BEFORE THE 

           FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 

 

In the matter of:                  ) 

                                   )   Project No. 

WEST VALLEY A & B HYDRO PROJECT    )   P‑12053‑001 

                                   )  

___________________________________) 

      

             Scoping Hearing, Evening Session 

                      June 15, 2005 

                  Likely Fire Department 

                   Likely, California  

           The above entitled matter came on for hearing,

pursuant to notice, at 6:30 p.m. 

      

BEFORE:    SUSAN O'BRIEN 

           Fisheries Biologist/Project Coordinator 

           Office of Energy Projects 

           Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

           888 First Street, NE 

           Washington, DC 20426 

 

REPORTED BY:                   DANIEL A. HUMPHREY, CSR 5480 


APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): 

           Frank Winchell, FERC‑Indian Tribe Liaison 

           Alan Mitchnick, Senior Technical Expert, FERC  

           Alex Miller, Biologist, FERC 

           Phil Rhinehart, BLM 

           Jayne Biggerstaff, U.S. Forest Service 

           Louis Haynes, U.S. Forest Service 

           Nicholas Josten, applicant 

           Patricia Cantrall, County Supervisor 

 

           and members of the public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FERC, 6:30 p.m., June 15, 2005, Likely, California 

          MS. O'BRIEN:  I don't remember the reporter's

name.  Can you identify yourself?  Just let everybody know

what we are doing.   

           MR. LARSEN:  Tony Larsen from the paper. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  He's going to record the meetings. 

           MR. LARSEN:  If you have something you are going

to say, please stand there and make a comment if you even

want to appear in the newspaper.  That's entirely up to you.

           A VOICE:  What newspaper are you from, sir? 

           MR. LARSEN:  Modoc Record, Lassen times, Mountain

Echo, Herald News.  You name it. 

           A SPECTATOR:  Independent News? 

           MR. LARSEN:  No, not yet. 

           A SPECTATOR:  I named it. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  I would like to welcome everybody

here.  My name is Susan O'Brien from Federal Energy

Resources Commission in Washington, D.C.   

           We are here tonight for the scoping of the West

Valley Hydro Power Project.  We had a meeting here today at

10:00 o'clock.  And so it's pretty much the same

presentations as earlier today.  And then we will open it up

for comments.    

           So appreciate everyone coming.  This is a public

process and your input is very important.  We thank you for


participating and for your time.   

           So a couple of housekeeping items.  Make sure

you've signed in.  Even if you were here earlier today, we

would like to keep a record of who is here today and

tonight.  You don't have to fill in the full address or

whatever if you did earlier today.  There are some pamphlets

you're welcome to take up on the counter.   

           Some other housekeeping issues.  The bathroom is

right here. 

           And I guess that's about it.  So for tonight we

will go through the agenda.  Go through why we are here and

our proposed processing schedule as we see it today.  Then

I'll turn the meeting over to the applicant, Nick Josten, to

go through a project description.  It's not on there, but

I'd like to just list out the resource issues that we have

identified.  They were listed in the scoping document. 

That's when we will also add in any comments that were

written from the other room in our open house part of the

meeting, then we will open it up for comments. 

           So while the purpose of scoping is to make sure

we have ‑‑ you've seen our list of issues we have

identified, and they were issued in the scoping document as

well.  So we want to make sure that we identify all the

issues.  And number one, are there additional issues we need

to make sure we consider.  And also write any other comments


or information that you may have.  There's a lot of local

information that we are not aware that you can provide us

very valuable information. 

           And what we are going to do is take all the

information and write an Environmental Assessment on the

proposed project.  And then what will ultimately happen, the

Commission will make a determination to either accept this

project or deny it.  Accept it, with what terms.  And

conditions will be part of the exemption. 

           Now, this is an exemption from licensing rather

than a license for a hydropower project.  There's some

details behind that.  Because it's already an existing site. 

There is some regulations that determine if you qualify to

be an exemption.  So this project does qualify to be an

exemption.  He will not have to go through this process

again.  This is a one‑time process when you're issued an

exemption.   

           The Fish and Wildlife agencies, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game,

have the right to require mandatory conditions for the

benefit of Fish and Wildlife agencies.   

           Those are some things I wanted to mention.  Just

for everybody concerned, if there are issues down the road

that we haven't addressed or something changes, there is the

ability to reopen this exemption from licensing, to relook


at some new issue or some issue that's going on.  So it's

not a hundred percent all final.  There's also the

possibility to reopen it if the issue arises 20 years down

the road or something. 

           So our processing schedule, we issued our scoping

document back in May.  Today we are having our scoping

meetings.  We had a site visit yesterday.  Scoping comments

are due July 11th.  The scoping document has a written

address where you can file it or e‑mail it.  Also print out

the written address later on, or you can hand in written

comments tonight, and you're welcome to provide oral

comments tonight as well. 

           Once we get all those scoping kind of things by

July 11th, we are going to assess what we have for

information on this project, the application and additional

filings he's provided to date, the scoping comments,

additional information that's been provided from these

meetings, and other information sources that we have. 

Studies we have done for Fish and Wildlife, historical

records.  We are going to be taking a look at everything we

have.  We suspect we will still need additional information. 

It's pretty clear, so we propose we will posting additional

information request to the applicant to get this information

on the project.  That will probably be in August.   

           It's typical that we give 90 days.  So if our


information request is suitable, that requires 90 days, then

he would have to file it by November.  Some information

requests require longer times, especially if there is a

study.  I know some require less time than 90.  So it's just

giving us information that he already has. 

           Then again after he files additional information,

we take a look again at everything we have to see if there's

enough information to write our environmental document,

Environmental Assessment.  If the answer is yes, we will

issue a Notice and Ready for Environmental Analysis.  That

notice says we have everything we need to write our EA

document.  And it also starts the comment period for another

comment period to provide comments on the project,

recommendations on the project.  And agencies can file their

recommendations, and Fish and Wildlife can file their

mandatory terms and conditions at that time.  They need to

file them at that time.  And all those recommendations that

are filed ‑‑ let me step back.  The applicant and others

have a chance to reply to those comments that were filed,

60‑day comment period for the original comments and another

45 days for any reply comments.   

           Then our Environmental Assessment will take into

consideration all those recommendations and additional

comments that were filed and those will be discussed and

analyzed in our document.  And we estimate that we could


assure Environmental Assessment by April of next year if

this all stays on schedule.   

           Then we should be ready to ‑‑ ready for the

Commission to issue its decision on this project, whether or

not it gets an exemption from licensing and what conditions

it would have by next summer.  Of course things can change,

and it might get drawn out longer. 

           I'd like to turn it over to Nick.  We do have

some of the same people here.  I don't know if you want to

ask her.  The length of, the amount of details Nick gives on

his project description.  If you want to come up. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I think a lot of folks have seen

this a million times. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  There are some that haven't. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I'll go through it, then, at about a

ten‑minute pace.  If I'm going too fast at any point, stop

me and I'll give more detail. 

           MS. MURRAY:  I don't think they will mind hearing

you again. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Go ahead and do the full version,

then. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Okay.  Project forms a little

triangle.  This is kind of a flow diagram of the project

that shows land ownership and location of facilities.    

           This is the South Fork Pit River where it's


flowed forever.  Still there.  This is the West Valley

Reservoir.  What currently exists in the project area is the

diversion on the South Fork which takes water out of the

South Fork, runs it through a canal and stores it in the

West Valley Reservoir.  That's the South Fork Irrigation

District.  They have operated that system since the '30's, I

think, to store water in West Valley Reservoir which they

then release in the summer for irrigating their crops.  And

the project takes advantage of the existence of the

reservoir, the existence of the canal, the existence of the

diversion to make this feasible. 

           And as Susan said, that is part of the reason why

it's eligible for exemption from licensing. 

           A VOICE:  Are you going to make any changes to

the canal, to the diversion? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Then just another further ground

rule.  If there's a comment, please raise your hand and

please keep your comments now on questions for the project

description for Nick. 

           MR. BAKER:  My name is Don Baker.  This is my

wife Dixie Baker.  We live on the Pit River downstream from

the proposed project.   

           My question is, will there be any changes made to

the existing canal and/or to the diversion? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  The answer, Don, is yes, there will


be changes.  When we get to that part of the project I'll

give you the details on that. 

           MR. BAKER:  Thank you. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Okay.  Just an overview of the

facilities associated with the project.  There is of course

the diversion.  There will be a fish screen right near the

diversion that's new.  There's the canal which will be

modified.  At this point there will be a new canal.  There

will be an intake structure and a pipeline leading down to

the reservoir, and there will be a powerhouse located on the

shore of the reservoir located right near the dam. 

           The dam exists, of course, and the outlet pipe

for the dam exists.  None of that will be modified.  But at

the end of that pipe, it's the outlet from the dam, there

will be a penstock connected, and the water will run in a

pressurized penstock down West Valley Creek, mostly on the

road to the confluence of West Valley Creek to the Pit

River, and at that point there will be a second powerhouse. 

 

           Water exits from the second powerhouse will be

put back in the Pit River and from the Pit River here down

there's no changes.   

           MS. GRIFFITH:  My name is Gail Griffith.  I'm

wondering when you put the water back in, how much warmer

will the water be than the temperature that's already there?


           MR. JOSTEN:  It will actually be cooler than it

would be if let to run own West Valley Creek. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  Do you know the difference between

the temperatures? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  It depends on the amount of drop. 

My estimate is probably less than a degree, but it will

probably be somewhere between a half and one degree cooler

than it would be if it was allowed to run free down West

Valley Creek.  That's because the energy is extracted for

electricity rather than as friction, which is the way the

energy is extracted now.   

           That energy gets lost as it goes down the creek

currently.  It gets lost as friction.  And it heats the

water.  We will extract it, make electricity from it and it

would be cooler than it would be otherwise. 

           So we will go around the whole thing and we will

look at each location, and I'll try to describe the best I

can the facilities there will be there and can how it will

be different with the project compared with how it is now. 

Does the general layout make sense to everybody?   

           A VOICE:  Is that the bridge where the second

powerhouse is? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  There's a bridge right here. 

           A VOICE:  Because everybody kept saying it will

be near own homes. 


           MR. JOSTEN:  It's the bridge to the road that

enables the District to get up to the dam and release the

water.   

           Those are the elements that I just explained to

you.  We will go through each one of them and get the

details on them.   

           The existing diversion.  This is what it looks

like if you went out there right now.  This is what you

would see.  Built in the '30's.  It's been a solid

structure.  It's worked great.  And there's every reason to

retain it exactly as it is.  It's a hardened structure.  And

it works.  What we have to do is we have to make this

diversion structure here capable of diverting a maximum of

100 CFS.  As of right now it's capable of diverting 50 but

it only diverts 38.  And that can be done without replacing

any of the concrete structure itself.  There won't be any

need to excavate within the river.   

           But the openings within the structure have to be

modified and new gates installed.  The other thing that has

to happen, you can see the curl of water right here.  That's

the check dam that enables the diversion to build the head

and drive the water out.  That has to be raised

approximately eight inches.  So the pool behind that, there

would probably very little noticeable difference at high

water like this, but at lower water the pool behind the


check dam will be slightly larger than it is now.  It will

be slightly larger.  It will not be so large that for

example it would inundate that little parking area that

everybody I'm sure is aware of.  I think it's a camping area

too.  It's not that big, but it will be slightly larger.  So

the changes:  Open up diversion structure, replace the

gates, resurface the concrete, and raise the check dam. 

That's what changes right here. 

           So after the water is diverted it starts into the

canal.  And short ways down the canal at a suitable

location, probably within 200 feet it's a narrow area, we

just need to get out some place where there's enough room, a

fish screen will be installed.  There is currently no screen

on this canal.  Fish can freely enter the canal, and when

the canal is turned off, the fish are stranded in it and

they die. 

           Fish and Game said that one of their conditions

is that that diversion has got to be screened.  And so part

of this project will be to install a fish screen down the

canal, as soon as there is room, that runs all the water

through a very fine screen that's capable are screening out

adult fish, fry.  It's the highest level of NOAA fisheries

standard that there is.  This is a very fine screen. 

           MR. WEISER:  Dag Weiser, property owner on the

South Fork Pit River potentially dewatered section.   


           I'm curious as to why the existing diversion

isn't set up for fish screens and fish migration stuff.  Why

that stuff is piggybacking on this project and why it's not

there right now. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I suspect it's not there because

when the diversion was set up, it wasn't a requirement.  And

I suspect that it has been installed in the meantime because

these were expensive structures to build.  That's my best

estimate.   

           I had a piece of screen.  Did anybody see that? 

Anyway, the openings are three‑sixteenths of an inch.  They

are very small openings so virtually nothing can get through

that screen. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  I'd like to make a comment about

Dag's comment about the fish screen.  The current condition

of the canal and any environmental effect it has does not

have bearing on this FERC proceeding.  We cannot, FERC

cannot require, Mr. Josten cannot do anything about making

changes to the canal and any enhancements to the area until

‑‑ unless this becomes a FERC project.  I'd rather continue

with the presentation unless it's an understanding question

of the project. 

           MS. MURRAY:  I'm Leslie Murray.   

           My question is how the fish screen works.  Is it

horizontal or vertical?  This picture that you're showing


looks like it's in a building, and I'm not sure that you

mean that it will be in a building when on the canal. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I don't think it will be.  Good

question.   

           The point to take here is that our current

concept is that these will be drum screens.  In other words

there's a large drum.  It will probably be bigger than these

drums.  Actually there will be three of them.  And the drum

will be completely encased in this fine mesh.  And the water

will come up, you know, within six or eight inches of the

top of the drum so that all the water that passes through

those down into the canal has to go through the drums.  The

reason that we build drums is that drums are rotated so that

they're constantly slowly turning, so that debris that gets

caught to the drums will clear itself by rotating over and

falling into the canal. 

           MS. MURRAY:  This is Leslie Murray speaking

again.  I wonder, is it horizontally across the canal ditch?

           MR. JOSTEN:  Yes, probably are canted so we can

make the structure not quite as wide. 

           MS. MURRAY:  Something that keeps the water from

going anywhere but through a cylinder that is made of mesh? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Yes.  Except there will be a bypass

so that water also can return, some small portion of water

can return to the river in case fish get in there and want


to return to the river.  They can't get through the drum, so

their only way is to go back to the river.  If they don't

swim back up and go through the diversion. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  I'm Linda Bruzzone, a property

owner in the South Fork of the Pit River.   

           My understanding of scoping process is to

determine historical things that have occurred from what I

read as well as the present condition and as well as look at

the future.  And I do believe that the public trust and the

conditions of the public trusts of the State of California

to include healthy fish habitat are pertinent to this, so I

hope those comments will be addressed during this hearing. 

An example, fish screens and other things and why there have

not been fish screens because compliance with laws and

compliance with the public trust, I think is very important

to determine the ability of individuals to comply with

future laws and future conditions. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  FERC, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission ‑‑ it's a good point that we look at historical,

present, and future conditions, so we are aware. 

Historically there is no environmental protection, if you

will, on the canal.  And there's no enhancement mechanism

going on currently.  We are aware of that.   

           We have no authority and do not get involved with

State issues.  So that is an issue to take up with I believe


California Department of Fish and Game.  We can talk after

the meeting and try to tell you who the contacts would be to

discuss the current issues going on.  And I believe it's on

Forest Service and BLM lands.  And they could also help you

out with current conditions of what's going on and why

nothing is being taken care of now. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Just to take into consideration

state law and state requirements, do you go along with any

more stricter requirements than the federal requirements in

your assessments?  As an example, you state that's that a

State issue; however, if the State issues a more

restrictive, state law is more restrictive than the federal

law, does the federal government look at the state law and

the state conditions as a condition of ‑‑ 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  To make sure this is worded

correctly, I want Alan to answer that. 

           MR. MITCHNICK:  I'm Alan Mitchnick with FERC.   

           The Commission is not bound by state law,

although obviously it considers it very seriously.  But it

is not bound by state law.  So I mean, the Commission could

come up with a less stringent requirement than might be

required under the state if it believed it was in the public

interest.   

           For exemptions, California Fish and Game has

mandatory conditions and authority.  If they recommend


something, even if the Commission disagrees with the merit

of that particular measure, it would still have to include

it as a condition of the exemption. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Thank you, Alan.  Let's get back to

the presentation.  Unless there's questions only that are

related to how the project operates.  Otherwise, let's hold

off until the comment section. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  The only thing I can say, there's no

more restrictive fish screen than this.  This is the best

fish screen money can buy.  This is what they would use on

coho salmon.  It's an enhancement of the fishery.  And the

project will build it.   

           MS. GRIFFITH:  Gail Griffith.  I'm a property

owner across the river.   

           Who is going to pay for this retrofit, question

one.  That is, who will pay for the retrofit of this

diversion? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  The applicant, which is me. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  Who will be in charge of

maintenance?   

           MR. JOSTEN:  The applicant, which is me. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  They will have an employee

on‑site?

           MR. JOSTEN:  Yep. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  All the time? 


           MR. JOSTEN:  Yes, ma'am.   

           MR. BRUZZONE:  My name is Steve Bruzzone.  I'm

also a landowner.   

           You said there's going to be an area for the fish

to go back into the river.  How much water will be going

through there and how wide will that little canal be? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  It's not known.  This will be ‑‑

this will be a design that is subject to review by Fish and

Game.  So it will be done in cooperation with Fish and Game

to get what it is that they're after.  I don't have the

answer to that.   

           MR. BRUZZONE:  It will be an amount above the

seven and a half that you're already ‑‑ or would it be a

combined total? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Not determined.  It could be either

way.  It probably depends on how far down from here from the

diversion that it reenters the river.  I think it could go

either way.  I don't think it's a lot of water.  It's going

to be slow flowing water.  It's not a lot of water.  It

might be on top of the seven and a half.  Good question. 

           This is the canal.  This are a couple locations

on the canal.  This is the canal nearer the diversion.  This

is the canal further down toward the point where it

currently turns over and starts to flow down into the

reservoir. 


           This canal is capable of carrying 100 CFS in many

locations but not all.  The canal has to be cleaned out and

modified as necessary for it to carry 100 CFS, which is 2.38

‑‑ 2.5 times, right?  Is that right?  2.5 times what it

currently carries.  And that will be done by, where

necessary, taking material from the uphill side of the canal

and putting it on to the maintenance road.  We are not going

to touch the berm, the dike.  That's a hardened dike.  And

these canals in general get better with time as they harden. 

So we won't touch that part of the canal, of the dike.  We

will take it from the uphill side and add to the dike.   

           So it ends up being widened at most two feet at

the bottom.  As a result of taking the material the dike

will be raised slightly, and that will be adequate to carry

100 CFS at about two feet per second or less.  The flow in

this canal is very slow.   

           MS. GRIFFITH:  Gail Griffith.   

           Is that the canal that just broke about four

months ago?  Flooded the plains and road? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Yes. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  How are you going stop that from

happening again? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I can't absolutely guarantee that it

won't happen again; nobody can do that.  But I can say

there's a very strong incentive to not have it happen.  And


so we want ‑‑ we do not want that to happen.   

           The things that we will do from the start is that

we will talk with the people who have operated this canal

forever.  And are there places in this canal that you're

concerned about that you think may be problems, and we will

line the canal in those places from the very start.   

           The other thing is that we will have, and you'll

see this later when you look at the facilities, there will

be an automatic sensor system that will indicate anything

like a breach in the canal.  And it will immediately notify

the operator.  We are talking thirty seconds. 

           MR. WILSON:  Can I ask a question?  I'm a Pit

River, Hammawi. 

           And my question is, who is controlling it right

now? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Who is maintaining the canal?  South

Fork Pit Irrigation District. 

           MR. WILSON:  How come I wasn't informed when that

canal busted and washed out dirt? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Yeah.  I don't know.  That's a good

question.  I think when we finish up with this, there's

going to be a chance to find the right person to answer

that.  I probably can't. 

           MR. WEISER:  I'd like to make a comment.  I

thought this was a really good place, everybody here that


wasn't at the first meeting, that there's a whole lot of

concerns about the canal and everything, and that a lot of

us addressed at the first meeting.  And we have been asked

not to go over our own personal new ground, but I want to

urge everybody to go back and read the transcripts of the

first meeting because we touched on a lot of these issues

and maybe a lot of issues that won't be touched on by the

new people.  And I really urge everybody to check out the

transcripts because we talked for hours. 

           MR. WILSON:  I'm Hammawi tribe.  To me the

Hammawi like are disrespected on the river because you guys

didn't come and contact us, let us know what is going on. 

Because we are a tribal government, and that before, you

know, mostly any presentation that deals with the river

should be done with us because I know you've got landowners,

but actually that is Hammawi's land, and we own it from the

date our race is going, whatever.  That's the only reason

why I'm speaking now.   

           I don't know where you come from or whatever. 

You guys got a couple presentations or whatever.  We do have

a meeting with you guys tomorrow.  And but we are here for

the public, you know, because this is our home where our

people lived too before.  We felt that we should be here and

let you guys know that we were going to make the decision

ourselves how we feel about it.  Homeowners that live here,


we owe that to us for us to be here, to see what everybody

else.  Nobody contacted us.  (applause) 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Let's get back to the presentation. 

Let Nick get through it.  Keep your questions to how the

project is going to operate, and any another comments

there's going to be time for that. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Okay.  As far as the canal goes,

it's my opinion that the reliability performance of this

canal is going to be better than it is currently.  Because

there's a huge incentive to do it, and there's a funding

source to take care of it.  And this canal is going to

operate.  But nobody can guarantee that a canal won't blow

out.   

           MS. GRIFFITH:  Gail Griffith.  

           Who will be maintaining this canal?  Will it be

South Fork Irrigation District or will it be your company? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  It will be most likely a

combination.  The canal is partially irrigation facility.  I

mean it is an irrigation facility that the hydropower

project is taking advantage of. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  If it breaks again and floods the

plain and road and what have you, who will be responsible to

fix it and to fix the damage that it leaves? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  It will be the Irrigation District

and the applicant.  And it will get repaired as fast as it


can conceivably get repaired.   

           MS. O'BRIEN:  I'll jump in here and say that this

will be a project structure in the exemption within the

project boundary of the exemption so the exemptionee, Mr.

Josten, would be required ‑‑ FERC will be requiring Mr.

Josten, the exemptionee, to maintain it and be responsible

for all failures.  And whether or not he has an agreement

worked out with the Irrigation District, that's fine.  But

in FERC's eyes the exemptionee is responsible.  And we also

have dam safety and inspection requirements and dam safety

offices that will be doing regular inspections and will get

involved to help prevent failures and also be the ones that

immediately respond if there is a failure. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I mean, you understand that if the

canal is not flowing, power is not being generated.  If

power is not being generated, there's nothing to sell.  If

there's nothing to sell, you still have to make your

payments.  So there is a real incentive to keep everything

operating smoothly. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  Gail Griffith.   

           Now that you mention the cost, what are you going

to sell the utility at? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I don't have a power sales

agreement.  I can't really negotiate a power sales agreement

until the power people that buy power in this country have


some sense for the project. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  As of today Surprise Valley

Electric sells their utility at 4.9 cents per kilowatt, and

I checked with the main office today, so keep that in mind. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Yeah.  My view is that the

feasibility of this project is somewhere around five cents. 

           MS. MURRAY:  Leslie Murray.   

           I had a question about what you were just saying

before about the canal improvement.  And I forgot precisely

what you said.  But could you talk a little bit more about

what will be improved and what exactly will be better about

it?  I know that you're going to enlarge it.  Maybe you can

speak for yourself on that.  But could you elaborate? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Yeah.  The improvements will be that

portions of it will be lined.  And probably the most

important improvement is that the response time to any

problems in the canal will be immediate.  You will know if

there's a problem in the canal immediately.  You don't have

to wait for water to show up at the road.  It will be

immediate.  And the incentive of the project is to make

repairs if they're necessary as quickly as possible and as

permanently as possible so that it never happens again.    

           And I think that over time a good portion of this

canal may end up being lined as a simple way of just making

sure that problems don't occur.  But from the start, because


lining a canal is expensive, we will start with the areas

that are known to be potential problems.   

           So I guess I rely a lot on my view that when

people are working in their own interests, they do a good

job.  And it is in the interest of this project to keep that

canal operating smoothly.  It is really in their interest. 

And the instantaneous response is critical in this

indication.  

           Because I believe in that principle in action, I

think this canal will run better than it ever has.   

           MR. BRUZZONE:  Steve Bruzzone.   

           Will you be carrying the liability insurance for

any potential damage, of property damage from a break in the

canal? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Whatever is necessary, you bet

because we have a big investment. 

           MR. WILSON:  What's your position?  With FERC? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I'm not with FERC.   

           MR. WILSON:  You ain't? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  No, I'm the guy who started all

this.

           MR. WILSON:  Okay. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  He's the applicant. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Yes.  I'm not with FERC.  I didn't

really start it; that's too big a claim for anybody.  This


project was proposed when the dam was built.  It was

intended to be built with hydropower, and then in the '80's

‑‑ the whole thing was run through the end license.  FERC

issued the license.  The water right was issued.  It just

was never built.  So I'm the third person.  And if it's not

me, somebody else will be looking at it later.    

           Okay.  We were at the overflow.  Existing canal

comes ‑‑ if any you have been out there, it holds the level,

holds the elevation of the water.  That's what a canal is

for.  Brings it all the way around and it comes to the

divide point between the Pit River drainage and the West

Valley Creek drainage.  At that point the water spills over

and tumbles down.  It's nothing more than a gully wash.  It

gets released.  There's no natural drainage there.  It just

got released and it's dug itself a channel.  As it gets down

toward the reservoir it braids out and goes into the

reservoir.  That's how it currently works.  And that water

is stored in the reservoir.   

           At that point, right at the top of that hill,

just before it starts down, we will construct a new canal

that will continue to carry the water without dropping

elevation all the way around, and you'll see in the next

picture it brings it around right up above the dam.   

           There will be a concrete overflow structure there

so that if the project was to go off‑line and be incapable


of taking that water, the Irrigation District still has a

storage right, and we need to provided for that storage.  So

what will happen in that case is the water will spill and go

down the way it currently goes.  Under normal operations it

won't run here.  But if the water gets shut down through the

project, it will spill there and will continue to be stored

for the District water rights and the power project's water

rights uninterrupted. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  Gail Griffith.   

           MR. JOSTEN:  This is going to take a while, you

realize that.  I'm okay with that. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  The water rights.  Who is going to

have the most shot, will be South Fork Irrigation District? 

So say we are too low and you could only provide for power

or irrigation, who would have the right to it? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  There should be no question in

anybody's mind that the senior water right belongs to the

Irrigation District.  After their right has been satisfied

and after any minimum flow requirements are satisfied, the

power project comes on. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  What is the minimum flow

requirement?   

           MR. JOSTEN:  We will go into that, I promise you.

           MS. MURRAY:  Leslie Murray.    

           I have a question about the overflow.  And I'm


trying to picture.  The water is going down that upper blue

line in the picture there towards the new powerhouse.  It

would be going up that main thing.  And you shut it off or

down it towards the dam, sounds like the water is running

backwards to get to the old canal.  That doesn't make sense

to me how the water can flow uphill. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  There will be very little grading in

that canal at all.  It will almost be like a long skinny

lake.  So when it's no longer withdrawing flow from the far

end of it, it's level will start to raise.  It will start to

want to rise up.  As soon as it rises up this much, it will

come to the overflow structure and spill out.   

           So it will be engineered so that if flow stops,

the level rises small amounts, and then automatically spills

over.  So it can't raise any further than that because it's

spilling.  There's a gate, a weir. 

           MS. MURRAY:  It's like you provided a lip, like a

pitcher, a place to direct? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Yep, that's a good way to think of

it.  When things are flowing smoothly, the water is staying

below the level of that lip.  As soon as it backs up, it

starts to rise, spills over, keeps the canal from filling

up. 

           MS. MURRAY:  Thanks. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Okay.  This is where the head level


sensor will be.  If that water starts to rise, and the power

project can't accommodate it, you call the operator.  If

that water level starts to drop, you call the operator. 

This will be an automatic call‑up system.  The operator will

be called if anything out of ordinary occurs.  And the

ordinary will be that it holds a constant head.  Water level

never changes except by a tiny amount.  If it goes down or

goes up, you call the operator.  That means something needs

to be looked at.  That's where that level sensor will be. 

           Okay.  Here's the far end of the new canal.  This

is the dam.  This the far north end of the reservoir.  The

canal comes around on the hilltop.  It's in juniper forest

all the way around.  And at this point you'll collect the

water with the concrete intake structure and put it into a

pipe.   

           And that pipe will then run down the hillside for

about 400 feet.  And it will go to the powerhouse. 

           The penstock is 48 inches.  It will be above

ground.  About this tall.  It won't rest on ground.  It will

rest on saddles, and there will be space underneath it so

smaller animals can get under it.  And but there will be

saddles and hold‑down points as necessary to keep it in

place. 

           The powerhouse will be on the shore of the

reservoir.  This is the far north end of the reservoir in


the photograph.  The powerhouse will sit somewhere right in

here, down on the shore.  And the powerhouse will be a metal

building approximately 20 feet by 50 feet.  About twice the

size of this little building here.  Like two of those

buildings end to end.  It will be a metal building.  And it

will contain two turbines and a generator.   

           This is also the point where the transmission

line begins.  And transmission line will leave the

powerhouse.  Probably be one pole on the east side of the

valley.  Then the power line will span the valley, and the

remainder of the line will run down the existing road. 

           Examples of the pipeline, the different types of

structures to hold it, hold it down, be hold‑down saddles in

places where it changes direction.  Simple passive saddles

where it just needs to bear the weight.   

           One possibility is if there's soil, we can

partially bury the penstock.  And we could also do that, for

example if it's felt necessary to provide passage for larger

animals that can't go under it. 

           Transmission line I talked about.  We are now

looking upstream.  The powerhouse is on the other side of

the dam over here.  There will be one over here.   

           Now, it's going to come across, it's going to go

down this road and go down the rest of the way.  There's no

power line there now.  This will be new. 


           Okay.  So that's kind of the end of the upper

part of the project.  Now we are into the lower part of the

project which is based on releases out of the reservoir.   

           Currently there's a gate and there's eight

structures down in the water where they come up in a tin

house that I showed you in the last photo.  And I don't know

what you do; you turn something and it opens the gate and

releases water out of the reservoir.  You can close the

gate; it releases less water.  This is where the Irrigation

District sets how much water they are delivering for

irrigation. 

           That structure will still be there in operating

condition, but it will be in a fully opened position.  And

the amount of water that runs through the pipe will be

gauged at the powerhouse.  In other words, you'll set the

delivery of water at the powerhouse instead of here. 

Although this is still operable.   

           So it enters that gate and then the pipes go

through the dam and comes out there.  Pipe comes out there. 

At that point we attach a penstock and a valve.  And the

penstock will run all the way down to the powerhouse.  Now

the water is under pressure all the way to the powerhouse. 

The purpose of the valve is so that you can also put water

into West Valley Creek in the event that either the

powerhouse goes off‑line and we need to deliver that water


from irrigation, or if the irrigation call is greater than

the 130 CFS that the powerhouse can handle.  Sometimes they

call for more water than that.  In those cases this valve

will let some water down the creek and the rest of the water

will be in the pipeline. 

           Valve bypass.  Same thing.  54‑inch bypass valve,

butterfly valve.  And it will be located close to the end of

that pipe that you saw in the last picture. 

           So bottom part of the upper project is all here,

and the top part of the lower project is all in this area

right around the dam. 

           Lower pipeline will look a lot like the upper

pipeline.  It's going to start out down in the canyon, and

we will take it up along the left side of the canyon as

you're looking downstream and slowly bring it out of the

canyon and on to the road.  But there will be a transition

where it's slowly coming up the side of the canyon.  Does

that make sense what we are going to do there?   

           So it starts down at the bottom, but we will

bring it out right away. 

           MR. BAKER:  Don Baker.   

           That will provide access to the water master to

control that valve at the dam? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  We will provide access. 

           MR. BAKER:  So you say you are putting the


pipeline on the road?  How do they drive up there now? 

Historically they drove from the confluence of Short Creek

and the Pit River.  They have a pickup truck up to the dam? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Yes. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  You're proposing to put the

pipeline on that road?  I'm asking how do they have access

to that valve in the advent of an emergency now. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  They will drive on the roads the

same as they do now.  Pipeline will be on the inside and

power line on the outside, and they will drive on it. 

           MR. BAKER:  Thank you. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  It wouldn't have gone anywhere if I

told them you guys didn't want it go to your dam. 

           MR. BAKER:  You made no mention of who is doing

the road reconstruction? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I don't think it's necessary.   

           Penstock comes down along the road, and this is

to the confluence of West Valley Creek, Pit River.   

           Locate the second power house.  Similar

structure, about 20 feet by 50 feet, metal building. 

Somewhere near the confluence.  You wanted me to say where

would it be.  If it was just totally up to me, it would be

right at the confluence.  But I can say that this location

is flexible, and I believe we can move it around to

accommodate other concerns.  We can accommodate visual


concerns, noise concerns.  There's some flexibility in where

it will actually have to be.  But if you want to ask me

where to put it, where I would like to put it, I would like

to put it right at the confluence.  As the water comes out

there's a short little tailrace canal, and the water goes

back into the Pit River at the confluence.  And from that

point down there's no change.  

           MR. BAKER:  Don Baker again.   

           Not knowing exactly where the powerhouses are

going to be established, how can you do an EIS on the

project not knowing, not being able to put a flag in the

ground showing that, how can an EIS be done? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I think what we will have to do is

we will have to look at the whole area.  That includes all

the possible locations.  That's one way to do it.  If that

becomes difficult, then we will have to settle it.   

           But what I'm trying to do at this point is leave

that flexible until I understand what some of the other

concerns might be so that we can try to accommodate those. 

           MR. BAKER:  Dan Baker again.   

           That is a concern where you put that.  That's a

concern to all the people that live on the Pit River.  We

would like to know where you propose exactly to put this 20

by 50 ‑‑ those two 20 by 50 buildings.  You've been quite

vague about it.   


           It's not only us wanting to know, but how can you

do an environmental study if you can't tell us where you're

putting the building? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  That might have been a mistake on my

part.  I tried to leave it flexible because I thought I

didn't understand all the concerns, but I'll say that it's

going to be located right at this confluence within five

feet of the shore of West Valley Creek and the Pit River. 

           MR. BAKER:  That would be right on the highway? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  If you didn't like that, we will

move it back here. 

           A SPECTATOR:  You mention noise.  What would be

the approximate decibel level of that building we are

talking about, and what would that be comparable to? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  This comes up a lot.  It's a very

valid question.  What I tried to do to address it was to go

a similar small hydroelectric facility near where I live in

Idaho and make measurements of the noise level beginning

inside the powerhouse, then going to outside the powerhouse,

and then walking from the power house to 500 feet away.  And

that information has been filed with FERC and is available. 

And I can't quote the numbers to first or second decimal. 

But the general view was that right outside the powerhouse

door it was at about 80 decibels.  Background in the rural

area with the highway in the distance similar to here was


about 50 decibels.  At a hundred feet from the powerhouse

you were at background.  So I would have to wait until cars

passed before I could even measure the sound from the

powerhouse.  That's at a hundred feet ‑‑ for a power house

with no sound insulation.   

           I don't think this should be a sticking point. 

If there's noise, I understand nobody wants that.  We will

insulate the powerhouse, and it won't make a peep.  The

turbines themselves are not loud.  The only thing that makes

noise inside the powerhouse is the generator which has a

kind of ‑‑ if you're inside, has a high‑pitched whine. 

Doesn't matter how much water is flowing through.  It

depends on the RPM of the generator, which never changes. 

Because they are turned to the power requirements of the

grid.   

           If there's a problem, it can be mitigated, it can

be eliminated, by sound insulation.  Here again I would be

glad to move the powerhouse into an area that provides some

natural screening, topographic, vegetative screening of that

sound as well.  But I don't think that should be a problem. 

 

           And there's a lot of information available about

the noise of powerhouses because you're not the only ones

who have ever asked this question. 

           MR. TRAVERTINNI:  Dan Travertinni again.   


           Is there a federal regulation of how noisy it can

be? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I don't think there's a federal

regulation.  Certainly this is nowhere near a danger level. 

There's no danger to hear it.  This is ‑‑ you can have a

conversation standing outside the powerhouse wall with

another person.  So this is not going to damage anything. 

But your concerns or some folks concerns is when they were

sitting out on their back porch in the evening on the still

summer night they don't want to hear the powerhouse.  I

understand that.  That won't be a problem. 

           MS. MURRAY:  Leslie Murray.   

           There's two parts to this question.  The first

part is when you said you made measurements at a similar

powerhouse near your offices in Idaho.  Did you also make

measurements here in this area? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Of background noise level? 

           MS. MURRAY:  I'll just say the whole thing and

you can comment on both parts. 

           Today when I was next to the river and noticed

how much white noise is generated by the river, it occurred

to me that maybe you all should consider that when the river

isn't there to the right of the powerhouse, that that's

going to change, there won't be that white noise from the

river blocking whatever potential noise is coming from the


powerhouse.  I just wanted to say to consider that. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Okay.  The noise level, the actual

noise level of the river will be lower if the flows are

lower.  I understand that.  And as far as being able to

obtain what the background noise levels will be at any

location that someone is interested in, we can do that. 

Because the river will reach those low levels by itself

under natural conditions within the next few months.  And we

can measure that.  But the real point is that the powerhouse

can be made silent. 

           MS. MURRAY:  Okay.  So you haven't ‑‑ I'm not

trying to quibble with anyone, but you haven't actually

measured yet.  This is something you'll do you in the

future?  

           MR. JOSTEN:  If it's necessary, if people feel

it's necessary to make them feel more comfortable with what

I'm saying, yes, they can do that.  But, no, I have made no

background noise measurements. 

           MS. MURRAY:  I'm assuming that will be an

important thing that will happen as other studies are going

on? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Fair enough.  Like I said, I'm here

to go to work. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Linda Bruzzone, property owner.   

           The powerhouse is situated within a canyon,


coming down from the canyon and on to the road.  And during

the visit we took, that we took to the proposed homesite,

approximately 1200 feet from your proposed powerhouse.  And

we allowed you to be able to hear the sound of vehicles

driving through that canyon and see how wind carries the

sound through the canyon and how it echoes.  Are you doing

wind studies of the noise coming from the west and the

amount of echo within the canyon as well as with the lowered

river rate of how it would affect our home? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  No, I haven't done those. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Are you intending to? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Might be easier again just to make

the powerhouse silent. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  May I offer some help from the

County of Modoc.  I did not really explain earlier when we

were talking about decibels.  The County of Modoc does have

an ordinance in place when it comes to businesses like rock

crushers and what not, and the decibel range that it may not

exceed the Planning Commission, and Mr. Scott Kessler takes

care of this.  And I would offer to ask the Planning

Commission and his experts to go around and do this.  And

they have the proper machinery to try to come up at

different times as the water either lowers or raises and do

this study for you.  Because it is a valid question.  And

since we do have the ordinance in place, and we do have


County Road Department people on that road at all times of

the year, it certainly would not hurt the County of Modoc to

do that. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Okay.  That would be great. 

           I don't think sound is a problem.  I mean, I

understand that it's a problem that you want some assurance. 

As an engineer familiar with power plants, that doesn't make

me uncomfortable because I think that can be done.  It can

be accommodated, but we probably need to make sure that you

really accept that.  I've got no problem with that.  Makes

sense to me.  We will do it. 

           Okay, from the lower power plant then there's no

change in the water system after that, but from that point

the power line has to run into a substation in Likely.  The

preference is that it will be combined with the existing

power line that's already there so that there will be still

be a single set of poles with the transmission line on the

top, probably, and the service line on the bottom.   

           And if ‑‑ and Surprise Valley Electric has

indicated that they're willing to entertain that concept. 

They would take control and ownership of that line.  It

would be a benefit to them.  They would have three‑phase

power now four miles up the canyon.  But there's no

agreement on that.  So I'm not putting any words in Surprise

Valley Electric's mouth, just that they said they would


entertain that possibility.   

           If not, there would be a parallel line to the

existing line within the same right of way.  

           MS. BRUZZONE:  You mentioned that the amount

would be approximately five cents for the cost of your

power.  And is there a cost for transferring the power down

the line opposed to Surprise Valley Electric at 4.9 cents

and what ‑‑ how much do you think that will impact under

PURPA if Surprise Valley Electric is required to buy your

more expensive power, how would that be consumed?  Would it

be consumed by the community? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  No. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  So you will sell it for less than

4.9 cents even if it costs you more to ‑‑ 

           MR. JOSTEN:  The feasibility of the project needs

to clear about five cents.  That's the best. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Surprise Valley Electric pays 4.9

cents retail for their power. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  They might not be the buyer. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  What if you don't have a buyer,

under PURPA aren't they required to purchase your power?   

           MR. JOSTEN:  No, Surprise Valley Electric is not.

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Who is? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Maybe Bonneville Power. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Which line is that?  We will need


to know the line that's going to be responsible so we know

the impact to the public. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Let me just say this, Linda.  If the

power can't be sold so that we can make the payments on the

project, we won't build it.  That's a risk that I take. 

After all this risk that I take, if I get a license or

exemption to build this project and the water right, the

next risk that I have to run, and I have to run these in

order, because if I called them now and ask them, okay, do

you want to buy some power?  First question is:  When are

you going to be on‑line?  Well, I say 2008.  Do you have

your license?  No.  Well, here's some general wisdom that

I'll offer you.  Call me when you have your license.   

           So that's a risk that I take that after all this

effort I can't sell the power.  That's what the Irrigation

District did last time.  They couldn't sell the power to

make the project feasible, and they didn't build it. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  This is a question for FERC.   

           On QF's, who is responsible for the local power? 

And does the local power person have to be identified so the

public will know whether or not under PURPA that the local

power company has to purchase their power so the public will

know whether or not it will result in higher power cost? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  What's a QF? 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  That would be the qualifying


facility.  When he gets the exemption, does it not make him

a QF.   

           Then my understanding under PURPA the small

operator that have the green power, that the local agencies

are required to buy their power; is that correct? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Alan?  I'm a biologist.  He's just

our senior staff person. 

           MR. MITCHNICK:  We don't have an engineer here

who obviously would be the one to answer that type of a

question.   

           I mean, my understanding was that you have to

declare your interest in securing PURPA benefits before you

file an application.  Now if that's for licenses I'm not

sure ‑‑ 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  He's done that here. 

           MR. MITCHNICK:  He did? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Yes. 

           MR. MITCHNICK:  Okay.  They're not going to buy

the power until it's a good deal. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Under PURPA local power facility

is required to buy green power? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  No. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  That's incorrect. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  They are, but you know the truth of

it is, Linda, that they have been through this.  This is an


old game.  If they don't want it, they will offer you ‑‑

there's a set price that's set for it.  But what they tack

on to that is an interconnect cost.  And they can tack on to

that studies that are required to show that their system can

handle the load.  So if they're not interested in your

power, PURPA or no, they are not buying it. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  How about Alturas and PPL, where

they have higher power rates, would that be one of their

PURPA local companies that may have to purchase your power? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I'm gambling that somebody is going

to be interested in this power. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  So you don't know? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  No, I don't.  I wish I did. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  I'll go ahead and comment that this

is an issue that's been identified that we will address in

the assessment. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  May I make one other comment? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  We just want to keep it to the

project description.   

           MS. CANTRALL:  Yes.  There is a third line in

this county, which is Los Angeles Power and Light.  It was

my understanding from Surprise Valley that if they did not

buy power, power can be sold at great expense to the

operator to other and various lines, whether it be local

ones or perhaps even out of state.  But there is a third


line in the county in case any of you don't know.  It does

exist and has since about 1920, I believe. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  There's also Sierra Pacific line. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  Sierra Pacific is the newest one,

correct. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Are you done with your

presentation?

           MR. JOSTEN:  Yes.  

           MS. GRIFFITH:  I had a question for Nick.  Are

these going to be overhead power transmission lines that are

going to go from the dam to Likely? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  You know where that service line is

right now?  It will look just like that. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  How many watts are you going to

add to that? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  The maximum capacity of the project

is 2.4 megawatts.  It will be a 12 kilovolt line.  I think

the line from Alturas to Likely is a 12 kilovolt line.  So

that's what it will look like.  It's the smallest

transmission line that's built. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  You double the wattage,

practically, that's on there now? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  There will be a lot more power going

along the lines, the voltage will be higher. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  Have you done an environmental


impact report on how that will affect the cows, the people

that walk under these transmission lines? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  You mean the electromagnetic

radiation? 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  Right. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  No, I don't think there's an impact. 

I live under a transmission line like this with three kids. 

No, I haven't specifically addressed that, but I didn't

think that was an issue, but we can probably provide

information to support that. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  I think it would be good if FERC

would require an impact study.  People get sick from the

electromagnetic.  You may put your children under the risk,

but it's dangerous. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Okay. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  That's an issue that's now been

identified.  It will be considered, and we will consider in

the Environmental Assessment document. 

           I failed to introduce our FERC team and failed to

mention Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are

cooperators with the FERC for the NEPA, National

Environmental Policy Act, which means everything leading up

to, including publishing our Environmental Assessment

documents.  They will be co‑authors with us on that, working

together with them on the Environmental Assessment.   


           And tonight Phil Rhinehart from the Bureau of

Land Management here is present.  And Louis ‑‑ 

           MR. HAYNES:  Louis Haynes from the Forest Service

here in Alturas. 

           A VOICE:  Any representation from Fish and Game? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  There's no representative from the

Fish and Game here tonight. 

           A VOICE:  Is there a representative from Fish and

Wildlife here tonight? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Not that I know of. 

           A VOICE:  Is there any reason why? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  They could make it.  They knew

about our meetings, and I can't answer for them.  They will

have access to the transcripts like everyone else on the

record.  They will read the transcript and provide their

comments by July 11th.  Can't force them. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  May I ask ‑‑ Patricia Cantrall ‑‑

that somebody does do a study on the electromagnetic fields

only because the County of Modoc and several government

agencies are being sued at this moment in time because of

magnetic fields, electromagnetism and what not in this

county.  So perhaps it would be good to have that study. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Okay.  That comment is in the

record.  That's something we will consider when we are

putting our additional requests together as it relates to


this project.  We will decide if that's necessary and the

extent that that's evaluated in our Environmental Assessment

document. 

           So to get on with the resources.  These are the

issues FERC, Forest Service, BLM have identified as issues

we will analyze in our Environmental Assessment Document. 

And that's in the scoping document that was out on the

table.   

           So in geology and soils:  Potential for over

topping of canals or canal failures.  And the effects of

project construction and operation on erosion of soil in

project‑affected water.   

           For water quality and quantity.  The adequacy of

existing and proposed gages to monitor the hydrologic

characteristics and compliance with required minimum stream

flow releases. 

           The effects of construction of the new project

facilities and modification of existing facilities on the

water quality.  And the effects of project operations on

water temperature and the other water quality parameters in

the project‑affected waters. 

           The effects of the project canal maintenance on

water quality.   

           Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on water

quality caused by project operations.   


           Effects of year around water diversions from the

South Fork Pit River required for project operations on

water quantify in the bypassed reach.  

           Effects of project construction, associated

land‑disturbing activity.  Potential temporary turbidity

increase on the fishing resources in project‑affected

waters.   

           The effects of project operation on fisheries

resources in project‑affected water.   

           Effect of the year‑round water diversion from the

South Fork Pit River for project operations on fisheries.   

           MS. CANTRALL:  Will you also consider the effect

of those persons who pump water out of the South Fork of the

Pit River to irrigate private land and what not, especially

during low flow times as to what this damage might do to the

aquatic creatures? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Our Environmental Assessment

considers, contains a cumulative impact assessment,

cumulative impact meaning all the effects of the river, all

the impacts from all sources on the river, like water

diversions, and other uses of the river, all cumulatively,

meaning in combining effect on the river.  So the document

will be ‑‑ 

           MS. CANTRALL:  Thank you. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  For terrestrial resources.  That


means the land, wildlife and botanical.   

           The effects of the loss of up to 35 acres of

vegetation on the local wildlife populations resulting from

project construction.   

           Effects of construction‑related noise, traffic,

and human disturbance on local wildlife populations. 

           The potential for the spread of noxious weeds and

exotic species from construction activities.   

           And effects of project construction and operation

on sensitive plant and animal species. 

           The effect of reduced flows in the South Fork of

the Pit River and West Valley Creek on the existing riparian

communities. 

           Potential for mortality of wildlife species,

including deer, that might be entrapped in project canals

during high‑flow conditions. 

           Effects of construction on deer migration and

wintering habitat. 

           Potential for project transmission line to pose

collision and electrocution hazard to birds.   

           Effects on threatened endangered species.   

           Effects of the project construction and operation

on the federally threatened bald eagle.  

           MR. TRAVERTINNI:  Dan Travertinni.   

           How are these effects measured?  Who is measuring


them?

           MS. O'BRIEN:  What we are doing, these are the

issues we have identified.  We are going to go, we are

accumulating all the information that the applicant has

provided us that other agencies have done studies on and

consider if the applicant needs to conduct more studies to

address these issues. 

           MR. TRAVERTINNI:  So some of these effects are

based on past studies, and what is not answered you're

saying then justifies further studies? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  These are the issues we have

identified we need to look at to see if there are effects. 

           MR. TRAVERTINNI:  What is determining that? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  FERC, along with Forest Service and

BLM will be doing independent analysis of these issues in

our Environmental Assessment document. 

           MR. TRAVERTINNI:  Thank you. 

           MR. WEISER:  How about the red band trout?  Is it

included in the endangered species? 

           MS. CANTRALL:  No, it's not.   

           MS. O'BRIEN:  It is not a federally listed ‑‑ 

           MR. WEISER:  Is it a species of concern? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  May be a species of concern.  I

have to check on it.  If the red band trout is being

considered in this project, it is a fisheries ‑‑ it's a fish


species.  We would be looking at the possible impacts to the

red band trout.  But it's not on the list of species, so

it's not included in this section of the document.   

           MS. GRIFFITH:  That's a threatened species, if

it's a red band trout.  It's listed under the Threatened

Species Act. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  I will double check, okay, and make

sure.  If it is a federally listed threatened species, it

would be considered in this section of the document. 

           Recreation and lands use.  The adequacies of

existing public access and recreational facilities in the

project area to meet current and future recreational demand. 

 

           Effects of the proposed action and alternatives

on recreational opportunities, including off‑highway vehicle

use, fishing, boating, and camping within the project area. 

 

           And the effects of the proposed project

construction, operation, and maintenance on land use within

the project area.   

           For scenic and esthetic resources.   

           Effects of the proposed project construction,

operation and maintenance on esthetic resources within the

project area, including noise and visual impacts.   

           Effects of shoreline erosion resulting from the


proposed action on the esthetic resources within the project

area.   

           Cultural resources effects. 

           The effects of project construction and operation

on cultural resources that are listed or considered eligible

for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.  

           Developmental resources and socio‑economics.   

           The effect of proposed protection, mitigation,

and enhancement measures on the project economics. 

           So that's all the issues we have identified.  You

can turn in written comments to me personally today or if

you want to file them electronically at the FERC web site or

mail them directly, the address is on the screen and it's

written down in the scoping documents.   

           I can explain anything to you after the meeting

if you have any questions about how to file documents.  They

need to be submitted by July 11th.  We will also take your

comments, which is what we will go into now. 

           We would like to hear information that you have. 

So we'd like to keep it friendly. 

           MR. BAKER:  Is there a representative from the

Water Quality Control Board here tonight? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  No, there's not.   

           MR. BAKER:  Thank you. 

           MR. WILSON:  The Hammawis.  We represent the


water. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  That meant the water board that

will be issuing the water right for the project.  

           And an additional issue that was written down: 

What is the effect along the Pit River? 

           And I can't answer that right now.  That's

something that we have on the record now and will be

addressed. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  One more concern that was

addressed in the Pit 1, 2, and 3 by the SFAD is the effect

on the income of individuals.  We were planning to put in

fishing cabins on the other side of the property.  Future

income and the ability to do business. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Okay. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  That's another concern. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Okay.  Thank you.   

           So that's all the issues I have to discuss. 

Comments need to be submitted by July 11th.  We will be

taking more comments in a minute.  You can also submit

written comments tonight.  You can file them by mail to the

secretary of the Commission.  Address is up there.  The

instructions are also in the scoping document.  You can also

file them electronically.  We will also have pamphlets out

on the table about using FERC's web site and electronic

filing and looking at e library, look at all the things that


have been filed on this project. 

           I'm going to open it up to comments.  I'd like to

say a couple of ground rules. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  Before you get started, may I ask

a question on your last statement for clarification?   

           You said the Pit River.  You did not name a

specific stretch, or are you considering how it would affect

like through the South Fork Irrigation District almost all

the way to Alturas, or do you mean to where the headwaters

end where they enter the Sacramento? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Do you mean the comments I read

into the record? 

           MS. CANTRALL:  Yes.  You said the Pit River. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  On here it said ‑‑ the only time

Pit River was mentioned was:  What is your estimate of

public use of South Fork of the Pit River. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  The next thing you said, it didn't

mention South Fork.  You mentioned just the Pit River. 

That's why I wanted to know, is it the South Fork or is it

entire stretch of the Pit River? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Well, I'm not sure exactly what

you're referring to, but I'll go ahead and clarify.  The

effect of this project we are going to look at is from where

the diversion is.  We will state this in the scoping

document.  It's from where the diversion is to downstream of


the confluence with the second power plant.  That is the

range of the effect of this project.  And we can modify that

as we gather more information if we need to modify that. 

           MR. TRAVERTINNI:  Dan Travertinni again.   

           When do you estimate that the final report will

be made public of these kinds of questions that you just

listed and the findings all documented and put together?  Is

that going to be made public to us so we can read some of

these findings from different agencies?  When do you

estimate that to be? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  We went through the processing

schedule in the beginning.  As of right now we estimate that

we will issue our Environmental Assessment Document in April

of next year.  That may move to a later date if we take

longer to gather our information.  It will all depend and

spin off of when we issue our notice that we were ready for

environmental analysis, that we have gathered all the

information we need.  But as of right now that's our

estimate. 

           MR. TRAVERTINNI:  How is that made public?  Is

that put in the Modoc Record? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  It will actually be a rather thick

document.  It will be mailed to everyone on the mailing

list, FERC mailing list, and everyone who has signed up and

given their address will receive a copy in the mail.  It


will also be on our web site.  They can download a copy from

our web site. 

           MR. MITCHNICK:  There will be a notice of

availability of the document in the local newspaper. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Thank you, Alan. 

           MS. MURRAY:  Leslie Murray. 

           You might have already said it, but once you have

organized all this, when you have the scoping document, you

have a certain number of things you already know, you have

to look at, and you take our comments tonight and figure out

the new stuff to add to that, is there a point that we then

see that in its organized state and could comment again?  I

realize we have to add to what we are doing now by July

11th.  What's the next step that we would have an

opportunity to comment? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  When we issue our Notice for Ready

for Environmental Analysis.  After we feel we have all the

information we need, and we will issue our notice we are

ready for environmental analysis, and there's a 60‑day

comment period so everybody can provide comments or

recommendations for how the project will operate. 

           MS. MURRAY:  So at that point if we thought you

had left something out or whatever, that would be our

opportunity to comment? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Then you'll have another


opportunity to comment officially after the Environmental

Assessment document is issued.  Another 60‑day comment

period after that.   

           MS. GRIFFITH:  Gail Griffith, property owner.   

           I'm concerned about the money issues here.  One

is, is there any government grants being provided to build

this electric hydroplant?  Is there any government money

involved through grants, through process? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Is Nick here?  I believe ‑‑ Nick

Josten is the applicant of the project.  He's the project

proponent.  And the funding ‑‑ he's funding this project. 

Where he's getting his money from, I'm not aware of. 

           MS. GRIFFITH:  Then I have a second financial

question.  How will it benefit the tax roll here?  Will

there be taxes on the upgrades, all the buildings and the

land, the property, the canal?  Will it have a property tax

base? 

           MS. CANTRALL:  That is what I wanted to speak to

Mrs. Griffith.  

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Are you going to talk about that in

a little while? 

           MS. CANTRALL:  Yeah.  We will hold that until

then. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Nick, the question came up how ‑‑ I

guess it's up to you if you want to answer it ‑‑ where the


money is coming from.  If there's a grant provided that

you're going to use to build this project. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  No.  This money will be privately

raised. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Thanks.   

           So now we're going to open it up for comment.  We

have a list of people that we will go through first.  If

anybody else wants to speak after that, it's possible.   

           Couple of ground rules.  Earlier today, it got

rather emotional.  We don't want any personal attacks on

anybody or please don't make any accusations of other folks. 

We want to keep this ‑‑ to please keep your comments to the

issues or your information that you have or for your

concerns about this hydropower project, how it relates to

the hydropower project.   

           FERC has nothing to do with the South Fork

Irrigation District current irrigation.  And we know the

canal failure is a recent occurrence.  We are aware that has

happened.  We are not involved in that at all.  We have no

control over it.  We were not notified of it.  Because we

have no say in how it's currently ‑‑ what's currently going

on, neither does the applicant, Nick Josten, it's completely

within South Fork Irrigation District and state laws, if we

want to go that way.   

           So although that information is very relevant to


this project, as far as we can see, the effects of what has

happened in the recent canal failure and can use that

information now that we have that information when we

assess, you know, project canal failures that happen on the

project.  You know, potential failures that will happen, we

now have some evidence.  What could potentially happen

because we have seen what has happened recently.  So I

wanted to throw that out there.   

           And we would like each speaker to come up to the

front here to talk, and we are going to ask that there's no

cross talk amongst people.  We ask that you state your

comments.  If anybody else has comments, they need to wait

their turn and make their comments.   

           Because we have a long list of people, we ask

that you keep your comments to five minutes if possible.  In

the interest of everybody here, and we don't want to be here

until midnight.  And you also have the opportunity to file

written comments.   

           So Don Baker is first on the list.  I just want

to preface, I know part of what you're going to talk about

is on the site visit.  We visited his property and saw some

of the ‑‑ what is believed to be effects of the canal

failure.  So this is basically background information.  Your

testimony of information on how you observed that, I figure

you're going to tell us all about, but please keep it to how


it relates to this project.   

           MR. BAKER:  Thank you.   

           My name is Don Baker.  And I live just downstream

from this proposed project.  And as was mentioned, what I'm

mentioning here is to fortify our concern of the management

of the diversion canal.  The management of the diversion

canal in the past, and inasmuch as it's going to be managed

by the same basic people, we do have a concern of the

management in the future.   

           As has been mentioned, we experienced a breach in

the canal just recently which let water flow from the canal

down the side of the mountain, washing the soil from the

mountain down back into the Pit River, and the flow of the

river of course dispersed the sediment along the river.   

           I have documentation taken from the USGS gauging

station which depicts the flow rate showing when the break

occurred, with the increase of flow, when the repairs were

made, and so on.   

           And it's also here another concern of ours of

course the three agencies that need to be here, Fish and

Game, Fish and Wildlife, and Water Quality Control aren't

here. 

           Back in August the 7th of '04 one of the

management problems of the irrigation canal depicted by this

graph taken from the USGS shows that whoever is in control


of managing the water apparently arbitrarily shut the valve

off instead of increasing the flow.  And this graph depicts

that.  Shows the water going from 150 CFS down to roughly 10

all at once.  What happened there of course is the fish were

left stranded.  My wife and I were picking them up, putting

them in the deep pools.  This was corrected within a matter

of hours.  But my point being in that this can happen.  And

this can happen with 37 and a half or 38 cubic feet a

second, it would be much more devastating when it's a

hundred cubic feet a second. 

           I have a sample here.  Of course Water Control is

not here.  This is a sample of the water that I took from

the river at the time of the breach.  I think we can all see

through the water here.  The sediment that had the impact on

the aquatic life, the mollusks and crayfish, you can see

what settled out of this water in just one quart.  This

might give you an idea what the river looked like during the

breach.  This will give you some indication what can happen

at 37 cubic feet a second.  Please imagine what will happen

at a hundred when the same thing happens, and it will.  It

has happened in the past historically.  There's evidence

along the canal showing of other breaches, erosion down the

mountain side.  So it's happened in the past.  It just

happened ‑‑ it will happen again.  Much higher levels.  And

that's among some of the other esthetic concerns.  Our


primary concerns here.  Thank you. 

           MR. WEISER:  Do you want to talk about the

mollusk? 

           MR. BAKER:  I did mention this high level of

turbidity, what it did to the aquatic habitat.  It killed

all the mollusks and crayfish in the river.  For all intents

and purposes it pretty much sterilized the river.  The high

flow that we just experienced has washed this sediment away,

uncovering the dead mollusks and crayfish and so on.  It's

very eloquent.   

           All you have to do is walk along the river, look

at any sand bank and you'll see the evidence. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Thank you. 

           MR. BAKER:  Do I have to answer questions? 

           MR. WEISER:  I would like to amend what Don has

said. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  You need to come up and talk. 

Thank you, Don.  You need to come up here and make your

comment, then. 

           MR. WEISER:  Very short statement.  My name is

Dag Weiser.   

           I wanted to remind Susan that during the site

visit I took everybody to Don's property to show what I saw

was evidence of a mollusk and crayfish kill‑off.  At that

time a question was raise by Jay Younger and Evie and a


couple other people whether that had actually been affected

by the breach.  And there was concern by Don that that was

indeed the case, that that was covered over by the sediment,

the breach, and when that disappeared, that was what was

left. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Thank you. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  Patricia Cantrall.   

           I need to ask a question of Mr. Baker for

clarification.   

           You just stated that all the mollusks and the

crayfish are dead, did you not? 

           MR. BAKER:  At the time of the breach it covered

all the crayfish. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  You said all the crayfish and all

the mollusks in the river. 

           MR. BAKER:  I'm not saying they don't come back

down the stream. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  Okay.  That's what we need to

clarify. 

           MR. BAKER:  Maybe you ought to get in that

clarification.   

           MS. O'BRIEN:  We did see live muscles, but there

was significant amounts of dead muscles.  But there are some

remaining live ones we were able to see.   

           Next is John Flournoy.  Now, I just want to make


a statement that we don't want to repeat any comments that

were made earlier today.   

           A VOICE:  John wasn't here.  His brother was

here.

           MS. O'BRIEN:  I'm sorry. 

           MR. JOHN FLOURNOY:  I'm the good looking one.   

           I'm John Flournoy, and for thirty years we have

farmed here in the South Fork Valley.  I'm a user in the

irrigation district.  And we have raised cattle and hay and

kids during that period of time.   

           We as farmers harvest natural resources, and in

this area it's very harsh.  We have about a hundred days of

frost‑free growing season.  And we were somewhat excited

when we learned that there was another natural resource that

we could possibly harvest that might yield some income off

of farms for possibly 200 days of the year instead of just

one hundred days.  So we have some excitement about that.   

           That facility up there was already built.  So we

don't have to build a dam.  And now we just have to

restructure the existing structure to make this hydro thing

work.  It could create some revenue.  It might not, but it

could.   

           If it were to create revenue in time, after it

was paid for, it might reduce the cost to our irrigation

district.  And our facility up there is 70 years old.  So


the dam, and the head works, all the concrete is beginning