BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
`Pacific Gas and Electric Company ) Project No. 137-002 - CA
`
`NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
`(December 19, 1996)
` In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) regulations, 18 CFR
`Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 F .R. 47897), the Office of Hydropower Licensing
`has reviewed the application for relicensing the Mokelumne River
`Hydroelectric Project, located in Alpine, Amador, and Calaveras Counties,
`California, and has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the
`project. In the DEA, the Commission's staff has analyzed the potential
`environmental impacts of the existing project and has concluded that
`approval of the project, with appropriate environmental protection measures,
`would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
`of the human environment.
`Copies of the DEA are available for review in the Public Reference
`Branch, Room 2-A, of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, N.E.,
`Washington, D.C. 20426.
`Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
`notice and should be addressed to Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy
`Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street N.E., Room 1-A, Washington, D.C.
`20426. Please affix "Mokelumne River Hydroelectric Project No. 137" to all
`comments. For further information, please contact T om Dean at (202) 219-
`2778.
` Lois D. Cashell
` Secretary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DRAFT
`ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
`FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE
`Mokelumne River Hydroelectric Project
`FERC Project No. 137
`California
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`Office of Hydropower Licensing
`Division of Licensing and Compliance
`888 First Street, N.E.
`Washington, DC 20426
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Forest Service Bureau of Land Management
`Eldorado National Forest Folsom Resource Area
`100 Forni Road 63 Natoma
`Placerville, CA 95667 Folsom, CA 95630
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`SUMMARY vi
`I. APPLICATION 1
`II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1
`A. Purpose of Action 1
`B. Need for Power 3
`III. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 4
`A. Proposed Action 4
`1. Project Description 4
`2. Project Operation 5
`3. Proposed Environmental Measures 12
`B. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 13
`1. Staff's Alternative 13
`2. No-Action Alternative 14
`3. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From
`Detailed Study 14
`IV. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE 15
`A. Agency Consultation 15
`B. Interventions 16
`C. Water Quality Certification Conditions 17
`D. Section 18 Fishway Prescription 17
`E. Section 4(e) Federal Land Management Conditions 17
`F . Dredge and Fill Permit Conditions 18
`G. Coastal Zone Management Program 18
`H. Scoping 18
`V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 20
`A. General Description of the Locale 21
`1. General Setting 21
`2. Mokelumne River Basin 21
`B. Cumulative Impact Summary 23
`C. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 24
`1. Water Resources 24
`2. Fishery Resources 38
`3. T errestrial Resources 62
`4. Aesthetic Resources 73
`5. Cultural Resources 78
`6. Recreation Resources 84
`D. No-Action Alternative107
`VI. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Power and Economic Benefits108
`B. Costs of Environmental Enhancement Measures108
`VII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED
`ALTERNATIVE113
`A. Minimum Flow and Pond Level Monitoring115
`B. Fish and Wildlife Management116
`C. Recreational Facilities116
`D. Cultural Resources116
`E. Visual Resources Planning116
`F . Conclusion117
`VIII.RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES117
`IX. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS118
`X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT118
`XI. LITERATURE CITED118
`XII. LIST OF PREPARERS122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF FIGURES
`Figure 1 Project Location Map2
`Figure 2 Historical total annual discharge in the North Fork of the
`Mokelumne River below Salt Springs reservoir25
`Figure 3 Flow below Salt Springs reservoir26
`Figure 4 Flow below Salt Springs reservoir and below entire project28
`Figure 5 Average monthly diversions to Amador canal
`(1975-1992)29
`Figure 6 Existing and Proposed Recreation Facilities, Blue Lakes Region86
`Figure 7 Existing and Proposed Recreation Facilities, Salt Springs to Tiger
`Creek 89
`Figure 8 Existing and Proposed Recreation, Tiger Creek to Electra92
`LIST OF TABLES
`T able 1. Minimum flow releases (cfs) as established by original
`license, the 1978 fish and wildlife plan, the 1985 amendment of
`the 1978 plan, and the 1996 fish and wildlife plan 10
`T able 2. Mokelumne River water temperatures (Mean Minima and
`Mean Maxima in degrees Fahrenheit) 31
`T able 3. Mokelumne River water quality data for August 1986 to
`April 1987 33
`T able 4. A comparison of Mokelumne River water quality and
`federal and state water quality standards 34
`T able 5. Fish observed in the Mokelumne River snorkel survey of
`late summer 1986 41
`T able 6. Fish densities in tributaries of the NFMR 42
`T able 7. Percent of time flows released were lower than specified
`flows 50
`T able 8. Gages used in minimum flow measurement 52
`T able 9. Mokelumne River Project entrainment estimates at large
`intakes 58
`T able 10. Mokelumne River Project intake characteristics 58
`T able 11. Vegetation habitat types 63
`T able 12. Partial list of project area wildlife 65
`T able 13. Candidate species list for rare, threatened, endangered,
`and sensitive plant species potentially occurring in the
`Mokelumne River Project area 69
`T able 14. Summary of PG&E's proposed action, capital costs, and
`related project net annual benefits110
`T able 15. Summary of economic analysis of the staff's alternative112
`T able 16. Comparison of economic analyses for Mokelumne River
`Project alternatives117
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUMMARY
`On December 26, 1972, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed
`an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
`for a new license for the existing 215-megawatt (MW) Mokelumne River
`Hydroelectric Project, a complex of multiple reservoirs, diversions, conduits,
`and powerhouses on the North Fork Mokelumne River east of Sacramento,
`California, in Alpine, Amador, and Calaveras Counties. On April 3, 1981,
`PG&E filed an application to amend the application for relicensing. In the
`amended application, it proposed 11 physical modifications to the project.
`On July 28, 1993, PG&E withdrew 8 of the 9 unbuilt modifications. An
`additional withdrawal took place on June 10, 1994, and currently it proposes
`only two minor capacity upgrades. PG&E's license for the Mokelumne River
`Project expired on November 23, 1975, and the project currently operates
`under an annual license.
`This Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the Mokelumne River
`Project analyzes and evaluates the effects associated with the issuance of a
`new license for the existing hydropower project with two minor upgrades.
`The EA recommends terms and conditions to become a part of any license
`issued. For any license issued, the Commission must determine that the
`project adopted will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving
`or developing a waterway. In addition to the power and development
`purposes for which licenses are issued, the Commission must give equal
`consideration to the following purposes: energy conservation; the protection
`and enhancement of fish and wildlife, aesthetics, and cultural resources; and
`protection of recreation opportunities. This EA for the Mokelumne River
`Project reflects the Commission staff's consideration of these factors.
`Based on our analysis of all developmental and nondevelopmental
`resource interests related to the Mokelumne River Project, the following
`measures to protect and enhance environmental resource values should be
`included in any license issued for the Mokelumne River Project. These
`environmental recommendations include:
`∙ maintain the minimum flows specified in the 1996 Fish and Wildlife
`Agreement with the California Department of Fish & Game;
`∙ upgrade the turbine at the West Point powerhouse;
`∙ upgrade the unit 2 turbine at the Salt Springs powerhouse;
`∙ maintain a minimum of 100 acre-feet of storage at the Tiger Creek
`reservoir;
`∙ implement a wildlife management plan including trout stocking, low
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`level outlet maintenance, fish passage at Electra afterbay, and flushing
`flows;
`∙ at the Blue Lakes facilities, provide a public information station; expand
`the Middle Creek campground; upgrade the Lower Blue Lake picnic area on
`the northeast shore of the lake; expand the Lower Blue Lake picnic area and
`car-top boat launch at the east end of the dam; expand the Lower Blue Lake
`dam fishing access, providing for parking and a small picnic area; improve
`T win Lake picnic area; create Meadow Lake parking area; and provide signs
`for Highway 88 and Blue Lakes Road;
`∙ at Upper and Lower Bear River reservoirs, upgrade and expand the
`Bear River group camp; improve Pardoes Point; upgrade five South Shore
`campground sites and one restroom to Americans with Disabilities Act
`standards; upgrade Sugar Pine Point campground and access road;
`∙ at the Tiger Creek-West Point and Electra-Lake T abeaud facilities,
`provide a Mill Creek access gate and a Lake T abeaud/Electra tunnel outlet
`fishing access trail;
`∙ prepare a minimum flow and pond level monitoring plan;
`∙ prepare a threatened and endangered species monitoring plan;
`∙ upgrade access to all recreation facilities for persons with disabilities;
`∙ provide a toll-free, flow information phone;
`∙ at the Electra-Lake T abeaud area, provide a whitewater boating take-
`out/parking area at the Route 49 bridge;
`∙ in Mokelumne Canyon: (1) provide funding for performance of
`archeological surveys and evaluations in the vicinity of Moore Creek, White
`Azalea, and Mokelumne campgrounds, and in dispersed sites upstream from
`the Mokelumne campground; (2) provide additional resource protection (i.e.,
`vehicle control barriers) within the same campgrounds and dispersed
`camping areas;
`∙ prepare and implement a Programmatic Agreement for cultural
`resources and a Cultural Resources Management Plan;
`∙ provide summer, weekend whitewater releases of 800 cfs from the
`Electra powerhouse when water is available;
`∙ develop a whitewater boating put-in for the Devil's Nose run in the
`Mokelumne campground area;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`∙ implement Forest Service (FS) 4(e) conditions 1 through 48, pertaining
`to continued occupancy and use of National Forest System lands;
`∙ develop a whitewater boating take-out for the Ponderosa Way run at
`the Electra powerhouse afterbay;
`∙ develop a put-in for the Electra whitewater boating run below Electra
`afterbay dam;
`∙ develop a portage trail around Electra afterbay dam;
`∙ construct an overflow parking area at the Electra picnic area;
`∙ provide trash receptacles at the Electra powerhouse parking lot; and
`∙ provide portable toilet facilities at the Electra picnic area during peak
`recreation use.
`We, the Commission's staff, recommend these environmental
`measures to protect or enhance fishery resources; water quality,
`recreational, and aesthetic resources; and undiscovered properties eligible
`for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
`Electricity generated from the project would be beneficial because it
`would: continue to reduce the use of fossil-fueled, electric generating plants;
`conserve nonrenewable energy resources; and continue to reduce
`atmospheric pollution.
`In addition to PG&E's proposal, we considered licensing the project with
`our recommendations for enhancement, no-action, federal takeover and
`operation of the project, issuing a nonpower license, and retiring the project.
`The last three alternatives were not considered reasonable (see Section
`III.B.3). Denial of the license would mean that about 983 gigawatt-hours
`(GWh) of electric energy generation per year would be lost, and no measures
`would be implemented to protect and enhance existing environmental
`resources. The staff's alternative and no-action are addressed in the
`environmental and developmental analysis and the comprehensive
`development sections of the EA.
`PG&E applied for Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the California
`State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) in December 1972. CSWRCB
`issued the WQC on September 27, 1976. Based on the revised application,
`PG&E filed again for a WQC on March 15, 1983. CSWRCB determined on
`April 4, 1983, that a new certificate was not required for the amended
`project.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 10(j) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requires the Commission to
`include license conditions, based on recommendations of federal and state
`fish and wildlife agencies, for the protection and enhancement of fish and
`wildlife resources. No fish and wildlife agency submitted 10(j)
`recommendations for the Mokelumne River Project in response to the Notice
`of Ready for Environmental Analysis.
`Section 18 of the FPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
`prescribe the construction, operation, and maintenance of fishways (16
`U.S.C., Section 811). The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) has not
`prescribed fishways for the Mokelumne River Project.
`Section 4(e) of the FPA mandates that Commission licenses for projects
`within United States reservations (defined to include national forests) must
`include all conditions that the Secretary for the department under whose
`supervision the reservation falls shall deem necessary for the adequate
`protection and utilization of such reservation. FS issued revised Section 4(e)
`conditions on April 23, 1996, which contained 48 conditions recommended
`for inclusion in any license issued for the project.
`Based on our independent analysis of the project, including our
`consideration of all relevant developmental and nondevelopmental
`resources, we conclude in this EA that: (1) the Mokelumne River Project, with
`our recommended environmental measures and other special license
`conditions, would be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for the proper
`use, conservation, and development of the North Fork Mokelumne River and
`other project-related resources; and (2) issuance of a new license for the
`project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
`quality of the human environment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DRAFT
`ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
`FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
`OFFICE OF HYDROPOWER LICENSING
`DIVISION OF LICENSING AND COMPLIANCE
`Mokelumne River Hydroelectric Project
`(FERC Project No. 137)
`California
`I. APPLICATION
`On December 26, 1972, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) filed an
`application for a new license to continue to operate the Mokelumne River
`Project (FERC No. 137). An application to amend the application was filed on
`April 3, 1981. On July 28, 1993, PG&E withdrew 8 of 9 proposed unbuilt
`modifications. An additional withdrawal took place on June 10, 1994, leaving
`only 2 minor capacity upgrades proposed. The 215.0-megawatt (MW)
`(authorized installed capacity) project, consisting of multiple reservoirs,
`diversions, conduits, and powerhouses, is located on the North Fork
`Mokelumne River (NFMR) and its tributaries east of the city of Sacramento,
`California, in Alpine, Amador, and Calaveras Counties (Figure 1). The project
`occupies federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Eldorado and
`Stanislaus National Forests), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
`The U.S. Forest Service (FS) and BLM are cooperating agencies in this
`Environmental Assessment (EA).
`The relicensing of the Mokelumne River Project has been significantly
`delayed since the application was filed in 1972. The delay is associated
`mainly with two events. In April 1974, the city of Santa Clara filed a
`competing application for the Mokelumne River Project. The competition
`continued until March 1990, when PG&E and the city reached agreement
`with PG&E retaining ownership of the project. On August 28, 1987, Amador
`County filed an application for an original license for the Devil's Nose/Cross
`County Project. This project was largely superimposed on the Mokelumne
`River Project. Many questions arose concerning the feasibility of the project,
`which were only resolved on November 1, 1995, when Amador County
`withdrew its application.
`II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
`A. Purpose of Action
`In this EA, we analyze the impacts associated with continued operation
`of the constructed project with minor generation facility upgrades as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proposed by PG&E, evaluate alternatives to the proposed project, and make
`recommendations to the Commission on whether to issue a new license. We
`also recommend the terms and conditions that should be part of any license
`that is issued, consistent with the Federal Power Act (FPA) that provides the
`Commission with the exclusive authority to license nonfederal hydropower
`projects on navigable waterways and federal lands.
`In deciding whether to issue any license, the Commission must
`determine that the project adopted will be best adapted to a comprehensive
`plan for improving or developing a waterway. In addition to the power and
`developmental purposes for which licenses are issued, the Commission must
`give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation; the
`protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning
`grounds and habitat); the protection of recreation opportunities; and the
`preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.
`B. Need for Power
`The Mokelumne River Project has been providing hydroelectric
`generation for more than 94 years. It can continue to provide a portion of
`PG&E's power requirements, and contribute to PG&E's resource diversity, as
`well as to the capacity needs of the California-Southern Nevada Power Area
`(CNV) subregion of the Western Systems Coordinating Council Region.
`The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) annually
`forecasts electrical supply and demand in the nation and the region for a 10-
`year period. NERC's most recent report1 on annual supply and demand
`projections indicates that, for the period 1994-2005, loads in the CNV area
`will grow faster than planned capacity additions, resulting in decreased
`reserve margins.
`We conclude that the past, present, and future use of the project's
`power, its low cost, its displacement of nonrenewable fossil-fired generation,
`and contribution to a diversified generation mix support a finding that the
`power from the Mokelumne River Project will help meet a need for power in
`the CNV area in both the short- and long-term.
`1 NERC's Electricity Supply and Demand Database, 1995-2004 dataset (June
`1995).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. PROPOSED ACTION AND AL TERNATIVES
`A. Proposed Action
`1. Project Description
`The existing Mokelumne River Project consists of six storage reservoirs,
`four powerhouses, and numerous diversions and conduits.
`The six storage reservoirs include: (1) the 343-acre Upper Blue Lake
`with a useable storage capacity of 7,300 acre-feet, and a 837-foot-long, 31-
`foot-high dam; (2) the 198-acre Lower Blue Lake with a useable storage
`capacity of 5,091 acre-feet, and a 1,063-foot-long, 40-foot-high dam; (3) the
`106-acre T win Lake with a useable storage capacity of 1,207 acre-feet, and a
`1,520-foot-long, 22-foot-high dam; (4) the 140-acre Meadow Lake with a
`useable storage capacity of 5,656 acre-feet, and a 775-foot-long, 77-foot-
`high dam; (5) the 169-acre Upper Bear River reservoir with a useable storage
`capacity of 6,756 acre-feet, and a 760-foot-long, 77-foot-high dam; and (6)
`the 727-acre Lower Bear River reservoir with a useable storage capacity of
`49,079 acre-feet, and a 979-foot-long, 249-foot-high dam connected by rock
`to a 865-foot-long, 145-foot-high second dam.
`The Salt Springs Development consists of: (1) a 1,257-foot-long, 328-
`foot-high dam with a 480-foot-long spillway and 13 radial gates; (2) the 963-
`acre Salt Springs reservoir with a useable storage capacity of 141,817 acre-
`feet; (3) a 19-foot-long, 10-foot-diameter buried penstock; (4) a powerhouse
`with two turbine generators having a combined authorized installed capacity
`of 39.8 MW; (5) a 16.5-mile-long, 115-kilovolt (kV) transmission line; and (6)
`appurtenant facilities. PG&E proposes an efficiency upgrade to the unit 2
`turbine from 33.0 MW to 36.5 MW. The authorized installed capacity will
`remain the same.
`The Tiger Creek Development consists of: (1) the upper Tiger Creek
`conduit comprised of 14.8 miles of flume, 2.7 miles of tunnel, and 0.3 mile of
`penstock; (2) the lower Tiger Creek conduit, which is a 2.5-mile-long flume
`receiving water from six diversion dams and any associated structures
`including: (a) the 187-foot-long Cole Creek diversion dam; (b) the 91-foot-
`long Cole Creek feeder dam, and a 315-foot-long, 3- and 5-foot-diameter
`penstock; (c) the 102-foot-long Bear River feeder dam, and a 528-foot-long,
`6-foot horseshoe tunnel, and 737-foot-long flume; (d) the 43-foot-long
`Beaver Creek feeder dam, and a 475-foot-long, 16-inch-diameter penstock;
`(e) the 64-foot-long East Panther Creek feeder dam, and a 635-foot-long, 36-
`inch-diameter penstock; and (f) the 58-foot-long West Panther Creek feeder
`dam, and a 3,696-foot-long penstock; (3) the 486-foot-long, 100-foot-high
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tiger Creek regulator dam; (4) a 13-acre reservoir with a useable storage
`capacity of 234-acre-feet; (5) the 900-foot-long, 33-foot-high Tiger Creek
`forebay dam; (6) a 2.3-acre reservoir with a useable storage capacity of 42
`acre-feet; (7) a 96-inch-diameter penstock, and a 24-inch-diameter sluice
`penstock; (8) a powerhouse with two turbine generators having a combined
`authorized installed capacity of 56.3 MW; (9) a 13.8-mile-long and a 23.4-
`mile-long, 230-kV transmission line; and (10) appurtenant facilities.
`The West Point Development consists of: (1) the 448-foot-long, 100-
`foot-high Tiger Creek afterbay dam; (2) a 70-acre reservoir with a useable
`storage capacity of 2,606 acre-feet; (3) the 15-foot, 6-inch by 13-foot, 2.7-
`mile-long West Point tunnel; (4) a 84- and 120-inch-diameter penstock; (5) a
`powerhouse with a turbine generator having an authorized installed capacity
`of 13.6 MW; (6) a 23.5-mile-long, 60-kV transmission line; and (7)
`appurtenant facilities. PG&E proposes an efficiency upgrade to the turbine
`unit by 1.3 MW to 15.8 MW. The authorized installed capacity will remain the
`same.
`The Electra Development consists of: (1) the 188-foot-long by 26-foot-
`high Electra diversion dam; (2) the 15-foot 6-inch by 13-foot-wide, 8-mile-
`long Electra tunnel; (3) the 636-foot-long, 123-foot-high Lake T abeaud dam;
`(4) a 42-acre reservoir with a useable storage capacity of 990 acre-feet; (5)
`the 12-foot by 12-foot, 0.5-mile-long T abeaud tunnel; (6) a powerhouse with
`three turbine generators with a combined authorized installed capacity of
`105.3 MW; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
`2. Project Operation
`The Mokelumne River Project makes maximum use of waters released
`from storage for power, irrigation, consumption, domestic use, and other
`beneficial uses. The project is operated in accordance with storage and
`outflow requirements specified in the judgments and decrees known
`collectively as the "Lodi Decrees."2 Subsequently, other agreements that
`extended controls on project operation were signed. In the following section,
`2 1. City of Lodi plaintiff, vs. East Bay Municipal Utility District et al.,
`Defendants (Licensee the other Defendant). Judgment and Decree No.
`22415 of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, dated March 14, 1938.
`2. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Plaintiff, vs. Licensee, Defendant.
`Judgment and Decree No. 1950 of the Superior Court of Calaveras County,
`dated July 25, 1940.
`3. City of Lodi, Plaintiff, vs. East Bay Municipal Utility District et al.,
`Defendants. Order modifying Judgment and Decree No. 22415, dated
`October 4, 1950.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`we describe the requirements of these decrees and agreements that dictate
`the Mokelumne River Project operations.
`The objective of the Lodi Decrees was, and continues to be,
`maintenance of flow releases below the Electra powerhouse to serve the
`needs of downstream users. Limits or specifications for various elements of
`the Mokelumne River Project were developed to ensure the releases, not to
`provide a specific condition somewhere in the project. In contrast, other
`agreements that fit within the Lodi Decrees and set factors like minimum
`pool levels and minimum flows at various points in the project were reached.
`PG&E signed such agreements with the California Department of Fish and
`Game (CDFG) in 1978, 1985, and 1996.
`The 1978 agreement (PG&E and State of California, 1978) was to take
`effect upon issuance of a Commission license for the Mokelumne River
`Project. Part of the agreement was put into effect by a license amendment
`issued by the Commission in 1982. The license amendment authorized use
`of flashboards at Lake T abeaud and at Upper Bear and Lower Bear River
`reservoirs. CDFG sought implementation of the fisheries flow and wildlife
`protection measures in the 1978 agreement at the same time. After
`discussions, PG&E agreed to implement some instream flow releases for
`fishery enhancement from the 1978 agreement. These flows were in the
`Bear River.
`In 1981, PG&E submitted the amendment to the relicensing
`application. The amendment contained substantive changes in the project
`which were not considered in the 1978 agreement. A new agreement was
`signed in 1985 (State of California and PG&E, 1985), incorporating several
`new measures to address proposed changes to project facilities. The 1985
`agreement did not replace but did supplement the 1978 agreement by
`retaining flows from the 1978 agreement and adding higher seasonal flows
`at three sites.
`Now that the amended project is no longer under consideration, the
`higher flows of the 1985 amendment are no longer appropriate or available.
`Therefore, the 1996 agreement (PG&E, 1996) was signed to eliminate the
`flows called for in 1985. The 1996 agreement supersedes the 1978 and
`1985 agreements only where the same parameter (minimum flow, storage
`volume) is addressed. Some parameters in the 1978 agreement are not
`addressed in the 1996 agreement, and these remain in effect. Current
`operation under the 1996 agreement, therefore, still includes operation
`under parts of the 1978 agreement. All elements of the 1985 amendment
`have been superseded.
`The letter transmitting this document to the Commission provides a
`summary of the process leading to the development of the agreement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CDFG reviewed and then accepted the agreement as a signatory. FS
`reviewed and accepted the agreement, but did not sign the agreement to
`avoid potential conflict with its 4(e) authority. FWS reviewed the agreement,
`commented, and began but did not complete its review of the revised final
`agreement. However, FWS endorsed the other parties proceeding forward
`without them. This plan seeks to protect wildlife resources and includes
`enhancement measures.
`Reservoir Storage - The Lodi Decrees impose strict guidelines on flow
`releases below the Electra powerhouse and on the total storage that can be
`retained in the project reservoirs, as summarized below.
`∙ Unless storage at the Lower Bear River and Salt Springs
`reservoirs would be depleted below 10,000 acre-feet, the daily average flow
`at Electra must be at least 300 cubic feet per second (cfs) during June
`through September, and 200 cfs in all other months.
`∙ In years where storage exceeds 130,000 acre-feet on June 1, an
`average monthly flow of 500 cfs must be maintained from June through
`December and 300 cfs the following January, unless storage is depleted
`below limits specified in the decrees.
`∙ In years where storage is less than 130,000 acre-feet on June 1,
`total storage must be reduced to specified levels ranging from 94,000 acre-
`feet on July 31 to 20,000 acre-feet on December 31.
`∙ In all years, the combined storage at the Lower Bear River and
`Salt Springs reservoirs must be reduced to 20,000 acre-feet by December 31.
`The project reservoirs are operated to maximize recreational benefits
`and hydroelectric generation within the constraints of the Lodi Decrees. The
`reservoirs are operated as follows:
`∙ The Upper and Lower Blue Lakes and Meadow Lake are annually
`drawn down to their natural minimum pools by the fall. However, Upper Blue
`Lake is typically drawn down before Lower Blue Lake to enhance recreation
`in the lower lake. Flashboards are required to be removed between October
`1 and April 1 of each year.
`∙ A high water level is maintained in T win Lake during the
`recreation season. The draw-downs usually do not occur until after Labor
`Day. Flashboards are required to be removed between November 1 and April
`1 of each year.
`∙ After the spring runoff, Meadow Lake is gradually drawn down as
`storage space becomes available in Salt Springs reservoir. Flashboards are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`required to be out between October 1 and April 1 of each year.
`∙ Salt Springs reservoir is operated primarily to generate power
`including peaking operations. The reservoir stores runoff in the spring, and is
`then gradually drawn down within the limits of the Lodi Decrees.
`∙ The Upper Bear River reservoir is drawn down prior to Lower
`Bear River reservoir to maximize power production at Salt Springs unit 2 and
`recreation benefits from the lower reservoir. Both reservoirs are annually
`drawn down to minimum pools just before the start of spring runoff.
`∙ The other reservoirs below Salt Springs (Tiger Creek regulator,
`forebay, and afterbay; Electra diversion and afterbay; and Lake T abeaud) are
`generally maintained at as high a level as possible for operating purposes.
`Releases from Lake T abeaud to Electra are used for peaking. Boating is
`prohibited on these reservoirs, except on Lake T abeaud, in the interest of
`public safety. Under normal project operations, their water surface
`elevations may change rapidly. They have small surface areas and are
`subject to turbulence, sudden discharges, and various automatic operations
`that could expose an unwary boater to hazards.
`As part of the 1978 and 1985 agreements, PG&E proposed to maintain
`minimum pool levels in several of the project's man-made reservoirs that do
`not have natural basins deep enough to enhance overwintering of fish
`populations. Minimum storage is as follows: Upper Bear River reservoir -
`500 acre-feet, Lower Bear River reservoir - 3,300 acre-feet, and Salt Springs
`reservoir - 4,993 acre-feet. In addition, the T win Lake reservoir would be kept
`full in years of normal runoff unless storage is required to maintain minimum
`streamflows, and non-powered watercraft would be allowed on Lake T abeaud.
`The 1996 agreement stipulates the same minimum storage volumes
`for the above-listed reservoirs (i.e., the increases in minimum flows specified
`by the 1985 amendment were withdrawn). In addition, the 1996 agreement
`stipulates that Tiger Creek regulator should be maintained at 100 acre-feet.
`Minimum Flows - The agreements specify minimum flows for all stream
`reaches affected by project operations. The 1985 agreement put in effect all
`of the minimum flows specified in the 1978 agreement with increases to the
`minimum flows for the Bear River at the Tiger Creek conduit and for the
`North Fork Mokelumne River below Salt Springs dam and below Tiger Creek
`afterbay dam. The 1996 agreement between PG&E and CDFG proposes the
`reestablishment of the flows specified in the 1978 agreement. Both the 1978
`and 1996 agreements provide for variation from specified flows of up to 10
`percent. T able 1 provides a summary of the minimum flows specified in each
`agreement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Both the 1978 and 1996 agreements established maximum flow
`releases for Blue Creek downstream of Lower Blue Lake and Meadow Creek
`downstream of Meadow Lake. The regulated portion of flows released from
`Lower Blue Lake must be maintained at less than 70 cfs. The regulated
`portion of flows released from Meadow Lake must be maintained at less than
`50 cfs from the Friday before Memorial Day through Labor Day and less than
`100 cfs during the remaining time. The agreements also specify that uniform
`regulated flow releases from Lower Blue Lake and Meadow Lake should be
`provided from June 1 through October 31.
`The 1985 agreement stipulates flushing flows for the following four
`reaches of the North Fork Mokelumne River: below Salt Springs dam, below
`Tiger Creek afterbay, below Electra diversion dam, and below Lower Bear
`reservoir dam. In the