Pacific Gas and
`Electric Company.
`
`THs
`
`March 11, 2015
`
`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`888 First Street, N.E.
`Washington, D.C. 20426-0001
`
`Power Generation
`
`245 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`MatingAdress.
`
`P.O. Box 770000
`San Francisco, CA 94177
`
`Via Electronic Submittal (E-File)
`
`Subject:
`
`Upper Drum-Spaulding Project, Deer Creek Project, and Lower Drum Project
`FERC Project Nos. 2310-193, 14530-000 and 14531-000 — California
`Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s Reply to Comments on the Final
`Environmental Impact Statement
`
`DearSecretary Bose:
`
`This letter provides to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”or “Commission”)
`Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (“PG&E”) reply to comments that were filed on FERC’s
`December19, 2014 Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) for the Upper Drum-
`Spaulding Hydroelectric Project No. 2310-193 (“Upper Drum Project”), the Lower Drum
`Hydroelectric Project No. 14531-000 (“Lower Drum Project”), the Deer Creek Hydroelectric
`Project No. 14530-000 (“Deer Creek Project”) (collectively, the “PG&E Projects”), and the
`Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project No. 2266-102 (“Yuba-Bear Project,” together with the PG&E
`Projects, the “Projects”).
`
`As of the February 9, 2015 deadline for filing, 11 parties filed commentletters. These were
`from:
`
`e United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (“Forest Service”) in a letter
`dated February 6, 2015
`e United States Departmentof the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) in a
`letter dated February 9, 2015
`e United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
`Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”)in a letter dated February
`9, 2015
`e United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in a letter dated February 9,
`2015
`e California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“Cal Fish and Wildlife”) in a letter dated
`February 5, 2015
`Placer County, California (“Placer County”), in a letter dated February 9, 2015
`Placer County Water Agency (“PCWA”)inaletter dated February 9, 2015
`Foothills Water Network (“FWN”) in a letter dated February 9, 2015
`NevadaIrrigation District (“NID”) in a letter dated February 9, 2015
`
`

`

`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`March 11, 2015
`Page 2
`
`e Davis Hydro, LLC inaletter dated February 9, 2015
`e Sackheim Consulting inaletter dated February 9, 2015
`
`
`PG&Edoes not provide in this letter a response to every commentin each of the aboveletters or
`letter. For instance, PG&E does not reply to any measure that was proposedin early filings, to
`which PG&Epreviously replied, and that FERC rightfully did not adopt in the FEIS. Nor does
`PG&Ereply to inaccuracies, errors or misstatements in the commentletters unless the
`inaccuracy, error or misstatement is substantive. PG&E’s lack of reply to a specific commentor
`letter should not be inferred to mean that PG&E agrees with the comment. PG&Ereservesits
`right to respond at a later date if and when the needarises.
`
`PG&Ehasorganized its reply by commentletter, except with respect to comments related to
`Auburn Ravine, in which case PG&E’s reply is organized by topic.
`
`REPLY TO FOREST SERVICE’S LETTER
`
`Intention to File Revised Section 4(e) Conditions
`
`At page | of its February 6, 2015 letter, the Forest Service states that it “intends to file revised
`[Federal PowerAct, or FPA] Section 4(e) conditions forthe licenses that affect National Forest
`System lands. Forest Service also believesit is necessaryfor PG&E to splitpreviously agreed
`upon plans to ensure each project has its own set ofrelevant plans. The Forest Service and
`PG&E are working together to address these plans.”
`
`PG&Eintends to support separation of plans in the future as noted in the Forest Service’s letter
`and will coordinate with Forest Service and other agencies as appropriate.
`
`In regard to future revised final FPA Section 4(e) conditions, PG&E does not object, but reserves
`its rights to comment on the revised Section 4(e) conditions, includingits rights to request trial-
`type hearings andfile alternatives. Section 4(e) entitles a license applicant “to a determination
`on the record, after opportunity for an agencytrial-type hearing on any disputed issues of
`material fact with respect to any conditions” deemed necessary by the Forest Service. 16 U.S.C.
`§ 797(e) (italics added). Section 33 of the FPA providesthat a license applicant “may propose
`an alternative condition wheneverthe Secretary deems a condition to be necessary underthe first
`proviso of Section 4(e).” 16 U.S.C. § 823d(a)(1). See also 7 C.F.R. § 1.601(b) (Section 33
`“allows any party to the license proceeding to propose an alternative to a condition deemed
`necessary by the Forest Service underSection 4(e).”). Assuming any revised Section 4(e)
`conditions submitted by the Forest Service or other agencies as appropriate do not include any
`new substantive Section 4(e) conditions, or parts thereof, then PG&E does notanticipate thatit
`would need to submit alternative conditions or requesta trial-type hearing with respect to such
`conditions.
`
`
`
`

`

`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`March 11, 2015
`Page 3
`
`REPLY TO BLM’S LETTER
`
`Rationale for Recreation Agreement
`
`At page 4 of its February 9, 2015 letter, BLM states “BLM and PG&E have signed a Recreation
`Payment Agreement to meet BLM's condition 6 concerning paymentsfor recreational costs on
`the South Yuba River. However, in orderto ensure an adequate effects analysis is consistent
`with the requirements in NEPA, BLM recommendsthat the Commission re-evaluate the scope of
`its analysis concerning project effects on recreational use in the South Yuba River on BLM
`lands.”
`
`BLMis correct that PG&E and BLM havesigned a Recreation Payment Agreement(“RPA”).
`The RPA expressly acknowledged and purported to resolve the difference of opinion among
`PG&E and BLMregardingpotential Project-operational or other effects on recreationalfacilities
`and lands owned and managed by BLM on the South Yuba River. However, to PG&E’s
`surprise, BLM’s comments on the FEIS, which were filed overa year after execution of the
`RPA,reassert BLM’s pre-RPAposition and request that FERC re-evaluate the scope of Project-
`related effects on recreational use in the South Yuba River on BLM lands. PG&E disagrees with
`BLM’s assertion. There are not any Project-operational or other effects on recreation on BLM
`lands along the South Yuba River and the recreation that occurs on these BLM lands does not
`serve any Project purpose and does not provide access to any Project facilities. Therefore,
`Commission staff correctly concluded in the FEIS that there is no nexus between the BLM lands
`along the South Yuba River and the Projects.
`
`BLM Land Within Proposed Upper Drum Spaulding Project
`
`At page 5 of its February 9, 2015 letter, BLM states “Jn the Proposed Action section on (pg.liv)
`and in numerous other places FERC staff incorrectly mentions that there is no projectfacilities
`that cross BLM landin the proposed Upper Drum Spaulding Project No. 2310. FERC hasa
`powerwithdrawalfor project 2310 where PG&E has placedpower-lines that pass through BLM
`lands in Township 16, Range 10 East, Section 23 which is part ofthe Drum Power House.”
`
`There are no federal lands administered by BLM in the existing or proposed FERC Project
`Boundary for the Upper Drum-Spaulding Project. PG&E believes BLM isreferring to the non-
`jurisdictional Drum-Rio Oso # | and #2 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines as shown on
`Exhibits G-17, G-18, and G-19 of PG&E’s June 18, 2012 Amended Application. These
`transmission lines are not part of the Drum-Spaulding Project. Accordingly, there are no federal
`lands administered by BLM in the Upper Drum-Spaulding Project.
`
`REPLY TO COMMENTSON AUBURN RAVINE
`
`Correction to FEIS Statement Regarding “Zero Flow” in Auburn Ravine
`
`

`

`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`March 11, 2015
`Page 4
`
`At page 16 of its February 9, 2015 letter, NMFS quotes the following from page 757 of the FEIS:
`“Dischargesfrom project canals augment naturalflow in some project reaches (e.g., Auburn
`Ravine and Mormon Ravine). When these canals are taken out ofservice for maintenance orin
`the event ofan emergency andflowceases, flowin these reaches returns to naturalflowlevels,
`which could be zero flow at some locations during some months.” In response to the quote,
`NMESstates in its letter “The ‘zero flow’ conditions in upper Auburn Ravine would not be
`‘unavoidable adverse impacts’ iffacilities at Lower Drum were modified to provide minimum
`releases during canal outages.”
`
`The record showsthat flows in Upper Auburn Ravine have not dropped to zero. Therefore,
`PG&E believes this statement about “zero flow” should be corrected in the record. The
`hydrologic analysis provided in PG&E’s Supplement to the Western Placer Streams Technical
`Memorandum and Final License Application (Auburn Ravine Supplement) filed on April 11,
`2012, showsthat the lowest mean daily flow in Auburn Ravine at gage AR-1 in Upper Auburn
`Ravine during PG&E’s canal outage periods was 2.7 cfs during the 13-yearperiod of record
`(1998-2010). When the annual canal outage occurs, and water deliveries to NID from South
`Canal cease, any changes in flow in Upper Auburn Ravine are due to the cessation of water
`deliveries and not the operations of the Lower Drum Project. Furthermore, the Lower Drum
`Project cannot cause a “zero flow” condition in Auburn Ravine because the Project does not
`divert any water from Auburn Ravine.
`PG&E further clarifies that the annual canal outages are part of the environmental baseline for
`ESA purposes. Among other things,
`the environmental baseline includes water deliveries,
`annual canal outages that begin on October 15, and periodic unplanned canal outages. PG&E’s
`Application for a New License for the Lower Drum Project does not propose changes to these
`operations. For ESA purposes, the Lower Drum Project would not cause any adverse effect
`during annual canal outages in Upper Auburn Ravine.
`
`Steelhead Habitat in Upper Auburn Ravine
`
`At page 15 of its February 9, 2015 letter, NMFSstates “Even ifthe presence ofsteelheadis rare
`[above NID’s Auburn Ravine I Diversion Dam and PCWA’s Auburn Tunnel Outlet], the effect
`can occur and must be evaluated. PG&E’s Lower Drumreleases to Auburn Ravine are halted
`during canal outages, and so how can FERC conclude adequate habitat is providedfor
`steelheadfry andjuveniles?”
`
`PG&E believes FERC’s statement on page 746 ofthe FEIS is correct. The statementis “Jn the
`unlikely event that steelhead gain access to the 0.2 mile ofdesignated critical habitat above
`Auburn tunnel during a rare but extreme hydrological event, we believe the higher than normal
`flows would provide sufficient habitatfor steelhead spawning, and PG&E'sflowsfor resident
`trout wouldprovide adequate habitatfor steelheadfry andjuveniles.”
`
`

`

`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`March 11, 2015
`Page 5
`
`In such a rare and speculative event that steelhead might get above NID’s Auburn Ravine 1
`Diversion Dam and the cataract above PCWA’s Auburn Tunnel Outlet, it is a reasonable
`conclusionthat the agreed-upon flows for resident rainbow trout in Upper Auburn Ravine, and
`existing flows during the annual canal outage, would provide adequate habitat for steelhead fry
`and juveniles, as stated in the FEIS. PG&E conducted an instream flow study forresident
`rainbow trout with transects in Upper Auburn Ravine. The lowest mean daily flow recordedat
`gage AR-I in Upper Auburn Ravinein the period of record during PG&E’s annual canal outages
`was 2.7 cfs. Flows of 2.7 cfs represent 98 percent of the maximum WUAfor rainbow trout fry
`and 80 percent of the maximum WUAforrainbow trout juveniles. Rainbow trout and steelhead
`are the same species (Oncorhynchus mykiss). This information supports FERC’s statement and
`can be obtained from the Instream Flow Technical Memorandum 3-2, the Western Placer County
`Streams Technical Memorandum 3-13, and the Auburn Ravine Supplement.
`
`Furthermore, as part of the proposed action, PG&E has agreed to new year-round minimum
`flows for Upper Auburn Ravine ranging from 2 to 18 cfs, depending on month and wateryear
`type, except during canal outages whentheproject is physically unable to provide water to
`Auburn Ravine. Those minimum flows would be provided to enhance and protect resident
`rainbow trout habitat in Upper Auburn Ravine. However, non-project diversion dams
`downstream would determine how muchofthat water, if any, is made available to Lower
`Auburn Ravine where the anadromousfish are found.
`
`Low Flows in Lower Auburn Ravine
`
`At page 13 ofits February 9, 2015 letter, FWN states that “Low flows in Auburn Ravine,
`particularly during the non-irrigation season when [seasonal] diversion works in lower Auburn
`Ravine are not yet in place, couldpotentially affect the survival ofthese listedjuvenile salmon
`and steelhead,” and asserts that “[FERC] Staffs apparent intent to absolve the licensee of the
`Drum-Spaulding Project [i.e., PG&E] of the need for ESA consultation for listed salmonids in
`Auburn Ravine does not pass legal muster.”
`
`Anadromousfish are present in Lower Auburn Ravine. In Upper Auburn Ravine PG&Ehas
`proposed a set of minimum flowsforthe resident rainbow trout that are present in Upper Auburn
`Ravineaspart ofits license application. However, the Lower Drum Project does not control
`flows in Lower Auburn Ravine, and therefore PG&E has no control over whether the minimum
`flows it would release into Upper Auburn Ravine would reach Lower Auburn Ravine
`downstream of Auburn Ravine 1 Diversion Dam, which operates year-round. This is true
`irrespective of whetherthe seasonal diversion works downstream of Auburn Ravine 1 Diversion
`Dam are in place and operating or are removed and not operating. FERC hasrepeatedly stated
`that it cannot require a licensee to take actions, including release of flows, over whicha licensee
`has no control. See Orange Cove Irrigation District and Friant Power Authority, 137 FERC |
`62,157, 64,382 (2011) (“While we understand the importance of NMFS’ resource management
`goals and objectives, we note that the licensees have no control over flows released from Friant
`Dam.”); Enterprise Mill, LLC, 113 FERC § 62,131, 64,349 (2005) (“[T]he Commission cannot
`
`

`

`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`March 11, 2015
`Page 6
`
`require a licensee to take actions at other projects or actions over whichthe licensee has no
`control.”); Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Wash., 107 FERC § 61,280, at P 65
`(2004) (recognizing that “|t|he licensees have no control overthe upstream or downstream
`projects” on the Columbia River); City ofNorwich, 94 FERC 4 62,185, 64,351 (2001)
`(recognizing that the licensee has no control over a downstream project); Kennebec Water
`District, 92 FERC 4 62,120, 64,145 (2000) (recognizing that the licensee has no control overthe
`overall flow).
`
`Project Alternatives Proposed By NMFS
`
`At page 16 of its February 9, 2015 letter, NMFS states “Therefore, FERC should consider
`additional Project alternatives such as new conveyance facilities, extending to the same source
`ofwater used to generate power most ofthe year; they would be used when the existing canals
`are not able to deliver waterto release into Auburn Ravine. NMFS expects to discuss this (and
`other options) in greater detail with FERC duringformal ESA consultation.”
`
`New conveyancefacilities would be a different project than that proposed in PG&E’s license
`application and would have other significant environmental impacts. The Lower Drum Project
`does not control flows below downstream diversion dams in Lower Auburn Ravine.
`It would be
`inappropriate for NMFS or FERCto require costly mitigation for the Lower Drum Project,
`especially at downstream non-project facilities, when the proposed Lower Drum Project will
`have no effect on anadromousfish in Upper Auburn Ravine (because they are not present) and is
`not likely to adversely affect anadromousfish or their designatedcritical habitat in Lower
`Auburn Ravine.
`
`Stand-Alone BA Proposed by NMFS
`
`At page 16 of its February 9, 2015 letter, NMFS states, in regard to Auburn Ravine, “Again,
`NMFSrecommends FERC prepare a standalone biological assessment to submit along with a
`future request to initiate ESA consultation; portions ofthe FELIS may be used (along with other
`informationfiled in this ILP, and other best available information), but the current FEIS is
`clearly insufficient for ESA and MSA consultation purposes.”
`
`PG&Ebelieves the record supports FERC’s finding that there will be no effect on anadromous
`fish in Upper Auburn Ravine and FERC’s findingthat “issuing a license for the Lower Drum
`Project would not [be] likely to adversely affect Central Valley steelhead DPS orcritical habitat
`in Auburn Ravine” is appropriate for Lower Auburn Ravine. There is no basis for the assertion
`that the current FEIS is “clearly insufficient.” The FEIS fully satisfies the requirements of a BA,
`as set forth in the ESA regulations applicable to FERC and NMFS with respect to interagency
`cooperation (50 C.F.R. § 402.12) pursuant to section 7(a) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1536). FERC
`used the best scientific information available regarding anadromousfish in Auburn Ravine to
`prepare the FEIS, including PG&E’s license application, PG&E’s Instream Flow Technical
`Memorandum 3-2, PG&E’s Western Placer County Streams Technical Memorandum 3-13, and
`
`

`

`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`March 11, 2015
`Page 7
`
`PG&E’s Auburn Ravine Supplement. This record fully supports a determination that the
`proposed Lower Drum Project will have no effect on anadromousfish in Upper Auburn Ravine
`and FERC’s determination that the proposed Lower Drum Project would not likely adversely
`affect Central Valley steelhead DPS orcritical habitat in Lower Auburn Ravine. Because the
`Commission has fully complied with the ESA interagency cooperation regulations, PG&E
`respectfully requests that the Commission expeditiously seek concurrence from NMFSregarding
`this latter “not likely to adversely affect” finding.
`
`Steelhead Habitat In Lower Auburn Ravine
`
`At page 10 ofits February 9, 2015 letter, Cal Fish and Wildlife states “The existing condition is
`that there is habitatfor steelhead and salmon belowthe Wise Powerhouse during the times that
`PG&Eis generating electricity. When PG&E “turnsoffthe faucet” they are taking an action
`that has an impact on habitat.”
`
`To clarify, the habitat that steelhead and salmon occupy is in Lower Auburn Ravine, not in
`Upper Auburn Ravine in the vicinity of Wise Powerhouse or South Canal. When the annual
`canal outage occurs, and water deliveries to NID from South Canal cease, any changes in flow in
`Upper Auburn Ravine are due to the cessation of waterdeliveries and not the operations of the
`LowerDrum Project. All of the documented anadromousfish in Auburn Ravine have been
`below NID’s Auburn Ravine | Diversion Dam, NID’s Hemphill Diversion Dam, and NID’s
`Highway 65 stream gage in Lower Auburn Ravine. PG&E is unaware of any required minimum
`flows below NID’s Auburn Ravine 1 Diversion Dam, which is located upstream of NID’s
`Hemphill Diversion Dam, and PG&E does not own oroperate those diversion damsorcontrol
`releases from those diversion dams. Therefore, PG&E’s Project does not control the flows
`during canal outages that might affect the anadromousfishorcritical habitat in Lower Auburn
`Ravine.
`
`The record shows that NID has diverted water at both of the diversions during PG&E’s canal
`outages (Auburn Ravine Supplement, Table 1). The highest flows diverted at Auburn Ravine 1
`Diversion Dam and Hemphill Diversion Dam during the canal outage periods were 23.6 cfs and
`18 cfs, respectively. The highest flows diverted at Auburn Ravine 1 Diversion Dam and
`Hemphill Diversion Dam during the year-round period of record were 73 cfs and 23.6 cfs,
`respectively. This demonstrates that NID’s two diversion dams in Lower Auburn Ravine have
`the capability to divert all of the minimum flows proposed by PG&E in Upper Auburn Ravine.
`PG&E would also like to clarify that the irrigation deliveries generally take place between April
`15 and October 15 each year, but can take place in other months as well, as demonstrated in the
`record. PG&E takesits canal outage beginning October 15 becauseirrigation demandis low at
`that time of year and work on the canal can be conducted prior to the onset of winter. When the
`water deliveries stop, and the canal outage begins, any effects in Upper Auburn Ravine are due
`to the cessation of water deliveries and not the operation of the hydro project. When the water
`deliveries stop, flows in Lower Auburn Ravine are controlled by non-Project diversions. These
`points are made in PG&E’s Final License Application, as amended, the 2009 approved study
`
`

`

`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`March 11, 2015
`Page 8
`
`plan for the Western Placer County Streams, the 2011 Western Placer County Streams Technical
`Memorandum 3-13, and the 2012 Auburn Ravine Supplement,all of which are in the record.
`
`PG&E Does Not Control Water Flow in Lower Auburn Ravine
`
`At page 10 of its February 9, 2015 letter, Cal Fish and Wildlife states “Department staffwill
`continue to assert that PG&E is responsible for protecting the Public Trust resources in this
`section ofriver [Lower Auburn Ravine below NID’s Auburn Ravine I Diversion Dam and NID’s
`Hemphill Diversion Dam, and below NID’s Highway 65 stream gage where CDFW conducted
`their rotary screwtrap study in 2013], even during the short periods oftime they choose to not
`deliver water through this reach.”
`
`For the reasons stated above, PG&E disagrees that it should be responsible for maintaining flows
`and habitat below NID’s diversion dams in Lower Auburn Ravine. PG&E does not own or
`operate NID’s diversion dams, which control flows in Lower Auburn Ravine.
`
`Contractual Water Deliveries
`
`At page 9 of its February 9, 2015 letter, Cal Fish and Wildlife states “These contractual
`deliveries to Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) and NevadaIrrigation District (NID)
`customers drive PG&E waterdeliveries through Auburn Ravine during mostofthe year. The
`same agencies that take water from PG&E during mostofthe year do have the ability to deliver
`water to Auburn Ravine during PG&E's outage season, andall ofthese entities should all bear
`Joint and several liabilityfor the protection ofriverine resources throughout the year.”
`
`PG&E’s proposed Lower Drum Project includes minimum streamflows (2 to 18 cfs, depending
`on month and water year type) to be provided from South Canal to protect and enhance aquatic
`habitat in Upper Auburn Ravine. PG&E’s proposed flows are year-round, except during canal
`outages when the Project is physically unable to augment flows in Auburn Ravine. As described
`above, during the annual canal outages it is unnecessary to augmentexisting flows for the
`protection of resident fish.
`
`Rotary Screw Trap Monitoring By Cal Fish and Wildlife In Lower Auburn Ravine
`
`At page 12 of its February 9, 2015 letter, FWN states “Jn addition, we call the attention ofthe
`Commission to the fact that the presence oflisted salmon species and steelhead in Auburn
`Ravine waslikely identified in DFW rotary screw-trap monitoring in 2013 and included in a
`2014 DFW Memorandumonthis subject.”
`
`For clarification, Cal Fish and Wildlife’s rotary screw trap monitoring was conducted in Lower
`Auburn Ravine, approximately 19 miles downstream of PG&E’s South Canal, 15 miles
`downstream of NID’s Auburn Ravine 1 Diversion Dam, and 9 miles downstream of Hemphill
`Diversion Dam. Asdescribed in the record, Auburn Ravine | Diversion Dam is virtually a
`
`

`

`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`March 11, 2015
`Page 9
`
`complete barrier to upstream migration by anadromousfish, assuming somefish actually makeit
`to this point in Auburn Ravine.
`
`REPLY TO NMFS’ LETTER
`
`FERC Correctly Performed Its NEPA Analysis
`
`At page 8 of its February 9, 2015 letter, NMFS states “NMFS recommended FERCtake a
`watershed view that would include measures to enhance, and recover, anadromousfish in the
`Yuba Riverbasin. NMFScontinues to support this view. FERC’s environmental reviewofa
`specific relicensing project must include both “connectedactions” and “similar actions.” 40
`CER. § 1408.25(a) (1), (3) [sic]. U.S. Supreme Court andfederal Courts ofAppeals decisions
`have foundthat this regulation and NEPA itselfforbid the “segmentation” ofconnected or
`similar projectsfor separate environmental review, and that connected actions, similaractions
`and cumulative actions must be considered together in a comprehensive environmental review.”
`
`The U.S. Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations state that “[t]o determine the
`scope of environmental impact statements, agencies shall consider 3 types of actions,” the first of
`which are “connected actions.” “Actions are connectedif they: (i) automatically trigger other
`actions which may require environmental impacts statements; (ii) cannot or will not proceed
`unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously; or(1i1) are interdependentparts of a
`larger action and depend onthelarger action fortheir justification.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1)
`(2014). Neither the PG&E Projects nor the Yuba River Project “automatically trigger other
`actions which may require environmental impact statements.” Likewise, the relicensing
`proceeding for the PG&EProjects and the relicensing proceeding for the Yuba River Project can
`proceed without the other proceeding occurring previously or simultaneously. Finally, the
`proposed PG&E Projects and the proposed Yuba RiverProject are not interdependentparts of a
`larger action and neither depend on a largeraction fortheir justification. Therefore, the proposed
`PG&E Projects and the proposed Yuba RiverProject are not connected actions. The second type
`of action identified by NMFSare “similaractions,”“which when viewed with other reasonably
`foreseeable or proposed agencyactions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their
`environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography. An agency may
`wish to analyze these actions in the same impact statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(3) (2014).
`Whether an agency analyzes similar actions in the same environmental impact statementis at the
`discretion of the agency. FERC appropriately chose to analyze the Yuba BearProject and the
`PG&E Projects together because they are more similarthan either of these projects are to the
`Yuba RiverProject, the effects of which are more prominent in the lower Yuba River, which is
`where the effects of the PG&E Projects are barely discernible, and in no way meaningful.
`
`NMFS cites Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
`(‘“Delaware”’), to suggest that FERC improperly segmented its environmental review. The facts
`of the Delaware case are not relevant to the current proceeding. In Delaware, the Commission
`prepared an environmental assessment and found that a pipeline expansion would have no
`
`

`

`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`March I1, 2015
`Page 10
`
`significant impact, which meant that the Commission was not required to prepare an EIS. The
`court held that FERC had improperly segmented its environmental review of the expansion
`project becauseit failed to consider three other connected, interdependent expansions by the
`same company on the samepipeline, the collective effects of which may be significant and
`therefore would require preparation of an EIS. In Delaware, the court found the separate
`expansions on the same pipeline were connected because they were interdependentparts of a
`larger action and dependedonthelargeraction fortheir justification, namely to expand the
`capacity of the entire linear pipeline. However, as noted above andin contrast to the
`circumstance present in the Delaware case, the Yuba RiverProject and the PG&E Projects are
`not interdependentparts of a larger action and do not depend on the largeraction for their
`justification. NMFShasnot presented any evidence to suggest otherwise. Because the PG&E
`Projects and the Yuba RiverProject are not connected, the Commission’s separate environmental
`review for each does not constitute improper segmentation.
`
`REPLY TO FWN’S LETTER
`
`South Yuba — Responsibility for Recreation
`
`At page 17 of its February 9, 2015 letter, FWN states “There is a clear connection between the
`projects and recreationalsites on the entire South Yuba River downstream ofprojectfacilities.
`The projects’ diversionsfrom the South Yuba River watershed have a dramatic influence on the
`hydrograph ofthe South Yuba River, even asfar downstreamas the California State Park lands
`at Purdon Crossing (RM 11), Highway 49 (RM 7), Jones Bar (RM 6) and Bridgeport (RM 0).
`Oneofthe most conspicuous influencesis the reduction ofspring and early summerflows. The
`resultingflowlevels stimulate andfacilitate increased recreational use.”
`
`There is no clear connection between the PG&E Projects and the recreation that occurs where
`roads cross the South Yuba River, such as at Purdon Crossing, Highway 49, Jones Bar, and
`Bridgeport. As the FWN letter indicates, these South Yuba Riverrecreation sites are at least 27
`miles (Purdon Crossing) downstream of Spaulding Damandas far as 38 miles downstream
`(Bridgeport). The FWN provides no evidence to support its assertion the PG&E Projects affect
`flows in the South Yuba Riversuch that the resulting flow levels “stimulate and facilitate
`increased recreational use.” Flow level is a factor in recreational use levels and types of
`recreation activities, but is not the sole determinant northe primary determinant as a wide variety
`of recreational activities occur along the South Yuba River and encompass a wide range of flows
`depending uponactivity and an individual’s skill or comfort in moving water. Further, site
`conditionsat river access points may provide varying types of river access conditions that either
`enhanceorreduce recreation activity participation regardless of flow levels. For instance, most
`access locations have eddies, velocity shadows or shoreline margins that provide protection from
`direct river flows and allow for many types ofriver-based recreation. Further, recreational use
`during shoulder and summerseasonsis also influenced by air temperatures and access
`conditions, not just flow levels.
`
`

`

`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`March 11, 2015
`Page Il
`
`REPLY TO PLACER COUNTY’S LETTER
`
`Provision of County Services By PG&E
`
`In its February 9, 2015 letter, Placer County urges the Commission to impose license conditions
`on PG&E to provide for county road maintenance and county public safety services. PG&E
`replied on September 23, 2013, to similar requests from Placer County in its comments on the
`DEIS wherein Placer County requested that the Commission require PG&E to contribute to
`public safety and infrastructure expenses that might result from increased recreation uses at the
`PG&E Projects. PG&Ereiterates, but will not repeat, those arguments here, except to note that
`requiring PG&E to fund county infrastructure and county public safety services or to fund county
`law enforcementis inconsistent with longstanding Commission policy and precedent. See, e.g.,
`CountyofButte, Calif. v. Calif: Depart. of Water Resources, 129 FERC § 61,133, at P 19 (2009)
`(“[N]Jothing in the FPA ... or our precedent suggests that licensees are responsible for the
`provision of law enforcementorsafety services.”); see also Avista Corp., 127 FERC { 61,265, at
`P 193 (2009), appeal denied sub. nom, County ofButte, Calif. v. FERC, 445 Fed. Appx. 928 co"
`Cir. 2011) (unpublished); Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Wash., 123 FERC 4
`61,049, at P 79 (2008); New York Power Authority, 120 FERC 4 61,266, at P 33 (2007);
`Portland General Electric Co., 117 FERC 4 61,112, at PP 45, 82-83 (2006); Policy Statement on
`HydropowerLicensing Settlements, 116 FERC § 61,270, at P 24 (2006).
`
`If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (415) 973-4466 or by
`
`e-mail at Alvin.Thoma(@PGE.com,or contact Steve Peirano at (415) 973-4481 or by e-mail at
`Steve.Peirano@PGE.com).
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Alvin Thoma, Director
`Hydro Licensing
`
`ee?
`
`Certificate of Service for Parties on FERC’s Official Service Lists for the Upper
`Drum-Spaulding Project
`(FERC Project No. 2310-093), for the Deer Creek
`Project (FERC Project No. 14530-000) and for the Lower Drum Project (FERC
`Project No. 14531-000)
`Relicensing Participants on Drum-Spaulding Relicensing E-mail Contact Ma