REVIEW OF LOW IMPACT HYDROPOWER … Street...to the Low Impact Hydropower Institute ... A power house containing two Francis turbines and Woodward governors, ... it is routed through

REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR LOW IMPACT HYDROPOWER CERTIFICATION OF

THE CITY OF ALBANY VINE STREET PROJECT (FERC No. 11509)

Introduction This report reviews the application dated May 4, 2009 by City of Albany, Oregon (the Applicant) to the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) for Low Impact Hydropower Certification for its Vine Street Project (the Facility or project). The review was completed as explained below, per the LIHI Certification Program rules and criteria (August 2004 ed.) The principal author of this report is LIHI reviewer Anette Dearden, who completed a draft in August 2011. That draft received limited editing and updating by another reviewer, Jeffrey Cueto, to produce this, the final report. This 500 kW (installed capacity) project is located in Albany on the south (right) bank of the Calapooia River at the lower end of the 18-mile-long Santiam-Albany canal. The canal begins in city of Lebanon at a diversion structure on the South Santiam River at River Mile 20.3. The hydroelectric facility discharges to the Calapooia River at River Mile 0.25 (see Figure 1). Approximately 2.8 million kilowatt-hours are produced annually. The Santiam-Albany Canal was built in the 1870s by Chinese laborers. The City’s hydropower water right dates back to 1874, earlier than its municipal water right. By 1878, at least 14 manufacturing plants in Albany used waterpower from the 18-mile long Santiam-Albany Canal, and by 1888, the canal was generating electricity. The hydropower Facility operated without a FERC license for more than 100 years before being decommissioned in the early 1990s. Currently, in addition to providing water for hydropower generation, the Santiam-Albany Canal provides safe drinking water to citizens of Lebanon and Albany.1 The City of Albany received a 50-year license (minor project) from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 1998 to operate the hydroelectric power generation Facility in conjunction with having to make improvements to the diversion dam and canal intake Structure to protect migratory fish. Project Description & Operation The project is located on the South Santiam River (River Mile 20.3) and the Santiam-Albany canal (18 miles long), with an outlet on the Calapooia River. The Santiam and Calapooia River subbasins are located within the greater Willamette River Basin. The Santiam River subbasin drains an area of 1,827 square miles, and the Calapooia River subbasin drains an area of about 374 square miles.

1 Additional information on the canal history can be found at the City of Albany website, http://www.cityofalbany.net/publicworks/water/canal/.

http://www.cityofalbany.net/publicworks/water/canal/

Review Report for the Low Impact Hydropower Institute: City of Albany Vine Street Project 26 January 2012

Page | 2

The North and South Santiam Rivers join to form the Santiam River, which then flows 11.7 miles to enter the Willamette River. The upper South Santiam River receives snowmelt from the Cascade Mountains while the middle and lower South Santiam River receives subsurface flow from forested lowlands.

Figure 1. Project layout. (Source: FERC FEA)

The Calapooia River subbasin stretches 75 miles from its headwaters to the mouth of the Calapooia River. It is directly south of the Santiam River subbasin. The upper subbasin drains forested areas in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains while the middle and lower portions drain agricultural lands. The Santiam-Albany Canal carries diverted water from the South Santiam River at the Lebanon diversion dam to the Calapooia River at the City of Albany, a distance of about 18 miles. The reach of the South Santiam and Santiam River bypassed by the Santiam-Albany canal extends about 33 miles to the Willamette River.


Page | 3

At the time of license application and through 2006, the City’s hydropower system consisted of:

A diversion dam (Lebanon dam), a 450-long, 6-foot high concrete gravity weir section dam with 2 feet of flashboards;

The Santiam-Albany canal, dug in the 1870s and 1890’s, an 18-mile long, 20-foot wide, trapezoidal channel with an original hydraulic capacity of 310 cubic feet per second (cfs);

An unscreened canal inlet and headgate;

Four fishways at the Lebanon dam;

Two concrete penstock intakes with trashracks, wood plan covers, and manual slide gates;

Two 6-foot diameter, 50-foot long steel penstocks;

A power house containing two Francis turbines and Woodward governors, two 500-kW synchronous generators, and an open-bus manual electrical switchgear system; and

A 2.4-kV, 360-foot long transmission line connecting the powerhouse to an existing Pacific Power and Light substation.

Figure 2. Canal intake area in Lebanon. In 2006, at the upstream end of the Canal, the Applicant made major hydraulic improvements to the canal as part of compliance activities for the FERC license issued in 1998. These were completed in 2008 and include the following:


Page | 4

Installed automatically controlled slide gates at the existing headworks flow control structure to provide accurate flow control into the Canal;

Improved fish passage at four poorly performing fish ladders at the diversion dam on the South Santiam River. Three of the ladders were removed entirely and replaced with an efficient, high-volume pool-and-chute ladder. One of the existing ladders was substantially upgraded with new weirs and additional attraction water;

Added a v-shaped fish screen to the entrance of the Canal to prevent migratory fish from entering the canal and becoming stranded. Previously the Canal entrance was unscreened;

Replaced the wood flashboards on the diversion dam with remotely actuated crest gates;

Replaced the functioning generator, installed a trash rack in the power chute forebay, and completed PLC control systems

Dredging of portions of the Santiam-Albany Canal had been recommended to restore the hydraulic capacity of the Albany reach from Highway 99 to the Vine Street Plant. Completion of the dredging was planned for Fall 2011.

Figure 3. Hydroelectric facility layout. In December of 2006, the Applicant started the upgrade of the hydropower facility. This involved replacing one of two historic turbine-generators with a similarly-sized 500-kilowatt power unit built in China. As part of 2006 modifications, the diversion dam was lowered by 1.5 inches. Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) control systems and supervisory control and data


Page | 5

acquisition (SCADA) monitoring equipment were also installed. The second turbine-generator is out of service and remains in place only as a historical artifact, along with old switchgear, power meters, dials and gauges. The new equipment started producing some power in October 2008. Since then, engineers have been fine-tuning operations and, in January 2009, the system began its 7-day substantial completion test and is now in full commercial operation. The Facility operates year-round except for a few months each summer when the South Santiam River flows are too low to divert water into the Canal for hydropower purposes, as required by the FERC License. The system utilizes a 190 cfs of flow and approximately 36 feet of hydraulic head, available at the end of the 18-mile Canal. This water has for years plunged into the Calapooia River at this location. Now instead, it is routed through the new turbine for power generation. Between 1992 when hydropower was decommissioned through lack of a FERC license and 2008 when hydropower production resumed, water from the canal flowed through its outlet at Vine Street, dropping over 20 feet into the Calapooia River. With the re-commissioning of hydropower, this water again flows through the turbine system and, after generating up to 500 kW of power, is released into the river only 200 feet upstream from the canal outlet. FERC Licensing History The FERC issued an original 50-year license for the project to the City of Albany, Oregon on October 23, 1998 authorizing the construction, operation and maintenance of the project. The Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) issued along with the license concluded that, with certain mitigation and enhancement conditions, licensing the project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Public Comments The LIHI application was placed on public notice May 4, 2009. No public comments were received on this application. Agency Letters As part of the review process, state and federal resource agencies were contacted to confirm that (1) the Resource Agency Recommendations2 identified by the Applicant are still valid; and (2) the Applicant is in Compliance with the Recommendations.

2 This means recommendations or conditions for operation, maintenance, construction of structures of the Facility submitted by Resource Agencies including those: (a) issued pursuant to a legal or administrative proceeding or other legally enforceable agreements between a Resource Agency and the dam owner/operator – e.g., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) License conditions; (b) recent, if there are multiple Recommendations or a settlement agreement to which the Applicant is a party (the terms of which are considered Recommendations); and (c) most environmentally stringent.


Page | 6

The following Resource Agencies3 (“state, federal or tribal agency whose mission includes protesting fish and wildlife, water quality and/or administering reservations held in public trust”) were contacted as part of the LIHI review process for this project:

o Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) o Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) o Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ONHIC) o Oregon Parks & Recreation Department (OSHPO) o National Ocean & Atmospheric Agency (NMFS)(no comments received) o US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) o Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians (CTSI)(no comments received) o Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community (CTGR)(no knowledge of project)

The Resource Agencies offered Compliance4 information, summarized on pages 8 through 13, below. The table also summarizes my conclusions as to whether the LIHI criteria have been met based on the application, other information supplied by the Applicant, Resource Agencies, Tribes and others, and subject to the limitations of the LIHI certification program. Copies of emails and other information key to this evaluation have been appended to and incorporated into this Report. Recommendation. I recommend certification with Standard Conditions. In my opinion, this Facility is a good candidate for certification. The Applicant has worked closely with state and federal Resource Agencies to implement measures that protect the environment in the project area. In summary, it would be appropriate to certify this Facility because:

This Facility was designed specifically to mitigate any impacts on water quality, fisheries, fish habitat, terrestrial habitat and cultural resources. Its operation is so closely connected to the design as to be one and the same functionally.

The fish passage measures required by the FERC license have been met.

Where there are conflicting Resource Agency Recommendations and the conflict is not resolved by applying the most recent and environmentally stringent recommendations, the conflict shall be resolved by applying the recommendations based on the health of threatened or endangered biological organisms first, the health of other biological organisms second, Cultural Resources third and Recreation fourth, unless there is a statutory mandate to resolve the conflict otherwise. 3 The FERC is not a Resource Agency for LIHI certification purposes. 4 A Facility is in Compliance with a requirement or Recommendation if it complies at the time the questionnaire is filled out and has not had any material violations or formal notices of violation issued by a state or federal agency within the last year. If the Facility has been in violation of a requirement or Recommendation but the Applicant does not believe the violation is material, the violation must be disclosed and its materiality explained in the application.


Page | 7

The Applicant has supported Resource Agency requests, including water resource reallocation (internally) to provide appropriate flows to nearby sloughs.

The Facility is not expected to negatively affect threatened and endangered species in the project area. A Biological Assessment was done and Biological Opinion issued in 2004 that support this conclusion. The Applicant has consulted with ONHIC and has confirmed that no new species have been listed or observed in the project area between 2004 and present.

On its own initiative, the Applicant has been working in consultation with Resource Agencies, Tribes and others to update the CRMP that is in place and institute an innovative Programmatic Agreement to protect cultural resources while simplifying the current process.

Conclusion. Based upon my review of the application, other information supplied by the Applicant, my consultation with Resource Agency and Tribal staff, and the LIHI Certification Program and Criteria (08/31/04 ed.), it is my opinion that

the project’s design and operation, given its location and physical constraints, appear to be consistent with LIHI criteria for certification.

My full evaluation supporting the conclusion and recommendations is provided beginning below. This report includes numerous excerpts from the Applicant’s LIHI application and other supporting materials, as well as documents issued by FERC.


Page | 8

SUMMARY TABLE

LIHI CRITERION & CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY & CURRENT STATUS

River Flows Facility Passes See pages 14 to 16 below for details.

The Applicant is in Compliance with substantially all of its FERC and Water Quality Certification (WQC) requirements. The Article 416 Plan The Article 416 Plan is required to describe how the Applicant will provide historical flows to Mark’s Slough and Hospital Slough. The Applicant consulted with Resource Agencies and filed a plan with FERC on May 10, 2011. The plan was modified and approved by FERC order of December 11, 2011. The order requires annual performance reporting (Annual Mark’s and Hospital Sloughs Operational Compliance Monitoring Report ) by April 15 starting in 2013. Article 404 Requirements Article 404 of the FERC license and Condition 2 of the Water Quality Certification (WQC) require the Applicant to file and implement an operational Compliance monitoring plan that includes continuous flow monitoring and continuing consultation with ODFW, USFWS and NOAA. The Applicant filed a plan with FERC on November 14, 2011. An important part of the Article 404 Pan is the requirement to establish a flow signal between the USGS Waterloo Gauging Station and the Facility. The signal has been established. Other Flow-Related Requirements The Applicant is in Compliance with other flow-related requirements, as follows: Article 402 of the FERC license of the FERC license requires the Facility to cease any amount of diversions into the Santiam-Albany canal for project operation that would cause the South Santiam River below the Santiam-Albany canal intake to fall below 1,100 cubic feet per second for the protection of fish and wildlife resources. The Applicant filed an Article 402 Minimum River Flow Compliance Plan with FERC on 9/29/2008. Article 405 contains requirements during start-up and shut-down for the protection of aquatic resources in the South Santiam River below the Santiam-Albany canal intake. The Applicant filed an Article 405 Diversion Flow Ramp Up-Down Compliance Plan with FERC on


Page | 9

9/29/2008. Consultation with Resource Agencies has confirmed the Applicant is in Compliance with the Article 402, 404 and 405 requirements. ODEQ:

Marilyn Fonseca [email protected] 503.229.6804

ODFW: Ken Homolka [email protected] 503.947.6090

Water Quality Facility Passes See pages 16 to 19 below for details.

The WQC for the project was issued on September 6, 1995 and is incorporated into the FERC license. The Applicant is in Compliance with the terms of the WQC. The WQC/FERC license Article 402 requires the Applicant to cease diverting water from the South Santiam River for the project when the US Geological Survey gage at Waterloo (about 2.5 miles upstream of the Lebanon dam) would record a flow of 1,100 cfs or less. The WQC/FERC license Article 403 requires the Applicant to prepare an operational monitoring plan for ODEQ approval including sampling for dissolved gases for a period of at least one year and sampling the power canal for benthic macroinvertebrates to establish a biological baseline. In 2008, the City completed a macroinvertebrate study and a total dissolved gas study. The study report filed in June of 2009 showed that the Santiam-Albany Canal does not significantly affect the biological condition of the Calapooia River. The City of Albany project outlet is on the Calapooia River. The Calapooia River is on OR’s 303(d) list for temperature, dissolved oxygen, E coli, fecal coliform, iron and manganese. ODEQ has calculated TMDLs for temperature and fecal coliform, but didn’t determine the project’s affect on either parameter. ODEQ has yet to calculate TMDLs for dissolved oxygen, E coli, iron or manganese so there has been no specific determination of the project’s effects on these parameters. The Willamette River downstream of the confluence with the Calapooia is also 303(d) listed for dissolved oxygen. ODEQ, by email dated January 10, 2012, stated that the hydroelectric facility, based on its earlier WQC review, does not contribute to the impairment. As per the FEA, the pattern of land use by others over the past 100 years has contributed to the impairment, but the project has not.

mailto:[email protected]



Page | 10

ODEQ:

Marilyn Fonseca [email protected] 503.229.6804

Fish Passage & Protection Facility Passes See pages 19 to 22 below for details.

The Applicant is in Compliance with fish passage and protection requirements of the license. Article 406 of the FERC license requires the Applicant to install a juvenile fish screen at the Santiam-Albany canal intake and to install a fixed, vertical plate fish screen and bypass Facility at the entrance of the Santiam-Albany canal. Article 406 requires these structures to be developed in consultation with NMFS, FWS, and ODFW. Article 407 requires the existing right-bank fishway be modified to better facilitate upstream and downstream passage of fish. This fishway was modified in 2004-2005. Article 408 requires the Applicant to:

Install a high-volume, seven pool, fishway on the left bank abutment of Lebanon dam

Install v-notched weirs with dual orifices

excavate the exit channel immediately upstream of the fishway annually, or as needed, to provide an adequate path with a depth of 4 feet to facilitate passage away from the dam

extend the fishway exit channel as far upstream toward the juvenile fish screen as possible to increase sweeping velocities at the fish screen and thereby facilitate downstream passage and sediment removal (the juvenile fish screen has been functional since 2006)

The improvements were made in 2006-2007. Article 411 requires the Applicant to evaluate and monitor the fishways and fish screen after construction to ensure that the facilities operate according to the intended designs. This must be done in consultation with NMFS, FWS, and ODFW. The Applicant filed an Article 411 hydraulic testing compliance report with FERC on October 20, 2008, and it was accepted by letter dated March 2, 2009. Article 415 requires the Applicant to provide a yearly Compliance report of license fish and wildlife requirements to NMFS, FWS and ODFW. The Applicant filed its 2009 report with FERC on 2/13/2010 demonstrating Compliance.



Page | 11

ODFW: Ken Homolka [email protected] 503.947.6090

Watershed Protection Facility Passes See pages 23 to 24 for details.

No state or federal resource agencies recommended a shoreland plan. Given the project configuration and operation, sufficient action has been taken to protect, mitigate and enhance environmental conditions in the watershed. ODFW:

Ken Homolka [email protected] 503.947.6090

Threatened & Endangered Species Facility Passes See pages 25 to 27 for details.

At or around the time of FERC licensing,

Federally listed species under the jurisdiction of the USFWS that may occur in the project area include the endangered Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) and Bradshaw's lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii), and the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Nelson's checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana), Golden Indian paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta), and Howellia (Howellia aquatilis).

There are no federally listed species under the jurisdiction of the NMFS that occur in the project area.

There are proposed species under the jurisdiction of NOAA that occur in the project area (Upper Willamette River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Upper Willamette River steelhead (O. mykiss)) and none under the jurisdiction of USFWS.

The Applicant consulted with ONHIC and confirmed the project does not currently negatively affect threatened & endangered species in the project area. ONHIC:

Lindsey Koepke [email protected] 503.731.3070 x104

Cultural Resources Protection Facility passes See pages 28 to 29 for details.

Consultation with Resource Agencies confirmed that the Applicant is in Compliance with the cultural resources management plan (CRMP), and that efforts underway to update it go beyond what is required by its terms. The project powerhouse is on, and the Lebanon dam and fishways are eligible for, inclusion in the National Register. In order to protect the





Page | 12

historical integrity of the sites in the project area due to proposed project modifications, operation, and maintenance, the Applicant, the SHPO, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, as the Commission's delegated representative, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on cultural resources for the project. The MOA was signed and executed by the Advisory Council on August 18, 1998. The Applicant has complied with Article 418 of the FERC license which requires implementation of the MOA’s CRMP. The MOA requires the Applicant to file an annual report of activities conducted under the CRMP, with copies to FERC, OSHPO and Tribes of the Grand Ronde. The Applicant filed its 2009 Annual Report on December 11, 2009 in which it reported work is continuing in consultation with Resource Agencies and Tribes. OSHPO:

Dennis Griffin (archaeology) [email protected] 503.986.0674

Steve Poyser (historic) [email protected] 503.986.0686

Recreation

Facility Passes

See pages 29 to 30 for details.

The Facility area (canal) is the public drinking water supply for Albany and Lebanon. There are no recreational uses or opportunities on the canal or its control structures. The South Santiam River, upstream of the diversion dam, is a recreational river. In Compliance with FERC requirements, upstream at Waterloo Park, the Applicant has posted “No Boat Takeout Below” as well as shoreline signs. FERC has required the Applicant to install a boat barrier upstream of the Lebanon Dam to ensure public safety measures are in place at the project. The Applicant installed the barrier May 16, 2010 (see Figure 2).

Consultation confirmed the information above. ODFW:






Page | 13

Facilities Recommended for Removal Facility Passes See page 30-31 for details.

There is no Resource Agency Recommendation for removal of the dam associated with the Facility. ODFW:


The Facility is Low Impact



Page | 14

ANALYSIS of the

Low Impact Certification Criteria

Goals, Standards (A through H), Applicant’s Responses, and Additional Information A. River Flows Goal: The Facility (dam and powerhouse) should provide river flows that are healthy for fish, wildlife, and water quality, including seasonal flow fluctuations where appropriate.

Standard: For instream flows, a certified Facility must comply with recent Resource Agency Recommendations for flows. If there were no qualifying Resource Agency Recommendations, the Applicant can meet one of two alternative standards: (1) meet the flow levels required using the Aquatic Base Flow methodology or the “good” habitat flow level under the Montana-Tennant methodology; or (2) present a letter from a Resource Agency prepared for the application confirming the flows at the Facility are adequately protective of fish, wildlife, and water quality. Criteria: 1) Is the Facility in Compliance with Resource Agency Recommendations issued after

December 31, 1986 regarding flow conditions for fish and wildlife protection, mitigation and enhancement (including in-stream flows, ramping and peaking rate conditions, and seasonal and episodic instream flow variations) for both the reach below the tailrace and all bypassed reaches?

YES

Flow management requirements for protection of the South Santiam River and two sloughs are set in the federal license based on Resource Agency Recommendations made after 1986. The license contains several related articles. The Article 416 Plan The Article 416 Plan is required to describe how the Applicant will provide historical flows to Mark’s Slough and Hospital Slough for conserving the potential habitat of the Oregon chub. Mark’s Slough is located at about canal mile 4.75 (relative to the canal entrance), and extends about 1.4 miles to the South Santiam River at a point 4.1 miles downstream of the Lebanon diversion dam. The Applicant operates weir structures that regulate flow into both sloughs. Hospital Slough is located at about canal mile 5.25 and is about 1.3 miles long, joining the South Santiam River about 1.3 miles downstream of the mouth of Mark’s Slough. The Applicant does not own the sloughs. The Applicant worked with ODEQ, ODFW, NMFS, and USFWS to resolve some issues and ultimately filed a Plan with FERC on May 10, 2011.


Page | 15

Article 416 states, in pertinent part: the Applicant shall file “a plan for providing historical flows to Mark’s Slough and Hospital Slough, together with an implementation schedule. The Plan shall include a description of how the weirs on both sloughs would be operated and maintained.”

The Applicant and Agencies initially disagreed about what values constitutes historic flows. After collecting data in the Summer of 2010 and further consultation, the Applicant has adjusted its past operation practices slightly to meet Agencies’ requests. The Applicant has been operating the canal since 1998 to provide flows to the sloughs in a consistent manner with structures in place as per the FERC license. The weirs are adjustable and can maintain a fairly constant flow in Mark’s Slough and a more variable flow in Hospital Slough. The values requested by the Agencies and included in the Plan are:

Discharge at least 4 cfs to Mark’s Slough in May and 3 cfs from June through September;

Discharge 7 to 8 cfs to Hospital Slough in May, 3 cfs in June and July, and 2 cfs in August and September; and

Discharge typical flows in the wet weather season. These values are consistent with those referenced by the Resource Agencies in the 1998 FEA. The plan was modified and approved by FERC order of December 11, 2011. The order requires annual performance reporting (Annual Mark’s and Hospital Sloughs Operational Compliance Monitoring Report) by April 15 starting in 2013. The Article 404 Communications Link Requirement Article 404 of the FERC license and Condition 2 of the Water Quality Certification (WQC) require the Applicant to file and implement an operational compliance monitoring plan that includes continuous flow monitoring and continuing consultation with ODFW, USFWS and NMFS. An important part of this plan is the requirement to establish a flow signal between the USGS Waterloo Gauging Station and the Facility. The Applicant initially had proposed a compliance approach that deviated somewhat from the strict requirements of Article 404, but abandoned that approach in or about April 2009 when it determined that the alternative method did not achieve its desired goal of accurately determining river flows. In April 2009, the Applicant notified FERC that it would go forward with the requirement to establish a flow signal required by Article 416 between the USGS Waterloo Gauging Station and the Facility by the end of April 2009. This effort has been completed. The plan was originally filed in 2008 but lacked required Agency consultation documentation; it was refiled on November 14, 2011. FERC has not yet approved the Article 404 plan.


Page | 16

Other Flow-Related Requirements The Applicant is in compliance with other flow-related requirements, as follows: Article 402 of the FERC license of the FERC license requires the Facility to cease any amount of diversions into the Santiam-Albany canal for project operation that would cause the South Santiam River below the Santiam-Albany canal intake to fall below 1,100 cubic feet per second for the protection of fish and wildlife resources. The Applicant filed an Article 402 Minimum River Flow Compliance Plan in 2008 and again on March 11, 2011. FERC approval of the plan is not required. Article 405 contains requirements during start-up and shut-down for the protection of aquatic resources in the South Santiam River below the Santiam-Albany canal intake. The Applicant filed an Article 405 Diversion Flow Ramp Up-Down Compliance Plan on October 20, 2008. No FERC approval is required as ramping monitoring is considered in the Article 404 plan. If YES, go to B. If NOT APPLICABLE, go to A2. If NO, Facility fails

THE FACILITY PASSES

A. River Flows - The Facility is in Compliance with LIHI Standards.

B. Water Quality Goal: Water quality in the river is protected. Standard: The water quality criterion has two parts. First, a Facility must demonstrate that it is in Compliance with state water quality standards, either through producing a recent (after 1986) Clean Water Act Section 401 certification, or demonstrating Compliance with state water quality standards (typically by presenting a letter prepared for the application from the state confirming the Facility is meeting water quality standards). Second, a Facility must demonstrate that it has not contributed to a state finding that the river has impaired water quality under Clean Water Act Section 303(d) (relating to water quality limited streams). Criteria: 1) Is the Facility either: a) in Compliance with all conditions issued pursuant to a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section

401 water quality certification issued for the Facility after December 31, 1986? OR b) in Compliance with quantitative water quality standards established by the state that

support designated uses pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) in the Facility area and in the downstream reach?


Page | 17

YES The State of Oregon issued a Water Quality Certificate (WQC) for the project on September 6, 1995, and the conditions of the WQC are incorporated into the FERC license. It requires the Applicant to:

Notify ODEQ of any changes in the project proposal subsequent to certification;

Cease diverting water from the South Santiam River for the project when the US Geological Survey gage at Waterloo (about 2.5 miles upstream of the Lebanon dam) would record a flow of 1,100 cfs or less;

Prepare an operational monitoring plan for ODEQ approval including sampling for dissolved gases for a period of at least one year and sampling the power canal for benthic macroinvertebrates to establish a biological baseline; and

Participate fully in a Total Maximum Daily Load or other basin planning process if the basin is declared water quality limited for a parameter for which the project is a contributor; and

Be in Compliance with all federal, state and local water quality statutes at all times. In 2008, the City completed the baseline macroinvertebrate study and a total dissolved gas study. The report was filed with FERC on June 25, 2009. According to the study report, the Santiam-Albany Canal does not significantly affect the biological condition of the Calapooia River, a conclusion with which ODEQ concurred. FERC Article 403 and the WQC require the Applicant to file a plan to monitor total dissolved gases in the project tailrace for a period of one year. The plan was developed in consultation with ODEQ and approved by FERC on April 14, 2009; the sampling report was filed June 28, 2010. A total of seven one-day sampling events were conducted: January 2010, February 2009/2010, March 2009/2010, and April 2009/2010. No TDG level from any individual sample in the Calapooia River recorded during the study period exceeded 103.8 percent saturation (the standard is a maximum of 110%). Based on consultation with the Resource Agencies, the Applicant is in Compliance with the WQC. If YES, go to B2. If NO, Facility fails.

2) Is the Facility area or the downstream reach currently identified by the state as not

meeting water quality standards (including narrative and numeric criteria and designated uses) pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act?

YES.

The Calapooia River is on OR’s 303(d) list for temperature, dissolved oxygen (January 1 – May 15), E coli, fecal coliform, iron and manganese. The Willamette River downstream is also listed for dissolved oxygen seasonally, October 15 – May 15.


Page | 18

If YES, go to B3. If NO, go to C.

3) If the answer to question B.2 is yes, has there been a determination that the Facility is

not a cause of that violation?

YES ODEQ has calculated TMDLs for temperature and fecal coliform, but did not determine the project’s affect on either parameter. The Calapooia River at the Project is 303(d) listed for dissolved oxygen, E coli, iron or manganese. Dissolved oxygen violations have been common; based on sampling at 40 monitoring stations from 1977-87, standards were not met 40% of the time. While ODEQ has yet to calculate TMDLs for these parameters, it is of the opinion that the Project does not contribute to the dissolved oxygen impairment (email from Chris Stine, ODEQ, to the Applicant, January 10, 2012) based on modeling it conducted for the purposes of the WQC in 1995. The Santiam-Albany Canal/hydropower system discharges into the Calapooia River about a quarter mile upstream of its confluence with the Willamette River, and the Calapooia River flows 75 miles above this location. The Calapooia River is strongly impacted by stormwater which, in turn, is strongly impacted by land use practices along the Canal, including development and farming. The Canal was constructed with side cast berms to protect adjacent property from overtopping its banks, isolating the Canal from runoff. Upstream of the City of Albany city limits, the Canal is not fully isolated from runoff. FERC examined the project’s effects on water quality in the FEA in 1998 and, in the FERC license, required the Applicant to undertake studies to confirm that the project did not cause water quality violations. As per the FEA:

Land use practices over the last 100 years have affected the water quality of the South Santiam River and the Calapooia River. The river has seen increased sediment loading due to deforested, unstable slopes in the upper subbasin, bank erosion due to logs being floated downstream, and increased river temperatures due to loss of shade. Agricultural practices in the subbasin have resulted in increased nutrient loadings and chemical pollution from runoff of animal wastes and fertilizers. For the South Santiam River, runoff from municipal areas has deposited a variety of commercial, industrial, and residential wastes into the river.

Land uses also have affected the water quality of The Santiam-Albany Canal. It carries diverted water from the South Santiam River at the Lebanon diversion dam to the Calapooia River at the City of Albany, a distance of about 18 miles. The canal delivers water to a number of private individuals, businesses and municipalities along its length. For the first 2 miles, the canal traverses through land that is mostly rural residential until it reaches the City of Lebanon, where commercial, industrial and urban residential areas predominate. Past about canal mile 5, the canal narrows and straightens and continues on the next 10 or so miles to Albany through agricultural crop and grazing lands. At


Page | 19

Albany, the lands once again become predominately commercial, industrial, and urban residential.

In the FEA, FERC staff analyzed the Applicant’s proposal to build and operate the Facility to minimize water-quality related impacts in the South Santiam River, Santiam-Albany canal, Calapooia River, Mark’s Slough and Hospital Slough. The only likely discernable water quality effect that would occur in the canal from project operation would be a small change in the degree of canal water heating and cooling which should not affect aquatic resources. Article 403 requires a macroinvertebrate study to confirm this. Article 403 required one year of total dissolved gas sampling to ensure that the project does not cause localized gas supersaturation in excess of state standards. The Applicant has met both requirements. If YES, go to C. If NO, the Facility fails.

THE FACILITY PASSES

B. Water Quality – The Facility is in Compliance with LIHI Standards. C. Fish Passage and Protection

Goal: The Facility provides effective fish passage for Riverine, anadromous and catadromous fish, and also protects fish from entrainment. Standard: For Riverine, anadromous, and catadromous fish, a Facility must be in Compliance with recent (after 1986) mandatory prescriptions regarding fish passage (such as a Fish and Wildlife Service prescription for a fish ladder) as well as any recent Resource Agency Recommendations regarding fish protection (e.g., a tailrace barrier). If anadromous or catadromous fish historically passed through the Facility area but are no longer present, the Applicant must show that the fish are not extirpated or extinct in the area because of the Facility and that the Facility has made a legally binding commitment to provide any future fish passage recommended by a Resource Agency. When no recent fish passage prescription exists for anadromous or catadromous fish, and the fish are still present in the area, the Facility must demonstrate either that there was a recent decision that fish passage is not necessary for a valid environmental reason, that existing fish passage survival rates at the Facility are greater than 95% over 80% of the run, or provide a letter prepared for the application from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service confirming the existing passage is appropriately protective.


Page | 20

Criteria: 1) Is the Facility in Compliance with Mandatory Fish Passage Prescriptions5 for upstream and

downstream passage of anadromous and catadromous fish issued by Resource Agencies after December 31, 1986?

YES

Winter steelhead and spring Chinook salmon are anadromous fishes native to the Santiam subbasin. Summer steelhead, fall chinook salmon, coho salmon and sockeye salmon were introduced in the 1960’s (neither the coho nor the sockeye salmon stockings were successful, and so these fish are no longer stocked). In the Calapooia subbasin, the winter steelhead and spring Chinook salmon are native anadromous salmonids. In the Willamette River Basin, summer steelhead are not native but have been stocked there since the 1960’s. By letters dated May 9, 1997, and November 4, 1997, U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) and NMFS, respectively, made a number of Section 18 fishway prescriptions for the project. NMFS prescribes that a juvenile fish screen be installed at the Santiam-Albany canal intake in accordance with the conceptual design shown in Appendix B of the license application but modified to include a baffle system and a screen face material of 1.75-millimeter profile bar. Interior prescribes that a fixed, vertical plate fish screen and bypass facility be installed at the entrance of the Santiam-Albany canal. These prescriptions are included in the FERC license as Article 406. NMFS prescribes that the final design and operation of the screen cleaner identified in Appendix B of the license application should be developed in consultation with, and be acceptable to, the agencies. Interior prescribes that the final juvenile fishway design plans be presented to NMFS, FWS, and ODFW for their approval. Consistent with FERC practice at the time the license was issued, Article 406 provides NMFS, FWS, and ODFW the opportunity to review the design plans and schedules and to provide comments and recommendations. NMFS and Interior prescribe that a high-volume, seven pool, fishway be installed on the left bank abutment of Lebanon dam for the benefit of anadromous fish. Both NMFS and Interior prescribe that the weirs be v-notched and have dual orifices. NMFS prescribes that the exit channel immediately upstream of the fishway be excavated annually, or as needed, to provide an adequate path with a depth of 4 feet to facilitate passage away from the dam. Interior prescribes that the fishway exit channel be extended as far upstream toward the juvenile fish screen as possible to increase sweeping velocities at the fish screen and thereby facilitate

5 Means upstream and downstream fish passage requirements issued by Resource Agencies that must be included in a FERC license or exemption or otherwise must be complied with by the Facility owner/operator, usually pursuant to Section 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), or, if applicable, Section 4(e) of the FPA, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or other relevant state or federal provisions. Recommendations included in the ESA Biological Opinion or Recovery Plan are considered Mandatory Fish Passage Prescriptions. If different Resource Agencies have differing prescriptions, the most environmentally stringent prescription shall apply.


Page | 21

downstream passage and sediment removal. These prescriptions are adopted in the FERC license as Article 408. NMFS and Interior prescribe that the existing right-bank fishway be modified to better facilitate upstream and downstream passage of anadromous fish. NMFS prescribes the conceptual design shown in Section 9.4 and Drawing 13 of Appendix B of the license application but with a number of modifications. These prescriptions are adopted in the FERC license as Article 407. Both NMFS and Interior prescribe that the fishways and fish screen be evaluated and monitored after construction to ensure that the facilities operate according to the intended designs. The FERC has not treated a requirement to investigate and document the effectiveness of a fishway as a valid Section 18 fishway prescription but rather as a condition that may be necessary for the agencies and the FERC to carry out their responsibilities. Accordingly, this item is adopted in this license as Article 411, providing NMFS, FWS, and ODFW an opportunity to review and comment on operation of the fishways and fish screens to ensure that these facilities would be operating according to the intended designs. As per the Applicant’s January 8, 2008, report for the year 2007, the fish passage and fish screen at the Santiam-Albany Diversion were completed. The Applicant filed an Article 411 hydraulic testing compliance report with FERC on October 20, 2008, and it was accepted by letter dated March 2, 2009. In its letter, FERC noted that the Applicant would be doing additional velocity and flow measurements and visual observation of the fish passage facilities at five-year intervals.

The Applicant is working with ODFW to ensure the baffles are tuned as necessary:

The water intake screens with adjustable baffles prevent fish from entering the Santiam-Albany canal and reduce the basin-wide effects on young salmonids. The adjustable baffle system helps to maintain the maximum 0.4 fps approach velocity at the screen face and to provide the sweeping velocity that limits the exposure time of salmonid fry to the screen.

Additional flow measurements and baffle tuning was completed by the USGS in May 2010, and a supplemental Article 411 report filed with FERC on August 25, 2010. Article 415 requires the Applicant to provide a yearly Compliance report of license fish and wildlife requirements to NMFS, FWS and ODFW. The Applicant filed its 2009 report with FERC on February 13, 2010 demonstrating Compliance. The 2010 report was filed on January 31, 2011 and did not indicate any non-compliance events related to fish passage. If YES, go to C5.

If NOT APPLICABLE, go to C2. If NO, Facility fails.


Page | 22

5) Is the Facility in Compliance with Mandatory Fish Passage Prescriptions for upstream and/or downstream passage of Riverine fish?

YES

Resident coldwater species located within the Santiam subbasin includes the native rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish, and the introduced eastern brook trout. Warmwater species include: smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, warmouth, bluegill, white crappie, black crappie, brown bullhead and yellow bullhead. Oregon non-game species of concern include the Oregon chub (also federally listed as endangered) and the sandroller. Resident coldwater species located within the Calapooia subbasin include rainbow, cutthroat, and brook trout and the mountain whitefish. Warmwater species include smallmouth and largemouth bass, bluegill, pumpkinseed, white crappie and brown bullhead, with sandrollers sporadically present. No Resource Agency issued Mandatory Fish Passage Prescriptions for upstream and/or downstream passage of Riverine fish. The FEA concluded that the construction and operation of the project plus implementation of the protection, mitigation and enhancement measures required as part of the FERC license resulted in only minor, short-term effects on all fish resources. If YES or NOT APPLICABLE, go to C6. If NO, Facility fails.

6) Is the Facility in Compliance with Resource Agency Recommendations for Riverine,

anadromous and catadromous fish entrainment protection, such as tailrace barriers?

N/A None was prescribed. If YES or NOT APPLICABLE, go to D. If NO, Facility fails.

THE FACILITY PASSES CONDITIONALLY

C. Fish Passage and Protection - The Facility is be in Compliance with LIHI standards .


Page | 23

D. Watershed Protection Goal: Sufficient action has been taken to protect, mitigate and enhance environmental conditions in the watershed. Standard: A certified Facility must be in Compliance with Resource Agency Recommendations and FERC license terms regarding watershed protection, mitigation or enhancement. These may cover issues such as shoreline buffer zones, wildlife habitat protection, wetlands protection, erosion control, etc. The Watershed Protection Criterion was substantially revised in 2004. The revised criterion is designed to reward projects with an extra three years of certification that have: a buffer zone extending 200 feet from the high water mark; or, an approved watershed enhancement fund that could achieve within the project’s watershed the ecological and recreational equivalent of land protection in D.1 and has the agreement of appropriate stakeholders and state and federal resource agencies. A Facility can pass this criterion, but not receive extra years of certification, if it is in Compliance with both state and federal resource agencies Recommendations in a license approved shoreland management plan regarding protection, mitigation or enhancement of shorelands surrounding the project. Criteria: 1) Is there a buffer zone dedicated for conservation purposes (to protect fish and wildlife

habitat, water quality, aesthetics and/or low-impact recreation) extending 200 feet from the high water mark in an average water year round 50-100% o the impoundment, and for all of the undeveloped shoreline?

NO

If YES, go to E and receive 3 extra years of certification If NO, go to D2.

2) Has the Facility owner/operator established an approved watershed enhancement fund

that: 1) could achieve within the project’s watershed the ecological and recreational equivalent of land protection in D1, and 2) has the agreement of appropriate stakeholders and state and federal resource agencies?

NO

If YES, go to E and receive 3 extra years of certification If NO, go to D3.

3) Has the Facility owner/operator established through a settlement agreement with

appropriate stakeholders and that has the state and federal resource agencies agreement an appropriate shoreland buffer or equivalent watershed land protection plan for conservation purposes (to protect fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, aesthetics and/or low impact recreation)?

NO


Page | 24

If YES, go to E. If NO, go to D4.

4) Is the Facility in Compliance with both state and federal resource agencies

Recommendations in a license approved shoreland management plan regarding protection, mitigation or enhancement of shorelands surrounding the project?

YES. There is no shoreland management plan.

As per the 1998 FEA, the project footprint covers land zoned for a variety of uses. Where it passes through the Cities of Albany and Lebanon, the canal crosses areas designated for residential, commercial, and industrial use. On the outskirts of the cities, the land is primarily designated rural residential. Between the cities, the land is designated as exclusive farm use. FERC considers the diversion dam, headgates, and canal as a power channel subject to strict requirements to prevent the public from accessing them. These structures are fenced and gated, with signs posted to keep the public away. The Facility has a FERC-approved Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan in place as required by the FERC license (Article 401) that applies to all land-disturbing activities. The FEA issued as part of the FERC licensing process concluded that the construction and operation of this Facility would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. With recommended measures, water quality, fisheries, fisheries habitat, terrestrial habitat, and cultural resources would be protected, fish passage would be enhanced, and vegetation losses would be mitigated. Given this and the project configuration, sufficient action has been taken to protect, mitigate and enhance environmental conditions in the watershed. If YES, go to E. If NO, Facility fails.

THE FACILITY PASSES

D. Watershed Protection – The Facility is in Compliance with LIHI’s standards.


Page | 25

E. Threatened and Endangered Species Protection Goal: The Facility does not negatively impact state or federal threatened or endangered species. Standard: For threatened and endangered species present in the Facility area, the Facility owner/operator must either demonstrate that the Facility does not negatively affect the species, or demonstrate Compliance with the species recovery plan and any requirements for authority to “take” (damage) the species under federal or state laws. Criteria: 1) Are threatened or endangered species listed under state or federal Endangered

Species Act (ESA) present in the Facility area and/or downstream reach?

YES At or around the time of FERC licensing,

Federally listed species under the jurisdiction of the USFWS that may occur in the project area include the endangered Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) and Bradshaw's lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii), and the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Nelson's checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana), Golden Indian paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta), and Howellia (Howellia aquatilis).

There are no federally listed species under the jurisdiction of the NMFS that occur in the project area.

There are proposed species under the jurisdiction of NOAA that occur in the project area (Upper Willamette River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Upper Willamette River steelhead (O. mykiss)) and none under the jurisdiction of USFWS.

By email dated February 23, 2010, the Applicant has requested locational information from the ONHIC for species records within the project vicinity. If YES, go to E2. If NO, go to F.

2) If a recovery plan has been adopted for the threatened or endangered species

pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or similar state provision, is the Facility in Compliance with all Recommendations in the plan relevant to the Facility?

Not Applicable

As per the FEA, FERC identified 35 federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway affected by the project. FERC concluded that, with the inclusion of recommended environmental measures, the proposed project would not conflict with any of those plans.


Page | 26

Consultation with state and federal resource agencies revealed no additional or new recovery plans with recommendations relevant to the Facility. If YES or NOT APPLICABLE, go to E3. If NO, Facility fails.

3) If the Facility has received authority to incidentally Take a listed species through: (i)

having a relevant agency complete consultation pursuant to ESA Section 7 resulting in a biological opinion, a habitat recovery plan, and/or (if needed) an incidental Take statement; (ii) obtaining and incidental Take permit pursuant to ESA Section 10; or (iii) for species listed by a state and not by the federal government, obtaining authority pursuant to similar state procedures; is the Facility in Compliance with conditions pursuant to that authority?

YES

The Facility received authority to incidentally take a listed species as per a Biological Opinion (BO) issued as part of the US Army Corps of Engineers 404 permitting process to support construction. That construction is complete and the authority to take is no longer in affect.

A BO was issued in 2004 for headworks construction as part of the FERC licensing process. It concluded that the proposed project construction and operation, with recommended measures, would not be likely to adversely affect listed or proposed species or critical habitat (for Upper Willamette River (UWR) chinook salmon and UWR steelhead ). The BO included an Incidental Take allowance associated with the construction only, which was mitigated by installation of the fish screens and rebuilt fish ladders. It recognized that some fish would be isolated (a “non-lethal and lethal” Take) in the in-water work area (i.e., the canal). The Incidental Take authorization is limited. It does not apply to any take resulting from future operation of the facilities and any effects to listed species from which flows from hydropower operations must be the subject of consultation between NMFS and FERC before the requirements of the ESA may be satisfied. The Applicant reports that the authority to take is not necessary at this time for the following reasons:

o The fish screen at the intake fully prevents any aquatic species from entering the canal from the South Santiam River: the outlet of the canal is perched 20 feet above the Calapooia River so no species can move upstream.

o All diversion structures along the canal that discharge flow into side streams or sloughs are barred to prevent migration into the canal.

o Design functions of the new systems were constrained to match operating requirements defined by Resource Agencies to protect species resident in the South Santiam River. Diversions to the canal for hydropower generation are curtailed to maintain minimum flows.

The Applicant reports no known or reported Incidental Takes to date as a result of hydropower operations.


Page | 27

Note that the Applicant reports that NMFS, through USFWS, at the 1/28/2010 meeting to discuss the Article 416 Plan, indicated verbally that the Applicant is vulnerable to Incidential Take issues since the authorization in the BO is limited to effects from construction (now complete). The Applicant agrees about the duration of the Incidental Take authorization but reports no known issues to date. Furthermore, the Applicant does not anticipate any future issues since the operation of the Facility was and continues to be driven by the Facility’s careful design to avoid such impacts. If YES, go to E4. If NOT APPLICABLE, go to E5. If NO, Facility fails.

4) If a biological opinion applicable to the Facility for the threatened or endangered

species has been issued, can the Applicant demonstrate that: a) the biological opinion was accompanied by a FERC license or exemption or a habitat

conservation plan? OR b) the biological opinion was issued pursuant to or consistent with a recovery plan for

the endangered or threatened species? OR c) there is no recovery plan for the threatened or endangered species under active

development by the relevant Resource Agency? OR d) the recovery plan under active development will have no material effect on the

Facility’s operation?

YES The Biological Opinion was accompanied by a FERC license. If YES, go to F. If NO, Facility fails.

5) If E.2 and E.3 are not applicable, has the Applicant demonstrated that the Facility and Facility operations do not negatively affect listed species?

If YES, go to F. If NO, Facility fails

THE FACILITY PASSES

E. Threatened and Endangered Species Protection – The Facility is in Compliance with

LIHI’s standards.


Page | 28

F. Cultural Resources Protection Goal: The Facility does not inappropriately impact Cultural Resources. Standard: Cultural Resources must be protected either through Compliance with FERC license provisions, or, if the project is not FERC regulated, through development of a plan approved by the relevant state, federal, or tribal agency. Criteria: 1) If FERC-regulated, is the Facility in Compliance with all requirements regarding

Cultural Resource protection, mitigation or enhancement included in the FERC license or exemption?

YES

The project powerhouse is a contributing resource of the Monteith Historical District within the City of Albany and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The Lebanon dam and fishways are a contributing resource of the Santiam-Albany canal, which the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. In order to protect the historical integrity of the National Register sites in the project area due to proposed project modifications, operation, and maintenance, Albany, the SHPO, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council), and the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, as the Commission's delegated representative, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on cultural resources for the project pursuant to the Advisory Council's regulations 36 C.F.R. 800. The MOA was signed and executed by the Advisory Council on 8/18/1998. Article 418 of the FERC license requires implementation of the MOA’s cultural resources management plan (CRMP). The MOA requires the Applicant to file an annual report of activities conducted under the CRMP, with copies to FERC, OSHPO and Tribes of the Grand Ronde. The Applicant filed its 2009 Annual Report on December 11, 2009 in which it reported work in continuing on the Programmatic Agreement (PA) and update of the CRMP, in consultation with Resource Agencies and also Tribes. The Applicant has complied with the CRMP and acted to improve it over time. The Applicant is performing a 10-year update to the CRMP that reflects all historical adjacent properties along the canal using a 45-year age filter. The update was prompted by evolving state standards for archaeological/cultural investigations and documentation, along with the development of the PA. There is no deadline in the CRMP to accomplish this update. As part of the update, in October 2008, the Applicant, SHPO, US Army Corps of Engineers and FERC voluntarily agreed to develop a PA, including mitigation measures, for regular canal repair and maintenance. The PA would streamline the process and reduce the time needed for the parties to the MOA to process regular repair and maintenance activities. It is anticipated to be a


Page | 29

5-year permit with pre-approval of activities using a 2x2 matrix (low-high impact activity on low-high likelihood locations). The Tribes provided the likelihood of location and the team has determined the impact (given a set of BMPs). The SHPO provided a template for the PA assessment. Recent consultation regarding the PA has revealed some hesitancy to grant a PA with the level of preapproval the Applicant has requested, so the team is still working through the approach. The PA may ultimately require small scale archaeological investigations for every activity which would slow the Applicant down considerably. The approach is agreed upon, but the level of preapproval is still being fine-tuned. If YES, go to G. If NOT APPLICABLE, go to F2 If NO, Facility fails.

THE FACILITY PASSES CONDITIONALLY

F. Cultural Resources – The Facility is in Compliance with LIHI’s standards.

G. Recreation Goal: The Facility provides free access to the water and accommodates recreational activities on the public’s river. Standard: A certified Facility must be in Compliance with terms of its FERC license or exemption related to recreational access, accommodation and facilities. If not FERC-regulated, a Facility must be in Compliance with similar requirements as recommended by resource agencies. A certified Facility must also provide the public access to water without fee or charge. Criteria: 1) If FERC-regulated, is the Facility in Compliance with the recreational access,

accommodation (including recreational flow releases) and facilities conditions in its FERC license or exemption?

YES

The Facility area (canal) is the public drinking water supply for Albany and Lebanon. There are no recreational uses or opportunities on the canal or its control structures. FERC considers the diversion dam, headgates, and canal as a power channel subject to strict requirements to prevent the public from accessing them. These structures are fenced and gated, with signs posted to keep the public away. Numerous bridges throughout the area are also posted (e.g., “No Trespassing – Public Water Supply – Swimming Prohibited” or “Warning – Keep Out- Dangerous Undertow). The South Santiam River, upstream of the diversion dam, is a recreational river. In Compliance with FERC requirements, upstream at Waterloo Park, the Applicant has posted “No Boat Takeout Below” as well as shoreline signs.


Page | 30

By letters dated August 1, 2006, September 9, 2007, and May 22, 2008, FERC has required the Applicant to install a boat barrier upstream of the Lebanon Dam to ensure public safety measures are in place at the project. By letter dated August 13, 2009, the Applicant filed a schedule to installing the boat barrier, and described the substantial measures it has already undertaken to support the installation, including consultation with Resource Agencies. The Applicant installed the barrier May 16, 2010 (see Figure 2). If YES, go to G3. If NOT APPLICABLE, go to G2. If NO, Facility fails.

3) Does the Facility allow access to the reservoir and downstream reaches without fees

or charges?

YES The area upstream of the dam is a recreational river with no access fees charged. If YES, go to H. If NO, Facility fails.

THE FACILITY PASSES

G. Recreation – The Facility is in Compliance with LIHI’s standards.

H. Facilities Recommended for Removal Goal: To avoid encouraging the retention of facilities which have been considered for removal due to their environmental impacts. Standard: If a Resource Agency has recommended removal of a dam associated with the Facility, certification is not allowed. Criterion: 1) Is there a Resource Agency Recommendation for removal of the dam associated with

the Facility?

NO Consultation with ODFW & USFWS confirmed this status.


Page | 31

If NO, Facility is low impact. If YES, the Facility fails.

THE FACILITY PASSES

H. Dam Removal – The Facility is in Compliance with LIHI’s standards.

FACILITY IS LOW IMPACT

APPENDIX

From: STINE Chris [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:27 AM To: Zahorcak, Claudia

Cc: STINE Chris

Subject: RE: Vine Street

Hi Claudia – As you know, the Calapooia is on DEQ’s 303d list for dissolved oxygen impairment from RM 0.1 to 31.2. The Project is within this reach, at RM 0.3. The Willamette River is similarly listed for DO within a reach that includes the confluence of the South Santiam and tributaries, including the Calapooia. A TMDL which addresses DO impairment in these reaches is under development. DEQ’s 1995 CWA Section 401 certification addressed potential effects of Project operation on water quality parameters, including dissolved oxygen. Potential effects on DO were modeled using the QUAL2E aeration function. Modeling results are presented in Table 2 of DEQ’s Evaluation Report & Findings document (p.46), and conclude: “No evidence exists to indicate that this project will reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations in any of the affected water bodies.” Indeed, DEQ concluded that Project operation would enhance oxygen in the summer; however, this benefit would likely not be realized because flows would be below minimum required operating levels. Based on the findings of our evaluation, DEQ concluded the Project operation will not contribute to oxygen deficits which temporarily occur within the Project area. For this reason, DEQ did not condition the certification to require Albany to correct for existing impairment. Please feel free to contact me if you’d like to discuss this further. Christopher Stine, PE | Hydroelectric Specialist

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

165 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 100

Eugene, Oregon 97401 | (541) 686-7810


From: Jeffrey Cueto [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 1:45 PM

To: '[email protected]' Cc: 'Zahorcak, Claudia'; '[email protected]'

Subject: FW: Vine Street

Chris – I note that you commented on the City of Albany’s TDG study and asked that they add the D.O. sampling data to the report, which they did. The Low Impact Hydropower Institute is a processing an application from the City for certification as low impact. Certification includes several environmental and social criteria, including water quality. Information on the program is available at http://www.lowimpacthydro.org/ I don’t know if the data is sufficient to draw any conclusions regarding any possible influence the hydroelectric station may have on dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Calapooia and Williamette rivers insofar as the future TMDL is concerned. I believe that they were daytime samples and not 24-hour sampling. The City may seek a letter from ODEQ concluding that the project does not cause or contribute to the substandard D.O. concentrations in the two rivers (as further detailed below). If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. (I am reviewing the application for LIHI.) ><{{{˜> Jeffrey R. Cueto, P.E. ><{{{˜> (802) 223-5175 ><{{{˜> [email protected]

From: Jeffrey Cueto [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 1:17 PM

To: 'Zahorcak, Claudia' Cc: '[email protected]'


Thanks for the quick response, Claudia. The rivers are not impaired for TDG, which is gas supersaturation and primarily a nitrogen gas issue that causes fish mortality. Dissolved oxygen (D.O.) is a separate standard and a totally different water quality parameter. I don’t believe the City was asked to sample D.O. Past data shows substandard D.O. levels have been very common at the Calapooia River sampling stations. Here is the relevant section of the LIHI Handbook:

Question B.2. – Question B.2 provides for a disclosure of whether the relevant stretch of river and any Facility-associated lake or reservoir have not been identified by the state pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 303(d) as having impaired water quality. Please provide documentation from the applicable state water quality agency showing whether or not the waters of the Facility area and downstream reach are designated as impaired in the most recent listing of water bodies designated under Section 303(d). If there is a draft 303(d) list that is out for public review or filed for EPA approval, please provide information on the proposed status of the waters. Links to the applicable state Web pages should be provided. Question B.3. – If the relevant stretch of river has been designated as having impaired water

http://www.lowimpacthydro.org/


quality under Section 303(d), the Facility may still pass the water quality criterion if the Institute determines that the Facility does not cause, or contribute to, the water quality problem. This determination may be based on the state’s identification of causes of the violation that are unrelated to the Facility and its operations; a letter from the state explaining that the Facility and its operations neither cause nor contribute to the violation; or a letter from the Facility owner/operator that explains obvious exclusions from causation (e.g., violations due to toxic chemicals from an upstream plant unrelated to the Facility).

ODEQ, in its water quality certification, requires the City to participate in any TMDL:

4. The certificate holder will participate fully in a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or other basin planning process if the basin is declared water quality-limited for a parameter for which the project is a contributor.

Since substandard conditions exist upstream, the question become whether the Vine Street Project operation exacerbates the impairment downstream of the tailrace. If ODEQ is in a position to conclude that the project does not contribute to the impairment of either of the two rivers, then a letter from them so stating would demonstrate compliance with LIHI’s 303(d) criterion. Jeff From: Zahorcak, Claudia [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:44 PM

To: 'Jeffrey Cueto'


Hi, Jeffrey, The FERC license Article 403 required us to do a Total Dissolved Gases study. This study was completed showing no impairment, and was approved by Oregon DEQ. Claudia L. Zahorcak |541.704.2331(o) 503.701.5793 (c)| [email protected] From: Jeffrey Cueto [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:41 AM To: Zahorcak, Claudia

Cc: Ronald Kreisman Subject: RE: Vine Street

Hi, Claudia. The City of Albany’s application (Question B.2 of the questionnaire) indicated that the waters in the Facility area and downstream are not federal Clean Water Act 303(d) listed; however, Anette, in her draft report, correctly notes that the waters of the Calapooia River are 303(d) listed for dissolved oxygen, as well as iron and manganese. She also notes that the project contribution to the impairment has not been determined, and that ODEQ will be preparing a TMDL to address substandard dissolved oxygen concentrations. In order for the project to qualify for LIHI certification, there must be a demonstration that it does not cause or contribute to the impairment. My understanding of the listing is that the impairment is seasonal (January 1 to May 15) and that it extends well upstream of the canal discharge (river mile 0.1 to 31.2, and the project discharge is roughly at river mile 0.3).

I also note that the Williamette River from RM 54.8 to 186.5 is 303(d) listed for dissolved oxygen (October 15 to May 15). I believe that the Calapooia confluence is within this segment. I did not find any documentation in the application demonstrating that the project does not contribute to the impairment of either river. Could you let me know if that is correct? Thanks, Jeff

From: FONSECA Marilyn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:11 PM

To: Zahorcak, Claudia Cc: FONSECA Marilyn; STINE Chris

Subject: Calapooia listings

Ms. Zahorcak – attached please find an excel spreadsheet which includes the parameters on the Calapooia River which are on the 2004/2006 303(d) list of impaired waters for which a TMDL is required. Temperature and fecal coliform were addressed in the Upper Willamette TMDL, which was approved by EPA on September 29, 2006. The City of Albany hydropower project on the Santiam-Albany Canal was not identified as a source of temperature or fecal coliform in the TMDLs. The Environmental Quality Commission (DEQ’s policy and rulemaking board) adopted new criteria for iron and manganese on December 9, 2010. The criteria are not applicable for Clean Water Act purposes until EPA approves the criteria. Once the criteria are approved, the iron and manganese listings will be reviewed. It is possible that the Calapooia River will not be considered water quality limited for iron and manganese once this review is complete. Thank you, Marilyn Fonseca

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 (503) 229-680

Documents

REVIEW OF LOW IMPACT HYDROPOWER … Street...to the Low Impact Hydropower Institute ... A power house containing two Francis turbines and Woodward governors, ... it is routed through