Application for Water Quality Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act OAR 340-048-0020 and ORS 468B.040

Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) Jackson County, Oregon

Prepared for:

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232

Prepared by:

PacifiCorp 925 South Grape Street, Building 5 Medford, OR 97501

February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... II LIST OF FIGURES ...... V LIST OF TABLES ...... V ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... VI 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 2.0 GENERAL PROJECT AND APPLICATION INFORMATION ...... 2 2.1 PROJECT OWNER AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ...... 2 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION...... 2 2.3 CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS ...... 4 2.4 WATERS AFFECTED OR POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT ...... 6 2.5 DOCUMENTS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPLICATION ...... 6 2.6 FERC PUBLIC NOTICES AND OTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION ...... 8 2.6.1 FERC Notices ...... 8 2.6.2 FERC’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process ...... 11 2.6.3 FERC’s Section 10(j) Determinations ...... 12 2.7 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ...... 13 3.0 CURRENT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS ...... 14 3.1 EXISTING PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS ...... 14 3.1.1 Existing Project Facilities ...... 14 3.1.2 Existing Project Operations ...... 16 3.2 PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS ...... 17 3.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities ...... 17 3.2.2 Proposed Project Operation ...... 18 3.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures...... 18 4.0 OVERVIEW OF WATER RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA ...... 21 4.1 HYDROLOGY CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA ...... 21 4.1.1 Incoming Flows ...... 21 4.1.2 Bypassed Reach Flows ...... 22 4.2 WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA ...... 23 4.3 PROJECT IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY ...... 25 5.0 CLEAN WATER ACT COMPLIANCE ...... 27 5.1 SECTION 301—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS ...... 27 5.2 SECTION 302—WATER QUALITY RELATED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS .... 27 5.3 SECTION 303—WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS ...... 27 5.4 SECTION 306—NATIONAL STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE ...... 28 5.5 SECTION 307—TOXIC AND PRETREATMENT EFFLUENT STANDARDS ... 28 6.0 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS COMPLIANCE ...... 29 6.1 ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY ...... 29 6.1.1 Applicable Standard ...... 29

Page ii February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

6.1.2 Discussion ...... 32 6.2 STATEWIDE NARRATIVE CRITERIA ...... 32 6.2.1 General ...... 32 6.2.2 Discharge of Wastes ...... 32 6.2.3 Log Handling ...... 33 6.2.4 Sand and Gravel Removal ...... 33 6.2.5 Road Building and Maintenance ...... 33 6.2.6 Development of Fungi ...... 34 6.2.7 Tastes or Odors ...... 34 6.2.8 Bottom or Sludge Deposits ...... 35 6.2.9 Discoloration, Scum, Oily Sheens, et. al ...... 35 6.2.10 Aesthetic Conditions ...... 35 6.2.11 Radioisotopes ...... 36 6.3 BACTERIA...... 36 6.3.1 Applicable Standard ...... 36 6.3.2 303(d) List ...... 37 6.3.3 Discussion ...... 37 6.4 BIOCRITERIA ...... 37 6.4.1 Applicable Standard ...... 37 6.4.2 303(d) List ...... 38 6.4.3 Discussion ...... 38 6.5 DISSOLVED OXYGEN ...... 38 6.5.1 Applicable Standard ...... 38 6.5.2 303(d) List ...... 39 6.5.3 Discussion ...... 39 6.6 NUISANCE PHYTOPLANKTON GROWTH ...... 41 6.6.1 Applicable Standard ...... 41 6.6.2 303(d) List ...... 42 6.6.3 Discussion ...... 42 6.7 PH (HYDROGEN ION CONCENTRATION) ...... 42 6.7.1 Applicable Standard ...... 42 6.7.2 303(d) List ...... 43 6.7.3 Discussion ...... 43 6.8 TEMPERATURE ...... 44 6.8.1 Applicable Standard ...... 44 6.8.2 303(d) List ...... 45 6.8.3 Discussion ...... 45 6.8.4 Proposal...... 47 6.9 TOTAL DISSOLVED GAS ...... 47 6.9.1 Applicable Standard ...... 47 6.9.2 303(d) List ...... 47 6.9.3 Discussion ...... 47 6.10 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS ...... 48 6.10.1 Applicable Standard ...... 48 6.10.2 303(d) List ...... 48 6.10.3 Discussion ...... 48 6.11 TOXIC SUBSTANCES ...... 49

February 2018 Page iii Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

6.11.1 Applicable Standard ...... 49 6.11.2 303(d) List ...... 49 6.11.3 Discussion ...... 49 6.11.4 Proposal...... 49 6.12 TURBIDITY ...... 50 6.12.1 Applicable Standard ...... 50 6.12.2 303(d) List ...... 50 6.12.3 Discussion ...... 50 6.12.4 Proposal...... 53 6.13 DESIGNATED BENEFICIAL USES—OAR 340-041-0271 ...... 54 6.13.1 Beneficial Uses ...... 54 6.13.2 Consumptive Water Uses ...... 55 6.13.3 Fish and Aquatic Life...... 55 6.13.4 Wildlife ...... 59 6.13.5 Recreation ...... 60 6.13.6 Aesthetics ...... 64 6.13.7 Hydroelectric Power ...... 64 7.0 OTHER APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW ...... 65 7.1 ORS CHAPTER 196--WETLANDS ...... 65 7.2 ORS CHAPTER 390—SCENIC WATERWAYS ...... 65 7.3 ORS CHAPTER 454—SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ... 65 7.4 ORS CHAPTER 466—HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...... 65 7.5 ORS CHAPTER 496—WILDLIFE LAWS ...... 66 8.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 67 APPENDIX A: PROJECT MAPS ...... 70 APPENDIX B: CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS ...... 76 APPENDIX C: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENT ...... 79

Page iv February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Location and Watersheds ...... 3 Figure 2. Project Boundary and Major Facilities ...... 5 Figure 3. Location of water quality monitoring stations for the relicensing study plan (2014-2015)...... 25 Figure 4. 7DMAX temperatures at each monitoring site (May 2014-May 2015)...... 46 Figure 5. Turbidity above and below (SFBU) the diversion during the September 8, 2014 Project outage ramping event...... 51 Figure 6. Flows in the South Fork Rogue River bypassed reach at RM 7.0 ...... 63

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. List of Documents Filed in Connection with the Section 401 Application ...... 7 Table 2. Proposed Project Facilities and Construction Schedule ...... 17 Table 3. Proposed operational ramp rates for South Fork Rogue River bypassed reach...... 18 Table 4. Monthly flow duration curve for combined incoming flows from South Fork Rogue River (USGS gage no. 14330500) and Imnaha Creek (USGS gage no. 14331000), WY 1934 to 1949...... 21 Table 5. Monthly flow duration curve for South Fork Rogue River bypassed reach (USGS gage no. 14332000) WY 1984 to 2012...... 23 Table 6. Water quality monitoring stations for the relicensing study plan (2014-2015) ...... 24 Table 7. Mean and range of hourly DO (mg/L) readings for each monitoring site (2014- 2015)...... 40 Table 8. 24-hour minimum and maximum pH values (2014-2015)...... 44 Table 9. Summary of 7DMAX temperatures at each monitoring site (May 2014-May 2015)...... 46 Table 10. Monthly TDS concentrations sampled at discrete monitoring sites (2012)...... 48 Table 11. Percent changes of turbidities during ramping of the bypassed reach on September 8, 2014 ...... 52 Table 12. Contiguous property owners (Adapted from Jackson County tax lot GIS data (2016))...... 77

February 2018 Page v Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

7DMAX—7-day, rolling average of 24-hour, maximum water temperatures ACOE—Army Corps of Engineers APE—area of potential effect BLM—Bureau of Land Management BMP—best management practice CEII—critical energy infrastructure information CFR—Code of Federal Regulations cfs—cubic feet per second CH—critical habitat CLNP—Crater Lake National Park Commission—Federal Energy Regulatory Commission COPCO—California Oregon Power Company CWA—Clean Water Act DO—dissolved oxygen DEQ—Department of Environmental Quality EA—environmental assessment EQC—Environmental Quality Commission EPA—Environmental Protection Agency ESCP—Erosion and Sediment Control Plan FERC—Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FPA—Federal Power Act FPC—Federal Power Commission fps—feet per second FS—Forest Service ft.—feet FWS—Fish and Wildlife Service hp—horse-power HCC—Hydro Control Center in Ariel, Washington HPMP—Historic Properties Management Plan HSC—habitat suitability curve HUC—Hydrologic Unit Code IFIM—instream flow incremental method IMCI—Imnaha Creek Inflow (i.e., above diversion) water quality monitoring site in.—inches kVA—kilovolt amps kW—kilowatts kWh—kilowatt hours L—liters LIHI—Low Impact Hydropower Institute LUCS—land use compatibility statement LWM—large woody material m.—meters m3—cubic meters mg—milligrams mi.—miles

Page vi February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

MW—megawatts MWh—megawatt hours NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act NFP—Northwest Forest Plan NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS—National Park Service NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service NTU—nephelometric turbidity unit OAR—Oregon Administrative Rules ODEQ—Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ODFW—Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife OPRD—Oregon Parks and Recreation Department ORS—Oregon Revised Statues ORV—outstanding remarkable values OWRD—Oregon Water Resources Department pH—power of hydrogen ions PLC—programmable logic controller PM&E—protection, mitigation, and enhancement PRV—pressure relief valve RM—river mile rpm—revolutions per minute RR-SNF—Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest SCADA—Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SCORP—Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan SFBL—South Fork Bypass Lower water quality monitoring site SFBM—South Fork Bypass Middle water quality monitoring site SFBU—South Fork Bypass Upper water quality monitoring site SFRI—South Fork Rogue Inflow (i.e., above diversion) water quality monitoring site SHPO—State Historic Preservation Office SPCC—spill prevention, control, and counter-measure SRG—Siskiyou Research Group TIV—turbine isolation valve TMDL—Total Maximum Daily Load UGB—urban growth boundary USDA—United States Department of Agriculture USDI—United States Department of Interior USDOD—United States Department of Defense USGS—United States Geological Survey VQO—visual quality objective WQC—water quality certification WSE—water surface elevation WUA—weighted useable area

February 2018 Page vii Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

PacifiCorp owns and operates the Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (Project) on the South Fork Rogue River in northeastern Jackson County, Oregon. The Project is located near the unincorporated community of Prospect and is partially within the High Cascades Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

The Project is licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Federal Power Act as Project No. P-2337. On December 31, 2016, PacifiCorp submitted the final application to FERC for a new Project license. The issuance of a new license is pending completion of the formal review, analysis, and processing of the application by FERC. The current license for the Project expires on December 31, 2018.

In conjunction with PacifiCorp’s application for a new FERC license for the Project, PacifiCorp submits this document as its application to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for water quality certification (WQC) of the Project pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 USC § 1341, and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 048. Under CWA Section 401, the applicant for a federal license for an activity that may result in a discharge to “waters of the United States” must provide the licensing agency with a certification from the state in which the discharge originates that the discharge will comply with CWA Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307. These sections include state water quality standards approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In Oregon, the agency authorized to issue Section 401 certifications is DEQ (Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 468B.040). Accordingly, PacifiCorp submits this WQC application to DEQ for certification of the discharges from the proposed Project facilities and operations to be included in the new FERC license. The application includes environmental information and evaluations demonstrating that the Project complies with the CWA, water quality standards set forth in OAR Chapter 340, Division 041, and other appropriate requirements of state law.

February 2018 Page 1 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

2.0 GENERAL PROJECT AND APPLICATION INFORMATION

This section provides general information about the Project and the certification application in accordance with OAR 340-048-0020(2).

2.1 PROJECT OWNER AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

The name and address of the Project owner, operator, and applicant is:

PacifiCorp 825 N.E. Multnomah Street, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97232

The name, address, and contact information for PacifiCorp’s authorized representative is:

Steve Albertelli PacifiCorp, License Program Manager 925 South Grape Street, Building 5 Medford, OR 97501 541-776-6676 [email protected]

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

PacifiCorp proposes to continue operating the existing 7.2-megawatt (MW) Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project located on the South Fork Rogue River, near the community of Prospect in northeastern Jackson County, Oregon in Township 32 South, Range 3 East and Township 33 South, Ranges 3 and 4 East (Figure 1). The 376.2-acre proposed Project occupies approximately 52.5 acres of federal lands administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Forest Service, High Cascades Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RR-SNF).

The Rogue River Basin of southwestern Oregon covers a drainage area of approximately 5,156 square miles from its headwaters on the west slope of the Cascade Mountains to its terminus at the Pacific Ocean in Gold Beach, Oregon. The approximately 215-mile Rogue River is delineated in three unique reaches or sub-basins (USGS, 2015):

 the Upper Rogue, from Boundary Springs, on the border of Klamath and Douglas Counties within the northern border of Crater Lake National Park (CLNP), downstream to the confluence with Little Butte Creek, three miles southwest of Eagle Point;  the Middle Rogue, from Little Butte Creek downstream to the confluence with the Applegate River, six miles west of Grants Pass; and  the Lower Rogue, from the Applegate River to the Pacific Ocean at Gold Beach.

The Project diversion dam is located at river mile (RM) 10.5 on the South Fork Rogue River, which is one of three major forks of the Upper Rogue—North, Middle, and South (Figure 1)—in the approximately 1,616-square-mile Upper Rogue River sub-basin. The South and Middle Forks

Page 2 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Figure 1. Project Location and Watersheds

February 2018 Page 3 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) of the Rogue originate from headwater springs, small lakes, and/or runoff in the Sky Lakes Wilderness Area of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RR-SNF).

The South Fork Rogue River is approximately 26 miles in length and has a drainage area of approximately 251 squares miles, representing approximately five percent of the area in the Rogue River Basin. The stream originates at elevations between 5,600 feet and 5,700 feet in the South Blue Lake Group, a series of small lakes and springs in Sky Lakes Wilderness. For the first ten miles, the South Fork flows through a wide valley with a relatively low gradient. An elevation loss of approximately 1,000 feet occurs in this ten-mile headwater reach. At approximately ten miles below the source, the river flows into a canyon with a steep gradient. For the next five miles, the channel drops in elevation from approximately 4,600 feet to 3,400 feet as it flows through the canyon to the South Fork diversion dam at RM 10.5. Downstream of the diversion, the Project-bypassed reach of the South Fork Rogue River enters a narrow canyon. For the majority of its course from the diversion dam to Lost Creek Reservoir, the channel of the South Fork Rogue River is confined by the steep, sometimes sheer, walls of the canyon.

PacifiCorp holds an Oregon Certificate of Water Right (Certificate No. 9688, State Engineer Permit No. 7861) in perpetuity for the purposes of power generation at the Project. The certificate allows for a maximum of 150 cubic feet per second (cfs) to be diverted from the South Fork Rogue River.

The Project primarily consists of a 172-foot-long, 24-foot-high concrete diversion dam on the South Fork Rogue; upstream and downstream fish passage facilities; a 15,894-foot-long conduit system; a powerhouse containing one generating unit with a rated capacity of 7,200 kilowatts (kW) operating under 713 feet of static head on the south bank of the Middle Fork Rogue; a sag- pipe conveying flows from the Project tailrace to the Middle Fork Canal of the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. P-2630); and a 6.97-mile-long, 69-kilovolt transmission line terminating at the Prospect Central sub-station. The Project is operated in run- of-river mode with no appreciable water storage capacity. The 30-year (1986-2015) average annual generation is 35,050 megawatt hours (MWh), and the average monthly generation over the same period is 2,921 MWh.

A map of the Project vicinity and primary facilities is provided in Figure 2. Detailed maps of the Project’s facilities are contained in Appendix A. These maps also specify the Project’s boundary, i.e., the area that is needed to operate and maintain the Project and that is under FERC’s jurisdiction. Current and proposed Project facilities and operations are described in additional detail in Section 3.0.

2.3 CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS

The proposed Project is located on lands owned by PacifiCorp, the USDA-Forest Service (FS), and three private owners (AP Timber, LLC; Gladys O. Burrill; and Murphy Timber Investments, LLC). A detailed view of land ownership in the Project area is shown in Appendix A. Names and addresses of nine contiguous property owners (i.e., the owners of property within or contiguous to the current and proposed FERC project boundaries) are listed in Appendix B.

Page 4 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Figure 2. Project Boundary and Major Facilities

February 2018 Page 5 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

2.4 WATERS AFFECTED OR POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT

The waters affected or potentially affected by the current or proposed Project are the South, Middle, and North Forks of the Rogue River and Daniels Creek. The Project diversion dam is located at RM 10.5 of the South Fork Rogue. Water diverted for generation at the South Fork diversion dam does not reenter the South Fork drainage, but is diverted northwest to the North Fork Rogue River via the sag-pipe from the Prospect No. 3 powerhouse tailrace to the Middle Fork Canal of the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P- 2630), which conveys flows to North Fork Reservoir. Thus, the reach of the South Fork Rogue River that is bypassed by the Project extends downstream from the dam to the terminus of the river at its confluence with the North Fork Rogue, a length of 10.5 miles.

Flows downstream of the South Fork diversion remain relatively consistent for approximately two miles. At approximately 2.4 miles downstream from the diversion, springs and groundwater inflows begin to contribute flow to the river. Significant groundwater sources have been identified between 2.8 and 3.5 miles downstream of the diversion (Campbell-Craven Environmental Consultants, 1986). In 2014, PacifiCorp measured groundwater contributions of approximately 26 cfs and 20 cfs in the South Fork bypassed reach at RM 7.0 in June and August, respectively (PacifiCorp, 2015). Additional flow sources further downstream include Buck Creek, Beaver Dam Creek, Smith Creek, the Middle Fork Rogue River, and four unnamed tributaries.

Potential effects to Middle Fork Rogue and Daniels Creek are limited to emergency (i.e., non- routine) discharge of diverted flows via the forebay and tailrace spillways, which discharge to Daniels Creek. Daniels Creek is tributary to the Middle Fork Rogue immediately upstream of the Project powerhouse. The Middle Fork Rogue is ultimately tributary to the bypassed reach of the South Fork Rogue. In the event of a generating unit trip and subsequent rise in forebay water surface elevation, the generator pressure relief valve will automatically open to provide continuation of flow past the generating unit, into the tailrace, into the sag pipe, and ultimately into the Middle Fork Canal of the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Project. Similarly, automation of the tailrace backwater gate has eliminated routine spill from the tailrace overflow to Daniels Creek and Middle Fork Rogue River. Any spill to these receiving waters from the forebay or tailrace overflow spillways would be on an emergency or non-routine (i.e., contrary to normal operations) basis. Therefore, normal operation does not impact water quality in Daniels Creek or Middle Fork Rogue River.

2.5 DOCUMENTS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPLICATION

The documents shown below in Table 1, which PacifiCorp has previously submitted to DEQ or which PacifiCorp understands are within DEQ’s possession, are incorporated by reference in this application.

Page 6 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Table 1. List of Documents Filed in Connection with the Section 401 Application Document Type Date Description Revision of Proposed Project February 12, Letter filed with FERC to revise the proposed Project 2018 presented in the FLA to reflect FERC’s draft EA and comments received at the FPA Section 10(j) meeting Section 401 Application March 27, 2017 Submittal of initial 401 application prior to proposed Project revisions Final License Application (FLA) to FERC Volume I December 30, Initial Statement 2016 Exhibit A—Project Description Exhibit B—Project Operation and Resource Utilization Exhibit C—Construction History and Proposed Construction Schedule Exhibit D—Statement of Costs and Financing Exhibit F—General Design Drawings Exhibit G—Maps Exhibit H—Market Integration and Costs; Project Operations and Maintenance Volume II Exhibit E—Environmental Report Volume III Exhibit E—Environmental Report Appendices Appendix A: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Appendix B: Fish Passage Facilities Operations and Maintenance Plan Appendix C: Vegetation Management Plan Appendix D: Historic Properties Management Plan Appendix E: Consultation Contact List

Volume IV Exhibit F Appendices (CEII), not for public distribution Appendix A: General Design Drawings Appendix B: Supporting Design Report Appendix C: Flowline and Sag-pipe Replacement Appendix D: Fish Passage Facilities As-Built Plans Draft License Application (DLA) to FERC Volumes I-IV (see FLA) August 3, 2016 Initial Statement, General Content, and Exhibits A-H Updated Study Reports Water Quality May 11, 2016 Hydrology and water quality analysis of the Project Fish Passage Facilities Physical and biological evaluation of fish passage facilities Cultural Resources - not for public Cultural resources analysis of Project distribution Initial Study Reports Cultural Resources – not for public May 12, 2015 Cultural resources analysis of Project distribution Fish Community Inventory and assessment of fish community associated with the Project

February 2018 Page 7 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Document Type Date Description Fish Habitat Analysis of fish habitat in the Project vicinity Fish Passage Facilities Physical evaluation of fish passage facilities Instream Flow Analysis of bypassed flow influence on fish habitat Ramping Analysis of operational ramping events on fish habitat and water quality Special Status Plants and Noxious Inventory of botanical resources in the Project area Weeds Wildlife Inventory and analysis of wildlife in the Project vicinity Water Quality Hydrology and water quality analysis of the Project Whitewater Boating Assessment of whitewater boating use and opportunity in the Project vicinity Other Documents PacifiCorp’s Revised Study Plan for the April 2014 PacifiCorp submitted a set of revised study plans for the Project Project. The revised study plans were completed after receiving numerous verbal and written comments from interested parties on the proposed study plans. Filing of Initial Study Plans for the December 2013 Pursuant to the FERC ILP process, PacifiCorp submitted Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) a set of proposed study plans for the Project. PacifiCorp also explains the framework for its consultation with agencies, tribes, and other stakeholders for the purpose of clarifying the proposed study plans and to resolve any outstanding issues in accord with the ILP process. Notice of Intent to Relicense and Pre- July 2013 PacifiCorp’s Notice of Intent to file an application for a Application Document new license for the Project under the Integrated Licensing Process. Pre-Application Document (PAD) to provide FERC and interested parties with existing information relevant to the issuance of a new license for the Project. Water Quality Monitoring Report January 2013 Prepared in support of Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) certification application pursuant to DEQ- approved water quality monitoring plan.

2.6 FERC PUBLIC NOTICES AND OTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION

2.6.1 FERC Notices

OAR 340-048-0020(2)(h) requires that an application for Section 401 certification include “[a] copy of any public notice and supporting information issued by the federal licensing or permitting agency” for the Project. This section identifies and describes the FERC notices for the Project, other documents issued by FERC in conjunction with the relicensing of the Project, and other supporting information.

To date, FERC’s public notices concerning PacifiCorp’s application for a new Project license have included:

 Notice of Intent to File License Application for a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process (August 30, 2013). With this notice, FERC initiated informal consultation with the

Page 8 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

relevant agencies under Section 7, Endangered Species Act and Section 106, National Historical Preservation Act. Also with this notice, FERC designated PacifiCorp as FERC’s non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to the above Sections and Acts. Also with this notice, FERC solicited comments on the PAD and FERC’s Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.

 Scoping Document 1 for the Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (August 30, 2013). FERC’s Scoping Document 1 advises stakeholders on the proposed scope of the Environmental Assessment (EA) to be prepared by FERC pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and to seek comments and additional information pertinent to the analysis.

 Scoping Meeting Transcripts (October 24, 2013). FERC provided full transcripts of two scoping meetings conducted on September 24, 2013.

 Delegated Order and Revised Process Plan and Schedule (October 25, 2013). FERC granted USDA-Forest Service’s request for extension of time to file comments due to federal government shut-down. A revised pre-filing process plan and schedule were provided to accommodate the extension.

 Scoping Document 2 for Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (December 19, 2013). Based on comments received on Scoping Document 1 (described above) and throughout the scoping process, FERC prepared Scoping Document 2 to provide information on the proposed action and alternatives, the environmental analysis process FERC will follow to prepare the EA, and a revised list of issues to be addressed in the EA. Scoping Document 2 supersedes Scoping Document 1. Appendix B of the Scoping Document 2 also provided a process plan and schedule for the Integrated Licensing Process for the Project.

 Notice of Proposed Restricted Service List (August 27, 2014). FERC provided notice of a proposed restricted service list for a programmatic agreement for managing properties associated with the Project and included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places.

 Study Plan Determination for the Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (May 27, 2014). Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 5.13(c) of FERC’s regulations, FERC approved PacifiCorp’s revised study plan for the Project, with FERC’s recommended modifications. Seven studies were approved as filed, and one was approved with modifications. The determination is based on the study criteria set forth in section 5.9(b) of FERC’s regulations, applicable law, FERC policy and practice, and the record of information.

 Notice of Application Tendered for Filing with the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments (January 6, 2017). FERC provided notice that PacifiCorp’s Final License Application (FLA) documents were filed with FERC on December 30, 2016 and are available for public inspection. This FERC notice also outlined the Procedural Schedule for processing of the FLA, including target dates as follows: (1) March 2017 for FERC’s Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis; (2) April 2017 for filing of recommendations, preliminary terms

February 2018 Page 9 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

and conditions, and fishway prescriptions; (3) October 2017 for FERC’s issuance of the Environmental Assessment (EA); (4) November 2017 for comments on the EA; and (5) January 2018 for filing of Modified Terms and Conditions. This FERC notice also specified that final amendments to the FLA must be filed with FERC no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis.

 Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions to Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions (March 15, 2017). FERC provided notice that PacifiCorp’s FLA had been accepted by FERC and is ready for environmental analysis. With this notice, FERC also stipulated that the deadline for applicable federal and state agencies, tribes, and non-governmental organizations to file motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. FERC noted that a license applicant must file, no later than 60 days following the date of this notice: (1) a copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

 Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft and Final Environmental Assessment and Revised Procedural Schedule (June 23, 2017). FERC staff determined that analysis of the proposed Project will require preparation of both a draft and final EA instead of a single EA. The notice also included a revised procedural schedule.

 Record of Telephone Communications (September 13, 2017). This document outlines telephone conversations between Matt Cutlip of FERC and Steve Albertelli of PacifiCorp regarding fish salvage measures and hydraulic modelling results.

 Record of Email Communication (September 13, 2017). This document includes email communication between Matt Cutlip of FERC and Steve Albertelli of PacifiCorp regarding implementation of minimum flows prior to construction of an auxiliary flow release structure.

 List of Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Species Generated by ECOS- IPaC Website on September 28, 2017 (October 4, 2017). This document describes FERC’s search results and review of federally-listed, special status species or designated critical habitat within the Project boundary.

 Draft Environmental Assessment (October 17, 2017). See Section 2.6.2.3 below.

 Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment (October 17, 2017). FERC provided public notice of the draft EA. FERC advised that the proposed Project would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The notice established a comment deadline of within 45 days of the date of the notice. See Section 2.6.2.3 below.

 Section 10(j) Preliminary Determination of Inconsistency (October 18, 2017). In this letter from FERC to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), FERC provides notice of

Page 10 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

their determination that certain ODFW recommendations were within the scope of Federal Power Act (FPA) Section 10(j) but inconsistent with the FPA or other applicable law and invites ODFW to file additional comments and/or recommendations. See Section 2.6.3 below.

 Draft Programmatic Agreement for Section 106 Compliance (November 14, 2017). FERC provided stakeholders with the draft programmatic agreement (PA) for managing historic properties that may be affected by the Project. The purposes of this letter, were to: (1) convey the draft PA for comment; (2) provide notice of FERC’s intention to execute the PA without the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council)’s participation; and (3) invite the Council’s participation in the event it wishes to participate. FERC requested comments on the draft PA and associated HPMP within 30 days from the date of the letter.

 Request for Treatment of Documents as Comprehensive Plans, Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Power Act (December 6, 2017). This letter from FERC to USDA- Forest Service acknowledges two documents that were submitted and previously approved as comprehensive plans.

 Notice of Section 10(j) Meeting (December 21, 2017). FERC issued public notice of a meeting date and time and an invitation to the meeting to discuss ODFW’s FPA Section 10(j) recommendations. The meeting was to be held on January 12, 2018 at ODFW’s headquarters in Salem, Oregon.

 Draft Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification and Evaluation Report (January 10, 2018). FERC filed copies of DEQ’s draft 401 certification and evaluation report for inclusion in the Project record.

 Summary of 10(j) Meeting (January 25, 2018). FERC issued a summary of the 10(j) meeting held by FERC staff on January 12, 2018 in Salem, Oregon.

These FERC notices are part of the public FERC docket for the license application, and PacifiCorp understands that DEQ has copies of the notices and supporting information. The notices also are available on FERC’s website at www.ferc.gov, under docket number P-2337. To the extent that these notices and supporting information are relevant to OAR 40-048-0020(2)(h), PacifiCorp hereby incorporates them by reference.

2.6.2 FERC’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process

2.6.2.1 FERC’s Scoping Documents

On August 30, 2013, FERC issued Scoping Document 1 for the Project. Scoping Document 1 advised stakeholders on the proposed scope of the EA to be prepared by FERC pursuant to NEPA, and to seek comments and additional information pertinent to the analysis.

On December 19, 2013, FERC issued Scoping Document 2 for the Project. Based on comments received on Scoping Document 1 (described above) and throughout the scoping process, FERC prepared Scoping Document 2 to provide information on the proposed action and alternatives,

February 2018 Page 11 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) the environmental analysis process FERC will follow to prepare the EA, and a revised list of issues to be addressed in the EA.

2.6.2.2 FERC’s Ready for Environmental Analysis (REA) Notice

On March 15, 2017, FERC issued a notice that PacifiCorp’s application for the Project has been accepted and FERC is ready to prepare the NEPA document (i.e., the EA). This REA notice also requests terms and conditions, preliminary prescriptions, and comments from the applicable federal and state agencies, tribes, and non-governmental organizations within 60 days of the issuance of the REA notice.

2.6.2.3 FERC’s Environmental Analysis (EA)

On October 17, 2017, FERC issued the draft EA for the Project. FERC determined that the proposed Project would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. FERC also determined that an environmental impact statement was not required. The draft EA included FERC’s staff-recommended Project alternative, draft license articles, and Section 10(j) determinations (see Section 2.6.3 below). The public notice of the draft EA established a comment deadline of within 45 days of the date of the notice. Comments on the draft EA were submitted prior to the deadline by a private citizen, PacifiCorp, DEQ, ODFW, USDA Forest Service, and American Whitewater.

FERC’s revised procedural schedule, issued on June 23, 2017, identified a target date of April 2018 for issuance of the final EA.

2.6.3 FERC’s Section 10(j) Determinations

Under Section 10(j) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Project license issued by FERC will 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. In response to FERC’s REA notice of March 15, 2017, Section 10(j) recommendations were submitted for the Project on May 10, 2017 by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) did not file any recommendations.

Section 10(j) of the FPA states that whenever the Commission believes that any fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency. Of the 16 recommendations that FERC considered to be within the scope of section 10(j), FERC wholly adopted seven, adopted two in part, and did not adopt seven. FERC discussed the reasons for not adopting those recommendations in Section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative of the EA.

By letter dated November 30, 2017, ODFW requested a meeting with FERC to discuss resolution of disputes regarding Section 10(j) recommendations. A meeting was scheduled on December 21, 2017 and conducted on January 12, 2018 at ODFW’s offices in Salem, Oregon. FERC issued summary notes of the meeting on January 25, 2018. Of the nine issues discussed at the meeting, one issue was resolved. FERC indicated it would consider additional information provided by

Page 12 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

ODFW in preparation of the final EA. PacifiCorp revised the proposed Project in part as a response to ODFW concerns expressed at the meeting regarding the previously proposed auxiliary flow release system, which necessitated impacts to three pools of the upper fish ladder. The revised proposed Project and auxiliary flow release system do not impact existing fish passage facilities.

2.7 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY

In the Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) dated August 22, 2016, Jackson County affirmed that the Project is located outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and that the Project use is allowed outright as a pre-exiting use. The LUCS for the Project is provided in Appendix C.

The proposed Project includes facilities that were originally constructed in 1931. Since their initial construction, the facilities have been repaired and modified to some extent, but their fundamental design and operation have not changed substantially. The facilities, and many of the repairs and modifications, predate applicable land use regulations, and any repairs or modifications since the advent of land use regulations have to PacifiCorp’s knowledge been consistent with any applicable regulations.

ORS 215.130(5) provides:

The lawful use of any building, structure or land at the time of the enactment or amendment of any zoning ordinance or regulation may be continued. Alteration of any such use may be permitted subject to subsection (9) of this section. Alteration of any such use shall be permitted when necessary to comply with any lawful requirement for alteration in the use.

ORS 215.130(9) provides:

As used in this section, “alteration” of a nonconforming use includes:

(a) A change in the use of no greater adverse impact to the neighborhood; and

(b) A change in the structure or physical improvements of no greater adverse impact to the neighborhood.

No change in the Project’s use as a hydroelectric power facility is proposed, although certain physical changes in the Project are proposed that will protect and enhance natural resources. The proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the “neighborhood” of the Project. In accordance with ORS 215.130, then, the proposed Project is consistent with all applicable land use regulations.

February 2018 Page 13 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

3.0 CURRENT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

This section describes Project facilities and operations. In addition, this section describes the proposed changes to the existing Project facilities and operations under a new FERC license.

3.1 EXISTING PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

3.1.1 Existing Project Facilities

Construction of the Project began in 1931, and the Project was placed in service on April 22, 1932. An original minor-part license (Federal Power Commission (FPC) No. 1163) was issued to California Oregon Power Company (COPCO) on July 30, 1931 for a period of 50 years. This minor license covered the upper Project facilities, including the diversion dam and approximately 4,000 linear feet of the flowline, located on lands administered by the federal government. The initial, major-part license (FPC No. P-2337) covering the downstream facilities, including the remaining waterway, penstock, and powerhouse, was issued in 1931 for a period of thirty years. COPCO merged with Pacific Power and Light on June 21, 1961, and the January 25, 1963 license application requested transfer of the license to Pacific Power and surrender of the minor-part license. By order dated July 8, 1964, the Commission issued a new license for the Project, including all Project facilities under one license for a period of twenty- five years. An application for new license was submitted on December 24, 1985, and the current license was issued on January 30, 1989 for a period of thirty years beginning on the first day of the month of issuance.

The South Fork Diversion Dam is a 172-foot-long, 24.7-foot-high concrete dam with a 98-foot- long, ungated ogee spillway at RM 10.5 of the South Fork Rogue River. The 18-foot-wide waterway intake structure is located on the north end of the dam on the right bank of the river. The intake structure has a trash rack with bars spaced three inches on-center, which are cleaned via an automated Atlas Polar trash rake. There is a control and communications building above the intake structure. Continuous data provided by a water surface elevation level logger over the upstream impoundment determines the aperture of the waterway intake sluice gates.

The South Fork Diversion Dam impounds the South Fork Rogue River at the elevation of the ungated spillway crest at 3,375.7 feet above sea level. At normal maximum pool, the impoundment has a surface area of approximately one acre. The retention time of impounded water is less than one hour. The impoundment has a gross storage capacity of approximately nineteen acre-feet and useable capacity of less than five acre-feet. Average and maximum depths are approximately five feet and eight feet, respectively.

The fish ladder is a concrete pool-and-weir-type ladder with 15 pools of varying dimensions and an approximate running length of eighty-six feet providing upstream fish passage over the diversion dam. The ladder is located on the north bank of the South Fork Rogue River adjacent to the waterway intake structure. Pools 1 through 6 of the ladder ascend from the river in a westerly direction to the switchback between Pools 6 and 7, after which the ladder ascends in an easterly direction toward the dam. The fish ladder exit is provided by two submerged, 2.5’ x 1.3’ rectangular orifices at the upstream face of the dam to the south of the intake structure. The ladder was originally constructed in 1931 and was modified in 1973 and again in 1996 to its current form.

Page 14 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

The fish screen is located within the Project waterway approximately 215’ downstream of the dam. The inclined-plane screen is 25’ in length, 9’ 9” in width, and composed of 0.25” wedge- wire, with a surface area of approximately 193 square feet. Perforated plate baffles were temporarily installed to create a more uniform flow through the screen following hydraulic assessments in 1998. The baffles were redesigned and replaced in 2015. The screen rotates at its mid-point along the horizontal axis from the inclined position to a plane or declined position to facilitate debris removal via backwashing the screen face with canal flows. Converging channel walls over the downstream 11’ 5” of the screen direct fish to the fish return pipe.

A backwater sluice gate downstream of the fish screen automatically adjusts its aperture to regulate water surface elevations over the fish screen and into the fish return pipe at varying diversion flow rates. Continuous data provided by water surface elevation level loggers on the upstream and downstream sides of the screen are used to initiate rotation of the screen for backwashing cycles.

The fish bypass begins at the converging walls of the fish screen with an 18”-wide, 28”-high steel flume with a 5’ radius, 180 degree turn. The bypass is designed to accommodate bypass flows of 6 to 15 cfs. An approximately 60”-long, 30”-high slide conveys fish from the steel flume to the 18”, steel bypass return pipe. The bypass return pipe descends approximately 48” in elevation in a southeasterly direction for approximately 159.5’ to the pipe outlet above Pool 6 of the fish ladder. Fish bypass pipe flows increase attraction flows to the fish ladder.

The 15,894-foot-long Project waterway, with a primarily southeast-to-northwest alignment, consists of, in order, (a) a 273-foot-long, concrete-lined canal section, which contains the fish screen; (b) a 66-inch-diameter, 5,448-foot-long woodstave pipe; (c) a 5,805-foot-long concrete- lined canal section; (d) a 5-foot-wide by 6.5-foot-high, 698-foot-long, concrete-lined, horseshoe type tunnel; (e) a 416-foot-long canal to penstock transition (i.e. forebay) with a 2,486-foot-long side channel spillway that discharges to Daniel Creek; and (f) a 66-inch to 48-inch-diameter, 3,254-foot-long, riveted steel penstock with a south-to-north alignment.

Other components appurtenant to the waterway include, in order, a 77-foot-long side channel spillway upstream of the fish screen and adjacent to the fish ladder; a trash rack at the transition structure to the woodstave pipe; a trash rack at the transition to the tunnel; a trash rack at the penstock transition structure with bars spaced three inches on-center, which are cleaned via an automated Atlas Polar trash rake; and a valve house at the top of the penstock housing the excess velocity valve.

The powerhouse contains one generating unit with a rated capacity of 7,200 kW operating under a static head of 713.37 feet and producing a 30-year (1986-2015) average annual energy output of 35,050 MWh. A pressure relief valve (PRV) is automated to respond to forebay water surface elevations and allow penstock flows to bypass the turbine in the event of a generating unit trip or planned outage. The turbine isolation valve (TIV) closes automatically upon a unit trip, and subsequent increases in forebay water surface elevation resulting from the TIV closure will initiate a corresponding response in aperture of the PRV, allowing diverted flows to continue to the tailrace.

February 2018 Page 15 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

The concrete tailrace structure is approximately 20 feet by 20 feet by 5 feet with a 172-foot-long, concrete lined overflow spillway that discharges in an easterly direction to Daniel Creek. The tailrace backwater sluice gate is automated to respond to penstock flows and prevent routine discharge of flows to Daniel Creek.

A 66-inch, 887-foot-long, inverted siphon (i.e., sag-pipe) routes flow from the Project tailrace to the Middle Fork Canal of the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. P-2630). The existing siphon is primarily wood-stave construction with the exception of an approximately 250-foot-long section of steel pipe over the Middle Fork Rogue River that was installed following high flow damage to the original woodstave pipe in December 1964.

Electrical power produced by the Project generating unit is conveyed to the electrical grid via a 6.97-mile-long, 69-kilovolt (kV) transmission line that ultimately terminates at Prospect Central substation. There is also a connection to a local distribution sub-station near Red Blanket Road. From the initial substation immediately to the west of the powerhouse, the transmission line alignment crosses the Middle Fork Rogue and from that point on follows the general alignment of the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 waterway. Transmission line access roads are shared with Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 waterway operations and maintenance access. The transmission line alignment crosses primary public access roads at Prospect-Butte Falls Highway, Mill Creek Road, and Highway 62, at the Middle Fork Canal crossing near North Fork Reservoir and at the P2 penstock crossing near the transmission line terminus at Prospect Central substation.

3.1.2 Existing Project Operations

The Project generator is operated automatically by a programmable logic controller (PLC), and may also be operated manually by an on-site operator, as needed. After normal working hours, plant functions may be monitored remotely over a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) network by control operators at PacifiCorp’s Hydro Control Center, in Ariel, Washington. Although control operators have the ability to adjust generation through the SCADA network, they generally allow the plant to run in automatic mode, and will call out an on-site operator for any unplanned outages or alarms.

The current Project license identifies a minimum instream flow of 10 cfs that must be maintained in the South Fork Rogue River below the diversion dam.

The Project is operated in run-of-river mode during low, mean, and high water years, as the small impoundment on the South Fork Rogue River lacks storage. A unit PLC, located in the plant, adjusts the aperture of the wicket gates in order to maintain a constant forebay elevation in response to input from level sensors at the forebay. The adjustments to the wicket gates directly affect the rate of water diversion at the dam, and ultimately result in a near-constant reservoir level for much of the year. When natural inflows exceed the sum of project hydraulic capacity and the minimum flow requirement, spill occurs at the diversion over the ungated, ogee-style weir. Annual Project maintenance is routinely conducted between June and September each year and involves vegetation management on Project lands, erosion control or road maintenance activities and as-needed maintenance on the water conveyance system and generating unit. The timing and scope of annual maintenance activities are coordinated with the RR-SNF as provided in the Special-Use Permit issued for the Project by the USDA-FS.

Page 16 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

3.2 PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

PacifiCorp proposes to continue to operate and maintain the Project and implement environmental protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures consistent with the findings of the Initial and Updated Study Reports filed with the Commission in May 2015 and May 2016, respectively. Proposed Project facilities, operations, and PM&E measures are detailed in the following sub-sections.

3.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities

PacifiCorp proposes to construct an auxiliary bypass flow system, consisting of an automated, 3’-wide weir gate, 8’ x 5’ plunge pool, and 130’-long, 2’-diameter pipe, from the intake canal to a plunge pool at the base of the fish ladder to reliably provide increased minimum flows to the bypassed reach. PacifiCorp proposes to replace the existing woodstave flowline and woodstave sag-pipe. The temporary vehicle-access bridge over the flowline would be rehabilitated to meet current Forest Service engineering standards following flowline replacement. PacifiCorp proposes to construct a road spur from the flowline vehicle-access bridge to the bank of the bypassed reach to facilitate pass-through of materials dredged from the impoundment upstream of the dam to the bypassed reach downstream of the dam. PacifiCorp proposes to upgrade the six existing four-foot-wide wildlife crossings of the canal to twelve feet in width. PacifiCorp also proposes to construct five twelve-foot-wide wildlife crossings of the new steel flowline and eight two-foot-wide wildlife crossings of the canal within the canal fencing. To facilitate compliance with proposed ramp rates, PacifiCorp proposes to install a communications link on the USGS’ South Fork Rogue gage to deliver real-time flow readings to Project instrumentation and controls. The proposed facility construction schedule is identified below in Table 2.

Table 2. Proposed Project Facilities and Construction Schedule Proposed Facility Construction Completion Communications link and automation controls 2019 Auxiliary bypass flow system 2020 Steel flowline 2021 Steel sag-pipe 2021 Wildlife crossing upgrades 2021 Wildlife crossing construction 2021 Vehicle-access bridge over flowline intake 2022 Road spur from flowline bridge to bypassed reach 2022

PacifiCorp proposes to amend the Project boundary to remove lands outside of Project influence around the upper impoundment on RR-SNF property and surrounding the penstock and forebay overflow spillway on PacifiCorp property. In addition, PacifiCorp also proposes to add critical Project access roads to the boundary. These amendments, as depicted in Appendix A, result in a net addition of 39.5 acres, including an addition of 20.1 acres of federal lands, an addition of 19.6 acres of PacifiCorp property, and a reduction of 0.2 acres of private land holdings.

February 2018 Page 17 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

3.2.2 Proposed Project Operation

The Project would continue to be operated in run-of-river mode with a maximum diversion of 150 cfs from the South Fork Rogue River. PacifiCorp proposes to increase the minimum in- stream flow in the South Fork Rogue River below the diversion dam to 30 cfs from March 1 through July 31 and 20 cfs from August 1 through February 28 to maximize incremental gains in fish habitat from proportionate increases in flow. PacifiCorp proposes an operational ramping schedule that is based on the ramp rates and periods established by the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 license for the bypassed reaches of Red Blanket Creek and Middle Fork Rogue River1. The ramp rates for these two streams were identified as protective of aquatic life, including sensitive life stages of native fish, based on a comprehensive ramping study (PacifiCorp, 2003). The proposed, seasonal operational ramp rates are identified in Table 3.

Table 3. Proposed operational ramp rates for South Fork Rogue River bypassed reach Period Target Ramp Rate (in/hr.)

May 1 – September 30 Not to exceed 0.2 feet per hour

October 1 – April 30 Not to exceed 0.3 feet per hour

3.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

3.2.3.1 Geologic and Soils Resources

PacifiCorp proposes to:

 prepare and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to minimize the effects of ground-disturbing maintenance and construction projects;  replace the existing woodstave flowline and sag-pipe with new steel pipelines of the same massing and alignment to reduce the potential for rupture and resultant erosion;  stabilize loose rock, as identified in the flowline replacement preliminary geotechnical report (McMillen, LLC, 2014), through doweling, cabling, cable netting, or other acceptable methods coincident with woodstave flowline demolition and installation of the new steel flowline; and  construct a spur road from the flowline vehicle-access bridge to the bypassed reach to facilitate pass-through of bedload materials dredged from the impoundment upstream of the dam to the bypassed reach downstream of the dam.

1 May 1 through September 30, operational ramping should not exceed two inches per hour; October 1 through April 30, operational ramping should not exceed three inches per hour.

Page 18 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

3.2.3.2 Fisheries Resources

PacifiCorp proposes to:

 implement minimum in-stream flows of 30 cfs from March 1 through July 31 and 20 cfs from August 1 through February 28 within the bypassed reach of the South Fork Rogue River below the South Fork Diversion Dam as measured at the USGS gage at RM 10.25;  construct an auxiliary bypass flow system consisting of an automated, 3’-wide weir gate, 8’ x 5’ plunge pool, and 130’-long, 2’-diameter pipe, from the intake canal to a plunge pool at the base of the fish ladder to reliably provide increased minimum flows to the bypassed reach;  implement seasonal, operational ramping rates not to exceed 0.2 feet per hour from May 1 through September 30 and 0.3 feet per hour from October 1 through April 30;  report operations-induced variances (i.e., non-natural events) of the minimum in-stream flow and/or ramping rate within 24 hours of discovery and in a summary annual report for each water year;  construct a road spur from the flowline vehicle-access bridge to the bank of the bypassed reach to facilitate pass-through of bedload materials dredged from the impoundment upstream of the dam to the bypassed reach downstream of the dam;  prepare an updated Fish Passage Facilities Operations and Maintenance Plan, incorporating revised maintenance activities and schedules; and  operate and maintain the fish passage facilities according to the revised Plan.

3.2.3.3 Terrestrial Resources

PacifiCorp proposes to:

 upgrade the existing four-foot-wide wildlife crossings to twelve feet in width2;  construct eight two-foot-wide wildlife crossings over the open canal and within the canal fencing;  construct five twelve-foot-wide crossings of the flowline at potential locations identified in the flowline conceptual design report (McMillen, LLC, 2014); and  prepare and implement a Vegetation Management Plan that would establish sensitive species buffer zones and require treatment of noxious weeds prior to ground-disturbing activities.

3.2.3.4 Cultural Resources

PacifiCorp proposes to:

 prepare and implement a Historic Properties Management Plan to manage potential impacts on archeological, historic, and traditional cultural properties within the Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE).

2 Crossing structures will utilize pre-cast concrete panels covered with a minimum of two inches of native soil cover. Twelve-foot-wide crossings will also have woody debris along one side for simulated ground cover and large boulders installed at four-foot intervals in a ten-foot radius from the crossing entrances to prevent vehicle access.

February 2018 Page 19 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

3.2.3.5 Prescribed Mandatory Conditions

On May 9, 2017 USDA Forest Service, the federal land management agency for approximately 52.5 acres of the proposed Project, submitted eleven FPA Section 4(e) mandatory terms and conditions for the Project. These terms and conditions were considered necessary by USDA Forest Service for the administration, protection, and utilization of National Forest System lands of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Seven of the conditions were legal or administrative in nature. The four remaining conditions include provisions for a revised Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, a Fire and Fuels Management Plan, implementation of the proposed Historic Properties Management Plan, and preparation and implementation of a Road Plan regarding the proposed flowline vehicle-access bridge and road spur to facilitate pass-through of bedload materials. On November 29, 2017, USDA Forest Service filed modifications to Conditions 3 and 11 clarifying resource coordination requirements and extending plan deadlines, respectively.

Page 20 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

4.0 OVERVIEW OF WATER RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA

This section describes current hydrology and general water quality conditions in the Project area. Specific water quality parameters and the Project’s effects on those parameters are evaluated in Section 5.0.

4.1 HYDROLOGY CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

4.1.1 Incoming Flows

Two stream sources supply incoming flows directly to the small impoundment behind the South Fork diversion dam: the South Fork Rogue River and Imnaha Creek. Historical records of average daily flows are available for both streams. Average daily flows for the South Fork Rogue River, measured approximately 0.25 miles upstream of the diversion dam at discontinued USGS station number 14330500, are available from October 1, 1931 to September 30, 1949. This gaging station on the South Fork Rogue River encompassed a drainage area of 59.5 square miles (OWRD, 2013). The record of average daily flows at Imnaha Creek extends from October 1, 1933 to September 30, 1949 as measured at discontinued USGS gaging station number 14331000. Located approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the confluence with South Fork Rogue River, the Imnaha Creek stream gage measured flows from a drainage area of 21.60 square miles (OWRD, 2013).

The historical data indicate that the baseflow period generally includes September and October, when runoff from precipitation is relatively low and runoff from late-season snowmelt has concluded. In October, when incoming flows are the lowest, the average mean flows in the South Fork Rogue River and Imnaha Creek are 53 cfs and 22 cfs, respectively. The months of November through January are characterized by gradual flow increases, which are associated with seasonal increases in precipitation. Flows remain relatively consistent from January through March, when annual snowfall and snow depths are comparatively high. The runoff period, characterized by increasing snowmelt and decreasing precipitation occurs from April through June (National Weather Service, 2013). Peak incoming flows occur in May, when the average monthly flow in the South Fork Rogue River is 279 cfs and the average monthly flow in Imnaha Creek is 78 cfs. Annual hydrographs of incoming flows suggest that high elevation snowmelt continues through July and August in the South Fork drainage, which encompasses a greater range of elevations than the smaller Imnaha Creek drainage, where runoff from snowmelt is exhausted by the end of June. The combined incoming flows from both sources are summarized as monthly flow duration curves in Table 4.

Table 4. Monthly flow duration curve for combined incoming flows from South Fork Rogue River (USGS gage no. 14330500) and Imnaha Creek (USGS gage no. 14331000), WY 1934 to 1949. %ile Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 5 108 228 352 391 278 309 533 608 456 200 127 107 10 97 155 258 307 249 266 470 544 408 174 120 101 20 87 117 185 225 199 220 383 464 344 154 109 93 30 80 102 146 180 178 199 335 425 295 142 101 87 40 75 94 125 155 158 181 281 385 258 130 96 80 50 73 86 110 137 147 154 232 356 221 123 90 76

February 2018 Page 21 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

%ile Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 60 69 80 100 118 135 141 202 302 192 116 85 71 70 65 74 92 103 126 131 182 253 174 107 78 67 80 62 69 82 93 109 122 163 201 145 98 72 64 90 59 66 69 88 86 101 130 152 97 73 61 58 95 55 62 65 66 68 88 117 115 84 67 55 51

PacifiCorp holds an Oregon Certificate of Water Right (Certificate No. 9688, State Engineer Permit No. 7861) in perpetuity for the purposes of power generation at the Project. The certificate allows for a maximum of 150 cfs to be diverted from the South Fork Rogue River. According to the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) “Water Rights Information Query” website (OWRD, 2012), there are not any known existing or proposed uses of Project waters that would impose downstream constraints on Project operations. Other than the Project itself, there are no known in-stream flow uses, existing water rights or pending water rights upstream of the confluence of the Middle and South Fork Rogue River that would be affected by continued operation of the Project. Two water rights were identified upstream of the Project. OWRD holds a water right certificate (No. 72731) for providing stream flows for resident trout by diverting between 13 and 34 cfs (varying by month) from Wallowa Creek to Imnaha Creek upstream of the Project, and USDA-FS holds a water right certificate (No. 13528) for 0.11 cfs from Imnaha Creek for domestic use and power development. Neither of these upstream certificates would have an appreciable effect on Project operations.

Water diverted for generation at the South Fork Diversion Dam does not reenter the South Fork drainage, but is diverted north to the North Fork Rogue River via the siphon from the Prospect No. 3 powerhouse tailrace to the Middle Fork Canal of the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. P- 2630), which conveys flows to North Fork Reservoir. Thus, the reach of the South Fork Rogue River that is bypassed by the Project extends downstream from the dam to the terminus of the river at its confluence with the North Fork Rogue, a length of 10.5 miles.

Flows downstream of the South Fork Diversion Dam remain relatively consistent for approximately two miles. At approximately 2.4 miles downstream from the diversion, springs and groundwater inflows begin to contribute flow to the river. Significant groundwater sources have been identified between 2.8 and 3.5 miles downstream of the diversion (Campbell-Craven Environmental Consultants, 1986). In 2014, PacifiCorp measured groundwater contributions of approximately 26 cfs and 20 cfs in the South Fork bypassed reach at RM 7.0 in June and August, respectively (PacifiCorp, 2015). Additional flow sources further downstream include Buck Creek, Beaver Dam Creek, Smith Creek, the Middle Fork Rogue River, and four unnamed tributaries.

4.1.2 Bypassed Reach Flows

Bypass flows are measured and recorded at USGS gaging station 14332000, located approximately 0.3 miles downstream of the diversion dam at RM 10.2. The South Fork Rogue basin upstream of the USGS gage covers a drainage area of approximately 83.80 square miles (USGS, 2015). The period of record for the gage is April 1924 to September 1931 and October

Page 22 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

1949 to the present. Gage records from October 1949 to September 1983 include both in-stream flow and flows diverted into the Project waterway, and as such, the most reliable records are from October 1984 to the present. The USGS annual water data report (2015) identifies the following stream flow statistics from water years 1950 through 2015:

 low monthly mean flow of 11.6 cfs (August);  high monthly mean flow of 193 cfs (May); and  annual mean flow of 73.9 cfs.

Seasonal flow patterns are predictably similar to those described previously for incoming flows. However, average monthly flows in the bypassed reach are lowest in August, as opposed to October, when incoming flows are lowest. The difference in timing of low monthly flows above and below the diversion is attributed to proportionately greater diversions for the duration of August. The flow record is summarized as monthly flow duration curves in Table 5.

Table 5. Monthly flow duration curve for South Fork Rogue River bypassed reach (USGS gage no. 14332000) WY 1984 to 2012. %ile Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 5 84 129 361 376 284 275 389 409 323 115 70 96 10 68 72 187 244 194 209 294 363 275 58 38 76 20 21 46 88 132 102 144 208 289 191 22 17 18 30 16 23 36 86 73 117 175 227 138 17 15 16 40 14 19 19 33 50 88 134 194 104 15 14 15 50 13 15 16 20 29 67 111 164 74 14 13 14 60 12 14 14 16 19 45 89 136 47 13 12 13 70 11 13 13 14 16 23 66 101 25 12 12 12 80 9.0 12 11 13 14 15 42 72 14 11 11 11 90 3.7 5.1 4.6 4.6 10 12 22 19 12 8.8 5.0 4.8 95 2.2 3.8 3.8 3.2 4.2 8.7 15 13 7.9 5.1 4.0 3.7

4.2 WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

A number of data collection and field survey efforts have contributed to the body of knowledge with respect to water quality conditions in the Project area and, in particular, the South Fork Rogue River bypassed reach.

A record of daily minimum and maximum temperatures in the Project vicinity was sampled in 1986 (Campbell-Craven Environmental Consultants, 1986). Monitoring sites included South Fork upstream of the diversion (March 13 to June 10 and July 1 to October 8), Imnaha Creek (March 14 to September 20), and the South Fork bypassed reach, approximately two miles below the diversion (July 23 to August 14). The available data indicate that the seven-day, rolling average of 24-hour maximum (7DMAX) water temperatures were below Oregon’s temperature criteria of 18°C.

February 2018 Page 23 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

In 2012, PacifiCorp implemented a study of water quality conditions in the Project vicinity between May 1 and October 31, in consultation with DEQ (Foster, 2013). The study was performed to support an application to the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) for certification of low environmental impact from the Project. Multiple water quality parameters were sampled in order to (1) describe existing water quality conditions in the Project area over a natural range of flows and seasonal weather shifts, and (2) evaluate compliance with key water quality criteria identified by Division 41 (Water Pollution) of the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). Parameters monitored included temperature, bacteria, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, total dissolved solids, toxic substances, and turbidity. The monitoring results indicate that compliance with applicable water quality criteria was maintained throughout the monitoring period. Applicable results are described in additional detail in the respective sub-sections of Section 5.0.

Additional support for sustained Project compliance with the state numeric criteria is provided by the absence of any listings of impaired water bodies in the South Fork Rogue River watershed on the Oregon 303(d) list. Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for water bodies with pollutant levels in excess of established water quality standards. The EPA approved ODEQ’s Rogue River Basin TMDLs on December 29, 2008, but the TMDLs are the subject of ongoing litigation. The Rogue River Basin TMDLs, which include the South Fork Rogue River Sub-basin, establish temperature and bacteria loads for 109 impaired water bodies. No stream segments in the South Fork Rogue River are currently on the Oregon 303(d) list.

PacifiCorp performed additional monitoring during 2014 and 2015 pursuant to the approved water quality study plan (PacifiCorp, 2014). The Study Area included five water quality monitoring stations (Table 6; Figure 3). The sampling stations were chosen for their ability to represent conditions in the Study Area and to assess potential Project effects on water quality.

Table 6. Water quality monitoring stations for the relicensing study plan (2014-2015) Sample Site Description Location Associated Code South Fork Rogue River Inflow to Project RM 10.8 SFRI Imnaha Creek Inflow to Project RM 0.2 IMCI South Fork Bypassed Reach - Upper End RM 10.5 SFBU (Below release point at diversion dam) South Fork Bypassed Reach - Mid-Reach RM 10.0 SFBM (Above influence of springs and groundwater contribution) South Fork Bypassed Reach - Lower End RM 7.0 SFBL (Below influence of springs and groundwater contributions)

Page 24 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Figure 3. Location of water quality monitoring stations for the relicensing study plan (2014-2015).

Continuous, hourly temperature values were recorded at each of the monitoring stations for 365 days. Continuous, hourly values for dissolved oxygen and pH values were recorded at SFBU, SFBM, and SFBL for 72 hours in May, July, August, September, and October. Project-affected waters continue to exhibit conditions that comply with state water quality criteria.

Further details on specific water quality parameters are provided below in Section 6.0.

4.3 PROJECT IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY

Project impacts to water quality are primarily the result of diversion of up to 150 cfs from the South Fork Rogue River for the generation of power at the Project powerhouse. Diversion of flows to the powerhouse reduces in-stream flows in the South Fork Rogue downstream of the Project diversion dam (i.e., the bypassed reach). The Project is operated in run-of-the-river mode with no peaking or flood control capability that may otherwise ameliorate Project diversions. The diversion of flow has the potential to affect physical flow conditions (e.g., flow quantity, depths, and velocities) in the bypassed reach and may in turn affect water quality parameters influenced by flow conditions (e.g., water temperature).

February 2018 Page 25 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

The current FERC license for the Project requires that PacifiCorp maintain a continuous minimum flow of 10 cfs or the natural inflow to the impoundment, whichever is less, in the bypassed reach, as measured at the U.S. Geological Survey gaging station 0.25 miles downstream from the dam (USGS Gage 14332000). Minimum flow is maintained by means of flow through the fish ladder and downstream fish return pipe, which discharges into Pool 6 of the fish ladder. Under a new FERC license for the Project, minimum instream flow releases to the South Fork Rogue bypassed reach are proposed to be 30 cfs from March 1 through July 31 and 20 cfs from August 1 through February 28, or the natural inflow to the Project, whichever is less.

In-stream flows in the bypassed reach exceed, and will continue to exceed, the minimum instream flow during several months of the year for two key reasons. First, additional groundwater contributions to baseflow occur in the bypassed reach approximately 2.4 miles below the diversion. The extent of groundwater contribution may be on the order of 20 cfs in lower flow months, with a larger amount of runoff and groundwater inflow possible during higher flow months, such as during spring snowmelt conditions. Second, during high flow times of the year (e.g., the snowmelt runoff period), flows entering the Project impoundment are often in excess of the sum of the maximum Project diversion (150 cfs) and the proposed minimum instream flow (30 cfs from March 1 through July 31 and 20 cfs from August 1 through February 28). At these times, all flows in excess of 180 or 170 cfs, respectively, would remain within the bypassed reach. This scenario is common in the months of April, May, and June.

Project facilities and operations do not cause any direct discharge or load of water quality-related constituents to Project waters.

Page 26 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

5.0 CLEAN WATER ACT COMPLIANCE

CWA subsection 401(a) requires compliance with CWA Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 (33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1312, 1313, 1316, 1317). Of these sections, only sections 301 and 303 apply to the proposed Project.

5.1 SECTION 301—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

CWA Section 301 requires a permit for, and imposes limits on, the addition of pollutants to “navigable waters” from a point source. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), (b), 1342, 1344, 1362(12). These requirements generally do not apply to most ongoing operations of a hydroelectric project, which typically do not add any pollutants from the “outside world” to water bodies. See, e.g., National Wildlife Fed. v. Consumers Power Co., 862 F.2d 580, 584-88 (6th Cir. 1988). Nonetheless, hydroelectric facilities may generate and discharge small amounts of wastewater containing “pollutants” such as heat. For example, DEQ has, pursuant to its delegated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authority under the CWA, issued general NPDES permit number 100-J, which authorizes the discharge of cooling and sump water from hydroelectric facilities. In addition, any activities associated with a hydroelectric project that would require the addition of fill material into “waters of the United States” would require a CWA Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1344.

The proposed Project complies with CWA Section 301. Discharges of cooling water from the Project powerhouse are authorized by general NPDES permit number 100-J (State File No. 66624). PacifiCorp complies with, and will continue to comply with, the terms of this permit and any renewal of it. In addition, following issuance of a new FERC license for the Project, PacifiCorp will obtain and comply with the terms of a Section 404 permit for any other proposed modifications of the Project that require removal or addition of fill material into waters of the United States.3

5.2 SECTION 302—WATER QUALITY RELATED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

CWA Section 302 does not apply to the Project. Section 302 authorizes EPA to establish water quality-related effluent limits for certain types of point sources. See 33 U.S.C. § 1312. No such limits have been established for hydroelectric projects.

5.3 SECTION 303—WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

CWA Section 303 requires states to establish and obtain EPA approval of water quality standards. See 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c). The proposed Project complies with applicable water quality standards established by the State of Oregon pursuant to CWA Section 303. Oregon water quality standards are outlined and characterized, as applicable to the Project, below in Section 6.0.

3 DEQ’s practice for future section 404 permits has been to certify them separately under section 401.

February 2018 Page 27 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

5.4 SECTION 306—NATIONAL STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

CWA Section 306 provides effluent limits for certain point sources. These limits do not apply to hydroelectric projects in general or to the proposed Project in particular.

5.5 SECTION 307—TOXIC AND PRETREATMENT EFFLUENT STANDARDS

CWA Section 307 authorizes EPA to establish limits for discharges of certain toxic pollutants and also regulates discharges to publicly owned sewage treatment works. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1316, 1317. None of these limits apply to hydroelectric projects in general or to the proposed Project in particular.

Page 28 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

6.0 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to OAR 340-048-0020(g), this section of the WQC application identifies applicable water quality standards set forth in OAR Chapter 340, Division 41. This section further discusses the potential effects to water quality for each standard or rule as a result of the proposed Project.

6.1 ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY

6.1.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0004. Antidegradation.

(1) Purpose. The purpose of the Antidegradation Policy is to guide decisions that affect water quality such that unnecessary further degradation from new or increased point and nonpoint sources of pollution is prevented, and to protect, maintain, and enhance existing surface water quality to ensure the full protection of all existing beneficial uses. The standards and policies set forth in OAR 340-041-0007 through 340-041-0350 are intended to supplement the Antidegradation Policy;

(2) Growth Policy. In order to maintain the quality of waters in the State of Oregon, it is the general policy of the [Environmental Quality] Commission to require that growth and development be accommodated by increased efficiency and effectiveness of waste treatment and control such that measurable future discharged waste loads from existing sources do not exceed presently allowed discharged loads except as provided in section (3) through (9) of this rule.

(3) Nondegradation Discharges. The following new or increased discharges are subject to this Division [OAR Chapter 340, Division 041]. However, because they are not considered degradation of water quality, they are not required to undergo an antidegradation review under this rule:

. . . . .

(c) Temperature. Insignificant temperature increases authorized under OAR 340-041- 0028(11) and (12) are not considered a reduction in water quality.

(d) Dissolved Oxygen. Up to a 0.1 mg/L decrease in dissolved oxygen from the upstream end of a stream reach to the downstream end of the reach is not considered a reduction in water quality so long as it has no adverse effects on threatened and endangered species.

(4) Recurring Activities. . . . [T]he baseline for applying the antidegradation policy to an individual source is the water quality resulting from the source’s currently authorized discharge . . . .

(5) Exemptions to the Antidegradation Requirement. Some activities may, on a short term basis, cause temporary water quality degradation. However, these same activities may also have substantial and desirable environmental benefits. The following activities and situations fall into this category. Such activities and situations remain subject to water quality standards, and must demonstrate that they have minimized adverse effects to threatened and endangered species in order to be exempt from the antidegradation review under this rule:

(a) Riparian Restoration Activities. Activities that are intended to restore the geomorphology or riparian vegetation of a water body, or control invasive species need not undergo an

February 2018 Page 29 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

antidegradation review so long as the Department [DEQ] determines that there is a net ecological benefit to the restoration activity. Reasonable measures that are consistent with the restoration objectives for the water body must be used to minimize the degradation.

(b) Emergency Situations. The Director [of DEQ] or a designee may, for a period of time no greater than 6 months, allow lower water quality without an antidegradation review under this rule in order to respond to public health and welfare emergencies (for example, a significant threat of loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage);

. . . . .

(6) High Quality Waters Policy: Where the existing water quality meets or exceeds those levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, and other designated beneficial uses, that level of water quality must be maintained and protected. However, the Environmental Quality Commission, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the continuing planning process, and with full consideration of sections (2) and (9) of this rule, and OAR 340-041-0007(4), may allow a lowering of water quality in these high quality waters if it finds:

(a) No other reasonable alternatives exist except to lower water quality; and

(b) The action is necessary and benefits of the lowered water quality outweigh the environmental costs of the reduced water quality. This evaluation will be conducted in accordance with DEQ’s “Antidegradation Policy Implementation Internal Management Directive for NPDES Permits and section 401 water quality certifications,” pages 27, and 33-39 (March 2001) incorporated herein by reference;

(c) All water quality standards will be met and beneficial uses protected; and

(d) Federal threatened and endangered aquatic species will not be adversely affected.

(7) Water Quality Limited Waters Policy: Water quality limited water bodies may not be further degraded except in accordance with section (9)(a)(B), (C) and (D) of this rule.

. . . .

(9) Exceptions. The Commission or Department may grant exceptions to this rule. . . .

(a) In allowing new or increased discharged loads, the Commission or Department must make the following findings:

(A) The new or increased discharged load will not cause water quality standards to be violated;

(B) The action is necessary and benefits of the lowered water quality outweigh the environmental costs of the reduced water quality. . . . .

(C) The new or increased discharged load would not unacceptably threaten or impair any recognized beneficial uses or adversely affect threatened or endangered species. In making this determination, the Commission or

Page 30 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Department may rely upon the presumption that if the numeric criteria established to protect specific uses are met the beneficial uses they were designed to protect are protected. . . .

(D) The new or increased discharged load shall not be granted if the receiving stream is classified as being water quality limited under sub-section (a) of the definition of “Water Quality Limited” in OAR 340-041-0002, unless:

(i) The pollutant parameters associated with the proposed discharge are unrelated either directly or indirectly to the parameter(s) causing the receiving stream to violate water quality standards and being designated water quality limited; or

(ii) Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), waste load allocations (WLAs)[,] load allocations (LAs), and the reserve capacity have been established for the water quality limited receiving stream; and compliance plans under which enforcement action can be taken have been established; and there will be sufficient reserve capacity to assimilate the increased load under the established TMDL at the time of the discharge; . . . .

The antidegradation policy is complex and includes additional provisions that are not quoted above. Several aspects of the policy merit emphasis, as discussed below.

First, the antidegradation policy protects “existing” water quality, not a hypothetical level of water quality that existed before anthropogenic influence. Project construction ended in 1931, long before the antidegradation policy was first established in the 1970s. The Project has been in continuous operation since then. In applying the antidegradation policy to the Project, one must consider adverse changes from the current level of water quality that might be due to any proposed changes in the Project or its operations.

Second, different provisions of the antidegradation policy apply to different types of waters. OAR 340-041-0004(6) applies to “high quality waters.” OAR 340-041-0004(7) applies to “water quality limited waters.” A water body may be a high-quality water for one parameter and a water quality limited water for another parameter. If, as stated in DEQ (2001), the water body does not meet all water quality criteria, it is a “water quality limited water.” The substantive elements of the policy for each type of water, however, do not differ significantly.

Third, OAR 340-041-0004(5) allows DEQ to authorize lower water quality for riparian restoration activities and, on a short-term basis, in order to respond to emergencies or to otherwise protect public health and welfare. This applies to both high-quality waters and water quality limited waters.

Finally, insignificant changes in water quality are not subject to the antidegradation policy. (Id.) For some water quality parameters, such as temperature, the level of significance is defined by rule. See, for example, OAR 340-041-0004(3)(c) (i.e., defining an insignificant temperature increase as an increase of 0.3ºC. or less). For other water quality parameters, what constitutes an insignificant change must be defined using best professional judgment and considering the specific circumstances at hand, such as the percentage change in ambient conditions, the

February 2018 Page 31 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) reduction in assimilative capacity, the cumulative effects of other dischargers, and the effects on beneficial uses. (Antidegradation Policy Internal Management Directive at 16.)

6.1.2 Discussion

The proposed changes for the Project (as described in Section 3.2 above) will have a neutral or positive effect on water quality. Some proposed enhancements, such as the flowline replacement, may cause short-term degradation associated with construction activities. However, temporary degradation from enhancement actions is not subject to the antidegradation policy. See OAR 340-041-0004(5)(a)

6.2 STATEWIDE NARRATIVE CRITERIA

Project compliance with statewide narrative criteria standards (OAR 340-041-0007) is discussed in this section. Criteria that do not generally (e.g., -0007(8) agency coordination) or specifically (e.g., -0007(3) new waste sources) apply to hydropower projects or the Prospect No. 3 Project, respectively, are not included herein.

6.2.1 General

6.2.1.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0007(1). Notwithstanding the water quality standards contained in this Division, the highest and best practicable treatment and/or control of wastes, activities, and flows must in every case be provided so as to maintain dissolved oxygen and overall water quality at the highest possible levels and water temperatures, coliform bacteria concentrations, dissolved chemical substances, toxic materials, radioactivity, turbidities, color, odor, and other deleterious factors at the lowest possible levels.

6.2.1.2 Discussion

Project facilities and operations do not significantly impact overall water quality in the South Fork Rogue as evidenced by adherence to and/or beneficial exceedance of numeric criteria. The Project complies with this standard.

6.2.2 Discharge of Wastes

6.2.2.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0007(4). No discharges of wastes to lakes or reservoirs may be allowed except as provided in section OAR 340-041-0004(9).

6.2.2.2 Discussion

The Project does not result in the discharge of wastes as defined in OAR 340-041-0002(69).

Page 32 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

6.2.3 Log Handling

6.2.3.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0007(5). Log handling in public waters must conform to current Commission policies and guidelines.

6.2.3.2 Discussion

The Project operates in run-of-river mode, and the Project impoundment is ungated at the diversion dam, which allows logs to pass downstream under high flow conditions. Any future log handling (e.g., hazard tree removal) will adhere to current policies and guidelines.

6.2.4 Sand and Gravel Removal

6.2.4.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0007(6). Sand and gravel removal operations must be conducted pursuant to a permit from the Division of State Lands and separated from the active flowing stream by a watertight berm wherever physically practicable. Recirculation and reuse of process water must be required wherever practicable. Discharges or seepage or leakage losses to public waters may not cause a violation of water quality standards or adversely affect legitimate beneficial uses.

6.2.4.2 Discussion

Sediment removal from waters of the U.S. or waters of the state will be subject to CWA Section 404 authorization from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or state removal-fill authorization from the Department of State Lands. Removal-fill permits have been obtained during the current license term to remove accumulated sediments from the impoundment. It is anticipated that these same operations will occur in the proposed FERC license term. Efforts will be made to isolate work areas from the flowing stream where and when practicable.

6.2.5 Road Building and Maintenance

6.2.5.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0007(7). Road building and maintenance activities must be conducted in a manner so as to keep waste materials out of public waters and minimize erosion of cut banks, fills, and road surfaces.

6.2.5.2 Discussion

Construction and maintenance of project access roads, waterways, and staging areas has resulted in the removal of vegetative cover and the exposure and compaction of soils. In particular, the dam access road and penstock slope were identified in Scoping Document 2 (FERC, 2013) for their potential impact to soil resources. With respect to the penstock slope, grasses, forbs, and shrubs provide over eighty percent areal cover on average, and water bars are present where necessary to route leakage and/or precipitation-derived sheet flows to natural drainages primarily

February 2018 Page 33 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) to the east of the penstock alignment, thereby reducing the potential for erosion along this slope during normal operating conditions. Water bars are also present on the dam access road to facilitate appropriate draining and prevent volumes of water that may otherwise mobilize sediments on an exposed native surface slope. However, potential for future erosion along the dam access road would increase if the water bars and ditch lines are not maintained properly.

6.2.5.3 Proposal

PacifiCorp proposes to prepare and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP; FLA Volume III, Appendix A) to minimize the effects of ground-disturbing maintenance and construction projects, including the flowline and sag-pipe replacements. The ESCP would include inspection and maintenance schedules and specifications for ensuring the proper operation of erosion and sediment controls, including Project access road waterbars. The ESCP would identify erosion control best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented during any ground-disturbing activities. Implementation of the ESCP would minimize Project-related erosion and ensure compliance with the applicable narrative standard.

6.2.6 Development of Fungi

6.2.6.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0007(9). The development of fungi or other growths having a deleterious effect on stream bottoms, fish or other aquatic life, or that are injurious to health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.

6.2.6.2 Discussion

No physical or biological processes associated with the proposed Project create fungi or other growths that result in deleterious effects on designated beneficial uses. The Project complies with this standard. No specific Project-related action with respect to control or management of fungi or other growths is necessary or proposed.

6.2.7 Tastes or Odors

6.2.7.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0007(10). The creation of tastes or odors or toxic or other conditions that are deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or affect the potability of drinking water or the palatability of fish or shellfish may not be allowed.

Although the criterion also refers to “toxic or other conditions that are deleterious to fish or aquatic life,” that provision has been superseded by the narrative and numeric criteria for toxic substances in OAR 340-041-0033, which are discussed below.

6.2.7.2 Discussion

Neither the proposed Project nor its operations create tastes or odors in the water that would affect the potability of drinking water or the palatability of fish or shellfish. The Project complies

Page 34 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) with this standard. No specific Project-related action with respect to control or management of tastes or odors is necessary or proposed.

6.2.8 Bottom or Sludge Deposits

6.2.8.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0007(11). The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.

6.2.8.2 Discussion

No physical or biological processes associated with the proposed Project create appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits deleterious to fish or other aquatic life. The Project complies with this standard. No specific Project-related action with respect to control or management of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits is necessary or proposed.

6.2.9 Discoloration, Scum, Oily Sheens, et. al

6.2.9.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0007(12). Objectionable discoloration, scum, oily sheens, or floating solids, or coating of aquatic life with oil films may not be allowed.

For these effects to be “objectionable,” they must be more than perceptible and must have adverse effects on designated beneficial uses.

6.2.9.2 Discussion

Neither the proposed Project nor its operations create objectionable discoloration, scum, oily sheens, or floating solids or coat aquatic life with oil. The Project complies with this standard. Current spill prevention and response plans will be maintained to prevent spills of oil or hazardous substances and to facilitate a rapid response in the event of an accidental release of these substances.

6.2.10 Aesthetic Conditions

6.2.10.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0007(13). Aesthetic conditions offensive to the human senses of sight, taste, smell, or touch may not be allowed.

“Offensive” is an inherently subjective term, but it connotes something more than conditions that are merely perceptible or undesirable. If a condition is “offensive,” it should produce some sort of behavioral response, such as avoidance of the area. For example, water conditions could

February 2018 Page 35 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) be considered “offensive” if they caused swimmers, boaters, or anglers to avoid the area or caused persons not to drink water from the area.

6.2.10.2 Discussion

Project facilities and operations do not create or cause any known aesthetic conditions offensive to the human senses of sight, taste, smell, or touch. Any potential for Project effects on aesthetic conditions would be related to turbidity as described in Section 6.12. The Project is consistent with existing management designations, plans and objectives governing aesthetic resources. The Project complies with this standard, and no measures are necessary or proposed to address the specific criterion.

6.2.11 Radioisotopes

6.2.11.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0007(14). Radioisotope concentrations may not exceed maximum permissible concentrations (MPCs) in drinking water, edible fishes or shellfishes, wildlife, irrigated crops, livestock and dairy products, or pose an external radiation hazard.

6.2.11.2 Current Conditions

No radioisotopes are being added to the water by the Project, and there are no known naturally occurring problems with radioisotopes. The Project complies with this standard, and no measures are necessary or proposed to address this specific criterion.

6.3 BACTERIA

6.3.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0009. Bacteria.

(1) Numeric Criteria: Organisms commonly associated with fecal sources may not exceed the criteria in subsections (a)-(c) of this section:

(a) Freshwater contact recreation:

(A) A 90-day geometric mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 mL;

(B) No single sample may exceed 406 E. coli organisms per 100 mL.

OAR 340-041-0009(2). A minimum of five samples in a 90-day period is required for calculating the criteria in sections (1)(a)(A) . . . .

OAR 340-041-0009(5). Bacterial pollution or other conditions deleterious to waters used for domestic purposes, livestock watering, irrigation, bathing, or shellfish propagation, or otherwise injurious to public health may not be allowed.

Page 36 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

6.3.2 303(d) List

No segments of the Rogue River upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir are included on the Oregon 2010 or 2012 303(d) lists of water quality limited water bodies with respect to E. coli or fecal coliform bacteria.

6.3.3 Discussion

PacifiCorp collected monthly grab samples for bacteria analysis in Imnaha Creek and the South Fork above and below the dam in May through October 2012. E. coli was detected at concentrations up to 9.6 organisms per 100 ml which is well below the DEQ numeric single- sample maximum of 406 E. coli organisms per 100 ml. Total coliform bacteria were detected at concentrations up to 187.2 organisms per 100 ml. DEQ has no numeric criterion for total coliform bacteria. There are no Project-related discharges of raw or treated sewage or animal wastes into these waters, and there is no reason to suspect that the Project affects bacteria levels in these waters.

The Project complies with this standard. No specific action with respect to bacteria control or management is necessary or proposed.

6.4 BIOCRITERIA

6.4.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0011. Waters of the State must be of sufficient quality to support aquatic species without detrimental changes in the resident biological communities.

Several definitions codified in OAR 340-041-0002 are pertinent to this criterion. They are:

(5) “Appropriate Reference Site or Region” means a site on the same water body, or within the same basin or ecoregion that has similar habitat conditions, and represents the water quality and biological community attainable within the areas of concern.

(6) “Aquatic Species” means any plants or animals that live at least part of their life cycle in waters of the state.

(19) “Ecological Integrity” means the summation of chemical, physical and biological integrity capable of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of the natural habitat of the region.

(50) “Resident Biological Community” means aquatic life expected to exist in a particular habitat when water quality standards for a specific ecoregion, basin, or water body are met. This shall be established by accepted biomonitoring techniques.

(75) “Without Detrimental Changes in the Resident Biological Community” means no loss of ecological integrity when compared to natural conditions at an appropriate reference site or region.

February 2018 Page 37 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

This narrative biological criterion was adopted in anticipation of the development of more precise, region-specific numeric biocriteria. The criterion was expressly not intended to be more stringent than the preexisting narrative criteria set forth in OAR 340-041-0007, 340-041-0009(5), and 340-041-0031(1) (DEQ, Triennial Review Issue Paper No. 13, Biological Criteria 12-13 [Oct. 22, 1990]). In response to public comments on the proposed narrative biological criterion, DEQ stated:

Oregon Administrative Rules already include narrative standards for the protection of aquatic life. Therefore, the proposed rule does not add any requirements that cities and businesses do not already have to meet. Rather, the new language clarifies current standards to assure that water quality will adequately protect aquatic communities. Further, EPA has directed states to adopt narrative biological criteria as part of state standards in order to comply with the Clean Water Act.

Because standards already exist for the protection of aquatic life, there should be no significant change in implementation or enforcement with adoption of this new language…

(Id.)

6.4.2 303(d) List

No segments of the Rogue River upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir are included on the Oregon 2010 or 2012 303(d) lists of water quality limited water bodies with respect to biocriteria.

6.4.3 Discussion

As described above, the narrative biological criterion is intended to clarify that the existing narrative water quality criteria apply to aquatic communities, not to establish new or separate water quality criteria. The proposed Project is consistent with the protection of aquatic life. In addition, as described in Section 6.2 above, the Project complies with the narrative water quality criteria, including for application to the Project area’s aquatic communities. Hence, the Project complies with this narrative biological criterion.

6.5 DISSOLVED OXYGEN

6.5.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0016. Dissolved oxygen (DO): No wastes may be discharged and no activities may be conducted that either alone or in combination with other wastes or activities will cause violation of the following standards . . . :

(1) For water bodies identified as active spawning areas in the places and times indicated on the following Tables and Figures set out in OAR 340-041-0101 to OAR 340-041-0340: Figures . . .271B. . . , (as well as any active spawning area used by resident trout species), the following criteria apply during the applicable spawning through fry emergence periods set forth in the tables and figures, and, where resident trout spawning occurs, during the time trout spawning through fry emergence occurs:

Page 38 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

(a) The dissolved oxygen may not be less than 11.0 mg/L. However, if the minimum intergravel dissolved oxygen, measured as a spatial median, is 8.0 mg/L or greater, then the DO criterion is 9.0 mg/L;

(b) Where conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, and temperature preclude attainment of the 11.0 mg/L or 9.0 mg/L criteria, dissolved oxygen levels must not be less than 95 percent of saturation.

(c) The spatial median intergravel dissolved oxygen concentration must not fall below 8.0 mg/L;

(2) For water bodies identified by the Department as providing cold-water aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen may not be less than 8.0 mg/L as an absolute minimum. Where conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, and temperature preclude attainment of the 8.0 mg/L, dissolved oxygen may not be less than 90 percent of saturation. At the discretion of the Department, when the Department determines that adequate information exists, the dissolved oxygen may not fall below 8.0 mg/L as a 30-day mean minimum, 6.5 mg/L as a seven-day minimum mean, and may not fall below 6.0 mg/L as an absolute minimum (Table 21).

6.5.2 303(d) List

No segments of the Rogue River upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir are included on the Oregon 2010 or 2012 303(d) lists of water quality limited water bodies with respect to dissolved oxygen.

6.5.3 Discussion

Figure 271B does not identify any waters upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir as waters in which there is anadromous salmonid spawning. However, Figure 271A designates the South Fork Rogue River and other waters upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir for resident trout uses. Therefore, the spawning DO criteria apply during the time trout spawning through fry emergence occurs. The water column spawning criterion is 11.0 mg/L unless the minimum intergravel dissolved oxygen concentration, measured as a spatial median, is 8.0 mg/L or more. If so, the water column spawning criterion is 9.0 mg/L.

In a letter dated February 4, 2004, from Michael Llewellyn, DEQ Water Quality Program Administrator, to Randy Smith, EPA Region 10 Office of Water Director, DEQ interpreted the spawning criteria to apply to waters for which resident trout is a designated use from January 1 to May 15 each year. ODFW, however, has stated that the rainbow trout spawning through fry emergence period in the South Fork Rogue River is February through July.

All Project waters are designated for cold-water aquatic life (OAR 340-041-0016(2)), and the cold water aquatic life criteria would apply during the period outside of the identified trout spawning criteria period.

February 2018 Page 39 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Project facilities and operations do not contribute any oxygen-demanding substances in Project waters. Project operations can affect physical flow conditions (e.g., flow quantity, depths, and velocities) in the South Fork bypassed reach. However, as described further below, water temperature and turbulence are sufficient to maintain greater than 8.0 mg/L of DO in Project waters designated to provide cold-water aquatic life.

6.5.3.1 Dissolved Oxygen Conditions

DO levels recorded at each monitoring site demonstrate compliance with Oregon’s minimum numeric criteria of 8.0 mg/L for waters identified as providing cold-water life (Table 7). Mean hourly DO readings at SFBU, SFBM, and SFBL ranged from 9.55 to 11.82 mg/L throughout the monitoring periods in May through October. The month of July had the lowest 72-hour mean DO readings overall with values of 9.85, 9.55, and 10.66 mg/L for SFBU, SFBM, and SFBL, respectively. The minimum observed hourly DO measurement was 9.07 mg/L and was recorded at SFBM on July 10, 2014.

DO readings taken at each site and during each sampling period appeared to have a sinusoidal pattern in which the wavelength is approximately equal to one day. The crests and troughs of the DO curves were inversely proportionate to daily water temperature swings (i.e., the highest daily points of DO coincided with the lowest daily points of temperature, and vice versa). PacifiCorp also suspects that flora and fauna DO production and consumption, respectively, contributed to the observed sinusoidal patterns of DO levels.

Table 7. Mean and range of hourly DO (mg/L) readings for each monitoring site (2014-2015). May Period June Period July Period Aug. Period Sept. Period Oct. Period (2015) (2014) (2014) (2014) (2014) (2014) Site

Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range

SFBU 11.30 1.54 10.24 0.97 9.85 1.00 10.14 0.86 10.36 1.13 10.74 0.54

SFBM 10.84 1.17 9.95 0.88 9.55 0.90 10.14 0.84 10.38 0.96 10.51 0.49

SFBL 11.10 0.99 10.41 0.68 10.66 0.85 11.65 0.67 11.82 0.69 10.69 0.41

6.5.3.2 Project Effects on Dissolved Oxygen

The primary potential Project effect on DO under current Project operations is the diversion of flow from the South Fork. Diversion of flow has the potential to affect physical flow conditions (e.g., flow quantity, depths, and velocities in the bypassed reach), which in turn could affect aeration of waters affected by such conditions. Such effects have the potential to affect DO by increasing the amount of oxygen entering the water from surrounding air. However, no significant adverse effects on DO occur under current operations or are expected from the proposed modified instream flow releases. Project facilities and operations do not cause or contribute to any oxygen-demanding substances in Project waters.

Page 40 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

The Project complies with the cold water aquatic life criteria. To further evaluate compliance with the spawning criteria, PacifiCorp proposes to monitor DO and intergravel DO during the period when the criteria apply for the first year following license issuance to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria under the proposed minimum flow regime.

6.6 NUISANCE PHYTOPLANKTON GROWTH

6.6.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0019. Nuisance Phytoplankton Growth.

(1)(a) The following values and implementation program must be applied to lakes, reservoirs, estuaries and streams, except for ponds and reservoirs less than ten acres in surface area, marshes and saline lakes:

(b) The following average Chlorophyll a values must be used to identify water bodies where phytoplankton may impair the recognized beneficial uses:

(A) Natural lakes that thermally stratify: 0.01 mg/L;

(B) Natural lakes that do not thermally stratify, reservoirs, rivers and estuaries: 0.015 mg/L;

(C) Average Chlorophyll a values may be based on the following methodology (or other methods approved by the Department [DEQ]): A minimum of three samples collected over any three consecutive months at a minimum of one representative location (e.g., above the deepest point of a lake or reservoir or at a point mid-flow of a river) from samples integrated from the surface to a depth equal to twice the Secchi depth or the bottom (the lesser of the two depths); analytical and quality assurance methods shall be in accordance with the most recent edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater

(2) Upon determination by the Department [DEQ] that the values in section (1) of this rule are exceeded, the Department may:

(a) In accordance with a schedule approved by the [Environmental Quality] Commission, conduct such studies as are necessary to describe present water quality; determine the impacts on beneficial uses; determine the probable causes of the exceedance and beneficial use impact; and develop a proposed control strategy for attaining compliance where technically and economically practicable. Proposed strategies could include standards for additional pollutant parameters, pollutant discharge load limitations, and other such provisions as may be appropriate. Where natural conditions are responsible for exceedance of the values in section (1) of this rule or beneficial uses are not impaired, the values in section (1) of this rule may be modified to an appropriate value for that water body;

(b) Conduct necessary public hearings preliminary to adoption of a control strategy, standards or modified values after obtaining [Environmental Quality] Commission authorization;

February 2018 Page 41 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

(c) Implement the strategy upon adoption by the [Environmental Quality] Commission.

(3) In cases where waters exceed the values in section (1) of this rule and the necessary studies are not completed, the Department [DEQ] may approve new activities (which require Department approval), [or] new or additional (above currently approved permit limits) discharge loadings from point sources provided that it is determined that beneficial uses would not be significantly impaired by the new activity or discharge.

OAR 340-041-0019 does not establish a water quality criterion for nuisance phytoplankton. Rather, it establishes an “action level,” based on average chlorophyll a values, that is to be “used to identify water bodies where phytoplankton may impair the recognized beneficial uses.” If the action level is exceeded, the rule sets forth a process for DEQ to evaluate whether beneficial uses are adversely affected and, if they are, to develop a control strategy, which may be implemented upon approval by the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC). Absent an impairment of beneficial uses and a control strategy approved by the EQC, OAR 340-041-0019 does not require any substantive measures to address exceedances of the average chlorophyll a action level.

6.6.2 303(d) List

No segments of the Rogue River upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir are included on the Oregon 2010 or 2012 303(d) lists of water quality limited water bodies with respect to nuisance phytoplankton growth.

6.6.3 Discussion

The impoundment created by the South Fork diversion dam is less than the 10-acre minimum size described in OAR 340-041-0019(1)(a) as warranting nuisance phytoplankton sampling. Project facilities and operations do not contribute to phytoplankton growth in Project waters. There are no Project-related discharges of nutrients or other conditions that would contribute to increased primary production.

The Project complies with this standard. No specific Project-related action with respect to nuisance phytoplankton growth control or management is necessary or proposed.

6.7 PH (HYDROGEN ION CONCENTRATION)

6.7.1 Applicable Standard

340-041-0275. Water Quality Standards and Policies for [Rogue] Basin

(1) pH (hydrogen ion concentration). pH values may not fall outside the following ranges:

(b) Estuarine and fresh waters (except Cascade lakes): 6.5-8.5.

The applicable standard is the Rogue Basin-specific criteria as directed by OAR 340-041-0021.

Page 42 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

6.7.2 303(d) List

No segments of the Rogue River upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir are included on the Oregon 2010 or 2012 303(d) lists of water quality limited water bodies with respect to pH.

6.7.3 Discussion

All pH data gathered at each monitoring site complied with the standard pH of 6.5 to 8.5 for estuarine and fresh waters in the Rogue basin (Table 8). Minimum and maximum pH values typically ranged from 7 to 8 at all sites, with some spatial and seasonal variation. The minimum pH reading was 6.92 and was recorded at the SFBU site on May 5, 2015.

February 2018 Page 43 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Table 8. 24-hour minimum and maximum pH values (2014-2015). May Sampling Period June Sampling Period

5/5/2015 5/6/2015 5/7/2015 6/6/2014 6/7/2014 6/8/2014

Site Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.

SFBU 6.92 7.19 6.95 7.22 6.95 7.22 7.66 7.88 7.65 7.89 7.66 7.69

SFBM 7.48 7.62 7.49 7.61 7.50 7.61 7.45 7.81 7.48 7.86 7.47 7.75

SFBL 7.16 7.30 7.17 7.30 7.18 7.29 7.21 7.31 7.20 7.32 7.19 7.33

July Sampling Period August Sampling Period

7/9/2014 7/10/2014 7/11/2014 8/28/2014 8/29/2014 8/30/2014 Site Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.

SFBU 7.64 8.00 7.68 8.00 7.68 7.92 7.67 7.94 7.65 7.94 7.65 7.95

SFBM 7.45 7.81 7.48 7.86 7.47 7.85 7.50 7.80 7.53 7.81 7.54 7.85

SFBL 7.12 7.31 7.16 7.32 7.17 7.30 7.27 7.40 7.28 7.39 7.29 7.43

September Sampling Period October Sampling Period

9/2/2014 9/3/2014 9/4/2014 10/24/2014 10/25/2014 10/26/2014 Site Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.

SFBU 7.62 7.88 7.70 7.88 7.69 7.90 7.74 7.87 7.74 7.88 7.74 7.87

SFBM 7.56 7.79 7.56 7.79 7.55 7.79 7.26 7.28 7.25 7.26 7.24 7.26

SFBL 7.28 7.37 7.30 7.39 7.29 7.37 7.53 7.63 7.55 7.64 7.56 7.64

There are no Project-related discharges of nutrients or other conditions that contribute to primary production that could affect pH. Project facilities and operations do not use or discharge any other substances to Project waters that could affect buffering capacity and pH. The Project complies with this standard. No specific Project-related action with respect to nuisance pH control or management is necessary or proposed.

6.8 TEMPERATURE

6.8.1 Applicable Standard

Oregon’s water temperature standard includes biologically based numeric criteria, as well as implementation provisions for specific types of sources. The biologically based criteria and

Page 44 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) implementation provisions that apply to the Project and to the waters affected or potentially affected by the Project are set forth below.

OAR 340-041-0028: Temperature

(4) Biologically Based Numeric Criteria. Unless superseded… by subsequently adopted site- specific criteria approved by EPA, the temperature criteria for State waters supporting salmonid fishes are as follows:

. . . . .

(c) The seven-day-average maximum temperature of a stream identified as having salmon and trout rearing and migration use on subbasin maps set out at OAR 340-041-0101 to 340-041-0340: Figures . . . 271A, . . . may not exceed 18.0 degrees Celsius (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit);.

. . . . .

Based on the fish use designations in Figure 271A to OAR 340-041-0271, the only biologically based numeric temperature criterion that applies to waters affected or potentially affected by the proposed Project is the criterion for streams identified as having salmon and trout rearing and migration. The criterion is 18.0°C, expressed as a moving 7-day-average of daily maximum temperatures (“7DMAX”). This criterion applies year-round in all waters affected or potentially affected by the proposed Project.

6.8.2 303(d) List

No segments of the Rogue River upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir are included on the Oregon 2010 or 2012 303(d) lists of water quality limited water bodies with respect to water temperature.

6.8.3 Discussion

Project facilities and operations do not cause any direct thermal discharge or load to Project waters. Project operations can affect physical flow conditions (e.g., flow quantity, depths, and velocities in the South Fork bypassed reach) that have the potential to affect water temperature by increasing the amount of solar radiation entering the water. However, as described further below, such effects will not result in significant water temperature changes in Project waters. PacifiCorp conducted data collection and analysis to assess potential effects because water temperature is an important parameter for supporting cold-water biota (e.g., native trout) in Project waters.

6.8.3.1 Water Temperature Conditions

As described in PacifiCorp (2016), continuous water temperature monitoring was conducted during May 2014 through May 2015 at sites in the South Fork above the diversion dam (site “SFRI”), in Imnaha Creek above the diversion dam (site “IMCI”), in the upper end of the South Fork bypassed reach below the Project Diversion dam (site “SFBU”), in the middle of the bypassed reach (site “SFBM”), in the lower end of the bypassed reach within the zone of

February 2018 Page 45 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) groundwater influence (site “SFBL”). All 7DMAX data from each monitoring site demonstrate compliance with Oregon’s numeric criteria of a 7DMAX temperature of 18˚C (Table 9). The largest 7DMAX of 14.43˚C occurred on July 17, 2014 at the SFBM monitoring site. The SFBM site is the furthest site downstream of the diversion dam that is not influenced by groundwater inflows, likely making it the most susceptible to increased water temperatures via solar radiation. Given this, the maximum 7DMAX of 14.43˚C at SFBM is still well below Oregon’s criteria of 18˚C. All 7DMAX temperatures are shown in graphical form in Figure 4.

Table 9. Summary of 7DMAX temperatures at each monitoring site (May 2014-May 2015). 7DMAX Temperatures Metric IMCI SFRI SFBU SFBM SFBL

Maximum 14.11 13.23 13.97 14.43 12.06

Minimum 3.03 4.04 2.53 3.14 4.20

Average 8.04 7.80 7.60 7.58 8.11

Figure 4. 7DMAX temperatures at each monitoring site (May 2014-May 2015).

In general, water temperatures immediately downstream of the diversion at SFBU were slightly colder in the summer season and slightly warmer in the winter season than water temperatures in the South Fork Rogue above the diversion at SFRI (Figure 4). This is to be expected as Imnaha Creek inflows appear to be less influenced by seasonal weather patterns (i.e., Imnaha Creek water is colder during summer and warmer during winter) than the temperatures observed at SFRI. During the summer season, and without any significant groundwater or lateral inflows between SFBU and SFBM, PacifiCorp observed SFBM temperatures to be slightly warmer than

Page 46 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) temperatures at SFBU. Temperatures at SFBL showed a more seasonally stable regime due to groundwater influence.

6.8.4 Proposal

No specific Project-related action with respect to water temperature control or management is necessary or proposed. As described above, Project-related effects on water temperature are negligible. Moreover, the proposed modified instream flow increases will provide additional protection from any potential temperature effects from physical flow conditions (e.g., flow quantity, depths, and velocities) in the South Fork bypassed reach.

6.9 TOTAL DISSOLVED GAS

6.9.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0031(2). Except when stream flow exceeds the ten-year, seven-day average flood, the concentration of total dissolved gas relative to atmospheric pressure at the point of sample collection may not exceed 110 percent of saturation. However, in hatchery-receiving waters and other waters of less than two feet in depth, the concentration of total dissolved gas relative to atmospheric pressure at the point of sample collection may not exceed 105 percent of saturation.

6.9.2 303(d) List

No segments of the Rogue River upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir are included on the Oregon 2010 or 2012 303(d) lists of water quality limited water bodies with respect to total dissolved gas (TDG).

6.9.3 Discussion

TDG supersaturation can occur at hydropower facilities when large volumes of water are spilled from dams and entrain significant volumes of atmospheric gases. TDG supersaturation typically occurs only at larger mainstem dams; where relatively deep reservoirs or non-turbulent river reaches offer less-effective gas dissipation than shallow, more turbulent river reaches that facilitate degassing. TDG monitoring is not warranted at the Project, as supersaturation is unlikely to occur below the South Fork dam due to shallow, turbulent waters and relatively low spill volumes. Waters exiting the powerhouse are conveyed via the Project sag-pipe to the Middle Fork Canal of the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Project and are not routinely discharged to Daniels Creek and/or Middle Fork Rogue.

Automation of the turbine pressure relief valve (PRV) has eliminated routine spill from the forebay overflow spillway to Daniels Creek and Middle Fork Rogue River. In the event of a generating unit trip and subsequent rise in forebay water surface elevation, the PRV will open to provide continuation of flow past the generating unit, into the tailrace, into the sag pipe, and ultimately into the Middle Fork Canal of the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Project. Similarly, automation of the tailrace backwater gate has eliminated spill from the tailrace overflow to Daniels Creek and Middle Fork Rogue River. Any spill to these receiving waters from the forebay or tailrace overflow spillways would be on an emergency or non-routine (i.e., contrary to

February 2018 Page 47 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) normal operations) basis. Therefore, normal operation does not impact TDG in Daniels Creek or Middle Fork Rogue River.

The Project is likely to comply with this standard. No specific Project-related action with respect to TDG control or management is necessary or proposed.

6.10 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS

6.10.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0275(2). Total Dissolved Solids. Guide concentrations listed below may not be exceeded unless otherwise specifically authorized by DEQ upon such conditions as it may deem necessary to carry out the general intent of this plan and to protect the beneficial uses set forth in OAR 340-04l-0271: 500.0 mg/l.

The applicable standard is the Rogue Basin-specific criteria as directed by OAR 340-041-0032.

6.10.2 303(d) List

No segments of the Rogue River upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir are included on the Oregon 2010 or 2012 303(d) lists of water quality limited water bodies with respect to total dissolved solids (TDS).

6.10.3 Discussion

PacifiCorp collected monthly grab samples in Imnaha Creek and South Fork Rogue, upstream and downstream of the dam, in July through October 2012. Compliance was maintained with the TDS standard throughout the sampling period. The greatest TDS concentration observed during the monitoring period was 68 mg/L, measured at IMCR on August 13, 2012. Values measured throughout the study are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Monthly TDS concentrations sampled at discrete monitoring sites (2012). South Fork South Fork Imnaha above below Date Creek diversion diversion (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

7/9/2012 55 47 48

8/13/2012 68 57 56

9/17/2012 46 46 50

10/30/2012 57 45 49

The Project complies with the applicable basin-specific TDS standard. No additional measures are proposed with respect to this criterion.

Page 48 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

6.11 TOXIC SUBSTANCES

6.11.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0033. Toxic Substances.

(1) Toxic Substances Narrative. Toxic substances may not be introduced above natural background levels in the waters of the state in amounts, concentrations, or combinations which may be harmful, may chemically change to harmful forms in the environment, or may accumulate in sediments or bioaccumulate in aquatic life or wildlife to levels that adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare or aquatic life, wildlife, or other designated beneficial uses.

(2) Aquatic Life Numeric Criteria. Levels of toxic substances in waters of the state may not exceed the applicable aquatic life criteria as defined in Table 30 under OAR 340-041-8033.

(3) Human Health Numeric Criteria. The criteria for waters of the state listed in Table 40 under OAR 340-041-8033 are established to protect Oregonians from potential adverse health effects associated with long-term exposure to toxic substances associated with consumption of fish, shellfish, and water.

(4) To establish permit or other regulatory limits for toxic substances without criteria in Table 30 under OAR 340-041-8033 or Table 40 under 340-041-8033, DEQ may use the guidance values in Table 31 under 340-041-8033, public health advisories, and other published scientific literature. DEQ may also require or conduct bio-assessment studies to monitor the toxicity to aquatic life of complex effluents, other suspected discharges or chemical substances without numeric criteria.

6.11.2 303(d) List

No segments of the Rogue River upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir are included on the Oregon 2010 or 2012 303(d) lists of water quality limited water bodies with respect to toxic substances.

6.11.3 Discussion

PacifiCorp collected monthly grab samples in Imnaha Creek and South Fork Rogue, upstream and downstream of the dam, in May through October 2012. Monthly samples were analyzed for a broad suite of metals. Only iron, lead, and nickel were detected in the samples. Concentrations of all metals were either below applicable acute and chronic aquatic life criteria or were not detected at concentrations exceeding laboratory method reporting limits. Project facilities and operations do not discharge any potentially-toxic substances to any waters in the Project area. The Project does not use or produce contaminants and potential toxins.

6.11.4 Proposal

PacifiCorp adheres to material storage, control, and maintenance procedures to prevent or reduce the potential for accidental release of potential contaminants. In addition, spill prevention and response plans are maintained at Project facilities in order to facilitate rapid response in the

February 2018 Page 49 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) unlikely event of an accidental release to Project waters. No other specific action with respect to toxic substances control or management is necessary or proposed.

6.12 TURBIDITY

6.12.1 Applicable Standard

OAR 340-041-0036. Turbidity (Nephelometric Turbidity Units, NTU): No more than a ten percent cumulative increase in natural stream turbidities may be allowed, as measured relative to a control point immediately upstream of the turbidity causing activity. However, limited duration activities necessary to address an emergency or to accommodate essential dredging, construction or other legitimate activities and which cause the standard to be exceeded may be authorized provided all practicable turbidity control techniques have been applied and one of the following has been granted:

(1) Emergency activities: Approval coordinated by the Department [DEQ] with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife under conditions they may prescribe to accommodate response to emergencies or to protect public health and welfare;

(2) Dredging, Construction or other Legitimate Activities: Permit or certification authorized under terms of section 401 or 404 (Permits and Licenses, Federal Water Pollution Control Act) or OAR 141-085-0100 et seq. (Removal and Fill Permits, Division of State Lands), with limitations and conditions governing the activity set forth in the permit or certificate.

The turbidity criterion consists of a general and a specific criterion. The general criterion limits turbidity increases to 10 percent above the turbidity measured at “a control point immediately upstream of the turbidity causing activity.” The specific criterion applies to “limited duration activities necessary to address an emergency or to accommodate essential dredging, construction or other legitimate activities.” Notwithstanding the general criterion, DEQ may authorize these activities provided that “all practicable turbidity control techniques have been applied.”

6.12.2 303(d) List

No segments of the Rogue River upstream of Lost Creek Reservoir are included on the Oregon 2010 or 2012 303(d) lists of water quality limited water bodies with respect to turbidity.

6.12.3 Discussion

PacifiCorp recorded monthly turbidity measurements in Imnaha Creek and South Fork Rogue, upstream and downstream of the dam, in May through October 2012. Water clarity in the vicinity of the Project is very high. Turbidity measurements at all locations ranged from 0.113 NTU to 0.857 NTU. Turbidity levels below the diversion dam ranged up to 0.323 NTU. Although paired turbidity measurements generally suggest lower turbidity levels below the diversion dam, measurements recorded on July 9, 2012, confirm an increase of 0.045 NTU relative to measurements upstream of the dam. This small increase was attributed to the normal variation of natural turbidities which occurs spatially throughout the water column rather than the effect of Project-related disturbances, such as aggressive ramping, maintenance, or in-water work.

Page 50 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Increases in turbidity can occur when adjustment of Project gates may result in ramping of sufficient rate and stage change to mobilize sediment in the Project impoundment to the bypassed reach. PacifiCorp conducted data collection and analysis to characterize sediments and turbidity in the South Fork and proposes operational ramping rates under a new FERC license.

Automation of the pressure-relief valve (PRV) and tailrace backwater gate, completed in 2014 and 2016, respectively, to respond to forebay water levels, reduces the frequency, duration, and volume of forebay spillway discharge (see FLA E.4.6.1) and the potential for erosion and/or water quality impacts in Daniel Creek and the Middle Fork Rogue River. Normal operating conditions of the proposed Project would not result in effects on water quality in Daniel Creek and the Middle Fork Rogue River; spill events to Daniels Creek would be limited to emergency, non-routine operations. Project waters would continue to be discharged to the Middle Fork Canal of the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Hydroelectric Project via the sag-pipe.

Current project operations result in turbidity impacts to water resources of a limited magnitude and duration. On September 8, 2014 there was an outage at the Project resulting in closure of the diversion headgate and release of approximately 62 cfs of water (i.e., the full inflow upstream of the diversion) into the South Fork Rogue bypassed reach. Turbidity measurements were recorded during the first 48 hours of this event. These measurements were used to address concerns regarding ramping, or the first initial increase in flows and river stage, and the resulting influence of ramping events on turbidity in the South Fork bypassed reach.

There was a slight increase in turbidity at the SFBU monitoring site during the beginning of ramping (Figure 5). Beginning on September 8, 2014 at 06:15, turbidity levels at SFBU increased above the SFBU background condition for 1.75 hours. However, despite the steep increase in turbidity, turbidity levels remained very low throughout the event, peaking at just 4.3 NTU.

Figure 5. Turbidity above and below (SFBU) the diversion during the September 8, 2014 Project outage ramping event. 70 SF Rogue Turbidity During P3 Ramping Event 5.0

60 4.0

50 3.0

40 SF Bypass Flow 2.0 SF Above Impound Turbidity

Q Q (CFS) 30 SFBU Turbidity

1.0 Turbidity(NTU) 20 IMCI Turbidity

10 0.0

0 -1.0 9/7/2014 0:00 9/7/2014 12:00 9/8/2014 0:00 9/8/2014 12:00 9/9/2014 0:00 9/9/2014 12:00

February 2018 Page 51 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Shown below in Table 11 are average, minimum, and maximum values of percent changes in turbidity between SFRI and SFBU during each operational ramping phase (i.e., before ramping, during ramping, and after ramping). OAR 340-041-0036 establishes a maximum cumulative increase in natural stream turbidities of 10% compared to background conditions. One data point (on a 0.25 hour interval) exceeded this standard as the turbidity in SFBU was 56.4% greater than that of SFRI.

Table 11. Percent changes of turbidities during ramping of the bypassed reach on September 8, 2014 Before During After Metric Ramping Ramping Ramping

Average Percent -102.4% -59.6% -100.6% Change Minimum -114.8% -104.3% -112.8% Percent Change Maximum -92.1% 56.4% -74.4% Percent Change

During and after ramping, turbidity cleared quickly, as the turbidity levels were elevated for just 1.75 hours from 06:15 hours to 08:00 hours (peak of 4.3 NTU). Although turbidity standards were violated, the clear water background conditions of the South Fork Rogue above the diversion, the low NTU value of the data point out of compliance (4.3 NTU), and the mathematical nature of percent changes when considering small values suggest that turbidity impacts were negligible.

Normal Project operations do not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality in the South Fork Rogue River and its tributaries crossed by Project waterways. Water quality was monitored during a typical year of operations and maintenance consistent with the no action alternative and with the exception of ramping in the bypassed reach, the Project did not result in appreciable erosion, sedimentation, and corresponding adverse effects on water quality.

Woodstave pipeline failure may potentially result in sediment mobilization and turbidity in the South Fork and/or Middle Fork Rogue from the flowline or sag-pipe, respectively, but the magnitude of an erosive event from woodstave pipeline failure is dependent on the location of the failure, distance and elevation of the failure from natural waters, and volume of diversion at the time of failure. Flowline failure would result in a low forebay alarm and/or generating unit trip in the Project control system as diverted flows drop off rapidly due to leakage. The alarm would trigger a response from PacifiCorp’s Hydro Control Center (HCC), which would contact on-site operators for immediate call-out. Total response time, and therefore approximate duration of leakage, is estimated at one hour: approximately thirty minutes for reduced flows to reach the forebay following initiation of leakage and approximately thirty minutes for an operator to arrive on site and close the headgate to cease diversion and leakage (Jones, 2016).

Page 52 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

A failure at the upstream end of the flowline exhibits reduced risk and potential severity of water quality impacts due to flowline proximity to both water surface elevation (vertical distance) and ordinary high water mark (horizontal distance) of the bypassed reach. Risk and potential severity increase with downstream distance as the flowline ascends the canyon and increases the vertical and horizontal distance from the bypassed reach, thereby increasing the volume of sediment exposed to leakage. The potential for flowline failure is primarily a function of rockfall and structural deterioration of the woodstaves. Rock slopes on the inboard side of the flowline have a history of rockfall that have caused major damage to the existing saddles and woodstaves. Preliminary geotechnical investigations revealed several large rock blocks in the slope that are being undermined and are losing their basal support, primarily in the upper half of the flowline (Conforth Consultants, Inc., 2014). No signs of ancient landslide terrain or global instability were observed during the site reconnaissance of the flowline, and no historically active deep- seated slumps or rotational slides were observed.

Project sag-pipe failure would result in a water differential alarm at Sag-Pipe 3 of the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Project, near Red Blanket Creek, when the total diversion in the Middle Fork Canal is less than the sum of the Middle Fork diversion and South Fork diversion. The differential alarm at Sag-Pipe 3 would trigger a response from PacifiCorp’s Hydro Control Center (HCC), which would contact on-site operators for immediate call-out. Total response time, and therefore approximate duration of leakage, is estimated at one hour: approximately thirty minutes for reduced flows from the Project sag-pipe to reach Sag-Pipe 3 following initiation of leakage and approximately thirty minutes for an operator to arrive on site and close the Project headgate to cease diversion and leakage (Jones, 2016).

Severity of sag-pipe failure impacts on water quality increases with horizontal distance away from the Middle Fork Rogue channel and exposure of increasing volumes of sediment to leakage. The sag-pipe is not exposed to the same rockfall hazards as the flowline, and the potential for sag-pipe failure is primarily a function of structural deterioration and exposure. Several shallow/surficial slope failures were observed on the southwest slope during geotechnical investigations (Conforth Consultants, Inc., 2014). These appear to be localized features in over-steepened sections of the slope, likely attributed to site grading during construction. A larger (approximately 30-foot wide) slump was observed roughly 30 feet west of the sag-pipe. This feature appears relatively shallow and is likely attributed to saturated ground conditions due to pipe leakage. On the northeast side of the valley, cuts were made to facilitate construction of the sag-pipe. Locally, these cuts are over-steepened; however, no signs of slope failure or excessive erosion were observed. There is noticeably less deterioration and leakage on the northeast side of the river. Pipe footings on both sides of the river exhibit little to no displacement.

6.12.4 Proposal

PacifiCorp proposes to implement seasonal, operational ramping rates not to exceed 0.2 feet per hour from May 1 through September 30 and 0.3 feet per hour from October 1 through April 30 in the South Fork Rogue River. This ramping schedule is based on the ramp rates and periods established by the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 license for the bypassed reaches of Red Blanket Creek and Middle Fork Rogue River. The ramp rates for these two streams were identified as protective of aquatic life, including sensitive life stages of native fish, based on a comprehensive

February 2018 Page 53 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) ramping study (PacifiCorp, 2003). South Fork Rogue River is similar to Middle Fork Rogue River, in terms of discharge, hydrograph shape, and channel shape. The ramp rates were rounded to the nearest tenth of a foot to correlate compliance units with units of the gage (i.e., the compliance point) and reflect the level of operational control. PacifiCorp believes that the proposed rates, if adopted, would be protective of aquatic life in South Fork Bypass.

These ramping rates would be adhered to during any planned operational adjustment of the turbine wicket gates, pressure relief valve, turbine isolation valve, canal headgate, and/or fish screen backwater gate. Adherence to these proposed ramping rates would reduce the potential for sediment mobilization on up ramps and fish stranding on down ramps. A communications link would be installed on the USGS gage at RM 10.25 to provide real-time feedback to PacifiCorp’s control systems. PacifiCorp proposes to report any operational ramping rates in excess of the defined rates within 24 hours of discovery to the Forest Service, DEQ, ODFW, and the Commission via electronic mail. PacifiCorp would prepare an annual summary report of operational ramping events for the prior water year (October 1 through September 30) by January 31 of each year.

Establishment of ramping rates and increases in minimum in-stream flows proposed to protect, mitigate, and enhance fisheries resources, would also positively affect water temperature, dissolved oxygen content, and turbidity in the bypassed reach of the South Fork Rogue River by decreasing mobilized sediments during Project shut-downs and increasing the amount of flow and thermal buffering in the bypassed reach, respectively. Implementation of measures proposed to protect, mitigate, or enhance soil resources, in particular, replacement of woodstave pipelines, would subsequently have a positive effect on water resources as a result of decreased risk of erosion and sediment mobilization to streams.

6.13 DESIGNATED BENEFICIAL USES—OAR 340-041-0271

6.13.1 Beneficial Uses

OAR 340-041-0271. (1) Water quality in the Rogue Basin…must be managed to protect the designated beneficial uses shown in Table 271A (November 2003). (2) Designated fish uses to be protected in the Rogue Basin are shown in Figures 271A (November 2003) and 271B (August 2005).

All waters affected or potentially affected by the Project are in the Upper Rogue sub-basin of the Rogue Basin. Table 271A designates the following beneficial uses for “Rogue River Main Stem above Lost Dam & Tributaries”:

 Public Domestic Water Supply (with adequate pretreatment (filtration and disinfection) and natural quality to meet drinking water standards)  Private Domestic Water Supply (with adequate pretreatment (filtration and disinfection) and natural quality to meet drinking water standards)  Industrial Water Supply  Irrigation

Page 54 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

 Livestock Watering  Fish and Aquatic Life  Wildlife and Hunting  Fishing  Boating  Water Contact Recreation  Aesthetic Quality  Hydro Power Fish use designations are further defined in Figure 271A and 271B to OAR 340-041-0271(2). The portion of the Upper Rogue sub-basin where the Project is located is designated for “Salmon & Trout Rearing & Migration” in Figure 271A but is not designated for salmon and steelhead spawning use in Figure 271B.

Under OAR 340-041-0004, DEQ requires water quality to be managed to protect the recognized beneficial uses. Generally, the assumption is made that if a water quality standard fully protects the most sensitive beneficial use, then all beneficial uses are fully protected. Although fisheries, aquatic life, and water supply are the primary beneficial uses protected by water quality criteria, the other beneficial uses are also protected by these standards.

The following sections describe the most sensitive uses in the vicinity of the Project and discuss the Project’s water quality-related effects on them. No designated uses will be adversely affected by the Project facilities and proposed operations (as described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 above).

6.13.2 Consumptive Water Uses

Beneficial consumptive water uses include public and private domestic water supply, industrial water supply, irrigation, and livestock watering. There are no known consumptive uses of water for public and private domestic water supplies, industrial water supply, irrigation, or livestock watering within the Project or in the South Fork downstream of the Project. This area has no substantial industrial or irrigated agricultural operations. Therefore, the Project facilities and operations do not (and will not) adversely affect these designated beneficial uses in the Project area.

6.13.3 Fish and Aquatic Life

As described in Section 4.2 and further in Section 6 above, water quality in the Project area is generally excellent to support a cold water ecosystem. In addition, PacifiCorp proposes modified instream flow releases in the South Fork bypassed reach (as described in Section 3.2.2.1 above) and other proposed environmental measures (as described in Section 3.2.3 above) that will further improve and enhance habitat conditions for fish and aquatic life beneficial uses.

February 2018 Page 55 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

The following sections describe the cold water fish and macroinvertebrate communities in the vicinity of the Project.

6.13.3.1 Fish and Aquatic Habitat in the Project Area

In August 2014 Siskiyou Research Group (SRG) conducted an aquatic habitat inventory and aquatic biota survey of the South Fork Rogue River pursuant to the requirements of the Stream Inventory Study (Section 4.1) of the revised Fish Community and Habitat Study Plans (Study Plan) for the Project. SRG followed methods described in the Forest Service Region 6 (Pacific Northwest) Stream Inventory Handbook (2014). The survey began approximately 500 feet upstream of the South Fork Rogue confluence with the Middle Fork Rogue and extended upstream 13.3 miles. The aquatic biota surveys were performed to determine fish species presence and distribution, relative abundance, and to correlate fish densities with habitat data at the reach scale.

The geomorphology of Reach 1 through Reach 3 (RM 4.5 to RM 10.5) was characterized, with limited exceptions, by steeply sloped and deeply incised basalt canyons and bedrock gorges etched into a gently sloped landscape derived from volcanic deposition. The stream channel was stable and controlled by bedrock or colluvial boulders. Stream gradients averaged three to four percent, and aquatic habitats consisted of deep-channeled, boulder- and cobble-dominated rapids, deep plunge pools, scour pools, and bedrock trench pools. Channel substrate was dominated by coarse particles (large cobble and boulders) and lacked small sediment (sand, gravel, and small cobble). Stream and channel morphology was characterized by pool-drop sequences within a confined, low sinuosity channel. Large woody material (LWM) was not abundant in the lower section (17 to 28 pieces/mile) and was influencing channel morphology in very few places. Instream wood was found as scattered pieces and wood associated with log jams. All instream wood was naturally recruited. Three waterfalls were identified in Reach 1 ranging in height from four to ten feet. The ten foot high waterfall was estimated to be an upstream fish passage barrier at low stream flows.

Reach 4 consists of the Project impoundment. At normal maximum pool, the impoundment has a surface area of approximately one acre. The impoundment has a gross storage capacity of approximately nineteen acre-feet and useable capacity of less than five acre-feet. Average and maximum depths are approximately five feet and eight feet, respectively. Habitat in the impoundment is primarily lacustrine, but given the shallow water depth, limited thermal stratification is present. Substrate in the forebay consists of deposited silt, sand, cobbles, and other glacial fines.

The geomorphology of Reach 5 (RM 10.5 to RM 17.3) was characterized by a gently to moderately sloped, V-shaped, colluvial canyon, and flat-floored, alluviated canyon. Map- and field-estimated valley widths ranged from eighty feet to greater than 200 feet, but generally valley widths were 100 to 200 feet. Stream gradients averaged one percent to two percent and the most common aquatic habitats were long rapids, riffles, and large mid-channel scour pools. Substrate estimates and Wolman Pebble counts indicated a gravel and cobble dominated channel with substantial amounts of sand in both fast water (rapids) and slow water (pools). LWM was moderately abundant in Reach 5 (68 pieces/mile) and was found as scattered pieces and in large wood complexes. These wood jams were influencing channel morphology by retaining large

Page 56 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) amounts of sediment (sand, gravel, and small cobble) and by creating and maintaining side channel habitat. The large wood jams observed in Reach 5 indicated a system that experiences occasional flooding from rain-on-snow as a result of a large portion of this watershed being located in the transient snow zone (elevation range 3,500 to 5,000 feet). No fish passage barriers were observed in Reach 5.

6.13.3.2 Fish Community Composition

Fish species known to occur by direct observation in the South Fork Rogue River within or adjacent to the Project area include rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), cutthroat trout (O. clarkia), non-native eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and sculpin (Cottus spp.).

Species present in Lost Creek Reservoir downstream of the Project area include those noted above for the river areas plus brown trout (Salmo trutta), kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka), and non-native, sport fish (e.g., smallmouth bass, et al.) (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016).

6.13.3.3 Proposed Fish Protection Measures and Effects

PacifiCorp proposes to implement an updated Fish Passage Facilities Operations and Maintenance Plan, incorporating the same maintenance activities and schedules as approved in the previous plan (PacifiCorp, 1995), and to continue operation and maintenance of the existing upstream and downstream fish passage facilities (see FLA Volume III, Appendix B).

Upgrades to Project fish passage facilities were implemented in 1996 to satisfy conditions of the current license. The downstream fish passage facilities were constructed in consultation with and pursuant to interim fish passage criteria provided by ODFW and FWS in 1994. The existing facilities meet current state criteria for fish passage (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015) for all measured parameters with the exception of criteria for upstream jump height, ladder weir notch depth, and screen approach velocity.

Despite variances from the physical and/or hydraulic criteria, biological evaluation of the existing fish passage facilities demonstrated that these facilities provide effective, safe passage upstream and downstream of the dam for resident, native trout. Fish as small as 110 mm were observed successfully ascending the ladder during June and July of a water year exhibiting near- historically low flows. Seventy-three percent (n=719) of salmonids observed during mask-and- snorkel surveys of the bypassed reach were categorized in the 100-200 mm size class; only seventeen percent (n=170) of salmonids observed during mask-and-snorkel surveys of the bypassed reach were categorized in the 0-100 mm size class. Therefore, the ladder is effective for the majority of fish in the bypassed reach. Additionally, fish smaller than 110 mm are more likely to hold localized positions in the river and not migrate upstream do to physical constraints and life history needs. None of the evaluation fish recovered in the downstream bypass return system exhibited signs of injury from the screen, and physical inspection of the screen components, including rubber seals, indicates that the screen forms an effective barrier to entrainment in the Project waterway. Upgrades and/or replacements of existing facilities are anticipated to yield limited, incremental benefits compared to the existing facilities and, therefore, are unjustified in light of their estimated cost.

February 2018 Page 57 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

PacifiCorp proposes to implement a continuous, minimum in-stream flow of 30 cfs from March 1 through July 31 and 20 cfs from August 1 through February 28 within the bypassed reach of the South Fork Rogue River below the South Fork Diversion Dam as measured at the USGS gage at RM 10.25. One method of evaluating normalized habitat graphs (see DLA Exhibit E, Figure 10) is to follow the lowest combined curve of the collective curves to see where the peak of the lowest combined curve occurs (i.e., where does the lowest ascending curve first cross a descending curve). The premise behind this method is that the peak of the combined lowest normalized line is at a flow that provides the maximum amount of habitat for the species’ life stages being considered as a group. The “bottom-line” peak, excluding spawning curves, occurs at 24 cfs, at which point, the maximum amount of habitat (approximately 82 percent of maximum AWS) for the combination of remaining curves would be achieved. More specifically, additional gains in juvenile/adult rainbow trout AWS are at the expense of cutthroat trout fry habitat. All other flows along the curve provide lesser AWS levels for at least one life stage in the group, with the exception of spawning, which increases to the limits of the model at 150 cfs. Inclusion of the spawning curves in the “bottom-line” analysis yields a peak of approximately 70 percent of maximum AWS at approximately 108 cfs. In the no action alternative, spawning rainbow trout have approximately 5 percent of maximum AWS; the proposed Project minimum in-stream flow of 30 cfs from March 1 through July 31 and 20 cfs from August 1 through February 28 yields approximately 16 and 24 percent of maximum AWS, respectively, a 320 and 480 percent increase, respectively, from the no action alternative. Additionally, the mean of the inflection points for cutthroat juveniles (20 cfs), cutthroat adults (28 cfs), and rainbow adults and juveniles (30 cfs) is 26 cfs. Finally, the hydraulic simulations of WSE prediction and velocities illustrated water surfaces rising relatively steeply as flows increase up to approximately 25 cfs and leveling off at higher flows. These modelled results justify scientifically-balanced selection of 30 cfs from March 1 through July 31 and 20 cfs from August 1 through February 28 for protection of fishery resources below the diversion dam.

PacifiCorp also proposes to implement seasonal, operational ramping rates not to exceed 0.2 feet per hour from May 1 through September 30 and 0.3 feet per hour from October 1 through April 30 in the South Fork Rogue River. This ramping schedule is based on the ramp rates and periods established by the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 license for the bypassed reaches of Red Blanket Creek and Middle Fork Rogue River. The ramp rates for these two streams were identified as protective of aquatic life, including sensitive life stages of native fish, based on a comprehensive ramping study (PacifiCorp, 2003). South Fork Rogue River is similar to Middle Fork Rogue River, in terms of discharge, hydrograph shape, and channel shape. The ramp rates were rounded to the nearest tenth of a foot to correlate compliance units with units of the gage (i.e., the compliance point) and reflect the level of operational control. PacifiCorp believes that the proposed rates, if adopted, would be protective of aquatic life in South Fork bypassed reach.

These ramping rates would be adhered to during any planned operational adjustment of the turbine wicket gates, pressure relief valve, turbine isolation valve, canal headgate, and/or fish screen backwater gate. Adherence to these proposed ramping rates would reduce the potential for sediment mobilization on up ramps and fish stranding on down ramps. A communications link would be installed on the USGS gage at RM 10.25 to provide real-time feedback to PacifiCorp’s control systems. PacifiCorp proposes to report any operational ramping rates in excess of the defined rates within 24 hours of discovery to the Forest Service, DEQ, ODFW, and the Commission via electronic mail. PacifiCorp would prepare an annual summary report of

Page 58 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) operational ramping events for the prior water year (October 1 through September 30) by January 31 of each year.

6.13.4 Wildlife

The Project is located primarily on the western slope of the High Cascade Mountains between the South Fork and North Fork Rogue River. The Project descends 895 feet in elevation from east to west. The South Fork Diversion Dam is located at 3,375 feet, while the powerhouse and Prospect substation are located at 2,635 feet and 2,480 feet, respectively. The Project alignment transitions from federally owned lands of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest to PacifiCorp-owned property, which runs through private timber company holdings and rural developments associated with the community of Prospect. These gradients of elevation, ownership, and land use result in heterogeneous wildlife habitat values across rather homogenous habitat types and vegetation associations.

GIS data sets from the Northwest Habitat Institute (NWHI) (National Weather Service, 2013) were used to analyze wildlife habitat within the Project vicinity. Three primary wildlife habitat types exist within the Project vicinity: riparian, open water/wetland, and southwest Oregon mixed conifer-hardwood forest. Many wildlife species are associated with mixed conifer- hardwood forest and may be found within the Project vicinity. Big game species, which are important for their commercial and recreational hunting value, typically use the forest for both forage and cover. Forest trees also provide the necessary structure, food, and cover for many neo-tropical migrant birds. Snags and live, deformed trees of various diameters and heights provide forage for woodpeckers, as well as nest sites for cavity nesting birds.

A significant portion (>30%) of the Project vicinity is subject to regular, commercial timber harvest operations. Regenerating forest plots are comprised of various heights and age classes of timber production species, primarily Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine. In the first five to ten years following harvest, grass and forb species flourish in the lack of canopy cover. These openings can provide important forage and browse habitat for black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus ssp. columbianus) and elk (Cervus elaphus).

An extensive camera-trapping study was conducted continuously for three years within the Project vicinity (Albertelli, 2012). The following mammal species were identified during the study: American marten (Martes americana), black bear (Ursus americanus), black-tailed deer, bobcat (Lynx rufus), chipmunk (Tamias sp.), common raccoon (Procyon lotor), cougar (Puma concolor), coyote (Canis latrans), elk, golden-mantled ground squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus). In addition to these species, fisher (Pekania pennanti) and ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) were observed during preliminary camera testing (Albertelli, Personal Observations, 2013).

Common avian species observed during surveys within the Project vicinity in 2001 (PacifiCorp, 2003) include the following: American robin (Turdus migratorius), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), common merganser (Mergus merganser), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), lazuli bunting (Passerina amoena), MacGillivray’s warbler (Oporornis tolmiei), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta

February 2018 Page 59 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) canadensis), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia). Raptors regularly observed in the vicinity include turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), accipiters (Accipiter spp.), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius).

Amphibians observed within the Project vicinity include Cascades frogs (Rana cacadae), Pacific tree-frogs (Pseudacris regilla), coastal tailed frogs (Ascaphus truei), Northwestern salamanders (Ambystoma gracile), Pacific giant salamander (Dicamptodon tenebrosus), and rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa) (PacifiCorp, 2003). Reptiles observed within the Project vicinity include northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea), southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), northwestern garter snake (Thamnophis ordinoides), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), racer (Coluber constrictor) (PacifiCorp, 2003), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) (Albertelli, Personal Observations, 2013).

There is no evidence or reason to believe that Project facilities and operations adversely affect wildlife and associated habitats, particularly as related to water quality or flows. However, PacifiCorp proposes several measures, including wildlife crossings, which will enhance terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the Project. In addition to the above measures, the proposed modified instream flow releases in the South Fork are expected to enhance conditions for riparian-oriented terrestrial resources in the South Fork bypassed reach.

6.13.5 Recreation

The beneficial uses collectively referred to as “recreation” in this section include hunting, fishing, boating, and water contact recreation. License Article 408 required PacifiCorp to monitor recreation activity in the Project Area for a period of five years and file a recreation report, prepared in consultation with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Division (OPRD) and USDA-FS, with the Commission within six years of license issuance. The initial recreation monitoring report was filed with the Commission on January 23, 1995 and approved by Commission order on March 6, 1995. This order required PacifiCorp to continue recreation monitoring and to file a recreation monitoring report no later than January 31 of every sixth year. A second recreation monitoring report was filed with the Commission on January 31, 2001. Both recreation monitoring reports identified less than 200 total visitors over each five-year period. With the support and concurrence of OPRD and USDA-FS, PacifiCorp requested to be relieved from future monitoring given the limited recreational use, potential for development, and demand in the area. The Commission concurred with PacifiCorp’s request, approved the 2001 report, and deleted Article 408 from the license by Commission order on April 3, 2001. Furthermore, on March 3, 2010 the Commission exempted PacifiCorp from filing Form 80 recreation reports for the Project.

There are no shoreline buffer zones, shoreline management plans, or developed recreation facilities associated with the Project.

Page 60 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

In general, recreation use and demand at the Project is low compared to the nearby North Fork Rogue River, Joseph H. Stewart State Recreation Area, and Crater Lake National Park. Recreational opportunities are limited on private lands, including those owned by PacifiCorp, in the Project Area. Hunting is the primary recreational use in the Project Area and Vicinity. Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RR-SNF) lands within the Project Area are subject to various recreational uses including hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, bird watching, and picnicking. The South Fork Rogue River Trail (RR-SNF Trail No. 988) is adjacent to the Project Area and traverses the bluff above the Project impoundment at the confluence of Imnaha Creek and the South Fork Rogue. Trail No. 988 is accessible from Forest Road 3775690 to the east of the Project.

The Project is not located within or adjacent to any designated National Wild and Scenic River System or Oregon State Scenic Waterway segments or river segments under study for inclusion as such. However, within the Project vicinity, the North Fork Rogue River is designated as both a National Wild and Scenic River (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 2013) and Oregon State Scenic Waterway (Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, 2013) from the boundary of Crater Lake National Park to the RR-SNF boundary near Prospect. There are no Project lands designated or under study for inclusion as features of the National Trails System or Wilderness Area.

Regionally important recreation areas in the Project vicinity include the RR-SNF, the North Fork Rogue River, North Fork Reservoir, and Lost Creek Reservoir. Beyond the Project vicinity, but within ten miles of the Project, are a number of regionally and nationally important recreation areas including Crater Lake National Park, the Pacific Crest Trail, and Sky Lakes Wilderness.

Non-recreational land uses within and/or adjacent to the Project area include hydropower production, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, open space and timber production.

American Whitewater has identified a 6.75-mile segment of the South Fork Rogue from Butte Falls-Prospect Highway (approximately 3.75 miles downstream of the dam) to Lost Creek Reservoir as a whitewater boating opportunity for kayakers (American Whitewater, 2011). This river segment is a portion of the Project bypassed reach and is subject to variations in flow and ramping because of Project operations. PacifiCorp maintains a water right for diversion of up to 150 cfs from the South Fork Rogue for hydropower generation.

The South Fork Rogue is not well known as a whitewater boating opportunity. Two well- regarded Oregon whitewater boating guide books, Soggy Sneakers (Giordano, 2004) and Paddling Oregon (Keller, 1998) do not contain any descriptions of the South Fork Rogue. However, a link provided on the American Whitewater website (Gandesbery, 2007) reports that the South Fork Rogue exhibited relatively low quality, high challenge Class IV-V opportunities for kayakers. Gandesbery described the run as shallow and “boney” (i.e. rocky) at lower flows and dangerous at higher flows due to frequent logs and infrequent eddies. This description is supported by PacifiCorp’s 1986 (Campbell-Craven Environmental Consultants) and 2014 (Siskiyou Research Group, 2015) habitat surveys in the South Fork Rogue River bypassed reach. In 1986, surveyors encountered nine cataracts, or vertical bedrock drops, ranging in height from four feet to ten feet. As a result, a large number of portages are to be expected on this reach. Gandesbery suggests that boating opportunities are optimized at flows of 250 cfs and higher.

February 2018 Page 61 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

A formal whitewater boating survey questionnaire was developed and provided to whitewater boaters to determine the types and locations of whitewater boating activities occurring within the bypassed reach of the South Fork Rogue River and a range of conditions (including flows) generally acceptable to whitewater boaters with various skill levels. The survey included interviews with whitewater boaters who were familiar with the bypassed reach. A total of forty- four whitewater boaters were contacted.

Of the forty-four whitewater boaters initially contacted, only twelve had ever attempted to run the bypassed reach. Ten of these boaters chose to participate in the Whitewater Boating Survey Questionnaire. Participants identified flows of 200 and 350 cfs as the minimum and optimum flows for boating in the bypassed reach. Participant boaters identified the following limiting factors for whitewater boating use in the bypassed reach:

1. the short boating window when minimum boating flows are available under the current flow scenario;

2. optimum boating flows have potential to occur during a very short window of time in an unimpaired flow scenario;

3. the high skill level required to boat the Class IV and V rapids in the bypassed reach;

4. the uncertainty of woody debris in the narrow channel, which can occur at any time during the season;

5. the steep, canyon morphology, which restricts the number of safe and accessible put- in and take-out locations along the bypassed reach;

6. the bypassed reach is primarily bounded by private property, which limits the number of public access points for put-in and take-out; and

7. the nearby availability of highly accessible and equally challenging whitewater boating opportunities on the North Fork Rogue River system.

An annual hydrograph of median daily flows in the bypassed reach at the boating put-in location (RM 7.0) was developed for analysis of hydrology available for whitewater boating. This hydrograph utilizes daily average discharge below the dam measured at USGS gaging station 14332000 (RM 10.25) and seasonal groundwater accretions confirmed during in-stream flow studies. Figure 6 approximates the average daily hydrology associated with impaired (current Project condition; “Existing Q at Bridge”) and unimpaired (“Unimpaired Q at Bridge”) flows at the put-in location at the Butte Falls-Prospect Highway bridge over the South Fork Rogue River (PacifiCorp, 2015). Unimpaired flows are those that would potentially occur if there were no diversion for power generation throughout the year. Using the minimum and optimum boating flows of 200 cfs and 350 cfs, respectively, as identified in the boater survey questionnaire, the minimum and optimum boating window can be determined from Figure 6. Under current operations, the recreational boating season extends from approximately April 29 to May 29 at minimum boating flows. Under an unimpaired flow scenario, the boating season extends from approximately February 21 to June 16 at minimum boating flows and April 29 to May 28 at optimum boating flows.

Page 62 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

The number of boatable days at the identified minimum boatable flow is 116 days and 31 days for the unimpaired and impaired flow scenarios, respectively. The optimal boatable flow criteria of 350 cfs is only exhibited in the unimpaired flow scenario for thirty-one days from April 29 through May 29, The period and duration of minimum boatable flows in the impaired flow scenario is consistent with the period and duration of optimal boatable flows in the unimpaired scenario.

Very few boaters have attempted to run the bypassed reach. Those boaters who have demonstrated personal experience with the bypassed reach are highly-skilled whitewater boaters. The high level of technical skill required to float the bypassed reach limits the pool of potential boaters for this reach. Reduction of Project diversions for the purpose of increasing flows in the bypassed reach would provide benefits of a limited duration to a small user group that has access to other whitewater boating opportunities of equal or better quality in the Project vicinity. Future use of the bypassed reach by whitewater boaters is not expected to increase during the term of the proposed Project (thirty to fifty years). Boaters outside of the existing user group are likely willing to forgo the opportunity to boat the bypassed reach in favor of other nearby whitewater boating opportunities.

Figure 6. Flows in the South Fork Rogue River bypassed reach at RM 7.0

February 2018 Page 63 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

6.13.6 Aesthetics

The Project is located in a heavily forested area of the High Cascades physiographic province. Local topography has been shaped by regional volcanism and glaciation. The visual character of the area is dominated by mixed-coniferous forest and deep, rocky, river canyons. The aesthetic character has been subject to minor modifications by the development of access roads, trails, parking areas, homes, ranching operations, timber operations, and hydropower development. Photos showing the general visual character and setting of the Project facilities are provided in Appendix C of the PAD.

Hydropower generation facilities associated with the Project are largely restricted from public view. In order to view the concrete diversion dam from below, the public would have to hike the river bottom of the South Fork Rogue canyon from west of the diversion. The impoundment upstream of the diversion and intake structure are visible from RR-SNF Trail No. 988. The diversion, intake facilities and small one-acre impoundment interrupt the aesthetic consistency of the rocky canyon, but the impoundment does provide the effect of a reflecting pool below the trail bluff and increase the extent of emergent wetland vegetation. Members of the public accessing National Forest lands via Forest Road 3775800 (Imnaha Road) cross the hydropower canal, but the visual character of this Project segment exceeds the quality of the surrounding private lands that have been subject to extensive timber harvest. The Project powerhouse is visible from both sides of the Middle Fork Rogue canyon, but available viewpoints are limited to private lands with restricted access.

The most visible Project feature is the transmission line corridor, which runs from the powerhouse through the rural community of Prospect to the Prospect Central substation. Most of the transmission line parallels the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Hydropower Project waterways and is located on private land running perpendicular to limited public viewpoints (e.g. road crossings).

6.13.7 Hydroelectric Power

As a hydroelectric generating facility, the Project fully supports hydroelectric power as a designated beneficial use. The proposed Project otherwise will have no effect on the use of the South Fork for hydroelectric power.

Page 64 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

7.0 OTHER APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW

In accordance with OAR 340-048-0020(2)(g) and (j), Section 7.0 addresses the Project’s consistency with “other requirements of state law applicable [to the Project] that have any relationship to water quality,” including, but not limited to, ORS Chapters 390, 454, 466, and 496.

7.1 ORS CHAPTER 196--WETLANDS

ORS 196.800 to 196.910 require a permit from the Department of State Lands for the removal of material from the bed or banks of state waters or the placement of fill in state waters. Any fill or removal permit required for the proposals described in the certification application would also likely require a CWA Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which in turn would provide DEQ an opportunity to modify the Section 401 certification or require a new certification for the action. Any applicable requirements of ORS 196.800 to 196.910 related to water quality will be addressed through any required future Section 401 certification or modification.

7.2 ORS CHAPTER 390—SCENIC WATERWAYS

ORS 390.805 to 390.925 provide for the designation and regulation of scenic waterways. The designation is based on the outstanding remarkable values (ORVs) of fisheries, recreation, scenic quality, prehistory, history, Native American traditional uses, and wildlife. Two segments of the Rogue River are designated scenic waterways: (1) from the boundary of Crater Lake National Park downstream to the boundary of the Rogue River National Forest (near RM 173), and (2) from the confluence of the Rogue River with the Applegate River downstream to Lobster Creek Bridge. Segment 1 (i.e., North Fork Rogue River upstream of North Fork Reservoir) is upstream of the Project and any water quality impacts resulting therefrom; Segment 2 is downstream of the Project in the Lower Rogue sub-basin where Project impacts to water quality would be negligible compared to other contributing sources. Therefore, the Project will not have any impacts on scenic waterways. . 7.3 ORS CHAPTER 454—SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

On-site sewage treatment and disposal systems are subject to ORS Chapter 454 and DEQ’s onsite sewage disposal rules in OAR Chapter 340, Divisions 071 and 073. The Project does not have any on-site sewage treatment or disposal systems.

7.4 ORS CHAPTER 466—HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ORS 466.605 through 466.680 and OAR Chapter 340, Division 142, require notice of and responses to certain spills and releases of oil and hazardous materials. These requirements are addressed in PacifiCorp’s existing spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan and other environmental plans for the Project. The current SPCC plan, dated December 6, 2011, has been certified by a registered professional engineer to be prepared in accordance with good engineering practice, applicable industry standards; and the requirements of 40 CFR Part 112;

February 2018 Page 65 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337) that procedures for required inspections and testing have been established; and that the plan is adequate for the facility.

7.5 ORS CHAPTER 496—WILDLIFE LAWS

There are no aquatic4 species listed by the state as threatened or endangered under ORS 496.172 known to occur within the Project boundary. Although the presence of Oregon threatened or endangered species does not impose any obligation on private facilities such as the Project, the proposed Project will have no adverse effect on state-listed species.

ORS 496.435 declares that it is state policy “to achieve recovery and sustainability of native stocks of salmon and trout.” This policy is reflected in ODFW management rules that establish goals of protecting and restoring indigenous, wild fish populations. Relicensing studies observed healthy native fish stocks upstream and downstream of the Project diversion dam and effective operation of the Project fish passage facilities. The proposed Project facilities and operations described in section 3.2 of this application will enhance fish and aquatic resources, including resident, native trout.

4 Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), state-listed as threatened, occur within the Project vicinity and may use the Project area for dispersal and limited (approximately 9 acres) nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities.

Page 66 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

8.0 LITERATURE CITED

Albertelli, S. (2012). Large Animal Crossings Evaluation Report: Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Hydroelectric Project. Medford: PacifiCorp Energy. Albertelli, S. (2013, January 11). Personal Observations. American Whitewater. (2011, March 01). Butte Falls Road to Lost Creek Reservoir, Rogue, South Fork Oregon, US. Retrieved from American Whitewater: http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/10452/ Campbell-Craven Environmental Consultants. (1986). Instream Flow Study-Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project, South Fork Rogue River. Portland, OR: PacifiCorp. Conforth Consultants, Inc. (2014). P3 Flowline and Siphon Replacement Project: Preliminary Geotechnical Report. Portland, OR: Cornforth Consultants, Inc. FERC. (2013, August 30). Notice of Intent to File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests. Retrieved August 30, 2013, from FERC Online eLibrary: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130830-3009 FERC. (2013, December 19). Scoping Document 2 for Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project, P- 2337. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from FERC Online eLibrary: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20131219-3083 FERC. (2014, May 27). Letter to PacifiCorp Energy regarding the Study Plan Determination for the Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project under P-2337. Retrieved January 9, 2016, from FERC Online eLibrary: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20140527-3014 FERC. (2015, August). List of comprehensive plans. Retrieved January 26, 2016, from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen- info/licensing/complan.pdf FERC. (2017, June 23). Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft and Final Environmental Assessment and Revised Procedural Schedule. Retrieved January 26, 2018 from FERC Online eLibrary. FERC. (2017 October). Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License. Retrieved January 26, 2018 from FERC Online eLibrary. FERC. (2018, January 25). Summary of 10(j) Meeting. Retrieved January 26, 2018 from FERC Online eLibrary. Foster, K. (2013). Compliance monitoring for LIHI Certification, Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project. Medford, OR: PacifiCorp Energy. Jackson County Development Services. (2016). Land use compatibility statement. Medford, OR: Jackson County. Jones, M. (2016, April 26). General foreman review of woodstave flowline failures. (S. Albertelli, Interviewer) McMillen, LLC. (2014). Prospect No. 3 (P3) Hydroelectric Project, Flowline and Sag Pipe Replacement, Final Conceptual Design Report. Portland, OR: PacifiCorp. Meridian Environmenal, Inc. (2015). Fish Passage Facilities Study Report: Biological Testing. Portland, OR: PacifiCorp.

February 2018 Page 67 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

National Weather Service. (2013). Climate: Monthly Precipitation 1981-2010 at Prospect 2 SW. Retrieved May 4, 2013, from National Weather Service - NWS Medford: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=mfr National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. (2013, April 3). (Upper) Rogue River, Oregon. Retrieved from http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/rivers/rogue-upper.php Northwest Habitat Institute. (2000). GIS Data. Retrieved 2012 ODEQ. (2008). Rogue River Basin TMDL. Medford, OR: State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2008). ODFW Sensitive Species. Retrieved January 15, 2016, from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_category.pdf Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2012). Upper Rogue River Trout Project 2011 Results and Objectives for 2012. Trail, OR: Unpublished. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2015, January 2). Division 412 Fish Passage. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from Oregon Administrative Rules: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/OARs/412.pdf Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2016, April 27). Oregon hatcheries. Retrieved from Visitor's guide: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/visitors/hatcheries.asp Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2016). Trout Stocking Schedule. Retrieved April 27, 2016, from Fishing Resources: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/fishing/trout_stocking_schedules/ Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2017, May 11). Comments and Recommendations by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Roseburg, OR. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2017, November 30). Response to FERC’s Section 10(j) Preliminary Determination of Inconsistency Letter, October 18, 2017. Roseburg, OR. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. (2013). Ensuring Oregon's outdoor legacy: 2013- 2017 statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. Salem, OR: OPRD. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. (2013, April 3). Scenic Waterways Program. Retrieved from htt;://www.oregon.gov/oprd/RULES/pages/waterways.aspx#List_of_Scenic_Waterways OWRD. (2012). Water Rights Information Query. Retrieved April 5, 2012, from Water Resources Department: http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/wr/wrinfo/default.aspx OWRD. (2013). Hydrographics Database - S Fk Rogue R Ab Imnaha Cr Nr Prospect, OR. Retrieved May 4, 2013, from State of Oregon Water Resources Department: http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/sw/hydro_report/gage_data_request.aspx?station_nbr=14 331000 OWRD. (2013). Hydrographics Database: Imnaha Cr Nr Prospect, OR. Retrieved May 4, 2013, from State of Oregon Water Resources Deptartment: http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/sw/hydro_report/gage_data_request.aspx?station_nbr=14 331000 PacifiCorp. (1995). Fish Facility Monitoring Plan. Portland, OR: PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp. (2003). Final Technical Report. Portland: PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp. (2003). Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Hydroelectric Project: Ramp Rate Study Technical Report. Portland.

Page 68 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

PacifiCorp. (2013). Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-2337 Notice of Intent to Relicense and Pre-Application Document. Portland, OR: PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp. (2014). Revised Study Plans--Water Quality. Medford, OR: Pacificorp. PacifiCorp. (2015). Initial Study Report: Instream Flow. Medford, OR: PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp. (2015). Initial Study Report: Ramping. Medford, OR: PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp. (2015). Initial Study Report: Whitewater Boating. Medford, OR: PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp. (2015). Initial Study Report: Wildlife. Medford, OR: PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp. (2015). Revised Study Plans -- Fish Community and Habitat. Medford, OR: PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp. (2016). Prospect No. 3 hydroelectric project, FERC project no. p-2337, draft license application for major project--existing dam. Portland, OR: PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp. (2016). Updated study report: water quality. Medford, OR: PacifiCorp. Siskiyou Research Group. (2015). Initial Study Report: Fish Habitat (South Fork Rogue River 2014 Level II Stream Survey Report). Medford, OR: PacifiCorp. Siskiyou Research Group. (2015). South Fork Rogue River Fish Community Study Report. Medford, OR: PacifiCorp. Siskiyou Research Group. (2015). South Fork Rogue River. 2014 Level II Stream Survey Report. Medford, OR: PacifiCorp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2015). Lost Creek. Retrieved January 4, 2015, from USACOE Portand District: http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Locations/RogueRiver/LostCreek.aspx U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2013). Species Profile for Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Retrieved January 28, 2013, from Environmental Conservation Online System: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B08B USDA Forest Service. (1974). National forest landscape management, Volume 2, Chapter 1, the visual management system. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. (1990). Land and Resource Management Plan: Rogue River National Forest. Medford, OR: USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. (1995). Landscape aesthetics: a handbook for scenery managemetn. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. (2017, May 9). USDA Forest Service Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (P-2337) Federal Power Act Preliminary 4(e) Terms and Conditions, Justification Statements, Draft Special Use Authorization, Comprehensive Plans. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service. (2017, November 29). USDA Forest Service Comments on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Draft Environmental Assessment and USDA Forest Service Modified 4(e) Terms and Conditions for the Prospect No. 3 Project (P-2337). Portland, OR. USGS. (2015, September 2). Hydrologic Unit Maps. Retrieved December 29, 2015, from Water Resources of the United States: http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html

February 2018 Page 69 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

APPENDIX A: PROJECT MAPS

Page 70 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

February 2018 Page 71 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Page 72 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

February 2018 Page 73 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Page 74 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

February 2018 Page 75 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

APPENDIX B: CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS

Page 76 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Table 12. Contiguous property owners (Adapted from Jackson County tax lot GIS data (2016)). ZIP FEE OWNER IN CARE OF ADDRESS CITY STATE TAX LOTS CODE

ALEXANDER PO BOX 196 PROSPECT OR 97536 323E332000 DON/LINDA

AP TIMBER LLC HANCOCK 17700 MILL PLAIN BLVD VANCOUVER WA 98683 323E35200 FOREST 180 333E02100 MANAGEMENT 323E31100 323E30400 323E30101

BURRILL GLADYS BURRILL PO BOX 220 MEDFORD OR 97501 323E33500 O TRUSTEE ET RESOURCES INC 323E33600 323E33700

MURPHY TIMBER JOHN MURPHY 2350 PRAIRIE RD EUGENE OR 97402 323E34700 INVESTMENTS L 333E01100 333E03100 333E12100 323E34700 333E12100 333E01100

ORE STATE/DIR PO BOX 306 PROSPECT OR 97536 323E34300 VETS AFFAIRS

February 2018 Page 77 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

ZIP FEE OWNER IN CARE OF ADDRESS CITY STATE TAX LOTS CODE

PACIFIC PACIFICORP 825 NE MULTNOMAH 1500 PORTLAND OR 97232 323E282790 POWER/LIGHT 323E295200 COMPANY 323E30100 323E31101 323E33101 323E34400 333E01600 333E02300 333E03200 333E12500 333E5690

PICOLLO AUGUST 637 BUTTE FALLS HWY PROSPECT OR 97539 323E34500 JOHN/ANNAMAR 323E332500

U S A ROGUE RIVER- 3040 BIDDLE ROAD MEDFORD OR 97504 334E100 SISKIYOU NF 334E200

YOUNG DAVID PO BOX 247 WEDDERBURN OR 97491 323E28600 C/JOY L

Page 78 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

APPENDIX C: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENT

February 2018 Page 79 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

Page 80 February 2018 Application for Water Quality Certification Prospect No. 3 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2337)

February 2018 Page 81