THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2010, Mike Barkley (03/14/2010)

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

SWRCB APPLICATION A026379 City of Santa Clara Case Index - Black Butte Power Plant
[see also http://swrcb2.waterboards.ca.gov/ewrims/wrims-permits/p019274.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 2 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

[Record sheet has been retyped?]
Application 26379 Permit 19274
Applicant: City of Santa Cruz [sic]
Date filed 05/22/1980
Maps Filed 09/30/1980-E County 52 Fee $1280.00
Forms Sent 04/30/1981 - 8, 8a, 8b;

Protests:
  • 102280 OUWUA Dism/Withdr Accept 07/17/1981 Dism 03/23/1984
  • 052781 GCID Accept 07/14/1981 Dism/Withdr 03/23/1984

    Remarks
  • 060881 Proof of Publ
  • 061681 Proof of Publ
  • 111982 Hearing to be held 12/15/1982
  • 010183 Hearing postponed [actually "1/1/183 Bearing Posponed"]
  • 022283 Hearing to Reconvene 03/15/1983
  • 073084 Permit 19274 issued [actually "76/30/84"]
  • 020388 Rec'd Ext Petition
  • 041488 Monthly Notice of Pet Rec'd
  • 011494 Pet for Ext Rec'd
  • 040894 Notice of Pet Rec'd
  • 012395 Order approving a new devel. schedule;

    Record of Fees:
  • 052280 $10.00 Ap
  • 061380 $70.00 Ap
  • 020388 $50.00 Extension
  • 030394 $50.00 Extension
  • 073084 $40.00 Permit
  • 030384 $850.00 DFG

    Record of Folders
  • 2nd Initial Study [these other files not found, there is material in 26378 that would seem to be what these describe]
  • 3rd FERC Material on FLD [ Cat #3 folder below ]

    [Inside of file back cover]

    [nothing, file has been redone?]

    LOOSE PAPERS IN BACK OF FILE;
  • 071480 map, City of Santa Clara, Engineering Department, Black Butte Hydroelectric Project Application No. 26379, #654-208-4 [Reclamation?], 2 copies, on topo of dam plus Dike Nos 1 - 6;
  • 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; Black Butte Dam, N66° 16'W, 2174 feet from SE corner, S29 T23N R4W MDB & M; SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S29; power 1600 cfs; 750,000 a-f/annually; 12 month season; storage 160,000 crossed off in red with note "See applicant letter of" 06/10/1980 "storage is denied"; diversion by pipe through dam, steel 12' diameter, 807' long, 88' fall + or - 2'; Dam 108.5 feet rolled earthfill, 2970 feet long, 41.5 freeboard [sic], 4560 surface acres, 160,000 a-f, 100' deep, estimated cost of diversion works $500,000; proposed completion 09/1982; max 16,000 hp for distribution & sale, by turbine, discharge into Stony Creek SW 1/4 SE 1/4 S29 T23N R4W MDB & M; 144" diameter, 807' long, 1' vertical distance between entrance & exit; 88' from spillway to outlet pipe; 10,000 a-f dead storage; closest post office Orland; "no significant adverse impacts anticipated"; downstream OUWUA & GCID; do not claim existing right for the use of water sought by this Ap;
  • UNDATED Application Map; dam & site on Black Butte 7-1/2' quadrangle;
  • UNDATED Environmental Information; APN Block 85 Page 23 Parcel 4; zoning "upland recreation"; "construct temporary berms for diversion of overland flow and minimize direct construction site drainage into stream:; "County Planning Commission will request review of proposal for comment"; "some feed crops in general area"; crappie, small and large mouthed bass, sunfish, carp; William Thornton, CDFG Unit manager, 916/934-5396; contacted him & Fred Meyer, Region II, 916/355-7070; "Minor temporary sedimentation could occur during construction."; Larry Pearson, Regional Water Quality Control Bd., 916/445-0270; use 100% of flow "Whenever flood control requirements are less than 1600 cfs usually March through September"; "No sites are known to exist, detailed record search has been requested of Regional Archaeological Resources Office, Chico State University."
  • UNDATED 2 photos of existing outlet works
  • 052180 New Application; tag attached to front of Ap; Fee Rec'd $10.00, Fee Total $1280.00, Fee Due $1270.00; stream Code 0-030-00-00-0;
    051380 Resolution No. 4259, for Black Butte Study, empowering city manager
    051980 Contact report; Rinehart/Div WRights w/Mrs Mills, Electrical Department, who stated that two filings are to be received by our Division; Stony Gorge & Black Butte; city manager signed, forgot to enclose the $20 filing fee, mailing today under separate cover;
    052280 form letter Pettit/Div WRights to City of Santa Clara; received, assigned #26379, you will be lead agency; fee $1270, crossed off in red to $80.00 based on hp not a-f;
    060580 contact report, Glen Peterson/Div WRights w/Archie Chesler, Joe Hemer, Carole Atherton; "We discussed reduction of the applications fees if and when the applicant requests deletion of storage under above numbered applications. [para] The storage in Stony Gorge (A 26378) and Black Butte (A 26379) Reservoirs were mistakenly included in these applications. Mr. Hemer discussed the preparation of the application with applicants and there have been some misunderstanding. Storage could not be included in the project applications 26378-9 since the US-WPRS controls the storage, not the City of Santa Clara. The City of Santa Clara controls only the power facilikties to be installed at the base of the dam. [para] Carole Atherton held we could delete storage from the applications upon receiving a request for such deletion from the applicant. We would then charge application fees only for the direct diversion theoretical HP. We have not yet started any appreciable processing of the applications."
    061080 letter Von Raesfeld/City of Santa Clara to SWRCB; indended to apply for diversion rights only, not storage; enclosed is $70 plus $10 already submitted for theoretical 16,000 hp; red note "I called City Manager office & confirmed receipt of this letter & fees."
    070380 FERC Notice of Application for Preliminary Permit, requesting 36 months "to prepare a definitive project report including preliminary designs, results of geological, environmental, and economic feasibility studies", some $300,000 ; preliminary permit gives right of priority while studies are being made; competing ap by 08/13/1980 or notice of intent by then with ap by 10/13/1980; comments, protests, or petitions to intervene by 08/13/1980
  • Figure 4-2 Proposed Power Plant and Project Boundary (Adapted from USWPRS drawing of Black Butte Dam), FERC Project No. 3190

    071480 letter Flynn/Electric Utility to SWRCB ; transmitted herewith are 2 copies of a general project map
    081380 Contact Report Rinehart w/City Manager Ofc./City of Santa Clara; "Advised secretary to Mr. D.R. Von Raesfeld that we are still awaiting the original maps for subject filings. Copies of the maps are already with the applications. She advised that Mr. Flint [sic] of the City Electrical Department has this assignment and will be notified. I told her that if Mr. Flint has any questions to call this office."
  • 081880 Dennis Dudnick phoned re the maps. He will send mylar original reproduceable maps with certification & signature
  • Maps Filed -- BR
    082880 FERC Notice Granting Intervention; PG & E filed petitions to intervene for both proposed projects on 08/13/1980 because applicant proposes to use PG & E distribution & substation facilities.
    091880 letter Yang/Enviro to FERC; "No comments are submitted on this document. The City has filed Water Right Application 26379 for the proposed power plant project. Since a water right is required, any environmental documents prepared for the project should be submitted through the State Clearinghouse for our review."
    092580 FERC Notice Denying Intervention; OUWUA "filed petitions to intervene for both proposed projects on" 08/28/1980. OUWUA "alleged good cause for its untimely filings on the basis of its failure to receive actual notice of the application before the deadline for petitions to intervene set by the Commisssion. Failure to receive actual notice, however, does not excuse anyone from compliance with the requirements of the Commission's regulations and the time specified for intervention. Consequently, Orland Unit's petition to intervene is denied." [one would think that an application to trespass on OUWUA "property" would need to be specifically served on OUWUA, but, oh well....]
    101080 FERC Order Issuing Preliminary Permit, 3193 [Stony Gorge]; PG & E's intervention is "more appropriate for consideration as part of any future licensing proceedings. If issues arise that affect the interests of PG & E, they will be considered at that time." OUWUA's petition to intervene was denied as untimely. Interior "filed comments stating that it did not support the issuance of the preliminary permit. DOI's position [p. 2] is that power development at Stony Gorge Dam should be a Federal undertaking. DOI stated that legislation (H.R. 3526 and S. 1420) has been introduced in Congress that would authorize it to construct a power plant at Stony Gorge Dam. In view of the fact that Congress has not acted, it is considered to be in the public interest to issue this preliminary permit." Permit maintains priority during investigation period. "...permit does not authorize construction of any project works. This permit does, however, require the Permittee to conduct certain studies but under conditions which will assure that those studies cause no significant adverse environmental impacts. For these reasons, the issuance of this preliminary permit for Project No. 3193 does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 24 month permit, not 36;
    101480 FERC Order Issuing Preliminary Permit, 3190 [Black Butte]; same PG & E & OUWUA comments as 10/10/1980 3193; 12 month permit, not 36;
  • 10??75 FERC form P-1 [boilerplate] Terms and Conditions of Preliminary Permit
    102080 letter Minasian/OUWUA atty to Von Raesfeld/City of Santa Clara; enclosed are protests to Aps. 26378 & 26379;
  • 101780 Protest, Ap. 26379; OUWUA Vested Rights, see attachments; 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."; OUWUA environmental, same.
  • History [see extracts in 26378.htm]
  • 10980 OUWUA Board Resolution, authorizes President Olney & Acting Secretary Shumway to sign the protest;
    111380 letter Holtry/Water Resources Control Engineer to Minasian/OUWUA atty; "Since the public notice opening the protest period for the subject applications has not been issued, your" 10/17/1980 "protests may not be evaluated at this time. After the public notice has been issued, you will be advised whether or not they are accepted."
    111780 letter Peterson/Application Unit to Von Raesfeld/Santa Clara; error on Stony Gorge Dam POD, says "referenced to the northeast corner of the southeast corner" rather than "the northeast corner of the SE 1/4"; we will change to "'Axis of dam crosses midpoint of streambed at a point S 62° W 565 feet from the E 1/4 corner of Section 16'" [How does that make it better?]; both projects subject to CEQA, City of Santa Clara the lead agency, please confirm.

    1981


    012181 letter Harris/Application Unit to Von Raesfeld/City of Santa Clara; your Ap is complete, "We will issue a notice of the application in due course." [13 months, with guidance, to make the application complete, vs 30 days for protests?]

    012381 letter Sabiston/Hearing Section to Burns/Resources Agency, SCH 81010728 & 9; recommend a single document for both projects "and that the document be designed to meet both federal and state requirements." If cannot prepare combined state & federal, "any FERC document prepared should be circulated through SCH for our review." (out of order after 05/26/1981)
  • 012381 Route Slip re: SCH 81010728
  • 012381 Route Slip re: SCH 81010792 [s/b 729]

    042881 Contact Report Rinehart/Div WRights w/Castranova/DWR Engineer Safety of Dams; "Black Butte, Stony Gorge, are U.S. Corps of Engineers projects [well, one is] and the State of California has no jurisdiction"
    UNDATED Contact Report Rinehart/Div WRights w/Yang/Enviro; reviewed files, City of Santa Clara is lead agency, proceed with notice of Ap
    UNDATED Instructions to Applicant, Aps 26378 & 9; Orland Press & Corning Daily Observer
    043081 Notice of Application, 26379;
    UNDATED Notice to Postmaster Aps 26378 & 9, please post notices of ap
    041081 Route Sheet, Application Unit
    051181 Kowta/Anthro Dept Chico State to Chandler/Div WRights; urge proper on-site archaeological rconnaissance
    052681 letter Holtry/Associate WRC Engineer to Freeman/OUWUA; 10/17/1980 Protests on injury to stated rights and public interest are accepted; for Protests on jurisdiction, contrary to law, & adverse environmental impact , "you must furnish us statements of facts in support of these allegations...20 days from the date of this letter to submit...."
    052681 letter Holtry/Hearing Unit 2 to Von Raesfeld/City of Santa Clara; enclosed copy of letter accepting OUWUA protest[s?] on vested rights & public interest, answer by 07/20/1981; extension of time available if expect negotiation would help [after this, stuff out of order in file]

    052781 F Protest GCID; vested rights, "Any control which the proposed hydroelectric plant might have over the time or rate of reservoir releases could interfere with existing rights and agreements." "The Angle Decree Sacramento River Contract & Tehama-Colusa Contracts, Date of Priority November 14, 1904" "20,315 acre feet no exceeding 500 cfs", first use "Sometime between 1903 & 1906, irrigation and wildlife refuges." Settlement: "Legal assurances that no attempt will be made by the applicant to influence time or rate of reservoir releases."
  • 052781 F Protest [supplement] same as in 26378.htm
    060281 Affidavit of Principal Printers Clerk of the Corning Observer
    060581 Affidavit of Principal Clerk of the Orland Press

    060581 transmittal Minasian firm to Div WRights; "Statement of Grounds for Protest re: Black Butte Dam & Stony Gorge Reservoir", please receipt & return
  • 060581 Orland Unit Water Users' Association, Statement of Grounds for Protest, Application No. 26379 - Black Butte Dam;
    - 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; p. 2 erroneously quotes the "reclamation" loophole limit as being the project limit;]
    - "I. Appropriation Will Not Be Within the Board's Jurisdiction - Black Butte Dam - Stony Gorge Dam. [para] Attached hereto are Pages 137 through 145 of the Decree and Judgment in the action United States of America vs. H.C. Angle, Equity No. 30, Northern District of California. Further, a copy of Pages 168 through 172, which Stipulation was entered into between the Orland Project and in Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District and incorporated in the Angle Decree. [para] That under that certain Stipulation between said parties, and the Court by incorporation in its Judgment declared that [No, this is not an exact quote, and in fact quotes the stipulation between GCID and USA, and only sets the relationship between them, not between OUWUA and anybody]:
    '...such stipulation provides in part to the Orland Project ... shall further be entitled to construct, operate and maintain reservoirs and store therein all the waters of Stony Creek and its tributaries during the months of October, November, December, January and February of each year, and in other months of each year to store in said reservoirs such portions of said waters as are not reasonably required to be diverted from Stony Creek for the irrigation of the lands in, or that may come in said defendant district.'
    That such Order of the Court further provided to Plaintiff, the Orland Project, [no, the project was not the plaintiff] in the name of the United States of America that
    'Plantiff shall be further entitled to store in its reservoirs any season of the year, any portion of the said 265 cubic feet per second of natural flow not diverted into its distributing canals.' [no, again, that's the stip between Reclamation and GCID]
    [p. 2] That further, by the portion of such Judgment, Page 137 through 143, an exclusive right is provided for diversion by the United States of America, Orland project, at the [this erroneously quotes the "reclamation" loophole limit as being the project limit;]
    '...South and North diversion dams of up to ... shall not be at a greater rate of diversion in cubic feet per second nor total more in acre feet during an irrigation season, than the maximum rates of diversion and total amounts per season stated under items 1 and 3, to wit: respectively 279 and 93 cubic feet per second, respectively 85,020 and 28,350 acre feet'
    The south diversion is the water which the applicant proposes to develop for power generation purposes at Black Butte Reservoir [no.]. The Angle Decree provides an exclusive right on the part of the Orland Project, United States of America, to provide for the delivery and use of stored water. See Pages 142 and 143 at the location of the south and north diversion dams. [para] All of the rights described above are pre-1914 appropriative rights. This included the first 279 cfs flow at the proposed Black Butte site, the first 265 cfs flow on a year round basis at Stony Gorge [actually not, Stony Gorge is not mentioned anywhere in the Decree even though constructed before the Decree was 'adopted'] and any stored water at Stony Gorge from that 265 cfs flow. The right of a holder of a pre-1914 appropriative right to change or add an additional purpose of use, such as power generation for waters, is well established both by legislative action, Water Code Section 1706 and further, by Court Decree. (See Happy Valley Land and Water Co. vs. Nelson 169 Cal 694 (1915); Gallagher vs. Monte Cito Valley Water Co. 101 Cal 242,246 (1894).[no close paren to the "See"] The Orland Project has previously given notice of its intention to construct 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. The ownership, operation, and use of this water for power generation purposes by Santa Clara would insure that the full beneficial and potential use of power generation of these water facilities would not occur [para] The 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, [as opposed from the moratoria imposed because Reclamation & OUWUA stole all the water] results in unnecessary transportation losses of such power, and deprives the local area of the economic advantages of low cost power. [para] The 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/OUWUA Atty to Chandler/Div WRights; understand noticing filings so hearings may be simultaneous, lists the Aps for OUWUA and Santa Clara
    062181 letter Soule/State Archaeologist II to Kowta/Chico State; will forward your archaelogical recommendations to City of Santa Clara

    062381 letter Holtry/Div WRights to GCID; protest accepted, no further action at this time; [out of order, next to GCID protest]

    062381 letter Holtry/Div WRights to Van Raesfeld/City of WRights; enclosed letter accepting GCID protest, answer by 07/14/1981; more time if you think negotiation will help
    062681 letter Batchell/Reclamation to Walsh/Div WRights; "...Bureau does not object to the City pursuing a water right permit for hydroelectric power generation at Black Butte Dam." but, need a contract between City & Corps, as required under the FERC license providing for "access, construction, operation, and maintancne of a powerplant by the City, and will ensure the safety and integrity of the Federal facility and project operation." Assume permit & license under 26379 will reflect FERC requirements & Board's Standard term 22,
  • handwritten note, "See Decision D 1100" Adopted 09/25/1962 approving A18115

    071381 letter Von Raesfeld/Santa Clara to Walsh/Div WRights; response to GCID protest, "In its protest, the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (District) stated that the grounds of its protest were the District's concern that Santa Clara would revise the rates and schedules of releases from Black Butte Dam for power purposes to the detriment of the District's consumptive use of water for irrigation and other purposes. The District further stated that it would dismiss its protest upon receipt of legal assurance that the City would not make such revision in the rates and schedules of water releases from the dam. [para] The 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 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 rates or schedules for the release of water from Black Butte 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 power penstock rather than the existing outlet tunnel to the maximum extent possible when releases are made for flood control and consumptive uses by all parties with existing prior rights to such water. [para] It is the City's belief that the water rights it has requested are consistent with the limitations requested by GCID and that therefore, the District will abandon its protest to the City's application...."

    071781 letter McCarthy/Santa Clara to Walsh/Div WRights; enclosed is Answer of City of Santa Clara to OUWUA Protest; other protest answers are being sent under separate cover.
  • 071781 City of Santa Clara, Applicant, Application No. 26379 (Black Butte Dam), Answer to Protest of Orland Unit Water Users' Association; seems identical to the one at 26378.htm for Stony Gorge, and while vague on the differences refers to Reclamation where it should refer to USACE
  • 071781 Declaration of Service by Mail

    072381 letter Catino/Reclamation to Walsh/Div WRights; same letter same date in 26378.htm
    073081 letter Holtry/Hearing Unit 2 to GCID; if Santa Clara answer alleviates your concerns, let us know & protest will be dismissed, else get together & negotiate
    073081 letter Holtry/Hearing Unit 2 to Schuster/Reclamation; 06/18/1981 & 06/26/1981 letters; will include FERC terms as they exist at the time Aps are considered for permit; & will include right-of-access term [?]
    080681 letter Clark/GCID to Holtry/Hearing Unit 2; negotiating on 26378 & 26379
    083181 SCH Routing form & Federal Grant Application/Award Notification, State of Calfiornia State Clearinghouse; SCH 81010728 & 81090202 [this a new number?]; Grant form: "Construct and operate a 4000 to 6000 killowatt hydroelectric power plant at the base of the existing U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Black Butte Dam. The primary features of the proposed project would require approximately one-half acre of land on the North Bank of Stony Creek [actually, north bank of discharge channel] at the Base of Black Butte Dam approximately 400' down stream of the existing outlet works."
    092481 letter McKenzie/Enviro to Burns/Resources Agency; comments on initial study & NegDec; "The City has filed water rights Application 26379 to appropriate up to 1,600 cfs for hydroelectric power generation. As a Responsible Agency, we ask the City to file a Notice of Determination with the State Secretary for Resources following City Council action on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and project. We further request that the City forward copies of the final Initial Study/Negative Declaration (the draft documents plus comments and responses) and Notice of Determination to the Division of Water Rights when available."
    110281 letter Meith/Atty to Atherton/Div WRights; same as in 26378.htm.
    123081 form letter Walsh/Div WRights to Von Raesfeld/City of Santa Clara; same as in 26378.htm

    1982


    012682 letter Flynn/City of Santa Clara to Walsh/Div WRights; same as letter in 26378.htm, without the attachments
    020882 letter Winternitz/Enviro to Burns/Resources Agency; we would like a copy of the Initial Study & NegDec references by the Flynn/City of Santa Clara letter of 06/02/1981 to SCH
    032382 SCH Routing form & Federal Grant Application/Award Notification, State of Calfiornia State Clearinghouse; SCH 82032801 [another new number?]; Grant form: "Proposed project would consist of an intake structure w/i the Black Butte Reservoir near the so. abutment of the Black Butte Dam; a 12.5-ft diameter, 1,000-ft. long penstock tunnel thru the so. abutment of the dam; a powerhouse contianing [sic] two generating units with a comb. rated capacity of 6,800 kW; Applicant: City of Santa Clara"
    031182 FERC Notice of Application for License 3190-001; competing ap or notice of intent to file one by 05/20/1982, notice allows the time within 18 cfr §4.33(c) or §4.101 et. seq
    032682 letter Halterman/Hearing Unit 2 to Minasian/OUWUA Atty; reviewed 06/05/1981 statement of grounds, all 3 now accepted; & against 26745 ( East Park ); 06/29/1981 against 26378 (Stony Gorge) is a duplicate of 10/17/1980 protest with the name changed from Reclamation, so protest is rejected because Reclamation says they don't wish to protest 26378 [what kind of rejection reason is that? talk about arbitrary and capricious];
    032682 letter Halterman/Hearing Unit 2 to Von Raesfeld/Santa Clara; received your answers to OUWUA protests for 26378 & 26379 [wasn't 26378 rejected?]; enclosed is SWRCB letter accepting protest against 26745 from "Orland" answer within 15 days of date of this letter"
    032682 letter Halterman/Hearing Unit 2 to GCID; no response to our 07/30/1981, respond within 60 days of the date of this letter or protest will be dismissed without further notice;
    040182 letter Clark/GCID to Halterman/Div WRights; telephone & personal contacts have not resolved the issues;

    041682 Sabiston memo to Bock Taylor; with attachments, same as at 26378.htm; plus one more:
  • 05??63 Figure 4-1 East park Dam, Stony Gorge Dam & Black Butte Dam Hydroelectric Project Location Map, from USACE SC-26-26 map
    041682 letter Harvego/RMI to Yang/Enviro; providing copy of Notice of Determination for Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, previously sent copy of the Initial Study
  • 032382 Notice of Determination; to Secretary for Resources from City of Santa Clara; SCH 81090202, no significant impact, NegDec
    042082 letter McCarthy/Assistant City Atty to Halterman/Assoc WRC Engineer; no objection to hearings jointly on competing applications, but ask that 26378 & 26378 be scheduled ASAP , 26745 not yet ready; on first two , have answered all protests, FERC has issued preliminary permits, & all environmental review completed including complaince "in all respects with requirements of" CEQA; on 26745, no FERC preliminary permit yet & environmental review not yet completed ;
    042382 memo Vogelsang/SWRCB to Fellows/DWR; Ap number as 26369, 26379 inked in red; environmental doc must be considered, combined federal & state doc OK, circulate through SCH for SWRCB review, "should include a discussion of the need for the electrical energy to be generated by the project"
  • 032382 SCH Routing form & Federal Grant Application/Award Notification, State of Calfiornia State Clearinghouse; SCH 82032801, another copy
  • 031182 Notice of Application for License Project #3190-001, another copy
    050482 letter Flynn/Electric Utility to Yang/Enviro; in response to memo to Fellows of 04/23/1982; reminder? Initial Study, NegDec & Notice of Determination have all been completed, another copy of NOD enclosed, Ap. 3 on your memo s/b 26379;
  • 032382 Notice of Determination; to Secretary for Resources from City of Santa Clara; SCH 81090202, another copy

    051182 letter Burns/Ass't Secty for Resources to Plumb/FERC; must enter into "Streambed Alteration Agreement" with CDFG, plus CDFG recommends:
  • "1. Dissolved oxygen, as measured at any point across the stream 100' downstream of the release point, will be 7 ppm or more.
  • "2. Any riparian vegetation removed must be replaced by the sponsor with the creation of new riparian wetlands of at least an equal area.
  • "3. Suitable rocky material from the proposed tunnel excavation will be used to create fish habitat in Black Butte Reservoir. The material will be placed according to DFG's on-site recommendations."

    052782 office memo George Qualley to 6 Ap folders; "I noted several similarities between the competing projects described in the attached FERC order and the competion [sic] for power development on the Orland/Black Butte projects. [para] I thought it would be useful as background information to include this FERC order in the six files."
  • 050382 Order Denying Appeal, FERC; copy of the North Kern Water Storage denial, 3209, 3518, 4124; same as at 26378.htm

    061782 Doyle for Getty/Resource Protection Division CA Parks & Rec to Flynn/Electric Utility; dept has no authority on FERC aps, but examines for impacts "1) upon the supply and demand of recreation opportunities on a statewide and regional basis, and (2) upon units of the State Park System" and it's "up to the applicant to develop appropriate materials with its own resources." Applicant "should indicate what currently are the types, quantity, and quality of various recreation opportunities on the project area and what they may be after the project is completed." Where the project changes them, propose mitigations; "esthetic conditions, fisheries, wildlife, access, water quality, and stream regimen." "will view the project as including all appurtenances such as roads, transmission lines, diversion structures, penstocks and powerhouses, and the like." [para] "We will examine the materials submitted in the application...to determine...completeness, accuracy, and the degree to which the project protects the public interest in recreation as described in the 1981 California Recreation Policy." [p. 2] "The description in the application of existing recreation use patterns and facilities at the site was very limited and did not analyze the project's impact on recreation use or facilities. The applicant should be required to negotiate for and complete site alterations which allow for the provision of a minimum pool to protect the fishery and stable water level to improve the fishery during spawning periods....should be a condition of granting...."
  • California Recreation Policy - 1981; preamble; 9 policies [see various iterations on line per Google, etc., but the more recent ones omit:]
    - The California Recreation Policy and the Public Trust
    - - The responsibility of government to provide for the common good of present and future generations is called the public trust. Protection of the public trust will be of major concern in the implementation of the California Recreation Policy.
    - - Four guiding principles constitute the philosophy of the public trust:
    - - - The recognition that biological, water, and earth resources are the real wealth of our state and thus the basis from which our common good is derived.
    - - - The assertion that government has a duty to maintain the productivity of these natural assets - a duty to posterity, of which the highest purpose is to provide for the common good of not only the present generation, but future generations as well.
    - - - The gift of hope for the future made possible by assuring that our citizens will always have adequate resources available for the pursuit of a just, decent living in a prosperous economy.
    - - - The assurance that the treasures of our natural and cultural heritage will be protected. These treasures, be they rare life habitat, majestic vistas, productive forests and croplands, parks or wilderness, healthy fisheries, works of art, or examples of outstanding architecture, must be carefully managed so that they can be passed on to enhance the quality of life and the economic security of future generations in our civilization."
  • California State Park System, Jan. 1982, statewide map with park names

    080982 Contact Report, Halterman w/ Ron Nichols/Consultant for Applicant; "What is status of Projects 26378 & 29379. [para] If a hearing is held will it be a joint Hearing for all competing filings?"
  • DWS appended: "[garbled] I talked to Ron on" 08/16/1982. "Told him we will schedule hearing on all 6 applications. I will get them to you shortly."
    081982 letter Sabiston/Hearing Section to Minasian/Atty OUWUA & McCarthy/Deputy City Atty Santa Clara; "plan to schedule a combined Board hearing on all six" same as at 26378.htm
    102582 letter Sabiston/Program Manager to Applicants and Protestants; 6 aps, hearing, 12/15/1982, formal notice at least 20 days prior to that date, if date not satisfactory notify, "request for a change should be accompanied by a suggested new date. [p. 2] Once formal notice has been given, postponement will be allowed only for the most compelling reasons."
    110282 letter Minasian/OUWUA atty to Sabiston/Div WRights; suggest a pre-hearing conference, as in 26378.htm
    111082 letter Bieg/Hearing Unit to Minasian/Atty; conference should be beneficial, as in 26378.htm

    111982 Water Right Hearing Notice, as in 26378.htm, plus:
  • Notice of Intent to Appear, blank except for dates & ap #s, to be filled out by whomever

    1983


    010583 letter Bieg/Hearing Unit I to Schuster/Reclamation; inquire into..., as in 26378.htm
    010583 letter Walsh/Div WRights to Bryan/Willows Public Library; as in 26378.htm
    011183 Notice of Postponement, of the hearings scheduled for 01/11 & 01/19/1983, tentatively for 02/23/1983
  • Mailing List for Application 26745 et al.
    012483 memo ???/CDFG to Walsh/Div WRights; "recently become aware of a special situation regarding the fisheries which needs consideration at this time. [para] Black Butte Reservoir is a warmwater reservoir which stratifies during the summer months. This results in an oxygen deficient area (hypolimnion) and an area of oxygenated water nearer the surface (epilimnion). During summer monnths fish are concentrated in the epilimnion. The existing outlet elevation is located at such a level that water is drawn off in the middle of the water column. [para] The effect of the outlet elevation being near the center of the water column is that oxygen-rich surface water is drawn off of the lake. As water elevations drop, fish in Black Butte are concentrated in a smaller and smaller area and are subject to diversion. [para] The proposed hydroelectric project would excavate a new outlet tunnel through the dam abutment. However, this tunnel would be constructed at the same elevation as the existing outlet and would therefore, result in the continued loss of oxygenated water and a major diversion of fish. [para] To solve this problem we recommend the water rights permit for this project be conditioned with one of the following alternatives:
  • 1. A screen suitable to prevent diversion of fish be installed at the head of the diversion works in Black Butte Reservoir.
  • 2. The intake elevation be lowered below elevation 400 to prevent diversion of oxygenated water.
  • 3. A syphon or similar mechanism be added to the proposed project intake to divert water from below elevation 400 in order to prevent diversion of oxygenated water." [& add oxygenators?]

    022283 Water Right Hearing Notice; reconvene 03/15/1983
    022883 contact report Winterniz & Mensch/CDFG; "I told Jerry that the next schedule hearing date for these applications is March 15, and that a Notice was sent to him. He said that they had reached an agreement with Santa Clara, that Santa Clara would construct the intake at Black Butte at elevation 408 feet. They have not however had any discussions with Orland. [para] I suggested that Fish and Game testify at the March 15 hearing on what they think appropriate mitigation for Black Butte is. They can use the Paul Jensen memo (copy attached) as the text of their testimony. This would ensure that recommendation for appropriate mitigation becomes a part of the record, and Water Rights staff can act accordingly. Jerry said Fish and Game will testify at the hearing."
  • 012483 memo [Jensen]/CDFG to Walsh/Div WRights; another copy
    030883 memo Jensen/CDFG to Winternitz/Div WRights; On 01/24/1983 "our Department sent you a letter outlining our concerns regarding the subject applications. The initial design of the proposed hydroelectric project called for a new outlet tunnel be excavated through the dam abutment. This new tunnel would be constructed at the same elevation as the existing outlet and, as we explained in our letter of" 01/24, " would result in the continued loss of oxygenated water and a major diversion of fish. We provided three alternatives which we felt would alleviate this problem. [para] One of these alternatives was for the new intake elevation to be lowered to elevation 400 or below to prevent diversion of oxygenated water. On" 02/22, RMI, "consultants for City of Santa Clara, informed us the new intake tunnel centerline would be at approximately elevation 394. Since the tunnel would be approximatelyu 12 feet in diameter, this would make the uppermost part of the tunnel opening at an elevation of approximately 400 feet. This new design meets one of the alternatives we submitted to you on" 01/24, "and reduces the impacts to the reservoir's fishery resource. [para] For the protection of fish and wildlife values, we recommend the water rights permit for this project be conditioned with the following terms:
  • 1. The centerline of the intake tunnel for the powerhouse shall be at an elevation of approximately 394 feet.
  • 2. Permittee shall compensate for any loss of riparian wetland vegetation which may occur during project construction or operation. Such loss shall be through the creation of at least an equal area of new riparian wetlands.
  • 3. To create additional fish habitat in Black Butte Reservoir, permittee shall 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 shall be started on the diversion works and no water shall be diverted until permittee has entered into a stream or lake alteration agreement with the Department of Fish and Game and/or the Department has determined that [p. 2] measures to protect fishlife have been incorporated into the plans for construction of such diversion works..."

    050583 FERC Order Issuing New License (Major) 3190-001; "...an intake structure, a penstock, a powerhouse containing two generating units with a combined rated capacity of 6,800 kW, a reregulating dam, and a 1,500-foot-long, 12 kV transmission line connecting the project with the existing Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 12-kV line downstream of the project....no protests or petitions to intervene have been filed."
  • "Safety and Adequacy".... [p. 2]
  • "Economic Feasibility By letter filed" 05/28/1982 "the Resources Agency of California questioned the Applicant's estimate of the project's energy potential. Staff conducted an independent analysis and found that construction and operation of the project would be economically feasible [ fn 3 The proposed project, with its average annual generation of 16.9 million kWh, will utilize a renewable resource that will save the equivalent of approximately 28,000 barrels of oil or 7,800 tons of coal per year. ] Its analysis utilized average daily reservoir releases (not inflows to the reservoir as estimated by the Resources Agency) and assumed a shut down period of approximately 46.5 percent (in contrast to the Resources Agency's estimate of 41.67 percent). Based on the energy purchase rates for small power producers as published by the California Public Utilities Commission on" 11/12/1981 "the project is economically feasible."
  • "Reservoir Fishery Habitat" CDFG "proposed that suitable rocky material from the penstock tunnel excavation should be used to create fish habitat in the project reservoir. The Applicant stated that the planning and development of fish habitat in the reservoir is the responsibility of the Corps. Applicant is, however, willing to cooperate with the Corps should they express a desire to use the excavated material. [para] The Applicant should consult with the Corps and the CDFG on the need for fishery habitat enhancement in the project reservoir. If the need exists, clean rocky material, devoid of fines, should be placed at selected reservoir sites to provide additional habitat for fish and as substrate for fish food organisms. Article 13 of the license requires the licensee to consult with the corps and CDFG on this fishery enhancement measure."
  • "Environmental Impacts The project would utilize an existing dam and would generate power as an incidental use of water released for irrigation and flood control purposes. During modification of the existing facilities, the water quality of the project area would be temporarily degraded through increased turbidity and sedimentation from run-off from exposed soils and construction of the reregulating dam. During project operation, no long-term adverse impacts to the reservoir, downstream water quality, or fishery resources are forseen. On the basis of [p. 3] the record and Staff's independent analysis, it is concluded that issuance of a license for the project will noto constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."
  • "Comprehensive Development The proposed project would not be in conflict with any existing or proposed water resouce development in the Stony Creek Basin. It would make good use of the head and flow releases from the Black Butte Dam and would not change the operational procedures and flow requirements for irrigation. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed project would be best adapted to the comprehensive development of the river basin upon compliance with the terms and conditions of this license.
  • "Annual Charges ...provides for a future determination of the annual charge. [para] No headwater benefit payments will be assessed at this time although two federal projects lie upstream of the Project No. 3190. Customarily headwater benefit investigations are undertaken only after a project has commenced operation....reserves the Commission's right to make such a determination."
  • "It is ordered that: ...50 years, effective the first day of the month in which this license is issued....Black Butte Project No. 3190 consists of:
    - (1) All lands, to the extent of the Licensee's interest in those lands, constituing the project area and enclosed by the project boundary. The project area and boundary are shown and described by a certain exhibit that forms part of the application for license and that is designated and described as [Exhibit G]
    - (2) Project works consisting of:
    - - (a) an intake structure within the Black Butte Reservoir near the southern abutment of the Black Butte Dam;
    - - (b) a 12.5-foot diameter, 1,000-foot long penstock tunnel through the southern abutment of the dam;
    - - (c) a powerhouse containing two generating units with a combined installed capacity of 6,800 kW, located 350 feet downstream of the outlet works of the dam;
    - - (d) a switchyard adjacent to the north side of the powerhouse;
    - - (e) a 6-foot-high reregulating dam, approximately 300 feet downstream of the powerhouse;
    - - (f) a 400-foot-long canal diverting irrigation water into South Side Canal;
    - - (g) a 1,500 foot-long, 12-kV transmission line connecting the powerhouse with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 12-kV line downstream of the powerhouse; and
    - - (h) appurtenant facilities....
    - Form P-1 (Revised October, 1975), FERC Terms and Conditions of Preliminary Permit;


    052583 FERC Errata Notice, Order Issuing License (Major); Replace Form P-1 with the attached form L-2
  • FERC Form L-2 (Revised October, 1975) Terms and Conditions of License for Unconstructred Major Project Affecting Lands of the United States

    1984


    041784 Internal Memo Bieg to Files; re disposition of competing water rights applications for hydro-electric power generation on Stony Creek; all protests of Aps 26378 & 9 have been dismissed, all competing aps withdrawn; [p. 2] "...prior to reconvening the hearing, the City and Orland began negotiations to resolve the matter, and the hearing was continued to allow time for these negtiations. [para] In March 1983 the City cancelled Application 26745 for the East Park Dam Project, because it proved to be economically infeasible. In December 1983, Orland also cancelled Application 26682 for its East Park Dam Project. Cancellation o these applications resolve the concerns of most of the protestants who appeared at the December 15th 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." "summary of the...Settlement"
  • 1. Orland will provide for the daily operation, maintenance, inspection, and supervision of the dams, powerhouses and appurtenant facilities at Stony Gorge and Black Butte.
  • 2. City will reimburse Orland for all costs and expenses necessarily incurred in providing the services, as stated above.
  • 3. City may assign all or any portion of its rights and obligations under this agreement, and may assign or transfer any permit or license necessary to construct, operate or maintain the City Project.
  • 4. City and Orland recognize that the primary function of the Orland Project is for provision of irrigation water to the Orland Project
  • 5. Procedure to deal with a claimed breach of agreement.
  • 6. Procedure for mailing notices. [p. 3]
  • 7. This section spells out the extent that Orland will indemnify City,.
  • 8. The agreement is in effect pending receipt of all necessary licenses, permits and easements necessary for construction and shall continue while said licenses, permits and easements remain in effect....
    - recites the 03/08/1983 CDFG memo terms, Santa Clara agreed with all except #3 which is in the sole responsibility of USACE so they would have to allow it.
    - - 110282 Attachment 1, watershed map showing 6 ap sites; from DW? 3279
    123183 Closing form for file folder [note that 2004 memo is in here]

    Cat 1 CORRESPONDENCE VOL. 2 OF 2 RECORD OF FOLDER [" F " - date filed if date originated not evident - note that some 1984 in previous folder]
    052784 letter Flynn/Santa Clara Electric Utility to Walsh/Div WRights; respond to CDFG 03/08/1983 letter:
  • Item 1: Centerline of Intake Tunnel - Current final design work is progressing on a tunnel alignment that will result in the centerline of the tunnel, at the intake, being located at an elevation of approximately 394 feet. This arrangement is consistent with the recommendation of the Department of Fish and Game in maintaining the tunnel opening below the 400-foot elevation. This location will prevent loss of oxygenated water and would not be a major source of fish diversions, as the average pool elevation for the low pool period in Black Butte Reservoir is approximately 430 feet, placing the top of the intake approximately 30 feet below the average low pool level. In addition, it should also be noted that the project does not operate often in the low pool period (October - November) and therefore the potential of having the epilimnion in close proximity to the intake is further reduced.
  • Item 2: Compensation for Loss of Riparian Vegetation - Very small amounts of stream side riparian vegetation will be displaced as a result of construction of the new outlet works, the regulation dam abutments, and the reconstruction of the diversion works for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Orland Project South Canal diversion. Riparian vegetation removed due to construction would be compensated by replanting of the vegetation or by creating new riparian areas of equal value.
  • Item 3: Deposition of Spoil Materials in Black Butte Reservoir - The City previously responded to this concern in the DFG's comments to the City during the period of review of the City's Initial Study and the Negative Declaration adopted by the City. As stated in the City's previous response of February 4, 1982 to the DFG's comments, the [p. 2] Corps of Engineers maintains sole responsibility and management authority regarding the placement of any materials in Black Butte Reservoir. The City will deposit spoil from project excavations as required by the Corps of Engineers. Any special placement of excavation spoil for fish habitat purposes is clearly an enhancement and not an impact mitigation measure.
  • Item 4: Stream or Lake Bed Alteration Permit - The Applicant recognizes that a permit, in accordance with Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code, must be received prior to commencement of construction [pencil, Std Term 63]. Once final design work is completed, the Applicant will enter into an agreement with the Department of Fish and Game. The City interprets this specific request as an effort to have the SWRCB establish a blanket condition in the water rights permit for the City to comply with any and all enhancement measures desired by the DFG at the time the 1601 permit is issued, in addition to what has been requested in the DFG's March 8 letter. The DFG has been afforded opportunity to comment on the Black Butte hydroelectric project at each of the following points in the project planning process since May of 1980:
    - 1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) preliminary permit application review;
    - 2. The water rights application review process;
    - 3. The City's Initial Study circulation period;
    - 4. The review of the City's proposed Negative Declaration; and
    - 5. The FERC license application review process.
    - The City has earnestly solicited comments from the DFG at each of these phases and has in most cases received comments. As the project is now under final design and is becoming a major financial commitment, we are hopeful that the terms and conditions to be required of the City in the design, construction and operation of the project can be finalized now. We object to any condition in the water rights permit which would establish a requirement that the City be unilaterally required to adopt any future and as yet undisclosed enhancement or mitigation measures to be requested by the DFG. We see no need for the water rights permit to establish and requirements [any?] with respect to the 1601 permit as the requirements for this permit are established by State regulations outside of the water rights process." etc.

    120683 letter Bieg/Assoc WRC Engineer to Meith/Minasian attys & McCarthy/ Deputy City Atty City of Santa Clara; On 12/15/1983 [sic, spelled out], "one day of hearing was held in the matter of" 5 Aps, & 26745 since cancelled; you all said an agreement would be submitted, last date estimated was 12/01/1983; if none, send letter stating "reasons for the delay and established a target date: (1) for completing the agreement; (2) for resolving all protests; and (3) when authorization will be submitted for cancelling those applications which are unnecessary."

    032384 letter Bieg/Assoc WRC Engineer to Meith/Minasian Attys; as authorized by your 03/14/1984 letter [see copy 26378.htm] Aps 26658 & 26659 will be submitted for cancellation, & protests of Aps 26378 & 26379 by OUWUA are dismissed
    050384 letter Walsh/Div WRights to Pettit, Campos [& ?] Board Members; OUWUA withdraw competing Aps & protests were dismissed; if no Board objection, will proceed to permits
    073084 letter Dupuis/Div WRights to Von Raesfeld/Santa Clara; Aps approved 26378 19,090 hp $47.73, 26379 16,000 hp $40, total $87.73 due within 10 days

    051380 Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water; work copy, storage crossed off
  • Application Map; on to USGS 7-1/2' Quadrangle, Black Butte Dam, 1967 & 1973
  • Environmenal Information;

    052184 Check for Permit; other rights 27750 [High Line Canal]; wild river no; adjudicated area yes; "Effect on public trust uses of a navigable waterway none"; surface 4560 acres, stockwater reservoir no, cap. 160,000 acre-feet, Max. depth 100 feet; Upstream Reservation no [uh, D 1100 & Ap 18115 ?]; "non-consumptive use"; prior decisions D-83 11/17/1925 A2212 [forgot D 1100 & Ap 18115?]; written in OUWUA & GCID names & addresses, but for what purpose?; Index Map E 46;
    052280 Issuance of Water Right Permit; protests, OUWUA settled, GCID stip'd;
  • p. 2 [terms]; no interference with normal OUWUA operations; subject to GCID rights; "not authorize a change in the streamflow regime of Stony Creek"; upon CDFG approval, compensate for riparian wetland vegetation loss by creating new
  • Permit Term 92, modified (Angle)
    072784 Certification of Review of an Initial Study/Negative (SCH #81090202) Declaration for Application 26379 to Appropriate from Stony Creek Tributary to Sacramento River in Tehama County;
    073084 Permit for Diversion and Use of Water, #19274; Angle #92 as Term 16
    073084 letter Sabiston/Hearing Section to Von Raesfeld/Santa Clara; for 26378 & 9, permits 19273 & 4 enclosed; annual reports, inspection after completion, licenses, etc.

    1985


    013085 FERC Order Amending License; 12/31/1984 Santa Clara filed ap for 2 year extension of time for start of construction; "Corps is currently performing a study of potential seismic activity in the project area. The results of the Corps study scheduled to be published in May 1985, would have to be considered and possible modifications to the project design incorporated before the Corps would give its approval for start of construction." Also needed to coordinate with seasonal reservoir levels & release activities; extension warranted; commence 04/30/1987 & finish by 04/30/1989, only one extension allowed by 16 USC 806 for 2 years
    020785 Progress Report by Permittee for 1984; not completed, work done: "Coordination with Corps of Engineers (Dam owner), design of turbine and equipment, design of remainder of project is under way"
    123085 Progress Report by Permittee for 1985; work done "Coordination with Corps of Engineers (Dam Owner) $85,000; Engineering, Design and Management $1,228,000"

    1986


    121286 FERC Order approving Fishery Enhancement Plan; On 05/19/1986 Santa Clara "filed a fishery habitat enhancement plan for the Black Butte {Project, as required by article 33 of the license. The article required the licensee, in coordination with" USACE & CDFG "to determine the need and feasibility of using excavated rock material for habitat enhancement in Black Butte Reservoir. [para] In general, the plan calls for the deposition of basalt rock at various locations in Black Butte Reservoir for the purpose of enhancing available fish habitat. All rock taken from the intake structure excavation site would be deposited in the reservoir at elevations between 445 & 463 feet mean sea level. The rock to be used preferably would be of odd, ungraded shape and size and generally free of fines. The Corps and the CDFG have concurred with the fish habitat enhancement plan by letters dated" 09/29 & 10/22/1986 respectively. [para] "The fishery enhancement plan will provide adequate enhancement for the fishery resource in Black Butte Reservoir. Adverse environmental impacts associated with the deposition of the rock material are expected to be minor and of short duration."
    123186 Progress Report by Permittee for 1986; done: Access road, Powerhouse and intake Excavation $1,154,953; 90% left, Intake Structure, Penstock, Powerhouse, Regulation Dam and Canal Structure

    1987


    050487 Notice of Application Filed with the Commission, P-3190-005; change the transmission line voltage & route [filed after the Order copies]
    062687 FERC Order Amending License to Modify Transmission Line, 3190-005; 02/05/1987 Santa Clara filed Ap to abandon the proposed 1,500'-long 12-kV line and "instead construct a new 9.5-mile-long 60-kV transmision line interconnecting the project to PG & E's existing 60-kV line near the City of Orland, California...more efficient." [3 copies]
  • 061587 Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License, Black Butte Project, California, FERC No. 3190-005; generally the same as the report in 26378.htm; "proposed transmission line would be located along established roadways known as Newville Road (County Road No. 200), Cedar Avenue (Road FF), and Road 9"; Riparian Woodland dominant species, cottonwood, valley oak, California buckeye, black walnut, various willows, Himalaya berry, wild grape and poison oak"; wildlife "black-tailed deer, raccoon, pocket gopher, bald eagle, golden eagle, cooper's hawk, red-shouldered hawk, rough-legged hawk, kestrel, California quail, and numerous songbirds; design lines to not electrocute raptors, etc. FONSI

    1988

    011588 contact report Cay Chandler/Div WRights by Marcel Hall/RMI; "Mr Hall called to say the project under Ap 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 for inspection. He said the project under" Aps 26379 & 27750 "were to have been constructed by" 12/1987 "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 aocompany the petition forms."
    012988 letter Koner/RMI to SWRCB; herewith 2 petitions for extension of time on 26379 & 27750, delayed due to circumstances beyond the City's control;
    012788 Progress Report by Permittee for 1987; done: Access Road, Intake Structure, Tunnel, Penstock, Powerhouse Structure, Reregulation Dam Structure, Tranmission Line $20,450,000; remaining 4%, Turbine/Generator Installation, Intake channel Excavation, Reregulation Dam Crest; "Permit Condition #8 requires completion of construction by" 12/01/1987 "and the expected construction completion date is" 11/1988. "However Permit Condition #9 does not require complete application of the water to the authorized use until" 12/01/1991 "which will be easily met with a" 11/1988 "project completion. The City has prepared a Petition for Extension of Time for completion of construction,"
    012788 Petition for Extension of Time; one year, to 11/1988, use 1989; "Construction of the Black Butte Hydroelectric Project has taken approximately ten months longer than originally scheduled due to strikes and other difficulties."
    032188 contact report BHP & Marcell Hall; "Progress in 1987? He will return my call; @ 3:45, about 75% complete; intake structure nearly complete, powerhouse needs electrical wiring & devices & startup & testing; Mr. Hall mentioned that the draft extension stated '3 months' rather than the stated 10 months on the final petition. He said that he would follow up on that point and would get back to me. [out of order, after 04/29/1988]
  • 032288 1:20 Other difficulties; 1) Penstock 'on fill material'; 2) Phase 2 contractor did not finish some work, went out to bid again (entrance channel to intake) underwater." [is this the source of the litigation mentioned in progress report/extension ap around 01/14/1994 ?]
    041488 Monthly Notice of Petitions Received during March 1988; including 26379 & 27750 [out of order after 01/15/1988]
  • mailing list
    041988 letter Henry/Save Our Streams to Parkinson/SWRCB; "Does this project have interconnection priority within PG & E's northern constrained area and/or a connection agreement with PG & E? If not, the Board's records should list this as another retrofit project which is being preempted by new diversion hydro, among others."
    042988 letter Parkinson/Petition Unit to Henry/Save our Streams; Marcell Hall of RMI stated the projects are not 'qualifying facilities' under PURPA, & Santa Clara has an interconnection agreement with PG & E to wheel the power; "list of 'retrofit project'...the Board does not maintain, nor to my knowledge is the Board required to maintain, any such list."
    051188 letter Sparacino/City of Santa Clara to Parkinson/SWRCB; response to 04/19/1988 letter from Henry/Save Our Streams Council, "City of Santa Clara's Black Butte Hydroelectric Project transmission rights are secured under the terms of an Interconnection Agreement between the City of Santa Clara and" PGandE of 09/30/1983 [out of order, after 10/01/1988]
    101888 Staff Recommendation Regarding a Request for Extension of Time on a Water Right Permit and any Associated Petition for Changes; "The Black Butte hydroelectrict [sic] (6.8MW) [kw?] project is located about 10 miles northwest of the City of Orland, at Black Butte Dam. The intake structure is nearly complete and the powerhouse has electrical connections remaining to be made. In all about 25% of the project remains to be completed. The project holds FERC license #3910 [actually, 3190]...states that construction has been delayed 10 months due to a strike and other difficulties....no protests" "Public Trust: The extension of time will not alter public trust considerations made at the time that the permit was issued. The current version of the Board's continuing authority term will replace Condition 12 of this permit. Additional conditions do not appear warranted at this time." Recommend approve
    101988 Order Approving a New Development Schedule and Amending the Permit; Work by 12/31/1989, completed application of the water by 12/31/1993
    101988 letter Cornelius/Petition Unit to City of Santa Clara; petition for extension of time approved.

    1989

    011989 Progress Report by Permittee for 1988; all work complete except bypass automation controls and final testing. Cost to date $21,710,000; estimated completion 03/30/1989

    1990

    020190 Progress Report by Permittee for 1989; construction competed; use May-Aug; "The amount and season of water use in the power plant will vary each year depending on precipitation and irrigation requirements of downstream and consumptive users. Therefore, greater usages, up to maximum permitted diversion, will occur in future years."

    1992

    011092 Progress Report by Permittee for 1991; none used entire year? installed hp 8298 net

    1993

    011193 Progress Report by Permittee for 1992; ditto [ out of order, after 04/08/1994 ]

    1994

    011494 Petition for Extension of Time; 5 years, so far, 2009 hours, 5,629 a-f; "Penstock inspection excavation to analyze the extent of possible damage due to a design flaw. Site presently ready for rehabilitation work." Spent during last extension period $500,000; "Penstock Rehabilitation will be completed by" 06/30/1994, full use by 1999; During plant operation a design flaw was discovered. Plant was shut down due to safety concerns. Attorneys developed 3-year court case. Settlement recently occurred, allowing rehabilitation of plant." [out of order, after 03/01/1994]
    011494 Progress Report by Permittee for 1993; no use
    021494 letter Parkinson/Petition Unit to Schwartz/Electric Utility; re: 01/24/1994 Petition for Extension of Time to allow for full project development, missing the required fees; Filing $50; CDFG $850;
    022394 Purchase Order A68013, City of Santa Clara , CDFG $850.00
    022394 Purchase Order A68014, City of Santa Clara , Div WRights $50.00
    030194 letter Schwartz/Electric Utility to Beringer/Div WRights; 2 checks enclosed
    030994 Declaration of Exemption, exempt in accordance with §15062 of CEQA Guidelines; :No formal Notice of Exemption will be issued in accordance with the" 04/28/1987 "directive from the Chief of the Division of Water Rights" [which is where?] [out of order in file]
    032594 CDFG Environmental Filing Fee Cash Receipt #34216; $850 [out of order]
    040894 March 1994, Notice of Petitions Received; litigation settled, want to rehabilitate the plant
  • 040894 Mailing List for Monthly Notice

    1995

    011795 Extension of Time on a Water Right Permit and Any Associated Petitions for Changes; no protests; "SWRCB considered public interest and public trust uses before the permit was issued. The extension of time will not alter those considerations. [para] No additional public trust protestions appear warranted at this time." recommend approve
    012395 Order Approving a New Development Schedule; complete application by 12/31/2004
    012395 letter Attaway/Petition Unit to Santa Clara Electric Utility; extension petition approved, per attached order

    1996

    060696 Progress Report by Permittee for 1995; zero use;

    1997

    052597 Progress Report by Permittee for 1996; all months, total 195,710 a-f; generation 6,566 hp net

    1998

    030498 Progress Report by Permittee for 1997; May-Dec, 60,597 a-f; 8,298 hp net

    1999

    030599 Progress Report by Permittee for 1998; All months, 408,563 a-f

    2004

    040704 Progress Report by Permittee for 2003; All months except March, 284,832 a-f; [out of order, after 2005]

    2005

    042005 Progress Report by Permittee for 2004; All months, 224,482 a-f; "City of Santa Clara only utilize [sic] water released by" OUWUA "for irrigation. We have no control of water usage."
    102003 F form confirmation of current owner
    UNDATED Progress Report by Permittee for 2000; on-line form? All months except December, 225047 a-f;
  • UNDATED form Name and Address Information for Web Annual Reports
    112105 bill $984.97
    UNDATED Agent change; to Silicon Valley Power, etc.

    2006

    042606 Progress Report by Permittee for 2005; All months, 359,470 a-f;
    011006 Request to BOE for Accounts on Water Right Accounts; to "Silicon Valley Power"
    022306 Request to BOE for Accounts on Water Right Accounts; to "Silicon Valley Power"
    050806 memo Lang to Nease; ch telno to 408/615-6555 for 26379 & 27750

    2007

    042407 Progress Report by Permittee for 2006; All months, 329,011 a-f;

    2008

    060308 Progress Report by Permittee for 2007; All months except Dec, 146,011 a-f;

    2009

    032309 Progress Report by Permittee for 2008; All months except Nov-Dec, 213,918 a-f;


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


    080481 Proposed Negative Declaration; SCH 81090202
  • 05??81 Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, Initial Study, City of Santa Clara, Prepared by Resource Mangement International, Inc.; [Much or all of this is also in the Exhibit E - Environmental Report, p. E-1 portion of the document in 26378.htm at "Cat 20 TRANSCRIPTS AND EXHIBITS VOL. 1 OF 1" 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 ]
    - 2. Name of Proponent
    - 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent
    - 3. Date of Checklist Submission: 05/22/1981
    - 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Santa Clara
    - 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable:
    -
    - Table of Contents
    - List of Figures and Tables
    - I. Introduction
    - - Study Objectives
    - II. Project Description
    - - 1. Introduction
    - - 2. Existing Dam and Related Facilities; "...The reservoir is also contained by six rolled earthfill dikes, the highest of which is 38 feet in height. This provides 5.2 feet of freeboard above the spillway design flood pool elevation of 509.8 feet. [para] The spillway is an unlined rock channel located in the left abutment of the main dam with an uncontrolled concrete weir having a crest length of 118 feet and an outlet channel which discharges the spillway flows into Stony Creek." [contrast this with the abutment problems quoted in http://www.mjbarkl.com/seismic.htm from reports listed at 26378.htm?] "The outlet works are located in the right (south) 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) outlet portal energy dissipator and irrigation diversion structure, and (6) the South Side Canal gatehouse and diversion conduit. Combined flood control and irrigation releases 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" low-head slide gates [pp. II-4] located adjacent to the outlet structure control diversion to the South Side Canal...."
    - - 05??63 Figure 1-1 Location map, Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, watershed map, on USACE File: SC-26-26
    - - 3. Reservoir Description; "gross capacity of 160,000 acre-feet, of which 10,000 acre-feet is inactive space reserved for sediment storage and other project purposes. Normal maximum water surface elevation (gross pool level) is 473.5 feet msl, at which the reservoir has a surface area of 4,560 areas." [how much sediment accumulates before it starts to enter the penstock?]
    - - 4. Alternative Development Concepts; 2 "preliminary alternative project configurations were considered before the recommended project plan was developed."
    - - - [1] "construction of a 12'-6" diameter penstock inside of the [p. II-9] existing 23-foot diameter outlet tunnel to supply flow to the powerhouse. this plan would not require driving a new tunnel underneath the dam, and would be relatively easier to construct. However, the resulting reduced cross-section area in the existing outlet tunnel would reduce the outlet capacity. A meeting with the corps of Engineers in Sacramento on" 03/24/1981 "was held to discuss this problem. Although no final conclusions were reached, the reaction from the Corps was generally not favorable. Therefore, this preliminary plan was abandoned."
    - - - [2] "second preliminary plan had a penstock tunneled through the right abutment of the dam with a new intake structure located in the reservoir.
    - - - "In both of these preliminary plans the powerhouse would be located downstream from the outlet works and on the north side of the stilling basin. [para] The Black Butte outlet works exit structure is constructed such that it dissipates energy in high releases by flipping the water into the air over a concrete lip at elevation 385.0, and it can divert water into the" OUWUA "South side Canal by the use of gates located upstream from the lip on the south side of the exit structure. Alternative discharge plans must maintain the capability of diverting water to the South Side Canal. Therefore, in both of the preliminary power plant plans a re-regulating dam would be needed to provide a stilling basin with water surface at elevation 385.5. This elevation would allow water to flow back into the exit structure where it would then be diverted to the South Side Canal through the existing gates. There were two drawbacks to this re-regulating dam plan. [1] It reduced the potential useable head at the power plant and [2] it may have hindered the release capabilities of the outlet works since the lip would be constantly under water."
    - - Figure 1-2 Black Butte Project, Outlet Works, Plan, Profile and Sections, on USACE map File SC-1-9-114 02/23/1960, drawing somewhat chaotic: large map on topo, intake tower through dam to lipped basin with High Canal taking off from that & trace of old canal from a diversion off the map; Various cross sections, with descriptors difficult to find on larger map:
    - - - [1] Profile On & Of Outlet Works [crosss-section through tower and outlet pipe];
    - - - Section A-A, embankment supporting new canal at confluence with old canal?
    - - - Section D-D, cross section of lip area? basalt base at 350' ? wasn't it described as a cap over softer stone?
    - - - Section E-E, South bank regraded, where outlet curves back towards the creek?
    - - - Section F-F, cross section showing a new ditch, but can't place it on congested diagram
    - - - Section G-G, backflow berm between new canal and old channel? with pipe & valve?
    - - - Section H-H, cross of new canal exist just below outlet
    - - 01??71 Figure 1-3 Area and Capacity Curves, Black Butte Lake USACE
    - - Figure 1-4 Black Butte Reservoir Storage and Monthly Average Releases (years 1967 - 1978), chart by month
    - - Figure 1-5 Preliminary [first two] Alternatives for the Black Butte Hydropower Project; on site topo
    - - - [1] penstock in existing tunnel, first alternative powerhouse where penstock angles off north to north bank of discharge channel back to Stony Creek
    - - - [2] new penstock tunnel in south abutment, second alternative powerhouse above site of first alternative powerhouse, both discharging into discharge channel above new reregulating dam;
    - - 5. Proposed Project; "...No releases have ever been made over the dam's spillway." [never tested?] "final recommended plan...utilize the maximum possible head, divert water to the South Side Canal, and not interfere with the discharge characteristics of the existing outlet works...locating the re-regulating dam at a lower elevation farther downstream and utilizing the old South Side Canal to divert water for irrigation...." "A new intake structure would be constructed on the upstream side of the right abutment of the dam at El. 420 feet. The intake structure would have provisions for trash racks and bulkheads. A power tunnel, approximately 1,000 feet in length, would be driven through the right abutment from the downstream side to the intake structure. This power tunnel would be lined with concrete and heavily reinforced. A cut and cover type construction would be used for the eastern 500 feet of the tunnel. [para] The penstock would bifurcate to two generating units just upstream of the powerhouse. There would be a butterfly valve for each of the turbines upstream of the [p. II-12] steel spiral case. The turbines would be of the vertical Kaplan type with adjustable blade propellers. Each turbine would have a capacity of 3400 kw. For optimum operation, taking into account blade cavitation and economical matching of generators, the centerline of the distributor (spiral case) would be submerged 15 feet below tailwater level. The powerhouse would be a 71'x83'x64' reinforced concrete structure with a turbine floor containing mechanical equipment and a generator floor containing mostly electrical equipment. [para] It is anticipated that the power plant would be remote controlled. Since the generating units would be small, installation and removal of major parts would be via truck cranes operating from the outside through hatches in the roof." [para] The powerhouse flow would discharge into an enlarged stilling basin created in the existing Black Butte exit channel. A concrete overflow re-regulating dam with a crest elevation of 376 feet would be constructed in the exit channel just downstream from the old South Side Canal. The enlarged stilling basin would be created upstream of this re-regulating dam. Water could be diverted from this stilling basin into the old South Side Canal. The old canal would be re-excavated where it was once filled in, and a new gate structure would be built to control the flow diverted from the stilling basin to the South Side Canal. A low-flow discharge gate would also be provided in the re-regulating dam to release water to Stony Creek.... [p. II-13] ...could generate an average of approximately 21.8 million kilowatthours per year....powerhouse tailwater elevation will be established at El. 376 feet by the re-regulating dam. A potential maximum gross head of 97 feet and an average [p. II-14] gross head of 66 feet are possible at this site. Selecting two units of vertical Kaplan turbines rated at 3,400 kw, driving synchronous generators, the Black Butte Power Plant would have the following capabilities:" Maximum head 93 feet, Design head 75 feet, Minimum head 50 feet; "...design flow of 600 cfs each for two units would be optimum allowing generation over a wide range of conditions while maintaining high efficiencies....possible that new conductors could be required on the" PGandE " line which serves the Black Butte Dam facilities. The need for additional reconductoring will not be known until an analysis of the PGandE transmission line capacity has been made after the final power plant project capacity has been determined."
    - - Figure 1-6 Proposed Black Butte Hydroelectric Project; Site Plan with Dam, existing control tower; new intake structure, tunnel and penstock, powerhouse, re-regulating dam, re-opened South Canal segment, control structure thereon; Profile section of tunnel, intake & powerhouse; 2 cross sections of tunnel/penstock;
    - - Figure 1-7 Black Butte Dam Hydroelectric Project, General Project Plan, Major Project Features, on USGS Black Butte Dam Quad Map; proposed penstock tunnel, proposed rediversion dam, proposed power plant site & transmission line route
    - - 6. Project Construction; "...Some activities will require either a low reservoir level or diversion of water to facilitate construction. This is true for some aspects of the following construction activities: construction of the intake structure; driving of the penstock tunnel; construction of the powerhouse foundation and tailrace, construction of the rediversion dam; and construction of the diversion gates and canal. Construction of portions of these facilities during the low reservoir-low release period of September to December will preclude the necessity for special and costly methods of retaining water. Since the major irrigation releases are diverted at the outlet works exit structure, minor releases in the discharge channel can be diverted around the powerhouse, canal headgate, and rediversion dam construction sites by means of small cofferdams. This work can be done during the period of lowest reservoir releases, which is generally from June to December. [para] Other construction phases will include powerhouse construction, construction of the cut-and-cover portion of the penstock, installation of: butterfly valves; spiral cases; turbines; generators; and construction of the switchyard and transmission lines. [p. II-17] Other project construction activities will include laying reinforcing steel, concrete placement, structural steel work, piping, lighting, electrical grounding, and some paving."
    - - 7. Operation and Maintenance; "expects to operate the project remotely in coordination with dam operation by the" USACE. "Water releases from the reservoir will be unaffected by operation of the proposed project. [para] Major maintenance will be scheduled to the extent possible to coincide with times when no releases are required from the reservoir."
    - III. Environmental Setting
    - - 1. Description of Locale
    - - - A. Topography and Geology; "...watershed of Stony Creek ranges in elevation from about 200 feet in the Sacramento Valley to over 7,000 feet on the ridges and peaks of the interior Coast Range." "...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 baslat [sic] 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 2-1 Location Map, Black Butte Hydroelectric Project, USACE File: SC-26-26 again
    - - - B. Meteorology and Climate;
    - - - Table 2-1 Black Butte Dam Area Stratigraphy: "...Volcanics...Basalt and Volcanic breccia...Caps both abutments; foundation for tower access bridge abutment, downstream outlet works structures, main dam embankment on top of abutments, occurs in downstream tunnel." [ if the basalt is a cap, how did it become the foundation for stream-level structures? ] "Black Butte Formation...Mudstone, sandstone, conglomerate....Underlies basalt over entire dam site area, foundation for tower access bridge piers, main dam embankment across stream channel; occurs in portion of tunnel." "Chico Formation Soft Shale...Underlies entire dam and reservoir areas at depth, foundation for control tower, transition section and a small portion of the main dam embankment adjacent to right abutment."
    - - - Figure 2-2 Normal Annual Precipitation; Precipitation Stations and Snow Courses, USACE File SC-26-28
    - - - Table 2-2 Monthly Mean Temperature - Orland (Elev. 254)* *Period of Record 1883 - 1962
    - - - C. Hydrology "...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...."
    - - - Figure 2-3 Topography and Stream Gaging Stations; USACE File SC-26-27; Stream Gaging Stations; Steam Bed Profile-Stony Creek Basin; Area-Elevation Curve, Stony Creek at Black Butte Dam Site;
    - - - Table 2-3 Mean Monthly Runoff at Black Butte Dam Site
    - - - Table 2-4 Natural Flows at Black Butte Dam Site [table in 26378.htm]
    - - - Table 2-5 Estimated Natural Flood Peaks and Volumes at Black Butte Dam Site [table in 26378.htm]
    - - - 01??71 Figure 2-4 Rainflood Frequency Curves, Natural Conditions, Stony Creek at Black Butte Dam, USACE [1,000 year max, 127,000 cfs]
    - - - D. Vegetation
    - - - Figure 2-5 Vegetation at Project Site, photo
    - - - Figure 2-6 Riparian Vegetation Downstream from Project Site
    - - - E. Wildlife and Fisheries, including king salmon, see text in 26378.htm
    - - - Table 2-6 Fish Species of the Stony Creek Drainage, see table in 26378.htm
    - - - F. Archeology and History
    - - - G. Demography
    - - - Table 2-7 Population: 3 counties; Glenn; Orland
    - - - Table 2-8 Employment Glenn County
    - - - Table 2-9 Yearly Family Income (Glenn County)
    - - - Table 2-10 Age and Racial Characteristics (Glenn County)
    - - - H. Land Use, Development, and Zoning
    - - - I. Recreation
    - - - Table 2-11 Mean Monthly Irrigation Demand and Outflow, Black Butte Reservoir, 1964-1979
    - - - Figure 2-6 Recreation Facilities (Black Butte Dam & Reservoir), USACE File SC-26-30 (also showing placement of Dikes 1 thru 6)
    - IV. Identification of Environmental Effects (checklist)
    - - 1. Earth
    - - - A. Unstable earth conditions...? "Construction and operation of the proposed Black Butte Powerhouse will not change the geologic substructure and will not create unstable earth conditions. The proposed powerhouse site, across and downstream from the existing irrigation diversion structure, and north and approximately 500 feet downstream from the outlet tunnel, is underlain by basalt [?] and would not be significantly altered in construction of the powerhouse foundation and tailrace. [para] The proposed penstock configuration consists of constructing a new power penstock through a new tunnel beneath the dam as shown in Figure 1-2. Based on a review of the Foundation Report prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers on the existing dam, and the location and size of the proposed tunnel, this action will not substantially alter the geologic substructure, nor would it create unstable earth conditions...."`
    - - - B. Distruptions...of the soil? "The project would require excavation and displacement of previously filled materials at the site of the powerhouse. The foundation for the powerhouse would require some excavation of the [to p. IV-2] basalt bedrock...."
    - - 3. Water
    - - - A. changes? "...project will create a new stilling basin approximately three-fourths of an acre in size [actual basin seems larger]. This basin is located immediately downstream of the existing outlet works and will be contained by the new re-regulating dam (elevation 376 feet) located approximately 1,200 feet downstream from the existing outlet works. This structure will result in the temporary impoundment of waters released through the existing outlet works as well as waters [to p. IV-5] released through the proposed power plant. Releases through the powerhouse will be at significantly reduced velocities. The stilling basin will function as a velocity reducer for all flows below that structure...."
    - - - H. ...reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? "...not alter in any way the water available for public water supply, private, or public use. Water utilization will be non-consumptive...." [uh, 20 a-f/year evaporation from the afterbay?]
    - - 4. Plant Life
    - - - B. ...unique, rare or endangered species of plants? "...Dr. James A. Neilson on" 04/21/1981..."confirmed that no plant species of special concern, in particular the friltillary, Fritillaria pluriflora, exist on the proposed project site."
    - - 5. Animal Life
    - - - B. "...unique, rare or endangered species of animals? "Certain Endangered wildlife species such as the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occur seasonally in the general area of Black Butte Reservoir and other species of concern such as the osprey (Pandion haliaetus) may nest in the vicinity....
    - V. Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects
    - VI. Project Compatibility with Existing Zoning and Plans
    - VII. Names of Persons Participating in the Initial Study
    - VIII. List of Agencies/Individuals Contacted
    - IX. References
    - Apendix A, Summary of Agency Comments
    - - USFWS, "b) on anadromous fish in Stony creek downstream from Black Butte Dam; c) raptors;" see response at 26378.htm
    - - CDFG "...have identified the potential for, restoration and enhancement of that portion of Stony Creek below Black Butte Dam, to establish anadromous fish spawning grounds." Summary Response: "...Preliminary analysis of the potential for restoration and enhancement of Stony Creek below Black Butte Dam indicates that the potential is severely limited by lack of sufficient spawning grounds and downstream weter diversion which is beyond the control of the City, among other reaons. Therefore such restoration and enhancement does not appear to be practically achievable. Further discussion of this subject with..." CDFG is planned.
    - - SWRCB ; recommends a single environmental document for both 26378 & 9
    - Apendix B, Archaeological Reconnaissance, by Peter Jensen, Research Archaeologist, California State University, Chico 01/1981 [missing]
    - Apendix C, Botanical Survey, by Dr. James A. Neilson, Ecoview Environmental Consultants, Napa, 04/1981 [missing, neither are bound in this report]
    Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

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