BATTLE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 1121 … · On December 22, 1998, FERC issued an Order...

Project Resource Summary License Amendment Application

Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 1121 © 2008, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

BATTLE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

FERC NO. 1121

LICENSE AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR BATTLE CREEK

SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT

PROJECT RESOURCE SUMMARY

PRS—i License Amendment Application


BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT


Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ PRS-1

1.1 Amendment Principles ........................................................................................................ PRS-2 1.2 License Amendment Process .............................................................................................. PRS-5

2 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................... PRS-7

3 RESTORATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... PRS-8

3.1 North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam ........................................................................ PRS-9 3.2 Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam .......................................................................................... PRS-10 3.3 Eagle Canyon Canal Pipeline .......................................................................................... PRS-10 3.4 Wildcat Diversion Dam .................................................................................................... PRS-11 3.5 Asbury Diversion Dam ..................................................................................................... PRS-11 3.6 Additional Measures ......................................................................................................... PRS-12

4 RESTORATION PROJECT BENEFITS ................................................................................ PRS-12

4.1 Instream Flow Management ............................................................................................. PRS-13 4.2 Fish Passage .................................................................................................................... PRS-14 4.3 Restoration of Stream Function ....................................................................................... PRS-15 4.4 Adaptive Management ...................................................................................................... PRS-16

5 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................. PRS-17

List of Figures

FIGURE PRS-1 LOCATION OF THE BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT…………… ........................................................... PRS-18

FIGURE PRS-2 EXISTING SCENARIO…….. .............................................................. Follows PRS-18 FIGURE PRS-3 POST PHASE 1A ..................................................................................... Follows PRS-18 FIGURE PRS-4 POST RESTORATION .......................................................................... Follows PRS-18

PRS—1 License Amendment Application



1 INTRODUCTION

In 1999, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the California Department of

Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Licensee) all were

signatories to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Appendix 1) that proposed the

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project (Restoration Project). The

proposed Restoration Project presents an opportunity to reestablish approximately 42

miles of prime salmon and steelhead habitat on Battle Creek, plus an additional 6 miles

of habitat on its tributaries (Figure PRS-1). Restoration will be accomplished primarily

through the modification of the existing Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project (Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] Project No. 1121) (Hydroelectric Project)

facilities and operations, including instream flow releases. These proposed changes to

the Hydroelectric Project trigger the need for the Licensee to seek a license amendment

from FERC.

The signatories to the MOU have decided to implement the Restoration Project in phases,

each of which has independent ecological and environmental benefits. The Licensee is

filing this license amendment application in order to permit the implementation of Phase

1A of the Restoration Project. This section provides a summary of the proposed license



amendment for the Hydroelectric Project in support of Phase 1A of the Restoration

Project.

1.1 Amendment Principles

The Licensee has been guided by a number of principles derived from the provisions of

the Federal Power Act (FPA) as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of

1986 (ECPA) in developing this license amendment application. While the FPA requires

FERC to give equal consideration to power and non-power values, these values are often

competing and FERC is not required to optimize any single resource. Ultimately, the

proposal for continued operation must be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for the

waterway affected by the Hydroelectric Project. Key principles that have guided the

Licensee in the development of this license amendment application are enumerated

below.

(1) The Environmental Baseline Is the Existing Project. For the purposes of a

license amendment, FERC has held that the effects of a project will be measured

against a baseline of current conditions (FERC Order 513 [June 2, 1989] 54 Fed.

Reg. 23756, 23775–23776). Any proposed change to the design or operation of

the Hydroelectric Project facilities for either developmental or environmental

enhancement purposes must be compared to existing conditions, not pre-project

conditions, to determine whether such proposals result in an amended

Hydroelectric Project that is best adapted to the comprehensive use of the

waterway.



The current environmental setting includes certain flow conditions as set forth in

an Interim Flow Agreement (Agreement 03-20-2554). Under the Interim Flow

Agreement, certain instream flows and management of existing fish facilities have

been temporarily modified by agreement between Reclamation and the Licensee,

with concurrence from CDFG. These conditions are provided for under

temporary provisions to the operation of the Hydroelectric Project. The Interim

Flow Agreement is intended to provide favorable flow conditions in advance of

the Restoration Project. For the purposes of analyzing flow-related resource

impacts, the resource agencies have agreed that the Interim Flow Agreement is

not included in the environmental baseline. The Final Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Exhibit E, uses the current

license conditions as the environmental baseline.

(2) Balancing of Resources. Not all resources can be optimized simultaneously;

therefore, decisions regarding the future of competing resources require careful

consideration and trade-offs.

(3) Economically Viable Hydroelectric Projects Are in the Public’s Best

Interest. Both resource assessment and resource enhancement must be

commensurate with the scope of the Hydroelectric Project and must be justified

by the potential resource benefits. Enhancements must maintain the economic

viability of the Hydroelectric Project, an important source of clean, renewable

electricity.



(4) Value of Hydroelectricity. Hydropower historically has played an essential

role in moderating energy prices in the Licensee’s service territory. The majority

of the Licensee’s hydro resources are operated as peaking resources to help meet

the daily changes in electric system demands. Hydropower’s dispatch and

spinning reserve capabilities are also important characteristics. Hydro capacity

has a high unit ramp rate and can easily, quickly, and economically vary output in

response to changing customer loads and system conditions. Hydropower has one

of the highest availability and reliability rates of all generation resources.

(5) Hydroelectricity is a Non-Consumptive Use of a Renewable Resource.

Society benefits from this indigenous, renewable resource because it directly

displaces the use of non-renewable fossil fuels. Hydropower is a non-

consumptive use of a water resource that is well integrated into water supply,

irrigation, flood control, and other multi-purpose projects. In addition, investor-

owned utilities in California (such as the Licensee) are currently under an

obligation to ensure that by the year 2010, twenty (20) percent of total retail sales

of electricity are from eligible renewable energy resources. For hydroelectric

power, California law defines powerhouses less than thirty (30) megawatts (MW)

as eligible renewable energy resources. Because all of the Hydroelectric Project

powerhouses meet this criterion, it is critical to minimize the loss of electric

generating capacity as a result of the Restoration Project.



(6) Natural Resources Stewardship. The Licensee’s corporate environmental

policy states that it is “committed to being an environmental leader by providing

safe, economical, and reliable products and services in a responsible and

environmentally sensitive manner.” The Restoration Project is a proactive,

cooperative undertaking among the public, interested parties, the Greater Battle

Creek Watershed Working Group (GBCWWG), state and federal agencies, and

the Licensee to help restore the anadromous fish population in the Sacramento

River watershed, where funding and restoration potential are uniquely promising.

The Licensee and the Restoration Project proponents carefully analyzed and weighed all

affected resources and believe the Restoration Project strikes a balance between the

competing power and non-power benefits that the Hydroelectric Project provides.

1.2 License Amendment Process

This license amendment application is filed in compliance with 18 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) §§ 4.201, 4.34(i) and 4.41.1 The Hydroelectric Project was licensed

in 1976 under regulations that since have been revised. In reviewing how best to prepare

this license amendment application, the Licensee, in consultation with FERC staff,

decided to amend the license using the new exhibit nomenclature for the written exhibits

and maintaining the license’s existing nomenclature for the exhibit drawings.

1 FERC approved the Licensee’s request to use alternative procedures for the license amendment on March 1, 2000.



The Licensee prepared an Initial Statement and Exhibits A, B, C, and D. As permitted

under 18 CFR § 4.34(i)(6)(iv), the Licensee is substituting the Restoration Project

EIS/EIR Report—July 2005 prepared by Reclamation and State Water Resources Control

Board for the Restoration Project in place of an Exhibit E. This license amendment

application supports the Five Dam Removal Alternative—Proposed Action as described

in the EIS/EIR and is not applicable to any other alternative actions described in the

EIS/EIR. Exhibit F contains the Design Report prepared by Reclamation. Along with a

Map of the Project, Exhibit G includes a complete list of the Hydroelectric Project

exhibit drawings and a guide to which drawings have been amended either as a result of

the Restoration Project modifications or for other purposes (e.g., the removal of

transmission lines from the Project Boundary).

On December 22, 1998, FERC issued an Order granting the Licensee’s request to amend

the Hydroelectric Project license to exclude non-jurisdictional transmission lines.

FERC’s December 22, 1998, Order became effective on February 23, 2005. FERC staff

requested that the Licensee submit the revised Exhibit drawings as part of this license

amendment application. Revisions to the Exhibit drawings made solely for the purpose

of excluding the non-jurisdictional facilities are so noted.



2 PURPOSE

The purpose of the Restoration Project is to restore approximately 42 miles of Chinook

salmon and steelhead habitat in the North and South Forks of Battle Creek and an

additional 6 miles of habitat in their tributaries, while minimizing the loss of clean and

renewable energy produced by the Hydroelectric Project. Habitat restoration will restore

ecological processes that will allow safe passage for naturally produced salmonids and

facilitate their growth and recovery within the restoration area and the Sacramento River

(Figure PRS-1). The scale of the hydroelectric development is such that facility and

operational modifications can be made to meet habitat improvement goals without

excessive loss of renewable electric generation.

Several naturally produced species of Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Sacramento

River system have been in decline, resulting in their listing under the federal and state

Endangered Species Acts (ESAs). The suitability of Battle Creek to support the recovery

of several naturally occurring anadromous species is evidenced by the type of habitat it

offers and the species’ historical use of the watershed. Battle Creek may be the only

remaining stream, other than the mainstem of the Sacramento River, that can successfully

sustain breeding populations of steelhead and all four runs of Chinook salmon.

Specifically, the Restoration Project is intended to benefit the Central Valley spring-run

Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed as threatened; the Sacramento River winter-

run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed as endangered; and the Central Valley

steelhead, federally listed as threatened. Battle Creek is unique and biologically



important also because it provides habitat opportunities for winter-run Chinook salmon

during drought years.

3 RESTORATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Restoration Project includes modifications to facilities at nine dam sites located on

the North Fork Battle Creek, South Fork Battle Creek, Baldwin Creek, Lower Ripley

Creek and Soap Creek. As noted above, the MOU signatories have decided to

implement these modifications in phases, each of which has independent ecological and

environmental benefits. A general overview of the actions included in each phase is

given in the following paragraphs and illustrated in Figures PRS-2, PRS-3, and PRS-4.

This license amendment application seeks approval to implement Phase 1A only.

During Phase 1A, fish passage improvements on North Fork Battle Creek will be

achieved by installing fish screens and ladders at the North Battle Creek Feeder and

Eagle Canyon Diversion Dams; installing the Eagle Canyon Canal pipeline; removing the

Wildcat Diversion Dam and appurtenant conveyance systems; and modifying the Asbury

Diversion Dam.

Phase 1B includes improvements on the lower South Fork Battle Creek, specifically

installing a tailrace connector from Inskip Powerhouse to Coleman Canal and a new

Inskip Powerhouse bypass.



During Phase 2, additional fish passage improvements on South Fork Battle Creek will

be achieved by removing the Coleman, South, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder, and Soap

Creek Feeder Diversion Dams; installing screens and ladders on the Inskip Diversion

Dam; installing a tailrace connector from South Powerhouse to Inskip Canal; and

decommissioning the South Canal.

Additional information on the Phase 1A modifications is provided in the following

sections. The design details for Phase 1A are provided in Exhibit F.

3.1 North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam is located on North Fork Battle Creek. The

proposed modifications at this dam will enable salmon and steelhead to migrate

unimpeded along this reach of the creek and will minimize the potential for juveniles to

enter the diversion flume. The proposed modifications include:

Constructing a new access road and footbridge from Volta 2 Powerhouse.

Replacing the existing sluice gate and headworks.

Raising a section of the dam crest to protect new facilities during high-flow events.

Installing a new pool and chute fish ladder, including a video monitoring station, orifice gates, and stop gates.

Plugging the existing fish ladder and removing metalwork.

Installing a new fish screen at the entrance to the diversion canal.

Removing a section of the existing flume and connecting it to the new fish screen and diversion facility.

Providing three slide gates, one at the headworks, one at the dam, and one at the downstream end of the fish screen.

Installing instrumentation and controls to monitor the water surface elevation and regulate flow and gate operations.



Upgrading electrical service to provide required power for the new facilities.

3.2 Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam

Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam is located on North Fork Battle Creek. The proposed

modifications will enable salmon and steelhead to migrate unimpeded along this reach of

the creek and will minimize the potential for juveniles to enter the Eagle Canyon Canal.

Modifications to the spring-water collection system will increase spring-water flow to the

creek. The proposed modifications include:

Improving the access trail to the dam.

Modifying the existing spring collection facilities to divert collected water to the creek instead of the diversion canal.

Removing the existing fish ladder and canal diversion and replacing with a new headworks structure and screened diversion.

Installing a new fish ladder and video monitoring station.

Installing a new fish screen at the entrance to the diversion canal.

Installing instrumentation and controls to monitor the water surface elevation and regulate flow and gate operations.

Upgrading electrical service to provide required power for the new facilities.

3.3 Eagle Canyon Canal Pipeline

The Eagle Canyon Canal carries water diverted from the North Fork Battle Creek. It is

an unlined canal that begins at Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam and extends approximately

2.6 miles cross country to combine with Inskip Canal. The proposed modifications will

prevent potential contamination of water-borne pathogens from North Fork Battle Creek

to the spring-water sources along the canal and therefore protect the Mt. Lassen Trout



Farm’s Jeffcoat aquaculture facility located down-gradient from the canal. The proposed

modifications include:

Installing a 4,500-foot, buried pipeline to bypass an open channel section of the canal.

The bypassed canal section will remain in place and will continue to collect spring water

and overland runoff. This flow eventually will join with the pipeline water.

3.4 Wildcat Diversion Dam

Wildcat Diversion Dam is located on North Fork Battle Creek. The proposed

modifications will enable salmon and steelhead to migrate unimpeded along this reach of

the creek.

Wildcat Diversion Dam and appurtenant canal and pipeline facilities will be removed in their entirety.

3.5 Asbury Diversion Dam

Asbury Diversion Dam is located on Baldwin Creek just below the Darrah Springs Fish

Hatchery. The dam diverts flows into Asbury Pump Station, which pumps water into the

Coleman Canal. The proposed modifications are designed to prevent salmon and

steelhead migration above Asbury Dam to protect the fish hatchery from foreign

pathogens carried by the migrating fish. The proposed modifications include:

Installing an upstream fish migration barrier.

Changing maintenance procedures to eliminate use of the low-level outlet.



3.6 Additional Measures

The Restoration Project includes a number of other measures that will enhance and

ensure environmental benefits. Among these are:

transferring water rights at removed diversion dams to the CDFG;

dedicating the transferred water rights for instream use;

creating a Water Acquisition Fund for future purchases of additional instream flow releases that may be recommended under the adaptive management process during the first 10-year period following completion of the Restoration Project; and

using an Adaptive Management Fund to implement any additional modifications or refinements to the Restoration Project components developed under the Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) protocols.

These measures will be implemented as far as they are applicable to Phase 1A of the

Restoration Project.

4 RESTORATION PROJECT BENEFITS

The proposed Restoration Project, as a whole, provides an opportunity to reestablish

approximately 42 miles of prime salmon and steelhead habitat on Battle Creek and an

additional 6 miles on its tributaries. Completion of Phase 1A also will meet several

fishery restoration goals, independent of Phase 1B and Phase 2. Phase 1A presents an

opportunity to restore approximately 13 miles of habitat from the confluence of the North

and South Forks to the natural barrier about 4 miles above North Battle Creek Feeder

Diversion Dam. Phase 1A actions include increased instream flow releases, release of

cold spring water to adjacent stream sections, management of those instream flows,

upstream and downstream fish passage, restoration of stream function to mimic the



natural hydrography more closely, and adaptive management to monitor and refine

restoration actions.

Some of the key ecological considerations are discussed briefly in the following sections.

4.1 Instream Flow Management

Modifications to instream flows are a key component of the Restoration Project as a

whole. With respect to Phase 1A, minimum instream flow releases will be increased

from those required in the current license throughout North Fork Battle Creek and at

Asbury Diversion Dam, as outlined in the MOU. On the south fork, flows below

Coleman Diversion Dam will continue as prescribed in the Interim Flow Agreement to

align better with the flows outlined in the MOU. The remaining instream flow

prescriptions in the MOU for the south fork will not be implemented in Phase 1A of the

Restoration Project.

The basis of the minimum instream flow proposals under the Restoration Project is to

provide approximately 95% of the estimated habitat for the life stage (e.g., adult

spawning, fry development, or juvenile rearing) determined to be the most limiting to fish

production in a given stream reach. It was also recognized that during certain periods of

the year, the needs of competing species can conflict. Where unavoidable habitat need

conflicts occurred, the target species were prioritized based on the availability of their

associated habitat in the watershed. Because their habitat is scarce, winter-run Chinook

salmon was the highest priority followed by spring-run Chinook salmon, steelhead, late



fall–run Chinook salmon, and fall-run Chinook salmon. Additionally, passage over

natural barriers was an important factor that affected the selection of an appropriate

minimum flow in some stream reaches. In some cases, ensuring this passage required

elevating instream flows to values higher than those considered optimal for the target life

stage. Water temperatures were also an important factor in prescribing minimum

instream flow releases.

As discussed in the EIS/EIR, these increases in minimum instream flow releases would

also significantly affect the amount of wetted habitat available. Increased wetted habitat

likely would lead to corresponding increases in the production of periphyton and aquatic

macroinvertebrates, which form the basis of the food chain in stream ecosystems. These

organisms provide a primary food source for animal species inhabiting aquatic habitats,

such as fish, reptiles, and amphibians. Aquatic insects that metamorphose into aerial and

terrestrial insects would contribute to the food supply of certain insectivorous wildlife,

such as willow flycatcher and several bat species. Furthermore, wildlife species that prey

on fish and amphibians also would benefit from increased wetted habitat.

4.2 Fish Passage

A key consideration in restoring habitat is ensuring upstream and downstream fish

passage beyond both natural and artificial barriers. Accommodation of natural barrier

passage was addressed during the assessment of minimum instream flow requirements.



Fish passage facilities at North Battle Creek Feeder and Eagle Canyon Diversion Dams

were designed as state-of-the-art installations, incorporating resource agency design

criteria/guidelines for ladders and screens with geometries known to provide reliable

performance (Kier Associates 1999a). The relatively low height of the dams to be passed

via a fish ladder, coupled with the conservative approach to their design, is expected to

provide high passage reliability. Removal of the Wildcat Diversion Dam will eliminate

any concerns about fish passage at that site. Preventing the entrainment of juvenile fish

in the Hydroelectric Project’s remaining accessible water conveyance facilities will be

accomplished by installing fish screens at the diversion points.

4.3 Restoration of Stream Function

Powerhouse or canal outages can result in a rapid, temporary increase of flows in the

North and South Forks of Battle Creek downstream of existing diversion dams. When

powerhouses or canals come back on line, the drop in flow may result in the stranding of

juvenile fish and amphibians. Minimizing the impacts of flow changes resulting from

outages was addressed through the ramping rate prescribed in the MOU and included in

this license amendment application. The ramping rate specified should improve the

survival of fish and amphibians occupying transient aquatic habitat by slowly ramping

down the water surface elevation in the stream. Improved survival of early fish and

amphibian life stages should benefit their populations, as well as populations of species

that prey on them.



Taking less water from the stream channel will improve ecosystem function by providing

more stable habitat for aquatic organisms to grow and reproduce and providing a needed

benefit to other wildlife species that depend on them for food. Increased minimum flows

also likely will result in an increase in riparian habitat along North Fork Battle Creek that

is important to both aquatic and wildlife species. Increased flows in North Fork Battle

Creek also will reduce the amount of water transferred to South Fork Battle Creek and

therefore reduce the potential for false attraction that currently occurs in the south fork

from the mixing of the two water sources.

Returning spring flows in Eagle Canyon and removing the diversion at Wildcat Diversion

Dam will restore transitory habitat in North Fork Battle Creek and, in part, the mainstem

reach.

4.4 Adaptive Management

The proposed restoration actions encompassed by Phase 1A are comprehensive and based

on the best scientific information available. In addition, the MOU signatories have

developed a Draft AMP (Appendix 2) that identifies specific adaptive management

monitoring and research tasks that the various signatory parties have agreed to

implement. Through this license amendment application, the Licensee is seeking to have

the tasks it has committed to perform under the AMP incorporated into the Hydroelectric

Project license.



5 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

Kier Associates. 1999a. Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Plan. Prepared for the Battle Creek Working Group. January 1999. {Sausalito, CA}

———. 1999b. Maximizing compatibility between Coleman National Fish Hatchery

operations, management of Lower Battle Creek, and salmon and steelhead restoration. April 1999. {Sausalito, CA}-

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2001. Stream temperature model for the Battle

Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project. January 12, 2001. {San Francisco, CA}

Spence, B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughes, and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem

approach to salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp. Corvallis, OR. (Available from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon.)

Thomas R. Payne and Associates. 1998a. A 1989 instream flow study: 1 of 8

components. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game. ———. 1998b. A 1989 survey of barriers to the upstream migration of anadromous

salmonids: 1 of 8 components. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game.

———. 1998c. A 1989 study of fish species abundance and distribution in Battle

Creek: 1 of 8 components. Draft. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game.

Jones & Stokes. 2005. Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project final

environmental impact statement/environmental impact report. Volumes I–III. Prepared for: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; California State Water Resources Control Board; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and California Bay-Delta Authority. July. (J&S 03035.03.) Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Working paper on restoration needs: habitat

restoration actions to double natural production of anadromous fish in the Central Valley of California. Volumes 1–3. May 9. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under direction of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Core Group. Stockton, CA.

———. 1997. Revised Draft Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration

Program: A Plan to Increase Natural Production of Anadromous Fish in the Central Valley of California. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Core Group. Sacramento, CA.



FIGURE PRS-1 LOCATION OF THE BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT

WILDCAT DIVERSION DAM

ASBURY PUMP STATION AND DAM

EAGLE CANYON DIVERSION DAM

COLEMAN DIVERSION DAM INSKIP DIVERSION DAM SOUTH DIVERSION DAM

NORTH BATTLE CREEK FEEDER DIVERSION DAM

SOAP CREEK FEEDERDIVERSION DAM

LOWER RIPLEY CREEK FEEDER DAM

North Battle Creek Reservoir

McCumber Reservoir

Al Smith Diversion Dam

Keswick Diversion Dam

North Battle CreekFeeder Diversion Dam

Volta Powerhouse

Volta Powerhouse #2

Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam

Wildcat Diversion Dam

Darrah Springs Hatchery

Asbury Pump Stationand Diversion Dam Coleman Forebay

Coleman Powerhouse

Coleman National Fish Hatchery

Coleman National Fish Hatchery Weir

Coleman Diversion Dam

Inskip Diversion Dam

South Diversion Dam

South Powerhouse

Inskip Powerhouse

Lower Ripley Mount LassenTrout Farm

Willow SpringsAquaculture Facility

Mount LassenTrout FarmJeffcoat Aquaculture Facilities

Creek Feeder

Upper Ripley Creek Feeder

SOUTH FORK BATTLE CREEK

NORTH FORK

BATTLE CREEK

BATTLE CREEK

Ripley Cree

k

Inskip

CanalColeman Canal

Union

Can

al

South

Canal

Soap Creek

FeederSoap

Creek

Cross

CountryC

anal

NorthBattle

Creek

Feeder

AlSmith

Canal

Keswick

Canal

EagleC

anyonC

anal

Wildcat

Canal

Baldwin Cree

k

Lower Ripley Creek Feeder DiversionDam

Upper Ripley Creek Diversion

Soap Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

SACRA

MEN

TORIV

ER

Grace Lake

Lake Nora

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration ProjectExisting Scenario

Natural Fish Barrier


Upper ProjectLimit

Lower ProjectLimit

Upper ProjectLimit

0303

5.03

008

FE

RC

Am

endm

ent A

pp (

04-0

7)

N



COLEMAN DIVERSION DAM INSKIP DIVERSION DAM SOUTH DIVERSION DAM


SOAP CREEK FEEDER DIVERSION DAM

LOWER RIPLEY CREEK FEEDER DAM


McCumber Reservoir



North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam with Fish Ladder

Tailrace Connector

Bypass

Je�coat(Eagle Canyon Canal)

Pipleline

Volta Powerhouse

Volta Powerhouse #2

Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam with Fish Ladder


Asbury Pump Station and Diversion Dam with Fish Barrier

Coleman Forebay

Coleman Powerhouse



Coleman Diversion Dam

Inskip Diversion Dam

South Diversion Dam

South Powerhouse

Inskip Powerhouse

Lower Ripley Mount Lassen Trout Farm

Willow Springs Aquaculture Facility

Mount LassenTrout FarmJe�coat Aquaculture Facilities

Creek Feeder



NORTH FORK BATTLE CREEK

BATTLE CREEK

Ripley Cree

k

Inskip

Canal Coleman Canal

Union C

anal

South

Canal

Soap Creek

Feeder Soap

Creek

Cross

Country Canal

North Battle Creek

Feeder

Al Smith

Canal

Keswick

Canal

Eagle Canyon

Canal

Baldwin Cree

k

Lower Ripley Creek Feeder Diversion Dam


Soap Creek Feeder Diversion Dam

SACRAMEN

TO

RIVER

Grace Lake

Lake Nora

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project Post Phase 1a



Upper Project Limit

Lower Project Limit

Upper Project Limit

0055

5.07

001

Bat

tle C

reek

FER

C L

icen

se A

men

dmen

t (06

-08)

N



INSKIP DIVERSION DAM



McCumber Reservoir



North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam with Fish Ladder

Tailrace Connector

Volta Powerhouse

Volta Powerhouse #2

Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam with Fish Ladder


Asbury Pump Station and Diversion Dam with Fish Barrier

Coleman Forebay

Coleman Powerhouse



Inskip Diversion Dam with Fish Ladder

South Powerhouse

Inskip Powerhouse

Mount Lassen Trout Farm

Willow Springs Aquaculture Facility

Mount LassenTrout FarmJe�coat Aquaculture Facilities



NORTH FORK BATTLE CREEK

BATTLE CREEK

Ripley Cree

k

Inskip

Canal Coleman Canal

Union C

anal

Soap

Creek

Cross

Country Canal

North Battle Creek

Feeder

Al Smith

Canal

Keswick

Canal

Eagle Canyon

Canal

Baldwin Cree

k


SACRAMEN

TO

RIVER

Grace Lake

Lake Nora

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration ProjectPost Restoration



Upper Project Limit

Lower Project Limit

Upper Project Limit

Tailrace Connector

Bypass

Je�coat(Eagle Canyon Canal)

Pipleline

0055

5.07

001

Bat

tle C

reek

FER

C L

icen

se A

men

dmen

t (06

-08)

N

BATTLE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 1121 … · On December 22, 1998, FERC issued an Order...

Documents

Transcript of BATTLE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 1121 … · On December 22, 1998, FERC issued an Order...