DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 803 · Pacific Gas and Electric Company...

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 803

License Application

Volume I: Executive Summary, Initial Statement and

Exhibits A, B, C, D, F, G and H

October 2007

© 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project

FERC Project No. 803

October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section & Description Page

VOLUME I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 Overview and Purpose of Executive Summary .................................................ES-1 2.0 Key Drivers in Relicensing the DeSabla-Centerville Project ............................ES-2 3.0 Status of the Relicensing....................................................................................ES-4 4.0 Summary of Application....................................................................................ES-9 4.1 Initial Statement .....................................................................................ES-9 4.2 Table of Contents...................................................................................ES-9 4.3 Glossary ...............................................................................................ES-10 4.4 Exhibit A – Project Description...........................................................ES-10 4.5 Exhibit B – Porject Operations and Resource Utilization ...................ES-11 4.6 Exhibit C – Proposed Construction......................................................ES-12 4.7 Exhibit D – Statement of Costs and Financing....................................ES-12 4.8 Exhibit E – Environmental Report.......................................................ES-13 4.9 Exhibit F – Design Drawings...............................................................ES-26 4.10 Exhibit G – Project Maps.....................................................................ES-26 4.11 Exhibit H – Miscellaneous Filing Material..........................................ES-26

INITIAL STATEMENT 1.0 Applicant and Requested Term of New License ................................................IS-1 2.0 Location of the Project........................................................................................IS-1 3.0 PG&E’s Business Address and Telephone Number...........................................IS-1 4.0 PG&E’s Authorized Agent .................................................................................IS-2 5.0 PG&E’s Organizational Status ...........................................................................IS-2 6.0 Pertinent California Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ............................IS-2 7.0 Brief Description of the Project ..........................................................................IS-3 8.0 United States-Owned Lands Affected by the Project .........................................IS-3 9.0 Proposed New Project Facilities .........................................................................IS-3 10.0 Counties, Cities and Indian Tribes Affected by the Project................................IS-3 11.0 Federal and State Resource Agencies Consulted................................................IS-5 12.0 Information Available to the Public....................................................................IS-6 13.0 Notice of Availability of Document ...................................................................IS-7

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)


Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page ii ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... TOC-i GLOSSARY OF TERMS...................................................................................Glossary-i

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.0 General Project Description................................................................................ A-1 2.0 Toadtown Development...................................................................................... A-3 2.1 Round Valley Dam and Reservoir .......................................................... A-3 2.2 Philbrook Dam and Reservoir................................................................. A-3 2.3 Philbrook Spilways ................................................................................. A-3 2.4 Hendricks Head Dam and Canal ............................................................ A-4 2.5 Toadtown Powerhouse............................................................................ A-4 3.0 DeSabla Development ....................................................................................... A-4 3.1 Butte Creek Diversion Dam and Canal................................................... A-4 3.2 Toadtown Canal ...................................................................................... A-5 3.3 DeSabla Forebay and Dam ..................................................................... A-5 3.4 DeSabla Powerhouse .............................................................................. A-5 4.0 Centerville Development .................................................................................... A-5 4.1 Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and Canal......................................... A-6 4.2 Upper Centerville Canal ......................................................................... A-6 4.3 Centerville Powerhouse .......................................................................... A-6 5.0 Proposed Project Facilities.................................................................................. A-7 5.1 Proposed Facilities .................................................................................. A-7 5.2 Proposed changes in the FERC Project Boundary.................................. A-7 6.0 Lands of the United States .................................................................................. A-7 7.0 Project Facility Photos ........................................................................................ A-8 7.1 Toadtown Development.......................................................................... A-8 7.2 DeSabla Development ............................................................................ A-9 7.3 Centerville Development ...................................................................... A-10 B. PROJECT OPERATIONS AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION 1.0 Overview of DeSabla-Centerville Hydro Operations ..........................................B-1 1.1 Historical Overview.................................................................................B-1 1.2 Current Operation ....................................................................................B-1





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page iii

2.0 Hydrology ............................................................................................................B-4 2.1 Butte Creek ..............................................................................................B-4 2.2 West Branch Feather River......................................................................B-4 2.3 In-Basin Transfers....................................................................................B-4 2.4 Out-of-basin Transfers .............................................................................B-5 2.5 Typical Wet, Normal, Dry and Critically Dry Years...............................B-5 2.6 Hydrologic Record...................................................................................B-8 2.6.1 Project Regulated Hydrology.......................................................B-8 2.6.2 Project Unimpaired Hydrology..................................................B-15 3.0 Project Operation in Typical Seasons ................................................................B-22 3.1 Reservoir Operation ...............................................................................B-25 3.2 Powerhouse Operation...........................................................................B-25 3.3 Operations Planning...............................................................................B-25 3.4 Hydraulic Operation of the Project ........................................................B-25 3.5 Gate Operation, Maintenance, Inspection and Access...........................B-26 3.6 Project Access ......................................................................................B-26 4.0 Project Operations in Mean, Adverse, and High Water Years ..........................B-27 5.0 Project Operations By Development .................................................................B-28 5.1 Toadtown Development.........................................................................B-28 5.2 DeSabla Development ...........................................................................B-46 5.3 Centerville Development .......................................................................B-58 6.0 Use of Project Power ......................................................................................B-69 7.0 Proposed Project Operation ...............................................................................B-70 8.0 Potential for Future Development or Enhancement...........................................B-70 C. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

1.0 Construction History of Existing Structures and Facilities..................................C-1 2.0 Proposed Construction Schedule For Improvements...........................................C-1

D. STATEMENT OF COSTS AND FINANCING

1.0 Original Cost of Existing Project........................................................................ D-1 2.0 Amount Payable in the Event of Project Takeover............................................. D-1 3.0 Capital Cost of Proposed Development.............................................................. D-2




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page iv ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

4.0 Annual Project Costs........................................................................................... D-2 4.1 Project Economics Methodology............................................................ D-2 4.2 Project Costs Excluding Recommended Resource Management

Measures ................................................................................................. D-3 4.3 Costs of the Licensee-Proposed Resource Management

Measures ................................................................................................ D-4 4.4 Total Project Costs.................................................................................. D-5 4.5 Taxes ..................................................................................................... D-5 5.0 Value of Project Power ....................................................................................... D-6

6.0 Sources of Financing........................................................................................... D-7 7.0 Cost of Application............................................................................................. D-7 8.0 On-Peak and Off-Peak Value of Project Power ................................................. D-7 9.0 Changes to Project Power ..................................................................................... D- E. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ........................................................ Refer to Volume II F. DESIGN DRAWINGS 1.0 Design Drawings..................................................................................................F-2 2.0 Supporting Design Report....................................................................................F-3 G. PROJECT MAPS 1.0 Projects Maps ..................................................................................................... G-3 H. MISCELLANEOUS FILING MATERIAL 1.0 Efficient and Reliable Electric Service .............................................................. H-2 1.1 Efficiency and Reliability ....................................................................... H-2 1.2 Increase in Capacity or Generation......................................................... H-2 1.3 Coordination of Operation with Other Water Resources

Projects.................................................................................................... H-3 1.4 Coordination of Operation with Electrical Systems ............................... H-3 2.0 Need for Project Electricity ................................................................................ H-4 2.1 Cost and Availability of Alternative Sources of Power.......................... H-6 2.2 Increased Cost to Replace the Project..................................................... H-7 2.3 Effects of Alternative Sources of Power................................................. H-7





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page v

3.0 Cost of Production and Alternative Sources of Power ....................................... H-8 3.1 Average Annual Cost of Power .............................................................. H-8 3.2 Costs of Agency Recommendations ....................................................... H-9 3.3 Projected Resources to Meet Requirements ........................................... H-9 3.4 Alternative Sources of Power ............................................................... H-11 4.0 Effect on Industrial Facility .............................................................................. H-11 5.0 Indian Tribe Need for Electricity...................................................................... H-12 6.0 Effect on Transmission System ........................................................................ H-12 6.1 Effects of Redistribution of Power Flows............................................. H-12 6.2 Advantages of Licensee’s System ........................................................ H-12 6.3 Single-Line Diagram............................................................................. H-12 7.0 Modifications Conforming with Comprehensive Plans.................................... H-12 8.0 Project Conformance with Comprehensive Plans............................................. H-13 9.0 Financial and Personnel Resources................................................................... H-13 9.1 Financial Resources .............................................................................. H-13 9.2 Personnel Resources ............................................................................. H-13 10.0 Project Expansion Notification ......................................................................... H-14 11.0 Electricity Consumption Efficiency Improvement Program ............................ H-14 11.1 Customer Energy Efficiency Programs ................................................ H-14 11.2 Compliance with Regulatory Requirements ......................................... H-14 12.0 Indian Tribe Names and Mailing Addresses..................................................... H-15 13.0 Safe Management, Operation, and Maintenance .............................................. H-15 13.1 Safe Management ................................................................................. H-16 13.2 Safe Operation ...................................................................................... H-16 13.3 Safe Maintenance ................................................................................. H-17 13.4 Operation During Flood Conditions ..................................................... H-17 13.5 Warning Devices for Downstream Public Safety ................................. H-17 13.6 Monitoring Devices .............................................................................. H-17 13.7 Employee Safety and Public Safety Record ......................................... H-17 14.0 Current Operation ................................................................................. H-18 15.0 History of the Project ................................................................................. H-18 16.0 Generation Lost Over the Last Five Years ....................................................... H-18 17.0 Compliance with Terms and Conditions of License......................................... H-19




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page vi ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

18.0 Actions Affecting the Public............................................................................. H-19 19.0 Ownership and Operating Expenses ................................................................. H-19 20.0 Annual Fees for Federal or Indian Lands ........................................................ H-19





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page vii

VOLUME IIA

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................E1-1

2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF RIVER BASIN 2.1 Overview............................................................................................................E2-1 2.2 Major Land Uses................................................................................................E2-2 2.3 Major Water Uses ..............................................................................................E2-3 2.4 Basin Dams ........................................................................................................E2-3 2.5 Project Drainage Basins Tributary Streams.......................................................E2-4 2.6 Climate...............................................................................................................E2-5 3.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 3.1 Cumulative Affected Resources ........................................................................E3-1 3.2 Geographic Scope ..............................................................................................E3-1 3.3 Temporal Scope .................................................................................................E3-1 3.4 Past and Present Actions....................................................................................E3-2 3.5 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions............................................................E3-2 4.0 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS 4.1 Federal Power Act of 1920, as Amended (16 USC § 791-828c).......................E4-1 4.2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC § 4321) .........................E4-1 4.3 Clean Water Act of 1970, as Amended (33 USC § 1251 et seq.)......................E4-2 4.4 Federal Land Policy and Management Act as Amended (16 USC §

1701) ................................................................................................................E4-3 4.5 California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, §

21000 et seq.) .....................................................................................................E4-3 4.6 Endangered Species Act of 1972, as Amended (16 USC § 1531 et

seq.)....................................................................................................................E4-4 4.7 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as

Amended (16 USC § 1801 et seq.) ....................................................................E4-5 4.8 National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC § 470 et seq.) ..............................E4-6 4.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and Wilderness Act .............................................E4-6




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page viii ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

4.10 Coastal Zone management Act (16 USC §§ 1451 et seq.) ................................E4-7 4.11 Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act ................................E4-7 5.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS 5.1 Project Introduction and Location .....................................................................E5-1 5.2 Existing Project Facilities ..................................................................................E5-1 5.2.1 Toadtown Development.........................................................................E5-1 5.2.2 DeSabla Development ...........................................................................E5-5 5.2.3 Centerville Development .......................................................................E5-7 5.3 Current Project Operation ..................................................................................E5-8 5.4 Average Annual Energy and Dependable Capacity...........................................E5-9 5.5 New Facilities/Changes in Project Operation and Proposed

Operation..........................................................................................................E5-10 6.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 6.0 Affected Environment........................................................................................E6-1 6.1 Geology and Soils 6.1.1 Historic Information............................................................................E6.1-1 6.1.2 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies ..............................................................E6.1-2 6.1.2.1 Inventory and Assessment of Project and Ancillary

Road-Related Erosion ............................................................E6.1-3 6.1.2.1.1 Study Objectives ...................................................E6.1-3 6.1.2.1.2 Study Area ............................................................E6.1-3 6.1.2.1.3 Methods.................................................................E6.1-3 6.1.2.1.4 Results...................................................................E6.1-6 6.1.2.1.5 Summary .............................................................E6.1-25 6.1.2.1.6 List of Appendices ..............................................E6.1-25

6.1.2.2 Round Valley Reservoir Spillway-Related Erosion and Sediment Transport Survey............................................E6.1-37

6.1.2.2.1 Study Objectives .................................................E6.1-37 6.1.2.2.2 Study Area ..........................................................E6.1-37 6.1.2.2.3 Methods...............................................................E6.1-37 6.1.2.2.4 Results.................................................................E6.1-38





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page ix

6.1.2.2.5 Summary .............................................................E6.1-48 6.1.2.2.6 List of Appendices ..............................................E6.1-48 6.1.2.3 Canal Spillway-Related Erosion and Sediment

Transport Survey...................................................................E6.1-53 6.1.2.3.1 Study Objectives .................................................E6.1-53 6.1.2.3.2 Study Area ..........................................................E6.1-53 6.1.2.3.3 Methods...............................................................E6.1-55 6.1.2.3.4 Results.................................................................E6.1-58 6.1.2.3.5 Summary .............................................................E6.1-59 6.1.2.3.6 List of Appendices ..............................................E6.1-60 6.1.2.4 Water Conveyance Geologic Hazards Risk

Assessment............................................................................E6.1-63 6.1.2.4.1 Study Objectives .................................................E6.1-63 6.1.2.4.2 Study Area ..........................................................E6.1-63 6.1.2.4.3 Methods...............................................................E6.1-63 6.1.2.4.4 Results.................................................................E6.1-66 6.1.2.4.5 Summary .............................................................E6.1-72 6.1.2.4.6 List of Appendices ..............................................E6.1-73 6.2 Water Resources 6.2.1 Historical Information.........................................................................E6.2-1 6.2.1.1 Drainage Area .........................................................................E6.2-1 6.2.1.2 Stream Flow, Gage Data, and Flow Statistics.........................E6.2-2 6.2.1.3 Existing and Proposed Uses of Water.....................................E6.2-4 6.2.1.4 Morphometric Data for Existing Reservoirs...........................E6.2-5 6.2.1.5 Gradient of Downstream Reaches ..........................................E6.2-5 6.2.1.6 Federally Approved Water Quality Standards........................E6.2-5 6.2.1.7 Existing Water Quality Data...................................................E6.2-6 6.2.2 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies ............................................................E6.2-19 6.2.2.1 Development of a Regulated and Unimpaired

Hydrology Database for Project-Affected Stream Reaches .................................................................................E6.2-21

6.2.2.1.1 Study Objectives .................................................E6.2-21 6.2.2.1.2 Study Area ..........................................................E6.2-21 6.2.2.1.3 Methods...............................................................E6.2-21




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page x ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

6.2.2.1.4 Results.................................................................E6.2-31 6.2.2.1.5 Summary .............................................................E6.2-37 6.2.2.1.6 List of Appendices ..............................................E6.2-38 6.2.2.2 Development Project Operations Model...............................E6.2-45 6.2.2.2.1 Study Objectives .................................................E6.2-45 6.2.2.2.2 Study Area ..........................................................E6.2-45 6.2.2.2.3 Methods...............................................................E6.2-47 6.2.2.2.4 Results.................................................................E6.2-57 6.2.2.2.5 Summary ...........................................................E6.2-103 6.2.2.2.6 List of Appendices ............................................E6.2-103 6.2.2.3 Develop Water Temperature Model and Monitor

Water Temperature .............................................................E6.2-107 6.2.2.3.1 Study Objectives ...............................................E6.2-107 6.2.2.3.2 Study Area ........................................................E6.2-107 6.2.2.3.3 Methods.............................................................E6.2-107 6.2.2.3.4 Results...............................................................E6.2-115 6.2.2.3.5 Summary ...........................................................E6.2-142 6.2.2.3.6 List of Appendices ............................................E6.2-143 6.2.2.4 Measure and Evaluate Water Quality in Project

130Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches ...........................................................................E6.2-205

6.2.2.4.1 Study Objectives ...............................................E6.2-205 6.2.2.4.2 Study Area ........................................................E6.2-205 6.2.2.4.3 Methods.............................................................E6.2-205 6.2.2.4.4 Results...............................................................E6.2-217 6.2.2.4.5 Summary ...........................................................E6.2-260 6.2.2.4.6 List of Appendices ............................................E6.2-260 Attachment 1.......................................................................E6.2-281





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page xi

VOLUME IIB

6.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT(continued)

6.3 Fish and Aquatic Resources 6.3.1 Historic Information............................................................................E6.3-1 6.3.2 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies ..............................................................E6.3-4 6.3.2.1 Assessment of RT&E Amphibian and Aquatic

Reptile Species Habitat near Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches .................................E6.3-7

6.3.2.1.1 Study Objectives ................................................E6.3-7 6.3.2.1.2 Study Area .........................................................E6.3-7 6.3.2.1.3 Methods..............................................................E6.3-7 6.3.2.1.4 Results..............................................................E6.3-11 6.3.2.1.5 Summary ..........................................................E6.3-30 6.3.2.1.6 List of Appendices ...........................................E6.3-30 6.3.2.2 Characterization of Fish Populations in Project

reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches...............E6.3-43 6.3.2.2.1 Study Objectives ..............................................E6.3-43 6.3.2.2.2 Study Area .......................................................E6.3-43 6.3.2.2.3 Methods............................................................E6.3-43 6.3.2.2.4 Results..............................................................E6.3-53 6.3.2.2.5 Summary ........................................................E6.3-140 6.3.2.2.6 List of Appendices .........................................E6.3-140 6.3.2.3 Survey Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Project

Affected Stream Reaches Using CSBP Protocols on WBFR and Tributaries................................................E6.3-145

6.3.2.3.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.3-145 6.3.2.3.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.3-145 6.3.2.3.3 Methods..........................................................E6.3-145 6.3.2.3.4 Results............................................................E6.3-152 6.3.2.3.5 Analysis..........................................................E6.3-156 6.3.2.3.6 Summary ........................................................E6.3-168 6.3.2.3.7 List of Appendices .........................................E6.3-171




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page xii ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

6.3.2.4 Entrainment of Fish in Project Facilities Affecting National Forest Land and State of California Resources ........................................................................E6.3-175

6.3.2.4.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.3-175 6.3.2.4.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.3-175 6.3.2.4.3 Methods..........................................................E6.3-176 6.3.2.4.4 Results............................................................E6.3-177 6.3.2.4.5 Summary ........................................................E6.3-194 6.3.2.4.6 List of Appendices .........................................E6.3-194 6.3.2.5 Assess RT&T Mollusc Habitat and Presence in

Project Area .....................................................................E6.3-199 6.3.2.5.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.3-199 6.3.2.5.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.3-199 6.3.2.5.3 Methods..........................................................E6.3-199 6.3.2.5.4 Results............................................................E6.3-201 6.3.2.5.5 Summary ........................................................E6.3-203 6.3.2.5.6 List of Appendices .........................................E6.3-204 6.3.2.6 Perform Instream Flow Study on Lower Butte

Creek ........................................................................E6.3-215 6.3.2.6.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.3-215 6.3.2.6.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.3-215 6.3.2.6.3 Methods..........................................................E6.3-215 6.3.2.6.4 Results............................................................E6.3-234 6.3.2.6.5 Summary ........................................................E6.3-288 6.3.2.6.6 List of Appendices .........................................E6.3-288 6.3.2.7 Perform Instream Flow Study on Upper Butte

Creek ........................................................................E6.3-307 6.3.2.7.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.3-307 6.3.2.7.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.3-307 6.3.2.7.3 Methods..........................................................E6.3-307 6.3.2.7.4 Results............................................................E6.3-310 6.3.2.7.5 Summary ........................................................E6.3-328 6.3.2.7.6 List of Appendices .........................................E6.3-329





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page xiii

6.3.2.8 Perform Instream Flow Study on Lower West Branch Feather River .......................................................E6.3-335

6.3.2.8.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.3-335 6.3.2.8.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.3-335 6.3.2.8.3 Methods..........................................................E6.3-335 6.3.2.8.4 Results............................................................E6.3-338 6.3.2.8.5 Summary ........................................................E6.3-370 6.3.2.8.6 List of Appendices .........................................E6.3-370 6.3.2.9 Perform Instream Flow Study on Upper WBFR..............E6.3-379 6.3.2.9.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.3-379 6.3.2.9.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.3-379 6.3.2.9.3 Methods..........................................................E6.3-379 6.3.2.9.4 Results............................................................E6.3-383 6.3.2.9.5 Summary ........................................................E6.3-415 6.3.2.9.6 List of Appendices .........................................E6.3-415 6.3.2.10 Canal Feeder Stream........................................................E6.3-425 6.3.2.10.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.3-425 6.3.2.10.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.3-425 6.3.2.10.3 Methods..........................................................E6.3-426 6.3.2.10.4 Results............................................................E6.3-427 6.3.2.10.5 Summary ........................................................E6.3-455 6.3.2.10.6 List of Appendices .........................................E6.3-457




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page xiv ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally.]





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page xv

VOLUME IIC

6.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT(continued) 6.4 Wildlife Resources 6.4.1 Historic Information............................................................................E6.4-1 6.4.2 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies ..............................................................E6.4-1 6.4.2.1 Assess Peregrine Falcon and Osprey Habitat and

Presence in the Project Boundary (Study 6.3.4-2 ................E6.4-3 6.4.2.1.1 Study Objectives ................................................E6.4-3 6.4.2.1.2 Study Area .........................................................E6.4-3 6.4.2.1.3 Methods..............................................................E6.4-3 6.4.2.1.4 Results................................................................E6.4-7 6.4.2.1.5 Summary ..........................................................E6.4-13 6.4.2.1.6 List of Appendices ...........................................E6.4-14 6.4.2.2 Assess Willow Flycatcher Habitat and Presence in the

Project Boundary ...............................................................E6.4-15 6.4.2.2.1 Study Objectives ..............................................E6.4-15 6.4.2.2.2 Study Area .......................................................E6.4-15 6.4.2.2.3 Methods............................................................E6.4-15 6.4.2.2.4 Results..............................................................E6.4-18 6.4.2.2.5 Summary ..........................................................E6.4-19 6.4.2.2.6 List of Appendices ...........................................E6.4-19 6.4.2.3 Survey RT&E Bats at High Potential Project

Facilities ..........................................................................E6.4-21 6.4.2.3.1 Study Objectives ..............................................E6.4-21 6.4.2.3.2 Study Area .......................................................E6.4-22 6.4.2.3.3 Methods............................................................E6.4-22 6.4.2.3.4 Results..............................................................E6.4-23 6.4.2.3.5 Summary ..........................................................E6.4-27 6.4.2.3.6 List of Appendices ...........................................E6.4-27 6.4.2.5 Special Status Wildlife Species Assessment......................E6.4-33 6.4.2.5.1 Study Objectives ..............................................E6.4-33 6.4.2.5.2 Study Area .......................................................E6.4-33




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page xvi ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

6.4.2.5.3 Methods............................................................E6.4-33 6.4.2.5.4 Results..............................................................E6.4-35 6.4.2.5.5 Summary ..........................................................E6.4-52 6.4.2.5.6 List of Appendices ...........................................E6.4-52

6.5 Botanical Resources 6.5.1 Historical Information.........................................................................E6.5-1 6.5.2 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies ..............................................................E6.5-3 6.5.2.1 Map RT&E Plant Species ....................................................E6.5-5 6.5.2.1.1 Study Objectives ................................................E6.5-5 6.5.2.1.2 Study Area .........................................................E6.5-5 6.5.2.1.3 Methods..............................................................E6.5-6 6.5.2.1.4 Results..............................................................E6.5-18 6.5.2.1.5 Summary ..........................................................E6.5-27 6.5.2.1.6 List of Appendices ...........................................E6.5-27 6.5.2.2 Classify and Map Vegetation Communities .....................E6.5-41 6.5.2.2.1 Study Objectives ..............................................E6.5-41 6.5.2.2.2 Study Area .......................................................E6.5-41 6.5.2.2.3 Methods............................................................E6.5-41 6.5.2.2.4 Results..............................................................E6.5-42 6.5.2.2.5 Summary ..........................................................E6.5-47 6.5.2.2.6 List of Appendices ...........................................E6.5-48 6.5.2.3 Map and Assess Noxious Weeds in the Project

Boundary ..........................................................................E6.5-51 6.5.2.3.1 Study Objectives ..............................................E6.5-51 6.5.2.3.2 Study Area .......................................................E6.5-52 6.5.2.3.3 Methods............................................................E6.5-52 6.5.2.3.4 Results..............................................................E6.5-56 6.5.2.3.5 Summary ..........................................................E6.5-59 6.5.2.3.6 List of Appendices ...........................................E6.5-60 6.6 Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitat 6.6.1 Historical Information.........................................................................E6.6-1 6.6.1.1 Tree-Dominated Riparian Communities..............................E6.6-1 6.6.1.1.1 White Alder Series.............................................E6.6-1





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page xvii

6.6.1.2 Shrub-Dominated Riparian Communities............................E6.6-1 6.6.1.2.1 Mixed Willow Series .........................................E6.6-1 6.6.1.3 Wetland and Littoral Communities......................................E6.6-2 6.6.1.3.1 Wet Montane Meadow Series............................E6.6-2 6.6.1.3.2 Freshwater marsh series.....................................E6.6-2 6.6.2 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies ..............................................................E6.6-2 6.7 Species Protected Under Federal Endangered Species Act 6.7.1 Historical Information.........................................................................E6.7-1 6.7.2 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies ..............................................................E6.7-1

6.7.2.1 Survey Spring-run Chinook Salmon Pre-Spawning Mortality and Spawning Escapement ..................................E6.7-5

6.7.2.1.1 Study Objectives ................................................E6.7-5 6.7.2.1.2 Study Area .........................................................E6.7-5 6.7.2.1.3 Methods..............................................................E6.7-5 6.7.2.1.4 Results..............................................................E6.7-11 6.7.2.1.5 Summary ..........................................................E6.7-15 6.7.2.1.6 List of Appendices ...........................................E6.7-15 6.7.2.2 Assess Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat

and Presence within the Project Boundary .......................E6.7-17 6.7.2.2.1 Study Objectives ..............................................E6.7-17 6.7.2.2.2 Study Area .......................................................E6.7-17 6.7.2.2.3 Methods............................................................E6.7-18 6.7.2.2.4 Results..............................................................E6.7-19 6.7.2.2.5 Summary ..........................................................E6.7-20 6.7.2.2.6 List of Appendices ...........................................E6.7-21

6.8 Recreational Resources 6.8.1 Historic Information............................................................................E6.8-1 6.8.1.1 Existing Project Area Recreation Resources .......................E6.8-1 6.8.1.2 Current Project Recreation Use Levels and Capacities .......E6.8-7 6.8.1.3 Recreation Needs Identified in Management Plans ...........E6.8-11 6.8.1.4 Speicially Designated Recreation Areas............................E6.8-16 6.8.1.5 Other Recreation Areas in the Project Vicinity .................E6.8-17 6.8.2 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies ............................................................E6.8-19




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page xviii ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

6.8.2.1 Inventory and Assessment of Recreation Facilities and Use Impacts.................................................................E6.8-23

6.8.2.1.1 Study Objectives ..............................................E6.8-23 6.8.2.1.2 Study Area .......................................................E6.8-23 6.8.2.1.3 Methods............................................................E6.8-24 6.8.2.1.4 Results..............................................................E6.8-27 6.8.2.1.5 Summary ..........................................................E6.8-66 6.8.2.1.6 List of Appendices ...........................................E6.8-67 6.8.2.2 Recreation Visitor and Resident Survey ............................E6.8-75 6.8.2.2.1 Study Objectives ..............................................E6.8-75 6.8.2.2.2 Study Area .......................................................E6.8-75 6.8.2.2.3 Methods............................................................E6.8-75 6.8.2.2.4 Visitor Survey Results .....................................E6.8-87 6.8.2.2.5 Resident Mail Survey Results........................E6.8-201 6.8.2.2.6 Summary ........................................................E6.8-248 6.8.2.2.7 List of Appendices .........................................E6.8-265 6.8.2.3 Recreation Flow Study.....................................................E6.8-267 6.8.2.3.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.8-267 6.8.2.3.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.8-267 6.8.2.3.3 Methods..........................................................E6.8-268 6.8.2.3.4 Results............................................................E6.8-272 6.8.2.3.5 Summary ........................................................E6.8-292 6.8.2.3.6 List of Appendices .........................................E6.8-295 6.8.2.4 Recreation Demand Study ...............................................E6.8-301 6.8.2.4.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.8-301 6.8.2.4.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.8-301 6.8.2.4.3 Methods..........................................................E6.8-302 6.8.2.4.4 Results............................................................E6.8-309 6.8.2.4.5 Summary ........................................................E6.8-366 6.8.2.4.6 List of Appendices .........................................E6.8-369 6.8.2.5 Recreation Carrying Capacity and Suitability

Assessment.......................................................................E6.8-371 6.8.2.5.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.8-371





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page xix

6.8.2.5.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.8-372 6.8.2.5.3 Methods..........................................................E6.8-372 6.8.2.5.4 Results............................................................E6.8-377 6.8.2.5.4.1 Facility Capacity.........................E6.8-377 6.8.2.5.4.2 Ecological Capacity....................E6.8-394 6.8.2.5.4.3 Social Capacity...........................E6.8-402 6.8.2.5.5 Summary by Type of Carrying Capacity .......E6.8-434 6.8.2.5.6 Summary of Carrying Capacity by

Resource Area................................................E6.8-438 6.8.2.5.7 List of Appendices .........................................E6.8-445 6.8.2.6 Recreation Needs Assessment ........................................E6.8-447 6.8.2.6.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.8-447 6.8.2.6.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.8-447 6.8.2.6.3 Methods..........................................................E6.8-447 6.8.2.6.4 Results............................................................E6.8-449 6.8.2.6.5 Step 1 – Project-Related Recreation

Opportunities at Recreation Resource Areas ..............................................................E6.8-449

6.8.2.6.6 Step 2 – Major Recreation Issues for Each Recreation Resource Area..............................E6.8-467

6.8.2.6.7 Step 3 – Develop a Set of Reasonable Possible Actions to Address Project-Related Issues.................................................E6.8-471

6.8.2.6.8 Summary of Needs and Proposed PM&E Measures for the Project License...................E6.8-477




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page xx ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

[This Page Left Blank Inentionally.]





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page xxi

VOLUME IID

6.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT(continued)

6.9 Land Use 6.9.1 Historical Information.........................................................................E6.9-1

6.9.1.1 Land Management Plans and Land Use Management Descriptions .........................................................................E6.9-1

6.9.1.2 Land Use and Management within and Adjacent to the Project Boundary............................................................E6.9-6

6.9.1.3 Licensee’s Shoreline Permitting Policies...........................E6.9-10 6.9.1.4 Land Use and Management Adjacent to Project

Affected River Reaches .....................................................E6.9-11 6.9.2 PG&E Relicensing Studies ...............................................................E6.9-17 6.10 Aesthetic Resources

6.10.1 Overview...........................................................................................E6.10-1 6.10.2 Aesthetic Resources and Related Management Guidelines in

the Vicinity of Project Features ........................................................E6.10-1 6.10.3 Other Scenic Attractions in the Project Area....................................E6.10-5 6.10.4 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies ............................................................E6.10-6 6.11 Cultural Resources 6.11.1 Historical Information.......................................................................E6.11-1 6.11.2 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies ............................................................E6.11-2 6.11.2.1 Section 106 Consultation ...................................................E6.11-3 6.11.2.1.1 Pre-Application Document (PAD)

Consultation .....................................................E6.11-3 6.11.2.1.2 Scoping and Study Plan Consultation..............E6.11-5 6.11.2.1.3 Study Plan Implementation..............................E6.11-7 6.11.2.1.4 Draft License Application................................E6.11-8 6.11.2.1.5 Summary ..........................................................E6.11-9 6.11.2.2 Archaeological and Historic-Era Properties ....................E6.11-11 6.11.2.2.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.11-11 6.11.2.2.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.11-11 6.11.2.2.3 Methods..........................................................E6.11-11




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page xxii ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

6.11.2.2.3.1 Archival Research.....................E6.11-11 6.11.2.2.3.2 Field Survey and Site

Documentation..........................E6.11-12 6.11.2.2.3.3 Native American Monitoring....E6.11-13 6.11.2.2.3.4 NRHP Evaluations ....................E6.11-13 6.11.2.2.4 Results............................................................E6.11-14 6.11.2.2.4.1 Supplemental Archival

Research....................................E6.11-14 6.11.2.2.4.2 Field Survey ..............................E6.11-15 6.11.2.2.4.3 Site Documentation...................E6.11-16 6.11.2.2.4.4 Native American Monitoring....E6.11-17 6.11.2.2.4.5 Cultural Context........................E6.11-20 6.11.2.2.4.6 NRHP Evaluations ....................E6.11-34 6.11.2.2.5 Summary ........................................................E6.11-86 6.11.2.2.6 List of Appendices .........................................E6.11-86 6.11.2.3 Traditional Cultural Properties ........................................E6.11-99 6.11.2.3.1 Study Objectives ............................................E6.11-99 6.11.2.3.2 Study Area .....................................................E6.11-99 6.11.2.3.3 Methods..........................................................E6.11-99 6.11.2.3.4 Results..........................................................E6.11-101 6.11.2.3.5 Summary ......................................................E6.11-107 6.11.2.3.6 List of Appendices .......................................E6.11-107 6.11.2.4 Historic Project Feature Assessment .............................E6.11-109 6.11.2.4.1 Study Objectives ..........................................E6.11-109 6.11.2.4.2 Study Area ...................................................E6.11-109 6.11.2.4.3 Methods........................................................E6.11-109 6.11.2.4.3.1 Archival Research...................E6.11-109 6.11.2.4.3.2 Field Inventory........................E6.11-109 6.11.2.4.3.3 NRHP Evaluation......................E6.1-110 6.11.2.4.4 Results..........................................................E6.11-110 6.11.2.4.4.1 Prior Studies of the Project .....E6.11-110 6.11.2.4.4.2 Background and Historical

Content....................................E6.11-111





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page xxiii

6.11.2.4.4.3 Field Inventory, Feature Documentation and Definition of Property Types ..E6.11-128

6.11.2.4.5 National Register Evaluations......................E6.11-137 6.11.2.4.5.1 Significance.............................E6.11-137 6.11.2.4.5.2 Historic District Boundaries ...E6.11-140 6.11.2.4.5.3 Integrity...................................E6.11-140 6.11.2.4.5.4 Project Features.......................E6.11-143 6.11.2.4.6 Summary ......................................................E6.11-148 6.11.2.4.7 List of Appendices .......................................E6.11-148 6.12 Socio-Economic Resources 6.12.1 Historical Information.......................................................................E6.12-1 6.12.1.1 General Land Use Patterns.................................................E6.12-1 6.12.1.2 Population Patterns ............................................................E6.12-3 6.12.1.3 Households/Family Distribution and Income ....................E6.12-5 6.12.2 Project Vicinity Employment Sources..............................................E6.12-7 6.12.3 PG&E’s Relicensing Studies ..........................................................E6.12-10 6.12.3.1 Assess Socio-economic Effects of alternative Project

Management Actions .......................................................E6.12-10 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 7.1 Geology and Soils 7.1.1 Effects of Project Operations on Erosion of Soils in Project

Reservoirs and Stream Reaches .............................................................E7-1 7.1.2 Effects on Project Spillways on Geology and Soils...............................E7-2 7.1.3 Effects on Geology and Soils from Overtopping or Structural

Failures of Project Canals or Flumes, or from Landslides and Debris Flows that Intersect project Canals or Flumes ...........................E7-4

7.2 Water Resources 7.2.1 Adequacy of existing gages to monitor hydrologic

characteristics and compliance of minimum streamflow releases .................................................................................................E7-6

7.2.2 Effects from the discontinued use of Project feeder diversions.............E7-6




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page xxiv ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

7.2.3 Effects of water loss in canals during transport .....................................E7-7 7.2.4 Effects of Project operations on water temperature,

contaminants, and other water quality parameters in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches......................................E7-8

7.2.5 Effects of cleaning Project canals and flumes on water quality ..........E7-16 7.2.6 Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on water quality caused

from project operations and structural failures, Project spillways, runoff from project roads, and natural landslides ...............E7-16

7.2.7 Effects of informal recreation at Project reservoirs and stream reaches on water quality (such as fecal coliform contamination)........E7-17

7.2.8 Effects of water diversions from Little Butte Creek on the local water supply .........................................................................................E7-17

7.3 Fish and Aquatic Resources 7.3.1 Effects of erosion caused by Project operations on aquatic

species and available aquatic habitat in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches.....................................................E7-18

7.3.2 Effects of existing minimum flows, and the potential for enhancement of flows, on aquatic habitat and fish, mollusks, and other benthic macroinvertebrate populations in the Project reservoirs and Project-affected stream reaches....................................E7-19

7.3.3 Effects of the discontinued use of four Project feeder diversions on available aquatic habitat and fish and macroinvertebrate populations.............................................................E7-25

7.3.4 Effects of Project operations and Project-related activities on fish populations in the Project reservoirs.............................................E7-25

7.3.5 Potential for fish passage upstream in Butte Creek .............................E7-26 7.3.6 Effects of project operations on fish entrainment at Project

dams and diversions.............................................................................E7-27 7.3.7 Effects of herbicide use in Project flumes and canals on aquatic

species ...............................................................................................E7-27 7.3.8 Effects of rapid changes in canal flows on fish stranding ...................E7-27 7.3.9 Potential for fish habitat enhancement in Project canals and

downstream of the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam in Butte Creek ...............................................................................................E7-28

7.3.10 Effects of project operations on the transport of large woody debris ...............................................................................................E7-29





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page xxv

7.3.11 Potential for Project operations to coordinate with State and federal conservation programs for improving aquatic habitat conditions within the project reach. .....................................................E7-30

7.4 Wildlife Resources 7.4.1 Effects of project operations and facilities on wildlife species

and habitat............................................................................................E7-30 7.4.2 Effects of project transmission lines on raptors and migratory

birds ...............................................................................................E7-32 7.5 Botanical Resources 7.5.1 Effects of project operations on vegetation .........................................E7-33 7.5.2 Effects of project operations on the establishment and spread of

noxious weeds......................................................................................E7-33 7.5.3 Effects of project operations on special status plant species ...............E7-34 7.5.4 Effects of informal recreation at project reservoirs and stream

reaches on special status plants............................................................E7-35 7.6 Wetland, Riparian and Littoral Habitat 7.6.1 Effects of project operations on wetlands, and riparian and

littoral vegetation, including fens, around project facilities and reservoirs..............................................................................................E7-36

7.6.2 Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on wetlands, and riparian and littoral vegetation around project facilities and reservoirs, caused from project operations and structural failures, project spillways, runoff from project roads, and natural landslides .................................................................................E7-37

7.6.3 Effects of informal recreation at project reservoirs and stream reaches on wetlands, and riparian and littoral vegetation around project facilities and reservoirs ............................................................E7-37

7.7 Species Protected under the Endangered Species Act 7.8 Recreation and Land Use 7.8.1 Effects of erosion and potential erosion caused by recreation

activities E7-39 7.8.2 Effects of project operations, including maintenance activities,

on public access and recreational opportunities within the project area...........................................................................................E7-40

7.8.3 Adequacy of existing recreational facilities, parking, and public access within the project boundary and ability of facilities to




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page xxvi ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

meet future recreational demands (including affects resulting from the Skyway Project) ....................................................................E7-41

7.8.4 Effects of project operations on quality and availability of flow-dependant river recreation opportunities, including: whitewater boating, fishing, and swimming, and feasibility of future flow-dependant river recreation ................................................E7-46

7.8.5 Effects of project operation and recreational activity on Butte Creek’s Wild and Scenic Rivers eligibility status................................E7-47

7.8.6 Effects of dispersed and developed recreation use on project resources, including affects of littering and sanitation problems ........E7-47

7.8.7 Potential fire hazards and effects of OHV use in the project vicinity ...............................................................................................E7-49

7.8.8 Appropriateness of existing project-related interpretative and education/recreation signs....................................................................E7-52

7.9 Aesthetic Resources 7.9.1 Effects of project operations, including facilities and

maintenance activities, on aesthetic resources in the project vicinity ...............................................................................................E7-52

7.9.2 Effects of project operations on the aesthetic attributes of butte Creek’s Wild and Scenic Rivers eligibility status................................E7-53

7.9.3 Effects of facilities, operations, and recreation use on aesthetic character of lands administered by the USFS......................................E7-53

7.9.4 Potential for development and/or enhancement of scenic overlooks..............................................................................................E7-53

7.10 Cultural Resources and Tribal Interests 7.10.1 Effects of the continued Project operation, including

maintenance activities and Project-related activities, on Indian tribal interests and historic properties (defined as all properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places) located within the area of potential effect (APE) ....................E7-54

7. 10.2 Effects of Project operations on culturally important plants (for Native Americans) ...............................................................................E7-59

7.10.3 Development of a Historic Properties Management Plan to ensure adequate protection of tribal and historic resources from Project operations or Project-related activities ....................................E7-59





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page xxvii

7.11 Socio-Economic Resources 7.11.1 Effects of proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement

measures on project economics ...........................................................E7-60 7.11.2 Economic viability of the Centerville Powerhouse .............................E7-60 8.0 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES 8.1 PG&E’s Proposed Resource Management Measures 8.1.1 General Measures...................................................................................E8-2 8.1.1.1 Measure 1 – Train Employees Annually ................................E8-2 8.1.1.2 Measure 2 – Consultation .......................................................E8-3 8.1.13 Measure 3 – Special-Status Species........................................E8-4 8.1.2 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................E8-5 8.1.2.1 Measure 4 – Develop and Implement a Project Transportation System Management Plan..................E8-5 8.1.2.2 Measure 5 – Develop and Implement a Round Valley

Dam Spillway Stabilization Plan ............................................E8-5 8.1.2.3 Measure 6 – Develop and Implement a Project Canal

Maintenance and Inspection Plan ...........................................E8-7 8.1.3 Water Resources ....................................................................................E8-8 8.1.3.1 Measure 7 – Install and Maintain New Gages ........................E8-8 8.1.3.2 Measure 8 – Monitor Water Quality in Receiving

Stream during Canal Cleaning ................................................E8-9 8.1.3.3 Measure 9 – Develop and Implement a Hazardous

Substance Plan ........................................................................E8-9 8.1.4 Fish and Other Aquatic Resources.......................................................E8-10 8.1.4.1 Measure 10 – Develop and Implement a Canal Fish

Rescue Plan...........................................................................E8-10 8.1.4.2 Measure 11 – Fund CDFG for Fish Stocking .......................E8-11 8.1.4.3 Measure 12 – Maintain a Minimum Pool in Philbrook

Reservoir ...............................................................................E8-11 8.1.5 Wildlife Resources...............................................................................E8-11 8.1.5.1 Measure 13 – Consult with CDFG Prior to Replacing

or Retrofitting Canal wildlife Crossings or Escape Facilities................................................................................E8-12




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page xxviii ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

8.1.5.2 Measure 14 – Monitor Animal Loss in Project Canals.........E8-12 8.1.6 Botanical Resources and Wetlands, Riparian and Littoral

Habitats ................................................................................................E8-13 8.1.6.1 Measure 15 – Develop and Implement a Vegetation

Management Plan..................................................................E8-13 8.1.6.2 Measure 16 – Develop and Implement an Invasive

Weed Management Plan .......................................................E8-14 8.1.6.3 Measure 17 – Develop and Implement a Fire

Prevention, Response and Investigation ...............................E8-16 8.1.7 Species Protected Under the Federal Endangered Species Act ...........E8-17 8.1.7.1 Measure 18 – Implement Minimum Stream Flows ..............E8-18 8.1.7.2 Measure 19 – DeSabla Forebay Water Temperature

Improvement Plan.................................................................E8-22 8.1.7.3 Measure 20 – Develop and Implement Facility

Monitoring, Maintenance and Refurbishment Plan ..............E8-23 8.1.7.4 Measure 21 – Develop and Implement Long-term

Operations Plan.....................................................................E8-23 8.1.7.5 Measure 22 – Monitor Butte Creek Central Valley

Spring-run Chinook Salmon Populations .............................E8-24 8.1.7.6 Measure 23 – Annual Report .................................................................... E8-25

8.1.7.7 Measure 24 - Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Protection .............................................................................E8-25

8.1.8 Recreation ...................................................................................E8-25 8.1.8.1 Measure 25 - Maintain and Operate Philbrook

Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay Recreation Facilities..............E8- 8.1.8.2 Measure 26 - Develop and Implement Recreation

Facility Rehabilitation and ADA Upgrade Plan at Existing Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay Recreation Facilities..............................................................E8-27

8.1.8.3 Measure 27 - Develop and Implement Project Information and Sign Plan ...................................................E8-28

8.1.8.4 Measure 28 - Obtain Public Access to DeSabla Powerhouse and Miocene Diversion Dam Impoundment ......................................................................E8-28





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page xxix

8.1.8.5 Measure 29 - Make Stream flow Information Available to Public................................................................E8-29

8.1.9 Land Use 8.1.9.1 Measure 30 – Remove Philbrook Lake Tender House

and other Structures No Longer Needed...............................E8-30 8.1.10 Aesthetic Resources ..............................................................E8-30 8.1.10.1 Measure 31 – Consult with USFS when

Painting/Reconstructing Facilities .........................E8-30 8.1.10.2 Measure 32 – Maintain Improvements and

Premises on NFSL .................................................E8-31 8.1.11 Socio-Economic Resources ..................................................E8-31 8.1.12 Cultural and Tribal Resources ..............................................E8-31 8.1.12.1 Measure 33 – Develop and Implement

Historic Properties Management Plan ...................E8-31 8.2 Measures Recommended by Agencies and Indian Tribes Adopted by

PG&E...............................................................................................................E8-32 8.3 Measures Recommended by Agencies and Indian Tribes Not Adopted

by PG&E..........................................................................................................E8-33 Attachment One of Section 8.0: Proposed General Management Measures

for Inclusion in Historic Properties Management Plan 1.0 Proposed General management Measures for Inclusion in the HPMP............... A-1 1.1 Avoidance of Impacts to Historic Properties .......................................... A-1 1.2 Public Education and Employee Training .............................................. A-1 1.3 Signage.................................................................................................... A-3 1.4 Travel Routes and Road Closures........................................................... A-5 1.5 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Controls ..................................... A-6 1.6 Recreation Development and Improvements.......................................... A-7 1.7 Archaeological Monitoring and Condition Assessment ......................... A-8 1.8 Site Stabilization and Erosion Control.................................................... A-9 1.9 Treatment of Human Remains ................................................................ A-9 1.10 Unanticipated Discoveries .................................................................... A-10 1.11 Emergency Actions............................................................................... A-12 1.12 Periodic Reporting and Meetings.......................................................... A-13 1.13 Periodic Review and Revision of the HPMP....................................... A-14.




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page xxx ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

2.0 Proposed Site-Specific Management Measures for Inclusion in the HPMP ............................................................................................................... A-14

2.1 Proposed Site-Specific Management Measures for Prehistoric and Historic-Era Archaeological Sites.................................................. A-15

2.1.1 Site-Specific Management Measures..................................... A-15 3.0 Site-Specific Management Measures for Tribal Interests................................. A-41 4.0 Site-Specific Management Measures for Historical Project System

Features ............................................................................................................. A-41 9.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ..................................................................E9-1 10.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 10.1 Cost of Operating and Maintaining the Project (Existing License)............... E-10-1 10.2 Cost of Constructing, Operating, and Maintaining the Proposed Project

(Original License) E10-2 10.3 Cost of Resource Protection, Mitigation or Enhancement Measures ..............E10-2 10.3.1 Cost of Resource Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement

Measures Proposed by PG&E..............................................................E10-2 10.3.2 Cost of Resource Protection, Mitigation, or Enhancement

Measures Proposed by Relicensing Participants..................................E10-3 10.4 Developmental Resources................................................................................E10-4 10.4.1 Value of Developmental Resources (Existing License) ......................E10-4 10.4.2 Value of Developmental Resources for Proposed Project

(Original License) ................................................................................E10-4 11.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS .........................................E11-1 12.0 CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION 12.1 Notice of Intent to Relicense............................................................................E12-1 12.2 Pre-Application Document ..............................................................................E12-1 12.3 NEPA Scoping .................................................................................................E12-1 12.4 Study Plan Development..................................................................................E12-2 12.5 Study Performance, Review and Plan for Completion ....................................E12-2 12.6 Section 106 Consultation of NHPA.................................................................E12-7 12.7 Section 7 Consultation of ESA ........................................................................E12-7





October 2007 License Application Table of Contents ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page xxxi

12.8 Routing Consultation Meetings .......................................................................E12-7 12.9 Draft License Application................................................................................E12-7 12.10 Continuing Consultation ..................................................................................E12-8 12.11 List of Interested Parties ................................................................................E12-14 13.0 LITERATURE CITED 13.1 Literature Cited ...............................................................................................E13-1 13.1.1 Geology and Soils ................................................................................E13-1 13.1.2 Water Resources ..................................................................................E13-2 13.1.3 Fish and Aquatic Resources.................................................................E13-6 13.1.4 Wildlife Resources.............................................................................E13-16 13.1.5 Botanical Resources...........................................................................E13-19 13.1.6 Wetlands, Riparian, and Littoral Habitat ...........................................E13-21 13.1.7 Species Protected Under Federal Endangered Species Act ...............E13-21 13.1.8 Recreational Resources......................................................................E13-23

13.1.9 Land Use and Management ...............................................................E13-30 13.1.10 Aesthetic Resources ........................................................................E13-30 13.1.11 Cultural Resources ..........................................................................E13-30 13.1.12 Socio-Economic Resources ............................................................E13-43




Table of Contents License Application October 2007 Page xxxii ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally.}



LIST OF TABLES VOLUME I

Section & Table No. Description Page

October 2007 License Application List of Tables ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1 Status of Relicensing Studies.......................................................................ES-4

Table ES-2 PG&E’s proposed resource management measures and implementation schedule. Measures that may need to be modified based on additional study information and/or continuing consultation are indicated by an asterisk. Measures that are a continuation of existing measures that are substantially unchanged are in bold ..................................................................................................ES-24

EXHIBIT A Table A6.0-1 Project occupied lands of the United States.................................................. A-7

EXHIBIT B Table B2.3-1 DeSabla Centerville Projection in basin Project reaches for water

transfers..........................................................................................................B-5

Table B2.4-1 DeSabla Centerville Project out-of-basin bypass reaches for water transfers..........................................................................................................B-5

Table B2.6-1 PG&E and USGS Gaging Stations. .............................................................B-13

Table B2.6-2 Hydrologic Data for period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005............B-14

Table B3.0-1 Existing Project water rights. .......................................................................B-22

Table B3.6-1 Existing Project access roads. ......................................................................B-26

Table B5.1-1 Gross generation and plant factors for the Toadtown Powerhouse, during the period 1986 through 2004...........................................................B-43

Table B5.1-2 Approximate dependable capacity for the Toadtown Powerhouse..............B-43

Table B5.2-1 Gross generation and plant factors for the DeSabla Powerhouse, during the period 1986 through 2004...........................................................B-55

Table B5.2-2 Approximate dependable capacity for the DeSabla Powerhouse is based on historical conditions (July – August of 1977, the direst year in recorded history during the period of peak electric system load) .............................................................................................................B-56

Table B5.3-1 Gross generation and plant factors for the Centerville Powerhouse, during the period 1986 through 2004. .........................................................B-66

Table B5.3-2 Approximate dependable capacity for the Centerville Powerhouse ............B-67


LIST OF TABLES VOLUME I (continued)

Section & Table No. Description Page

List of Tables License Application October 2007 Page ii ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Table B6.0-1 PG&E planning area forecast comparison...................................................B-70

EXHIBIT C None

EXHIBIT D Table D4.1-1 Cost of Capital .............................................................................................. D-3

Table D4.1-2 Income Tax Rates ......................................................................................... D-3

Table D4.2-1 Average Annual Cost of the Total Project Using FERC’s Current Cost Method and No New License Conditions (w/ 14% FCR, and Estimated cost in $2007)............................................................................... D-4

Table D4.3-1 Average Annual Cost of the Total Project using FERC's Current Cost Method and with the Licensee-Proposed New License Conditions (w/ 14% FCR, and Costs in $2007)............................................ D-4

Table D4.4-1 Comparison of the Annual Cost of the Total Project using FERC’s Current Cost .................................................................................................. D-5

Table D4.8-1 Time of Use Period Definitions .................................................................... D-7

Table D4.9-1 Generation Summary Table .......................................................................... D-8

EXHIBIT E See Volumes IIA, IIB, IIC and IID

EXHIBIT F None

EXHIBIT G

None

EXHIBIT H None



LIST OF FIGURES VOLUME I

Section & Figure No. Description Page

October 2007 License Application List of Figures ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page i

EXHIBIT A Figure A1.0-1 DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project Schematic........................... A-2

Figure A7.1-1 Round Valley Reservoir ......................................................................... A-8

Figure A7.1-2 Round Valley Reservoir.......................................................................... A-8

Figure A7.1-3 Philbrook Reservoir with Dock .............................................................. A-8

Figure A7.1-4 Philbrook Reservoir ................................................................................ A-8

Figure A7.1-5 Hendricks Diversion Dam....................................................................... A-8

Figure A7.1-6 Hendricks Canal...................................................................................... A-8

Figure A7.1-7 Toadtown Powerhouse Aerial View ...................................................... A-9

Figure A7.1-8 Toadtown Powerhouse Ground View ................................................... A-9

Figure A7.2-1 Butte Creek Diversion Dam.................................................................... A-9

Figure A7.2-2 Toadtown Canal ...................................................................................... A-9

Figure A7.2-3 Butte Canal.............................................................................................. A-9

Figure A7.2-4 DeSabla Forebay..................................................................................... A-9

Figure A7.2-5 DeSabla Forebay................................................................................... A-10

Figure A7.2-6 DeSabla Powerhouse ............................................................................ A-10

Figure A7.3-1 Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and Canal....................................... A-10

Figure A7.3-2 Centerville Powerhouse Aerial ............................................................ A-10

EXHIBIT B

Figure B1.2-1 DeSabla Centerville Hydroelectric Project Schematic ............................B-2

Figure B2.5-1 California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 120 Water Year forecast (May 1 update) for the Feather River and its tributaries at Lake Oroville from Water Years 1953 through 2006..........................................................................................................B-6

Figure B2.5-2 Ranked California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 120 Water Year forecast (May 1 update) for the Feather River and its tributaries at Lake Oroville from Water Years 1953 through 2006 ............................................................................................B-7

Figure B2.6-1 Locations of USGS and PG&E Flow Gages..........................................B-73


LIST OF FIGURES VOLUME I (continued)


List of Figures License Application October 2007 Page ii ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Figure B2.6-2 Unimpaired Hydrology Node Locations................................................B-74

Figure B2.6-3 Unimpaired flows on Butte Creek at the Butte Creek Diversion Dam for typical Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002) and Critically Dry (2001) water years. .........................................................B-17

Figure B2.6-4 Unimpaired flows on Butte Creek above DeSabla Powerhouse for typical Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002) and Critically Dry (2001) water years. .........................................................B-18

Figure B2.6-5 Unimpaired flows on Butte Creek at the Lower Centerville Canal Diversion Dam for typical Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002) and Critically Dry (2001) water years. ...............................B-18

Figure B2.6-6 Unimpaired flows on Butte Creek at the Centerville Powerhouse for representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002) and Critically Dry (2001) water years.................................B-19

Figure B2.6-7 Unimpaired flows on the WBFR at Round Valley Reservoir for representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002) and Critically Dry (2001) water years. .........................................................B-19

Figure B2.6-8 Unimpaired flows on the WBFR above the confluence of Philbrook Creek for representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002) and Critically Dry (2001) water years.................................B-20

Figure B2.6-9 Unimpaired flows on Philbrook Creek at Philbrook Reservoir for representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002) and Critically Dry (2001) water years. .........................................................B-20

Figure B2.6-10 Unimpaired flows on the WBFR at the Hendricks Diversion Dam for representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002) and Critically Dry (2001) water years. .................................................B-21

Figure B2.6-11 Unimpaired flows on the WBFR at the Miocene Diversion Dam for representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002) and Critically Dry (2001) water years. .................................................B-21

Figure B5.1-1 Round Valley Reservoir water surface elevations during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. .....................................B-29

Figure B5.1-2 Round Valley Reservoir water surface elevations for typical Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002) and Critically Dry (2001) water years. ................................................................................B-29

Figure B5.1-3 Round Valley Reservoir storage-capacity curve....................................B-30





October 2007 License Application List of Figures ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page iii

Figure B5.1-4 Round Valley Dam spillway rating curve..............................................B-30

Figure B5.1-5 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Round Valley Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ................................................................................B-31

Figure B5.1-6 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Round Valley Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005........................................................................................................B-31

Figure B5.1-7 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Round Valley Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY. ...............B-32

Figure B5.1-8 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Round Valley Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. .......................................................................B-32

Figure B5.1-9 Philbrook Reservoir water surface elevations during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ................................................B-34

Figure B5.1-10 Philbrook Reservoir water surface elevations for typical Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002) and Critically Dry (2001) water years. ................................................................................B-34

Figure B5.1-11 Philbrook Reservoir storage-capacity curve. .........................................B-35

Figure B5.1-12 Philbrook Dam spillway rating curve. ...................................................B-35

Figure B5.1-13 Flow duration curves for Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ...........B-36

Figure B5.1-14 Flow duration curves for Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ....................B-36

Figure B5.1-15 Flow duration curves for Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY. ..............................................B-37

Figure B5.1-16 Flow duration curves for Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005........................................................................................................B-37




List of Figures License Application October 2007 Page iv ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Figure B5.1-17 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Hendricks Diversion Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ........................................................................B-38

Figure B5.1-18 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Hendricks Diversion Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. .................................................................................B-39

Figure B5.1-19 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Hendricks Diversion Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY. ................B-39

Figure B5.1-20 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Hendricks Diversion Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ........................................................................B-40

Figure B5.1-21 Flow duration curves for Hendricks Canal below Hendricks Diversion Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005................................................................................................B-40

Figure B5.1-22 Flow duration curves for Hendricks Canal below Hendricks Diversion Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ..........B-41

Figure B5.1-23 Flow duration curves for Hendricks Canal below Hendricks Diversion Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY...............................B-41

Figure B5.1-24 Flow duration curves for Hendricks Canal below Hendricks Diversion Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005................................................................................................B-42

Figure B5.1-25 Toadtown Powerhouse capability vs. head curve ..................................B-44

Figure B5.1-26 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Powerhouse during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005 .......................................B-44

Figure B5.1-27 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Powerhouse for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.......................................................B-45





October 2007 License Application List of Figures ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page v

Figure B5.1-28 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Powerhouse for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY. ................................................................................B-45

Figure B5.1-29 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Powerhouse for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. .....................................B-46

Figure B5.2-1 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Butte Creek Diversion Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ..............................................................................................B-47

Figure B5.2-2 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Butte Creek Diversion Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ................................................................................................................B-47

Figure B5.2-3 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Butte Creek Diversion Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY. .............................B-48

Figure B5.2-4 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Butte Creek Diversion Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ..............................................................................................B-48

Figure B5.2-5 Flow duration curves for Butte Canal below Butte Creek Diversion Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ..............................................................................................B-49

Figure B5.2-6 Flow duration curves for Butte Canal below Butte Creek Diversion Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ................................................................................................................B-49

Figure B5.2-7 Flow duration curves for Butte Canal below Butte Creek Diversion Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY. .............................B-50

Figure B5.2-8 Flow duration curves for Butte Canal below Butte Creek Diversion Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ..............................................................................................B-50




List of Figures License Application October 2007 Page vi ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Figure B5.2-9 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Canal below Toadtown Powerhouse during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ......................................................................................................B-51

Figure B5.2-10 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Canal below Toadtown Powerhouse for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005 ...........B-52

Figure B5.2-11 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Canal below Toadtown Powerhouse for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY. .............................B-52

Figure B5.2-12 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Canal below Toadtown Powerhouse for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ..............................................................................................B-53

Figure B5.2-13 DeSabla Forebay storage-capacity curve...............................................B-54

Figure B5.2-14 DeSabla Forebay spillway rating curve .................................................B-54

Figure B5.2-15 DeSabla Powerhouse capability vs. head curve.....................................B-56

Figure B5.2-16 Flow duration curves for DeSabla Powerhouse during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. .....................................B-56

Figure B5.2-17 Flow duration curves for DeSabla Powerhouse for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. .....................................................B-57

Figure B5.2-18 Flow duration curves for DeSabla Powerhouse for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY. ................................................................................B-57

Figure B5.2-19 Flow duration curves for DeSabla Powerhouse for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. .....................................B-58

Figure B5.3-1 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ..............................................................................................B-59

Figure B5.3-2 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ..........B-60





October 2007 License Application List of Figures ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page vii

Figure B5.3-3 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY. .............................B-60

Figure B5.3-4 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ..............................................................................................B-61

Figure B5.3-5 Flow duration curves for Lower Centerville Canal below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ................................................................B-61

Figure B5.3-6 Flow duration curves for Lower Centerville Canal below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. .......................................................................B-62

Figure B5.3-7 Flow duration curves for Lower Centerville Canal below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY. .........................................................................................B-62

Figure B5.3-8 Flow duration curves for Lower Centerville Canal below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. .....................................................B-63

Figure B5.3-9 Flow duration curves for Upper Centerville Canal below DeSabla Forebay during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ..............................................................................................B-64

Figure B5.3-10 Flow duration curves for Upper Centerville Canal below DeSabla Forebay for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ......................................................................................................B-64

Figure B5.3-11 Flow duration curves for Upper Centerville Canal below DeSabla Forebay for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY. .............................B-65




List of Figures License Application October 2007 Page viii ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Figure B5.3-12 Flow duration curves for Upper Centerville Canal below DeSabla Forebay for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. .......................................................................B-65

Figure B5.3-13 Centerville Powerhouse capability vs. head curve ................................B-67

Figure B5.3-14 Flow duration curves for Centerville Powerhouse during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. .....................................B-67

Figure B5.3-15 Flow duration curves for Centerville Powerhouse for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ................................................B-68

Figure B5.3-16 Flow duration curves for Centerville Powerhouse for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY. ..............................................................B-68

Figure B5.3-17 Flow duration curves for Centerville Powerhouse for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. ...............................B-69

EXHIBIT C None

EXHIBIT D Figure D4.5-1 Historic CPUC-published SRACs .......................................................... D-6

Figure D4.8-1 Historic CPUC-published SRACs .......................................................... D-7

EXHIBIT E See Volumes IIA, IIB, IIC and IID

EXHIBIT F None

EXHIBIT G None





October 2007 License Application List of Figures ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page ix

EXHIBIT H Figure H1.4-1 Project Monthly Operation Profile (Licensee’s Proposed

Project).................................................................................................... H-3

Figure H1.4-2 Hourly Profile of California Electric Demand and Supply..................... H-4

Figure H2.0-13 CEC July 2007 Electricity Forecast........................................................ H-5

Figure H2.0-14 CEC July 2007 Peak Electricity Forecast ............................................... H-6

Figure H3.3-18 CEC July 2007 Per Capita Electricity Consumption ............................ H-11



October 2007 License Application Executive Summary ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page ES-1

Executive Summary

APPLICATION FOR LICENSE FOR MAJOR PROJECT – EXISTING DAM DeSabla-Centerville Project, FERC Project No. 803

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Licensee)

October 2007

1.0 Overview and Purpose of Executive Summary Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E or Licensee) files with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) this application for new license (license application or application) for its existing 26.6 megawatt (MW) installed capacity DeSabla-Centerville Project, FERC Project No. 803 (Project) in compliance with Part 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 5, and the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) and distributes the license application to federal and State resource agencies, local governments, Indian tribes, members of the public, and others likely to be interested in the relicensing proceeding (Interested Parties). In conformance with 18 CFR § 5.17(a), PG&E files this application more than 24 months before the current FERC license for the Project expires on October 11, 2009. The Project is located on Butte Creek and West Branch Feather River (WBFR) in Butte County, California, and consists of three developments (Toadtown, DeSabla, and Centerville), which collectively include three reservoirs, three powerhouses, 14 diversion and feeder dams, five canals, and associated equipment and transmission facilities. PG&E proposes to continue operating the Project for the next 50 years with no change to Project generation facilities or features, other than adoption of the resource management measures proposed in this application, deletion of five stream diversions that have not been used for over 10 years, and an anticipated rebuild or refurbishment of Centerville Powerhouse. Continued Project operation will maintain a significant primary benefit of the Project, which is enhanced cool water habitat for threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (Chinook salmon) and Central Valley steelhead (steelhead) in lower Butte Creek. This enhancement results from the Project’s transfer of cool water in the summer from the Project’s reservoirs on the WBFR to lower Butte Creek. This transfer is particularly important during summer heat storms. Continued Project operation will also maintain the current installed and dependable electric generation capacity of the Project, and helps meet California’s RPS (RPS) for electricity. At this time, PG&E’s proposed Project includes 33 proposed resource management measures that will provide numerous environmental benefits and, conservatively, are expected to cost PG&E about $48 million (about $1.1 million annually) over the term of the new license – about $23 million in new capital and Operation & Maintenance (O&M) expenses related to implementation of PG&E’s proposed measures and $25 million in reduced generation. Given the importance of continued operation of this Project for Chinook salmon and steelhead, PG&E has carefully developed its proposed resource management measures to assure adequate


Executive Summary License Application October 2007 Page ES-2 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

protection and reasonable enhancement of environmental and recreation resources while attempting to preserve the economic viability of the Project compared to market alternatives for RPS generation. The core of the proposed resource management measures are those measures PG&E anticipates will be included by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) in its Endangered Species Act (ESA) Biological Opinion (BO) for the protection and enhancement of Chinook salmon and steelhead. Some of the benefits of the other proposed resource management measures include enhancing fish habitat that already supports robust and healthy trout populations, avoiding potential impacts to special-status amphibians by modifying Project operations during sensitive periods, and avoiding impacts to species that may become listed as special-status species in the future. In addition, PG&E’s proposed Project would provide for the optimum development of recreational opportunity in the Project area consistent with the purpose of the Project. PG&E proposes to replace/rehabilitate all existing recreational facilities over the term of the new license, provide for new facilities as user demand increases, attempt to enhance access over private property for whitewater boaters, and provide stream flow information to the public. In recognition of the fact that the Project is in an area of potentially unstable slopes, and the importance of continuous water delivery for Chinook salmon and steelhead, PG&E proposes to develop a plan for annual on-the-ground inspection of canals and operation of those canals. PG&E will consult with the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) annually to assure coordination between Project and USFS activities. PG&E will also provide training to O&M staff to facilitate implementation of and adherence to the new license, and develop plans for the transportation and of handling hazardous materials, wildfires, and cultural resources. While PG&E considers the measures proposed in this application to be its formal proposal, PG&E plans to continue consultation with federal and State resource agencies, local governments, Indian tribes, members of the public, and others participating in the relicensing proceeding (Relicensing Participants) through April 1, 2008, and thereafter, if necessary, as long as meaningful progress is being made. PG&E is doing so because six relicensing studies are still in progress and the results of 11 other studies, though PG&E believes complete, have not been formally reviewed by FERC as required by 18 CFR § 5.15. Section 3.0 of the Executive Summary provides Licensee’s assessment of study status of the 41 relicensing studies approved by FERC in its September 6, 2005 Study Plan Determination (Determination). In addition, PG&E expects to file with FERC a supplemental Biological Assessment (BA) in early 2008, which will update the analysis on Chinook salmon and add an analysis on steelhead. Should additional consultation result in PG&E revising a measure proposed in this application, PG&E will file the revision with FERC. PG&E has prepared this Executive Summary to describe and summarize the information contained in the two volumes comprising the application for the Project. The intent of this Executive Summary is to give an overview of the major sections of the application. For additional detail, the reader is directed to the individual sections of the license application.




2.0 Key Drivers in Relicensing the DeSabla-Centerville Project In addition to the typical resource issues that arise in most hydro relicensing proceedings, three key drivers influence the relicensing of the Project: (1) the Project’s diversion of water from WBFR to Butte Creek provides critical cool water habitat that would not otherwise exist for threatened Chinook salmon and steelhead in Butte Creek; (2) Centerville Powerhouse is near the end of its service life and requires a substantial expenditure to continue operation during the next license term; and (3) forecasted Project economics are marginal, even using a higher market valuation for Project generation as an eligible RPS resource. Each of these drivers was considered in developing the proposed resource management measures for the next license term. In regards to item (1) above, a key feature of the Project is its trans-basin diversion of water from WBFR into Butte Creek. This trans-basin diversion, developed for power generation purposes, also provides the cold water to create additional Chinook salmon and steelhead spawning habitat in Butte Creek. Butte Creek was identified years ago by State and federal resource agencies as having a high potential for helping in the recovery of Chinook salmon and steelhead, both now listed as threatened species under the ESA. These resource agencies, members of the public, and PG&E have worked for more than a decade to successfully improve water quality, install fish screens, and remove barriers to fish migration on Butte Creek. Since 1999, Licensee has prepared annual Project Operations and Maintenance Plans in consultation with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), NOAA Fisheries, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the purpose of maximizing the cool water benefits the Project provides to Chinook salmon in Butte Creek during the summer months. These combined actions have produced spectacular results, such that Butte Creek has experienced recent returns of 10,000 to 20,000 spawning Chinook salmon per year, averaging 70% of the total population of Chinook salmon. While continued operation of the Project provides a significant benefit to the spring-run Chinook, altered operation of the Project to optimize Chinook salmon and steelhead habitat has also reduced power production. This impact has been predominately to Centerville Powerhouse, which has seen its average annual generation reduced by up to 50%. In regards to item (2) above, the Project includes three powerhouses: DeSabla, Toadtown, and Centerville. While the DeSabla and Toadtown powerhouses are relatively new (built in 1963 and 1986, respectively), the Centerville Powerhouse has been in service for over 100 years. A condition assessment performed in 2005 determined that key features of the Centerville Powerhouse facilities are near the end of their useful service life, and will need to be refurbished or replaced at substantial cost to continue powerhouse operation over the next license term. The Centerville facilities are not needed for the trans-basin diversion of water, but provide a point of delivering this water to Butte Creek. In regards to item (3) above, the Project is presently an economic source of generation, but faces two major new costs in the new license term: the cost of continuing Centerville Powerhouse1 operation over the next license term and the cost of implementing new license conditions. Even

1 As requested by FERC in Appendix B of its September 5, 2007 letter, additional information regarding the condition of Centerville Powerhouse can be found in Exhibit A, Section 4.3 of this application.



at the low end of their likely ranges, forecasted costs render the Project only marginally economic, even using a higher market valuation for Project generation as an eligible RPS resource. In developing this license application, the key challenge has been balancing the scope of new resource management measures to achieve sound environmental protection while keeping the Project at least marginally economic, so that it can continue to operate and support Chinook salmon and steelhead habitat in Butte Creek. 3.0 Status of the Relicensing PG&E has complied with FERC’s Determination and Process Plan and Schedule, as modified by FERC from time to time during the proceeding. However, implementation of some studies has been delayed due to difficulty in gaining access to private property and the unusually late runoff in the spring 2005. Table ES-1 below provides the status of each study included in the Determination, FERC’s review under 18 CFR § 5.15, and PG&E’s assessment of status of each study. Studies are characterized as “Complete” (all work is done and the results are included in the license application); “Substantially Complete” (all work is done except for follow-up consultation with Relicensing Participants); “Work Remaining” (substantial work, which is described in the text below the table, remains to be completed); or “Deleted (D)/Placeholder (P)” (identifies studies deleted from the Determination and studies used as placeholders in the event that added information is needed or if PG&E proposes changes to the Project). Table ES-1. Status of Relicensing Studies.

18 CFR § 5.15 – Date of FERC’s Study Determination

Licensee’s Assessment of Study Status Study

Plan No. Study Name May 18,

2007 July 5, 2007

September 5, 2007

January 4, 20083 Complete Substantially

Complete Work

Remaining1 Deleted (D) /

Placeholder (P)

GEOLOGY AND SOIL RESOURCES

6.3.1-1

Inventory and Assessment of Project and Ancillary Road-Related Erosion

X X

6.3.1-2

Reservoir Spillway-Related Erosion and Sediment Transport Survey

X X

6.3.1-3

Canal Spillway-Related Erosion and Sediment Transport Survey

X X

6.3.1-4 Water Conveyance Geologic Hazards Risk Assessment

X X

WATER RESOURCES

6.3.2-1

Development of a Regulated and Unimpaired Hydrology Database for Project-Affected Stream Reaches

X X2

6.3.2-3 Develop Project Operations Model X X3




Table ES-1. (continued) 18 CFR § 5.15 – Date of FERC’s Study

Determination Licensee’s Assessment of

Study Status Study Plan No.

Study Name May 18,

2007 July 5, 2007

September 5, 2007

January 4, 20083 Complete Substantiall

y Complete Work


Placeholder (P)

6.3.2-4

Develop Water Temperature Model and Monitor Water Temperatures

X X

6.3.2-5

Measure and Evaluate Water Quality in Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches

X X

FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

6.3.3-1

Survey Spring-run Chinook Salmon Pre-Spawning Mortality and Spawning Escapement

X

6.3.3-2

Perform Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Lower Butte Creek

X X

6.3.3-3

Assessment of RT&E Amphibians and Aquatic Reptile Species Habitat Near Project Reservoirs and Project Affected Stream Reaches

X X

6.3.3-4

Characterize Fish Populations in Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches

X X

6.3.3-5

Survey Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Project-Affected Stream Reaches Using CSBP Protocols

X X

6.3.3-6

Assessment of Fish Entrainment and Upstream Fish Passage Issues at DeSabla-Centerville Project Facilities

X X

6.3.3-7 Assess Mollusk Habitat and Presence in the Project Area

X X

6.3.3-8

Perform Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Upper Butte Creek

X X

6.3.3-9

Perform Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Lower West Branch Feather River

X X

6.3.3-10

Perform Instream Flow Studies and Habitat Mapping on Upper West Branch Feather River

X X

6.3.3-11 Canal Feeder Stream Study Plan X X





Study Status Study Plan No.

Study Name May 18,

2007 July 5, 2007

September 5, 2007

January 4, 20083 Complete Substantiall

y Complete Work


Placeholder (P)

WILDLIFE RESOURCES

6.3.4-1

Assess Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat and Presence within the Project Boundary

X X

6.3.4-2

Assess Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon Habitat and Presence in the Project Area

X X

6.3.4-4

Assess Willow Flycatcher Habitat and Presence within the Project Boundary

X X

6.3.4-5 Survey RT&E Bats at High Potential Project Facilities

X X

6.3.4-6

Survey RT&E Forest Carnivores Near Project Features and Affected Stream Reaches

X D

6.3.4-7 Special Status Wildlife Species Assessment

X X

BOTANICAL RESOURCES

6.3.5-1 Map RT&E Plant Species X X

6.3.5-2 Classify and Map Vegetation Communities

X X

6.3.5-3 Map and Assess Noxious Weeds X X

RECREATION

6.3.6-9 Recreation Flow Study X X

6.3.6-12 Recreation Needs Assessment X X4

6.3.6-13 Recreation Demand Study X X

6.3.6-14 Recreation Visitor and Resident Survey X X

6.3.6-15

Inventory and Assessment of Recreation Facilities and Use Impacts

X X

6.3.6-16 Recreation Carrying Capacity and Suitability

X X

AESTHETICS 6.3.7-1 Visual Assessment X X5 P

CULTURAL/TRIBAL INTERESTS

6.3.8-1 Archaeological and Historic-Era Properties

X X

6.3.8-2 Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) X X

6.3.8-3 Historic Project Feature Assessment X X






Study Status Study Plan No. Study Name

May 18, 2007

July 5, 2007

September 5, 2007

January 4, 20083 Complete Substantially

Complete Work


Placeholder (P)

SOCIO-ECONOMIC

6.3.9-2

Assess Socio-economic Effects of Alternative Project Management Actions

X X P

TRIBAL RESOURCES

6.3.10-1

Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) (same as Study Plan 6.3.8-2)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

OTHER STUDIES

6.3.11-2

Identify and Evaluate Potential Impacts of Discontinuing Operation of Centerville Ph

X D

1 The remaining work for these studies as well as PG&E’s plan to complete each is described in the text below. 2 This study required PG&E to propose water year types. The application includes a water year type proposal; however, remaining minor work

for this study includes continued consultation with Relicensing Participants. 3 PG&E has agreed to make reasonable runs of the Water Balance Model for Relicensing Participants. 4 PG&E has agreed to review the recreation information with Relicensing Participants. 5 FERC’s May 18, 2007 letter noted that additional information might be needed if PG&E proposed resource management measures did not

address visual impacts. As described in the above table, substantial work (i.e., other than a commitment to review the study data with Relicensing Participants) remains on six studies. PG&E’s plan to complete each of these studies is described below.

• Study 6.3.2-5, Measure and Evaluate Water Quality in Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches: PG&E collected water quality data in 2006 and included this information in the application. PG&E also collected water quality data throughout the Project area in late summer 2007. The water samples are being analyzed by qualified laboratories, and PG&E expects to have the results by November 2007. PG&E expects to compile the results, discuss them with Relicensing Participants, and file the results with FERC by January 1, 2008.

• Study 6.3.3-4, Characterize Fish Populations in Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected

Stream Reaches: PG&E collected fish population data in 2006 and included this information in the application. As required by FERC, PG&E will sample fish at six stream locations in October 2007, compile and analyze the data. PG&E expects to discuss the information with Relicensing Participants, and file the information with FERC by January 1, 2008.

• Study 6.3.3-6, Assessment of Fish Entrainment and Upstream Fish Passage Issues at

DeSabla-Centerville Project Facilities: As provided in FERC’s letter dated July 5, 2007, FERC will review and evaluate the results of all additional fish sampling (described above) and make a determination regarding the need for additional work under Study 6.3.3-6.



• Study 6.3.2-4, Develop Water Temperature Model and Monitor Water Temperatures: As provided in the Determination, PG&E developed USFWS’ Stream Network Temperature Model (SNTEMP) for the lower WBFR. However, at the request of some Relicensing Participants, PG&E monitored water temperature in the lower WBFR through summer/early fall 2007, and is in the process of re-calibrating the lower WBFR SNTEMP model using these data. PG&E expects to provide the revised model to Relicensing Participants and file it with FERC by February 15, 2008. In addition, PG&E has offered to make reasonable runs of the water temperature models if requested by Relicensing Participants.

• Study 6.3.3-3, Assessment of RT&E Amphibian and Aquatic Reptile Species Habitat

Near Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches: PG&E has completed all portions of this study with the exception of developing a foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) two-dimensional flow/habitat model. Habitat Suitability Criteria for use in the model are in the process of being finalized by the Forest Service; site location for modeling was selected on August 23, 2007; and data are scheduled for collection during the period from October 1 through December 15, 2007. PG&E plans to compile the model, discuss it with Relicensing Participants, and file it with FERC by February 15, 2008.

• Study 6.3.8-2, Traditional Cultural Properties: Due to a delay in finalizing a

confidentiality agreement with some potentially-affected Indian tribes, PG&E does not expect to complete its Section 106 informal consultation until late 2007. PG&E expects to file a consultation report including a draft Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) with FERC by February 15, 2008.

While not a formal study, PG&E is in the process of consulting with the NOAA Fisheries, regarding a supplemental BA for continued Project operations. PG&E expects to file the supplemental BA with FERC by first quarter 2008. PG&E filed its Draft License Application (DLA) on May 14, 2007. Written comments were filed by:

• Butte Creek Watershed Conservation Board (letter dated August 10, 2007) • USFS, USFWS, National Parks Service (NPS), United States Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), NOAA Fisheries, CDFG and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (joint letter dated August 31, 2007)

• California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Friends of Butte Creek, Friends of the River (letter dated August 4, 2008)

• FERC (letter dated September 5, 2007)2 PG&E appreciates the substantial effort made by these Relicensing Participants to prepare the comments, and has considered the comments as PG&E prepared its application. 2 FERC’s September 5, 2007, letter provided four specific additional information requests as well as FERC’s comments on the DLA. The additional information is provided in the application.




PG&E emphasizes its commitment to continue discussions with Relicensing Participants regarding resource management measures as long as meaningful progress is being made. PG&E has scheduled meetings with Relicensing Participants for:

• October 24, 2007 • November 13 and 14, 2007 • December 11 and 12, 2007

PG&E intends to consult with Relicensing Participants regarding potential meeting dates in 2008. PG&E will keep FERC apprised of these efforts and results. Nevertheless, PG&E strongly emphasizes that FERC should not consider PG&E’s proposed measures in the application to be “placeholders.” The measures are proposed by PG&E for inclusion in the new license based on available information as described in the application. As described in this Section 3.0, PG&E believes many of the supporting studies are now fully complete, and no additional information is needed to complete development of resource management measures. If the results of the studies remaining to be completed or consultation with Relicensing Participants lead PG&E to modify the measures it proposed in the application, PG&E will file with FERC the appropriate amendment to its application. 4.0 Summary of Application 4.1 Initial Statement PG&E is the owner, operator, and holder of the existing FERC license for the Project, which expires on October 11, 2009. On October 4, 2004, PG&E filed with FERC its Notice of Intent (NOI) to file a final license application by October 11, 2007, for a new license to continue to operate the Project. The Initial Statement includes a list of agencies, political organizations, and Indian tribes that may be interested in the relicensing, and a draft public notice PG&E plans to post in local newspapers to advise the public that the application has been filed. A draft Tendering Notice for FERC’s use is attached to the Initial Statement. 4.2 Table of Contents The application is composed of two volumes. Each volume contains: 1) a table of contents including a list of tables and figures for that volume; and 2) a glossary of terms, abbreviations, and acronyms that are used frequently in the application. Volume I contains: 1) this Executive Summary; 2) an Initial Statement, including a draft Tender Notice for use by FERC staff; 3) Exhibit A - a Project description; 4) Exhibit B - a description of Project operations and resource utilization; 5) Exhibit C - a description of proposed construction; 6) Exhibit D - a statement of cost and financing; 7) Exhibit F - a list of design drawings; 8) Exhibit G - Project maps; and 9) Exhibit H - miscellaneous information to be provided by an applicant for a new license.



Volume 2 contains Exhibit E, the Environment Report. Exhibit E includes: 1) an introduction; 2) a general description of the river basins; 3) a description of cumulative effects consistent with FERC’s Scoping Document 2; 4) a description major applicable laws and the actions PG&E has taken or intends to take to comply with those laws; 5) a brief summary of the Project; 6) a description of the potentially affected environment by resources area, including the results of PG&E’s proposed relicensing studies; 7) an environmental analysis of Project effects; 8) PG&E’s proposed resource management measures as well as measures formally recommended by others as part of written comments on the DLA, and PG&E’s reasons if it did not adopt any recommended measures; 9) a description of unavoidable adverse impacts; 10) an economic analysis; 11) a description of the Project’s consistency with qualifying comprehensive plans; 12) consultation documentation; and 13) a list of cited literature. Exhibit F design drawings and Exhibit H Single Line Diagrams are considered Privileged, Non-Public Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII), and Exhibit G Project maps are considered Privileged, Non-Internet Public (NIP) information. Both Exhibit F design drawings and Exhibit G Project maps are filed with FERC under separate cover in both paper and electronic copy at the same time the application is filed. Additionally, PG&E’s site maps for cultural resource sites are considered Privileged, Proprietary/Confidential Information (Privileged) and are filed under separate cover. 4.3 Glossary A Glossary of Terms is provided after the Table of Contents in each of volume of the application. The glossary includes definition of terms used in the application, including acronyms. 4.4 Exhibit A – Project Description Exhibit A provides a detailed description of Project facilities and features, a discussion of the proposed Project facilities, and identifies lands of the United States that are occupied by the Project. The Project generally consists of three small reservoirs (Round Valley, Philbrook, and DeSabla Forebay), several small diversion and feeder dams, canals (with tunnels and flumes), penstocks, and three powerhouses (Toadtown, DeSabla, and Centerville). PG&E proposes to continue operating the Project for the next 50 years with no change to Project generation facilities or features other than adoption of the resource management measures proposed in this application, deletion of five stream diversions that have not been used for over 10 years, and an anticipated rebuild or refurbishment of Centerville Powerhouse. The total area within the FERC Project Boundary is 700.6 acres. Approximately 159.4 acres of land are owned by the United States (96.26 of these acres are subject to PG&E rights under the Act of July 26, 1866, 43 USC § 661)3. Of the federal lands, 145.7 acres are within the Lassen

3 As requested by FERC’s September 5, 2007 letter to Licensee, additional information regarding the Act of July 26, 1866, and PG&E’s rights under that legislation can be found in Exhibit A, Section 6.0 of this application.




National Forest, 2.1 acres are within the Plumas National Forest, and 11.6 acres are administered by the BLM. 4.5 Exhibit B – Project Operations and Resource Utilization Exhibit B provides a detailed description of Project operations and resource utilization by development, and a discussion of the proposed changes to Project operations as compared to Base Case (continue Project operations with no changes) conditions. Exhibit B describes Project operations under PG&E’s proposed measures for inclusion in the new license as described in the application. Flow information was developed using PG&E’s DeSabla-Centerville Project HEC ResSim Water Balance Model (executable version included on CD in this application). The Project is operated primarily as a run-of-the-river system on a continuous basis using the water supply available after compliance with the minimum instream flow requirements. During the winter and spring, base flows in WBFR and Butte Creek typically provide adequate flow for full operation of the Project powerhouses. During summer months, the available base flow water is augmented by water releases from Round Valley and Philbrook reservoirs. During the fall months Project powerhouses are operated at reduced capacities due to low stream flows. Since 1999, PG&E has operated the Project under an annual Project Operations and Maintenance Plan developed each spring in consultation with the CDFG, NOAA Fisheries, and USFWS for the protection and enhancement of Chinook salmon and steelhead. This plan outlines the procedures and practices followed by PG&E in the operation and maintenance of the Project facilities to enhance and protect habitat for these threatened fishes. This plan also provides the basis for modification of the reservoir temperature release criteria established in FERC’s August 21, 1997 order, as amended by its August 20, 1998 order. Under the plan, water is released from reservoirs on the WBFR, first from Round Valley Reservoir, followed by the release of water from Philbrook Reservoir as high temperatures occur during the summer. These releases, together with the diversion of natural flow from the WBFR, provide an additional source of cool water to Butte Creek. See Exhibit E, Section 8.0, for a description of PG&E’s proposed modifications to Project operations. All Project powerhouses are operated remotely and monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by operators at PG&E’s Rock Creek switching center on the North Fork Feather River. Field maintenance crews typically work four days each week and are located at Camp 1, adjacent to DeSabla Forebay. If an alarm at a powerhouse or on a canal is received at Rock Creek switching center, the switching center can dispatch a roving operator to investigate the situation. At various locations on the canal system, PG&E maintains water release gates that can be operated remotely to discharge the canal flow to the adjacent stream channel. This minimizes potential impacts that might otherwise result from events such as a canal or flume overtopping or failure. PG&E also reduces canal flows during storm periods to reduce the risk of canal overtopping and failures. Maintenance of canals and powerhouses is typically scheduled in the winter and spring months to avoid possible disruptions at times that may be sensitive for the Chinook salmon.



PG&E holds water rights necessary to operate the Project for power generation. A stated above, PG&E does not propose any capacity or generation enhancements to the Project. Ongoing Project maintenance includes testing gates and valves at dams and intakes throughout the year. Spill gates are operated in the spring and fall consistent with the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) gate operations certificates. Outlying facilities are checked weekly, and trash racks are cleaned at intakes during these visits, or as necessary during spring runoff and storm events. PG&E typically conducts annual maintenance on powerhouses during the spring to avoid disruption of providing cold water to Butte Creek at other times of the year when such augmentation may be critical. Maintenance includes inspections of all equipment and may include replacing parts, calibrating components, collecting oil samples and welding and grinding. Annual maintenance does not typically require a reservoir drawdown. Exhibit B provides all information required by FERC regulations by development including but not limited to average annual energy production, recorded flow information, monthly flow duration curves, area-capacity curves, target elevation curves, minimum and maximum hydraulic capacity of each power plant, tailwater rating curves, and power plant capability versus head curves. 4.6 Exhibit C – Proposed Construction PG&E does not propose to add capacity or generation facilities, or make any major modifications to the Project or its operation at this time. The construction schedule for any new environmental and recreational facilities and for removal of unneeded facilities in the current license is included in Exhibit E. 4.7 Exhibit D – Statement of Costs and Financing Exhibit D provides a statement of Project costs and financing and includes a statement of the estimated annual value of Project power. Exhibit D describes the Project using FERC’s current cost method with PG&E’s proposed resource management measures and the cost of continuing Centerville Powerhouse over a new license term. In summary, the net book value of the Project as of May 2007 is estimated to be $31.4 million. PG&E’s estimated total cost of obtaining a new license, not including implementing new license conditions, is about $14.5 million. The average annual cost of the total Project in 2007 dollars using FERC’s current cost method and no new license conditions is estimated to be about $12,276,000 per year. Future capital additions are estimated to average $1,900,000/yr, and include the cost of rebuilding Centerville Powerhouse. The annual FERC fee is about $120,000/yr. Property taxes for the Project for 2006 totaled about $1,090,000 and PG&E paid about $828,000 in Project-related income taxes in 2006.




The alternative sources of power currently available to PG&E are increased purchases and new generation developments. Since the Project powerhouses are considered “renewable” small hydroelectric facilities under State law.4, any reduced power production of the Project would need to be replaced by another source of renewable electrical energy. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) periodically publishes “Market Price Referents” (MPRs) which is an estimation of the long-term market price of electricity for baseload and peaking power products that will be used in evaluating bid products received during RPS power solicitations. The MPRs represent “the levelized price at which the proxy power plant revenues exactly equal the expected proxy power plant costs on a net-present value (NPV) basis.”5 As a reference, the 20-year levelized 2007 Baseload MPR is estimated to be 8.1 cents per kWh. Current costs for replacement renewable energy in California are not available. In keeping with the FERC current-cost economic methodology, the CPUC-published average monthly short run avoided cost of 8.6 cents per kWh is used as a proxy for the value of renewable power. 4.8 Exhibit E – Environmental Report Each major section in Exhibit E is described below. Section 1 – Introduction This section describes the contents of Exhibit E, which are described below by section. Section 2 – General Description of the River Basins The Project is located in northern California in the Butte Creek and WBFR drainages. Both drainages are located in Butte County along the western slope of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range geomorphic provinces. The City of Chico is the nearest population center to the Project. Lands within the Project Drainage basins are predominantly privately owned with small portions owned by the United States and managed by the Forest Service as part of the Lassen and Plumas national forests, and by United States Bureau of land Management (BLM). The majority of the privately-owned land is owned by PG&E and Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI). A number of multi-agency and multi-stakeholder programs have been put into effect in lower Butte Creek (below the Project Drainage basins) over approximately the past decade to aid in the restoration of aquatic habitats and their utilization by fish and other aquatic habitat-dependent species. Many of these have been aimed at improving conditions for upstream and downstream migration, spawning, and rearing of anadromous fish, particularly Chinook salmon and steelhead. The Project Region experiences warm, dry summers and cool winters with significant snowfall in the higher elevations (above 5,000 feet) and extensive rain in the lower elevations. Heat storms are common in summer.

4 See California Public Utilities Code § 399.12(b)(1)(A). 5 D.04-06-015, p.6.



Section 3 – Cumulative Effects FERC’s Scoping Document 2 (SD2) stated that water quality, water quantity, and fisheries (especially Chinook salmon and steelhead) may be cumulatively affected by the continued Project O&M in combination with other activities that occur in the Butte Creek and WBFR watersheds. The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis includes: 1) Butte Creek from the headwaters to, but not including, Parrot-Phelan Diversion Dam including tributary streams to Butte Creek that currently are or historically have been diverted for the Project; and 2) WBFR from its headwaters to, but not including, the Miocene Diversion Dam including tributary streams to the WBFR that currently are or historically have been diverted for the Project. The temporal scope of cumulative analysis includes about 30 to 50 years into the future. Reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect water quality, water quantity, and fisheries include: 1) continued management of the Plumas and Lassen National Forests by the Forest Service; 2) continued operation of the Forks of Butte Hydroelectric Project; 3) continued use of public and private lands in the watershed; and 4) implementation of Skyway Road Improvement Project. Section 4 – Compliance with Applicable Laws The Project complies will all major applicable laws. Section 5 – Existing and Proposed Project Facilities and Operations This section is a summary of Exhibit A and B and includes a description of existing and proposed Project facilities and operations, and includes an estimate of dependable capacity and annual average energy generation. See Exhibit E, Section 8.0, for a description of PG&E’s proposed measures, including existing measures PG&E proposes to continue. Section 6 – Affected Environment The Affected Environment is discussed by major resource areas, each of which is summarized below. In addition, this section describes each study related with that resource. Geology and Soils Four studies are related to geology and soils:

• Study 6.3.1-1: Inventory and Assessment of Project and Ancillary Roads-related Erosion • Study 6.3.1-2: Reservoir Spillway-Related Erosion and Sediment Transport Survey6 • Study 6.3.1-3: Canal Spillway-Related Erosion and Sediment Transport Survey • Study 6.3.3-4: Water Conveyance Geologic Hazards Risks Assessment

6 As part of compliance with the current FERC license, PG&E is in the process of addressing potential erosion problems at Philbrook Dam spillway. PG&E expects corrective measures will be in place before the current license expires.




Studies 6.3.1-1, 6.3.1-2, and 6.3.1-4 were addressed in FERC’s letter dated July 5, 2007, in which FERC stated that PG&E had met the goals and objectives of these three studies. In its letter dated September 6, 2007, FERC determined Study 6.3.1-3 was adequate. At the time this application is filed, PG&E considers these four studies complete (Table ES-1). Based on these studies and historic information, the roads within the Project Boundary are generally in good condition. With the exception of a few localized problems, roads are generally stable and do not pose significant catastrophic erosion concerns. There are, however, a number of road areas and culverts that are in need of repair or upgrade (e.g., increasing the number of drainage devices such as culverts or rolling dips, and improved management of side cast materials during road-blading activities) to minimize future sediment production from the roads. Observation of the WBFR indicates that it has not been adversely affected by sediment input from erosion at the Round Valley Spillway. The rock underlying the spillway channel is relatively hard and indurated, and resistant to erosion. Some alluvial debris has accumulated at the mouth of the spillway discharge channel north of its confluence with the WBFR. It is likely that other materials eroded from the channel over the past 130 years have been carried away down the WBFR. The erosion rate of the Round Valley Spillway channel is estimated to be relatively low (about 1 foot of vertical incision every 22 years and limited lateral migration). Half of the 24 Project canal spillway channels have a low amount of sediment available and low risk of sediment being added to either the receiving stream or mainstem of the stream. Five of the 24 canal spillway channels have moderate sediment availability due to the channels having discontinuous erodible sections, with possible or intermittent transport of sediment to an active stream. Seven spillway channels are actively eroding. Of these seven, two have a large amount of sediment potentially available to an active stream because of direct erosive action by the spilling, and the other five have sediment available because they were created in drainages that had either unstable and erosive parent material or other actions in the basin initiated erosion (e.g., not directly related to spillway use but spillway use may have exacerbated the problem). On average, 12 potential geologic hazards per mile were found along the 36.5 miles of Project water conveyance facilities. Nearly half of the length of Butte Canal and the Lower Centerville Canal was considered moderate or higher risk (49% and 48%, respectively). In comparison, 14% of the Hendricks Canal was considered to have a moderate or higher risk. Both the Upper Centerville and Toadtown canals received comparable but considerably lower overall risk assignments (<1%). Water Resources Four studies are related to water resources:

• Study 6.3.2-1: Development of a Regulated and Unimpaired Hydrology Database for Project-Affected Stream Reaches

• Study 6.3.2-3: Develop Project Operations Model • Study 6.3.2-4: Develop Model and Monitor Water Temperature



• Study 6.3.2-5: Measure and Evaluate Water Quality in Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Steam Reaches

These four studies were addressed by FERC’s letter dated September 6, 2007, in which FERC stated that no additional modifications to the studies were needed. As described in Section 3 in this Executive Summary and in Table ES-1, PG&E considers these studies to be complete with the exception of additional consultation regarding proposed water year types (Study 6.3.2-1), making reasonable model runs for Relicensing Participants as requested (Study 6.3.2-3), final calibration of the lower WBFR SNTEMP water temperature model and making reasonable model runs as requested by Relicensing Participants (Study 6.3.2-4), and reporting the results of summer low-flow water quality sampling (Study 6.3.2-5). Notwithstanding the above, three of the relicensing studies provide information or models to assist Relicensing Participants in developing potential resource management measures. Study 6.3.2-1 collated existing regulated stream flow and reservoir elevation information, synthesized unimpaired hydrology, and compared regulated and synthesized stream flow data using Indicator of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) statistics. Study 6.3.2-3 resulted in the development of a HEC ResSim water balance computer model that includes all Project facilities. Study 6.3.2-4 monitored water temperature throughout the Project Area, and resulting data were used to develop three water temperature computer models: 1) a CE-QUAL-W2 water temperature model that extends from and includes Philbrook and Round Valley reservoirs, the upper WBFR, Hendricks/Toadtown Canals, DeSabla Forebay, and lower Butte Creek from DeSabla Powerhouse to just below Centerville Powerhouse; and 2) two SNTEMP water temperature models, one of upper Butte Creek from Butte Head Dam to Forks of the Butte and the other of lower WBFR from Hendricks Head Dam to the Miocene impoundment. The results of these studies are included in this application. The fourth study (Study 6.3.2-5) monitored water quality throughout the Project Area in spring, summer and fall 2006 as well as over the Independence Day and Labor Day holiday periods. Based on data generated by this study to date, PG&E considers water quality to be in accordance with the Basin Plan with the exception of high bacteria in DeSabla Forebay, which PG&E believes is related to dense waterfowl populations and short durations of elevated turbidity. In addition, PG&E used the water temperature models to assist in developing PG&E’s proposed flow-related resource management measures (Section 8). Fish and Aquatic Resources Ten studies are related to fish and aquatic resources:

• Study 6.3.3-2: Perform Instream Flow Study and Habitat Mapping on Lower Butte Creek • Study 6.3.3-3: Assessment of RT&E Amphibian and Aquatic Reptile Species Near

Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected Stream Reaches • Study 6.3.3-4: Characterize Fish Populations in Project Reservoirs and Project-Affected

Stream Reaches • Study 6.3.3-5: Survey Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Project-Affected Stream Reaches

Using CSBP Protocols




• Study 6.3.3-6: Entrainment of Fish in Project Facilities Affecting National Forest and State of California Resources

• Study 6.3.3-7: Assess Mollusk Habitat and Presence in the Project Area • Study 6.3.3-8: Perform Instream Flow Study and Habitat Mapping on Upper Butte Creek • Study 6.3.3-9: Perform Instream Flow Study and Habitat Mapping on Lower WBFR • Study 6.3.3-10: Perform Instream Flow Study and Habitat Mapping on Upper WBFR • Study 6.3.3-11: Canal Feeder Stream Study Plan

An eleventh study (Study 6.3.3-1, Survey Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Pre-Spawning Mortality and Spawning Escapement) pertains to a species listed under the ESA, and is included in Section 6.7 of this document. FERC determined in its letter dated May 18, 2007, that PG&E had met the goals and objectives of Study 6.3.3-7 (Mollusks). In a letter dated July 5, 2007, FERC modified Study 6.3.3-4 (Fish Populations) to require PG&E collect additional fish sampling data at six locations in fall 2007. These data were collected in fall 2007 and will be provided to FERC by January 1, 2008. In its July 5 letter, FERC also delayed making a determination regarding Study 6.3.3-6 (Entrainment) until after all fish population data were collected, which as described above will not be provided to FERC until January 1, 2008. FERC addressed the adequacy of Studies 6.3.3-3 (Amphibians), 6.3.3-5 (BMI) and 6.3.3-11 (Canal Feeders) in its September 6, 2007 letter. FERC determined Study 6.3.3-11 was adequate. As described in Section 3 in this Executive Summary, PG&E is in the process of completing Study 6.3.3-3, which will include developing a FYLF 2D model in fall/winter 2007. The adequacy of Studies 6.3.3-2 (Lower Butte Creek Instream Flow), 6.3.3-8 (Upper Butte Creek Instream Flow), 6.3.3-9 (Lower WBFR Instream Flow) and 6.3.3-10 (Upper WBFR Instream Flow) will be addressed by FERC as part of its Updated Study Report study review process, with a determination from FERC due by January 4, 2008. As described in Section 3 in this Executive Summary and in Table ES-1, PG&E considers these studies to be complete with the exception developing a 2D flow/habitat model for FYLF in lower WBFR (Study 6.3.3-3), collecting additional fish population data (Study 6.3.3-4), and re-visiting entrainment after the fish population data is collected (Study 6.3.3-6). Notwithstanding the above, FYLF were observed in various life stages and were well distributed throughout the study area, which included NFS land from Philbrook Reservoir to Miocene Diversion Dam on the WBFR. Since 1999, PG&E has consulted with CDFG, NOAA Fisheries, and USFWS to develop annual Project Operations and Maintenance Plans for the purpose of maximizing the cool water benefits the Project provides to Chinook salmon in lower Butte Creek during summer months. PG&E's and CDFG's ongoing sampling in lower Butte Creek demonstrated the benefit of this operations, with both Chinook salmon and steelhead found in lower Butte Creek. PG&E's sampling at seven sites from Lower Centerville Diversion Dam to Honey Run Covered Bridge documented these anadromous fishes as well as transitional zone species (e.g., hardhead, Sacramento pikeminnow, Sacramento sucker, California roach, tule perch, and sculpin species). Upstream of Lower Centerville Diversion Dam, PG&E found rainbow and brown trout at the four sites sampled.



Fish species composition in the WBFR from Round Valley Reservoir to the Miocene Diversion impoundment (seven sites) was similar to that found in Butte Creek with the exceptions that brook trout were found in the uppermost elevations and anadromous fish were not found. Rainbow and brown trout were found throughout the WBFR, with transitional zone species found 1-2 miles upstream of the Miocene Diversion impoundment. Sampling one site in Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Dam found rainbow and brown trout. Fish population, size class distribution, condition factor, and other statistics, including for fish sampling in canal feeders and Coon Hollow Creek, are provided. Overall benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) sampling suggested some Project effect on BMI assemblages downstream of Philbrook and Round Valley reservoirs, but little effect associated with Project diversions. A small response was documented downstream of Project diversions for one sensitive metric (EPT Taxa), while several integrated metrics representing multiple characteristics of the BMI assemblage indicated no significant response. Project canals contain fish of the same species and age distribution as contributing streams. PG&E has recorded the species, number, and size of the fish during fish rescue operations performed prior to annual canal outages. Systematic differences in fish abundance in streams above and below Project diversions are not apparent. Special-status mollusks were not found during Relicensing studies. Wildlife Resources Four studies are related to wildlife resources:

• Study 6.3.4-2: Assess Bald Eagle, Osprey and Peregrine Falcon Habitat and Presence in Project Boundary

• Study 6.3.4-4: Assess Willow Flycatcher Habitat and Presence in Project Boundary • Study 6.3.4-5: Survey RT&E Bats at High Potential Project Facilities • Study 6.3.4-7: Special-Status Wildlife Species Assessment

A fifth study (Study 6.3.4-1, Assess Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat and Presence in Project Boundary) pertains to valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB), which is protected under the ESA. This study is addressed in Section 6.7, Species Protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act. None of the wildlife resources five studies documented the presence of species listed under the ESA. FERC determined in its letter dated May 18, 2007, that PG&E had, with some minor modification, met the goals and objectives of three wildlife studies: Studies 6.3.4-4 (Willow Flycatcher), 6.3.4-5 (Bats), and 6.3.4-7 (Special-status Wildlife). The adequacy of the remaining study, Study 6.3.4-2 (Bald Eagle, Osprey and Falcon), will be addressed by FERC as part of its




Updated Study Report study review process, with a determination from FERC due by January 4, 2008. At the time this application is filed, PG&E considers all four wildlife studies complete. Willow flycatcher was not detected in the Project Area. Bat surveys found one bat roost site (Centerville Powerhouse), and of the five bat species identified, only one (western red bat) is a special-status species (CSC). Using the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR), PG&E found potentially suitable habitat for 57 special-status wildlife species: 2 reptiles, 45 birds, and 10 mammals. The application includes the location of the suitable habitat by species and an assessment of the potential for occurrence for each species. PG&E found active osprey nests along Butte Creek near Butte Siphon and on the north shore of Philbrook Reservoir, but no active peregrine falcon nests. Potential peregrine falcon nesting cliffs were identified along lower Butte Creek. Botanical Resources Three studies are related to botanical resources:

● Study 6.3.5-1: Map RT&E Plant Species ● Study 6.3.5-2: Classify and Map Vegetation Communities ● Study 6.3.5-3: Map and Assess Noxious Weeds

FERC determined in its letter dated May 18, 2007, that PG&E had, with some minor modification, met the goals and objectives of two botanical studies: Studies 6.3.5-2 (Vegetation Mapping) and 6.3.5-3 (Noxious Weeds). The adequacy of the remaining Study 6.3.5-1 (RT&E Plant Species) will be addressed by FERC as part of its Updated Study Report study review process, with a determination from FERC due by January 4, 2008. At the time this application is filed, PG&E considers all three botanical resources studies complete. One of the botanical studies mapped over 6,780 acres in the Project Area and roads used by PG&E for Project purposes, of which about 40% was a single vegetation type: Douglas-fir–Ponderosa Pine. Nine noxious weeds, the more common of which were Spanish and French broom, were found in the Project Area. Other noxious weeds were black locust, common fig, English ivy, Johnsongrass, periwinkle, tocalote, and tree-of-heaven. Noxious weeds were most commonly associated with linear rights-of-way and roads. Ten special-status plants were found: 1) Ahart’s sulfur-flower, 2) Butte County calycadenia, 3) Butte County morning glory, 4) cut-leaved ragwort, 5) Humboldt lily, 6) Jepson’s onion, 7) Sanborn’s onion, 8) shield-bracted monkeyflower, 9) tall checkerbloom, and 10) white-stemmed clarkia. No plant species listed under the ESA were found. Wetlands, Riparian and Littoral Habitat FERC did not require any studies related to wetlands, riparian, or littoral habitat; historic information with information developed by the wildlife and botanical studies was deemed adequate.



Riparian vegetation occurs primarily along the WBFR and upper Butte Creek, with minor wetlands adjacent to the Project reservoirs. Vegetation mapping performed as part of the botanical studies included the Project Area and roads used by PG&E for Project purposes, and identified two wetland types, Freshwater Emergent Wetlands and Montane Wetland Shrub, which together represented less than 1% of the area mapped. Species Protected under the ESA While a number of PG&E’s studies included surveys for species protected under the ESA or resulted in models that are useful in developing resource management measures related to ESA-protected species, two studies specifically focused on ESA-protected species:

• Study 6.3.3-1: Survey Spring-run Chinook Salmon Pre-spawning Mortality and Spawning Escapement

• Study 6.3.4-1: Assess Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat and Presence within Project Boundary

FERC determined in its letter dated May 18, 2007, that PG&E had met the goals and objectives of Study 6.3.4-1 (VELB). FERC’s letter dated September 6, 2007, addressed Study 6.3.3-1. At the time this application is filed, PG&E considers these two studies complete. Three species protected under the ESA are potentially-affected by the Project: VELB, Chinook salmon, and steelhead. Nineteen elderberry plants, the host plant for VELB, were found in lower elevations but no indications of VELB were observed. Chinook salmon and steelhead occur in lower Butte Creek. During summer and fall, the Project is operated primarily to support and enhance these naturally-reproducing populations of Chinook salmon found in lower Butte Creek. Recreation Six studies are related to recreation:

• Study 6.3.6-9: Recreation Flow Study • Study 6.3.6-12: Recreation Needs Assessment • Study 6.3.6-13: Recreation Demand • Study 6.3.6-14: Recreation Visitor and Resident Survey • Study 6.3.6-15: Inventory and Assessment of Recreation Facilities and Use Impacts • Study 6.3.6-16: Recreation Carrying Capacity and Suitability

FERC determined in its letter dated May 18, 2007, that PG&E had met the goals and objectives of Study 6.3.6-9 (Recreation Flow). Similarly, in its letter dated September 6, 2007, FERC determined PG&E met the goals and objectives of Study 6.3.6-15 (Inventory and Assessment). The adequacy of the remaining four studies (6.3.6-12, -13, -14, and -16) will be addressed by FERC as part of its Updated Study Report study review process, with a determination from




FERC due by January 4, 2008. At the time this application is filed, PG&E considers all recreation studies complete, with the minor exception that PG&E plans to review the results of the Need Study with Relicensing Participants. The Project’s primary recreation resources, which include recreation sites, recreation facilities, and recreation activity opportunities, are focused around Philbrook Reservoir (Philbrook Angler Access, Philbrook Campground, and the Philbrook Picnic and Camping Overflow Area) and DeSabla Forebay (three general recreation areas). The Lassen National Forest (LNF) also operates the Willows Area on Philbrook Creek about 0.5 mile east of Philbrook Reservoir, and the reservoir is the setting for 42 summer homes that lie outside of the Project Boundary on lands owned by PG&E. Limited dispersed recreation occurs around Round Valley Reservoir, and Project canals provide hiking and equestrian opportunities. Project recreation facilities at Philbrook Reservoir are generally in good condition; however, most are not universally accessible according to current standards. PG&E’s recreation flow study indicates that the Project, as currently operated for the protection and enhancement of Chinook salmon, has little potential to provide boating flow releases. However, boaters did identify an interest for improved access and flow information. On average, visitors rated their overall quality of experience at the Project as good to excellent. They were also asked to rate the overall acceptability of several items relative to the condition of the environment and facilities in the Project Area. Of those visitors with an opinion, the overall environmental conditions of the Project Area were rated the highest. Items considered marginal overall included items associated with information and signage, including the number, location, and quality of directional signs and interpretive information signs and kiosks. Detailed information regarding travel characteristics (size of recreation groups), activities, preferred recreation setting, perceptions of crowding, perception of recreation facility conditions and problems, new facilities or services, and other recreation-related items is provided. Land Use FERC did not require any studies related to wetlands, riparian, or littoral habitat; historic information was deemed adequate. Lands within the upper portion of the Project Area are primarily owned by SPI and the federal government, which are administered by LNF. Some State, PG&E, and other private ownership also occur within the upper Project Area. Primary land owners in the lower Project Area include SPI, PG&E, other private owners, and the federal government, which lands are managed by the PNF along the WBFR, and BLM along Butte Creek. Some State ownership also occurs in the lower Project Area. Primary land uses in the Project Area include Project operation and maintenance, timber harvesting, a variety of outdoor recreation activities, wildlife and resource management, and residential uses.



Aesthetics FERC did not require any studies related to aesthetics (an aesthetics-related study was deleted by FERC’s letter dated May 18, 2007, unless FERC determined additional information was needed to develop aesthetic-related resource management measures); historic information was deemed adequate. The scenic landscape along the WBFR is characterized by steep wall canyons, covered with a conifer forest, with some variations in landforms. Roads, residences, and other man-made developments are infrequent. While a few roads (e.g., the Humbug Summit Road and the USFS West Branch Campground and Retson Road) along the ridge tops provide views into the WBFR canyon, these views are limited by the intervening rugged terrain and steep canyon walls. Similarly, the upper portion of Upper Butte Creek runs through a deep, narrow incised canyon that is inaccessible for much of its length. The canyon supports a dense vegetation cover ranging from riparian vegetation along Butte Creek at the bottom of the canyon, to foothill woodland along the canyon walls. The steep sloped canyon has limited developments and is typically reached via unimproved roads. The grade diminishes in lower Butte Creek downstream of Centerville Powerhouse, which is the most heavily settled portion of the watershed. This area is distinctive for canyon views from both the canyon bottom and rim. Unique vistas are significant attractions to the area, particularly the sloping canyon walls capped by cliffs and bluffs for which the county was named. In addition, the riparian stream corridor is attractive for its varied vegetation and water features. There are views of the river as it flows through the canyon bottom near Parrott-Phelan Diversion Dam from Honey Run Road and Humbug Road, as well as from the south rim of the Skyway. Along the north rim, however, views are limited due to inaccessibility. Cultural Resources and Tribal Interests Three studies are related to cultural resources and tribal interests:

• Study 6.3.8-1: Archeological and Historic-Era Properties • Study 6.3.8-2: Traditional Cultural Properties • Study 6.3.8-3: Historic Project Feature Assessment

In its letter dated September 6, 2007, FERC determined Studies 6.3.8-1 (Archeological and Historic-Era) and 6.3.8-3 (Historic Project Features) had met the goals and objectives of the studies. The adequacy of Study 6.3.8-2 (Traditional Cultural Properties) will be addressed by FERC as part of its Updated Study Report study review process, with a determination from FERC due by January 4, 2008. As described in Section 3 of this Executive Summary and in Table ES-1, PG&E considers these three studies to be complete with the exception of completing tribal consultation and development of a draft HPMP. PG&E is the designated non-federal representative under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for informal consultation. Consultation is ongoing with the Forest Service,




BLM, the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, the Greenville Rancheria, and SHPO. A total of 46 archeological and historic era sites were identified. Of the 46 archeological and historic era sites, 34 sites contain only historic-era cultural remains, 4 sites were prehistoric cultural sites and contain only prehistoric cultural remains, and 8 sites contain a combination of both historic-era cultural remains and pre-historic cultural remains. Of the 34 historic-era cultural sites, 5 were evaluated as eligible, 2 require further studies before an evaluation can be made, and the remaining 27 sites were recommended ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Until formal evaluation is undertaken, all prehistoric sites are considered potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. The historic Project features assessment indicates that the Project may be eligible for the NRHP as a historic district. Socioeconomic FERC did not require any studies related to socio-economics (a socio-economic-related study was deleted by FERC’s letter dated May 18, 2007, with the caveat that if FERC determined additional socio-economic information was needed, PG&E would develop the information); historic information was deemed adequate. The Project is located within Butte County. The nearest major population center is Chico. Section 7 – Environmental Analysis A primary benefit of the Project is enhancement of habitat in lower Butte Creek for two ESA-listed fishes: Chinook salmon and steelhead. This enhancement is possible due to the Project’s transfer of cool water in summer from the Project reservoirs on the WBFR. This transfer is particularly important during summer heat storms. PG&E believes that this water transfer enhancement is by far the most significant environmental effect of the Project. PG&E’s environmental analysis identified areas where continued Project operation and maintenance could result in potential adverse environmental impacts. Some of these include: 1) erosion and water quality impacts from use of Project roads, dam spillways, and canal overflows; 2) spread of invasive plants; 3) damage to non-ESA-listed special-status plants; 4) recreation impacts at developed recreation facilities; and 5) potential impacts to cultural sites. PG&E’s analysis also identified areas of potential enhancement. These included: 1) modifying stream flows to provide enhanced habitat for fish and amphibians, to the extent that such modification does not inhibit the ability of the Project to enhance Chinook salmon and steelhead habitat in lower Butte Creek; 2) replacement of outdated recreation facilities with newer facilities that meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and minimize recreational impacts; 3) improved access for whitewater boaters; 4) improved dissemination of stream flow information; 5) improved visitor education and interpretive signage; and 6) improved visual screening.



PG&E also identified the need for the development of environmental plans that would address activities that PG&E would take to minimize hazards (e.g., wildfires, slope failures and canal failures) and react to them when, and if, they should occur. Section 8 – Resource Management Measures PG&E proposes to implement the resource management measures listed below as part of the new Project license. These measures are based on the Project Record (information gathered and studies performed) as of the date of this application. The descriptions of the measures in this Executive Summary are highly summarized. A detailed description of each measure is provided in the applicable Section 8 of Exhibit E, organized by resource area. The detailed descriptions are written in formal regulatory language ready for inclusion as conditions in the new FERC license. Each detailed description in Exhibit E is accompanied by a statement that describes the PG&E’s rationale for the proposed resource measure, and an assessment of whether implementation of the measure would result in an adverse impact. PG&E has not included any Standard Form license conditions it anticipates FERC will impose. The target implementation dates are based on an assumed license issuance date of October 1, 2009. Table ES-2. PG&E’s proposed resource management measures and implementation schedule. Measures that may need to be modified based on additional study information and/or continuing consultation are indicated by an asterisk. Measures that are a continuation of existing measures that are substantially unchanged are in bold.

PG&E’s Proposed Resource Management Measures

Year Implemented

GENERAL 1. Train Employees Annually 2010 2. Consult with Forest Service Annually 2010 3. Review and Assess New Special-status Species Annually 2010

GEOLOGY AND SOILS 4. Develop and Implement Project Transportation System Management Plan 2010 5. Develop and Implement Round Valley Dam Spillway Stabilization Plan 2010 6. Develop and Implement Project Canal Maintenance and Inspection Plan 2010

WATER USE AND QUALITY 7. Install and Maintain New Gages 2010 8. Monitor Water Quality in Receiving Stream During Canal Cleaning 2010 9. Develop and Implement Hazardous Substance Plan 2010

AQUATIC RESOURCES 10. Develop and implement a Canal Fish Rescue Plan 2010 11. Fund CDFG for Fish Stocking in Project Vicinity 2010 12. Maintain Minimum Pool at Philbrook Reservoir 2010

WILDLIFE RESOURCES 13. Consult with CDFG Prior to Replacing or Retrofitting Deer Canal Escape Ramps 2009 14. Monitor Animal Loss in Project Canals 2010

BOTANICAL RESOURCES 15. Develop and Implement a Vegetation Management Plan 2010 16. Develop and Implement an Invasive Plants Management Plan 2010 17. Develop and Implement a Fire Protection and Response Plan 2010

SPECIES PROTECTED UNDER FEDERAL ESA 18. Implement a Minimum Stream Flow Release Schedule* 2009 19. Develop and Implement a DeSabla Forebay Water Temperature Improvement Plan* 2011 20. Develop and Implement a Facility Monitoring, Maintenance and Refurbishment Plan* 2010 21. Develop and Implement a Long-Term Operations Plan* 2010 22. Monitor Butte Creek Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Populations* 2010 23. File Annual Reports* 2011 24. Protect VELB 2009




Table ES-2. (continued) PG&E’s Proposed

Resource Management Measures Year

Implemented RECREATION RESOURCES

25. Develop and Implement a Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay Recreation Facilities Operations Plans 2010 26. Develop and Implement a Recreation Facilities Rehabilitation and ADA Upgrade Plan at Existing Philbrook

Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay Recreation Facilities 2010

27. Develop and Implement a Project Information and Sign Plan 2010 28. Obtain Public Access to DeSabla Powerhouse and Miocene Diversion Dam Impoundment 2010 29. Make Stream Flow Information Available to the Public 2010

LAND USE 30. Remove Philbrook Lake Tenders House and Other Structures No Longer Needed 2012

AESTHETICS 31. Consult with Forest Service When Painting/Reconstructing Facilities 2009 32. Maintain Improvements and Premises on NFS Land 2009

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL 33. Implement an Historic Properties Management Plan* 2010

Section 8 also is intended to include a list of resource management measures formally recommended by others in written comments on the DLA (PG&E did not presume that measures previously discussed during meetings with Relicensing Participants were formal recommendations), and a rationale statement if PG&E decided not to adopt them. Only one resource management measure was formally recommended in comments received on the DLA, and this one comment was adopted in PG&E’s proposed resource management measures. However, it is important to recognize that many Relicensing Participants that filed comments on the DLA stated they were not ready at this time to propose preliminary resource management measures. PG&E plans to continue consultation with Relicensing Participants. Section 9 – Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Issuance of a new license for the Project as proposed by PG&E would not result in any short-term and long-term unavoidable impacts with one exception. Installation of a structure at DeSabla Forebay to convey cool water through the forebay may result in the unavoidable warming of the remaining portions of the forebay. Given that relicensing studies documented moderate levels of bacteria in the forebay in summer, this proposed measure could result in an unavoidable impact to water temperature, water quality, and recreation in summer in DeSabla Forebay. This cumulative impact would occur each year, and is considered a minor impact since water contact recreation is not permitted on DeSabla Forebay. PG&E also considers the increased water temperature to have a minor impact of CDFG’s fish stocking in DeSabla Forebay. Furthermore, in the balance, the new structure would support a major environmental benefit of the Project-enhanced habitat for Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead in lower Butte Creek. Section 10 – Economic Analysis At described in Section 9.0, PG&E’s proposed Project includes 33 proposed resource management measures that will provide numerous environmental benefits. No new capacity or generation facilities are proposed. PG&E estimates that the new Project will cost PG&E about $48 million (about $1.1 million annually) over the term of the new license – about $23 million in new capital and O&M expenses related to implementation of PG&E’s proposed measures and $25 million in reduced generation.



Section 11 – Consistency with Qualifying Plans The Project is consistent with qualifying plans. Section 12 – Consultation Documentation Section 12 includes a detailed description of the PG&E consultation process during relicensing. See Section 3.0 of this Executive Summary for a description of the relicensing status. Section 13 – Literature Cited This section contains references cited in Exhibit E. 4.9 Exhibit F – Design Drawings PG&E has developed 12 design drawings that show plan, profile, elevation, and sections for each Project structure or major piece of equipment. In light of heightened national security concerns and in conformance with FERC’s Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) regulations, PG&E will file Exhibit F design drawings under separate cover and requests they receive privileged treatment under FERC’s regulations at 18 CFR § 388.112. 4.10 Exhibit G – Project Maps Exhibit G provides Project maps that show the location of all Project facilities and features, the FERC Project Boundary around each facility and feature, and federal and non-federal lands within the Project Boundary. In accordance with FERC guidelines, Exhibit G maps are considered privileged, non-internet public (NIP) and will not be made available on the Internet. 4.11 Exhibit H – Miscellaneous Filing Material Exhibit H provides miscellaneous filing information for various subject items. Principal among these are: 1) a discussion of the coordination of Project operation with other water and electrical systems; 2) a discussion of the need for the electricity generated by the Project; 3) data showing the annual cost of power produced by the Project and alternative sources and cost of alternative power; 4) a statement of measures taken or planned to ensure safe management, operation, and maintenance of the Project; and 5) a discussion of PG&E’s record of compliance with the terms and conditions of the existing license. The Project is operated on a base-loaded basis and in conjunction with PG&E's other electrical resources to minimize the overall cost of energy production. During normal and low flow conditions, the Project is operated to utilize the water available for power production. During high flow periods, such as during spring snow melt, the Project operates at or near maximum capacity to minimize spills.




The base-loaded operation of the Project helps to minimize the operation of non-renewable, higher cost thermal electric generating plants. During the spring, fall, and winter months, the daily California demand for electricity can vary from a low of about 30,000 MW up to about 42,000 MW. However, in the summer months, and in particular during heat storms, the daily demand for electricity can jump to above 54,000 MW. The alternative sources of power currently available to PG&E are increased purchases and new generation developments. However, the Project is considered a “renewable” small hydroelectric facility under State law.7 Accordingly, the Project falls within the State’s RPS, which requires an electrical corporation to increase its total procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by at least 1% of retail sales per year so that 20% of its retail sales are procured from eligible energy resources no later than December 31, 2010. Any reduction in the Project’s power production would need to be replaced with another source of qualifying RPS renewable electrical energy. In the short- and long-term, the need for Project power is based on the fact that the Project is an air emission-free, RPS-eligible renewable energy resource, which contributes to system reliability and a diversified generation mix. If the electric generating capacity of the Project were replaced with fossil-fueled resources, green house gas emissions could potentially increase by about 13,000 metric tons of carbon per year.8

If the Licensee is not granted a new license, the amount of purchased power would increase. An estimate of the replacement power costs under the “No Action” case is about $13.4 million per year. The average annual cost of Project power under the “No Action” case is $12.3 million per year or 7.9 cents per kWh. The average annual cost of Project power with the Licensee’s proposed recommended resource measures is $13.4 million per year or 9.2 cents per kWh. PG&E implements numerous measures to ensure safe management, operation, and maintenance of the Project. PG&E has a good record of compliance with the terms and conditions of the current license. A review of PG&E’s records indicates consistent compliance with all of the license articles.

7 See California Public Utilities Code § 399.12(b)(1)(A). 8 Source of conversion factor 85 kilograms of carbon emissions per mega-watt-hour: FERC Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Upper North Fork Feather River Project, Project No. 2105 dated September 2004.


October 2007 License Application Initial Statement © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page IS-1

INITIAL STATEMENT

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Application for License for Major Project – Existing Dam

1.0 APPLICANT AND REQUESTED TERM OF NEW LICENSE Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E or Licensee) hereby applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a new license for the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project (Project), FERC Project No. 803, as described in the attached exhibits. In 1929 a minor-part license was issued to PG&E by the Federal Power Commission (predecessor to FERC) for portions of the Project located on federal lands. The minor-part license expired on October 11, 1979. The current license requirements are contained in FERC’s Order Issuing New License dated June 12, 1980, all subsequent orders amending the license, and filed exhibits that are approved by FERC. The current license expires on October 11, 2009. On October 4, 2004, PG&E filed with FERC its Notice of Intent (NOI) to file a license application by October 11, 2007, for its existing 26.6-megawatt (MW) installed capacity Project. PG&E proposes to continue operating the Project for the next 50 years with no change to Project generation facilities or features other than adoption of the resource management measures proposed in this application, deletion of five stream diversions that have not been used for over 10 years, and an anticipated rebuild or refurbishment of Centerville Powerhouse. PG&E requests a new 50-year license for the Project since PG&E anticipates a substantial expenditure to continue operation of Centerville Powerhouse during the next license term. PG&E elected to use FERC’s new Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) as established in regulations issued by FERC July 23, 2003 (Final Rule, Order No. 2002) and described in 18 CFR Part 5. 2.0 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT The location of the Project is: State: California County: Butte Township or nearby town: Chico Stream or other body of water: Butte Creek and West Branch Feather River 3.0 PG&E’S BUSINESS ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER The physical address, mail address, and telephone number of PG&E is:


Initial Statement License Application October 2007 Page IS-2 © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Physical Address: Mailing Address: Telephone Number: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company (415) 973-7000 77 Beale Street Power Generation, Mail Code N11C San Francisco, CA 94105 P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177

4.0 PG&E’S AUTHORIZED AGENT The name and mail address of the person authorized to act as PG&E’s agent for this application is:

Mr. Randal S. Livingston, Vice President - Power Generation Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 770000, Mail Code N11E San Francisco, CA 94177

5.0 PG&E’S ORGANIZATIONAL STATUS PG&E is a corporation of the State of California and is not claiming preference under section 7(a) of the Federal Power Act. 6.0 PERTINENT CALIFORNIA STATUTORY AND REGULATORY

REQUIREMENTS The statutory or regulatory requirements of California, the state in which the Project is located, that affect the Project with respect to: 1) bed and banks; 2) appropriation, diversion, and use of water for power purposes; 3) right to engage in the business of developing, transmitting, and distributing power; and 4) any other business necessary to accomplish the purposes of the license under the Federal Power Act are:

1) California Fish and Game Code §1602 - Requires that parties notify the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) prior to conducting any work in a streambed.

2) California Water Code §102 - Allows for appropriation and use of water for power purposes.

3) California Water Code §13160; Title 23 California Code of Regulations §3855 - Regulates the filing and issuance of water quality certificates to applicants otherwise required to obtain such a certificate under federal law.

4) California Water Code §6102 - Requires owners of dams to cooperate with the California Division of Safety of Dams (CDSOD) in the inspection and maintenance of dams.

5) Public Utilities Code, Division 1, §201 et seq.: Regulates the right of a public utility to produce, generate, transmit, or furnish power to the public.



The steps that PG&E has taken or plans to take to comply with each of the laws cited above are:

1) PG&E will submit a 1602 notification to CDFG should work in a streambed not proposed in this license application be required.

2) PG&E has the water rights necessary to operate the Project.

3) PG&E will file an application for a water quality certificate with the State Water Resources Control Board within 60 days after FERC issues a notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis (REA) for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

4) PG&E cooperates with CDSOD on annual inspections of the Project dams.

5) PG&E has demonstrated its ability to engage in the business of developing, transmitting, and distributing electric power under the appropriate California statute.

7.0 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The Project consists of three developments (Toadtown, DeSabla, and Centerville), which collectively include three reservoirs, three powerhouses, 14 diversion and feeder dams, five canals, and associated equipment and transmission facilities. 8.0 UNITED STATES-OWNED LANDS AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT The total area within the FERC Project Boundary is 700.6 acres. Approximately 159.4 acres of land are owned by the United States (96.26 of these acres are subject to PG&E rights under the Act of July 26, 1866, 43 U.S.C. § 661). Of the federal lands, 145.7 acres are within the Lassen National Forest, 2.1 acres are within the Plumas National Forest, and 11.6 acres are administered by the Bureau of Land Management. No other United States Lands are occupied by the Project. 9.0 PROPOSED NEW PROJECT FACILITIES PG&E proposes to continue operating the Project for the next 50 years with no change to Project generation facilities or features other than adoption of the resource management measures proposed in this application, deletion of five stream diversions that have not been used for over 10 years, and an anticipated rebuild or refurbishment of Centerville Powerhouse. 10.0 COUNTIES, CITIES, AND INDIAN TRIBES AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT The name and mailing address of the county in which the Project is located is:

Butte County Board of Supervisors Administration Center 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965



The Project is not located within any designated cities, towns, or local political subdivisions. The Project dams at Philbrook and Round Valley reservoirs are not within 15 miles of any city, town, or local political subdivision having a population of 5,000 or more persons. The town of Paradise has a population of approximately of 26,000 persons and is located within 15 miles of the Project’s DeSabla Forebay. The name and address for the town of Paradise is:

Town of Paradise Mr. Charles Rough, Manager 5555 Skyway Paradise, CA 95969

In addition to the county noted above, PG&E is aware of the following local political subdivisions or other entities in the general area of the Project that would likely be interested in or affected by this document: Paradise Irrigation District Forks of Butte Project

General Manager General Manager P.O. Box 2409 H&M Engineering Paradise, CA 95967 4521 Alpine Rose Bend Ellicott City, MD 21042 California Water Service City of Chico District Manager City Manager 1908 High Street 411 Main Street

Oroville, CA 95965 Chico, CA 95928 Sierra Pacific Industries Sierra Del Oro Drainage District Director General Manager General Manager 7 County Center Drive PO Box 496028 Oroville, CA 95965 Redding, CA 96049-6028 Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District Del Oro Water Company General Manager Director P.O. Box 581 P.O. Drawer 5172 Oroville, CA 95965 Chico, CA 95927



Indian tribes recognized and not recognized by the federal government that may be affected by the Project are:

Mr. Joe Marine 1025 35th Avenue, Apt. 9 Sacramento, CA 95822

Ms. Patsy Seek, Chairperson Konkow Valley Band of Maidu 1185 Eighteen Street Oroville, CA 95965

Ms. Patty Reese-Allan Cultural Resources Representative Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians #5 Tyme Way Oroville, CA 95966

Maidu Advisory Council 2128 Myers Street Oroville, CA 95966

Mr. Ren Reynolds Butte Tribal Council 1693 Mount Ida Road Oroville, CA 95966

Maidu Cultural and Development Group P.O. Box 126 Greenville, CA 95947

Ms. Glenda Nelson, Chairperson Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians 1940 Feather River Blvd., Suite B Oroville, CA 95965

Ms. Clara LeCompte Maidu Nation P.O. Box 204 Susanville, CA 96130

Ms. Arlene Ward Cultural Resources Representative Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria 125 Mission Ranch Road Chico, CA 95926

Mr. Steve Santos, Chairperson Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria 125 Mission Ranch Road Chico, CA 95926

Ms. Candice Miller, Tribal Administrator Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians #1 Alverda Drive Oroville, CA 95966

Mr. Gary Archuleta, Chairperson Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians #1 Alverda Drive Oroville, CA 95966

Ms. Lorie Jaimes Tribal Chair Greenville Rancheria P.O. Box 279 Greenville, CA 95974

Mr. Mike Despain Environmental Office Greenville Rancheria P.O. Box 279 Greenville, CA 95974

PG&E will send a copy of this document to each of the parties listed above within 15 days of filing with FERC. 11.0 FEDERAL AND STATE RESOURCE AGENCIES CONSULTED PG&E has consulted with the following federal and state resource agencies regarding relicensing of the Project:

U.S. Forest Service U.S. Forest Service Forest Supervisor Forest Supervisor Plumas National Forest Lassen National Forest P.O. Box 11500 55 South Sacramento Street Quincy, CA 95971 Susanville, CA 96130



US Bureau of Reclamation US Army Corps of Engineers Regional Director Chief – Regulatory Branch 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento District Sacramento, CA 95825 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922

NOAA Fisheries National Parks Service Hydro Coordinator Outdoor Recreation Planner

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Assoc. 600 Harrison Street, Suite 600 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300 San Francisco, CA 94107 Sacramento, CA 95814-4706

California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Parks Manager – Central Sierra Region and Recreation 1701 Nimbus Avenue State Historic Preservation Officer Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296 Regional Water Quality Control Board State Water Resources Control Board Central Valley Region Section 401 Coordinator Executive Officer 1001 I Street

3443 Routier Road P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95827 Sacramento, CA 95812 California Department of Boating US Bureau of Land Management and Waterways Folsom Resource Area 2000 Evergreen Street 63 Natoma Street Sacramento, CA 95815 Folsom, CA 95630 US Fish and Wildlife Service Branch Chief – Energy and Power 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

PG&E will provide a copy of this document to each of the parties listed above within 15 days of filing with FERC. 12.0 INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC PG&E will make the following information available to the public: • Complete copy of this document.

• Complete copy of the current license, including all exhibits, appendices, and any amendments.



• Comments, pleadings, and supplementary or additional information received regarding the current license.

• Correspondence served, filed, and received by PG&E in connection with the current license and the application for new license.

The above information will be available to the public during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday) at PG&E’s place of business:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 245 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 The public is instructed to contact Mr. Bill Zemke by mail at: Mail Code N11C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 or by phone at (415) 973-1646 to make an appointment to review the information. A copy of this document is available at the following public libraries: Chico Public Library Butte County Library 1108 Sherman Avenue 1820 Mitchell Avenue Chico, CA 95926 Oroville, CA 95966 Information related to PG&E’s relicensing matters and processes, including documents and records related to the ILP, relicensing meetings, relicensing consultations, meeting protocols, and development of study plans and reports, are also available on PG&E’s Project Relicensing Website, which can be found at: http://www.eurekasw.com/DC/relicensing/default.aspx 13.0 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT PG&E will publish a notice of the availability of this document twice within 15 days of the date it was submitted to agencies and Indian tribes in the following newspapers of general circulation:

Chico Enterprise Record Paradise Post 400 East Park Avenue P.O. Drawer 70 Chico, CA 95928 Paradise, CA 95967

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 Draft Public Notice To Be Placed by PG&E in Chico Enterprise Record and Paradise Post

twice within 14 days of Licensee Filing the Application with FERC

Announcement of Filing of Application for a New License For

DeSabla-Centerville Project Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns and operates the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed DeSabla-Centerville Project, a hydroelectric project in Butte County, California, on Butte Creek and the West Branch Feather River. The Project is composed of three developments – Toadtwon, DeSabla and Centerville. The current FERC license for the Project expires on October 11, 2009. On October [to be completed] 2007, PG&E applied to FERC for a New License for a Major Project – Existing Dam. The application describes the Project facilities, Project operation, estimated costs related to continued operations, and general information. The application also includes a description of environmental and recreational resources in the vicinity of the Project; an assessment of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with continued Project operation and maintenance; and PG&E’s proposed resource management measures to protect and enhance environmental and recreation resources, and mitigate any Project impacts. As required by 18 CFR § 4.32(b)(6), at this time PG&E announces the availability for inspection and reproduction of the application. The application has been provided in electronic format to pertinent resource agencies and Indian tribes, and a paper copy is available for inspection and reproduction during regular business hours at the Public Library in Chico and the Public Library in Oroville, and at PG&E’s office at 245 Market Street, San Francisco, CA (tel: 415-973-1646). A copy of the application may also be obtained upon request from PG&E after reasonable reimbursement to PG&E for postage and reproduction. If any party believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted to form an adequate basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merits, the party must file a request for the study with FERC within 60 days after the application is filed with FERC and serve a copy of the request on PG&E. The request for additional study must be filed in accordance with FERC filing regulations and conform to the requirements established at 18 CFR § 4.32(b)(7) regarding additional studies. Upon acceptance for filing, FERC will publish subsequent notices soliciting additional pubic participation. Questions regarding this notice should be addressed to Mr. Randal Livingston, Vice-President – Power Generation, at (415) 973-7000.



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Pacific Gas and Electric Company Project No. 803 NOTICE OF APPLICATION TENDERED FOR FILING WITH THE COMMISSION,

AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE FOR LICENSING AND DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF FINAL AMENDMENTS

[FERC - Insert Date]

Take notice that the following hydroelectric project application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. Type of Application: New License for Major Project-Existing Dam b. Project No: P-803 c. Date Filed: [FERC – Insert Date] d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company e. Name of Project: DeSabla-Centerville Project f. Location: The DeSabla-Centerville Project is located in Butte County, California, on the Butte Creek and West Branch Feather River. The project affects 159.4 acres of federal lands. g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. §§ 791(a) - 825(r), and 18 CFR Part 5. h. Applicant: Contact: Mr. Randal S. Livingston, Vice President - Power Generation Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 770000, Mail Code: N11E, San Francisco, CA 94177, Tel: (415) 973-7000 i. FERC Contact: Aaron Liberty, (202) 502-6862, or e-mail: [email protected] j. Cooperating Agencies: The Commission is asking federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental document required under the National Environmental Policy Act. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments described in item k below. October 2007 Application for a New License Initial Statement ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page IS-15

Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 Agencies granted cooperating status will be precluded from being an intervenor in this proceeding consistent with the Commission's regulations. k. Deadline for requests for cooperating agency status: 60 days from the date of this notice. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberley D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the "e-Filing" link. After logging into the e-Filing system, select "Comment on Filing" from the Filing Type Selection screen and continue with the filing and process. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. l. Status: This application has not been accepted for filing. We are not soliciting motions to intervene, protests, or final terms and conditions at this time. m. Description of Project: The Project consists of three developments (Toadtown, DeSabla and Centerville), which collectively include three reservoirs, three powerhouses, 14 diversion and feeder dams, five canals, and associated equipment and transmission facilities. n. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. o. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4. q. Procedural schedule and final amendments: This application will be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made if the Commission determines it necessary to do so.

Milestone Tentative Date Resolution of Pending Information Requests [FERC Inset Date] Issuance Deficiency or Acceptance Letter [FERC Inset Date]

Initial Statement Application for a New License October 2007 Page IS-16 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

mailto:[email protected]


Notification of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis [FERC Inset Date] Filing of Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Fishway Prescriptions [FERC Inset Date] Notice of Availability of EA/EIS [FERC Inset Date] Filing of Comments on Draft EA/EIS [FERC Inset Date] Filing of Modified Recommendations, Final Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Fishway Prescriptions [FERC Inset Date] Notice of Availability of Final NEPA Document [FERC Inset Date] Submission of Final Amendments to Application [FERC Inset Date] Readiness of Application for Commission Decision [FERC Inset Date]

Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice soliciting final terms and conditions. Kimberly D. Bose Secretary

October 2007 Application for a New License Initial Statement ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page IS-17



Definitions of Terms, Acronyms and Abbreviations

Term Definition A A Ampere AA Federal Antiquities Act ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

Adit An almost vertical pipe or short horizontal passage entering a tunnel, either to add water from a conduit, sluice or other water source, or as a maintenance access tunnel (also referred to as a portal if located at the beginning or end of the tunnel).

af acre-foot, the amount of water needed to cover one acre to a depth of one foot.

Afterbay A reservoir located immediately downstream from a powerhouse, sometimes used to re-regulate flows to the river or stream.

AFRP Anadromous Fish Restoration Program

AGC Automatic Generation Control. The ability to control the megawatt output of a given powerhouse from remote site, such as the ISO uses to support California electric regulation system.

APE Area of Potential Effect as pertaining to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Automatic/semiautomatic/manual powerhouses

An automatic powerhouse can be started, stopped, and have its load and voltage changed from a remote or master station, via supervisory control. A semiautomatic powerhouse with SCADA may allow a remote station to change load and/or voltage, and may allow a remote shutdown, but must be started manually. A semi-automatic powerhouse without SCADA will send alarms to a remote or master station. A manual powerhouse must have all its functions performed at the powerhouse.

B BA Biological Assessment BAOT Boats at one time Basin Plan CVRWQCB Water Quality Control Plan BCCER Butte Creek Canyon Ecological Reserve BCHER Butte Creek House Ecological Reserve BCWC Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy Black Start Capability

The ability of a unit to start up without the use of an external transmission or distribution voltage power source.

BLM U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management BMI Benthic Macroinvertebrates BMP Best Management Practice BO / BiOp Biological Opinion BOD biological oxygen demand BOR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation BP Before present time BSAI BIOSystems Analysis, Inc.

October 2007 License Application Glossary ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page i


C C Celsius

CALFED California and federal agencies working cooperatively through the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to improve the quality and reliability of California’s water supplies while restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem.

CalIPC California Invasive Plant Council CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture CDEC California Data Exchange Center CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDPR California Department of Parks and Recreation CDSOD California Division of Safety of Dams within the CDWR CDWR California Department of Water Resources CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act Cf cubic feet CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CL Carapace length Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base CNPPA California Native Plant Protection Act CNPS California Native Plant Society CNPS-1A Plants presumed to be extinct in California CNPS-1B Species considered by the CNPS as rare or endangered in California and elsewhere

CNPS-2 Species considered by the CNPS as rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere

CNPS-3 Species that require more information before assigning to other lists – A review list CNPS-4 Species considered by the CNPS as plants of limited distribution

Conduit A pipe, flume or canal used for diverting or moving water from one point to another, usually used when there is no existing streambed or waterway

CORP California Outdoor Recreation Plan COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CP Amphibian and reptile species designated as protected under the CDFG sport fishing regulations as authorized by the California Code of Regulations, Title 14

CPH Centerville Powerhouse CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CSBP California Stream Bioassessment Procedure CVPH Centerville Powerhouse CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CWA Federal Clean Water Act CWHR California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program CWSC California Water Services Company D dbh diameter at breast height DEA Draft Environmental Assessment DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report Dependable Capacity

The maximum dependable MW output of a generator or group of generators during the critical hydrologic period coincident with peak electrical system load

DLA draft license application

DRP Dispute Review Panel

Glossary License Application October 2007 Page ii ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company


FERC Project No. 803 Distribution System The substations, transformers and lines that convey electricity from high-voltage

transmission lines to the consumer DO dissolved oxygen DOC dissolved organic carbon DWR California Department of Water Resources E EA Environmental Assessment EAP Emergency Action Plan EED California Employment Development Department EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Federal Endangered Species Act ESU Ecologically significant unit EVC Existing Visual Condition EWP CALFED Environmental Water Program F F Fahrenheit FAC Federal Advisory Committee FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act FC A species or subspecies currently proposed as a candidate for listing under the ESA. FE A species or subspecies listed as endangered under the ESA FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FHWA Federal Highway Administration

Flashboards Removable boards installed seasonally in reservoir spillways to temporarily increase storage capacity

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

Flume A lined structure, commonly made of wood, metal or concrete, used for conveyance of water, usually where no streambed exists or the topography is not suitable for a canal or tunnel

FOBCRA Forks of the Butte Creek Recreation Area

Forebay A reservoir upstream from a powerhouse, from which water is drawn into a tunnel or penstock for delivery to the powerhouse

FP A species or subspecies designated as “fully protected” under the California Fish & Game Code

FPA Federal Power Act FPD A federally listed species currently proposed for delisting from the ESA Francis Turbine A radial-inflow reaction turbine, where flow through the runner is radial to the turbine shaft

FSC Special Concern Species, an administrative designation by USFWS (former category 2 species)

FSS A species or subspecies designated as “sensitive” by the USFS FT A species or subspecies listed as threatened under the ESA ft Feet FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

October 2007 License Application Glossary ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page iii


G g Gram GIR Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians GIS Geographic Information System Generator A machine powered by a turbine that produces electric current grizzly A metal grating across the entry to a water conduit GWh Gigawatt-hour (equals one million kilowatt-hours) H H Horizontal

“H”-frame structure A wood pole transmission structure that consists of two wood poles with a horizontal cross arm above the conductor

HFQLG Act Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act hp Horsepower hr Hour HSI Habitat Suitability Indices Hz hertz (cycles per second) I IFIM FWS Instream Flow Incremental Methodology ILP Integrated Licensing Process in Inch Installed Capacity The nameplate MW rating of a generator or group of generators

Interested Parties The broad group of individuals and entities (federal and state resource agencies, local governments, Indian tribes, members of the public, and others) that have an interest in a proceeding.

ISO California Independent System Operator ITA Indian Trust Asset J K k kilometer: 1,000 meters kg kilograms: 1,000 grams kg/ha kilograms per hectare kV kilovolts: 1,000 volts kVA kilovolt amperes kW kilowatts: 1,000 watts kWh kilowatt-hour: 1,000 watt hours L l Liter LCDD Lower Centerville Diversion Dam

License Application Application for New License submitted to FERC no less than two years in advance of expiration of an existing license.

LNF Lassen National Forest

Glossary License Application October 2007 Page iv ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company


FERC Project No. 803 LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan adopted by a National Forest LWD Large woody debris M µ Micro µg/l micrograms per liter µmhos/cm micromohos per centimeter, a measurement of conductivity m Meter MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCA/T Mandatory conditioning agencies/tribes MCL Maximum contaminant level mgC/m2 milligrams of carbon per square meter mg/l milligrams per liter mi. Mile mills/kWh cents per kilowatt hour MIR minimal implementation requirement, a USFS system MIS USFS Management Indicator Species mm Millimeters MPN Most probable number Must-Run Energy or ancillary services necessary to maintain system reliability MVA megavolt-ampere MW Megawatt MWh Megawatt-hours N NAHC California Native American Heritage Council ND no data available NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NFSL National Forest System Lands NGO Non-Governmental Organization NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOAA Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service NOI Notice of Intent Normal Operating Capacity

The maximum MW output of a generator or group of generators under normal maximum head and flow conditions

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS National Parks Service NRCS National Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historical Places NTU nephelometric turbidity unit NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWS National Weather Service O ORV Off- road vehicle O&M Operation & Maintenance

October 2007 License Application Glossary ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page v


P PAD Pre-application Document

PAD Questionnaire DeSabla-Centerville, FERC No. 803, Pre-Application Document Information Questionnaire

PAOT people at one time PCT Pacific Crest Trail Peaking Operation of generating facilities to meet maximum instantaneous electrical demands

Penstock An inclined pressurized pipe through which water flows from a forebay or tunnel to the powerhouse turbine

pf power factor PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PH Powerhouse PHABSIM Physical Habitat Simulation System PMF Probable maximum flood PNF Plumas National Forest POAOR California Public Opinions and Attitudes in Outdoor Recreation Survey

Power Factor The ratio of actual power to apparent power. Power factor is the cosine of the phase angle difference between the current and voltage of a given phase. Unity power factor exists when the voltage and current are in phase.

Project Licensee’s DeSabla-Centerville Project, FERC No. 803 Project-affected Directly affected by Project presence, operation or maintenance.

Project Area

Zone of potential, reasonably direct Project impacts. Typically extends 0 to 100 feet out from the FERC Project Boundary. It also includes the following stream reaches which the Project directly impacts: Butte Creek from Butte Creek Diversion Dam down to, but not including, the non-Project Parrott-Phelan Diversion Dam and the WBFR from Round Valley Reservoir down to, but not including, the non-Project Miocene Diversion.

Project Boundary The area defined in the Project license issued by FERC as needed for operation of the Project.

Project Drainage Basins

Combination of the Project’s Butte Creek drainage basin and the Project’s WBFR drainage basin.

Project Region The area around the Project on the order of a County or National Forest in size.

Project Roads Roads within Project Boundary primarily used for Project purposes excluding federal, state, county, and non-Licensee private roads.

Project’s Butte Creek drainage basin

Sub-watershed area that includes headwaters of Butte Creek, and all Project-affected reaches from the Butte Creek Diversion Dam down to Parrott-Phelan Diversion Dam.

Project’s WBFR drainage basin

Sub-watershed area that includes the headwaters of the WBFR, and all Project-affected reaches from the Round Valley Reservoir down to the Miocene Diversion Dam.

Project Vicinity The area extending to about five miles from the Project Boundary.

Protection All of the relays and other equipment which are used to open the necessary circuit breakers to separate pieces of equipment from each other when trouble develops.

Protective Relay A device whose function is to detect defective lines or apparatus, or other power system conditions of an abnormal or dangerous nature, and to initiate appropriate control circuit action.

PRPD Paradise Recreation and Park District PSEA Pacific Service Employees Association PSR Pacific Southwest Region of USFS PURPA Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act PWC Personal Water Craft

Glossary License Application October 2007 Page vi ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company



Q QF A qualifying facility, a cogenerator or small power producer that sells its excess power to a

public utility. R ramping The act of increasing or decreasing stream flows from a powerhouse, dam or division

structure. Regulated Hydrology The hydrology of Project-affected streams subsequent to construction of the Project

relicensing The process of acquiring a new FERC license for an existing hydroelectric project upon expiration of the existing FERC license.

Relicensing Participants

Relicensing Participants is a subset of Interested Parties. Relicensing Participants are the individuals and entities (federal and state resource agencies, local governments, Indian tribes, members of the public, and others) that are actively participating in a proceeding.

Reservoir Useable Capacity

A volume measurement of the amount of water that can be stored for generation, down to a minimum level

RD Recreation Day, which equals a visit by a person to a Project development for recreation purposes during any portion of a 24-hour period

RM River mile as measured along the river course RNA/ACEC Research Natural Area/Area of Critical Environmental Concern ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ROW Right-of-way rpm revolutions per minute RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard RRMP Redding Resource Management Plan

RT&E Species

Rare, threatened, endangered and special status species, which for purposes of this PAD is defined to include (1) all species (plant and animal) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the Federal and state Endangered Species Acts and the California Native Plant Protection Act, and (2) all species (plant and animal) listed by the USFS as sensitive, special status or watch list.

RTU Remote terminal unit. A remotely located piece of equipment used for collecting data and/or for operating equipment via SCADA

Run-of-the-river A hydroelectric project that uses the flow of a stream with little or no reservoir capacity for storing water.

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board S SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition System SD1 Scoping Document 1 SE A species or subspecies listed as endangered under the CESA. Secchi A method of measuring surface transparency in a reservoir.

SHPO California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Officer.

SL Standard length Sluice An artificial channel for conducting water, with a valve or floodgate to regulate the flow. SM Stream mile SNTEMP FWS’ Stream Temperature Model SOHA Spotted Owl habitat areas

October 2007 License Application Glossary ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page vii


Spill Channel Property down gradient from a conduit for which an easement over private property or withdrawal under FERC license has been granted. A spill channel is used when it becomes necessary to release water from a section of conduit.

Spillway A passage for releasing surplus water from a reservoir or canal SR A species or subspecies listed as rare under the CESA. SRAC Short Run Avoided Costs ST A species or subspecies listed as threatened under the CESA. state State of California Station Use Energy used to operate the generating facility’s auxiliary equipment. STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database STORET USEPA’s computerized water quality data storage system. SUP Special Use Permit issued by the Forest Service.

Surge Chamber A structure, similar to a holding tank, located on a tunnel or penstock, which is used to absorb and attenuate the overflow and prevent any disruption due to a sudden change in water pressure through a tunnel or penstock.

Switching Center The main control center for any given river system, which is responsible for operation of the automatic, semiautomatic and manual powerhouses on that river system. The Switching Center is staffed 24 hours a day.

SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board T Tailrace Channel through which water is discharged from the powerhouse turbines. TCP Traditional Cultural Property TDS total dissolved solids THP Timber Harvest Plan TP total phosphorous

Trash Rack A mechanism, found on a dam or intake structure, which clears the water of debris before the water passes through the structure.

TSS total suspended solids

Turbine A machine that converts the energy of a stream of water into the mechanical energy of rotation. This energy is then used to turn an electrical generator or other device. Also called a “water wheel”.

U Unimpaired Hydrology The hydrology of Project-affected streams prior to construction of the Project

USBIA U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey V V volts VFW Veterans of Foreign Wars VQO Visual Quality Objectives, a USFS System VQI Visual Quality Index, a USFS System

Glossary License Application October 2007 Page viii ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company


FERC Project No. 803 VRM Visual Resource Management W W watts WBFR West Branch Feather River WUA weighted usable area X Y YOY young-of-the-year Z

October 2007 License Application Glossary ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page ix



October 2007 License Application Project Description © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page A-1

EXHIBIT A

Project Description Section 4.51(b) of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) describes information that an applicant for a new license (Application for License for Major Project – Existing Dam) must include in Exhibit A of its license application. 18 CFR §4.51(b) states:

This exhibit need not include information on project works maintained and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, or any other department or agency of the United States, except for any project works that are proposed to be altered or modified. If the project includes more than one dam with associated facilities, each dam and the associated component parts must be described together as a discrete development. The Description for each development must contain:

(1) The physical composition, dimensions, and general configuration of any dams, spillways, penstocks, powerhouses, tailraces, or other structures, whether existing or proposed, to be included as part of the project;

(2) The normal maximum surface area and normal maximum surface elevation (mean sea level), gross storage capacity, and usable storage capacity of any impoundments to be included as part of the project;

(3) The number, type, and rated capacity of any turbines or generators, whether existing or proposed, to be included as part of the project;

(4) The number, length, voltage, and interconnections of any primary transmission lines, whether existing or proposed, to be included as part of the project (see 16 U.S.C. 796(11));

(5) The specifications of any additional mechanical, electrical, and transmission equipment appurtenant to the project; and (6) All lands of the United States that are enclosed within the project boundary described under paragraph (h) of this section

(Exhibit G), identified and tabulated by legal subdivisions of a public land survey of the affected area or, in the absence of a public land survey, by the best available legal description. The tabulation must show the total acreage of the lands of the United States within the project boundary.

1.0 General Project Description The DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 803 (Project) is divided into three developments: Toadtown, DeSabla, and Centerville. The physical elements of each development are described below generally following the flow of water through each development. The Toadtown development diverts water from the West Branch of the Feather River (WBFR), the DeSabla development diverts water from upper Butte Creek as well as using the outflow of the Toadtown development, and the Centerville development diverts the flow of Butte Creek downstream of the DeSabla development (Figure A1.0-1). A description of Project facilities by development is provided in Sections 2.0 through 4.0.


Project Description License Application October 2007 Page A-2 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Figure A1.0-1. DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project Schematic.




2.0 Toadtown Development The Toadtown development consists of Round Valley and Philbrook dams and reservoirs, Hendricks Diversion Dam and Canal, Toadtown Powerhouse, a short transmission tap line, and several short access roads. 2.1 Round Valley Dam and Reservoir Round Valley Reservoir (also known as Snag Lake) has a maximum depth of about 25 feet, has a gross storage capacity of approximately 1,700 ac-ft (of which approximately 1,200 ac-ft is useable storage), with a spillway elevation of 5,651.1 feet. The dam has a simple overflow spillway and has no gates or flashboards. 2.2 Philbrook Dam and Reservoir Philbrook Reservoir has a maximum depth of about 60 feet, with a gross storage capacity of approximately 5,500 ac-ft (of which approximately 5,000 ac-ft is useable storage), a normal maximum water surface elevation of 5,552.5 feet, and a surface area of 173 acres. Philbrook Reservoir has a single outlet conduit, located under the main dam near the maximum section. This is a 33-inch-diameter riveted steel pipe, measuring 460 feet long. The intake, located a short distance upstream from the dam, is submerged. It consists of a 17-foot-high, vertical, concrete pipe, 8 feet in diameter, the open top of which is guarded by a sloping steel grizzly. There is no intake control gate. Water releases are controlled by a manually operated, 30-inch-diameter needle valve at the downstream end of the pipe. Philbrook Dam is formed by two adjacent, compacted earthfill dams, and was constructed in 1926. A small auxiliary dam is located about 170 feet to the right of the main dam. The main dam is about 87 feet high and 850 feet long; the auxiliary dam is about 24 feet high and 470 feet long. The upstream slopes are partially covered with placed rock riprap, which extends from the crest at elevation 5,556.4 feet, down 24 feet to elevation 5,532.4 feet. 2.3 Philbrook Spillways To the right of the auxiliary dam are two spillways. The original spillway has removable flashboards. It is 29.67 feet wide and has five flashboard bays. Flashboards up to 5.1 feet high are installed on the crest, which is at elevation 5,547.4 feet. The second spillway was constructed in 1940 and is located 50 feet to the right of the first spillway. It has a single, manually operated, radial gate (10.75 feet high by 14.75 feet wide). The crest of the gated section is at elevation 5,542.7 feet. The spillways discharge into the same channel, which joins Philbrook Creek about 1,000 feet downstream from the dams. They have a maximum discharge capacity at zero freeboard of about 4,100 cfs. PG&E is now in the process of evaluating alternatives to stabilize the channel below the Philbrook spillways to address erosion and sediment transport issues. The channel, an unlined channel connecting the twin concrete-lined spillways of Philbrook Reservoir with the mainstem channel of Philbrook Creek, is located on National Forest System Land (NFSL) outside of the



FERC Project Boundary. PG&E is consulting with FERC and appropriate agencies regarding the alternatives and expects to substantially complete needed remediation work before a new license is issued for the Project. PG&E will file with FERC revised Exhibit F drawings and G maps with FERC, as needed, when the channel modification is complete. 2.4 Hendricks Diversion Dam and Canal Hendricks Diversion Dam is located on the WBFR about 12 miles below Round Valley Dam. Hendricks Diversion Dam is a concrete gravity dam approximately 15 feet high with an overflow spillway section 98 feet wide and has a crest elevation of 3,256 feet. Hendricks Canal originates at the Hendricks Diversion Dam and is 8.66 miles long and composed mostly of earthen ditch with several flume and tunnel sections. Hendricks Canal carries up to 125 cfs. Flow in Hendricks Canal is supplemented by feeder diversions on four streams: Long Ravine, Cunningham Ravine, and Little West Fork, and Little Butte Creek. A short section of Long Ravine is used for water conveyance, connecting two portions of Hendricks Canal. The Long Ravine Diversion Dam, located at the Long Ravine feeder diversion, has also historically been known as the Hendricks Diversion Dam. 2.5 Toadtown Powerhouse The Hendricks Canal ends at the small intake structure that feeds the 54-inch-diameter, 1,512-foot-long concrete cylinder Toadtown Powerhouse penstock. Rapid Pipe, a 48-to-24-inch-diameter, 1,499-foot-long steel pipe also connects to the intake structure and acts as a by-pass. Toadtown Powerhouse is a reinforced concrete building approximately 28 feet by 44 feet, housing one turbine-generator unit. The main floor is at elevation 2,825.0 feet. The turbine-generator unit has a horizontal Francis turbine with a normal maximum gross head of 185 feet, a nameplate flow of 134 cfs, with a nameplate capacity of 1,800 kw. The unit is capable of operating above nameplate flow and capacity for limited periods of time. The normal operating capacity of the powerhouse is 1.5 MW. The powerhouse is designed for unattended operation with float control from the water level at the Toadtown intake structure. A 1500 ft-long 12 kv tap line follows the Project access road and connects the project to the Licensee's distribution system.

3.0 DeSabla Development The DeSabla development consists of Butte Creek Diversion Dam and Canal, Toadtown Canal, DeSabla Forebay, and DeSabla Powerhouse. 3.1 Butte Creek Diversion Dam and Canal Water is diverted from Butte Creek at the Butte Creek Diversion Dam, a concrete arch dam approximately 50 feet high, into the Butte Canal. The dam has an overflow spillway at an elevation of 2,884 feet.




The 11.4-mile Butte Creek Canal has a capacity of approximately 91 cfs. Butte Canal consists of sections of earthen berm, gunite, tunnels, a siphon, and flume. Approximately 0.7 mile above DeSabla Forebay, Butte Canal and Toadtown Canal join. At this juncture, canal capacity increases to 191 cfs. Flow in Butte Creek Canal is supplemented by feeder diversions on three streams, Inskip Creek, Kelsey Creek, and Clear Creek. A feeder was also originally constructed at Stevens Creek, but its use has been discontinued. 3.2 Toadtown Canal Toadtown Canal is in essence the continuation of Hendricks Canal from the tailrace of Toadtown Powerhouse to Butte Creek Canal above DeSabla Forebay. The Toadtown Canal is about 2.4 miles long and is principally an earthen canal with a capacity of 125 cfs. 3.3 DeSabla Forebay and Dam DeSabla Forebay is formed by an earthen embankment approximately 50 feet high and 250 feet thick at the base, with a width of 100 feet at the crest. A spillway canal leading to a small ravine is located just north of the dam. The spillway elevation is 2,755 feet. DeSabla Forebay has an original capacity of 188 ac-ft; however, sedimentation has reduced this capacity to about 163 ac-ft. DeSabla Forebay has a surface area of about 15 acres at full capacity and is a regulating facility for DeSabla Powerhouse. The powerhouse and associated intake is float-controlled and the forebay fluctuates minimally (typically less than 0.2 foot) during normal operations and rarely spills. 3.4 DeSabla Powerhouse DeSabla Powerhouse is fed by water from DeSabla Forebay through a welded steel penstock, and discharges water directly into Butte Creek. DeSabla Powerhouse is a reinforced-concrete structure with a control building approximately 26.5 feet by 41 feet, with one turbine-generator unit. The main floor is at elevation 1,222.5 feet. The turbine unit is a 25,000 hp Pelton horizontal turbine with a normal maximum gross head of 1,530 feet and a nameplate flow of 191 cfs. The unit is capable of operating above nameplate flow and capacity for limited periods of time. The generator is rated at 20,500 kva and produces 3-phase, 60 hertz alternating current at 6,900 volts. The normal operating capacity of the generator is 18.5 MW. A 20,500 kva forced-oil-cooled and forced-air-cooled type transformer steps up voltage from 6,900 to 60,000 volts. A 0.25-mile-long transmission tap line connects the powerhouse to the 60 kv Oro Fino Tap Line. 4.0 Centerville Development The Centerville Development consists of the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and Canal, the Upper Centerville Canal, and the Centerville Powerhouse.



4.1 Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and Canal The Lower Centerville Diversion Dam (LCDD) is located on Butte Creek just below the DeSabla Powerhouse and diverts up to approximately 183 cfs from Butte Creek into the Lower Centerville Canal. LCDD is a concrete arch dam about 12 feet high with an overflow spillway at crest elevation 1,146 feet. Lower Centerville Canal is approximately 8 miles long and is composed of earthen canal and several flume sections and has a capacity of 180 to 190 cfs. Flows in Lower Centerville Canal historically have been supplemented by three feeder diversions on Oro Fino Ravine, Emma Ravine, and Coal Claim Ravine. Use of these feeders has been discontinued. 4.2 Upper Centerville Canal The Upper Centerville Canal originates at DeSabla Forebay and historically was used as an alternate route to direct water to Centerville Powerhouse when DeSabla Powerhouse was out of service. The Upper Centerville Canal ends at Helltown Ravine, where water can be released and then captured where Helltown Ravine crosses Lower Centerville Canal. The Upper Centerville Canal has not been used to carry water for power generation for many years and currently carries only a few cfs for local water users. 4.3 Centerville Powerhouse Centerville Canal ends at a 27-foot by 37-foot concrete header box, which feeds water to riveted steel penstocks and a spillway. The penstocks feed two Centerville Powerhouse generating units. The spillway is used in the event a generator at Centerville Powerhouse “trips” off line and during periods when only Unit 2 is operating. Centerville Powerhouse is a concrete reinforced stone building approximately 32 feet by 109 feet with two turbine-generator units. The main floor is at elevation 475.0 feet. Unit 1 is a 9,700 hp horizontal Francis turbine and Unit 2 is a 1,500 hp horizontal Pelton turbine. Unit 1 is connected to a 5,500 kw synchronous generator and Unit 2 is connected to a 900 kw inductor-type generator. The combined two units have a normal maximum gross head of 590 feet, a nameplate flow of 183 cfs, and a total normal operating capacity of 6.4 MW. The units are capable of operating above the nameplate flow and capacity for limited periods of time. A single 6,000 kva transformer steps up voltage to 60,000 volts and power is delivered to the interconnected system at the adjacent Centerville switchyard. The Centerville Powerhouse has been in service for over 100 years and most of the Centerville Powerhouse and associated facilities are approximately 100 years old and are at the end of their useful service life. A condition assessment was conducted in 2005 to assess the existing condition and future requirements needed to retain the generating facility and to assist PG&E in evaluating rebuilding, refurbishment, and decommissioning alternatives. Given the age of the Centerville Powerhouse, the condition assessment noted that while maintenance activities can keep the facilities and equipment operating for a limited time, the probability of critical equipment failure without refurbishment or replacement will continue to increase. Also, since




the facility was constructed many years ago, a portion of the facilities and equipment will need to be refurbished or replaced to meet today’s industry standards for hydro facilities. 5.0 Proposed Project Facilities 5.1 Proposed Facilities PG&E proposes to continue operating the Project for the next 50 years with no change to Project generation facilities or features other than adoption of the resource management measures proposed in this application, deletion of five stream diversions that have not been used for over 10 years, and an anticipated rebuild or refurbishment of Centerville Powerhouse. 5.2 Proposed Changes in the FERC Project Boundary Proposed changes to the DeSabla-Centerville FERC Project Boundary include deletion of five feeder diversions since use of these feeders has been discontinued. These feeder diversions include: Oro Fino Ravine, Emma Ravine, and Coal Claim Ravine feeders on the Lower Centerville Canal; Stevens Creek feeder on the Butte Canal; and Little Butte Creek feeder on the Hendricks Canal. These feeder diversions are identified on the appropriate maps of Exhibit G (see maps Exhibit G-5, G-7, G-10 and G-11). 6.0 Lands of the United States The Project occupies lands of the United States as shown in Table A6.0-1. Table A6.0-1. Project Occupied Lands of the United States.

Exhibit Township and Range Section Acres Use

G-2 T26N, R5E 30 105.21 Reservoir G-3 T25N, R4E 12 2.6 Reservoir

T25N, R4E 13 37.5 Reservoir T25N, R5E 18 0.4 Reservoir

G-6 T24N, R3E 26 3.1 Canal and spillway G-7 T23N, R3E 2 2.1 Canal

T23N, R3E 36 1.3 Canal and access road G-10 T23N, R3E 10 1.3 Spillway G-11 T23N, R3E 22 1.7 Access Road

T23N, R3E 28 3.5 Canal and Access Road G-12 T22N, R3E 4 0.7 Canal

TOTAL 63.14 1 PG&E has rights to 96.26 acres under Act of July 26, 1866, 43 USC § 661, which establishes private rights to use public lands to appropriate water for a number of uses, including hydroelectric generation. Under the Act, owners of ditches, canals and other water conveyance systems that cross public lands are granted a valid right of way or easement to use the land.



7.0 Project Facility Photos 7.1 Toadtown Development

Figure A7.1-1. Round Valley Reservoir. Figure A7.1-2. Round Valley Reservoir.

Figure A7.1-3. Philbrook Reservoir with Dock. Figure A7.1-4. Philbrook Reservoir.

Figure A7.1-5. Hendricks Diversion Dam. Figure A7.1-6. Hendricks Canal.




Figure A7.1-7. Toadtown Powerhouse Aerial View. Figure A7.1-8. Toadtown Powerhouse Ground View. 7.2 DeSabla Development

Figure A7.2-1. Butte Creek Diversion Dam. Figure A7.2-2. Toadtown Canal.

Figure A7.2-3. Butte Canal. Figure A7.2-4. DeSabla Forebay.



Figure A7.2-5. DeSabla Forebay. Figure A7.2-6. DeSabla Powerhouse. 7.3 Centerville Development

Figure A7.3-1. Lower Centerville Diversion Figure A7.3-2. Centerville Powerhouse Dam and Canal. Aerial.



October 2007 License Application Operation and Utilization © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page B-1

EXHIBIT B

Project Operation and Resource Utilization Section 4.51(c) of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) describes information that an applicant for a new license (Application for License for Major Project – Existing Dam) must include in Exhibit B, of its license application. 18 CFR §4.51(c) states:

Exhibit B is a statement of project operation and resource utilization. If the project includes more than one dam with associated facilities, the information must be provided separately for each such discrete development. The exhibit must contain:

(1) A statement whether operation of the powerplant will be manual or automatic, an estimate of the annual plant factor, and a statement of how the project will be operated during adverse, mean, and high water years,

(2) An estimate of the dependable capacity and average annual energy production in kilowatt-hours (or a mechanical equivalent), supported by the following data:

(i) The minimum, mean, and maximum recorded flows in cubic feet per second of the stream or other body of water at the powerplant intake or point of diversion, with a specification of any adjustment made for evaporation, leakage, minimum flow releases (including duration of releases), or other reductions in available flow, a flow duration curve indicating the period of record and the gauging stations used in deriving the curve, and a specification of the period of critical stream flow used to determine the dependable capacity,

(ii) An area-capacity curve showing the gross storage capacity and usable storage capacity of the impoundment, with a rule curve showing the proposed operation of the impoundment and how the usable storage capacity is to be utilized;

(iii) The estimated hydraulic capacity of the powerplant (maximum flow through the powerplant) in cubic feet per second;

(iv) A tailwater rating curve; and (v) A curve showing powerplant capability versus head and specifying maximum, normal, and minimum heads;

(3) A statement, with load curves and tabular data, if necessary, of the manner in which the power generated at the project is to be utilized, including the amount of power to be used on-site, if any, the amount of power to be sold, and the identity of any proposed purchasers; and

(4) A statement of the applicant’s plans, if any, for future development of the project or of any other existing or proposed water power project on the stream or other body of water, indicating the approximate location and estimated installed capacity of the proposed developments.

1.0 Overview of DeSabla-Centerville Hydro Operations 1.1 Historical Overview The Centerville Powerhouse was placed into service in May 1900 and has operated continuously since that time. The first DeSabla Powerhouse was placed into service in October 1903 and was replaced with a new powerhouse, which was placed into service in early 1963. The Toadtown Powerhouse was placed in service in 1986. In 1929, a minor-part license was issued by the Federal Power Commission (predecessor to FERC) for portions of the Project located on federal lands. The minor-part license expired on October 11, 1979. The current license requirements are contained in FERC’s order issuing new license dated June 12, 1980, all subsequent orders amending the license, and filed exhibits that are approved by FERC. The current license will expire on October 11, 2009. 1.2 Current Operation The Project is located in Butte County on the West Branch Feather River (WBFR) and Butte Creek. The Project is owned and operated by PG&E and has an installed capacity of 26.4 megawatts (MW). The Project generally consists of three small storage reservoirs (Round Valley, Philbrook, DeSabla Forebay); several small diversion and feeder dams canals (with tunnels and flumes); penstocks; and three powerhouses: Toadtown (1.5 MW), DeSabla (18.5


Operation and Utilization License Application October 2007 Page B-2 © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

MW), and Centerville (6.4 MW). Figure B1.2-1 provides a schematic diagram of the Project facilities.

Figure B1.2-1. DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project Schematic.




The Project is operated primarily as a run-of-the-river system and operates on a continuous basis, using the water supply available after satisfaction of the minimum instream flow requirements. During the winter and spring, base flows in WBFR and Butte Creek typically provide adequate flow for full operation of the Project powerhouses. During the summer months, the available base flow water is augmented by water releases from Round Valley and Philbrook reservoirs. During the fall months Project powerhouses are operated at reduced capacities due to low stream flows. Figure B1.2-1 provides a schematic diagram of how water is diverted for Project operation. Also shown on Figure B1.2-1 is the Miocene Project, which is a non-FERC jurisdictional project with two small (less than 3 MW) powerhouses owned and operated by PG&E. PG&E currently makes water deliveries to several irrigation customers between the Lime Saddle and Coal Canyon powerhouses and all water discharged at the Coal Canyon Powerhouse is delivered to the California Water Service Company’s Powers Canal. This water is used to serve a portion of the needs of the city of Oroville. In 1999, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (Chinook salmon) were designated as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Since that time, PG&E has operated the Project under an annual Project Operations and Maintenance Plan developed each spring in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This Operations and Maintenance Plan outlines the procedures and practices followed by PG&E in the operation and maintenance of the Project facilities to enhance and protect this habitat for Chinook salmon. This Operations and Maintenance Plan is also intended to provide the basis for modification of the reservoir temperature release criteria established in the FERC’s August 21, 1997 order, as amended by its August 20, 1998 order. Under the Project Operations and Maintenance Plans, water is released from reservoirs on the WBFR, first from Round Valley Reservoir, followed by the release of water from Philbrook Reservoir as high temperatures occur during the summer. These releases, together with the diversion of natural flow from the WBFR, provide an additional source of cool water to Butte Creek. To minimize the amount of solar heating that may occur as the water travels from the WBFR to Butte Creek, the Project Operations and Maintenance Plans have an objective to maintain a minimum flow of 100 cfs into the DeSabla Forebay through mid-September, if possible. This measure decreases the time required for conveyance through the DeSabla Forebay. Conservation measures incorporated into Project operations are set forth in detail in the 2006 Project Operations and Maintenance Plan. All Project powerhouses are operated remotely and monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by operators at PG&E’s Rock Creek switching center on the North Fork Feather River. Field maintenance crews typically work four days each week and are located at Camp 1, adjacent to DeSabla Forebay. If an alarm at a powerhouse or on a canal is received at Rock Creek switching center, the switching center can dispatch a roving operator to investigate the situation. At various locations on the canal system, PG&E maintains water release gates that can be operated



remotely to discharge the canal flow to the adjacent stream channel. This minimizes potential impacts that might otherwise result from events such as a canal or flume overtopping or failure. PG&E also reduces canal flows during storm periods to reduce the risk of canal overtopping and failures. Maintenance of canals and powerhouses is typically scheduled in the winter and spring months to avoid possible disruptions at times that may be sensitive for the Chinook salmon. 2.0 Hydrology The Project watershed is located on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range at the north end of the range, within the northern end of Butte County. The watershed is composed of the headwaters for Butte Creek on the west and the headwaters of the WBFR on the east. As discussed below and shown in Figure B1.2-1, both Butte Creek and the Feather River drain into the Sacramento River and eventually into the Pacific Ocean through San Pablo Bay. The Project watersheds have mild, dry summers with little to no precipitation; cold, wet winters with moderate to heavy precipitation; and annual temperatures ranging from below zero degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to above 100°F. At elevations above about 5,000 feet, precipitation is mainly in the form of snow. Water flowing into Butte Creek and the WBFR is derived primarily from precipitation and snowmelt in the watershed. The area receives high flows during the snowmelt period, which typically extends from March through late June. Low flows typically occur during late summer and early fall, or during the late fall and winter when temperatures are low and precipitation remains in the form of snow pack. Average annual precipitation totals are 43.3 inches annually at Centerville Powerhouse at 520 feet elevation, and 59.5 inches at Sterling City at 3,530 feet elevation. The Project watershed drainages are discussed individually below. 2.1 Butte Creek Butte Creek originates in the Jonesville Basin at an elevation of 7,087 feet and flows southwesterly until it flows into the Sacramento River at Butte Slough and Sacramento Slough near the town of Colusa. The Project's Butte Creek drainage basin is an area of 96,012 acres that includes 41.5 miles of Butte Creek. 2.2 West Branch Feather River The WBFR originates in an area just east of Round Valley Reservoir, at an elevation of just over 6,960 feet and flows southwesterly before draining into Lake Oroville. The Feather River then continues until it drains into the Sacramento River. The Project's WBFR drainage basin is an area of 70,003 acres that includes 39 miles of the WBFR. There are two storage reservoirs on the WBFR within the Project, Round Valley Reservoir and Philbrook Reservoir, with a combined storage capacity of 6,144 af. 2.3 In-Basin Transfers The Project includes four in-basin water transfers. For the purpose of this relicensing, a stream segment that is affected by each of these transfers (e.g., storage, diversion) due to Project




operations is called a “Project Reach” and each reach is named after the Project facility from which the flow is affected (Table B2.3-1). Table B2.3-1. DeSabla-Centerville Project in-basin Project Reaches for Water Transfers.

Name Description Butte Creek Diversion Dam Reach

The 10.1-mile-long (gradient of 162 feet per mile, or 0.031%) section of Butte Creek from the base of the Butte Creek Diversion Dam (El. 2,880 ft) to the DeSabla Powerhouse tailrace (El. 1,240 ft). Note that this reach includes the Forks of Butte Diversion Dam (non-Project) and the Forks of Butte Powerhouse tailrace and inflow (non-Project).

DeSabla Powerhouse Reach The 0.1-mile-long (gradient of 400 feet per mile, or 0.076%) section of Butte Creek from the DeSabla Powerhouse tailrace (El. 1,240 ft) to the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam (El. 1,200 ft).

Lower Centerville Diversion Dam Reach

The 6.4-mile-long (gradient of 108 feet per mile, or 0.020%) section of Butte Creek from the base of the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam (El. 1,200 ft) to the Centerville Powerhouse tailrace (El. 510 ft).

Centerville Powerhouse Reach The 9.0-mile-long (gradient of 28 feet per mile, or 0.005%) section of Butte Creek from the Centerville Powerhouse tailrace (El. 510 ft) to the Parrott-Phelan Diversion Dam (El. 260 ft).

2.4 Out-Of-Basin Transfers There are six out-of basin transfers associated with the Project (Table B2.4-1). Table B2.4-1. DeSabla-Centerville Project Out-of-Basin Bypass Reaches for Water Transfers.

Name Description

Round Valley Dam Reach The 4.9-mile-long (gradient of 169 feet per mile, or 0.032%) section of the WBFR from the base of Round Valley Dam (El. 5,627.0 ft) to the confluence with Philbrook Creek (El. 4,800 ft).

Philbrook Dam Reach The 2.3-mile-long (gradient of 291 feet per mile, or 0.055%) section of Philbrook Creek from the base of Philbrook Dam (El. 5,469 ft) to the confluence with WBFR (El. 4,800 ft).

WBFR and Philbrook Creek Confluence Reach

The 9.6-mile-long (gradient of 163 feet per mile, or 0.031%) section of the WBFR from the confluence with Philbrook Creek (El. 4,800 ft) to Hendricks Diversion Dam (El. 3240 ft).

Hendricks Diversion Dam Reach

The 14-mile-long (gradient of 121 feet per mile, or 0.023%) section of the WBFR from the base of Hendricks Diversion Dam (El. 3,240 ft) to the Miocene Diversion Dam (El. 1,540 ft).

Hendricks Canal at Long Ravine Confluence Reach

The 0.7-mile-long (gradient of 171 feet per mile, or 0.032%) section of Long Ravine from the outlet of the Hendricks Canal (El. 3,230 ft) to the base of Long Ravine Diversion Dam (El. 3,110 ft).

Long Ravine Diversion Dam Reach

The 1.7-mile-long (gradient of 218 feet per mile, or 0.041%) section of Long Ravine from the base of Long Ravine Diversion Dam (El. 3,110 ft) to the confluence with the Little West Fork (El. 2,740 ft).

2.5 Typical Wet, Normal, Dry and Critically Dry Years FERC regulations require that an applicant for a new license describe project operation in adverse, mean, and high water years. The Licensee fulfills this requirement by selecting typical wet, normal, dry and critically dry water years. To select typical wet, normal, dry, and critically dry years in which to describe project operations, PG&E reviewed the historic hydrology. This selection process and typical operations in more years are described below. PG&E selected representative wet, normal, dry, and critically dry years in which to describe typical operations based on the CDWR May 1 forecast of the Water Year unimpaired runoff from the Feather River and its tributaries into Lake Oroville. The Water Year forecast data by the CDWR is available for the Feather River for Water Years 1953 through 2006. Each year, CDWR estimates (forecasts) the anticipated volume of spring runoff that will occur for the Feather River and its tributaries into Lake Oroville. The forecasts are based on snow pack measurements and anticipated precipitation and runoff. The Water Year forecasts are updated for four consecutive months beginning on February 1, and the final Water Year forecast is published on May 1 of each year. The observed Water Year runoff is published October 1 of



each year. Figures illustrating the CDWR’s historical Water Year forecasts for the Feather River, as determined on May 1 for each year, are shown chronologically in Figure B2.5-1 and ranked by water year from driest to wettest in Figure B2.5-2.

Feather River at Oroville: Chronological Water Year Forecasts

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Water Year

Volu

me

(100

0's

Ac-

ft)

Reference data: Calif . Dept. Water Resources

Figure B2.5-1. California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 120 Water Year forecast (May 1 update) for the Feather River and its tributaries at Lake Oroville from Water Years 1953 through 2006.




Feather River at Oroville: Water Year Ranking

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,00019

7719

7619

9419

8819

9019

9220

0119

8719

9119

6419

5519

6119

8119

6619

8519

5919

7919

6019

7220

0219

6819

5720

0519

6219

8920

0419

5419

5320

0320

0019

7319

7519

9619

7119

9919

8019

9319

8419

6319

6719

7019

7819

5819

9819

6519

9719

8619

6920

0619

5619

7419

9519

8219

83

Water Year

Volu

me

(100

0's

Ac-

ft)

10% Exceedence

Median

90% Exceedence

Figure B2.5-2. Ranked California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 120 Water Year forecast (May 1 update) for the Feather River and its tributaries at Lake Oroville from Water Years 1953 through 2006. Based on CDWR’s May 1 Water Year forecast from water years 1953 through 2006, the driest year on record was 1977 with an inflow into Lake Oroville of 915,000 af and the wettest year was 1983 at 9,800,000 af. The median and average unimpaired annual runoffs were 4,385,000 af and 4,625,000 af, respectively, for the water year forecasts. The 10% exceedence value was 8,015,000 af and the 90% exceedence value was 2,041,000 af. The median, 10% exceedence and 90% exceedence values are shown graphically along with the water year forecast rankings in Figure B2.5-2. For the purpose of this exhibit, PG&E selected representative normal, wet, dry and critically dry water years based on CDWR’s May 1 Water Year forecast at Lake Oroville from Water Years 1953 through 2006, with the caveat that the typical water years must occur from Water Years 1986 through 2005. PG&E selected this 20-year-long period of record for relicensing because: 1) prior to 1986, available hydrology data from the Project gages, while extensive, has numerous missing daily records; and 2) this period includes one of the wettest (Water Year 1995) and one of the driest (Water Year 2001) years in the overall record. The representative normal, wet and dry water years were selected using the median, 10% exceedance and 90% exceedance values as a starting point to identify a candidate group of water years, and using other criteria to condition the selection of typical water years, as discussed below. It should be noted that these representative years (along with the criteria used to select them) are not directly related to the Project’s Water Year Type definition. See Exhibit E, Section 6.2 for a detailed discussion of Project Water Year Types.



Within the relicensing hydrology period of record, PG&E selected 2003 as a representative normal water year because: the water year forecast is reasonably close to the median, with a 48% exceedance forecast of 4,530,000 af; the monthly distribution of flow in this water year was relatively well distributed across the water year (i.e., not highly skewed by individual flood events and a consistent seasonal water year type); and 2003 is a recent water year (i.e., typical of current operating conditions and records) that is useful for relicensing studies. For a representative wet water year, PG&E selected 1995 because: it is reasonably close to the 10% exceedance, with a 4% exceedance forecast of 8,800,000 af; it was a year with significant spill events but otherwise well distributed water supply throughout the water year (i.e., not highly skewed by individual flood events and a consistent seasonal water year type); and 1995 is a recent water year (i.e., reasonably representative of current operating conditions and records) that is useful for relicensing studies. For a representative dry water year, PG&E selected 2002 because: it has a 65% exceedance forecast of 3,300,000 af; it had relatively even distribution of flows throughout the year (i.e... consistent seasonal water year type); and 2002 is a relatively recent water year (i.e., reasonably representative of current operating conditions and records) that is useful for relicensing studies. For a representative critically dry water year, PG&E selected 2001 because: it has an 89% exceedance forecast of 2,090,000 af; it had relatively even distribution of flows throughout the year (i.e., consistent seasonal water year type); and 2001 is a relatively recent water year (i.e., reasonably representative of current operating conditions and records) that is useful for relicensing studies. In summary, for the purposes of describing typical operations in normal, wet, dry and critically dry conditions, PG&E selected the hydrology in the following years in which to describe typical operations.1

• 1995 is considered the typical Wet Water Year • 2003 is considered the typical Normal Water Year • 2002 is considered the typical Dry Water Year • 2001 is considered the typical Critically Dry Water Year

2.6 Hydrologic Record 2.6.1 Project Regulated Hydrology Flow and lake storage in the Project Area are measured at 23 locations maintained by PG&E in cooperation with USGS. Two additional gage stations, located outside the Project Area and maintained by PG&E, were also included (BW23 and BW24). Two other gage stations in the area operated by USGS (USGS Gages 11390000 and 11405300) were also included. Figure B2.6-1 (located at the end of Exhibit B) illustrates the location of these gages. Table B2.6-1

1Selection of these representative normal, wet, dry and critically dry years in which to describe typical proposed operations for the proposal of Exhibit B should not be confused with the proposal of “water year types” for inclusion in the new license. “Typical water years” in Exhibit B do not correspond in any way to PG&E’s proposed “water year types”. For a discussion of proposed “water year types”, see Exhibit E, Section E6.2.2.1.4.




summarizes location and period of record for each of these gages. Table B2.6-2 summarizes hydrologic information such as mean annual flows, and maximum and minimum recorded flows. A discussion of each of these gages is provided below by location. USGS Maintained Recording Gages Butte Creek: The USGS gage used for Butte Creek flows (USGS 11390000 – Butte Creek near Chico, CA) is located 0.7 miles downstream from Little Butte Creek and 7.5 miles east of Chico. The Chico gage is a fully-rated gage (i.e., rated to measure the full range of flows passing that site) on Butte Creek above the major downstream diversions, with a data record extending from 1930 to 2004. Flow at this site is slightly influenced by regulated storage in Magalia Reservoir (usable capacity - 2,640 acre-ft) and (since 1957) Paradise Reservoir (usable capacity - 11,500 acre-ft). Diversions upstream from this station for irrigation and domestic use total about 7,000 acre-ft annually. Butte Creek also receives interbasin flow from the WBFR by way of the Hendricks/Toadtown Canal. WBFR: The USGS gage used for WBFR flows (USGS 11405300 - WB Feather River near Paradise, CA) is located downstream of the Miocene Diversion. The Paradise gage is a fully-rated gage on the WBFR with a data record extending from 1957 to 1986. PG&E Maintained Recording Gages There are flow gages at all the major Project diversions, as well as in the canals and at the powerhouses. PG&E utilizes three canal systems (Butte, Centerville, and Hendricks/Toadtown) for water conveyance for power production. The flow gages located in the bypass reaches below each diversion are primarily designed to measure FERC-mandated minimum flows, and are not fully rated to measure the full range of flows that occur. Consequently, when stream flows are spilling over Project diversion dams (late winter through early summer), the flow records in the bypass reaches in Butte Creek and WBFR were incomplete (i.e., flow values were truncated, flat lined, missing, or estimated during periods when flows exceeded the rating curve). Butte Canal: Butte Canal is comprised of earthen berm, gunite, and flume sections. Water is diverted from Butte Creek at PG&E’s Butte Diversion Dam into the 11.5-mile Butte Canal, which has a hydraulic capacity of 91 cfs. The minimum instream flow release is made from the canal back into the stream just downstream of the dam. Butte Canal flow can be augmented by three tributary feeder streams, the largest of which is Clear Creek. PG&E maintains two gages on the Butte Canal (BW14 and BW15) with a period of record extending from 1970 to 2005. BW14 is located just downstream of the head dam, and BW15 is just above the confluence of the Hendricks/Toadtown canal. The Butte and Hendricks/Toadtown canals merge approximately 0.7 miles above the DeSabla Forebay.



Hendricks/Toadtown Canal: At the Hendricks Diversion Dam, up to 125 cfs can be diverted into the 8.7-mile Hendricks Canal from the WBFR, with a minimum instream flow release made from the canal back into the river downstream of the dam. The Hendricks Canal has a single gage in the canal below the diversion (BW8). Approximately 2 miles downstream of the Hendricks Diversion Dam, the flow from the Hendricks Canal enters Long Ravine. The combined flow from the Hendricks canal and Long Ravine travel approximately 1 mile downstream in Long Ravine to the Long Ravine Diversion Dam, where the water is diverted back into the continuation of the Hendricks Canal and ultimately to the Toadtown Powerhouse. The Toadtown Powerhouse discharges into the Toadtown Canal. PG&E maintains two gages on the Hendricks/Toadtown Canal (BW8 and BW12). BW8 is located just downstream of the head dam, and BW12 (USGS 1189800) is just above the confluence of the Butte Canal. Both have records extending from 1970 to 2005. Lower Centerville Canal: The second of the Project’s Butte Creek diversions is 0.2 miles downstream of the DeSabla Powerhouse at the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam (LCDD). The LCDD diverts up to 185 cfs into the Lower Centerville Canal. A small amount of additional flow (i.e., typically less than three cfs) enters the Lower Centerville Canal from the Upper Centerville Canal near Helltown Ravine. The Upper Centerville Canal is currently used to deliver 2-3 cfs to local water users. PG&E maintains two gages on the Lower Centerville Canal (BW20 and BW22). BW20 is located just downstream of the LCDD, and BW22 is just above the forebay for the Centerville Powerhouse. Both gages have records extending from 1970 to 2005. DeSabla Powerhouse (USGS 11389750 - BW82): Approximately 0.7 miles above the DeSabla Forebay, the Butte Creek and Hendricks/Toadtown canal join and flow into the DeSabla Forebay. DeSabla Forebay has a listed storage capacity of 188 acre-feet, however, sedimentation has reduced this capacity significantly. The DeSabla Forebay is the regulating facility for the DeSabla Powerhouse and it operates within a very narrow elevation band; the penstock intake is float-controlled and the forebay fluctuates minimally during normal operations. The DeSabla Powerhouse is fed by the forebay through a penstock with maximum capacity of approximately 200 cfs. Flow from the DeSabla Powerhouse discharges into Butte Creek approximately 0.2 miles above the LCDD. Centerville Powerhouse (USGS 11389775 – BW80): The Centerville Forebay is a concrete header box (27 feet by 37 feet) with a spillway channel. The Centerville Powerhouse is fed water from the forebay through two riveted steel penstocks with a maximum capacity of 185 cfs. The powerhouse discharges into Butte Creek approximately 5.3 miles downstream of the LCDD. This gage is a back-calculated gage based on powerhouse load readings. Toadtown Powerhouse (USGS 11389775 – BW100): The Toadtown Forebay is a concrete header box with a penstock and secondary bypass pipe. The Toadtown Powerhouse is fed water from the forebay through a concrete penstock with a maximum capacity of 134 cfs. Bypass flows are sent down Rapid Pipe. This gage is a back-calculated gage based on powerhouse load readings.




Butte Creek below the Butte Diversion (USGS 11389720 – BW97): PG&E has good gage data from Butte Creek below the Butte Diversion from 1986 to 2005. Prior to 1997 this gage was rated to 50 cfs. The gage was replaced after the 1997 floods with a different design and the ratings have only been developed to 101 cfs, with a theoretical extension to 1,000 cfs, but there has been no confirmation of the accuracy of the ratings at high flows. The USGS only accepts the record to 100 cfs. PG&E calculated a rough estimate of the diversion spill at this location (BW13). When flows in Butte Creek below the Butte Diversion were less than 100 cfs, the gage data was used as the flow data. If flow data was above the gage rating, the prorated incremental flows from the Chico gage were used and checked against the estimated data from Butte Diversion spill (BW13). Butte Creek below the Centerville Diversion (USGS 11389780 – BW98): When flows in Butte Creek below the Centerville Diversion were less than or equal to 100 cfs, the gage data were used. If flow data were above the gage rating, the prorated incremental flows from the Chico gage were used and checked against the estimated Centerville Diversion spill (BW19). Round Valley Reservoir (USGS 11405075 – BW1): Round Valley Reservoir, also know as Snag Lake, has a total drainage area of approximately 2 square miles, a maximum surface area of 5,651 feet and total usable capacity of 1,196 ac-ft. At Round Valley Reservoir, the lower level outlet is typically closed sometime in February or March, and the reservoir starts to fill. There are no gates or boards at Round Valley, so consequently the reservoir begins to spill once the storage exceeds 1,196 ac-ft. Typically during June or July the lower level outlet is opened and the reservoir begins to drain. The reservoir is completely empty between four and eight weeks after the lower level is first opened. The data recorded from Round Valley was synoptic, recorded approximately weekly during the summer when the reservoir was in use and there was access to the site. During the winter, flows were not consistently reported since there is little or no access to the site (readings were typically obtained once every 1 to 5 months). WBFR below Round Valley Reservoir (USGS 11405085 – BW45): The regulated flow below Round Valley Reservoir was reported approximately weekly during the summer when PG&E was releasing water and when there was access to the site. During the spring and summer, the downstream data was extrapolated from the synoptic data, the calculated outflow, the changes in storage from Round Valley Reservoir, and calculated inflow. During the winter, flows were typically not reported since there is little or no access to the site. After the lower level outlet is open in the summer, the valve typically remains open throughout the rest of the year until it is closed again in February or March. Philbrook Reservoir (USGS 11405100 – BW2): Philbrook Reservoir is the largest of the Project reservoirs. It is situated on Philbrook Creek approximately 2 miles above the confluence with the WBFR. Philbrook Reservoir has a total drainage area of approximately 5 square miles, a maximum surface elevation of 5,552.5 feet, and total usable storage capacity of 5,009 ac-ft. Non-spill releases are made from a low-level outlet directly into Philbrook Creek. The storage data for Philbrook Reservoir was synoptic and was typically collected at weekly intervals when there was access to the site. Philbrook Reservoir has two spillways; one with a radial gate and the other flash boards, therefore the reservoir can spill at different levels based on the



configuration of the radial gate and the number of flash boards installed. However, there is no information available regarding dates or gate/board configurations. There is also no record of the duration and magnitude of spill events. If the elevation of the reservoir was below the spill elevation range, inflows were calculated using both change in reservoir elevation and the prorated incremental flow. If reservoir elevation was above the spill elevation range, flows and storage were calculated using an algorithm based on prorated flows that calculated spill and resultant changes in reservoir storage. Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Reservoir (USGS 11405120 – BW3): Station BW3 only monitors flow from the low level release and does not capture spill. Before 1990, this station had only synoptic data recorded approximately weekly when there was access to the site. The data were extrapolated from the synoptic data and checked against the changes in storage from Philbrook Reservoir. When the reservoir was spilling, the calculated spill flow was added to this location. West Fork Feather River below Hendricks Diversion (USGS 11405200 – BW95): The gage station for BW-95 was replaced several years ago. The old location was subject to damage from high flows, vandalism and had frequent shifts in the stage-discharge relationship as the stream bed moved (i.e., changes in the channel cross-section over time). The old station was rated to 40 cfs. The new station was designed to provide extremely accurate monitoring of the release, but it does not record any spill at the diversion dam. Hence, during a storm and high spills, the gage only records the release being made from the canal back into the creek, which is rated to 33 cfs. When flows in WBFR below the Hendricks Diversion were less than or equal to the rating of the gage, the gage data was used to determine flow. If flow values were above the gage rating, prorated values were used and checked against the estimated Hendricks Diversion spill (BW7). Long Ravine below Diversion Dam (USGS 11405220 – BW96): This gage measures flows below the Long Ravine Feeder to Hendricks Canal. Minimum flows at this location are 0.5 cfs (normal water year conditions) and 0.25 cfs (dry water year conditions). This gage records minimum flow along with any spill at the diversion into Long Ravine. DeSabla Forebay (BW17): This is a staff measurement gage located on DeSabla Forebay. The forebay is float-controlled to maintain a nearly constant pond elevation. Upper Centerville Canal – release from DeSabla Forebay (BW18): This gage measures the releases from DeSabla Forebay to the Upper Centerville Canal for various downstream water deliveries.




Table B2.6-1. PG&E and USGS Gaging Stations. Watershed PG&E ID USGS No. Station Name USGS Period (WY) PG&E Period (WY) Status

1 Butte BW97 11389720 Butte Creek below Butte Creek Diversion Dam near Stirling City CA 86 - 04 86 - 05 --

2 Butte BW13 --- Butte Creek Diversion Dam Spill (estimated) -- 87 - 05 --

3 Butte BW14 --- Butte Canal at Butte Diversion Dam -- 70 - 05 --

4 Butte BW15 --- Butte Canal above Toadtown Canal -- 70 - 05 --

5 Butte BW82 11389750 DeSabla Powerhouse near Paradise CA 80 - 04 75 - 05 --

7 Butte BW98 11389780 Butte Creek below Centerville Diversion Dam 86 - 04 86 - 05 --

8 Butte BW19 --- Centerville Diversion Dam Spill (estimated) 86 - 04 87 - 05 --

9 Butte BW20 --- Centerville Canal near Diversion Dam -- 70 - 05 --

10 Butte BW22 --- Centerville Canal near Forebay -- 70 - 05 --

11 Butte BW80 11389775 Centerville Powerhouse near Paradise CA 80 - 04 75 - 05 --

12 Butte --- 11390000 Butte Creek near Chico CA 30 - 04 -- --

13 WBFR BW1 11405075 Snag Lake (Round Valley Reservoir) near Jonesville CA -- 80 - 05 --

14 WBFR BW45 11405085 WBFR below Snag Lake near Jonesville CA 93 - 03 86 - 05 --

15 WBFR BW2 11405100 Philbrook Reservoir near Butte Meadows CA -- 80 - 05 --

16 WBFR BW3 11405120 Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Reservoir near Butte Meadows CA 89 - 04 86 - 05 --

17 WBFR BW95 11405200 WBFR below Hendricks Diversion Dam 86 - 04 86 - 05 Site moved

18 WBFR BW7 --- Hendricks Diversion Dam Spill (estimated) -- 86 - 05 --

19 WBFR BW8 --- Hendricks Canal at Head Dam -- 70 - 05 --

20 WBFR BW96 11405220 Long Ravine below Diversion Dam near Stirling City CA 96 - 03 86 - 05 --

21 WBFR BW12 11389800 Toadtown Canal above Butte Canal near Stirling City CA 84 - 04 70 - 05 --

22 WBFR --- 11405300 WBFR near Paradise CA 57 - 86 -- Discon.

23 WBFR BW100 11389775 Toadtown Powerhouse -- 86 - 05 --

24 Combined BW17 --- DeSabla Forebay -- 94 - 05 --

25 Combined BW18 --- Upper Centerville Canal - release from DeSabla Forebay -- 70 - 05 --

26 WBFR BW24 --- Upper Miocene Canal (Non-FERC License facility) -- 70 - 05 --

27 WBFR BW23 --- WBFR below Miocene Diversion (Non-FERC License facility) -- 76 - 05 --



Table B2.6-2. Hydrologic data for period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. PG&E ID Station Name Units POR

Median POR Mean

Annual Mean-Hi

Annual Mean-Low

Monthly Mean-Hi

Monthly Mean-Low

Daily Mean-Hi

Daily Mean-Low

1 BW97 & BW13

Butte Creek below Butte Creek Diversion Dam1 cfs 25 111 280 (1995)

27 (1990)

286 (Feb)

19 (Aug)

10,989 (01/01/97)

8 (Periodic)

3 BW14 Butte Canal at Butte Diversion Dam2 cfs 50 49 66 (1988)

26 (1997)

62 (Jun)

38 (Oct)

108 (01/15/02)

0 (Periodic)

4 BW15 Butte Canal above Toadtown Canal2 cfs 51 51 66 (1988)

27 (1997)

68 (Apr)

33 (Oct)

130 (12/16/97

0 (Periodic)

5 BW82 DeSabla Powerhouse2 cfs 105 107 129 (1993)

58 (1997)

148 (Apr)

60 (Oct)

193 (01/05/86)

0 (Periodic)

7 BW98 & BW19

Butte Creek below Centerville Diversion Dam1 cfs 70 208 497 (1995)

67 (1990)

501 (Feb)

43 (Aug)

12,961 (12/31/96)

10 (Periodic)

9 BW20 Centerville Canal near Diversion Dam2 cfs 111 105 131 (1993)

67 (1997)

151 (Apr)

50 (Oct)

183 (03/22/94)

0 (Periodic)

10 BW22 Centerville Canal near Forebay2 cfs 114 107 131 (1988)

59 (1997)

156 (Apr)

50 (Oct)

1,100 (12/17/88)

0 (Periodic)

11 BW80 Centerville Powerhouse2 cfs 109 102 129 (1993)

57 (1997)

150 (Apr)

46 (Oct)

190 (02/29/92)

0 (Periodic)

12 --- Butte Creek3 cfs 203 405 834 (1995)

207 (1994)

872 (Feb)

112 (Sep)

26,600 (01/01/97)

45 (08/25/92)

13 BW1 Snag Lake (Round Valley Reservoir)4 ft, elev. 5,632.8 5,635.9 5,639.5 (1998)

5,630.3 (1988)

5,649.1 (May)

5,626.2 (Sep)

5,653.6 (01/02/97)

5,626.2 (Periodic)

14 BW45 WBFR below Snag Lake1 cfs 1.4 6.2 14.3 (1995)

1.3 (1988)

11.4 (Mar)

1.4 (Oct)

571 (01/01/97)

0 (Periodic)

15 BW2 Philbrook Reservoir4 cfs 5,539.2 5,533.8 5,536.8 (2003)

5,529.4 (2001)

5,550.9 (Jun)

5,512.0 (Nov)

5,554.8 (05/24/05)

5,511.0 (Periodic)

16 BW3 Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Reservoir1 ft, elev. 4.3 16.7 29.8 (1995)

7.5 (1992)

28.3 (Aug)

5.3 (Nov)

1,413 (01/01/97)

1 (Periodic)

17 BW95 & BW7

WBFR River below Hendricks Diversion Dam1 cfs 21 109 279 (1995)

25 (1994)

239 (Mar)

18 (Oct)

12,580 (01/01/97)

7 (02/26/89)

19 BW8 Hendricks Canal at Head Dam2 cfs 64 65 86 (1999)

31 (1997)

94 (Apr)

35 (Oct)

1,013 (07/05/05)

0 (Periodic)

20 BW96 Long Ravine below Diversion Dam2 cfs -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

21 BW12 Toadtown Canal above Butte Canal2 cfs 62 64 84 (1993)

36 (1997)

93 (Mar)

31 (Oct)

127 (02/12/95)

0 (Periodic)

23 BW100 Toadtown Powerhouse2 cfs -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

24 BW17 DeSabla Reservoir4 ft, elev. 2,753.0 2,753.0 2,753.0 (Periodic)

2,753.0 (Periodic)

2,753.0 (Periodic)

2,753.0 (Periodic)

2,753.0 (Periodic)

2,753.0 (Periodic)

25 BW18 Upper Centerville Canal from DeSabla Forebay2 cfs 3.0 2.9 4.2 (1988)

1.9 (1997)

4.3 (Apr)

2.5 (Jul)

15.0 (Periodic)

0.0 (Periodic)

Notes: (1) Combination PG&E recorded data and synthesized data; (2) PG&E recorded data; (3) USGS recorded data; (4) HEC-ResSim DeSabla-Centerville Operations Model data. See section 3.6.1 for descriptions of gage locations and limitations.




2.6.2 Project Unimpaired Hydrology To develop the unimpaired hydrology database for the Project, several different methodologies were used, including summation and proration. The primary approach for synthesizing unimpaired stream flow data was the summation method, by using a mass balance equation for all hydrologic points (nodes) where gaging station records and/or observer’s reports are available. All available USGS and PG&E data were used to compute the unimpaired mean daily flows for the study period. For periods of missing gage data, the mean daily flow data were estimated from previous or following records, by comparison with other station records from the same or nearby basins. At locations where available gage data were insufficient, the mean daily flows were estimated by the proration method, by using unimpaired flow data from nearby streams (i.e., reference data) and using the reference data to develop unimpaired flow data for the basin of interest with the use of a drainage-area scale factor. The summation and proration methods are further described below. Summation The summation method uses mass balance equations for all points where gaging station records and/or observer’s reports were available. For reservoirs, this incorporates the determination of inflows using the hydrologic water budget equation:

ΔS = I – So where the change in storage (ΔS) equals inflow (I) minus outflow (So). The summation method also assimilates stream flow gage data from contributing drainage areas and accounts for losses from diversion flows. Proration The proration method estimates mean daily unimpaired flows for a given watershed of interest based upon unimpaired flow data in a similar (reference) watershed. The unimpaired flow data in the reference watershed is then prorated to the watershed of interest by applying a drainage area ratio factor (i.e., drainage area ratio equals drainage area of watershed of interest divided by drainage area of reference watershed). If the unimpaired flow data for the reference watershed is accurate, then the proration method is very effective when applied to watersheds with similar physical characteristics (e.g., climate, topography, elevation, geology). Accretion to the channel is assumed to be positive, and will be estimated based on contributing drainage area. Unimpaired Hydrologic Nodes Unimpaired hydrology was computed at nine nodes. Figure B2.6-2 (located at the end of Exhibit B) illustrates the location of these nodes. There are four nodes on Butte Creek:

• Butte Creek at the Butte Diversion Dam (BW97, below the diversion dam) • Butte Creek above DeSabla Powerhouse



• Butte Creek at the Lower Centerville Canal Diversion Dam (BW98, below the diversion dam)

• Butte Creek at the Centerville Powerhouse There are five nodes on the WBFR:

• WBFR at Round Valley Reservoir (BW45) • WBFR above the confluence of Philbrook Creek • Philbrook Creek at Philbrook Reservoir (BW3) • WBFR at the Hendricks Diversion (BW95, below the diversion dam) • WBFR at the Miocene Diversion

Only five of these nodes have regulated gages located at their sites, as shown by the PG&E ID number given parenthetically with the site descriptions above. In some cases, the regulated data and unimpaired data are not comparable, as the unimpaired data referenced inflows above a diversion dam, whereas the regulated gage data referenced outflows into the river below the diversion dam thus omitting canal flows serviced by the diversions. Each of these nodes is discussed separately below: Butte Creek at the Butte Diversion Dam: The unimpaired flows values were simply the regulated flow below the Butte Diversion plus the flow in the canal (BW8), as there was no storage above this point. Butte Creek above DeSabla Powerhouse: The unimpaired flows calculated by summing the flows from BW97 and BW15 (the Butte Canal portion of the inflow from DeSabla Powerhouse; i.e. subtracting out the interbasin transfer) and adding prorated flows (that include the West Branch Butte Creek contributions) for the section of Butte Creek between the Butte Diversion and the DeSabla Powerhouse. Butte Creek at the Lower Centerville Canal Diversion Dam: The unimpaired flows were calculated as the regulated flows at this point minus the interbasin transfer (BW12). Butte Creek at the Centerville Powerhouse: The unimpaired flows were calculated as the regulated flows at this point minus the interbasin transfer (BW12). WBFR at Round Valley Reservoir: The unimpaired flows equal the calculated inflows into Round Valley Reservoir. WBFR above the confluence of Philbrook Creek: The unimpaired flows were calculated as the unimpaired flows from the previous location (BW45) plus the prorated incremental flow.




Philbrook Creek at Philbrook Reservoir: The unimpaired flows were determined from the calculated inflows into Round Valley Reservoir. The inflows were calculated from the changes in reservoir elevation and the reservoir outflow. This calculation was checked using the prorated incremental flows. WBFR at the Hendricks Diversion: The unimpaired flows were calculated as the sum of the unimpaired flow from the two upstream stations (WBFR above the Confluence of Philbrook Creek and Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Reservoir) and the prorated accretion. This node was checked against flows estimated at the upstream stations, the Hendricks Diversion and the prorated accretion flow from Round Valley and Philbrook Reservoir to the Hendricks Diversion. WBFR at the Miocene Diversion: The unimpaired flows were calculated as the sum of the unimpaired flow from the Hendricks Diversion and the prorated accretion calculated from the Paradise gage (USGS 11405300). Unimpaired flows are shown in Figures B2.6-3 through B2.6-11 with plots of the representative normal, wet, dry and critically dry water years (2003, 1995, 2002, and 2001, respectively) for each of the nine sites discussed above in the Project.

Butte Creek below the Butte Canal Diversion

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec

Date

Flow

(cfs

)

Normal Water YearWet Water YearDry Water YearCritically Dry Water Year

Figure B2.6-3. Unimpaired Flows on Butte Creek at the Butte Creek Diversion Dam for Representative normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002), and Critically Dry (2001) Water Years.



Butte Creek above DeSabla Powerhouse

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000


Date

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B2.6-4. Unimpaired Flows on Butte Creek above DeSabla Powerhouse for Representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002), and Critically Dry (2001) Water Years.

Butte Creek below the Centerville Diversion

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000


Date

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B2.6-5. Unimpaired Flows on Butte Creek at the Lower Centerville Canal Diversion Dam for Representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002), and Critically Dry (2001) Water Years.




Butte Creek at the Centerville Powerhouse

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000


Date

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B2.6-6. Unimpaired Flows on Butte Creek at the Centerville Powerhouse for Representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002), and Critically Dry (2001) Water Years.

WBFR below Round Valley Reservoir

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0


Date

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B2.6-7. Unimpaired flows on the WBFR at Round Valley Reservoir for Representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002), and Critically Dry (2001) Water Years.



WBFR above the Confluence of Philbrook Creek

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000


Date

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B2.6-8. Unimpaired Flows on the WBFR above the Confluence of Philbrook Creek for Representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002), and Critically Dry (2001) Water Years.

Philbrook Creek at Philbrook Dam

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0


Date

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B2.6-9. Unimpaired Flows on Philbrook Creek at Philbrook Reservoir for Representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002), and Critically Dry (2001) Water Years.




WBFR below the Hendricks Diversion

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500


Date

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B2.6-10. Unimpaired Flows on the WBFR at the Hendricks Diversion Dam for Representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002), and Critically Dry (2001) Water Years.

WBFR above Miocene Diversion

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000


Date

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B2.6-11. Unimpaired Flows on the WBFR at the Miocene Diversion Dam for Representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002), and Critically Dry (2001) Water Years.



3.0 Project Operation In Typical Seasons The seasonal operation of the Project manages the basin runoff throughout the annual hydrologic cycle to best achieve Project purposes/objectives including regulatory requirements, recreation, flood control, irrigation, municipal water supply and power generation. The Project utilizes storage capacity within its reservoirs to temporarily store the high late winter and spring runoff that occurs during the snowmelt season. This stored water is gradually released during the summer to augment stream flows and to meet consumptive water demands. The storage reservoirs are generally operated in accordance with broad rule curves to achieve reservoir levels and storage capacities that manage the available water effectively. In general, weekly and daily operation of the Project is prioritized in the following order: 1) safety; 2) regulatory requirements; 3) consumptive water demands; and 4) power generation. The Project is also operated to comply with limits on diversion for generation or storage for consumptive uses as specified by PG&E’s water rights licenses and permits. PG&E conducted a search for existing water rights in the Butte Creek and WBFR drainages that can potentially affect or be affected by Project operations. Searches of the SWRCB records indicated a total of 138 water rights applications on file. Table B3.0-1 contains a tabular summary of these water rights and the use code. Table B3.0-1. Existing Project water rights.

App. No. Permit No.

License No. App. Date Source Stream Trib. Stream Max

Storage Max Direct Diversion

A000476 271 9/21/1916 Little Butte Creek Butte Creek 9,500 0 A000476 271 9/21/1916 Little Butte Creek Butte Creek 9,500 0 A002755 2006 988 2/9/1922 Philbrook Creek WBFR 5,060 0 A002909 2027 1029 6/27/1922 Butte Creek Butte Slough 0 20CFS

A004989 2706 837 4/7/1926 West Branch Butte Creek Butte Creek 0 2.53CFS

A005109 3210 2614 7/17/1926 Butte Creek Butte Slough 0 20CFS A005110 3211 2615 7/17/1926 Butte Creek Butte Slough 0 20CFS A006723 3634 2560 7/8/1930 Empire Creek WBFR 0 3CFS A008187 4699 2616 12/1/1934 Butte Creek Butte Slough 0 100CFS A008188 4700 2617 12/1/1934 Butte Creek Butte Slough 0 100CFS A008422 4644 2423 8/21/1935 Ogden Creek WBFR 0 16000GPD A008422 4644 2423 8/21/1935 Ogden Creek WBFR 0 16000GPD A008559 4743 2/19/1936 Big Butte Creek Butte Slough 0 50CFS A008565 4744 2/27/1936 Big Butte Creek Butte Slough 0 50CFS A009735 5847 2/22/1939 Big Butte Creek Butte Slough 0 50CFS A009736 5848 9/22/1939 Big Butte Creek Butte Slough 0 50CFS A015866 10390 9267 5/10/1954 Butte Creek Sacramento River 0 5.9CFS A015867 10391 9268 5/10/1954 Butte Creek Butte Slough 0 5.9CFS A018780A 12104 6940A 6/9/1959 UNSP Little Butte Creek 0 960GPD A018780B 12104 6940B 6/9/1959 UNSP Little Butte Creek 0 960GPD A018780C 12104 6940C 6/9/1959 UNSP Little Butte Creek 0 960GPD A020429 13430 8025 10/6/1961 UNSP UNST 0 7200GPD A022061 16040 2/25/1965 Little Butte Creek Butte Creek 8,800 0 A022534 16022 10432 7/27/1966 Butte Creek Butte Slough 0 8CFS A022564 16029 10433 8/29/1966 Butte Creek Butte Slough 0 2.33CFS A022864 15752 10214 7/28/1967 UNSP (2) Little Butte Creek 0 0.075CFS A023298 15950 10194 6/17/1969 Little Butte Creek Butte Creek 45 0 A023298 15950 10194 6/17/1969 Little Butte Creek Butte Creek 45 0




Table B3.0-1. (continued) App. No. Permit

No. License

No. App. Date Source Stream Trib. Stream Max Storage

Max Direct Diversion

A023875 16631 10806 9/24/1971 Dix Butte Mine UNST 0 900GPD A025967 18068 4/9/1979 Little Butte Creek Butte Creek 0 10CFS A027815 20227 7/28/1983 Butte Creek Butte Slough 0 250CFS A028567 20052 13249 10/2/1985 UNSP UNST 0 600GPD A028663 20458 13250 12/18/1985 UNSP UNST 0 0.09CFS A029251 20457 13251 5/25/1988 UNSP UNST 0 0.223CFS A029580 20498 10/2/1989 UNSP UNST 100 0.05CFS A029619 20949 11/24/1989 UNSP UNST 0 0.09CFS A029619 20949 11/24/1989 UNSP Butte Creek 0 0.09CFS A029913 3/7/1991 Butte Creek Butte Slough 52 0 A031413 4/15/2003 Butte Creek Sacramento River 0 25CFS F003379S 1/1/1967 UNSP Philbrook Creek 0 100GPD F005181S 1/1/1970 UNSP WBFR 0 0 S000888 6/17/1967 WBFR Feather River 1196 0 S000889 6/17/1967 WBFR Feather River 0 125CFS S000890 6/17/1967 Butte Creek Sacramento River 0 95CFS S000891 6/17/1967 Butte Creek Sacramento River 0 180CFS S000892 6/12/1967 WBFR Feather River 0 75CFS S000893 6/12/1967 Inskip Creek Butte Creek 0 5CFS S000897 6/12/1967 Kelsey Creek Butte Creek 0 2CFS S000901 6/12/1967 Clear Creek Butte Creek 0 40CFS S000911 1/12/1967 Long Ravine WBFR 0 130CFS S000912 6/12/1967 Little West Branch WBFR 0 5CFS S000913 6/12/1967 Cunningham Ravine WBFR 0 5CFS S000916 6/12/1967 UNST WBFR 0 3CFS S000917 6/12/1967 Helltown Ravine Butte Creek 0 180CFS S001251 6/23/1967 WBFR Feather River 9.3 12.25CFS S001252 6/23/1967 Little Butte Creek Butte Creek 0 0.5CFS S001252 6/23/1967 Little Butte Creek Butte Creek 0 0.5CFS S001253 6/23/1967 Griffin Gulch WBFR 0 1000GPD S001254 6/23/1967 Empire Creek WBFR 0 1000GPD S001258 6/23/1967 Fall Creek WBFR 0 1000GPD S001259 6/23/1967 Fall Creek WBFR 0 1000GPD S001260 6/23/1967 Fall Creek WBFR 0 1000GPD S001268 6/23/1967 WBFR Feather River 0 1000GPD S001276 6/23/1967 Kanaka Creek Clear Creek 0 1000GPD S001278 6/23/1967 Cold Creek WBFR 0 1000GPD S001287 6/23/1967 Fish Creek WBFR 0 1000GPD S001288 6/23/1967 High Rock Ravine Last Chance Creek 0 1000GPD S001290 6/23/1967 Discovery Creek Last Chance Creek 0 1000GPD

S001293 6/23/1967 West Branch Butte Creek Butte Creek 0 1000GPD

S001294 6/23/1967 Haw Creek Butte Creek 0 1000GPD S001297 6/23/1967 Inskip Creek Butte Creek 0 1000GPD S001298 6/23/1967 WBFR Feather River 0 1000GPD S001299 6/23/1967 Secret Creek Bull Creek 0 1000GPD S001303 6/23/1967 Bull Creek Butte Creek 0 1000GPD S001304 6/23/1967 Coon Creek Bull Creek 0 1000GPD S001305 6/23/19667 Butte Creek Sacramento River 0 1000GPD S008006 6/1/1972 Nesbet Ravine Butte Creek 0 14400GPD S008079 1/1/1973 UNXX UNST 0 16.5GPD S008304 1/1/1974 UNSP Little Butte Creek 0 15120GPD S008459 1/1/1975 Little Butte Creek Butte Creek 2,640 50CFS S009901 6/4/1979 Ogden Creek WBFR 0 320GPD S009970 9/14/1979 Ogden Creek WBFR 0 60GPD S012328 2/14/1986 Griffin Gulch WBFR 0 5000GPD

S012333 2/14/1986 West Branch Butte Creek Butte Creek 0 5000GPD

S012335 2/14/1986 Discovery Creek Last Chance Creek 0 5000GPD S012336 2/14/1986 Fish Creek WBFR 0 5000GPD




No. License



S012337 2/14/1986 Clear Creek Butte Creek 0 5000GPD S012338 2/14/1986 Clear Creek Butte Creek 0 5000GPD

S012340 2/14/1986 Long Ravine Little W. Fork Feather River 0 5000GPD

S012341 2/14/1986 UNST WBFR 0 5000GPD S012343 2/14/1986 Cold Creek WBFR 0 5000GPD


S012345 2/14/1986 Little W. Fork Feather River WBFR 0 5000GPD


S012355 2/14/1986 Cedar Creek West Branch Butte Creek 0 5000GPD

S012357 2/14/1986 Last Chance Creek WBFR 0 5000GPD S012370 2/14/1986 UNST Butte Creek 0 5000GPD S012371 2/14/1986 WBFR Feather River 0 5000GPD S013196 9/15/1988 UNSP Butte Creek 0 0.401CFS S013427 5/4/1990 Little Butte Creek Butte Creek 70 4CFS S013619 3/25/1991 Concow Creek Concow Reservoir 0 0.044CFS S013623 3/25/1991 Lockerman Creek Camp Creek 0 0.445CFS S013624 3/25/1991 UNST Lockerman Creek 0 0.178CFS S013625 3/25/1991 Camp Creek Lockerman Creek 0 0.178CFS S013634 3/25/1991 Long Ravine Little West Fork 0 0.445CFS S013635 3/25/1991 Big Kimshew Creek WBFR 0 0.445CFS

S013637 3/25/1991 Little Kimshew Creek Big Kimshew Creek 0 0.445CFS

S013638 3/25/1991 Keyser Creek Big Kimshew Creek 0 0.445CFS S013639 3/25/1991 UNST Breakneck Canyon 0 0.044CFS

S013646 3/25/1991 West Branch Butte Creek Butte Creek 0 0.445CFS

S013647 3/25/1991 Platt Ravine Butte CreekFeather River 0 0.178CFS

S013649 3/25/1991 UNST Gallager Ravine 0 0.445CFS

S013651 3/25/1991 Little Kimshew Creek Big Kimshew Creek 0 0.445CFS

S013652 3/25/1991 UNST Little Kinshew Creek 0 0.0445CFS S013653 3/25/1991 Keyser Creek Kimshew Creek 0 0.445CFS S013654 3/25/1991 Keyser Creek Kimshew Creek 0 0.178CFS S013660 3/25/1991 UNSP UNST 0 0.044CFS S013661 3/25/1991 Web Hollow Big Chico Creek 0 0.044CFS

S013662 3/25/1991 West Branch Butte Creek Butte Creek 0 0.044CFS

S013663 3/25/1991 Clear Creek Butte Creek 0 0.178CFS S013668 3/25/1991 Last Chance Creek WBFR 0 0.445CFS S013669 3/25/1991 UNST Inskip Creek 0 0.044CFS S013670 3/25/1991 Inskip Creek Butte Creek 0 0.445CFS

S013673 3/25/1991 Fish Creek / West Branch Fish Creek 0 0.178CFS

S013674 3/25/1991 Big Kimshew Creek WBFR 0 0.044CFS S013675 3/25/1991 Brown Ravine Last Chance Creek 0 0.178CFS S013676 3/25/1991 Secret Creek Bull Creek 0 0.178CFS S013677 3/25/1991 UNST Bull Creek 0 0.044CFS S013678 3/25/1991 UNST Bull Creek 0 0.178CFS S013681 3/25/1991 UNST WBFR 0 0.178CFS S013683 3/25/1991 Alder Creek Butte Creek 0 0.178CFS S013686 3/25/1991 Bull Creek Butte Creek 0 0.178CFS S013687 3/25/1991 WBFR Oroville Reservoir 0 0.178CFS S013688 3/25/1991 Grizzly (UNST) Butte Creek 0 0.178CFS





No. License



S013692 3/25/1991 Malloy Creek (UNST) Butte Creek 0 0.044CFS

S013693 3/25/1991 Big Chico Creek Sacramento River 0 0.455CFS S013698 6/6/1991 Butte Creek Sacramento River 0 0.066CFS S014232 9/29/1994 UNST Little Butte Creek 0 0.022CFS

3.1 Reservoir Operation Depending on snowpack conditions, on approximately April 1 the low level gate opening at Round Valley Dam is typically reduced to supply minimum stream flow requirements. The reservoir then fills and spills during the spring snowmelt. Releases are typically started as soon as capacity is available for diversion in the Hendricks Canal. In normal water years this is typically in mid-June. Round Valley is a shallow reservoir and water temperatures rise early in the summer. If extreme temperatures are experienced, releases from the reservoir may be reduced in accordance with the annual Operations and Maintenance Plan. Round Valley Reservoir will typically be completely drained in about one month at which time the valve remains fully open until it is reduced the next spring. Philbrook Reservoir has a continuous 2 cfs minimum instream flow requirement. This is made through the low level outlet. The reservoir is allowed to fill during the spring months and the radial gate is closed around April 1. Flashboards are added as the reservoir level increases so as not to exceed the maximum water surface elevation. Accelerated releases are made from the reservoir during periods of high temperature in July and August in accordance with the annual Operations and Maintenance Plan. Releases from storage typically end by mid-September. 3.2 Powerhouse Operation Powerhouses operate automatically via remote control and are unattended on a continuous basis using the available water supply. Operations are monitored by PG&E’s Rock Creek switching center and operators can be dispatched whenever necessary. 3.3 Operations Planning PG&E currently meets with NOAA Fisheries, CDFG and USFWS in the spring of each year to review operations plans for the coming summer based on expected water conditions. During implementation of the annual Operations and Maintenance Plan, PG&E will routinely coordinate with these agencies as conditions change. 3.4 Hydraulic Operation of the Project Direct precipitation and snowmelt runoff are captured in the Project’s storage reservoirs (Philbrook and Round Valley) and are also partially diverted at each of the Project’s diversion dams. Releases from the storage reservoirs are conveyed by the WBFR to Hendricks Diversion



Dam. At this point, discretionary diversions are discharged into Hendricks Canal while the remainder of flow passes downstream into the WBFR. Hendricks Canal is augmented through several feeder diversions and flows are ultimately passed through Toadtown Powerhouse. These flows are then discharged into Toadtown Canal which travels to its confluence with Butte Canal. Butte Canal originates at the Butte Creek Diversion Dam. Flows are diverted at this structure into Butte Canal, and several feeder diversions augment flows over the length of the Canal. Butte Canal ultimately joins with Toadtown Canal upstream of DeSabla Forebay. At this location, water is discharged to DeSabla Powerhouse via penstock (a small portion of this flow is sent to Upper Centerville Canal downstream of the Forebay). Water used at DeSabla Powerhouse is then discharged into Butte Creek above the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam. At this location discretionary diversions are discharged into Lower Centerville Canal while the remainder of flow passes downstream into Butte Creek. Lower Centerville Canal terminates at the Centerville Powerhouse penstock. The powerhouse then releases water into Butte Creek and out of the Project Area. 3.5 Gate Operation, Maintenance, Inspection and Access Flow levels at critical points on the Project are monitored remotely. Changes in flow releases and diversion levels are typically made manually. If alarms are received, an operator can be dispatched to investigate. Remotely controlled emergency spill gates are also available at several locations to release water from a canal back into the normal water course. If a powerhouse trips off line, either bypass valves (at DeSabla Powerhouse) or spillways (at Toadtown and Centerville powerhouses) are available to safely move the water to the normal water course. 3.6 Project Access PG&E obtains access to Project facilities over a number of roads within lands owned by PG&E, Sierra Pacific Industries, and the United States (Plumas and Lassen National Forests). PG&E and the additional land owners are in consultation regarding maintenance and responsibility for the roads where applicable. Table 3.6-1 lists Project access roads used by PG&E and maintenance responsibilities. Table B3.6-1. Existing Project access roads.

Road Name Approximate Road Length (mi)

PG&E Maintenance Responsibility? Within FERC Boundary?

Round Valley Dam Road 0.1 YES YES Philbrook Dam 0.5 YES YES Boat Launch Access Road 0.1 YES YES Philbrook Campground Loop Road 0.2 YES YES Hendricks Diversion Dam 0.2 YES YES Upper Long Ravine 4.0 YES YES Butte Creek Diversion Dam 6.0 YES YES




Table B3.6-1. (continued) Road Name Approximate Road

Length (mi) PG&E Maintenance

Responsibility? Within FERC Boundary?

Cape Horn 1.5 YES YES Kelsey Creek 1.0 YES YES Clear Creek 1.7 YES YES Camp No. 2 1.9 YES YES Butte Siphon 0.3 YES YES Tail Tower 0.8 YES YES 6/9 0.7 YES YES Butte Canal Road A 0.7 YES YES Butte Canal Road B 0.5 YES YES Butte Canal Road C 0.3 YES YES Pete Woods Mine 0.2 YES YES Toadtown Powerhouse 12 k/v P/L 0.3 YES YES Gauge BW 12 0.1 YES YES DeSabla Powerhouse 4.0 YES YES Centerville Head Dam 0.2 YES YES Emma 1.5 YES YES Burma 1.5 YES YES Kelly Hill 0.3 NO YES Slate Tunnel 0.5 YES YES Hog Ranch 0.3 YES YES Pasa Way 0.2 YES YES Forebay 0.5 YES YES Helltown 0.3 NO YES Centerville Powerhouse 0.2 YES YES Gage BW45 Road (Deer Camp Road) 0.3 NO NO Philbrook Residential Driveways 0.2 LEASE ENFORCEMENT ONLY NO Retson Road 5.0 SNOW REMOVAL ONLY NO Hendricks Canal Road A 0.2 YES NO Hendricks Canal Road B 0.1 YES NO Hendricks Canal Road C 0.5 YES NO Hendricks Canal Road D 0.1 YES NO Hendricks Canal Road E 0.2 YES NO Hendricks Canal Road F 1.5 YES NO Lower Long Ravine Road 1.5 YES NO Toadtown Header Box 0.7 YES NO

4.0 Project Operations In Mean, Adverse, and High Water Years The DeSabla-Centerville Project is operated as a re-regulating project with fill-and-spill storage reservoirs and the energy generated each year is proportional to the water available for diversion to Project powerhouses. Both Project reservoirs will typically fill in most years. During the winter and spring months of wet and normal years, the flows in the WBFR and Butte Creek are sufficient to maintain full canal flows and generation levels at Project powerhouses. However, canal flows are often curtailed to less than full levels during anticipated storm periods to minimize the risk of canal/flume overtopping. Base flows typically drop off by mid-June so that canals are not operating at full capacity. Releases from Round Valley and Philbrook reservoirs are used to augment flows primarily in the drier months of June through September. Fall and early winter months typically have the lowest flows, which combined with a lack of storage leads to reduced generation at the Project powerhouses. Winter months of dry years can often not produce sufficient water to keep canals operating at full levels. The Project does not have significant reservoir carry-over capacity to hold water from year to year, meaning that generation levels will drop significantly following the first year of a multi-year dry period.



5.0 Project Operation By Development To facilitate preparation of Exhibit B, PG&E developed the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project Operations Model using the Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center's ResSim (HEC-ResSim) computer simulation model. The model, including validation and Base Case simulations, is described in detail in Exhibit E, Section 6.2.2.2. Operations modeled by PG&E are described in this application. The following sections describe the operation of the major facilities within the Project in terms of the Toadtown, DeSabla, and Centerville developments. The descriptions are based on a model run representative of PG&E’s proposed future license conditions (“Licensee’s Proposed Project” model run). 5.1 Toadtown Development The Toadtown development consists of: Round Valley and Philbrook dams and reservoirs, Hendricks Diversion Dam and Canal, and Toadtown Powerhouse. Operation of the Project facilities within the Toadtown Development is discussed below, generally moving from the highest to lowest elevation. Round Valley Dam and Reservoir Round Valley Reservoir (also known as Snag Lake) is at the upper end of the Project Area in the WBFR. Historical daily elevations for each water year in the relicensing hydrology period of record for Round Valley Reservoir is graphically presented in Figure B5.1-1. Water surface elevations for representative normal, wet, dry and critically dry water years are presented graphically in Figure B5.1-2. While there are no explicit “rule curves”, these data provide an estimate of typical seasonal operating elevations for the reservoir. The Round Valley Reservoir storage-capacity curve is given in Figure B5.1-3, and the spillway rating curve is given in Figure B5.1-4. Flow duration curves for the period of record are illustrated in Figures B5.1-5 through B5.1-8 (note that exceedence flow values above 80 cfs are truncated in the charts). The source for all chart data is the HEC-ResSim DeSabla-Centerville Operations Model, Licensee’s Proposed Project conditions.




5620

5625

5630

5635

5640

5645

5650

5655

5660

Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1

Date

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)

Figure B5.1-1. Round Valley Reservoir Water Surface Elevations during the Period of Record Water Year 1986 through WY 2005.

5620

5625

5630

5635

5640

5645

5650

5655

5660


Date

Elev

atio

n (f

t)

Normal Year

Wet Year

Dry Year

Critically Dry Year

Figure B5.1-2. Round Valley Reservoir Water Surface Elevations for Representative Normal (2003), Wet (1995), Dry (2002), and Critically Dry (2001) Water Years.



5620

5625

5630

5635

5640

5645

5650

5655

5660

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Capacity (AF)

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

Figure B5.1-3. Round Valley Reservoir Storage-capacity Curve.

5650

5651

5652

5653

5654

5655

5656

5657

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Outflow (cfs)

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

Figure B5.1-4. Round Valley Dam Spillway Rating Curve.




0

20

40

60

80

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

POR 1986-2005Normal 2003Wet 1995Dry 2002C-Dry 2001

Figure B5.1-5. Flow Duration Curves for the West Branch Feather River below Round Valley Dam during the Period of Record Water Year 1986 through Water Year 2005.

0

20

40

60

80

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

JanuaryFebruaryMarchApril

Figure B5.1-6. Flow Duration Curves for the West Branch Feather River below Round Valley Dam for the Months January, February, March, and April, during the Period of Record Water Year 1986 through Water Year 2005.



0

20

40

60

80

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

MayJuneJulyAugust

Figure B5.1-7 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Round Valley Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY.

0

20

40

60

80

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

SeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Figure B5.1-8 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Round Valley Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.




Under a 1983 Fish and Wildlife Agreement between PG&E and CDFG, in normal water years PG&E historically did not draft Round Valley Reservoir until after July 15 for waterfowl habitat management. However, on August 21, 1997, FERC issued an order placing a restriction on the release of water from the reservoir when the water temperature exceeded 17ºC. On August 20, 1998, FERC revised its order to allow for modification of the temperature criteria upon mutual agreement of the NMFS, CDFG, and the USFWS. Since 1999, this agreement has been accomplished by way of an annual Project Operations and Maintenance Plan developed by PG&E in consultation with the agencies, which governs water releases from both Round Valley and Philbrook reservoirs. The annual Project Operations and Maintenance plans have consistently directed the release of water from Round Valley Reservoir immediately upon the availability of space in the Hendricks Canal, which typically occurs in June. This action is designed to minimize the potential for water temperature increases in Round Valley Reservoir and to preserve the cool water benefits of Philbrook Reservoir. Once the releases begin, the water stored at Round Valley Reservoir drains completely in about one month. This reservoir has no minimum storage requirement. Philbrook Dam and Reservoir Philbrook Dam and Reservoir are located near the head of Philbrook Creek, a tributary to WBFR, and is about 3.5 miles to the southwest of Round Valley Reservoir. Historical daily elevations for each water year in the relicensing hydrology period of record for Philbrook Reservoir are graphically presented in Figure B5.1-9. Water surface elevations for representative normal, wet, dry and critically dry water years are presented graphically in Figure B5.1-10. While there are no explicit “rule curves”, these data provide an estimate of typical seasonal operating elevations for the reservoir. The Philbrook storage-capacity curve is given in Figure B5.1-11, and the spillway rating curve is given in Figure B5.1-12. Flow duration curves for the period of record are illustrated in Figures B5.1-13 through B5.1-16 (note that exceedance flow values above 200 cfs are truncated in the charts). The source for all chart data is the HEC-ResSim DeSabla-Centerville Operations Model, Licensee’s Proposed Project conditions.



5500

5510

5520

5530

5540

5550

5560


Date

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)

Figure B5.1-9 Philbrook Reservoir water surface elevations during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

5500

5510

5520

5530

5540

5550

5560


Date

Elev

atio

n (f

t)

Normal Year

Wet Year

Dry Year

Critically Dry Year

Figure B5.1-10 Philbrook Reservoir water surface elevations for representative normal (2003), wet (1995), dry (2002) and critically dry (2001) water years.




5480

5490

5500

5510

5520

5530

5540

5550

5560

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Capacity (AF)

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

Figure B5.1-11 Philbrook Reservoir storage-capacity curve.

5540.0

5542.5

5545.0

5547.5

5550.0

5552.5

5555.0

5557.5

5560.0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Outflow (cfs)

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

Figure B5.1-12 Philbrook Dam spillway rating curve.



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.1-13 Flow duration curves for Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.1-14 Flow duration curves for Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

MayJuneJulyAugust

Figure B5.1-15 Flow duration curves for Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.1-16 Flow duration curves for Philbrook Creek below Philbrook Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.



The confluence of Philbrook Creek and the WBFR is 2 river miles downstream of Philbrook Dam. Article 39 of the existing Project license requires PG&E to maintain a minimum pool of no less than 250 acre-feet and minimum instream flow release of 2 cfs at the dam. Although FERC’s August 21, 1997 order also placed a temperature restriction of 18ºC on water released from Philbrook Reservoir, its subsequent August 20, 1998 order allowed for modification of temperature criteria upon mutual agreement of PG&E, NOAA Fisheries, CDFG, and the FWS. Pursuant to the annual Project Operations and Maintenance Plans developed in consultation with the resource agencies, water releases from Philbrook Reservoir are typically made as the releases from Round Valley Reservoir start to diminish to avoid a drop in Hendricks Canal flows when Round Valley Reservoir flows cease. Drafting is typically planned so that about 500 to 750 acre-feet remain in Philbrook Reservoir in mid-September to ensure that water is available to make minimum instream flow releases until the onset of winter rains. Hendricks Diversion Dam and Canal Water is diverted from the WBFR at the Hendricks Diversion Dam into the Hendricks Canal. Flow duration curves for the period of record are illustrated in Figures B5.1-17 through B5.1-20 for the instream flow below the dam, and Figures B5.1-21 through B5.1-24 for the diversion flow into Hendricks Canal. The source for all chart data is the HEC-ResSim DeSabla-Centerville Operations Model, Licensee’s Proposed Project conditions.

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.1-17 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Hendricks Diversion Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.




0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.1-18 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Hendricks Diversion Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

MayJuneJulyAugust

Figure B5.1-19 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Hendricks Diversion Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY.



0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.1-20 Flow duration curves for the West Branch Feather River below Hendricks Diversion Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.1-21 Flow duration curves for Hendricks Canal below Hendricks Diversion Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.1-22 Flow duration curves for Hendricks Canal below Hendricks Diversion Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

MayJuneJulyAugust

Figure B5.1-23 Flow duration curves for Hendricks Canal below Hendricks Diversion Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY.



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.1-24 Flow duration curves for Hendricks Canal below Hendricks Diversion Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. During low flow periods the entire flow of the WBFR is diverted into the canal and an instream flow release is made from the canal back into the WBFR just downstream of the dam. The Licensee’s Proposed Project operations include the following minimum instream flow release requirements in the WBFR below Hendricks Diversion Dam:

• March 1st to May 31st: 30 cfs (Normal water year); 20 cfs (Dry water year) • June 1st to February 28th/29th: 20 cfs (Normal water year); 7 cfs (Dry water year)

Hendricks Canal carries up to 125 cfs. Flow in Hendricks Canal is supplemented by feeder diversions on four streams (Long Ravine, Cunningham Ravine, and Little West Fork Feather River, and Little Butte Creek). Minimum stream flows downstream of the feeder diversions are provided under the current Project License Article 39. Toadtown Powerhouse Toadtown Powerhouse is located at the terminus of Hendricks Canal, and receives water from Hendricks Canal through a welded steel penstock. Toadtown Powerhouse consists one turbine-generator unit. The generator is a Francis turbine which has a normal maximum gross head of 185 feet, a nameplate flow of 134 cfs, with a normal operating capacity of 1.5 MW (the unit can operate above nameplate flow and capacity for limited periods of time). The minimum operating flow through the powerhouse is approximately 25 cfs. In the event that flows in the Hendricks Canal fall below minimum operating levels, water is directed through the Rapid Pipe bypass. The normal tailwater elevation at Toadtown Powerhouse is 2,824.0 ft above msl.




Annual generation and plant factors for Toadtown Powerhouse for all calendar years within the period of record are shown in Table B5.1-1. The dependable capacity is illustrated in Table B5.1-2 with ranked worst-case instances of 2-month production values. The Toadtown Powerhouse capability vs. head curve is shown in Figure B5.1-25. Flow duration curves for the period of record are illustrated in Figures B5.1-26 through B5.1-29 for the powerhouse. The source for all table and chart data is the HEC-ResSim DeSabla-Centerville Operations Model, Licensee’s Proposed Project conditions. Table B5.1-1. Gross generation and plant factors for the Toadtown Powerhouse under the Licensee’s Proposed Project during the period 1986 through 2004.

Calendar Year Gross MWh/yr Plant Capability, kW Plant Factor

1986 7,390 1,895 44.5% 1987 5,755 1,895 34.6% 1988 6,837 1,895 41.2% 1989 4,969 1,895 29.9% 1990 5,782 1,895 34.8% 1991 4,365 1,895 26.3% 1992 5,604 1,895 33.7% 1993 8,496 1,895 51.1% 1994 6,020 1,895 36.2% 1995 8,914 1,895 53.7% 1996 8,968 1,895 54.0% 1997 7,571 1,895 45.6% 1998 10,551 1,895 63.5% 1999 8,355 1,895 50.3% 2000 7,579 1,895 45.6% 2001 7,386 1,895 44.5% 2002 7,024 1,895 42.3% 2003 8,408 1,895 50.6% 2004 7,907 1,895 47.6% Total 124,734 -- --

Minimum 4,365 -- 26.3% Average 7,337 -- 44.2% Median 7,571 -- 45.6%

Maximum 10,551 -- 63.5%

Table B5.1-2. Approximate dependable capacity for the Toadtown Powerhouse. This data is based on historical conditions (July-August of 1977, the driest year in recorded history during the period of peak electric system load).

2-Month Period Dependable Capacity (MW)

Historic Average Annual Energy (GWh) Capacity Factor

Jul-Aug 1977 0.5 6.1 46%



155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55

Capacity (MW)

Gro

ss H

ead

(ft)

Figure B5.1-25 Toadtown Powerhouse capability vs. head curve.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.1-26 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Powerhouse during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.1-27 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Powerhouse for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

MayJuneJulyAugust

Figure B5.1-28 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Powerhouse for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY.



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.1-29 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Powerhouse for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. 5.2 DeSabla Development The DeSabla development consists of Butte Creek Diversion Dam and Canal, Toadtown Canal, DeSabla Forebay, and DeSabla Powerhouse with a normal operating capacity of 18.5 MW. Each of these Project facilities within the DeSabla development is discussed below, generally moving from the highest to lowest elevation. Butte Creek Diversion Dam and Canal Butte Creek Diversion Dam is located on Butte Creek near Inskip Creek. Flow duration curves for the period of record are illustrated in Figures B5.2-1 through B5.2-4 for the instream flow below the dam, and Figures B5.2-5 through B5.2-8 for the diversion flow into Butte Canal. The Licensee’s Proposed Project operations include the following minimum instream flow release requirements in Butte Creek below Butte Creek Diversion Dam:

• March 1st – May 31st: 30 cfs (Normal water year); 20 cfs (Dry water year) • June 1st – February 28th/29th: 16 cfs (Normal water year): 7 cfs (Dry water year)

The source for all chart data is the HEC-ResSim DeSabla-Centerville Operations Model, Licensee’s Proposed Project conditions.




0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.2-1 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Butte Creek Diversion Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.2-2 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Butte Creek Diversion Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

MayJuneJulyAugust

Figure B5.2-3 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Butte Creek Diversion Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.2-4 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Butte Creek Diversion Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.2-5 Flow duration curves for Butte Canal below Butte Creek Diversion Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.2-6 Flow duration curves for Butte Canal below Butte Creek Diversion Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

MayJuneJulyAugust

Figure B5.2-7 Flow duration curves for Butte Canal below Butte Creek Diversion Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.2-8 Flow duration curves for Butte Canal below Butte Creek Diversion Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.




Water is diverted from Butte Creek at the Butte Creek Diversion Dam into the Butte Canal. The 11.4-mile Butte Creek Canal has a capacity of approximately 91 cfs. Butte Canal generally follows the contour of the hillside along Butte Creek, running through well-shaded areas. Approximately 0.7 miles above DeSabla Forebay, Butte Canal and Toadtown Canal join. At this juncture, canal capacity increases to 191 cfs. Flow in Butte Creek Canal is supplemented by feeder diversions on three streams, Inskip Creek, Kelsey Creek, and Clear Creek. A feeder was also originally constructed at Stevens Creek, but its use has been discontinued. The stream sections below these points of diversion are relatively short and steep. Instream flow releases for Butte Creek Diversion Dam and Canal feeders are provided under the current Project License Article 39. Toadtown Canal Toadtown Canal is in essence the continuation of Hendricks Canal. Flow duration curves for the period of record are illustrated in Figures B5.2-9 through B5.2-12. The source for all chart data is the HEC-ResSim DeSabla-Centerville Operations Model, Licensee’s Proposed Project conditions.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.2-9 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Canal below Toadtown Powerhouse during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.2-10 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Canal below Toadtown Powerhouse for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

MayJuneJulyAugust

Figure B5.2-11 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Canal below Toadtown Powerhouse for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY.




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.2-12 Flow duration curves for Toadtown Canal below Toadtown Powerhouse for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. Toadtown Canal extends from the tailrace of Toadtown Powerhouse to Butte Creek Canal above DeSabla Forebay. The Toadtown Canal is about 2.4 miles long with a capacity of 125 cfs. Toadtown Canal joins Butte Creek Canal about 0.7 miles above DeSabla Forebay. At this point, the canal capacity increases to 191 cfs. DeSabla Forebay and Dam DeSabla Forebay is a regulating facility for DeSabla Powerhouse. The DeSabla Forebay storage-capacity curve is given in Figure B5.2-13, and the spillway rating curve is given in Figure B5.2-14. The source for all chart data is the HEC-ResSim DeSabla-Centerville Operations Model, Licensee’s Proposed Project conditions.



2720

2725

2730

2735

2740

2745

2750

2755

2760

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Capacity (AF)

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

Figure B5.2-13 DeSabla Forebay storage-capacity curve.

2755

2755

2756

2756

2757

2757

2758

2758

2759

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Outflow (cfs)

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

Figure B5.2-14 DeSabla Forebay spillway rating curve.




The original storage capacity of 188 acre-feet of DeSabla Forebay has been reduced to about 163 acre-feet as a result of sedimentation. DeSabla Forebay has a surface area of about 15 acres at full capacity. The powerhouse and associated intake is float-controlled and the forebay fluctuates minimally during normal operations and rarely spills. DeSabla Powerhouse DeSabla Powerhouse is fed by water from DeSabla Forebay through a welded steel penstock, and discharges water directly into Butte Creek above Lower Centerville Diversion Dam. DeSabla Powerhouse has one turbine-generator unit. The turbine unit is a 25,000 hp Pelton horizontal turbine with a normal maximum gross head of 1,530 feet, a nameplate flow of 191 cfs, and the generator has a normal operating capacity of 18.5 MW (the unit is capable of operating above nameplate flow and capacity for limited periods of time). As DeSabla Powerhouse consists of a Pelton unit, there are no tailwater effects on the unit. The centerline elevation of the turbine nozzles is 1,225.0 ft above msl. Annual generation and plant factors for DeSabla Powerhouse for all calendar years within the period of record are shown in Table B5.2-1. The dependable capacity is illustrated in Table B5.2-2 with ranked worst-case instances of 2-month production values. The DeSabla Powerhouse capability vs. head curve is shown in Figure B5.2-15. Flow duration curves for the period of record are illustrated in Figures B5.2-16 through B5.2-19 for the Powerhouse. The source for all table and chart data is the HEC-ResSim DeSabla-Centerville Operations Model, Licensee’s Proposed Project conditions. Table B5.2-1. Gross generation and plant factors for the DeSabla Powerhouse, during the period 1986 through 2004.

Calendar Year Gross GWh/yr Plant Capability, kW Plant Factor 1986 114.1 20,500 63.5% 1987 99.8 20,500 55.5% 1988 107.7 20,500 59.9% 1989 89.0 20,500 49.5% 1990 96.5 20,500 53.7% 1991 77.2 20,500 42.9% 1992 90.4 20,500 50.3% 1993 116.6 20,500 64.9% 1994 97.9 20,500 54.5% 1995 121.0 20,500 67.4% 1996 126.2 20,500 70.2% 1997 96.1 20,500 53.5% 1998 136.9 20,500 76.2% 1999 122.9 20,500 68.4% 2000 112.4 20,500 62.6% 2001 106.7 20,500 59.4% 2002 102.0 20,500 56.8% 2003 110.8 20,500 61.7% 2004 108.2 20,500 60.2% Total 1,818.7 --

Minimum 77.2 -- 42.9% Average 107.0 -- 59.5% Median 107.7 -- 59.9%

Maximum 136.9 -- 76.2%



Table B5.2-2 Approximate dependable capacity for the DeSabla Powerhouse is based on historical conditions (July-August of 1977, the driest year in recorded history during the period of peak electric system load).



Jul-Aug 1977 5.4 113.8 70%

1500

1505

1510

1515

1520

1525

1530

1535

18.15 18.20 18.25 18.30 18.35 18.40 18.45 18.50 18.55

Capacity (MW)

Gro

ss H

ead

(ft)

Figure B5.2-15 DeSabla Powerhouse capability vs. head curve.

0

50

100

150

200

250

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.2-16 Flow duration curves for DeSabla Powerhouse during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.




0

50

100

150

200

250

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.2-17 Flow duration curves for DeSabla Powerhouse for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

50

100

150

200

250

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

MayJuneJulyAugust

Figure B5.2-18 Flow duration curves for DeSabla Powerhouse for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY.



0

50

100

150

200

250

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.2-19 Flow duration curves for DeSabla Powerhouse for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. 5.3 Centerville Development The Centerville development consists of the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and Canal, the Upper Centerville Canal, and the Centerville Powerhouse with a normal operating capacity of 6.4 MW. Each of these Project facilities within the Centerville development is discussed below, generally moving from the highest to lowest elevation. As no storage facilities are associated with this development, there are no area-capacity-elevation curves to present in this section. Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and Canal The Lower Centerville Diversion Dam (LCDD) is located on Butte Creek just below the DeSabla Powerhouse and diverts up to approximately 183 cfs from Butte Creek below DeSabla Powerhouse into the Lower Centerville Canal. The 8-mile long Lower Centerville Canal carries water to Centerville Powerhouse. Flows in Lower Centerville Canal historically have been supplemented by three feeder diversions on Oro Fino Ravine, Emma Ravine, and Coal Claim Ravine. Use of these feeders has been discontinued. Beginning in 2004, flows released below the dam were increased to 60 cfs during the spawning period, from late September through February, to increase spawning habitat. The 2005 and 2006 annual Operations and Maintenance Plan increased instream flow releases during this period to a target flow of 75 cfs to further enhance conditions for Chinook salmon.




The Licensee’s Proposed Project operations include the following minimum instream flow release requirements in Butte Creek below LCDD:

• September 15th – January 31st: 75 cfs (Normal water year); 60 cfs (Dry water year) • February 1st – April 30th: 80 cfs (Normal water year); 75 cfs (Dry water year) • May 1st – May 31st: 80 cfs (Normal water year); 65 cfs (Dry water year) • June 1st – September 14th: 40 cfs (Normal water year); 40 cfs (Dry water year)

Flow duration curves for the period of record are illustrated in Figures B5.3-1 through B5.3-4 for the instream flow below the dam, and Figures B5.3-5 through B5.3-8 for the diversion flow into Lower Centerville Canal. The source for all chart data is the HEC-ResSim DeSabla-Centerville Operations Model, Licensee’s Proposed Project conditions.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.3-1 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.3-2 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

MayJuneJulyAugust

Figure B5.3-3 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY.




0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.3-4 Flow duration curves for Butte Creek below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.3-5 Flow duration curves for Lower Centerville Canal below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.3-6 Flow duration curves for Lower Centerville Canal below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

MayJuneJulyAugust

Figure B5.3-7 Flow duration curves for Lower Centerville Canal below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY.




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.3-8 Flow duration curves for Lower Centerville Canal below Lower Centerville Diversion Dam for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005. Upper Centerville Canal The Upper Centerville Canal originates at DeSabla Forebay and was historically used as an alternate route to direct water to Centerville Powerhouse when DeSabla Powerhouse was out of service. The Upper Centerville Canal ends at Helltown Ravine where water can be released and then captured where Helltown Ravine crosses Lower Centerville Canal. The Upper Centerville Canal has not been used to carry water for power generation for many years and currently carries only a few cfs for local water users. It also carries any excess water from Toadtown Canal that cannot be delivered to DeSabla Powerhouse at times when DeSabla Forebay is operating at maximum capacity (up to roughly 20 cfs). Flow duration curves for the period of record are illustrated in Figures B5.3-9 through B5.3-12. The source for all chart data is the HEC-ResSim DeSabla-Centerville Operations Model, Licensee’s Proposed Project conditions.



0

4

8

12

16

20

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.3-9 Flow duration curves for Upper Centerville Canal below DeSabla Forebay during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

4

8

12

16

20

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.3-10 Flow duration curves for Upper Centerville Canal below DeSabla Forebay for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.




0

4

8

12

16

20

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

MayJuneJulyAugust

Figure B5.3-11 Flow duration curves for Upper Centerville Canal below DeSabla Forebay for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY.

0

4

8

12

16

20

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.3-12 Flow duration curves for Upper Centerville Canal below DeSabla Forebay for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.



Centerville Powerhouse Centerville Powerhouse is fed by water from Lower Centerville Canal through two riveted steel penstocks. A 27 feet by 37 feet concrete header box with a spillway is used in the event a generator at Centerville Powerhouse “trips” off line. The powerhouse discharges water directly into Butte Creek about 5.3 miles downstream of LCDD. Centerville Powerhouse has two turbine-generator units. Unit 1 is a 9,700 hp horizontal Francis turbine and Unit 2 is a 1,500 hp horizontal Pelton turbine. The combined two units have a normal maximum gross head of 590 feet, a nameplate flow of 183 cfs, and a total normal operating capacity of 6.4 MW (the units are capable of operating above nameplate flow for limited periods of time). Unit 1 has a load controller and is more efficient than Unit 2. The minimum operating flow for Unit 1 is approximately 60 cfs. If sufficient water is not available for operation of Unit 1, the smaller Unit 2 can be run down to about 5 cfs. However, as Unit 2 has no load controller, it is necessary to set operation of the unit flow below the level of flow in the Lower Centerville Canal to insure that the penstock remains full, The normal tailwater elevation at Centerville Powerhouse is 460.3 ft above msl. Annual generation and plant factors for the Centerville Powerhouse for all calendar years within the period of record are shown in Table B5.3-1. The dependable capacity is illustrated in Table B5.3-2 with ranked worst-case instances of 2-month production values. The Centerville Powerhouse capability vs. head curve is shown in Figure B5.3-13. Flow duration curves for the period of record are illustrated in Figures B5.3-14 through B5.3-17 for the Powerhouse. The source for all table and chart data is the HEC-ResSim DeSabla-Centerville Operations Model, Licensee’s Proposed Project conditions. Table B5.3-1. Gross generation and plant factors for the Centerville Powerhouse, during the period 1986 through 2004.

Calendar Year Gross GWh/yr Plant Capability, kW Plant Factor 1986 33.0 6,400 59.4% 1987 25.9 6,400 46.1% 1988 29.3 6,400 52.2% 1989 25.6 6,400 45.6% 1990 26.0 6,400 46.3% 1991 22.2 6,400 39.6% 1992 25.1 6,400 44.7% 1993 35.7 6,400 63.6% 1994 25.5 6,400 45.5% 1995 37.2 6,400 66.3% 1996 37.5 6,400 66.9% 1997 33.3 6,400 59.3% 1998 41.7 6,400 74.3% 1999 35.0 6,400 62.3% 2000 31.4 6,400 55.9% 2001 31.0 6,400 55.2% 2002 31.2 6,400 55.5% 2003 36.5 6,400 65.0% 2004 33.7 6,400 60.0% Total 537.7 --

Minimum 22.2 -- 39.6% Average 31.6 -- 56.4% Median 31.4 -- 55.9%

Maximum 41.7 -- 74.3%




Table B5.3-2 Approximate dependable capacity for Centerville Powerhouse. This data is based on historical conditions (July-August of 1977, the driest year in recorded history during the period of peak electric system load).



Jul-Aug 1977 2.0 35.8 64%

560

565

570

575

580

585

590

595

6.10 6.15 6.20 6.25 6.30 6.35 6.40 6.45

Capacity (MW)

Gro

ss H

ead

(ft)

Figure B5.3-13 Centerville Powerhouse capability vs. head curve.

0

50

100

150

200

250

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.3-14 Flow duration curves for Centerville Powerhouse during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.



0

50

100

150

200

250

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.3-15 Flow duration curves for Centerville Powerhouse for the months January, February, March, and April, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

0

50

100

150

200

250

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)

MayJuneJulyAugust

Figure B5.3-16 Flow duration curves for Centerville Powerhouse for the months May, June, July, and August, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY.




0

50

100

150

200

250

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Exceedence

Flow

(cfs

)


Figure B5.3-17 Flow duration curves for Centerville Powerhouse for the months September, October, November, and December, during the period of record WY 1986 through WY 2005.

6.0 Use of Project Power PG&E will use Project power to meet the needs of its electric customers. In addition to being an electricity resource, the Project is considered a “renewable” small hydroelectric facility per the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)2. Under this definition, the Hydroelectric Project falls within the framework of the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which were adopted by the state of California in 2002 and require that an electrical corporation must increase its total procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by at least an additional 1% of retail sales per year so that 20% of its retail sales are procured from eligible energy resources no later than December 31, 2010. In order to replace the reduced power production of the Project, another source of renewable electrical energy would need to be obtained. In July 2007, the CEC released “California Energy Demand 2008-2018, Staff Draft Forecast, (Staff Draft Report CEC-200-2007-015SD). Table 2.1 from this report shows PG&E Planning area electricity consumption and peak load is forecast to increase about 1.3% per year over the next ten years.

2 California Public Utilities Code §399.12(b)(1)(A).



Table 6.0-1. PG&E Planning Area Forecast Comparison Consumption (GWH) Peak (MW)

CED 2006 Staff Draft

Percent Difference Staff Draft/CED 2006 CED 2006 Staff Draft Percent Difference

Staff Draft/CED 2006 1990 86,806 86,803 0.00% 17,039 17,013 -0.15% 2000 101,528 101,334 -0.19% 20,698 20,666 -0.16% 2005 102,746 102,070 -0.66% 21,162 21,354 0.60% 2008 107,366 108,918 1.45% 22,142 23,424 5.79% 2013 114,863 116,668 1.57% 23,761 25,032 5.35% 2016 118,390 120,942 2.15% 24,600 25,981 5.61%

Annual Average Growth Rates 1990-2000 1.58% 1.56% 1.96% 1.96% 2000-2005 0.25% 0.14% 0.44% 0.66% 2005-2008 1.48% 2.19% 1.52% 3.13% 2008-2016 1.23% 1.32% 1.32% 1.30%

Historic values are shaded

The need for Project power is based on the fact that the Project is an air emission-free, RPS-eligible renewable energy resource, which contributes to system reliability and a diversified generation mix. Exhibit H contains additional information, including load curves, on the need for power and replacement power sources. In summary, the Project will be used to meet the electricity needs of PG&E’s California electricity consumers. 7.0 Proposed Project Operation PG&E proposes to continue operating the Project for the next 50 years with no change to Project generation facilities or features other than adoption of the resource management measures proposed in this application, deletion of 5 stream diversions that have not been used for over 10 years, and an anticipated rebuild or refurbishment of Centerville Powerhouse. Licensee’s proposed resource management measures include operational flow-related measures to provide minimum stream flows that adequately meet the needs of key species-ecosystem attributes. The flow-related measures were developed to provide flows and water temperatures that are as cold as possible to support to holding, spawning, and rearing of Chinook salmon and steelhead in the reaches of Butte Creek below the Lower Centerville Diversion Dam and below the Centerville Powerhouse. Since 1999, Licensee has prepared annual Project Operations and Maintenance Plans in consultation with CDFG, NOAA Fisheries, and USFWS for the purpose of maximizing the cool water benefits the Project provides to Chinook salmon in Butte Creek during the summer months. Licensee’s proposed minimum stream flows will continue to maximize the Project’s cool water benefits over the next license term. 8.0 Potential for Future Development or Enhancements During the course of the relicensing process, Licensee has evaluated and will continue to evaluate the potential for modifications of Project facilities. The Centerville Powerhouse has been in service for over 100 years. Licensee performed a condition assessment of the Centerville Powerhouse in 2005 and determined that key powerhouse facilities are near the end of their useful service life. In order to continue powerhouse operations over the term of the new license,




Licensee proposes to refurbish or replace Centerville Powerhouse. Licensee will also modify Project facilities as necessary to implement any resource management measures adopted as conditions of the new license.



October 2007 License Application Construction © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page C-1

EXHIBIT C

Proposed Construction 18 CFR § 4.51(d): Exhibit C is a construction history and proposed construction schedule for the project. The construction history and schedules must contain: (1) If the application is for an initial license, a tabulated chronology of construction for the existing project structures and facilities

described under paragraph (b) of this section (Exhibit A), specifying for each structure or facility, to the extent possible, the actual or approximate dates (approximate dates must be identified as such) of:

(i) Commencement and completion of construction or installation, (ii) Commencement of commercial operation, and (iii) Any additions or modifications other than routine maintenance; and (2) If any new development is proposed, a proposed schedule describing the necessary work and specifying the intervals following

issuance of a license when the work would be commenced and completed.

1.0 Construction History of Existing Structures and Facilities PG&E is applying to FERC for a new license, not an initial license, for the Project. Therefore, the requirement of 18 CFR § 4.51(d)(1) regarding a tabulated chronology of construction of existing structures and facilities does not apply. 2.0 Proposed Construction Schedule for Improvements PG&E proposes to continue operating the Project for the next 50 years with no change to Project generation facilities or features other than adoption of the resource management measures proposed in this application, deletion of five stream diversions that have not been used for over 10 years, and an anticipated rebuild or refurbishment of Centerville Powerhouse.



October 2007 License Application Cost and Financing © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page D-1

EXHIBIT D

Statement of Costs and Financing

Section 4.51(e) of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) describes information that an applicant for a new license (Application for License for Major Project – Existing Dam) must include in Exhibit D, costs and financing of its license application. 18 CFR §4.51(e) states:

Exhibit D is a statement of costs and financing. The statement must contain:

(1) If the application is for an initial license, a tabulated statement providing the actual or approximate original cost (approximate costs must be identified as such) of: (i) Any land or water right necessary to the existing project; and (ii) Each existing structure and facility described under paragraph (b) of this section (Exhibit A).

(2) If the applicant is a licensee applying for a new license, and is not a municipality or a state, an estimate of the amount which would be payable if the project were to be taken over pursuant to section 14 of the Federal Power Act upon expiration of the license in effect [see 16 U.S.C. 807], including: (i) Fair value; (ii) Net investment; and (iii) Severance damages.

(3) If the application includes proposals for any new development, a statement of estimated costs, including: (i) The cost of any land or water rights necessary to the new development; and (ii) The cost of the new development work with a specification of:

(A) Total cost of each major item; (B) Indirect construction costs such as costs of construction equipment, camps, and commissaries; (C) Interest during construction; and (D) Overhead, construction, legal expenses, taxes, administrative and general expenses, and contingencies.

(4) A statement of the estimated average annual cost of the total project as proposed, specifying any projected changes in the costs (life-cycle costs) over the estimated financing or licensing period if the applicant takes such changes into account, including: (i) Cost of capital (equity and debt); (ii) Local, state, and Federal taxes; (iii) Depreciation or amortization; (iv) Operation and maintenance expenses, including interim replacements, insurance, administrative and general

expenses, and contingencies; and, (v) The estimated capital cost and estimated annual operation and maintenance expense of each proposed

environmental measure. (5) A statement of the estimated annual value of project power, based on a showing of the contract price for sale of power or

the estimated average annual cost of obtaining an equivalent amount of power (capacity and energy) from the lowest cost alternative source, specifying any projected changes in the cost of power from that source over the estimated financing or licensing period if the applicant takes such changes into account.

(6) A statement specifying the source and extent of financing and annual revenues available to the applicant to meet the costs identified in paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) of this section.

(7) An estimate of the cost to develop the license application; and (8) The on-peak and off-peak values of project power, and the basis for estimating the values, for projects which are

proposed to operate in a mode other than run-of-the river; and (9) The estimated average annual increase or decrease in project generation, and the estimated average annual increase or

decrease of the value of project power due to a change in project operations (i.e., minimum bypass flows, limits on reservoir fluctuations).

1.0 Original Cost of Existing Project PG&E is applying to FERC for a new license, not an initial license, for the Project. Therefore, a statement of the original cost of Project land or water rights, structures, or facilities is not applicable. 2.0 Amount Payable in the Event of Project Takeover In the event the Project is taken over at the end of the license term, pursuant to Section 14 of the Federal Power Act, PG&E would be entitled to receive its net investment plus severance damages. From an economic standpoint, a federal or municipal takeover would have a


Cost and Financing License Application October 2007 Page D-2 © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

significant adverse effect upon PG&E's customers, upon taxpayers generally, and upon investors in securities of PG&E. At this time, it is difficult to assess the impact of a takeover. The net impact would depend on how PG&E is compensated for the cost of replacing the Project power and reliability features, and other costs incurred by reason of severance from PG&E's system. However, a takeover may increase PG&E's costs and interfere with efficient utilization of this area's resources. The amount payable to PG&E in the event of a takeover, as provided in Section 14 of the Federal Power Act, includes the net investment, not to exceed fair value. Some of the principles bearing upon the final determination of fair value are yet to be ascertained. There are, however, some basic figures as to which there should be no substantial dispute. The net book value, which is the historical cost less accumulated depreciation, is estimated to be $31.4 million, as of May 2007. The definition of fair value could mean the market value of the Project, or the net investment plus severance damages. Due to the uncertainty in the generation market in California, an estimate of the Project's market value has not been made. Under the second "fair value" interpretation, PG&E would be entitled to receive severance damages in addition to its net investment as provided in Section 14 of the Federal Power Act. Here again, applicable principles are uncertain. It would appear that such damages should include, among other things, payments for costs incurred in providing new facilities to continue service, payment for additional costs of generation, and payment for diminution of value to the rest of PG&E's system. Due to the uncertainty in the generation market in California, an estimate of severance damages has not been made. 3.0 Capital Cost of Proposed Development No new development is proposed at this time, although the Centerville Powerhouse facilities are near the end of their useful service life and will need to be refurbished or replaced within the term of the new FERC license. Centerville Powerhouse replacement costs are included in the economic analysis for the “No Action” case because this work is necessary to maintain the current power production capability of the Project and is not a new development. Therefore this section does not apply. 4.0 Annual Project Costs 4.1 Project Economics Methodology Long-term economics have been estimated through the anticipated new license term. FERC's current cost method of economics will be used to derive the average annual cost of the total Project. This method uses current electric power value conditions. Future inflation and escalation of prices are not considered.1

1 See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC Para. 61,027 (July 13, 1995).




The economics include the costs of owning and operating the Project. Project cost components include unrecovered past capital additions (i.e., the depreciated plant in service costs, or net book value), relicensing, future capital replacements (including the cost of rebuilding the Centerville Powerhouse), normal operations and maintenance, FERC fees, taxes, insurance, and PG&E-proposed resource management measures. A Fixed Charge Rate (FCR) of 14% will be used for capital improvements (i.e., improvements that have a service life in excess of one year and which are repaid over time); the FCR includes capital recovery with a cost of capital of about 8.8%, taxes and insurance costs. This before-tax cost of capital is made up of the following components: Table D4.1-1. Cost of Capital.

Capital Ratio (%) Nominal Cost (%) Debt 48% 6.02 Equity 52% 11.35 Weighted Average Cost of Capital 8.79

The marginal income tax rate is:

Table D4.1-2. Income Tax Rates.

Income Tax Tax Rate % State 8.84 Federal 35.00 x (1 - 0.0884) 31.91

Combined Marginal Rate 40.75

The remaining component included in the 14% FCR is the cost of insurance at 1.2%. Expenses such as payroll costs are paid in the year the expenditure is made and do not include any tax or insurance component. The net book value represents the cost of owning the facilities and reflects unrecovered past capital expenditures. Under California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulations, the cost of relicensing is entered into the ratebase upon receipt of the new license. This relicensing cost is also an unrecovered past and ongoing expenditure and will be included in the Project economics. All other costs listed above represent estimated future costs. Table D4.2-1 summarizes the Project’s average annual costs for the existing “No Action” case. 4.2 Project Costs Excluding Recommended Resource Management Measures The average annual cost of the total Project using FERC’s current cost method and no new license conditions is provided in Table D4.2-1.



Table D4.2-1. Average Annual Cost of the Total Project using FERC's Current Cost Method and No New License Conditions (w/ 14% FCR, and Estimated Costs in $2007).

Item Description Capital, One-Time or Repeating Annual Expense Replacement

Power costs Average Annual

Costs $1,000s or $1,000s/yr $1,000s/yr $1,000s/yr $1,000s/yr

NO ACTION CASE - EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 Replacement Power Costs 4, 5 $-13,405/yr Net Book Value $31,400 $4,396/yr FERC License Application 2 $14,500 $2,030/yr Normal O&M $2,500/yr $2,500/yr Future Capital Additions 3 $1,900/yr $3,230/yr FERC Fees $120/yr $120/yr Total "No Action" Average Annual Costs $12,276/yr Cost of Project Power, with 155.7 GWh per year average annual energy 7.9 cents/kWh Net "No Action" Average Annual Costs -$1,129/yr

1 The “No Action Case – Existing Conditions” include the costs of rebuilding Centerville Powerhouse under the current license conditions. 2 Cost forecast through completion of relicensing process. 3 Future Capital Additions include the cost of rebuilding Centerville Powerhouse. 4 The CPUC-published Energy Purchase Prices for Qualifying Facilities (without time-of-delivery metering) has averaged 8.6097 cents/kWh from Sep 2006 - Aug 2007. 5 Average annual energy based on actual 1977 - 2001 energy production.

4.3 Costs of the PG&E’s Proposed Resource Management Measures The estimated costs of PG&E’s proposed resource management measures associated with a new FERC license are shown in Table D4.3-1. Table D4.3-1. Average Annual Cost of the Total Project using FERC's Current Cost Method and with the Licensee-Proposed New License Conditions (w/ 14% FCR, and Costs in $2007).

Capital, One-Time or Repeating Annual Expense Replacement

Power costs Average Annual

Costs Item Description $1,000's or $1,000's/yr $ 1,000’s/yr $ 1,000’s/yr $ 1,000’s/yr

LICENSEE PROPOSALS IN FINAL APPLICATION Train Employees Annually $0 $20.0 /yr $20.0 /yr Consultation $0 $10.0 /yr $10.0 /yr Special-status Species $0 $9.6 /yr $9.6 /yr Develop and Implement Project Transportation System Management Plan $15 $20.3 /yr

$22.4 /yr

Develop and Implement Round Valley Dam Spillway Stabilization Plan $480 $9.6 /yr

$76.8 /yr

Develop and Implement Project Canal Maintenance and Inspection Plan $15 $150.3 /yr

$152.4 /yr

Install and Maintain New Gages $160 $13.2 /yr $35.6 /yr Monitor Water Quality in Receiving Stream during Canal Outages $0 $22.0 /yr

$22.0 /yr

Develop and Implement Hazardous Substance Plan $0 $1.0 /yr $1.0 /yr Develop and Implement a Canal Fish Rescue Plan $15 $40.3 /yr $42.4 /yr Fund CDFG for Fish Stocking $0 $10.0 /yr $10.0 /yr Maintain Minimum Pool in Philbrook Reservoir $0 $1.0 /yr $1.0 /yr Consult with CDFG Prior to Replacing or Retrofitting Deer Escape Facilities $0 $1.0 /yr

$1.0 /yr

Monitor Animal Loss in Project Canals $0 $5.0 /yr $5.0 /yr Develop and Implement Vegetation Manage Plan $25 $10.5 /yr $14.0 /yr Develop and Implement Invasive Plants Management Plan $25 $10.5 /yr

$14.0 /yr

Develop and Implement Fire Prevention and Response Plan $0 $1.0 /yr

$1.0 /yr

Implement a Minimum Flow Release Schedule $0 $10.0 /yr $826.5 /yr $10.0 /yr Develop and Implement DeSabla Forebay Water Temperature Improvement Plan $2,000 $70.0 /yr

$350.0 /yr

Develop and Implement Facility Monitoring, Maintenance and Refurbishment Plan $30 $40.6 /yr

$44.8 /yr




Table D4.3-1. (continued) Capital, One-Time

or Repeating Annual Expense Replacement Power costs

Average Annual Costs Item Description $1,000's or

$1,000's/yr $ 1,000’s/yr $ 1,000’s/yr $ 1,000’s/yr

Develop and Implement Long-term Operations Plan $10 $5.2 /yr

$6.6 /yr

Monitor Butte Creek Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon $30 $134.6 /yr

$138.8 /yr

Provide VELB Protection $0 $3.0 /yr $3.0 /yr Maintain and Operate Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay Recreation Facilities $25 $25.5 /yr

$29.0 /yr

Develop and Implement Rehabilitation and ADA Upgrade Plan for Philbrook Reservoir and DeSabla Forebay Recreation Facilities $60 $19.2 /yr

$27.6 /yr

Develop and Implement Project Sign Plan $65 $2.3 /yr $11.4 /yr Provide Access to DeSabla Powerhouse and Miocene Diversion Dam Impoundment

$25 $3.5 /yr $7.0 /yr

Make Stream flow Information Available to Public $0 $2.5 /yr $2.5 /yr Remove Lake Tender House and Other Structures No Longer Needed

$250 $5.0 /yr $40.0 /yr

Consult with USFS when Painting/Reconstructing Facilities

$0 $1.0 /yr $1.0 /yr

Develop and Implement Historic Properties Management Plan

$25 $15.5 /yr $19.0 /yr

Total "Licensee-Proposed" Average Annual Costs $13,405 /yr Cost of Production 146.1 GWh/yr -$12,579 /yr $91.8/MWh Net "Licensee-Proposed" Average Annual Costs $826 /yr

4.4 Total Project Costs Table D4.4-1 presents a comparison of the Total average annual costs under the No-Action and Licensee-Proposals cases. Table D4.4-1. Comparison of the Annual Cost of the Total Project using FERC's Current Cost Method.

No-Action Case Licensee Proposals Case Dependable Capacity (MW) 7.9 7.4 Annual generation (GWh) 155.7 146.1 Annual Power value: Annual generation $1,000s per year $13,405/yr $12,579 /yr mills / kWh 86.1 86.1 Annual cost: $1,000s per year $12,276 /yr $13,405 /yr mills / kWh 78.8 91.8 Current net annual benefits: $1,000s per year $1,129 /yr -$826 /yr mills / kWh 7.3 -5.7

1 The “No Action Case – Existing Conditions” include the costs of rebuilding Centerville Powerhouse under the current license conditions. 2 Cost forecast through completion of relicensing process. 3 Future Capital Additions include the cost of rebuilding Centerville Powerhouse. 4 The CPUC-published Energy Purchase Prices for Qualifying Facilities (without time-of-delivery metering) has averaged 8.6097 cents/kWh from Sep 2006 - Aug 2007. 5 Average annual energy based on actual 1977 - 2001 energy production. Dependable capacity based on water available in July-September 1977.

4.5 Taxes Future taxes are estimated on the basis of yearly net book value. Property taxes for 2006 totaled approximately $1,090,000. PG&E paid about $828,000 in Project-related income taxes in 2006.



5.0 Value of Project Power The alternative sources of power currently available to PG&E are increased purchases and new generation developments. Since the Project powerhouses are considered “renewable” small hydroelectric facilities under State law2, any reduced power production of the Project would need to be replaced by another source of renewable electrical energy. The CPUC periodically publishes “Market Price Referents” (MPRs) which are estimations of the long-term market price of electricity for baseload and peaking power products that will be used in evaluating bid products received during RPS power solicitations. The MPRs represent “the levelized price at which the proxy power plant revenues exactly equal the expected proxy power plant costs on a net-present value (NPV) basis.”3 As a reference, the 20-year levelized 2007 Baseload MPR is estimated to be 8.1 cents per kWh. Current costs for replacement renewable energy in California are not available. In keeping with the FERC current-cost economic methodology, the CPUC-published average monthly short run avoided costs are used as a proxy for the value of renewable power. Figure D4.5-1 shows the historic average monthly values of short run avoided costs (SRACs) from January 2004 to today.

CPUC-Published Short Run Avoided Costs

4

8

12

16

Jan-

04

Apr

-04

Jul-0

4

Oct

-04

Jan-

05

Apr

-05

Jul-0

5

Oct

-05

Jan-

06

Apr

-06

Jul-0

6

Oct

-06

Jan-

07

Apr

-07

Jul-0

7

cent

s pe

r kW

h

Figure D4.5-1. Historic CPUC-published SRACs. The 12-month average SRAC, from September 2006 through August 2007, of 8.61 cents per kWh will be deemed the current replacement energy cost.

2 See California Public Utilities Code § 399.12(b)(1)(A). 3 D.04-06-015, p.6.




6.0 Sources of Financing PG&E is financially able to operate and maintain the Project. In support of this statement, PG&E refers to its financial statements that it has submitted annually to the Commission in FERC Form 1, and to its record in constructing, operating, and maintaining projects. 7.0 Cost of Application PG&E’s estimated cost through completion of the relicensing process is $14.5 million. 8.0 On-Peak and Off-Peak Value of Project Power Since the Project operates on a base-loaded, run-of-river basis, the average monthly CPUC-published SRAC are reasonable proxies for the value of Project power. Figure D4.8-1 shows the historic monthly peak, partial-peak, off-peak, and super off-peak values of SRAC from January 2004 to today.

CPUC-Published Short Run Avoided Costs

4

8

12

16

Jan-04

Mar-04

May-

04Ju

l-04

Sep-04

Nov-04

Jan-05

Mar-05

May-

05Ju

l-05

Sep-05

Nov-05

Jan-06

Mar-06

May-

06Ju

l-06

Sep-06

Nov-06

Jan-07

Mar-07

May-

07Ju

l-07

cent

s per

kW

h

Peak Partial-Peak Off-Peak SuperOff-Peak Figure D4.8-1. Historic CPUC-published SRACs. The time-of-delivery time periods are shown in Table D4.8-1. Table D4.8-1. Time of Use Period Definitions.

Time of Use Periods Period A – Summer (May 1 – Oct. 31)

Period B – Winter (Nov. 1 – Apr. 30) Days Applicable

Peak Noon – 6:00 PM NA Weekdays except holidays

Partial-Peak 8:30 AM – Noon 6:00 PM – 9:30 PM 8:30 AM – 9:30 PM Weekdays except holidays

Weekdays except holidays

Off-Peak 9:30 PM – 1:00 AM 5:00 AM – 8:30 AM 5:00 AM – 1:00 AM

9:30 PM – 1:00 AM 5:00 AM – 8:30 AM 5:00 AM – 1:00 AM

Weekdays except holidays Weekdays except holidays Weekends and holidays

Super Off-Peak 1:00 AM – 5:00 AM 1:00 AM – 5:00 AM All days



9.0 Changes to Project Power This license application includes the “No Action” case and the Licensee-proposed case with increased minimum instream flows. The “No Action” case generation is based on the historic 1977 through 2001 energy production (Table D4.9-1). Table D4.9-1. Generation Summary Table.

No Action Case Licensee Proposals Case

Powerhouse Average Annual Energy, GWh

Dependable Capacity, MW

Average Annual Energy, GWh

Dependable Capacity, MW

Toadtown 6.1 0.5 7.3 0.6 DeSabla 113.8 5.4 107.2 5.1 Centerville 35.8 2.0 31.6 1.8 Total FERC Project No. 803 155.7 7.9 146.1 7.5


FERC Project No. 803 EXHIBIT E

Environmental Report Due to the size of this document, Exhibit E, Environmental Reports, is included in Volume II of this application.

October 2007 License Application Page E-1 ©2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company



October 2007 License Application Design Drawings © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page F-1

EXHIBIT F

Design Drawings 18 CFR § 4.51(g) refers the applicant to 18 CFR § 4.41(g): Exhibit F consists of general design drawings of the principal project works described under paragraph (b) of this section (Exhibit A) and supporting information used as the basis of design. If the Exhibit F submitted with the application is preliminary in nature, applicant must so state in the application. The drawings must conform to the specifications of § 4.39. (1) The drawings must show all major project structures in sufficient detail to provide a full understanding of the project,

including: (i) Plans (overhead view); (ii) Elevations (front view); (iii) Profiles (side view); and (iv) Sections. (2) The applicant may submit preliminary design drawings with the application. The final Exhibit F may be submitted during

or after the license process and must show the precise plans and specifications for proposed structures. If the project is licensed on the basis of preliminary designs, the applicant must submit the final Exhibit F for Commission approval prior to the commencement of any construction of the project.

(3) Supporting design report. The applicant must furnish, at a minimum, the following supporting information to demonstrate that existing and proposed structures are safe and adequate to fulfill their stated functions, and must submit such information in a separate report at the time the application is filed. The report must include:

(i) An assessment of the suitability of the site and the reservoir rim stability based on geological and subsurface investigations, including investigations of soils and rock borings and tests for the evaluation of all foundations and construction materials sufficient to determine the location and type of dam structures suitable for the dam site;

(ii) Copies of all boring logs, geology reports and laboratory tests reports; (iii) An identification of all borrow areas and quarry sites and an estimate of required quantities and suitable

construction material; (iv) Stability and stress analyses for all major structures and critical abutment slopes under all probable loading

conditions, including seismic and hydrostatic forces induced by water loads up to the Probable Maximum Flood as appropriate; and

(v) The basis for determination of seismic loading and the Spillway Design Flood in sufficient detail to permit independent staff evaluation.

(4) The applicant must submit two copies of the supporting design report described in paragraph (g)(3) of this section at the

time preliminary and final design drawings are submitted to the Commission for review. If the report contains preliminary drawings, it must be designated a “Preliminary Supporting Exhibit Report.”

18 CFR §4.39: Specifications for maps and drawings. All required maps and drawings must conform to the following specifications, except as otherwise prescribed in this chapter:

(a) Each original map or drawing must consist of a print on silver or gelatin 35mm microfilm mounted on Type D (3 1/4” by 7 3/8”) aperture cards. Full-sized prints of maps and drawings must be on sheets no smaller than 24 by 36 inches and no larger than 28 by 40 inches. A space five inches high by seven inches wide must be provided in the lower right hand corner of each sheet. The upper half of this space must bear the title, numerical and graphical scale, and other pertinent information concerning the map or drawing. The lower half of the space must be left clear. Exhibit G drawings must be stamped by a Registered Land Surveyor. If the drawing size specified in this paragraph limits the scale of structural drawings (exhibit F drawings) described in paragraph (c) of this Section, a smaller scale may be used for those drawings. Potential applicants or licensees may be required to file maps or drawings in electronic format as directed by the Commission. (b) Each map must have a scale in full-sized prints no smaller than one inch equals 0.5 miles for transmission lines, roads, and similar linear features and no smaller than one inch equals 1,000 feet for other project features, including the project boundary. Where maps at this scale do not show sufficient detail, large scale maps may be required. Each map must show: (1) True and magnetic meridians; (2) State, county, and town lines; and (3) Boundaries of public lands and reservations of the United States [see 16 U.S.C. 796 (1) and (2)], if any. If a public land

survey is available, the maps must show all lines of that survey crossing the project area and all official subdivisions of sections for the public lands and reservations, including lots and irregular tracts, as designated on the official plats of survey that may be obtained from the Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C., or examined in the local land survey office; to the extent that a public land survey is not available for public lands and reservations of the United States, the maps must show the protractions of townships and section lines, which, if possible, must be those recognized by the Federal agency administering those lands.


Design Drawings License Application October 2007 Page F-2 © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

(c) Drawings depicting details of project structures must have a scale in full-sized prints no smaller than: (1) One inch equals 50 feet for plans, elevations, and profiles; and (2) One inch equals 10 feet for sections. (d) Each map or drawing must be drawn and lettered to be legible when it is reduced to a print that is 11 inches on its shorter side. Following notification to the applicant that the application has been accepted for filing [see §4.31(c)], prints reduced to that size must be bound in each copy of the application which is required to be submitted to the Commission or provided to any person, agency, or other entity. (e) The maps and drawings showing project location information and details of project structures must be filed in accordance with the Commission’s instructions on submission of Critical Energy Infrastructure Information in §§388.112 and 388.113 of subchapter X of this chapter.

1.0 Design Drawings General design drawings for PG&E’s DeSabla-Centerville Project as described in Exhibit A to this license application are provided in the exhibit drawings listed below. These design drawings are not preliminary in nature; rather, PG&E considers these design drawings to be final and prepared in conformance with 18 CFR § 4.39. These drawings provide plan, elevation, profiles and sections in accordance with the requirements of 18 CFR § 4.51(g). These drawings will be filed with FERC under separate cover in PG&E’s application.

EXHIBIT FERC NUMBER

PG&E NUMBER TITLE

F-1 803-xxxx 700500 ROUND VALLEY DAM AND SPILLWAY F-2 803-xxxx 700501 PHILBROOK DAM AND SPILLWAY F-3 803-xxxx 700502 DETAILS OF HENDRICKS CANAL 1

F-4 803-xxxx 700503 DETAILS OF HENDRICKS AND TOADTOWN CANALS 2

F-5 803-xxxx 700504 PROFILES OF HENDRICKS AND LOVELOCK TUNNELS

F-6 803-xxxx 700505 PENSTOCK PLAN & PROFILE TOADTOWN POWERHOUSE

F-7 803-xxxx 700506 INTAKE & TAILRACE PLAN & SECTIONS TOADTOWN POWERHOUSE

F-8 803-xxxx 700507 PLAN TOADTOWN POWERHOUSE

F-9 803-xxxx 700508 LONGITUDINAL & TRANSVERSE SECTIONS TOADTOWN POWERHOUSE

F-10 803-xxxx 700509 DETAILS OF BUTTE CREEK CANAL 3 F-11 803-xxxx 700510 DETAILS OF BUTTE CREEK CANAL 4 F-12 803-xxxx 700511 DETAILS OF DE SABLA FOREBAY F-13 803-xxxx 700512 PROFILE OF DE SABLA PENSTOCK F-14 803-xxxx 700513 PLAN AND SECTIONS DESABLA POWERHOUSE F-15 803-xxxx 700514 DETAILS OF CENTERVILLE CANALS

F-16 803-xxxx 700515 DETAILS OF HEADER BOX & PROFILE OF CENTERVILLE PENSTOCK

F-17 803-xxxx 700516 PLAN AND SECTIONS CENTERVILLE POWERHOUSE

1 A section of Hendricks Diversion Dam has been rebuilt. Licensee will submit revised As-built drawings once new license is issued. 2 Cunningham Ravine Feeder has been rebuilt and Little Butte Creek Feeder has been abandoned. Licensee will submit revised As-built drawings once new license is issued.




3 Inskip Creek Feeder has been rebuilt and Stevens Creek Feeder has been abandoned. Licensee will submit revised As-built drawings once new license is issued. 4 Kelsey Creek Feeder has been rebuilt. Licensee will submit revised As-built drawings once new license is issued.

2.0 Supporting Design Report Sections 4.41(g)(3) and (4) require that an applicant file with FERC two copies of a Supporting Design Report when the applicant files a license application. The purpose of the Supporting Design Report is to demonstrate “…that existing and proposed structures are safe and adequate to fulfill their stated functions…” PG&E’s recent Part 12 Independent Dam Safety Inspection Reports fulfill the requirements of the 18 CFR § 4.41(g)(3) and (4) for the filing of a Supporting Design Report with an application for new license. All of the Project’s Independent Dam Safety Inspection Reports are on file with FERC.




[In conformance with the FERC’s rules regarding Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII), Exhibit F Design Drawings for PG&E’s DeSabla-Centerville Project

are not included in this document. PG&E will file these drawings with FERC under separate cover in PG&E’s License Application. Procedures for obtaining access to CEII

may be found at 18 CFR § 388.113. Requests for access to CEII should be made to FERC’s CEII Coordinator. Exhibit F Design Drawings are exempt from mandatory disclosure

under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption 7(F). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F)]



October 2007 License Application Project Maps © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page G-1

EXHIBIT G

Project Maps 18 CFR § 4.51(h) refers the applicant to 18 CFR § 4.41(h): Exhibit G is a map of the project that must conform to the specifications of § 4.39. In addition, to the other components of Exhibit G, the applicant must provide the project boundary data in a geo-referenced electronic format - such as ArcView shape files, GeoMedia files, MapInfo files, or any similar format. The electronic boundary data must be positionally accurate to ± 40 feet, in order to comply with the National Map Accuracy Standards for maps at a 1:24,000 scale (the scale of USGS quadrangle maps). The electronic Exhibit G data must include a text file describing the map projection used (i.e., UTM, State Plane, Decimal Degrees, etc.), the map datum (i.e., feet, meters, miles, etc.). Three sets of the maps must be submitted on compact disk or other appropriate electronic media. If more than one sheet is used for the paper maps, the sheets must be numbered consecutively, and each sheet must bear a small insert sketch showing the entire project and indicate that portion of the project depicted on that sheet. Each sheet must contain a minimum of three known reference points. The latitude and longitude coordinates, or state plane coordinates, of each reference point must be shown. If at any time after the application is filed there is any change in the project boundary, the applicant must submit, within 90 days following the completion of project construction, a final exhibit G showing the extent of such changes. The map must show: (1) Location of the project and principal features. The map must show the location of the project as a whole with reference to

the affected stream or other body of water and, if possible, to a nearby town or any other permanent monuments or objects, such as roads, transmission lines or other structures, that can be noted on the map and recognized in the field. The map must also show the relative locations and physical interrelationships of the principal project works and other features described under paragraph (b) of this section (Exhibit A).

(2) Project boundary. The map must show a project boundary enclosing all project works and other features described under

paragraph (b) of this section (Exhibit A) that are to be licensed. If accurate survey information is not available at the time the application is filed, the applicant must so state, and a tentative boundary may be submitted. The boundary must enclose only those lands necessary for operation and maintenance of the project and for other project purposes, such as recreation, shoreline control, or protection of environmental resources (see paragraph (f) of this section (Exhibit E)). Existing residential, commercial, or other structures may be included within the boundary only to the extent that underlying lands are needed for project purposes (e.g., for flowage, public recreation, shoreline control, or protection of environmental resources). If the boundary is on land covered by a public survey, ties must be shown on the map at sufficient points to permit accurate platting of the position of the boundary relative to the lines of the public land survey. If the lands are not covered by a public land survey, the best available legal description of the position of the boundary must be provided, including distances and directions from fixed monuments or physical features. The boundary must be described as follows:

(i) Impoundments.

(A) The boundary around a project impoundment must be described by one of the following:

(1) Contour lines, including the contour elevation (preferred method); (2) Specified courses and distances (metes and bounds); (3) If the project lands are covered by a public land survey, lines upon or parallel to the lines of the

survey; or (4) Any combination of the above methods.

(B) The boundary must be located no more than 200 feet (horizontal measurement) from the exterior margin

of the reservoir, defined by the normal maximum surface elevation, except where deviations may be necessary in describing the boundary according to the above methods or where additional lands are necessary for project purposes, such as public recreation, shoreline control, or protection of environmental resources.

(ii) Continuous features. The boundary around linear (“continuous”) project features such as access roads, transmission

lines, and conduits may be described by specified distances from center lines or offset lines of survey. The width of such corridors must not exceed 200 feet unless good cause is shown for a greater width. Several sections of a continuous feature may be shown on a single sheet with information showing the sequence of contiguous sections.

(iii) Noncontinuous features. (A) The boundary around noncontinuous project works such as dams, spillways, and

powerhouses must be described by one of the following: (1) Contour lines; (2) Specified courses and distances; (3) If the project lands are covered by a public land survey, lines upon or parallel to the lines of the survey; or (4) Any combination of the above methods.

(C) The boundary must enclose only those lands that are necessary for safe and efficient operation and maintenance of the project or for other specified project purposes, such as public recreation or protection of environmental resources.


Project Maps License Application October 2007 Page G-2 © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

(3) Federal lands. Any public lands and reservations of the United States (“Federal lands”) [see 16 U.S.C. 795(1) and (2)] that are within the project boundary, such as lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, or National Park Service, or Indian tribal lands, and the boundaries of those Federal lands, must be identified as such on the map by:

(i) Legal subdivisions of a public land survey of the affected area (a protraction of identified township and section lines

is sufficient for this purpose); and (ii) The Federal agency, identified by symbol or legend, that maintains or manages each identified subdivision of the

public land survey within the project boundary; or

(iii) In the absence of a public land survey, the location of the Federal lands according to the distances and directions from fixed monuments or physical features. When a Federal survey monument or a Federal bench mark will be destroyed or rendered unusable by the construction of project works, at least two permanent, marked witness monuments or bench marks must be established at accessible points. The maps show the location (and elevation, for bench marks) of the survey monument or bench mark which will be destroyed or rendered unusable, as well as of the witness monuments or bench marks. Connecting courses and distances from the witness monuments or bench marks to the original must also be shown.

(iv) The project location must include the most current information pertaining to affected Federal lands as described under

§4.81(b)(5).

(4) Non-Federal lands. For those lands within the project boundary not identified under paragraph (h)(3) of this section, the map must identify by legal subdivision:

(i) Lands owned in fee by the applicant and lands that the applicant plans to acquire in fee; and (ii) Lands over which the applicant has acquired or plans to acquire rights to occupancy and use other than fee title,

including rights acquired or to be acquired by easement or lease. 18 CFR §4.39: Specifications for maps and drawings. All required maps and drawings must conform to the following specifications, except as otherwise prescribed in this chapter:

(a) Each original map or drawing must consist of a print on silver or gelatin 35mm microfilm mounted on Type D (3 1/4” by 7 3/8”) aperture cards. Full-sized prints of maps and drawings must be on sheets no smaller than 24 by 36 inches and no larger than 28 by 40 inches. A space five inches high by seven inches wide must be provided in the lower right hand corner of each sheet. The upper half of this space must bear the title, numerical and graphical scale, and other pertinent information concerning the map or drawing. The lower half of the space must be left clear. Exhibit G drawings must be stamped by a Registered Land Surveyor. If the drawing size specified in this paragraph limits the scale of structural drawings (exhibit F drawings) described in paragraph (c) of this Section, a smaller scale may be used for those drawings. Potential applicants or licensees may be required to file maps or drawings in electronic format as directed by the Commission. (b) Each map must have a scale in full-sized prints no smaller than one inch equals 0.5 miles for transmission lines, roads, and similar linear features and no smaller than one inch equals 1,000 feet for other project features, including the project boundary. Where maps at this scale do not show sufficient detail, large scale maps may be required. Each map must show: (1) True and magnetic meridians; (2) State, county, and town lines; and (3) Boundaries of public lands and reservations of the United States [see 16 U.S.C. 796 (1) and (2)], if any. If a public land

survey is available, the maps must show all lines of that survey crossing the project area and all official subdivisions of sections for the public lands and reservations, including lots and irregular tracts, as designated on the official plats of survey that may be obtained from the Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C., or examined in the local land survey office; to the extent that a public land survey is not available for public lands and reservations of the United States, the maps must show the protractions of townships and section lines, which, if possible, must be those recognized by the Federal agency administering those lands.

(c) Drawings depicting details of project structures must have a scale in full-sized prints no smaller than: (1) One inch equals 50 feet for plans, elevations, and profiles; and (2) One inch equals 10 feet for sections. (d) Each map or drawing must be drawn and lettered to be legible when it is reduced to a print that is 11 inches on its shorter side. Following notification to the applicant that the application has been accepted for filing [see §4.31(c)], prints reduced to that size must be bound in each copy of the application which is required to be submitted to the Commission or provided to any person, agency, or other entity. (e) The maps and drawings showing project location information and details of project structures must be filed in accordance with the Commission’s instructions on submission of Critical Energy Infrastructure Information in §§388.112 and 388.113 of subchapter X of this chapter.



October 2007 License Application Project Maps © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page G-3

1.0 Project Maps General maps for PG&E’s DeSabla-Centerville Project (Project) as described in Exhibit A of this license application are provided in the exhibit maps listed below. These G maps were converted from the most recently revised version of the J and K maps from the current license. These maps depict the FERC Project Boundary in conformance with 18 CFR § 4.39.

EXHIBIT FERC NUMBER

PG&E NUMBER TITLE

G-1 803-xxxx 700275 GENERAL MAP G-2 803-xxxx 700276 ROUND VALLEY RESERVOIR G-3 803-xxxx 700277 PHILBROOK RESERVOIR G-4 803-xxxx 700278 BUTTE CREEK DAM AND CANAL G-5 803-xxxx 700279 ACCESS ROAD TO BUTTE CREEK DAM G-6 803-xxxx 700280 BUTTE CREEK CANAL AND ROADS G-7 803-xxxx 700281 DE SABLA FOREBAY AND CANALS G-8 803-xxxx 700282 HENDRICKS CANAL AND TUNNELS G-9 803-xxxx 700283 HENDRICKS HEAD AND LONG RAVINE DAMS

G-10 803-xxxx 700284 DE SABLA POWERHOUSE AND CANALS G-11 803-xxxx 700285 UPPER AND LOWER CENTERVILLE CANALS G-12 803-xxxx 700286 CENTERVILLE POWERHOUSE AND CANALS

Proposed changes to the DeSabla-Centerville FERC Project Boundary include deletion of five feeder diversions since use of these feeders has been discontinued. These feeder diversions include: Oro Fino Ravine, Emma Ravine, and Coal Claim Ravine feeders on the Lower Centerville Canal; Stevens Creek feeder on the Butte Canal; and Little Butte Creek feeder on the Hendricks Canal. These feeder diversions are identified on the appropriate maps of Exhibit G (see maps Exhibit G-5, G-7, G-10, and G-11). PG&E is now in the process of evaluating alternatives to stabilize the channel below the Philbrook spillways to address erosion and sediment transport issues. The channel, an unlined channel connecting the twin concrete-lined spillways of Philbrook Reservoir with the mainstem channel of Philbrook Creek, is located on National Forest System Land (NFSL) outside of the FERC Project Boundary. PG&E is consulting with FERC and appropriate agencies regarding the alternatives and expects to substantially complete needed remediation work before a new license is issued for the Project. PG&E will file with FERC revised Exhibit F drawings and G maps with FERC, as needed, when the channel modification is complete.


Project Maps License Application October 2007 Page G-4 © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

[In conformance with the Commission’ rules regarding Privileged, Non-Internet Public Information (NIP), Exhibit G Project Maps for PG&E’s DeSabla-Centerville Project will

not be provided in electronic format or posted on PG&E’s Relicensing Website.]


FERC Project No. 803 EXHIBIT H

Miscellaneous Filing Material Section 5.18(c) of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) describes information that an applicant for a new license (Application for License for Major Project – Existing Dam) must include in Exhibit H, of its license application. 18 CFR §5.18(c) states:

(a) Information to be supplied by all applicants. All applicants for a new license under this part must file the following information with the Commission: (1) A discussion of the plans and ability of the applicant to operate and maintain the project in a manner most likely to provide efficient

and reliable electric service, including efforts and plans to: (i) Increase capacity or generation at the project: (ii) Coordinate the operation of the project with any upstream or downstream water resource projects; and (iii) Coordinate the operation of the project with the applicant's or other electrical systems to minimize the cost of production.

(2) A discussion of the need of the applicant over the short and long term for the electricity generated by the project, including: (i) The reasonable costs and reasonable availability of alternative sources of power that would be needed by the applicant or its

customers, including wholesale customers, if the applicant is not granted a license for the project; (ii) A discussion of the increase in fuel, capital, and any other costs that would be incurred by the applicant or its customers to

purchase or generate power necessary to replace the output of the licensed project, if the applicant is not granted a license for the project;

(iii) The effect of each alternative source of power on: (A) The applicant's customers, including wholesale customers; (B) The applicant's operating and load characteristics; and (C) The communities served or to be served, including any reallocation of costs associated with the transfer of a license

from the existing licensee. (3) The following data showing need and the reasonable cost and availability of alternative sources of power:

(i) The average annual cost of the power produced by the project, including the basis for that calculation; (ii) The projected resources required by the applicant to meet the applicant's capacity and energy requirements over the short and

long term including: (A) Energy and capacity resources, including the contributions from the applicant's generation, purchases, and load

modification measures (such as conservation, if considered as a resource), as separate components of the total resources required;

(B) A resource analysis, including a statement of system reserve margins to be maintained for energy and capacity; and (C) If load management measures are not viewed as resources, the effects of such measures on the projected capacity and

energy requirements indicated separately; (iii) For alternative sources of power, including generation of additional power at existing facilities, restarting deactivated units,

the purchase of power off-system, the construction or purchase and operation of a new power plant, and load management measures such as conservation: (A) The total annual cost of each alternative source of power to replace project power; (B) The basis for the determination of projected annual cost; and (C) A discussion of the relative merits of each alternative, including the issues of the period of availability and dependability

of purchased power, average life of alternatives, relative equivalent availability of generating alternatives, and relative impacts on the applicant's power system reliability and other system operating characteristics; and

(iv) The effect on the direct providers (and their immediate customers) of alternate sources of power. (4) If an applicant uses power for its own industrial facility and related operations, the effect of obtaining or losing electricity from the

project on the operation and efficiency of such facility or related operations, its workers, and the related community. (5) If an applicant is an Indian tribe applying for a license for a project located on the tribal reservation, a statement of the need of such

tribe for electricity generated by the project to foster the purposes of the reservation. (6) A comparison of the impact on the operations and planning of the applicant's transmission system of receiving or not receiving the

project license, including: (i) An analysis of the effects of any resulting redistribution of power flows on line loading (with respect to applicable thermal,

voltage, or stability limits), line losses, and necessary new construction of transmission facilities or upgrading of existing facilities, together with the cost impact of these effects;

(ii) An analysis of the advantages that the applicant's transmission system would provide in the distribution power; and (iii) Detailed single-line diagrams, including existing system facilities identified by name and circuit number, that show system

transmission elements in relation to the project and other principal interconnected system elements. Power flow and loss data that represent system operating conditions may be appended if applicants believe such data would be useful to show that the operating impacts described would be beneficial.

(7) If the applicant has plans to modify existing project facilities or operations, a statement of the need for, or usefulness of, the modifications, including at least a reconnaissance-level study of the effect and projected costs of the proposed plans and any alternate plans, which in conjunction with other developments in the area would conform with a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the waterway and for other beneficial public uses as defined in section 10(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act.

(8) If the applicant has no plans to modify existing project facilities or operations, at least a reconnaissance-level study to show that the project facilities or operations in conjunction with other developments in the area would conform with a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the waterway and for other beneficial public uses as defined in section 10(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act.

(9) A statement describing the applicant's financial and personnel resources to meet its obligations under a new license, including specific information to demonstrate that the applicant's personnel are adequate in number and training to operate and maintain the project in accordance with the provisions of the license.

October 2007 License Application Miscellaneous Filing Material © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Page H-1


(10) If an applicant proposes to expand the project to encompass additional lands, a statement that the applicant has notified, by certified

mail, property owners on the additional lands to be encompassed by the project and governmental agencies and subdivisions likely to be interested in or affected by the proposed expansion.

(11) The applicant's electricity consumption efficiency improvement program, as defined under section 10(a)(2)(C) of the Federal Power Act, including: (i) A statement of the applicant's record of encouraging or assisting its customers to conserve electricity and a description of its

plans and capabilities for promoting electricity conservation by its customers; and (ii) A statement describing the compliance of the applicant's energy conservation programs with any applicable regulatory

requirements. (12) The names and mailing addresses of every Indian tribe with land on which any part of the proposed project would be located or

which the applicant reasonably believes would otherwise be affected by the proposed project. (b) Information to be provided by an applicant who is an existing licensee. An existing licensee that applies for a new license must provide:

(1) The information specified in paragraph (a). (2) A statement of measures taken or planned by the licensee to ensure safe management, operation, and maintenance of the project,

including: (i) A description of existing and planned operation of the project during flood conditions; (ii) A discussion of any warning devices used to ensure downstream public safety; (iii) A discussion of any proposed changes to the operation of the project or downstream development that might affect the

existing Emergency Action Plan, as described in Subpart C of Part 12 of this chapter, on file with the Commission; (iv) A description of existing and planned monitoring devices to detect structural movement or stress, seepage, uplift, equipment

failure, or water conduit failure, including a description of the maintenance and monitoring programs used or planned in conjunction with the devices; and

(v) A discussion of the project's employee safety and public safety record, including the number of lost-time accidents involving employees and the record of injury or death to the public within the project boundary.

(3) A description of the current operation of the project, including any constraints that might affect the manner in which the project is operated.

(4) A discussion of the history of the project and record of programs to upgrade the operation and maintenance of the project. (5) A summary of any generation lost at the project over the last five years because of unscheduled outages, including the cause,

duration, and corrective action taken. (6) A discussion of the licensee's record of compliance with the terms and conditions of the existing license, including a list of all

incidents of noncompliance, their disposition, and any documentation relating to each incident. (7) A discussion of any actions taken by the existing licensee related to the project which affect the public. (8) A summary of the ownership and operating expenses that would be reduced if the project license were transferred from the existing

licensee. (9) A statement of annual fees paid under Part I of the Federal Power Act for the use of any Federal or Indian lands included within the

project boundary.

1.0 Efficient and Reliable Electric Service 1.1 Efficiency and Reliability The Licensee has extensive experience operating and maintaining its vast hydro systems in an efficient and reliable manner. The Licensee-owned hydroelectric capacity in 2006 was almost 3,900 MW, including 68 hydroelectric powerhouses and one pumped storage hydroelectric facility. PG&E has the responsibility for generating, purchasing, transmitting, and distributing electricity to its customers. The Project is operated in conjunction with PG&E’s other generating resources to help meet the electricity demands of its customers throughout Northern California. 1.2 Increase in Capacity or Generation The Licensee has no current plans to increase the output of the Project. However, Centerville Powerhouse is near the end of its service life and will need to be refurbished or replaced within the term of the new FERC license.

Miscellaneous Filing Material License Application October 2007 Page H-2 © 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company


FERC Project No. 803 1.3 Coordination of Operation with Other Water Resources Projects The Forks of Butte Project, FERC No. 6896, is located in the Project Vicinity, approximately 4 miles below Licensee’s Butte Creek Diversion Dam. These facilities are owned by Energy Growth Partnership, Inc. Forks of Butte Powerhouse is located approximately 9.7 stream miles downstream from Butte Creek Diversion Dam, immediately upstream of Licensee’s DeSabla Powerhouse. The Forks of Butte Project can divert up to 275 cfs, with a 47 cfs minimum instream flow requirement. As a result of the 47 cfs flow requirement at the Forks of Butte Project Diversion Dam, the Forks of Butte Powerhouse does not operate through most of the summer since adequate flows are not available to meet the minimum streamflow requirement and provide water for diversion to the powerhouse. There are no coordination requirements with the Forks of Butte Project. 1.4 Coordination of Operation with Electrical Systems The Project is operated on a base-loaded basis and in conjunction with the Licensee's other electrical resources to minimize the overall cost of energy production. The Licensee proposes to continue operating the Project in this manner over the next license term. During normal and low flow conditions, the Project is operated to utilize the water available for power production. During high flow periods, such as during spring snow melt, the Project operates at or near maximum capacity to minimize spills. Figure H1.4-1 shows the operating profile of the Project based on Licensee’s proposed Project operation.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Month

Ave

rage

Gen

erat

ion

(GW

h)

Toadtown PH DeSabla PH Centerville PH

Figure H1.4-1. Project Monthly Operation Profile (Licensee’s Proposed Project).


Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 The base-loaded operation of the Project helps to minimize the operation of non-renewable, higher cost thermal electric generating plants. Figure H1.4-2 shows the hourly profile of California Electric Demand and Supply for one typical day each quarter.1 During the spring, fall, and winter months, the daily California demand for electricity can vary from a low of about 30,000 MW up to approximately 42,000 MW. However, in the summer months, particularly during heat storms, the daily demand for electricity can jump up to above 54,000 MW.

Figure H1.4-2. Hourly Profile of California Electric Demand and Supply.

2.0 Need for Project Electricity The alternative sources of power currently available to PG&E are increased purchases and new generation developments. However, the Project is considered a “renewable” small hydroelectric facility under state law.2 Accordingly, the Project falls within the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which requires an electrical corporation to increase its total procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by at least 1% of retail sales per year so that 20% of its retail sales are procured from eligible energy resources no later than December 31, 2010. Any reduction in the Project’s power production would need to be replaced with another source of qualifying RPS renewable electrical energy.

1 Draft CEC Staff White Paper, Appendix C, of “Resource, Reliability and Environmental Concerns of Aging Power Plant Operations and Retirements”, August 13, 2004 100-04-005D. 2 See California Public Utilities Code § 399.12(b)(1)(A).



FERC Project No. 803 In 2003, California’s principal energy agencies (the CA Energy Commission, CA Public Utility Commission, and CA Power Authority) developed a common policy vision referred to as “the loading order,” as articulated in the Energy Action Plan (EAP) and published in the 2003 Energy Report. The loading order calls for optimizing energy conservation and resource efficiency, meeting new generation needs first with renewable energy resources and distributed generation, then with clean fossil fuel generation, and improving the bulk electricity transmission grid and distribution infrastructure. Figures H2.0-1 and H2.0-2 were developed by the CEC as part of the California Energy Demand 2008-2018, CEC Staff Draft Report dated July 2007 (CEC-200-2007-015SD). Figures H2.0-1 and H2.0-2 show PG&E Planning Area electricity and peak demand forecasts for the next 10 years. The CEC is forecasting an annual 1.3% growth in PG&E Planning Area electricity and peak demand forecasts over this time. New electric resources, in addition to energy conservation, will need to be added in order to keep up with load growth.

Figure H2.0-13. CEC July 2007 Electricity Forecast.

3 CEC Staff Draft Report dated July 2007 (CEC-200-2007-015SD)



Figure H2.0-14. CEC July 2007 Peak Electricity Forecast. In the short- and long-term, the need for Project power is based on the fact that the Project is an air emission-free, RPS-eligible renewable energy resource which contributes to system reliability and a diversified generation mix. If the electric generating capacity of the Project were replaced with fossil-fueled resources, green house gas emissions could potentially increase by about 13,000 metric tons of carbon per year.5

2.1 Costs and Availability of Alternative Sources of Power Due to the relatively small capacity output of the Project relative to PG&E’s electric generation resource mix and load (the Project represents less than one percent of PG&E’s peak load), alternative sources of power are expected to be available in the short- and long-term if a new license is not granted. The Licensee would likely purchase this replacement renewable energy from the wholesale market, pursuant the State’s RPS mandate. As described in Exhibit D, Section 5.0, the current replacement energy cost is 8.61 cents per kWh.

4 CEC Staff Draft Report dated July 2007 (CEC-200-2007-015SD) 5 Source of conversion factor 85 kilograms of carbon emissions per mega-watt-hour: FERC Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Upper North Fork Feather River Project, Project No. 2105 dated September 2004.



FERC Project No. 803 2.2 Increased Costs to Replace the Project If the Licensee is not granted a new license, the amount of purchased power would increase. An estimate of the replacement power costs under the “no action” case is approximately $13.4 million per year. 2.3 Effects of Alternative Sources of Power Effects on Customers: Use of these alternative sources of power would have a small impact on customers, including wholesale customers, by replacing this renewable source of energy with higher priced renewable energy. Replacing the Project’s average annual energy output of 155.7 GWh with an alternative source of power would increase the price paid for power. Effects on Operating and Load Characteristics: The Licensee's operating and load characteristics would be minimally impacted by increasing purchases of renewable power. Effects on the Communities Served: The Licensee provides natural gas and electric service to approximately 14 million people, including 20,833 schools, 3,239 hospitals, 20,698 high-tech companies and 768 military facilities. The Licensee delivers power to 4.9 million electric customer accounts in a service area that encompasses nearly 70,000 square miles of northern and central California. In this large and diversified region, commerce, industry, and agriculture play vital economic roles. Commercial and industrial activities are centered in the San Francisco Bay Area, with its major cities and large population centers. Power provided by the Licensee is vital to the economic well being of this metropolitan community as well as the multitude of smaller cities and towns throughout the service area. The area served by the Licensee also includes California's Central Valley, lying between the Pacific Coast Range and the Sierra Nevada, and extending nearly 450 miles from north to south. The Central Valley is the economic heartland of California agriculture and one of the premier agricultural regions in the world. The Licensee also serves other significant agricultural districts in California, including the Napa Valley and the Salinas Valley. California agriculture's heavy dependence on irrigation, with surface and subsurface water supplies pumped by electricity, has had an important influence on the historical development of power sources, including the DeSabla-Centerville Project. California's agriculture continues to depend heavily on the Licensee's system for power to meet its needs. The foregone generation if the Licensee is not granted a new license could theoretically increase the wholesale renewable energy prices by a small amount. Any purchased power increases would be allocated to all California customer classes equally.


http://www.pge.com/education_training/about_energy/how_gas_system_works/index.html

http://www.pge.com/education_training/about_energy/how_electric_system_works/index.html


3.0 Cost of Production and Alternative Sources of Power 3.1 Average Annual Cost of Power Assumptions and Methods The Project economic analyses provided in this application estimates the average annual cost of power produced by the Project using FERC's current cost method under the existing license. This method uses current California electricity market conditions, and current costs of owning and operating the Project. Future inflation and escalation of prices and costs are not considered.6 By using current costs, PG&E does not assume future escalation or de-escalation of the various cost components included in the cost of project power or alternative power. The average annual cost of Project power will include all the costs of owning and operating the Project. Project cost components include unrecovered past capital additions (e.g., the depreciated Plant-in-Service costs, or net book value), relicensing costs, future capital replacements (including the cost of rebuilding Centerville Powerhouse), routine operations and maintenance costs, FERC fees, taxes, insurance, and implementation of new license conditions and potential resource management measures for a new license term. A Fixed Charge Rate (FCR) of 14% is used to annualize the costs of capital improvements, (i.e., improvements that have a service life in excess of one year and which are repaid over time); the FCR includes capital recovery with a cost of capital of about 8.8%, taxes and insurance costs. Expenses such as payroll costs are paid in the year the expenditure is made and do not include any tax or insurance component. The net book value represents the cost of owning the facilities and reflects unrecovered past capital expenditures. The costs of relicensing, under 1992-revised CPUC regulations, are booked to the Project upon receipt of the new FERC license. Relicensing costs will be included in the Project economics as "relicensing costs" (these "unbooked" costs are not contained in the net book value). All the other costs listed above represent future costs. Dependable capacity is the load carrying ability of a hydroelectric plant under adverse hydrologic conditions for the specified time interval and period of a particular electric system load. The Project dependable capacity is based on the Project's load carrying ability during the critical hydrologic period (e.g., 1977) coincident with the Licensee's peak electric system load. Currently, the peak system load occurs during summer heat storms, typically in July or August in the Licensee's service territory. Results The annual cost of Project power, on a cents per kWh basis, depends on the energy production from the Project. The Project's average annual energy production, and dependable capacity are affected by the available stream flow (due to hydrologic conditions), minimum instream flow 6 See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC Para. 61,027 (July 13, 1995).




requirements, and other stream flow requirements. The current Project's average annual energy production and dependable capacity is contained in Exhibit B. The average annual cost of Project power under the No-Action Case is shown in Table D4.2-1 as 7.9 cents per kWh. The average annual cost of Project power with the Licensee’s proposed recommended resource measures is shown in Table D4.2-2 as 9.2 cents per kWh. 3.2 Costs of Agency Recommendations On May 14, 2007, PG&E filed with FERC, distributed to Relicensing Participants, and made available to the general public DLA. The deadline for filing comments on the DLA, including proposed resource management measures, was September 6, 2007. Written comments were filed by:

• Butte Creek Watershed Conservation Board (letter dated August 10, 2007) • USFS, USFWS, NPS, BLM, NOAA Fisheries, CDFG and the SWRCB (joint letter dated

August 31, 2007) • California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Friends of Butte Creek, Friends of the River

(letter dated August 4, 2008) • FERC (letter dated September 5, 2007)7

None of the Relicensing Participants that filed written comments on the DLA included proposed preliminary resource management measures except for the joint agency letter. The agencies proposed that PG&E’s measure regarding invasive weeds should add that re-vegetation of disturbed areas will utilize only native plant material, guaranteed weed-free. Seed should come from local collection sites, whenever possible, to protect the local plant genotypes. PG&E has adopted this recommendation in Measure 14, Invasive Weed Management Plan, and included this recommendation in Licensee’s proposed resource measures. However, PG&E acknowledges that the comment letters said Relicensing Participants were not ready at this time to propose preliminary resource management measures. As described in Exhibit E, Section 8, the measures proposed in this application are based on the information available to PG&E at this time. Because six relicensing studies are still in progress and 11 other studies have not been formally reviewed by FERC as required by 18 CFR § 5.15, PG&E will continue to consult with Relicensing Participants to address any new information produced by these studies. Any future resource management measures proposed by Relicensing Participants and adopted by Licensee that could change Project costs, operation, or generation would impact the cost of power. 3.3 Projected Resources to Meet Requirements As described in Exhibit D, the Licensee would purchase replacement renewable energy through the competitively bid RPS process to meet its energy needs over the short and long term.

7 FERC’s September 5, 2007, letter provided 4 specific additional information requests as well as FERC’s comments on the DLA. The additional information is provided in the application.


Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 However, since wind energy is the likely renewable energy resource, and since wind has negligible dependable capacity, fossil-fueled plants are the likely source for any forgone dependable capacity. See Section H2 for further replacement power information. Load Management Measures Energy conservation has been identified as a key element in solving California's electricity shortage. The Licensee plans on continuing to implement a wide range of load management measures. The Licensee has historically implemented Demand Side Management (DSM) projects to minimize load growth. As part of industry restructuring, other parties are competing to provide DSM services. Since California's 2000–2001 energy crisis, the Licensee and others are aggressively pursuing all cost-effective conservation and DSM measures. Figure H3.3-1 shows PG&E Planning Area electricity consumption per capita. Energy conservation efforts have kept the per capita electricity consumption relatively flat for the past 25 years. Additional conservation programs will be used to minimize high-cost purchased power and are not a realistic option for replacing the Project’s renewable power.




Figure H3.3-1

8. CEC July 2007 Per Capita Electricity Consumption.

The Licensee is aggressively pursuing all cost-effective conservation and DSM programs. Consequently, additional conservation programs are not a realistic option for replacing DeSabla-Centerville Project power. Even if additional conservation programs were successful, the Licensee would use it to displace the most expensive resource on the system, not Project power. 3.4 Alternative Sources of Power Alternative sources of power would need to be obtained through increased purchases. For the purposes of this economic analysis, the total cost of this alternative source of power, including energy and capacity, is deemed to be approximately 8.6 cents per kWh. 4.0 Effect on Industrial Facility The Licensee is a regulated utility and thus does not use the Project power for its own industrial facility. Therefore, this item is not applicable. 8 CEC Staff Draft Report dated July 2007 (CEC-200-2007-015SD)



5.0 Indian Tribe Need for Electricity The Licensee is not an Indian tribe, so this item is not applicable. 6.0 Effect on Transmission System 6.1 Effects of Redistribution of Power Flows Toadtown Powerhouse is connected directly to the local 12 kV distribution line by a 1,500-foot-long tap line. DeSabla Powerhouse is connected to the PG&E 60 kV transmission system by a 0.25-mile-long tap line, and Centerville Powerhouse is connected to the transmission network at the powerhouse switchyard and also feeds the local 12 kV system. Northern California hydroelectric generation levels affect the total amount of power that can be imported into California from the Northwest on the AC and DC systems. Because of voltage stability limits, northern California hydroelectric generation levels above approximately 90% of capacity may slightly reduce the amount of power that can be imported into California from the northwest. Not receiving a Project license and retiring the facility would relax import restrictions during high northern California hydroelectric generation periods, providing greater access to northwest power. However, if the Project were licensed to an entity other than the current Licensee and remained connected to the northern California transmission system, no change would be anticipated in the amount of power that can be imported into California. The effect of the Project on transmission line energy losses is insignificant due to its relatively small capacity. 6.2 Advantages of Licensee’s System The Licensee's transmission system is adequate to accommodate the Project’s power output; no transmission line upgrades are necessary to continue to operate the Project if the Licensee is granted a new license. 6.3 Single-Line Diagram A single line diagram is not included in this application pursuant to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Docket Nos. RM02-4-002, PL02-1-002, RM03-6-001; Order No. 649, “Critical Energy Infrastructure Information” (CEII), dated August 3, 2004. The general public may file a CEII request per 18 CFR § 388.113 or a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request per 18 CFR § 388.108. FERC has posted a form on its Website that requesters may use to file a request (http://www.ferc.gov/help/how-to/file-ceii.asp). A single line diagram of each Project development is provided to FERC in a separate package with this license application. 7.0 Modifications Conforming with Comprehensive Plans The Licensee does not propose to modify existing Project facilities. Continued operation is believed to be consistent with applicable comprehensive plans.


http://www.ferc.gov/help/how-to/file-ceii.asp


FERC Project No. 803 8.0 Project Conformance with Comprehensive Plans As indicated in Exhibit E, the Licensee believes the Project is in conformance with all comprehensive plans. 9.0 Financial and Personnel Resources 9.1 Financial Resources The Licensee's sources of financing and annual revenues are sufficient to meet the continuing operation and maintenance needs of the Project. For specific financial information, please refer to the Licensee’s financial statements which it has submitted annually to the Commission in FERC Form 1, and to its record in constructing, operating, and maintaining its projects. 9.2 Personnel Resources The personnel that maintain and operate the Project comprise many technical trades. The level of training for the various classifications represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is negotiated. Most personnel complete a state-approved apprenticeship program to progress to a journeyman level position. The following is a listing of Licensee personnel who are headquartered near the Project and are responsible for maintenance and operation of this Project and other FERC projects (a total of 19 hydroelectric powerhouses): 3 administrative, engineering, and supervisory personnel 1 clerical personnel 1 electrical and communication technician 1 maintenance personnel 7 water collection personnel 6 operating personnel The Licensee has operated the Project in compliance with the terms of the current license. Past performance has demonstrated the Licensee’s ability and commitment to operating this Project in accordance with the provisions of the license. Project personnel receive training in a variety of subjects to ensure compliance with license provisions. Annual training includes:

• identifying factors for determination of an emergency condition

• timing and scope of emergency response

• performing routine and emergency inspections of Project facilities

• respirator and hearing protection use

• hazardous material handling and disposal (including Material Safety Data Sheets)

• asbestos and PCB handling



• safety and first aid instruction, including blood borne pathogens (6 hours per year)

• clearance procedure (lock-out tag-out)

• electrical safety Other training as required includes:

• safety indoctrination for new employees

• pesticide and confined space safety regulations for employees that are exposed to these hazards

• compliance and environmental training including instruction on measures to protect sensitive species

• fall protection

• facility emergency environmental plans

• ergonomics

• fire safety

• equipment and vehicle safety training

• CPR training 10.0 Project Expansion Notification The Licensee has no current plans to expand the Project to encompass additional lands. 11.0 Electricity Consumption Efficiency Improvement Program 11.1 Customer Energy Efficiency Programs The Licensee has an excellent record of encouraging and assisting its customers in conserving electricity. The California Public Utility Commission also has opened the customer energy efficiency (CEE) programs to competition. Electricity conservation and CEE programs have been identified as a critical component to help meet California's energy needs. The state legislature recently has passed a number of laws promoting more CEE programs. The Licensee will support these new and ongoing CEE programs as permitted. Appendix H-1 provides a summary of the Licensee's current CEE programs. 11.2 Compliance with Regulatory Requirements The Licensee is in compliance with energy conservation decisions issued by the California Public Utility Commission's (CPUC). See Appendix H-1 for a summary of the Licensee’s current CEE programs.



FERC Project No. 803 12.0 Indian Tribe Names and Mailing Addresses The following Native American tribes recognized and not recognized by the Federal government may be affected by the Project: Mr. Joe Marine 1025 35th Avenue, Apt. 9 Sacramento, CA 95822

Ms. Patsy Seek, Chairperson Konkow Valley Band of Maidu 1185 Eighteen Street Oroville, CA 95965

Ms. Patty Reese-Allan Cultural Resources Representative Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians #5 Tyme Way Oroville, CA 95966

Maidu Advisory Council 2128 Myers Street Oroville, CA 95966

Mr. Ren Reynolds Butte Tribal Council 1693 Mount Ida Road Oroville, CA 95966

Maidu Cultural and Development Group P.O. Box 126 Greenville, CA 95947

Ms. Glenda Nelson, Chairperson Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians 1940 Feather River Blvd., Suite B Oroville, CA 95965

Ms. Clara LeCompte Maidu Nation P.O. Box 204 Susanville, CA 96130

Ms. Arlene Ward Cultural Resources Representative Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria 125 Mission Ranch Road Chico, CA 95926

Mr. Steve Santos, Chairperson Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria 125 Mission Ranch Road Chico, CA 95926

Ms. Candice Miller, Tribal Administrator Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians #1 Alverda Drive Oroville, CA 95966

Mr. Gary Archuleta, Chairperson Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians #1 Alverda Drive Oroville, CA 95966

Ms. Lorie Jaimes Tribal Chair Greenville Rancheria P.O. Box 279 Greenville, CA 95974

Mr. Mike Despain Environmental Office Greenville Rancheria P.O. Box 279 Greenville, CA 95974

The Licensee will provide a copy of this document to each of the parties listed above within 15 days of filing it with FERC. 13.0 Safe Management, Operation, and Maintenance The Licensee implements numerous measures to ensure safe management, operation, and maintenance of the Project.


Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 13.1 Safe Management In compliance with § 6401.7 of the California Labor Code and the Licensee's Standard Practice 726-8, the Licensee has implemented a comprehensive Power Generation Department Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP). Safety responsibilities under the IIPP are shared by a Power Generation Safety Chairperson, Power Generation Safety Council, Power Generation Safety Committee, Local Area Safety Committee, traveling safety teams, and all Power Generation employees. Functional elements of the IIPP include safety meetings, 10-day safety tailboard meetings, safety training, safety inspections, employee reporting of hazards, investigations, and record keeping. Licensee contractors and subcontractors are also required to have effective IIPPs. Other measures implemented to ensure safe management of the Project include:

• conducting the FERC's 18 CFR Part 12 dam safety review

• complying with inspection of dams by the State of California, Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams

• complying with the Project’s Public Safety Plan filed with the Commission’s San Francisco Regional Office

• developing a penstock safety program

• Licensee-mandated facility inspection by company personnel

• disseminating information to Licensee’s employees

• IBEW, Union members’ annual safety audit

13.2 Safe Operation All Project powerhouses are operated remotely and monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by operators at the Licensee’s Rock Creek switching center on the Feather River. Field maintenance crews typically work four days each week and are located at Camp 1, adjacent to DeSabla Forebay. If an alarm at a powerhouse or on a canal is received at Rock Creek switching center, the switching center can dispatch a roving operator to investigate the situation. At various locations on the canal system, the Licensee maintains water release gates that can be operated remotely to discharge the canal flow to the adjacent stream channel. This minimizes potential impacts that might otherwise result from events such as a canal or flume overtopping or failure. The Licensee also reduces canal flows during storm periods to reduce the risk of canal overtopping and failures. Maintenance of canals and powerhouses is typically scheduled in the winter months to avoid possible disruptions at times that may be sensitive for the Chinook salmon.



FERC Project No. 803 13.3 Safe Maintenance All facilities are maintained to ensure safe and reliable operation. Frequent visits by Project personnel help identify potential problems, and these are corrected as they are discovered. The Licensee's preventive maintenance program is used to monitor maintenance. 13.4 Operation During Flood Conditions Non-Emergency Action Plan Events: Standard operating procedures for each dam location describe actions to be taken during flood conditions. The procedures require operation personnel to be in contact with the local Switching Center to respond to potential system problems. Maintenance personnel can be directly contacted 24 hours a day by the Switching Center during flood conditions. If problems are noted by the Switching Center, maintenance crews are immediately called out to identify the nature and extent of the problem and estimate duration of repair, if needed. Emergency Action Plan Events: The Project is not required to have an EAP per 18 CFR 12.21(a). 13.5 Warning Devices for Downstream Public Safety There are no automatic warning devices for downstream public safety below the Project. Public safety warning signs are provided at locations where changes in Project operations have the potential to quickly alter water levels. 13.6 Monitoring Devices Philbrook Dam has monitoring to track seepage and other conditions. Various monitoring devices have been placed in the dam galley. The Project is equipped with a rate of change device that will alert the local Switching Center operator to a rapid increase in downstream flows or rapid decrease in forebay level. There is no remote monitoring of Round Valley Reservoir. The operator would then take the appropriate emergency action. Reservoir elevation and rate of change are monitored by the Switching Center located in the North Fork Feather River canyon. The monitoring is conducted using a bubbler system located in the reservoir. The data is communicated via supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. 13.7 Employee Safety and Public Safety Record Prior to 1985, all public safety records were filed separately with appropriate state and federal agencies on a case-by-case basis rather than by Project, making historical information before 1985 impossible to retrieve. Licensee records indicate that there have been 15 lost-time incidents involving employees working at the Project from 1985 to the present. During this same period of time, no public safety incidents have occurred inside the Project boundary. Drownings have occurred in the vicinity of the Project, but the Licensee does not keep records of these incidents.



14.0 Current Operation The Project is currently operated as part of the generation mix used to meet the customers' electric demand. The Project is operated as a base-loaded, run-of-canal/river basis. In 1999, Chinook salmon were designated as a threatened species under the ESA. Since that time, the Licensee has operated the Project under an annual Project Operations and Maintenance Plan developed each spring in consultation with the CDFG, NOAA Fisheries, and USFWS. This Operations and Maintenance Plan outlines the procedures and practices followed by PG&E in the operation and maintenance of the Project facilities to enhance and protect this habitat for Chinook salmon. This Operations and Maintenance Plan is also intended to provide the basis for modification of the reservoir temperature release criteria established in the FERC’s August 21, 1997 order, as amended by its August 20, 1998 order. Under the Project Operations and Maintenance Plans, water is released from reservoirs on the WBFR, first from Round Valley Reservoir, followed by the release of water from Philbrook Reservoir as high temperatures occur during the summer. These releases, together with the diversion of natural flow from the WBFR, provide an additional source of cool water to Butte Creek. To minimize the amount of solar heating that may occur as the water travels from the WBFR to Butte Creek, the Project Operations and Maintenance Plans has an objective to maintain a minimum flow of 100 cfs into the DeSabla Forebay through mid-September, if possible. This measure decreases the time required for conveyance through the DeSabla Forebay. Conservation measures incorporated into Project operations are set forth in detail in the 2006 Project Operations and Maintenance Plan. 15.0 History of the Project Licensee has implemented numerous repairs, improvement and major maintenance projects including a flume replacement program in the mid-1990s, in which many older flume sections were replaced, lining canals with gunite, and radio dispatched emergency canal spill gates. Such improvements may incrementally improve facility reliability but the primary factor affecting operation is flood and landslide damage during major storms. The most notable of these in recent history was the 1997 New Year's storm that resulted in major damage to the Hendricks and Butte canals, and flood damage at DeSabla and Centerville powerhouses. The Licensee also has several ongoing programs that review penstock safety, transformer reliability, and powerhouse sump adequacy. 16.0 Generation Lost Over the Last Five Years On average, during the last five years, approximately four major outages per year (more than a week in length) have occurred at the Project powerhouse due to annual maintenance, extreme weather conditions, fires affecting the transmission lines, or equipment failure. Since Project reservoirs have relatively little storage, water spilled during all of the outages. This "lost" generation is estimated at about 30 KWh.



FERC Project No. 803 17.0 Compliance with Terms and Conditions of License The Licensee has a good record of compliance with the terms and conditions of the current license. A review of the Licensee’s records indicates consistent compliance with all of the license articles. 18.0 Actions Affecting the Public The Project is not required to have an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) in accordance with FERC’s regulations. 19.0 Ownership and Operating Expenses Estimates of the future Project O&M, capital replacements, and proposed mitigation and enhancement costs were made to estimate the Project production costs in Section H.3. If the license were transferred, these future Project costs would no longer be incurred, although the Licensee would have to pay for replacement power. The total future Project cost for the existing facilities that could be eliminated if the license were transferred is estimated to be about $5.8 million per year (using FERC’s current cost method). About $2.5 million of this annual cost represents the current level of Project O&M; the remainder of the annual cost represents future capital replacement costs, and estimated FERC fees. 20.0 Annual Fees for Federal or Indian Lands The total area within the FERC Project Boundary is 700.6 acres. Approximately 159.4 acres of land are owned by the United States (96.26 of these acres are subject to PG&E rights under the Act of July 26, 1866, 43 USC § 661). Of the federal lands, 145.7 acres are within the Lassen National Forest, 2.1 acres are within the Plumas National Forest and 11.6 acres are administered by the Bureau of Land Management. FERC charges for 2006 totaled $62,933.79. This included land use charges of $5,458.90 and administrative charges of $57,474.89. No Indian lands are included within the Project boundary.



[This Page Left Blank intentionally.]




Appendix H-1

PG&E’s PY 2004-2005 Customer Energy Efficiency Programs

Statewide Programs

Residential Retrofit Single Family Program – The Single Family Rebate program will provide rebates for qualifying energy efficiency measures, supported by information, education, and energy management services. The Smarter Energy Line call center and PG&E’s Web site (ww.pge.com) provide unbiased information to customers. Rebates will be targeted at retrofit and renovation, appliances, and heating and cooling measures. The upstream lighting program will continue to collaborate with retailers to offer point of sale discounts for ENERGY STAR lighting products. Home Energy Efficiency Surveys – This program will provide direct energy efficiency information and recommendations to customers on how they can save energy and money in their homes. It provides information on energy use of various appliances as well as specific recommendations. Surveys can be on-line, mail-in or phone for the customers’ convenience. Multifamily Program – This program will target retrofit and renovation for appliances, heating and cooling. The program will assist customers within the multifamily residential sector that have not traditionally nor actively participated in energy efficiency programs. The program, like the single family program, will use an integrated approach combining information, education, energy management services and customer incentives to stimulate customer action. Appliance Recycling Program –The Statewide Appliance Recycling Program will offer an incentive for the recycling of residential refrigerators or freezers. Education and Training Center-Stockton (ETC) – The ETC provides continuing education for businesses and construction professionals. It is designed to increase the knowledge of contractors, vendors and sales people on the advantages of energy-efficient equipment and familiarize them with energy efficiency measures and technical standards. Residential New Construction California ENERGY STAR New Homes Program – This program will encourage single family and multifamily builders to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards by 15%-20%. Under the program, the utilities will offer a combination of financial incentives, design assistance and training to encourage the construction of single family and multifamily buildings that exceed Title 24 residential building standards. The program is structured as a two-tiered performance-based program, with incentives that vary by building type, the degree to which the building exceeds Title 24 standards, and climate zone.


Pacific Gas and Electric Company DeSabla-Centerville Project FERC Project No. 803 Nonresidential Retrofit Standard Performance Contract – This program offers cash incentives for custom-designed, energy saving projects. All nonresidential utility customers may participate, but large, complex projects are targeted. Express Efficiency – This program offers cash rebates to small/medium nonresidential utility customers to replace inefficient equipment with energy-efficient technologies including lighting, air conditioning, heating, refrigeration, food service, gas, and agricultural equipment. Energy Audits – Energy audits are available in several formats (i.e., phone, mail-back, CD Rom, on-line and on-site audits) for small/medium utility business customers. More targeted audits for major energy consuming systems are offered to large business customers. Builder Operator Certification – This comprehensive training and certification program targets building operators and provides classroom training to identify and implement energy-saving practices as an integral part of building operations and maintenance. Emerging Technologies – This information program accelerates the introduction of energy-efficient technologies, applications, and analytical tools that are not widely used in California. Codes and Standards – This program advocates for upgrades and enhancements to energy-efficiency standards and codes. Codes and Standards Enhancement studies examine promising design practices and technologies for standards and code-setting bodies. Nonresidential New Construction Savings by Design (SBD) – SBD targets commercial, industrial and agricultural new construction markets. The program provides rebates, information and design assistance and analysis. The Energy Design Resources component offers design tools and resources for architects and engineers to support energy-efficient design. Local Programs Energenius® – This popular program offers a school-based education program to public and private schools within the PG&E service territory. The Energenius Educational Series includes five complete curricula on energy efficiency and gas and electric safety for grades one through eight. Each Series provides a teacher curriculum guide and student guide. Pacific Energy Center (PEC) – The PEC offers educational programs, design tools, advice, and support to help create energy-efficient buildings and comfortable indoor environments with a focus on commercial buildings. School Resources Programs – This program helps schools become more energy efficient through energy audits, project assistance and workshops. Emphasis is placed on getting school districts access to all available resources (utility, state and federal).



FERC Project No. 803 Food Service Technology Center – This center provides useful, reliable and unbiased information to assist commercial food service providers in designing and operating energy-efficient commercial food service facilities. Local Government Partnerships – Tailored energy-efficiency programs are offered to select local governments. They combine PG&E’s programs with local governments’ communications channels. Services may include direct installation of energy-efficient equipment, energy audits, seminars, and financial incentives. Presently, partnerships include the Bakersfield and Kern County Energy Watch, Fresno Energy Savings Alliance, East Bay Energy Partnership, Silicon Valley Energy Program, Stockton Smart Energy Program, West Sacramento Energy Partnership, El Dorado County Energy Partnership, and the San Francisco Peak Energy Program. University of California/California State University and Utility Energy Efficiency Partnership – This statewide program aims to establish a sustainable energy management program at the 33 campuses served by California’s four large utilities.



[This Page Left Blank intentionally.


DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 803 · Pacific Gas and Electric Company...

Documents

Transcript of DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 803 · Pacific Gas and Electric Company...