THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley (01/13/2010)

Comprehensive, Chronological INDEX of the case ; F=Filed, L=Lodged, S=Signed, R=Received

SWRCB APPLICATION A026378 City of Santa Clara Case Index - Stony Gorge Power Plant
[see also http://swrcb2.waterboards.ca.gov/ewrims/wrims-data/l013212%20a026378.pdf ]

[schedule of allowed Angle Decree usage at http://www.mjbarkl.com/limits2.htm shows that SWRCB did not have jurisdiction to consider this application]

RELATED Stony Creek Power APPLICATIONS:
- East Park Reservoir, Colusa County
- - Application 26745, the City of Santa Clara
- - Application 26682, Orland Unit Water Users Association
- Stony Gorge Reservoir, Glenn County
- - Application 26378, the City of Santa Clara
- - Application 26659, Orland Unit Water Users Association
- Black Butte Reservoir, Tehama County
- - Application 26379, the City of Santa Clara
- - Application 26658, Orland Unit Water Users Association
- Highline Canal Ap 027750



[Maps?]

Cat 1 CORRESPONDENCE VOL. 1 OF 3 RECORD OF FOLDER [" F " - date filed if date originated not evident]

[Inside of file front cover]

Applicant: City of Santa Clara
Address: c/o Silicom [sic] Valley Power, Damon Beck, 850 Duane Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95054

Application 26378 [related 26379 ] [and 26745 ]
Applicant: City of Santa Clara
Date filed 05/22/1980
Maps Filed 09/30/1980 [garbled] County 11 Fee $676.00
Forms Sent 04/30/1981 - 8, 8a, 8b;

Protests:
  • 102280 OUWUA Dism/Withdr 03/23/1984
  • 052781 GCID Ans 07/14/1981 Dism/Withdr 03/23/1984

    Remarks
  • 060811 [sic] Proof of Publ
  • 061681 Proof of Publ
  • 111982 Hearing to be held 12/15/1982
  • 073084 Permit 19273 issued
  • 112994 Report of Inspection
  • 042296 License 13212 issued

    Record of Fees:
  • 052280 $10.00 Ap
  • 123180 $80.00 Ap
  • 073084 $47.73 Permit
  • 050895 $50.00 Extension

    Record of Folders
  • 2nd FERC
  • 3rd Environmental
  • 4th Transcripts & Exhibits

    [Inside of file back cover]

    Ap 26378

    Accepted 05/22/1980, related 26379
    Total Ap fee $666.00
    D-1100
    Adjudicated area
    not water master area
    in critical watershed, D-1100
    notices to Ron Nichols, Resource Manager, 1540 River Park Dr, Suite 2[covered up], Sac 95815


    LOOSE PAPERS IN BACK OF FILE;
  • 071480 map, City of Santa Clara, Engineering Department, Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project Application No,. 26378, "I, James T. Gleeson, Assistant Director of Public Works, City of Santa Clara, California, do hereby certify that this map was prepared under my supervision from a map prepared by the United States Army Corps of Engineers...." [that's what you get when you copy the Black Butte certification for the Stony Gorge ap, right? ]; the map adapted from:
  • 032425 Reclamation Orland Project Proposed Stony Gorge Reservoir "I, E.T. Eriksen of Orland, California, do hereby certify that this map was made from notes taken during actual surveys made by me in 1917 and 1925, and that it correctly represents the works described in the accompanying application, the location of streams and ditches in the immediate vicinity and the area to be irrigated. /s/ E.T. Eriksen, Surveyor: map shows irrigable area of Orland Project, the reservoir itself, "Axis of dam crosses midpoint of streambed at a point S62 W 565 feet from the northeast corner of the southeast corner of Section 16." "Water releases for power purposes will be discharged into Stony Creek directly below the point of release for existing water uses at a point 875 ft W and 2500 ft N of the SE corner of Section 16"; added thereto a cross section of the dam with "Proposed power Plant" at bottom, approx tailwater elevation 736; original with graph, "Curves of Area and Capacity of Proposed Stony Gorge Reservoir." 1500 acres max


    PAPERS "BOUND" IN FILE (re-sorted in date order):

    1980


    051380 Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water, City of Santa Clara, Mr. D.R. Von Raesfeld, City Manager, 408/984-3101, 1501 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050; "...steps have been taken to obtain right of access: United States Water and Power Resources Service 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825--Letter requesting access rights has been forwarded." asked for 50,000 a-f storage, but in red on ap "see applicants letter of" 06/10/1980 "the storage is not requested." Direct Diversion, 1600 cfs, 550,000 a-f/a, 01/01-12/31, total combined 600,000 a-f, crossed off in red Diversion by "pipe through dam, "steel, two 8' diameter, 100', 105' fall [?] plus or minus 3' ; Stony Gorge , 111' above streambed, concrete, 868' long, 8' freeboard, 1274 acres, 50,000 a-f, max depth 100'; estimated cost of proposed diversion works $500,000, use within NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 S16 T20N R6W MD B & M [on site of Mulford right?], commence 08/1982, complete 11/1984, use 12/1984 ; nearest post office: Elk Creek; No significant adverse impacts anticipated; approvals: FERC, USACE, [Reclamation]; downstream diverters: OUWUA, GCID [forgot Retzloff?]
  • Supplement: fall 105 feet, max penstock use 1600 cfs, max theoretical HP 19,090 (cfs * fall / 8.8); use: distribution and sale; nature: turbine; size of nozzle: to be determined; discharge into Stony Creek; outlet 2 - 96", 100 feet, 7' fall between entrance and exit of pipe, 105' head, dead storage below outlet pipe 20 af [? radically understated ?]
  • SWRCB application map, topo of 4 sections & fringe, showing plant site
  • UNDATED Environmental Information; APN 022-09, S16; "Open space zoning for federal land"; current uses: "recreational use of reservoir and fishing at spillway terrace, lumbermill approximately 1/4 mile west of site, some grazing in general vicinity."; construction of temporary diversion to de-water construction site; oak woodland, brush/chaparral [what does a tubine do to migrating salmon?]; crappie, small and large mouthed bass, sunfish, carp, per William Thornton, Calif. Fish and Game Unit Manager, 916/934-5396, & Fred Meyer, Region II 916/335-7090; some temporary minor increases in sedimentation may occur during construction; no water quality problem per Larry Pearson, Region 5 Water Quality Control Board, 916/445-0270; archaeological/historical: "No sites known at time of application, detailed review has been requested of Regional Archaeological Resources Office, Chico State University"
  • photo, dam from downstream
  • 052180 New Application slip, mail, received $10.00, due $666.00, stream code 0-030-00-00-0 Map EE44 Quad Elk Creek

    051380 Resolution No. 4257, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, California; Reclamation permission & approval, DOE loans? Manager authorized to submit SWRCB Ap,, Reclamation Ap, FERC Ap, DOE Ap, & represent city before all agencies necessary to secure approval of Aps., authorized to spend $100
    051480 letter Von Raesfeld/City of Santa Clara to SWRCB, enclosed Ap, for Black Butte, Stony Gorge, $10 for each, city resolution, city atty advises final and complete maps are not included but complete in all other respects; delay in maps from Federal agencies owning the dams, ask for 60 more days; thence "will also file a Petition for the release from priority of portions of applications filed by the State pursant to Section 10500 of the Water Code, to wit: Apl Nos. 25513 and 25514;
    051980 Contract Report Ben Rinehart/Div WRights contacted [by?] Mrs. Mills, Electrical Dept. 2 filings coming, forgot to enclose the $20 fees, sending separate cover, hold a couple of days if necessary
    051980 letter Beck/Assist Dir Electric Utility to SWRCB, enclosed two forgotten warrants [checks?]
    052280 form letter, ap assigned 26378, applicant will be lead agency, calculate total fee $676.00, crossed off in red "OK now see letter of" 06/10/1980, $86.00? 26.00?
    052980 return receipt card both aps
    060580 contact report Glen Peterson/Archie Chesler/Joe Hemer/Carole Atherton, [more like a memo to files?] discussed reducing fees after striking storage from ap, reservoir storage included by mistake

    061080 letter Von Raesfeld/Santa Clara to SWRCB, diversion rights only, no ap for storage, check for $86 enclosed; thereon "I called City Manager's office and confirmined receipt of this letter & fees." aac [?] 06/17/1980

    070380 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Notice of Application for Preliminary Permit; FERC project #3193; "a penstock approximately 140 feet long, a powerhouse containing a single generating unit with a rated capacity of 6,000 kw, a one mile long transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the existing" PG & E "substation north of the powerhouse, and appurtenant facilities." "requested a 36-month permit" to do studies, costing some $250,000; invitation for agency [or any other?] comments by 08/13/1980, competing aps by 08/13/1980, etc. ;
    UNDATED map Figure 4-3 Proposed Power Plant Plan and Project Boundary (Adapted from USWPRS drawing of Stony Gorge Dam) FERC Project No. 3193; viewed from above looking dowstream, new penstocks from intake structure through right side of dam [this is a guess, from looking at the map] to poweer plant site, with a "24' Outlet Conduit from 10" Needle Valve angled cross within the dam [?] from near upstream end of penstocks to left of spillway & thence downstream ; is that "Outlet Conduit" the pipeline to the Sawmill?]
    071480 letter Flynn/Santa Clara Electric to SWRCB, enclosed are the maps
    081380 contact report Ben Rinehart/Div WRights contact[ed] City Manager's Office, still awaiting the original maps, [have copies?]; will refer to Mr. Flint of Electrical Department; 08/18/1980 Dennis Dudnick phoned, will send mylar origional reproduciple [sic] maps with certs & sigs.; note thereunder "Maps Filed -BR"
    082880 FERC Notice Granting Intervention projects 3190 & 3193, by PG & E because Santa Clara proposes to use PG & E distribution system, PG & E does not oppose ap, Santa Clara does not oppose intervention;
    092580 FERC 3193 Notice Denying Extension of time and Rejecting Notice of Intent to File a competing Application; OUWUA filed an untimely petition to intervene & file a competing ap, "alleged good cause for its untimely filings on the basis of its failure to receive actual notice of the application before the deadline for filing set by the Commission." OUWUA notified by 1) publ. in Federal Register, & 2) Notice of Ap published in "a local newspaper in the county where the proposed project is located, the same county in which the headquarters of Orland Unit is located [which newspaper?]. Thus, there was ample notice of the application for interested persons." [only in the mind of someone with no contact with the Earth; conflict with the area of origin/county of origin requirements?]

    101080 FERC #3193 Order Issuing Preliminary Permit, ; Notice published - iaw Section 4(f) of the Act. [how? where?] 08/13/1980 PG & E moved to intervene , Santa Clara did not oppose, PG & E did not oppose: "The matter raised by PG & E is more appropriate for consideration as part of any future licensing proceeding. If issues arise that affect the interests of PG & E, they will be considered at that time." [provided?] OUWUA late petition denied; Interior opposed the permit, the permit should be Federal, and legislation has been introduced in Congress for it, but, since Congress has not acted "it is considered to be in the public interest to issue this preliminary permit."; penstock approx. 140' long, powerhouse containing a single 6,000 kw generating unit, one-mile long transmission line to the PG & E substation north of the powerhouse, and appurtenant facilities....generate approximately 18 million kWh per year...serve the Applicant's electric service area."; purpose of preliminary permit is to maintain applicant's priority during studies; should "Permittee find the project to be feasible and file an application for a license," all interested persons & agencies will be given notice. [uh, how? and how will they find who is interested?]; Articles 1 - 6 as in attachment, articles 7-11 added here; 7. consult, 8, semi-annual progress reports, 9. designate a liaison officer, 10. consult w/USFWS on need for a study of effects on fish & wildlife, 11, coordinate studies with [Reclamation]; order is final unless appeal petition filed within 30 days
  • 10??75 FERC Terms and Conditions of Preliminary Permit -

    [ENVIRONMENTAL DOCS w/ FERC? ]

    102080 letter P.J. Minasian/atty to WRCB, protest of OUWUA; red thereon "returned stamped protests" 10/20/1980
  • 101780 Protest OUWUA protesting City of Santa Clara Ap. ; disregarded - "If a contract satisfactory to the Association is entered into whereby control of releases remains in the Association, power sales contracts satisfactory to the Association are entered into, and the Association receives all net power revenues for its benefit." Enviro says the same;
  • "History"., "Contracts between the United States and the Association" - 04/03/1909 ", an agreement was entered into by and between the United States and the Association, which provided that if the United States authorized construction of the Orland project the Association would: 1. Bring Court proceedings to determine the relative rights of its shareholders to the use of water for their lands [relative to whom? relative among the shareholders? see Agreement at http://www.mjbarkl.com/278-5.pdf ] ;" "The agreement also provides that the rights to water to be served the shareholders would be forever appurtenant to the lands owned by the shareholders. The contract states:
    'Whereas the incorporators and shareholders of said Orland Unit Water Users' Association are, and under the provisions of its articles of incorporation and by-laws must be, owners and occupants of lands in said area, and in some cases are appropriators of water for the irrigation thereof, and in addition thereto such incorporators and shareholders and their successors or assigns must initiate rights to the use of water from the said proposed irrigation works, to be constructed by the Secretary of the Interior as soon as such rights may be initiated, and thereafter complete the acquisition thereof in the manner and upon the terms and conditions to be prescribed therefor by the Secretary of the Interior, which rights shall be, and thereafter continue to be, forever appurtenant to designated lands owned by such shareholders;'
    As of 12/31/1949 "$1,199,496 had been repaid by the Association members on the construction cost and $1,175,134 remained to be paid to liquidate the then existing repayment contracts."
    [page 3] "Water Rights. The water rights of the United States and of the lands in the Association to which they are appurtenant were adjudicated by a decree dated January 13, 1930, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Second Division, in the case "In Equity No. 30 U.S. of America, plaintiff, vs. H.C. Angle, et al., defendants. The decree in that case assigned the Orland Project the right to divert 85,050 acre feet of water to irrigate 21,000 acres of land in the Association. [para] Power may be added to those appropriations as an additional purpose of use as no downstream rights are adversely affected. [para] In 1944, an additional right was added by a license, No. [pencil:] 2652 (USBR A2212, filed" 02/21/1921 "GTQ) issued to the United States authorizing storage of an additional 50,200 acre feet per year in Stony Gorge Reservoir. [para] All such rights are appurtenant to the lands in the Association. [para] Present and Past Use of Water. [para] The service area in the Association contains approximately 20,000 acres of which approximately 16,700 acres are irrigated. A net supply of water of approximately 115,000 acre feet is needed to supply approximately 80,000 acre feet of water to the land. (i.e. In 1949, 16,706 acres were irrigated, the total supply was 114,327 acre feet, and the net delivered to the land was 79,350 acre feet.)" etc. "Environmental Considerations and Public Interest" ; we built it, we paid for it, they're taking the benefit without compensation; "Such a taking is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and Section 14 of Article I of the California Constitution. It would also result in an unlawful impairment of the contracts between the United States and the Association."; [Page 4] "The Association, as the party paying for the construction of the Dams and Reservoirs and charged by contract with their possession, use, care, operation and maintenance, does not consent to and protests the use of such facilities, or any of them, by Santa Clara." [para] "Association is filing herewith an application to appropriate for power purposes the water stored by or passing through Stony Gorge and Black Butte Dams and Reservoirs, and will oppose the application of Santa Clara for preliminary permits on licenses from the" FERC "for permission to construct power-generating facilities at any of said dams, and the Association will file a competing application for licenses at said sites. [para] It is in the public interest for those who have constructed dams and reservoirs for irrigation purposes to receive the benefits from their investment, including power benefits, and it is not in the public interest for those who have contributed nothing to profit from the investment of others. A race is now on by speculators and fortune hunters to file upon all available power sites regardless of the investment and property rights of others. It is in the public interest that this be discouraged where power development will be made by those who have, by their foresight and expenditures, created the dams and reservoirs that make power production possible. [ para] The proposed appropriation of Santa Clara will have an adverse economic and environmental effect in that the profits from the power production will be taken from the area of origin and transported to the metropolitan Santa Clara area, thereby depriving the local area, that created the power potential, of funds needed to properly maintain and care for the dams and reservoirs and irrigation facilities to keep water rates at a reasonable level and within the ability of the area to pay."
  • 100980 Resolution of Board of Directors, authorized to sign the protest & file it

    111280 letter Holtry/Hearing Unit to Minasian/atty, protest premature, public notice for the Ap not yet issued
    111780 letter Peterson/Ap Unit, to Von Raesfeld/Santa Clara, typo on the map as to point of diversion [does their suggestion clear it up or make it worse]; Santa Clara is lead agency
    120380 letter Gleeson/Santa Clara to Peterson/Div WRights, map change approved; Dir of Electric Utility will respond to environmental concerns

    082880 FERC 3190 & 3193 Notice Granting Intervention; PG & E
    092580 FERC 3190 & 3193 Notice Denying Intervention; OUWUA

    1981


    012181 letter Harris/Ap Unit to Von Raesfeld/Santa Clara, Ap complete, will issue a notice of ap whenever....
    012381 letter Sabiston/Hearing Section to Burns/Resources Agency; "possibility of using the Stony Gorge plant as a peaking facility is being considered. This would require a larger generator and a different flow regime." propose one environmental doc for both permits (26378 & 9 , FERC 3190 & 3193 ; try FERC on line document library, http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercadvsearch.asp ), and, "If a combined state and federal document cannot be prepared, any FERC document required should be circulated through SCH for our review." [When does the FERC permit come up for review? 2033 per FERC schedule ]
  • 011281 Route slip; SCH 81010728, Black Butte Hydroelectric Project;
  • 011281 Route slip; SCH 81010792, [sic, s/b 729?] Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project;
    UNDATED contact report Ben Rinehart, contact[ed] Al Yang, Environmental Assessment Unit, "stated that he has reviewed subject files owned by City of Santa Clara and that City is Lead Agency"
    042881 contact report Rinehart contact[ed] Mr. Castranova, DWR Dam Safety Engineer, both dams are USACE projects [no] and the State of California has no jurisdiction.
    UNDATED form Instructions to Applicant, your ap meets requirements of Sec 65943 of Govt Code, publish notice in Orland Press & Corning Daily Observer starting by 05/20/1981
    UNDATED Mailing list for Applications 26378 and 26379; OUWUA listed, Minasian not, Elk Creek P.O. but not Orland
    050581 return receipt card from ?? [probably Santa Clara ]
    043081 Notice of Application to Appropriate Water
    UNDATED Notice to [which?] Postmaster, please post
    041081 Route Sheet - Application Unit
    051181 letter Kowta/California Archaeological site Survey to Chandler/SWRCB, "no previously recorded sites" [except those mentioned by Bidwell?], but due to nature of location "recommend that archaeological clearance not be given to this proposed construction until an on-site archaeological reconnaissance has been performed by a qualified archaeologist and appropriate mitigative measures prepared."
    051281 office memo from MSY to [both] files, "Whether City of Santa Clara or Orland Unit Water Users' Association has right to build the power plant at Stony Gorge and Black Butte Dams may have to be determined by court. This is outside the Board's jurisdiction and the protest can not be accepted based on the environmental ground. However our attorney should be consulted to obtain addtional opinion." "Per Buck - Our Bd. may [?] make determination. Protest is public interest rather than Env. OK for public interest & vested rights. Not enough info submitted to accept protest on adverse env. impact - lack of Bd's jurisdiction - contrary to law."
    052681 letter Holtry/Associate WRC Engineer to Freeman/OUWUA, Your 10/17/1980 "protests based on your belief the project proposed under Applications 26378 and 26379 will result in injury to your vested rights and will not best conserve the public interest are accepted. [para] Before we may accept your protests based on your belief these proposed appropriations will not be within the Board's jurisdiction, will be contrary to law, and will have an adverse environmental impact, you must furnish us statements of facts in support of these allegations. You are granted 20 days from the date of this letter to submit the required information."
    052681 letter Holtry/Div WRights to Von Raesfeld/Santa Clara, enclosed copy of letter accepting a protest from OUWUA, answer to "vested rights and public interest allegations" by 07/20/81 w/ copy to OUWUA, extension OK if negotiations might reach settlement
    052781 F Protest, GCID, "Any control which the proposed hydroelectric plant might have over the time or rate of reservoir releases could interfere with existing rights and agreements." rights: "Angle Decree, Sacramento River Contract & Tehama-Colusa Canal Contracts.", 20,315 a-f no[t is in pencil] exceeding 500 cfs.; first use, 1903 March 15 to October 1, irrigation and wildlife refuges; dismissal: "Legal assurance that no attempt will be made by the applicant to influence time or rates of reservoir releases." /s/ Robert P. Clark "Accept. C. Chandler" 06/04/1981
  • 052781 F "Protest [supplement] [para] Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District has rights to Stony Creek flows under the Angle Decree. The water supply available under these rights is now subject to regulation in the reservoirs on Stony Creek. In addition a contract has been made between the Water & Power Resources Service and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to call for storage releases from Black Butte Reservoir under emergency or other circumstances. There is also an agreement between the WPRS and the Orland Water Users Association which provides storage exchange between Orland Project Reservoirs (Stony Gorge) and Black Butte Reservoir. Operationally the releases and storage in both Black Butte and Stony Gorge Reservoirs are coordinated with Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District demands from the Sacramento River via its main canal and through three major diversions from the Tehama-Colusa Canal. The flexibility and advantages experienced under this coordinated effort include the possibility of improving the fishery in the Stony Creek Reservoirs by severely reducing releases at times. [para] The District is fearful that a desire to generate power at these Reservoirs to conform to peak electrical energy demands or to otherwise enhance power production will interfere with the operational options now available which have proved to be quite beneficial to the District."

    060581 transmittal Minasian/atty to SWRCB enclosed; please file & return endorsed copies [see more expanded extract at 26379.htm]
  • 060581 Orland Unit Water Users' Association, Statement of Grounds - for Protest, Application No. 26378 - Stony Gorge Reservoir.
    - I. not within the Board's jurisdiction
    - II. contrary to law
    - III. will have an adverse environmental impact
    - I. [apples & oranges cite to the Angle Decree? GCID stip on right to store; & claiming court's award to USA is an award to OUWUA of the right to divert to the South Canal, an exclusive right to that diversion ? All pre-1914]; gave "notice of its intention to construct hydroelectric generation facilities utilizing the pre-1914 water right for continuous flow and storage rights at both Black Butte Dam and Stony Gorge Dam, as well as East Park Dam. The State Water Resources Control Board has no jurisdiction or ability to award water rights, except subject to the rights of the Orland Project to generate power with all pre-1914 water rights available to it and all rights provided by the United States District Court Decree, United States vs. Angle, Equity No. 30. To date, no action has been commenced either by the State Water Resources Control Board or by the Applicant, to modify the Decree in U.S. vs. Angle. Only this Court has jurisdiction of those rights."
    II. "...failed to file any Application pursuant to Water Code Sections 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1782 or 1800 for permission to jointly occupy and utilize..."
    III. "Maximum utilization of the power generation potential of the waters of Stony Creek and its tributaries and the subject facilities can be made only by the party controlling and regulating water releases. That party is the Orland Project and" OUWUA. Only OUWUA "can vary water use, storage of water to coordinate the operation of wells and other facilities in areas beneficially using the water to maximize power generation." "export of power from the Glenn, Colusa and Tehama County areas as opposed to and in contrast with the use of power from the waters in the watershed prevents economic development of the local area, results in unnecessary transportation losses of such power, and deprives the local area of the economic advantages of low cost power. [para] ...proposed use of water by the Applicant for power generation purposes fails to accommodate and provide for the flood passage potential of each of the reservoirs and to provide for protection of the facilities of such reservoirs as a result of the installation of such power generation facilities from flood damage. The proposed location of the power generation facility at Stony Gorge Reservoir constitutes a danger of impairment and a potential location for undermining of the structural integrity of Stony Gorge Dam and appurtenant facilities including the valve and penstock, and further, provides for interference with the release of the waters for agricultural purposes and the capacities, amounts and in accorance with the criteria and judgment of the" OUWUA and USA - Orland Project.
    - - Decree, pp. 137 - 145
    - - Decree, pp. 168 - 172
    - - 060581 Verification [blank]; Proof of Service by Mail

    061181 letter Minasian/atty to Chandler/SWRCB; understand SWRCB will notice the 3 Santa Clara filings so the hearings may occur simultaneously, Black Butte 26379, Stony Gorge 26378, East Park 26745 [not found] [01/21/2009, requested 26745 files from Archives]; Orland matching filings are 26658, 26659, 26682;

    060281 Publisher's affidavit, Corning Observer
    061081 letter Dudzik/Santa Clara to Walsh/SWRCB published in both papers, affidavits attached
    061681 letter Dudzik/Santa Clara to Walsh/SWRCB, left out the Orland affidavit, enclosed
  • 060581 publisher's affidavit, Orland Press
    061881 letter Schuster/Reclamation to Walsh/SWRCB; "...applicant's - proposed project will require the use of federally owned faciliies. The Bureau has no objection to the City pursuing a water right permit for the development of hydroelectric power generation at Stony Gorge Dam. However, Congress, in this session, is considering Senate Bill S. 306 which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain hydroelectric powerplants at various existing reclamation project facilities, including Stony Gorge Dam. The bill would also allow a non-Federal entity the opportunity to pursue construction of a powerplant at Stony Gorge Dam, provided a license is obtained under the Federal Power Act. If the bill is passed in its present form, and if a non-Federal entity does not obtain a Federal Energy Regulatory Commisson (FERC) license prior to October 1, 1983, authority would then exist for the Secretary of the Interior to proceed with Federal construction. [para] If the City is successful in obtaining a FERC license to construct a powerplant at Stony Gorge Dam, a contractual agreement between the City and the United States will be required. The agreement will provide for access, construction, operation, and maintenance of a powerplant by the non-Federal entity, and will ensure the safety and integrity of the Federal facilities and project operations. The agreement will be a requirement under the Federal power license. [page 2] We assume that any permit issued pursuant to Application 26378 will be conditioned to reflect the requirements of the Federal power license and will contain the Board's Standard Permit Term 22, Right of Access."

    062381 letter Soule/Environmental Unit to Kowta/California Archaeological Site Survey; City of Santa Clara the lead agency, forwarding your letter to them.
    062381 letter Holtry/Div WRights to Von Raesfeld/City SClara, enclosed copy our letter accepting GCID protest, answer by 07/24/1981, will extend if believed negotiations will succeed
    062381 form letter Holtry/Div WRights to GCID, protest accepted, will let you know

    062981 transmittal letter Minasian/atty to Div WRights; file enclosures, return endorsed copies
  • 062981 Protest; injury to vested rights, "Orland Project/United States of America, Department of Interior, Water and Power Resources Service by its agent the Orland Unit Water Users Association" [contrast with 06/18/1981 Reclamation letter?]; dismissal terms: "If a contract satisfactory to the Association is entered into whereby control of releases remains in the Association, power sales contracts satisfactory to the Association are entered into, and the Association receives all net power revenues for its benefit; ditto environmental; all similar to 10/17/1980 Protest
    - UNDATED History [substantively identical to 10/17/1980 History
    - 062481 Orland Project/ United States of America, Department of Interior, Water and Power Resources Service by its Agent the Orland Unit Water Users' Association, Statement of Grounds - for Protest, Application No. 26378 - Stony Gorge Reservoir.
    - memorandum attached identical to 06/05/1981 memorandum
    - Angle pages attached identical to 06/05/1981 memorandum, pp. 137-145, pp. 168-172

    071381 letter Von Raesfeld/City SClara to Walsh/Div WRights; response - to GCID protest, "City's application for appropriation of water rights for power purposes at the subject dam is for the incidental use of water as it is released for flood control, irrigation, and other consumptive uses for which water rights existed at the time of the City's filing. The size, configuration, and the proposed operation of the hydroelectric project is based on the continued operation of the existing dam and reservoir for meeting the current water uses. The City does not propose nor request in its application a right to change the reates or schedules for the release of water form Stony Gorge Dam. Furthermore, no request is made for rights to revise the storage at this facility. [p. 2] In obtaining water rights for power purposes as an incidental use of water stored and released at this dam, the City would reserve the right to release water through the penstocks to the maximum extent possible rather than over the spillway. This revision in the reservoir releases will not change the required release rates and schedules necessary for flood control and consumptive use of water by all parties holding the rights to such use of water. [para] It is the City's belief that the water rights it has requested are consistent with the limitations requested by GCID...."
  • 011381 City Attorney form Declaration of service by mail [to Walsh/Div WRights, but not to GCID?],

    071381 Dudzik/Santa Clara to Walsh/Div WRights, FedEx receipt

    071781 letter Barry F. McCarthy/Deputy City Attorney, City of Santa - Clara to Walsh/Div WRights; enclosed answer to OUWUA protest
  • 071781 City of Santa Clara, Applicant, Application No. 26378 (Stony - Gorge Dam), Answer to Protest of Orland Unit Water Users' Association; Barry F. McCarthy, Deputy City Attorney, City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050 Telephone: 408/984-3232; 5 pp.; Orland claims rights, "fails to state any degree of specificity the nature or extent of the injury the proposed appropriation would cause to its alleged water rights. In fact, the proposed appropriation contemplates no consumptive water use, and no interference with the control of releases at the subject site. [ para ] Orland has misstated the nature of the rights possessed by it and contends it is entitled to the use of the waters of the Stony Creek system not merely for irrigation purposes, which is the true extent of its rights, but also exclusive rights for the generation of electricity. This assertion is clearly contrary to law and based upon an untenable interpretation of the contracts between the United States and Orland, the Angle decree, and the laws of the State of California regarding water rights." [p. 2] "Orland equates its own financial interest with that of the public at large. [para] The subject dam was constructed by the United States government with funds derived from the taxpayers of this nation. The fact that Orland has been assessed charges for the special irrigation benefits it has received from the existence of this dam does not, and should not, confirm upon Orland any special power rights or privileges. [para] "Santa Clara contends that it is in the public interest that 'the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable. . .'. Water Code Section 100. The proposed development of this dam site and the use of these waters for generation of electricity by an existing utility system, which will provide clean, efficient, and reliable energy to its customers is clearly a beneficial use of the waters of the State and in conformity with the policies enunciated by the legislature." [p. 3] "Maximization of the power generation potential of this site is not an appropriate subject for consideration in this proceeding. Applicant has filed for and received a preliminary permit from the" FERC "to study the feasibility of the hydroelectric project at this site. The FERC licensing proceedings are the appropriate forum to determine the desirability of the project from a power generation standpoint. Control and operation of the dam, contractually delegated to Orland, is primarily the responsibility of the Federal government, which has sole authority to determine the mode of operation for said dam. [para] The export of power from the generation site contemplated by applicant is also an inappropriate consideration in these proceedings. However, there is nothing to indicate that development of this project by any party would result in low cost power delivered to the local areas. [para] The subject dam site is under the ownership and ultimate control of the Federal government. With regard to the Stony Gorge Dam, the Bureau of Reclamation has recognized that the proposed power plant will become an integral part of the dam and the Bureau intends to review data, criteria, design and drawings in sufficient detail to insure the safety and integrity of the Federal facility and to minimize disruption of the Orland project operations. The City has agreed to pay the cost of this review and the effect of power plant construction on the Federal facilities is subject to FERC review." [p. 4] "on the sole ground that the decree and judgment in" Angle "has some res judicata effect on the City of Santa Clara and the Board and any attempt to interfere with the rights granted therein is void. [para] Preliminary, [sic] it should be noted that the proposed appropriation would not interfere with any water right which is the subject of the Angle decree. Furthermore the City of Santa Clara was not a party to the decree and is not bound by its provisions. [not exactly] The Angle decree was carefully predicated upon personal jurisdiction of the parties and was not an action in rem purporting to interfere with the potential rights of those not a party to the action. [actually, both in rem and in personam] Lastly, Congress has determined that the Reclamation acts shall at all times be limited by and subject to State laws regarding appropriation on [sic] water and other water rights. 43 USC A Section 383. [para] 5. Appropriation Not Contrary to Law [para] Orland contends that the proposed appropriation will be contrary to law in light of the Angle decree. Apparently, Orland asserts that the Angle decree somehow granted an exclusive right to Orland to generate power on the Stony Creek system, thus superceding the provisions of the Reclamation laws as well as the Federal Power Act and the licensing provisions thereof. [para] Orland conveniently disregards the terms of the Angle decree which limit the rights contained therein to those appropriation rights set out in the various schedules '. . .to divert from the stream so designated and to carry in and convey to and apply to benefidcial use upon, said lands for the irrigation thereof... that each of said rights is gauged by and limited to the amount of water which has been and can be beneficially diverted and applied to the irrigation of said lands . . .'. Angle Decree, Section VII, pages 118, 119. [well, yes, those provisions are in the Decree, but they're looking at the wrong part of the elephant.] 6. Conclusion [para] In light of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests that the protest herein of Orland be dismissed, as failing to state any valid ground of protest. 23 California Administrative Code Section 722. The stated grounds for the protest are unrelated to the nature of the application and are more properly raised in licensing proceedings before FERC...should, in the Board's discretion, be summarily dismissed."
    - - 071781 Declaration of Service by Mail, on Minasian for OUWUA

    072381 letter Catino/Reclamation to Walsh/Div WRights; "to advise you that the Association is not authorized to act as an agent of the United States in matters pertaining to the water rights of the Orland Project. We, the United States, are not protesting the applications filed by the City of Santa Clara, nor are we petitioning the Board for a change to include power as a use under our rights at Stony Gorge and East Park Dams. [para] Our position on this matter was given verbally to Mr. Paul Minasian, representative for the Association, by our Regional Solicitor and confirmed in writing by our letter of July 2, 1981. Our position on the City of Santa Clara's filings for water rights on the Orland Project facilities for power purposes was [p. 2] stated to the board in our letters of" 06/18/1981 & 06/26/1981, copies to Minasian & OUWUA

    073081 letter Holtry/Associate WRC Engineer to Shuster/Reclamation; thanks for info in 06/18/1981 & 06/26/1981 letters, will include FERC terms at time for permit, right-of-access terms will be included in permits on 26378, 26379, 26745
    073081 letter Holtry/Hearing Unit 2 to GCID; applicant submitted enclosed answers, if alleviates your concerns let us know ASAP, else, you & "applicant should attempt to resolve the points at issue."
    080681 note Clark/GCID to Holtry/Hearing Unit 2; we contacted Santa Clara, negotiations in progress, will let you know

    110281 letter Meith/atty [Minasian] to Atherton/SWRCB; Regs Section 698 petitions [now 686]; per discussions, "agreement with respect to the procedural handling of any reconsideration by the Board and Court review of the action of the staff in rejecting the . . . Petitions due to the fact that the water rights in question are in the titular name of" Reclamation. [para] "It is agreed that litigation on this issue at this time may be substantially affected by the outcome of the Board's deliberations and decision on the competitive applications of the City of Santa Clara and Orland Unit to appropriate the water necessary for the Projects. Obviously, that Decision could render any action on the above Petitions totally moot. It is agreed that the 30 day limitation period set forth in Section 1705.35 should commence only after the issuance of final Board action in this proceedings. [para] Therefore, it is stipulated that any Petition for a Writ of Mandate pursuant to the provisions of Section 1705.5 of the Water Code shall be filed within 30 days of the final Order of the Board issued in the competitive proceeding for appropriations of water in Application Nos. 26379, 26378, 26745 (City of Santa Clara) and Application Nos. 26658, 26659 and 26682 (Orland Unit)." Agree by signing & returning.
  • 110481 Agreed and Accepted SWRCB /s/ Carole C. Atherton

    120181 form letter Schuster/Reclamation to ???; "We are pleased to send you for your information a copy of our appraisal report dated" 10/1981 "on adding hydroelectric powerplants at Stony Gorge and East Park Dams, Orland Project, California. The appraisal-level studies show that at Stony Gorge Dam, adding a 3,000-kilowatt powerplant is economically justified; therefore, a feasibility study is warranted. Adding a powerplant at East Park Dam, however, is not economically justified at this time, so no further study is planned."
    121081 FERC City of Santa Clara Project No. 3193-001 Notice of - Application for Major License; per Federal Power Act 16 USC 791(a) - 825(r); "modification of the existing Stony Gorge Dam Outlet works by removing and reinstalling the existing needle valves at the end of two new 50-inch diameter Y-branched penstock extensions. The new penstock extensions would each be 48 feet long and the penstock branches leading to a proposed powerhouse would each be approximately 100 feet long. In summary the proposed project would consist of: (1) two 50-inch diameter Y-branched penstocks; (2) a powerhouse containing two generating units with a combined rated capacity of 3,900 kW; and (e) appurtenant facilities. [para] Applicant estimates the total cost of the project at $11.1 million. Project power would be used in the Applicant's municipal utility system to reduce energy purchases." Competing applications due by 02/16/1982; "Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a petition to intervene" Rules of Practice & Procedure, 18 cfr 1.8 or 1.10 (1980); "...Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a petition to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding." by 02/16/1982; filings must show in all caps, COMMENTS, NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION, COMPETING APPLICATION, PROTEST, or PETITION TO INTERVENE, & project number of notice; send to 2 FERC addresses in DC, & serve on applicant
    123081 form letter Walsh/Div WRights to Von Raesfeld/City of Santa Clara; many power aps, ask for info: FERC project number; number and names on any competing aps; copy of any ap for FERC exemption from licensing; date received FERC prelimary permit or approval or exemption and a copy of the FERC order; copy of FERC license ap if no ap for exemption; notify of any other permits needed


    Cat 1 CORRESPONDENCE VOL. 2 OF 3

    LOOSE PAPERS IN BACK OF FILE;

    05??63 map Figure 4-1 East Park Dam, Stony Gorge & Black Butte Dam, - Hydroelectric Project, Location Map, adapted from SC-26-26 USACE Black Butte Project General Map, Lower Stony shows "Flood - damage area" Showing competing Aps, Black Butte 26379 Santa Clara & 26658 OUWUA; Stony Gorge 26378 Santa Clara & 26659 OUWUA; East Park Dam 26745 Santa Clara & 26682 OUWUA;


    PAPERS "BOUND" IN FILE (re-sorted in date order):

    1982


    010682 form memo Yang/SWRCB to Fellows/DWR; Ap 26378 FERC 3193 SCH 81122010; need a proper environmental doc, combined state & federal encouraged, should include a discussion of the need for the electrical energy;
    010782 letter Foster/Chmn Colusa Bd of Supervisors to Walsh/Div WRights; questions soundness of hydro permit for East Park, attached summary of reasons; "Petitions of Protest were prepared for the" 12/15 "water right hearing and those individuals from colusa County were present at that scheduled hearing. Those same individuals will be attending the" 01/11/1983 "water right hearing to present petitions of protest including this letter. Supervisor F.M. Marsh, Phil Shimmel of Stonyford and David Johnson of Colusa will be providing oral testimony at this hearing."
  • UNDATED Reasons why the SWRCB Should Not Grant a Permit for Power Generation at the East Park Reservoir in Colusa County:
    - "Environmental analysis and determination does not appear adequate to prevent:
    - - A. Significant impacts on the environment:
    - - - i) Fish and wildlife habitat would suffer from an excessive impact on the lake's water level;
    - - - ii) the safety of families and their children will be affected by excessive drawdown.
    - - - iii) the proposed project will have an adverse impact on the storage of water in the reservoir thus affecting family recreation at the only warm water lake in Colusa County.,
    - - B. Concern for the project's feasibility -- the amount of power generated would not balance out the cost to the public interest. is it cost effective?
    - - C. Concern for the project's excessive conflict with present agricultural, fish and wildlife use. Increased releases would cause the reservoir to dry up a portion of the year due to its dependency on precipitation through the winter months."

    011182 letter Meith/atty SWRCB; what they said in attached letter, repeated, repeated....
  • 120881 letter Schuster/Reclamation to Meith/Minasian atty; met with you & Mr. Minasian 10/13/1981 to discuss your letter of 10/06/1981 [where is?] OUWUA asked "the Bureau make appropriate filings with the" SWRCB "to add hydroelectric power as an incidental use to the Stony Gorge Project." "the Bureau cannot file petitions with the Board to include power under its existing appropriative rights." [which are?] "It is the policy of" Reclamation "that preference for licensing of non-Federal power development at bureau facilities be given to the project operator. In this case, the Association would be the preferred builder of any potential non-Federal hydroelectric facility at Stony Gorge. [para] Based on this policy, the Bureau supports the Association's filing for a water right permit to appropriate water from Stony Creek in Glenn County for power generation purposes at the site of our Stony Gorge Dam. We responded to the Board's notice of the Association's application by stating that the Bureau has no objection to the Association pursuing a water right permit for the development of hydroelectric power generation at Stony Gorge Dam."

    011882 Summons, OUWUA & Roger Hunt v. City of Santa Clara, Butte County Superior, Oroville, #76650 "on First Amended Complaint"
  • 011882 F OUWUA & Roger Hunt v. City of Santa Clara, #76650 Butte County Superior Court,
    - Cause 1, Declaratory Relief & Damages, Water Code Section 1245; "Roger - Hunt is the owner of certain real property, with appurtenant water rights, situated and embraced within and directly and indirectly benefited by the Orland Project, and is a shareholder of Plaintiff" OUWUA. 1245: any municipal corporation entering a watershed to take, is liable to all within that watershed whose interests are damaged. 11/04/1980 plaintiffs filed a claim for damages with the Board of City of Santa Clara, Exhibit A; attorney's fees, costs....
    - 2. Water Code 1775; 1776-1800 ; 1775 Board may permit sharing of occupancy & use if applicant can't complete it as applied for within a reasonable time; OUWUA "equitable and beneficial owners" of Orland Project; defendants refusing to share?
    - 3. Inverse condemnation;
    - Prayer:
    - - [first cause]:
    - - - per 1245, required to pay for damages from decrease of value of Orland Project property, income, Project lands
    - - - determine date of taking
    - - - "a declaration that Plaintiffs are entitled to all attorney's fees, engine ering fees, appraisal costs and other reasonable expenses incurred to the date of declaration by Plaintiffs" back to the date Defendent started proceedings
    - - - attorney's fees to obtain this declaration
    - - - damages per proof
    - - - such other
    - - Second Cause:
    - - - a declaration:
    - - - - Water Code Sections 1775,1776, 1752,1750,1751,1776 [again], 1777,1778, 1779,1780,1782 & 1800 are applicable to the Orland Project
    - - - - defendant is required to apply to SWRCB for determination of amounts payable by Defendant to Plaintiffs
    - - - - attorney fees for this & SWRCB proceedings
    - - - such other costs
    - - - such other relief
    - - Third Cause:
    - - - damages
    - - - attorney fees
    - - - such other costs
    - - - such other relief
    - Exhibit A, Claim for Damages, Amended Claim of the Orland Unit Water - Users' Association to City of Santa Clara,; in excess of one million dollars tbd, damages sustained by OUWUA and landowner members commencing about 05/01/1980 and continuing; Santa Clara power applications made without authorization, knowledge & consent of OUWUA, Donald Von Raesfeld et al.,
    - - 1. Damages arising from a decrease in value of the property, business, activities and operations of the Orland Unit Water Users' Association and of the water rights owned and held for the benefit of such organization and of consequent damages to the lands, businesses, trades, professions and occupations of those lying or operating within the boundaries of the Orland Unit Water Users' Association, arising from the taking and use by the City of Santa Clara of the power generation potential of such waters at Stony Gorge Dam and Reservoir and the waters and power generation use of those waters at Black Butte Diversion Works for the benefit of such municipal corporation, the City of Santa Clara.
    - - 2. Such damages furher arise [sic] from the taking of the property and interest in property of Claimant and the landowner members of Claimant.
    - - [p. 3] 3. Such damages furher arise [sic] from the unfair and unjustified interference by City of Santa Clara with the prospective advantage and enjoyment of the benefits of the power generation potential by" OUWUA "arising directly or indirectly form the use of the waters, power heads, dams, reservoirs and diversion works of" OUWUA "and its members."
    - - 4. Attorney fees, engineering fees, financial consultant fees and staff and Board fees
    - - - a. OUWUA & landowners & members "have paid all [p. 4] costs of constructing, operating, reconstructing and improving the East Park Dam, Rainbow Diversion Dam, Feed Canal, Stony Gorge Dam, North and South Diversion Works from Stony Creek, and the replacements thereof, by Black Butte Reservoir.
    - - - b. OUWUA "has perfected and paid the costs of developing and providing for the use and diversion of natural flow waters and stored waters in the Stony creek watershed and has paid all costs of providing for the use and availability of such waters for power generation purposes when such use became economically feasible."
    - - - c. OUWUA use of waters & facilities "for power generation purposes would provide substantial revenues and value to offset and credit against costs of delivering waters to its members, maintaining the facilities of" OUWUA "and the water supply and diversion facilities and would provide substantial credits toward the cost of water to the members of" OUWUA "forever."
    - - - d. "Each of the properties, businesses, trades, occupations and professions of the members of the Orland Unit Water Users' Association will be damaaged and decreased in [p. 5] value as a result of the inability to enjoy the financial benefits of such power generation potential of the waters and facilities of Claimant. Further, those above-named persons and entities will be unable to utilize or enjoy the use of low cost hydroelectric energy generated by such waters, facilities and power heads."
    - - - e. Other damage per Water Code 1245, & taking
    - - Proof of service of Claim
    - Verification by atty M. Anthony Soares, plaintiffs absent from Butte County [duh!] so he's verifying

    011882 letter McCarthy/Deputy City Atty Santa Clara to SWRCB re: 01/11/1982 letter Meith to ??, "requested that certain correspondence from the United State Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation be 'included in the Division's files' on the competing applications." Santa Clara believes that to be inappropriate: 1) irrelevant, 23 CAC 648.4 'irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded.'[repealed 1998?] "lack any factual or legal significants [sic] to the proceedings and can only serve to obfuscate the important issues to be decided by the Board", especially since Interior didn't protest themselves. 2) no #2?, or #2, if Interior wants to participate, the rules permit it. 23 CAC 733 [to 761 1987? repealed 1998? [doth protest too much?]
    012682 letter Meith/atty Minasian; "irrelevant" ignores the Board's Public Interest considerations; Santa Clara is arging that the recommendations of the owner of a facility are irrelevant to its use, which is silly

    012682 letter Flynn/Santa Clara Electric Utility to Walsh/Div WRights; enclosing stuff; Stony Gorge FERC license ap accepted by FERC, copies to SWRCB 01/08/1982; Negative declarations for Stony Gorge & Black Butte;
  • UNDATED Supplementary Information for Water Rights Applications:
    - 26378 Stony Gorge FERC 3193, prelim approval 10/10/1980
    - 26379 Black Butte FERC 3190, prelim approval 10/10/1980
    - 26745 East Park FERC 3507, OUWUA FERC 3946 prelim permit
  • 123081 form letter Walsh/Div WRights to Von Raesfeld/City of Santa Clara A026378 Stony Gorge; another copy
  • 123081 form letter Walsh/Div WRights to Von Raesfeld/City of Santa Clara A026379 Black Butte; another copy
  • 010482 form letter Walsh/Div WRights to Barry R. Flynn/City of Santa Clara A026745 East Park; another copy

    012882 letter James W. Burns/Resources Agency to Plumb/FERC , "reviewed the Notice of Application for Major License, Stony Gorge Project, Glenn County, submitted through" OPR, review coordinated with PUC, WRCB, Depts of Boating & Waterways, Conservation, CDFG, Forestry, Parks & Rec, Water Resources & CalTrans; applicant "must submit a document that meets" CEQA requirements as specified by SWRCB.
  • UNDATED FERC, Notice of Application for Major License , City of Santa Clara, #3193-001; similar to 12/10/1981 copy but with no dates
  • 121881 Federal Grant Application/Award Notification, State of California State Clearinghouse, #81122010 [NOTE NUMBER DIFFERENT, a 2nd number], "Proposed project would consist of two 50-in. diameter Y-branched penstocks; a powerhouse containing two generating units with a combined rated capacity of 3,900 kW; and appurtenant facilities. Applicant: City of Santa Clara"; Div WRights signoff "Chuck Vogelsang" 01/06/1982

    012882 Notice Granting Intervention, Plumb/FERC, petition by OUWUA, no objections have been received, "in the public interest to allow the petitioner to appear in this proceeding."
    020882 letter Winternitz/Environmental Specialist to Burns/Resources Agency re 81011202 [NOTE NUMBER DIFFERENT, a 3rd number] ; comments: "On an unnumbered page, the document contains a copy of a letter form the City of Santa Clara to the California State Clearinghouse. The letter is dated" 06/02/1981 "and is signed by Barry R. Flynn. The letter states that the City has prepared a Negative Declaration and Initial Study for the project and is forwarding them to the Clearinghouse for their review and circulation. This Division requests a copy of those documents for our review."
  • 011182 ? Federal Grant Application/Award Notification, State of California State Clearinghouse, #82011202 [3rd number]; "Application for license for the Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project No. 3193. The Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project will be constructed adjacent to and will utilize the outlet works of the existing Stony Gorge Dam. The hydroelectric project will consist of two penstocks, a powerhouse, switchyard, and transmission lines. 21kV transmission line." sign off "J... Wintertz" [sic] 01/22/1982

    030982 letter McCarthy/Deputy City Attorney Santa Clara to Taylor/SWRCB; "Also, Orland has filed a competing application identical to Santa Clara's. At the suggestion of Board staff, the City has not filed a Protest to this application." "...Orland has filed a State court lawsuit, originally brought in Glenn County and later transferred to Butte County, a copy of which is attached hereto [where?.]" First amended complaint [the one at 01/18/1982 ?]; "City of Santa Clara filed general and special demurrers to Orland's first amended complaint and each and every cause of action thereof. Because of the length of the City's demurrers and Orland's response thereto, I have not enclosed copies. However, the City's position was that it had no legal duty to make an application pursuant to the joint occupancy and use provisions of the Water Code and that Orland had failed to allege the requisite interest for such an administrative determination to be made." [p. 2] "At the hearing on the demurrers, the court sustained the City's demurrers to the first and third causes of action of the first amended complaint, permitting Orland leave to file a second amended complaint thereon. As to the second cause of action, the Court overruled the City's demurrers." Asking for Board views on:
    - "1. Whether or not the joint occupancy and use provisions of Water Code Sections 1775 et seq. apply to these Board proceedings.
    - 2. Whether the concept of joint occupancy and use is already embraced in the competing applications for the appropriation of water for power purposes filed by the City of Santa Clara and Orland, or whether a new form of application would be required if Orland were to ultimately prevail on the relief sought in the second cause of action.
    - 3. Whether the Bureau of Reclamation should be made a party to any proceedings wherein the concept of joint occupancy and use is determined by the Board."
    - "It has been the City's position that the Federal government in effect determines 'joint occupancy and use' of its facilities when its licensing agent, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues a license permitting Santa Clara to develop hydroelectric facilities at Stony Gorge dam, and that jurisdiction of the Board would focus more directly on the specific water rights involved, based upon State Water Law."

    031582 letter Flynn/Electric Utility Santa Clara to Walsh/Div WRights; "enclosed is a copy of the City's Initial Study, Negative Declaration [WHERE? Cat 3 vol. 1? 05/1981?], and a Notice of Determination for the project." [para] "It is our understanding that as of" 02/06/1982 "small hydroelectric projects at existing dams are categorically exempt from the environmental reporting requirements of" CEQA "if the project meets certain conditions pursuant to Section 15128 of the CEQA regulations. The proposed Stony Gorge project appears to meet the conditions specified in Section 15128, and should therefore be exempt under the new regulations."
  • 092281 Appendix D, Notice of Determination, SCH 81060908 [a 4th number]; to advise, no significant effect, NegDec, no mitigations
    - City of Santa Clara, Negative Declaration, U. 1363, Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, City of Santa Clara, "Initial Study. The Initial Study was conducted by the Project Clearance committee [of Santa Clara?] and is attached to this document. Based on this study, the project was found not to have a significant effect on the environment. Any effects noted in the Initial Study will be mitigated by the conditions of approval as shown on the attached list. Based on the Initial Study, and in conjunction with the specific conditions of approval, it has been determined that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Basis for Negative Declaration. There are no endangered species that will be affected by the project [except Chinook, Steelhead, Bald Eagles, VELB, etc.]. There are no historically significant resources in the vicinity [except for the villages occupied by thousands of Indians per General Bidwell's visit in 1844]. The potentially archeologically significant resources [such as remain] will be protected from any disturbance. The proposal does not require construction of major facilities [it's only eleven million dollars worth of construction in 1982] but increases utilization of an existing facility....not seen to have any significant effect on the environment."

    032682 letter Halterman/Hearing Unit #2 to McCarthy/Deputy City Atty Santa Clara, in your 01/18/1982 letter you object to Mr. Meith's request that the Reclamation letter be included in Division files. "please be advised that you may object to any evidence in the file at the time of the hearing if you choose to do so."
    032682 form letter Halterman/Hearing Unit #2 to GCID, no response to 07/30/1981 letter, respond or your protest will be dismissed [GCID did respond]
    033082 return receipt card
    032682 letter Halterman/Hearing Unit #2 to Von Raesfeld/City of Santa Clara, answers to OUWUA protests against 26378 & 9 received, enclosed is letter accepting OUWUA protest against 26745, 15 days to answer.
    032682 Halterman/Hearing Unit #2 to OUWUA; 26378, 26379; "reviewed your" 06/05/1981 "statement of grounds supplementing your" 10/17/1980 "protests and have determined your protest based upon all three grounds covered in your" 06/05/1981 "supplement is accepted. [para] Your" 06/24/1981 "protest against Application 26745 also is accepted. [para] Your" 06/29/1981 "protest against Application 26378 is a duplicate of your" 10/17/1980 "protest against the same application except that you filed it in the name of the Orland Project/United States of America, Department of Interior, Water and Power Resources Service by its agent the Orland Unit Water Users' Association. By letter dated" 07/23/1981, "the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has advised us they do not wish to protest Application 26378. This protest therefore is rejected. [uh, wait a minute?] As requested in your" 06/11/1981 "letter, we will recommend to the Board that any hearin held on Applications 26378, 26379, and 26745 be conducted jointly with any hearing required on your competing Applications 26658, 26659, and 26682."

    040182 letter Clark/GCID to Halterman/Div WRights ; calls & visit to GCID by City of Santa Clara attorney have not led to a "clarification of issues presented in our original protest."
    041682 memo Sabiston? to Bck Taylor; competing aps; attached background summary; staff unaware of "precedents in the use of Water Code 1775" et seq. but the Board has discretion. Santa Clara & OUWUA projects are virtually identical except OUWUA has ability to modify its release schedule to optimize power, and Santa Clara doesn't; "It would seem that the Association must build a very convincing case that their operation of the retrofit hydroelectric projects would result in a significantly higher power production, and thus a larger portion of the stream's potential, to qualify for use of Section 1775. [para] For further background on the Association's legal challenges to Santa Clara's applications, see the correspondence between Carole Atherton and Minasian's staff (filed in Application 2212, folder B). Minasian's letter dated" 08/07/1981 "claims that the Association, rather than USBR, owns the water rights to the Orland Project. The current complaint regarding the use of Water Code Section 1775, et. [sic] seq., is simply an attack from a different flank. [p. 2] If the Court does not grant the Association the right to invoke Water Code Section 1775, et. [sic] seq., it may not be necessary to hold a hearing on these applications. The protests still outstanding (see Table B of summary) can probably be resolved on the basis that project operations will be unchanged from past practices. The Association will probably not be agreeable to dismissing their protests under any circumstances, but without FERC permits and water rights priority ( on Stony Gorge and Black Butte), they really no longer would have a basis of protest. [para] It seems unlikely that either applicant will pursue the East Park project if the conclusions in USBR's October 1981 appraisal report are valid."
  • 041282 Memo to files Qualley/Hearing Section 12 pp.; 26378, 26659 - Stony Gorge; 26379, 26658 Black Butte; 26745, 26682 [on Alchemy? at SWRCB] \East Park; p. 4 "5. Existing Water Rights. [para] The U.S. Bureau of reclamation holds the water rights for all the facilities of the Orland and Black Butte Projects. Neither the" OUWUA " nor the individual owners belonging to the Association have any decreed or appropriative rights to Orland Project water." [uh, not exactly - the rights the individual owners have to the water may be indefeasible if you look at the contracts and various court recognitions of Reclamation's projects.] S6354 East Park / S6353 Rainbow [ or is it the other way around?] "For a detailed description of the water rights on the two projects, see the 'Background' Section of D 1558 (Andreotti)" On 05/28/1918 "the United States commenced a quiet title action in the United States District Court, Northern District, Second Division, entitled United States of America v. H.C. Angle, et al., in Equity No. 30, referred to herein as the 'Angle' case. The Court entered a final decree in the Angle case on" 01/13/1930. [para] The federal adjudication set forth in the Angle Decree confirmed the existence of USBR's pre-1914 appropriative right, and the water rights of [p. 6] approximately 100 other water users in the Stony Creek watershed [wrong, it adjudicated the entire watershed as to surface flow]. A copy of the Angle Decree is filed under 266.411 in the Division of Water Rights file room. [see http://www.mjbarkl.com/266-411.htm ] ; On Ap 2212, License 2652 issued in 1944. "Black Butte Dam and Lake. On" 04/30/1958 "the California Department of Water Resources filed Application 18115 for the appropriation of 160,000 afa from Stony Creek at the Black Butte Lake site. This 'State Filing' was assigned to USBR in 1960 subject to the usual 'County of origin' condition, among others." SWRCB "adopted Decision 1100 in 1962 approving the application in part, and Permit 13776 was subsequently issued. As stated earlier, Black Butte Dam was completed in 1963." [para 8] ",,,Association's protest based on vested rights and public interest was accepted (in May 1981) as submitted in October 1980. The then supplied additional supporting information for their contrary to law, not in Board's jurisdiction, and environmental bases in June 1981; their protest on these additional bases was accepted in March 1982." [para 10]. OUWUA "has requested (letter dated" 12/18/1981 ") that they be allowed to use Santa Clara's environmental documents for their competing applications. Initial reaction by Board staff is that separate environmental documents will be required since the projects are proposed by two different entities and the use of power (as well as project operation) [page] may not be in the same manner. In this case, the Board will probably be lead agency for preparation of the Association's CEQA documents." [para 12] "Current Status. Efforts are presently underway to resolve the 13 protests still active (9 against Santa Clara's application, 4 against the Association's). Answers have been sent out to most of the protestants, but negotiations have not yet been completed. The Court's decision regarding whether or [page] not the Association has the right to invoke Water Code sections 1775, et seq., will have a major influence on the length of time needed to settle the Water Rights issues involved in these competing applications."
    - 040582 Table A, Orland Project Power filings, Key Dates for Water - Rights Apps. & FERC Apps.; OUWUA FERC petition #3946?, [what was?] granted 04/03/1981 [FERC prelim permit? SWRCB prelim permit?]
    - 040582 Table B, Protests on Orland/Black Butte Project Power Filings -
      APPLICATION      PROTESTANT      DATE PROTEST  BASIS OF PROTEST               CURRENT STATUS/COMMENTS
                                       RECEIVED
      Black Butte      
      A26379 (S.C.)    1) OUWUA        10/22/1980    Vested Rights Jurisdiction,    Answered by S.C. 07/17/1981;
        Noticed 				       Public Interest, Law,          Litigation by Orland pending
        04/30/1981                                   Environment
                       2) GCID         05/27/1981    Vested Rights (Angle)          Answered by S.C. 07/13/1981
                                                                                    G.C. negotiating per
                                                                                    8/06/1981 note
      A26658 (Orland)  1) NCCFFC       09/28/1981    Public Interest &              Answered by Orland
        Noticed        (Fly fishers)                 Environ. (Screen               09/28/1981; not
        09/18/1981     [where is?]                   outlet)                        yet resolved.
      - - -
      Stony Gorge      
      A26378 (S.C.)    1) OUWUA        11/22/1980    Vested rights, Jurisdiction,   Answered by S.C.07/17/1981
        Noticed 				       Public Interest, Law,          Litigation by Orland
        04/30/1981				       Environ.                       pending
      
                       2) GCID         05/27/1981    Vested Rights (Angle)          Answered by S.C.07/13/1981;  
                                                                                    GC negotiating per
                                                                                    08/06/1981 note
                       3) USBR (by     06/29/1981    Rejected, not authorized       See memo from
                       Orland as                     as USBR agent [but maybe       USBR dated
                       Agent)                        by Angle Decree? ]             07/23/1981
      
      A26659 (Orland)  1) NCCFFC       09/28/1981    Public Interst & Environ.      Protest Withdrawn
        Noticed        (Fly                          (Minimum Fish releases)        01/12/1982
        09/18/1981     Fishers)
      - - -
      East Park
      A26745 (S.C.)    1) OUWUA        06/30/1981    Vested Rights (Angle via       Accepted 03/25/1982
        Noticed                                      USBR)       
        06/05/1981     2) SCWD         07/17/1981    Vested Rights (A25261)         Accepted 03/26/1982
                       (Jessie                       Public Interest, Environ.
                       Westcamp)
                       3) CDFG         07/13/1981    Public Interest, Environ.      Withdrawn 11/17/1981
      	         4) Francis &    08/04/1981    Public Interest, Environ.      Answered by SC 09/29/1981
      	         Marie Graham                                                 Answer rejected 10/27/1981
      	                                                                      Protest accepted 03/26/1982
                       5) Suzanne      08/04/1981    Public Interest, Environ.      Answered by S.C. 09/29/1981
                       Graham &                                                     Answer rejected 10/30/1981
                       Donald Bafus                                                 Protest accepted 03/26/1982
                       6) Kathryn      08/13/1981    Public Interest, Environ.      Rejected 03/26/1982
                       Scheer                                                       Received after deadline
                       
      
      A266825 (Orland) 1) Francis      02/24/1982    Public Interest
        Noticed        & Marie
        01/22/1982     Graham
                       2) Phil         03/10/1982    Public Interest, Environ.
                       Shimmel
                       3) County of    03/25/1982    Public Interest, Environ.
                       Colusa 
      

    041682 memo Sabiston to Beck Taylor? [another copy]
    042082 letter McCarthy/SClara atty to Halterman/Div WRights; no objection to competing aps being heard jointly, but request 26378 & 26379 be held ASAP, everything SC had to do is ready including CEQA review, no further cause for delay exists; on 26745 (East Park) FERC not yet issued preliminary permit & no environmental review started;
    042882 letter Paul Minasian/atty to Halterman/Div Wrights; not holding East Park hearing with other 2 will waste the Board's time; quotes Section 27 of 16 USC 821 re no interference with State control of water for irrig., etc., [but quoted to what purpose? environmental docs aren't ready and if FERC denied, then docs aren't needed]; "Many of the very same issues arise and questions in all of these filings relating to the effect of the Angle Decree, whether or not the Board has, or wishes to exercise, jurisdiction in regard to the power development of pre-1914 appropriative rights held by the Orland Project, and more particularly, whether or not the party holding and operating dams and reservoirs for the purposes of beneficial use of the water for irrigation purposes is the party best able to maximize and beneficially use water for power generation purposes at those facilities."
    052782 memo Qualley to files, all 6 aps; notes similarities between attached FERC order and the competing projects, thought it useful to copy order to all 6 files;
  • 050382 Order Denying Appeal 19 FERC para 61,098, DWR 3209, North Kern - Water Storage District 3518, Kern County Water Agency 4124; award in order: 1) best "adapted to develop, conserve, and utlize in the public interest the water resources of the region"; 2) a municipality; 3) first ap accepted, 18 cfr 4.33(g); Kern 1) it was first and DWR copied its plans, 2) as controlling of releases best able to optimize power, & 3) they spent all the money on that storage and ought to get the benefit; FERC said, naaa.
    080982 contact report Halterman called [by?] Ron Nichols, consultant for applicant [which applicant?]; status of 26378 & 26379 [Santa Clara]; if hearing, a hearing for all competing? DWS talked to Ron 08/16, hearing on all 6 aps.
    081982 letter Sabiston/Hearing Section to Minasian/OUWUA atty & McCarthy/atty Santa Clara; planning a combined hearing on all 6 aps; NCCFFC = Northern California Council of Fly Fishing Clubs, Roy Haile, President, P.O. Box 725 Dunsmuir, CA 96025; Kathryn Scheer, 18 East Rosemont Ave., Alexandria, VA 22301; Suzanne Graham & Donald Bafus, 4114 Clovernook, Seabrook, TX 77586; Francis & Marie Graham, 327 Foote Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94112;
    083182 FERC Order Issuing New License (Major) and Denying Motions; City of Santa Clara 3193-001; 20 FERC para 61,257; OUWUA asks for 1) stay pending SWRCB rights proceeding, 2) evidentiary hearing on issues realting to OUWUA rights and reponsibilities as the operator of the Dam - both denied; no persuasive legal or equitable argument for stay; also ignored, OUWUA arguments
    - 1) Reclamation's Stony Gorge Dam is not in compliance with existing dam safety regulations of the U.S.
    - 2) Reclamation took position the operator should be given preference
    - 3) City of Santa Clara must compensate OUWUA for various items regarding construction, operation & maintenace of Stony Gorge Dam
    - 4) City of Santa Clara has no control over flows through Stony Gorge Dam, yet proposed project may have an adverse effect on the schedule of flows form Stony Gorge Reservoir. [FERC humor?]
    - no evidentiary hearing required to dispose of these; concern about the impoundment structure should be referred to Reclamation; compensable interest? [for what?] refer to Reclamation; Reclamation's interest does not confer any authority over who to give the permit to; adverse effect on flow is without merit because it won't have any effect on flow; "The proposed project structures would be safe and adequate if constructed in accordance with accepted engineering practices and constructed in accordance with accepted engineering practices and construction procedures and if USBR proposals to modify the Stony Gorge dam to allow overtopping for floods of a 50-to-100 year frequency are considered in the design of the project structures." will require transmission lines be constructed to minimize electrocution of bald eagles [how?]; project consist of "1) all lands, to the extent of the Licensee's interest in those lands, constituting the project area and enclosed by the project boundary. The project area and boundary are shown and described by certain exhibits that form part of the application....G-1... Project Boundary Map" (leaflet format, 2 pages per page, 4 pages per sheet)
    091682 letter Flynn/Santa Clara Electric Utility to Walsh/Div WRights; received FERC license for Stony Gorge, copy enclosed, anticipates FERC license for Black Butte within two months;
  • - letter Cackowski/FERC to Flynn/Santa Clara Electric; enclosed are 4 copies, execute acknowledgment & return 3 along with "acceptance resolution of your Board of Directors authorizing such acceptance."
    083182 FERC Order Issuing New License (Major) and Denying Motions; City - of Santa Clara 3193-001; 20 FERC para 61,257; (second copy , single pages)
    101282 FERC Order Granting Rehearing for Purpose of Further Consieration; OUWUA filed appeal; solely for further consideration and "not a grant or denial of the application on its merits in whole or in part." "No responses to the application for rehearing will be entertained by the Commission."
    102582 letter Sabiston/Div WRights to all, 6 competing applications, hearing 12/15/1982, time & place tbd.
    110282 letter Paul Minasian/aty to Sabiston/Div WRights; asks for a conference to: 1) identify isues, 2) provide for the order of presenting evidence, 3) briefing schedule in advance of the hearing, 4) provide for attendance and participation of Reclamation (is this an ex parte communication?)
    111082 letter Bieg/Hearing Unit to Minasian; staff atty Buck Taylor assigned to this hearing out of the country until 11/29/1982, schedule conference for 12/02/1982 10:00 a.m.; copies are notice to all parties

    111982 Water Right Hearing Notice for 12/15/1982 10:00 a.m.; 2 pp. -
  • UNDATED form Information Concerning Appearance at Water Right Hearings; - enclosed hearing pamphlet, 733.5 rules to discourage surprises; 1) submit to the board & other parties a list of witnesses per enclosed forms; 2) copy of proposed exhibits to each party & 3 copies to the board; and proponent's shall include environmental documents; 3) "At least ten days before the hearing, each party intending to submit testimony regarding cumulative environmental impacts shall supply one copy of that testimony in writing to each party and" 3 copies to the board. No comply with 733.5, may be considered intent not to appear, yielding cancellation of the hearing, etc.; if hearing cancelled or rescheduled, only those notifying of intent to appear will be informed;
  • Mailing list for Applications 26745 et. al. (should be et seq. or etc.?)
  • Staff Summary for Hearing, 6 pp; -
    - Substance of Applications
    - 26745 East Park
    - - OUWUA
    - - - not within Board's Jurisdiction/contrary to law
    - - - not best conserve the public interest
    - - - adverse environmental impact
    - - - Existing rights: Angle Decree in name of USA
    - - SCWD
    - - - destroy irrigation facilities/damage downstream property on Little Stony
    - - - use water needed during irrigation season May-Oct
    - - - Existing rights: Decreed riparian rights [whose?]; permit 17823
    - - CDFG
    - - - Water Code Section 1243 & 1257
    - - - F & G Code 1603 & 5937
    - - - not best conserve public interest
    - - - adverse environmental impact
    - - - Existing rights: none
    - - Francis and Marie Graham
    - - - "Requested flow would destroy ecological balance by causing channel changes due to excessive erosion and destruction of trees and brush along the stream banks."
    - - - "would empty the reservoir in a short period of time endangering the agricultural use of the land and the water supply for livestock and wildlife."
    - - - "Would not best conserve public interest."
    - - - Existing rights: none
    - - Suzanne and Donald Bafus
    - - - same as Graham
    - 26682
    - - Francis and Marie Graham
    - - - same as 26745
    - - County of Colusa
    - - - "proposed project will have an adverse impact on the storage of water in the reservoir thus affecting family recreation at the only warm water lake in Colusa County.
    - - - "not best conserve public interest"
    - - - "have an adverse environmental impact."
    - - - Existing rights: none claimed
    - 26378 Stony Gorge
    - - OUWUA , same
    - - GCID
    - - - "power plant operation might assume control over releases from the reservoir thus interfering with existing rights and agreements"
    - - - Existing rights: Angle rights
    - 26659
    - - Northern California Council of Fly Fishing Clubs
    - - - Water Code Sections 1243 & 1257
    - - - F & G Code 5937, 5943 & 6100
    - - - Public Resources Code Section 21001
    - - - Would have an adverse environmental impact
    - - - Would not conserve public intrest
    - - - Existing rights: No claim
    - 26379 Black Butte
    - - OUWUA , same
    - - GCID, same
    - - NCCFFC, same
  • Scope of Hearing
    - responsive to issues that were raised "insofar as they relate to matters within the jurisdiction of the Board."
    - in particular
    - - anticipated injury to protestants & others
    - - rights claimed under Angle
    - - in Board's jurisdiction to issue the permits?
    - - permits contrary to law?
    - - anticipated environmental injury?
    - - mitigations
    - - in the public interest?
    - - power pre-sold?
    - - projects feasible? which is most efficient?
    - - joint occupancy of 1775 applicable/
    - - special terms?
  • Documents
    - ap files for these aps
    - ap files 2212 & 18115
    - Angle Decree
    - Sacramento River Basin 5A Water Quality Control Plan
    - USGS "Water Resources Data for California" vol. 4 "Northern Central Valley Basins an the Great Basin from Honey Lake Basin to Oregon State Line", & all predecessor publications.
    - NOAA climatological data
    - top maps
  • 111282 map, SWRCB aps 26378, 26379, 26745, 26658, 26659, 26682

    112982 letter Frink/Staff Counsel I to Meith/Minasian; enclosed subpoena for Michael A. Catino you requested; after service, please return with completed proof
    112982 letter Phil B. Shimmel to SWRCB; Plan to attend 12/15/1982 - hearing; "I am a citizen concerned to see that the interests of the people living here in Stonyford and the local area are heard. I will present, at a later date, a petition of local people who are also very concerned about this matter. [para] ...The amount of water that would be released would dry up East Park Reservoir very fast. This would leave it dry for most of the spring, summer and fall. These dams are filled by the rains that come October through January. After May they do not receive enough water to keep them full. This would cause a big conflict with agricultural use, fish and wildlife. [para] It would have a very heavy impact on this area. The people from the Bay area, Sacramento and other valley cities would not be able to use these lakes for rishing, boating and othr recreation. [para] There is some concern that the release may go through some Old Indian Campgrounds that were on both sides of Little Stonycreek and we would like to know what kind of study has been completed to protect or dig or record this history. [para] I am mailing a copy of the above to the parties on your mailing list. Also, I am writing to see if the" FERC "has any data or environmental impact report as they have issued a license for the Stony Gorge Project. If I receive this in time I may wish to address this matter also."

    112982 Notice of Intent to Appear; Francis Gordon Graham and Marie Graham; 1) Need for further study of applications; 2) Lack of sufficient report on the effect on local and down stream environment; 3) Risk and benefit; 4) Devastation of possible Indian Burial Grounds; 5) Taking without just compensation; 6) Possibly will bring Lawrence Moore, Sr., an expert on the History of the Stonyford Area and the Indian Tribes of that Area." (3 copies)
    120282 Notice of Intent to Appear; J. Somerville, President SCWD; "No witnesses are scheduled. Attendance is to deomonstrate interest, ask questions if called upon and rebut if necessary."

    UNDATED Meeting 12/02/1982 Regarding City of Santa Clara and OUWUA - Aps to Appropriate Water at East Park, Stony Gorge, and Black Butte Reservoirs:
  • M.G. Taylor, State Board, 924-2253
  • Gary Simon, Consultant/SWRCB, 325-4617
  • Harold Meyer, USBR, 484-4627
  • Tony Colon, USBR, 484-4512
  • Jim Turner, Attorney/USBR, 484-4451
  • Tony Soares, Attorney/Orland Unit, 533-3885
  • Jeff Meith, Attorney/Orland Unit, 533-3885
  • Leo Winternitz, SWRCB, 924-2484
  • John Rockema, City of Santa Clara, 408/984-3161
  • Barry F. McCarthy, City of Santa Clara, 408/984-3232
  • Ron Nichols, Resource Management Intl., 924-1534
  • Keith Bieg, State Board, 924-2423
  • "This meeting was held to discuss the items listed in the Hearing Notice under Scope of Hearing to determine: 1. On which items the parties place the most emphasis regarding proposed testimony. 2) How much time the parties anticipate they will require for oral testimony. 3) Which items deal with factual data and which are legal points that would be better dealt with by written briefs. There was a discussion regarding timing for submitting of legal briefs and replies. 4) Any testimony the parties plan to solicit from the Bureau. The points the parties wish the Bureau to address must be submitted to the Bureau before hand so that the testimony can be approved prior to the hearing. 5) It was determined that at least one additional hearing day will be required (January 11th and 19th are already reserved). Additional time for oral arguments on the legal briefs was requested." "There was discussion regarding some of the questions the Board would be asking both applicants at the hearing, such as: 1) Have any agreements been reached or talks started with Bureau regarding construction at the Federal facilities. 2) What economic studies have been completed to determine the feasibility of the projects."

    120382 letter Meith/atty to Walsh/Div Wrights; enclosed 3 copies of - proposed exhibits of OUWUA, all else believed to be in the Board's files; informed staff 12/02/1982 OUWUA "has under consideration the preparation of a preliminary feasibility study related to the financing of this project, and the marketing of the power to be benerated therefrom. [para] This is in response to the statements of Mr. Simon at the prehearing conference related to the importance of this particular issue in this matter. The studies directed to this issue shall be submitted in advance of the presentation by" OUWUA. "...also enclosing...a list of proposed witnesses of" OUWUA, order of presentation tbd.
  • 120382 Notice of Intent to appear; Jeffery A. Meith; witnesses: -
    - Roger Hunt, Public Interest, 1-1/2 hours, expert no
    - Bob Hollis, Public Interest, 1-1/2 hours, no
    - Mike Catino, Bureau of Reclamation position, 1/2 hour, no
    - Jeffrey A. Meith, FERC proceedings, 1 hour, expert yes
    - Reggie Olney, Orland Project - Public Interest, 1 hour, no
    - In addition to the above, qualifications shall be submitted for witnesses who will present power marketing and financial feasibility reports at such time as those reports are submitted"
  • Qualifications of Jeffrey A. Meith; "Employed by the" FERC "formerly the Federal Power Commission from" 09/1972 - 10/1973; "Employed by the Office of General Counsel primarily in the area of electric and gas pipeline rate review and hearings as well as representing the Federal Power Commission in matters of appellate review before the District of Columbia, Circuit Court of Appeals." [para] 11/1973 - 11/1974 "employed by the California Public Utilities Commission in the office of General Counsel, Appellate Division. Represented the Commission before the Federal Power Commission in energy related matters of interest to the State of California and represented the Commission in Appellate matters before the California Supreme Court." 09/1974 - 11/1978 "Pacific Lighting Corporation, parent company of Southern California Gas Company. Represented that Company in administrative proceedings before the California" PUC & FERC. "administrative proceedings related to certification of construction of major facilities and gas rate increases." [para] 08/1979 - now, "associate, and am now a partner, with the law firm of MINASIAN, MINASIAN, MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER & MEITH in Oroville, California. I have represented numerous irrigation districts and water agency clients....
    - Solano Irrigation District, Monticello Power Project
    - Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District, Sly Creek Power Project
    - Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District, French Creek Power Project
    - Tri-Dam Project of Oakdale Irrigation District and South San Joaquin Irrigation District
    - Orland Unit Water Users' Association, Stony Gorge and East Park Hydroelectric Projects
    - Nevada Irrigation District, Rollins Hydroelectric Project" [end]
  • 012682 FERC Order Amending License (Major) 2100-010, 18 FERC 161.056; response to intervention by OWID that DWR lacks the water rights to operate the proposed Palermo Canal power plant; relevance?
  • - 052554 Reclamation... Contract with OUWUA for the Care, Operation, and Maintenance of the Orland Project, 14.06.200.3502 [garbled copy; but number appears to be correct]
  • 040309 Agreement Between U.S.A. and Orland Unit Water Users Association; - different format from Angle case Doc. #278-5

    120682 letter McCarthy/Santa Clara to Walsh/Div WRights; notice of - appear w/expert quals, Ronald O. Nichols, enclosing copies of FERC license for Stony Gorge, FERC prelim permits for Black Butte & East Park to protestants, those are already on file with the Board
  • - 120682 Notice of Intent to Appear, witnesses
    - John Roukema, City Utility - Public Interest, 1/2 hour; expert no
    - Ronald O. Nichols, Project Descriptions, environmental considerations, feasibility, 2-1/2 hrs, expert yes
  • Qualifications of Ronald O. Nichols; "economist and planner with extensive experience in hydroelectric project planning and development, power market evaluation, and feasibility assessment. As a principal of Resource Management International, Inc. (RMI)...project manager for the reconnaissance level feasibility assessment, environmental analysis; government permit, license, and approval process; detailed feasibility study; and project planning for the Black Butte, Stony Gorge, and East Park Dam hydroelectric projects for the work performed by RMI and subcontractors to RMI, under contract to the City of Santa Clara." [para] 01/1980 - now, VP at RMI for "feasibility assessment, economic analysis, project licensing and permitting, and power market evaluation for power projects, including but not limited to, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind energy and cogeneration projects." 1978 - 1980 project manager with Energy Division, DWR, "economic evaluation of hydroelectric projects and participation in contract negotiations for the purchase of power from hydroelectric and geothermal power projects." "evaluation of small hydroelectric development at existing dams as part of preparation of the DWR Bulletin No. 211 Small Hydroelectric Potential at Existing Hydraulic Structures in California. [para] 1978 - 1978 "economic analyst and later a project manager with the California Energy Commission Power Plant Siting Division where he was responsible for the management of a 12 to 18 member staff of economists, environmental specialists and engineers in assessing the economic, environmental, and reliability considerations of power plant siting applications submitted by the electric utilities of California." [para] BS Ag Economics & Business Management UC DAvis, "completed post-graduate studies in land use planning and energy conservation" at UC Davis.

    120682 Notice of Intent to Appear, Kathryn Scheer "I am unable to be present; Francis and Marie Graham will be present in my behalf." Gordon Graham and Matthew Graham - 2 hour, expert no ; 1) Need to protect our riparian water rights, 2) Taking those water rights promised by the Federal Government at the time the East Park Dam was built; and ignoring them; 3) Insufficient concern for the downstream environment (3 copies)
    120782 letter Peterson/Chair, Colusa County Board of Supervisors, to Walsh/Div WRights; "questioning the soundness of granting a permit for hydro-elecvtric power generation on Stony Creek at East Park Reservoir in Colusa County" list of reasons attached; [para] "Appearing at your scheduled" 12/15/1982 "water right hearing in Sacramento will be Mr. Phil Shimmel, a local citizen of Stonyford, in Colusa County. He will be presenting petitions of protest which will include this letter. Mr. Shimmel is authorized to provide oral testimony on behalf of the County at this hearing."
  • UNDATED Reasons why the SWRCB Should Not Grant a Permit for Power Generation at the East Park Reservoir in Colusa County: [same as list attached to 01/07/1982 Foster letter]

    121082 letter Nichols/RMI to Winternitz/Div WRights; enclosed p. III-19 to Initial Environemental Study for Stony Gorge, missing from your copy
    122182 Water Right Hearing Notice, Additional Hearing Dates, 01/11/1983, 01/19/1983,
    122182 Declaration of Service by Mail; Hearing Notice (Supplemental), Sally Jane Lake for SWRCB
  • Mailing list for Applications 26745 et al
  • Water Right Hearing Notice, Additional Hearing Dates (another copy)
  • 122382 Many return receipt cards
    122282 letter Meith/OUWUA atty to McCarthy/Santa Clara; per agreement - at the meeting here are further questions:
    - 1) "describe how Santa Clara will schedule receipts of power from the Stony Creek Power Project (at all three dams) into its resource planning for distribution and sale within the City of Santa Clara. In this regard, we are most interested in how a utility such as the City of Santa Clara, will schedule a basically interruptable source of power from Stony Creek into its system and how adequate backup will be provided to handle those interruptions.
    - 2) "At the testimony of Mr. Roukema, it was suggested that an agreement may be entered into with PG & E to sell this power to PG & E, or an agreement may be entered to with WAPA for sale during an interim period. Please describe any and all details of any studies which have been made, negotiations which have taken place, or any considerations related to sale of this power to any entity such as PG & E or Western Area Power Administration."
    - 3) What consideration has the City of Santa Clara given to reimbursing either" Reclamation and/or OUWUA "for the ongoing costs of maintenance and operation of the facilities, and the imbedded capital costs of the facilities which have been paid by" OUWUA? "In this regard, Mr. Roukema was not aware of any such discussions or studies from the City of Santa Clara and was not at a level to discuss the City's policy and planning."
    - 4) "Use of the Orland Project for hydroelectric generation is subject to operation of the Project by" OUWUA "for the continuance of irrigation flows. Please provide the steps the City of Santa Clara has taken to insure compatibility of Orland Unit's operations with the City's plans for the hydroelectric facility."
    - 5) "Does the City of Santa Clara agree to abide by all decisions made by" OUWUA "related to the operation and maintenace of East Park and Stony Gorge dams and reservoirs. [?] If the City of Santa Clara does not so agree, and if it should disagree with the operational and maintenance decisions of the" OUWUA, "what steps would the City of Santa Clara take to resolve those differences of opinion?"
    - further inquiry at the hearing based on your answers; "a policy witness from the City of Santa Clara to adress the above questions, is requested."
    UNDATED "Closing form for File Folders"


    Cat 1 CORRESPONDENCE VOL. 3 OF 3

    LOOSE PAPERS IN BACK OF FILE;
  • 071480 map, City of Santa Clara, Engineering Department, Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project Application No,. 26378, (another copy, 1st in Corres vol. 1)
    05??86 blueprint, Stony Gorge Hydro Project Penstock System Plan and Profile, drawing SG-PEN-8801


    PAPERS "BOUND" IN FILE (re-sorted in date order):

    1983


    010483 letter Nichols/RMI to Bieg/Div WRights; enclosed are copies of Santa Clara FERC license Aps and preliminary FERC Ap for East Park;
    010583 letter McCarthy/Santa Clara to Meith/atty; answers to Meith letter
  • 1) "To answer this question precisely, we must first define the nature of the Santa Clara hydroelectric projects. An 'interruptible' project is one in which the power deliveries can be interrupted instantaneously without notice. Consequently, such a project requires 100% backup from an operation standpoint (spinning reserve) as well as a planning standpoint (capacity reserve). A non-firm project is one that can be scheduled for day-to-day operations but cannot be relied upon in the long term planning process. Thus, a non-firm project can be operated consistent with some schedule (irrigation flood control or power production releases). All that is required is the proper coordination [page 2] of the schedules of the respective operations and the provision of a normal spinning reserve. However, from a planning standpoint such a non-firm project does not carry with it high probability of availability in the worst case event (e.g., dry year). For such facilities, utilities plan for energy deliveries but assume that a reduced level of capacity will be available to meet firm load. This requires that additional or support capacity be arranged.
    - With the above in mind, the City of Santa Clara will schedule energy from Black Butte and Stony Gorge on an hourly basis consistent with irrigation and flood control release schedules as established by the appropriate agency. To provide its customers with energy when these plants are not available (due to dry year conditions or scheduling changes) Santa Clara will provide backup power from a number of alternative sources. Such sources exclude, but are in no way limited to other plants within the Santa Clara system, Pacific Gas and Electric, Modesto Irrigation District, Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, Northern California Power Agency, Southwestern Utilies and Northwestern Utilities.
    - Since Santa Clara is a operating utility it may be able to schedule the output of these projects in such a manner as to gain some level of capacity credit on a monthly basis. For example, during a given year when the hydrology estimates are known and some level of plant operating experience has been obtained from our schedules may be able to [sic, syntax] schedule Santa Clara's total system's operation such that capacity credit may accrue from these projects. However, the exact amount of any capacity credit is a function of Santa Clara's total system operation and the hydrology of the period.
    - Consequently, Santa Clara does not assume that these hydroelectric projects are 'interruptible' as defined above, but, in fact, considers them as a non-firm source of electric power and will schedule them accordingly."
  • 2) "The possibility does exist that energy from these projects could be [page 3] sold to other entities. As an operating utility, Santa Clara will buy and sell power as a function of the supply and demand balance of the total system. In the event that Santa Clara's system demand exceeds the available supply of power it will be obligated to make power purchases to meet this demand. Conversely, if Santa Clara's available supply of power is in excess of its demand then Santa Clara can either make a sale of the excess (if a buyer exists) or shut down other more expense [sic] units within its system.
    - As part of the feasibility analysis for these projects, studies were performed assuming energy was sold to PG & E and WAPA. Each alternative studied was hypothetical and in both cases the [sic] approved feasible. No negotiations have occurred between Santa Clara and these entities concerning the sale of power from these projects. Only after such negotiations and development of the necessary contract terms and conditions could precise assessment be made of the feasibility of such transactions.
    - Consequently, for the purpose of establishing economic feasibility it has been assumed that the power from these projects will be utilized by Santa Clara. This analysis will be presented in the testimony of Mr. Ron Nichols."
  • 3) "As title to the subject facilities is in the federal government, federal law (specifically, The Federal Power Act and the Reclamation Law) govern the assessment and disposition of charges payable by the City of Santa Clara as a power licensee. It appears likely that at least a portion of the annual charges payable by the City of Santa Clara for the East Park and Stony Gorge projects will be allocated to the Federal Reclamation Fund and thus inure to the benefit of the" OUWUA. "The subject of annual charges for the use of government structures is addressed in the FERC order issuing new license (20 FERC 61,257). [page 4] In addition to the foregoing, the City of Santa Clara has had extensive discussions with the" OUWUA "concerning the rights and obligations of the parties as well as possible programs for the sharing of operational responsibilities and costs associated with the East Park dam and Stony Gorge dams. To date, said efforts have proved unavailaing.
    - At the present time, the City of Santa Clara is awaiting the draft of an operations agreement for Stony Gorge dam to be prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation in Sacramento, California. The Bureau has indicated that the" OUWUA "will be a a party to this agreement."
  • 4) "Reference is hereby made to Article 44 of the Order of the" FERC "granting a license to the City of Santa Clara to operate hydroelectric facilities at the Stony Gorge dam. This Article reads as follows:
    'The operation of Project No. 3193 shall not interfere with the use, storage, or discharge of waters from the United States Bureau of Reclamation's Stony Gorge dam and shall be secondary and subordinate to the primary functions of that dam and reservoir.'
    - As to the 'compatibility' of the irrigation operations with the City's hydroelectric operations, reference is hereby made to Article 36 of said Order which reads as follows:
    'The design, specifications, construction and the operation of those facilities that will be an integral part of or could affect the structural integrity of Stony Gorge dam shall be done in consultation with and subject to the review and approval of the regional director, [page 5] Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Sacramento, California. USBR approval must be received prior to the initiation of construction. Licensee shall also coordinate its construction activities with the USBR in order that the USBR may maintain operational and safety control of Stony Gorge dam. The Commission reserves the right to resolve any disagreement between the licensee and the USBR in these regards.' (emphasis added)
    - To date, the City of Santa Clara has entered into discussions with the Bureau of Reclamation on the appropriate means to implement these federal license conditions. The City has been advised that a contract will be prepared by the USBR, and will be either a three party contract (including the" OUWUA ") or will supplement the existing operation and maintenance agreement with the" OUWUA ". At this time, no initial draft of said agreement has been received by the City of Santa Clara.
    - It is anticipated that all releases will be remotely controlled in response to requests from appropriate parties who are responsible for determining release schedules. The design of the power plants will be such that automatic bypass valves will be installed to insure that irrigation releases or flood control releases will not be interrupted if a generation unit is shut down."
  • 5) "Again, it is anticipated that the operational and maintenance decisions regarding these facilities will be in accordance with agreements mandated and approved by the Bureau of Reclamation. It is anticipated that the Bureau of Reclamation will resolve any differences of opinion that may arise between the" OUWUA "and the City of Santa Clara. As stated in Article 36 of FERC license for Stony Gorge dam, the" FERC " has specifically reserved the right to resolve any disagreement between the licensee and the Bureau of Reclamation concerning operations at the Stony Gorge Facility.
    - "As I discussed with Mr. Taylor on the telephone, Mr. Barry R. Flynn and Mr. Dale Mesple of the City of Santa Clara Electric Department will be present at the hearing now scheduled for" 01/11/1983 "to respond to questions following the testimony of Mr. Ron Nichols. Statements of qualifications of these witnesses will be provided at the hearing."
  • mailing list

    010583 letter Walsh/Div WRights to Bryan/Willows Public Library; "At the first hearing several interested parties who are residents of the area noted difficulty in having access to the major documents relating to these applications." Enclosed: East Park, Santa Clara Ap 26745, FERC prelim permit, FERC order; OUWUA Ap 26682 FERC prelim permit; Stony Gorge, Santa Clara Ap 26378, FERC Ap for license, FERC order issuing license, OUWUA Ap. 26659, FERC Ap for prelim permit; Black Butte, Santa Clara Ap 26379, FERC order issuing prelim permit, Ap for FERC license, FERC notice of Ap for license, OUWUA Ap 26658, Ap for FERC prelim permit; please don't circulate, notifying mailing list copies are there, when proceedings are over will pay for return of docs.
  • mailing list

    010583 letter Bieg/Associate WRC Engineer to Shuster/Reclamation; "inquire into the following subjects when a Bureau representative testifies at the hearing. . .:
    - 1) What is the legal basis for the '...policy of the Bureau of Reclamation... that preference for licensing of non-Federal power development of Bureau facilities be given to the project operator.'? (See attached letter dated" 12/08/1982
    - 2) "Notwithstanding the aforementioned preference, would the Bureau enter into an agreement with the City of Santa Clara?
    - 3) What negotiations have occurred between the Bureau and the City of Santa Clara and the Bureau and" OUWUA "toward reaching a contractual agreement that 'will provide for access, construction, operation and maintenance of a powerplant...and will ensure the safety and integrity of the Federal Facilities and project operation.'? (see attached letter dated" 06/18/1981
  • mailing list

    011083 letter Marshall/Colusa County Supervisor District 4 to Aljibury/ Chairman SWRB [?]; "a plea for no generator at all on East Park Reservoir"; "only warm water lake in Colusa county and can be used by families with small children. The Sacramento River on the other hand is cold, full of snags, dangerous whirlpools, and a swift current. [para] The lake is fished the year around, and boating, water skiing, camping, and picnicing is entered into by such large numbers that the Colusa County Sheriff, on weekends and holidays, has been putting a deputy and a boat on the lake for protection and supervision of the users. [para] In our pursuit of electricity, it has become a fad or pride of ownership to file on every stream, whether it would destroy another valuable resource. This small body of water would be drained completely each year just to try to guarantee the pay back of the generator and the power lines and consequently the losers would be the people of Colusa County and a very valuable and enjoyable recreation area. [para] ...and to grant to Orland Water Users permits for the other sites. My preferance [sic] for Orland is based on the premise that they have and use the water, and should be in a better position to regulate flows from the Dams. I would also recommend that the water in East Park not be drained down as low as has been the case in normal years, with the understanding that in draught [sic] years or other reasons for water shortages, the above considerations would not apply."
    011183 Declaration of Service; Postponement of Hearing, Sally Joan Lake on mailing list
  • mailing list
  • Notice of Postponement, 01/19/1893 to 02/23/1983
  • 011383 return receipt cards

    020483 FERC Order Denying Rehearing, 22 FERC 61,121, 3193-002; petition because "(1) Article 44 of Santa Clara's license does not provide sufficient protection for the interests of Orland Unit, the current operator of Stony Gorge Dam and Reservoir; (2) the commission's license order fails to adequately address the economic feasibility of the project; (3) the annual charges levied for this project should be levied in favor of Orland Unit; and (4) water rights cannot be condemned through Section 21 of the Federal Power Act," 16 USC 814 (1976); (1) subordination in the order is sufficient; (2) feasibility not dependent on control of flow; (3) No authority to assess charges for benefit of anyone other than USA; (4) OUWUA argues Section 21 & 27 inconsistent - First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. FPC, 328 US 152, 176 held Section 27 a "saving clause" protecting state-law created proprietary interests, requiring a licensee obtain state water rights, but if it can't the licensee may obtain them under Section 21. All denied.`

    011183 Notice of Postponement, 01/19/1893 to 02/23/1983 (another copy)
  • mailing list
    022383 return receipt cards
    022283 Declaration of Service by Mail ; Hearing Notice (Reconvening) Sally Joan Lake
  • mailing list
  • 022283 Water Right Hearing Notice; Hearing to Reconvene 03/18/1983, "Key issue: Should the Board grant permits for power generation at the above locations? If permits are granted, which of the competing applications should be approved?"
    031683 Notice of Cancellation; 03/15/1983 Hearing, will let you know.
  • mailing list
    020483 FERC Order Denying Rehearing, 22 FERC 61,121, 3193-002; (another copy)
    071583 FERC Order Amending Major License, 3193-003 24 FERC 62,050; Santa Clara request for extension, delays in Reclamation spillway planning & water rights process; finds everything was submitted timely, so request will be granted
    101883 FERC Order Approving Final Design Exhibit F Drawings, 25 FERC 62,063; F eliminated, F-1 & F-2 approved; "Phase 2 construction shall not commence until the final design Exhibit F drawing, with supporting design report, for the powerhouse has been approved by the Director, Office of Electric Power Regulations." In 90 days file copies of the approved drawings on and in the proper formats;
    120283 letter Meith/atty to Bieg/Div WRights; OUWUA & Santa Clara have settled water rights; GCID & Santa Clara have agreed to settle water rights, signing of stip pending; OUWUA withdraws ap for East Park;
    120683 letter Bieg/Associate WRC Engineer to Meith/atty & McCarthy/Santa Clara; "On December 15, 1983, one day of hearing was held...." [sic]; action since has been deferred to allow settlement due on or about 12/01/1983; if not settled, "send a letter to the Board which states the reason for the delay and establishes a target date: (1) for completing the agreement; 92) for resolving all protests; and (3) when authorization will be submitted for cancelling those applications which are unnecessary"

    1984


    030784 letter McCarthy/Santa Clara to Meith/atty, enclosed stip, sorry for delay; withdraw your protests?; loose ends, let him know; stip approved by City Council 02/28/1984
  • 112483 GCID has Angle & contractual rights on Stony Creek; Santa Clara use incidental and "no right to otherwise divert, store, or restrict the flows of water in Stony Creek or its tributaries is requested." [uh, afterbay?] "That the appropriations requested in the Applications do not restrict or limit the existing consumptive right of" GCID "in the waters of Stony Creek and its tributaries as said rights are established in the Angle Decree or in agreements between" GCID & USA.; everyone understands Santa Clara is not to have any effect whatsoever (not those words) on operation of the dams; GCID agrees to withdraw its protests

    031484 letter Meith/atty to Beig/Div WRights; Ron Nichoils sez you're waiting for additional OUWUA confirmation of settlement; enclosed is executed Settlement Agreement, & Stip between GCID & Santa Clara; agree to withdrawal of [OUWUA? and GCID?] protests, ask that water rights issued to Santa Clara be made subject to terms & conditions of the agreement & stip,
  • 112883 Settlement Agreement between the City of Santa Clara, California, - and the Orland Unit Water Users' Association Concerning the Development of the Stony Gorge and Black Butte Hydroelectric Projects; 1.a. OUWUA to provide personnel at Santa Clara cost to run things; b. Santa Clara may substitute someone if OUWUA not performing; c. OUWUA dismisses everything & thereafter cooperate; 2.a. Santa Clara to pay for 1.a.; 2.b. & set up a fund for it; 2.c. starting with $50,000, OUWUA gets anything over $50,000; d.i. Santa Clara kicks in $10,000 per year, & ii. a percentage of power revenue, iii. adjusted annually for "Gross National Product Implicit Price Deflator", 2.e. reduced by government use fees imposed on Santa Clara's Project?; 3.a. City may assign project, 3.b. but if Santa Clara changes its' mind agrees to offer it to OUWUA first; 4.a. OUWUA makes no guarantees on flows for Santa Clara, 4.b. but if no inconvenience to OUWUA, OUWUA agrees to accommodate reasonable requests; 4.c. Operating Committee; 5. file written claim of any breach with the other party, jointly meet to resolve differences, no action without giving a reasonable amount of time following joint meeting; 6. notices, 7. indemnity, 8. effective date
    - "Exhibit 'A' Description of the City of Santa Clara's Black Butte Project; The City of Santa Clara's Black Butte Project consists of the following features as described in the City's license application to the" FERC "for Project No. 3193 [sic, s/b 3190] and as shown on the enclosed Exhibit 'F' drawing as both may be amended from time to time:
    - - 1. the powerhouse, trailrace structure, and related equipment;
    - - 2. the new intake structure, tunnel and penstock to be constructed approximately 300 feet north of the existing Black Butte Dam outlet tunnel;
    - - 3. the new re-regulating dam, including the low-flow gate(s) in such re-regulating dam and associated re-regulating pool from the existing spillway flip bucket to the downstream edge of the re-regulating dam; [this is additional storage & violative of the Decree]
    - - 4. the switchyard for the project and transmission facilities to interconnect the Black Butte Project with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company transmission system;
    - - 5. the new diversion canal control structure and gates to provide releases to the South Side Canal; and
    - - 6. the access road to the powerhouse from the point where said road intersects the existing access road at the existing outlet tunnel downstream portal to the powerhouse. [no Reclamation Contract?]
    - Exhibit "B" Description of the City of Santa Clara's Stony Gorge Project; The City of Santa Clara's Stony Gorge Project consists of the following features as described in the City's license application to the" FERC "for Project No. 3193 as it may be amended from time to time, and as shown on the enclosed Drawing No. 1G3, General Project Site Plan, drawing as both may be revised from time to time:
    - - 1. the powerhouse, trailrace structure, and related equipment;
    - - 2. new penstocks from the flange directly downstream of the existing emergency intake gates to the powerhouse, including the bifurcation to the new fixed cone discharge valves which shall replace the existing needle valves;
    - - 3. the new fixed cone discharge valves;
    - - 4. the switchyard for the power plant and transmission line interconnecting the project with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGandE) transmission system at or near the PGandE Elk Creek Substation;
    - - 5. the access road and bridge from the point of intersection with the existing roadway to the Stony Gorge Dam to the powerhouse; and
    - - 6. all other improvements, modifications and repairs required by the Bureau as a condition of its License and Agreement for Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project (Contract No. 3-07-20-X0262).
    - Exhibit "C" ; Stony Gorge dam structure, plus the following appurtenant facilities:
    - - 1. Spillway; including spillway gates, spillway gate operating mechanisms and the structure enclosing the spillway gate operating mechanisms.
    - - 2. Penstock intake structure including the trashracks, emergency intake gates, the emergency intake gate operating mechanisms, the structure enclosing the emergency intake gate operating mechanisms, and the penstocks from the intake to the 52" flange downstream of the existing emergency intake gates.
    - Exhibit "D" ; Formulae for Energy Related Contributions by the City of Santa Clara to the Orland Unit Water Users Association for the Stony Gorge and Black Butte Hydroelectric Projects
      Stony Gorge
      
      0   -   8 million kWh:       0.25 mills/kWh or $2,000 for the block
      8   -  12 million kWh:       1.5 mills/kWh or $6,000 for the block
      12  -  16 million kWh:       2.0 mills/kWh or $8,000 for the block
      Energy over 16 million kWh:  3.0 mills/kWh
      
      Black Butte 
      
      0   -  10 million kWh:       0.25 mills/kWh or $2,500 for the block
      10  -  15 million kWh:       1-0 [sic] mills/kWh or $5,000 for the block
      15  -  20 million kWh:       1.5 mills/kWh or $8,500 for the block
      Energy over 20 million kWh:  2.25 mills/kWh
      
    "...developed to result in an energy payment by the City to Orland in an average year's energy generation of $16,000 per year for the operation of the Stony Gorge Project and $15,000 per year for the operation of the Black butte Project, based on annual energy generation estimates prepared as part of preliminary design of the Stony Gorge and Black Butte Projects. Prior to commencement of commercial operation of either the Stony Gorge or Black Butte Projects, the City shall cause an updated operation study to be conducted for the Black Butte and Stony Gorge Projects to estimate the average annual energy generation...."[which if different will adjust to produce the $16,000 & $15,000....]
    - Exhibit E [None]
    - 09??81 Exhibit F Project No. 3190 by the City of Santa Clara, California, Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, Project Works Plan; including "Proposed Re-Regulating Dam Crest El. 378.0"
    - 0891083 Drawing 1G3 City of Santa Clara Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, General, Project Site Plan; showing "Elk Creek Water Main, & Elk Creek Water Treatment Plant" [for which the permit is where?]
  • 112483 stip, GCID & Santa Clara, another copy -

    032384 letter Bieg/Hearing Unit to Meith/Minasian; per 03/14/1984 letter OUWUA Aps 26658 & 9 submitted for cancellation; OUWUA & GCID protests of 26378 & 9 dismissed;
    041783 internal memo, Bieg to Files; all protests & competing Aps nullified or withdrawn; p. 2, 03/1983 the City cancelled Ap 26745 "for the East Park Dam Project, because it proved to be economically infeasible." 12/1983 OUWUA cancelled Ap 26682 "for its East Park Dam Project. Cancellation of these applications resolve [sic] the concerns of most of the protestants who appeared at the" 12/15 "hearing. They are the land owners in the vicinity of the East Park Reservoir and the Colusa County Board of Supervisors. East Park Reservoir is the only recreational lake in Colusa County."; p. 3 CDFG did not protest 26378 or 9, but on 01/24/1983 "they submitted information to indicate that the Black Butte Dam Project could have an adverse impact to the fishery in the reservoir. After discussions with the City, DFG submitted the following recommendations for the protection of fish and wildlife at Black Butte Reservoir.
    - 1. The centerline of the intake tunnel for the powerhouse should be at an elevation of approximately 394 feet.
    - 2. Permittee should compensate for any loss of riparian wetland vegetation which may occur during project construction or operation. Such loss should be through the creation of at least an equal area of new riparian wetlands.
    - 3. To create additional fish habitat in Butte Butte Reservoir, permittee should place suitable rocky material from the proposed tunnel excavation at sites approved by the Department of Fish and Game.
    - 4. In accordance with Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code, no work should be started on the diversion works and no water should be diverted until permttee has entered into a stream or lake alteration agreement with the Department of Fish and Game and/or the Department has determined that measures to protect fishlife have been incorporated into the plans for construction of such diversion works. Construction, operation, and maintenance costs of any required facility is the responsibility of permittee.
    - The City agreed with all but item number three of these recommendations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains sole responsibility and management authority regarding the placement of any material in Black Butte Reservoir, and the City will have to deposit spoil from the project excavations as required by the corps." City is lead agency, Aps 26378 & 9 to Environmental unit for review.
  • 111282 region map for the 6 aps, another copy

    050384 letter Walsh/Div WRights to Pettit/Campos/Board Members; with all protests & competing Aps withdrawn Board no longer needs to adopt a formal decision; unless objection, will proceed with permits;
  • 041783 internal memo, Bieg to Files; another copy
    - 111282 Attachment 1 - region map for the 6 aps, third copy
  • 111982 Attachment 2 Water Right Hearing Notice, 2 pp., another copy
  • 111982 Staff Summary for Hearing, 6 pp., another copy

    070284 letter Nichols/RMI to Bieg/Div WRights; "nearing completion of construction on Phase I of" Stony Gorge, "bridge and replacement of the penstocks and valves...expects to aware a contract for construction of the powerhiouse to complete the Project near the end of July...awarding a turbine generator equipment contract in July for the Black Butte Project," understand ready for issuance except for environmental review, both would qualify for Class 28 categorical exemptions under CEQA, how soon?
    073084 letter Dupuis/Div WRights to Von Raesfeld/City Santa Clara;, aps approved, please send additional $87.73 within 10 days.

    051380 Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water (work copy)
  • Supplement to Application
  • Application Map; on topo showing S9, S10, S15, S16 & slices of adjacent; Stony Gorge Powerplant Site, Lumber Mill, town of Elk Creek
  • Environmental Information (2 copies)

    052184 Check for Permit
    072484 Issuance of Water Right Permit; not inspected
    - terms continuation sheet; scant mention of the specifics of the OUWUA/Santa Clara Settlement? & modified Term 92, pay proportionate cost of Watermaster service
    072784 Certification of Review of Environmental Document Prior to Decision; SCH #81060908, the 4th number
    073084 Permit for Diversion and Use of Water; Stony Gorge Dam, power; 2+ pages of terms; 1600 cfs limit, may be reduced in the license; Stip & Agreement incorporated by reference
    072084 letter Sabiston/Div Wrights to Von Raesfeld/Santa Clara; permits enclosed, #19273 & 19274

    1985


    020785 letter Roukema/Power Supply Development & Licensing, Santa Clara; Aps 026378 Stony Gorge, 026378 [sic] Black Butte, & 027750 Highline Canal
  • 020785 Progress Report by Permittee For 1984; Installation of penstocks and new bypass valves and bridge at Stony Gorge Dam, $1,909,274; construction of the powerhouse, as of 12/1984 $552,004; estimated date of completion 08/1985
    123085 letter Roukema/Power Supply Development & Licensing, Santa Clara; Aps 026378 Stony Gorge, 026379 Black Butte, & 027750 Highline Canal
  • 020785 Progress Report by Permittee For 1985; power generation, 6568 installed horsepower capacity; used Sept, Nov, Dec; use has not been as great as expected, "amount of water used thus far has been for acceptance testing of the units only."

    1986


    120886 FERC Order Approving "As-Built" Exhibits, project 3193-005; approval of Exhibits F-1, F-2, Project Works Plans, & G-1 Project Boundary Map; must file more stuff in specific formats....
    123186 letter Beck/Director of Electric Utility, Santa Clara; Permits 19273 Stony Gorge, 19274 Black Butte, & 19086 Highline Canal, reports
  • 123186 Progress Report by Permittee For 1986; power generation 6566 Net installed horsepower capacity; AF Feb - Nov, 101,530.57; less than expected; "amount and season of water use in the power plant may vary every year depending on precipitation and irrigation demand. Therefore greater use in the future is a possibility" "location of intake, place of use and type of use are all fixed quantities, and will not change"

    1988


    011588 Contact Report, Coy Chandler/Div Wrights contacted by Marcel Hall, RMI; "Mr. Hall called to say the project under Application 26378 is operating & he wanted to know how to get it licensed. I told him to check the appropriate boxes on the pink progress report that construction is completed & complete use of the water has been made, and we will schedule it for inspection. He said the projects under Applications 26379 and 27750 were to have been constructed by Dec. 1987 but that they are not. I told him to file petitions for an extension of time on the forms I will send. I reminded him a check must accompany the petition forms."
    012888 Progress Report by Permittee For 1987; power generation 6566 Net, installed horsepower capacity, use Jan - Oct 73,720 a-f; "amount and season of water use in the power plant will vary each year depending on precipitation and irrigation requirements of downstream users. Therefore greater usage, up to maximum permitted diversion, will occur in future years."

    1989


    011989 F Progress Report by Permittee For 1988; power generation 6566 Net, use Jan - Dec 124585 a-f, not as great as expected; usual

    1990


    013190 letter Wilson/Director of Electric Utility, Santa Clara; Permits 19273 Stony Gorge, 19274 Black Butte, & 19086 Highline Canal, Reports
  • 020190 F Progress Report by Permittee For 1989; power generation 6566 Net, use Jan - Dec, 68,356 a-f, less than expected; etc. & "Diversions up to and including maximum permitted rate of diversion have been, and will continue to be, made."

    1992

  • 020192 F Progress Report by Permittee For 1991; power generation 6566 Net, use Mar - Jul & Oct-Nov 59,578 a-f, less than expected; etc.

    1994


    011494 letter Wilson/Director of Electric Utility, Santa Clara; Permits 19273 Stony Gorge, 19274 Black Butte, & 19086 Highline Canal, Reports
  • 020190 F Progress Report by Permittee For 1993; power generation 6566 Net, use Jan-Jul; Sept-Nov, 173,899 a-f, etc.
    112994 Report of Inspection; recommend 660 cfs, not 1600; recommend extension since "maximum 14-day period and months of use to justify the full season occurred after permit expiration." measure's flow? OUWUA; at time of inspection? 73.5 cfs; how & where determined? "discharge of Stony Gorge Dam per rating of outlet works and monitored by computer. The powerplant was not in use; minimum flow for generation is about 90 cfs, according to Hancock." natural flow plus East Park releases; change/correction? "tie plots out on right dam abutment, but recommend leaving as to agree with existing License 2652 (A-2212) for storage in Stony Gorge. A slight amendment to the POD description on the E-map was authorized by letter dated" 12/03/1980; owner of land at POD? "probably USA (Stony Gorge is a USBR dam); access? "agreement with USBR (contract No. 3-07-20-X0262)"; capacity of the limiting section? "approx 330 cfs for each of two turbines"; how determined? "statements of Mr. Schwartz for rated capacity of these units. He said that the maximum cfs occurs at lower than maximum head, so while a full or surcharged reservoir may generate higher Kw; maximum Q occurs when the reservoir is about 10 feet below the maximum normal W.S. elevation of 841.0' and a lot of water is released." [p. 2] "powerplant consisting of two Francis turbines with generators rated at 2300 kw each." "daily operations data furnished on 3-1/2" diskette by Hancock at inspection shows generation in every month of 1993 except August and December; these months are justified by generation during 1992"; "copy of stream alteration agreement...attached"; 08/27/1982 RWQCB letter; Term 23, reason for inclusion unknown (offset 1 for 1 loss of riparian wetland vegetation), maybe applies only to Black Butte; call 12/08/1994 with Cindy Chadwick of CDFG, no concerns, maybe should not be included in license; [p. 3] "flow tests were conducted by the contractor, Axel Johnson Corp. and rating curves were developed and inputed to the plant's computer for various heads and wicket gate openings." Hancock "said that the computer automatically adjusts the wicket gates to keep the flows at the desired level for the entire day(s); based on attached printout, recommend 660 cfs;
  • Stony Gorge Daily Report, Jan & Feb 1993
  • 081083 City of Santa Clara, Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, General, Project Site Plan, another copy, Elk Creek water main & treatment plant still shown....
  • 05??86 blueprint, Stony Gorge Hydro Project Penstock System Plan and Profile, drawing SG-PEN-8801, another copy
  • 112994 photos:
    - Stony Gorge Dam, powerplant is at left
    - (2) Axel Johnson Francis Turbines, 100 M Diam. 1230 MM [?]; rated 2300 Kw @ 27.4 M head, 300 RPM; Generators are Siemens-Allis 2722 KVA
  • 092783 Agreement Regarding Proposed Stream or Lake Alteration; CDFG & Barry R. Flynn, City of Santa Clara; per F & G Code 1603; "may substantially adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources including: fish, mainly catfish and other warmwater species of fish." no fresh-poured concrete, process water, oil or grease allowed into the stream; per 5937, minimum flows shall be by-passed to maintain fish & aquatic live below the dam;
    - Recommendations (sheet of boilerplate terms); Santa Clara required: 1,2,3,4,6,10,16,20,21
  • 082782 letter Fua/Central Valley Region RWQCB, no significant threat to water quality

    1995


    042595 mini-memo Wayne [garbled] to John [garbled]; "per our telephone conversation, please let this memo be a 'bill' for a $50.00 check payable to the Division of Water Rights. This is a petition fee for an extension of time to Permit 19273. The extension is necessary since the period of maximum use occurred after expiration of the permit on" 12/01/1991
  • 122894 letter John Schwartz/Electric Utility Engineer to Wayne Smith/Electric Utility Engineer; enclosed is signed copy of Request for license;
    - 122794 Request for License; added thereon "This constitutes a petition for an extension of time to include the periods of maximum use. Fee $50 received" 05/08/1995 WCS
    050395 City of Santa Clara Purchase Order; $50, petition to extend permit
  • 042595 mini-memo, another copy
    073084 Permit for Diversion and Use of Water; 7-digit term numbers written in; another copy

    1996


    032696 Staff Recommendation, Issuance of Water Right License and any Associated Petition for Changes or Extension to Cover Year of Maximum Use;
    110795 Check for License
    042296 License for Diversion and use of Water
    042296 certification of attached License
  • 042296 License for Diversion and use of Water, recording copy
    061896 Report of Licensee for 1993,1994,1995; 1993 Jan-Jul & Sep-Nov 173,899 a-f, 1994 Jan-Sep 93,402 a-f; Jan-Sep & Dec 1995 186,244 a-f; KW 15,853,500, 7,083,000, 16,906,500; no control over water quantity or usage, use what OUWUA releases

    1999


    030599 Report of Licensee for 1996,1997,1999; 1996 Jan-Dec 195,710 a-f; 1997 Jan-Sep 141,941 a-f; 1998 Jan-Dec 219,292 a-f; KWH 17,212,500, 11,637,000, 20,457,000;

    2002


    021502 Report of Licensee for 1998--1999--2000; via Web; 1998 Jan-Dec 219,292 a-f; Jan-Jun & Sep 1999 130,488 a-f ; 2000 Jan-Jun & Aug-Sep 111,676 a-f; KW 20457000, 12268547, 10278000;

    2005


    102003 F confirmation of address

    2005


    031005 F Report of Licensee for 2002,2003,2004; 2002 Jan-Jul & Sep-Oct & Dec 130,998 a-f, 2003 Jan-Jun & Aug-Sep & Dec 170,003 a-f, 2004 Jan-Jun & Aug-Oct & Dec 140,125 a-f; each year 6566 net hp
    120705 Account Statement, $4,330.33 due for water right; address change to Silicon Valley Power

    2006


    010606 letter Stock/Div WRights to Silicon Valley Power; will update to "Silicon Valley Power" unless hear otherwise within 30 days
    010606 letter Stock/Div WRights to Silicon Valley Power; another copy
    UNDATED phone [?] message Bill Richardson of City of Santa Clara; "Wants to know make up & Description of Licenses, SVP Account Clerk"
    011006 Request to BOE for Action on Water Right Accounts; to Silicon Valley Power
    011206 contact report Stock/Div WRights by Beck/Silicon Valley Power; change Atten: to him
    UNDATED Request for Wrims Update; to Beck
    022306 Request to BOE for Action on Water Right Accounts; to Beck

    2007


    042407 F Report of Licensee for 2004,2005,2006; 2004 Jan-Jun & Aug-Oct & Dec 140,125 a-f, 2005 Jan-Jul & Sep-Oct & Dec 203,137 a-f, 2006 Jan-Jun & Sep-Oct & Dec 189,232 a-f; each year 6566 net hp



    Cat 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS VOL. 1 OF 1
    Folder 3, Item 4
  • 07??86 Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, Tansmission Line, Initial - Study and Negative Declaration, City of Santa Clara, Prepared by Resource Management International, Inc., 1010 Hurley Way, Suite 500, Sacramento, California 95825 SCH #86093009 [a 4th number]
    - Negative Declaration 09/16/1986
    - - Project Description, "proposes to construct and operate a 60-kV transmission line to connect the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project with an existing" PG & E "transmission line one mile north of the City of Orland. The transmission line would be 9.4 miles in length and follow existing roadways for the majority of its route along Newville Road, Road FF, and Road 9. One mile of the transmission line would be across undeveloped land consisting of two private parcels. Utility easements would be obtained from the owners of these parcels. Wood pole construction would be used for the transmission line, and pole top configurations that minimize shock hazards to large raptors would be used."
    - - Initial Study, Reviewed by Project Clearance Committee 08/18/1986, FONSI
    - - Basis for Negative Declaration: "no endangered species [except eagles, ospreys, etc,] and no archaelogical or historically significant resources in the area that will be affected by the project. Public facilities in the area are of sufficient capacity to accommodate any anticipated increase in demand. The mitigation measures for project construction and operation listed in the Intial Study section on mitigation measures will mitigate any minor impacts on the environment..."
    - Initial Study, outline of who/what
    - Table of Contents
    - I. Introduction
    - - Study Objectives
    - II. Project Description
    - - 1. History
    - [p. 2] "begin construction...in the summer of 1986, and operation of the powerhouse is expected to begin in January of 1988....A low reregulation dam will be constructed across Stony Creek to create a tailwater pond for the powerhouse and allow water to enter the Orland South canal. The powerhouse will contain one vertical Kaplan turbine/generator unit rated at 6190 kilowatts." [para] OUWUA "has been involved in development of the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project. Since Orland receives irrigation water from releases at Stony Gorge and Black Butte dams, the City has arranged to have Orland operate the City's hydroelectric projects at these dams. [p. 3] "The City has owned and operated its municipal electric utility since 1896 and has a policy of developing alternative and renewable resource energy projects."
    - - 2. Studies for the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, "initial study was prepared in May 1981 for the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project." "initial plans for the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project called for the power plant to be connected to an existing 12-kV transmission line at the project site. Further investigations by the City and" PG & E "have indicated that it would be more efficient to connect the project to a higher voltage 60-kV line. The closest 60-kV transmission line is in the vicinity of Orland, approximately ten miles east of the powerhouse. Due to the length of the required transmission line, it was determined that the modification of the transmission line is a discretionary action according to" CEQA "and therefore an Initial Study would be needed."
    - - 3. Alternative Project Concepts, p. 4 "several different transmission line routes considered between Black Butte Hydroelectric Project and existing PGandE 60-kV transmission lines. PGandE identified two potential connection points, one on their Cottonwood-Glenn-Cortina 60-kV power line, and one on their Glenn-Orland 60-kV power line." "...both connect with the PGandE Glenn substation that is approximately three miles northeast of the City of Orland. Five alternative transmission line routes...."
    - - - 1) due east to Cottonwood-Glenn-Cortina line, 10.4 miles in Tehama County, 8.4 across 14 private parcels
    - - - 2) due east to SR 99W, So. to Glenn-Orland line at County 9; 10.4 miles, 7.4 across 28 private parcels
    - - - 3) along Newville Road to a point between S12 & S13 T22N R4W thence directly east to the same connection as #2, 8.7 miles, easements across 12 parcels for 2.6 miles
    - - - 4) Newville Road to Cedar/Road FF, north to Road 9 thence east, thence across open land, I-5 & Stony Creek to same intersection as #2 & #3,
    - - - 5) Newville to County Road 12, thence East across I-5 intersecting Glenn-Orland line at CR13 & SR99W, no easements but through north part of City of Orland;
    - - - chose #4, unlikely to interfere with future land development, 1/3 across Stony Streambed [uh, Seismic Plan?].
    - - - Figure 1 60 kV Transmission Line Alternative Routes [and existing routes]
    - - 4. Proposed Project, "single wood pole structures with three single cable conductors. The pole-top arrangement in most cases will be either triangular or vertical without wooden cross arms...similar to the existing PGandE Glenn-Orland 60-kV pole line on County Road 9 (Wyo Avenue) north of Orland." "terminate on west side of the intersection of" SR99W & CR9
    - - - Figure 2 Proposed 60 kV Transmission Line Route [alternative #4]
    - - - Figure 3 photos, 1) looking west along CR9 towards intersection of SR99W, tall poles 60-kV & 12-kV; 2) east towards interstection
    - - - Figure 4 Power Pole Details, 60kV Transmission Line, Dwg. No. F-5, Type A Typical Tangent Pole, Type B Optional Tangent Pole, Typical Guying Details, Type D Typical Vertical Corner, Vertical Corner Plan View, Type C Optional Vertical Corner 03/1986
    - - 5. [p. 11] Transmission Line Route, "follow Road 9 east approximately 0.8 mile, and continue east across undeveloped private lands for approximately 1.0 mile." I-5 "crosses these private lands. The Stony Creek channel is located on these private lands and will be crossed diagonally by the transmission line route. The channel is quite wide. It can be dry in the late summer months and carry flood flows in the winter [way] in excess of 20,000 cfs."a "Homes...serviced with existing 12-kV overhead electric distribution lines...proposed 60-kV pole line will be taller than the 12-kV poles." "On high ground above the channel the land is used for [p. 12] cattle grazing. The channel itself is being mined for aggregate."
    - - - Figure 5 photos, 1) "west along Newville Road from a point on the south line of" S12 T22N R4W approx 3 miles west of Orland, 2) west along Road 9 from intersection of Road 9 and Road H (Glenn Avenue)
    - - 6. [p. 13] Project Construction
    - - 7. [p. 13] Operation and Maintenance
    - - - Figure 6 photos, 1) "east along undeveloped land on the north line of" S16 T23N R3W, I-5 on the horizon, 2) west across Stony Creek channel on north side of S16 T23N R3W, "Aggregate mining activity is visible in the foreground."
    - III. Environmental Setting
    - - 1. [p. 16] Description of Locale,
    - - - A. Topography and Geology
    - - - B. Meteorology and Climate
    - - - C. Vegetation
    - - - D. Wildlife and Fisheries
    - - - E. Archaeology and History
    - - - F. Demography
    - - - G. Land Use Development and Zoning
    - - - H. Recreation
    - IV. Identification of Environmental Effects
    - - Environmental Checklist Form
    - V. Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects, no highly significant environmental effects identified; Counties will review pole locations and require relocation if needed; "In the last ten years the Raptor Research Institute has studied electric shock hazards in detail and recommended some specific pole top configurations that minimize the shock hazard to raptors. These recommended pole top configurations have been used successfully by many electric utilities."
    - VI. Project Compatibility with Existing Zoning and Plans; all but one mile in existing road rights of way; one mile will be across private land requiring easements, zoning is ag & transmission lines in ag do not require any special permits.
    - VII. Names of Persons Participating in the Initial Study
    - VIII. List of Agencies/Individuals Contacted
    - IX. References
    - Appendix A - Summary of Agency Comments
    - - Summary Review of Agency Comments [for instance:]
    - - - Corps of Engineers expressed concern that the line could interfere with mobile radio comm so line route moved away from storage yard
    - - - USFWS, bald eagle, California hibiscus, caper-fruited tropidocarpum
    - - - Caltrans requires an encroachment permit to cross I-5
    - - - Tehama & Glenn County Road Departments require encroachment permits
    - Appendix B - Archaeological Reconnaissance Report, Jensen and Associates; Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project Transmission Line, Tehama and Glenn Counties, California; Addendum to 'An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, Tehama County, California." by Jensen & Assoiciates, Archaeological Consulting and Research, 41 Skymountain Circle, Chico, CA 95928 04/1986;
    - - Introduction
    - - Location
    - - Records Search; records cited in original survey report, Information Center documents and National Register of Historic Places, no sites;
    - - Fieldwork, project archaeologist N. Neuenschwander
    - - Results of the On-Foot Reconnaissance; evidence of contemporary use, none of prehistoric
    - - Recommendation, no problem unless they "dig up" something
    - - map, City of Santa Clara, Black Butte Hydroelectrict Project, Proposed 60-kV Transmission Line Route, superimposed on topos
    - Appendix C - Wildlife and Botanical Report, Jones & Stokes Associates, 2321 P Street, Sacramento, California 95816
    - - Environmental Setting
    - - - Riparian habitats; mention of tamarisk & Arundo donax; p. C-4 "Although Hambright Creek is only an intermitant sream and has been chanellized in some agricultural areas, it supports important riparian habitat along parts of its length...." "...Bird species observed along Stony and Hambright Creeks during the" 04/04/1986 "field survey included California quail, red-tailed hawk, belted kingfisher, Nuttall's woodpecker, black phoebe, bushtit, yellow-rumpled warbler, orange-crowned warbler, northern oriole, and lesser goldfinch. A flock of about 2500 tricolored blackbirds (a candidate for federal threatened or endangered species status) was observed roosing in cottonwoods along Hambright Creek and later floew out to forage in the open pasture. Tracks of black-tailed deer and raccoon were noted in soft mud along Stony Creek near I-5. Bullfrogs and treefrogs occurred near small ephemeral ponds within the riparian vegetation of Stony Creek and a common garter snake was observed on a road nearby."
    - - - Woodland. "A few mature stands of valley oaks grow along Newville Road. Valley oaks are locally uncommon due to extensive clearing for agriculture and firewood. During the site visit, scrub jays, yellow-billed magpies, acorn woodpeckers, Nuttall's woodpeckers, plain titmice, northern orioles, lesser goldfinches, and western gray squirrels were observed foraging in these scattered oaks...." p. C-5 "Moffitt property...During the site visit a great blue heron landed in one of these trees and behaved as if its nest was in the vicinity. This species typically nests in the treetop colonies where it is highly vulnerable to disturbance.
    - - - Grassland
    - - Sensitive Species - none observed 04/04/1986; p. C-6 "The nearby Stony Creek Reservoir [Black Butte] is an important wintering area for bald eagles (Detrich 1985) and this species, as well as the peregrine falcon, has been recorded at the Black Butte Lake during the nonbreeding season. Ferruginous hawks (federal candidate species--endangered or threatened status is currently under review) forage above the open grasslands in winter; in spring Swainson's hawk (California threatened species) returns to breed in riparian areas and oak savannas. Mountain plovers (federal candidate species) could frequent the open grasslands in winter. As noted previously, a flock of about 2500 tricolored blackbirds...."
    - - Impacts
    - - - Construction: pruning of trees, "especially valley oaks" & riparian vegetation
    - - Operation
    - - - Bird collisions with powerlines.
    - - - Electrocution of perching birds. "Most lines that electrocute raptors are distribution lines carrying between" 12-kV and 69-kV. "Higher voltage transmission lines pose little electrocution hazard because wire separation is adequate (Olendorff et al. 1981). [para] Large size is by far the most crucial factor which predisposes certain raptors to electrocution. Between 70 and 90 percent of all raptor mortalities along electric distribution lines are eagles. Less than ten percent of these mortalities are bald eagles while the remainder are golden eagles (Olendorff et al. 1981). Studies have shown that most golden eagle mortalities along power lines are immature or sub-adult birds, presumably due to lack of hunting and flying experience. Adult and sub-adult golden eagles are similar in size. The maximum wingspread of this species (measurements are for the larger females) is about 90 inches (Brown and Amadon 1968). The tail is about 13 inches long and extends about 10 inches below the top of their perch. [p. C-8] The effective reach of a female eagle from the fleshy portion of one wing to the other averages 54 inches, about 36 inches less than the total wingspread including the primary feathers (Olendorff et al. 1981). Potential for electrocution is considered a significant impact."
    - - Mitigation
    - - - Construction
    - - - Operation
    - - - - Bird collisions with powerlines
    - - - - Electrocution of perching birds; armless poles, separate conductors by at least minimums, maybe perch platforms at top of poles
    - - - - Figure 1, Armless Configurations
    - - Literature Cited
    - - - Brown, L., and D. Amadon. 1968. Eagles, hawks and falcons of the world. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 945 pp.
    - - - Detrich, P.J. 1985. The status and distribution of the bald eagle in California. Ms. thesis, California State University, Chico. 101 pp.
    - - - Olendorff, R.R., and R.N. Lehman. 1985. Raptor collisions with utility lines; an analysis using subjective field observations. Unpubl. Re., submitted to PGandE, San Ramon, CA. 1986.
    - - - Olendorff, R.R., A.D. Miller, and R.N. Lehman. 1981. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines, the state of the art in 1981. Raptor Res. Rep. No. 4. 111 pp.
    - - - Appendix I. Common and scientific names of wildlife species mentioned in the text.

    Folder 3, Item ?
  • 05??81 Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, Initial Environmental Study, - City of Santa Clara, Prepared by Resource Management International, Inc., Sacramento, California [is this the earliest environmental report on the watershed?]
    - Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, Initial Study, who, what, when short list
    - Table of Contents
    - List of Figures
    - List of Tables
    - I. Introduction
    - - Study Objectives
    - II. Project Description
    - - 1. Introduction
    - - 2. Existing Dam and Related Facilities , p. II-2 "The outlet work also include an 18-inch pipe which supplies the domestic and industrial water supply to the town of Elk Creek. Releases for this pipe are controlled by a 12-inch gate valve and 10-inch needle valve."
    - - 05??63 Figure 1-1, Location Map, Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project (regional & watershed map), File SC-26-26
    - - 030427 Figure 1-2, (Taken from U.S.W.P.R.S. drawing) Stony Gorge Dam, General Plan, Elevation and Sections, 22-D-52
    - - Figure 1-3, (Taken from U.S.W.P.R.S. drawing) Stony Gorge Dam, Outlet Works, Plan and Sections , 11-D-125
    - - 3. Reservoir Description.
    - - 4. Proposed Project. "..preliminary stages of the project feasibility studies, the project was also evaluated to determine the feasibility and desirability of operating the plant in a peaking mode. This option was eliminated from further consideration for several reasons, among which were questions about the ability of the existing penstocks to withstand the higher rates of flow which would be required for a peaking project, and the potential for downstream impacts resulting from on- and off-peak changes in reservoir releases without a downstream regulating reservoir." p. II-10, "There are several occasions in most years when no releases are made from the reservoir into Stony Creek. In some years, these periods of no water releases last from one to three months, and occur most frequently in December and January while the reservoir is filling. In heavy rain seasons, monthly average releases (outlet releases plus spills) have averaged 2000 to 3000 cfs in the months of January and February. Instantaneous releases of up to approximately 8000 cfs occur during storm periods when the reservoir is filling." "Only significant change to current reservoir operations would be to maximize releases through the outlet works rather than over the spillway. This would result in releasing water with a lower temperature in months where the current practice is to close the outlets and control releases over the spillway." "...power plant building will have a total height of approximately 40 feet, 25 to 30 feet of which will rise above the stream level." "...(PGandE) 21 kv transmission line which runs parallel to Highway 36 about 1000 feet west...." [SR 36? not now, that runs from Fortuna to Susanville via Red Bluff, but in 1986?] "Pedestrian access to the power plant site is available at all times via an existing walkway through the dam or over the dam crest. No new access roads are anticipated for the project."
    - - Figure 1-4, (Taken from U.S.W.P.R.S. figure) Area and Capacity Curves, Stony Gorge Reservoir, Stony Creek, Calif., Damsite S16 T20N R6W MDB & M
    - - Figure 1-5, Stony Gorge Reservoir, Reservoir Storage and Monthly Average Releases (water years 1944 thru 1978)
    - - Figure 1-6, Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, Proposed Power Plant Location, photo
    - - 5. Project Construction. some blasting, & "some excavation immediately downstream of the power plant outlet may be required for a proper tailrace for power plant releases. This would invoilve excavation of a shallow channel below the power plant from approximately 50 to 100 feet in length and approximately 30 feet wide."
    - - Figure 1-7, Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, Transmission Line Plan, on USGS topo
    - - 6. Operation and Maintenance, "expects to operate the project remotely in coordination with dam operation by Orland...."
    - III. Environmental Setting
    - - 1. Description of Locale
    - - - A. Topography and Geology, "somewhat typical of the prominent strike ridge and valley topography which parallels the mountain front and separates the younger, gently east-dipping sediments of the central part of the northern [p. III-3] Sacramento Valley from the Coast Ranges to the west. This ridge and valley topography appears to be the result of differential erosion of the steeply east-dipping relatively resistant conglomerates and the less resistant mudstone and shales. Typically these ridge and valley sections are asymetrical with steep slopes on the west side of the ridges. The approximately accordant ridge summits may be remnants of an older erosional surface. [para] The rocks at the dam and reservoir site are primarily those belonging to the Great Valley Sequence, a thick section of interbedded mudstone, sandstone, and conglomerate of Jurassic and Cretaceous age. These are clastic deep marine sediments probably derived from the Sierra Nevada Batholith to the east and the Klamath Mountains to the north.""
    - - - 05??63 Figure 2-1, Location Map, Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, SC-26-26 [yet again]
    - - - B. Meteorology and Climate
    - - - Table 2-1, Stony Gorge Dam Area Stratigraphy
    - - - C. Hydrology, [as in Black Butte environmental review,] "The chemical quality of the water in Stony Gorge Reservoir is calcium-bicarbonate in character. Dissolved oxygen is about 8.2 mg/l and changes slightly with depth. Measurements of pH in the reservoir at varying locations and depths from 7.3 to 7.7. Surface water temperatures in the summer range from 71 to 83 F. Temperatures in Stony Creek, immediately below the dam ranged from 62 to 71.
    - - - 05??63 Figure 2-2, Normal Annual Precipitation, Precipitation Stations and Snow Courses, SC-26-28
    - - - Table 2-2, Monthly Mean Temperature - Orland (Elev. 254), 1883-1962
    - - - 05??63 Figure 2-3 Topography and Stream Gaging Stations, SC-26-27
    - - - Table 2-3, Mean Monthly Inflow at Stony Gorge Reservoir
    - - - Table 2-4, Average Monthly Outflow Stony Gorge Reservoir
    - - - D. Vegetation, "A narrow belt of riparian woodland, including willows and cottonwoods, lines the bank of Stony Creek below Stony Gorge Dam....There is no riparian woodland on the streambanks for several hundred feet downstream."
    - - - Table 2-5, Estimated Natural Flood Peaks and Volumes at Black Butte Dam Site [same as table in BBD environmental review]
    - - - 01??71 Figure 2-4, Rainflood Frequency Curves, Natural Conditions, Stony Creek at Black Butte Dam
    - - - Figure 2-5, Power Plant Site, Exposed Bedrock Immediately Downstream from Outlet Works (View from Top of Dam Looking Down Directly Over Outlet Valves), photo
    - - - Figure 2-6, Project Site Vegetation, photo
    - - - E. Wildlife and Fisheries [largely similar to BBD report, but BBD a bit more extensive] p. III-21 "Stony Gorge Reservoir provides a good warmwater fishery, with considerable visitor usage, particularly during the February-June period. Among the most important gamefish are largemouth bass, white crappie, and bluegill. Smallmouth bass, white and channel catfish, and sunfish are also taken here. Threadfin shad are numerous and are important forage species for the gamefish here. Large populations of non-game fish are also present, including carp, Sacramento sucker, and Sacramento squawfish.... [para] Stony Gorge Reservoir is heavily used as a resting area by waterfowl and other waterbirds during winter and migratory periods. The area is also significant because of the regular presence of overwintering bald eagles. Other raptors include golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, and various speceis of owls. An osprey nest is located on the reservoir about 1-1/2 miles above the dam. A heron rookery is established [p. III-22] in riparian woodland several miles downstream from Stony Gorge Dam. Other wildlife species include black-tailed deer, carnivores such as the coyote, gray fox, bobcat, and raccoon, and numerous rabbits and rodents." "...river otters have been seen recently in the pool at the base of the dam." "Catfish and carp are found in the pools below the dam, but this habitat is of little fishery value because it is often drained of water during the year."
    - - - Table 2-6, Fish Species of the Stony Creek Drainage [same as BBD]
    - - - F. Archaeology and History, "Wild game meats and fish supplemented these vegtal resources...." "Nomlaki were probably contacted by Europeans as early as 1808 when Alfred Gabriel Moraga traversed the region. Later, in 1921, the expeditions of Luis Arguello passed through this region. During this period early American fur trappers passed through the Central Valley. Little is known of these early contacts." "Fieldwork for the project was conducted by Mr. Peter Jensen, Research Archaeologist, on" 12/20/1980. "Only the single previously recorded site, CA-GLE-216, was found as evidence of prehistoric or historic use or occupation of the project area during the on-foot reconnaissance."
    - - - G. Demography - mostly for Central Valley; "Elk Creek, the community surrounding Louisiana Pacific's lumber mill, had a 1976 population of 300 according to the Glenn County Planning Department. Population has fluctuated due to variations in employment at the mill."
    - - - Table 2-7, Population, 1950,60,70,80 Central Valley locations
    - - - Table 2-8, Employment Glenn County (1976 Annual Average) [since county-wide, mostly CV locations]
    - - - H. Land Use, Development and Zoning - "The inflow to Black Butte Reservoir is partially regulated by Stony Gorge and East Park Reservoirs...Generally the spillway gates at Stony Gorge are held at a low level during the early part of the flood season (thereby reducing the space available for catching flood waters) and are pulled up later in the season to assure catching the maximum amount of water for conservation use. Since the upstream reservoirs are operated entirely for conservation, the empty space available for flood control is filled early in the flood season and later floods are affected very little until [p. III-30] additional reservoir capacity is made available at Stony Gorge later in the season." p. III-32 "Of the 2,436 acres of land which have been acquired for Stony Gorge Reservoir, the reservoir occupies 1,275 acres and all but 70 acres of the remaining 1,161 acres are available for public use [with access by boat or hiking?]."
    - - - Table 2-9, Yearly Family Income (Glenn County, 1976), mostly Valley
    - - - Table 2-10, Age and Racial Characteristics, 1976
    - - - Table 2-11, Mean Monthly Irrigation Demand and Outflow, Black Butte Reservoir (in acre feet)
    - - - I. Recreation, "Mendocino National Forest...provides opportunities for trout fishing...." p. III-33 "Most of the recreational use of Stony Gorge Reservoir presently occurs in and originates from the northeastern shores of the reservoir due to limited access. There are four miles of interior roadway and parking for 150 cars (unpaved). Currently there is no drinking water and restroom facilities are limited to three permanent vault units and seven portable units. There are six camping areas and twelve picnic areas, one swimming bench totaling two acres, and a single-lane boat launch ramp. Thre [sic] is also a group camp with a 200-person capacity. [para] ...although the facilities have in the past been managed by a concessionaire, management since 1977-78 has been provided by the Water and Power Recreation Service."
    - - - Figure 2-7 Recreation Facilities, Stony Gorge Reservoir
    - IV. Identification of Environmental Effects [checklist]
    - V. Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects - none
    - VI. Project Compatibility with Existing Zoning and Plans, "...land use and zoning designations, as developed by Glenn County's General Plan, were reviewed." p. VI-2 DWR's Thomes-Newville Plan
    - VII. Names of Persons Participating in the Initial Study
    - VIII. List of Agencies/Individuals Contacted and References
    - IX. References
    - - 2. Earth Science Associates. Seismic and Fault Activity Study: Proposed Glenn Reservoir Complex Prepared for California Department of Water Resources. January 1980, Palo Alto, California
    - - 4. Puckett, Larry K., Fisheries Surveys on Thomes and Stony Creeks, Glenn and Tehama Counties, with Special Emphasis on Their Potentials for King Salmon Spawning. The Resources Agency of California, Department of Fish and Game. Water Projects Branch Administrative Report No. 69-3. 1969.
    - - 5. Petrovich, Alexander, Jr. A Water Quality Study of Whiskeytown, Black Butte, Stony Gorge, and East Park Reservoirs. The Resources Agency of California, Department of Fish and Game. Water Projects Branch Administrative Report No. 66-2. Submitted November 1, 1966.
    - - 7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Black Butte Lake, Stony Creek, California, Master Plan; Design Memorandum No. 13, Sacramento District. February 1977.
    - - 8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Black Butte Lake, Stony Creek, California, Reservoir Regulation Manual; Sacramento District. July 1971.
    - - 9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Foundation Report, Black Butte Lake, Stony Creek, California, Sacramento District. September 16, 1963
    - - 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Snow Mountain Wilderness Proposal Fact Sheet No. 5, Mendocino National Forest. [p. E-64]
    - - 14. Glenn County Planning Department. Final Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed Johns-Manville Products Corporation Fiberglass Insulation Plant. Willows, July 1973. 90 pages.
    - Appendix A, Summary of Agency Comments, Introduction
    - - Summary Review of Agency Responses
    - - - USFWS, 1)...potential for impacts: b) on anadromous fish in Stony Creek downstream from Black Butte Dam; c) raptors; 3) "a description of potential long-term impacts associated with turbine induced fish mortality"; 4) minimum pools & minimum creek flows; 5) springtime botanical search for endangered or threatened plant species
    - - - - Summary Response: 1)..."Fall run salmon are currently (and have been for years) prevented from reaching the project area due to diversion structures constructed by the Glenn Colusa Irrigation District several miles below Black Butte Dam. [para] Although raptors...occur in the project area, the project will not alter their habitat nor will it effect [sic] nesting, breeding, or food chain relationships." 3) "Discussion with fish and game officials indicates that turbine induced fish mortality would not be a significant problem [unless you're the fish]." 4) ..."The desirable goals of minimum pool levels and minimum flow releases currently exist as guidelines in unofficial operating agreements between agencies." [do they? and those are where?]; 5) on 04/21/1981 Dr. James Neilson conducted an on-site botanicl [sic] survey, nada
    - - - U.S. Water & Power Resources Service; concern about "excessive head losses" and "damage to the outlet works due to vibration resulting from excessive velocities in the penstocks.", Response, working on the final plans
    - 01??81 Appendix B, Archaeological Reconnaissance, Peter Jensen, Research Archaeoloist [sic], California State University, Chico,
    - - 122680 letter Jensen/Chico State University Foundation to Nichols/RMI; CA-GLE-216 some evidence "sub-surface burials and other artifacts" still present, so any pole excavations would need to be attended by an archaeologist
    - - - Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, Glenn County, California, by Peter M. Jensen; "prior leveling of the highest portions of the site area, an activity which apparently exposed several human burials with bead and projectile point associations."
    - 04??81 Appendix C, Botanical Survey, Dr. James A. Neilson, Ecoview Environmental Consultants, 2540 Trower Avenue, Napa, CA 94558
    - - 042981 letter Neilson/Ecoview to "Whom it May Concern", survey for "rare plant species and in particular the native snapdragon Antirrhinum subdordatum. There is no suitable habitat in the vicinity of the dam for this species...area in question has been profoundly disturbed in recent years and mostly common pioneer plants are rehabilitating the site."



    Cat 7 FERC LICENSES AND REPORTS VOL. 1 OF 1
    Folder 2, Item ?
  • 09??80 Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Application for Preliminary Permit for East Park Dam Hydroelectric Project, submitted by City of Santa Clara, California, 09/1980
    - 092280 letter Von Raesfeld/City Manager to Plumb/FERC Secretary; herewith original & 11 copies of ap for preliminary permit to evaluate the East Park Dam Hydroelectric Project, per Part 4, Subch B, Ch 1, Title 18 cfr;
    - 092280 Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Application for Preliminary Permit for East Park Dam Hydroelectric Project;
    - - Exhibit 1, Project Description, NE 1/4 S3 T17N R6W MDB & M; "concrete gravity-arch dam constructed in 1909. The dam has a crest elevation of 1,201.7 feet msl and a crest length of 226.0 feet." "outlet works consist of (1) a vertical gate shaft with one 4x5 steel slide gate, one 3x3 foot steel gate, and one 2.8x3.5 foot steel gate, and (2) a circular concrete conduit five feet in diameter and approximately 50 feet in length used for reservoir releases. The elevation of the invert of the intake to the outlet is 1,131 feet. [para] The spillway for the project is located at a separate regulating structure approximately 2,000 feet south of the dam, outside of the project boundary." p. 1-2 "proposed project would involve constructing a pressurized steel penstock within the existing concrete conduit and beyond the existing point of discharge by approximately 30 feet to utilize the entire hydraulic head available at the site. Some modifications of the existing outlet gates may also be required." "...Reservoir has a gross capacity of 50,900 acre-feet. With the spillway stop logs in place, the normal maximum water storage elevation is 1,199.68 feet msl at which the reservoir has a surface area of 1,820 acres. Without the spillway stop logs in place, the normal water storage elevation is 1,198.15 feet msl." "...turbine/generator unit with an installed capacity of 900 kw. The Applicant estimates the average annual energy production from the project to be 2.2 million kwh." p. 1-3 "reduction in energy purchases has an annual fuel equivalent of approximately 3,500 barrels of oil."
    - - Exhibit 2, Description of Studies to be Conducted Under Preliminary Permit, 2 phases, 1) "detailed feasibility studies performed to determine the technical, economic, financial, and environmental feasibility of constructing and operating the proposed project; 2) "those studies necessary to prepare an application for a" FERC license.; Under 1)
    - - - "1. Preliminary project design.
    - - - 2. Geologic analysis of project site.
    - - - 3. Collection of environmental data and general assessment of potential project impact on fish, wildlife, and recreational resources of the project area.
    - - - 4. Study of plant output.
    - - - 5. Estimate cost of project construction and operation.
    - - - 6. Analysis of project financing
    - - - 7. Analysis of the requirements of" Reclamation "concerning use of the facilities at East Park Dam."
    - - Under 2)
    - - - "1. Preparation of an initial environmental study under" CEQA, "and, if required, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the project.
    - - - 2. Preliminary design and development of project equipment specifications.
    - - - 3. Negotiation of a transmission agreement with" PGandE
    - - - "4. Develop maps and other project data needed for Federal license application.
    - - - 5. Prepare application for Federal license."
    - - - "No new roads...No new dams nor increased impoundment..."
    - - Exhibit 3, Statement of Costs and Financing; $175,000, "seeking a feasibility study loan from the United States Department of Energy (DOE) under Title IV of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Public Law 95-617 (PURPA). The Applicant also intends to apply to DOE for a loan for licensing the project if the feasibility study shows...." "funds not obtained from such federal loans will be provided from the Applicant's current funds. Repayment of any federal loans will be from revenue from operation of the project." "power generated...will reduce the amount of energy purchased...."
    - - Exhibit 4, Project Maps "project boundary...includes approximately 2500 square feet of land" "4. No areas within or in the vicinity of the proposed boundary are included in or have been designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 5. No areas within the proposed project boundary have been (a) designated as wilderness area, (b) recommended for designation as wilderness area, or (c) designated as wilderness study area under the provisions of the Wilderness Act."
    - - - Figure 4-1 East Park Dam Hydroelectric Project Location Map (adapted from SC-26-26 05/1963 USACE watershed map)
    - - - Figure 4-2 Proposed Power Plant Plan and Project Boundary (Adapted from USWPRS Drawing of East Park Dam); parapet, railing, R=280', modified intake structure, power plant site, penstock, spillway 2000 feet south
    - - - Figure 4-3 Land Ownership, East Park Dam, Hydroelectric Project (Adapted from County Assessor's [ap) "All lands within parcel 14 [which includes the dam, spillway, etc.] are owned by the U.S. Government", bulk of S3 T17N R6W MDB & M
    - - 091680 Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, California; Resolution No 4288, City Manager authorized to execute & submit Aps to appropriate, to Reclamation, to FERC, to DOE, and to represent the City before those agencies


    Folder 2, Item ?
  • 10??81 Stony Gorge and East Park Powerplants, Orland Project - California, An Appraisal Report on Adding Hydroelectric Powerplants at Stony Gorge and East Park Dams, 10/1981, Unted States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
    - Summary
    - - Project "...power generated at the powerplants would be integrated with the Central Valley Project (CVP) hydroelectric system and transmitted to the Tracy load center under a wheeling agreement with" PGandE. "Power in excess of the CVP use requirements would be sold to preference customers by the Western Area Power Adminstration of the Department of Energy."
    - - Need for Development "...by about 1995 the Central Vally Project will be short by 3,000 gigawatthours annually in meeting current contractual commitments. [para] Together Stony Gorge and East Park Powerplants could provide approximately 13.2 million kilowatthours (kWh) at plant annually. This is equivalent to the generation that could be obtained from about 22,000 barrels of oil."
    - - Project Facilities. "At Stony Gorge Dam, a single-unit 3,000-kilowatt (kW) powerplant about 28 by 28 feet in area would be constructed adjoining the river outlet works. Water for the 4,023-horsepower turbine would be delivered by the two existing 50-inch-diameter outlet pipes, which would be extended and bifurcations installed. The new branch pipes directed towards the spillway would form a single 72-inch-diameter penstock. [para] Because the outlet works at East Park Dam could not safety be extended or modified to form a penstock, a tunnel would be driven into the left abutment [looking downstream] to provide housing for the required waterways. A single-unit 900-kW powerplant about 24 feet by 24 feet in area would be constructed at the outlet of this tunnel. Water for the 1,207-horsepower turbine would be delivered by a 72-inch-diameter penstock. [para] ...A switchyard about 40 by 50 feet in area would be built adjacent to each powerplant. Three-phase transformers would step up the generator voltage from 2.4 to 69 kilovolts (kV) at Stony Gorge and from 2.4 to 21 kV at East Park, for delivery to PG & E tranmission lines. [para] A 69-kV transmission line 1 mile long would be required for Stony Gorge Powerplant and a 21-kV line 2 miles long for East Park Powerplant. The transmission lines would be constructed by the Western Area Power Administration; the necessary takeoff structure at the transformers by the Bureau of Reclamation [sic, short sentence]."
    - - Construction Impacts, wildlife would be disturbed, nothing to historical & archaeological [towns & religious retreat under the reservoir?], anything 'found during construction, the procedure outlined in 43-CFR-422 [wasn't that repealed?] would be followed."
    - - Benefits and Costs
    - - - Benefits; "In an average year, the combined diversions to the Orland Project service area from Stony Gorge and East Park Dams total 108,000 acre-feet. At a design head of 92 feet, a 3,000-kW powerplant at Stony Gorge Dam would generate about 10,494,000 kWh annually. At a design head of 70 feet, East Park Dam would generate 2,738,000 kWh. Operation of the powerplants would provide no dependable electric generating capacity. [para] Annual benefits at load center would be $694,000 for Stony Gorge and $181,000 for East Park.
    - - - Costs; Costs are based on January 1980 price levels and an interest rate of 7-1/8 percent. The total Federal construction cost, interest during a 2-year construction period, and the capital cost are:
                                               Stony Gorge           East Park
                                               Powerplant            Powerplant
                                               -----------           ----------
      
      Construction cost                        $3,775,000            $2,780,000
      
      Interest during construction                269,000               198,000
                                               ----------            ----------
        Capital cost                           $4,044,000            $2,978,000
      

    - - - Annual Equivalent Costs; For a 100-year period of analysis, the annual equivalent costs at the interest rate of 7-1/8 percent [8 percent in main text] are:
      Annual equivalent capital cost             $288,000              $212,000
      
      Annual equivalent OM & R costs               95,000                77,000
                                               ----------            ----------
        Total annual equivalent project cost     $383,000              $289,000
      

    - - - Benefit-Cost Ratio; Annual benefits, annual equivalent costs, and the benefit-cost ratios for the powerplants are:
      Annual benefits                            $694,000              $181,000
      
      Annual equivalent costs                    $383,000              $289,000
                                          
      Benefit-cost ratio                        1.81:1.00             0.63:1.00
      

    - - Pertinent Data for Powerplants
    - - - [breakdown under "II. Cost and Economic Factors" :
      A.  Capital cost (new funds)             $4,044,000            $2,978,000
      
        Price level January 1980
        1.  Powerplant                          3,400,000             2,500,000
        2.  Switchyard                            290,000               180,000
        3.  Transmission line                      85,000               100,000
        4.  Interest during construction          269,000               198,000
                                               ----------            ----------
              Total Capital cost               $4,044,000            $2,978,000
                                               ==========            ==========
      
    - - Figure 1, "Stony Gorge - East Park Powerplant Studies Location Map; #22-208-259 05/1981 [Eat Park to Elk Creek]

    [main text]
    - Part I. Introduction
    - - Purpose and Scope
    - - Authority for Report, "authorized by the Federal Reclamation Act, 32 Stat. 388," 06/17/1902 "and acts amendatory or supplementary thereto, and by Public Law 95-482, dated" 10/18/1978. "The appraisal study was initiated in fiscal year 1979."
    - - Previous Investigations, none
    - - Need for Power, "...The Central Valley Project is contractually committed to meet the preference customers' load growth of 1,050 megawatts (MW) through the year 2004. According to Western's Draft Power Marketing Plan, the Central Valley Project will become energy short by 1986, even with energy available from existing and authorized CVP powerplants. By 1995, the Central Valley Project will be short by about 3,000 gigawatthours annually...."
    - - Public Involvement and Coordination, "Notice of Initiation of Investigation was distributed on" 12/31/1979 "to Federal and State agencies, the California congressional delegation, private and public agencies, environmental organizations, and news media. No comments were received. The study was discussed at two Regional Water Users' Conferences--one on" 01/24/1980 "in Monterey, California, and the other on" 01/15/1981 "in Reno, Nevada--and at a meeting with the Northern California County Supervisors' Association, Paradise, California on" 02/08/1980." Regional met "with California Energy Commission to discuss the latest developments in the region's powerplant studies." Willows met with local interests; this study coordinated with USFWS, Office of the Solicitor [which one?}; Interior; WAPA; DOE
    - Part II. Setting
    - - Stony Gorge Dam and Reservoir, "on Stony Creek in southern Glenn County. The dam, completed in 1928, is a concrete slab and buttress structure 139 feet high and 868 feet long at the crest. [para] The outlet works, at the base of the dam between buttresses 35 and 37, have a capacity of 1,000" cfs, "and consist of two intakes with trashracks on the upstream face, a gate chamber with two 3-1/2-foot-square high pressure gates, two 50-inch-diameter steel pipes, and two 42-inch-diameter balanced needle valves. An 18-inch-diameter outlet pipe supplies water to the town of Elk Creek, located 1 mile downstream. [para] The spillway, with a design capacity of 38,000" cfs "at water surface elevation 844.5 feet, is located near the center of the dam. Three 30-foot square crawler gates provide control of water surface elevation from a fixed crest of 821.38 feet to normal water suface elevation of 841 feet. At 841 feet the reservoir has a capacity of 50,400 acre-feet and a water surface area of 1,280 acres."
    - - East Park Dam and Reservoir, "Approximately 18 miles upstream from Stony Gorge Dam on Little Stony Creek in northern Colusa County are East Park Dam and Reservoir. The dam, completed in 1910, is a concrete arch gravity structure 138 feet high and 266 feet long at the crest. [para] Maximum storage capacity of East Park Reservoir is 50,900 acre-feet at water surface elevation 1,199 feet. The corresponding maximum surface area is 1,820 acres. Releases, made through an unscreened outlet structure at elevation 1,132, are controlled by hand-operated gate valves with a vertical release tower at the dam. A release valve located at a lower elevation is not functioning at the present time. The spillway, with a design capacity of 9,200" cfs "is located on the west rim of the reservoir about 1/4 mile south of the dam."
    - - p. 6, Dam Safety, "The Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, Public Law 95-578 [following the Teton Dam failure, assume not a coincidence], established criteria for determining the safety of existing dams. A dam must be able to: (1) Safely pass the inflow design flood developed according to advanced hydrologic standards, and (2) withstand the maximum credible earthquake (MCE) determined for the area. [para] Stony Gorge Dam could fail during an inflow design flood. Alternative modifications being considered for the dam would provide for overtopping or for construction of a gated spillway either in the right abutment or in natural ground at the north end of the dam. [para] East Park would withstand an inflow design flood, but some overtopping would occur. This spillway has the potential for failure when the existing spillway design capacity is exceeded. Modifications to East Park spillway may be required; however, they would not affect a powerplant located at the dam. [para] The results of seismotectonic studies made to define the maximum credible earthquake for the Stony Gorge and east Park Dam sites are [p. 7] covered [later]. Although stability evaluations have not been made for either dam or for East Park spillway, it is believed that all three structures could be seriously threatened by the occurrence of an MCE. To determine the ability of these structures to withstand an MCE, a dynamic analysis will be performed during the design phase of project modifications. [para] As a result of safety evaluations made in June 1980, it was recommended for both Stony Gorge and East Park Dams that: (1) Evaluations be made of the stability of each structure during dynamic loading conditions produced by the MCE, and (2) provisions be made to ensure that each structure can safely pass the inflow design flood."
    - - The Area
    - - - Climate
    - - - p. 7, Geology, "Stony Gorge...Unstable rock or soil conditions are not apparent in the dam foundation or upstream or downstream from the dam." [para] An east-west trending fault dipping 50 degrees northeast crosses the dam foundation on the right side of the channel. The fault belongs to a group of east-west 'cross-faults' which displace Cretaceous and Jurassic age marine sediments throughout the eastern foothills of the Coast Ranges. The cross faults do not displace Quaternary age deposits and so are considered inactive...." [p. 9] "East Park Dam blocks a narrow, steep-walled gorge which has been eroded into an extremely hard, massive conglomerate. The foundation conglomerate extends over 300 feet upstream from the dam but grades abruptly to interbedded claystone and siltstone immediately downstream from the dam. Both the conglomerate and interbedded claystone and siltstone dip 35 degrees to the east. Unstable rock or soil conditions are not apparent near the dam. [para] Claystone and, to a lesser extent, siltstone slake or break down when exposed to air, but remain hard and relatively unfractured if continuously submerged [water? soil? rock?]. Air slaking usually causes intense fracturing of outcrop surfaces to a depth of 0.1 to 0.4 foot. Conglomerate is unaffected by air slaking. [para] East Park Powerplant would be founded on interbedded claystone and siltstone. The power outlet-works tunnel would be almost entirely in massive conglomerate. A small amount of unconsolidated slopewash may be encountered near the tunnel's outlet portal."
    - - - Seismicity; "Stony Gorge and East Park Dams are located in an area of low to moderate seismic activity. Seismic events occurring within a 35-mile radius of the dams since 1903 range from 1 to 4.9 in magnitude (M), with the most common at magnitude 3. [para] Seismotectonic studies for the Stony Gorge and East Park Dam sites were made in 1981. Maximum credible earthquakes within 20 miles of the two dams have been assigned to the Willows Fault and the Franciscan block. More distanct active faults which have produced or are capable of [p. 10] producing events of magnitudes large enough to affect the dams are the San Andreas Fault, the Maacama-Lake Mountain fault zone, the Battle Creek Fault, and the Sierra Foothills fault zone. The estimated maximum credible earthquakes and corresponding epicentral distances for the causative structures which may possibly affect the dams are:
                                      Epiccentral distance from dam     
                                      -----------------------------     Focal
      Causative structure     MCE     Stony Gorge         East Park     depth
                              (M)         (mi)              (mi)         (mi)  
      
      Franciscan block        6.0           5                 3            6
      Willows Fault           6.0          20                20            6
      Battle Creek Fault      6.9          35                45            6
      Maacama-Lake Mountain
        fault zone            7.2          40                40            6
      Sierra Foothills
        Fault zone            6.5          50                50            6
      San Andreas Fault       8.5          70                65            6
      
    [ 1906 was estimated to be an 8.3 or 8.0 or 7.8 depending on who is quoted ; the San Francisco Marina and the Nimitz Freeway were both approximately 60 miles from the 6.9 or 7.1 Loma Prieta Quake. Yes, it depends on the soils under the structure (or the dam abutments), etc.]

    - - - Vegetation
    - - - Fish and Wildlife, "...both adult and immature bald eagles have been observed wintering in the area. The peregrine falcon, also endangered, is a seasonal visitor." "No trout are found in Stony Gorge, but East Park, which reportedly receives cool water from upwelling springs near the dam, supports a small population of trout." "The 10-mile reach from East Park to Stony Gorge is dewatered regularly, and the 20 miles from Stony Gorge to Black Butte are characterized by low flows, occasional dry periods, and high temperatures during the summer. No minimal flows for fish are required from Stony Gorge Dam." [p. 12] "Except for striped bass that are planted in Black Butte Reservoir and occasionally migrate up Stony Creek, anadromous fish are not present because their passage upstream is blocked at Black Butte Dam."
    - - - Air Quality, "only industry in the area is a lumber mill at the town of Elk Creek, downstream from Stony Gorge."
    - - - Water Quality, [no mercury?]
    - - - Social and Economic Conditions [for the counties, but not the foothill lands, and thus ignores the Angle effect]
    - - - Recreation
    - - - Cultural Resources; "...California Department of Parks and Recreation's Inventory of Historic Features , two historic sites--Bidwell Point and Grindstone Rancheria...." The National Register of Historic Places does not list any"
    - Part III. Plan Formulation,
    - - Water Supply, "Orland Project....Annual diversions for this project average 108,000 acre-feet." "Demand calculations were based on the current level of development, 17,000 irrigated acres... (The ultimate level of development, 21,000 acres, was not used since it is anticipated that the present level will not be exceeded for some time.) The project unit requirement, derived by dividing the historic diversion by the number of acres irrigated, was multipled by 17,000 acres to obtain [p. 18] the total demand..." "Average annual release for Stony Gorge for the 1928-78 study period was 216,600 acre-feet, with a maximum of 617,400 acre-feet in 1941 and a minimum of 10,700 acre-feet in 1977. Annual releases from East Park Reservoir averaged 60,400 acre-feet for the same period. The maximum annual release was 135,300 acre-feet in 1958; the minimum annual release was 6,830 acre-feet in 1977, a drought year."
    - - Power Potential
    - - Alternative Plans, "...The age and design of Eaast Park Dam and outlet works precluded incorporation of a pressurized penstock in the existing outlet works; therefore, in the powerplant design a tunnel was required to house the powerplant waterways." "...possible alternative site for East Park Powerplant that was not covered in this investigation, but that may warrant future consideration, is at East Park spillway. As a result of the dam safety studies made in June 1980, East Park spillway may be modified to meet the criteria established in the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act. The preferred modification would involve trenching of the spillway approach to an elevation of 1,160 feet. At the same time a penstock could be laid. A powerplant at this spillway would have a maximum head of about 40 feet." "17,500 barrels of oil for Stony Gorge and 4,600 barrels for East Park."
    - - p. 20, Plant Sizing, "Benefit values were based on a fuel replacement value of 70.6 mills/kWh (based on January 1980 prices) provided by FERC. This fuel replacement value, less a 1 mill/kWh wheeling charge, was multipled by the average annual energy generation to arrive at the benefit values." plant sizes larger than 3 MW may be further investigated, but 3 MW based on existing penstock velocities.
    - - Table 1. Sizing analysis for Stony Gorge Dam
    - - Table 2. Sizing analysis for East Park Dam
    - - Figure 2. Stony Gorge Powerplant Economic Analysis
    - - Figure 3. East Park Powerplant Economic Analysis
    - Part IV. Selected Plan
    - - Power Operation Studies, "Average annual power generation for a 3,000-kW powerplant at Stony Gorge and a 900-kW powerplant at East Park....no dependable capacity was produced at either site." "...Due to the age of the concrete in the dam and the nature of the outlet works, the existing outlet works at East Park Dam could not be extended or modified to form a pressurized penstock without possibly threatening the integrity of the dam. Therefore, a tunnel would be drivin into the [p. 37] left abutment [looking downstream] to provide housing for the required waterways."
    - - Table 3. Storage versus head (each project)
    - - Table 4. Estimation of tailwater elevations versus discharge (each)
    - - Figure 4. Francis turbine performance--head vs. power (from Figure 32, Engineering Monograph No. 20, Selecting Hydraulic Reaction Turbines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 12976
    - - Figure 5. Francis turbine performance--head vs. discharge
    - - Figure 6. Adjustible blade turbine performance--head vs. power
    - - Figure 7. Adjustible blade turbine performance--head vs. discharge
    - - Figure 8. Stony Gorge Powerplant Capability and Gross Generation
    - - Figure 9. East Park Powerplant Capability and Gross Generation
    - - Figure 10. Stony Gorge Powerplant (sketch) 22-208-272 05/1981
    - - Photos 1) Stony Gorge Dam and powerplant site. The powerplant would be located at the base of the dam between the outlet works (left center) and the spillway (right center) [view of most of downstream face of dam]. 2) Stony Gorge outlet works. [closer view of the 2 outlets in operation]
    - - Figure 11. East park Powerplant (sketch) 22-208-273 05/1981; showing new tunnel into abutment adjacent to "Existing Outlet Work", fed by penstock from trashrack well back into the reservoir;
    - - Photos 1) East Park Dam and powerplant site. The powerplant would be located adjacent to the existing outlet works in the area at the far right of the photograph. 2) East Park outlet works viewed from the top of the dam.
    - - Operation and Maintenance, "Stony Gorge has a full-time damtender; East park, a part-time damtender." "...powerplants would be unattended. Generator control would be semiautomatic with capability for complete shutdown and speed-no-load, but no automatic restart. Turbine startup, which is seldom required, would be through manual methods only."
    - Part V. Environmental Analyses, "both the short- and long-term impacts would be minor."
    - - Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation, "...existing or future fishery in Stony Creek would not be affected. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, routing winter floodflows throught he powerplants could have beneficial effects on reservoir fisheries....could be a decrease in fish lost from the reservoir during spills. At East Park, excess inflow is routed over the spilway and through a 1/4-mile-long bypass channel. Fish displaced into this channel can be killed from turbulence in cataract falls and from dewatering. A diversion of up to" 181 cfs "through the penstock tunnel and powerplant could reduce the number of fish lost from surface spilling. [p. 44] Both the California Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Wildlife Service have expressed concerns regarding the lack of any provision for minimum pools at Stony Gorge and East Park Reservoirs, and the severe fluctuations in the reservoirs during the warmwater fish spawning season from late April through Early June."
    - - Land Use
    - - Noise
    - - Cultural Resources
    - - Water Quality
    - - Air Quality, "...The amount of power generated by the plants is not expected to induce growth in residential areas...."
    - - Roads and Traffic Circulation, "The access road to the East Park site might need to be improved for use by construction equipment."
    - - Esthetics
    - - Economic and Social, "...A maximum of nine housing units would be required for the nonlocal work force at each powerplant and their families." [no discussion of Angle impacts]
    - - Significance of Impacts, "...impacts...minor and would have no lasting effect." "Addition of the powerplants is not controversial nor is there any known public opposition."
    - Part VI. Economic and Financial Analysis
    - - Economic Justification
    - - - Benefits, "...An average systemwide transmission loss of 5 percent was used to convert the energy value of 70.6 mills/kWh at load center to an at-plant value...."
    - - - Costs, "...An index of 1.846, extrapolated from the indices given in the Reclamation Instructions, was used to project 1980 price levels." "...To cover costs associated with wheeling, purchase power, or administrative and general overhead expenses, a 20 percent administrative charge was added to arrive at total powerplant O & M costs. [para] Replacement costs for Stony Gorge Powerplant were determined according to guidelines contained in chapter 6, part 154 of Reclamation Instructions. The percent-of-feature investment factors shown in figure 6 of part 154, and the sinking-fund factors for 7-1/8 percent at 5-year increments from years 15 through 50 were used. [para] The Reclamation Instructions do not cover plant sizes in the range of 900 kW. Therefore, operation, maintenance, and replacement (OM & R) costs for East Park Powerplant were estimated according to criteria recommended by Tudor Engineering Company in 'Reconnaissance Evaluation of Small, Low-Head Hydroelectric Installations' for a plant for which O & M activities cannot be integrated with related operations of other project facilities. The OM & R costs thus derived were calculated to be between 2 and 4 percent of capital cost. [para] Estimates of the OM & R costs for the switchyards and the transmission lines for both powerplants were provided by the Western Area Power Administration...."
    - - - Benefit-Cost Comparison, [repeated here because some numbers differ from the "Summary" at the beginning of the report]
                                               Stony Gorge           East Park
                                               Powerplant            Powerplant
                                               -----------           ----------
      
      Construction costs                       $3,775,000            $2,780,000
      
      Interest during construction at
        8 percent                                 302,000               222,000
                                               ----------            ----------
        Capital cost                           $4,077,000            $3,002,000
      
      Amortization of project investment--
        50 years at 8 percent interest           $333,000              $245,000
      Annual OM & R costs--50 years at
        8 percent                                  94,000                77,000
                                               ----------            ----------
        
        Total annual costs to be repaid          $427,000              $322,000
      
    The power rate required to recover the total annual costs to be repaid is calculated as:
    (annual cost)/(average annual generation x percent delivered) = rate
    Stony Gorge:
  • ($427,000)/(10,494,000 kWh x 0.95) = $0.0428/kWh, or 42.8 mills/kWh
    East Park
  • ($322,000)/(2,738,000 kWh x 0.95) = $0.1238/kWh, or 123.8 mills/kWh
    - Part VII. Conclusions ; Stony Gorge economically justified, East Park not [find no discussion of whether or not changing use of Rainbow canal would change the economics]; escalation of fuel costs may change this
    - Amended Material
    - - 041581 letter Coleman/WAPA to Catino/USW & PRS; thanks for allowing the review of the draft report, Stony Gorge feasible, East Park not, assuming "repayment rate of 42.9 mills/kWh for nonfirm energy", WAPA encourages "development of renewable resources such as hydroelectric"
    - - 10??78 Map No 22-208-96 United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Orland Project, California; Project irrigation area, T-C Canal, NSDD, South Canal, Black Butte, Stony Gorge, East Park, Rainbow DD, East Park Feed Canal; narrative on back "Factual Data on the Orland Project": 735 sq mi above Black Butte Dam ; "Farm Water Requirement, Water requirement for general irrigated agriculture in the project area is approximately 11 600 [cubic meters/ha] (3.8 acre-ft/acre) each year."


    Folder 2, Item ?
  • 102081 Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Application for License for Project No. 3193, The Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project By the City of Santa Clara, California, Prepared by: Resource Management International, Inc. Sacramento, California and Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., San Francisco, California; on cover, SCH "81011202"
    - 102081 Application
    - - Article 11 9 of California Constitution (which allows municipal power)
    - - Article IV Section 400 of Santa Clara City Charter (which ditto)
    - - Verification, Barry R. Flynn, Director of Electric Utility [signed]
    - - Verification, Barry R. Flynn, Director of Electric Utility [un-signed]
    - - 012081 Resolution No 4334, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, California, allows Director to file applications to appropriate water, access rights for power consideration, aps for power permits & licenses, aps for DOE loans, & represent the City before regulatory bodies
    - Exhibit A - Project Description,
    - - 1. General , use existing outlet works; "dam is a concrete slab and buttress structure which was completed in 1928....project will consist of two penstocks, a powerhouse, switchyard, and transmission lines...will not adversely affect the operation of the existing Stony Gorge Dam...utilize only the releases that would normally be discharged from the dam. [para] capacity 3.9 megawatts, to PGandE Elk Creek Substation 1 mile NW of dam, existing 21 kV transmission line is within 1,000 feet west of the dam, new line from switchyard will connect to the 21 kV or new 60 kV line to the substation?
    - - 2. Reservoir; surface 1274 acres, storage 50,000 a-f, normal max elevation 841 feet
    - - 2. [sic] Principal Project Features; crest length 868 feet, crest elev 847 feet 139 feet above streambed;
    - - - Outlet Works and Penstock, "modified by removing and reinstalling the existing needle valves at the end of two new 50-inch diameter Y-branched penstock extensions, new extensions 48 feet long and penstock branches will each be 100' long, reinstalled needle valves will operate unchanged
    - - - Power Plant, powerhouse 90 feet downstream to the right (north) of existing works; 36' x 57' reinforced concrete structure, removable cover providing maintenance access to equipment
    - - - Turbine, 2 2600 hp vertical Kaplan turbines with adjustable blades, butterfly valve for each turbine upstream of the spiral case, center line of spiral cases at el 715, 20' below normal tailwater elevation.
    - - - Generators and Switchyard, 2 1950 kw, 4160 v, 3-phase 60-cycle generators will be installed, switchyard cable disconnect switch to a transformer to step up from 4.16 kV to either 21 or 60 kV, yard adjacent to west side of powerhouse & include main tranformer, oil circuit breaker, lightning protection equipment, disconnect switch, and metering equipment.
    - - - Transmission Facilities, 21 kV line at Highway 36 [???] 1000' west of site connects with 60 kV PGandE Elk Creek Substation 1 mile NW of site, 21 kV cheapest, but plans & costing based on 60-kV line
    - - 4. United States Lands, portion of S16 T20N R6W: complex, odd-shaped metes & bounds, 4 acres, see G-1 map
    - - Figure A-1 Stony Gorge Reservoir, Area and Capacity Curves
    - - Figure A-2 Photograph of Project Site Area, View of Stony Gorge Dam Looking East-Southeast [aerial, full width of dam, entrance roads, etc.]
    - Exhibit B - Statement of Project Operation,
    - - 1. Method of Operation, 'run of the river'; estimated annual plant factor 49%; max hydraulic capacity of both units 700 cfs.
    - - 2. Estimate of Dependable Capacity, "Reclamation maintains daily records of the operation of Stony Gorge Dam"; tailwater elevation approximately 735 feet; during 1977 "the project would have only generated in the month of April."
    - - 3. Power Utilization
    - - 4. Statement of Future Development Plans
    - - Figure B-1 Stony Gorge Dam, Flow Duration Curve (Water Years 1944 thru 1978)
    - - Figure B-2 Stony Gorge Reservoir, Monthly Average Storage and Monthly Average Releases (Water Years 1944 thru 1978)
    - - Table B-1 Stony Gorge Reservoir, Monthly Average Surface Elevations
    - - Figure B-3 Stony Gorge Power Plant, Tailwater Rating Curve
    - - Figure B-4 Generating Capacities for one 1950 KW Unit at Stony Gorge Power Plant
    - - Figure B-5 Average Monthly Energy for the Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project
    - - Figure B-6 Average Annual Energy for the Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project
    - - Appendix B-1 - Annual Energy Generation Estimates for the Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project for the Years 1945 through 1978, month by month, 1 year per page
    - Exhibit C - Construction History and Schedule; "There are seasonal constraints to construction of some of the project features. it is important to note that there is a period of approximately five months during which the reservoir is high enough to allow releases to be controlled via the spillway gates while the outlet valve modification and basic foundation work are being completed. In late June or early July, the outlet valves may be required to make releases unless Black Butte storage may be used temporarily while these construction activities are completed. All efforts will be made to allow these activities to begin sufficiently early to allow completion by July...."
    - - Figure C-1 Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project Development Schedule
    - Exhibit D - Costs and Financing;
    - - 1. Project Capital Costs, total project capital costs are estimated at $11,122,300
    - - 2. Annual Project Costs, annual tax exempt debt service estimated $1,256,000 tax exempt 11% 35-year bonds, O & M + A & Ins $108,000, Annual FERC license $5,000, federal annual dam charge $10,000; power wheeling $50,000
    - - 3. Value of Project Power, don't anticipate revenue exceeding cost
    - - 4. Project Financing, tax exempt system revenue bonds, available operating & accrued utility revenue
    - - Table D-1 Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, Construction Cost Estimate; total Direct Project Construction Cost (June 1981) $6,923,000
    - - Table D-2 Total Capital Costs, Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, $11,122,300
    - - Table D-3 Annual and Average Energy Costs, Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, average delivered energy costs 85.5 mills/kwh
    - - Figure D-1 Comparison of Stony Gorge Project Energy Costs with a Range of Projected PG & E R-1 Wholesale Energy and Capacity Costs
    - - -
    [Environmental Report]

    - Exhibit E - Environmental Report, p. E-1 [is this the third earliest environmental report on the watershed?]
    - - 1. Description of Locale
    - - - A. Topography and Geology; "...The dam and reservoir sites and surrounding area are somewhat typical of the prominent strike ridge and valley topography which parallels the mountain front and separates the younger, gently east-dipping sediments of the central part of the northern Sacramento Valley from the coast Ranges to the west. This ridge and valley topography appears to be the result of differential erosion of the steeply east-dipping relatively resistant conglomerates and the less resistant mudstones and shales. Typically these ridge and valley sections are asymetrical with step slopes on the west side of the ridges [p. E-3] The approximately accordant ridge summits may be remnants of an older erosional surface. [para] The rocks at the dam and reservoir site are primarily those belonging to the Great Valley Sequence, a thick section of interbedded mudstone, sandstone, and conglomerate of Jurassic and Cretaceous age. These are classic deep marine sediments probably derived from the Sierra Nevada Batholith to the east and the Klamath Mountains to the north. Within the project area about 3/4 of the Great Valley rocks are mudstone, about 1/8 are sandstone, and about 1/8 are conglomerate."
    - - - Figure E-1 Location Map, Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, U.S. Army Engineer District, 05/1963 SC-26-26 [the entire watershed, actually]
    - - - B. Meterology and Climate
    - - - C. Hydrology [See Black Butte Ap 3190 for much of this]; "The chemical quality of the water in Stony Gorge Reservoir is calcium-bicarbonate in character. Dissolved oxygen is about 8.2 mg/l and changes slightly with depth. Measurements of pH in the reservoir at varying locations and depths range from 7.3 to 7.7. Surface water temperatures in the summer range from 62 to 71.
    - - - Table E-1 Stony Gorge Dam Area Stratigraphy
    - - - Figure E-2 Normal Annual Precipitation, Precipitation Stations and Snow Courses, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 05/1963 file SC-26-28 [ shows list of stations and their placement on the map, lines for annual rainfall (showing valley from Newville past Lodoga in a reduced rainfall island
    - - - Table E-2 Monthly Mean Temperature - Orland (Elev. 254)
    - - - Figure E-3 Topography and Stream Gaging Stations, U.S. Army Engineer District, 05/1963 File SC-26-27, list of stream stations and placement on the map
    - - - Table E-3 Mean Monthly Inflow at Stony Gorge Reservoir, 1944-1978
    - - - Table E-4 Average Monthly Outflow Stony Gorge Reservoir, 1944-1978
    - - - D. Vegetation, "The proposed power plant would be located where water from the outlet works has scoured the ground adjacent to the stream channel down to bare rock...."adjacent streambank has been disturbed by excavation and supports only a low sparse growth of annual grasses..." "...mountain mahogany [Cercocarpus - 5 or 6 species]...." [?]
    - - - Table E-5, Estimated Natural Flood Peaks and Volumes at Black Butte Dam [sic] Site
    - - - Figure E-4 Rainflood Frequency Curves, Natural Conditions, Stony Creek at Black Butte Dam [sic], Corps of Engineers, 01/1971 [estimated max, 125,000 cfs/day]
    - - - E. Wildlife and Fisheries, "...The section of Stony Creek between Stony Gorge Dam and Black Butte Reservoir is also of minimum fishery value because of low flows and high water temperatures during the summerl. Although a few catfish are found in this stream section, most of the fish standing crop [?] is made up of non-game species. Striped bass from Black Butte Reservoir have been reported to make spawning runs to the base of Stony Gorge Dam when there is sufficient streamflow, but it is not clear how regularly this occurs. In the past there was occasionally a small run of king salmon in Stony Creek below the Black Butte Dam in years when heavy rains breached the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District diversion dam (Puckett, 1969). However, there are no recent reports of any significant spawning usage of the streambed below Black Butte Dam." "...30 species of amphibians and reptiles...200 species of birds....50 species of mammals..." "osprey nest is located on the reservoir about 1-1/2 miles above the dam. A heron rookery is established in riparian woodland several miles downstream from Stony Gorge Dam."
    Figure E-5, Power Plant Site, Exposed Bedrock Immediately Downstream from Outlet Works (view from top of dam looking down directly over outlet valves), photo
    Figure E-6, Project Site Vegetation, photo of downstream face of dam
    Table E-6, Fish Species of the Stony Creek Drainage (see 3190 report below for full table]
    - - - F. Archeology and History
    - - - G. Demography p. E-22 "The Stony Creek watershed is sparsely populated." [no mention of Angle Decree effects] "Elk Creek, the community surrounding Louisiana Pacific's lumber mill, had a 1976 population of 300 according to the Glenn County Planning Department. Population has fluctuated due to variations in employment at the mill."
    - - - Table E-7 Population
    - - - Table E-8 Employment Glenn County (1976 Annual Average)
    - - - H. Land Use, Development, and Zoning, p. E-24 "...All the government owned land around the project is zoned as Open Space as part of the Open Space Element of the Glenn County General Plan. Of the 2,436 acres of land which have been acquired for Stony Gorge Reservoir, the reservoir occupies 1,275 acres and all but 70 acres of the remaining 1,161 acres are available for public use."
    - - - Table E-9 Yearly Family Income (Glenn County, 1976)
    - - - Table E-10 Age and Racial Characteristics
    - - - I. Recreation, "Mendocino National Forest...trout fishing...." "facilities have in the past been managed by a concessionaire, management since 1977-1978 has been provided by the USBR."
    - - - Table E-11 Mean Monthly Irrigation Demand and Outflow, Black Butte [sic] Reservoir (in acre feet)
    - - - Figure E-7 Recreation Facilities, Stony Gorge Reservoir (map)
    - - 2. Report on Water Use and Water Quality, p. E-31
    - - - A. Consumptive Uses of Project Waters, p. E-31 "In addition to the primary irrigation and flood control purposes of Stony Gorge Dam the reservoir serves a small domestic water supply system to provide water to the town of Elk Creek. Elk Creek purchases water for their supply from the Orland Unit Water Users' Association."
    - - - B. Nonconsumptive Uses of Project Waters
    - - - C. Water Quality
    - - - D. Flow Release Schedules and Rates
    - - - E. Measures Recommended by Agencies to Protect or Improve Water Quality
    - - - Table E-12 Water Quality Control Plan Report, Volume 1, SWRCB, showing water uses for most tributaries to the Central Valley
    - - - Table E-13 Mean Monthly Runoff at Stony Gorge Reservoir
    - - - Table E-14 Natural Flows at Stony Gorge Reservoir
    - - - Table E-15 Estimated Natural Flood Peaks and Volumes at Black Butte Dam Site [sic, same as Table E-5]
    - - - Figure E-8, Stony Gorge Reservoir Storage and Monthly Average Releases (Years 1944 thru 1978)
    - - - Table E-16 Mean Monthly Irrigation Demand and Ouflow, Black Butte Reservoir [sic] (in acre feet) [same as Table E-11]
    - - - F. Mitigation for Short-Term Impacts on Water Quality
    - - - G. New and Continued Measures Proposed by the Applicant to Protect or Improve Water Quality
    - - - H. Long-Term Impacts of Project Operation in Water Quality
    - - - I. Water Quality Certification
    - - - J. Consultation with State and Federal Agencies
    - - 3. Report on Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources, p. E-40
    - - - A. Fish, Wildlife and Botanical Resources, see 1. D & E
    - - - B. Impact of Project on Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources, "...inspected by Dr. James A. Neilson on" 04/21/1981. "Dr. Neilson confirmed that no plant species of special concern, in particular the native snapdragon Antirrhinum subcordatum exist on the proposed project site." CEQA review, Negdec 08/04/1981
    - - - C. Measures or Facilities Proposed by Agencies to Protect or Improve Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources ; no salmon discussion, minimum pools; springtime search for plants, done so, nada;
    - - - D. New and Continued Measures or Facilities Proposed by Applicant to Protect or Improve Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources; none
    - - - E. Long-Term Impacts of Project Operation on Fish, Wildlife, and Botantical Resources; none
    - - - F. Design and Operation of Protection and Improvement Measures p. E-43 ; none
    - - 4. Report on Historical and Archaeological Resources, p. E-44
    - - - A. Historical and Archaeological Resources; "present project area is located within lands formerly held by the Hill Nomlaki." [considerable discussion]
    - - - B. Impact of the Project on Historical and Archaeological Resources and Recommendations
    - - - C. Identification of Historic Sites and Places
    - - - D. Measures Recommended by Agencies for Locating, Identifying, or Salvaging Historical or Archaeological Resources
    - - - [3 blank sheets]
    - - - E. Survey and Salvage Activities
    - - - F. Consultation with State and Federal Agencies
    - - 5. Report on Recreational Resources, p. E-52
    - - - A. Description of Existing Recreational Facilities
    - - - B. Estimates of Existing Recreational Uses
    - - - C. Proposed Recreational Facilities and Opportunities
    - - - D. Estimates of Potential Recreational Uses [none]
    - - - E. Measures or Facilities Proposed by Applicant to Create, Preserve, or Enhance Recreational Opportunities [none]
    - - - F. Responsibility, Schedule, and Costs of Recreation Recommendations
    - - - G. Description of Areas Proposed for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System [nope]
    - - - H. Description of Areas Recommended or Designated as Wilderness Areas or Wilderness Study Areas [far away]
    - - - I. Consultation with State and Federal Agencies
    - - 6. Report on Land Management and Aesthetics, p. E-54
    - - - A. Description of Land Use and Development on Lands Abutting the Project Impoundment, "Minimum parcel size is 160 acres and the proposed density is one family per 160 acres." "Immediately west and downstream of Stony Gorge Dam the low lands adjacent to Stony Creek are designated S-P, Special Planning Area...land areas which either have been, are being, or are [p. E-55] proposed to be developed in conformity with planned development or other carefully prepared and closely supervised plans. Here along Stony Creek the Special Planning Area designation was implemented in 1978 out of concern for potential development problems in this area such as sewage disposal and water supply. There is, at this time, no specific plan completed for this area. [uh, didn't Reclamation say there was a seismic hazard?] [para] The USBR owns and manages 2,436 acres surrounding Stony Gorge Reservoir, including the proposed project site area. the reservoir occupies ],275 [sic, the bracket] acres and the remaining lands are designated as either Recreation Area, Reclamation Operation Area, or Grazing and Limited Day Use Area.
    - - - B. Description of Measures Proposed by Applicant to Ensure the Project Blends with the Surrounding Environment
    - - - C. Description of Wetlands or Floodplains; none [without a seismic event?]
    - - - D. Impacts on Wetlands or Floodplains
    - - - E. Description of the Applicant's Ability to Provide a Buffer Zone around the Impoundment
    - - - F. Applicant's Policy Permitting Development of Piers, Docks, Boat Landings, and Other Shoreline Facilities on Project Lands and Waters
    - - - G. Maps and Drawings of Proposed Facilities
    - - - H. Consultation with State and Federal Agencies
    - - 7. List of Literature [some of the relevant ones] , p. E-57, 3190 plus County Johns-Manville , and 19. RMI Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project Initial Environmental Study, May 1981 & RMI Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study, August 1981
    - - 8. List of Agencies/Individuals Contacted
    - - - 010881 letter Harvego/RMI to Catino/Reclamation; beginning FERC approved feasibility studies;
    - - - - Attachment C, Requests to Water and Power Resources Service for Baseline Environmental Data;
    - - - 011081 letter Harvego/RMI to Weddell/USACE; same as 3190

    - - - [page with] "NOTE: The following letter is an example of the letters sent to the individuals and agencies listed in Section 8 of Exhibit E."
    - - - - 010281 letter Harvego/RMI to Fisher/CDFG; CEQA inquiry,
    - - - - - Attachment C, Request for comments
    - - - 011281 letter Catino/USW & PRS to Flynn/Santa Clara; re 12/17/1980 letter on FERC permits on studying feasibility for Black Butte & Stony Gorge
    - - - 060980 letter Horton/USW & PRS to Von Raesfeld/Santa Clara; contact Donald C. Anderson for Stony Gorge access; are presently studying a federal power plant for Stony Gorge & East Park, decision will depend on pending legislation, etc., but if non-Federal, a charge will be required
    - - - 012781 letter Schuster/USW & PRS to Harvego/Santa Clara; enclosed is a 'Procedural Outline to Insure Cooperation Between City of Santa Clara and Water and Power Resources Service'; "Our policy is to assess a charge of 50 percent of the net power revenues resulting from power plant operations."
    - - - - Stony Gorge Dam Power Project, Project No. 3193 (FERC), Procedural Outline to Insure Cooperation between City of Santa Clara and Water and Power Resources Service; 10. 2 months for Denver Research Center to review everything; 11. $50,000 charge for the review and you have to ask us to do it and agree to pay for it, in writing; 12. we charge a fee to use the dam; "13. We would appreciate receiving a copy of your environmental assessment or Negative Declaration. Although FERC would be responsible for compliance with National Environmental Police Act, the service will need to review the environmental document to determine any impacts on our facilities or operations."
    - - - 021181 letter Schuster/USW & PRS to Harvego/Santa Clara; enclosed responses to B & C
    - - - - B. Request for Comments; [see 3190] have jurisdiction, permit required, contract 14-06-200-3502 dated 08/26/1954 modifies Contract of 04/03/1909 w/OUWUA for care, operation & maintenance of Orland Project; W & P "responsibility for management of the following resources: Water, Recreation, Wildlife, Fisheries, Vegetation, Grazing, Viewshed, Water quality and Soil and Moisture conservation." [all of it?]; concerned about a "peaking operation" affecting environmental resources. . .
    - - - - C. Requests to Water and Power Resources Service for Baseline Environmental Data; "We have not identified and defined the flood events downstream from the reservoir..." Water Quality Data: "1. Paskenta-Newville Project, Water Quality Control Data, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, May 1967, 2. Black Butte Reservoir, Water Quality Date, Corps of Engineers, December 1969"; Recreational: 4 miles interior roads, unpaved parking for 150 cars, 6 camping areas with total for all 6: 28 - tent only, 35 tent or trailer; 12 picnic areas total 64 individual units; 3 vault & 7 portable toilets ; no drinking water; 1 2-acre swimming bench; 1 1-lane boat launch ramp; 1 200-person group camp area; 31,402 visitor days, 65% local, 35% non-local
    - - - 021881 letter Schuster/USW & PRS to Harvego/Santa Clara; unable to accommodate your meeting date, offer 02/26/1981 at Cottage; preparing a right-of-entry permit for Stony Gorge access, sign, return; cc: Minasian
    - - - 030281 letter Catino/USW & PRS to von Raesfeld/Santa Clara; grant right-of-entry to Stony Gorge; a. each entry needs advance approval, especially where there is use of equipment & possible disturbance or damage, b. if drilling, submit plans first, c. restore anything damaged, d. no cost or expense to USA, e. hold harmless
    - - - 052281 letter Catino/USW & PRS to von Raesfeld/Santa Clara; letter of agreement; USW & PRS to review, up to $50,000 with $10.000 in advance, no more than $10,000 before FERC approves; agreement ends upon start of commercial operation & execution of an operating agreement, or, if notice from City of election not to proceed; balance between FERC approval and end of agreement? sign & send a $10,000 check.
    - - - 012781 letter Wolcott/NMFS to Harvego/RMI; see no anadromous effects, so no comment
    - - - 122880 letter McKevitt/USFWS to Flynn/Santa Clara; want to be kept informed, but anticipate no active involvement;
    - - - 012381 letter McKevitt/USFWS to Harvego/RMI; affected: "warmwater fish in Stony Gorge Reservoir, Black Butte Reservoir and Stony Creek; anadromous chinook salmon in Stony Creek downstream from Black Butte Reservoir; raptors such as the federally endangered bald eagle and peregrine falcon which are occasionally observed in the area; California quail, mourning dove, and a wide variety of nongame birds and mammals." attaching letter to USP & WRS of 09/25/1980 on same subjects; "Additional resoruces of importance at Black Butte Reservoir include striped bass and channel catfish. The potential for impacting anadromous fish runs in Stony Creek should be addressed in your report. Some fall [p. 2] chinook salmon are occasionally observed in Stony Creek, but excessively sandy substrate, scouring flows and spring diversions into the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation Canal have greatly limited fish production in this system." "turbine-induced fish mortality, fluctuating lake levels, fluctuating stream flows and improperly designed transmission lines. Indirect impacts would include constraints placed on future negotiations for modifying flow release schedules at the reservoirs to improve fish resources because of power generation commitments." mitigations, "desigining operation schedules to maintain desired minimum pools in Black Butte and Stony Gorge Reservoirs, and a minimum flow in Stony Creek (including the stream stretch between the two reservoirs). Black Butte Reservoir provides an outstanding sport fishery for crappie, bass and catfish, and measures should be implemented to limit drawdown as much as possible during the peak spawning period in the spring."; springtime botanical search; want copies of results of environmental studies
    - - - 092580 memo Field Supervisor/USFWS, Berkeley to Regional Director/Water & Power Resources, Sacramento; 5 page "planning aid ...." same as #3190
    - - - 012181 letter Bloyd/USGS Water Resources to Flynn/Santa Clara; Black Butte data adequate; better data required at Stony Gorge if project goes in;
    - - - 012181 letter Penna/Heritage to Flynn/Santa Clara; our contact Don Christensen; notify us of studies
    - - - 030981 letter Penna/Heritage to Harvego/RMI; project looks OK, concerned about the transmission lines & temporary access roads; see no effect on recrecreation
    - - - 012181 letter Weddell/USACE to Harvego/RMI; concerned about disposal of dredged or fill material; & Black Butte mods must respect flood control requirements & USACE design & construction criteria
    - - - 020681 letter Nicholas/Cal Regional WQCB Central Valley to Harvego/RMI; don't yet see a water quality problem
    - - - - Attachment C - jurisdiction under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act & California Porter-Cologne Act; impacts: "construction related water quality impacts (e.g. increased turbidity, discharge of fuels, grease, oils, etc.) [same as 3190?]
    - - - 021081 letter Dr. Mellon/Historic Preservation to Harvego/RMI; same as 020681 3190 letter?
    - - - 022681 letter Dr. Mellon/Historic Preservation to Harvego/RMI; Agree with Bill Miller of your staff that moving the poles away from CA-GLE-216 is a good idea, still would urge archaeological monitoring....
    - - - - 36 CFR 880.7 "800.7 Resources discovered during construction."
    - - - 012181 letter Dolcini/DWR Northern District to Harvego/RMI; same as 3190, Glenn Reservoir Complex & Thomes-Newville plan....
    - - - 012381 memo Sabiston/Div WRights to Burns/Resources Agency Projects Coordinator; recommend single environmental document for both Black Butte & Stony Gorge projects
    - - - 013081 [?] memo Robie/DWR to Johnson/Resources Agency & Harvego/RMI; echoing Dolcini letter regarding Thomes-Newville Project
    - - - 012781 memo Fullerton/CDFG to Johnson/Resources Agency; Black Butte SCH 81010728P & Stony Gorge 81010729P; "Any changes in the flow release schedule could be detrimental to fishery resources. Peaking flows, of course, are undesirable. Water quality during construction is also a concern."
    - - - 021081 letter Howard/Glenn County Planning Commission to Glenn County Board of Supervisors; Planning Commission considered 01/21/1981, disapproves of using the power outside Glenn County
    - - - 012281 letter McIntyre/Glenn County Air Pollution Control District to Miller/RMI; no comments at this time, keep us in the loop
    - - - 060380 letter Kowta/Reginal Office California Archaeological Site Survey to Nichols/RMI; same as Black Butte letter
    - - - 060281 Flynn/City of Santa Clara to State Clearinghouse; enlcosed proposed negative declaration and Initial Study for Stony Gorge, comments from the various agencies summarized in Appendix A, request your comments by 07/01/1981
    - - - - 051981 Proposed Negative Declaration, FONSI
    - Exhibit F - General Design Drawings
    - - Drawing F-1, Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, Project Works Plan, General Plan; Outlet Modification & Powerhouse Plan, Section A-A (vertical cross) & B-B (horizontal cross)
    - Exhibit F - General Design Drawings [2 different title pages?]
    - - Table F-1, Preliminary Design Criteria, Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project
    - - - Reinforced Concrete
    - - - Reinforcing Steel Concrete
    - - - Minimum Reinforcement
    - - - Minimum Reinforcement Cover
    - - - Seismic Loading, pseudostatic seismic coefficient - 0.20g
    - - - Lateral Earth Pressures
    - - - Appendix F-1, Stony Gorge Dam Regional and Site Area Geology; ESA Glenn Reservoir Complex report & "1980 draft report on site geology for the Stony Gorge Dam spillway modification study by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation." [similar to E.1.A]
    - - - - Rock and Soil Types "...Soils in the foothill and valley areas are generally clay, covered with shallow deposits of gravel and sand in the vicinity of streams."
    - - - - Faults and Joints, "Stony Gorge Dam is about four miles east of the Stony Creek fault and Coast Range thrust which runs north-south along the east side of the Coast Range. Several shears and a foundation fault are in the vicinity of the Stony Gorge Dam. The majority of shears and the fault are tight, clean, occaionally slickensided fractures with little or no gouge. Shears range in length from 10 to over 325 feet; the fault is over 1,000 feet long. Apparent bedding offset on the various shears ranges from a few inches to 3 to 4 feet; the main fault shows apparent lateral offset of bedding of approximately 124 feet. This fault trends east-west and is steeply northeast-dipping. The fault was mapped during excavation of the Stony Gorge Dam key trench in the 1920's. It intersects the dam axis between buttresses 33 and 34. [para] A few open joints are present downstream of the outlet structure between buttresses 35 and 37, in the floor and right slope of the 'outlet channel'. The most obvious joint strikes N. 77 E., dips 27 SW out of the right slope, is 21 feet long, and is open 1 inch to 0.2 foot. The joint separates a large sliver of conglomerate from the main rock mass. Other open joints are not visible but are assumed to underlie conglomerate in the 'outlet channel' floor as the conglomerate produces a hollow sound locally when struck by a rock hammer. [para] The channel downstream of the outlet structure was apparently excavated in massive conglomerate by drilling and blasting as evidenced by several remnants of old vertical shotholes (bootlegs) in the channel floor. The blasting either [p. F-1.3] caused existing joints to open or created new, open fractures in the rock. These open joints are now manifested as the southwest dipping joint and the 'hollow' floor of the 'outlet channel' as described above."
    - - - - Groundwater, "There is no evidence of extensive amounts of groundwater in the vicinity of the proposed Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project. The bedrock foundation of the dam and power plant is relatively impermiable, and there have been no instances of seepage under the dam."
    - - - - Landslide Hazards, "The proposed project is in an area that is gently sloping and slightly irregular. There should be no landslide hazards from cut slopes. Excavation for the powerhouse foundation and tailrace will require the normal slope stability protection.
    - - - - Seismic Potential, "Stony Gorge Dam is in an area of low to moderate seismicity. Recorded earthquakes within a 40-mile radius of the dam range in magnitude between 1 and 4.8, with the most common at magnitude 3. Earthquake epicenters within the region do not show a significant alignment or association with known faults. The Stony Creek fault has experienced the most recent movement of all faults in the region, this being between 30,000 and 130,000 years. A list of seismic events that may affect the Stony Gorge Project are shown in Table F-1A [same as Black Butte F-1A]
    - - - - Foundation Conditions
    - - - - TABLE F-1A PROBABLE SEISMIC EVENTS FOR STONY GORGE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (same as Black Butte table)
    - Exhibit G - Project Map
    - - Drawing G-1, Project Boundary Map [explains the complex metes & bounds, vertical view with topo lines]




    Cat 20 TRANSCRIPTS AND EXHIBITS VOL. 1 OF 1

    Folder 4, Item Index
  • Item 1. Transcripts
  • Item 2. State Water Resources Control Board
    - Exh. 1 Files of Applications 26378, 26379 [tx & 26745] and all material contained therein. (by reference)
    - Exh. 2 Files of Applications 26658, 26659 [tx & 26682] and all material contained therein. (by reference)
    - Exh. 3 Files of Applications 2212, 18115, and all material contained therein. (by reference)
    - Exh. 4 Judgment and Decree in the action, United States of America v. H.C. Angle, by the United States District Court, Northern District of California Equity No. 30, dated 01/13/1930. (by reference)
    - Exh. 5 Water Quality Control Plan, Sacramento River Basin 5A, approved by the SWRCB, 08//21/1975, as amended. (by reference)
    - Exh. 6 U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 'Water Resources Data for California, Volume 4, Northern Central Valley Basins and the Great Basin from Honey Lake Basin to Oregon State Line' and all appropriate predecessor publications. (by reference)
    - Exh. 7 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climatological Data for California, for the period of published record. (by reference)
    - Exh. 8 Topographic maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey covering the area under consideration. (by reference)
    - Exh. 9 10??81 Stony Gorge and East Park Powerplants, An Appraisal Report on Adding Hydroelectric Powerplants at Stony Gorge and East Park Dams, 10/1981, Unted States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. (by reference)
    - Exh. 10 05??81 Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, Initial Environmental Study, City of Santa Clara by Resources Management International, Inc., 05/1981. (by reference)
    - Exh. 11 05??81 Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, Initial Study, City of Santa Clara by Resources Management International, Inc.,05/1981. [in Black Butte files, Ap 26379, Cat 3 vol. 1]. (by reference)
    - Exh. 12 09??80 Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Application for Preliminary permit for East Park Dam Hydroelectric Project, submitted by City of Santa Clara, California, 09/1980. (by reference)
    - Exh. 13 ?????? Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Application for License for Project No. 3193, The Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project By the City of Santa Clara, California [Prepared by: Resource Management International, Inc. Sacramento, California and Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., San Francisco, California SCH 81011202]. (by reference)
    - Exh. 14 SWRCB, Project Area Map for Applications 26378, 26379, 26658, 26659. (by reference)
  • Item 3. City of Santa Clara
    - Exh. 1 Application 26745 (cancelled) - Map of East Park - Project Works plan - November 1982 DWG No. F-1
    - Exh. 2 Application 26745 (cancelled) - Detail drawings - East Park Project Works Plan - November 1982 DWG No. F-2
    - Exh. 3 Application 26745 (cancelled) - Photo Looking Upstream at East Park Dam.
    - Exh. 4 General map showing location of projects Unter [sic] Applications, 26745, 26378, 26379.
    - Exh. 5 Application 26379 - Map of Black Butte - Project Works Plan Project No. 3190, 09/1981 - DWG No. F-1
    - Exh. 6 Application 26379 - Detail drawings - Black Butte Project Works Plan Project No. 3190, 09/1981 - DWG No. F-2
    - Exh. 7 Application 26379 - Photo Looking downstream from Black Butte Dam.
    - Exh. 8 Application 26378 - Map of Stony Gorge - Project Boundary Map - Project No. 3193 (No Date) - DWG No. G-1
    - Exh. 9 Application 26378 - Detail Drawings - Stony Gorge Project Works Plan - Project No. 3193 09/1981 - DWG No. F-1
    - Exh. 10 Application 26378 - Photo Looking upstream at Stony Gorge Dam
    - Exh. 11 Application 26379 - Before the Federal Engergy Regulatory Commission Application for License for Project No. 3190 - the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project by the City of Santa Clara, California [missing,
    - Exh. 12 110381 Extract from the City Charter of the City of Santa Clara, Amended - General Municipal Election - 11/03/1981 - Regarding issuance of Revenue Bonds
  • Item 4. Orland Unit Water Users Association
    - Exh. 1 12??80 Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Application for Preliminary Permit for East Park Hydroelectric Project, Orland Unit Water Users Association, Orland, California, 12/1980
    - Exh. 2 12??80 Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Application for Preliminary Permit for Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, Orland Unit Water Users Association, Orland, California, 12/1980
    - Exh. 3 10??80 Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Application for Preliminary Permit for Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, Orland Unit Water Users Association, Orland, California, 10/1980
    [end of Item Index]
    - - - - - - - -

    Folder 4, Item 1
  • 121582 [Reporter's Transcript] Before the State Water Resources Control - Board, State of California, Wednesday 12/15/1982 10:00 a.m., 193 pp., In the Matters of:
    - East Park Reservoir, Colusa County
    - - Application 26745, the City of Santa Clara
    - - Application 26682, Orland Unit Water Users Association
    - Stony Gorge Reservoir, Glenn County
    - - Application 26378, the City of Santa Clara
    - - Application 26659, Orland Unit Water Users Association
    - Black Butte Reservoir, Tehama County
    - - Application 26379, the City of Santa Clara
    - - Application 26658, Orland Unit Water Users Association
    - Board: Dr. Falih K. Aljibury Presiding, Warren (Doug?) Noteware
    - Staff: Buck Taylor, Counsel; Keith Bieg, Engineer; Leo Winternitz, Environmental Specialist; Gary Simon, Energy Consultant
    - Counsel, Santa Clara, Barry F. McCarthy
    - Counsel, OUWUA & GCID, Paul Minasian & Jeff Meith
    - Counsel, Francis & Marie Graham: Gordon Joseph Graham, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles County, and Matthew Graham
    - David Johnson, President-elect, Colusa Chamber of Commerce
    - Phil B. Shimmel, representing People of Stonyford
    - Floyd Marsh, Colusa County Board of Supervisors
    - Jack Somerville, President, Stony Creek Water District
    - [ & Ms. Westcamp ]
    - p. 2 "During the time intervening from the official closing of this hearing until the Board issues a decision on the applications, there will be no further opportunity for introducing evidence except for comments related to the environmental impacts of the project...."
    - pp. 4-5, "Floyd Marsh, member of the Board of [p. 5] Supervisors of Colusa County. My residence is Williams. And I am also a property owner at Stone Mountain above Stonyford." [where is Stone Mountain?]
    - p. 5 Paul Minasian & Jeff Meith are also protestants?
    - p. 8 Taylor: "There are, apparently, a number of people here today who may wish to make brief statements or presentations...try to hear some of the protestants that only have brief statements...Staff will approach the protestants and interested parties at the first intermission and we will try to obtain the names of those persons that would [p. 9] like to speak this afternoon."
    - p. 28 [Mr. Nichol, Black Butte] "In order to maintain a controlled water surface which allows for controlled operation of the powerplant, downstream there would be a reregulation dam, a low concrete structure that would provide for a constant pool level or nearly constant pool level for the powerplant. [para] At present the releases to the Orland project's Southside Canal are made out of Black Butte Dam out of the existing outlet works which are directly below the dam. These facilities would remain, but an additional facility would be provided a few hundred feet downstream of the dam where the old canal which existed prior to the construction of the Corps of Engineers' Black Butte Dam exists. That portion of the old canal downsream of the dam would be re-excavated and a new set of control gates would be placed near where that excavated canal intersects the existing stilling basin. [This is the second rediversion after the Decree?] [p. 29] ...By doing this arrangement, it provides for, as identified in the exihibit, continued releases to the Orland South Canal without any degradation of function."
    - p. 30 "...perspective, Exhibit SC 7 is a photograph of Black Butte Dam looking from the top of the dam downstream, so the photo was taken...from approximately over the existing outlet works on top of the dam looking downstream....In the middle of this photograph is a picture of the existing stilling basin. On the right-hand side of that stilling basin is a galvanized steel house which encloses the control gates to the Orland South Canal which is shown off to the right-hand side of the drawing, that narrow body of water. [para] The proposed powerplant site is on the left-hand side of the [discharge] channel. Directly below a large oak tree water would then be released into the stilling basin from the powerplant site. [para] The reregulation dam referred to in Exhibit 5 downstream of the powerplant is at the narrow portion where the existing [p. 31] channel narrows down and that would provide the water level necessary to maintain the control within the middle of this stilling basin below the existing outlet works. [para] The photo shows a line of riparian vegetation where the existing or the old abandoned section of the Southside Canal is, and that, of course, where the vegetation is, is the location where the new control gates to allow the release of water into the Southside Canal would be provided."
    - p. 40 [Minasian] "The Orland Unit propose, in regard to development calls for using this existing outlet works by lining it, [sic, syntax] making it a pressure vessel and locating the powerplant approximately where the present gate valves are into the" OUWUA "facilities, and then diverting the percentage of water needed for the" OUWUA "facilities into that existing canal with no downstream retention dam."
    - p. 48 [Nichols] "...Black Butte Reservoir has never spilled, and from our discussions with the Corps, it is designed so that it is not intended to spill on a regular basis....[p. 49] At Stony Gorge, to the best of my knowledge, there are months during which waters are released over the spillway during an irrigation season rather than using the outlet gates just for ease of operation, I believe, from discussions with the operator there for saving wear and tear on the gates...."
    - p. 51 [Nichols] "...We -- and when I say 'we,' I mean RMI and the engineering analysis done by Sverdrup and Parcel Associates, evaluated extensively the ability to utilize the existing Black Butte outlet works. That was the original project plan and when we went to the Corps of Engineers we were greatly rebuffed by the Corps in that regard, and we conducted substantial analyses with respect to alternatives. [para] And the concerns that were cited by the Corps were; number one, how are you going to provide downstream water when that is effectively the only outlet works? The cost of diverting water during that were estimated by Sverdrup and Parcel to be exorbitant to build temporary structures in order to get water downstream and still construct a tunnel; [p. 52] Secondly, the Corps of Engineers has indicated to us on a number of occasions in meetings that the Black Butte Dam, and I can only take their analysis of it, the Black Butte Dam existing outlet capacity is very near the maximum ability to pass the near maximum probable flood under the Corps of Engineers' criteria. [para] Let me clarify that. They state under their studies, and more studies are going on, under their studies that criteria, it's difficult for them to safely pass the maximum design flood at present, but they just, in their words, squeak by. [para] They were very concerned about any reduction whatsoever to that outlet capacity and we have done studies that indicated it may potentially be possible to do it, but based on preliminary analyses by Sverdrup and Parcel, it was most definitely cost prohibitive."
    - p. 83 [Matthew Graham] "I don't see how the Board plans on acting on the application when the data are not in. Like Mr. Taylor has pointed out, the East Park Reservoir may have to be continued, but is that definite? Will things be acted upon without the requisite data, reports, surveys, being completed? [Mr. Taylor] Why don't we wait and see how much information we get in the course of the hearing and make the decision whether to continue, whether we have enough information or not and whether we need to continue or not. [Matthew Graham] It bears on the protestants' rights of cross-examination. [Taylor] I suggest your ask the questions you think are germane. [right. And if you don't ask them, they're waived? even if ultimately revealing the data and the plans would give rise to many more questions?]
    - p. 85 [Mr. G. Matthews picks at Mr. Nichols' qualifications as an expert]
    - p. 96 [Mr. Meith] "[after Nichols says they'd attempted to discuss operating the new Black Butte Gates with OUWUA & has been rebuffed repeatedly]...we dispute there has been any attempt by Santa Clara to discuss the operation of these control gates at the particular project with respect to operating their projects, so I would like to see the documentation he is referring to." [then back-pedaling]
    - p. 98 [couldn't talk to OUWUA about reservoir ops because were told to talk to OUWUA's attorney]
    - p. 101 [Mr. Marsh] "...what bothers the County of Colusa is we got wind of this through the back door. We feel the City of Santa Clara -- if we had planned a project in Santa Clara County or in the City of Santa Clara, the County of Colusa would have gone to that city to discuss with them the project. This project was never ever proposed to the governing body of the County of Colusa. We received it in a very nebulous way."
    - p. 102 [weren't going to discuss it until it was a fait accompli?]
    - p. 106-7 [missing line(s) of transcription in Mr. Somerville's testimony at the page turn]; Santa Clara "share in the cost of the water master which has become a significant expense in that area?"
    -
    - p. 108 McCarthy Cross examining Somerville:
    - - "Q. Could you explain briefly what the Stony Creek Water District is and what its functions are?
    - - A. Stony Creek Water District is an association of ranchers north of East Park Reservoir, who have recently acquired a contract with the Bureau for the acquisition of water for farming and ranching purposes.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: Would you then have any objection to entering into discussions with Stony Creek to examine the first question for participation in the water master?
    - - MR. McCARTHY: We would be happy to. I'm not really sure how the water master came into being or what his [p. 109] function is or duties or responsibilities are with relationship to the proposed project we have here, but I have given my card already to you, and if not, I will, and I will be happy to meet with you or any members of your board and so will members of the City, to discuss that aspect of it with you.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: Do you have any further cross of this witness, Mr. McCarthy?
    - - MR. McCARTHY: No, I don't, Doctor.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: All right, Orland Unit Water Users Association, Mr. Minasian."
    CROSS-EXAMINATION
    - - by MR. MINASIAN:
    - - Q. Paul Minasian, attorney for Orland Unit Water Users Association, and also for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District in this case.
    - - Mr. Somerville, when you refer to the water master, are you referring to a service or regulatory function done by the U.S. District Court pursuant to the Angle decree in regard to water taken from Stony Creek and its tributaries?
    - - A. Yes.
    - - Q. And is the cost of that water master service presently borne by those parties that take water under the Angle decree and certain limited parties who have new appropriative rights under the State Water Resources Control [p. 110] board system?
    - - A. To the best of my knowledge, that is correct.
    - - Q. And by referring to the water master service, were you asking that Santa Clara, if they were to be granted the water rights here, be required to pay a portion of that water master cost?
    - - A. Yes.
    - - Q. All right. Now, let us go back to the subject of your contract with the bureau of Reclamation [sic, capitalization] and let us elaborate on that so everyone can see how that relates to this particular proceeding. Your water supply from the Bureau is on an exhange basis; is it not?
    - - A. Yes.
    - - Q. And the exchange is made with the Orland Unit Water Users Association supply; is it not?
    - - A. Yes.
    - - Q. And would you explain to the Board how that happens annually?
    - - A. Yes. About ten years ago I became aware that there was a great deal of unallocated water in the Black Butte Reservoir, and my ranch and the ranches of the other members of Stony Creek Water District being well upstream from the Black Butte Reservoir, conceived the idea that perhaps we could acquire title to some of that water and exchange it with the Orland Unit Water Users Association, who own water upstream from us and use it downstream from us, and [p. 111] the Bureau approved of the idea [especially since it was a requirement of the 18115 permit], the Orland water users agreed to the idea, and it became a reality in the recent past.
    - - Q. So, is the mechanism that we use, Mr. Somerville [sic], that in those years in which there is water available in Black Butte, which is in most years, that the Orland Unit Water Users Association releases to you water that they have pursuant to their water rights from East Park and Stony Gorge, and in turn, they take water out of Black Butte that their rights would normally not attach to?
    - - A. Yes, within the limits of the size of our contract.
    - - Q. All right. Now, let's talk for a moment about the other potential effects downstream. You divert water out of Stony Creek; do you not?
    - - A. Yes.
    - - Q. And do you use a gravel dam that is put in, you and other diverters use gravel dams that are put in on an annual basis and then washed away by high flows?
    - - A. Each member of the district is responsible for his own diversion. Most of us find it necessary to construct a gravel dam and divert water.
    - - Q. Okay. And the Orland Unit Water Users Association has for many years operated and maintained this project, that is, the East Park and Stony Gorge water releases; have they not?
    - - A. Yes. [p. 112]
    - - Q. And so, when the water flows are high in the springtime, you do not need to put your gravel dam in; do you?
    - - A. No.
    - - Q. Okay, And as those flows go down, do you and the Orland Unit Water Users Association coordinate the release of water downstream so that your gravel dams will not be washed away?
    - - A. Yes.
    - - Q. All right. And so, your concern in this instance is that some new person will come in and make demands upon the releases to maximize power which will have an impairment not necessarily on your water rights, but on the physical facilities you use to diver [sic] the water from the stream?
    - - A. That's very much a concern and that was included in my belief that all things would remain as they are now. There is significant expense constructing those gravel dams.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: All right. Colusa County, residents of Colusa County have any questions of this witness, the Grahams?
    - - MR. GORDON GRAHAM: No, Doctor, we do not.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: Let me see. Mrs. Westcamp.
    - - MS. WESTCAMP: Not a question, I would just like to add that we are hillbillies and we kind of feel that our -- I am not sayinmg we, I --
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: You are going to be having the [p. 113] opportunity for a statement later on. Do you have a question for cross-examination?
    - - MS. WESTCAMP: No. I thought I would just add to what he said.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: All right. Mr. Shimmel, do you have any questions?
    - - MR. SHIMMEL: No.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: Okay, thank you.
    - - MR. McCARTHY: If I might, I have one or two more questions.
    CROSS-EXAMINATION
    - - by MR. McCARTHY:
    - - Q. Mr. Somerville, I am still not quite sure what the water master does. What does he do?
    - - A. to [sic, no caps] date, he has done very little of anything useful as far as the ranchers in the hills are concerned except send us significant bills. But it is my understanding that as the need for water increases and intensifies, he is going to become more responsible for the proper usage of water as it goes down the stream to see to it that people take only that to which they are entitled.
    - - Q. I see. And It's [sic] your understanding that he came into beging [sic] and is serving the district as a result of the Angle decree?
    - - A. Yes.
    - - Q. Is that something you have read and feel comfortable [p. 114] in understanding?
    - - A. Heavens no, it's a large legal document.
    - - Q. That's fine, because I have trouble understanding it, too. My primary concern, I guess, is we don't know yet what the water master does other than at times when there's a scarcity of water apparently he is responsible for attempting to allocate it in a fair and equitable manner. Is that a reasonable synthesis of what he does?
    - - A. I think not so much as seeing that people don't abuse their rights. It's not a matter of allocation, it's a matter of simply seeing that the rights you have are not abused. That would be more my understanding.
    - - Q. Abused in what respect? I'm not sure I follow you.
    - - A. You used the term abused, I think -- well, I guess I did. The abuse would be to the effect that if some people have rights to, let's say, ten acre-feet of water during that season, they ought not to use more than that. To use more than that would be to abuse their rights.
    - - Q. I see what you mean. Okay.
    - - To the extent that the City in the operation of the powerplant at the East Park project did not impinge on the consumptive rights of members of the district, do you think it is appropriate that they share in the cost of the water master?
    - - A. I would think so. I think that all people involved in the use of water from that source should share in the [p. 115] cost of the water master.
    - - MR. McCarthy: Okay, thank you.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: All right, are there other questions?
    EXAMINATION
    - - MR. NOTEWARE:
    - - Q. I have a question. I find this concept of water master in this instance somewhat intriguing. You say he sends a bill. Upon what does he base his charges?
    - - MR. MINASIAN: Could I help here? I am sorry to interrupt, but we have an interesting situation here, Mr. Noteware, and if I might, I might be able to help you on this.
    - - I will make this in the form of an offer of proof. We had a water master from roughtly 1930 to the late 1950's, at which time he died. [actually 1964, retired, and then died] He was not replaced until two years ago. At that time, we replaced him with an engineer who was designed [designated?] to set up the water master system again. That engineer was replaced by a very experienced retired Bureau gentleman, who is both a practical person and a scholar, and he happens to be sitting right here, and he has just taken over the function to put this in to work on a day-to-day basis.
    - - If you would like to know how this would work, I think Mr. Wilson would be happy to take the stand in regard to what is going to happen.
    - - We could tell you how it worked for the first year [p. 116] and how we apportioned the sum of $30,000 worth of setup and initial administration costs. We could tell you what went on from the thirties to the early sixties. That's the kind of information that's available. I hope that might be helpful
    - - MR. NOTEWARE: What I was kind of getting to, Mr. Minasian, before Mr. Somerville leaves to try to help him answer the question as to the practicability of helping to pay for a service in which the water is not consumed regardless of who is granted the permit to generate the power, if such a permit is granted.
    - - It's not consumed, there wouldn't be any decrease in the amount of water that is in the creek.
    - - MR. MINASIAN: I think that's the whole part of the case, and when we get to our opening statement, we will make quite a point of that, that the idea that the water isn't consumed should not limit the responsibility of Santa Clara from paying the costs of putting this fabulously intricate and very well working system together. [?] One of those costs is the cost of keeping the water system running, the consumptive use part of it, and it is from those consumptive use [sic], investment in dams and reservoirs and in regulation, water master, from which the power benefits flow.
    - - I think it is a moral issue as much as a physical issue of whether there's some change in water deliveries [p. 117] because of power.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: Mr. Taylor.
    - - MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Noteware, there may be one very practical answer as to why Mr. Somerville may want some consideration, and that is questions by a number of protestants have indicated some skepticism about who is going to keep the City of Santa Clara or the Orland Association honest [yes, who?] in not taking more water than they are entitled to, or interfering with other people's rights.
    - - To the extent that the water master is an employee of the federal court system [employee?] and is in that area in any event just to make sure that other people stay honest and not take more water than they are entitled to, it may be very well to use him as a referee and include the City of Santa Clara within the framework of water master service, and if that were done, it would be quite appropriate to charge the City of Santa Clara for some of the cost of the water master service.
    - - MR. NOTEWARE: Right, I follow you.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: Any further comments or questions by anybody of Mr. Somerville?
    - - If not, thank you very much, Mr. Somerville.
    - - Mrs. Westcamp, would you like to come forward/
    - - MS. WESTCAMP: I'm out of the mood now. I was just going to say personally I would feel more comfortable having an agriculturally based person in control of the electric [p. 118] power than a city. I feel very strongly about subdivisions and cities, what they can do to farmers.
    - - MR. TAYLOR: Pardon me, could you come forward to the microphone and indicate whether you took the oath and your address and --
    - - MS. WESTCAMP: No, I didn't. This is not true, this is an opinion. My address is Star Route, Elk Creek.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: Indicate whether you have taken the oath.
    - - MS. WESTCAMP: No, I have not.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: You are entitled to your opinion. It will be subject to cross-examination.
    JESSIE WESTCAMP,
    - - having been sworn, testified as follows:
    - - MS. WESTCAMP: Well, I just wanted to say I really feel better at the hands of an agriculturally based control of the water than I do with the cities because cities have been so able to take farmers and push them out and there's no place left for us to go anymore.
    - - When you are up there, you are at the last frontier and so, that would be my reason for supporting Orland over Santa Clara, it comes down to a choice, if either one is granted.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: I see. All right. Is that your testimony, your statement?
    - - MS. WESTCAMP: That's it. [p. 119]
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: Now, you take it kindly with Mrs. Westcamp. Do you fellows have any questions?
    - - MR. McCARTHY: I certainly will. I have no questions at all.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: Mr. Graham, do you have any questions?
    - - MR. GORDON GRAHAM: No questions.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: Orland?
    CROSS-EXAMINATION
    - - by MR. MINASIAN:
    - - Q. Let's see if we can add a little to Mr. Noteware's picture of the water master system up there. Ms. Westcamp, do you serve on the water master supervision committee established by the Federal Government? [by whom?]
    - - A. Yes.
    - - Q. Do you serve with the Orland Unit Water users Association?
    - - A. On the same committee, yes.
    - - Q. That's the committee that provides general supervision and guidance to the water master in the implementation of this program?
    - - A. Yes.
    - - Q. Was one of the first acts of this commttee to request that the State Water Resources Control Board include in every permit granted for water rights in that basin a term that those permittees pay a share of the water master costs and be included within the jurisdiction of [p. 120] even though the water master is appointed under the Angle decree?
    - - A. That's correct. You are talking about stock ponds, yes, that is correct.
    - - MR. MINASIAN: Thank you, nothing further.
    - - DR. ALJIBURY: Staff, do you have any questions of Mr. Westcamp? Colusa County? Residents in Colusa County? Chamber of Commerce of Colusa County?
    - - Thank you very much for your statement.
    - - All right, we will proceed with the remaining part of the testimony of Santa Clara....
    - -
    - - p. 120 John Roukema, senior electric utility engineer with the City of Santa Clara, pp. 121-123 description of the city's utility.
    - - p. 124 "agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for reimbursing them for their review of lthe [sic] proposed project and we have entered into an agreement for Black Butte and Stony Gorge for project management of these projects."
    - - p. 128 RMI prepared the FERC aps; Barry Flynn, Director of Electric Utilities liaison with RMI, Ron Nichols at RMI liaison with FERC staff
    - - p. 136 Minasian, OUWUA, "We are not a public agency." thence to a discussion of "the taxable status of the bonds depending on who the ultimate consumer of the power would be [people of Santa Clara vs. PG & E]; moving towards written interrogatories followed by making available for cross examination whatever expert answered them; p. 139 Dr. Aljibury wants to see the interrogatories first? Meith offers an outline: 1) how Santa Clara will integrate the power into their system since they have no operation control, 2) and if they can't, how will they dispose of it? Submit questions by the 22nd, copies to everybody; Taylor asking for answer by January 5 leaving enough time for the hearing on the 11th; McCarthy: if questions are too complex, will ask for more time; pp. 145 - , squabbling over relevancy of dam use fees & Water Code 1750 or 1775 and production of testimony from present witnesses rather than having to call them back if briefing shows those code sections to be relevant, especially since it will be relevant to OUWUA when they testify;
    - - p. 148 "MR. MEITH: Q. I have forgotten the question. Mr. McCarthy did his job well."
    - - p. 149 City petitioned FERC to set the dam use rights, Meith wants a copy, & should get it anyway as an intervenor
    - - p. 150, Marsh, "We should have county counsel here today. I'm a rancher and not an attorney. I had no idea of the magnitude of these hearings or what was going on."
    - - p. 151 "Q. I will bring this up. Are you aware, is the City of - Santa Clara ware [sic] there has been a moratorium placed by the County of Colusa on all further development in the Stonyford area? [wow! Reclamation impacts!]
    - - [Mr. Roukema] A. I was not aware -- I am not aware of that.
    - - Q. Again, I don't know whether this moratorium imposed by the governing body of the county would fit another public entity."
    - - p. 153 Marsh asked to send everybody a copy of the county resolution imposing the moratorium [? actually didn't say what the resolution was, just to send it]
    - - p. 153 " MR MARSH: I will only say one thing. The County of Colusa would have appreciated the City of Santa Clara contacting us before this whole thing got started because we are approaching this while everything is in gear, and again, I pose these questions in your study, that's why I was asking about your study. I was sure that if a thorough study had been done in the area that these --
    - - MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Marsh, this is testimony,." (McCarthy answers at pp. 158-9, county gets notified as part of the environmental review)
    - - p. 16 MR. NICHOLS: "Anyone who develops a project, there is not transmission from Stonyford and anyone is going to have to build new poles and lines for that distance, from Stonyford out to the dam site, which is approximately two and a half miles, I believe, depending on what route you take."
    - - p. 162 MR. MINASIAN: "...are you aware that in regard to the Stony Gorge project there was a 30-day FERC notice period instead of the usual 60-day notice period?"
    - - p. 164 "MR. MINASIAN: Let me try the relevancy, Dr. Aljubury and Mr. Taylor.
    - - The relevance is two areas under 1755, what we talk about in terms of apportioning the costs or facilities provided by each party is in terms of utilizing and paying the benefits of savings between the parties that provided [p. 165] the initial facilities and those that provide the later facilities. So we need ot know the magnitide of the net proceeds Santa Clara thinks might be gained over the life of this project....
    - - Secondly, there will be testimony that Orland would use the net proceeds of this hydroelectric generation to improve its water delivery and conveyance system so there would be a net savings of water used within the Stony Creek watershed, so the characteristic of a non-consumptive water right is always dollars. It always produces dollars and those dollars and their use are the way we judge the beneficial use of that water. That is my offer."
    - - pp. 168-9 some prospect of FERC dictating reservoir releases:
    - - "The Stony Gorge license states that FERC has the authority to decide on such disputes." The Chair cut off this line of inquiry, but then allowed it as part of the written questions.
    - - p. 174 Mr. Minasian working on whether or not Santa Clara calculations showed reimbursement to OUWUA for physical plant costs & expenses
    - - p. 175 Mr. Simon starting to ask about financing including taxable or tax-exempt, getting interrupted by all 3 sides, gave up? on to other costing issues
    - - p. 180 Mr. McCarthy, "There are several documents which have contractual language. There is the U.S. District Court decree...."
    - - p. 180 Mr. Simon, on reserve capacity, dependable capacity, power wheeling, Mr. McCarthy answers as to pending wheeling litigation vs. PG & E; NCPA: Northern California Power Agency [p. 183], Northern California Power Association or Northern California Project Agency [p. 185]?
    - - p. 190 Mr. Taylor, have asked OUWUA & Santa Clara counsel to lodge document copies with the Orland library; p. 191 Gordon Graham, "There is a federal post office at the City of Stonyford. Could a copy of these documents be placed there for review by the citizens of Stonyford who will be affected by any decision the Board makes? McCarthy: "These documents are pretty expensive...."; continued to 01/11/1983

    - -

    Folder 4, Item 3, Exh. 11
  • - Exh. 11 Application 26379 - Before the Federal Engergy Regulatory Commission Application for License for Project No. 3190 - the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project by the City of Santa Clara, California Prepared by: Resource Management International, Inc. Sacramento, California and Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., San Francisco, California 09/1981
    - 092881 Application
    - - Article 11 9 of California Constitution (which allows municipal power)
    - - Article IV Section 400 of Santa Clara City Charter (which ditto)
    - - Verification, Barry R. Flynn, Director of Electric Utility
    - - 012081 Resolution No 4334, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, California, allows Director to file applications to appropriate water, access rights for power consideration, aps for power permits & licenses, aps for DOE loans, & represent the City before regulatory bodies
    - Exhibit A - Project Description,
    - - 1. General, "new intake structure, penstock tunnel, powerhouse, switchyard and transmission lines." 6.8 megawatts, "to a nearby power line of new 12 kv transmission line.";
    - - 2. Reservoir, 4560 acres surface, 160,000 a-f capacity at 473.5 feet, average pool 442.5 feet, usable flood control/water conservation 150,000 a-f,
    - - 3. Principal Project Features, crest length 2970 feet crest elev. 515 feet or 140' above stream bed;
    - - - p. A-2, Intake, Tunnel and Penstock, new 500' long 12.5' diameter penstock tunnel through right abutment 250' north of existing outlet tunnel; additional 500 feet of penstock in a cut & cover trench, split to 2 generators;
    - - - Powerhouse, 350' below dam on north bank [of discharge channel], 71' x 83' reinforced concrete structure, roof with removable structure providing maintenance access, floor at 376' and roof at 402';
    - - - Turbines, 2 4530 hp vertical Kaplan turbines with adjustable blades, butterfly valve for each turbine upstream of the spiral case; centerline of spiral cases at el 361', 15' below normal tail water elevation;
    - - - Generators and Switchyard, 2 3400 kw 4160 volt 3 phase 60 cycle generators "connected to a switchyard cable disconnect switch to a transformer to step up voltage from 4.16 kV to 12 kV", switchyard adjacent to north side of powerhouse w/main transformer, oil circuit breaker, lightning protection equipment, disconnect switch, metering equipment;
    - - - p. A-3 "Regulating Dam and Stilling Basin - The existing Black Butte outlet works includes a diversion structure which provides for the release of irrigation flows into the South Side Canal. Flows routed through the power plant will by-pass this diversion structure, so a special regulating dam will be constructed downstream from the power plant to create a regulating basin with a minimum water surface elevation of 376 feet. The location of the regulating dam is shown on Figure F-1 in Exhibit F. This regulating basin will serve several purposes. It will allow water to be released into the South Side Canal through a new control structure, and it will act as a stilling basin for releases from the power plant and the existing outlet works. A plan of the new facilities is shown on Figure F-1 of Exhibit F. The existing outlet works, the proposed power plant site, and the proposed new stilling basin area are shown in the photograph on Figure A-3.
    - - - "Irrigation Canal Reconstruction - Approximately 400 feet of an abandoned portion of the old South Side Canal which existed prior to the construction of Black Butte Dam, will be graded, cleared and connected to the existing South Side Canal. This will allow for diversion of releases through the power plant to the South Side Canal. A control structure will be constructed in the reconstructed portion of the canal to control the flows diverted into the canal for irrigation purposes. Figure F-1 in Exhibit F shows the location of the control structure."
    - - - Transmission Facilities, p. A-4 "...Preliminary estimates are that approximately five miles of the line will require reconductoring."
    - - p. A-4, 4.United States Lands - "All lands within the project boundary are owned by the Unted States. Said lands are within a portion of Sections 29 and 32, T. 23 N., R. 4 W., M.D.B.M., of Tehama, State of California, California Coordinate System Zone II, described as follows: [para] Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 29, T. 23 N., R. 4 W., thence South 62 46' 56" West 465.30 feet to the true point of beginning; thence North 84 10' 25" East 246.27 feet, thence North 10 18' 17" East 838.53 feet, thence East 1,955.00 feet, thence South 800.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 53 acres, more or less. [See Exhibit F, Plan F-1, this description left off last 4 segments of the metes & bounds]
    - - Figure A-1 Black Butte Reservoir, Area and Capacity Curves
    - - Figure A-2 Photograph of Project Site Area, View Looking - Downstream from Top of Black Butte Dam, showing, Proposed Regulating Dam Location, Abandoned Canal Section to Be Reconstructed, Existing South Side Canal, Existing Outlet Works, Proposed Power Plant Site
    - Exhibit B - Statement of Project Operation,
    - - 1. Method of Operation "operate as a 'run of the river' project", use all releases within hydraulic operating range of the turbines, remotely controlled from Applicant's central operations center; sensors for reservoir level, water releases, seals and hydraulic fluids, turbine speed, tailwater elevation, etc.; alarm system for auto shutdown if malfunction telecom'd to applicant's control system, thence inspection & fix; "estimated annual plant factor" 35%, excluding drought year of 1977; flows less than or greater than operating limits will pass through the old outlet works; 1200 cfs max;
    - - 2. Estimate of Dependable Capacity, "...The tailwater elevation will be regulated by the downstream regulating dam at a nearly constant level of 376 feet. Except under conditions of large flood releases of short duration, this tailwater elevation will not change appreciably."
    - - 3. Power Utilization
    - - 4. Statement of Future Development Plans
    - - Figure B-1 Black Butte Dam, Flow Duration Curve (1965 to 1979)
    - - Figure B-2 Black Butte Reservoir, Monthly Average Reservoir Storage and Monthly Average Releases (Years 1965 thru 1979)
    - - Table B-1 Black Butte Reservoir, Monthly Average Surface Elevations, (1965 through 1979)
    - - Figure B-3 Generating Capacity for One 3400 kw Unit at Black Butte Power Plant
    - - Figure B-4 Monthly Average Energy Generation for the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project
    - - Figure B-5 Average Annual Energy for the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project
    - - Appendix B-1 - Annual Energy Generation Estimates for the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project for the Years 1965 through 1979, month by month, 1 year per page
    - Exhibit C - Construction History and Schedule; "There are seasonal constraints to construction of some of the project features. The intake works can only be constructed when the reservoir level is below the intake elevation, or such that the site can be dewatered without elaborate and expensive cofferdams. In addition, the low regulating dam downstream must be constructed when reservoir releases are relatively low...."
    - - Figure C-1 Black Butte Hydroelectric Project Development Schedule
    - Exhibit D - Costs and Financing;
    - - 1. Project Capital Costs, total project capital costs are estimated at $16,430,600;
    - - 2. Annual Project Costs, annual tax exempt debt service estimated at $1,855,500, O & M $90,000, annual FERC license $5,000, annual dam use $10,000, power wheeling $84,000;
    - - 3. Value of Project Power, don't anticipate revenue exceeding cost before 4 to 6 years
    - - 4. Project Financing, tax exempt system revenue bonds, available operating & accrued utility revenue
    - - Table D-1 Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, Construction Cost Estimate (Price Level June 1981); Regulating Dam $330,000; overall $10,385,000
    - - Table D-2 Total Capital Costs, Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, $16,430,600
    - - Table D-3 Annual and Average Energy Costs, Black Butte Hydroelectric Project; annual 83 mills/kwh & average 98.8 mills/kwh
    - - Figure D-1 Comparison of Black Butte Project Energy Costs with a Range of Projected PG & E R-1 Wholesale Energy and Capacity Costs
    - - -
    [Environmental Report]

    - Exhibit E - Environmental Report, p. E-1 [is this the second earliest environmental report on the watershed?]
    - - 1. Description of Locale
    - - - A. Topography and Geology; "The hills are generally smooth and have moderate to steep slopes with the exception of a prominent protruding butte extending from the dam site upstream (West) one mile and southward about five miles. The butte is formed by a resistant caprock of basalt which protects the softer underlying formations. Relief at the dam and reservoir areas varies from elevation 385 to about elevation 1100 with the hills sloping gradually towards the Sacramento Valley. The valley sides are strewn with basalt blocks in various stages of slumping, from those just beginning to move away from the basalt mass to the ones which have moved downslope to the valley floor. The tops of the abutments are not rounded as are the surrounding hills but are flat with a slight eastward slope."
    - - - Figure E-1 Location Map, Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, U.S. Army Engineer District, 05/1963 SC-26-26 [the entire watershed, actually]
    - - - B. Meteorology and Climate; "winter lows of 18 F to summer highs of 120 F."
    - - - C. Hydrology; "some 780 square miles"; p. E-3 "The three major subbasins in the watershed are: a) Black Butte Reservoir (Corps of Engineers [p. E-4] 1963), which drains 741 square miles; b) Stony Gorge Reservoir (Bureau of Reclamation 1928), which drains 301 square miles; and c) East Park Reservoir (Bureau of Reclamation 1910), which drains 102 square miles [no a & b, just c]." p. E-8 "Water year runoff has ranged from a minimum of 37,600 acre-feet in 1924 to a maximum of 1,420,000 acre-feet in 1941. These extremes represent 9 and 339 percent, respectively, of the 52-year average runoff of 418,600 acre-feet....[para] Flood flows on Stony Creek are caused by heavy winter rains and may be affected somewhat by snow at high elevations. They have sharp, high peaks and are usually of short duration and comparatively small volume. These floods often occur in rapid succession, with the succeeding peaks occurring before flows from the preceeding floods have completely subsided. [para]" Very little is known concerning the magnitude of floods in the Stony Creek basin prior to 1901 when a gaging station was installed near Black Butte Dam Site. Since the construction of East Park and Stony Gorge Dams in 1910 and 1928, flood flows at this site have sometimes been reduced by conservation storage. In terms of natural flow, without such reduction, the flood of" 12/11/1937 "would have had the largest peak flow, and the flood of" 12/23/1964 "the largest volume." p. E-12 "The chemical quality of the water in Black Butte Reservoir is calcium-bicarbonate in character. Dissolved oxygen is about 8.8 mg/l and changes only slightly with depth. Total dissolved solids within the reservoir varies from 330 mg/l at the surface to 98 mg/l at the bottom in the spring, and averages about 178 mg/l throughout the lake in the fall. Total nitrogen in the reservoir averages about 0.32 mg/l and is only slightly higher in the spring. Phosphorus in the water averages about 0.07 mg/l and is highest in the spring. Water temperatures range from 38 F...in the winter to 89 F...in the summer. Water quality deteriorates somewhat during the summer months when water inflow is low and recreation use is high."
    - - - Table E-1 Black Butte Dam Area Stratigraphy
    - - - Figure E-2 Normal Annual Precipitation, Precipitation Stations and Snow Courses, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 05/1963 file SC-26-28 [ shows list of stations and their placement on the map, lines for annual rainfall (showing valley from Newville past Lodoga in a reduced rainfall island
    - - - Table E-2 Monthly Mean Temperature - Orland
    - - - Figure E-3 Topography and Stream Gaging Stations, U.S. Army Engineer District, 05/1963 File SC-26-27, list of stream stations and placement on the map
    - - - Table E-3 Mean Monthly Runoff at Black Butte Dam Site
                                          Table E-4
                             Natural Flows at Black Butte Dam Site
      
                                           Maximum   Minimum      Mean
      
      Drainage area:  741 sq. miles      
      Period of record;  1904-56
      
      Instantaneous flow, c.f.s.            60,000         0       580
      Instantaneous flow, c.f.s./sq.mi.         81         0      0.78
      
      Annual flow, acre-feet             1,420,000    37,600   419,000
      Annual flow, inches                       36       0.9        11
      
      November-April flow, acre-feet     1,320,000    34,000   368,000
      November-April flow, inches               33       0.8         9
      
                                         [p.] E-10
      
                                          Table E-5
                              Estimated Natural Flood Peaks and
                               Volumes at Black Butte Dam Site
      
      Date of peak         Peak flow (c.f.s.)      3-day volume (ac-ft)
      
      February 2, 1909           50,000                  122,000
      February 2, 1915           51,000                  134,000
      May 11, 1915               30,000                   94,000
      December 11, 1937          60,000                  102,000
      February 28, 1940          47,000                  145,000
      March 1, 1941              39,000                  148,000
      December 22, 1955          29,000                   95,000
      February 24, 1958          50,000                  100,000
      December 23, 1964          53,000                  161,000
      January 24, 1970           38,000                  111,000
      
                                         [p.] E-11
      

    - - - D. Vegetation p. E-12 "Five major vegetation communities can be recognized within the Stony Creek watershed:
    - - - - Introduced Annual Grassland
    - - - - Riparian Woodland
    - - - - Oak Woodland
    - - - - Chaparral
    - - - - Coniferous Forest
    - - - Grassland "dominated by a number of species of annual grasses and forbs, many of which were introduced from the Mediterranean region in the last century. Typical grassland species are wild oats, brome grasses, annual ryegrass, foxtail grasses, bur clover, and filarees." "Stands of chaparral often cover the drier southand west-facing foothill and mountain slopes between 1000 and 3000 ft. elevation. These dense shrub-dominated communities are of two basic types: 1) mixed chaparral with a variety of species including manzanita, ceanothus, chamise, and scrub oak; and 2) chamise chaparral on shallower, drier soils with a heavy predominance of chamise." p. E-15, no mention of tamarisk or arundo, infestation not yet yet a problem?
    - - - Figure E-4 Rainflood Frequency Curves, Natural Conditions, Stony Creek at Black Butte Dam, Corps of Engineers, 01/1971 [estimated max, 125,000 cfs/day]
    - - - E. Wildlife and Fisheries p. E-15 "More than 30 species of fish have been recorded from the Stony Creek drainage; over half are classified as game fish." "A major problem for the maintenance of a fishery resource in these reservoirs has been the lack of any provision for firm minimum pools. As a result, these reservoirs were drawn down to critically low levels during the recent drought period." p. E-18 "In the past there was occasionally a small run of king salmon in Stony Creek below the Black Butte Dam in years when early heavy rains breached the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District diversion dam (Puckett, 1969). However, there are no recent reports of any significant spawning usage of the streambed below Black Butte Dam." p. E-19 "Resident species of raptors include golden eagle, prairie falcon, osprey, red-tailed hawk, and American kestrel. Oak woodland and introduced annual grassland provide habitat for a number of species of migratory and overwintering raptors. The endangered bald eagle is regularly present in winter at both Black Butte and Stony Gorge reservoirs. Both mature and immature bald eagles have been observed. They utilize rough fish as a food source and roost in nearby riparian woodland. Transient individuals of the endangered American peregrine falcon have been seen in the region occasionally." p. E-20 "Black Butte Reservoir...area is also significant because of the regular presence of overwintering bald eagles. Other raptors include golden eagles, prairie falcons, and red-tailed hawks, which may nest in the vicinity. The peregrine falcon has been observed here occasionally."
    - - - Figure E-5 Vegetation at Project Site (Photograph by RMI)
    - - - Figure E-6 riparian Vegetation Downstream from Project Site (Photograph by RMI)
                                    Table E-6
                      Fish Species of the Stony Creek Drainage
      
      Anadromous Fishes
        Pacific Lamprey               Lampetra tridentata
        King (chinook) Salmon         Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
        Steelhead Rainbow Trout       Salmo gairdneri [not "t. mykiss?"]
      
      Resident Fishes
        Threadfin Shad                Dorosoma petenense
        Rainbow Trout                 Salmo gairdneri
        Silver (Coho) Salmon          Oncorhynchus kisutch
        Hitch                         Lavinia exilicauda
        California Roach              Hesperoleucus symmetricus
        Sacramento Blackfish          Othodon microlepidotus
        Hardhead                      Mylopharodon conocephalus
        Sacramento Squawfish          Ptychocheilus grandis
        Speckled Dace                 Rhinichthys osculus
        Golden Shiner                 Notemigonus crysoleucas
        Goldfish                      Carassius auratus
        Carp                          Caprinus carpio 
        Sacramento Sucker             Catostomus occidentalis
        Black Bullhead                Ictalurus melas
        Brown Bullhead                Ictalurus nebulosus
        White Catfish                 Ictalurus catus
        Channel Catfish               Ictalurus punctatus
        Blue Catfish                  Ictalurus furcatus
        Mosquitofish                  Gambusia affinis
        Threespine Stickleback        Gasterosteus aculeatus
        Striped Bass                  Morone saxatilis
        Bluegill                      Lepomis macrochirus
        Redear Sunfish                Lepomis microlophus
        Green Sunfish                 Lepomis cyanellus
        White Crappie                 Pomoxis annularis
        Black Crappie                 Pomoxis nigromaculatus
        Largemouth Bass               Micropterus salmoides
        Smallmouth Bass               Micropterus dolomieui
        Tule Perch                    Hysterocarpus traski
        Sculpin                       Cottus sp.
      
                                         [p.] E-11
      

    - - - F. Archeology and History
    - - - G. Demography p. E-22 "The Stony Creek watershed is sparsely populated."
    - - - Table E-7 Population
    - - - Table E-8 Employment Glenn County (1976 Annual Average)
    - - - Table E-9 Yearly Family Income (Glenn County, 1976)
    - - - Table E-10 Age and Racial Characteristics
    - - - H. Land Use, Development, and Zoning, p. E-28 "Of the 8,917.5 acres of land which have been acquired for Black Butte Reservoir, 843.5 acres are held in easements and are not specifically available for public use. Additionally, 485 acres in the vicinity of the dam and the dikes, are zoned against public entry for safety [p. E-30] reasons."
    - - - Table E-11 Mean Monthly Irrigation Demand and Outflow, Black Butte Reservoir (in acre feet)
    - - - I. Recreation, p. E-30 "Black Butte Lake Master Plan...U.S. Army Corps of Engineers...Design Memorandum No. 13...February 1977."
    - - - Figure E-7 Recreation Facilities, U.S. Army Engineer District, 02/1962 File SC-26-30
    - - 2. Report on Water Use and Water Quality, p. E-33
    - - - A. Consumptive Uses of Project Waters
    - - - B. Nonconsumptive Uses of Project Waters
    - - - C. Water Quality
    - - - D. Flow Release Schedules and Rates
    - - - E. Measures Recommended by Agencies to Protect or Improve Water Quality, p. E-34 "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game expressed concern for the potential adverse effects on water quality during and associated with construction of the proposed power plant and related facilities."
    - - - F. Mitigation for Short-Term Impacts on Water Quality
    - - - Table E-12 Water Quality Control Plan Report, Volume 1, SWRCB, showing water uses for most tributaries to the Central Valley
    - - - Table E-13 Mean Monthly Runoff at Black Butte Dam Site
    - - - Table E-14 Natural Flows at Black Butte Dam Site [same as Table E-4]
    - - - Table E-15 Estimated Natural Flood Peaks and Volumes at Black Butte Dam Site [same as Table E-5]
    - - - Figure E-8, Black Butte Reservoir Storage and Monthly Average Releases (Years 1967 thru 1978)
    - - - Table E-16 Mean Monthly Irrigation Demand and Ouflow, Black Butte Reservoir (in acre feet) [same as Table E-11]
    - - - G. New and Continued Measures Proposed by the Applicant to Protect or Improve Water Quality
    - - - H. Long-Term Impacts of Project Operation in Water Quality
    - - - I. Water Quality Certification
    - - - J. Consultation with State and Federal Agencies
    - - 3. Report on Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources, p. E-40
    - - - A. Fish, Wildlife and Botanical Resources, see 1. D & E
    - - - B. Impact of Project on Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources, p. E-40 "Certain Endangered wildlife species such as the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occur seasonally in the general area [p. E-41] of Black Butte Reservoir and other species of concern such as the osprey (Pandion haliaetus) may nest in the vicinity." "Construction of the new stilling basin will modify some habitat conditions immediately downstream of the existing outlet works, but not to the detriment of any known fish or wildlife species [except migrating anadromous fish, of course]. [para] An environmental review of the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project has been completed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and state CEQA guidelines for conduct of an Initial Study [no NEPA?]. That study concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on fish, wildlife, and botantical resources [except to grind the fish up into teeny tiny pieces]."
    - - - C. Measures or Facilities Proposed by Agencies to Protect or Improve Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources.
    p. E-42
    The California Department of Fish and Game has identified the potential for restoration and enhancement of that portion of Stony Creek below Black Butte Dam to establish anadromous fish spawning grounds.

    Although there is no good record of the extent of king salmon spawning runs in Stony Creek in its natural state, it is believed that hundreds of salmon may have utilized the stream (Puckett, 1969). With the construction of East Park Dam in 1910 and Stony Gorge Dam in 1928 and the downstream water diversions for the Orland Project and the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, anadromous fishery values in Stony Creek were essentially lost. In particular, the diversion dam of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District just three miles above the mouth of Stony Creek completely cuts off flow into the Sacramento River from April until heavy winter storm runoff breaches this barrier, usually in December. This prevents most fall-run king salmon from ascending Stony Creek, since the main run is usually over by the time the dam is washed out.

    At present, Stony Creek is of little, if any, value as salmon spawning habitat. The completion of Black Butte Dam in 1964 means that even the few salmon that may occasionally enter Stony Creek would be restricted to spawning gravels below the dam. An additional problem is created by the unscreened diversions for the Orland Project and the Colusa-Glenn [sic] Canal, which result in the loss of young salmon on their downstream migration.

    [p. E-42] The potential for enhancement of Stony Creek as salmon spawning and nursery habitat was discussed in a California Department of Fish and Game report (Puckett, 1969). Analysis of streambed gravels indicated that only the two miles of Stony Creek immediately below Black Butte Dam contained acceptable spawning material. The remainder of Stony Creek would be unusable because of excessive fine materials and gravel compaction. Habitat enhancement would require large instream flows because the stream channel is quite wide below Black Butte Dam and its bed is highly permeable. Releases of at least 200 cfs would be needed for adequate transport of upstream migrating salmon. No usable spawning areas would be avaialble at flows below 400 cfs. The highest measured streamflow during the study was 755 cfs; it covered only 33 percent of the available spawning area. Streamflows above this level would provide increased spawning material. However, it was concluded that summer water temperatures would be too warm for salmonid nursery habitat even with bottom releases from Black Butte Lake. Other potentially limiting factors were felt to be turbidity and encroachment of riparian vegetation.

    Thus, it appears that the potential for anadromous fishery enhancement in Stony Creek is severely limited. Even if the problem of access for fall-run salmon across the Glenn-Colusa diversion dam could be solved, there is not a great deal of suitable spawning gravel. The releases necessary to make even this small amount of habitat available for reproduction are simply too large to be physically maintained, given the storage capacity of Black Butte Lake. Finally, high summer water temperatures and other adverse factors would make this stretch of Stony Creek unsuitable for nursery habitat."

    - - - D. New and Continued Measures or Facilities Proposed by Applicant to Protect or Improve Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources
    - - - E. Long-Term Impacts of Project Operation on Fish, Wildlife, and Botantical Resources. [nope, don't see any....]
    - - - F. Design and Operation of Protection and Improvement Measures p. E-44 "The protective measures proposed by agencies have either been:...(c) are not justified, as in the recommendation to establish anadromous spawning grounds in Stony Creek."
    - - - G. Consultation with State and Federal Agencies
    - - 4. Report on Historical and Archaeological Resources, p. E-45
    - - - A. Historical and Archaeological Resources ; p. E-46 "Additional foodstuffs were provided by fishing for salmon, trout, and suckers. Avalable in abundance in the Sacramento and other rivers, fish were most often taken in underwater entrapments known as salmon 'houses'." p. E-48 "as late as the 1930s when there remained only three small Indian Rancherias at Grindstone, Newville, and Paskenta." "A comprehensive summary of past research which has been undertaken as well as a large number of on-going studies, is contained in Jensen and Reed (1979:82-128). This reference provides a recent and thorough review of existing literature dealing with the prehistory of northern and northeastern California."
    - - - B. Impact of the Project on Historical and Archaeological Resources and Recommendations; prior to field work, "archaeological records of District 2 of the California Archaeological Sites Survey at Chico were examined...." CA-GLE-216
    - - - C. Identification of Historic Sites and Places
    - - - D. Measures Recommended by Agencies for Locating, Identifying, or Salvaging Historical or Archaeological Resources
    - - - E. Survey and Salvage Activities
    - - - F. Consultation with State and Federal Agencies [what's missing in all of these reviews on the watershed seems to be a sensitivity to the relatively light touch with which the aboriginal population used the land, with minimal "hard" artifacts - digging would tend to obliterate the traces ]
    - - 5. Report on Recreational Resources, p. E-52
    - - - A. Description of Existing Recreational Facilities
    - - - - Observation Area
    - - - - Eagle Pass
    - - - - Orland Buttes
    - - - - Buckhorn
    - - - - Burris Creek - p. E-52, "located on western side of the reservoir, provides picnic areas, fishing access, hunting in season, parking , and restrooms" [where?] [now a wildlife area?]
    - - - - Grizzly Flat
    - - - B. Description of Existing Recreational Uses
    - - - C. Proposed Recreational Facilities and Opportunities
    - - - - Observation Area
    - - - - Eagle Pass
    - - - - Orland Buttes
    - - - - Grizzly Flat
    - - - - Buckhorn
    - - - - Lower Stony Creek
    - - - - Nomlaki Caves
    - - - - Squaw Point
    - - - - Burris Creek
    - - - Figure E-9, Average Pool Elevation and Average Monthly Visitation [over the months of the year]
    - - - D. Measures or Facilities Recommended by Agencies for Creating, Preserving, or Enhancing Recreational Opportunities
    - - - E. Measures or Facilities Proposed by Applicant to Create, Preserve, or Enhance Recreational Opportunities [none]
    - - - F. Responsibility, Schedule, and Costs of Recreation Recommendations
    - - - G. Description of Areas Proposed for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System [nope]
    - - - H. Description of Areas Recommended or Designated as Wilderness Areas or Wilderness Study Areas [far away]
    - - - I. Consultation with State and Federal Agencies
    - - 6. Report on Land Management and Aesthetics, p. E-59
    - - - A. Description of Land Use and Development on Lands Abutting the Project Impoundment, "Glenn...minimum parcel size is 160 acres and the proposed density is one family per 160 acres...Tehama...minimum parcel size is 40 acres and the proposed density is one family per 40-100 acres."1 p. E-60 "...Engineers owns and manages 8,917.5 acres of land surrounding Black Butte Reservoir including the proposed project site area. The gross pool reservoir occupies 4,560 acres."
    - - - B. Description of Measures Proposed by Applicant to Ensure the Project Blends with the Surrounding Environment
    - - - C. Description of Wetlands or Floodplains; "Figure E-10 presents a delineation of flood damage areas that existed prior to the construction of Black Butte Dam."
    - - - D. Impacts on Wetlands or Floodplains
    - - - Figure E-10, Flood Damage Area Prior to Construction of Black Butte Dam, U.S. Army Engineer District, 05/1963 File SC-26-26 [same as Figure E-1]
    - - - E. Description of the Applicant's Ability to Provide a Buffer Zone around the Impoundment
    - - - F. Applicant's Policy Permitting Development of Piers, Docks, Boat Landings, and Other Shoreline Facilities on Project Lands and Waters
    - - - G. Maps and Drawings of Proposed Facilities
    - - - H. Consultation with State and Federal Agencies
    - - 7. List of Literature [some of the relevant ones] , p. E-63
    - - - 2. Earth Science Associates. Seismic and Fault Activity Study: Proposed Glenn Reservoir Complex. Prepared for California Department of Water Resources. January 1980, Palo Alto, California
    - - - 4. Puckett, Larry K. Fisheries Surveys on Thomes and Stony Creeks, Glenn and Tehama Counties, with Special Emphasis on Their Potential for King Salmon Spawning. The Resources Agency of California, Department of Fish and Game. Water Projects Branch Administrative Report No. 69-3. 1969.
    - - - 5. Petrovich, Alexander, Jr. A Water Quality Study of Whiskeytown, Black Butte, Stony Gorge, and East Park Reservoirs. The Resources Agency of California, Department of Fish and Game. Water Projects Branch Administrative Report No. 66-2. Submitted November 1, 1966.
    - - - 7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Black Butte Lake, Stony Creek, California, Master Plan; Design Memorandum No. 13, Sacramento District. February 1977.
    - - - 8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Black Butte Lake, Stony Creek, California, Reservoir Regulation Manual; Sacramento District. July 1971.
    - - - 9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Foundation Report, Black Butte Lake, Stony Creek, California, Sacramento District. September 16, 1963
    - - - 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Snow Mountain Wilderness Proposal Fact Sheet No. 5, Mendocino National Forest. [p. E-64]
    - - - 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Glenn County, California. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service in Cooperation with University of California Agriculture Experiment Station. May 1968
    - - - 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Tehama County, California. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service in Cooperation with University of California Agriculture Experiment Station. May 1967
    - - - 14. Goldschmidt, Walter. 1951. Nomlaki Ethnography, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 42(4):303-443. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
    - - - 15. Goldschmidt, Walter. 1978. Nomlaki, In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, Robert F. Heizer, Editor, pp. 341-349. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
    - - - 16. Jensen, Peter M. and Paul R. Reed. 1979. An Anthropological Overview and Cultural Resources Inventory of the Northern Sacramento Valley and Southern Cascade Range. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Special Publication.
    - - - 16. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1932. The Patwin and their Neighbors. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 29(4): 253-423. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
    - - 8. List of Agencies/Individuals Contacted
    - - Appendix E-1 - Applicant-Agency Correspondence
    - - - 011081 letter Harvego/RMII to Weddell/USACE; Santa Clara has received FERC permit to do feasibility study, "need to know the cost of and procedures for obtaining access to the required Black Butte Dam facilities necessary for construction, operation and maintenance of a hydroelectric project at the site....1. What rights of way or other approvals by the Corps of Engineers are required for construction, operation and maintenance of a hydroelectric facility at the site, and what are the procedures for requesting and obtaining such rights of way or other approvals? 2. What fees are anticipated for the use of federal facilities at Black Butte Dam by Santa Clara for the purposes of a hydroelectric project? If these specific fees are not known at this time, what are the procedures for determining such fees?...configuration and capacity are currently being developed...When this information is available we would like your review of the proposed [p. 2] project configuration to ensure that any proposed changes to the outlet works are not inconsitent with the flood control and irrigation operation of Black Butte Project.", etc.
    - - - 011281 letter Harvego/RMII to Weddell/USACE; conducting initial CEQA study; contacting you soon regarding a) the project; b) questions you may have; and c) response to [p. 2] this [CEQA comment] request.", etc. need CEQA comments by 01/30/1981
    - - - - Attachment A - project description Black Butte [missing]
    - - - - Attachment B - project description Stony Gorge [missing]
    - - - - Attachment C - Request for Comments: "I. Do you have jurisdiction over this project by law? A. Do you grant a permit or other entitlement for use? B. Do you exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project? II. Briefly identify the resource(s) potentially affected by this project for which your agency has responsibility. III. Briefly identify any significant impacts that could occur if the project is constructed and operated as proposed...IV. Identify measures and/or facilities recommended to mitigate the impacts identified in III above, and if available, the following: A. Estimated cost of mitigation recommended including construction, operation and maintenance. B. Recommended implementation schedule. C. General maps, drawings, etc., of recommendations...."
    - - - - Attachment D - Requests to Corps of Engineers for Baseline Environmental Data; Hydrologic Data Water quality measurements downstream from Black Butte Lake, -- Physical, --Chemical; Stream segment classification downstream from Black Butte Lake; Recreational Land use Data , What is Corps policy regarding piers, docks, boat landings, and shoreline facilities not outlined in the Corps Master Plan; What other projects, if any, are being proposed or considered for Black Butte Lake; Biological Data -- The known occurrence of fish, wildlife, and plants listed as rare, threatened, or endangered, -- Any critical habitat for such species, -- Regarding terestrial game and fowl species--information on breeding, feeding, or nesting areas in project vicinity, -- water fowl use of the reservoir and adjacent streams, -- Sensitive raptor species regarding nesting or feeding sites, -- Fisheries--for the reservoirs and Stony Creek between the two reservoirs and immediately downstream from Black Butte, the following information: -- fish species present, --fish populations (self-sustaining or stocked), -- standing fish crop (pounds per acre or other measure of fish productivity), -- angler usage (angler days and catch);

    - - - [page with] "NOTE: The following letter is an example of the letters sent to the individuals and agencies listed in Section 8 of Exhibit E."
    - - - - 010281 letter Harvego/RMI to Fisher/CDFG; same attachments A, B, & C as above? for comments
    - - - - - Attachment C - Request for Comments....
    - - - - 010281 letter Harvego/RMI to Treavor/CDFG; same attachments A, B, & C as above? for comments
    - - - 012781 letter Wolcott/NMFS to Harvego/RMI; "projects would not affect resources for which we have a responsibility. Therefore we have no comments on these projects [ 25 years later they have tons of comments]
    - - - 122880 letter McKevitt/USFWS to Flynn/Santa Clara; "Our primary concern is that environmental studies address the impacts of proposed project construction and operation on key fish and wildlife resources of national importance. These resources include anadromous salmon and steelhead, federally listed endangered or threatened species, and migratory waterfowl." keep us informed....

    - - - 092580 memo Field Supervisor/USFWS, Berkeley to Regional Director/Water & Power Resources, Sacramento; 5 page "planning aid letter" not report required "by Section 2B of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16 U.S.C. et seq. [661-667e]) [p. 2] "The terrain surrounding Stony Gorge Reservoir consists of rolling foothills, vegetated mainly with grass and sparse stands of oak. The west shore is densely covered with digger pine, manzanita, chamise and ceanothus. The dam is located in a narrow steep defile of Stony Creek and forms a farily regularly shaped deep and narrow lake, approximately 1/2 mile wide by 5 miles long. The shoreline drops abruptly, leaving steep muddy banks as the water level is lowered by drawdown. [para] Wildlife resources found in the area include black-tailed deer, California quail, wild turkey, mourning dove, furbearers, rabbits, and a wide variety of nongame birds and mammals. Both adult and immature forms of the bald eagle, an endangered species, have been observed wintering in the area. [para] Stony Gorge Reservoir supports a self-sustaining warmwater fishery comprised of largemouth bass, crappie, bullhead, catfish, bluegill, and green and redear sunfish. No trout occur in the reservoir due to warm water temperatures. Non-game fishes include carp, sucker, minnows and threadfin shad. Most angling use occurs in the late winter, spring and early summer. Extensive drawdown to dead storage level in occasional dry years limits the fishery. [para] The 20 miles of Stony Creek from Stony Gorge Dam to Black Butte Reservoir have minimal fishery value because of low summer flows, occasional dry periods, and high summer temperatures. Very little sport fishing occurs in this stream stretch. There is no minimum flow specified from Stony Gorge Dam. Fishes found in Stony Creek include carp, sucker, minnows, and catfish originating primarily from winter spills. No anadromous fish occur in this section of Stony Creek because of the total block to fish passage at Black Butte Dam. From the preliminary information supplied by your staff, we deduce that the water release pattern would not change as a result of the powerplant addition. Winter spills up to 590 cfs, however, would be diverted through the powerplant instead of spilling over the top of the dam. This flow modification would probably result in a lesser displacement of fish from the reservoir due to reduced surface spill. [p. 3] East Park...unscreened outlet structure is at 1,132 feet and releases are controlled by hand operated gate valves within a vertical release tower at the dam. It is our understanding that the lower release gate valve is not functioning at the present time...In dry years the reservoir is drained nearly empty, such as in 1972 and 1977. At elevation 1,132 feet, there is less than 300 acre-feet of dead storage....During the past 10 years, no releases occurred in 50 of the 120 months, or 42 percent of the time....terrain surrounding East Park Reservoir consists of gently rolling grassland vegetated with sparse stands of oak and digger pine. Cottonwood, willow, sycamore and alder trees are found in ravines and along the inlets of the reservoir. [para] Wildlife resources found around East park Reservoir include black-tailed deer, California quail, mourning dove, wild turkey, furbearers, rabbits, and numerous nongame birds and mammals. The reservoir provides resting habitat for migrating waterfowl. Wintering bald eagles also occur in the area. [para] East Park Reservoir provides a warmwater fishery for largemouth bass, redear and bluegill sunfish, black crappie, channel catfish and black bullhead. Non-game fishes include carp, Sacramento sucker, Sacramento blackfish, Sacramento squawfish, hitch and mosquitofish... [p. 4] Total drawdown, such as in 1972 and 1977, eliminates fish populations, and a considerable time is required for natural rehabilitation to occur. East Park reportedly receives cool waters from upwelling springs near the dam and supports a small population of trout....only change would be diversion of 200 cfs through the powerplant during spill periods instead of routing this water down the spillway and through a 1/4-mile bypass channel. This bypass channel is for excess flood flows only, it does not provide favorable fish habitat. Fish displaced into this bypass channel by high water spills are subject to mortality from turbulence in the cataract falls and from dewatering. By diverting flows through the bottom outlet and the proposed powerplant, fish loss from surface spillage will be reduced....The major issue of concern regarding fisheries development in Stony Gorge and East Park Reservoirs is the lack of any provision for minimum pools. The Department of Fish and Game has recommended that minimum pools of 5,000 ac. ft. be considered for each reservoir, with provisions for further drawdown during critically dry years (Richard Beland, DFG Inland Fish Supervisor, personal communication). Another concern is for maintenance of stable reservoir levels during the warmwater fish spawning season in late April through early June. In the past, severe fluctuations have been made in the two reservoirs (especially Stony Gorge) in order to maintain favorable levels in Black Butte Reservoir during the spring spawning period. Delayed releases from East Park Reservoir have favored spawning conditions there, however, such measures are futile if the reservoirs are subsequently drained so low that fish cannot survive...recommend that you consider...larger minimum pools (especially at East Park where existing dead storage is only 270 acre-feet, or about 0.5 percent of gross storage), and coordinated release schedules to minimize surface fluctuations during the critical warmwater fish spawning period....transmission line corridor, which is tentatively planned to run in a northerly direction for 17 miles to Stony Gorge and the Elk Creek substation, should be selected to minimize the potential for bird collisions with the wires. The endangered bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus and Peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus, are known seasonal visitors in this area. Other raptors [p. 5] traversing the corridor route including the golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, goshawk and rough-legged hawk....suggest that the conductors be positioned to that there is a minimum 5-foot separation between the wires....a threatened plant species, the dimorphic snapdragon (Antirrhinum subcordatum), may occur within the general area of the proposed site at elevations ranging from 900 to 2,000 feet. It occurs along Stony Creek, Colusa County, and has been recorded from the inner North Coastal Range in Tehama, Glenn, Colusa and Lake Counties from Digger Pine Campground in the south to Black Diamond Road [which one?] in the North. Also found in the general vicinity of the proposed project is a candidate species for listing as endangered: the drymaria dwarf flax (Hesperolinon drymarioides). This species is known from essentially four localities in an area measuring approximately 20 by 25 miles in the inner North Coast Range in Glenn, Colusa, and Lake Counties. Although usually found at relatively high elevations (1,800 - 3,200 feet), this plant may be encountered in the project area...."

    - - - 012381 letter McKevitt/USFWS to Harvego/RMI; Black Butte & Stony Gorge; "affected...anadromous chinook salmon in Stony Creek downstream from Black Butte Reservoir; raptors such as the federally endangered bald eable and peregrine falcon which are occasionally observed in the area....The potential for impacting anadromous fish runs in Stony Creek should be addressed in your report. Some fall chinook salmon are occasionally observed in Stony Creek, but excessively sandy substrate, scouring flows and spring diversions into the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation Canal have greatly limited fish production in this system....Long-term impacts include fish and wildlife losses from turbine-induced fish mortality, fluctuating lake levels, fluctuating stream flows and improperly designed transmission lines. Indirect impacts would include constraints place on future negotiations for modifying flow release schedules at the reservoirs to improve fish resources because of power generation commitments...designing operation schedules to maintain desired minimum pools in Black Butte and Stony Gorge Reservoirs, and a mininum flow in Stony Creek (including the stream stretch betwen the two reservoirs). Black Butte Reservoir provides an outstanding sport fishery for crappie, bass and catfish, and measure should be implemented to limit drawdown as much as possible during the peak spawning period in the spring."

    - - - 012181 letter Penna/Heritage Conservation to Flynn/Santa Clara; our contact person will be our FERC program manager, Don Christensen
    - - - 030981 letter Penna/Heritage Conservation to Harvego/RMI; don't see any problems unless power lines cut across archaeological sites, see State Historic Preservation Officer.
    - - - 021181 letter Schuster/Water & Power to Harvego/RMI; enclosed are our comments
    - - - - Attachment B - have jurisdiction by law, permit is required, contract 14-06-200-3502 of 05/26/1954 modifies 04/03/1909 OUWUA agreement; Reclamation "has responsibility for management of the following resources: Water, Recreation, Wildlife, Fisheries, Vegetation, Grazing, Viewshed, Water quality and Soil and Moisture conservation." peaking for the project could affect all of these; "opinion...the operation of a 6-MW powerplant, especially in the higher flow ranges, would lead to excessive head losses (i.e. more than 5% of designhead). This would not only reduce the amount of power available from a particular flow rate, but also possibly lead to damage to the outlet works due to vibration resulting from excessive velocities in the penstocks. The proposed peaking operation utilizing flow rates from 800 to 1400 [cfs] would have the same effect. Note that maximum discharge from the dam (under maximum head) is only 1000 [cfs]"; "'Procedural Outline to Insure Cooperation Between City of Santa Clara and Water and Power Resources Service' was sent to" RMI cc City "by our letter of" 01/27/1981.

    - - - 021781 letter Weddell/USACE to Harvego/RMI; "projects may involve disposal of dredged or fill material in both Black Butte and Stony Gorge Lakes and in Stony Creek. If so, a Department of the Army permit as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) will be needed from this office. In additions, any modifications or additions to Black Butte Dam would have to be in accordance with established flood control release requirements and comply with" Corps design & construction criteria.
    - - - 020681 letter Nicholas/Cal Regional WQCB Central Valley to Harvego/RMI; don't yet see a water quality problem
    - - - - Attachment C - jurisdiction under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act & California Porter-Cologne Act; impacts: "construction related water quality impacts (e.g. increased turbidity, discharge of fuels, grease, oils, etc.)
    - - - 020681 letter Mellon/State Historic Preservation to Harvego/RMI; concur the Black Butte project "will have no effect on cultural resources"; transmission lines may threaten site CA-Gle-216, "recommend it be evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places and assessed with regard to the project's effects"
    - - - 010781 letter Doody/DWR Dam Safety to Harvego/RMI; Federal facility so no State Dam safety involved
    - - - 012181 letter Dolcini/DWR Northern District to Harvego/RMI; We've been considering "a possible Glenn Reservoir offstream storage plan for several years. More recently, a smaller version called the Thomes-Newville Plan has appeared more favorable. Both of these plans could have major effects on possible power production at Black Butte Dam." "Our report recommends an investigation of the feasibility and economic justification of adding a power plant at Black Butte Dam as a feature of the Thomes-Newville Plan. We intend to reserve the right to energy production that is made possible by operation of our project. We also intend to reserve the right to modify flows passing Black Butte Dam without incurring liability beyond reasonable compensation for any overall reduction in power production as a result of our project....recommends a study of the possibilities for conjunctive operation with the Orland Project's Stony Gorge and East Park Reservoirs. Storage space in those reservoirs could be operated to regulate surplus Stony Gorge flows and increase the amount of water that could be pumped to Newville Reservoir....would alter flows available for power production: (a) By removing winter flows from Stony Creek upstream from Black Butte and releasing them in summer. (b) By diverting flows from Thomes Creek through Black Butte at various times of year. (c) Possibly, by conjunctive operation with Stony Gorge to regulate flows for pumping from Millsite Reservoir" Thomes-Newville "draft EIR and plan formulation report are scheduled for June 1983."

    - - - 012381 memo Sabiston/Div WRights to Burns/Resources Agency Projects Coordinator; recommend single environmental document for both Black Butte & Stony Gorge projects
    - - - 013081 [?] memo Robie/DWR to Johnson/Resources Agency & Harvego/RMI; echoing Dolcini letter regarding Thomes-Newville Project
    - - - 012781 memo Fullerton/CDFG to Johnson/Resources Agency; Black Butte SCH 81010728P & Stony Gorge 81010729P; "Any changes in the flow release schedule could be detrimental to fishery resources. Peaking flows, of course, are undesirable. Water quality during construction is also a concern."
    - - - 021081 letter Howard/Glenn County Planning Commission to Glenn County Board of Supervisors; Planning Commission considered 01/21/1981, disapproves of using the power outside Glenn County
    - - - 060380 letter Kowta/Calif. Archaeological Site Survey to Nichols/RMI; no known sites at the dam but one along the road to Elk Creek near the cemetery; is it along the proposed transmission line? Black Butte, 2 sites: 1) along northern border, 2) at S/W corner, CA-TEH-7; "need to ensure that specific site location information not be distributed in any public documents or made available to unauthorized individuals."
    - - - 010681 Tehama County Planning Department - Attachment C - nada
    - - - 01??81 Air Pollution Control District - jurisdiction by law over the project; "we consider air to be a resource"; impact, "fugitive dust from concrete batch plant and general construction traffic & activity." recommend keeping an eye on it, regular road watering, enclosed hoppers & ducting on cement plant; satisfy needs of the large adjacent dairy on dust, "we will be quite supportive of any complaints they may have."

    [end of Environmental Report?]
    - - -
    - Exhibit F - General Design Drawings; brief narrative
    - Drawing F-1 - Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, Project Works Plan, Area from above, showing old & new works, including new road down the inside of the dam face? "Proposed re-Regulating Dam Crest El. 376.0 , crest length 400'; shows metes and bounds of Project Area [p. A-4 is wrong]
    - Drawing F-2 - Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, Project Works Plan, Penstock profile & cross sections; power house plan & cross sections
    - Drawing F-3 - Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, Project Works Plan, Intake Structure, Gatehouse
    - Drawing F-3 - Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, Project Works Plan, Diversion Canal Control Structure
    - Table F-1 - Preliminary Design Criteria, Black Butte Hydroelectric Project; concrete, reinforcing, thickness, pressure tolerance
    - Appendix F-1 - Black Butte Dam Regional and Site Area Geology, based on 1980 Earth Sciences Associates' 'Seismic and Fault Activity Study for the Proposed Glenn Reservoir Complex' & USACE "foundation report on the construction of Black Butte Dam." "The Red Bluff gravels, composed largely of boulders, cobbles, and pebbles in a matrix of sandy clay, occur as a narrow, uplifted belt along the edge of the foothills. The formation is typically a dark red color and is commonly designated the redlands. Its occurrence in the project area is confined to the lower end of the outlet and diversion channels and in road cuts of the relocated Newville Road." "There are at least two faults within the project area and two more are present a short distance upstream. The most significant of these local faults is known as [p. F-1.3] the Black Butte fault, and it occurs at the western margin of the buttes about one mile upstream from the dam where the vertical displacement is in the order of 2500 feet. The Tehama formation on the west has been dropped down to form the floor of the Main and North Fork channels of Stony Creek. The other three faults are probably branches of this main fault and all have minor displacement. The surface expression of one is evident where it cuts the north rim of the valley three-quarters of a mile upstream from the dam. Two more local faults are present in the right abutment, one cutting the existing outlet tunnel at Sta. 8+00 and the other cutting the tunnel at Sta. 13+00. Both trend north and dip east at high angles. These are normal faults in which the east blocks have been dropped in relation to the west blocks. Although they have displacements of less than 50 feet, their effects on the rock have been detrimental. A shear zone on either side of these faults contains fractured rock which weathers upon exposure and consequently loses its initial bearing capacity. Unstable rock conditions resulting directly and indirectly from faulting which were encountered during construction of the dam necessitated major changes by the Corps of Engineers in the stilling basin, diversion channel, and downstream tunnel portal during construction of Black Butte Dam [sic, syntax]. In the outlet tunnel from Sta. 7+50 to Sta. 9+35 an almost continuous zone of shearing was penetrated. [para] Two major joint systems, trending almost normal to each other, are present in the basalt at the dam site and are particularly noticeable in the right abutment. They also extend into the mudstone of the right abutment to a lesser degree. The more prominent of the two has a strike of N40-55W and dips vertically. The second joint system is almost as persistent as the first and strikes N40-60E. It also has a vertical dip. A third joint set, of lesser prominence, has a gentle eastward dip and was probably horizontal prior to the tilting of the flow. The result of these joint systems is the formation of roughly rectangular joint blocks whose dimensions average 15 to 20 feet. [p. F-1.4] Fracturing has affected all the rocks of the dam site area, except possibly the Tehama formation, which probably reacts to stresses more as a soil than rock. These fractures are the result of shrinkage during cooling of the basalt. Many zones exist in which the fracture filling has been removed by weathering, leaving loose and frequently open fractures. The zones of open fractures are closely associated with major joints or fault zones or else occur in discontinuous surface areas where the weathering agents have penetrated downward into the rock. These surface zones are generally restricted to areas covered by overburden. Fracturing in the mudstone and sandstone is associated with jointing and is generally confined to a narrow zone adjacent to major joint planes. However, in some areas of the right abutment, particularly the upstream tunnel portal area and the tunnel from Sta. 10+30 to Sta. 11+00, extensive fracture zones are present in which open fractures are closely spaced and their surfaces heavily stained with iron oxide and manganese dioxide....The basalt which occurs on the abutments of Black Butte Dam is quite susceptible to weathering, especially where water is able to penetrate the rock [including from the reservoir?]. When weathered, the basalt frequently decomposes completely to a greenish-gray or buff clay. In the presence of oxygen the clay oxidizes to a red or reddish-brown. The joint system which has broken the Basalt into elongated, rectangular joint blocks provides the agents of weathering with a fairly regular system of entry channels from which the rock can be attacked and decomposed. Typically the basalt joint blocks have been weathered on four sides, and where low-angle joints divide the blocks into vertical sections, the [page F-1.5] blocks are completely isolated by weathered zones. Weathering of the basalt adjacent to joint surfaces has produced seams of clay from four inches to two feet or more in thickness. [para] The end result of the combined jointing and weathering is the existence of large, somewhat rounded basalt blocks or boulders isolated from one another by clay and decomposing rock. The inability of the clay to support these large boulders makes for very unstable conditions on cut slopes. During the construction of Black Butte Dam this condition was extremely severe in the outlet channel, irrigation diversion channel, right abutment core trench, and to a lesser extent affected the rock in the spillway, left abutment core trench, and outlet works intake channel. It is expected that similar unstable conditions will be encountered during construction of the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project....Ground Water: Prior to completion of the dam in 1963, the ground water table corresponded with the water level of Stony Creek under the valley section of the main dam embankment, and, except for an isolated area in the left abutment, showed a gradual rise above streambed of 25 to 35 feet in the abutments. This indicates that the rock which forms the abutments is fairly pervious. In general water levels in the downstream portions of the abutments are slightly higher and are somewhat erratic. The basalt occurs at a lower elevation here and, being less pervious that the other formations, possibly acts as a cut-off allowing water percolation only in facture zones. During tunnel driving a small amount of seepage was present, usually along contacts, but presented no dewatering problem. The water in the abutment had poor recharge, draining quickly as it was tapped, and the tunnel seemed to encounter less ground water as driving progressed from upstream to downstream. A small amount of water seepage was encountered [p. F-1.6] also in excavations for the control tower, transition section and irrigation diversion channel conduit section. Seepage was very minor and was handled easily by air-driven sump pumps. There have been no seepage problems through the abutments or under the dam since the reservoir was filled. No abnormal groundwater levels are expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project as long as the penstock tunnel is constructed during the season of low reservoir pool. Landslide Hazards: As noted previously, an unstable condition may occur on cut slopes in the basalt formations. A slide occurred during construction of the downstream tunnel portal in 1960. The high clay content in some of the soils of the area could also lead to conditions of slope failure unless preventive measures are taken. Seismic Potential: Black Butte Dam is in an area of low to moderate seismicity. Recorded earthquakes within a 40-mile radius of the dam range in magnitude between 1 and 4.8, with the most common at magnitude 3. Earthquake epicenters within the region do not show a significant alignment or association with known faults. The Stony Creek fault has experience the most recent movement of all faults in the region, this being between 30,000 and 130,000 years.... Foundation Conditions: The existing outlet tunnel was constructed from the upstream end to the downstream end and was driven progressively through Chico shale and conglomerate of the Black Butte formation to the fault, and then through mudstone and the lower portion of the basalt. The tunneling operation was difficult due to the fractured nature of the rock. Preparation of the surface before placement of the tunnel lining was also difficult because the [p. F-1.7] rock weathered after exposure, especially on the floor where vehicle traffic and water caused erosion...."
                                         TABLE F-1A
                                   PROBABLE SEISMIC EVENTS
                                            FOR
                              BLACK BUTTE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
      
                              Distance     Most          Maximum        Maximum 
      Earthquake               from       Recent         Credible       Probable
        Source                Project   Displacement     Earthquake     Earthquake
      __________              ________  ____________     __________     __________  
      
      Stony Creek fault       12 mi.    30,000-130,000 yr.   6.5        4.0 (4)
      Willows fault           14 mi.    Historic (1972)(?)   6.0        5.0 (4)
      Battle Creek fault       9 mi.    150,000 yr.          6.9        5.5 (1,4)
      Maacama fault           52 mi.    Holocene             7.2        5.2 (1,3)
      Foothills fault system  48 mi.    Historic (1975)      6.5        5.7 (2)
      San Andreas fault       80 mi.    Historic (1906)      8.5        8.3 (2)
      
        1.  Mark & Bonilla, 1977
        2.  DWR, 1979
        3.  Toppazada and Cramer, 1978
        4.  Earth Sciences Associates 1980
      

    - Exhibit G - Project Map; Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, Project Boundary Map, DWG No. G-1, very similar to F-1 but less detailed


    - -

    Item 3, Exhibit 12
  • - 110381 Extract from the City Charter of the City of Santa Clara, "...(e) The City Council shall have power to issue revenue bonds to finance the generation, production, transmission and distribution of electric energy, including the acquisition and/or construction of lands and facilities therefore, without authorization at an election. The City Council may avail itself of the procedures now or hereafter authorized by the general laws of the State of California for the issuance of such revenue bonds or the City Council may, by ordinance or resolution effective upon adoption, set up and establish a procedure for the issuance of such revenue bonds and all matters pertaining to the issuance and sale of such bonds. This section (e) does not authorize the financing of a nuclear plant, or an interest therein, unless approved by an election.".... Amended - General Municipal Election - 11/03/1981

    Folder 4, Item 4, Exh. 1
  • 12??80 Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Application for Preliminary Permit for East Park Hydroelectric Project, Orland Unit Water Users Association, Orland, California, 12/1980; Prepared by Tudor Engineering Company, San Francisco, California 94105 and Minasian, Minasian, Minasian, Spruance & Baber, Oroville, California 95965658
    - p. 2 "The Orland Unit Water Users Association is a mutual water company."
    - p. 3 certification of board resolution that follows?
    - p. 4 "Orland Unit Water Users Association Resolution No. [sic, no number], Authorizing Execution of an Application for Preliminary Permit to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for Construction of the Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project" [so what's it doing in the East Park application?] 12/11/1980
    - p. 5 Verification by Reggie Olney of the Ap
    - p. 1 "Statement in Conformance with Section 4.33-C of the Commission's rules of Practice and Procedure"; a "race to the courthouse" filing having been told Santa Clara filed its own, asks leave to amend and flesh out the ap.; "At this point, the dam, while owned by the United States Water and Power Resources Service, is operated by Orland Unit Water Users Association and Orland Unit Water Users Association is the sole user of water from East Park Dam and Reservoir." [?] "...in all likelihood it will be the first of the Bureau of Reclamation's projects to have been paid off by the users thereof." [sic, interchangeable agency names]
    - Exhibits filed with :
    - - Exhibit 1 - Description of the proposed East Park Hydroelectric Project; p. 1-1 "in Section 3, T 17N, RGE, [sic, range in para. 5]"; 220 feet crest length at elev. 1202 feet, max height 90 feet, main outlet 5-foot diameter cast iron pipe 68 feet through the base of the dam, "Invert elevation of the main outlet is at 1132 feet, MSL"; Proposed steel penstock connecting present outlet with a horizontal Francis turbine-generator...most likely be an outdoor facility"; 51000 a-f gross capacity, 279 a-f dead storage; PG & E has existing 21 kV transmission line to Stonyford 2 miles northwest, likely retrofit existing 12 kV line near the site to 21 kV to connect with it. 1600 kW at 300 cfs & design head of 87 feet, 4 million kilowatt-hours/year, "not expected to impose any adverse impact on the environment." "may be beneficial to the area's fisheries." generate equivalent to "6500 barrels of oil annually."
    - - Exhibit 2 - Description of studies to be conducted with respect to the proposed project.
    - - Exhibit 3 - Statement of costs and financing; $100,000 to study, will apply for a DOE loan under Title IV of Public Utility Regulatory Polices Act of 1978, PL 95-617 (PURPA) and supply the rest out of pocket
    - - Exhibit 4 - Project Map - Project boundaries and locations of principal facilities, map by Tudor Engineering Company, San Francisco, shows site in Northern California, site on area topo, dam & powerhouse from above, top & cross section of power house, cross section of dam & power house from side, Reservoir area-capacity curve

    Folder 4, Item 4, Exh. 2
  • 12??80 Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Application for Preliminary Permit for Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, Orland Unit Water Users Association, Orland, California, 12/1980; prepared by Tudor Engineering Company, San Francisco, CA
    - Secretary's Certificate, of board resolution , which is after the Verification?
    - Verification by Reggie Olney of the Ap
    - "Orland Unit Water Users Association Resolution No. [sic, no number], Authorizing Execution of an Application for Preliminary Permit to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for Construction of the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project" 10/09/1980
    - Statement of Plans Better Adopted than those of the Initial Application to Develop, Conserve and Utilize in the Public Interest the Water Resources of the Region
    - Exhibits filed with :
    - - Exhibit 1 - Description of the proposed Black Butte Hydroelectric Project; Dam rolled earthfill, crest length 2,970 feet & elev. 515.0 feet msl., max height 140 feet; six smaller saddle dikes with max height 38 feet same crest elev.; 5.2 feet of freeboard above design spillway flood water elevation of 509.8 feet, spillway unlined rock channel in north abutment of the dam with uncontrolled concrete weir with crest length 118 feet; p. 1-1 "outlet works are located in the right abutment of the main dam and consist of (1) a combined intake and control tower, (2) control house, (3) transition section, (4) 23-foot diameter circular concrete lined tunnel 807 feet in length, (5) a flip-bucket energy dissipator and irrigation diversion structure at the outlet portal, and (6) the South Canal gatehouse and diversion conduit. Combined flood control and irrigation releasess are controlled by five 6'-6" x 14'-0" hydraulically operated service gates and five similar emergency slide gates. These gates are operated in tandem and are housed in the control tower gate chamber. Four 4'-0" x 6'-0" bulkhead [p. 1-2] gates located adjacent to the outlet structure control diversion to the South Canal...." usable capacity 143,607 a-f between elevations 414.6 feet minimum operating level and 473.5 feet spillway crest, 10,000 inactive sediment & other storage, historically 149,700 a-f at 471.19 feet, surface area of 4,560 acres; currently served by a 12 kv PG & E line; proposed: pressured penstock into the existing 23-foot diameter concrete conduit, powerhouse just downstream with one horizontal Francis turbine/generator etc., 5000 kw, 25 million kw-hours annually, design flow 700 cfs, working on details, applicant or PG & E to construct link to PG & E line, energy equivalent to 42,000 barrels of fuel oil [annually?].
    - - - Figure 1-1 Black Butte Project, Area and Capacity Curves, Black Butte Lake, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA 01/??/1971
    - - Exhibit 2 - Description of studies to be conducted with respect to the proposed project; preliminary conclusion, project is feasible, EIR if required, no new roads & no significant disturbance to land or water in vicinity of project before issuance of FERC license ;
    - - Exhibit 3 - Statement of costs and financing, $100,000 for prelinaries, hope for PURPA loan plus out of pocket;
    - - Exhibit 4 - Project Map - Project boundaries and locations of principal facilities, Tudor Engineering Company, in Northern California, dam from above on topo and with canal & road? & braided stream & no afterbay, top & side cross-sections of powerhouse
    - 101080 proof of service on SWRCB [?] mailing list

    Folder 4, Item 4, Exh. 3
  • 10??80 Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Application for Preliminary Permit for Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project, Orland Unit Water Users Association, Orland, California, 10/1980, Tudor Engineering
    - Verification by Reggie Olney of the Ap
    - "Orland Unit Water Users Association Resolution No. [sic, no number], Authorizing Execution of an Application for Preliminary Permit to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for Construction of the Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project" 08/07/1980
    - Secretary's Certificate, of board resolution , [this one is bound in the right order]
    - Statement of Plans Better Adopted than those of the Initial Application to Develop, Conserve and Utilize in the Public Interest the Water Resources of the Region; OUWUA can manage the water to optimize power generation better than Santa Clara and in sync with all 3 dams, & Santa Clara Ap has no bypass plans in its design to allow for downstream irrigation when its power plant is down.
    - Exhibits filed with :
    - - Exhibit 1 - Description of the proposed Stony Gorge Hydroelectric Project; concrete slab & buttress structure with crest length 968' & crest elev. 847 feet msl., max height 140 ', spillway crest 821.38', spillway chute and bucket are concrete, spillway releases controlled by three 30' x 30' inclined crawler type gates. p. 1-1 "outlet works are located to the north of the spillway structure and consist of (1) a concrete intake structure incorporating trashracks, 92) two 3'-6" x 3'-6" high pressure gates serving two steel penstocks, (3) two 50-inch diameter steel penstocks 98 feet long, and (4) two 42-inch balanced needle valves which dissipate energy as they discharge flows into the stream below the dam. In addition, an 18-inch outlet pipe supplies water to the town of Elk Creek. Releases for this outlet pipe are controlled by a 12-inch gate valve and a 10-inch needle valve." p. 1-2, gross reservoir 50,383 a-f at surface elev. 841 ft., capacity between 728.0 top of low intake & 841 feet, historically max reservoir 54,630 a-f at max elev 844.2 ft, no dead storage, 1274 acres at 841 feet; PG & E Elk Creek substation 1 mile north; 2 needle valves would be removed and the existing penstocks would be joined in a wye, powerhouse with one horizontal Francis turbine/generator unit, etc., 750 cfs, one needle valve relocated for bypass when power plant is down for maintenance, applicant or PG & E to construct the mile or so transmission line to connect to substation, produce equivalent to 30,000 barrels of fuel oil annually.
    - - Exhibit 2 - Description of studies to be conducted with respect to the proposed project.
    - - Exhibit 3 - Statement of costs and financing; same as the other 2
    - - Exhibit 4 - Project Map - Project boundaries and locations of principal facilities, Tudor Engineering, in Northern California, top view on topo, top view diagram with old & new features, side cross section with old & new features, top & side cross of power plant
    - 101080 proof of service on SWRCB [?] mailing list





    Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

    --Mike Barkley, 161 N. Sheridan Ave. #1, Manteca, CA 95336 (H) 209/823-4817
    mjbarkl@inreach.com