DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower License Surrender

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower License Surrender FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE SURRENDER Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects August 2011 KILARC-COW CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT – FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION FERC PROJECT NO. 606 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS CALIFORNIA 888 FIRST STREET, NE WASHINGTON, DC 20426 FERC/FEIS-F-0236 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE SURRENDER Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydroelectric Project—FERC Project No. 606 California Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Administration & Compliance 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 August 2011 COVER SHEET a. Title: License Surrender for the Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 606 b. Subject: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) c. Lead Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission d. Abstract: On March 12, 2009, Pacific Gas and Electric filed an application to surrender its license for the Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 606), located on Old Cow Creek, South Cow Creek, and tributaries in Shasta County, California. The project consists of two developments, Kilarc and Cow Creek. The two developments operate independently and are located in two different subwatersheds. The Kilarc development has an installed capacity of 3.23 megawatts (MW) and the Cow Creek development has an installed capacity of 1.44 MW. Of the total 184.32 acres of land within the project boundary, 1.87 acres of federal lands are administered by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. The project generates an average of about 31,100 megawatt hours (MWh) annually. The staff’s recommendation is for the license surrender as proposed, with additional staff recommendations. e. Contact: CarLisa Linton-Peters Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 [email protected] (202) 502-8416 f. Transmittal: This FEIS was prepared by Commission staff on the application filed by PG&E to surrender the license for the existing Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydroelectric Project is being made available to the public on or about i August 16, 2011 as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.1 1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, amended (Public Law [Pub. L.] 91-190, 42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), September 13, 1982). ii FOREWORD The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA)2 and the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act,3 is authorized to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of non- federal hydroelectric developments subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary conditions: That the project...shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in section 4(3)...4 Moreover, section 6 of the FPA allows licensees to voluntarily surrender existing licenses to the Commission and cease operation of their facilities. The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the FPA as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the project.5 Compliance with such conditions during the license surrender period is required. The Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure allow any person objecting to a licensee’s compliance or noncompliance with such conditions to file a complaint noting the basis for such objection for the Commission’s consideration.6 2 16 U.S.C. §791(a)-825r, as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-495 (1986) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486 (1992), and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58 (2005). 3 Pub. L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 556 (1977). 4 16 U.S.C. §803(a) (2008). 5 16 U.S.C. §803(g) (2008). 6 18 Code of Federal Regulations §385.206 (2008). iii This page intentionally left blank iv TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER SHEET ...................................................................................................................i FOREWORD......................................................................................................................iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................v LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................xi LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................xiii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................xv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................xix 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1 1.1 APPLICATION .....................................................................................................1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...............................................................4 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS..................................5 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ..........................................................................................5 1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions.............................................................5 1.3.1.2 Restoration of Federal Lands ...................................................................5 1.3.2 Clean Water Act .............................................................................................5 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act .................................................................................6 1.3.4 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act...................7 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act.................................................................7 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION.......................................................8 1.4.1 Pre-Filing Consultation...................................................................................8 1.4.2 Responses to Public Notice ............................................................................9 1.4.3 Scoping .........................................................................................................11 1.4.4 Summary of Comments Received ................................................................15 1.4.5 Comments on DEIS ......................................................................................16 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES................................................20 2.1 EXISTING PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS...............................20 2.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..........................................................................24 2.3 PROPOSED ACTION.........................................................................................24 2.3.1 Proposed Decommissioning of Project Facilities.........................................24 2.3.2 Proposed Termination of Project Operation.................................................26 2.3.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ..............................................................26 2.3.4 Agency Response to Licensee’s Proposal ....................................................31 2.3.5 Discussion of Water Rights ..........................................................................32 2.4 ACTION ALTERNATIVE 1 ..............................................................................34 2.5 ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 ..............................................................................35 2.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................37 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................................................................45 3.1 GENERAL SETTING.........................................................................................45 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS..............................................................46 v 3.2.1 Geographic Scope.........................................................................................46 3.2.2 Temporal Scope............................................................................................47 3.3 ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES.....47 3.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources........................................................................48 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................48 3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects of Proposed Action............................................51 3.3.1.3 Environmental Effects of Action Alternative 1......................................55 3.3.1.4 Environmental Effects of Action Alternative 2......................................56 3.3.1.5 Environmental Effects of No Action......................................................57
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Whiskeytown Nugget Summer 2003
    National Park Service Park News U.S. Department of the Interior Whiskeytown National Recreation Area The official newspaper of Whiskeytown National Recreation Area The Whiskeytown Nugget Summer 2003 Hot and Cool…Free Kayak Tours on Whiskeytown Lake A Message From . BEAT THE HEAT THIS SUMMER WITH A COOL KAYAK TRIP on Whiskeytown Lake. Free ranger-guided kayak tours depart To Participate in Whiskeytown’s Jim Milestone, Park Superintendent from Oak Bottom twice daily this summer, providing a great escape Kayak Program: Forty years ago, and the opportunity 10,000 people to spot park wildlife • You must know how to swim from Northern while cruising over California anxiously • You must weigh less than 275 pounds the clear blue waters waited for • You must be at least six years old of Whiskeytown President John F. • If you are six to twelve years old, you must ride with a parent or Kennedy’s Lake. Park rangers guardian. helicopter to come and volunteer kayak • Call (530) 242-3455 to reserve a space up to one week in into view and land on the new assistants provide advance. Whiskeytown Dam. As President Kennedy information about stepped off the helicopter the crowd burst local history, current events, plants and animals in the park, not to into applause and cheer. President Kennedy mention boat-in access to some great swimming locations away was on his national Conservation Tour, from crowded beaches and campgrounds. Two-hour tours will visiting parks and major conservation projects, including new dams and wildlife depart at 10:00 am and VIP Profile refuges.
    [Show full text]
  • Shasta Lake Unit
    Fishing The waters of Shasta Lake provide often congested on summer weekends. Packers Bay, Coee Creek excellent shing opportunities. Popular spots Antlers, and Hirz Bay are recommended alternatives during United States Department of Vicinity Map are located where the major rivers and periods of heavy use. Low water ramps are located at Agriculture Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area streams empty into the lake. Fishing is Jones Valley, Sugarloaf, and Centimudi. Additional prohibited at boat ramps. launching facilities may be available at commercial Trinity Center marinas. Fees are required at all boat launching facilities. Scale: in miles Shasta Unit 0 5 10 Campground and Camping 3 Shasta Caverns Tour The caverns began forming over 250 8GO Information Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity 12 million years ago in the massive limestone of the Gray Rocks Trinity Unit There is a broad spectrum of camping facilities, ranging Trinity Gilman Road visible from Interstate 5. Shasta Caverns are located o the National Recreation Area Lake Lakehead Fenders from the primitive to the luxurious. At the upper end of Ferry Road Shasta Caverns / O’Brien exit #695. The caverns are privately the scale, there are 9 marinas and a number of resorts owned and tours are oered year round. For schedules and oering rental cabins, motel accommodations, and RV Shasta Unit information call (530) 238-2341. I-5 parks and campgrounds with electric hook-ups, swimming 106 pools, and showers. Additional information on Forest 105 O Highway Vehicles The Chappie-Shasta O Highway Vehicle Area is located just below the west side of Shasta Dam and is Service facilities and services oered at private resorts is Shasta Lake available at the Shasta Lake Ranger Station or on the web managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
    [Show full text]
  • Temperature Curtain Improves Salmon Habitat
    Presented by the Fabricated Geomembrane Institute Photo: Bob Gee Gee Bob Photo: Temperature Curtain Improves Salmon Habitat By Bob Gee, Bureau of Reclamation, Greg Morris, Bureau of Reclamation & Stanford Slifer, Watersaver CO. A temperature curtain reaching depths of 100 feet in rafts and roofing. “The holes were caused by recently replaced curtains originally installed in the curtain rubbing against chains linking buoys both the upper and lower reaches of Whiskeytown holding the top of the curtain to anchors on the Reservoir in the early 1990’s. Located at the lake bottom,” Gee said. Whiskeytown Reservoir approximately 10 miles west of the city of Redding, in Shasta County Cali- "It just had deteriorated," said Brian Person, man- fornia, the purpose of the replacement curtain is ager for the bureau's Northern California Area Of- to lower the temperature of the Sacramento River fice at Shasta Dam. "So it was time for a replace- for fish spawning which would restore the Chinook ment." The old curtain was removed in the fall of salmon runs to this part of the Sacramento River. 2010 and the new curtain was installed and made operational in June 2011. Due to the deterioration of the temperature cur- tain at the mouth of the Spring Creek Power Erick Ammon, Inc. was chosen by the California Plant, plans were made for a complete replace- Bureau of Reclamation to do the job. Nestled ment. According to Bob Gee, a mechanical engi- among the hills and valleys of California’s Klamath neer for the bureau's Northern California Area Of- Mountains, the Whiskeytown Lake curtain serves fice, the old curtain, installed in 1993 had a lot of as a barrier to keep warm water from the Carr holes in it.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing at Whiskeytown Lake
    National Park Service Whiskeytown U.S. Department of the Interior Whiskeytown National Recreation Area Fishing at Whiskeytown Before Whiskeytown Lake was constructed, the area’s streams and creeks provided an abundance of fish for people and wildlife. Today, one of the most popular water sports within Whiskeytown National Recreational Area is fishing. The clear waters of Whiskeytown support a variety of game fish that can be successfully caught from a boat or from the lake and stream shoreline. Regulations Seasons Posted Closures Fishing is allowed year- round in the lake, All creeks and tributaries to the Sacra- however, the streams feeding mento River are only open from the last Whiskeytown are only available for fishing Saturday in April through November 15. from the last Saturday in April through Clear Creek below Whiskeytown Dam is November 15. catch and release only. Contact park headquarters for special posted closures. License Requirements Anyone 16 years old or older must have a California Regulations valid California fishing license displayed Fishing at Whiskeytown NRA must be on his or her person. Fishing licenses may done in conformity with the laws and be purchased at the Oak Bottom Marina regulations of the State of California unless during the summer season. otherwise specified in this bulletin. Please refer to the “California Sport Fishing Special Regulations Regulations” printed annually by the Fish of any kind may not be used for bait. Department of Fish and Game, State of Fishing hours are from one hour before California for further information. sunrise to one hour after sunset for trout Whiskeytown NRA is located within the and salmon.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Riverbas Tn R£Source Library
    TRINITY RIVE R BAS TN .. .. R£SOUR CE LIB RA RY . UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Mid-Pacific Region • Sacramento, California Revised November 1980 FACT SHEET TRINITY RIVER DIVISION CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT PURPOSE The Trinity River Division is a major part of the Central Valley Project. It provides water for irrigation, power, recreation, and fish and wild­ life conservation. Water from the Trinity River Basin is stored, regu­ lated, and diverted through a system of reservoirs, dams, powerplants, tunnels, and conduits into water-deficient areas of the Central Valley Basin. LOCATION The Trinity River Division features are located in Trinity and Shasta Counties of California. At Lewiston Dam, the Trinity River is about 1,400 feet (430 meters (m» higher in elevation and 20 miles (32 kilo­ • meters (km» west of the Sacramento River at Keswick Dam. PLAN Trinity River ~ater is stored in the 2,448,000-acre-foot (3 020 000 000­ cubic meter (m » )Clair Engle Lake behind Trinity Dam. Releases from this reservoir are utilized by a 105,556-kilowatt powerplant and reregu­ lated in Lewiston Lake about 7 miles (11 km) downstream. Lewiston Dam with the 350-kW Lewiston Powerplant regulates flows to meet the downstream requirements of the Trinity River Basin, including the Trinity River Fish Hatchery and downstream fishery. Water not released to the Trinity River Basin is diverted by Lewiston Dam through the Clear Creek Tunnel to the 141,444-kW Judge Frjncis Carr Powerhouse and then into the 241,000 acre- foot (297 300 000 m ) Whiskeytown Lake behind Whiskeytown Dam on Clear Creek, a tributary of the Sacramento River.
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento River Temperature Task Group
    Sacramento River Temperature Task Group Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm Conference Call Only: Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://meetings.ringcentral.com/j/5306224350 Or iPhone one-tap : US: +1(623)4049000,,5306224350# (US West) Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1(623)4049000 (US West) Meeting ID: 530 622 4350 International numbers available: https://meetings.ringcentral.com/teleconference Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Purpose and Objective 3. 2020 Meeting Logistics 4. Long Term Operations Implementation - Update 5. Hydrology Update 6. Operations Update and Forecasts a. Storage/Release Management Conditions b. Temperature Management 7. River Fish Monitoring: carcass surveys, redd counts, stranding and dewatering surveys and sampling at rotary screw traps 8. Fish Distribution/Forecasts: Estimated percentage of the population upstream of Red Bluff Diversion Dam for steelhead, winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon, steelhead update and Livingston Stone Hatchery. 9. Seasonal Topics 10. Discussion 11. Review Action Items 12. Next Meeting Scheduling UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA DAILY CVP WATER SUPPLY REPORT MARCH 24, 2020 RUN DATE: March 25, 2020 RESERVOIR RELEASES IN CUBIC FEET/SECOND 15 YR RESERVOIR DAM WY 2019 WY 2020 MEDIAN TRINITY LEWISTON 318 303 303 SACRAMENTO KESWICK 10,188 4,569 3,798 FEATHER OROVILLE (SWP) 9,500 1,750 1,750 AMERICAN NIMBUS 4,887 1,516 1,516 STANISLAUS GOODWIN 4,504 206 428 SAN JOAQUIN FRIANT 2,987 0 286 STORAGE IN MAJOR RESERVOIRS IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET % OF 15 RESERVOIR CAPACITY 15 YR AVG WY 2019 WY 2020 YR AVG TRINITY 2,448 1,715 1,881 2,000 117 SHASTA 4,552 3,491 3,827 3,567 102 FOLSOM 977 602 681 466 77 NEW MELONES 2,420 1,562 2,025 1,892 121 FED.
    [Show full text]
  • Putah Creek Watershed Watershed Assessment and Water Quality Monitoring Proposal June 28, 2004
    Napa County Putah Creek Watershed Watershed Assessment and Water Quality Monitoring Proposal June 28, 2004 Lower Chiles Valley, Napa County Putah Creek Drainage Prepared By: Phillip Blake, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Napa Sandy Elles & Jennifer Kopp, Napa County Farm Bureau Dave Whitmer, Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Bob Zlomke, Napa Co. Resource Conservation District Napa County Putah Creek Watershed Group Steering Committee: Sally Kimsey Jim Frisinger Tucker Catlin Robert Craig Jack Todeschini Don Clark Advisor: Diane Dillon, Supervisor, Dist. 4 1 2 Introduction In July, 2003, the Napa County Farm Bureau organized an informational meeting of landowners and farm agency representatives, to discuss local ramifications for the removal of agricultural waste discharge waivers in the Putah Creek watershed. Following this initial exploration of information known about Irrigated Lands Waivers, the NC Farm Bureau invited farmers in the Napa County Putah Creek area to join a coalition and apply for a group waiver. The group would organize to share best management practices and conduct water quality monitoring. Since that initial meeting, representatives from Napa County Farm Bureau, USDA Natural Resouces Conservation Service, (NRCS) Napa County Resource Conservation District, (NCRCD), UC Cooperative Extension, and the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner have further studied the issue and determined that irrigated lands in the area are primarily drip-irrigated wine grape vineyards. These farm operations typically employ minimal use of chemical inputs and utilize farm cultural practices that present a very limited potential to impact downstream waters with pollutants of concern. Water quality issues have been extensively discussed and addressed through various processes, including 2 different county watershed task forces and several technical advisory bodies, since 1989.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Calfornia Water Districts & Water Supply Sources
    WHERE DOES OUR WATER COME FROM? Quincy Corning k F k N F , M R , r R e er th th a a Magalia e Fe F FEATHER RIVER NORTH FORK Shasta Lake STATE WATER PROJECT Chico Orland Paradise k F S , FEATHER RIVER MIDDLE FORK R r STATE WATER PROJECT e Sacramento River th a e F Tehama-Colusa Canal Durham Folsom Lake LAKE OROVILLE American River N Yuba R STATE WATER PROJECT San Joaquin R. Contra Costa Canal JACKSON MEADOW RES. New Melones Lake LAKE PILLSBURY Yuba Co. W.A. Marin M.W.D. Willows Old River Stanislaus R North Marin W.D. Oroville Sonoma Co. W.A. NEW BULLARDS BAR RES. Ukiah P.U. Yuba Co. W.A. Madera Canal Delta-Mendota Canal Millerton Lake Fort Bragg Palermo YUBA CO. W.A Kern River Yuba River San Luis Reservoir Jackson Meadows and Willits New Bullards Bar Reservoirs LAKE SPAULDING k Placer Co. W.A. F MIDDLE FORK YUBA RIVER TRUCKEE-DONNER P.U.D E Gridley Nevada I.D. , Nevada I.D. Groundwater Friant-Kern Canal R n ia ss u R Central Valley R ba Project Yu Nevada City LAKE MENDOCINO FEATHER RIVER BEAR RIVER Marin M.W.D. TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL STATE WATER PROJECT YUBA RIVER Nevada I.D. Fk The Central Valley Project has been founded by the U.S. Bureau of North Marin W.D. CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT , N Yuba Co. W.A. Grass Valley n R Reclamation in 1935 to manage the water of the Sacramento and Sonoma Co. W.A. ica mer Ukiah P.U.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biological Resources Section Provides Background Information
    4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Biological resources section provides background information on sensitive biological resources within Napa County, the regulations and programs that provide for their protection, and an assessment of the potential impacts to biological resources of implementing the Napa County General Plan Update. This section is based upon information presented in the Biological Resources Chapter of the Napa County Baseline Data Report (Napa County, BDR 2005). Additional information on the topics presented herein can be found in these documents. Both documents are incorporated into this section by reference. This section addresses biological resources other than fisheries which are separately addressed in Section 4.6. 4.5.1 SETTING REGIONAL SETTING The Napa County is located in the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. This province is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the east by the Great Valley geomorphic province. A dominant characteristic of the Coast Ranges Province is the general northwest- southeast orientation of its valleys and ridgelines. In Napa County, located in the eastern, central section of the province, this trend consists of a series of long, linear, major and lesser valleys, separated by steep, rugged ridge and hill systems of moderate relief that have been deeply incised by their drainage systems. The County is located within the California Floristic Province, the portion of the state west of the Sierra Crest that is known to be particularly rich in endemic plant species (Hickman 1993, Stein et al. 2000). LOCAL SETTING The County’s highest topographic feature is Mount St. Helena, which is located in the northwest corner of the County and whose peak elevation is 4,343 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California
    ·rRlNITY ~IVER BASIN us RESOURCE LIBRARY BR TRINITY COUNTY LIBRARY T7 WEAVERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 1979 (c.l) Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Trinity River Division Central Valley Project-California TRINITY COUNTY JULY 1979 TRINITY RIVER BASIN RESOURC E LIBRARY TRINITY RIVER DIVISION CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CALIFORNIA Trinity Dam Operating Criteria Prepared for the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force July 1979 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region 1 ~ 7 5 122 R 1 W R 1 E 2 23° \ R 10 W ( T 38 N ----- ·-----]r------------r-CANADA ' I • I WA r NORTH ~ J SHINGTON ' \ ' DAKOTA ) ___ 1 • \.-.. ..-- .. J, ': M 0 N TAN A !___ - ----\ ' \ souTH : i ,----- - ~ ~~ ,o. 0 R EGON ( ,_---, : DAKOTA I : IOAHo 1 I __ __ \ \~' I W YOMING ·----- ~ -- -----, ___ , ,I \ ~ ~u I ~ 0 ; ------1 , NEBRASKA ', 1\ ~ I I ·--------'--, ~ I NEVA 1' 1: 0 ~1 : t------- -'.) I I J \_ DA UTAH COLORADO: ANSAS ' ~,J t -+- ---1--- .. - ', : : I K .\ ~ I . ---- .... ~ ' I 4!< l o ' ------·------ -- -~----- ', ~ -r' "::: rJ A ~ '!> ','\_r) i t---! OKLAHOMA\ -:- . I , , r/ / ;' ARIZONA I' NEW MEXICO. L ______ 1_ MALIN-ROUND MOUNTAIN 500 KV ~ . ' ,... 36 : , I l PACIFIC NW-PAC/FIC SW INTERTIE ---, ' ' ', I, ---~-E~~'-;:--·;;::<_-'r EX A_(S ---i- - ~ ~ - t \. .. _;··-....., ~ CLAIR ENGLE LAKE IN 0 EX M A P '._\_ ~.:.. (__j ~ ) I I / \ I - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION HASTAL~l WHISKEYTOWN-SHASTA( rr TRINITY [NAT . lj r COMPLETED OR AUTHORIZED WORKS 34 TRINITY DAM & POWERP~LANT~- ? ) RECrATION AREAS (~ ,- DAM AND RESERVOIR LEWISTON LAKE TRIINir/cARR 230 KV ? 0 I <=::? r ~-~~- _./ TUNNEL ~<";:1 r ~ -+ ---< - .r') d,):3_ -}N , ··- •J?:y,--.___ N CONDUIT - ~~ wcAv~~VIL' 7 __r~\.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Division, Central Valley Project
    Mid-Pacific Region Trinity Division, Central Valley Project Headwaters of the Trinity River originate deep within the remote and rugged Trinity Alps. The Trinity Alps watershed generates an average annual water runoff of about 1,250,000 acre-feet at Lewiston Reservoir. Trinity Dam and Reservoir Trinity Dam regulates flows on the Trinity River and stores water for irrigation within Trinity Reservoir. Completed in 1962, it is an earth fill structure, 538 feet high, with a crest length of 2,450 feet. Trinity Reservoir has a storage capacity of 2,448,000 acre-feet. The lake offers recreation facilities for camping, boating, water skiing, swimming, fishing, and hunting. Trinity Dam and Reservoir Trinity Powerplant Trinity Powerplant is a peaking plant with generated power dedicated to meeting the needs of the project facilities. Any remaining energy is then marketed to various preference customers in northern California, with Trinity County having first preference. Trinity Dam’s hydroelectric powerplant began operation in 1964 with a capacity of 100,000 kilowatt (kW) for its two generators. In the mid-1980’s Reclamation uprated both generators by 20,000 kW by using advancements in high voltage technology bringing the current total capacity to 140,000 kW. Trinity Powerplant Lewiston Dam and Lake Lewiston Dam, about seven miles downstream from Trinity Dam, creates an afterbay to Trinity Powerplant. It regulates flows to the Trinity River and diverts water by means of Clear Creek Tunnel to Whiskeytown Lake. Lewiston Dam is an earthfill structure, 91 feet high and 754 feet long, forming a reservoir with a capacity of 14,660 acre-feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Executive Summary 1 Executive Summary 2 ES.1 Introduction 3 This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Coordinated Long-Term 4 Operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) has 5 been prepared by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 6 (Reclamation). Reclamation is the Federal lead agency for compliance with the 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and is completing the EIS as ordered 8 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (District 9 Court). The EIS evaluates long-term potential direct, indirect, and cumulative i10 i10 mpacts on the environment that could result from operation of the CVP and SWP 11 with implementation of the 2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 12 Biological Opinion (BO) and the 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 13 BO. The BOs were issued pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 14 1973 as amended (U.S.C. Section 1531 et. seq.). 15 ES.2 Background 16 ES.2.1 Central Valley Project 17 The first Federal action authorizing the CVP was through the Rivers and Harbors 18 Act of August 30, 1935. The CVP was reauthorized for construction, operation, 19 and maintenance by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) pursuant to the 20 Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended and supplemented (the Federal 21 Reclamation laws), and by the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 26, 1937. In 22 1992, the Central Valley Project Authorization Act of August 26, 1937 was 23 amended by Section 3406(a) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 24 (CVPIA), Public Law 102-575.
    [Show full text]