 2.67 Discount rate (%)c 2.67 a Estimated by staff based on charges for use of a government dam. A municipal licensee may claim total or partial exemption if it qualifies according to §11.7 of the Commission’s regulations. b From application based on Idaho Power’s Schedule 85 of year 2016 avoided costs for intermittent hydropower for projects smaller than 10 MW in 2016. c Discount rate estimated by staff to be the same as the interest rate. d Costs updated from 2013 to 2014 dollars

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 9 summarizes the installed capacity, annual generation, cost of alternative power, estimated total project cost, and the difference between the cost of alternative power and total project cost for each of the action alternatives considered in this EA (Baker County’s proposal and the staff alternative).

Table 9. Summary of annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost for the action alternatives for the proposed Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project (Source: Staff).

Staff Alternative Baker County’s With Mandatory Proposal Staff Alternative Conditions Installed capacity (MW) 3.4 3.4 3.4 Annual generation (MWh) 7,510 7,510 7,510 Dependable capacity (MW) 1.2 1.2 1.2 Annual cost of alternative power ($) $395,879 $395,879 $395,879 ($/MWh) 52.71 52.71 52.71 Annual project cost ($) $324,631 $310,498 325,214 ($/MWh) 43.16 41.34 43.30 Difference between the cost of $71,738 $85,381 $70,665 alternative power and project cost ($) ($/MWh) 9.55 11.37 9.41

4.2.1 No-action Alternative

Under the no-action alternative, the project would not be constructed.

4.2.2 Baker County’s Proposal

Under Baker County’s proposal, the project would have an installed capacity of 3.4 MW, and generate an average of 7,510 MWh of electricity annually. The average annual cost of alternative power would be $395,879, or $52.71/MWh. The average annual project cost would be $324,631, or about $43.16/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost which is $71,738, or $9.55/MWh, less than the cost of alternative power during the first full year of project operations.

4.2.3 Staff Alternative

The staff alternative includes the same developmental features as Baker County’s proposal and therefore would have the same capacity and energy attributes. Table 10 shows the staff-recommended additions, deletions, and modifications to Baker County’s proposed environmental protection and enhancement measures and the estimated cost of each.

Based on an installed capacity of 3.4 MW and an average annual generation of 7,510 MWh, the cost of alternative power would be $395,879, or $52.71/MWh. The

annual project cost would be $310,498 or about $41.34/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost that is $85,381 or $11.37/MWh, less than the cost of alternative power.

4.2.3 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions

The staff alternative with Mandatory Conditions includes the same developmental features as Baker County’s proposal and therefore would have the same capacity and energy attributes and is very similar to Baker County’s proposal because the county proposed all of the mandatory conditions in the Settlement.

Based on an installed capacity of 3.4 MW and an average annual generation of 7,510 MWh, the cost of alternative power would be $395,879, or $52.71/MWh. The annual project cost would be $325,214 or about $43.30/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at a cost that is $70.665, or $9.41/MWh, less than the cost of alternative power.

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

Table 10 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. Baker County proposed a suite of environmental measures, which includes all the mandatory conditions as proposed in the Settlement and have a total cost of $421,750. Additional measures were developed as a result of staff’s independent analysis. Staff has listed these additional measures estimated their cost in Table 10.