Addendum 1~27.pdf

August 11, 2025

ADDENDUM # 1

Title: Stone Creek Environmental Compliance Monitoring

RFP # 25-142-PSC

This addendum adds additional information to the original RFP document.

QUESTION & ANSWER

1. Are there any specific PPE requirements for the pre-bid meeting?

Response: Be sure to wear the appropriate footwear. Other than that, no particular PPE requirements.

2. Is the facility staffed on a full-time basis? If not can you let us know how it is staffed or provide a schedule?

Response: The typical schedule is 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through THURSDAY. (No Fridays). If awarded however, it is always good to check ahead of time for any given visit.

3. In the Section 2 Scope of Work, Task 4 is identified as Other Related Work. Because there is no specific Scope identified for this task, can we presume that work that falls under this task would be price at the time it is requested and not in the cost proposal?

Response: That is correct. Task 4 is more of a placeholder for future updated scope. All Proposers may bid $0 for Task 4.

4. Can you please provide the following documents:

o 1991 Stream Flow Monitoring Plan o October 1991 supplemental filing o November 1991 FERC Order Approving and Modifying the Streamflow Monitoring Plan

Response: Yes. The documents are attached here as Attachments 1-3 respectively.

CLOSING DATE AND TIME: August 27, 2025

Remains unchanged.

This addendum constitutes a MATERIAL CHANGE to the Request for Proposals.

Addendum prepared by:

Sandra Hahn

Purchasing Analyst

FINAL STONE CREEK HYDROPOWER PROJECT STREAM FLOW

(: . MONITORING PLAN - ARTICLE 103

Prepared for Pacific Oregon Corporation

Bothell, Washington

Prepared by Cascades Environmental Services

Bellingham, Washington

APRIL 1991

ATTACHMENT #1

FINAL STONE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECf STREAM FLOW

AND ACCRETION MONITORING PLAN - LICENSE ARTICLE 103

APRIL 1991

INTRODUCITON

Following is the Final Stone Creek Hydroelectric Project Stream Flow and Accretion Monitoring Plan (SFMP). This Final SFMP incorporates ODFW, FS, and USGS comments to the Draft SFMP submitted on September 5, 1990. Documentation of consultation is included in Appendix A The SFMP was written in compliance with Article 103 of the Stone/Shellrock Creek Hydropower Ucense, issued September 15, 1989. The plan was written for Pacific Oregon Corporation of Bothell, Washington by Cascades Environmental Services (CES), Bellingham, Washington.

As required by Article 103, the licensee must verify minimum stream flows during project operation and assure that accretion flows are within 90 percent of those assumed in flow negotiations and are in fact found to be accurate under project operation. In order to assure acceptable monitoring, the licensee developed the SFMP. Although the FERC only required consultation with the USGS, both the ODFW and the FS requested involvement in development of the SFMP.

MONITORING OBJECTIVES

In accordance with Article 103 of the Stone/Shellrock Creek Project Ucense, the objectives of the stream flow monitoring program are verification of minimum flows below the proposed diversion and verification of accretion flows between the proposed point of diversion and the proposed powerhouse during project operation.

Based on further consultations with the ODFW and the USFS, the specific objectives of the stream flow and accretion monitoring plan are:

1)

2)

Assure that accretion is either evenly distributed throughout the diversion reach or the majority of accretion enters in the upper half of the diversion reach.

Verify assumed accretion volumes at the proposed powerhouse location.

- 2 -

PROPOSED STREAM GAGING PLAN

Project # 5264-002 Flow Monitoring Plan

According to Article 103, stream gaging stations will be required at the diversion and powerhouse and they must be active during project operation. According to standard FERC Article 8, the USGS will be involved as overseer of the monitoring program.

Stream flow recorders have been operated intermittently at the proposed diversion and powerhouse since 1982. These stations have been recently overhauled, and beginning May, 1990 will be operated and maintained for the life of the project. The station located at the Oak Grove diversion is presently located upstream of the proposed diversion structure so it will have to be moved downstream below the diversion before project operation begins.

The existing gage at the powerhouse is at the appropriate location.

In order to assure compliance with the minimum flow threshold of 75 cfs above the diversion, the Licensee will develop a relationship between power production and flow through the pipe. Combined with gaging data below the diversion, a reliable estimate of stream flow above the POD can be calculated.

PROPOSED ACCRETION FLOW VERIFICATION PLAN

There are two objectives to the Accretion Verification Plan: a) verification of accretion pattern; and, b) verification of accretion volume.

Verification of accretion volume will be accomplished through the operation and maintenance of the continuous gages at the powerhouse and diversion. These gages have been installed and will be maintained according to the standards of the USGS (USGS consultation, Appendix A).

Verification of accretion pattern will be accomplished by multiple sets of simultaneous discharge measurements throughout the diversion reach. Location, frequency, and timing of the discharge measurements are as follows.

Location: Three cross sections will be selected between the diversion and powerhouse. For accuracy of discharge, these cross sections should have a relatively even bottom profile, should have generally laminar flow, and should be wadeable at moderately high flows. The cross sections should be spaced a sufficient distance apart in order to measure accretion throughout the diversion reach. Final selection of cross sections will be approved by the ODFW and USFS.

- 3 -

Project# 5264-002 Flow Monitoring Plan

Frequency and Timing: Three replicate sets of discharge measurements at each cross section will be taken during each of the four seasons. Although obtaining wide climatic variation is not necessary, a summer and winter low flow period will be targeted for one of the replicate sets. Because base flow conditions are important, measurements during or immediately after a heavy rainstorm will be avoided.

Discharge at the diversion and powerhouse gages will be recorded during each set of measurements.

According to consultation with the ODFW and the USFS, accretion verification measurements are not required prior to project operation.

DATA COMPILATION, FORMAT, and REPORTING

Continuous Recorders

Rating curves, water stage, and discharge for each station will be compiled and formatted into tables so that accretion values are easily determined. These data will be reported to the USGS, USFS, and the ODFW on a quarterly basis for the first year of operation. The reporting frequency and report distribution list will be reviewed at the end of the first year of operation. Over the long term, the Ucensee would prefer to provide a report to only one agency, and fewer than on 4 times per year.

Accretion Verification Reporting

Accretion data will be reported to the ODFW, FWS, and the USFS quarterly; or more frequently on a case by case basis if requested by either agency during the first year of operation. After the first year of operation, reporting procedures should be reviewed.

MONITORING PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITY

Cascades Environmental Services and its subcontractor Mr. Don Richardson P.E., USGS Hydrologist (retired) will be responsible for station installation and maintenance and for data retrieval, reduction, and reporting. According to the FERC Ucense, the USGS will act as overseer of the stream flow monitoring program.

- 4 -i i I

L

APPENDIX A

Project # 5264-002 Flow Monitoring Plan

SUMMARY AND DOCUMENTATION OF AGENCY CONSULTATION

SUMMARY OF AGENCY COMMENTS TO THE STONE CREEK

PROJECT STREAM FLOW MONITORING PLAN

LICENSE ARTICLE 103 - APRIL 1991

As required by Article 103 of the Stone/Shellrock Hydroelectric Project License issued by the FERC on September 15, 1989 the Licensee must assure that accretion flows are within 90 percent of those assumed in the flow Project flow negotiations and are in fact found to be accurate under project operation. In order to assure acceptable monitoring, the Licensee developed the Stream Flow Monitoring Plan (SFMP) in consultation with the USGS, ODFW, and the FS. The Draft SFMP was submitted to these agencies on September 5, 1990. It is important to note that the only agency with which FERC required consultation was the USGS. However, both the ODFW and the FS requested involvement in development of the SFMP.

Comment on the Draft SFMP has been received from the following agencies.

Documentation of consultation follows.

AGENCY

USGS

USPS

ODFW

DATE OF COMMENT

8/3/90

1/22/91

10/17/90 01/31/91

The following is a summary of the responding agencies' main comments and a brief corresponding statement by the Licensee.

Summary of Specific Comment by USGS and Responses of Licensee

1) USGS mentions the inclusion of Shellrock gage in the SFMP.

The Shellrock component of the Project has been deleted.

2) USGS will conduct a detailed review of the gaging program during the first year of operation.

Licensee will fully cooperate with this review.

3) USGS requests discharge, rating curves rating shift tables mean gage-height, and narrative on gaging record. This information is to be provided on a quarterly basis:

The SFMP has been revised to provide these data on quarterly basis.

- 1 -

Project# 5264- 002 Flow Monitoring Plan Comments

4) USGS set a rate of $2400.00 per site per year for their participation.

The Licensee neither agrees nor disagrees with this cost figure. Contract for reimbursement of USGS will be negotiated.

Summazy of Specific Comments by ODFW and Responses of Licensee

Two letters of comment regarding stream flow monitoring have been received from the ODFW. Following the first letter, dated October 17, 1990, the Licensee met with the ODFW on November 30, 1990 to discuss ODFW's comments. The Licensee wrote a follow up letter, dated December 20, 1990, confirming the Licensee's understanding of the ODFW's request. The following summary of ODFW's comments refers to their most recent letter of 31 January 1991.

1) ODFW and the Licensee agree on the purpose, criteria, and basic method for monitoring accretion flows. However the ODFW requests substantially more measurements be taken than what had been proposed by the Licensee.

Specifically, ODFW requests that 3 replicate sets of measurements in each of the 4 seasons is necessary.

The SFMP has been revised to include the number and timing of discharge measurements requested by ODFW.

2) ODFW states that it is not necessary to collect all of the discharge information before the project is constructed and operating. It is also important that the continuous recorders be operating when the measurements are taken.

The Licensee agrees with this stipulation; the SFMP has been revised accordingly.

3) ODFW requests that they receive gage calibration data on a quarterly basis.

The SFMP has been revised to provide the data on a quarterly bases for the first year of operation. 1he need for quarterly reporting to all three agencies (USGS, ODFW, and the USFS) will be evaluated at the end of the first year of operation.

Summazy of FS Comments and Responses by Licensee

1) Gage locations immediately below the proposed diversion and immediately above the proposed powerhouse are satisfactory.

Gage locations will be so located.

- 2 -

Project # 5264 - 002 Flow Monitoring Plan Comments

2) The FS states that one, possibly two, additional gages may be necessary above the proposed diversion. The FS maintains that gaging above the POD is necessary to assure that diversion of flow does not occur when stream flows above the POD drop below 75 cfs.

However, the FS also states that gages above the POD may not be necessary if the Ucensee can demonstrate a reliable relationship between turbine operation and stream flow.

The Licensee does not feel gages above the POD are necessary to assure compliance with the 75 cfs minimum instream flow threshold as stipulated by the FERC. Rather, the Licensee will demonstrate a reliable relationship between power production and flow through the pipe. Combined with the gaging data below the diversion a reliable estimate of stream flow above the POD can be calculated. The SFMP has been revised to include development of this relationship.

3) FS requests that accretion flow measurements target specific hydrologic conditions.

Accretion flow discharge measurements required by the ODFW will target the hydrologic conditions also requested by the FS.

4) The Licensee should provide sufficient information to the Forest Service to determine the adequacy of the gage information. The plan should describe how the information will be made available to the FS.

All infonnation described under "USGS" item # 3 will be provided to the FS on a quarterly basis. As stated under ODFW item # 3, the need for quarterly reporting to all three agencies will be evaluated after the first year of operation.

- 3 -

CASCADES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Mr. Bob Deibel U.S. Forest Service 61431 E. Hwy 224 Estacada, OR 97023

Dear Bob, September 5, 1990

Enclosed is the Stone/Shellrock Creek Hydroelectric Project Stream Flow Monitoring Plan.

The plan was written in compliance with Articles 103 of the Stone/Shellrock Creek Hydropower License, issued September 15, 1989. The plan was written for Pacific Oregon Corporation of Bothell, Washington by Cascades Environmental Services (CES), Bellingham, Washington.

Please review the plan and respond in writing to CES no later than October 15, 1990 as to whether or not you are in agreement with the plan.

Distribution:

cc:

Michael Barclay

Bob Deibel, USFS Stephanie Birchfield, ODFW

Lon Covin, Hydro West Group, Inc.

713 Texas Strest Bellingham, Washington 98225

(206) 671-1150 FAX (206) 671-1152

l __

United States Department of the Interior

TAKE

PRID£1N

AMERICA

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ·-- . Water Resources Division

10615 s. E. Cheny Blossom Drive Portland, Oregon 97216

Mr. Michael Barclay cascade Environmental services 713 Texas Street Bellingham, Washington 98225

Dear Mr. Barclay:

August 3' 1990

Reference: FERC Project No. 5264-002 (Stone CreekjShellrock Creek}

We have reviewed your stream Flow Monitoring Plan. With the inclusion of the additional recorder at the proposed Shellrock powemouse as you mentioned in your letter dated June 27, 1990, the plan appears to cover the flow monitoring requirements established by FERC. In order to ensure that Hydro Energy Development Corporation is adhering to the proposed plan, the USGS will conduct a detailed review during the first year of operation. If the streamflow monitoring meets USGS standards, then we will reduce the level of supervision in subsequent years. If problems are discovered later on, then a retum to the more detailed level of supavision may be required.

C'::t...cu:"ade ~.rirornnenta1 Se.J:.Vices, as the representatives of Hydro Energy Development Corporation, would need to provide the USGS with the fol lowing infonnation on a quarterly basis:

l} Copy of discharge measurements

2} Copy of current rating curve

3} Table of rating shifts used to compute discharge

4} Table of mean daily gage-height

5} Table of carrputed mean daily dischal:ge

6} Narrative description of how rating was developed, shifts were applied, missing record estimated, and other factors involved in computation of the final record.

Additional information may be requested as needed. The USGS would make check measurements of discharge as part of our quality assurance program.

First year costs (October 1990 -September 1991) to Hydro Energy Development Corporation for supervision arxi review of the streamflow record and stream-gaging would be $2,400 per existing site, for a to tal of $4,800.

If you have any questions conceming the program, please call Tam Herrett at 231-2257.

Sincerely, r//a--:- o. ~ Marvin o. Fretwell state Chief, Oregon Office

NEIL GOLDSCHMIDT

GOVERNOR

Department of Fish and Wildlife

2501 SW FIRST AVENUE, PO BOX 59, PORTLAND, OREGON 97207 PHONE (503) 229-5400

october 17, 1990

Mr. Michael Barclay Cascades Environmental Service 713 Texas Street Bellingham, WA 98225

Subject: Comments: Stone/Shell rock Creek Hydroelectric Project Streamflow Monitoring Plan, FERC Project No. 5264-002

Dear Michael:

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has reviewed the draft Stream Flow Monitoring Plan for the Stone Creek/Shellrock Hydro Project. The plan is acceptable to ODFW with the following revisions:

1. Installation and maintenance of staff gages with stilling basins and flow recording instrumentation at the two locations within the Oak Grove bypass reach. The gages should be operated for at least the first year, along with the gages at the diversion dam and powerhouse. Article 103 states that the licensee is responsible for monitoring flows throughout the diversion reach of the Oak Grove Fork to assure flows are within 90 percent of those assumed in the flow negotiations and are in fact found to be accurate under project operation.

ODFW believes that in order to demonstrate the adequacy of assumptions concerning accretion under prevailing highly variable seasonal flow patterns, the licensee must collect flow data within the bypass reach considerably more frequently than every other month. Flow recordings should occur at least every two weeks to adequately characterize flow patterns in the bypass reach and demonstrate that accretion provides the level of flow protection assumed during flow negotiations.

2. Data collected from stream gaging activities at the project should be provided to ODFW on a quarterly basis, as will be provided to the USGS. ODFW would like to receive, at a minimum for each gage, copies of discharge measurements, current rating curves, a table of mean daily gage-height, and a table of mean daily discharge.

Mr. Michael Barclay october 17, 1990

Stone/Shell rock Streamflow Monitoring

Thank you for this opportunity to review the draft plan.

c: Bob Deibel, USFS Marv Yoshinaka, USFWS Rick Bastasch, WRD

Sincerely, Richard L. Kruger Hydropower Coordinator Habitat Conservation Division

( .l

L

CASCADES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Mr. Rick Kruger Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife PO Box 59, Portland, OR 97207

Dear Rick, November 25, 1990

Enclosed is a brief working report on the procedures used for estimating hydrologic accretion and fish habitat within the Oak Grove Fork diversion reach. Please review it prior to our site visit on Thursday, November 29.

See you at the Cazadero in Estacada at 9 am or a little after. We will have eaten breakfast.

Remember to pack a lunch and bring your hip boots along just in case.

713 Texas Street Bellingham, Washington 98225

(206) 671-1150 FAX (206) 671-1152

Sincerely, Michael Barclay

ATTACHMENT #2

CASCADES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Mr. Rick Kruger Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2501 SW First Portland, OR 97207

Dear Rick, December 20, 1990

This letter is to confirm CES' understanding of flow monitoring requirements stipulated by the ODFW for the Stone/Shellrock Hydropower Project (FERC License #5264-002)

As required by Article 103 of the Stone/Shellrock License, CES submitted a Flow Monitoring Plan to the ODFW and the USFS on September 5, 1990. ODFW responded to the Plan in correspondence dated October 17, 1990. Differences between the Plan and ODFW's response led to further discussions on November 30, 1990. During these discussions it was agreed that the pattern of accretion "throughout" the diversion reach must be studied further. It was agreed that the objective of the study would be to assure that accretion was either evenly distributed throughout the diversion reach or the majority entered in the upper half of the reach. It was also agreed that volume of flow to meet the 90% criteria would be measured at a gaging station immediately upstream of the proposed powerhouse location.

CES proposes to conduct 3 sets of discharge measurements for estimating amount and pattern of accretion; one set in each of the late winter/early spring, summer, and fall seasons.

Measurements will be taken simultaneously at 3 cross sections; cross sections will be as evenly spaced as possible between the existing gages located at the diversion and the powerhouse. These locations will be identified on a map for approval by the ODFW.

Field and computed data will be made available to the ODFW and FS. Measurement will begin in March of 1991.

cc: Bob Deibel, FS Lon Covin, FS Ian Whitloc, Attorney

Sincerely, -?HJ~~~

713 Texas Street Bellingham, Washington 98225

(206) 671-1150 FAX (206) 671-1152

Michael Barclay

United States Forest Service

Mt. Hood National Forest 2955 N.Y. Division Gresham, OR 97030 503 666-0700

FAX:(503) 666-0641

Reply To: 2770

Mr. Michael Barclay Cascades Environmental Services 713 Texas Street Bellingham, Washington 98225

RE: Stone Creek/Shellrock Creek Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 5264-002, License Article 103.

Dear Mr. Barclay:

Date: January 22, 1991

Thank you for providing us copies of the proposed Stream Flow Monitoring Plan.

Article 103 of the September 15, 1989, Order Issuing License for the Stone Creek/Shellrock Creek Hydroelectric Project requires that the licensee assure that the discharge form the Oak Grove Fork project is a continuous, minimum flow of 30 cubic feet per second (cfs) or natural flows during the months of November to June, and 40 cfs or natural flows during the months of July to October, and that the discharge from Shellrock Creek project is a continuous minimum flow of 30 cfs or natural flows during the months of June to February, and 40 cfs or natural flows during the months of March to May, as measured immediately below the point of proposed diversion. Article 103 further requires that the licensee is responsible for monitoring flows throughout the diversion reach of the Oak Grove Fork to assure that the accretion flows are within 90 percent of those assumed in the flow negotiations and are in fact found to be accurate under project operation. Finally, Article 103 stipulates that no diversion of water will be permitted when the natural flow is less than 75 cfs at the Oak Grove Fork diversion and less than 32 cfs at the Shellrock Creek diversion.

The Stone/Shellrock Creek Hydroelectric Project stream flow monitoring plan, filed with us by letter dated September 5, 1990, proposes to move the existing recording station in the Oak Grove Fork to just below the diversion prior to project operation. The plan also states that the existing gage at the powerhouse will remain in place. The plan further states that the licensee will install a gage immediately below the diversion. Finally, the plan proposes to measure flows in the diversion reach at two locations every other month.

The Forest Service has the following comments and suggestions on the plan.

First, the licensee must install three gages and potentially four in the Oak Grove Fork to meet the requirements of Article 103. Gages are necessary upstream of the diversion to insure that no flows are diverted when inflow to the impoundment drops below 75 cfs. This may require gages on both the Oak Grove Fork and Stone Creek. The other two locations in the Oak Grove Fork in the plan meet the requirements of the article. Gages may not be necessary upstream of the impoundment if the licensee can demonstrate a reliable relationship between turbine operation and stream flow. The Forest Service can use this relationship combined with the gage below the diversion to determine the inflow to the impoundment.

Caring for the Land and Serving People FS.6200-28b(4/88) l

Michael Barclay 2

Second, the proposal to measure flow in the diversion reach every other month to determine accretion flow is inadequate. The licensee should measure flows in the diversion reach more frequently. The sample size should be adequate to represent the typical range of flows that occur on an annual basis. Therefore, the licensee should measure flow during the spring high flow period, during the winter after extended periods of freezing temperatures, during the summer, and during the fall low flow period. The licensee should ensure that there is adequate replication of measurements to provide for statistical reliability. In this case, replication preferably means measuring discharge on consecutive or non-consecutive days.

The proposal to install a gage immediately below the Shellrock Creek diversion structure meets the requirements of Article 103.

The licensee should provide sufficient information to the Forest Service to determine the adequacy of the gage information. This includes information such as rating curves, cross section profiles, depth and velocity information used to develop the curves, and any other information used to set up and calibrate the gage.

Finally, the plan should describe the provisions for making the discharge information available to the Forest Service.

I hope these comments and suggestions help you to finalize the plan.

have any further comments or questions, please contact Tom Horning at 630-4256. Thank you for considering the Forest Service's input.

Sincerely, MI~EDR

Forest cc: Ron Darkes, Project Manager, Portland General Electric Mike Lohrey, Mt. Hood Supervisor's Office Lisa Freedman, U.S. Forest Service Regional Office Richard Kruger, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Russell D. Peterson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

91/01/22 1415 ADM

Caring for the Land and Serving People

If you (503)

FS-6200·28b(4i88)

January 31, 1991

Cascades Environmental Service 713 Texas Street Bellingham, WA 98225

Subject: Comments: Stone/Shellrock Creek Hydroelectric Project Streamflow Monitoring Plan, FERC Project No. 5264-002

Dear Michael:

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has reviewed your December 20, 1990 letter concerning proposed discharge monitoring for the StonejShellrock Creek project. I agree with your recitals in the second paragraph regarding our discussions and the November 30, 1990. However, your proposal of three discharge measurement sets, one each in three seasons for determining the pattern of accretion is insufficient. I believe that three replicate measurement sets in each of four seasons is necessary to adequately determine the pattern of accretion throughout the year in the bypass reach. Since we are concerned with the base flow accretion from groundwater in the bypass reach, it is important to collect the discharge measurements under conditions that best reflect baseflow, rather than more transient surface inflow. It is especially important to determine baseflow conditions during two potential low flow periods, late summer and mid winter.

As we discussed yesterday on the telephone, it is not necessary to collect all of the discharge information before the project is constructed and operating. It would probably be desirable to collect spring and fall discharge sets after the project is operating. It is important that the upstream and downstream continuous gages be installed and operating when all measurements are made.

Data collected from stream gaging and discharge measurement activities at the project should be provided to ODFW on a quarterly basis. ODFW would like to receive, at a minimum, copies of discharge measurements, current rating curves for

Ofegon

DEPARTMENT

OF FISH AND

WILDLIFE

(;.~~~ .·o~

-~·~9

2501 SW First Avenue PO Box 59 Portland, OR 97207

(503) 229-5400

L

January 31, 1991

StonejShellrock Streamflow Monitoring the gages, a table of mean daily gage-height, and a table of mean daily discharge.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on your proposed approach.

~::;11~ Richard L. Kruger ~ Hydropower Coordinator Habitat Conservation Division c: Bob Deibel, USFS Marv Yoshinaka, USFWS Rick Bastasch, WRD nR•"•· 'A' U Ill ii\J L

CAS~ADES ENVIRQNM~r:f:rAL SERVICES, INC.

The Secretary Fedem1 Eneri.!V Relrulatorv Commission ....... - .

Mail Code: DPCA, HL-21.1 825 N. Capitol Street, NE Washington, DC 20426

RE: Supplemental information - Stone Creek Hydropower Project, PERC ~..()25 - Oregoil ------~---- -- --.. ,.... ~ · · ·

Dear Mr. Secretary, Cascades Environmental Servi...""es Inc. is a subcontractor to Oregon .Pacific Corporaiiuu o:t the Stone Creek Project and is authorized by Oregon Pacific, Inc. and Hydro West Group to airecLiy submii. th~; cudo:;0d n&atcrial tG the FERC.

Enciosed are seven copies of the response to the FERC request for additional inf..>.::mation on the Stone Creek Stream Flow Monitoring Plan. A record of recent written consultation between the Licensee and the agencies is included in the supplemental information package.

Providing housing for the stage level mon~toring devices descnbed in this document may necessitate :cvisions to the Visual Resources Protection and Mitigation Plan (VRPMP) which was prepared pursuant to License Article 111. The licensee is currendy consulting with the Forest Service on approJ)riate visual mitigation measures to be taken on this matter.

An amendment to the VRPMP will be submitted to the FERC as soon a., consultation with the FS on design is completed. I would expect this matter to oc resolved within 60 days.

Pleas~ call me if you have any questions on this Jetter or ~he ~ncJosed information.

cc: Ken Fonnesbeck, HWG Frank Frisk, attorney Ian Whitlock, attorney Dick Taug, FERC Portland Rick Kruger, ODF\V Bob Deibel, USFS

Sincerely, :::~a~- Kent Doughty

Qf/D/toO;K/1 · 713 Texas Street Bellingham, Washington 98225·3823

(206) 6':"1-1150 FAX (206) 571·1152

OCT f 5 J99;

I

ORIGI~~AL

SUPPLEMENTAL iNFORMATION STREAM FLOW MONITO~tj ¥£XN· .. : ·;

STO~""E CREEK HYDROPOWER PROJECT CCT ! ::; :·.:.; ]: 25

SEPTEMBE~ 1991

~ '•·. I. 0 o!; :·\ :_.. • • I >

Article 103 of the Stone Creek License (FERC No. 5264-002) requires the maintenance of a continuous, minimum stream flow of 30 cfs or natural flows during the months of November to June. and 40 cfs or natural flows during the months of JuJ.y to October, as measured immediately below the diversion. The license further states that no diversion of water shall be permitted when the natural stream flow immediately above the diversion is less than 75 cfs. The licensee is also responsible for verifying accretion flows in the bypass reach.

A Strcwu Flow ~.1vr.Jtcru~g PlaiJ "·as :;~bmitte4 by the !fcensee to tb.e FERC in ..A.p:--J, 1991.

In a letter dated June 14, 1991, the FERC requested additional information within 45 days The licensee subsequently request.:d a 60 day extension. The FERC approved the extension;

requiring that additional information be provided to the FERC by September 30, 1991.

SpecificaJly the FERC requested the lio;;ensee provide the following information:

a an explanation of how the minimum 75 cfs above the point of diversion will be verified subsequent to project initiation but prior to calibration of the power generation model

• a description of the device for monitoring reservoir water surface elevation

• a schedul~ for installation of stream flow monitoring devices.

ODFW als0 requested that the licensee provide a means to measure the total. flow immediately downstream of the diversion at all times including when water is flowing 0\··er the weir (ODFW correspondence 7/10/91.)

The following information is provided as a supplement to the Flow Monitoring Plan for Stone Creek Hydropower Project, April 1991, and is presented in compliance with requests for additional information as stated above.

Stream F!o'.•.r Measuring nev!ces: Diversion Facilitv

Three stage monitors will be installed in association with the diversion. Two monitors will be placed in the reservoir pool and a third installed in the fishway exit weir. Figure 1 presents a schematic representation of their iocation and function. Stage levels will be ,.--~i-""-A 4.·..-.. ..-.'f--,...,...-.- .:-'"tn-.-..•""' '\ .... ,....nr~;T"''!~ t'!"""! ""..-"'"'4;-~..,.,.._c- rl~<"i'...;' .... ~,f ;.,.,. ":i' 1rtt"tl'-l"' ~~,...t-if"\n n.f thi'f;l '-'V•&'-'•Q.I.~ l.t...' IJ!r...&'-'g.ll..& L.lVY'I'LJO ..,.........,.'-' ... ~•::) ""' t'.L~~-.... .... ~ --~· .. --... -... - •-••-• "" __ _.._ .. .,. _..., --w report. Allitonitors-wilJ be_eJectror..ically linked ~o the diversion computer system whereby programming will allow calculation of stream flows and control of the amount of flow diverted through the penstock. The diversion computer system will include a mod~m which will allow access to c~JITent stage and discharge inform..::tion from remote localities.

The devices and methods for meeting each of the stream flow monitoring objectives are discussed below.

Minimum bypass stream nows

A stage level monitor will be installed along the fishway exit weir (figure 1). The combined flow from both the fish ladder and th~ bypass is routed past this point. Stage will be mechanically measured using a standard USGS float and pulley system contained within a stilling well. This stage level monitor will record stag~ in a paper chart format as weil as electroniei~Jly transmitting stage data to the diversion computer system. The monitor will be housed within a small, secure structure placed on top of the stilling well at the fishway exit weir.

~: .. "-:,;:;,p;. f1r,~ --.-,.~:-:A:::;-=•'--ru-...-_n!-~ ~~!:t"'"-.-.1 ...... ,.. ._,_ ... ,...._. n- •1.4 ~ ..... h .......... \. -~· .... _:_ 1!Y,.;11 h.a ,.IE."' .. ,.J tn ----&..t. ...,_.,.,. #'+ _ _...,_...__ .... _.,..._ .,._... .. _ Ut. U """&.&A..&.) ............ VJ..a. u..i.V ll.J.I...l~'t .... .,/ ""·,.~L. . .,"\""'AJ. 'f-..U.i V\w· Wv~.,. "'~ develop a stage discharge rclations.t-..ip. The stream flow measured at this location wiJl ccrnpr&c the minimum instrea.-n flow immediately below t_l!e niversi(\n except when higher flows alstJ allow water to pass directly over the weir.

Flow diverted through the penstock

As stated in the Stream Flow Monitoring Plan (April, 1991) the principle means of reportillg the volume of wa~~r diverted through the penstock will be the relationship of power to flow through the penstock. Calibration of this relatiop..:bip wiJl be made by taking <ALc;charge measurements within the power house tailrace over a suitable range of flow conditions during project startup. The licensee will consult with FERC, USGS, ODFW, and FS during L~is c?Jibration. After calibration o11Jy periodic discharge measurements in the tailrace will be necessary to verify the power generation relatio~hip.

Verification of a minimum 75 crs above the diversion

The license states that no diversion will be permitted when there is less than 75 cfs natural flow at the diversion. Verification of this minimum 75 cfs flowing into the reservoir pool will rely on monitoring water surface elevation within the reservojr pool. Reservoir stage elevation can be correlated to total flow below th~ diversion with the latter being directly measured on the fishway exit weir or below the diversion in the stream channel when water is being spilled over the diversion weir. This stage dio;charge relationship is independent of the flow through the penstock. The summation of the flow in the penstock (as reported by the power generation equadon) and the total instrea.1!1 flow btJlow the diversion (as reported by the reservoir pc..ol stage discharge relationship) yields the total stream flow above the diversion.

Data compilation, fonnat and reporting are descnbed in the Strea.YJJ Flow Monitoring Plan {April, 1991). In addition to other information mean daily discharges and minimum daily discharges as computed on an hourly basis will be reported.

8;m;ti.QD Monitotin_g

The Stream Flow Monitoring Plan (April 1991) descnbes how accretion Jevels within the bypass reach will be verified. This study shall be initiated at or before the time of project operation. The study will be completed within one year of initiation of project operation with a report filed within two months after completion of the study. Should conditions exist wjthin the first year of operation whleh preclude the opportunity ·co complete the a<:eretion study the licensee will provide a written explanation and contingency plan for completing the ao::retion stu_dy. The continuous recording stage monitoring device immediately above the powerhouse will also be made fuUy operational prior to p~ject operation.

I l

CASCADES ENVIRONI\t1ENTAL SERVICES, INC.

Th~ Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mail Code: DPCA. HL-21.1 825 N. Capitol Street. NE Washington DC 20426

Dear Mr. Secretary, August 5, 1991

Re: Request for Extension of TWle for Submittal of Additional Information -Stone Creek Hydro Proiect, FERC # 5264-02'5 - Oregon

Cas~~ Environmental Services is a sulr..ontractor to Oregon Pacific Corporation on the Stone Creek Project and is authorized by Oregon Pacific. In.c. and Hyci!"o West Group to communia:te d!~e.c.tly •;.•.tiL..,_ the FEP~C on this rnattf!!r_

On June 14, 1991, the licensee received a request for additional information from the FF...RC regarding stream flow monitorin.g for t.he Stone Creek Hydroelectric Project in Oackama.o; C..ounty, Oregon. Specifkally the FERC requested a more detailed description. of hew the minimum operation threshold of 75 cfs will be monitored between ?reject startup and stu-.am flew model development.

In addition the FERC reque_,ted a description of the measuring device and the instaUation schedule.

The FERC allowed 45 days for response.

Jn addition to the minimum instream tlow and project threshold measuring systern, the ODFW bas requested a system that measures the total flaw in the stream channel immediately downstream of the diversion.

·The Licensee is in the process of investigating alternative systems that will comply with the requests of both the FERC and ODFW. HoUlever, more time is needed~ an effective system that will comply with the requests of FERC and ODFW bas prcven somewnat involved to develop.

The Ucensee requests an additional :".0 days to respond to the FERC's June 14, 1991 request for additional information.

Sinu:rely, ·~J/.£( a.-/~-cc: Ken Fonnesbeck. HWG Dick Taug, FERC, Portland Rick Krugcry ODFn' Ian Whitlock, LPSL

1\;[ichael Barclay

713 Texas Street Bellingham, WashingtGn 98225-3823

{206) 671-1150 FAX (206) 671·1152

Kenneth c. Fonnesbeck, P.E.

Hydro West Group, Lnc.

l4lZ 130th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 oaar Mr. Fennesbeck:

.RiC'IlVID J'j I;! (J i~:J1

BfDRO-Wiit on April 24, l99~, Hyd~o West Group, Inc. filad the Stream Flow Monitoring Plan pursuant to articles S ana lOJ of the Stona creek Hydro Project license. Articl~ 8 r&quires the licgnsae to install an~ mai~tai .. 9~;i~q ~or detarmininq reservoir elevation and stream flow. Article lOJ requires a mini~um flow discharse fro~ the Stone Creek Hydro-Project at 30 cfs or ngtural !lows _ from November throuqh June, 40 cfs or nat~ral flows f~o: ~uly through october, and ~lushing flows !or 24 hour periods during October or November, and January or February. Additionally, no dive~sian of water will be made when atr.sam. inflow to the project is lesa ~~an 75 c~s. Article ~03 also requires tha ~icensee to monitor ~inimum fkows below the point of diversion (POD), throughout the diversion reach, and at tne powerhouse location.

You propose to moni~or cinimum tlo~s by installing a gaginq station immediately below the POD, and to monitor th2 inflow threshold of 75 cfs with a model relating power production and gaginq data to project inflow. You also propose to quantify accretion ~low volumes in the diversion reach with a gaging station immediataly above the powerhousa. Additionally, accret.ion flow patterns would be mon:.eored at three transects wit~in the diversion reach at a t~equency of three replicates per season~

Staff's review of the proposed plan shows tha~ it does not adequately describe how compliance with tha mini=u= infl~w

_threshold of 75 cfs above the POD will ~e monitored between tha time ot project start up and model dQVelopment, nor d~es it indicate the frequency of in!~ow monitoring. Additionally, ~e plan does not iden~i~ the de~ice that will mcnitor reservoir surface elevation. --

Th~ratora: in order for us to complete our review of your plan, we will need a description of he~ ~~~ minirn~m inflow threshold cf 75 cts above the POD will be monitored from initiation ot project operation to final model calibration, and a.

installation schedule and description ot the ~eviee used for ~onitori~9 reservoir surface elevation.

-2-

Within 45 4aya or ttla date ot thJ.s letter, you should Sf!tnd 7 C:Qpiea ot the 't"aqUe:sted info:rmation b~!

'l'be Secretary Federal Enerqy Raqulatorry commiaaion Mail Coda: DPCA,. HL-21.1. ·.

825 N. Capitol St., N.E.

washington, n.c. 20426

Xt you have any questions concerning the materials that must be provid~, please c~ntact David Grimes at (Z02) 219-~915. If you request, w• will sch•..-iule a m~etinq in Washington, o.c. with you and your r-.Jpresant.ative. In order tor you tc ~•et the aaadline for filinq the in!ormation specified in this letter, any discussion. o: meeting &~.'"loul.d occur !!.~ ~oon as possibl.:a.

Sinc:eraly, '"' .,_f)~

\}/II~ · · ·

--~JJ. Mark Robinson .

~ Director, Division of Project

Compliance and Admini~tration

FEDERAL ENERGY PEGULATOAY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 2Gt26

SfP l 0 1991

Mr. Michael Barclay

Project No. 5264-025--oreqon Stone creek Hydro Project P~cific Oregon Corporation

Cascades Environment~2 Services, Inc.

713 Texas Street Billingham, WA 98225-3823

Dear Mr. Barclay:

By letter dated Auqust 5, 1991, you requestedr an behalf of Pacific Qregon Corporation, a 60-day extension of time to file the requested information on the Stream Flow Monitoring Plan required by article 103 of the license. !n your letter you state tha~ thP- extension of time is need~d due to the involved nature of developing an effective ~ystem that will comply with the requests o-r the. commission ar.d i;.he crcg~n ne.part~-=tnt of Fish and Wildlife.

When contacted by staff on August 22; 1991, y~u stated that a system using pool level sensors and a downstrea~ staff gage would be proposed. You also stated that the requested extension of time was needed to accurately develop flow correlations betwP.en the two devices.

The reasoning advanced in support of your reques~ appears to justify the extension. AccordingJ.y, I am approving your request for a 60-day exteneion of time. ~he deadline for sub~itting the requested information on the Stream Flow Monitoring Plan required by article 103 of the li-::ense is extended until October 1., 1991.

If you have any questions concer~ing the materials that_must be provided, please contact David Grimesat·(202} 219-29~5. If you request, we will schedule a mee~ing in Washington, o.c. with you and your representative. In order for you to m~et the daadlir.e tor filing the information specified in this letter, any discussion or meeting should occur as soon as possible.

Sincerely, _J /Yl.}~-- ~ J. Mark Robinson

Director, Division of ~r~ject compliance and Adminis·tration cc~ Mr. Kenneth c. Fonnesbeck, F.E.

Hydro West Group, Inc.

1422 110th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005

I

July 10, 1991

Mr. Michael·Barclay

DEPARTMENT OF

FISH AND

Cascades Environmental Services 713 Texas Street WILDLIFE

Be~linqham, WA 98225

Subject: c~ .. ents: Stone Creek Hydroelectric Project s~reamfluw Monitoring Plan, FERC Project Ho. 5264-002

Dear Michael:

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlite (ODFW) has revie~ed the April; 1990 version of the Final stream Flow Monitorinq Plan for the Stone creek Project. ODFW has several co~ents regarding the Plan which are detailed in an attachment to this letter. Also, ~~ere have been extensive discussions between OO'FW r FRRC; tJSGS, Hydro West, and -~'curse!.~ regarding the arrangements for aeasuring and recording flow through various routes at the diversion and powerhouse, and associated powerhouse control mechanisms. As I understand it, the details of how and where streamflow into ancl out of the div~rsion facility will be me~sured and recorded have not been resolved yet. Accordingly, the present Plan probably does not adequately reflect the resclation to ba reached at a future time. When these matters are finally resolved, OOFW believes that the Plan should be revised to reflect the -approaches decided upon by the Licensee, FERC, Forest Service, and OOFW.

~t that time, OOFW requests that the Plan a~so be revised to incorporate changes detail~d in the attachw~nt to this ~etter.

ODFW does not believe constr~ction of ~~e project should be delayec on account of the unresolved monitoring issues and need for revision of the Streamflow Monitoring Plan.

Thank you for ~~is opportunity to comment on the Streamflow Monitoring Plan.

s;z;z:n.rLr- Richard L. Kruger Hydropower Coordinator Habitat conservation Division c:: Bob Deibel, USFS Marv Yoshinaka, usn;·s Rick Bastasch, WRD

..... '7"" ........ --· - -....::..... ..-

2501 SW Fust Avenue PO Box 59 Portland, OR '1J2C17 (5031 229-5400

COMMBHTS: Streamflow Monitoring Plan

Stone Creek Project FERC No. 5264

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

COMMENTS ON APRIL, 1990 VERSION OF THE

i':OCU. SntDM JILOW XONI'rORD.fG PLAB

MONX~ORIHG OBJECTrvBS

~he numbered list of specific monitoring objectives on page 2 of th,, Plan does not include a state&Aent cc.mcerninq the maolisurement and documentation of minimum streamflows immediately below the divnrs:!.-.;!1. ODFW recomm.onds tbat f:his list ba ravisa4 to include sue~ a statement.

PROPOSED STREAK GAGr.NG PLAN

T~er~ have been extensive discussions between OOFW, FERC-Portland, FERC-OC, USGS, Hydro West (Licensee}, and Cascades Environmental Services regarding locations and methods ox Qeasuring and recording flow in various flow routes through the diversion and powerhouse.

These discussions are 5til1 in progress and will like~y result in a different approach to measuring and recording streamflow above and below the diversion dam than described in the I'lan.. Given these changes, ODFW recommends that the stream Plow Konitorinq Pla.n ba revised or amended to fu~ly describe the complete proposed flow measurement, monitoring; racordinq and ~sporting plan.

As we previoulsy understood it, measurQlllent of flow may be accomplished by use of water level sensing transducP-cs at the powerhouse tailrace, fishway exit weir, and in the pool above the diversion dam. The water level would be measured by the transducers, and the readings converted into flow rate and subsequently stored in the powerhouse computer. These readings would be used by the computer 1:o col)trpl operation of ·the powerhouse, including powerhouse shutdown, to assure that the minimum required f1ow is released into the bypass reach at the diversion.

The system as described to ODFW by the Licensee would not include any means to measure flow spilled over the dam crest. Total flow in Stona creek immediately below ~~e diversion would be measured by the transducer in tha fishw:'!.y exit weir. However, once the projec·t began to spill, tota~ flow in the bypass reach would no longer be known. ODFW believes ~hc..t. it is i:&po:::-t:::.nt fer the project tQ measure and record the total flow released into the bypass reach at all times, as would oth~rwise be accomplished by the original desiqn of a continuous recording qage immediately be~ow the diversion dam. Therefore, con recommends that whatever systelll of tlov measurement is f'ina1ly decided upon, "'b.•t i1: incJ.uae t;h• me~surmD.ent and recordinq of total flow in tho bypass reach immodiately below the diversion structure, and that this

CO.IIMEIRS= Streamflow Monitorinq Plan

Stone Creek Project FERC No. 5264 information ba recorded by the project comput•r an4 reported a~ong.

with other project f1ow in~ormation.

In addition, the planned method of measuring ~lo- by level sensing transducer and storinq the info~~ation in the project computer may be subject to loss of data resultinq from computer failure,. or other malfunctions. ODI"W recomaends t:bat the Str~1ow Konitorinq Plan be revised to include sta.tame:cts of failsafe aeasures incl.u::ied in the project design to ensure that in the event of proje~t or computar aal~unction, •inimum atre.a~laws are .. intain•4 in the bypass reach. This shou~d include autoaati.c shutdown of the diversio~ and powerhouse in the event of coaputer fai1ure.

PROPOSED ACCRETXOB PLOW VERIPXCATXOB PLAN

While it was not OLIFW~":a u.L.:i.glna.l intention that all 'IU.easurements for verification of accretion be collected after the project begins operation, we agre~ with your reasoning that more accurate lUeasurements of accretion can be obtained with the project in orl'!ration. Whet..."ier accretion flow measurements are c::ol.lected before or after the project pegins operation,. ODFW would like to have the measurements completed by the end of the first year of operation, and reported to ODFWwithin two months of completing the measurements. We be1iave this is necessary to allow for speedy adjustment of minimum. stream..tlows (if necessary) and avoidance of unnecessary habitat reduction in the bypass reach. ODFW recommends that the Stream Plow xonitorinq P1aD be revised or aaend•d to state tbat aeasur .. ent of accretion ~low vil1 be ccmp1ate4 within one year of the beginning of project operation and the fina1 rasu1ts, ~ith intarpretive analy~is, vill ba ~eported to ODFW within two months of the complet1on ot data collection.

DATA COMPI:LATJ:OH, I'ORMAT, ABD REPORTl:KG

ODFW believes that quarterly receipt of stream gaging records is necessary for timely review and response to any potential problems or deviations from expected flows or operations. As a resu~t of recent discussions, the Licensee has ag=eed to supply ODFW with streamflow records on a quarterly basis and in whatev~r form and lev~l of detail we n~~d- Article 103 requires the Licensee to discharge a continuous flow of 30 or 40 cts into the bypass reach,.

depending on the month. While we believe it would be necessary to examine streamflow records on an hourly basis to verify compliance with the continu.cus release requirement, the volume of hourly data would be rather large.