CSPA
Fall River Wild Trout Foundation
The CSPA and the Fall River Wild Trout Foundation are allied in this effort
Subject: Fall River - FRWTF - PG&E's Pit 1 Project
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 15:44:41 +0000
From: BOB BAIOCCHI <cspa@psln.com>
Organization: CSPA
To: CSPA by email
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
FERC PROJECT 2687-014
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, LICENSEE
FALL RIVER AND PIT RIVER, TRIBUTARIES TO SACRAMENTO RIVER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE MATTER OF NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELICENSING OF THE PIT NO. 1 PROJECT NO. 2687
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY FALL RIVER WILD TROUT FOUNDATION
REGARDING THE COMMISSION'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE RELICENSING
OF THE PIT NO. 1 PROJECT
The Fall River Wild Trout Foundation (hereinafter known as "FRWTF") is
an intervenor for the relicensing of the Pit No. 1 Hydroelectric
Project.
The FRWTF submitted to the Commission scoping comments regarding what
environmental issues and other pertinent matters should be disclosed and
studied by the Commission for the proposed Environmental Assessment (EA)
for the relicensing of the Pit No. 1 Project.
The Commission has submitted for public review the draft EA for the
relicensing of the Pit No. 1 Project. The Commission will decide whether
or not to relicense the project, and also what mitigation and
environmental protection measures should be conditioned in the new
license for the project. The deadline date for intervenors and the
public to submit comments to the Commission is July 11, 1998.
Comments and Recommendations to the Commission and its Staff Regarding
the Draft Environmental Assessment by the Fall River Wild Trout
Foundation
PG&E Has No Water Rights
1. The Draft EA states the following regarding water rights:
"PG&E typically diverts all the water of the Fall River through the Pit
1 powerhouse with the exception of a senior water right that allows for
the diversion of up to 27 cfs at the Knoch's Diversion in Fall River
Pond. PG&E claims to have acquired riparian water rights for project
water pursuant to California Water Code Section 101."
We reference Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License; Pit
1 Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2687-014, California; May 27,
1998; at page 28 under Water Rights.
The Draft EA also states as follows:
"Fall River--Annual flows in the Fall River average between 1,100 and
2,000 cfs. The capacity of the power penstock is 2,028 cfs; mean monthly
flows at the powerhouse (diverted Fall River flows) ranged from 1,096 to
1,416 cfs during 1975 through 1991."
We reference Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License; Pit
1 Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2687-014, California; May 27,
1998; at page 21 under Water Quantity.
The Draft EA also states as follows:
"The existing license for the Pit 1 Project does not require a minimum
flow release, and PG&E originally did not propose any minimum flows in
its license application."
We reference Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License; Pit
1 Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2687-014, California; May 27,
1998; at page 35 under Minimum Flows to the Bypassed Reach.
Section 101 of the California Water Code states as follows:
"Riparian rights in a stream or watercourse attach to, but to no more
than so much of the flow thereof as may be required or used consistently
with this and the next preceding section, for the purposes for which
such lands are, or may be made adaptable, in view of such reasonable and
beneficial uses; provided, however, that nothing in this or the next
preceding section shall be construed as depriving any riparian owner of
the reasonable use of water of the stream to which his land is riparian
under reasonable methods of diversion and use, or of depriving any
appropriator of water to which he is lawfully entitled."
Section 102 of the California Water Code states as follows:
"All water within the State is the property of the people of the State,
but the right to the use of water may be acquired by appropriation in
the manner provided by law."
PG&E is presenting diverting all of the Fall River water except the
Knoch diversion, on a claim of riparian right, and exporting the water
to the Pit River from their riparian lands where the power project is
located.
Riparian water cannot be exported off of riparian lands. See California
Water Service Co. v. Edward Sidebotham & Son (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 715,
725. (Our Emphasis)
Consequently, PG&E claim of riparian rights to use Fall River water for
the Pit No. 1 Project is unlawful.
In conclusion, PG&E has no water rights.
The FRWTF is formally requesting the Commission to immediately require
PG&E to cease diverting water from Fall River for its Pit No. 1 Project
until PG&E has obtained a valid water right secured under the laws of
the State of California.
The Draft EA is deficient because it failed to disclose and evaluate
California water rights and whether PG&E's riparian claim was valid for
the existing project, and also for the relicensing of the project.
The Commission and Its Staff Failed to Give Proper Analysis and Detailed
Evaluation of the Decommissioning of the Project Alternative
2. The EA is deficient because it failed to consider in detail as an
alternative to the proposed action the decommissioning of the project
and the related environmental benefits to the quality of the human
environments of Fall River and Pit River areas.
The Draft EA claims that "No participant has suggested that dam removal
would be appropriate in this case, and we have no basis for remmending
it." We reference page 11 of Draft EA under Alternatives Considered but
Eliminated from Detailed Study.
That statement in the Draft EA is not correct. The FRWTF recommended in
its scoping comments to the Commission that the decommissioning of the
project should be evaluated in detail in the Draft EA. We reference
scoping comments by the Fall River Wild Trout Foundation at pages 2,3 &
4, under Alternatives.
NEPA requires that a number of alternatives are evaluated in a federal
environmental document. The Commission and its staff limited the
alternatives studied in the Draft EA without evaluating in detail the
decommissioning of the project and disclosing the benefits to the
quality of the human environment resulting from the decommissioning of
the project. Clearly, the Draft EA was deficient and violated NEPA
because the decommissioning of the project was a reasonable alternative.
However, the Commission's staff claimed the decommissioning of the
project was unreasonable.
The Draft EA simply assessed the operations of the project as proposed
by PG&E, and operating the project as proposed by PG&E with alternative
measures recommended by the Commission and its staff. Another
alternative considered was the "no-action alternative". The
Commission's definition of the "no action alternative" is the continued
operation of the existing project without any mitigation measures. Under
the California Environmental Quality Act the "no action" alternative is
called the "no project" alternative which means no project
(decommissioning of the project).
The Commission's staff should have included the decommissioning of the
project as an alternative studied in the Draft EA based on the fact that
PG&E does not have a water right and has been diverting Fall River water
unlawfully resulting in significant adverse environmental damage to the
human environment.
The Commission's staff should have also included the decommissioning of
the project as an alternative studied in the Draft EA based on the fact
that the California State Water Resources Control Board denied water
quality certification for the project. That was sufficient evidence to
have the Commission and its staff study in detail the decommissioning of
the project as an alternative in the Draft EA to fully protect the
beneficial uses of the State of California's water.
Another reasonable valid reason that the decommissioning of the project
should have been included as an alternative studied in detail in the
Draft EA is because the project is marginally economical had the
Commission and its staff recommended the flows recommended by the state
and federal fish and wildlife agencies. The Commission and its staff
also limited the mitigation measures significantly in the Draft EA
because of the economic effects to PG&E. It is clear that the Draft EA
was designed and written to reduce significantly the economic impacts to
PG&E at the cost to the human environment adversely effected by the
project. Under the Commission's regulatory power in the existing
license, the affected bypassed river reaches of Fall River and the Pit
River were given "zero" mandatory daily environmental flow requirements
to protect the human environment and the public trust resources and
assets.
Other reasonable and valid pertinent reasons for the Commission and its
staff to have included and studied in the Draft EA as an alternative the
decommissioning of the project are as follows:
(a) The benefits to Fall River wild trout species and their habitat (all
life stages), and Pit River wild trout species and their habitat (all
life stages), resulting from the decommissioning of the project (free
flowing Fall River and Pit River);
(b) The benefits to Fall River invertebrate species and habitat, and Pit
River invertebrate species and their habitat, resulting from the
decommissioning of the project (free flowing Fall River and Pit River);
(c) The benefits to Fall River aquatic species and their habitat, and
Pit River aquatic species and their habitat (all life stages), resulting
from the decommissioning of the project (free flowing Fall River and Pit
River);
(d) The benefits to water quality and the full protection of the
beneficial uses of the State of California water resulting from the
decommissioning of the project (free flowing Fall River and Pit River);
(e) The benefits to Fall River wild trout All life stages) and other
California native fish species (all life stages) from being entrained
and harmed in the power conduit resulting from the decommissioning of
the project (free flowing Fall River and Pit River);
(f) The benefits to the aesthetic and scenic values of the Fall River
Mills area from a restored Fall River Waterfall to flow naturally once
again and be a center of public visitor attraction resulting from the
decommissioning of the project (free flowing Fall River and Pit River);
(g) The benefits to the taste and odor of water quality of Fall River
water resulting from the decommissioning of the project (free flowing
Fall River and Pit River);
(h) The benefits to nuisance aquatic vegetation of Lower Fall River
water resulting from the decommissioning of the project (free flowing
Fall River and Pit River);
(i) The benefits from a natural free flowing Fall River and Pit River
without project caused flow fluctuations and ramping rate impacts to
wild trout (all life stages), other fish species (all life stages),
invertebrate species (all life stages), other aquatic species (all life
stages), and aesthetic and scenic values of the Fall River and Pit River
below the power canal resulting from the decommissioning of the project
(free flowing Fall River and Pit River);
(j) The benefits to whitewater rafting under natural flow conditions
resulting from the decommissioning of the project, and the related
economic benefits to tourism (free flowing Fall River and Pit River);
(k) The benefits to native riparian vegetation along Fall River and the
Pit River resulting from the decommissioning of the project (free
flowing Fall River and Pit River);
(l) The benefits to sportfishing and the related benefits to the economy
of the local community resulting from the decommissioning of the project
(free flowing Fall River and Pit River);
(m) The benefits to Big-eared bats and Pallid bats and their habitat
resulting from the decommissioning of the project (free flowing Fall
River and Pit River);
(n) The benefits to Shasta Crayfish and their habitat resulting from the
decommissioning of the project (free flowing Fall River and Pit River);
(o) The benefits to Bald Eagle and their habitat resulting from the
decommissioning of the project (free flowing Fall River and Pit River);
(p) The benefits to Peregrine Falcon resulting from the decommissioning
of the project (free flowing Fall River and Pit River);
(q) The benefits to the ecosystems of Fall River and the Pit River
effected by the operation of the project resulting from the
decommissioning of the project (free flowing Fall River and Pit River);
(q) Many other benefits not mentioned, but applicable.
Federal environmental documents should be written in a impartial manner
so that the decisionmaker can make an adequate decision that is in the
public interest and provides protection for the human environment.
Without disclosing and evaluating the decommissioning of the project in
detail, the Commission cannot judge in a fair and reasonable manner
whether the removal of the project would be in the public interest and
provide significant benefits to the environments of Fall River and the
Pit River adversely affected by the project.
The superior alternative is to decommission the project and have it
removed so that the lands and waterways can recover to their natural
state.
The Draft EA was not written in an impartial manner because it shaped
the deficient mitigation measures to benefit and protect project
economics when having a significant impact on the human environments of
Fall River and the Pit River.
The FRWTF believes the Commission's preferred alternative in the Draft
EA will have a significant impact to the human environment. The FRWTF
recommends the Commission prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
the relicensing of the project which includes the decommissioning of the
project as an alternative studied and considered in detail.
The Draft EA is Absent State of California Water Quality Certification
3. PG&E did not secure water quality certification from the California
State Water Resources Control Board.
We reference Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License; Pit
1 Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2687-014, California; May 27,
1998; at page 22 under Water Quality.
The Draft EA claims the Commission's Recommended Alternative will not
have a significant effect to the quality of the human environment. We
disagree again.
The Draft EA is premature without water quality certification and water
quality recommendations by the State of California.
The Commission and its staff did not disclose and evaluate the water
quality certification recommendations by the California State Water
Resources Control Board in the Draft EA. The Commission and its staff
did not incorporate the California State Water Resources Control Board
recommendations into the mitigation measures to protect the beneficial
uses of the waters of the State of California effected by the project.
The failure of the Commission and its staff not to disclose, evaluate,
and incorporate the California State Water Quality Control Board's water
quality certification recommendations into the Draft EA renders the
Draft EA deficient and in violation of the National Environmental Policy
Act.
Mandatory Daily Minimum Riverflow Requirements Are Deficient and Not in
Compliance With State of California Law
4. The Commission's recommended flows in its Recommended Alternative are
shown below:
June 1 through October 31 - 150 cfs
November 1 to November 15 - 75 cfs
November 16 to November 30 - 50 cfs
December 1 to April 30 - 25 cfs
May 1 to May 15 - 50 cfs
May 16 to May 31 - 75 cfs
The FRWTF disagrees with the flows recommended by the Commission,
including the flow recommendations made by PG&E as follows:
(a) The Commission and its staff's overall recommended flows that are
not in compliance with State of California water rights because PG&E
does not have the right to lawfully divert water from Fall River;
(b) The Commission and its staff's overall recommended flows that are
less than about 7% of the natural runoff of Fall River.
The Commission and its staff's recommended flow from the period from
December 1 to April 30 is less than 2% of the natural flows.
It is clear the Commission's flow recommendations were not based on
science, were unfair and unreasonable, and were based on the economic
effects to PG&E as shown in the Draft EA.
The FRWTF believes the Commission's flow recommendations violate the
Common Law Public Trust Doctrine because the Commission's flow
recommendations do not balance the beneficial uses of the state's waters
and do not protect the public trust assets adversely impacted by the
existing project.
(c) Because of the large number of flow recommendations, the Commission
and its staff decided not to provide separate analysis for each specific
flow recommendation by the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and other interested
parties such as the FRWTF and whitewater/rafting intervenors. NEPA
requires full public disclosure, including a full evaluation of all flow
recommendations in the body of the Draft EA.
The flow recommendations are the heart of the issue for the relicensing
of the project. Considering the Commission did not order any mandatory
flow requirements for the existing project to protect the public trust
resources of Fall River and the Pit River, the Commission's recommended
flows for the relicensing of the project do not give equal consideration
to the public trust resources and assets of Fall River and the Pit River
affected by the project as required by the Federal Power Act.
It was unreasonable and unfair for the Commission to solely evaluate
their flow recommendations and PG&E's flow recommendations, and not to
evaluate in detail the flow recommendations by the CDFG and USFWS, and
other interested parties.
(d) The USFWS has a duty to provide recommendations to the Commission to
protect fish and wildlife resources affected by federally approved
projects in California and elsewhere in the United States. The USFWS
flow recommendation was not given any weight by the Commission and its
staff, nor was their flow recommendation evaluated in detail in the
Draft EA. The USFWS flow recommendation was unfairly discarded by the
Commission and its staff because of the economic effects to PG&E.
The Commission should have evaluated in detail the specific flow
recommendation of the USFWS. The Draft EA is deficient without the
Commission evaluating in detail the flow recommendation of the USFWS.
The FRWTF believes that NEPA was violated when the Commission failed to
evaluate in detail the flow recommendation of the USFWS and give their
recommendation fair and reasonable treatment in the Draft EA.
(e) The Federal Power Act, as amended, requires the Commission to comply
with State of California law. The CDFG has a duty to comply with State
of California law. In complying with State of California law, in this
case, the CDFG provided the Commission with its flow recommendations
pursuant to State of California Fish and Game Code Section 5937. The
Commission unfairly discarded the flow recommendation by the CDFG, and
in doing so, violated State of California law. The FRWTF believes that
though the Commission has the authority to determine the flow
requirements for the new license, the Commission does not have the
authority to violate State of California law in doing so.
The Commission should have evaluated in detail the specific flow
recommendation of the CDFG. The Draft EA is deficient without the
Commission evaluating in detail the flow recommendations of the CDFG.
The FRWTF believes that NEPA was violated when the Commission failed to
evaluate in detail the flow recommendation of the CDFG.
(f) The Draft EA states as follows:
"Under the provisions of the FPA each hydroelectric license issued by
the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations
provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the
protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources
affected by the project."
"Section 10(j) of the FPA states that whenever the Commission believes
that any fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with
the purposes of the requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the
Commission and the agency shall attempt to resolve any such
inconsistency, giving weight to the recommendations, expertise, and
statutory responsibilities of such agency."
"We [Commission and its staff] do not recommend the FWS and CA Fish &
Game's recommendations to release a minimum flow of 250 cfs from June
through September and 100 cfs from October through May, CA Fish & Game
recommendation to provide a constant release of 400 cfs, or the FWS
recommendation to provide at least 400 cfs on the Pit River upstream of
the powerhouse to improve water quality and habitat for Shasta crayfish.
The net annual cost of either recommendation ($2,147,600 or $2,375,000)
would exceed the entire net annual benefit of the project. The FWS draft
recovery plan for Shasta crayfish (1997) acknowledges that the preferred
flow regime for Shasta crayfish is not known but indicates restoring
flow to the bypass reach which our recommendations would do, would
enhance water quality and should benefit Shasta crayfish. The FWS and
CA Fish & Game recommendations would improve the habitat for adult
rainbow trout and Sacramento suckers, but would have uncertain results
on bald eagles' foraging success and would decrease habitat suitability
for spawning, fry, and juvenile of all native species. Our
recommendations to provide 150 cfs from June through October and 25 cfs
from December though April, with a gradual step up in May and step down
in November would substantially increase suitability of the bypass reach
for adult rainbow trout and Sacramento suckers and would likely maintain
or improve bald eagle foraging success at a substantially lower annual
cost ($30,000 over PG&E's proposed flow regime) (see sections V.C.2.B,
V.C.4. b, and VII). Therefore, these recommendations may be inconsistent
with the comprehensive planning standards of Section 10(a) of the FPA,
including the equal consideration provisions of section 4(e) of the
FPA."
We reference Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License; Pit
1 Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2687-014, California; May 27,
1998; at pages 145 and 146, under Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies.
Section 10(j) of the Federal Power Act requires the Commission and its
staff to give weight to recommendations by the federal and state fish
and wildlife agencies. Section 10(j) of the Federal Power Act requires
the Commission and its staff to comply with applicable law. The Federal
Power Act also requires the Commission to comply with state law.
The flow recommendations by the USFWS and the CDFG are in compliance
with the Common Law Public Trust Doctrine. The Commission and its
staff's flow recommendations are not in compliance with the Common Law
Public Trust Doctrine because the Commission and its staff's flow
recommendation were based on project economics and very questionable
biological facts and scientific studies, and do not balance the
beneficial uses of the waters of the State of California affected by the
project.
The flow recommendations by the USFWS and the CDFG were based on
compliance with State of California Fish and Game Code Section 5937. The
Commission and its staff's flow recommendations are not in compliance
with State of California Fish and Game Code 5937 because the Commission
and its staff flow recommendation were based on project economics and
very questionable biological facts and scientific studies.
As stated before, the flow recommendation is the heart of the
relicensing of the project, aside from the water rights issue. Because
of the controversy by experts over flow recommendations by the USFWS,
CDFG, PG&E, and the Commission and its Staff, including the objections
by the FRWTF and perhaps other parties, the Commission and its staff
should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement because the
Commission's flow recommendations are highly controversial and will not
protect the quality of the human environment.
(g) The Commission and its staff rely on very questionable assumptions
that the meager flows recommended by the Commission and its staff will
maintain and improve forging habitat for bald eagles.
According to the Draft EA, the following is stated:
"The existing resident bald eagle population in the vicinity of the Pit
1 Project is productive and among the densest in California."
We reference Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License; Pit
1 Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2687-014, California; May 27,
1998; at page 17, under Bald Eagles.
The bald eagles during the pre-project period were doing quite fine
under natural flow conditions because this species was not listed for
protection under the federal Endangered Species Act (pre-1922). The
adoption of the decommissioning of the project by the Commission and its
staff would provide pre-project conditions for bald eagle forging and
prevent further jeopardy to this species and its habitat affected by the
project.
Bald eagles have wings and they fly. The bald eagles have the ability
to fly and forge above the confluence of Fall River and the Pit River,
or further downstream below the project tailrace in the Pit River. The
Commission and its staff argument that the their flow recommendations
will improve bald eagle forging habitat is hollow and unfairly attempts
to shape their flow recommendation. The Commission and its staff's are
simply making a case to support their weak claim that meager flows will
improve bald eagle forging habitat by artifically stranding fish at the
expense of the habitat needed and necessary for the wild trout fishery.
With respect to bald eagles, the Draft EA states as follows:
"We [Commission and its staff] will ask the FWS to enter into formal
consultation and ask for its "biological opinion" on the proposed
action."
We reference Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License; Pit
1 Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2687-014, California; May 27,
1998; at page 18, under Bald Eagles.
The Draft EA is deficient without including the biological opinion and
recommendations from the USFWS of the effects to bald eagles and their
habitat resulting from the Commission and its staff's flow
recommendation.
Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act requires Federal
agencies, such as the Commission, to insure that any action authorized,
funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the existence
of listed species or modify their habitat. Action agencies are required
to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when there is
discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action. The
Commission controls the action over the relicensing of the project, but
is required to comply with the provisions of the federal Endangered
Species Act.
The Draft EA is not in compliance with NEPA because the Commission and
its staff failed to disclose and include the "biological opinion" and
the recommendations of the USFWS. Further, the Commission and its
staff's flow recommendation in the Draft EA are premature without
disclosing and incorporating the "biological opinion" and the
recommendations by the USFWS concerning potential jeopardy to bald eagle
populations and their habitat affected by the Commission and its staff's
flow recommendations.
(h) The Draft EA states that:
"The known range of the endangered Shasta crayfish is limited to the
midsection of the Pit River drainage. Project operation has enhanced
Shasta crayfish habitat by importing lava rocks to help to stabilize
levees in the Big Lake and Tule River portions of the project area. Past
dredging operations to maintain the levees may have resulted in direct
and indirect (sedimentation) adverse impacts on Shasta crayfish. Lack of
flow to the bypassed reach resulted in diminished water quality in
portions of the Pit River, which may have limited the amount of habitat
available for Shasta crayfish."
"We recommend several measures that would benefit Shasta crayfish.
Development of a levee maintenance plan designed to limit or eliminate
dredging and to restore native vegetation would enhance habitat
conditions for this species. Implementing the proposed continuous flow
release into the bypassed reach would enhance Shasta crayfish by
improving water quality conditions. Development of a cooperative
management plan for the mid-reaches of the Pit River also would benefit
Shasta crayfish populations by enabling coordination of PG&E's
activities with concurrent restoration and protection tasks implemented
by others. All of the recommendations are consistent with the draft
recovery plan for Shasta Crayfish (FWS, 1997) (the final recovery plan
is not likely to be issued until late 1998). However, specific measures
that would be developed as part of the levee maintenance and cooperative
management plans would need to be carefully reviewed by FWS and
Commission staff to ensure that no inadvertent adverse impacts would be
likely to occur."
We reference Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License; Pit
1 Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2687-014, California; May 27,
1998; at pages 16 and 17, under Shasta Crayfish.
Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official
positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the
plan, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the
official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they
have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved.
Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new
findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery
tasks.
We reference U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Draft recovery plan
for the Shasta crayfish (Pacifastacus forts). U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Portland, Oregon. 143 pp. See Disclaimer.
The Draft EA is premature and deficient, and is not in compliance with
NEPA because the Commission and its staff failed to disclose and include
the final recovery plan for Shasta crayfish approved by the USFWS. The
Commission also failed to disclose in the Draft EA that approved
recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings,
changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. The
draft recovery plan is a draft plan which could be amended to include
many conditions in the final plan not disclosed and evaluated in the
Draft EA, including additional mitigation measures for the project.
Further, the Commission and its staff flow recommendations in the Draft
EA are premature without disclosing and incorporating the final recovery
plan for Shasta crayfish by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
concerning potential jeopardy to Shasta crayfish populations and their
habitat affected by the Commission and its staff flow recommendations.
The Draft EA also failed to disclose, evaluate, and mitigate the direct
and indirect impacts to Shasta crayfish habitat below the Fall River Pit
No. 1 power conduit to the Fall River waterfalls. That reach of Fall
River has been heavily silted from the operation of the project, and it
is very likely that the lack of natural flows to the Pit River has
inundated important pre-project Shasta crayfish habitat in that area of
Fall River. The Commission and its staff flow recommendation and other
measures for the protection of Shasta crayfish habitat did not recommend
the removal of the sediment in reaches of Fall River directly below the
Pit No. 1 power conduit to the Fall River waterfalls. The Draft EA is
deficient for failing to disclose, evaluate, and mitigate the adverse
impacts to endangered Shasta Crayfish resulting from project caused
sedimentation to Fall River below the power conduit to the Fall River
waterfalls.
Another potential cumulative impact to Shasta crayfish habitat which
was not disclosed in the Draft EA is the migration of sediment from the
upper five mile area of Fall River. Over time, it has been claimed by
the CDFG that the sediment will migrate down Fall River. The future
movement of sediment from the five mile area of Fall River has the
potential to harm Shasta crayfish habitat in the lower reaches of Fall
River because of the meager flows recommended by the Commission and its
staff.
The natural flow of Fall River into the Pit River without the project
or without diversions of water would clean the sediment from the channel
of Fall River which is trapped in the lower portion of Fall River.
The Draft EA is deficient for failing to disclose, evaluate, and to
protect Shasta crayfish populations and their habitat in the lower
portion of Fall River resulting from existing and future sediment
conditions, and also resulting from the Commission's flow
recommendations.
Hydrology Analysis For Fall River in Draft EA is Deficient
5. The Draft EA did not contain a daily long term hydrology analysis for
Fall River. PG&E should have that data. A monthly hydrology analysis of
the Fall River watershed will not give the Commission and its staff, nor
intervenors and the public, the information and data necessary regarding
the amount of water being diverted by PG&E over time on a daily basis
during all water year types, and also the amount of water which is
recommended by the Commission, USFWS, and CDFG for environmental
protection. i.e. daily - wet water year, above average water year,
average water year, below average water year, dry water year, critically
dry water year, and drought conditions.
A monthly hydrology analysis is misleading because it provides a mean
average and does not show how the river is flowing daily.
Without a daily hydrology analysis for Fall River during all water year
types, it would be impossible for the Commission and its staff,
intervenors and the public, to compare the Commission's project flow
recommendation with the environmental flow recommendations of the CDFG
and the USFWS during all water year types.
The FRWTF recommends and urges the Commission to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the relicensing of the Pit 1 Project.
The recommended EIS should include a daily hydrology analysis of Fall
River during all water year types accounting for the water diverted for
power purposes and the water bypassed to meet the needs of the Knoch's
diversion. Without the Commission including a long term daily hydrology
analysis for Fall River, the FRWTF believes the Draft EA is deficient.
Also, the Commission should require PG&E to install and maintain a
fulltime gauging device at the diversion dam on Fall River to measure
the daily amount of water released by PG&E to sustain the environmental
needs of Fall River. The recommended measuring device should also
include daily water quality readings such as water temperatures. This
recommended measuring device should also be used by the Commission to
monitor compliance of the mandatory daily flow requirements for Fall
River.
Hydrology Analysis For the Pit River in the Draft EA is Deficient
6. The Draft EA does provide a very limited monthly hydrology synthetic
analysis of the Pit River above the confluence of the Pit River and Fall
River. The synthetic hydrology analysis used for the Commission's
analysis in the Draft EA was prepared by PG&E from water years 1975 to
1991, but water years 1992 to 1997 were excluded, including the period
prior to water year 1975, for unknown reasons. The synthetic hydrology
analysis should be amended to include water years from 1992 to 1997.
Without this information, the Commission's analysis in the Draft EA is
based on "old information" and not current information.
As stated beforehand, mean monthly flows do not provide the Commission
and other parties with the necessary information concerning the daily
flows in the Pit River above the confluence of Fall River. Monthly flow
records are misleading. For example, in 1981, 4 cfs was the monthly mean
flow for the month of August, however there might have been flows lower
than 4 cfs and higher than 4 cfs. Mean monthly flows are known to be
misleading.
The FRWTF recommends and urges the Commission to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the relicensing of the Pit 1 Project.
The recommended EIS should include a daily hydrology analysis of the
bypassed section of the Pit River during all water year types. Without
the Commission including a long term daily hydrology analysis for Pit
River, the FRWTF believes the Draft EA is deficient.
Also, the Commission should require PG&E to install and maintain a
fulltime gauging device on the Pit River above the confluence with the
Fall River. The recommended measuring device should also include daily
water quality readings such as water temperatures.
Water Quality - Water Temperatures
7. The Draft EA provides limited information concerning water
temperatures in the bypassed sections of Fall River and the Pit River.
Cold water fish and invertebrate species need cold water to survive. The
Commission and its staff did not recommend and specify the specific
daily maximum level of water temperatures that would restore, sustain,
and protect cold water species such as wild trout and invertebrate
species in the bypassed sections of Fall River and the Pit River.
Water quantity and water temperatures go hand in hand. The amount of
water to be released from Fall River into the Pit River will affect cold
water conditions for wild trout and invertebrate species in the Pit
River.
The FRWTF believes that without specified daily water temperature
requirements ordered by the Commission in the bypassed sections of Fall
River and the Pit River, the Draft EA is deficient and the Commission's
recommended flows are deficient.
The water temperature data shown on page 27 of the Draft EA uses
monthly values. However, in the Commission's discussion of water
temperatures, the Commission uses average monthly water temperature
rather average maximum water temperatures. It seems obvious from the
Commission's analysis in the Draft EA that the bypassed section of the
Pit River is much warmer without the River River flows. On page 24 of
the Draft EA the Commission uses surface water temperatures for Fall
River at the forebay and states that the lower water is "considerably"
colder. Since the lower water is the bulk of the water it needs to be
considered and analyzed in the Draft EA, and not the surface water which
is misleading. Without knowing the water temperature of the lower water,
the Commission's assumption concerning the effects to cold water species
in the Pit River is deficient information with no basis and scientific
evidence.
The FRWTF recommends that the Commission amend the Draft EA and order
specified daily water temperature requirements in the bypassed sections
of Fall River and the Pit River specifically for cold water fish and
invertebrate species during all water year types in the recommended
EIS.
Fall River Wild Trout and Other California Native Fish Species Entrained
and Entrapped By the Project Power Intake Canal Were Not Protected By
the Commission
8. The FRWTF recommended to the Commission the screening of the power
intake to prevent harm to public trust fishery resources. CDFG did not
recommend the screening of the power intake. However, the USFWS
recommended that the Commission reserve authority to prescribe fish
passage facilities, including fish screens. The Commission's staff
recommended that the power intake should not be screened due to the cost
of the screening device, which was estimated at 12 million dollars by
the Commission and its staff, based on a limited 150 day field study
after the project has been operating for 76 years.
Gill netting sampling conducted by PG&E upstream of the trashracks
collected two (2) fish in over 150 hours of sampling. Draining and
electrofishing of the 1,050-foot long canal leading to the tunnel
resulted in the collection of 643 fish species, of which 7% were Fall
River wild trout or about 45 wild trout. PG&E claimed that these data
mean that most of the fish avoided the area of the intake. No surveys
were conducted and included in the Draft EA to determine the number of
Fall River wild trout that used the river area above the intake canal.
The Draft EA also did not describe whether young of the year Fall River
wild trout are present in the canal, is entrained, and could survive the
velocity of the flows in the power intake canal nor whether young of
year fish were sampled. Nor did the Draft EA describe an estimate of how
many Fall River wild trout (adults and juveniles), and other fish
species, were entrained and harmed in the power intake since
commencement of commercial operations of the project.
The Draft EA did not disclose, as it should have, the reasons why the
screening of the intake would cost 12 million dollars. The Draft EA is
deficient without the cost information and data.
The Draft EA also did not disclose and evaluate other methods to reduce
losses to wild trout and other fish species trapped in the power intake
canal without screening the intake. One method we recommend to be
evaluated in the recommended EIS is having PG&E electrofish the intake
canal several times a year and rescue all fish species in conjunction
with making flushing flows to remove naturally some of the sediment
trapped in the lower river below PG&E's power intake canal to the Fall
River waterfall.
Fishermen visit Fall River primiarly to fish for Fall River wild trout.
These fishermen spend large amounts of money to catch a Fall River wild
trout. The value of a Fall River adult wild trout may be as much as $200
each or more. The value of the Fall River wild trout should have been
considered when the Commission's staff simply compared the cost of
screening the power intake with a limited 150 day study.
On a consistent basis the Commission and its staff have unfairly and
unreasonably not ordered the screening of power intakes (and canal
diversions) at FERC licensed hydropower intakes in California regardless
of whether the USFWS and CDFG, and other interested parties, recommended
screening to prevent fish from being entrained and harmed.
Fall River wild trout species belong to the people of the State of
California and are public trust assets. Fall River is a designated
"California Wild Trout Stream" and protected by policies adopted by the
California Fish and Game Commission. The CDFG has a duty to protect Fall
River wild trout species. FRWTF believes the Commission shares the same
duty to protect Fall River wild trout species in this proceedings
regardless of the cost to the licensee.
The FRWTF recommend that the protection measures in the Draft EA are
amended to require PG&E to install and maintain a fish screen at the
power intake or other devices which prevent Fall River wild trout and
other fish species from being entrained and harmed in the power intake.
In the event the Commission does not require the screening of the power
intake, the Commission should require PG&E to fund an independent
entrainment study of ten (10) years with surveys to determine the
effects to Fall River wild trout, and other Fall River fish species,
from being entrained and harmed in the power intake and the power canal.
The use of gill netting should be prohibited because it kills fish. The
new license should be conditioned to reserve authority to prescribe fish
passage facilities, including fish screens.
However, an alternative to eliminate the entrainment and trapping of
wild trout and other fish species in the power canal, may be to require
PG&E to electrofish the power canal and rescue all fish species while
conducting flushing flows to clean the lower river of sediment.
The Impacts to Invertebrate Species and Their Habitat Not Disclosed,
Studied, Evaluated, and Protected in the Draft EA
9. The Draft EA failed to disclose, study, evaluate, and provide any
protection measures for invertebrate species and their habitat (aquatic
vegetation) in lower Fall River affected by the existing project. As
stated beforehand, the lower Fall River streambed below the power intake
canal has been adversely silted because of the lack of any flow and
flushing requirements by the Commission in the existing license.
Invertebrate species provide food for Fall River wild trout and other
fish species. Consequently, the silting of lower Fall River as a result
of the existing project has altered and adversely affected invertebrate
species and their habitat, and has had a resulting impact to Fall River
wild trout populations and other populations of fish species, including
endangered Shasta crayfish habitat.
The Draft EA states as follows:
"A progress report on the sediment study (Fitzwater, 1994) documented
increased sedimentation in the upper reaches of the river, and
associated reduction in habitat quality for fish. Wild Trout [FRWTF]
recommends that PG&E develop and implement an upper Fall River sediment
management plan that includes removal of at least 275,000 cubic yards of
sediment and periodic maintenance dredging."
We [Commission and its staff] do not consider it appropriate for PG&E
to be held accountable for correcting sedimentation problems in the
upper Fall River."
We reference Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License; Pit
1 Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2687-014, California; May 27,
1998; at page 32, under Sedimentation, and also under Our Analysis.
PG&E did not cause the sediment problems in the upper five miles of
Fall River, however PG&E is most certainly accountable for project
caused sedimentation in the lower River between the power canal and the
Fall River waterfalls.
The Draft EA is grossly deficient for failing to disclose, study,
evaluate, and provide any protection measures for invertebrate species
and their habitat, and the other species, in Fall River below PG&E's
power canal to Fall River waterfall affected by the existing project.
Consequently the Draft EA is in violation of NEPA.
We request that the Commission prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement that discloses, studies, evaluates, and provides mitigation
and protection measures for invertebrate species and their habitat in
lower Fall River affected by the existing project.
As alternatives to clearing and cleaning the lower Fall River of
sedimentation, the Commission should evaluate the removal of sediment in
the lower river by environmentally compatible mechanical methods or by
the natural flushing of sediment during high flow periods without the
project on line.
Rough Sculpin and Bigeye Marble Sculpin - Threatened Fish Species -
State of California Endangered Species Act
10. Fall River and the Pit River sustain Rough sculpin and Bigeye Marble
sculpin species and their habitat. Rough sculpin and Bigeye Marble
sculpin species were found in the Pit 1 project area. See Table 3 of
Draft EA on page 34.
The Draft EA states as follows:
"The Rough Sculpin Zone is typified by deep, clear runs with well
established beds of aquatic vegetation of the Fall, Tule, and Little
Tule Rivers. Rough sculpin, Bigeye Marble sculpin, and tui chub are the
most abundant species in this zone. Rainbow trout and brown trout also
occur in this zone."
We reference Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License; Pit
1 Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2687-014, California; May 27,
1998; at page 33, under Affected Environment.
Rough sculpin and Bigeye Marble sculpin species are protected as
"threatened" under the provisions of the California Endangered Species
Act. The Commission is required to comply with State of California and
the provisions of the California Endangered Species Act.
The Draft EA cites a paper prepared by Moyle and Daniels concerning
these species and their habitat. See above reference at page 33 of the
Draft EA under Affected Environment.
This paper provides proof that native California threatened Rough
sculpin and Bigeye Marble sculpin species and their habitat exist in
Fall River and the Pit River.
The Draft EA failed to show the present condition of native California
threatened Rough sculpin and Bigeye Marble sculpin species and their
habitat in Fall River and the Pit River. The Draft EA failed to disclose
and evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to native
California threatened Rough sculpin and Bigeye Marble sculpin
populations and their habitat in the project caused silted area of Lower
Fall River. The Draft EA also failed to disclose and evaluate the
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to native California threatened
Rough Sculpin species and Bigeye Marble sculpin populations and their
habitat resulting from all of PG&E's hydropower projects in the Pit
River, which includes the Pit 1 Project. NEPA requires that cumulative
impacts are disclosed and evaluated concerning proposed projects
(relicensing of Pit 1), existing projects (all PG&E hydro projects), and
future projects (proposed relicensing of PG&E hydro projects).
Lower Fall River should have been studied to determine the effects to
native California threatened Rough sculpin and Bigeye Marble sculpin
species and their habitat resulting from the Commission's flow
recommendation, and also from the lack of any mitigation measures by the
Commission in the Draft EA to remove sediment from the streambed of
lower Fall River resulting from the existing project and the lack of
environmental flows in the existing license.
Section 2090 of the California Endangered Species Act requires CDFG to
issue a written finding (i.e. biological opinion) of whether the
proposed action and flow recommendations and other protection measures
by the Commission, including the water quality certification
recommendations by the California State Water Resources Control Board,
will jeopardize the continued existence of native California threatened
Rough Sculpin species and Bigeye Marble sculpin populations and their
habitat.
The Draft EA is deficient because it failed to disclose and include the
biological opinion by the CDFG for the protection of native California
threatened Rough Sculpin species and Bigeye Marble sculpin populations
and their habitat of Fall River and the Pit River as required by State
of California law.
Draining and electrofishing of the 1,050-foot long canal leading to the
tunnel resulted in the collection of 643 fish species, of which 30% were
native California threatened Rough sculpin and Bigeye Marble sculpin
species, which are protected by the provisions of the State of
California Endangered Species Act. Under State of California law the
taking of 180 plus native California threatened Rough Sculpin species
and Bigeye Marble sculpin species constitutes a mandatory finding of
significance under the California Environmental Quality Act and its
Guidelines, and requires the preparation of an environmental impact
report. In this instant case, without question, the taking of native
California threatened Rough Sculpin species and Bigeye Marble sculpin
species directly related to the relicensing of the project should
require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement by the
Commission.
We are requesting the Commission prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement that discloses and evaluates the present condition, and the
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to native California threatened
Rough Sculpin species and Bigeye Marble sculpin populations and their
habitat resulting from the Commission's flow recommendation, and also
from flow recommendations by the CDFG, and also the USFWS, and also the
taking of these species at the power intake canal related to the
relicensing of the project.
We are also requesting the Commission and its staff to include a
license reopener condition in the new license, in the event any other
native California fish and or aquatic species of the Fall River and Pit
River is listed for protection under the provisions of the federal and
state Endangered Species Act. In fact that should be a standard
condition in all license issued by the Commission.
McAuthur Swamp Management and Levee Maintenance Plans
11. The Commission and its staff recommended in the Draft EA that a
management plan for the WHIP and the remaining McAuthur Swamp land that
is within the project boundary, be developed in consultation with the
USFWS, CDFG, CWA, Cattlemen's Association, and SHPO.
Members of the FRWTF reside in Fall River Valley where the project is
located. The FRWTF is an intervenor in the process to relicense the Pit
1 Project. It would be unfair and unreasonable for the Commission and
its staff to excluded intervenors from the local Fall River Valley area
in the development of management plans.
To serve due process to all intervenors, the management plan
consultation process should be open to all intervenors. We recommend the
Commission allow all intervenors to be allowed to take part in the
management plan consultation process.
The Commission and its staff recommended in the Draft EA that a levee
maintenance plan for all levees in the McAuthur Swamp lands be developed
by PG&E in consultation with the USFWS, CDFG, CA Parks, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, and SHPO.
Proposed levee work has the potential to affect water quality in Fall
River, and also affect wild trout habitat in Fall River and the Pit
River. The FRWTF is seriously concerned about water quality and wild
trout habitat, and the silting of Fall River from existing and future
projects affecting water quality and wild trout habitat in Fall River.
To serve due process to all intervenors, the levee maintenance plan
consultation process should be open to all intervenors. We recommend the
Commission allow all intervenors to be allowed to take part in the
management plan consultation process.
The FRWTF is not against the WHIP land swap, however, PG&E should still
be required by the Commission to mitigate for project impacts to
wildlife and wetlands as required in Article 29 of the prior license.
The Draft EA did not disclose and discuss the potential loss of ongoing
mitigation.
Comprehensive Waterway Plan for Fall River and the Pit River in the
Draft EA Not in Compliance With the Federal Power Act and Other
Provisions of State of California Law
12. Pursuant to Sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the Federal Power Act the
Commission is required to give equal consideration to all uses of the
waterway on which the project is located.
When the Commission and its staff review a hydropower project, the
Commission and its staff have a duty and responsibility to consider the
public trust resources and assets affected by the project. In this
instant case, the Commission and its staff have a duty and a
responsibility to give equal consideration to all uses of the Fall River
Watershed, the Pit River Watershed, and other nondevelopmental values
and public trust assets of the involved waterways equally with its
electric energy and other developmental values.
Based on statements and conclusions made by the Commission and its
staff in the Draft EA, the Commission and its staff claim the Commission
has met the requirements of Section 4(e) and 10(a) of the Federal Power
Act, including the requirements of Section 10(j) of the Act, and other
provisions of the Federal Power Act, including the provision of the
National Environmental Policy Act and other provision of federal and
state law, by implementing the Commission's recommended alternative. The
FRWTF totally disagreed with those statements and legal conclusions for
the following reasons:
(a) PG&E does not have valid State of California water rights to divert
and use the waters of Fall River. The Federal Power Act requires the
Commission and PG&E to comply with State of California law pertaining to
the diversion and use of the waters of the State of California. See the
above FRWTF comments on this matter.
(b) The Commission failed to disclose and consider other legal riparian
diverters on the Fall River and the Pit River which have been, and will
be, harmed and damaged by PG&E's unauthorized diversion of State of
California water from Fall River. See the above FRWTF comments on this
matter.
(c) The Commission failed to consider and include the water quality
certification recommendations by the California State Water Resources
Control Board in the Commission's recommended alternative, and also in
the Draft EA. See the above FRWTF comments on this matter.
(d) The Commission failed to disclose, consider and comply with the
provisions of State of California law with respect to the Commission's
recommended flows. See the above FRWTF comments on this matter.
(e) The Draft Environmental Assessment is not in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act because the Commission's (and its
staff) recommended flow alternative and other measures will have
significant effect on the quality of the human environments of the Fall
River and the Pit River in violation of the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act. See the above FRWTF comments on this matter.
(f) The Commission failed to disclose and include in the Draft EA the
biological opinion and recommendations of the USFWS regarding the
jeopardy to endangered bald eagles and their habitat resulting from the
Commission and its staff's recommended flows. See the above FRWTF
comments on this matter.
(g) The Commission failed to disclose and include in the Draft EA the
final recovery plan for Shasta crayfish by the USFWS, and to include the
jeopardy to Shasta crayfish populations and their habitat resulting from
project caused sediment deposited in the lower Fall River streambed by
no flow and annual flushing conditions. See the above FRWTF comments on
this matter.
(h) The Commission failed to provide any mitigation at all for the
entrainment, entrapment, and harm of Fall River wild trout (all life
stages) and other fish species (all life stages) in the power conduit,
and also in the power intake
canal. See the above FRWTF comments on this matter.
(i) The Commission failed to disclose, study, evaluate, and provide any
mitigation and protection measures for the loss of invertebrate species
and the habitat, and aquatic vegetation in lower Fall River resulting
from silting the streambed of the lower river by the project and the
existing license. See the above FRWTF comments on this matter.
(j) The Commission failed to disclose, study, evaluate, and provide any
mitigation and protection measures for native California threatened
Rough Sculpin species and Bigeye Marble sculpin populations and their
habitat of Fall River and the Pit River. See the above FRWTF comments on
this matter.
(k) The Commission failed to disclose, study, evaluate, and provide any
mitigation and protection measures for the removal of sediment in lower
Fall River. See the above FRWTF comments on this matter
(l) Others as shown above in the FRWTF comments.
Open-Ended License Necessary to Prevent Mistakes in Environmental
Protection Measures
13. Issuing long term new licenses by the Commission is unreasonable and
unfair towards the protection of the quality of the human environment.
Species in California are being listed for protection under the federal
and state Endangered Species Acts at a significant historic level.
Releases of water to protect and improve fish species and their habitat
ordered by the Commission go unchecked to verify that the flows have in
fact protected and improved fishery resources affected by the FERC
projects. Environmental protection statutes changes, which lead to
greater protection for the human environment, are overlooked because of
the term of the license.
Five (5) to twenty (20) year studies ordered by the Commission to
evaluate major fishery problems in California do nothing for degraded
populations of anadromous and resident fisheries and their habitat and
the quality of the human environment during the study period, until when
the Commission may decide to take regulatory action and changes, which
takes many years in most past cases in California. Insignificant
environmental problems become major environmental problems during the
term of the license without any mitigation measures until the licenses
expires and the Commission decides to take action and changes.
Amendments to licenses resulting in changes to the operation of FERC
licensed projects and adverse impacts to the quality of the human
environment are overlooked by the Commission's staff to save time and
money.
The FRWTF believes that any new license for the Pit 1 Project be
conditioned on an annual basis (one year) with mandatory adaptive
resource management and monitoring conditions with full public
disclosure and participation. However, at the maximum, the new license
for the Pit 1 Project should not exceed five years with mandatory
adaptive resource management and monitoring conditions with full public
disclosure and participation.
Power and Economic Benefits of the Project - Cost of Environmental
Enhancement Measures
14. The Draft EA disclosed and included an analysis regarding power and
economic benefits of the project. The Draft EA also disclosed and
included an analysis the cost of environmental enhancement measures
solely at the Pit 1 Project.
The FRWTF disagrees with the choice of the word "enhancement". The word
that should be used is "restoration" and not enhancement.
PG&E operates several hydropower projects in the Pit River watershed.
The Draft EA did not analyze the cumulative benefits to PG&E from
operating all of their several projects in the Pit River watershed. The
Draft EA also did not analyze the cumulative cost of environmental
restoration measures at the Pit 1 project compared to the overall
profits made by PG&E at all of PG&E's hydropower projects in the Pit
River watershed. A glaring deficieny.
PG&E operates a significant number of hydropower projects in the State
of California. The Draft EA did not analyze the cumulative benefits to
PG&E from operating all of their hydropower projects in the State of
California. The Draft EA also did not analyze the cumulative cost of
environmental restoration measures at the Pit 1 project compared to the
overall profits made by PG&E at all of PG&E's hydropower projects in the
State of California. Another glaring deficieny.
The Commission and its staff are piece mealing the benefits and losses
to PG&E for mitigating the adverse impacts to the quality of the human
environment caused by the Pit 1 Project. Some of PG&E's projects on the
Pit River will be before the Commission for relicensing in the short
term future. It is unfair and unreasonable to the public who own the
public trust resources of the State of California for the Commission and
its staff to piece meal the cost to PG&E for mitigating the
environmental damages to Fall River and the Pit River resulting solely
from the Pit 1 Project when downstream in the Pit River, PG&E operates
several projects licensed by the Commission, and statewide PG&E operates
and owns a sigificant number of hydropower projects.
NEPA requires that all cumulative impacts are disclosed and evaluated.
The Draft EA is deficient because it failed to analyze the cumulative
cost of environmental restoration measures at the Pit 1 Project compared
to the overall profits made by PG&E at all of their hydropower projects
in the Pit River watershed, and throughout the State of California.
The analysis in the Draft EA regarding power and economic benefits of
the project, and also the cost of environmental restoration measures,
should have been disclosed and evaluated for the decommissioning of the
project alternative, which it was not, because the Commission and its
staff failed to disclose and evaluate in detail the decommissioning of
the project alternative.
Public Trust Resources and Assets of Fall River and the Pit River
Watershed Damaged by the Pit No. 1 Project
The FRWTF believes the Commission has a duty and responsibility to
mitigate the environmental damages caused by the Pit 1 Project to Fall
River and the Pit River regardless of the cost to PG&E to mitigate the
environmental damages. The Commission and its staff made recommendations
in the Draft EA to exempt PG&E from mitigating the damages caused by the
project on the quality of the human environment, and falsely claims the
mitigation measures in the Draft EA will not have any effect on the
quality of the human environment of Fall River and the Pit River.
For the above mentioned reasons throughout these comments, the Draft EA
is deficient and the Commission and its staff should prepare an EIS
which fully mitigate for all damages caused by the Pit 1 Project to the
quality of the human environments of the Fall River and the Pit River
watersheds.
Valid State of California Water Rights Necessary Before State of
California Water Quality Certification is Issued
15. Before the California State Water Resources Control Board can issue
water certification for the project, the FRWTF believe that PG&E must
have valid water rights to divert and use water for the project in the
State of California. As shown above, the FRWTF believe that PG&E does
not have valid water rights to divert and use the waters of Fall River.
The FRWTF believes without valid water rights, the California State
Water Resources Control Board cannot issue water quality certification
to PG&E, and the Commission cannot relicense the project. The Commission
must compel PG&E to cease diverting the waters of Fall River until PG&E
has valid State of California water rights to divert and use said water,
subject to water quality certification from the California State Water
Resources Control Board.
By notice of these comments, the FRWTF request the Commission to act
immediately on the water rights matter shown above within 30 days.
That concludes for now the comments and recommendations of the Fall
River Wild Trout Foundation.
Respectfully Submitted
_____________________________________________
Robert J. Baiocchi, Consultant
For: Fall River Wild Trout Foundation
P.O. Box 357
Quincy, CA 95971
Bus Tel: 530-836-1115; Fax: 530-836-2062
Dated: June 8, 1998
For further information contact Bob Baiocchi at either 530-836-1115 or
at e-mail address: cspa@psln.com