Ms. Magalie Salas

Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, D.C. 20426

RE: Comments on ILP, Scoping Document 1, and Pacific Gas and Electric's Pre-
Application Document for the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 803)

These comments are being submitted on behalf of the Sacramento River Preservation Trust (SRPT). The primary interest of SRPT is tracking the integrity of the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) as related to public trust resources, ensuring the accountability of the process, and acting as an advocate for the ecosystem (including humans). As the ILP is in its infancy, we present comments regarding the relicensing process. We then address FERC's Scoping Document 1 (SD1), Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) Pre-Application Document (PAD), and lastly our comments on PG&E's proposed studies.

Additionally, we recognize that this project is unique in its interbasin transfer of water, to some degree potentially enhancing habitat for certain aquatic species in Butte Creek. We are uncertain as to the appropriate area to place such a request, but we wish to have PG&E explore the option of operating the project for the benefit of aquatic resources with the generation of electricity balanced with that goal, and an ultimate goal of attaining a "Green Hydro" certificate and enjoying the increased rates that could be charged for hydroelectricity that comes from a such a certified power generation source. Recent studies on market potentials concluded that about 20% of private households and customers in the service industry are willing to pay a surcharge of approximately 20% for green electricity (Truffer et al., 2002b; Wustenhagen, 2000). The definition of green electricity, however, is not straightforward and customers cannot directly examine the quality of the electricity production process. Therefore, credible certification or eco-
labeling is essential for successful green electricity marketing. As such, we are also submitting a technical paper from the journal River Research and Applications titled "Green Hydropower: A New Assessment Procedure for River Management." This concept is gaining recognition in Europe, and we believe that PG&E could step to the forefront of sustainable, ecologically-sound electrical power generation in the United States by balancing the needs of the ecosystem with society's need for electricity.

ILP Procedural Comments

At the November 18, 2004 FERC sponsored public meeting, the FERC proposed publishing a more Project-specific Scoping Document 2 (SD2). The SRPT supports the FERC's proposal to produce a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) based on the meetings and comments stated above. We feel this will increase the ability of the public to understand how FERC will conduct analysis and make decisions during this proceeding.

SRPT is at this juncture in the proceeding concerned that NEPA scoping conducted by FERC to date (e.g. SD1), while in accordance with the Final Rule, is at this time premature. We feel that while this PAD is particularly complete relative to what we understand has been submitted in other proceedings, the PAD does not provide adequate information to determine which alternatives should be evaluated in FERC's NEPA analysis. In addition, the applicant has not definitively proposed how it will operate the Centerville Powerhouse. The PAD, while providing a substantial amount of information, does not on its own provide enough information to make an informed decision about which alternatives should be evaluated in the NEPA analysis. Despite the information pulled together by PG&E in the PAD, data gaps still exist, as evidence by the over 40 studies proposed by PG&E. While we endorse its production, it is unclear to us how FERC will capture all issues and alternatives in SD2 when this is set to be issues prior to the completion of the completion of the development of all study plans, let alone the studies themselves. We hope that FERC will consider data and conclusions derived from PG&E's proposed studies and stakeholder comments when they become available, and be open to amending their NEPA alternatives as necessary based on the new information to be provided by the studies.

Section "q" of the FERC's December 3, 2004 Commencement of Proceeding states that the FERC will prepare a draft and final Environmental Assessment in accordance with NEPA. We are requesting that you prepare a full Environmental Impact Report. The FERC's regulations provide that an EIS must be completed for major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment [18 CFR 380.6(b)]. The DeSabla-Centerville project continues to impact those who live directly adjacent to and nearby Butte Creek. The project affects water temperature and quality, alters the creek environment's aesthetics, and contributes substantial amounts of water into the Butte Creek watershed that benefits downstream agriculture. In addition, the native fishery of Butte Creek has been substantially altered during the course of the existing license.

We also note that the Bureau of Land Management (Redding Field Office) has determined a 14.2 mile segment of Butte Creek affected by the DeSabla-Centerville project to be eligible for National Wild & Scenic River status, in recognition of its outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, historical/cultural, and geological values. Federal guidelines require federal agencies to protect and enhance the free flowing character and outstanding values of eligible streams until a final decision is made concerning the suitability of designation by Congress. Thus, the alternatives evaluated in the FERC's NEPA document should consider ways to protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable qualities of Butte Creek as part of the relicensing process.

The DeSabla-Centerville project has significant effects on the human environment and ecosystem of Butte Creek and we ask the FERC to consider performing an EIS. An EIS would provide a more in-depth analysis of the effects of the project on the fisheries of Butte Creek and would allow stakeholders and the FERC to make a better-informed decision about how the project should be managed to reduce adverse effects on the human environment and Butte Creek ecosystem.

We appreciate PG&E's website (www.desablarelicensing.com) for disseminating information for project relicensing. We have reviewed documents from this site and wish to express one frustration. It appears to us that all documents in Adobe PDF format are in a format whereby text from these documents cannot be electronically "cut and pasted." While we have not found any ILP requirement that prohibits these files from being in such a format, we do know that it does make commenting on specific text items more tedious when the reviewer must search manually for specific words. One must also retype text sections to be quoted rather than be able to cut and paste it into their comments. Further, the PDF format utilized by PG&E is larger and more cumbersome for those downloading with slow connections than the smaller file size, editable versions that we advocate they either switch all to, or utilize for future postings.

With the relatively long timeline of the overall ILP, the fast-paced and condensed timeframe of activities of the first year of the proceeding are a visible and obvious challenge to all involved. We appreciate pre-proceeding meetings that PG&E hosted prior to commencement by FERC. We do note that these meetings were done without facilitation, which we strongly advise against. Further, we in hindsight wish these meetings were held even further in advance of the filing of PG&E's Notice of Intent (NOI), the PAD, and FERC commencement. PG&E has rushed to disseminate for expedited review a series of study plans for studies they wish to implement in the spring of 2005. We, new to this process, now understand the need to do this. However, we are curious why PG&E in preparing its study plans did not advise all stakeholders of this need sooner in the process. This matter has created considerable confusion and required many stakeholders and agency personnel to set aside other priorities to assist the utility in meeting its own schedule. As but one stakeholder among many, we wish to thank all those parties involved in the January 6, 7, 10, and 11 Study Plan Meetings.

Further, we wish to point out that in this fast-paced initial portion of the ILP, we understand that PG&E stated they would have additional studies out for review (to facilitate stakeholder comments and provide context for any additional study requests) by January 21, 2005. We have not received any emails from Mr. Todd Johnson, PG&E's Project Manager, since January 9, 2005. Similarly, we are not aware of additional study plans posted on PG&E's relicensing website. Several of PG&E's proposed studies (as listed in the PAD) appear broad enough as to perhaps cover certain issues. However, the process for development and review of study plans has just begun, with the majority of the study plans not yet drafted by PG&E. Because detailed descriptions, geographic scopes and methodologies are unavailable from the lists of studies in the PAD, having full study plans available would be very helpful in determining if additional studies are, in our opinion, required. As such, SRPT reserves the right to provide more detailed comments, as well as additional study requests, if necessary, during the study request comment period, as per the Integrated Licensing Process §5.11, §5.12, and §5.13. Further, we submit that FERC should strongly remind PG&E to maintain the same flexibility given by stakeholders earlier in the proceeding in accommodating early study plan review for the utility's benefit by giving unprejudiced and careful consideration of stakeholders' requests. With an eye toward refining the ILP process, we wish to bring to the FERC's attention the fact that with the potentially high degree of variation in the level of detail an applicant provides in their initial proposed study descriptions, it is quite possible that considerable confusion and unnecessary work is generated through unclear or insufficient initial proposed study descriptions. Many of our study comments are made to simply ensure that things we suspect might be included in the scope of a study are indeed included. Here is a case where more information up front in the ILP could save all stakeholders time.

Finally, though the tenor of the ILP is to avoid such a situation, we wish to remind all involved that it is plausible that even after PG&E submits study plans, conducts studies, and releases the results of what could potentially be over 40 studies, additional studies may be merited.

As indicated in the December 3, 2004 notice, FERC has designated Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) as the Commission's non-federal representative in carrying out informal consultations required by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. As PG&E is the applicant in the relicensing of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project, they are an "interested party" in the ILP and stand to benefit from consultations with favorable outcomes towards the applicant. Since the potential for a conflict of interest is significant, what measures will FERC employ to ensure that PG&E conducts the consultation in an objective fashion and that broad based interests are considered while reviewing the impacts of the Project?

Further, we notice the FERC's January 13, 2005 letter to Randal Livingston (PG&E) regarding early consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That letter notes the 2 criteria that must be submitted in writing (1, a definitive proposal outlining the action and its likely effects and 2, the intention to implement that proposal) by the licensee/applicant. We maintain that at this time, a "definitive proposal" from the applicant is not complete. A complete proposal would be included in a Preliminary Licensing Proposal or the License Application. We further note that PG&E inadvertently included in the PAD an evaluation of the future and economic viability (including modifications and presumably alternative operations) of the Centerville Powerhouse. Because of this and the uncertain nature of PG&E's proposal as defined in the PAD, we are uncertain of the appropriateness of the FERC decision allowing early consultation based on a failure to meet these two criteria.

PAD Comments

We are supportive of the US Forest Service's (USFS) Section 2, Comment #1 regarding the Project Area. Further, we wish to point out that there are cumulative effects from this project and the Miocene project that extends down the West Branch Feather River (WBFR) all the way to Oroville Reservoir, specifically, but not necessarily limited to, instream flows, water temperatures, flow-related fish migration barriers, adverse effects on riparian vegetation, and adverse effects on recreation. This concern separate but related to the USFS's Section 2, Comment #3 and Comment #8.

We understand that there is little data presented for stream flow on the WBFR (reference PAD Section 4, Page 4-20, Paragraph 3; Section 5, Page 5.2-2, Paragraph 5; and Appendix J, Pages J-4 through J-8, and J-19 thru J-23). However, from data presented and implied during presentations from PG&E during various project meetings, we are curious if other stream gaging stations on the WBFR are already in existence that might have inadvertently been missed in PAD preparation.

The use of baseline data, referenced throughout the PAD, needs to be realistic baseline information. We have not found any information regarding what defines baseline within the ILP Final Rule. It simply can't be only data gathered in the recent past in anticipation of the relicensing, but needs to be data generated much further back in time that reflects the historical conditions on the West Branch Feather River (WBFR) and Butte Creek. The Project was begun with the construction of the Centerville Powerhouse in 1900, and a good faith effort must be made to incorporate all available information on these streams and their ecosystems. What constitutes baseline conditions for analysis of effects of the project needs to be defined.

The unlicensed Miocene Project is not sufficiently discussed in the PAD. This project, though depicted on many maps in the PAD, is not adequately described relative to its cumulative effects with FERC project No. 803 on a variety of resources. Please provide greater information on all aspects of this project and its effects. We are particularly interested in understanding how minimum flow releases from FERC project No. 803 effect the Miocene Project and its economic viability. Please describe the nature, history, and legality of what we understand to be the license-exempt status of the Miocene Project.

On page 6.2-8 you note the April 8, 2004 Butte Creek Science Workshop, sponsored by PG&E. We have not found this information in the PAD references. We would like to see all the presentations made at this workshop submitted to the record so they are available to all parties for review.

We are aware of a study titled "Upper Butte Creek Watershed Road-Related Sediment Survey" that was prepared by The Watershed Projects Office at CSU, Chico in July 2000. It was under contract # 113328G105 for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. We think it could add information to this proceeding.

We are aware of a study by E. A. Campbell and P. Moyle titled "Effects of temperature, flow, and disturbance on adult spring-run chinook salmon." It was prepared in 1992 in Davis, CA, via the University of California, Water Resources Center. The study is now available at the UC Berkeley Water Resource Center Archives.

There are conflicting references to sediment within the PAD stating that the "effects of sediment retention by the reservoirs on channel-forming and sediment-
transport processes are believed to be minimal" (section 6.2.1, page 2.2-2) despite "not having been quantitatively evaluated."

There are 86 issues that have been identified within the PAD and 41 studies that are being proposed. What mechanisms will be put into place to ensure that important issues don't "fall through the cracks?" See our first comment under Scoping Document 1, below. Additionally, we note here that because of the vague nature of the proposed studies (some only a simple two-sentence description) we feel cannot adequately propose any additional studies at this time because it is unclear if our issues/concerns are covered within the scope of the relatively vague study titles. We discuss this in more detail in our comments on studies, but note it here because the shear number of issues and proposed studies illustrates the magnitude of the task to compare and track details.

Scoping Document 1

SD1 fails to include an important issue that the PAD brought forward, specifically "Potential interruption of stream channel-forming and stream sediment-transporting processes due to project structures in stream channels and alteration of unimpaired flows." Please add this as an issue for SD2.

SD1 fails to include an important issue that the PAD brought forward, specifically "Balancing the use of water for electric generation and environmental purposes." Please add this as an issue for SD2.

SD1 fails to include an important issue, specifically "The economic value of a healthy Butte Creek native fishery, and the socio-economic effects of the project related to this value." Please add this as an issue for SD2.

SD1 fails to include an important issue that the PAD brought forward, specifically "Potential effects on water quality from sediment caused by overtopping or structural failures of canals or flumes, or from landslides and debris flows that intersect Project canals or flumes." Please add this as an issue for SD2. We understand that NOAA Fisheries has for some time requested that PG&E address this issue. However, there is no information in the PAD regarding this matter and we have not seen any action plan or revision of protocols by PG&E to indicate that this issue is being satisfactorily being addressed at this time. It is perhaps the case that revisions to existing protocols are in order.

Please keep Geology and Soils separate from Aquatic resources. While this technical area/discipline is related to aquatics, we find the consolidation of issues makes tracking issues between the PAD and SD1 unnecessarily difficult. It is critical that an organizational structure be incorporated that is common to the identified issues, proposed studies and all materials developed by PG&E and FERC so it is relatively easy to track the identified issues. With the number of studies and issues, this seems particularly important.

The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis defined in SD1 would be from the headwaters of Butte Creek down to the Parrott-Phelan Diversion Dam; and from the headwaters of the WBFR including Round Valley and Philbrook Reservoirs down to the Miocene Diversion Dam. We feel that the cumulative effects on the West Branch Feather River extend all the way to Oroville Reservoir. Similarly, the water diverted from Butte Creek at the Parrott-Phelan Diversion Dam flow on to irrigate many thousands of acres of agricultural lands near the Sacramento River. During certain times of the year, the water diverter at that dam is required to leave a substantial portion of normally-diverted flows within the stream channel of Butte Creek where they are supposed to provide instream flows (and hence habitat) within Butte Creek in the Butte Basin. We feel that cumulative effects on Butte Creek (some potentially beneficial) may extend beyond the Parrot Phelan Dam and we ask that the geographic scope on Butte Creek be evaluated for extension to a downstream location based on additional information coming from proposed studies (e.g. the temperature model).

We have already commented on the fact that we feel that an EIS is merited, rather than an EA. However, in SD1 it is noted that a "single" EA will be prepared, with no draft available for comment. We feel that if the FERC chooses to prepare an EA instead of an EIS, it considers preparing a draft EA. We feel that for a project with as many geographically complicated elements and important issues, the document would benefit from the release of both a draft EA and final EA.

Studies

Overall, we feel the manner in which studies are presented tends to eliminate issues rather than systematically address technical areas within the PAD. While such an approach could perhaps be termed "issue specific," the studies appear to be are "issue specific" to the point of negating closely-related issues. For example, a study to evaluate erosion and sediment transport below canal spillways (PG&E's third study proposed for Geology and Soils) seems to negate erosion from other sources of canal/flume-related erosion: namely erosion from overtopping, structural failures, and landslides/debris flows intersecting canals/flumes. PG&E maintains that protocols for canal operation are in place to minimize these risks and does not anticipate the need for additional information to address this issue. However, the root issue, in this case erosion related to the canals/flumes, needs to be evaluated regardless of the physical mechanism of sediment delivery. We would suspect that PG&E has protocols for discharging water through spillways; however, that fact does not negate the need to look at erosion below those spillways.

Geology and Soils

The proposed study on erosion seems to focus only on road-related activities, and appears to exclude studying the potential effects of erosion caused by all other aspects of the Project. We note that the PAD identified several other issues regarding erosion, yet these are specifically not included in this study. As identified in the PAD, shoreline erosion of Project reservoirs needs to be studied as no comprehensive studies have been undertaken to understand the degree of sediment influx.

The two sediment transport studies being proposed focus only on the spillways; however, the Geology/Soil issues within the PAD identify a number of other Project related activities, including overtopping and failures of the Project structures that contribute to sediment transportation. There are several critical Geology/Soils issues that don't seem to be addressed by the proposed studies. We cannot be certain for the need of additional studies because the exact content of the proposed studies is unclear. We reserve our right to provide more detailed comments, as well as additional study requests, if necessary, during the study request comment period, as per the Integrated Licensing Process §5.11, §5.12, and §5.13.

Water Resources

We note that there are at least eight issues identified within the PAD related to the effects of the Project on the quantity of stream habitat, alteration of stream flows on habitat, adequacy of stream flow gages, release of toxic substances related to the Project, and effects of sediment on water quality that don't appear to be addressed in any of the proposed studies. We cannot be certain for the need of additional studies because the exact content of the proposed studies is unclear. We reserve our right to provide more detailed comments, as well as additional study requests, if necessary, during the study request comment period, as per the Integrated Licensing Process §5.11, §5.12, and §5.13.

Water temperature and the associated modeling are quite complicated. We are relying on agency professionals to review and comment on the technical aspects of the water temperature study. However, we request that one of the "model runs" specifically examine a "no project alternative", an alternative that explores shutting down the Centerville Powerhouse during critical times of the year for the enhancement of salmonid habit. These results should be filtered into the operations model for analysis of operations scenarios that can balance aquatic habitat with the need for ecologically-sound power generation.

Fish and Aquatic Resources

As mentioned earlier, the use of baseline data gathered much earlier in the history of these waterways is critical to truly understand the impacts this Project has had on fish populations and their respective habitat. The focus on the 1983 PG&E study indicating there were not enough fish to justify the incorporation of fish ladders needs to be revisited with the use of baseline data that is reflective of these waterways before the Project had a long-lasting impact. We have also seen a structure on the left-bank side of the Hendricks Head Dam that is clearly an abandoned fish ladder of a design common from the era of dam construction. We have not found any information within the PAD that characterizes such a structure, nor any other historic fish passage structures or requirements for fish passage required by agencies. This information is necessary and should either be included in the PAD or an additional study undertaken to collect and compile this information.

Wildlife Resources

There are no studies proposed to study the "adequacy of protection" and "effects of the Project" on deer, aquatic mammals and other wildlife as identified in the issues summarized in the PAD. We understand that agency personnel with specific knowledge of such issues have are commenting on this deficiency. Further, we note that the proposed studies all focus on the RT&E species, but not at all on any other types of wildlife. Special status species are important, but studies need to address all effects, not just those that effect charismatic megafauna. Five wildlife issues from the PAD have been excluded from any type of investigation.

Botanical Resources

The proposed studies make reference to "mapping" plant species and do not make reference to studying the "potential effects" of the Project on these resources as identified in the issues summarized in the PAD. Will the potential effects be incorporated into the mapping so the impact of the hydro project will be ascertained? This is an area where significantly earlier baseline data, that is reflective of the area, is necessary to truly understand the long-term effects of the project.

Recreation

We support the recreation-related comments of the Chico Paddleheads and the USFS. Because of our hot, Mediterranean climate, we would like any recreation study that examines recreation opportunities in the region to be sure to address the lack of recreational opportunities for low-income citizens to find and utilize clean, cool- or cold-
water recreation sites for full contact recreation.

Socio Economics

The proposed assessment of the socio-economic effects of alternative project operations should also include existing operations as they are not specifically stated to be included. Further, the "benefits" from the Project to Butte County need to be expanded to include the value of the ecosystem, and specifically include the value of the anadromous fishery for both local anglers and the commercial ocean fishery.

A cost benefit analysis of the DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project is critical to determine if the profit to be realized from the Project as currently proposed, justifies the burden to the waterways and fisheries. In addition, we believe that the study regarding the future and economic viability of the Centerville Powerhouse should indeed be a study that is accessible by all stakeholders. In this vein, we note that our suggestion regarding a Green Hydro certification might offer additional opportunities for a "win-
win" operations scenario for PG&E profit directives and the ecosystem, and should be explored.

Proposed Additional Studies

Because we don't know the exact content, scope, and methodology of the studies listed in the PAD, we reserve our right to provide more detailed comments, as well as additional study requests, if necessary, during the study request comment period, as per the Integrated Licensing Process §5.11, §5.12, and §5.13.

Again, we note to the Commission that because the exact nature of each study is not known at this time, stakeholders are in a difficult position: a stakeholder can either 1) scope multiple new studies in an attempt to cover what appears to be missing (at considerable effort), only to have the applicant then modify their first-proposed studies, negating the stakeholder's proposed studies and requiring their comments on the new study plans; or 2) the stakeholder can gamble that their concerns will be covered in the as-to-be released detailed (full) study plans. In this latter case the stakeholder runs the risk of not having their concerns on the record. In either case, the onus appears to be on the stakeholder, not the applicant, to deal with what at this point are often vague and incomplete applicant-proposed studies. Coupled with our earlier comment regarding how some studies appear to glance so close to other issues (without actually capturing them), is a disconcerting theme that we hope can be clarified in future proceedings.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments.

Sincerely,

/s/

John Merz

President

Sacramento River Preservation Trust

References Cited

Truffer B., S. Bruppacher, J. Behringer. 2002b. Nachfrage nach Okostrom—Ergebnisse einer Fokusgruppenerhebung in den Stadten Bern, Zurich und Stuttgart. EAWAG Okostrom Publikationen 8: Kastanienbaum.

Wustenhagen R. 2000. Okostrom—von der Niesche zum Massenmarkt. Entwicklungsperspektiven und Marketingstrategien fur eine zukunftige Elektrizita tsbranche. VdF Verlag: Zurich.