Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030718-0265 Issued by FERC OSEC 07/18/2003 in Docket#: P-477-024 --- pmJoc11~ ~qb~ e ~ ~ July 2003 FERC/DEIS - 0J 621) Draft Environmental Impact Statement Bull Run Project Oregon (FERC Project No. 477-024) 888 FirstStreet N.E., Washington, DC 20426 Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030718-0265 Issued by FERC OSEC 07/18/2003 in Docket#: P-477-024 FERC/DEIS-0162D DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPLICATION FOR SURRENDER OF LICENSE Bull Run Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 477-024-Oregon Applicant: Portland General Electric Company Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Environmental and Engineering 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 July 2003 Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030718-0265 Issued by FERC OSEC 07/18/2003 in Docket#: P-477-024 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: Attached is the DraR Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed surrender of the Bull Run Hydroelectric Project (No. 477-024). The project is located on the Sandy, Little Sandy, and Bull Run Rivers, near the Town of Sandy, Clackamas County, Oregon. The project is located on lands administered by the Forest Service (Mr. Hood National Fores0 and the Bureau of Land Management. Agencies, organizations, and individuals are invited to file comments on the DEIS pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Commission's Regulations Implementing the National Environment Policy Act (18 CFR Part 380). Any comments, conclusions, or recommendations that draw upon studies, reports, or other working papers for substance should be supported by appropriate documentation. Comments should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. The comments should be filed within 45 days of the date noticed by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register and should reference Project No. 477-024. Comments may be filed electronically via the lntemet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(l Xiii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the "e-Filing" link. This DEIS was sent to the Environmental Protection Agency and made available to the public on or about July 25, 2003--comments are due within 45 days of EPA notice. A copy of the surrender application, settlement agreement, and DEIS is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the "FERRIS" link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll- free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. Attachment: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030718-0265 Issued by FERC OSEC 07/18/2003 in Docket#: P-477-024 COVER SHEET a. Title: Bull Run Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 477-024)- Oregon b. Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) c. Lead Agency:. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission d. Abstract: Portland General Electric Company (PGE) ~ to decommission its Bull Run Project and remove all project facilities, including Marmot dam and Little Sandy diversion dam and Roslyn Lake. The project is located on the Sandy, Little Sandy, and Bull Run Rivers, near the Tow~ of Sandy, Clachamas County, Oregon. The project is located parually on lands administered by the Forest Service (NIL Hood National Forest) and the Bureau of Land Management. The proposed action would result in short-term adverse impacts, particularly adverse impacts to water quality and fisheries habitat. Long-term fisheries and conservation benefits would result. The loss of Roslyn Lake would have long-term adverse impacts on recreation and potential impacts on residential water wells. The Commission staffrecommends project decommissioning, as proposed by PGE, with modifications. e. Contact: Alan Mitchnick Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects 888 FirstStreet, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 (202) 502-6074 f. Transmittal: This DEIS, prepared by the Commission's staffon the surrender of license application for the Bull Run Hydroelectric Project, is being made available to the public on or about July 25, 2003, as iii Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030718-0265 Issued by FERC OSEC 07/18/2003 in Docket#: P-477-024 required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 19691 and the Commission's Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (18 CFR Part 380). 1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January I, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), September 13, 1982). iv Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030718-0265 Issued by FERC OSEC 07/18/2003 in Docket#: P-477-024 TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER SHEET ........................................................ iii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES ....................................................... x LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................... xiii SUMMARY...........................................................xv 1.0 APPLICATION .................................................. I 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................... 4 2 , 1 Purpose of Action . • • • • ........e eo..oo.e...., e. e.e..,,.,.. 4 2.2 Need for Action .......................................... 4 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES • ..............o*.oo 5 3.1 Description of Existing Facilities ................... • .......... 5 3.2 Existing Project Operations ......................... ,,..,,,..,. 7 3.3 Proposed Action .................................. ........... 8 3.3.1 Marmot Dam ............................ e.,........ 9 3.3.2 Little Sandy Diversion Dam ................. OQO~O~O 10 3.3.3 Canals, Tunnels, Hume, and Ancillary Structures ~OOOOOOOO 10 3.3.4 Project Powerhouse ....................... ~OOOOOOOOO 11 3.3.5 Roslyn Lake ........................................ 11 3.3.6 Disposition of PGE Lands . ............................ ll 3.3.7 Transfer of Water Rights ........................... ll 3.3.8 Mitigative and Monitoring Measures ................. 12 3.3.9 Proposed Schedule for Decommissioning ............. 15 3.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ......................... 16 3.4.1 No-action Alternative ............................. 16 3.4.2 Marmot Dam Removal ARm-natives ................. 16 3.4.3 PGE's Proposal with StaffModifications ................. 19 3.5 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detai~- d Study ......... 20 4.0 CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE ............................ 21 4.1 Agency Consultation ......................................... 21 V Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20030718-0265 Issued by FERC OSEC 07/18/2003 in Docket#: P-477-024 4.2 Scoping ................................................... 21 4.3 Interventions and Comments ................................... 22 4.4 Compliance with Applicable Laws and Policies .................... 23 4.4.1 Clean Water Act-Section 404 .......................... 23 4.4.2 Clean Water Act-Section 401 .......................... 24 4.4.3 National Historic Preservation Act ....................... 24 4.4.4 Endangered Species Act-Section 7 ...................... 25 4.4.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act--Section 7 ................... 28 4.4.6 Magnuson-Stevens Act ................................ 28 4.4.7 Coastal Zone Management Act ......................... 29 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................... 29 5.1 General Description of the Sandy River Basin ..................... 29 5.2 Scope Cumulative Impact Analysis .............................. 30 5.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives ......................... 31 5.3.1 Geological Resources ................................. 31 5.3. l.l Affected Environment ....................... 31 5.3.1.2 Effects of Alternatives ....................... 45 5.3.1.3 Staff Modifications of PGE's Proposal .......... 66 5.3.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ......................... 67 5.3.1.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................. 69 5.3.2 Water Resources .................................... 69 5.3.2.1 Affected Environment ...................... 69 5.3.2.2 Effects of Alternatives ...................... 84 5.3.2.3 Staff Modifications of PGE's Proposal ......... 95 5.3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ........................ 96 5.3.2.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................ 96 5.3.3 Fishery Resources .................................... 96 5.3.3.1 Affected Environment ....................... 96 5.3.3.2 Effects of Alternatives ....................... 95 5.3.3.3 StaffModifications of PGE's Proposal ......... 136 5.3.3.4 Effects of Alternatives on Essential Fish Habitat.. 136 5.3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts ........................ 137 5.3.3.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................ 138 5.3.4 Terrestrial Resources ............... ~ ................ 139 5.3.4.1 Affected Environment ...................... 139 5.3.4.2 Effects