FERC/DEIS - 0216D

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower License

Upper American River Hydroelectric Project

FERC Project No. 2101-084, California

Chili Bar Hydroelectric Project

FERC Project No. 2155-024, California

Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission

888 First Street N.E.

Washington, DC 20426

Office of

Energy

Projects

September 2007

Forest Service

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

Eldorado National Forest

100 Forni Road

Placerville, CA 95667
FERC/DEIS-0216D 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE 

Upper American River Hydroelectric Project—FERC Project No. 2101—California 

Chili Bar Hydroelectric Project—FERC Project No. 2155-024—California 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

Division of Hydropower Licensing 

888 First Street, N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Forest Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Eldorado National Forest 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

September 2007 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20426 

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS 

To the Agency or Individual Addressed: 

Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Attached is the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Upper 

American River Project (UARP or Project No. 2101-084) located in the California 

counties of El Dorado and Sacramento, within the Rubicon River, Silver Creek, and the 

South Fork of the American River (SFAR) drainages; and the Chili Bar Hydroelectric 

Project (Project No. 2155-024), located on the SFAR in El Dorado County, near the town 

of Placerville, California. 

The draft EIS documents the view of governmental agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicants, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) and the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) staff. It contains staff evaluations on the applicants’ 

proposals and the alternatives for relicensing the UARP and Chili Bar Project. 

The Commission and the Forest Service have agreed to participate as cooperating 

agencies in the preparation of the EIS for the UARP and Chili Bar Project. The 

Commission will use the EIS to determine whether, and under what conditions, to issue 

new licenses for the Projects. The Forest Service will use the EIS to base its finding 

under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act and to decide whether to issue any necessary 

special use authorizations. 

You are invited to file comments on the draft EIS. Any comments, conclusions, or 

recommendations that draw upon studies, reports, or other working papers should be 

supported by appropriate documentation. Your comments will be considered in staff’s 

preparation of the final EIS. 

Comments should be filed with Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The comments 

must be filed within 45 days of the notice date in the Federal Register and should 

reference the project discussed in your comments: Project No. 2101-084 and/or Project 

No. 2155-024. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. 
Before the Commission makes a licensing decision, it will take into account all 

concerns relevant to the public interest. The EIS will be part of the record from which 

the Commission will make its decision. The final EIS is expected to be issued in January 

2008. 

Copies of the draft EIS are available for review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, NE, Washington DC 20426. 

The final EIS also may be viewed on the Commission’s web site at www.ferc.gov by 

using the “eLibrary” link. Please call (202) 502-8222 or TTY (202) 208-1659 for 

assistance. 

Attachment: Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
COVER SHEET 

a. Title: Relicensing the Upper American River Project (UARP), Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Project 

No. 2101 and the Chili Bar Project, FERC Project No. 2155. 

b. Subject: Draft environmental impact statement 

c. Lead Agency: FERC with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest 

Service) as a cooperating agency. 

d. Abstract: The UARP is on the Rubicon River, Silver Creek, and South Fork 

of the American River (SFAR) near Placerville, California. The 

project affects 6,375 acres of federal land administered by the 

Eldorado National Forest and 42.3 acres of federal land 

administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 

The Chili Bar Project is on the SFAR in El Dorado County, near 

Placerville, California. The project affects 48 acres of federal land 

administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 

e. Contact: Environmental Staff 

James Fargo 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-6095 

Forest Service 

Beth Paulson 

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service 

Eldorado National Forest 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

(530) 642-5174 

f. Transmittal: This draft environmental impact statement prepared by the 

Commission’s and the Forest Service staff on the hydroelectric 

license application filed by Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

and Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the existing UARP and 

Chili Bar Project (FERC Project Nos. 2101 and 2155) is being made 

available to the public on or about September 21, 2007, as required 

by the National Environmental Policy Act of 19691

 

1

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, amended (Pub. L. 91-190. 42 U.S.C. 

4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, 

August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), September 13, 1982). 
This page intentionally left blank.
FOREWORD 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), pursuant to the 

Federal Power Act (FPA)2

 and the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act3 is 

authorized to issue licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of nonfederal hydroelectric development subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary conditions: 

That the project...shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will 

be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a 

waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign 

commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power 

development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of 

fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for 

other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water 

supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in section 4(e)...4

The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the FPA 

as may be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the 

project.5

 Compliance with such conditions during the licensing period is required. The 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure allow any person objecting to a licensee’s 

compliance or noncompliance with such conditions to file a complaint noting the basis 

for such objection for the Commission’s consideration.6

 

2

16 U.S.C. §791(a)-825r, as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 

1986, Public Law 99-495 (1986) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 

(1992). 

3

Public Law 95-91, 91 Stat. 556 (1977). 

4

16 U.S.C. §803(a). 

5

16 U.S.C. §803(g). 

6

18 C.F.R. §385.206 (1987). 
This page intentionally left blank. 
ix 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xiii

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. xv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................... xxi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................xxiii

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...............................................................1-1

1.1 PURPOSE OF ACTION ............................................................................1-1

1.2 NEED FOR POWER..................................................................................1-3

1.2.1 Regional Power Considerations ...................................................1-3

1.2.2 Iowa Hill Implications..................................................................1-4

1.3 SCOPING PROCESS.................................................................................1-5

1.3.1 Upper American River Project .....................................................1-5

1.3.2 Chili Bar Project...........................................................................1-5

1.4 AGENCY CONSULTATIONS .................................................................1-6

1.4.1 Alternative Licensing Process for UARP.....................................1-6

1.4.2 Interventions and Comments........................................................1-6

1.4.3 Settlement Agreement ..................................................................1-9

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES..................................................2-1

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE.................................................................2-1

2.2 UPPER AMERICAN RIVER PROJECT ..................................................2-1

2.2.1 Existing Facilities .........................................................................2-1

2.2.2 Current Operations .......................................................................2-6

2.2.3 Existing Project Boundary............................................................2-9

2.2.4 Project Safety................................................................................2-9

2.3 CHILI BAR PROJECT ............................................................................2-10

2.3.1 Existing Project Facilities...........................................................2-10

2.3.2 Current Operations .....................................................................2-10

2.3.3 Existing Project Boundary..........................................................2-10

2.3.4 Project Safety..............................................................................2-10

2.4 SMUD'S PROPOSAL..............................................................................2-11

2.4.1 Proposed Project Facilities—Iowa Hill Development ...............2-11

2.4.2 Proposed Operations...................................................................2-15

2.4.3 Proposed Environmental Measures under the Settlement 

Agreement ..................................................................................2-16

2.4.4 Project Boundary........................................................................2-31

2.5 PG&E'S PROPOSAL...............................................................................2-31

2.5.1 Proposed Project Facilities .........................................................2-31

2.5.2 Proposed Operations...................................................................2-31
x 

2.5.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ............................................2-32

2.5.4 Project Boundary........................................................................2-37

2.6 UPPER AMERICAN RIVER PROJECT-ONLY ALTERNATIVE.......2-38

2.7 MODIFICATIONS TO APPLICANTS’ PROPOSALS..........................2-38

2.7.1 Water Quality Certification ........................................................2-38

2.7.2 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions...............................................2-38

2.7.3 Section 4(e) Federal Land Management Conditions..................2-39

2.7.4 Section 10(j) Recommendations ................................................2-39

2.7.5 Proposed Action with Staff Modifications (Staff Alternative) ..2-40

2.8 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED STUDY................................................................................2-41

2.8.1 Federal Government Takeover...................................................2-41

2.8.2 Nonpower License......................................................................2-41

2.8.3 Project Retirement......................................................................2-42

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS........................................................................3-1

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASINS...........................3-1

3.1.1 Rubicon River...............................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Silver Creek..................................................................................3-1

3.1.3 South Fork of the American River ...............................................3-2

3.2 CUMULATIVELY AFFECTED RESOURCES.......................................3-2

3.2.1 Geographic Scope.........................................................................3-2

3.2.2 Temporal Scope............................................................................3-3

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ......................3-3

3.3.1 Geology and Soils.........................................................................3-3

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment..................................................3-3

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects ...............................................3-15

3.3.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ....................................3-21

3.3.2 Water Resources.........................................................................3-21

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment................................................3-21

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects ...............................................3-70

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects ..................................................3-115

3.3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................3-116

3.3.3 Aquatic Resources....................................................................3-116

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-116

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-133

3.3.3.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................3-171

3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources................................................................3-172

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-172

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-196

3.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects ..................................................3-232

3.3.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................3-233

3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species........................................3-233
xi 

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-233

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-240

3.3.5.3 Cumulative Effects ..................................................3-245

3.3.5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................3-245

3.3.6 Recreational Resources ............................................................3-245

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-245

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-257

3.3.6.3 Cumulative Effects ..................................................3-282

3.3.6.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................3-282

3.3.7 Land Use...................................................................................3-282

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-282

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-289

3.3.7.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................3-293

3.3.8 Aesthetic Resources..................................................................3-293

3.3.8.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-293

3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-302

3.3.8.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................3-304

3.3.9 Cultural Resources....................................................................3-304

3.3.9.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-304

3.3.9.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-309

3.3.9.3 Cumulative Effects ..................................................3-311

3.3.9.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................3-311

3.3.10 Socioeconomic Resources........................................................3-311

3.3.10.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-311

3.3.10.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-315

3.3.10.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................3-333

3.3.11 Air Resources ...........................................................................3-333

3.3.11.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-333

3.3.11.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-337

3.3.11.3 Cumulative Effects ..................................................3-342

3.3.11.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................3-342

3.3.12 Noise Resources .......................................................................3-342

3.3.12.1 Affected Environment..............................................3-342

3.3.12.2 Environmental Effects .............................................3-345

3.3.12.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................3-348

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE.............................................................3-348

3.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES.........................................................................................3-348

3.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONGTERM USES ..........................................................................................3-349

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................4-1

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECTS ...............4-1
xii 

4.1.1 Economic Assumptions................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Current Annual Costs and Future Capital Costs for the UARP 

and Chili Bar Project under the No-action Alternative ................4-2

4.2 COST OF IOWA HILL DEVELOPMENT...............................................4-4

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES .........................................4-5

4.3.1 Cost of Environmental Measures for UARP................................4-5

4.3.2 Effect of Proposed Operations on UARP and 

Chili Bar Project...........................................................................4-8

4.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES...................................................4-10

4.5 OTHER ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS...........................................4-11

5.0 STAFF’S CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................5-1

5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED 

ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Upper American River Project .....................................................5-3

5.1.2 Chili Bar .....................................................................................5-13

5.1.3 Rationale for Staff Recommendations .......................................5-16

5.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY ................................................5-40

5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ................5-42

5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS...........................5-42

5.5 RELATIONSHIP OF LICENSE PROCESS TO LAWS 

AND POLICIES.......................................................................................5-44

5.5.1 Water Quality Certification ........................................................5-44

5.5.2 Endangered Species Act.............................................................5-45

5.5.3 National Historic Preservation Act.............................................5-45

5.5.4 Americans with Disabilities Act.................................................5-46

6.0 LITERATURE CITED..........................................................................................6-1

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .........................................................................................7-1

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS.........................................................................................8-1

APPENDIX A—Clean Air Act Conformity Analysis 

APPENDIX B—Capital and Annual Costs of Measures for the UARP and Chili Bar 

Project
xiii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1-1. General vicinity of the UARP and Chili Bar Project .................................1-2

Figure 2-1. Diversions and storage in Rubicon River Basin.........................................2-7

Figure 2-2. Diversions and storage in South Fork of the American River Basin .........2-8

Figure 2-3. Schematic of the proposed Iowa Hill pumped storage operation ............2-12

Figure 2-4. Plan view of the Iowa Hill development..................................................2-13

Figure 3-1. Profile of the Upper American River system, Rubicon Lake to the 

Chili Bar Project.......................................................................................3-22

Figure 3-2. Existing USGS gages within the Upper American River system. ...........3-23

Figure 3-3. Rubicon reservoir daily water surface elevations ....................................3-25

Figure 3-4. Buck Island reservoir daily water surface elevations...............................3-26

Figure 3-5. Loon Lake reservoir daily water surface elevations.................................3-27

Figure 3-6. Ice House reservoir daily water surface elevations..................................3-29

Figure 3-7. Union Valley reservoir daily water surface elevations ............................3-29

Figure 3-8. Slab Creek reservoir daily water surface elevations ................................3-31

Figure 3-9. Loon Lake reservoir modeled elevations for 1992 to 1999 

water years................................................................................................3-74

Figure 3-10. Ice House reservoir modeled elevations for 1992 to 1999 

water years................................................................................................3-75

Figure 3-11. Union Valley reservoir modeled elevations for 1992 to 1999 

water years................................................................................................3-76

Figure 3-12. Union Valley reservoir modeled base and Proposed Action 

water surface elevations from July to September 30 for 1977, 1988, 

and 1992 ...................................................................................................3-77

Figure 3-13. Rubicon reservoir modeled elevations between May 1 and 

September 10 for 1992 to 1999 ................................................................3-78

Figure 3-14. Buck Island reservoir modeled elevations between May 1 and 

September 10 for 1992 to 1999 ................................................................3-79

Figure 3-15. Gerle Creek reservoir modeled elevations between May 1 and 

September 10 for 1992 to 1999 ................................................................3-80

Figure 3-16. Slab Creek reservoir historical one hour and modeled half hour 

elevations between May 1 and September 10 1999 .................................3-81

Figure 3-17. Stream segment sampling reaches—UARP northeast area ...................3-122

Figure 3-18. Stream segment sampling reaches—UARP southeast area ...................3-123

Figure 3-19. Stream segment sampling reaches—UARP southwest area ..................3-124

Figure 3-20. Stream segment sampling reaches—UARP western area......................3-125

Figure 3-21. Species presence by river mile in Slab Creek dam reach.......................3-130

Figure 3-22. Weighted usable area for rainbow trout in the Rubicon River 

downstream of Rubicon dam..................................................................3-138

Figure 3-23. Rainbow trout composite WUA for Gerle Creek below 

Loon Lake dam.......................................................................................3-141
xiv 

Figure 3-24. Brown trout composite WUA for Gerle Creek below 

Loon Lake dam.......................................................................................3-142

Figure 3-25. Brown trout composite WUA for Gerle Creek below Gerle dam..........3-144

Figure 3-26. Rainbow trout composite WUA for Gerle Creek below Gerle dam ......3-144

Figure 3-27. Rainbow trout composite WUA for the SFSC below Ice House dam ...3-149

Figure 3-28. Rainbow trout WUA for Silver Creek below Junction dam ..................3-152

Figure 3-29. Rainbow trout WUA for Silver Creek below Camino dam ...................3-156

Figure 3-30. Rainbow trout WUA for Brush Creek below Brush Creek dam............3-158

Figure 3-31. Rainbow trout WUA in the SFAR below Slab Creek dam....................3-162

Figure 3-32. Recreational facilities at Loon Lake reservoir .......................................3-247

Figure 3-33. Recreational facilities at Gerle Creek reservoir .....................................3-248

Figure 3-34. Recreational facilities at Union Valley reservoir ...................................3-249

Figure 3-35. Recreational facilities at Ice House reservoir.........................................3-250

Figure 3-36. Key observation points in project area...................................................3-299
xv 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2-1. Characteristics of project reservoirs...........................................................2-5

Table 2-2. Characteristics of project powerhouses......................................................2-5

Table 2-3. Proposed environmental measures for the UARP under the 

Settlement Agreement. .............................................................................2-16

Table 2-4. Proposed environmental measures for the Chili Bar Project under the 

Settlement Agreement. .............................................................................2-32

Table 3-1. Reservoir shoreline data within the UARP ................................................3-6

Table 3-2. Reservoir summary for the Projects.........................................................3-24

Table 3-3. Data for project reaches............................................................................3-41

Table 3-4. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for SFRR below 

Robbs Peak dam .......................................................................................3-42

Table 3-5. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for Gerle Creek 

below Gerle Creek dam............................................................................3-42

Table 3-6. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for SFSC below Ice 

House dam................................................................................................3-43

Table 3-7. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for Silver Creek 

below Junction dam..................................................................................3-43

Table 3-8. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for Silver Creek 

below Camino dam...................................................................................3-44

Table 3-9. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for Brush Creek 

below Brush Creek dam ...........................................................................3-44

Table 3-10. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for SFAR below 

Slab Creek dam ........................................................................................3-45

Table 3-11. Monthly discharge (cfs) statistics for gages in the project area. ..............3-46

Table 3-12. Summary of water rights in the UARP and Chili Bar Projects................3-50

Table 3-13. Designated beneficial uses of surface waters in the study area ...............3-53

Table 3-14. Water quality objectives to support designated beneficial uses in the 

study area..................................................................................................3-54

Table 3-15. Summary of selected reservoir characteristics that affect water 

temperatures along with vertical profiles of water temperature 

collected by applicants, 2000 to 2004 ......................................................3-57

Table 3-16. Summary of hourly water temperature (°C) data collected by 

applicants..................................................................................................3-59

Table 3-17. Summary of the range of water quality data in reservoirs for all 

vertical profiles and the maximum fluctuation within any of the 

profiles, 2002 through 2004 .....................................................................3-63

Table 3-18. Frequency of dissolved cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, and 

zinc water samples that exceed the corresponding CCC and CMC 

criteria, 2004.............................................................................................3-65
xvi 

Table 3-19. Trace metal concentrations (mg/kg) in composite fish fillet and fish 

liver samples (shown in parentheses) from selected UARP and Chili 

Bar project reservoirs, samples collected on December 16, 2003 ...........3-67

Table 3-20. Summary of fecal coliform sampling results for UARP reservoirs 

and reaches and the reach downstream of Chili Bar, based on 5 

samples collected during a 30-day period in summer 2003.....................3-69

Table 3-21. Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House reservoirs levels by water 

year ...........................................................................................................3-71

Table 3-22. Water year types for 1992–1999 ..............................................................3-73

Table 3-23. Existing streamflow gages in the UARP area. .........................................3-82

Table 3-24. Existing reservoir gages in UARP area....................................................3-82

Table 3-25. Existing diversion structure gages in Rubicon River watershed area 

of the UARP. ............................................................................................3-86

Table 3-26. Summary of general water temperature characteristics for the UARP 

and Chili Bar Project affected reaches under existing and proposed 

minimum instream flows and proposed Iowa Hill operations .................3-89

Table 3-27. Recommended continuous stream temperature monitoring stations 

under the Settlement Agreement ............................................................3-104

Table 3-28. Recommended strategy for monitoring water chemistry and physical 

properties under the Settlement Agreement...........................................3-109

Table 3-29. Fishes in the UARP and Chili Bar Project study area............................3-116

Table 3-30. Fish species present in UARP and Chili Bar Project reservoirs 

reported during historical and relicensing studies..................................3-118

Table 3-31. Number and composition of fish captured in reservoirs of the 

Projects using gill netting and beach seining, October to November 

2002 and October 2003 ..........................................................................3-119

Table 3-32. Fish presence in project stream reaches observed during historical 

and relicensing studies............................................................................3-121

Table 3-33. Summary information from 2002 to 2004 stream fisheries studies .......3-127

Table 3-34. Summary characteristics for UARP and Chili Bar Project stream 

reaches ....................................................................................................3-131

Table 3-35. Rainbow trout and brown trout biomass by reach from 2002–2004 

SMUD Surveys, with agency objectives for trout biomass in each 

reach .......................................................................................................3-134

Table 3-36. Proposed minimum streamflow schedule (cfs) for the Rubicon River 

below Rubicon dam................................................................................3-137

Table 3-37. Proposed minimum streamflow schedule (cfs) for the Rubicon River 

below Buck Island dam ..........................................................................3-139

Table 3-38. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for Gerle Creek below 

Loon Lake dam.......................................................................................3-140

Table 3-39. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for Gerle Creek 

below Gerle dam. ...................................................................................3-143
xvii 

Table 3-40. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for the SFRR below 

Robbs Peak dam. ....................................................................................3-145

Table 3-41. Percent WUA for all water year types for rainbow trout for SFRR 

below Robbs Peak dam. .........................................................................3-146

Table 3-42. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for SFSC below Ice 

House dam..............................................................................................3-148

Table 3-43. Percent WUA for all water year types for rainbow trout for SFSC 

below Ice House dam. ............................................................................3-149

Table 3-44. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for Silver Creek 

below Junction dam................................................................................3-151

Table 3-45. Percent WUA for all water year types for rainbow trout for SFSC 

below Junction dam................................................................................3-152

Table 3-46. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for Silver Creek 

below Camino dam.................................................................................3-155

Table 3-47. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for Brush Creek 

below Brush Creek dam .........................................................................3-157

Table 3-48. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for SFAR below Slab 

Creek dam, years 1–3 .............................................................................3-159

Table 3-49. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for SFAR below Slab 

Creek dam, years 4 through term of license...........................................3-159

Table 3-50. Percent WUA for all water year types for rainbow trout for SFAR 

below Slab Creek dam............................................................................3-160

Table 3-51. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for SFAR below Chili 

Bar dam ..................................................................................................3-163

Table 3-52. Proposed ramping rates for the SFAR below Chili Bar dam.................3-164

Table 3-53. Summary of special-status plant occurrences documented in the 

UARP area in 2000 and 2003.................................................................3-174

Table 3-54. Noxious weeds located during 2000, 2003 and 2004 survey efforts .....3-177

Table 3-55. The extent, type, and limitations of riparian vegetation along UARP 

reaches ....................................................................................................3-179

Table 3-56. The extent, type, and limitations of wetlands associated with UARP ...3-180

Table 3-57. Special-status wildlife species known or with the potential to occur 

within the UARP and Chili Bar Project areas........................................3-185

Table 3-58. Productivity summary for bald eagles nesting at Union Valley 

reservoir, 1986–2005..............................................................................3-190

Table 3-59. Description of sites and survey results at sites with potential habitat 

for California red-legged frog ................................................................3-238

Table 3-60. Estimated recreation days at dispersed recreational sites, 2002–2003 ..3-252

Table 3-61. Regional whitewater recreational opportunities.....................................3-255

Table 3-62. SMUD’s proposed recreational site improvements ...............................3-260

Table 3-63. SMUD’s proposed trail enhancements...................................................3-271

Table 3-64. Proposed recreational streamflows in the Ice House dam reach the 

first 5 years .............................................................................................3-275
xviii 

Table 3-65. Maximum possible recreational streamflows in the Ice House dam 

reach after year 5 ....................................................................................3-276

Table 3-66. Proposed recreational streamflows in the Slab Creek dam reach after 

Iowa Hill development is constructed, or year 15 if criteria are met.....3-277

Table 3-67. South Fork of the American River downstream of Chili bar reservoir 

dam minimum recreational flow by water year (cfs). ............................3-279

Table 3-68. Land ownership (acres) within the FERC project boundaries, by 

development ...........................................................................................3-283

Table 3-69. Aesthetics resources at UARP, key viewpoints. ....................................3-294

Table 3-70. Iowa Hill development construction cost estimates, 2004.....................3-318

Table 3-71. Iowa Hill development construction cost estimates (millions of 

2002$).....................................................................................................3-318

Table 3-72. Iowa Hill operational payroll and operation and maintenance 

expenditures, 2004..................................................................................3-320

Table 3-73. California and federal ambient air quality standards. ............................3-334

Table 3-74. California State area designations for criteria air pollutants..................3-336

Table 3-75. Predicted total ambient concentrations during construction period.......3-338

Table 3-76. Estimated air emissions from construction activities.............................3-338

Table 3-77. Energy generation and requirements for all project alternatives. ..........3-339

Table 3-78. Estimated air emissions from operational activities...............................3-341

Table 3-79. Net peak-year emissions due to the UARP-only Alternative and 

Proposed Action following operation of Iowa Hill Development 

(post 2014)..............................................................................................3-341

Table 3-80. A-weighted (dBA) sound levels of typical noise environments ............3-343

Table 3-81. Maximum allowable noise exposure for nontransportation noise 

sources in rural regions—construction noise. ........................................3-345

Table 4-1. Staff assumptions for economic analysis of SMUD’s UARP Project. ......4-1

Table 4-2. Staff assumptions for economic analysis of PG&E’s Chili Bar 

Project.........................................................................................................4-2

Table 4-3. Summary of current annual costs and future costs for SMUD’s 

UARP under the No-action Alternative. ....................................................4-3

Table 4-4. Summary of current annual costs and future capital costs for 

PG&E’s Chili Bar Project under the No-action Alternative. ....................4-3

Table 4-5. Summary of Iowa Hill development capital costs under the Proposed 

Action. ........................................................................................................4-4

Table 4-6. Summary of Iowa Hill development annual costs under the Proposed 

Action .........................................................................................................4-4

Table 4-7. Summary of annualized costs for measures included in the UARPonly Alternative..........................................................................................4-5

Table 4-8. Summary of annualized costs for measures included in the Proposed 

Action (with Iowa Hill development) and the Proposed Action with 

Staff Modifications.....................................................................................4-6
xix 

Table 4-9. Summary of annualized costs for measures associated with the Iowa 

Hill component of the Proposed Action.....................................................4-7

Table 4-10. Summary of annualized costs for measures included in the Proposed 

Action and Proposed Action with Staff Modifications for the Chili 

Bar Project..................................................................................................4-7

Table 4-11. Summary of the energy and capacity effect ...............................................4-9

Table 4-12. Summary of the effect of environmental measures on energy...................4-9

Table 4-13. Summary of annual net benefits for the No-action, UARP-only 

Alternative, Proposed Action (with Iowa Hill development), and 

Proposed Action with Staff Modifications for SMUD’s UARP..............4-11

Table 4-14. Summary of annual net benefits for the Chili Bar Project under the 

No-action, UARP-only Alternative, Proposed Action, and Proposed 

Action with Staff Modifications...............................................................4-13
xx 

This page intentionally left blank. 
xxi 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

Agencies CDFG, the Forest Service, FWS, and the Water Board 

AN above normal water year 

APE area of potential effects 

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

BBS breeding bird survey 

applicants Pacific Gas and Electric Company and or Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District 

BLM U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

BN below normal water year 

oC degrees Celsius 

CCC criterion continuous concentrations 

CD critically dry water year 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

Central Valley Water Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Board 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CMC criterion maximum concentrations 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

DO dissolved oxygen 

DWR California Department of Water Resources 

EID El Dorado Irrigation District 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

FPA Federal Power Act 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

g gram 

GDP-IDP U.S. Gross Domestic Product—Implicit Price Deflator 

HPMP historic properties management plan 

Interior U.S. Department of the Interior 

kg kilogram 

kV kilovolt 

L liter 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

mg milligram 

MIS management indicator species 

mL milliliter 
xxii 

mm millimeter 

MPN most probable number 

MW megawatt 

MWh megawatt-hours 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NGO non-governmental organization 

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NTU nephelometric turbidity units 

PA programmatic agreement 

PAOT people-at-one-time 

PDEA preliminary draft environmental assessment 

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

Projects UARP and Chili Bar Project 

SD super dry water year 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SFAR South Fork of the American River 

SFRR South Fork of the Rubicon River 

SFSC South Fork of Silver Creek 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

TCP traditional cultural property 

UARP Upper American River Project 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

μg/L microgram per liter 

VES Visual encounter survey 

VQO visual quality objective 

Water Board State Water Resources Control Board 

YOY young-of-the-year 
xxiii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS) evaluates the potential 

effects on the environment associated with the relicensing of the seven hydroelectric 

developments that make up the existing 688-megawatt (MW) Upper American River 

Project (UARP) (Project No. 2101), the proposed construction of an eighth 400-MW 

development at Iowa Hill (Iowa Hill development) as part of the UARP, and the 

relicensing of the 7-MW Chili Bar Project (Project No. 2155). The UARP is located on 

the Rubicon River, Silver Creek, and South Fork of the American River (SFAR) near 

Placerville, California. The Chili Bar Project is located on the SFAR in El Dorado 

County, near Placerville, California, immediately downstream of the UARP. The 

licenses for both project expired on July 31, 2007. On August 8, 2007, the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) authorized continued operations of both 

projects through July 31, 2008. 

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) filed a license application 

with the Commission for the UARP on July 7, 2005. The project occupies 6,3757

 acres 

of federal land administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

(Forest Service), in Eldorado National Forest and 42.3 acres of federal land 

administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). 

The Forest Service is reviewing an application for a special-use permit for 

constructing SMUD’s proposed Iowa Hill development on National Forest System 

lands. The Forest Service is also a cooperating agency in preparing this EIS for the 

UARP. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed a license application with the 

Commission for the Chili Bar Project on June 21, 2005. The project, which consists of 

a single development, occupies 47.81 acres of federal land administered by the BLM. 

The UARP and Chili Bar Project (Projects) have common stakeholders and 

issues, as well as operational and hydraulic interrelationships. PG&E and SMUD 

entered into two relicensing cooperation agreements that resolved many of the 

overlapping issues between the two Projects. These overlapping issues include 

coordinating operations and the flow releases into and out of Chili Bar reservoir. 

Operational coordination and flow-related resource measures are necessary because 

PG&E depends on the UARP and does not have control over the amount of water 

flowing into Chili Bar reservoir. 

The key environmental issues tied to the existing operations of the UARP are 

providing suitable habitat in the downstream reaches to support native species and 

 

7

This acreage includes 185 acres of Eldorado National Forest lands associated 

with the proposed Iowa Hill development.
xxiv 

coordinating operations between SMUD and PG&E. Changing existing operations to 

increase instream flow would increase the quantity and velocity of flows into the 

downstream reaches. Increased flows would lower water temperatures and reduce 

sedimentation in these reaches. Lowering water temperatures, increasing flow 

velocities, and reducing sedimentation should have a positive effect on the abundance of 

native fish and benthic macroinvertebrates and the ability of amphibians to breed in 

these reaches. Increased coordination between SMUD and PG&E would reduce the 

number of unanticipated spills at the Chili Bar Project. 

SMUD’s and PG&E’s license applications outlined their proposals to continue 

operating the Projects in accordance with certain existing and proposed operational and 

environmental measures. SMUD and PG&E filed a comprehensive Offer of Settlement 

(Settlement Agreement) with the Commission on February 1, 2007, that replaces the 

Proposed Actions. The terms of the Settlement Agreement8

 include a wide range of 

measures described in Proposed Articles 1-1 through 1-37 for the UARP without the 

Iowa Hill development, Proposed Articles 1-38 through 1-50 for the UARP with the 

Iowa Hill development, and Proposed Articles 2-1 through 2-21 for the Chili Bar 

Project. 

Under the Proposed Action, SMUD would implement the following measures at 

the UARP: (1) a set of measures focused on the ecological health and suitability of 

reaches downstream of the project dams to support native fish, amphibian, and reptile 

populations implemented in coordination with PG&E's Chili Bar Project; (2) a set of 

measures to provide for specific water level elevations for the protection of fish 

populations, assuring the availability of boat launch facilities, or to enhance the visual 

experience at the project reservoirs; (3) a plan to monitor streamflows and reservoir 

elevations; (4) a set of measures that provide for the protection of wildlife and plants, 

including the implementation of wildlife safety measures at project facilities; (5) a 

comprehensive program of monitoring to determine the effects of the increased 

minimum streamflows, pulse flows, and ramping rates on native fish populations, 

aquatic macroinvertebrates, amphibians and reptiles, riparian habitat, algae species, 

geomorphology, water temperature, and numerous water quality parameters in the 

reservoirs and stream reaches; (6) vegetation and invasive weed management plans, 

which would provide for the protection of sensitive species habitat and the control of 

noxious weeds; (7) a suite of measures that focus on upgrading, expanding, operating, 

and maintaining recreational facilities and services in response to user demands, 

monitoring future use, providing additional whitewater boating opportunities, providing 

public information, and fish stocking within the framework of a recreation 

implementation plan; (8) a plan for extending and formalizing trails that are needed for 

 

8

The Settlement Agreement is available on the Commission’s web site from the 

eLibrary feature at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Accession number 

20070208-4003. 
xxv 

project operations that are located on or affect National Forest System lands; (9) a plan 

to establish SMUD's level of responsibility for improving and maintaining project 

access roads and to perform several specific improvements including reconstructing and 

surfacing several Forest Service roads that provide access to the project’s recreational 

facilities; (10) a visual management plan; and (11) an Historic Properties Management 

Plan to protect cultural resources. These environmental measures are described in detail 

in section 2.4.3, SMUD’s Proposal, of this draft EIS. 

SMUD's Proposal includes the construction and operation of the Iowa Hill 

development, a pumped storage facility partially located on National Forest System 

lands. Under the Proposed Action, SMUD would implement a series of measures for 

resource protection during the construction and operation of the proposed Iowa Hill 

development. These measures would address potential effects of the proposed 

development on water quality; groundwater; native fish and amphibians in Slab Creek 

reservoir; replacement of permanently disturbed wildlife habitat; control of traffic, air 

pollution, and noise during construction; recreational access to Slab Creek reservoir; 

protection of cultural resources; and facility designs that are compatible with the 

Eldorado National Forest visual quality objectives. These environmental measures also 

are described in detail in section 2.4.3, SMUD’s Proposal, of this draft EIS. 

Staff modified some of the applicant-proposed project-related environmental 

measures to (1) file a report with the Commission by July 31 of each year about the 

provision of pulse flows; (2) expand the geographic scope of the invasive weed and 

vegetation management plans to include all land within the project boundary affected by 

project activities; (3) provide an annual employee environmental awareness program to 

educate employees and key personnel about the known locations of special status 

species and habitats in the vegetation management plan; (4) prepare a transportation 

system management plan for roads on or affecting National Forest System lands and 

non-National Forest System roads that are solely used for project purposes and within 

the project boundary; (5) prepare a plan for extending and formalizing trails solely used 

for project operations that are located on or affect National Forest System lands and are 

located or would be located within the project boundary; and (6) prepare a wildlife lands 

mitigation plan for the Iowa Hill development. None of these measures conflict with 

measures included in the Settlement Agreement. Staff's revised and additional 

recommended measures are described in section 2.7.5, Staff Modification of SMUD’s 

Proposal, of this draft EIS. 

Under the Proposed Action, PG&E would implement the following measures at 

the Chili Bar Project: (1) a set of measures focused on the ecological health and 

suitability of the reaches downstream of the project dam to support native fish, 

amphibian, and reptile populations implemented in coordination with SMUD's UARP; 

(2) a plan to monitor streamflows and reservoir elevations; (3) a set of measures that 

provide for the protection of wildlife and plants; (4) a comprehensive program of 

monitoring to determine the effects of the increased minimum streamflows, pulse flows, 

and ramping rates on native fish populations, aquatic macroinvertebrates, amphibians 
xxvi 

and reptiles, riparian habitat, algae species, geomorphology, water temperature, and 

numerous water quality parameters in the reservoir and downstream reach; 

(5) vegetation and invasive weed management plans that provide for the protection of 

sensitive species habitat and the control of noxious weeds; (6) a suite of measures that 

focus on providing formal access to recreational boating, providing additional 

recreational boating flows, and providing public information services; (7) a visual 

management plan; and (8) an Historic Properties Management Plan to protect cultural 

resources. These environmental measures are described in detail in section 2.5.3, 

PG&E’s Proposal, of this draft EIS. 

Staff modified PG&E's proposed vegetation and invasive weed management 

plans to: (1) expand the geographic scope of the invasive weed and vegetation 

management plans to include all land within the project boundary affected by project 

activities, and (2) include an annual employee environmental awareness program to 

educate employees and key personnel about the known locations of special status 

species and habitats in the vegetation management plan. Staff also recommends the 

development of a recreation plan for the Chili Bar Project. None of these modifications 

or the additional staff measures conflict with the measures included in the Settlement 

Agreement. Staff's revised and additional recommended measures are described in 

section 2.7.6, Staff Modification of PG&E’s Proposal, of this draft EIS. 

In this draft EIS, we analyze and evaluate the environmental effects associated 

with the issuance of a new license for the existing and proposed hydropower projects, 

and recommend conditions for inclusion in any licenses issued. For any licenses issued, 

the Commission must determine that the projects adopted will be best adapted to a 

comprehensive plan for improving or developing the waterway. In addition to the 

power and development purposes for which licenses are issued, the Commission must 

give equal consideration to energy conservation and the protection and enhancement of 

fish and wildlife, aesthetics, cultural resources, and recreational opportunities. This 

draft EIS for the UARP and Chili Bar Project reflects the Commission staff’s 

consideration of these factors. 

Overall, the measures proposed by SMUD and PG&E under the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement, along with additional staff-recommended and revised measures, 

would protect and enhance existing water use, water quality, fish and wildlife, land use, 

aesthetics, recreational, and cultural resources. In addition, the Projects would continue 

to provide a reliable source of renewable energy for SMUD’s and PG&E’s customers. 

The Proposed Action with Staff Modifications (Staff Alternative) for both Projects 

includes all of the mandatory conditions filed by the Forest Service and BLM that are 

enforceable by the Commission. For the two conditions that would require payments to 

the Forest Service and BLM, we recommend alternative measures that would achieve 

the same objectives. 

We conclude that building the proposed Iowa Hill development would be in the 

public’s interest. Building Iowa Hill would disturb about 140 acres of lands in the 
xxvii 

Eldorado National Forest and introduce new visual elements to the landscape. SMUD 

proposes in-kind replacement of habitat and construction of an underground 

powerhouse to minimize the effects on wildlife and neighboring land owners. Although 

constructing and operating the proposed development would have environmental 

effects, the pumped storage operations would provide SMUD flexibility to help meet 

peak power needs. 

Under the Proposed Action with Staff Modifications (Staff Alternative), the 

UARP (which includes the Iowa Hill development) would generate 2,673,000 MWh 

and have a net annual benefit of $110,101,700 ($41.19/MWh). For Chili Bar, the 

Proposed Action with Staff Modification (Staff Alternative) would generate 

31,291 MWh and have a net annual benefit of $481,200 ($15.38/MWh). 

Based on our independent analysis of the UARP, including our consideration of 

all relevant economic and environmental concerns, we conclude that issuing a new 

license for the project as proposed by SMUD with the Iowa Hill development, along 

with staff’s modifications and additions to those proposals, would be best adapted to a 

comprehensive plan for the proper use, conservation, and development of the UARP 

and the Upper American River. 

Based on our independent analysis of the Chili Bar Project, including our 

consideration of all relevant economic and environmental concerns, we conclude that 

issuing a new license for the project as proposed by PG&E, along with staff’s 

modifications and additions to those proposals, would be best adapted to a 

comprehensive plan for the proper use, conservation, and development of the Chili Bar 

Project and the Upper American River. 
xxviii 

This page intentionally left blank.
1-1 

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

On July 7, 2005, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) filed an 

application for new license for Upper American River Project (UARP) with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission). This application was 

prepared under the Alternative Licensing Process approved by the Commission on 

August 29, 2001, and included a preliminary draft environmental assessment (PDEA). 

The project is on the Rubicon River, Silver Creek, and South Fork of the American 

River (SFAR) near Placerville, California (figure 1-1). The UARP’s 11 reservoirs are 

capable of impounding more than 425,000 acre-feet of water. The eight powerhouses 

can generate up to 688 megawatts (MW) of power. The project occupies 6,3759

 acres 

of federal land administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

(Forest Service) Eldorado National Forest and 42.3 acres of federal land administered 

by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

On June 21, 2005, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed an 

application for a new license for the Chili Bar Project using a Traditional Licensing 

Process. The Chili Bar Project is on the SFAR in El Dorado County, near Placerville, 

California, and it is a 7-MW hydroelectric project that encompasses about 3 river miles. 

The Chili Bar Project occupies 47.81 acres of federal land administered by the BLM, 

and its facilities are located downstream of SMUD’s UARP (figure 1-1). 

The Forest Service will be reviewing a special use permit application for the 

construction of the Iowa Hill development on National Forest System lands. The 

Commission and the Forest Service have agreed to participate as cooperating agencies 

in the preparation of this draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the UARP. 

The existing licenses for the both UARP and the Chili Bar Project (Projects) 

expire on July 31, 2007. 

1.1 PURPOSE OF ACTION 

The Commission must decide whether to relicense the Projects and what 

conditions should be placed on any licenses issued. In deciding whether to authorize 

the continued operation of hydroelectric projects and related facilities in compliance 

with the Federal Power Act (FPA)10 and other applicable laws, the Commission must 

determine that the Projects will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving 

or developing a waterway. In addition to the power and developmental purposes for 

 

9

This acreage includes 185 acres of El Dorado National Forest lands associated 

with the proposed Iowa Hill development.

1016 U.S.C. §§791(a)-825(r), as amended by the Electric Consumers Protection 

Act of 1986, Public Law 99-495 (1986) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 

102-486. 
1-2 

	






	


	




	




	




	



	

	



	



	

	



	 





	






	






	





	






	







 


 


	



 !



"	
  	 #$	 %	


#&'"()

&*'#*''"()

+!,

-
 	  #$	 %	



 !

&*	


$








#

&*'#*''"()

##.&"(''"()


"		


	

-
 	 %	 	

-
 	 - %	 

	

	


	

-
 	 



"



	


$	%&
'#
%	

	

	$


#/

*/

	


(
)#	








	




	

	




+!,

 

Figure 1-1. General vicinity of the UARP and Chili Bar Project. (Source: SMUD, 2005, PG&E, 2005

staff) 
1-3 

which licenses are issued (e.g., flood control, irrigation, and water supply), the 

Commission must give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation; the 

protection of, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including 

related spawning grounds and habitat); the protection of recreational opportunities; and 

the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. The Forest Service must 

decide whether to issue a special use permit for the construction of the Iowa Hill 

development. 

The Forest Service, under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, must 

decide whether to grant a special use permit and/or easement for construction and 

operation of the proposed Iowa Hill Pumped Storage Project, including access and 

associated facilities. In this draft EIS, we, assess the environmental and economic 

effects of (1) continuing to operate the UARP and Chili Bar Project as they are currently 

operated (No-action Alternative); (2) operating the UARP with the Iowa Hill 

development as proposed by SMUD and the Chili Bar Project as proposed by PG&E 

(SMUD's Proposal and PG&E's Proposal as described in the Settlement Agreement); 

(3) operating the UARP without the Iowa Hill development (UARP-only Alternative) 

and the Chili Bar Project as proposed by PG&E; and (4) operating the UARP with the 

Iowa Hill development as proposed by SMUD and the Chili Bar Project as proposed by 

PG&E with additional or modified environmental measures (Staff Alternative). 

Important issues that are addressed in this draft EIS include the potential effects 

of the Proposed Actions and alternatives on streamflows and water quality in the 

12 river reaches (11 reaches of the UARP and one reach of the Chili Bar Project); the 

existing fish and amphibian resources in the river reaches, terrestrial resources, and 

plans to manage and enhance these resources; federally listed threatened or endangered 

plant and wildlife species; existing recreational uses and facilities and plans to improve 

and expand these facilities; cultural resources; and measures to protect these resources. 

1.2 NEED FOR POWER 

1.2.1 Regional Power Considerations 

The UARP with an installed capacity of 688 MW and an average annual 

generation of 1,835,000 megawatt-hours (MWh)11 per year of energy plays an important 

part in meeting the capacity requirements of SMUD. It is a significant power resource 

to the state of California and within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council that 

includes the states west of the Rockies; portions of Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas; 

Alberta and British Columbia, Canada; and a portion of North Baja California. 

Similarly, PG&E’s Chili Bar Project with an installed capacity of 7 MW and an average 

 

11This value is the average generation for SMUD’s No-action Alternative as 

provided in SMUD’s April 11, 2007, Settlement Cost Analysis filed by Van Ness 

Feldman. 
1-4 

annual generation of 32,291 MWh12 per year of energy is another power resource 

available to the region. 

Because the Projects are located in the California-Mexico Power area of the 

Western Electricity Coordinating Council, we looked at the regional need for power as 

reported by the Western Electricity Coordinating Council13 (WECC, 2005) to anticipate 

how the demand for electricity is expected to change in the region. 

The California-Mexico Power area, which encompasses most of California and a 

part of Baja California in Mexico, has a significant summer peak demand. For the 

period from 2005 through 2014, the Western Electricity Coordinating Council forecasts 

peak demand and annual energy requirements in the area to grow at annual compound 

rates of 2.4 and 2.6 percent, respectively. The Western Electricity Coordinating Council 

anticipates that 6,783 MW of new capacity would come on line within the next 10 years 

in the California-Mexico Power region of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council 

region. The Projects could continue to meet part of the existing load requirements 

within a system in need of generating resources. 

1.2.2 Iowa Hill Implications 

SMUD’s proposed Iowa Hill development would add an additional 400 MW of 

capacity during peak demand periods. The project would provide 931,000 MWh of 

super on-peak energy and 43,000 MWh of off-peak energy; however, 1,230,000 MWh 

of off-peak energy would be required to pump the water from Slab Creek reservoir to 

Iowa Hill reservoir during off-peak hours. This results in net energy of –256,000 MWh. 

SMUD and possibly other utilities in California would likely use the electricity 

from the project to displace the use of gas-fired energy during on-peak hours. If the 

project is not licensed, utilities would still need to provide a comparable amount of 

capacity and energy from other resources, most likely through the operation of gas-fired 

generation facilities. 

The California Energy Commission was created in 1974 and is responsible for 

forecasting future energy needs and keeping historical energy data amongst other duties. 

The California Energy Commission noted in its 2004 Integrated Energy Policy Report 

Update that “while supplies are tight during peak periods, the state has more than 

adequate amounts of power in the low load periods, especially at night” (CEC, 2004). 

California utilities and generators have some options for shifting power supplies from 

off-peak to on-peak periods through the use of pumped storage facilities. 

 

12This value is the average generation for PG&E’s No-action Alternative as 

provided in its May 18, 2006, Additional Information Response. 

13WECC has yet to issue its 2006 forecast. 
1-5 

If the UARP’s license is issued to include the Iowa Hill development, the 

pumped storage project would contribute to a diversified generation mix and help meet 

power needs within and beyond the region. Regional power benefits from the new 

development would include those often referred to as ancillary system benefits, 

including spinning reserves, non-spinning reserves, peaking capacity, and grid stability. 

Pumped storage generates and stores power during off-peak periods that can be 

provided rapidly during on-peak periods. Additionally, it could allow SMUD to meet 6 

to 7 years of anticipated peak demand growth. It could produce significant local 

generation to alleviate anticipated voltage and transmission constraints during peakdemand periods in the region and aid management of greatly increased minute-byminute load balancing and control area14 challenges presented by wind and other 

intermittent generation technologies required by renewable portfolio standards. 

Licensing the Iowa Hill development would allow SMUD to compete in the power 

market for sale of the project’s power and ancillary benefits. 

1.3 SCOPING PROCESS 

1.3.1 Upper American River Project 

SMUD and PG&E conducted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

scoping process for the overlapping issues for the UARP as part of SMUD’s Alternative 

Licensing Process.15 SMUD issued Scoping Document 1 on August 14, 2003. Three 

public scoping meetings were held in Sacramento and Placerville, California, on 

September 9-11, 2003, and a site tour was conducted on September 12, 2003. The 

scoping meetings allowed individuals an opportunity to submit oral or written 

comments to the relicensing record. 

1.3.2 Chili Bar Project 

The Commission issued Scoping Document 1 for the Chili Bar Project on 

December 20, 2005, to address non-overlapping issues exclusive to that project.16 After 

reviewing the two written comments filed during the scoping comment period, we 

prepared Scoping Document 2 that addressed the comments from the State Water 

Resources Control Board (Water Board) and PG&E and presented the issues and 

alternatives for the Chili Bar Project considered in this draft EIS. 

 

14SMUD is one of four entities that currently operate control areas entirely within 

the state of California. As its own control area, SMUD is responsible for balancing the 

demand of its customers with power supplies. 

15Under the Alternative Licensing Process, the applicant conducts scoping prior 

to filing the draft and final license application. 

16Under the Traditional Licensing Process, the Commission issues a scoping 

document after a final license application is filed. 
1-6 

1.4 AGENCY CONSULTATIONS 

1.4.1 Alternative Licensing Process for UARP 

After consulting with agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and 

members of the public, SMUD filed a formal request with the Commission to follow the 

Alternative Licensing Process. The Commission approved the request on August 29, 

2001. From fall 2001 until 2005, the resource agencies and several NGOs participated 

in SMUD’s Alternative Licensing Process with the intent (1) to produce a 

comprehensive set of protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures, acceptable to 

the settlement negotiations group, for submittal in the July 2005 final license 

applications for the UARP and Chili Bar Project; (2) to produce a quality settlement 

agreement to be submitted to the Commission for consideration in its environmental 

analysis; and (3) to preserve coordination between the UARP and Chili Bar Project on 

overlapping issues. 

In April 2004, with the timeline for development of proposed measures and a 

settlement agreement behind schedule, the resource agencies proposed that SMUD be 

excused from completing a draft license application and instead have adequate time to 

complete studies, review study reports, develop and agree upon recommended 

measures, and write a comprehensive settlement agreement that would be acceptable to 

the settlement parties. The Commission excused SMUD from filing a draft license 

application. These goals were not achieved, however, and SMUD’s final license 

application, including its PDEA, was filed without agreement on proposed measures 

among the parties in the Alternative License Process and without knowledge from the 

parties as to the proposed environmental measures included in the final license 

application. 

PG&E also filed a final license application for the Chili Bar Project in June 2005 

under the Traditional Licensing Process. 

1.4.2 Interventions and Comments 

On July 28, 2006, the Commission issued a notice for the UARP soliciting 

interventions and requesting final terms, conditions, prescriptions, and 

recommendations and setting a comment deadline of 90 days from the date of the 

notice. On August 22, 2006, the Commission issued a notice for the Chili Bar Project 

that the project was ready for environmental review and preliminary terms, conditions, 

and recommendations could be filed for the Chili Bar Project within 60 days of the date 

of the notice. 
1-7 

The following entities filed motions to intervene: 

Intervenors in the UARP Date of Filing 

Eldorado Hills Community Service District November 4, 2005 

California Water Resources Control Board September 6, 2006 

Eldorado Parties17 September 13, 2006 

U.S. Department of the Interior September 22, 2006 

Pacific Gas &Electric Company September 25, 2006 

Placer County Water Agency October 4, 2006, and 

January 23, 2007 

California Department of Fish and Game October 17, 2006 

Friends of the River October 17, 2006 

National Marine Fisheries Service October 18, 2006 

The following entities filed motions to intervene in the Chili Bar Project: 

Intervenors in the Chili Bar Project Date of Filing 

U.S. Department of the Interior September 22, 2006 

California Water Resources Control Board October 13, 2006 

California Department of Fish and Game October 17, 2006 

National Marine Fisheries Service October 18, 2006 

Friends of the River October 23, 2006 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District October 23, 2006 

 

17Joint motion to intervene of the County of El Dorado, El Dorado County Water 

Agency, El Dorado Irrigation District, Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, and 

the El Dorado Water & Power Authority. 
1-8 

On November 16, 2006, the Commission extended the filing deadline for the 

final terms and conditions for the UARP and the preliminary terms, conditions, 

prescriptions, and recommendations for the Chili Bar Project to February 1, 2007, to 

give parties to the Settlement Agreement time to revise and filed their terms, conditions, 

prescriptions, and recommendations. 

The following entities filed comments, terms, conditions, prescriptions, or 

recommendations in response to the Commission’s notice for the UARP and Chili Bar 

Project that are consistent with the Settlement Agreement: 

Commenting Entities—UARP Project No. 2101 Date of Filing 

California Water Resources Control Board October 17, 2006 

California Department of Fish and Game October 18 2006 and 

January 31, 2007 

U.S. Department of the Interior October 17, 2006 and 

January 31, 2007 

California Sportsfishing Alliance October 18, 2006 

National Marine Fisheries Service October 18, 2006 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service October 18, 2006 and 

January 30, 2007 

California Department of Parks and Recreation October 19, 2006 

Environmental Council of Sacramento October 19, 2006 

Sacramento County Farm Bureau October 23, 2006 

Commenting Entities—Chili Bar Project No. 2155 Date of Filing 

California Water Resources Control Board October 16, 2006 

California Department of Fish and Game October 17 2006 and 

January 31, 2007 

U.S. Department of the Interior October 18, 2006 and 

January 31, 2007 

California Department of Parks and Recreation October 18, 2006 
1-9 

1.4.3 Settlement Agreement 

After the final license applications were filed, the seven resource agencies and 

several NGOs continued to work and developed a comprehensive alternative that 

addressed the interests of these parties and the interests of the licensees, as they were 

understood by these participants as well as a rationale report that explained the rationale 

for the comprehensive alternative. On November 1, 2005, the seven agencies, two 

NGOs, and several individuals filed a Comprehensive Resource Agency/NGO 

Alternative and requested that the alternative be fully analyzed in the EIS. On August 

18, 2006, SMUD filed a supplemental preliminary environmental assessment in 

response to the agency alternative. 

From November 2005 until May 2006, the agencies and NGOs continued to 

negotiate with SMUD in an attempt to reach a comprehensive settlement agreement. 

That goal was not achieved, and, in October 2006, the resource agencies filed 

preliminary terms, conditions, and recommendations in response to the Commission’s 

July 28, 2006, notice. In November 2006, the agencies, NGOs, SMUD, and PG&E 

participated in negotiations that led to an Agreement in Principle, which was filed with 

the Commission on November 16, 2006. Because of the substantial progress that had 

been demonstrated in the Agreement in Principle, the Commission extended the 

deadline for filing preliminary terms, conditions, and recommendations to February 1, 

2007. 

SMUD and PG&E filed the Settlement Agreement on February 1, 2007. The 

Settlement Agreement was signed by representatives of federal and state agencies, 

NGOs, and individuals listed below. We consider the Settlement Agreement to 

represent the Proposed Actions for these Projects. 

Signatories to the Settlement Agreement 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

California Department of Fish and Game 

California Department of Parks and Recreation 

American Whitewater 

Friends of the River 

California Sportsfishing Protection Alliance 

American River Recreation Association and Camp Lotus 

Foothill Conservancy 

California Outdoors 
1-10 

Signatories to the Settlement Agreement 

Hilde Schweitzer 

Rich Platt 

Theresa Simsiman 

The Commission issued a notice of the Settlement Agreement and set a comment 

deadline of March 10, 2007, and a reply comment deadline of March 25, 2007. The 

following entities filed comments on the Settlement Agreement. 

Commenting Entities on Settlement Agreement Date of Filing 

Placer County Water Agency March 9, 2007 

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance March 9, 2007 

SMUD filed reply comments on March 16, 2007. 
2-1 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No-action Alternative, the UARP and Chili Bar Project would 

continue to operate under the terms and conditions of the existing licenses, and no new 

environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

We use this alternative to establish baseline environmental conditions for comparison 

with other alternatives. 

2.2 UPPER AMERICAN RIVER PROJECT 

The UARP was constructed from 1959 to 1985 and placed in service between 

1961 and 1985. SMUD owns and operates the project, consisting of 7 developments 

located in the California counties of El Dorado and Sacramento, within the Rubicon 

River, Silver Creek, and the SFAR drainages. The project’s 11 reservoirs are capable of 

impounding more than 425,000 acre-feet of water. The eight powerhouses can generate 

up to 688 MW of power. The project also includes 11 transmission lines that have a 

combined length of about 180 miles, about 28 miles of power tunnels/penstocks, one 

canal that is 1.9 miles long, and about 700 developed public-use campsites. 

2.2.1 Existing Facilities 

The UARP includes seven developments and the components necessary to use 

the available water resources for hydroelectric generation: Loon Lake, Robbs Peak, 

Jones Fork, Union Valley, Jaybird, Camino, and Slab Creek/White Rock. Reservoir and 

powerhouse characteristics are shown in tables 2-1 and 2-2. 

Loon Lake 

The Loon Lake development is the most upstream project facility and consists of: 

(1) Rubicon dam—a concrete gravity diversion dam, 36 feet high and 644 feet long, 

with an auxiliary dam that is 29 feet high and 553 feet long, which together impound the 

Rubicon reservoir; (2) Rubicon-Rockbound tunnel—a horseshoe tunnel that is 13 feet in 

diameter and 0.2 mile long that diverts water from the Rubicon reservoir to the Buck 

Island reservoir via Rockland Lake (a non-project facility) on Highland Creek; (3) Buck 

Island dam—a concrete gravity diversion dam that is 23 feet high and 293 feet long and 

a concrete auxiliary dam that is 15 feet high and 244 feet long located on the Little 

Rubicon River that impounds the Buck Island reservoir; (4) Buck Island-Loon Lake 

tunnel—an unlined modified horseshoe tunnel that is 1.6 miles long and 13 feet in 

diameter that diverts water from Buck Island reservoir to Loon Lake reservoir; (5) Loon 

Lake dam—a rockfill dam that is 108 feet high and 0.4 mile long with a 250-foot-long 

side channel spillway on the right bank, a rockfill auxiliary dam that is 95 feet high and 

910 feet long, and an earth dike that together form Loon Lake reservoir; (6) Loon Lake 

powerhouse penstock that includes a concrete-lined horseshoe tunnel that is 0.3 mile 

long and 14 feet in diameter, a concrete lined vertical shaft that is 10 feet in diameter, 
2-2 

and a steel lined tunnel that is 8.5 feet in diameter and extends from Loon Lake 

reservoir to Loon Lake powerhouse; (7) Loon Lake powerhouse—an underground 

powerhouse located more than 1,100 feet below the surface of Loon Lake reservoir; 

(8) Loon Lake powerhouse tailrace tunnel—a unlined horseshoe tunnel that is 18 feet in 

diameter and extends 3.8 miles from the Loon Lake powerhouse to the Gerle Creek 

reservoir; and (9) transmission lines—two 69 kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission lines, 

the Loon Lake-Robbs Peak transmission line extending 7.9 miles to the Robbs Peak and 

the Loon Lake-Union Valley transmission line extending 12.4 miles to the Union Valley 

switchyard. Rubicon dam is located inside a designated wilderness area (Desolation 

Wilderness), within the boundary of the Eldorado National Forest. All other facilities in 

this development are located outside the wilderness boundary but within the Eldorado 

National Forest. 

Robbs Peak 

The Robbs Peak development consists of: (1) Gerle Creek dam—a concrete 

gravity overflow structure that is 58 feet high and 444 feet long on Gerle Creek, 

upstream of its confluence with the South Fork of the Rubicon River (SFRR); and that 

has two low level outlet gates, incorporating the intake of Gerle Creek canal in its left 

abutment, creating Gerle Creek reservoir; (2) Gerle Creek canal—an above-ground 

canal, partially lined with gunite, that is 22 feet wide and 19 feet deep, extending 

1.9 miles from Gerle Creek reservoir to Robbs Peak reservoir; (3) Robbs Peak dam—a 

concrete gravity overflow structure that is 44 feet high and 320 feet long, with 12 steel 

bulkhead gates, all 6.2 feet high, on the spillway crest, located on the SFRR upstream of 

its confluence with Gerle Creek, that forms Robbs Peak reservoir; (4) Robbs Peak 

tunnel—an unlined horseshoe that is 3.2 miles long and 13 feet in diameter and a 

diversion tunnel that is 10 feet in diameter from Robbs Peak reservoir to Robbs Peak 

penstock; (5) Robbs Peak penstock—a steel penstock that is from 9.75 to 8.5 feet in 

diameter extending 0.4 mile from Robbs Peak tunnel to Robbs Peak powerhouse; 

(6) Robbs Peak powerhouse—located on the northeast shore of Union Valley reservoir; 

and (7) Robbs Peak-Union Valley transmission line—an overhead 69-kV line that 

extends 6.8 miles to connect the Robbs Peak switchyard to the Union Valley 

switchyard. This development is located on both private and public land within the 

boundary of the Eldorado National Forest. 

Jones Fork 

The Jones Fork development consists of: (1) Ice House dam—a rockfill dam 

located on the South Fork of Silver Creek (SFSC) that is 150 feet high and 0.3 mile long 

incorporating a concrete ogee spillway with radial gates, and two auxiliary earthfill 

dikes impounding the Ice House reservoir; (2) Jones Fork tunnel—a horseshoe concrete 

and steel-lined tunnel that is 8 feet in diameter and extends 0.3 mile from Ice House 

reservoir to the Jones Fork penstock; (3) Jones Fork penstock—a steel and concrete 

penstock that is 6 feet in diameter and extends 1.6 miles from Jones Fork tunnel to the 
2-3 

Jones Fork powerhouse; (4) Jones Fork powerhouse on the southeast shore of Union 

Valley reservoir; and (5) Jones Fork-Union Valley transmission line—a 69 kV overhead 

transmission line that extends 4.0 miles from the Jones Fork switchyard to the Union 

Valley switchyard. The Jones Fork powerhouse is located on public land within the 

boundary of the Eldorado National Forest. The Jones Fork tunnel and the Jones Fork 

penstock are on both private and public land within the Eldorado National Forest. 

Union Valley 

The Union Valley development consists of: (1) Union Valley dam—an earthfill 

dam located on Silver Creek that is 453 high and 0.3 mile long, incorporating a concrete 

ogee spillway with radial gates, creating Union Valley reservoir; (2) Union Valley 

tunnel—a concrete-lined tunnel that is 11 feet in diameter with a steel penstock 

approximately 10 feet in diameter in part of the tunnel and extending 268 feet to 

connect the Union Valley reservoir with Union Valley powerhouse; (3) Union Valley 

penstock—a steel penstock that is 10 feet in diameter and extends 0.3 mile to convey 

water from the outlet of the Union Valley tunnel to the Union Valley powerhouse; 

(4) Union Valley powerhouse, located at the base of Union Valley dam; and 

(5) transmission lines—two 230-kV overhead transmission lines, one extending 

11.8 miles to the Camino switchyard via the Union Valley-Camino transmission line 

and the other extending 5.9 miles to the Jaybird switchyard via the Union ValleyJaybird transmission line. This development is located on both public and private land 

within the boundary of the Eldorado National Forest. 

Jaybird 

The Jaybird development consists of: (1) Junction dam—a double curvature, 

concrete overflow arch dam located on Silver Creek that is 525 feet long and 168 feet 

high, creating Junction reservoir; (2) Jaybird tunnel—a modified horseshoe tunnel that 

is 11 to 14 feet in diameter and extends 4.4 miles connecting Junction reservoir and the 

Jaybird penstock; (3) Jaybird penstock—a steel penstock 6 to 10 feet in diameter that is 

0.5 mile long with a surge tank, connecting Jaybird tunnel and Jaybird powerhouse; 

(4) Jaybird powerhouse; and (5) Jaybird-White Rock transmission line—a 230-kV 

overhead transmission line that extends 15.9 miles to connect the Jaybird and White 

Rock switchyards. This development is located on both private and public land within 

the boundary of the Eldorado National Forest. 

Camino 

The Camino development consists of: (1) Camino dam—a concrete double 

curvature arch dam on Silver Creek that is 133 feet high and 470 feet long that has three 

integral bulkhead gates, creating the Camino reservoir; (2) Camino tunnel—a power 

tunnel with a diameter ranging from 13 feet to 14 feet, including a surge tank, that 

extends 5 miles to connect the Camino reservoir with the Camino penstock; (3) Brush 

Creek dam—a double curvature arch dam located on Brush Creek that is 213 feet high 
2-4 

and 780 feet long, creating Brush Creek reservoir; (4) Brush Creek tunnel—a modified 

horseshoe tunnel, about 14 feet in diameter extending 0.8 mile from Brush Creek 

reservoir to the lower end of Camino tunnel; (5) Camino penstock—an above-ground 

steel penstock that is 5 to 12 feet in diameter extending 0.3 mile to connect the Camino 

tunnel and Camino powerhouse; (7) Camino powerhouse, located on the SFAR; and 

(8) transmission lines—two 230-kV overhead transmission lines originating at the 

Camino switchyard, the Camino-Lake transmission line extends 31.7 miles and 

connects to SMUD’s Lake substation and the Camino-White Rock transmission line 

extends 10.0 miles and connects to the White Rock switchyard. All the facilities in this 

development are located on public land within the Eldorado National Forest. 

Slab Creek/White Rock 

The Slab Creek/White Rock development consists of: (1) Slab Creek dam—a 

double curvature variable radius concrete arch dam that stretches across the SFAR that 

is 250 feet high and 817 feet long, with a central uncontrolled overflow spillway, 

creating the Slab Creek reservoir; (2) Slab Creek penstock—a steel penstock that is 

24 inches in diameter that extend 40 feet and passes through the dam to connect Slab 

Creek reservoir with Slab Creek powerhouse; (3) Slab Creek powerhouse—located at 

the base of Slab Creek dam that uses minimum stream flow releases; (4) White Rock 

tunnel—a modified horseshoe tunnel that is 20 to 24 feet in diameter, with a surge shaft, 

that extends 4.9 miles to connect Slab Creek reservoir with White Rock penstock; 

(5) White Rock penstock—an above-ground steel penstock that is 9 to 15 feet in 

diameter and extends 0.3 mile to connect White Rock tunnel to White Rock 

powerhouse; (6) White Rock powerhouse; and (7) transmission lines—two 230-kV 

overhead transmission lines and one 12-kV distribution line both 21.8 miles long. The 

two transmission lines connect the White Rock switchyard to SMUD’s Folsom 

Junction. The 600-foot-long 12-kV Slab Creek tap line is 600 feet long and connects 

the Slab Creek powerhouse to the junction with PG&E's 12-kV distribution line. The 

Slab Creek/White Rock development is the most downstream Project facility (excluding 

transmission lines) and discharges into the Chili Bar reservoir, which is part of PG&E’s 

Chili Bar Project. Slab Creek reservoir is located on public and private (including 

SMUD) land within the Eldorado National Forest. The remainder of the development is 

located on private land adjacent to and beyond the western boundary of the Eldorado 

National Forest. 

Table 2-1 summarizes key characteristics of each reservoir associated with the 

project, and table 2-2 shows the characteristics of each powerhouse. For ease of 

reference and consistency, we use the terminology presented in these two tables 

throughout the EIS to discuss various locations relative to the Projects. 
2-5 

Table 2-1. Characteristics of project reservoirs. (Source: SMUD, 2005) 

Reservoir Name 

(Development Name if Different) 

Maximum Pool 

Elevation 

(feet msl) 

Normal Maximum 

Reservoir Capacity 

(acre-feet) 

Surface Area at 

Maximum Pool 

(acres) 

Rubicon (Loon Lake) 6,545 1,450 108 

Buck Island (Loon Lake) 6,436 1,070 78 

Loon Lake 6,410 76,200 1,450 

Gerle Creek (Robbs Peak) 5,231 1,260 60 

Robbs Peak 5,231 30 2 

Ice House (Jones Fork) 5,450 45,960 678 

Union Valley 4,870 277,290 2,860 

Junction (Jaybird) 4,450 3,250 64 

Camino 2,915 825 20 

Brush Creek (Camino) 2,915 1,530 20 

Slab Creek 1,850 16,600 280 

Table 2-2. Characteristics of project powerhouses. (Source: SMUD, 2005) 

Reservoir Name 

(Development Name if Different) 

Powerhouse Capacity 

(MW) 

Number of 

Units Type of Units 

Loon Lake 82 1 Vertical Pelton 

Robbs Peak 29 1 Vertical Francis 

Jones Fork 11.5 1 Vertical Francis 

Union Valley 46.7 1 Vertical Francis 

Jaybird 144 2 Vertical Pelton 

Camino 150 2 Vertical Francis 

Slab Creek 0.4 1 Vertical Francis 

White Rock 224 2 Vertical Francis 

Total 687.6 11 
2-6 

2.2.2 Current Operations 

One of the primary aspects of operational flexibility of the UARP lies in the 

ability of the project to store water seasonally. The combined 400,000 acre-feet gross 

capacity of the three storage reservoirs (Loon Lake, Ice House, and Union Valley) 

allows SMUD to manage the water, within physical, safety, and regulatory constraints, 

to generate electricity when power is most valued throughout the year. The project is 

operated generally to provide electricity during peak load situations. It is also operated 

to ensure reliability of the electric transmission system within SMUD’s control area. 

From a water management perspective, the operation of the project follows an 

annual cycle of reservoir filling and release that coincides with the natural patterns of 

rain and snowmelt runoff characteristic of the Sierra Nevada. While the project 

includes 11 reservoirs, each is used in a different way to manage the water for power 

production. Loon Lake, Ice House, and Union Valley reservoirs, accounting for 94 

percent of total UARP gross storage capacity, operate primarily as long-term storage 

reservoirs, capturing as much of the winter/spring rain and snowmelt runoff as 

practicable, consistent with various regulatory constraints. 

The two uppermost reservoirs (Rubicon and Buck Island) provide limited storage 

and are operated primarily run-of-river to capture and divert water from the Rubicon 

River and the Highland Creek drainages. No power is generated at the uppermost 

reservoir. 

Typically, from about mid-summer to winter, the elevations of the three primary 

storage reservoirs are gradually lowered to generate electricity and provide adequate 

storage space to capture winter/spring runoff and minimize the frequency and amount of 

spillage. During this period, the project is operated in a peaking mode, essentially 

following the daily demand cycle. Water is released from one or more of the storage 

reservoirs and is passed through the reservoirs as it makes its way through the series of 

downstream powerhouses (see figures 2-1 and 2-2). In winter, as rainstorms and 

snowmelt begin to increase streamflow in the basin, the process is reversed, with more 

water stored than released through the powerhouses. Thus, from winter to early 

summer, the water elevations of the storage reservoirs gradually increase. 

Five project reservoirs (Gerle Creek, Robbs Peak, Junction, Camino, and Slab 

Creek) operate primarily as re-regulating forebays and/or afterbays to the various 

powerhouses. The remaining reservoir (Brush Creek) is operated typically to provide 

either spinning reserves or maximum peaking power for system reliability purposes. 

SMUD’s water rights do not allow the storage of water in these six reservoirs. Thus, 

retention time in these reservoirs is short, and water levels are likely to fluctuate daily as 

they provide the re-regulating functions for which they were designed. 

 
2-7 

	%	0123	45

	//+!1,2	45
+ 6+!13

+,-./0+,-./+


7	8
9-	/	-

;		%	+23	45

	//+!13

+,-1

+,-0

+.222

;	

(-

+,-.



7	8


++32/23 

	%	3002,	45

	//+!13

%		


7	8
++32/2,

	

+,4+

+,5-/+

+,4.

-<	%	+20	45

	//+!1,

-	%	+2 =	45

	//+!1, +,5-/1 +,45

	%	3021	45

	//+!1=

	
	
		

	
		 +,44

+,4. ;//

	%
-$	9



	8
5	8	
++ 3,:
7	8

	$285-$2	7/	

2
-25-$2	88



	
	
		

	
		



	
 	

Figure 2-1. Diversions and storage in Rubicon River Basin. (Source: USGS, 2005; as modified by 
2-8 

+,4. ;//

	%
-$	9$8




	8
5	8	
++ 3,:
7	8

	$285-$2	7/	


2
-25-$2	887/



		%	,20	45

	//+!1 

	

	%	

+121

	45



	/

/+!10

	-		%	+2=,	45

	//+!0

$	%	3=	45

	//+!1+

<-	%	 12	45

	//+!=!

	%	3002,	45

	//+!13

++34

++35/1

++32/23

++30 ++33

++2-

++34/-

++3-

++,1/-

++,5

	 ++35/4
7	8


++.+/0

++34/-0

++.+/1

++.0

++32/2,

+,-.



7	8


	

*%	5	$%	

-
	%		

%		  
7	8


+++0

%		

($

	
7	48


	-	

+++,/23

	
	


$
7	8




7	8


	

+++,/4

	


7	8


-
	%	323+=	45

	//+!=3

Figure 2-2. Diversions and storage in South Fork of the American River Basin. (Source: USGS, 20

modified by staff) 
2-9 

Six powerhouses (Loon Lake, Jones Fork, Union Valley, Jaybird, Camino, and 

White Rock) account for 95 percent of the total UARP 688-MW maximum capability. 

These powerhouses can generally be operated flexibly, with limited constraints on flows 

and sufficient storage to meet daily peaking cycles. Of the two remaining powerhouses, 

Robbs Peak powerhouse is operated run-of-river due to the lack of storage capacity in 

the Robbs Peak development. Robbs Peak powerhouse does, however, contribute to 

peaking power capability, as Robbs Peak’s primary inflow during most of the year is the 

Loon Lake powerhouse discharge. The Slab Creek powerhouse is typically operated to 

meet baseloads and uses the continuous minimum flow from the Camino tunnel and the 

SFAR for power generation and releases into the SFAR. 

2.2.3 Existing Project Boundary 

The current project boundary encompasses all project facilities including linear 

corridors ranging from 50 to 100 feet for transmission lines and tunnels at each 

development. The current project boundary follows a contour line generally 3 feet 

above the maximum normal water surface elevation at each developed reservoir except 

at the location of project facilities and at most, but not all, project recreational facilities 

on National Forest System lands. The recreational facilities located within the project 

boundary at the Loon Lake, Gerle Creek, Union Valley, and Ice House reservoirs are 

shown on figures 3-33, 3-34, and 3-35 in section 2.2.6, Recreational Resources. 

Six campgrounds, including Gerle Creek, Pleasant, Deer Crossing, Loon Lake 

Equestrian, Jones Fork, and Big Silver are only partially within the existing project 

boundary. Several penstocks and project access roads also are not entirely within the 

existing boundary. These project facilities include the Jones Fork penstock and access 

roads at Wolf Creek, Northern Ice House, Jones Fork, and Northern Union Valley. 

2.2.4 Project Safety 

The UARP has been operating for 28 years under the existing license during 

which time Commission staff have conducted operational inspections focusing on the 

continued safety of the structures, identification of unauthorized modifications, 

efficiency and safety of operations, compliance with the terms of the license, and proper 

maintenance. In addition, the project has been inspected and evaluated every 5 years by 

an independent consultant, and a consultant's safety report has been filed for 

Commission review. As part of the relicensing process, the Commission staff would 

evaluate the adequacy of the proposed project facilities under a new license. Since 

SMUD proposes to build the Iowa Hill development, Commission staff would inspect 

the development, if licensed, both during and after construction. Special articles 

relating to safety issues would be included in any license issued, as appropriate. 

Commission staff would continue to inspect the project during the new license term to 

ensure continued adherence to Commission approved-plans and specification, special 

license articles relating to construction, operation, and maintenance, and accepted 

engineering practices and procedures. 
2-10 

2.3 CHILI BAR PROJECT 

2.3.1 Existing Project Facilities 

The Chili Bar Project is located immediately downstream of SMUD’s UARP. 

The Chili Bar Project facilities consist of a concrete gravity dam that is 126 feet high 

and 380 feet long with a dam spillway that is 170 feet long with a crest elevation of 

997.5 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum [NGVD]) located 31 feet below the crest 

of the dam; (2) a reservoir with a surface area of 110 acres and a useable storage 

capacity of 1,339 acre-feet at elevation 997.5 feet NGVD; and (3) a powerhouse that is 

80 feet square containing a single turbine unit with a normal maximum gross head of 60 

feet, a maximum hydraulic capacity of 1,979 cubic feet per second (cfs), and an 

installed capacity of 7 MW. There is no project transmission line because the 21-kV 

switchyard connects directly to the local distribution grid. 

2.3.2 Current Operations 

Because the Chili Bar Project has limited reservoir storage, PG&E can only 

manage the flow releases from SMUD’s upstream White Rock powerhouse on a daily 

basis. Typically, Chili Bar stores the releases from White Rock during off-peak hours 

and generates electricity during peak load hours. Therefore, flows downstream of the 

Chili Bar Project often fluctuate daily. Given that White Rock powerhouse has a flow 

capacity almost twice as high as Chili Bar, the Chili Bar Project often spills flow in 

excess of its generating capacity at Chili Bar dam. The Chili Bar powerhouse has semiautomatic operation and is operated from PG&E's Wise Switching Center about 

35 miles away in Auburn, California. 

2.3.3 Existing Project Boundary 

The existing project boundary includes all the land PG&E owns ranging from 

about 50 to 250 feet from either side of the river and starting about 320 feet downstream 

of the project dam to about 3.2 miles upstream of the project dam. There are no formal 

recreational facilities within the Chili Bar Project boundary; however, PG&E manages 

an informal public boat launch at the Chili Bar dam. 

2.3.4 Project Safety 

The Chili Bar Project was placed in operation in 1965 and has been operating for 

42 years under the existing license. Inspection activity is the same as described for the 

UARP in section 2.2.4. 
2-11 

2.4 SMUD'S PROPOSAL 

2.4.1 Proposed Project Facilities—Iowa Hill Development 

As part of the relicensing process, SMUD proposes to increase electrical capacity 

of the UARP by constructing the Iowa Hill development, which would operate as a 

pumped storage facility (figures 2-3 and 2-4). 

The Iowa Hill development, as proposed, would be an off-stream pumped 

storage project that makes use of the existing UARP Slab Creek reservoir as a lower 

reservoir and a new upper reservoir atop Iowa Hill (figure 1-1). The difference in 

elevation between the two reservoirs would be about 1,200 feet, providing the capability 

of the development to generate a nominal 400 MW of electricity. Under the proposed 

layout, the reservoirs would connect through an underground powerhouse and tunnel 

system. 

While SMUD considered alternative reservoir sizes and locations, the upper 

reservoir as proposed would cover a surface area of about 100 acres atop Iowa Hill and 

would hold about 6,400 acre-feet. The upper reservoir would be created by the 

construction of a berm atop Iowa Hill. SMUD proposes to construct the berm for the 

upper reservoir from crushed rock from the tunneling operation, earth from the upper 

reservoir basin, a clay or high-density polyethylene liner to prevent leakage, and 

appropriate revetment/rock where needed to minimize bank erosion. During 

construction of the upper reservoir, SMUD proposes to balance the excavation and fill 

requirements of the total development eliminating any need for permanent spoil 

disposal areas at the upper reservoir. Before construction is completed, all temporary 

spoil would be eliminated by incorporation into the upper reservoir dikes, and the area 

would be landscaped. 

The proposed underground powerhouse would house three, equally sized, 

variable-speed pump/turbine units with a rated capacity of 400 MW. Variable speed 

units possess a number of advantages over conventional synchronous speed units, 

including: (1) lower system disturbance from pumping starts, (2) the ability to operate 

at part load during pumping mode, (3) use for regulation while in pumping mode, and 

(4) flexibility to lower overall system costs. 

SMUD proposes to construct a multi-port (i.e., octagonal) intake, at 

approximately 1,770 feet, 80 feet below the Slab Creek reservoir maximum water level 

elevation of 1,850 feet. The intake would be 15 feet high. To construct the octagonal 

intake, a steel cofferdam would be floated-in and sunk in place. 
2-12 

,2+,232!3232032132=32 32,32332+32+2!+2+20+21

*$	
>+2=

<
?'-


	-
-	

	
4748	-	(-


7	-



5


	
4	
5


	
4/48	-	(-

5

#88	@$
(85

&$$


%/

 &>,2	













<
?'-


	-
-	

	%	

$&>32! 

&@
/;	-

<$8	$

 

Figure 2-3. Schematic of the proposed Iowa Hill pumped storage operation. (Source: SMUD, 2005, a

modified by staff) 
2-13 

 3 



&
	A
-	

 

,

3

+

(	$



&&&'<

&>32! 

<
?'-


	-
-	

&>,2

7
	

	
4/48	-	

	/	- (- 
7	-



5


"7

"7

&@
/8
	

	#9@
/:

#&&B97		%	:





	/#	5	'	/





	/#	5	'	/





	-(		'55#	




&C-8$

//?7#	

6 6*#

.(-

7
	-	(-

<
?'-


	-
-	



#	

<7  

Figure 2-4. Plan view of the Iowa Hill development. (Source: SMUD, 2005, as modified by staff) 
2-14 

Carson Road to Cable Road to Iowa Hill Road would provide the primary access 

to the upper reservoir site off of U.S. Highway 50. SMUD would improve the 

serviceability of 4 miles of the existing Cable Road from the end of the paved portion of 

Cable Road to the upper reservoir site. SMUD would either provide an unimproved 

gravel road or pave the 4 miles of existing roadway to be improved. The existing road 

would not be widened. About 1,200 feet of Carson Road would be included in the 

proposed project boundary for the Iowa Hill development. Wide places in the existing 

road would be improved along with the rest of the road and would function as passing 

turnouts. Once constructed, the upper reservoir would be fenced, locked, and 

unavailable for public recreation. 

Carson Road to Larsen Drive would provide the primary access to the lower 

reservoir site off U.S. Highway 50 to the Slab Creek reservoir access road. The location 

of the project facilities to be constructed at the lower reservoir is at the end of the 

existing 2-mile-long Slab Creek reservoir access road. SMUD constructed the first 

1.1 miles of the existing road, starting from North Canyon Road going to a point near 

the dam, as a gravel road to provide access for dam construction and operation and 

maintenance access to the existing Slab Creek reservoir. The remaining 0.9 mile of the 

existing access road, starting from near the dam and heading east, was originally 

constructed as a 10-foot-wide road and currently provides access to the existing, semideveloped boat launch site. This segment of road, which would be included in the 

project boundary, would be widened by 2 feet and paved. During construction, the 

excavated rock and soil from the powerhouse, tunnel, and shaft would be transported to 

the upper reservoir site to be used for berm construction of the upper reservoir. Large 

dump trucks would be used to transport the excavated rock from the main access tunnel 

for the powerhouse to the upper reservoir site. The transportation route would likely be 

along the following route starting from the main access tunnel site: Slab Creek 

reservoir access road, North Canyon Road, Larson Drive, Carson Road, Cable Road, 

and concluding at the upper reservoir site at Iowa Hill. 

The electrical power output would be carried by the existing three, 230-kV 

transmission lines that move power from the UARP to SMUD’s load center. The only 

new transmission line would be a generation tie-line about 2 miles long that would tie 

the Iowa Hill development into the UARP system by looping the Camino/White Rock 

circuit through the development switchyard. This same tie-line would also be used for 

the development when it is operated in the pumping mode. The tie-line would start at 

the proposed switchyard, to be located on the bank of Slab Creek reservoir in the area 

near the intake, and then come up out the SFAR canyon. Then from there, the tie-line 

would head toward the existing UARP transmission corridor, which passes by the 

development to the south and southeast. The total distance of the tie-line would be 

between about 1.25 to 2.5 miles, depending on which route is ultimately selected. 

Five preliminary transmission tie-line alternative routes are under consideration. 

There are two options for getting power from the Iowa Hill development switchyard, 

which is in the Slab Creek reservoir canyon, up and over Iowa Hill, which is 1,000-
2-15 

1,200 feet higher in elevation: (1) spanning across the reservoir from the switchyard to 

a mid-point on the west bank of the canyon, and then back across the canyon in an east, 

southeast, south, or southwest direction to get up and over Iowa Hill; or (2) a 

transmission right-of-way up the south bank of the canyon, up the side of Iowa Hill, to 

the top. Once out of the canyon, various options exist to connect with the existing 

UARP transmission line. 

Figure 2-4 shows a plan view of the proposed Iowa Hill development. 

2.4.2 Proposed Operations 

Slab Creek reservoir, the lower reservoir of the Iowa Hill development, is 

currently operated as a re-regulating afterbay/forebay. The reservoir serves as an 

afterbay to the Camino powerhouse and a forebay for the White Rock powerhouse. The 

reservoir currently receives water from Camino powerhouse and inflow from the SFAR. 

Because of this re-regulating mode of operation, water levels in the reservoir may 

fluctuate daily with changing volumes of inflow and powerhouse flow. Typical weekly 

fluctuation is no more than 30 feet, ranging between the operation pool levels of 

1,820 feet and 1,850 feet. 

In the pumping mode for a 400-MW powerhouse, the estimated discharge 

capacity of the tunnels (i.e., rate of withdrawal from Slab Creek Reservoir) would range 

between 3,600 and 4,200 cfs and in the generating mode the discharge capacity of the 

tunnel (i.e., rate of release to Slab Creek Reservoir) would range between 4,800 and 

5,200 cfs. The “rated” condition is based on the need to be capable of delivering 400 

MW in the generating mode under adverse conditions (i.e., when the upper reservoir is 

nearly empty and the lower reservoir is near its normal maximum elevation of 1,850 

feet). 

Early evaluations of the Iowa Hill development indicated small changes to the 

current levels of fluctuation of Slab Creek reservoir. For example, if the Slab Creek 

reservoir is at elevation 1,830 feet, a release of 5,200 cfs would increase the reservoir 

elevation by about 2 feet per hour. Thus, with minimal change in the pattern of 

reservoir elevation, there should be no increased incidence of spill at the dam, no effect 

on the ability to release minimum flows into the Slab Creek dam bypassed reach, and no 

change in the volume of water released through the White Rock powerhouse. 
2-16 

2.4.3 Proposed Environmental Measures under the Settlement Agreement 

SMUD proposes a comprehensive set of measures covering the full range of 

resources in the Upper American River Basin. Table 2-3 summarizes those proposed 

measures under the Settlement Agreement.18 

Table 2-3. Proposed environmental measures for the UARP under the Settlement 

Agreement. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Article Measure Elements 

Measures Specific to the Upper American River Project 

1-1 Minimum Streamflows Maintain minimum streamflows in Rubicon River below 

Rubicon dam, Little Rubicon River below the Buck Island dam, 

Gerle Creek Below Loon Lake dam, Gerle Creek below Gerle 

dam, SFSC below Ice House dam, Silver Creek below Junction 

dam, Silver Creek below Camino dam, Brush Creek below 

Brush Creek dam, SFAR below Slab Creek dam, and SFAR 

within 3 days of determining base water year types and 

operations consistent with California Department of Water 

Resources (DWR) Bulletin 120 forecast each February through 

May until 2 days after issuance of a subsequent monthly 

forecast. 

Specific minimum flow schedules for each river reach, the 

specific factors to be applied to each river reach, and the 

compliance points for measuring minimum streamflows are 

provided in section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources.

19

 

18The precise wording of the measure summaries in this table differs from the 

specific language of the Settlement Agreement. Individual measures (Proposed Articles 

in the Settlement Agreement) include programmatic elements for scheduling and 

developing plans, monitoring, evaluation, and reporting that are not listed in this table. 

Characterizations of these measures are primarily the result of our attempt to provide a 

concise summary of the measures for this draft EIS and are not intended to modify any 

of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

19Definitions of Critical Dry (CD), Dry, Below Normal (BN), Above Normal 

(AN), and Wet water year types are also provided in section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources. 
2-17 

Article Measure Elements 

1-2 Pulse Flows Provide annual pulse flow events beginning as early as 

reasonably practicable within 3 months after license issuance, 

but not prior to the implementation of the new minimum 

streamflows, in Rubicon River below Rubicon River dam, Gerle 

Creek below Loon Lake dam, and SFSC below Ice House dam. 

Specified pulse flows do not need to be implemented in water 

years where natural spill provides flows of equivalent magnitude 

and duration during spring snowmelt runoff or a natural storm 

event that occurs in the months of January through May in each 

of the specified watersheds. 

 Rubicon River Below Rubicon Dam 

Provide a pulse flow of 600 cfs for 3 days that coincides with 

winter storm events or spring snowmelt runoff in the Rubicon 

River watershed during below normal (BN), above normal (AN), 

and Wet water years if a natural spill of 3,600 acre-feet or more 

within 3 consecutive days does not occur. Implement the 

specified pulse flow using the existing flashboards at the 

Rubicon tunnel headworks and either meet annually or develop a 

tunnel gate operation plan for future pulse flows. 

 Gerle Creek Below Loon Lake Dam 

Schedule pulse flows to coincide with spring snowmelt runoff as 

specified based on month and water year type as follows: 

 BN AN Wet 

Day 1 125 200 600 

Day 2 125 200 600 

Day 3 180 250 740* 

Day 4 125 200 600 

Day 5 125 200 600 

*or maximum capacity of outlet works, 

whichever is less. 
2-18 

Article Measure Elements 

 Complete a sensitive site investigation that includes additional 

permanent cross-sections that characterize the upper and middle 

Rosgen20 Level 3 analysis reaches, and mapping unstable banks 

and downed logs that are obstructing streamflow and test pulse 

flows at levels up to 740 cfs, or the maximum capacity of the 

outlet works, to determine the appropriate pulse flows to meet 

desired channel conditions. 

 SFSC Below Ice House Dam 

Schedule pulse flows to coincide with spring snowmelt runoff as 

specified based on month and water year type, below. 

 BN AN Wet 

Day 1 450 550 600 

Day 2 450 550 600 

Day 3 550 650 780*

Day 4 450 550 600 

Day 5 450 550 600 

*or maximum capacity of outlet works, 

whichever is less. 

 Pulse flows may be timed to coincide with winter storm events 

between December 15 and April 10. Base pulse flows 

implemented during this period on the prior water year type, and 

regardless of water year type revisions after the event. 

1-3 Ramping Rates Use a ramping rate of 1 foot per hour for pulse flow releases in 

Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam and SFSC below Ice House 

dam; minimum streamflow releases in Silver Creek below 

Junction dam, Silver Creek below Camino dam, and SFAR 

below Slab Creek dam; and recreational streamflow releases in 

SFSC below Ice House dam and SFAR below Slab Creek dam.

1-4 Coordinated 

Operations 

Develop and implement a plan to coordinate operations with the 

licensee of the Chili Bar Project to comply with the minimum 

streamflows, pulse flows, ramping rates, and recreational 

streamflows for both Projects. 

 

20This is a classification system developed by Dave Rosgen and described in 

Applied River Morphology (Rosgen, 1996). 
2-19 

Article Measure Elements 

1-5 Monitoring Program General Monitoring Program Requirements 

Monitoring plans for items (11) recreation survey, (14) heritage 

resources, (15) review of recreational developments, and (16) 

reservoir level evaluation are described in Proposed Articles 1-

16, Recreation Survey, 1-29, Heritage Resource Discover, 1-18, 

Review of Recreation Developments, and 1-26, Fish Stocking). 

1. Fish Population Develop a plan to (a) monitor rainbow trout fish populations by 

electrofishing and/or snorkeling during late summer/fall in 10 

river reaches; (b) monitor hardhead by snorkel surveys in SFAR 

below Slab Creek dam reach, only, from immediately 

downstream of Mosquito Road Bridge to, and including site 

SCD-F2; and (c) monitor brown trout in the Gerle Creek below 

Loon Lake dam reach. 

2. Aquatic Benthic 

Macroinvertebrate 

Monitoring 

Develop a plan to conduct aquatic benthic macroinvertebrate 

monitoring at: Rubicon river below Rubicon dam, Gerle Creek 

below Loon Lake dam, Gerle Creek below Gerle dam, SFFR 

below Robbs Peak dam, SFSC below Ice House dam, Silver 

Creek below Junction dam, Silver Creek below Camino dam, 

and SFAR below Slab Creek dam. 

3. Amphibian and 

Reptile Monitoring 

Develop a plan to (a) monitor the foothill yellow-legged frog in 

Silver Creek below Junction dam, Silver Creek below Camino 

dam, SFAR below Slab Creek dam, and Rock Creek (tributary 

upstream of White Rock powerhouse), and (b) monitor the 

mountain yellow-legged frog in Rubicon reservoir, Rockland 

lake, and Buck Island reservoir. 

4. Foothill Yellowlegged Frog Flow 

Fluctuation Monitoring 

Develop a plan to conduct visual surveys for the foothill yellowlegged frog in Silver Creek below Camino dam in June through 

September when streamflows are 100 cfs or less and flows 

fluctuate more than 40 cfs or more over 1 week's time.

5. Riparian Vegetation 

Monitoring 

Develop a plan to conduct aerial photo flights and Greenline 

method at the 15 intensive field study sites, and collect data to 

document species composition, percent cover, and length and 

width of riparian community. 

6. Algal Species 

Identification and 

Monitoring 

Develop a plan to collect, identify, and archive samples of the 

species of algae in Silver Creek below Junction dam and 

additional baseline samples in SFRR below Robbs Peak dam, 

Silver Creek below Camino dam, and SFAR below Slab Creek 

dam, and add additional sites or reaches if it is determined that 

the algal species have negative effects on the aquatic ecosystem.
2-20 

Article Measure Elements 

7. Geomorphology, 

Sensitive Site 

Investigation and 

Mitigation 

Complete a detailed field investigation of Gerle Creek fluvial, 

geomorphic properties below Loon Lake dam at LL-DG1 and 

LL-G2 in years 1 and 2 and develop a Gerle Creek 

Geomorphology Mitigation Plan that includes channel 

stabilization recommendations. 

8. Geomorphology, 

Continuing Evaluation 

Develop a geomorphology continuing evaluation of 

representative channel areas monitoring plan providing for 

establishing permanent transects and monitoring channel crosssections, longitudinal profiles, substrate composition, and other 

geomorphic properties (Rosgen Level 3) in representative areas, 

including in the Rubicon River below Rubicon dam, Gerle Creek 

below Loon Lake dam, SFRR below Robbs Peak dam, SFSC 

below Ice House dam, Silver Creek below Camino dam, and 

SFAR below Slab Creek dam. 

9. Water Temperature Develop a water temperature monitoring plan to install and 

maintain continuous recording devices as soon as weather and 

flow conditions allow at 17 locations immediately above and 

below project dams and at the confluence with tributaries and 

monitor stream temperatures from March 15 to September 30 in 

all years or until it can demonstrated that operation of the project 

reasonably protects the "cold freshwater" beneficial use as 

determined by the Agencies.21

10. Water Quality Develop a water quality monitoring plan addressing the water 

quality monitoring elements listed below, field sampling 

locations, sampling frequency, handling methods, quality 

assurance/quality control methods, and define the laboratory 

analyses and associated method detection limits for all 

constituents and parameters to be monitored in the monitoring 

program. 

 Water Chemistry Monitoring—Conduct a water chemistry 

sampling program using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) standard methods of analysis for parameters (pH, water 

temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), specific conductance and 

turbidity) designed to demonstrate seasonal conditions at all 

reservoir and stream locations described in the UARP 

relicensing Water Quality Study Plan (Plenary approval, January 

8, 2003). 

 

21The Agencies include CDFG, the Forest Service, FWS, and the Water Board. 
2-21 

Article Measure Elements 

 Bacterial Monitoring—Conduct bacterial monitoring consistent 

with Basin Plan objectives for protection of the REC-1 

beneficial uses annually, at a minimum of 15 shoreline 

recreational locations within the project boundary that have 

swimming and other water contact recreational activities in the 

area and sources for potential introduction of pathogens to the 

water column in the immediate vicinity for the first 5 years after 

license issuance. 

 Metals Bioaccumulation Monitoring—Collect resident fish 

tissue samples from Loon Lake, Gerle, Ice House, Union Valley, 

Camino, and Slab Creek reservoirs to analyze for rates of 

bioaccumulation and tissue residue levels of mercury, copper, 

lead, and silver using target fish species, numbers of individuals, 

sampling strategy, and analytical methods that are consistent 

with current Surface Water Ambient Monitoring.

12. Robbs Peak 

Powerhouse Entrainment 

Develop a monitoring plan to determine when and at what flows 

flow fish migration is occurring, and if fish are being entrained. 

13. Terrestrial Wildlife 

Monitoring 

Develop a bear management monitoring plan and a bald eagle 

monitoring plan. 

1-6 Adaptive Management 

Program 

General Adaptive Management Program Requirements—

Implement an Ecological Resources Adaptive Management 

Program as early as reasonably practicable within 3 months 

after license issuance generally consisting of implementation of 

a monitoring program (Proposed Article 1-5, Monitoring 

Program), and specific adaptive management measures. 

Conduct monitoring to determine if the applicable ecological 

resource objectives are achievable and being met. Implement 

adaptive management if the monitoring program and other 

scientific information indicate that it is likely the applicable 

ecological resource objectives identified in the Rationale Report 

(CDFG, 2007) will not be met without adaptive management 

changes. Adaptive measures include (1) cancellation of pulse 

and recreational streamflows in SFSC if water temperatures at 

SFSC rise above 12 degrees Celsius (oC) mean daily temperature 

for a 7-day running average, (2) cancellation of recreational 

streamflows in SFAR due to water temperatures, (3) control of 

untimely spill events below Slab Creek and Camino dams, 

(4) cancellation of October recreational streamflows below Slab 

Creek dam if amphibian monitoring show unacceptable impacts; 

(5) measures to address fish entrainment in the SFRR if 

monitoring indicates fish are being entrained during fish 

migration, (6) placement of sediment downstream or dredging 

based on geomorphology monitoring, (7) management of algae 

growth in Silver Creek below Junction dam if the new 
2-22 

Article Measure Elements 

streamflow regime does not reduce algae growth, 

(8) performance of additional studies if results of monitoring 

metals bioaccumulation suggest that metals are adversely 

affecting aquatic species; (9) adjustment of water temperature 

indicator for the foothill yellow-legged frog, (10) additional 

measures to reduce bear/human interactions if monitoring 

indicates that such interactions have not declined, and 

(11) investigation of other measures if annual review of 

coordinated operations shows they are not effective. 

1-7 Gerle Creek Channel 

Stabilization 

Develop and implement a stabilization plan for the Gerle Creek 

channel below Loon Lake dam. 

1-8 Gerle Creek Fish 

Passage 

Maintain Gerle Creek reservoir at an elevation that provides fish 

passage into Gerle Creek from August through October 31. 

1-9 Large Woody Debris Ensure that mobile, instream large woody debris greater than 

20 centimeters wide and 12 meters long continues to move 

downstream beyond Robbs, Junction, Camino, and Slab Creek 

dams. 

1-10 Streamflow and 

Reservoir Elevation 

Gaging 

Develop and file a Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation Gaging 

Plan that meets U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) standards and 

includes a minimum of 10 streamflow gage locations, 9 reservoir 

elevation compliance gaging locations, and provides for simple 

staff gages at the Slab Creek and Ice House recreational boating 

put-ins and the installation of telemetry equipment if such 

equipment is economically and technologically feasible, and can 

be installed in a manner consistent with the laws, regulations, 

and policies applicable to the Congressionally designated 

Desolation Wilderness. 

1-11 Canal and Penstock 

Emergency and 

Maintenance Release 

Points 

Develop and implement a plan to evaluate canal and penstock 

emergency and maintenance release points to determine if 

improvements can be made to minimize potential adverse water 

quality impacts when the release points are used. 

1-12 Wildlife and Plant 

Protection Measures 

(1) Project Canals and Wildlife—Maintain and operate in 

working condition all devices and measures for wildlife 

protection along project canals; provide an annual report of deer 

or other wildlife found in project canals; and, should wildlife 

mortality exceed three individuals, develop and implement a 

wildlife exclusion plan. 
2-23 

Article Measure Elements 

 (2) Future Need for Biological Evaluation/Assessment—

Before commencing any new construction or maintenance 

(including but not limited to proposed recreational 

developments), on National Forest System lands that may affect 

state or federally listed sensitive plant or wildlife species or its 

habitat, ensure that a biological evaluation (including necessary 

surveys) for Forest Service approval, and for any activity that 

might affect a species proposed or listed under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), or its critical habitat, is prepared for the 

relevant federal agency (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS] 

or National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]). 

 (3) Sensitive Plants—Immediately notify agencies if 

occurrences of sensitive plants or wildlife species are detected 

prior to or during ongoing construction, operation, or 

maintenance of the project. If Forest Service, California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), or FWS determines that 

the project-related activities are adversely affecting the sensitive 

species, then develop and implement appropriate protection 

measures. 

 (4) TES and Special Status Species Review—Annually review 

the current list of special status plant and wildlife species 

(federal ESA or Eldorado National Forest Watch List) and if 

species are added, determine if the species or unsurveyed habitat 

for the species might occur on National Forest Systems lands 

and if so, develop and implement a study plan to assess the 

effects of the project on the species. 

 (5) Pine Hill Rare Plant Preserve—Consult with BLM, FWS, 

and CDFG prior to undertaking maintenance under transmission 

lines within the Pine Hill Rare Plant Preserve. 

 (6) Avian Protection—Develop and implement an avian 

protection plan that addresses retrofitting transmission lines as 

described in the Bird-Powerline Associations Technical Report 

to meet the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

design and siting standards 

1-13 Vegetation and Invasive 

Weed Management 

Invasive Weed Management—Develop and file an invasive 

weed management plan that provides for inventory and mapping 

of new populations and actions and/or strategies to prevent and 

control known populations or introductions of new populations. 
2-24 

Article Measure Elements 

 Vegetation Management—Develop and implement a 

vegetation management plan that addresses hazard tree removal 

and trimming; transmission line clearing; habitat improvement; 

revegetation of disturbed sites; soil protection and erosion 

control; revegetation with culturally important plant populations; 

and use of clean, weed free, and preferably locally collected 

seed. 

1-14 Annual Review of 

Ecological Conditions 

Annually schedule and facilitate a meeting with the Agencies to 

review and discuss the results of implementing license 

conditions and other issues related to preserving and protecting 

the ecological values affected by the project and provide, 2 

weeks prior to the meeting, an operations and maintenance plan 

for the year. 

1-15 Recreation 

Implementation Plan 

Develop and implement a recreation implementation plan 

including a construction schedule for the recreational facilities 

specified in Proposed Article 1-19, Specific Recreation 

Measures, and other issues including but not limited to signing 

and sign placement, dissemination of public information, and a 

schedule for the design of facilities to be reconstructed. 

1-16 Recreation Survey Conduct a recreational survey and prepare a report on 

recreational resources every 6 years from the date of license 

issuance, including, but not limited to, changes in use and use 

patterns, levels of use, user preferences, kinds and sizes of 

recreational vehicles, carrying capacity information sufficient to 

indicate change in capacity, and recreational user trends in the 

project area. 

1-17 Forest Service Liaison Provide an individual for liaison with the Forest Service 

whenever planning or construction of recreational facilities or 

other project improvements and maintenance activities are 

taking place within the Eldorado National Forest. 

1-18 Review of Recreation 

Developments and 

Facilities within the 

Project Boundary 

Schedule a meeting with the Forest Service every 6 years to 

review all project recreational facilities described in Proposed 

Articles 1-18, Review of Recreation Developments, and 1-19, 

Specific Recreation Measures, and to agree upon the need and 

timing for maintenance, rehabilitation, construction, and 

reconstruction work. Keep or include project recreational 

facilities within the project boundary as shown in Attachment 1, 

and include the listed 34 recreational facilities constructed or 

reconstructed by SMUD in the future within the project 

boundary. 
2-25 

Article Measure Elements 

1-19 Specific Recreation 

Measures 

Complete the construction, reconstruction, and restoration to 

meet current Forest Service design standards and the 

requirements of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

including all the pre-construction survey, design, permitting, 

analysis, and specifications for the initial recreational projects 

identified at the time of license issuance, including Buck Island 

development; High Country are trails; formal recreational 

facilities in Crystal Basin at Loon Lake, Gerle Creek, Union 

Valley, and Ice House reservoirs; recreational facilities in the 

Canyonlands at Junction, Brush Creek, and Slab Creek 

reservoirs; and developing and implementing a plan to install 

bear-proof food storage lockers and bear-proof trash receptacles 

at all recreational facilities identified as lacking such facilities 

The specific sites and elements at each site are described in 

detail in table 3-65 in section 3.3.6, Recreational Resources. 

1-20 Heavy Maintenance Maintain, rehabilitate, and reconstruct, including the costs of 

design and administration, project recreational facilities as 

determined through the Review of Recreation Developments. 

1-21 Recreation, Operation, 

Maintenance, and 

Administration 

Beginning in the first full year after license issuance, pay the 

Forest Service $1,000,000 (year 2007 cost basis and escalated 

based on the GDP-IDP22) annually for the Forest Service to 

provide for operation, maintenance, and administration of those 

developed recreational sites adjacent to or in the vicinity of 

project reservoirs and facilities listed in Proposed Article 1-18, 

Review of Recreation Developments, and 1-19, Specific 

Recreation Measures (either developed as part of the 

original/amended license or affected by operations).

1-22 Carrying Capacity on 

Lands Affected by the 

Project 

Provide data to support the Forest Service determination of 

carrying capacity on lands affected by the project, including, but 

not limited to: visitor perceptions of crowding, user perceptions 

of “desired conditions,” user preferences for amenities, capacity 

conditions at developed facilities within or affected by the 

project, and resource impacts and social experience. 

 

22GDP-IDP is the U.S. Gross Domestic Product—Implicit Price Deflator. 
2-26 

Article Measure Elements 

1-23 Reservoir Levels Beginning as early as reasonably practicable within 6 months 

after license issuance: (1) meet or exceed the end-of-month 

reservoir elevations for Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House 

reservoirs; (2) maintain water surface at as high elevations as 

possible in Gerle Creek reservoir from May 1 to September 10 

and in Slab Creek reservoir from July 1 through September 30, 

and limit daytime fluctuations to less than 6 feet (3) maintain 

seasonal reservoir levels at Junction and Brush Creek reservoirs 

within the range of levels measured between 1975 and 2000; 

(4) make every reasonable effort to maintain the water surface in 

Rubicon and Buck Island reservoir at as high as possible with 

minimum fluctuation between May 1 and September 10; 

(5) maintain an overwintering minimum pool elevation of 

6,527 feet msl in Rubicon reservoir; (6) follow procedures and 

protocols for Super Dry (SD) water years, interim modification, 

conferences on abnormal water years, and reservoir level 

monitoring and adjustments; and (7) measure compliance at the 

reservoir elevation gages as published by the USGS. The 

specific elevations are detailed in section 3.3.2.1, Water 

Quantity, Reservoir Levels

1-24 Recreation Streamflows Based on the determination of water year type, provide 

recreational streamflows (1) in the SFAR below Slab Creek in 

BN, AN, and wet water years by spilling water between 850 and 

1,500 cfs between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. for 6 days in not less 

than 3 events from March 1 through May 31 and, if conditions 

permit, one of the events will be replaced with a 3-day event on 

the Memorial Day weekend in which case the total number of 

days would be increased to 7, until the Iowa Hill development is 

constructed or 15 years and longer if specific triggers are met, 

and prepare and implement a recreation management plan to 

address the whitewater recreational needs in reach from the Slab 

Creek dam to White Rock powerhouse; and (2) in Silver Creek 

below Ice House dam from 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. from 300 

cfs to 500 cfs for 1 to 4 weekend days as determined by water 

year type and prepare and implement a recreation plan to 

determine triggers for establishing when the number of days of 

recreational streamflows could be increased. The specific 

recreation streamflow schedules are described in detail in section 

3.3.6.2, Recreational Resources, Whitewater Boating. 
2-27 

Article Measure Elements 

1-25 Public Information 

Services 

Provide (1) real-time streamflow information for 10 reaches via 

a toll-free telephone number and website and real-time reservoir 

level information for 10 reservoirs including two simple staff 

gages for use by the public at each reservoir; (2) a project 

recreation brochure/map that describes the recreational 

opportunities, facilities, rules, and responsibilities for the project 

area; and (3) an interpretive, education, and public information 

plan within 2 years.

1-26 Fish Stocking Provide up to a total of 50,000 pounds of fish per year but not 

less than 25,000 pounds of fish per year to be distributed among 

Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House reservoirs as 

determined by CDFG. 

1-27 Visual Resource 

Protection 

Meet every 5 years with the Forest Service to review 

opportunities to improve how well project facilities blend in 

with the surrounding landscape, during planning and prior to any 

new construction or maintenance of facilities that have the 

potential to affect visual resources of National Forest System 

lands (including but not limited to the recreation-related 

construction), prepare and implement a plan for the protection 

and rehabilitation of National Forest System visual resources 

affected by the project, and perform 10 specific mitigation 

measures to existing facilities to improve visual quality within 2 

to 8 years of license issuance. 

1-28 Heritage Resources Develop and implement a Historic Properties Management Plan 

(HPMP) that would be incorporated into the programmatic 

agreement (PA) by reference. 

1-29 Heritage Resource 

Discovery 

Immediately cease work and notify the Forest Service and do not 

resume work until the Forest Service provides written approval 

if, prior to or during ground disturbance or as a result of project 

operations, items of potential cultural, historical, archeological, 

or paleontological value are reported or discovered, or a known 

deposit of such items is disturbed on National Forest System 

lands and adjoining property, and perform recovery, excavation, 

and preservation of the site and its artifacts at the licensee's 

expense through provisions of an Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act permit issued by the Forest Service. 

1-30 Transportation System 

Management 

Develop and implement a transportation system management 

plan for roads on or affecting National Forest System lands 

addressing SMUD's primary responsibility for non-system roads 

and for maintenance level 1 and 2 roads and the shared levels of 

responsibility for maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads. 
2-28 

Article Measure Elements 

1-31 Trails System 

Management 

Develop and implement a trails system management plan for the 

trails that are needed for project operations and are located on or 

affect National Forest System lands, including a map developed 

based on GIS locations, showing the location of all trails 

associated with the project; the seasons and amount of use of the 

trails by SMUD, the conditions of the trails indicating 

construction or maintenance needs, and a provision for 

identifying maintenance and reconstruction needs for trails 

required for project operations every 5 years. 

1-32 Facility Management Develop and implement a facility management plan including 

(1) a map showing all project facilities, including structures on 

or affecting National Forest System or BLM lands (and 

associated water and septic systems, and other utilities); aboveand below-ground storage tanks; etc.; (2) the type and season of 

use of each structure; (3) the condition of each structure and 

planned maintenance or removal; and (4) provision for a plan 

every 5 years identifying the maintenance, reconstruction, and 

removal needs of project facilities. 

1-33 Vegetation 

Management Plan 

Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, provide to Forest 

Service, a vegetative management plan that (1) identifies and 

prioritizes all inadequately vegetated areas to be revegetated or 

rehabilitated along with an implementation schedule, (2) lists the 

plants to be used along with planting locations, methods, and 

densities, giving an emphasis to native plant species, especially 

those of cultural importance and to using seed from certified 

weed-free sources and local sources. 

1-34 Fire Management and 

Response Plan 

Develop and implement a fire prevention and response plan that 

is developed in consultation with appropriate state and local fire 

agencies and that sets forth in detail SMUD's responsibility for 

the prevention, reporting, control, and extinguishing of fires in 

the vicinity of the project resulting from project operations. 

1-35 Reservation of 

Authority under 

Section 18 

SMUD recognizes the NMFS and U.S. Department of the 

Interior (Interior) right to reserve authority to prescribe the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of fishways at the 

project, including measures to determine, ensure, or improve the 

effectiveness of such fishways. 

1-36 BLM Reservation of 

Authority under 

Section 4(e) 

Under the separate off-license Recreation Payment Agreement 

filed as appendix 6 to the Settlement Agreement for information 

purposes only, make a one-time payment to BLM of $270,000 

and annual payments of $270,000, as annually adjusted based on 

the GDP-IDP with 2007 as the base year, on or before October 1 

of each year during the term of the license and all annual 

renewals thereof. 
2-29 

Article Measure Elements 

1-37 Implementation 

Schedule 

Develop and implement an implementation plan that includes (1) 

a schedule for implementing the articles in any license issued for 

the project; (2) a schedule for filing the plans and related 

documents in Proposed Articles 1-1 through 1-50; and (3) 

documentation of consultation with the Consultation Group. 

Measures Specific to the Iowa Hill Development 

1-38 Special Use 

Authorization 

Obtain a special-use authorization from the Forest Service for 

the occupancy and use of National Forest System lands. 

1-40 Aquatic Resources 

(hardhead) 

To protect hardhead in the Slab Creek reservoir (1) monitor 

hardhead during all four seasons of the year to establish the 

locations of all life stages in Slab Creek reservoir (including 

edgewater locations) and in the water fluctuation zone upstream 

on SFAR above and below the Iowa Hill development for 

2 years prior to and 2 years after commencement of operations; 

(2) monitor edgewater temperatures of Slab Creek reservoir 

between May and September to demonstrate that temperatures in 

shallow water areas of the Slab Creek reservoir are not affecting 

hardhead distribution by pump discharge; (3) maintain at least 

12°C during the months of June (after the descending limb of the 

hydrograph), July, and August in the SFAR Slab Creek dam 

reach below Mosquito Bridge; (4) ensure that flow fluctuations 

in the SFAR below Slab Creek dam do not occur as a result of 

the Iowa Hill development; and (5) monitor hardhead to 

determine whether entrainment is occurring as a result of the 

Iowa Hill development. 

1-41 Terrestrial Resources Prior to initiating construction of the development, purchase an 

equivalent acreage of land (or a conservation easement for an 

equivalent acreage of land) to be managed as wildlife habitat 

over the term of the license to mitigate the loss of wildlife 

habitat associated with the Iowa Hill development. The Forest 

Service and CDFG would determine the in-kind value of lands 

proposed for this purpose. 

1-42 Water Quality and 

Water Pollution 

No later than 90 days before initiating ground-disturbing 

activities for construction of the Iowa Hill development, file 

with the Commission a storm water pollution prevention plan to 

describe the measures SMUD would implement to protect water 

quality and manage hazardous substances during construction of 

the Iowa Hill development, and obtain all necessary permits. 
2-30 

Article Measure Elements 

1-43 Groundwater Develop and implement a plan for managing groundwater 

inflows during construction and for groundwater monitoring and 

management once construction is completed including 

provisions for (1) a completed survey of the project area that 

would be affected by the proposed tunnel; (2) monitoring 

springs and creeks for 5 years after the tunneling operation is 

completed; (3) a method for quantifying groundwater 

encountered during tunneling boring operations; (4) a method 

for verifying is not occurring or has been minimized after tunnel 

construction; (5) identification of corrective measures if tunnel 

boring operations encounter more groundwater than predicted; 

and (6) mitigation of any and all identified impacts. 

1-44 Visual Resources Develop a design for the Iowa Hill development that meets the 

visual quality objectives (VQOs) of the Eldorado National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

1-45 Heritage Resource 

Protection 

Comply with section 106 requirements of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations, 

found at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800, prior to the 

licensee undertaking activities on National Forest System lands. 

1-46 Road Use File a road use permit for all National Forest System roads that 

would be used for construction activities for the Iowa Hill 

development. 

1-47 Spoils Disposal Obtain permitting approvals, as necessary, for discharge of 

spoils to land and avoid depositing spoils on National Forest 

System lands without prior review and approval by the Forest 

Service. 

1-48 Construction Noise Prior to undertaking construction activities affecting National 

Forest System lands, develop and implement a plan to address 

construction noise, including measures to address (1) vehicle 

idling, (2) advance notification of any material transport and 

construction activities with 0.5 mile of the tract; (3) notices for 

residents indicating the nature, timing, and duration of all 

materials transport and construction occurring with 0.5 mile for 

their residences; (4) a noise hot line telephone system for 

reporting construction noise disturbances; (5) monitoring to 

address compliance with items (1) through (4), and (6) actions to 

mitigate violations of the above measures. 

1-49 Recreation Access Plan 

for Slab Creek 

Reservoir 

Develop and implement a recreation access plan that addresses 

recreational access to the reservoir (1) during the time of 

construction of Iowa Hill reservoir and the tunnel connecting to 

Slab Creek reservoir, and (2) when Iowa Hill reservoir and 

associated powerhouse are operational. 
2-31 

Article Measure Elements 

1-50 Future Revisions to the 

Iowa Hill Development 

The Agencies and BLM reserve the right to seek modification of 

Proposed Articles 1-38 through 1-49 (related to the Iowa Hill 

development) if SMUD seeks a revision or amendment to the 

description and/or proposed operation of the Iowa Hill 

development as approved in any license for the project and such 

revision would affect resources under their jurisdiction. 

2.4.4 Project Boundary 

As part of the Proposed Action, SMUD proposes to exclude from the project 

description and Commission project boundary certain transmission line sections 

included in the current license and Commission project boundary. The excluded 

sections are (1) a 9.3-mile-long section of 230-kV line from Folsom Junction to 

Orangevale Substation; (2) a 17.8-mile-long section of 230-kV line from Folsom 

Junction to Hedge Substation; and (3) a 1.9-mile-long section of 230-kV line from 

Folsom Junction to Lake Substation. 

SMUD states that these three line sections (lines) would still exist even if the 

UARP were retired, since they are needed for system reliability. If the project were 

retired, the lines would require minor reconfiguration to provide power flow between 

the three substations as part of SMUD’s interconnected system. Therefore, we 

recommend that these three line sections be excluded in any license issued for the 

UARP. 

The Settlement Agreement includes a provision to include all of the 34 

recreational facilities that would be upgraded or otherwise improved within the project 

boundary, if they are not already included. 

2.5 PG&E'S PROPOSAL 

2.5.1 Proposed Project Facilities 

PG&E does not plan any changes to the project facilities. The project would 

continue to be operated as it has been in the past with only modifications as needed to 

complete maintenance activities. 

2.5.2 Proposed Operations 

PG&E does not plan any changes to the operation of the Chili Bar Project. The 

project would continue to be operated as it has been in the past, with only modifications 

as needed to implement any resource management measures that are adopted as 

conditions of the new license. 
2-32 

2.5.3 Proposed Environmental Measures 

PG&E proposes a comprehensive set of measures covering the full range of 

resources in the SFAR Basin. Table 2-4 summarizes those proposed measures under the 

Settlement Agreement.23 

Table 2-4. Proposed environmental measures for the Chili Bar Project under the 

Settlement Agreement. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Article Measure Elements

2-1 Minimum 

Streamflows 

Maintain minimum streamflows in the SFAR below Chili Bar 

dam provided inflow to the project is sufficient within 3 days of 

determining base water year types and operations consistent with 

the DWR Bulletin 120 forecast each February through May until 

2 days after issuance of a subsequent monthly forecast. The 

minimum streamflow schedule, the specific factors to be applied, 

and the compliance point for measuring minimum streamflows 

are provided in section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources. 

2-2 Ramping Rates Implement upramping rates for licensee-controlled streamflow 

releases of 500 cfs per hour for flows between 150 and 1,000 cfs 

and 1 foot per hour for flows between 1,000 cfs and 1,950 cfs. 

Implement downramping rates of 1 foot per hour for flows 

between 1,950 and 1,000 cfs, 500 cfs per hour for flows between 

1,000 cfs and 600 cfs and 250 cfs for flows between 600 cfs and 

150 cfs provided that inflow to the project is sufficient. 

2-3 Coordination with 

UARP License 

Develop and implement a plan to coordinate operations with the 

licensee of the UARP to enable PG&E to comply with the 

minimum streamflows, pulse flows, ramping rates, and 

recreational streamflows for both Projects. 

 

23The precise wording of the measure summaries in this table differs from the 

specific language of the Settlement Agreement. Individual measures (Proposed Articles 

in the Settlement Agreement) include programmatic elements for scheduling and 

developing plans, monitoring, evaluation, and reporting that are not listed in this table. 

Characterizations of these measures are primarily the result of our attempt to provide a 

concise summary of the measures for this draft EIS and are not intended to modify any 

of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 
2-33 

Article Measure Elements

2-4 Monitoring Program General Monitoring Program Requirements 

Implement the monitoring program in coordination with SMUD 

after license issuance and through the term of the new license 

and any annual licenses, in coordination with the Agencies. 

Monitoring may be reduced or terminated at any time if the 

relevant ecological resource objective(s) have been met or no 

changes in resource response(s) are expected. Monitoring plans 

for heritage resources would be described in the HPMP. 

File with the Commission by June 30 of each year an annual 

monitoring report fully describing the monitoring efforts and 

results of the previous calendar year. The Agencies have at least 

30 days to review and comment on the draft monitoring report 

prior to filing with the Commission. 

1. Fish Population Develop a plan to (a) monitor rainbow and brown trout fish 

populations by electrofishing and/or snorkeling at SFAR below 

Chili Bar dam and note any hardhead detected. 

2. Aquatic Benthic 

Macroinvertebrate 

Monitoring 

Develop a plan to conduct aquatic benthic macroinvertebrate 

monitoring at SFAR below Chili Bar dam 

3. Amphibian and 

Reptile Monitoring 

Develop a plan to monitor the foothill yellow-legged frog, 

western pond turtle, and California red-legged frog in the SFAR 

below Chili Bar dam (entire reach from CB-AI5 to Ponderosa 

Campground on right and left banks). 

4. Riparian Vegetation 

Monitoring 

Develop a plan to conduct aerial photo flights and Greenline 

method at the 5 intensive field study sites and collect data to 

document species composition, percent cover, and length and 

width of riparian community. 

5. Water Temperature Develop a water temperature monitoring plan to install and 

maintain continuous recording devices as soon as weather and 

flow conditions allow at 4 locations in the SFAR immediately 

below Chili Bar dam, upstream of Dutch Creek confluence, 

upstream of Camp Lotus, and upstream of Greenwood Creek and 

monitor stream temperatures from March 15 to October 15 in all 

years or until it can demonstrated that operation of the project 

reasonably protects the "cold freshwater" beneficial use as 

determined by the Agencies. 
2-34 

Article Measure Elements

6. Water Quality Develop a water quality monitoring plan addressing the water 

quality monitoring elements listed below, field sampling 

locations, sampling frequency, handling methods, quality 

assurance/quality control methods, and define the laboratory 

analyses and associated method detection limits for all 

constituents and parameters to be monitored in the monitoring 

program. 

 Water Chemistry Monitoring—Conduct a water chemistry 

sampling program using EPA standard methods of analysis for 

parameters (pH, water temperature, DO, specific conductance 

and turbidity) designed to demonstrate seasonal conditions at all 

reservoir and stream locations described in the Project No. 

2101/2155 relicensing Water Quality Study Plan (Plenary 

approval, January 8, 2003). 

 Bacterial Monitoring—Conduct bacterial monitoring consistent 

with Basin Plan objectives for protection of the REC-1 beneficial 

uses annually, at a minimum of 8 shoreline recreational locations 

within the project boundary that have swimming and other water 

contact recreational activities in the area and sources for potential 

introduction of pathogens to the water column in the immediate 

vicinity for the first 5 years after license issuance. Continue 

annual monitoring if data demonstrates bacterial concentrations 

present risks to human health at specific reservoir(s) or riverine 

sites, through the life of the license. 

 Metals Bioaccumulation Monitoring—Collect resident fish 

tissue samples from Chili Bar reservoirs to analyze for rates of 

bioaccumulation and tissue residue levels of mercury, copper, 

lead, and silver using target fish species, numbers of individuals, 

sampling strategy, and analytical methods that are consistent 

with current Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. 

 Algae Monitoring—Monitor for didymosphenia genimata in 

conjunction with the annual water quality monitoring in the 

SFAR downstream of Chili Bar dam. 
2-35 

Article Measure Elements

2-5 Adaptive 

Management 

Program 

Implement in coordination with SMUD an adaptive management 

program as early as reasonably practicable within 3 months after 

license issuance generally consisting of implementation of a 

monitoring program (Proposed Article 2-5, Adaptive 

Management Program), and specific adaptive management 

measures. Conduct monitoring to determine if the applicable 

ecological resource objectives are achievable and being met. 

Implement adaptive management if the monitoring program and 

other scientific information indicate that it is likely the applicable 

ecological resource objectives identified in the Rationale Report 

(CDFG, 2007), will not be met without adaptive management 

changes. Annually review the coordinated operations and 

determine the need for placement of sediment downstream or 

dredging based on geomorphology monitoring (Proposed Article 

2-6, Sediment Management Plan) 

2-6 Sediment 

Management Plan 

Develop a geomorphology monitoring plan in coordination with 

SMUD include be profile measurements at three cross-sectional 

transects, longitudinal profiles, substrate composition, and other 

geomorphic properties three sampling sites (CB-G1, CB-G2 and 

CB-G3) to be performed every 5 years. 

2-7 Large Woody Debris Ensure, provided conditions permit safe and reasonable access 

and working conditions, that mobile instream large woody debris 

in Chili Bar reservoir, including at a minimum, all sizes greater 

than 20 centimeters wide and 12 meters in length, continues 

downstream beyond Chili Bar dam using reasonable means that 

include short-term spill flows at the dam and shall be allowed to 

continue downstream beyond the dam. 

2-8 Streamflow and 

Reservoir Elevation 

Gaging 

Develop and implement a streamflow and reservoir elevation 

gaging plan that meets USGS standards and approved by the 

Water Board at a minimum addressing compliance gaging at 

SFAR below Chili Bar dam (existing USGS gage no. 11444500 

or its successor) and in the Chili Bar reservoir 

2-9 Wildlife and Plant 

Protection Measures 

TES and Special Status Species Review—Annually review the 

current list of special status plant and wildlife species (Federal 

ESA or Eldorado National Forest Watch List) and if species are 

added, determine if the species or un-surveyed habitat for the 

species might occur on National Forest Systems lands and if so, 

develop and implement a study plan to assess the effects of the 

project on the species. 

2-10 Invasive Week and 

Vegetation 

Management Plan 

Invasive Weed Management—Develop and file an invasive 

weed management plan that provides for inventory and mapping 

of new populations and actions and/or strategies to prevent and 

control known populations or introductions of new populations. 
2-36 

Article Measure Elements

 Vegetation Management—Develop and implement a vegetation 

management plan that addresses hazard tree removal and 

trimming, transmission line clearing, habitat improvement, 

revegetation of disturbed sites, soil protection and erosion 

control, revegetation with culturally important plant populations, 

and use of clean, weed free, and preferably locally collected 

seed.

2-11 Annual Review of 

Ecological Conditions 

Annually schedule and facilitate a meeting with the Agencies and 

BLM to review and discuss the results of implementing license 

conditions and other issues related to preserving and protecting 

the ecological values affected by the project and provide, 2 

weeks prior to the meeting, an operations and maintenance plan 

for the year. 

2-12 BLM Liaison Provide an individual for liaison with the BLM whenever 

planning or construction of recreational facilities or other project 

improvements and maintenance activities are taking place on 

BLM lands with the Chili Bar Project boundary. 

2-13 BLM Recreation 

Improvements 

Construct (1) a gravel parking area for three to four vehicles off 

Rock Creek Road, (2) a 36-inch-wide trail that meets a grade of 

5 percent or less from the parking area to Chili Bar reservoir, 

(3) a kiosk sign along the trail near the beginning, explaining the 

rules of the area, and (4) one picnic table of coated wire mesh 

material will be provided in a leveled out area that is outside of 

the floodplain. 

2-14 Public Information 

Services 

Provide in coordination with the UARP licensee (1) real-time 

streamflow information for 10 reaches via a toll-free telephone 

number and website and real-time reservoir level information 

10 reservoirs including two simple staff gages for use by the 

public at each reservoir; and (2) in coordination with the UARP 

licensee pay BLM $15,000 annually for BLM to provide a 

project recreation brochure/map that describes the recreational 

opportunities, facilities, rule, and responsibilities for the project 

area; and an interpretive, education, and public information plan. 

2-15 Recreational 

Streamflows 

Based on the determination of water year type, provide 

recreational streamflows (1) in the SFAR below Chili Bar dam 

provided that inflows to the project are sufficient. The specific 

recreation streamflow schedule is described in detail in section 

3.3.6.2, Recreational Resources, Whitewater Boating.
2-37 

Article Measure Elements

2-16 Visual Resource 

Protection 

Meet every 5 years with BLM to review opportunities to improve 

how well Project facilities blend in with the surrounding 

landscape, during planning and prior to any new construction or 

maintenance of facilities that have the potential to affect visual 

resources on BLM lands (including but not limited to the 

recreation-related construction), the licensee prepare and 

implement an plan for the protection and rehabilitation of BLM 

visual resources affected by the Project. 

2-17 Heritage Resources Develop and implement an HPMP that would be incorporated 

into the PA by reference. 

2-18 Heritage Resource 

Discovery 

Immediately cease work and notify BLM and not resume work 

until BLM provides written approval if, prior to or during ground 

disturbance or as a result of Project operations, items of potential 

cultural, historical, archeological, or paleontological value are 

reported or discovered, or a known deposit of such items is 

disturbed on BLM lands and licensee adjoining property, and 

perform recovery, excavation, and preservation of the site and its 

artifacts at the licensee's expense through provisions of an 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act permit issued by BLM. 

2-19 Reservation of 

Authority under 

Section 18 

PG&E recognizes the NMFS and Interior right to reserve 

authority to prescribe the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of fishways at the project, including measures to 

determine, ensure, or improve the effectiveness of such fishways. 

2-21 Implementation 

Schedule 

Develop and implement an implementation plan that includes 

(1) a schedule for implementing the articles in any license issued 

for the project; (2) a schedule for filing the plans and related 

documents in Proposed Articles 2-1 through 2-21; and 

(3) documentation of consultation with the Consultation Group. 

2.5.4 Project Boundary 

PG&E proposes to revise the project boundary. The existing project boundary 

includes all the land PG&E owns ranging from about 50 to 250 feet from either side of 

the river and starting about 320 feet downstream of the project dam to about 3.2 miles 

upstream of the project dam. The proposed project boundary would be at the normal 

maximum water surface elevation at 997.5 feet mean sea level. The proposed project 

boundary would enclose all project works including the Chili Bar dam and downstream 

tailrace, intake structure, powerhouse, switchyard, access roads, stream gage, and 

reservoir. In addition, the proposed project boundary would include a 12-foot-wide 

corridor for a new proposed hiking trail (Sand Bar Trail) to provide public access to the 

reservoir shoreline. 
2-38 

2.6 UPPER AMERICAN RIVER PROJECT-ONLY ALTERNATIVE 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, all components of SMUD’s Proposed Action 

would be in place except those dealing with the addition of the 400-MW Iowa Hill 

development. SMUD would operate the existing UARP facilities in a manner identical 

to SMUD’s Proposed Action, except that the increased frequency of water level 

fluctuation at Slab Creek reservoir described under the Proposed Action would not 

occur. Slab Creek reservoir water level fluctuations under this alternative would be the 

same as the Proposed Action. The release schedule for the project dams would be the 

same as SMUD’s Proposed Action. Thus, the quantity of water stored in project 

reservoirs (with seasonal and daily changes) and the volume of water passing through 

project reaches would be the same as the Proposed Action. All environmental measures 

contained in the Proposed Action would occur except for those pertaining to the Iowa 

Hill development, and the potential impacts associated with construction and operation 

of the Iowa Hill development would not occur. If the Iowa Hill development were not 

constructed and the recreational triggers are met in year 15, SMUD proposes to make 

physical modifications to the White Rock tunnel to provide enhanced recreational 

boating flows downstream of Slab Creek reservoir. 

2.7 MODIFICATIONS TO APPLICANTS’ PROPOSALS 

2.7.1 Water Quality Certification 

SMUD and PG&E applied for section 401 Water Quality Certification for their 

Projects on September 22 and 18, 2006, respectively, following the Commission’s 

issuance of the Ready for Environmental Analysis notice on July 28, 2006. In its letters 

filed with the Commission on March 30 and April 10, 2007, the Water Board requested 

that SMUD and PG&E, respectively, amend their applications for water quality 

certification to bring the requests into consistency with the provisions of the Settlement 

Agreement. In response to the Water Board’s request, PG&E simultaneously withdrew 

its application for water quality certification and submitted a new application for water 

quality certification in a letter dated May 1, 2007, that was acknowledged as received by 

the Water Board on May 22, 2007. SMUD withdrew its application for water quality 

certification on September 6, 2007, and indicated that it would resubmit its application 

shortly. Therefore, state action on the Water Quality Certifications will be required 

within a year of the date of receipt of the SMUD re-filed application for the UARP and 

before May 1, 2008, for the Chili Bar Project. 

2.7.2 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions 

Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission shall require the construction, 

maintenance, and operation by a licensee of such fishways as the Secretaries of the U.S. 

Departments of Commerce (NMFS) and Interior (through FWS) may prescribe. NMFS, 

by letter filed on October 18, 2006, and Interior, by letters filed on October 17, 2006, 

and January 31, 2007, reserved this authority. 
2-39 

2.7.3 Section 4(e) Federal Land Management Conditions 

Section 4(e) of the FPA states that the Commission may issue a license for a 

project on a federal reservation only if it finds that the license will not interfere or be 

inconsistent with the purpose for which the reservation was created or acquired. Such a 

reservation includes, without limitation, the Forest Service- and BLM-administered 

land. Section 4(e) of the FPA requires that a Commission license for a project located 

on a reservation include the conditions that the Secretary of the department under whose 

supervision the reservation falls deems necessary for the adequate protection and 

utilization of such reservation. 

The Forest Service filed preliminary 4(e) conditions on October 18, 2006, and 

revised preliminary conditions on January 30, 2007, for the UARP. Interior, on behalf 

of FWS and BLM, filed preliminary 4(e) conditions on October 17, 2006, and revised 

preliminary 4(e) conditions on January 31, 2007, for both the UARP and the Chili Bar 

Project. Both agencies state that their revised preliminary 4(e) conditions are intended 

to be consistent with the Settlement Agreement. Interior, on behalf of BLM, filed only 

standard general conditions and its filing did not include any project-specific conditions 

for either project. 

In its revised preliminary conditions for the UARP, Forest Service put into italics 

the portions of its conditions that Forest Service determined to be outside its 

jurisdiction, but indicated that Forest Service fully supports the italicized wording and 

recommends it be included in any licenses issued for the Projects. The italicized 

wording is found in the project-specific conditions and pertains generally to all 

references to consultation with other agencies and specifically to: (1) locations that are 

not within or adjacent to the Eldorado National Forest, including monitoring the foothill 

yellow-legged frog in Rock Creek (condition no. 31, item 3), and maintenance under 

transmission lines in the Pine Hill Rare Plant Preserve (condition no. 38); or (2) issues 

that are under the purview of other agencies, including water temperature monitoring 

(condition no. 31, item 9), water quality (condition no. 31, item 10), adjustments to the 

project boundary to include all project recreational facilities (condition no. 44), fish 

stocking in Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House reservoirs (condition no. 52), 

reservation of authority under section 18 of the FPA (condition no. 61), and BLM 

reservation of section 4(e) authority (condition no. 62). 

Because the revised preliminary conditions filed by the Forest Service and 

Interior are consistent with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, we discuss 

these terms and conditions in the context of our discussions of the Settlement 

Agreement measures throughout this EIS 

2.7.4 Section 10(j) Recommendations 

Under the provisions of section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license 

issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided 
2-40 

by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. 

Section 10(j) also states that, whenever the Commission believes that any fish 

and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purpose and the 

requirements of the FPA or other applicable laws, the Commission and agency shall 

attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, 

expertise, and statutory responsibility of the agency. 

In response to the Commission’s Ready for Environmental Analysis notice 

issued on July 28, 2006, Interior (on behalf of FWS), CDFG, and NMFS filed comment 

letters that included section 10(j) recommendations.24 Interior and CDFG, parties to the 

Settlement Agreement, filed revised 10(j) recommendations, on January 31, 2007, that 

are consistent with the Settlement Agreement. NMFS did not file revised 10(j) 

recommendations. We discuss the 10(j) recommendations in the context of our 

discussion of the Settlement Agreement measures throughout the EIS. 

2.7.5 Proposed Action with Staff Modifications (Staff Alternative) 

After evaluating the Proposed Actions, including the terms and conditions filed 

pursuant to section 4(e) of the FPA, and other recommendations from resource agencies 

and interested entities under section 10(a) and 10(j) of the FPA, we considered what, if 

any, additional measures may be necessary or appropriate for the continued operation of 

the UARP and Chili Bar Project. 

UARP 

In addition to the applicant’s proposed project-related environmental measures 

for UARP, the Staff Alternative includes provisions to: 

• File a report with the Commission by July 31 of each year stating the 

dates when the pulse flows were provided or an explanation of why they 

were not provided. 

• Expand the geographic scope of the invasive weed and vegetation 

management plans to cover all land within the project boundary affected 

by project activities. 

• Include an annual employee environmental awareness program to educate 

employees and key personnel about the known locations of special status 

species and habitats in the vegetation management plan 

• Prepare a wildlife lands mitigation plan for the construction of the Iowa 

Hill development. 

 

24NMFS letter filed October 18, 2006, Interior (FWS) letter dated October 17, 

2006, and CDFG letters dated October 16, 2006. 
2-41 

Chili Bar Project 

In addition to the applicant’s proposed project-related environmental measures 

for the Chili Bar Project, the Staff Alternative includes provisions to: 

• Expand the geographic scope of the invasive weed and vegetation 

management plans to cover all land within the project boundary affected 

by project activities. 

• Include an annual employee environmental awareness program to educate 

employees and key personnel about the known locations of special status 

species and habitats in the vegetation management plan 

• Develop and implement a recreation plan. 

2.8 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED STUDY 

We propose eliminating the following alternatives from detailed study in the EIS. 

2.8.1 Federal Government Takeover 

We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. Federal 

takeover of the Projects would require Congressional approval. Although that fact 

alone would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, there is currently no 

evidence showing that a federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. No 

party has suggested that federal takeover would be appropriate, and no federal agency 

has expressed an interest in operating the UARP or Chili Bar Project. 

2.8.2 Nonpower License 

A nonpower license is a temporary license the Commission would terminate 

whenever it determines that another governmental agency is authorized and willing to 

assume regulatory authority and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the 

nonpower license. At this time, no governmental agency has suggested a willingness or 

ability to takeover the Projects. No party has sought a nonpower license, and we have 

no basis for concluding that the UARP and Chili Bar Project should no longer be used 

to produce power. Thus, we do not consider a nonpower license a reasonable 

alternative. 
2-42 

2.8.3 Project Retirement 

Retiring the Projects would require denying SMUD and PG&E’s license 

applications and require the surrender and termination of the existing licenses with any 

necessary conditions. The Projects would no longer be authorized to generate power. 

Retiring the Projects would involve significant cost and would foreclose any 

opportunity to add environmental enhancements to the existing UARP or Chili Bar 

Project. For these reasons, we do not consider project retirement to be a reasonable 

alternative. 
3-1 

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

In this section, we first describe the general environmental setting in the project 

vicinity and any environmental resources that could be cumulatively affected by 

relicensing the UARP and Chili Bar Project. Then, we address each affected 

environmental resource. For each resource, we first describe the affected environment—

the existing condition and the baseline against which to measure the effects of the 

proposed project and any alternative actions—and then the environmental effects of the 

proposed project, including proposed articles included in appendix A of the Settlement 

Agreement. Unless otherwise stated, the source of our information is the license 

applications for the Projects (SMUD, 2005; PG&E, 2005). 

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASINS 

3.1.1 Rubicon River 

The Rubicon River originates near Clyde Lake in the Desolation Wilderness. 

Upstream of UARP’s Rubicon reservoir, the major tributary on the Rubicon River is 

Phipps Creek. From its headwaters, the Rubicon River flows generally north to Rubicon 

reservoir, then northwest to the mouth of the Little Rubicon River, and to Placer County 

Water Agency’s 209,000 acre-foot Hell Hole reservoir. The Rubicon River flows 

westerly from the Hell Hole reservoir until it joins the Middle Fork American River, then 

to the North Fork American River near Auburn, California. This confluence forms the 

main stem of the American River. Besides the main stem of Rubicon River on which 

Rubicon dam is located, UARP facilities are located on three tributaries to the Rubicon 

River: Little Rubicon River (Buck Island dam), Gerle Creek (Loon Lake and Gerle 

Creek dams), and the SFRR (Robbs Peak dam). 

The Little Rubicon River headwaters originate near Highland Lake in the 

Desolation Wilderness. Highland Creek is the major tributary to the Little Rubicon and 

generally flows north to Rockbound Lake and then to Buck Island reservoir. Upstream of 

Buck Island reservoir lay the natural Rockbound and Highland lakes. From Buck Island 

reservoir, the Little Rubicon flows generally northwesterly to its mouth at the Rubicon 

River. 

3.1.2 Silver Creek 

The Silver Creek headwaters originate in the Desolation Wilderness at the 

confluence of Tells, Big Silver, and Jones Fork Silver creeks at Union Valley reservoir. 

From the reservoir, Silver Creek flows generally southwesterly to its terminus at the 

SFAR. Major tributaries of the Silver Creek downstream of Union Valley reservoir 

include SFSC, Little Silver, Onion, Jaybird Canyon, and Round Tent Canyon creeks. 

Three UARP facilities occur along the main stem of Silver Creek: Union Valley, 

Junction, and Camino dams. One UARP facility, Ice House dam, is located on the SFSC, 

a tributary to Silver Creek. The SFSC headwaters also originate in the Desolation 
3-2 

Wilderness and flow generally westerly and northerly to Silver Creek Junction reservoir. 

Major tributaries of the SFSC include Lyons and Peavine creeks and Big Hill Canyon. 

No reservoirs occur on the SFSC upstream of Ice House dam. 

3.1.3 South Fork of the American River 

SFAR headwaters originate in the Crystal Range and flow generally westerly to its 

terminus at the American River at Folsom Lake. Major tributaries of the SFAR above 

Slab Creek dam include Pyramid, Strawberry, Alder, Silver, Brush, and Slab creeks and 

the Silver Fork American River. Downstream of Slab Creek dam, Rock and Iowa 

Canyon creeks are the primary tributaries. UARP facilities are located on the Brush 

Creek and in the Silver Creek watershed. The headwaters of Brush Creek originate near 

Little Sugar Pine Mountain and then flow generally southwesterly to the SFAR at Slab 

Creek reservoir. No reservoirs occur on Brush Creek upstream of Brush Creek reservoir. 

3.2 CUMULATIVELY AFFECTED RESOURCES 

According to the Council on Environment Quality's regulations for implementing 

NEPA (§1508.7) a cumulative effect is the effect on the environment that results from the 

incremental effect of the actions when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a period of time to include hydropower and other 

land and water development activities. Resources that could be affected cumulatively by 

the continued operation of the UARP and Chili Bar Project, and the construction of the 

Iowa Hill development, in combination with other activities in the SFAR Basin include 

sediment supply; water quality; water temperature; aquatic resources including fisheries, 

benthic macroinvertebrates, and amphibian populations; botanical resources; and 

recreation. 

3.2.1 Geographic Scope 

The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis defines the physical limits 

or boundaries of the projects action’s effect on resources. The geographic scope is 

defined by the physical limits or boundaries of (1) the UARP's and Chili Bar Project's 

effects on the resources, and (2) the contributing effect from other hydropower and nonhydropower activities. In this case, the overall scope of analysis for the potentially 

cumulatively affected resources encompasses the SFRR from the upstream influence of 

the Rubicon reservoir downstream to the confluence with the SFAR and then downstream 

to Folsom Lake. Additionally, the geographic scope of the recreation analysis for the 

UARP also encompasses the Eldorado National Forest. 

UARP operations, in conjunction with Chili Bar Project operations, interact in a 

cumulative sense. The operation of the UARP 7.5 miles upstream controls the waters 

that flow into the Chili Bar Project. Therefore, the waters in the 19.1 mile reach 
3-3 

downstream of the Chili Bar dam are controlled mainly by the UARP but also by the 

Chili Bar Project operations 

3.2.2 Temporal Scope 

The temporal scope of the cumulative effects analysis in the EIS includes past, 

present, and future actions and their possible cumulative effects on each resource. Based 

on the license term, the temporal scope looks 30 to 50 years into the future, concentrating 

on the effect on the resources from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical 

discussion is, by necessity, limited to available information for each resource. 

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

3.3.1 Geology and Soils 

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment 

Geological resources in the vicinity of the Projects that could be affected by 

Proposed Actions include the reservoir shorelines, channel attributes of the 12 reaches of 

river (totaling 81 river miles, excluding reservoirs), the extent and quality of large woody 

debris within those channels, and selected upland watershed areas, mostly related to 

recreation and roads. 

Geology 

The rocks of the UARP area are part of the Sierra Nevada metamorphic belt, a 

200-mile-long, northwest-trending belt that makes up the western foothills of the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains. The geology within and surrounding the UARP can be divided into 

two general categories in relation to the location of Union Valley reservoir, which is 

about mid-elevation within the project area. Reservoirs upstream of Union Valley 

reservoir are underlain primarily by the Sierra Nevada batholith,25 which is of Mesozoic 

age – about 80 to 130 million years old. Downstream of Union Valley reservoir, 

reservoirs are chiefly underlain by older sedimentary rocks deposited 350 to 400 million 

years ago. The dominant rocks in this category are quartzite, schists, crystalline 

limestone, and dolomite. These rocks underlie most of the lower watershed area and are 

capped by volcanic rocks formed about 2 to 24 million years ago. Except for the main 

stem SFAR, which cuts a gorge across the rock formations, all high-order streams in the 

project area have developed deep canyons only in the sedimentary rock reaches. 

The geology in the area of the proposed Iowa Hill development includes the 

northwest flank of Iowa Hill (situated above the east shore of Slab Creek reservoir) and 

 

25A batholith is an exposed area of mostly continuous plutonic (granite) rock that 

covers an area larger than 100 square kilometers. The Sierra Nevada batholith is a 

continuous granitic formation that forms much of the Sierra Nevada in California. 
3-4 

the surrounding area. The Iowa Hill area is underlain by bedrock shown on state 

geologic maps as consisting of undifferentiated Paleozoic rocks. More specifically, the 

proposed site of the Iowa Hill development is located within the eastern metamorphic 

terrane of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This terrane, known as the Shoo Fly Complex, 

is bound on the east by rock of the Sierra Nevada batholith, and on the west by the 

Melones fault (northern branch) and the Calaveras-Shoo Fly thrust fault. Rocks in this 

terrane originally consisted of sand and clay probably deposited on the slopes of the 

continental margin during early Paleozoic time. 

Regional Faulting and Seismicity 

The proposed Iowa Hill development lies in central California, an area that has 

historically experienced relatively low seismic activity. Most seismic activity in the 

region is concentrated in the region from the northwest to the east and southeast of Lake 

Tahoe, as well as the area immediately south of Lake Oroville. According to the 

California Geological Survey, no active or potentially active faults pass through or near 

the site of the proposed Iowa Hill development. 

Five faults or fault systems within a 62-mile radius of the proposed Iowa Hill site 

are active. The North Tahoe fault and the Genoa fault are located 38 miles northeast and 

47 miles east of the proposed site, respectively. Neither of these has produced an 

earthquake of magnitude 5.0 or greater in known history, but the Genoa fault is believed 

to be capable of producing an earthquake with a moment magnitude26 of 6.9. The 

remaining three faults or fault systems are described in the following section. 

The Truckee fault is about 10 miles long and is located about 50 miles northeast of 

the Iowa Hill site. A recent earthquake was associated with the fault, in 1966, which 

registered a magnitude of 6.0. Most of the Foothills fault system, approximately 7 miles 

southwest of the Iowa Hill site, is inactive; however, there are potentially active portions 

of this fault system across the Bear Mountain and Melones fault segments that are 

capable of producing an earthquake with a maximum moment magnitude of 6.5. The 

Cleveland Hill fault segment, a portion of the Foothills fault system (located about 

60 miles northwest of the proposed site), ruptured in 1975, triggering the Oroville 

earthquake that registered 5.7 on the Richter scale. 

 

26The moment magnitude scale is a successor to the Richter scale and is used by 

seismologists to compare the energy released by earthquakes. The constants used in the 

equation to determine moment magnitude are chosen so that estimates of moment 

magnitude roughly agree with estimates using other scales such as the Richter magnitude 

scale. One advantage of the moment magnitude scale is that, unlike other magnitude 

scales, it does not saturate at the upper end—e.g., there is no particular value beyond 

which all large earthquakes have about the same magnitude. For this reason, moment 

magnitude is now frequently used to estimate large earthquake magnitudes. 
3-5 

The Dunnigan Hills fault is located about 62 miles west of the proposed site, and 

is about 12 miles long. Historically, no earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or greater have 

occurred on the Dunnigan Hills fault; however, it is believed that this fault is capable of 

generating a maximum credible earthquake with a moment magnitude of 6.5. 

Other faults and fault systems within a 62-mile radius of the proposed site are 

considered to be potentially active. The Maidu fault and an unnamed east-dipping fault 

that is located near the community of Rescue are both about 14 miles west of the 

proposed site. They both show evidence of prehistoric displacements, though not historic 

displacements. As described above, they are both part of the Bear Mountains Fault Zone 

within the Foothills fault system. SMUD reported that “an assumed maximum credible 

earthquake of 6.5 magnitude occurring on the most easterly, possibly active strand of the 

Bear Mountains fault zone (also referred to as the Rescue fault)...represents the potential 

earthquake that would give rise to the most severe ground motion at...Slab Creek Dam.” 

According to SMUD, the maximum peak ground acceleration expected at Slab Creek 

dam resulting from the maximum credible earthquake on this fault is 0.30 g (horizontal 

ground acceleration).

Unnamed faults near the community of Volcanoville and Jenkinson Lake also 

show evidence of prehistoric displacements, though not historic displacements. The 

unnamed normal fault near Volcanoville is located about 12 miles north-northwest of the 

proposed Iowa Hill development. Two additional unnamed faults, one on the east side 

and one on the west side of Jenkinson Lake, are located about 7 miles east-southeast of 

proposed site. 

The geology within and downstream of the Chili Bar Project area is similar to that 

described above for the areas downstream of Union Valley reservoir. The geology of the 

SFAR from the confluence with Rock Creek (just upstream of Chili Bar reservoir) to 

Folsom Lake includes granite rocks and sedimentary rocks that have recrystallized over 

time. As the SFAR flows through the town of Coloma, it also passes through a granite 

inclusion from the Sierra Nevada batholith before changing back to the Calaveras 

Complex geology. Serpentine rock masses also occur where the SFAR enters into 

Folsom Lake. 

Reservoir Shorelines 

The shorelines of the UARP reservoirs exhibit a wide range of characteristics, 

owing in part to their differing elevations, geologic settings, and reservoir water elevation 

changes (annually and daily). Studies examining reservoir shorelines focused on 

warmwater or reservoir-spawning fish species. Buck Island, Rubicon, and Brush Creek 

reservoirs are generally composed of erosion-resistant rock and do not support 

warmwater fish species. Camino reservoir, a reregulating reservoir with daily water level 

fluctuations of up to 15 feet, was also removed from the study because of safety and 

access constraints and no shoreline erosion data are available. 
3-6 

Gerle Creek and Robbs Peak reservoirs are smaller reservoirs that are largely 

ringed by either stable vegetation or bedrock/boulders. Gerle Creek reservoir impounds 

only 1,260 acre-feet and has an average annual water level fluctuation of 9 feet, with an 

average daily water level fluctuation of 1.5 feet. Robbs Peak reservoir is much smaller, 

impounding only 30 acre-feet in an on-channel reservoir with bedrock and boulder banks. 

The average annual water level fluctuation is 5 feet, while the average daily fluctuation is 

less than 0.5 foot. Shoreline erosion on these two reservoirs is minimal. 

Table 3-1 shows information on the shorelines of the remaining five reservoirs in 

the UARP. Changes in operations are not proposed or recommended that would affect 

average water surface level fluctuations and reservoir shoreline erosion, except for 

development of Iowa Hill which would affect the frequency of water level fluctuations in 

Slab Creek reservoir but not the weekly range of fluctuations. 

Table 3-1. Reservoir shoreline data within the UARP. (Source: SMUD, 2005) 

Average Annual Water 

Level Fluctuation 

Reservoir 

Shoreline 

Slopes 

(%) 

Shoreline 

Substrate 

(%) 

Emergent 

Vegetation 

(% of 

shoreline) 

Shoreline 

Erosion 

(%) Annual Daily Notes 

Loon 

Lake 

Flat to 

moderate 

(0–5 to 

10–30) 

Bedrock 

and 

boulder 

(approx. 

70) 

(65) 

covered 

Mild 

erosion 

(2) 

43.6 feet NA Loon Lake is 

part of a 

storage 

reservoir that 

experiences 

gradual 

changes in 

water surface 

elevation 

Union 

Valley 

Gradual 

to steep 

(5–10 to 

30–44) 

Sand and 

silt 

dominant; 

some 

boulder 

and 

bedrock 

NA Mild 

erosion 

(80); 

significant 

erosion 

(> 14) 

60 feet < 0.5 foot Mild erosion 

is largely a 

slow, 

progressive 

shoreline 

retreat. 

Slumping also 

occurs along a 

peninsula. 

Ice House Moderate 

to steep 

(10–29 to 

30–44) 

Sand and 

silt 

dominant; 

some 

cobble 

and 

boulders 

(5) covered Mild 

erosion 

(74); 

remainder 

stable 

37 feet NA NA 
3-7 

Average Annual Water 

Level Fluctuation 

Reservoir 

Shoreline 

Slopes 

(%) 

Shoreline 

Substrate 

(%) 

Emergent 

Vegetation 

(% of 

shoreline) 

Shoreline 

Erosion 

(%) Annual Daily Notes 

Junction 

Reservoir 

Steep 

(30–45) 

to over 45 

Bedrock 

and 

cobble 

(85) 

(6) covered Mild 

erosion 

(1) 

NA 20 feet Junction 

reservoir is a 

re-regulating 

reservoir with 

frequent daily 

water level 

elevation 

changes. 

Slab 

Creek 

Steep 

(30–45) 

to over 45 

Bedrock 

(> 70) 

(> 50) 

covered 

Mild 

erosion 

(18); 

significant 

erosion 

(< 1); 

remainder 

stable 

30 feet 6 feet Slab Creek 

reservoir is in 

a steep 

canyon, 

contributing 

to its frequent 

water surface 

elevation 

changes 

Chili Bar reservoir shoreline has very little erosion. Emergent vegetation is 

present on 94 percent of the shoreline although more than 80 percent of the shoreline is 

steeply (30 to 45 percent) sloped. The shoreline is mostly composed of sand-silt 

substrate. Data on daily fluctuations (based on 2002 hourly data) shows an average of 

4.2 feet of fluctuation, and a maximum of 7 feet. 

Reservoir Sedimentation 

No issues regarding reservoir sedimentation were identified during scoping, so no 

studies were conducted during relicensing to consider loss of reservoir storage or other 

sedimentation effects on UARP operations. However, sources of sediment and potential 

future erosion were identified. 

Upland Erosion and Sediment Sources 

SMUD investigated erosion caused by the use of the approximately 104 project 

roads (see section 3.3.7, Land Use) including: (1) main access roads that are paved and 

have structured drainage systems, (2) transmission line maintenance roads, and 

(3) unpaved surface roads that are near water bodies. The study concluded that main 

roads, which are paved, and transmission line maintenance roads, which are rarely used 

and tend to be located farther away from shorelines, contribute insignificant amounts of 

sediment supply or erosion to the project waters. Unpaved roads contribute some 
3-8 

sediment, but the amount is insignificant relative to the capacity of the project water 

bodies, and these roads have both higher usage and maintenance. Project owners and 

local agencies maintain the roads and drainage features to prevent sediment runoff from 

entering streams and reservoirs. 

Spoil Piles 

SMUD investigated the stability of the three piles in the project that could erode 

and add sedimentation in the channels and reservoirs: the Jaybird Tunnel Adit spoil pile, 

the Camino Tunnel Adit spoil pile, and the White Rock Tunnel Adit No. 2 spoil pile. 

They are upslope of the waterways within the Junction dam reach, the Camino dam 

reach, and the Slab Creek dam reach, respectively. The material has historically been 

used for roadway maintenance. 

All three piles show no signs of erosion and exist in stable angles of repose. The 

first two piles are mostly covered with rock and therefore are not susceptible to erosion 

from normal rainfall. They are also surrounded with diversion ditches to prevent runoff 

from causing erosion by mobilizing the piled material. Also, the UARP relicensing water 

quality study (see section 3.3.2, Water Resources) did not detect any elevated levels of 

chemical or foreign substances that might have leached from the piles. 

Bathymetry studies indicate that total storage in Chili Bar reservoir has been 

reduced by 1,011 acre feet, and useable storage (storage between the spillway crest and 

the preferred operating minimum) has been reduced by 252 acre feet. About 13 percent 

of the annual or long-term incoming sediment load is trapped in the Chili Bar reservoir, 

and the remaining 87 percent is passed downstream. Based on observations made at the 

upstream end of the reservoir and the upstream face of the dam during valve maintenance 

activities, it appears that the most particles greater than 2 millimeters (mm) settle out, 

while particles being transported downstream are virtually all fine material (less than 

2 mm). 

Stream Channel Morphology 

In general, the channel beds within the reaches comprise a veneer of cobble, with 

numerous boulders, and small amounts of gravel and sand overlying bedrock. The 

channels are typically narrow and located within bedrock-controlled canyons of moderate 

to steep slopes. Sections of channel with changing silt and sand deposits are the 

exception and occur in isolated reaches defined by topography. 

Generally, very little fine sediment occurs in the stream channel or in the pools, 

although small pockets of fine sediment are deposited behind large flow obstructions and 

in low-velocity zones along the channel margins. Sections of stream channels that are 

relatively resilient and insensitive to changes in flow and/or sediment supply are termed 

“transport reaches” or “transport segments.” Channel character in these transport 

sections is primarily controlled by bedrock geology and coarse boulder substrate 

emplaced largely by processes such as glaciers. In these channels, the available capacity 
3-9 

of the stream to transport sediment is greater than the local sediment supply, and most 

sediment supplied to the channel is transported downstream while coarser material 

(e.g., cobbles and boulders) remains either as a result of size (boulders) or local hydraulic 

conditions (gravels upstream of local in-channel or channel margin obstructions). 

Because the channel morphology is essentially unrelated to the supply of sediment, any 

net loss in sediment supply from project operations is less likely to have any morphologic 

significance. 

Transport channel types dominate much of the project stream reaches. Eight of 

the 11 UARP project reaches (Rockbound dam, Buck Island dam, Gerle Creek dam, 

Junction dam, Camino dam, SFAR dam, Slab Creek dam, and Brush Creek dam) are 

considered transport sections of stream throughout the entire length of each reach. 

Response sections of streams, in contrast to transport sections, contain stream 

channels that are likely to be affected by changes in hydrology or sediment supply. 

Response sections of stream are generally defined as having channels with low slope 

(<4 percent); mostly silt, sand, or clay bed and banks (cobble-gravel or finer); and plane 

bed or pool-riffle characteristics. Within the UARP, there are seven sections of channel 

with response characteristics. These seven sections occur in four of the project reaches: 

three in the Loon Lake dam reach; two in the Ice House dam reach; and one section each 

in the Rubicon dam reach and Robbs Peak dam reach. These response sections are 

generally short, between 400 and 1,300 feet long. 

Because these seven response sections may be responsive to changes in hydrology 

and sediment supply, survey sites were established at each section during the relicensing 

studies to investigate their geomorphic condition. Two response sections exhibited very 

little effect from the existing hydrology: the Middle Loon Lake dam reach section and 

the Upper Ice House dam reach section. In these sections, the channel bed, bars, and 

banks are generally stable; vegetation on the banks is well-established; and fine sediment 

was not being deposited in areas of slower flow. The other five sections in the Rubicon, 

Loon Lake, and Ice House dam reaches showed that changes in hydrology could affect 

the characteristics of their geomorphology. 

Rubicon Dam Reach 

The 4.2-mile-long Rubicon dam reach on Rubicon River extends from the base of 

Rubicon dam downstream to the confluence with Miller Creek, and has a low mean 

gradient. The entire reach is over 6,000 feet in elevation and drains a glaciated 

watershed, much of which is designated as federal wilderness, and flows through many 

sections of exposed granite and steep, confined bedrock chutes. No major tributaries 

enter this reach. On-the-ground stream mapping shows that bedrock and boulder 

comprise up to 70 percent of the dominant substrate over the length of the project reach, 

indicating that a majority of the stream channel within the reach is transport dominated. 

The response channel portions of the reach are mostly in a low gradient, 1.9-mile-long 

segment near Rubicon Springs, a private land parcel owned by parties involved in off-
3-10 

highway vehicle recreation. This section is in a mature conifer forest and contains 

deposits of gravel, sand, and silt with a number of beaver dams present. Studies show 

movement of the substrate depending on the level of flow, but the section is mostly stable 

bed, bars, and vegetated banks, and the sediment supply is virtually balanced with the 

flows. 

Loon Lake Dam Reach 

The 8.5-mile Loon Lake dam reach on Gerle Creek extends downstream from the 

base of Loon Lake dam to the normal high water line of Gerle reservoir, and has a mean 

gradient of about 2.3 percent. Tributaries in this reach include Jerrett, Barts, Dellar, and 

Rocky Basin creeks. From the Loon Lake reservoir outlet, Gerle Creek flows initially to 

the west through a wide and swampy valley that is surrounded by moderately sloping and 

glaciated hillsides. This upstream portion meanders for about 5 miles across the alluvial 

valley before the bedrock slopes constrict the channel near Wentworth Springs. Below 

the bedrock constriction, the valley widens and the stream channel is free to meander 

again through the middle portion of the reach (Neck and Gerle meadows). Before 

reaching Gerle reservoir, the creek flows through a steeper, lower portion (about 3 miles 

long) along a contact between granitic rocks and glacial till deposits. 

Broad-scale geomorphic characterization (Rosgen Level I [Rosgen, 1996]) 

suggests 20 percent of the Loon Lake dam reach on Gerle Creek is composed of 

transport-dominated channel types; the other 80 percent is characterized by response 

channels. Results from field surveys corroborate this, indicating that sediment, cobble, 

and fine particles represent more than 50 percent of the substrate of the channel 

throughout the length of the reach. 

The upper response section of Gerle Creek is located 0.5 mile downstream of 

Loon Lake dam, and it meanders through most of all project response sections because it 

lies in a large, unconfined valley with relatively flat topography. It then travels into a 

constriction at the lower end of this section, where steep bedrock walls confine the 

channel near Wentworth Springs. Historically, the meadow was probably formed by 

sediment deposition as a result of the bedrock constriction, causing water storage 

upstream. This area is still wet during some seasons, but it is likely that the water table is 

not as high as it was in the past. 

The middle response section of Gerle Creek is 2.7 miles downstream of Loon 

Lake dam, immediately downstream of the confluence with Jerrett Creek, at the head of 

densely vegetated Gerle Meadow. This section is steeper than the upper response 

section, median grain sizes are much higher, and number of bends is significantly lower. 

Many lateral bars that have bright sediment grains indicate that sediment mobilization 

likely occurs regularly at moderate flows. Debris jams that were encountered and 

numerous pieces of large woody debris create areas of scour and deposition in the 

channel. In this section, analysis indicates that the sediment would likely mobilize at 

flows between 149 and 326 cfs. These flows correspond to the 1.5- to 4-year recurrence 
3-11 

floods under the existing flow regime, which suggests that sediment and bed transport 

probably occurs with this frequency. Young vegetation on some of the bars and banks 

provides evidence of this. 

The lower response section of Gerle Creek is 7.5 miles downstream of Loon Lake 

dam and has discrete pool-riffle sequences. Approximately 30 to 50 percent of the 

channel area has erosion and deposition at obstructions, bends, and constrictions. Many 

high-flow side channels and woody debris jams are present well above the streamflow 

surface elevation along the right bank. Sand deposits are present in low velocity zones 

behind larger obstructions and along the channel banks. Based on analysis, sediment 

would likely mobilize in this section at flows between 940 and 1,241 cfs. These flows 

reflect floods with 4- to 5-year recurrence intervals under the existing flow regime, so 

bed mobilization would not occur as often as in the middle section. This section is a 

multi-channel reach so the recurrence intervals for bed mobilization in the main channel 

would be less frequent because flows are distributed among various channels. The main 

channel bed is likely to have become more armored than the side channels by the higher 

flows it carries 

Robbs Peak Dam Reach 

The 5.9-mile-long Robbs Peak dam reach on the SFRR extends from the base of 

the Robbs Peak forebay downstream to the confluence with the Rubicon River. It has a 

mean gradient of about 5.5 percent, although some segments of this reach exceed 8 

percent slope. Major tributaries to this reach include Gerle and South creeks. Upstream 

of the Gerle Creek confluence, the river flows through a glaciated, low-relief landscape, 

and this area contains the main response segment investigated in this reach. Downstream 

of the Gerle Creek confluence, the river becomes progressively more entrenched within 

the surrounding canyon. For the first 2 miles, the river is confined by moderate canyon 

slopes; then a contact between granitic and more erodable rocks marks a transition from 

the moderate canyon to a deeper gorge with 1,500-foot walls. 

Broad-scale reach characterization of the reach shows that about 85 percent of the 

length of the reach is composed of transport-dominated channel types, while the other 15 

percent is response-type channels. The response section investigated during relicensing 

is about 0.5 mile downstream of Robbs Peak forebay, within private property just 

upstream of the confluence of the SFRR and Gerle Creek. Here, the stream enters a 

broader, low-gradient segment of the reach where willows grow on many bars within the 

channel area and small conifers grow on recently scoured surfaces and other channel 

bars. Field observations and pebble counts reflect that finer sediments in the channel are 

likely stored in this section because of a constriction downstream. Valley topography 

creates a backwater effect during periods of high flow, which likely causes sediment to 

be deposited within the section. Local timber harvesting also likely adds to the sediment 

supply. 
3-12 

Ice House Dam Reach 

The 11.5-mile-long Ice House dam reach on SFSC extends from the base of Ice 

House dam to the normal high water line of Junction reservoir and has a mean gradient of 

about 1.4 percent. The 1992 forest fire known as the Cleveland Fire created a fire-burned 

area that covers about two-thirds of the total reach length. The reach is characterized by 

moderate valley walls that confine the channel to a narrow floodplain. Peavine Creek, 

Winmiller ravine, and Big Hill canyon are the three major tributaries in this reach. In the 

first 2 miles below Ice House dam, the creek transitions from a steep canyon into a 

deeper gorge (near the Silver Creek campground) as the geology changes from granite 

terrain to deposited finer sediments. For the remainder of its 9.5 miles, the reach is 

confined to a bedrock valley and maintains an average gradient of 2 percent. 

Despite the fact that on-the-ground stream mapping indicates that bedrock and 

boulder make up over 60 percent of the substrate of this reach, there are also substantial 

portions of the reach that are response-channel types. In the upper response section that 

was studied, located 1.5 miles downstream of Ice House dam, the channel is generally 

plane-bed morphology with some bends and bar formation. Mobilization of the sediment 

occurs at flows ranging from 185 to 393 cfs, which corresponds to floods with 1.5- to 3-

year recurrence intervals under the current regulated flow regime. This indicates that bed 

material is regularly mobilized, and fresh, newly scoured surfaces are visible along the 

stream banks. Moderately high levels of sand and fine gravel observed in the section 

suggest that sediment supply from bank runoff and upstream sources may be greater than 

transport capacity. 

The lower response section studied is located 8.6 miles downstream of Ice House 

dam in an area that was burned during the Cleveland Fire. A narrow band of riparian 

vegetation has recovered along the banks. Sediment mobilization in this section occurs at 

flows ranging from 497 to 775 cfs, which corresponds to floods with 1.5- to 2-year 

recurrence intervals under the existing flow regime. Bed mobilization therefore occurs 

frequently; however, because of the fire, fine sediment deposits are visible throughout 

and channel sediments are highly embedded, with many dull surfaces in the section. 

Sand covers the channel bed with larger deposits in lower flow areas, behind 

obstructions, and on the floodplain. Higher depositions of fine sediment and woody 

debris exist in the channel section, as compared to other project reaches. 

Camino Dam Reach to the South Fork of the American River Reach 

Like the Camino dam and Junction dam reaches, the SFAR reach is characterized 

by steep valley bedrock walls in a highly confined gorge. The reach is 2.8 miles long and 

travels from the confluence with Silver Creek to the Camino and El Dorado powerhouses. 

Relatively little vegetation is present along the channel slopes. 

Broad-scale geomorphic characterization of the reach concludes that about 

10 percent of the reach is made up of channels with transport-dominated characteristics, 

while the other 90 percent of the reach is characterized as response channel. However, 
3-13 

on-the-ground surveys along a 520-foot segment show that the channel is actually a 

transport-dominated channel. Like the Camino dam and Junction dam reaches, many 

boulders and bedrock outcroppings are present that do not mobilize even during highflow events. Cobble substrate does exist as a veneer, but finer sediments are only 

deposited in low-flow areas near obstructions and along channel margins. Sediment 

supply is not greater than transport capacity, so the sediments that do exist do not affect 

channel morphology. The 1992 Cleveland Fire also affected this area of the watershed, 

so fine sediments probably increased in supply because of increased erosion in the 

contributing drainage area. However, no evidence of increased sediment was seen in the 

channel during on-the-ground surveys of the segment. 

Slab Creek Dam Reach 

The Slab Creek dam reach is an 8-mile reach extending from the base of the Slab 

Creek dam and powerhouse to the high-water level of Chili Bar reservoir. In this reach, 

the SFAR again flows through an area dominated by high-gradient channel segments, 

bedrock and boulder outcroppings, and steep valley slopes in a highly confined gorge. 

The valley slopes are also sparsely vegetated. 

Broad-scale geomorphic characterization of the reach indicated that 40 percent of 

the reach is made up of transport-dominated channel segments, while the other 60 percent 

of the reach is characterized as response segments. An on-the-ground survey investigated 

a 650 foot portion of the project reach above the Rock Creek confluence, about 4.6 miles 

below Slab Creek dam. This portion was originally characterized as a response channel, 

but the survey indicates that the channel is actually a transport-dominated channel. Like 

other reaches in the UARP watershed, many boulders and bedrock outcroppings are 

present that do not mobilize even during high-flow events. Cobble substrate does exist as 

a veneer, but finer sediments are only deposited in low-flow areas near obstructions and 

along channel margins. Sediment supply is not greater than transport capacity, so the 

sediments that do exist do not affect channel morphology. There is no evidence of lateral 

bar movement. 

Chili Bar Dam Reach 

The SFAR downstream of Chili Bar dam extends to the normal high water line of 

Folsom reservoir, falling about 500 feet over 19.1 miles with an average gradient of about 

0.5 percent. From upstream to downstream, tributaries to the SFAR include Dutch 

Creek, Granite Creek, Jacobs Creek, Greenwood Creek, Hastings Creek, Norton Ravine, 

and Weber Creek. The reach is differentiated into three subreaches of different character, 

the upper subreach (Upper Canyon site), the middle subreach (Upper and Lower Coloma 

sites), and the lower subreach (Gorge site). The upper and lower subreaches are 

characterized by higher channel gradients that create flowing rapids, steeper canyon 

walls, and fewer deposits of finer material. They are generally bounded by bedrock and 

boulders, with alluvial deposits only in areas of lower flow. In contrast, the middle 

subreach channel is wider, more sinuous, and more gently sloping floodplains and 
3-14 

channel gradients. Some areas of it were not studied because dredging, associated with 

gold mining activities, has artificially deepened the channel and substrate characteristics. 

Broad-scale geomorphic characterization indicates that the reach is dominated by 

transport sections, where sediment transport capacity does not exceed fine sediment 

supply. On-the-ground survey confirms this, as fine sediment deposits are not visible in 

main channel flow areas; only cobble substrate exists that is covering bedrock. The 

channel slopes are very steep, have little vegetation other than a thin forest, and there is 

little evidence of bank erosion. The reach also has an average slope of about 1.0 percent, 

creating higher velocity areas and rapids. 

Broad-scale characterization indicates that the Upper subreach is dominated by 

response sections. The Upper Canyon site is a transitional area exiting the upper 

subreach, and is characterized by moderately steep slopes with varying levels of 

vegetation. South-facing slopes that receive more sunlight are generally too dry to 

support a wide variety of plant life, while north-facing slopes are more densely vegetated. 

South-facing slopes could contribute to sediment supply, and the gradient at this site is 

lower than the other sites studied in the reach. The analysis indicates that this subreach is 

probably a response channel, since a mid-channel bar is present and fines were observed 

within the coarse substrate. Calculations show that the flow threshold of incipient motion 

at one cross-section is as low as 1,703 cfs. It is therefore possible that the morphology of 

the site changes even during flood events that are well below the 1.5 year regulated flood 

of 5,667 cfs, since Chili Bar reservoir has limited storage. 

In contrast, the section at the Lower Coloma site was surveyed to determine if it is 

characterized as a response section, and it is likely not. Gold mining sites that may have 

mobilized fines are located between this location and the Upper Canyon, but this 

subreach has a steeper gradient, and no fines were observed in the main channel areas. 

Also, much of the channel and banks are stabilized by bedrock outcroppings. Any 

depositions that exist appear to only occur in low-flow areas behind these types of 

obstructions. The valley slopes are not as steep and do not appear to be contributing 

sediment supply, and residential development along the channel banks helps to retain 

sediment runoff. Based on the analysis of this section, transport capacity exceeds 

sediment supply. 

Like upstream areas of the reach, the slopes are more sparsely vegetated, which 

appears to contribute to sediment supply. However, the local gradient is steeper, bars that 

do exist are dominated by cobble, and the lack of algal growth and fines in the main 

channel areas suggest higher transport capacity. Although this section of the canyon is an 

alluvial section with some sandy beaches, most of the lower subreach at the Gorge Site is 

characterized by rapids and bedrock/boulder outcroppings in the channels. All evidence 

suggests that it is a transport-dominated channel, where sediment transport capacity 

exceeds supply. 
3-15 

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects 

Upland Erosion and Sediment Sources 

Changes in the operation of the UARP could contribute to sediment supply and 

degradation of water quality. 

No changes in project operations are proposed that would affect upland sediment 

supply, but SMUD proposes to address the erosion that does occur in existing conditions. 

Under Proposed Article 1-30, Transportation System Management, SMUD would 

develop a transportation system management plan for roads on or affecting National 

Forest System lands. As part of this plan, SMUD would address measures to control 

project-related erosion including dust and soil movement induced by project roads and 

maintenance activities. This proposed plan would address the sediment that currently 

runs off the unpaved roads near project shorelines. Although SMUD and other agencies 

maintain these roads periodically, long-term sediment erosion could affect channel 

morphology or reservoir storage, and in turn affect biological resources or project 

operations. 

Our Analysis 

Development of a transportation system management plan would allow SMUD to 

coordinate road maintenance and use of project roads with the other land-managing 

agencies to ensure that protocols for erosion control are followed that would minimize 

sediment disturbance and transport into streams and reservoirs. 

Pulse Flows 

SMUD’s studies showed that sediment deposition occurs in the Rubicon, Robbs 

Peak, Loon Lake, Ice House, and Slab Creek reaches. Under Proposed Article 1-2, Pulse 

Flows, SMUD would provide pulse flows in three of these reaches: in the Rubicon River 

below Rubicon dam, in the Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam, and in the SFSC below 

Ice House dam. 

Under Proposed Articles 1-5, Monitoring Program, and 2-6, Sediment 

Management Plan, SMUD would monitor reaches with significant response channel 

segments for changes in geomorphology during the license term: the reaches below 

Rubicon dam, Loon Lake dam, and Ice House dam, Silver Creek below Camino dam, and 

Slab Creek below Slab Creek dam. PG&E would monitor the reach below the Chili Bar 

Project. In addition, SMUD would monitor three of the above-listed reaches that are 

mostly transport channels for changes in characterization: the reaches below Robbs Peak 

dam, Camino dam, and Slab Creek dam. 
3-16 

Under Proposed Articles 1-5, Monitoring Program, and 2-6, Sediment 

Management Plan, SMUD and PG&E would use this geomorphology monitoring to 

determine if sediment should be placed in area(s) of the UARP reaches or if reservoirs 

should be dredged. If dredging of reservoirs is necessary, SMUD and PG&E would place 

the dredged sediment at locations determined in consultation with the Agencies and 

BLM. 

Rubicon Dam Reach 

Proposed Article 1-2, Pulse Flows, provides for pulse flows to coincide with high 

winter flows or spring snowmelt runoff. The goal of Article 1-2 for the Rubicon dam 

reach is to provide pulse flows of at least 600 cfs for 3 days or a total of 3,600 acre-feet 

of spill within those 3 consecutive days during BN, AN, and Wet water years. The pulse 

flows would be delivered to the Rubicon dam reach by inducing spill over Rubicon dam 

through operation of the flashboard gates at the Rubicon tunnel headworks. The purpose 

is to provide flows that would imitate natural flushing flow conditions during this time of 

year, to ensure that the morphology of the reach does not adversely affect biological 

resources. Proposed Article 1-5, Monitoring Program, provides for geomorphological 

evaluation to monitor changes in channel conditions and the effects from project 

operations. 

Loon Lake Dam Reach 

The upper section’s floodplain—a relatively flat meadow—is characterized as 

somewhat swampy and has unstable banks and fine sediment deposits, which could affect 

biological or recreational resources if the conditions continue to degrade. Under 

Proposed Article 1-7, Gerle Creek Channel Stabilization, SMUD would develop and 

implement a plan to stabilize Gerle Creek channel. The plan would require Forest 

Service approval and involvement in its implementation, and would address the areas of 

erosion, instability, and sediment deposits to prevent future degradation of the channel 

conditions and any affected resources. 

The proposed pulse flows would provide for ongoing channel flushing, timed to 

coincide with spring snowmelt runoff. Included would be test pulse releases of up to 

740 cfs or the maximum capacity of the outlet works, whichever is less. These test flows 

would be evaluated based on their impact on channel conditions, bridges, and recreational 

sites, and then the Forest Service might reduce (but may not increase) the prescribed 

flows. Currently, flows in wet years are prescribed over a 5-day period: 600 cfs on days 

1, 2, 4, and 5 and up to 740 cfs on day 3. Ongoing monitoring of the channel 

morphology would ensure that channel conditions do not adversely impact area resources 

in the future. Monitoring would identify how these changes in operations affect the 

geomorphology of the reach, particularly in the upper response section. Currently, the 

single point outlet below the Loon Lake dam carves a distinct channel through the 

meadow. In part, the monitoring would determine if this channel and floodplain would 
3-17 

be unchanged regardless of operations—possibly because of the bedrock constriction 

downstream of the meadow. 

Ice House Dam Reach 

The 11.5-mile-long Ice House dam reach on SFSC has been significantly affected 

by project operations. As compared to the unregulated flow regime, reduced peak flows 

have allowed fine sediment to build up, especially since the 1992 Cleveland Fire. The 

reach and surrounding area are still clearly showing the effects of that event. The channel 

itself is primarily affected by the sediment deposition from that event, and that 

accumulation may be affecting biological resources in the reach. 

Because of these effects, Proposed Article 1-2, Pulse Flows, provides for flushing 

flows timed to coincide with winter storm events and spring snowmelt runoff. These 

flows would serve as peak flows for channel flushing to imitate the unregulated 

condition. During wet years for example, releases of 600 cfs would be provided for 

5 days, with 780 cfs—or the maximum capacity of the outlet works—being released on 

the third day. The flushing flows would influence the geomorphology of the channel 

sections, to scour the finer sediments in areas where sediment supply has exceeded 

transport capacity, which in turn would restore the channel condition that existed before 

the fines from the Cleveland Fire affected the biological resources. The bed of the 

channel would also continue to be mobilized more frequently, so that future events that 

affect the channel substrate could be flushed in a more natural period of time and the 

aquatic resources of the reach could be restored. Proposed Article 1-5, Monitoring 

Program, provides for geomorphology monitoring to develop benchmarks and 

comparatively study the future effects of these flushing flows. 

Chili Bar Dam Reach 

Three subreaches were studied in the Chili Bar dam reach on the SFAR. Only one 

section was found to currently be characterized as a response section, but fines are being 

transported into the reservoir and downstream of the dam, and they could affect channel 

conditions throughout the reach. Under Proposed Article 2-6, Sediment Management 

Plan, PG&E would plan and implement a geomorphology monitoring program to 

evaluate long-term changes in cross-section, longitudinal profile, bed substrate, and 

channel and bank stability in the sections studied. The purpose would be to verify that 

project operations would not be adversely affecting the resources of the reach. 

Under Proposed Article 2-6, Sediment Management Plan, PG&E could elect to 

dredge the reservoir to increase reservoir storage, since the waterbody has captured a 

significant amount of sediment that has been transported from upland sources over the 

life of the dam. Prior to any dredging activity, PG&E would consult with the Agencies 

and BLM to develop a sediment management plan to protect the project resources. The 

sediment management plan would not only address the potential adverse effects of 

dredging on the reservoir and related mitigating measures, but it also may include a 

provision to deposit the dredged material in the downstream reach. 
3-18 

Our Analysis 

Under natural conditions, periodic high flows would move sediments through the 

river system. Based on geomorphology studies, SMUD and the Agencies have identified 

reaches that would benefit from periodic pulse flows to move flush sediments 

downstream. Coordinating the provision of pulse floods with natural high flow events is 

reasonable. 

Monitoring changes in sediment deposition in the reaches prone to sediment 

deposition would allow SMUD and PG&E, in consultation with the Agencies and BLM, 

to determine if and when to dredge the reservoirs and where to deposit the dredged 

materials. Based on our review of the studies, we would conclude that pulse flows in the 

reaches where sediments are trapped or deposited would help to transport these sediments 

downstream. The downstream reaches are where sediments most likely would have 

traveled if the impoundment did not exist; however because any added material could 

threaten the resources of the reach, the development of a sediment management plan 

would minimize these potential effects. 

Iowa Hill Development 

Reservoir Sedimentation 

Construction of the proposed Iowa Hill development could affect soil erosion and 

water turbidity in stream effluent from the development, as well as in Slab Creek 

reservoir. The construction of the development would include clearing and grading, 

cutting, and filling to create the upper reservoir, installation of an underground 

tunnel/penstock, construction of a multiport (octagonal) intake in Slab Creek reservoir, 

and construction of about 2 miles of transmission line. During construction, SMUD 

would prevent water pollution and erosion by implementing management practices 

described in the storm water pollution prevention plan proposed under Article 1-42, 

Water Quality and Water Pollution, including keeping all equipment staging for the 

construction of the tunnel at least 100 feet from the SFAR and removing all material that 

is used within the riverbed, including siltation fabric, after the completion of 

construction. In addition, SMUD would implement best management practices to 

stabilize soil and retain sediment during construction as described in the erosion and 

sedimentation control plan included in appendix A of the license application. Under 

Proposed Article 1-47, Spoils Disposal, Forest Service approval would be required prior 

to discharging any spoils on National Forest System lands. 

Our Analysis 

Effects of Iowa Hill Construction 

Erodable soil is present that could be disturbed by construction activities. 

Construction of the proposed Iowa Hill development could potentially result in 

substantial soil effects. An octagonal intake would eliminate the need to alter the 
3-19 

mountain slope (both under water and above the shoreline) during construction. The 

natural slope has existed under water for more than 30 years and has existed in-the-dry 

for thousands of years. Like the slopes in other UARP reservoirs, it is not anticipated that 

stability enhancements would be needed. Because of the octagonal configuration, the 

horizontal net velocity component on the reservoir would be minimal, greatly reducing 

any concern about stirring up sediment. 

The risk of water quality disturbance and soil erosion could be minimized by 

implementing a storm water pollution preventive plan identifying the best management 

practices for erosion and sediment control, including the stabilization of spoil piles. This 

plan would also include the method of installation and removal of a temporary coffer dam 

in Slab Creek reservoir to prevent any construction disturbance to the water quality in the 

reservoir. SMUD indicates that the construction of the Iowa Hill development would 

achieve a balance between excavated materials and fill such that there would be no 

permanent spoils discharge. We anticipate that the proposed storm water pollution 

prevention plan and use of best management practices would provide reasonable 

assurance that SMUD’s construction activities would not directly or indirectly adversely 

affect water quality and aquatic habitat. 

Effects of Iowa Hill Operation 

While the UARP predominantly has bedrock, boulder, and cobble substrate in its 

waterways, geological investigations concluded that material in the area of the proposed 

Iowa Hill development is not watertight enough to prevent seepage from the proposed 

upper reservoir. Residual soil and fractured deposits could result in storage losses during 

operation 

Seismicity and Groundwater Effects 

If active or potentially active faults were passing through or near the site of the 

Iowa Hill development, seismic activity could potentially cause failure of the structures 

associated with the development. However, no faults or fault systems are considered 

active or near enough to create any greater risk than that associated with the structures 

that already impound project waters. In fact, the construction of a reservoir with earthen 

berms and an impermeable layer is likely to withstand an earthquake better than the 

closest dam—on Slab Creek reservoir, the lower reservoir in the pumped storage 

development—since there would be no possibility of the earthen berms overturning. 

However, the underground penstock/tunnel would be susceptible to seismic activity, so 

best management practices should account for this in design and construction. 

The proposed operation of the Iowa Hill development could increase turbidity and 

erosion within Slab Creek reservoir because of increased reservoir surface fluctuation and 

turbulence from the proposed intake/outlet. SMUD investigated whether the proposed 

development would cause these effects, and concludes that the turbidity and shoreline 

erosion would not increase significantly because (1) the proposed upper reservoir would 

be lined with a clay/bentonite or synthetic impermeable layer to prevent seepage, which 
3-20 

would also preclude sediment mobilization in that reservoir and its’ transport to Slab 

Creek reservoir, (2) the proposed intake/outlet structure would be located 90 feet above 

the channel bed in Slab Creek reservoir, so it would be very unlikely to mobilize 

sediment on the reservoir’s bottom, and (3) the more frequent reservoir surface 

fluctuation would not affect shoreline erosion, since the shoreline is mostly cobble, 

boulder, and bedrock. 

The proposed development could also impact groundwater by creating seepage 

paths along the proposed tunnel that lead to instability, or adversely affecting natural 

resources by altering or polluting the water table and surrounding soil. Under Proposed 

Article 1-43, Groundwater, SMUD would develop and implement a plan for managing 

the flow of groundwater during construction and for post-construction monitoring of 

groundwater to evaluate project impacts on groundwater. The proposed plan would 

establish baseline measurements of the project area and affected groundwater levels. 

During construction, SMUD would document all groundwater encountered and propose 

corrective measures if the levels encountered are different than what were expected. 

Ongoing monitoring and reporting would last for 5 years, and it would evaluate springs 

and creeks that could be affected by project seepage or piping. An approved plan would 

also include mitigating measures in the case of any adverse effects, which would ensure 

that the proposed development would not create any significant impact. 

Our Analysis 

Effects of Project Construction 

We have reviewed the report and the physical conditions of the shoreline and 

conclude that the shoreline attributes and location of the intake combined with the use of 

an impermeable liner in the upper reservoir would minimize sediment mobilization and 

shoreline erosion in the Slab Creek reservoir. 

Effects of Project Operation 

Implementation of a plan for monitoring groundwater during and after 

construction of the Iowa Hill development would provide information on the effects of 

the development on groundwater and allow SMUD and the Agencies to recommend 

mitigation to remedy identified effects on groundwater. 

UARP-only Alternative 

The Iowa Hill development would not be constructed or operated under the 

UARP-only Alternative. All other proposed environmental measures would be 

implemented. Operations would otherwise be similar to those in the Proposed Action, 

without the effects of the Iowa Hill development. 

The effects of the Iowa Hill development that would not occur under this 

alternative include changes in water-level fluctuations in Slab Creek reservoir, effects on 

turbidity within the reservoir, and clearing, cutting and filling, and soil erosion as a result 
3-21 

of the construction of the development. Impacts on geology in that area would not occur 

at Iowa Hill. 

3.3.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

None. 

3.3.2 Water Resources 

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment 

Water Quantity 

The UARP and the Chili Bar Project use water of the SFAR and Rubicon River 

watersheds to generate electricity (figure 3-1). The river basins drain a portion of the 

western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains between Placerville and the Sierra crest, 

which reach over 9,000 feet, just west of Lake Tahoe. The total drainage area for the 

SFAR is 598 square miles as measured near Placerville (USGS gage no. 11444500) 

(figure 3-2) about 700 feet downstream of Chili Bar dam. The total drainage of the 

reservoirs within the Rubicon River (a major tributary to the Middle Fork of the 

American River) watershed used for diverting some of inflow to the reservoirs to the 

SFAR watershed is about 76 square miles. 

The American River Basin has warm dry summers and cool and wet winters. 

Temperatures and precipitation vary considerably depending on elevation. Summer high 

temperatures are normally above 90 degrees in the lower elevations and low temperatures 

are normally substantially below freezing during the winter in the higher elevations. 

Average precipitation ranges from 40 to 70 inches with more than 90 percent of the 

precipitation occurring from October through April, mainly in the form of snow in the 

higher elevations. A snowpack of 5 to 10 feet is common in the higher elevations, with 

little or no snow in the lower elevations, below 2,000 feet. Much of the snowpack below 

5,000 feet melts by the end of April, but snowmelt from higher elevations continues into 

at least June in most years. Streamflow normally peaks during the late spring and/or 

early summer from snowmelt runoff. Low flows within this watershed typically occur 

during the late summer or early fall, after the snowmelt and before the runoff from the 

fall storms moving in from the Pacific Ocean. In the higher elevations above 6,000 feet, 

most precipitation during fall, winter, and spring falls as snow which results in low flows 

other than from occasional rain-on-snow events, until snowmelt begins, normally in 

April. 
3-22 

	






	


	




	




	



	

	



	



	

	

	





	






	






	






	

	



	






	












 


	





$


"		 



	

-
 	 %	 	

-
 	 - %	 

-
 	 %	 	

"





	

-

5D5-48
	/	45



	


	

 

 

 

  



	

	


#
$



	


  ! "

-
 	 #$	 %	



33 .

+2,,!5 <<#&>
!!0>=5


01235''"#B&&>12 +5
 +2 =

12

+205B<#"*&>12 ,15



3.



3!.

	
++>=.


 1>0.

30023!5"<'"#&)&> 205


,23=5"(<'"&> 2 =5


 =2!15<&'&&>=2 =5


3=5#.<"'&>32!+=5


+2=,5&&B&>32!+=5


+1215#&&B&>+2=5


	
> .

	
+ .

$
+=.


-


-

($*$


-

+2315;&&&&B&>=23,+5


	

	





,5'
&#B&>=23,+5


		

 ! 

	
0.

Figure 3-1. Profile of the Upper American River system, Rubicon Lake to the Chili Bar Project. 

(Source: SMUD, 2005; PG&E, 2005, as modified by staff) 
3-23 

Figure 3-2. Existing USGS gages within the Upper American River system. (Source: SMUD, 200

PG&E, 2005, as modified by staff)
3-24 

Rubicon Reservoir 

The primary purpose of the Rubicon reservoir is diversion of high spring-time 

flow from the main stem of the Rubicon River to Buck Island reservoir via the 

Rubicon - Rockbound tunnel, which diverts into Rockbound Lake. Rubicon 

reservoir is not used for long-term storage; however, SMUD has water rights for 

storage of up to 450 acre-feet in the reservoir, out of a total useable storage 

capacity of 1,010 acre-feet (table 3-2). Water is released downstream from 

Rubicon dam by either passing over the spillway or through one or both 10-inchdiameter globe valve controlled low-level outlets, which have a combined capacity 

of about 18 cfs at full reservoir pool. 

Table 3-2. Reservoir summary for the Projects. (Source: SMUD, 2005; PG&E, 

2005) 

Reservoir 

Drainage 

Area 

(square 

miles) 

Normal 

Maximum 

Water Surface 

Elevation 

(feet msl) 

Useable 

Storage 

(acre-feet) 

Typical Daily Elevation 

Changes/Typical 

Annual Elevation 

Changes 

(feet) 

Diversion Tunnel 

or Powerhouse 

Rubicon 26.5 6,545 1,010 <0.5/11.8 RubiconRockbound tunnel 

Buck Island 6.0 6,436 648a <0.5/11.5 Buck-Loon tunnel 

Loon Lake 8.0 6,410 68,988 <0.5/36 Loon Lake 

powerhouse 

Gerle Creek 28.7 5,231 483 1.5/9 Gerle Creek canal 

Robbs Peak 15.2 5,231 30 <0.5/5 Robbs Peak 

powerhouse 

Ice House 27.2 5,450 35,065a

 <0.5/42 Jones Fork 

powerhouse 

Union 

Valley 

83.7 4,870 266,303a

 <0.5/60 Union Valley 

powerhouse 

Junction 147.0 4,450 2,140 20/32 Jaybird 

powerhouse 

Camino 160.0 2,915 489 20/30 Camino 

powerhouse 

Brush Creek 8.0 2,915 374 20b

/<1 Camino 

powerhouse 

Slab Creek 493 1,850 5,580 6/30 White Rock 

powerhouse 

Chili Bar 598 997.5 1,088 4.2/14.5 Chili Bar 

powerhouse 

a

 Top of spillway or bulkhead gates, or stop logs in place. 

b

 Brush Creek is rarely used in super peaking mode, but when it is, the typical daily change in 

elevation is about 20 feet. 
3-25 

Because Rubicon reservoir is operated primarily as a diversion facility, the 

water level in the reservoir fluctuates with changing volumes of inflow, ranging 

between the minimum operating level of 6,533.2 feet and the maximum normal 

operating level of 6,545.0 feet. Water levels are also determined by the manual 

installation of gates which normally occurs in July and are removed in October. 

During the summer recreational season of May 1 through September 10, the 

minimum operating pool level is increased by 6.0 feet to an elevation of 

6,539.2 (figure 3-3). Although the daily water surface elevations are highly 

variable, the monthly median minimum water surface elevation is higher during 

the recreational season. 

Rubicon Reservoir Daily Water Surface Elevations

6,530

6,535

6,540

6,545

6,550

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

Elevations (feet)

Daily Data

Monthly Median

Maximum Normal Elevation (6,545 feet)

Minimum Normal Elevation (6.533.2 feet)

Summer Recreation Season Minimum Elevation (6,539.2 feet) Note: Data for water years 1997 to 2006. 

Figure 3-3. Rubicon reservoir daily water surface elevations. 

(Source: CDEC, 2007) 

Buck Island Reservoir 

The primary purpose of the Buck Island reservoir, like Rubicon reservoir, is 

diversion of high spring-time flow from the Rubicon River via the Buck-Loon 

tunnel to Loon Lake reservoir. Buck Island reservoir is not used for long-term 

storage; however, SMUD has water rights for storage up to 440 acre-feet in this 

reservoir, out of a total useable storage volume of 648 acre-feet. Water is released 

downstream from Buck Island dam by either passing over the spillway or through 

one 12-inch diameter, globe valve, low-level outlet, which has a capacity of about 

11 cfs at full reservoir pool. The water level in Buck Island reservoir fluctuates 

between the minimum operating pool level of 6,424.5 feet and the maximum 
3-26 

normal elevation of 6,436.0 feet. During the summer recreational season of May 1 

through September 10, SMUD increases the minimum operating level by 6.5 feet 

to 6,431.0 feet, effectively narrowing the median range of maximum water 

elevation fluctuation from 11.5 to normally 5.0 feet (figure 3-4). As with Rubicon 

reservoir, the daily elevation changes are highly variable. As shown in figure 4-6, 

the monthly median water is higher during the recreational season. 

Buck Island Reservoir Daily Water Surface Elevations

6,422

6,424

6,426

6,428

6,430

6,432

6,434

6,436

6,438

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

Elevations (feet)

Daily Data

Monthly Median

Maximum Normal Elevation (6,436 feet)

Minimum Normal Elevation (6.424.5 feet)

Summer Recreation Season Minimum Elevation (6,431.0 feet) Note: Data for water years 1997 to 2006. 

Figure 3-4. Buck Island reservoir daily water surface elevations. 

(Source: CDEC, 2007) 

Loon Lake Reservoir 

Loon Lake reservoir is the highest elevation storage reservoir in the UARP 

with a total useable storage volume of about 69,000 acre-feet. Water is released 

from the reservoir though the Loon Lake penstock to the Loon Lake powerhouse 

and then into Gerle Creek reservoir. Water is also released downstream from 

Loon Lake dam by either passing over the spillway or through one or more of two 

10-inch-diameter, globe valves (maximum capacity of 41 cfs) or one 42-inchdiameter, Howell-Bunger valve (maximum capacity of 600 cfs). Variation in 

Loon Lake reservoir levels typically follows an annual cycle, with reservoir 

elevations reaching their highest levels during early summer months. The 

reservoir levels gradually lower throughout the summer months continuing into 

the fall and winter months. The water elevation slowly rises during the spring and 

early summer as the rain and snowmelt runoff refill the reservoir (figure 3-5). 
3-27 

Loon Lake Reservoir Daily Water Surface Elevations

6,350

6,360

6,370

6,380

6,390

6,400

6,410

6,420

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

Elevation (feet) .

Daily Data 2001 Monthly Median Maximum Normal Water Surface Elevation (6,410)

Figure 3-5. Loon Lake reservoir daily water surface elevations. (Source: 

CDEC, 2007) 

Gerle Creek Reservoir 

As with Rubicon and Buck Island, the primary purpose of the Gerle Creek 

reservoir is diversion of high spring-time flow and water re-diverted from 

upstream UARP facilities via the Gerle canal to Robbs Peak reservoir and then to 

Robbs Peak powerhouse on Union Valley reservoir. There are no storage rights at 

Gerle Creek reservoir, and the reservoir has a useable storage volume of 483 acrefeet. According to SMUD, daily average variation is about 1.5 feet and 9 feet 

annually (see table 3-2). Water is also released downstream from Gerle Creek 

dam by either passing over the spillway or through one 10-inch-diameter, globe 

valve, low-level outlet, which has a capacity of about 13 cfs at full pool. 

Robbs Peak Reservoir 

Robbs Peak reservoir, which has a useable storage volume of 30 acre-feet, 

primarily diverts water from the SFRR and the Gerle canal into the Robbs Peak 

tunnel and regulates inflow to the Robbs Peak powerhouse located on the 

northeast shore of Union Valley reservoir. Water is also released downstream 

from Robbs Peak dam by either passing over the spillway or through one 6-inch-
3-28 

diameter, diaphragm valve, low level outlet, which has a capacity of about 4 cfs at 

full pool. DWR requires that the Robbs Peak dam bulkhead gates be held in a full 

open position from October 1 through May 31, except that gate 2 may be closed 

for the full year. SMUD states that Robbs Peak reservoir has an average daily 

fluctuation of less than 0.5 foot and an annual fluctuation of about 5 feet (see 

table 3-2). 

Ice House Reservoir 

The primary purpose of Ice House reservoir is storage, and it has a useable 

storage volume of about 35,000 acre-feet. Water is released from the reservoir 

though the Jones Fork tunnel to the Jones Fork powerhouse located on the 

shoreline of the Union Valley reservoir. In addition, water can be released 

downstream from Ice House dam by either passing over the spillway or through 

one or both of two 10-inch-diameter globe valve low-level outlets and one 42-inch 

diameter Howell-Bunger valve low-level outlet, which have a combined capacity 

of about 740 cfs at reservoir full pool. DWR requires that the spillway gates be 

held in the full open position from November 1 through April 1. Between April 1 

and April 15, water may be impounded to the top of the spillway gates (elevation 

5,445.0 feet). After April 15, water level may be increased to elevation 

5,447.0 feet (figure 3-6). During October, the water level must be lowered 

gradually to elevation 5,436.5 feet, the spillway crest. 

Union Valley Reservoir 

The primary purpose of Union Valley reservoir is storage, and it is the 

largest reservoir in the UARP and Chili Bar Project area, with a useable storage 

volume of about 266,000 acre-feet. Water is released from the reservoir though 

the Union Valley tunnel to the Union Valley powerhouse located on Junction 

reservoir, which serves as an afterbay for Union Valley powerhouse. Union 

Valley dam does not have a low level outlet. DWR requires that the spillway 

gates be held in the full open position from November 1 through April 1. Between 

April 1 and April 15, water may be impounded to elevation 4,865 feet. After April 

15, water level may be increased to elevation 4,867.0 feet, near the maximum 

normal elevation of 4,870 feet (figure 3-7). During October, water level must be 

lowered gradually to elevation 4,855.0 feet, the spillway crest. 
3-29 

Ice House Reservoir Daily Water Surface Elevations

5,390

5,400

5,410

5,420

5,430

5,440

5,450

5,460

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

Elevations (feet) Daily Data 2001 Monthly Median Maximum Normal Water Surface Elevation (5,450)

Figure 3-6. Ice House reservoir daily water surface elevations. 

(Source: CDEC, 2007) 

Union Valley Reservoir Daily Water Surface Elevations

4,700

4,720

4,740

4,760

4,780

4,800

4,820

4,840

4,860

4,880

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

Elevation (feet) .

Daily Data 2001 Monthly Median Maximum Normal Water Surface Elevation (4,870)

Figure 3-7. Union Valley reservoir daily water surface elevations. 

(Source: CDEC, 2007) 
3-30 

Junction Reservoir 

The primary purpose of Junction reservoir is to act as a regulating afterbay 

for Union Valley powerhouse and a regulating forebay for the Jaybird tunnel, 

which leads to the Jaybird powerhouse. Water released from the Jaybird 

powerhouse flows directly into Camino reservoir. In addition, water is also 

released downstream from Junction dam by either passing over the spillway or 

through one 18-inch-diameter hollow cone valve low-level outlet, which has a 

maximum capacity of about 138 cfs at reservoir full pool (elevation 4,450 feet). 

Junction reservoir has a useable storage volume of 2,140 acre-feet, an average 

daily fluctuation of about 20 feet, and an annual fluctuation of about 32 feet 

(see table 3-2). 

Camino Reservoir 

Camino reservoir is a regulating afterbay for the Jaybird powerhouse and 

one of two regulating forebays for the Camino powerhouse. Brush Creek dam 

forms the other regulating forebay for the Camino powerhouse. Water is directed 

from Camino reservoir into the Camino tunnel, which joins the Brush Creek 

tunnel. Water is also released downstream from Camino dam by either passing 

over the spillway or through one 18-inch-diameter hollow cone valve low-level 

outlets, which has a capacity of about 112 cfs at full pool. Camino reservoir has a 

useable storage volume of 489 acre-feet, an average daily fluctuation of about 

20 feet, and an annual fluctuation of about 30 feet (see table 3-2). 

Brush Creek Reservoir 

Unlike the Camino reservoir and other reservoirs within the UARP, Brush 

Creek reservoir is often operated to provide spinning reserves for reliability 

purposes. It is also used to generate maximum peak power during emergency and 

other short-term situations, such as when all available generating units are 

expected to operate at full load for short periods of time. Under this super-peaking 

operating mode, the daily water level may fluctuate up to 20 feet, ranging between 

the operating pool levels of 2,895.0 and 2,915.0 feet. Over the appropriate 

nighttime periods of the next 2 to 3 days following this operating mode, SMUD 

typically shuts down the operation of the Camino powerhouse while operating the 

Jaybird powerhouse. Concurrently, the water exiting the Jaybird powerhouse is 

transported via the Camino and Brush Creek tunnels to refill Brush Creek 

reservoir. Water is released downstream from Brush Creek dam by either passing 

over the spillway or through a low-level outlet, which has a capacity of about 

145 cfs at full pool. Brush Creek reservoir has a useable storage volume of 

374 acre-feet and an average annual fluctuation of less than 1 foot (see table 3-2). 
3-31 

Slab Creek Reservoir 

Slab Creek reservoir is a regulating afterbay for the Camino powerhouse 

and a regulating forebay for the White Rock powerhouse, which releases into 

PG&E’s Chili Bar reservoir. Under the Proposed Action, Slab Creek reservoir 

also would function as the lower reservoir for the Iowa Hill development. Water 

is released from the reservoir through the White Rock tunnel. Water is also 

released downstream from Slab Creek dam by either passing over the spillway or 

through one 24-inch-diameter Howell-Bunger valve low-level outlet, which leads 

either to the Slab Creek powerhouse or a bypass facility if the powerhouse is not 

operating. The low-level outlet valve has a capacity of about 270 cfs at full pool. 

Slab Creek reservoir has a useable storage volume of 5,580 acre-feet, an average 

daily fluctuation of about 6 feet, and an annual fluctuation of about 30 feet (see 

table 3-2 and figure 3-8). 

Slab Creek Reservoir Daily Water Surface Elevations

1,800

1,810

1,820

1,830

1,840

1,850

1,860

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

Elevation (feet) . Daily Data 2001 Monthly Median Maximum Normal Water Surface Elevation (1,850)

Figure 3-8. Slab Creek reservoir daily water surface elevations. 

(Source: CDEC, 2007) 

Chili Bar Reservoir 

PG&E’s Chili Bar reservoir is a regulating afterbay for SMUD’s White 

Rock powerhouse and a regulating forebay for PG&E’s Chili Bar powerhouse. 

Water is released from the reservoir through the penstock leading to the 
3-32 

powerhouse located near the base of the dam or though the spillway. PG&E 

describes the operation of Chili Bar as a reregulation facility from the upstream 

SMUD system to maintain the desired flow regime in the SFAR during peaking 

operations at White Rock powerhouse while providing minimum and recreational 

flow releases to downstream reaches. Chili Bar reservoir has a useable storage 

volume of 1,088 acre-feet, an average daily fluctuation of 4.2 feet and normally 

not exceeding 7 feet per day, and an annual variation of about 14.5 feet (see 

table 3-2). 

Flow in Project Reaches 

Twelve sections of river (about 81 river miles, excluding reservoirs) are 

affected by the UARP through either a bypass of water around the section of river 

via a project tunnel or canal, or storage at and release of water from a UARP dam 

directly into the reach (see figure 3-1). These sections of river are called project 

reaches, and are mostly named after the UARP facility from which the water is 

diverted or stored. The downstream end of each project reach is established by a 

UARP facility (typically the normal high water line of the next downstream 

reservoir), a non-UARP reservoir, or the confluence with a major tributary. 

The volume of water flowing in the different project reaches is a function of 

three factors: (1) minimum releases at project reservoirs; (2) accretion provided 

by various tributaries within the reaches; (3) and spill from the reservoirs. SMUD 

is currently required to release minimum water quantities for the protection of 

aquatic resources in downstream reaches. The minimum releases required by the 

current license generally vary by month and water year type. Four water year 

types are specified in the current license, with each defined by the total annual 

volume of water inflow to Folsom Lake, which is located downstream of the 

UARP on the main stem of the American River: 

• Type 1—Inflow less than 1.0 million acre-feet 

• Type 2—Inflow between 1.0 to 1.499 million acre-feet 

• Type 3—Inflow between 1.5 to 1.999 million acre-feet 

• Type 4—Inflow greater and equal to 2.0 million acre-feet. 

Accretion is an important factor in determining flows in the project reaches. 

A characteristic feature of the UARP area is the high level of seasonal variability 

in runoff which dictates the distribution and volume of accretion that flows into 

the UARP reaches. The majority of the runoff in the different watersheds occurs 

during the snowmelt period, roughly between April and June, when melting snow 

runs off the dominant metamorphic and granitic rock surfaces. Little water is 

retained in the watersheds beyond the runoff period due to the shallow soil 

deposits overlaying the rock surfaces. Thus, the difference in volume of water 

flowing in project reaches between spring and summer is substantial, ranging from 
3-33 

many hundreds of cfs to less than 1 cfs, or in some cases no flow. The typical 

spring snowmelt runoff pattern of the upper reaches is replaced in the lower 

reaches by a winter runoff pattern. In the Junction, Camino, and Slab Creek 

reaches, for example, the accretion attains its highest point in February and March. 

Spill from UARP reservoirs into the project reaches occurs with varying 

levels of frequency and magnitude. In general, spills are less frequent at the three 

large storage reservoirs, Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House. These 

reservoirs often have sufficient storage capacity to capture the snowmelt flows 

without spilling, except in wetter water years. The afterbay/forebay reservoirs 

(such as Junction, Camino, Gerle Creek, and Robbs Peak) spill more frequently 

due to their limited size compared to the volume of accretion flows that originate 

within their watersheds. 

The existing flow regime in each project reach is discussed below. Tables 

3-3, 3-4 through 3-10, and 3-11 (at the end of this discussion) summarize the reach 

data and terminology, current required minimum streamflows and streamflow data 

for the reaches with seasonally adjusted minimum streamflow requirements and 

USGS gages in the project reaches. 

Rubicon Dam Reach 

The existing flow regime in the Rubicon dam reach is highly variable, due 

primarily to accretion flows associated with snowmelt runoff. The existing release 

schedule for Rubicon dam requires a year-round minimum release of 6 cfs as 

measured at USGS gage no. 11427960 (Rubicon River below Rubicon Lake) or 

natural inflow from the Rubicon River. During the late summer/early fall period, 

when inflow falls below 1 cfs or to zero SMUD usually releases 1 cfs from the 

dam. Generally, accretion in the project reach is also zero during this low-flow 

period, which results in the 1 cfs release extending throughout the entire reach, 

even past Miller Creek, which typically dries up in summer. The sole 

augmentation of flow in this reach during this period occurs at the confluence with 

the Little Rubicon River, where the 1 cfs released by SMUD from Buck Island 

reservoir enters the Rubicon River. 

During the snowmelt runoff, flows in the reach are substantially higher than 

the minimum release value of 6 cfs because of the substantial accretion runoff. 

Monthly median values for accretion throughout the reach during the snowmelt 

period climb to values of approximately 200 to 250 cfs. Winter base flows are 

generally low, however, due to the fact that much of the precipitation that falls on 

the project reach watershed is in the form of snow that remains frozen during 

winter. Spill at Rubicon reservoir occurs during the spring snowmelt period, 

generally in wetter water years. Flow is diverted at Rubicon Lake by the Rubicon 

–Rockbound tunnel to Rockbound reservoir. Flow in the diversion tunnel 
3-34 

typically peaks in May with a monthly mean and median of 300 cfs, and reaches 

its minimum in September with a monthly mean and median less than 15 cfs. 

Rockbound Dam Reach 

The Rockbound dam reach is a 0.3-mile ungaged segment of stream that 

lies between Rockbound Lake, a non-UARP facility, and Buck Island reservoir. 

Rockbound Lake is a natural lake with a small non-UARP masonry dam at its 

outlet. At Rockbound Lake, dam maintenance and operation are CDFG’s 

responsibility. Because the dam outlet facilities are currently inoperable, flows 

out of Rockbound Lake are the result of water passing over the dam into the 

stream reach. The existing flow regime in the stream reach is a combination of 

water diverted from the Rubicon River at Rubicon reservoir (and passed through 

the Rubicon - Rockbound tunnel into Rockbound Lake) and natural flows in 

Highland Creek, which also enter Rockbound Lake. SMUD estimates that 

Highland Creek (the main natural tributary to Rockbound Lake) has peak flows of 

about 100 cfs during high snowmelt periods. During low-flow periods (such as 

during the summer and early fall), inflow to the lake from all sources often ceases. 

During these times, flows out of Rockbound Lake into the reach are at constant 

levels of less than 1 cfs from leakage at the outlet facilities of the masonry dam. 

Buck Island Dam Reach 

The existing flow regime in the Buck Island dam reach is very similar to 

that of the Rubicon dam reach. Once the snowmelt runoff has ceased, generally 

by July, flows in the entire watershed quickly fall to zero. This is true of Highland 

Creek, the feeder stream that provides the majority of natural inflow to Buck 

Island reservoir, and of the watershed downstream of the reservoir. There are no 

tributaries of significance along the 2.5-mile reach of the Little Rubicon River 

before its confluence with the Rubicon River, resulting in very minor accretion 

values during the dry months. The year-round minimum release schedule for 

Buck Island reservoir is 1 cfs, measured at USGS gage no. 11428400 (Little 

Rubicon River below Buck Island dam) for all months and water year types. This 

reservoir release is augmented by snowmelt accretion in April and May, although 

it is of a reduced volume compared to the Rubicon River. Spill at Buck Island 

dam, which is not presently measured by the downstream USGS gage, into the 

reach generally coincides with the spill events at Rubicon reservoir and occurs 

primarily in wet water years. Flow is diverted at Buck Island reservoir by the 

Buck Island–Loon Lake to Loon Lake reservoir. Flow in the diversion tunnel 

typically peaks in May and June with a monthly mean and median near 300 cfs, 

and reaches its minimum in August and September with a monthly mean and 

median less than 20 cfs. 
3-35 

Loon Lake Dam Reach 

The existing flow regime in the Loon Lake dam reach is similar in nature to 

that of the other high elevation project reaches. The existing license requires a 

year-round minimum release of 8 cfs from Loon Lake into Gerle Creek during all 

months and all water year types as measured at USGS gage no. 11429500 (Gerle 

Creek below Loon Lake). Unlike Rubicon and Buck Island reservoirs, which have 

limited storage capacity, releases at Loon Lake during the summer/fall period are 

not contingent upon the natural inflow from Ellis Creek, which typically dries up 

during summer. Instead, because there is greater storage capacity, releases from 

Loon Lake reservoir remain fixed at 8 cfs all summer and fall. Generally, during 

this low-flow period, accretion is insignificant, which results in about 8 cfs, 

throughout the course of the 8.5-mile-long reach to Greek Creek reservoir. 

During the snowmelt runoff, flows in the reach are substantially higher than 

the minimum release value of 8 cfs. SMUD estimates the total-reach accretion 

amounts during the snowmelt period reach as about 100 to 150 cfs in AN and BN 

water years. The substantial storage capacity of Loon Lake reservoir and its 

location at the uppermost end of the watershed result in very infrequent spill, 

which is presently measured at the USGS gage below the dam. SMUD states that 

daily flows from reservoir releases and accretion through the reach during the 

winter and spring are quite variable, with short duration peaks in winter reaching 

highs near 1,000 cfs in some years. Flow is diverted at Loon Lake reservoir to the 

Loon Lake powerhouse (measured by USGS gage no. 11429340). SMUD states 

the Loon Lake powerhouse is typically operated as a daily peaking unit with high 

load settings and is turned off during non peaking periods. The average daily flow 

at the Loon Lake powerhouse peaks in June, with a mean and maximum in excess 

of 200 cfs. The powerhouse is not operated many days during many months other 

than during the spring. Water is discharged from the Loon Lake powerhouse to 

Gerle Creek reservoir via 3.8 mile tunnel. 

Robbs Peak Dam Reach 

The existing flow regime in the Robbs Peak dam reach is a function of 

releases from Robbs Peak and Gerle Creek dams, spill events at both dams, and 

accretion along the 5.9-mile-long reach of the SFRR down to its confluence with 

the main stem Rubicon River. Major inflow sources to Gerle Creek dam include 

the discharge from the Loon Lake powerhouse and Gerle Creek. At the small 

Gerle Creek reservoir, water is diverted to Robbs Peak reservoir via a 1.9-milelong canal (see figures 3-1 and 3-2). The release from Gerle Creek dam enters the 

Robbs Peak dam reach 1.1 miles downstream of Robbs Peak dam. The current 

license requires a combined release from the two dams ranging from 5 to 11 cfs 

measured at USGS gage no. 11430000 (SFRR below Gerle Creek) depending on 

month and water year type. These releases constitute the primary sources of flow 

at the confluence of the SFRR and Gerle Creek, as each segment of the reach 
3-36 

extends about 1 mile, with little contribution from accretion. Downstream of the 

confluence of SFRR and Gerle Creek, the reach drops precipitously through a 

deeply incised canyon with no major tributaries. Accretion within the reach is low 

given the lack of tributaries. During the spring runoff period, the median monthly 

accretion throughout the reach is between 40 and 100 cfs in BN and AN water 

years. Similarly, accretion in summer/fall is about 5 to 10 cfs. 

Flow from Robbs Peak reservoir is diverted by a 3.6 mile tunnel and 

penstock to the Robbs Peak powerhouse along the shoreline of Union Valley 

reservoir, within the Silver Creek portion of the SFAR watershed. Because Robbs 

Peak powerhouse relies largely on water from Loon Lake and lesser amounts from 

Gerle Creek and Robbs Peak reservoirs, Robbs Peak powerhouse operates 

similarly to Loon Lake powerhouse as a daily peaking unit with high load settings 

and is turned off during non peaking periods. 

Ice House Dam Reach 

The existing flow regime in the Ice House dam reach is similar to that of 

the other high elevation project reaches although the elevation of the reach is 

about 1,000 feet lower than the others. The existing release schedule at Ice House 

dam (as measured at USGS gage no. 11441500, SFSC below Ice House dam), 

ranges from winter lows of 3 cfs to summer highs of 15 cfs in wet years, but is less 

variable in other water year types. Despite the fact that inflow to Ice House 

reservoir from the SFSC typically falls to very low values in late summer and 

early fall, releases from Ice House dam during this low-flow period are between 

5 and 15 cfs because of the reservoir’s storage capacity. Generally, during this 

low-flow period, accretion in the reach below the dam is low with normal rates 

less than 10 cfs, which results in the 5 to 15 cfs releases accounting for a 

substantial amount of the stream flow throughout the course of the 11.5-mile-long 

reach. 

During the snowmelt runoff, flows in the Ice House reach are substantially 

higher than the minimum release values because of the substantial accretion runoff 

from tributaries. Daily flows in the reach during winter and spring are quite 

variable, with short duration peaks in winter reaching highs of over 1,000 cfs. 

Like the other high elevation reaches, winter base flows are generally low because 

precipitation that falls on the watershed in the form of snow remains frozen during 

winter. Ice House reservoir does not spill regularly. Flow is diverted at Ice House 

reservoir to the Jones Fork powerhouse (measured by gage no. 11440900) on the 

shoreline of Union Valley reservoir. The Jones Fork powerhouse is typically 

operated as a daily peaking unit with high load settings and is turned off during 

non peaking periods. The amount of flow diverted to Jones Fork powerhouse 

typically peaks in June, with median monthly flows slightly above 70 cfs, and 

decreases to flows less than 10 cfs in October and November. 
3-37 

Junction Dam Reach 

In contrast to the upstream project reaches, the flow regime in the Junction 

dam reach is influenced by different timing of minimum releases, accretion, and 

spill events. The minimum release schedule from Junction dam ranges from a low 

of 5 cfs to a high of 20 cfs depending upon month and water year type. Flows up 

to 40 cfs are measured by USGS gage no. 11441800 (Silver Creek below Junction 

dam). Flows in the reach are augmented by accretion from small tributaries that 

enter Silver Creek over the 8.3-mile reach. However, because of the lower 

elevation of the project reach watershed, the timing of accretion flow is shifted 

with respect to that of the higher elevation project reaches. Most of the 

precipitation that falls into the reach watershed does so as rain during winter 

storms. Therefore the pattern of accretion runoff peaks in February and March, 

with median monthly flows of between 100 and 150 cfs in BN and AN water 

years. Another feature of the accretion pattern evident in the Junction dam reach 

is the higher volume of inflow entering Silver Creek in the summer/fall. In 

contrast to the upper reaches of the UARP, the watersheds in the lower reaches 

have deeper soil layers overlaying the bedrock, resulting in more moisture 

retention into the summer/fall, and thus, more accretion during the low-flow 

period. The resulting daily flows in Silver Creek downstream of Junction dam 

range from summer/fall lows of 20 to 40 cfs to winter highs of 100 to 200 cfs. 

The pattern of flow in the reach is more variable because the high flow events are 

dominated by winter rain events rather than by a sustained snowmelt. 

Spill events occur in AN and Wet water years, typically during winter 

storms, due in part to the inflow from SFSC and Little Silver Creek, a direct 

tributary to Junction reservoir. February and March spill rates during normal and 

wet years range from about 500 to 2,000 cfs. Flow is diverted at Junction 

reservoir to the Jaybird powerhouse (measured by gage no. 11441780) located at 

Camino reservoir. SMUD states that the normal operation of Jaybird powerhouse 

is continuous baseload due to discharge problems with two generators, but 

preferred operation is full load daily peaking. The amount of flow diverted to 

Jaybird powerhouse typically peaks in May with median monthly flows near 900 

cfs and decreases to median flows near 350 cfs in October and November. 

Camino Dam Reach 

The existing flow regime in the Camino dam reach is very similar to that of 

the Junction dam reach, and the timing of flows in the reach is driven by the 

similar influences. The minimum release schedule of Camino dam is the same as 

Junction dam, ranging from 5 to 20 cfs, depending upon month and water year 

type. Flow is measured at USGS gage no. 11441900 (Silver Creek below Camino 

dam), which also measures spillage from the dam. The volume and timing of 

accretion entering the Camino dam reach differs from the Junction dam reach due 

to its lower elevation and lack of substantial tributaries in its 6.2 mile distance. 
3-38 

Due to the lower elevation of the reach, most of the winter precipitation falls as 

rain, resulting in highest flows occurring in the winter. The accretion pattern in 

summer and fall in the Camino dam reach is similar to that described in the 

Junction dam reach, but the volume is lower. The median monthly accretion 

levels in the Camino dam reach are generally less than 10 cfs, and the resulting 

daily flows in the Camino dam reach range from summer lows of approximately 

10 to 20 cfs to winter highs of between 50 and 100 cfs. 

SMUD states that spills into the Camino dam reach occur in Wet and AN 

years, mostly in the winter months of February and March, and normal spill rates 

are about 500 to 2,000 cfs. Flow is diverted at Camino reservoir to the Camino 

powerhouse (measured by gage no. 11441895), located upstream of Slab Creek 

reservoir. According to SMUD, normal unit operation is near full load during 

peak periods of the day, when water is available. The amount of flow diverted to 

Camino powerhouse typically peaks in July through September with median 

monthly flows over 700 cfs and decreases to median flows near 350 cfs in October 

and November. 

The confluence of Silver Creek with the SFAR occurs about 2.8 miles 

upstream of the Camino powerhouse. The El Dorado Project (FERC Project No. 

184) is located on the SFAR and consists of four lakes in the upper portion of the 

watershed and operated by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) to supplement 

flows in the SFAR. EID operates these lakes to retain spring and early summer 

snowmelt for releases later in the year. This allows EID to meet the consumptive 

needs of its downstream water users during the drier July through the early winter 

period. EID diverts water from the SFAR at a diversion dam about 22 river miles 

upstream of the Camino powerhouse as well as from small tributaries along the 

south side of the SFAR above the confluence with Silver Creek. EID withdraws a 

total of 15,080 acre-feet per year at rates up to 40 cfs in April through October and 

10 to 20 cfs the reminder of the year (FERC, 2003). The water diverted into the 

canal, which has an annual mean flow of 100 cfs (FERC, 2003), in excess of that 

needed for downstream consumptive users is directed to the El Dorado 

powerhouse located along the SFAR just upstream of the Camino powerhouse. 

According to the USGS (USGS, 2007), flows in the SFAR downstream of the El 

Dorado diversion dam, as measured at USGS gage 11439500 (SFAR near 

Kyburz), peak in May with a monthly median flow near 1,000 cfs and quickly 

decrease to monthly median flows near 50 cfs during the July through November. 

Brush Creek Dam Reach 

The existing flow regime at Brush Creek dam is primarily the result of 

releases from Brush Creek dam and accretion over the 2.2-mile project reach. 

Minimum releases from the dam range between 2 and 6 cfs, depending on month 

and water year type, as shown in table 3-9. These flows are measured at USGS 

gage no. 11442700 (Brush Creek below Brush Creek reservoir). No major 
3-39 

tributaries enter Brush Creek along its short and steep descent to Slab Creek 

reservoir, therefore the only flow augmentations to the dam releases are the 

accretion flows that accumulate within the immediate watershed of the stream 

segment. SMUD states that the median monthly accretion during the winter 

runoff period range between 10-20 cfs and drops to 1-2 cfs in summer and fall. 

Slab Creek Dam Reach 

The existing minimum release schedule at Slab Creek dam ranges from 10 

to 36 cfs, depending on month and water year type, and flows are measured at 

USGS gage no. 11443450 (SFAR near Camino), which also measures spillage 

from Slab Creek dam. Reach flows are augmented by several tributaries that flow 

into the SFAR along the 8.0-mile reach, including Iowa Canyon, Mosquito, and 

Rock Creek. Rock Creek, which is located about five miles downstream of Slab 

Creek dam, is the largest of the tributaries, draining a watershed of 74.5 square 

miles. On Rock Creek, there are diversion weirs that divert water to the Rock 

Creek powerhouse (FERC Project P-3189 operated by Enel North America Inc.), 

which is operated in a run-of river-mode and only when inflow is greater than the 

minimum flow requirements (FERC, 2003). Combined inflow to the SFAR from 

the powerhouse and bypassed reach27 of Rock Creek peak in March and April, 

with flows near 50 cfs, and low flows occur in August through October, with 

flows slightly under 10 cfs. SMUD estimates that during February and March, 

these tributaries contribute median monthly accretion of about 200 to 300 cfs in 

BN and AN water years and 15 to 30 cfs during the summer/fall low flow period. 

Spill at Slab Creek dam occurs primarily during winter and spring. Winter 

storms, such as rain-on-snow events in the upper SFAR Basin, can result in large, 

short-duration flows entering Slab Creek reservoir and spill events at the dam. 

Also, in Wet and AN water years, the SFAR spring snowmelt often leads to flows 

that exceed the capacity of Slab Creek reservoir and the White Rock tunnel, 

resulting in spillage at the dam. The AN and Wet year spring spill events are 

generally longer in duration (lasting for weeks and months) and lower in 

magnitude, generally augmenting flow in the reach by less than 10,000 cfs. 

Flow is diverted by a 4.9 mile tunnel from Slab Creek reservoir to the 

White Rock powerhouse (measured by gage no. 11443460) on Chili Bar reservoir. 

Normal unit operation is near full load during peak periods of the day, when water 

is available, and the powerhouse is commonly shutdown during off peak periods. 

The amount of flow diverted to White Rock powerhouse typically peaks in May, 

with median monthly flows near 2,100 cfs, and decreases to median flows near 

450 cfs in October and November. The Slab Creek powerhouse is located at the 

 

27Median flows for USGS gage no. 11444280, Rock Creek powerhouse 

near Placerville, and USGS gage no. 11444201, Rock Creek near Placerville. 
3-40 

base of Slab Creek dam and has a maximum hydraulic capacity of 36 cfs. The 

powerhouse uses the minimum flow releases for power generation. 

Chili Bar Dam Reach 

The existing minimum release at Chili Bar dam is 100 cfs, but according to 

PG&E, due to project operations, the minimum flow released is typically 200 cfs. 

This flow is measured at USGS gage no. 11444500 (SFAR near Placerville) and 

also measures powerhouse flow and dam spillage. Flows in the reach are 

augmented by several tributaries such as Greenwood and Weber creeks in the 

19.1 mile segment downstream of Chili Bar dam before the tailwater associated 

with the large Folsom reservoir. As is the case with the Slab Creek dam reach, 

accretion from these low elevation tributaries can be substantial during runoff 

from winter rain events, but accretion is low during the June through October 

period. 

PG&E operates the Chili Bar powerhouse near the base of the dam as a 

daily peaking plant during the mid June through October period or when water is 

not available to operate the plant at full capacity. This operation normally results 

in the flow changing from about 200 to about 2,000 cfs during most days, but in 

drier years the flows typically peak between 1,100 and 1,500 cfs. On other days or 

periods when more flow is available, outflow from White Rock powerhouse and 

spillage over Chili Bar dam can cause daily flows to reach over 3,600 cfs. Median 

daily flows as measured at USGS gage no. 11444500, peak at 2,300 cfs in May 

and are below 600 cfs in October and November. Short-duration spillage at Chili 

Bar dam occurs on a relatively regular basis, similar to Slab Creek dam, from 

winter storm events. Longer duration spillage flows are common during normal 

and wet years during peak snowmelt periods from the upper watershed. 

Tables 3-4 through 3-10 summarize the current minimum streamflow 

requirements for the stream reaches which vary by water year type and or month. 

The current minimum streamflow requirement for the SFAR below Chili Bar dam 

is 100 cfs regardless of the water year type. 
3-41 

Table 3-3. Data for project reaches. (Source: SMUD, 2005; PG&E, 2005, as 

modified by staff) 

Section Reach Name 

Upstream and 

Downstream Termini 

Length 

(miles) 

Elevation 

Range 

(feet, from 

base of dam) 

Average 

Gradient 

(percent) 

Main Stem Rubicon dam Rubicon dam–Miller Creek 4.2 6,509–6,046 1.9 

Little 

Rubicon 

Rockbound 

dam 

Rockbound dam–Buck 

Island reservoir 

0.3 6,529–6,436 7.2 

 Buck Island 

dam 

Buck Island dam–Rubicon 

River 

2.5 6,413–5,945 2.9 

Gerle Creek Loon Lake 

dam 

Loon Lake dam–Gerle 

reservoir 

8.5 6,320–5,231 2.3 

Gerle Creek 

(cont.) 

Gerle Creek 

dam 

Gerle Creek dam–SFRR 1.2 5,170–4,980 3.5 

SFRR Robbs Peak 

dam 

Robbs Peak dam–Rubicon 

River 

5.9 5,817–3,540 5.5 

Silver Creek SFSC Ice House dam–Junction 

reservoir 

11.5 5,300–4,450 1.4 

 Main Stem Junction dam–Camino 

reservoir 

8.3 4,290–2,915 3.2 

 Camino dam–SFAR 6.2 2,810–2,055 2.3 

SFAR Brush Creek Brush Creek dam–Slab 

Creek reservoir 

2.2 2,710–1,850 9 

 Main Stem Silver Creek–Slab Creek 

reservoir 

2.8 2,055–1,850 1.2 

 Main Stem Slab Creek dam–Chili Bar 

reservoir 

8 1,650–995 1.5 

 Main Stem Chili Bar dam–Folsom 

reservoir 

19.1 930–430 0.5 
3-42 

Table 3-4. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for SFRR below 

Robbs Peak dam. (Source: SMUD, 2005, as modified by staff) 

Month Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 

October 1 1 3 3 

November 1 1 1 1 

December 1 1 1 1 

January 1 1 1 1 

February 1 1 1 1 

March 1 1 1 1 

April 1 1 1 1 

May 1 1 3 3 

June 1 1 3 3 

July 1 1 3 3 

August 1 1 3 3 

September 1 1 3 3 

Table 3-5. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for Gerle Creek 

below Gerle Creek dam. (Source: SMUD, 2005, as modified by 

staff) 

Month Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 

October 4 4 7 7 

November 4 4 4 4 

December 4 4 4 4 

January 4 4 4 4 

February 4 4 4 4 

March 4 4 4 4 

April 4 4 4 4 

May 4 4 7 7 

June 4 4 7 7 

July 4 4 7 7 

August 4 4 7 7 

September 4 4 7 7 
3-43 

Table 3-6. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for SFSC below Ice 

House dam. (Source: SMUD, 2005, as modified by staff) 

Month Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 

October 5 or NF 5 or NF 12 or NF 12 or NF

November 5 or NF 5 or NF 10/4 or NF 10/4 or NF

December 5 or NF 5 or NF 4 or NF 4 or NF

January 5 or NF 5 or NF 3 or NF 3 or NF

February 5 or NF 5 or NF 3 or NF 3 or NF

March 5 or NF 5 or NF 3 or NF 3 or NF

April 5 or NF 5 or NF 3 or NF 3 or NF

May 5 or NF 5 or NF 8 or NF 8 or NF

June 5 or NF 5 or NF 8 or NF 8 or NF

July 5 or NF 5 or NF 15 or NF 15 or NF

August 5 or NF 5 or NF 15 or NF 15 or NF

September 5 or NF 5 or NF 15 or NF 15 or NF 

Table 3-7. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for Silver Creek 

below Junction dam. (Source: SMUD, 2005, as modified by staff) 

Month Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 

October 5 10 15 20 

November 5 6 8 10 

December 5 6 8 10 

January 5 6 8 10 

February 5 6 8 10 

March 5 6 8 10 

April 5 6 8 10 

May 5 10 15 20 

June 5 10 15 20 

July 5 10 15 20 

August 5 10 15 20 

September 5 10 15 20 
3-44 

Table 3-8. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for Silver Creek 

below Camino dam. (Source: SMUD, 2005, as modified by staff) 

Month Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 

October 5 10 15 20 

November 5 6 8 10 

December 5 6 8 10 

January 5 6 8 10 

February 5 6 8 10 

March 5 6 8 10 

April 5 6 8 10 

May 5 10 15 20 

June 5 10 15 20 

July 5 10 15 20 

August 5 10 15 20 

September 5 10 15 20 

Table 3-9. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for Brush Creek 

below Brush Creek dam. (Source: SMUD, 2005, as modified by 

staff) 

Month Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 

October 2 2 3 3 

November 4 4 6 6 

December 4 4 6 6 

January 4 4 6 6 

February 4 4 6 6 

March 4 4 6 6 

April 4 4 6 6 

May 4 4 6 6 

June 2 2 3 3 

July 2 2 3 3 

August 2 2 3 3 

September 2 2 3 3 
3-45 

Table 3-10. Current minimum streamflow requirements (cfs) for SFAR below 

Slab Creek dam. (Source: SMUD, 2005, as modified by staff) 

Month Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 

October 36 36 36 36 

November 36/10 36/10 36 36 

December 10 10 36 36 

January 10 10 36 36 

February 10 10 36 36 

March 10 10 36 36 

April 10 10 36 36 

May 10 10 36 36 

June 36 36 36 36 

July 36 36 36 36 

August 36 36 36 36 

September 36 36 36 36 
3-46 

Table 3-11. Monthly discharge (cfs) statistics for gages in the project area. (Source: USGS, 2007) 

Avg. 

(Oct–

Apr) May Jun Jul Aug Sept Yearly 

Avg. 

(Oct–

Apr) May Jun Jul A

Rubicon Development 

USGS Gage No. 11427940 Rubicon-Rockbound Tunnel 

(water years 1992–2005) 

USGS Gage No. 11427960 Rubicon River b

(water years 1992–2005

Mean 58.0 365.4 313.5 115.9 16.1 2.8 101.8 5.9 7.5 7.2 6.6 4Median 35.4 331.5 266.5 37.0 0.1 0.0 25.0 5.8 7.4 7.1 6.6 6Max. 875 973 896 858 248 105 1,180 8.8 9.3 9.2 8.6 8Min. 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 6.0 5.7 0.8 010% Exceed. 113.7 705.1 671.1 344.5 52.7 7.5 329.0 7.2 8.6 8.2 7.8 790% Exceed. 10.8 118.6 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 6.6 6.3 5.9 1Buck Island Development 

USGS Gage No. 11428300 Buck-Loon Tunnel 

(water years 1992–2005) 

USGS Gage No. 11428400 Little Rubicon River 

(water years 1992–2005

Mean 76.4 462.8 392.6 138.1 18.4 2.5 129.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1Median 48.0 429.5 335.5 35.0 0.6 0.1 31.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1Max. 940 1,160 1,070 1,040 313 80 1,160 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.6 1Min. 5.7 16.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 110% Exceed. 157.8 899.0 854.2 441.5 54.4 1.3 427.0 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 190% Exceed. 14.4 152.2 19.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1
3-47 

Avg. 

(Oct–

Apr) May Jun Jul Aug Sept Yearly 

Avg. 

(Oct–

Apr) May Jun Jul A

Loon Lake Development 

USGS Gage No. 11429340 Loon Lake Powerhouse 

(water years 1992–2005) 

USGS Gage No. 11429500 Gerle Creek 

(water years 1992–2005

Mean 117.4 188.1 273.4 233.3 185.4 101.0 150.1 10.4 13.7 10.3 10.6 9Median 40.5 143.5 222.0 199.5 152.5 12.0 52.0 10.1 10.0 9.9 9.5 9Max. 796 1,030 990 935 869 773 1,030 27.0 403 16 50 1Min. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 8.2 8.0 8.9 810% Exceed. 352.7 436.1 664.7 507.0 461.7 368.5 434.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 12.0 1290% Exceed. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 9.1 8.9 9.2 8Robbs Peak Development 

USGS Gage No. 11429300 Robbs Peak Powerhouse 

(water years 1992–2005) 

USGS Gage No. 11430000 SF Rubicon Rive

(water years 1992–2005

Mean 252.4 500.6 404.8 252.0 184.4 101.7 267.6 20.5 40.3 14.1 10.5 10Median 197.6 494.5 312.5 216.5 152.5 3.0 184.0 8.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 11Max. 1,042 1,190 1,180 1,150 874 758 1,220 2,018 3,200 203 20 1Min. 6.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 5.3 5.1 5.2 510% Exceed. 533.7 932.4 943.1 529.3 469.7 378.2 681.1 13.0 15.0 13.0 12.0 1390% Exceed. 45.2 73.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 6.1 6.1 6.6 6.6 6Ice House Development 

USGS Gage No. 11440900 Jones Fork Powerhouse 

(water years 1988–2005) 

USGS Gage No. 11441500 South Fork 

(water years 1988–2005

Mean 56.8 77.7 93.4 61.4 62.0 67.9 63.3 8.0 13.4 26.5 16.5 13Median 27.4 31.5 65.5 31.5 43.0 26.5 34.0 6.7 9.7 9.4 16.0 16
3-48 

Avg. 

(Oct–

Apr) May Jun Jul Aug Sept Yearly 

Avg. 

(Oct–

Apr) May Jun Jul A

Max. 270 287 285 285 254 264 287 418 1,250 457 250 2Min. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 5.1 5.1 5.2 510% Exceed. 158.3 256.3 262.0 172.5 162.2 194.2 180.0 8.7 11.0 13.0 19.0 1990% Exceed. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 5.8 5.6 5.7 5Junction Development 

USGS Gage No. 11441780 Jaybird Powerhouse 

(water years 1992–2005) 

USGS Gage No. 11441800 Silver Creek b

(water years 1992–2005

Mean 512.6 735.3 737.0 678.0 757.1 688.4 598.7 11.2 18.2 17.9 18.3 18Median 440.6 777.0 654.0 647.5 758.0 723.5 492.0 12.4 21.0 21.0 21.0 21Max. 1,331 1,400 1,400 1,490 1,390 1,370 1,490 26.9 30.0 23.0 27.0 30Min. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.7 510% Exceed. 1,032.5 1,390 1,390 1,237 1,280 1,200 1,287 13.9 22.0 22.0 22.0 2390% Exceed. 74.7 74.7 181.8 280.3 337.8 194.7 106.0 6.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 11Camino Development 

USGS Gage No. 11441895 Camino Powerhouse 

(water years 1988–2005) 

USGS Gage No. 11441900 Silver Creek b

(water years 1988-2005

Mean 514.4 661.2 667.9 673.1 749.5 680.1 585.8 73.7 95.3 117.8 120.5 86Median 402.9 378.0 520.5 636.5 761.0 705.0 453.0 15.1 15.3 16.9 18.4 19Max. 1,407 1,560 1,510 1,530 1,440 1,470 1,560 5,904 6,868 7,177 6,941 2,2Min. 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 510% Exceed. 1,057.7 1,440 1,450 1,160 1,260 1,162 1,310 62.5 101.0 214.5 215.5 21
3-49 

Avg. 

(Oct–

Apr) May Jun Jul Aug Sept Yearly 

Avg. 

(Oct–

Apr) May Jun Jul A

90% Exceed. 107.1 85.0 131.3 279.4 338.0 245.9 116.0 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.0 7Slab Creek Development 

USGS Gage No. 11443460 Whiterock Powerhouse 

(water years 1988–2005) 

USGS Gage No. 11443500 SFAR nea

(water years 1988–2005

Mean 974.4 1,884.3 1,482.

6 

971.8 841.9 759.1 1,062.7 130.5 282.5 287.4 93.1 36

Median 810.2 1,680 1,055 795.5 768.0 723.0 755.0 36.4 37.0 38.0 37.0 37Max. 3,304 3,940 3,910 3,860 2,710 2,740 3,950 10,249 12,400 4,260 2,800 4Min. 0.0 226.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 10.0 28.0 36.0 2910% Exceed. 1,903 3,530 3,271 1,876 1,520 1,360 2,600 68.2 248.6 905.1 40.0 4090% Exceed. 272.2 541.6 324.9 314.4 308.7 233.9 229.0 13.7 10.0 36.0 36.0 36Brush Creek Development 

USGS Gage No. 11442700 Brush Creek below Brush Creek Dam (water 

years 1988–2005) 

USGS Gage No. 11444500 SFAR ne

(water years 1988–2005

Mean 6.1 6.1 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 5.1 1,238.1 2,377.6 1,883.1 1,114.8 92Median 6.3 6.6 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.4 960.9 1,835 1,195 903.0 83Max. 97.6 9.3 8.8 6.9 4.1 7.6 620 15,064 16,900 7,000 5,770 2,7Min. 3.8 4.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 142.0 210.0 125.0 114.0 1310% Exceed. 6.7 7.1 4.4 4.0 3.8 3.9 7.0 2,335.8 4,360 4,789 2,016 1,690% Exceed. 4.1 4.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.6 337.0 583.4 400.8 388.0 39

Note: All data for 1988 to 2005 water years. 
3-50 

Water Use 

As table 3-12 shows, SMUD currently holds five licenses and one permit issued 

by the Water Board for water rights related to the UARP. These water rights authorize 

SMUD to directly divert and store water to generate hydroelectric power, provide 

recreation, and protect wildlife at its UARP facilities. PG&E is also listed as a water user 

for hydroelectric power use at its Chili Bar Project facilities. The current water rights 

licenses and permits incorporate the minimum instream flow releases mandated in the 

current Commission license. To improve water quality and benefit aquatic resources, the 

Proposed Action would increase the instream flow releases mandated in the FERC 

license. 

Table 3-12. Summary of water rights in the UARP and Chili Bar Projects. 

(Source: Water Board, 2005) 

License/ Quantity Permit/ 

Priority 

(date) Source(s) 

Direct 

Diversion Storage 

Quantity 

Cap 

Diversion 

Season Beneficial Use 

SFSC 49,700 acrefeet annually in 

Ice House 

reservoir 

License 

11073 

Application 

12323 

2/13/1948 Silver 

Creek 

400 cfs at 

Ice House, 

Union 

Valley, 

Junction, 

and Camino 

dams 

195,000 acrefeet annually in 

Union Valley 

reservoir 

459,300a

acre-feet 

annually 

(max. 

total 

storage 

238,900 

acre-feet 

annually) 

Direct 

diversion: 

1/1–12/31 

Storage: 

10/1–7/31 

Recreation, 

Power at Jones 

Fork, Union 

Valley, 

Jaybird, 

Camino, White 

Rock, Slab 

Creek, and 

Chili Bar 

powerhouses 

Rubicon 

River 

500 cfs at 

Rubicon 

dam 

Little 

Rubicon 

River 

(aka 

Rockbou

nd Creek) 

200 cfs at 

Buck Island 

dam 

Gerle 

Creek 

325 cfs at 

Loon Lake 

and Gerle 

dam 

License 

11074 

Application

12624 

7/29/1948 

SFRR 175 cfs at 

Robbs Peak 

dam 

450 acre-feet 

annually in 

Rubicon 

reservoir, 440 

acre-feet 

annually in 

Buck Island 

reservoir, 

92,000 acrefeet annually in 

Loon Lake 

reservoir, 

141,500 acrefeet annually in 

Union Valley 

reservoir 

281,100b

acre-feet 

annually 

(max. 

total 

storage 

226,900 

acre-feet 

annually) 

Direct 

diversion: 

1/1–12/31 

Storage: 

10/1–7/31 

Recreation, 

Wildlife 

Protection and 

Enhancement, 

Power at Loon 

Lake, Robbs 

Peak, Union 

Valley, 

Jaybird, 

Camino, White 

Rock, Slab 

Creek, and 

Chili Bar 

powerhouses 
3-51 

License/ Quantity Permit/ 

Priority 

(date) Source(s) 

Direct 

Diversion Storage 

Quantity 

Cap 

Diversion 

Season Beneficial Use 

Silver 

Creek 

400 cfs at 

Union 

Valley, 

Junction, 

and Camino 

dams 

License NA NA 

10495 

Application 

14963 

8/12/1952 

SFAR 800 cfs at 

Slab Creek 

and Chili 

Bar dams 

NA NA 

Direct 

diversion: 

1/1–12/31 

Power at Union 

Valley, 

Jaybird, 

Camino, White 

Rock, Slab 

Creek, and 

Chili Bar 

powerhouses 

License SFAR 

10496 

Application 

20522 

12/12/62 

Brush 

Creek 

1,900 cfs at 

Brush 

Creek, Slab 

Creek and 

Chili Bar 

dams 

NA NA Direct 

diversion: 

1/1–12/31 

Power at White 

Rock, Camino, 

Slab Creek and 

Chili Bar 

powerhouses 

License 

10513 

Application 

22110 

4/23/1965 

SFAR 800 cfsc

 at 

Slab Creek 

and Chili 

Bar dams 

NA NA Direct 

diversion: 

1/1–12/31 

Power at White 

Rock, Chili 

Bar and Slab 

Creek 

powerhouses 

Permit 

19025 

Application 

26768 

3/30/81 

SFSC 270 cfs at 

Ice House 

dam 

60,000 acrefeet annually in 

Ice House and 

Union Valley 

reservoirs 

NA Direct 

diversion: 

1/1–12/31 

Storage: 

10/1–7/31 

Power at Union 

Valley and 

Jones Fork 

powerhouses 

a

 The total amount of water to be taken from the sources (direct diversion plus collection to storage) 

shall not exceed 459,300 acre-feet annually. The total amount of water to be placed to beneficial use 

(flow through Jaybird powerhouse) under license 11073 and license 10495 shall not exceed 528,400 

acre-feet annually. 

b

 The quantity of water to be put to beneficial use at Robbs Peak powerhouse shall not exceed 250,000 

acre-feet annually. 

c

 The maximum average amount diverted in any 30-day period through the White Rock powerhouse 

from Slab Creek dam under Licenses 10513, 10495, and 10496 shall not exceed 3,500 cfs. 

On May 24, 2005, SMUD filed two water rights applications to the Water Board: 

(1) application no. 31595 for sources from the Rubicon River and (2) application no. 

31596 for diversions from Silver Creek and SFAR sources. The applications involve the 

use of SMUD’s existing facilities, including increases in individual storage rights in 

reservoirs above the volumes authorized by SMUD’s existing water right licenses and 
3-52 

permit. Water proposed to be stored under these applications would not exceed the total 

quantity that SMUD is currently licensed to store under licenses 11073 and 11074. In its 

water rights application, SMUD states that this application does not propose a change to 

the historical operations of the UARP. 

Application 31595 requests a permit to directly divert water from Rubicon River 

sources to maximize use of its existing conveyance and power generation facilities. 

Because the water would be moved from the Middle Fork American River watershed to 

the SFAR watershed, it would flow into Folsom Lake by an alternate channel system. 

SMUD seeks to store the water in Rubicon, Buck Island, Gerle Creek, and Robbs Peak 

reservoirs for later release to provide for downstream recreational uses, releases for fish 

enhancement, and enhanced power generation. 

Application 31596 requests a permit to divert water to storage from the Rubicon 

River, Silver Creek, and SFAR systems into the Camino Junction, Brush Creek, and Slab 

Creek reservoirs. SMUD seeks the additional storage to maintain consistent reservoir 

levels to maximize efficiency of power generation and to provide higher lake levels for 

recreation. The stored water would consist of a mix of new diversions and of rediversions of water discharged from existing UARP facilities upstream. 

According to the Water Board, Silver Creek, the American River, and their 

tributaries are listed as fully appropriated under Water Right Order 98-08, the Declaration 

of Fully Appropriated Stream Systems. Water right applications for diversions from 

stream systems that have fully appropriated status under Water Right Order 98-08 are 

subject to special conditions for acceptance, including limitations on seasons of 

diversion. However, the Water Board allows acceptance of water right applications that 

propose non-consumptive use of water, including hydropower generation, from fully 

appropriated sources. Water directly diverted under these applications would flow to 

Folsom Lake via the SFAR instead of the Middle Fork of the American River. SMUD 

made a case to the Water Board for its applications to fall within the definition of nonconsumptive use. However, according to the Water Board, the notice of acceptance of 

these applications does not constitute a definitive finding by the Water Board that (1) the 

proposed use does not substantially diminish the quantity or quality of water in the 

source; or (2) the proposed use does not regulate the flow in the source in such a manner 

as to impair any other existing reasonable and beneficial use, including instream use. 

Placer County Water Agency uses water of the Middle Fork of the American 

River for its Middle Fork American River Project (FERC No. 2079), which lies 

downstream of SMUD’s UARP facilities in the Rubicon River watershed. Placer County 

Water Agency filed a protest letter (letter from F.E. Francis and W.S. Huang, Attorneys 

for Placer County Water Agency, Auburn, CA, dated January 23, 2007) with the Water 

Board against SMUD’s 2005 application for new water rights licenses. The protest is 

based on its analysis that shows that SMUD has diverted water in excess of amounts 

permitted by the current licenses which has resulted in a reduction of energy production. 
3-53 

The Water Board will make a final determination regarding the water rights 

application following its normal procedures which might include a hearing, if necessary. 

Within the UARP or Chili Bar Project areas, there are no consumptive diversions such as 

those on the SFAR upstream of the confluence with Silver Creek at the El Dorado 

Project. 

Water Quality 

The existing and potential beneficial uses of waterbodies in the study area for the 

UARP and the Chili Bar Project, as determined by the Central Valley Regional Water 

Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) Basin Plan, 4th Edition (Central 

Valley Water Board, 2004) are presented in table 3-13. Although SMUD provided 

information on the beneficial uses for Desolation Valley Lakes, the Water Board 

considers these lakes to only be the lakes within Desolation Valley and therefore not 

applicable to waters affected by either of the Projects being evaluated in this EIS. Table 

3-14 presents state standards and objectives for temperature, DO, pH, coliform bacteria, 

selected metals, and other physical parameters. The values presented include criteria set 

in the Basin Plan, drinking water standards, and California Toxics Rule. The highest 

level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water, maximum contaminant level 

(MCL), is included for several parameters. Primary MCLs are set to protect human 

health; whereas, secondary MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of 

drinking water. There are no numerical or narrative criteria for nutrients. 

Table 3-13. Designated beneficial uses of surface waters in the study area. 

(Source: Central Valley Water Board, 2004) 

Beneficial Use Middle Forka

SFAR, Upstream of 

Placervilleb

SFAR, Placerville 

to Folsom Lakec

MUN: Municipal and domestic supply Existing Existing Existing 

AGR: Agriculture (irrigation and/or 

stock watering) 

Existing -- Existing 

POW: Hydropower Existing Existing Existing 

REC-1: Water contact recreation Existing Existing Existing 

REC-2: Non-contact water recreation Existing Existing Existing 

WARM: Warm freshwater habitat Potential Potential Existing 

COLD: Cold freshwater habitat Existing Existing Existing 

SPWN: Cold freshwater habitat 

spawning 

Existing Existing -- 

WILD: Wildlife habitat Existing Existing Existing 
3-54 

Note: -- – not designated 

a

 Applicable to surface waters of the Rubicon River and its tributaries including the Rubicon, Buck 

Island, Loon Lake, Gerle Creek, and Robbs Peak reaches. 

b

 Applicable to surface waters associated with the Ice House, Union Valley, Junction, Camino, Brush 

Creek, and Slab Creek reaches. 

c

 Applicable to surface waters associated with the Chili Bar Project. 

Table 3-14. Water quality objectives to support designated beneficial uses in the study 

area. (Sources: Central Valley Water Board, 2004; CDHS, 2002; 40 CFR 

§ 131.8) 

Parameter Objective/Standard 

Temperature Natural water temperatures of basin waters shall not be altered unless it can be 

demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Central Valley Water Board that such 

alteration does not affect beneficial uses. At no time or place, should water 

temperature be increased by more than 5°F (2.8°C) above natural receiving 

water temperature. 

Dissolved oxygen Monthly median of the mean daily DO concentration shall not fall below 85 

percent of saturation in the main water mass, and the 95 percent concentration 

shall not fall below 75 percent of saturation. DO concentrations shall not be 

reduced below 7.0 mg/L. 

pH From 6.5 to 8.5 units, and changes of no more than 0.5 unit. 

Fecal coliform bacteria Based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall 

not exceed a geometric mean of 200 MPN per 100 mL, nor shall more than ten 

percent of the total number of samples taken during any 30-day period exceed 

400 MPN/100 mL. 

Settleable solids Shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of 

material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. 

Turbidity Shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect 

beneficial uses. Increases in turbidity attributable to controllable water quality 

factors shall not exceed the following limits: 1 NTU for natural turbidity of 0 to 

5 NTU, 20 percent for 5 to 50 NTU, 10 NTU for 50 to 100 NTU, and 10 percent 

for natural turbidity greater than 100 NTU. 

Chemical constituents Water designated for use as domestic or MUN shall not contain concentrations 

of chemical constituents in excess of the MCLs specified in the various 

provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. 

Aluminum Primary MCL 1,000 μg/L, Secondary MCL 200 μg/L 

Iron (California 

Toxics Rule) 

Secondary MCL 300 μg/L 
3-55 

Parameter Objective/Standard 

Leada Primary MCL: At a minimum, water designated for use as domestic or MUN 

shall not contain lead in excess of 15 μg/L. 

CCC of 0.13 μg/L, CMC of 3.44 μg/L 

Mercury (California 

Toxics Rule) 

Primary MCL 2.0 μg/L 

Cadmiuma

 Primary MCL of 5 μg/L, CCC of 0.37 μg/L, CMC of 0.32 μg/L 

Coppera

 Secondary MCL 1,000 μg/L, CCC of 1.25 μg/L, CMC of 1.54 μg/L 

Nickela

 Primary MCL of 100 μg/L, CCC of 7.41 μg/L, CMC of 66.75 μg/L 

Silvera

 Secondary MCL 100 μg/L, instantaneous maximum of 0.07 μg/L 

Zinca

 Secondary MCL 5,000 μg/L, CCC of 16.79 μg/L, CMC of 16.66 μg/L 

Note: mg/L – milligrams per liter 

 μg/L – micrograms per liter 

 CCC – criterion continuous concentrations 

 CMC – criterion maximum concentrations 

 MCL – maximum contaminant level 

 mL – milliliter 

 MPN – most probable number 

 MUN – municipal supply 

 NTU – nephelometric turbidity units 

a

 The Basin Plan’s toxicity water quality objective is to maintain waters free of toxic substance 

concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, and aquatic 

life. Therefore, we use criteria set in the California Toxics Rule (40 CFR § 131.8) to assess the 

support of these beneficial uses. These criteria are for dissolved metals, rather than total metals, are 

dependent on hardness, and include levels of CCC and CMC. Listed criteria were calculated based 

on a typical hardness of 10 mg/L as CaCO3. 

General Water Quality 

General water quality is largely dependent on the geologic and hydrologic 

characteristics of a basin. Project area waters are soft, with hardness ranging from less 

than 1 to about 20 mg CaCO3/L, and most total alkalinity measurements are below 10 mg 

CaCO3/L, indicating a low capacity to buffer changes in pH. Concentrations of total 

suspended and dissolved solids are low, with values generally less than 10 mg/L. Water 

in the reservoirs is relatively clear, with Secchi depths ranging from about 10 to 30 feet. 

The trophic status of the reservoirs range from mesotrophic to oligotrophic, based on 

Secchi depth and total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations. The maximum nitrate 
3-56 

concentration in each reservoir and stream reach is generally well below the 

concentration of 1.0 mg/L, which SMUD used to characterize source waters that can 

stimulate growth of algae. However, large algal mats have been observed in the lower 

portion of the Junction dam reach, and excessive algal growth has been reported to occur 

in the Chili Bar dam reach (DTA and Stillwater Sciences, 2005a,b). Large amounts of 

algae also have been reported to occur in portions of the Ice House, Loon Lake, and Slab 

Creek dam reaches (DTA and Stillwater Sciences, 2005b). Organic compounds 

(including oil and grease, methyl-t-butyl ether, and total petroleum hydrocarbons) are 

below detection limits. 

None of the project reservoirs or stream reaches was included on the 2002 section 

303(d) list of water quality limited waterbodies for any water quality parameters (Central 

Valley Water Board, 2003). 

Temperature—Table 3-15 presents a summary of thermal characteristics of each 

of the reservoirs along with other factors that have the potential to affect water 

temperature within and/or downstream of the reservoir. Five of the reservoirs 

(i.e., Rubicon, Buck Island, Gerle Creek, Robbs Peak, and Camino) do not typically 

thermally stratify. Each of these reservoirs has relatively small storage capacity and an 

average retention time of less than 5 days. Rockbound and Loon Lake, which are located 

at upper elevations, are dimictic28 with turnover occurring prior to icing over and again in 

the spring after the ice cover melts. In contrast, several of the lower elevation reservoirs 

(i.e., Ice House, Union Valley, Junction, Brush Creek, and Slab Creek) are monomictic 

with turnover occurring once in the late fall and remaining well mixed until spring. 

These reservoirs do not ice over. 

Table 3-16 summarizes the hourly water temperature data recorded with 

thermographs in the stream reaches during the relicensing studies conducted in 2000 

through 2004. Hourly temperature data were collected during different periods at the 

sites. The table summarizes the hourly measurements by providing the absolute range of 

temperatures recorded, the maximum of the mean daily temperatures for each day 

(maximum mean temperature), and the months that had at least one day with a mean 

daily temperature that exceeded 20.0°C29 for each of the monitoring sites. The summary 

indicates that temperatures remain relatively cool: 

• throughout Loon Lake reach (8.5 miles); 

 

28Lakes and reservoirs that freeze over and normally go through two stratifications 

and two mixing cycles a year. 

29We used daily average temperatures of greater than 20.0°C as an indicator of 

thermal conditions that may limit cold freshwater habitat. This is consistent with the 

Water Control Board’s approach for several other locations in the Sacramento River 

Basin. 
3-57 

Table 3-15. Summary of selected reservoir characteristics that affect water temperatures along with ve

water temperature collected by applicants, 2000 to 2004. (Source: DTA, 2005a, as modif

Reservoir 

Normal Maximum 

Storage Capacity 

and Water Surface 

Elevation 

Max. 

Depth 

(feet) 

Average 

Retention 

Time 

(days) Low-Level Outlet 

Water Temperature 

(°C)a

Rubicon 1,450 acre-feet at 

6,545 feet 

9b 4.6 Centerline 6,523 feet, 

capacity 18 cfs 

6.1 to 15.7 

(1.2 on May 12, 2004) 

D

Rockbound 1,010 acre-feet at 

6,529 feet 

82b -- None 5.1 to 16.9 

(9.1 on September 17, 

2003) 

Dth4

Buck Island 1,070 acre-feet at 

6,436 feet 

33b 2.5 Centerline 6,420 feet, 

capacity 11.6 cfs 

5.8 to 16.8 

(2.2 on June 26, 2003) 

D

Loon Lake 76,200 acre-feet at 

6,410 feet 

165 142.5 Centerline 6,327 feet, 

capacity 640 cfs 

4.9 to 17.0 

(7.7 on September 16, 

2003) 

Ds

Gerle Creek 1,260 acre-feet at 

5,231 feet 

51 -- Centerline 5,186 feet, 

capacity 13.6 cfs 

5.2 to 17.2 

(2.3 on May 6, 2004) 

D

Robbs Peak 30 acre-feet at 5,231 

feet 

-- -- Centerline 5,196 feet, 

capacity 4.3 cfs 

No profile data D

Ice House 45,960 acre-feet at 

5,450 feet 

138 162.3 Centerline 5327.5 feet, 

capacity 46.8 cfs 

5.1 to 19.0 

(12.9 on June 12, 2003) 

Mswe

Union Valley 277,290 acre-feet at 

4,870 feet 

360 261.6 None 5.1 to 20.3 

(12.2 on October 1, 2002) 

Mswe
3-58 

Reservoir 

Normal Maximum 

Storage Capacity 

and Water Surface 

Elevation 

Max. 

Depth 

(feet) 

Average 

Retention 

Time 

(days) Low-Level Outlet 

Water Temperature 

(°C)a

Junction 3,250 acre-feet at 

4,450 feet 

141 1.5 Centerline 4,335 feet, 

capacity 138 cfs 

5.7 to 14.3 

(7.9 on May 5, 2004) 

Mthe

Camino 825 acre-feet at 2,915 

feet 

76 0.3 Centerline 2,840 feet, 

capacity 112 cfs 

9.4 to 10.1 

0.0 

D

Brush Creek 1,530 acre-feet at 

2,915 feet 

140 -- Centerline 2,775 feet, 

capacity 145 cfs 

5.7 to 20.1 

(11.2 on September 16, 

2003) 

Mswe

Slab Creek 16,600 acre-feet at 

1,850 feet 

186 2.2 Centerline 1,680 feet, 

capacity 263 cfs 

5.7 to 19.1 

(10.1 on May 4, 2004) 

Mthe

Chili Bar 3,139 acre-feet at 

997.5 feet 

61b 1.3 Centerline 924 feet, 

capacity 1,100 cfs 

8.2 to 17.5 

(4.1 on September 15, 

2003) 

L

Note: -- – not available a Overall range of water temperatures measured in reservoir along with the maximum difference in water temperatures in 

corresponding date. 

b Based on vertical profiles of water quality. 
3-59 

Table 3-16. Summary of hourly water temperature (°C) data collected by applicantsfor 

selected sites, 2000 to 2004.a

 (Source: DTA, 2005a, as modified by staff) 

Reach Site 

Absolute 

Min. 

Absolute 

Max. 

Max. 

Mean b

Months with Mean 

>20.0°Cc 

Rubicon Reservoir Tributaryd 

Rubicon River upstream of 

Rubicon reservoir (RR4)d

–1.9 26.8 21.3 July to August 

Rubicon Dam Reach (4.2 miles) 

Rubicon River at Rubicon 

dam (RR3) 

–0.2 22.7 22.2 July to August 

Rubicon River upstream of 

Rubicon Springs (RR2) 

0.0 24.1 21.9 July to August 

Rubicon River downstream of 

Little Rubicon River (RR1) 

–0.1 23.7 22.9 June to August 

Buck Island Dam Reach (2.5 miles) 

Little Rubicon at Buck Island 

dam (LRR2) 

–0.4 23.6 22.9 June to September 

Little Rubicon River upstream 

of Rubicon River (LRR1) 

0.0 26.4 23.7 July to August 

Loon Lake Dam Reach (8.5 miles) 

Gerle Creek at Loon Lake 

dam (GC6) 

0.7 17.1 16.9 None 

Gerle Creek upstream of 

Jerrett Creek (GC5) 

–0.2 19.1 15.8 None 

Gerle Creek downstream of 

Barts Creek (GC4) 

0.0 20.1 18.2 None 

Gerle Creek upstream of 

Gerle Creek reservoir (GC3) 

–0.3 24.3 19.8 None 

Gerle Creek Dam Reach (1.2 miles) 

Gerle Creek at Gerle Creek 

dam (GC2) 

–0.2 18.6 18.4 None 

Gerle Creek upstream of S.F. 

Rubicon River (GC1) 

0.0 19.3 17.0 None 

Robbs Peak Dam Reach (5.9 miles) 

S.F. Rubicon River upstream 

of Robbs Peak forebay 

(SFRR4)d

–0.6 24.5 21.3 July 

S.F. Rubicon River at Robbs 

Peak forebay dam (SFRR3) 

–0.3 23.1 22.5 July to August 
3-60 

Reach Site 

Absolute 

Min. 

Absolute 

Max. 

Max. 

Mean b

Months with Mean 

>20.0°Cc 

SF Rubicon River upstream of 

Gerle Creek (SFRR2) 

0.0 20.2 18.4 None 

S.F. Rubicon River 

downstream of Gerle Creek 

(SFRR1) 

–0.2 20.4 18.8 None 

S.F. Rubicon River 2 miles 

downstream of Gerle Creek 

(SFRR.5) e

3.0 19.7 18.1 None 

Ice House Reservoir Tributary 

S.F. Silver Creek upstream of 

Ice House reservoir (SFSC6)d

0.0 21.7 19.7 None 

Ice House Dam Reach (11.5 miles) 

S.F. Silver Creek at Ice House 

dam (SFSC5) 

2.8 8.6 8.0 None 

S.F. Silver Creek upstream of 

Ice House dam road (SFSC4) 

–0.2 13.9 8.6 None 

S.F. Silver Creek downstream 

of Ice House dam road 

(SFSC3) 

0.1 15.9 10.8 None 

S.F. Silver Creek midway 

between burn area (SFSC2) 

–0.1 26.0 20.7 July to August 

S.F. Silver Creek upstream of 

Junction reservoir (SFSC1) 

–0.2 26.0 21.3 July to August 

Junction Dam Reach (8.3 miles) 

Silver Creek at Junction dam 

(SC4) 

–0.2 13.4 11.2 None 

Silver Creek upstream of 

Jaybird powerhouse (SC3) 

–0.1 22.0 20.2 July 

Camino Dam Reach (6.2 miles) 

Silver Creek at Camino dam 

(SC2) 

0.0 15.3 12.7 None 

Silver Creek upstream of 

SFAR (SC1) 

0.5 25.5 23.2 May to August 

SFAR Reach (2.8 miles) 

SFAR upstream of Silver 

Creek (SFAR12) d

–0.1 26.7 24.3 June to September 

SFAR downstream of Silver 

Creek (SFAR11) 

0.0 25.9 23.7 June to September 
3-61 

Reach Site 

Absolute 

Min. 

Absolute 

Max. 

Max. 

Mean b

Months with Mean 

>20.0°Cc 

SFAR downstream of Camino 

powerhouse (SFAR10) 

0.4 24.7 21.9 July to August 

Brush Creek Dam Reach (2.2 miles) 

Brush Creek upstream of 

Brush Creek dam (BC3) d

5.8 18.6 16.9 None 

Brush Creek at Brush Creek 

dam (BC2) 

1.9 19.0 18.7 None 

Brush Creek upstream of Slab 

Creek reservoir (BC1) 

3.7 20.5 19.9 None 

Slab Creek Dam Reach (8.0 mile) 

SFAR at Slab Creek dam 

(SFAR9) 

2.7 16.7 16.3 None 

SFAR downstream of walking 

bridge (SFAR8) 

2.1 19.0 16.8 None 

SFAR at Mosquito Bridge 

(SFAR7) 

1.2 24.0 21.6 May to July 

Rock Creek upstream of 

SFAR (RC1) d

2.6 24.4 23.2 July to September 

SFAR upstream of White 

Rock powerhouse (SFAR6) 

2.8 26.7 24.4 June to September 

SFAR downstream of White 

Rock powerhouse (SFAR5) 

1.8 30.4 19.4 None 

Reach Downstream of Chili Bar (19.1 miles) 

SFAR at Chili Bar dam 

(SFAR4) 

4.5 17.9 17.2 None 

SFAR upstream of Dutch 

Creek (SFAR3) 

3.6 21.3 18.7 None 

SFAR downstream of 

Greenwood Creek (SFAR2) 

4.2 22.6 21.3 July 

SFAR upstream of Weber 

Creek (SFAR1) 

4.2 23.6 21.7 June to July 

a

 Not all sites were monitored in all years. 

b

 Max. Mean indicates the maximum of all of the average temperatures for each of the days monitored. 

c Months with Mean >20.0°C indicates the month(s) with at least one day having a mean temperature 

of greater than 20.0°C. 

d

 Not affected by the Projects. 

e

 Less than two full seasons of data collected. 
3-62 

• throughout Gerle Creek reach (1.2 miles); 

• in the lower portion of the Robbs Peak reach (about 4 miles); 

• in the upper portion of Ice House reach (about 7 miles); 

• throughout Junction reach (8.3 miles); 

• in the upper end of Camino reach (about 3 miles) 

• throughout Brush Creek reach (2.2 miles); 

• in the Upper portion of Slab Creek reach (about 4 miles) and 

• in the upper portion of Chili Bar dam reach (about 7 miles). 

Seasonally warm temperatures occur: 

• throughout Rubicon reach (4.2 miles); 

• throughout Buck Island reach (2.5 miles); 

• in the upper end of Robbs Peak reach (about 2 miles); 

• in the lower end of Ice House reach (about 4 miles); 

• throughout SFAR reach (2.8 miles); 

• in the lower portion of Slab Creek reach (about 4 miles); and 

• in the lower portion of Chili Bar dam reach (about 12 miles). 

In addition, the summary provides information on several stream reaches that are 

not affected by the Projects. Relatively cool streams include the SFSC inflow to Ice 

House reservoir and Tells Creek inflow to Union Valley reservoir. Seasonally warm 

temperatures occur in the Rubicon River inflow to Rubicon reservoir, Big Silver Creek 

and Jones Fork Silver Creek inflow to Union Valley reservoir, SFAR upstream of the 

Silver Creek confluence, and Rock Creek inflow to SFAR. 

Dissolved Oxygen and pH—DO concentrations usually remain above the 7.0-

mg/L criterion in the upper portions of the reservoirs. However, DO concentrations of 

less than 7.0 mg/L were measured in nine of the twelve reservoirs during late summer 

and early fall (table 3-17). Based on average DO concentrations for 0.5-meter 

increments, the majority of these low DO concentrations ranged from 5.0 to 6.9 mg/L, 

although average DO concentrations of less than 5.0 mg/L occurred: 

• Near the middle of Rockbound Lake in the bottom 10 feet during early October 

2002. 

• In deep water at various locations in the Union Valley reservoir during fall and 

in the Jones Fork arm of the reservoir in the late summer. Hypoxic (DO <2.0 

mg/L) conditions were measured in the bottom 6.5 to 26 feet of the reservoir 

during mid-October to early November of 2002. 
3-63 

• Ice House reservoir in the bottom 13 to 41 feet during late September to midNovember. 

• Throughout the entire water column of Junction reservoir in mid-September 

2004. 

• Near the middle of Brush Creek reservoir in the bottom 6.5 to 36 feet during 

mid-September to early November. Hypoxic conditions in bottom 8.5 feet in 

mid-September 2003. 

Results of the seasonal pH monitoring of vertical profiles in the reservoirs ranged 

from 5.8 to 8.5 standard units. Generally, pH levels decreased with depth in the 

reservoirs and were lowest near the bottom of the reservoirs. Seven of the 12 reservoirs 

had pH values of less than the lower allowable limit of 6.5 units, but none of them 

exceeded the upper limit of 8.5 units (table 3-17). 

Table 3-17. Summary of the range of water quality data in reservoirs for all vertical 

profiles and the maximum fluctuation within any of the profiles, 2002 

through 2004. (Source: DTA, 2005a, as modified by staff) 

Location 

Number of 

Vertical 

Profiles 

Range of DO 

Concentrations 

(mg/L) 

Range of DO 

Percent of 

Saturation Range of pH 

Rubicon reservoir 4 8.3 to 12.0 

(0.4 on 10/7/02) 

77 to 102 

(4 on 10/7/02) 

6.7 to 7.8 

(0.5 on 10/7/02) 

Rockbound lake 5 4.1 to 12.9 

(5.0 on 10/7/02) 

42 to 110 

(62 on 10/7/02) 

6.1 to 7.7 

(0.9 on 10/7/02) 

Buck Island 

reservoir 

6 5.4 to 11.8 

(1.9 on 9/21/04) 

53 to 99 

(18 on 9/21/04) 

6.5 to 7.9 

(0.5 on 9/21/04) 

Loon Lake reservoir 21 5.6 to 12.7 

(5.2 on 9/16/03) 

57 to 104 

(41 on 9/16/03) 

5.8 to 7.7 

(0.9 on 9/16/03) 

Gerle Creek 

reservoir 

7 7.6 to 12.1 

(1.5 on 9/15/04) 

72 to 125 

(19 on 9/15/04) 

6.1 to 7.4 

(1.0 on 9/15/04) 

Union Valley 

reservoir 

32 0.8 to 11.8 

(7.9 on 11/06/02) 

6 to 116 

(90 on 11/06/02) 

5.8 to 7.9 

(1.1 on 10/16/02, 

10/31/02, and 

9/14/04) 

Ice House reservoir 28 2.3 to 13.2 

(6.8 on 11/14/02) 

20 to 117 

(79 on 10/24/02) 

6.0 to 8.5 

(1.4 on 11/06/02) 

Junction reservoir 5 3.4 to 12.6 

(2.3 on 9/16/03) 

29 to 110 

(23 on 9/16/03)) 

6.2 to 7.8 

(0.7 on 5/13/03) 
3-64 

Location 

Number of 

Vertical 

Profiles 

Range of DO 

Concentrations 

(mg/L) 

Range of DO 

Percent of 

Saturation Range of pH 

Camino reservoir a 2 9.4 to 9.5 

(0.1 on 11/13/02) 

82 to 102 

(2 on 11/13/02) 

6.8 to 7.3 

(0.1 on 11/13/02 

and 9/12/04) 

Brush Creek 

reservoir 

6 1.6 to 10.4 

(7.7 on 9/16/03) 

14 to 103 

(89 on 9/16/03) 

6.1 to 7.7 

(0.9 on 9/16/03) 

Slab Creek reservoir 17 4.8 to 14.0 

(2.4 on 9/15/03) 

46 to 116 

(17 on 9/13/04) 

6.5 to 7.8 

(0.5 on 6/25/03) 

Chili Bar reservoir 13 4.9 to 14.3 

(3.4 on 9/13/04) 

51 to 123 

(36 on 9/13/04) 

6.7 to 7.8 

(0.7 on 11/13/02) 

Note: The values within the “()”s are the maximum fluctuations within vertical profile and the date(s) 

that this was measured. 

Results of the 2002 to 2004 periodic monitoring program of stream reaches 

indicate that DO levels generally satisfy the applicable water quality criteria, although 

low DO concentrations were measured at a few stream sites during the late summer and 

early fall. These included DO concentrations of less than 7.0 mg/L at two UARP 

affected stream sites (5.5 mg/L in the outflow from Loon Lake on October 8, 2002, and 

4.7 mg/L in the SFAR outflow from Slab Creek reservoir on September 13, 2004), one 

Chili Bar Project affected stream site (6.1 mg/L in the SFAR downstream of Greenwood 

Creek on September 13, 2004), and one stream site not affected by either project (3.7 

mg/L in Rocky Basin Creek on September 17, 2003). 

Monitoring results for pH in the stream reaches ranged from 4.9 to 8.7 indicating 

that pH is occasionally outside the allowable range of 6.5 to 8.5. Of the 221 riverine pH 

measurements, 24 (11 percent) were below 6.5 and 1 (<1 percent) was greater than 8.5. 

Most of the sites monitored in the headwaters of the Rubicon River had at least one low 

pH value; whereas only four of the SFAR Basin sites had low pH values. Two of these 

four sites are upstream of the Projects’ effects. The other two sites are a short distance 

downstream of Ice House and Camino reservoirs. The only pH value above 8.5 was 

measured in the SFAR at the most downstream site monitored, just upstream of the 

Weber Creek confluence. 

Metals and Polychlorinated Biphenyls—The applicants sampled reservoir and 

stream reaches for metals, total hardness and total cyanide during seven sampling events 

in 2002 to 2004 to monitor conditions during fall turnover, the first major rain, spring 

runoff, and summer low flow. Hardness in the UARP and Chili Bar Project reservoirs 

ranged from 1 to 9 mg/L as CaCO3. Hardness in UARP-affected reaches and non-project 

reaches ranged from approximately 1 to 20 mg/L, while hardness in the reach 

downstream of Chili Bar dam ranged from about 7 to 12 mg/L. All of these results show 

that surface waters in the area are soft. 
3-65 

Analyses for metals consisted of total metals in 2002 and 2003 and were expanded 

to also include the dissolved fraction of metals in 2004. Comparison of the results of this 

sampling effort to the Primary and Secondary MCLs indicates that the concentrations of 

metals generally satisfy the Primary and Secondary MCLs in reservoirs and stream 

reaches of the Projects. Although 10.8 percent of the 406 total lead samples and 3.7 

percent of the 215 total mercury samples exceeded the corresponding Primary MCLs, 

QA/QC test results indicate that these high concentrations were likely a result of 

contamination from sampling devices used in 2003 and 2004. Sample results for total 

iron and total aluminum exceeded the corresponding secondary MCL in 4.2 and 0.7 

percent of the samples, respectively. 

Table 3-18 displays the percent of the dissolved fraction samples for cadmium, 

copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc that exceed the corresponding criterion continuous 

concentrations (CCC) and criterion maximum concentrations (CMC). This analysis 

indicates that most samples had concentrations that were below the CCC and CMC for 

most of these metals. In streams, more than 10 percent of the samples exceeded the CCC 

and/or the CMC for copper and lead. Both the UARP and Chili Bar Project-affected 

stream reaches tended to exceed the CCC and CMC for copper more than the reaches not 

affected by the Projects. Due to contamination of the samples collected in 2004 from the 

sampling device, it is not possible to determine how frequently the lead CCC or CMC 

was exceeded in the reservoirs. However, it appears that the frequency of exceedance of 

the CCC and CMC in the project reservoirs is about the same as in project-affected 

stream reaches, based on comparison of the total recoverable lead levels for both stream 

and reservoir sites in samples collected in 2002 and 2003. Dissolved copper 

concentrations exceeded the CCC and CMC in half of the samples from Chili Bar 

reservoir and 21.7 percent of the samples from the UARP reservoirs. More than 

10 percent of the samples from Chili Bar reservoir exceeded the CCC and CMC for 

cadmium and zinc. 

Table 3-18. Frequency of dissolved cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc 

water samples that exceed the corresponding CCC and CMC criteria, 2004. 

(Source: DTA, 2005b) 

CCC/CMC Criteria Exceedancea

Metal 

Non-Project 

Affected 

Reaches 

UARP 

Affected 

Reaches 

Chili Bar 

Project 

Affected 

Reaches 

UARP 

Reservoirs 

Chili Bar 

Reservoir 

Cadmium 0/0 1.5/4.5 0/0 2.9/2.9 12.5/12.5 

Copper 3.3/3.3 16.6/16.6 33.3/33.3 21.7/21.7 50/50 

Lead 33.3/0 33.3/0 11.1/0 b b
3-66 

CCC/CMC Criteria Exceedancea

Metal 

Non-Project 

Affected 

Reaches 

UARP 

Affected 

Reaches 

Chili Bar 

Project 

Affected 

Reaches 

UARP 

Reservoirs 

Chili Bar 

Reservoir 

Nickel 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 

Silver NA/6.6 NA/1.5 NA/0 NA/2.9 NA/0 

Zinc 0/0 4.5/4.5 0/0 0/0 16.2/16.2 

Note: NA – indicates not applicable. 

a

 Values are reported as the percent of samples that exceed the CCC followed by “/” and the percent of 

samples that exceed the CMC. 

b

 Reservoir samples were contaminated with lead from the Kemmerer sampler and thus lead results are 

not valid. 

The applicants analyzed bioaccumulation of trace metals using samples of four 

piscivorous fish species collected from five UARP reservoirs and Chili Bar reservoir. 

Sampling these piscivorous fish is expected to document near maximum effects of 

biomagnifications on body burdens. The applicants analyzed one composite fish fillet 

sample and one composite fish liver sample collected from each reservoir. Table 3-19 

provides descriptions of the composite fish tissue samples and the concentration of trace 

metals in them, along with screening values intended to protect humans from 

consumption of contaminated fish. As expected, the fish liver samples generally had 

higher concentrations of all of the metals analyzed. 

Arsenic concentrations in some fish fillets exceeded the screening values set to 

protect recreational and subsistence anglers. The recreational screening value of 

0.026 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) was exceeded in samples from three of the 

reservoirs (Ice House, Union Valley, and Gerle Creek). Since the detection level for 

arsenic was higher than the screening value for subsistence anglers, it is not possible to 

determine whether fish from the other three reservoirs sampled also exceed the 

subsistence screening value. The applicants analyzed the fish samples for total mercury, 

not methylmercury. However, EPA (2000) recommends the use of total mercury as a 

conservative surrogate for methylmercury in fish tissue since most of the mercury 

accumulated in fish is generally in the form of methylmercury and methylmercury 

analysis is relatively expensive. Comparison of the total mercury concentrations to the 

concentrations of screening values set for methylmercury suggests that contamination of 

piscivorous fish in Slab Creek and Union Valley reservoirs may be at harmful levels for 

recreational anglers. This conservative approach also suggests that mercury 

contamination of piscivorous fish in three of the other reservoirs (Gerle Creek, Loon 

Lake, and Chili Bar) may be harmful to subsistence anglers. All of the cadmium and 
3-67 

Table 3-19. Trace metal concentrations (mg/kg) in composite fish fillet and fish liver samples (shown 

selected UARP and Chili Bar project reservoirs, samples collected on December 16, 2003

2005b; EPA, 2000) 

Metal 

Screening 

Valuesa Loon Lake Gerle Creek Union Valley Ice House Slab Creek 

Composite sample description 

 6 brown trout with 

fork lengths of 13.5 

to 14.8 inches 

1 brown trout 

with fork length 

of 20.1 inches 

4 smallmouth 

bass with fork 

lengths of 11.8 

to 15.7 inches 

7 rainbow trout 

with fork 

lengths of 8.4 

to 13.4 inches 

1 brown trou

with fork 

length of 

19.1 inches 

Silver -- <0.002 (1.74) <0.002 (1.86) <0.002 (0.013) <0.002 (0.22) <0.002 (0.17Aluminum -- 0.37 (<0.02) <0.02 (6.55) <0.02 (21.2) <0.02 (<0.02) <0.02 (<0.02Arsenic Rec 0.026, 

Subs 0.00327 

<0.02 (0.38) 0.028b (1.19) 0.06 (0.12) 0.16 (0.099) <0.02 (0.038

Cadmium Rec 4.0, Subs 

0.491 

0.0080 (0.62) 0.0008b (0.83) <0.0004 (0.64) <0.0004 

(0.025) 

<0.0004 

(0.029) 

Chromium -- 0.094 (0.139) 0.093 (0.121) 0.086 (0.161) 0.080 (0.156) 0.089 (0.09Copper -- 0.48 (87.8) 0.52 (126) 0.47 (4.11) 0.46 (35.3) 0.44 (9.74) Manganese -- 0.037 (1.11) 0.0009b (0.43) 0.13 (0.97) 0.12 (1.47) 0.012 (1.17Nickel 

-- <0.001 (0.015) <0.001 (0.034) 0.009 (<0.001) <0.001 

(<0.001) 

<0.001 (0.00

Lead 

-- <0.0004 (<0.0024) <0.0004 (0.012) <0.0004 

(0.015) 

<0.0004 

(0.0018) 

<0.0004 

(<0.0004) 

Selenium Rec 20, Subs 

2.457 

0.32 (9.14) 0.39 (30.6) 0.21 (0.99) 0.19 (0.91) 0.086 (1.31

Zinc -- 4.92 (25.0) 3.53 (52.6) 4.19 (17.8) 4.32 (22.9) 3.60 (27.8) 
3-68 

Metal 

Screening 

Valuesa Loon Lake Gerle Creek Union Valley Ice House Slab Creek 

Mercury 

Rec 0.4, Subs 

0.049c

0.137 (--) 0.321 (--) 0.419 (--) 0.036 (--) 0.595 (--) 

Note: -- – indicates no guideline criteria from selected literature sources or data available, as appropriate. a Screening values are directly comparable to concentrations in fish tissues typically eaten by humans (i.e., fillets), but n

screening values set to protect recreational anglers, based on fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams (g)/day, 70 kg body w

carcinogens, 10-5 risk level and 70-year lifetime. “Subs” screening values set to protect subsistence anglers, based on f

142.4 g/day, 70 kg body weight and, for carcinogens, 10-5 risk level and 70-year lifetime. 

b Value is below reporting limit, but above the method detection limit. c As methylmercury, although it is recommended that total mercury be analyzed and the conservative assumption be mad

present as methylmercury since most mercury in fish and shellfish tissue is present primarily as methylmercury (NAS, 

2000; Tollefson, 1989, as cited by EPA, 2000; Tollefson, 1989) and because of the relatively high cost of analyzing for 

approach is deemed to be most protective of human health and most cost-effective (EPA, 2000). 
3-69

selenium concentrations measured in fish fillets were less than the corresponding 

screening values set for recreational and subsistence anglers. 

Coliform Bacteria—During the summer of 2003, SMUD and PG&E 

sampled 21 different locations for fecal coliform in a manner consistent with the 

applicable water quality standard (i.e., 5 samples in a 30-day period). All of these 

30-day periods include the holiday weekend of either Independence Day or Labor 

Day, and are therefore representative of the high recreational season. Table 3-20 

summarizes the results of this sampling effort. 

Table 3-20. Summary of fecal coliform sampling results for UARP reservoirs 

and reaches and the reach downstream of Chili Bar, based on 5 

samples collected during a 30-day period in summer 2003 a showing 

location with exceedances of criteria. (Source: DTA, 2005b) 

Site 

Range 

(MPN/100 mL) 

Geometric Mean 

(MPN/100 mL) 

Samples in 

Excess of 

400/100 mL 

criterion 

(MPN/100 mL 

on date) 

Union Valley reservoir at Camino 

Cove 

<1–3,180 38 3,180 on 6/23 

1,200 on 7/01 

Union Valley reservoir at Fashoda 

Beach 

<1–600 10 600 on 6/23 

Union Valley reservoir at Jones 

Fork Campground 

<1–2,900 17 550 on 6/23 

2,900 on 7/01 

Jones Fork Silver Creek at Ice 

House Road 

165–1,500 468 730 on 6/23 

1,500 on 7/22 

Big Silver Creek at bike bridge 37–1,160 133 1,160 on 7/22 

SFAR downstream of Miner’s 

Cabin 

<1–6,100 159 6,100 on 7/01 

438 on 7/08 

SFAR downstream of Greenwood 

Creek 

<1–728 31 578 on 7/01 

728 on 7/08 

SFAR upstream of Hastings Creek 28–3,900 322 3,900 on 7/01 

462 on 7/08 

SFAR downstream of Weber Creek <1–9,300 327 660 on 6/25 

9,300 on 7/01 

1,350 on 7/08 

Notes: MPN/100 mL is Most Probable Number/100 milliliter. 

 Bold values exceed applicable criterion. 

a

 Each sampling period included either Independence Day or Labor Day weekend. 
3-70

Fecal coliform concentrations generally satisfied the applicable criteria in 

the sampled reservoirs. However, the 400 most probably number (MPN)/100 mL 

criterion that is not to be exceeded in more than 10 percent of the samples was 

exceeded in 20 to 40 percent of the samples from all three of the Union Valley 

reservoir sample sites. The 400 MPN/100 mL criterion also was exceeded at two 

sites in tributaries to Union Valley reservoir that are not affected by the Projects, 

and four sites in the Chili Bar bypassed reach. Although the highest values and 

most frequent exceedances occurred at the most downstream site, which is located 

downstream of Weber Creek and about 1 mile upstream of Folsom Lake, SMUD 

reported that fecal coliform concentrations did not increase in an upstream to 

downstream direction on each day sampled. The geometric mean remained below 

the 200 MPN/100 mL criterion for 18 of the 21 sample sites. This criterion was 

exceeded at the two most downstream sites in the Chili Bar bypassed reach and at 

a site in Jones Fork Silver Creek that is upstream of the project’s influence. 

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects 

Water Quantity 

The Settlement Agreement’s proposed minimum streamflow schedules and 

water level regimes for project-influenced reaches and reservoirs include a variety 

of alternative measures for each project development. Because measures related 

to streamflow primarily pertain to protecting and enhancing aquatic and riparian 

habitat and recreational opportunities, we discuss the specific aspects of these 

measures in sections 3.3.2.2, Water Quality; 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources; 3.3.4.2, 

Terrestrial Resources; and 3.3.6.2, Recreational Resources. In this section we 

discuss the effects of the proposed water level regimes on reservoirs affected by 

the UARP and Chili Bar Project operations as well as the means to ensure 

compliance with the proposed minimum streamflow schedules and water levels. 

Reservoir Levels 

Under Proposed Article 1-23, Reservoir Levels, SMUD would within 

6 months of license issuance meet or exceed the end-of-the month reservoir 

elevations for Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House reservoirs (table 3-21) and 

would manage reservoir levels at Rubicon, Buck Island, Gerle, Junction, Brush, 

and Slab Creek to meet seasonal targets as described below. This measure and 

other reservoir level related measures also pertain to protecting and enhancing 

aquatic and riparian habitat, recreational opportunities, and aesthetics, therefore, 

we also discuss additional aspects of these measures in sections 3.3.3.2, Aquatic 

Resources; 3.3.4.2, Terrestrial Resources; 3.3.6.2, Recreational Resources; and 

3.3.8.2, Aesthetic Resources.
3-71

Table 3-21. Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House reservoirs levels by water 

year. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

End-of-Month Reservoir Elevation 

Reservoir/Month CD Dry BN AN Wet 

Loon Lake 

July 6,388 6,395 6,399 6,400 6,400 

August 6,382 6,389 6,394 6,393 6,393 

September 6,379 6,385 6,390 6,390 6,390 

Union Valley 

July 4,816 4,836 4,856 4,856 4,856 

August 4,803 4,827 4,835 4,841 4,842 

September 4,796 4,818 4,830 4,830 4,830 

Ice House 

July 5,435 5,437 5,440 5,441 5,441 

August 5,430 5,433 5,434 5,435 5,434 

September 5,420 5,429 5,430 5,431 5,430 

Rubicon and Buck Island Reservoirs—SMUD would attempt to maintain 

the water surface in Rubicon and Buck Island reservoirs at as high an elevation as 

practicable, and with a minimum of fluctuation, from May 1 to September 10 of 

each year in order to secure the maximum recreational benefits. Both of these high 

elevation reservoirs are remote and due to access issues, the gates are manually 

installed in June or July and are removed in mid- to late September or October. 

As described in Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, SMUD would 

maintain an overwintering minimum pool of 6,527 feet in elevation in Rubicon 

reservoir for the protection of aquatic species. 

Gerle Reservoir—SMUD would attempt to maintain the water surface in 

Gerle reservoir at as high an elevation as practicable, and with a minimum of 

fluctuation, from May 1 to September 10 of each year. If SMUD anticipates the 

reservoir will be drawn down below 5,225 feet during this time period, SMUD 

would consult with the Forest Service, Water Board, FWS, and CDFG. 

Junction and Brush Creek Reservoirs—SMUD would maintain the 

seasonal reservoir levels at Junction and Brush Creek reservoirs within the range 

of levels measured between 1975 through 2000 based on the databases maintained 

by CDWR and SMUD. 

Slab Creek Reservoir—SMUD would attempt to maintain the reservoir 

level above 1,830 feet in elevation during daylight hours between 10:00 a.m. and 
3-72

8:00 p.m. during the period from July 1 through September 30. SMUD would also 

attempt to limit daily fluctuations to less than 7 feet per day during daylight hours 

between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. from July 1 through September 30. The 

minimum reservoir elevation and maximum daily fluctuation would be reassessed 

and modified if necessary to accommodate (1) the operation of the proposed Iowa 

Hill development, should it be constructed, (2) the recreational use at Slab Creek 

reservoir, and (3) other applicable factors. 

Water Levels during a Super Dry Water Year—A Super Dry (SD) is 

defined as any Critically Dry (CD) year that is immediately preceded by a Dry or 

CD year or any Dry year that is immediately preceded by any combination of two 

Dry or CD years. In the event of a SD year, SMUD would, by March 10, notify 

the Forest Service, CDFG, and the Water Board about their concerns related to 

reservoir levels. By June 1 of a SD year, SMUD would confer with the Forest 

Service, CDFG, Water Board, and the Consultation Group to discuss reservoir 

operations plans and reservoir levels during the SD water year. The licensee 

would implement the revised operations while balancing as discussed in the 

Settlement Agreement a wide range of aquatic, recreation, water supply and power 

generation issues for a SD year upon approval by the Forest Service, the 

Commission, Water Board, and CDFG. 

Our Analysis 

End of Month Water Levels 

The proposed end of the month water levels at Loon Lake, Ice House, and 

Union Valley are somewhat similar to historical operation of all three reservoirs. 

However, the Settlement Agreement includes a wide range of proposed measures 

including increased minimum flows, pulse flows, ramping rates, recreational 

releases and others which would affect reservoir water levels while providing 

enhancement to water quality, aquatic, terrestrial, recreational and other resources. 

As part of the Settlement process, CDFG modeled the operations of the 

UARP and Chili Bar Project using the HEC-ResSim30 model to help evaluate the 

effects of various streamflow and reservoir elevation targets. In addition to 

reservoir and streamflow requirements, the model also included energy generation 

based on the Settlement Agreement and several other factors. The model included 

simulation of project operations under current measures and operation practices, 

designated as the “Base.” Simulation of the Proposed Action including the 

proposed minimum flows, pulse flows, reservoir elevation, maintenance, and other 

 

30HEC-ResSim is a computer reservoir system simulation program 

developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for performing reservoir 

operation modeling under a variety of operational goals and constraints. 
3-73

measures using the historical inflow data, designated in the following figures as 

the “Settlement Agreement.” Output from the model included streamflow data, 

power generation, reservoir elevation data, and other information at both 30-

minute and 1-day intervals for the 1975 to 2000 water years. 

Table 3-22 shows the water year types for water years 1992 through 1999. 

Figures 3-9 through 3-11 are representative of the reservoir levels in Loon Lake, 

Ice House, and Union Valley reservoir for water years 1992 through 1999 (a 

grouping of years that include a reasonable representation of water year types) 

from the output of the HEC-ResSim model under the Proposed Action. These 

figures show that in almost all cases, SMUD could achieve the end of month target 

elevations while meeting the proposed minimum streamflow schedules included in 

the Settlement Agreement. However, as shown in the figures, the end of month 

water levels would not have been met at the reservoirs in 1992, which under the 

Settlement Agreement would have been classified as an SD year as discussed later 

in this section. 

Table 3-22. Water year types for 1992–1999. 

(Source: SMUD, 2005) 

Year Water Year Type 

1992 Dry 

1993 Above Normal 

1994 Critically Dry 

1995 Wet 

1996 Above Normal 

1997 Wet 

1998 Wet 

1998 Above Normal 
3-74 

Loon Lake Reservoir

6,3406,3506,3606,3706,3806,3906,4006,4106,420

Oct-91 Apr-92 Oct-92 Apr-93 Oct-93 Apr-94 Oct-94 Apr-95 Oct-95 Apr-96 Oct-96 Apr-97 Oct-97 Apr-98 Oct-

Water Surface Elevations (feet) .

Base Case Settlement Agreement End of Month Target Elevations

Figure 3-9. Loon Lake reservoir modeled elevations for 1992 to 1999 water years. (Source: CDFG

modified by staff). 
3-75 

Ice House Reservoir

5,3805,3905,4005,4105,4205,4305,4405,4505,460

Oct-91 Apr-92 Oct-92 Apr-93 Oct-93 Apr-94 Oct-94 Apr-95 Oct-95 Apr-96 Oct-96 Apr-97 Oct-97 Apr-98 Oc

Water Surface Elevation (feet) 

Base Case Settlement Agreement End of Month Target Elevations

Figure 3-10. Ice House reservoir modeled elevations for 1992 to 1999 water years. (Source: CDFG

by staff). 
3-76 

Union Valley Reservoir

4,7704,7804,7904,8004,8104,8204,8304,8404,8504,8604,8704,880

Oct-91 Apr-92 Oct-92 Apr-93 Oct-93 Apr-94 Oct-94 Apr-95 Oct-95 Apr-96 Oct-96 Apr-97 Oct-97 Apr-98 O

Water Surface Elevations (feet) 

Base Case Settlement Agreement End of Month Target Elevations

Figure 3-11. Union Valley reservoir modeled elevations for 1992 to 1999 water years. (Source: CD

modified by staff). 
3-77 

Water Levels during a Super Dry Water Year 

Review of the water year type records indicate the SD water year types have 

occurred three times between 1975 and 2005 (1977, 1988, and 1992). HEC-ResSim 

modeling indicated that water levels in the three main storage reservoirs could fail to 

meet the CD end of month targets during these years. Figure 3-12, which shows the 

Base and the Proposed Action water levels during these SD years at Union Valley 

reservoir, the largest storage reservoir. This figure is representative of several important 

aspects including the variation in severity of SD years. Another key feature of this 

figure is the additional drawdown that would have occurred in 1977, when measures 

included in the Settlement Agreement would have resulted in additional drawdown 

during the summer. 

Union Valley Reservoir Super Dry Water Year Types

4,700

4,715

4,730

4,745

4,760

4,775

4,790

4,805

4,820

4,835

4,850

1-

Jul

8-

Jul

15-

Jul

22-

Jul

29-

Jul

5-

Aug

12-

Aug

19-

Aug

26-

Aug

2-

Sep

9-

Sep

16-

Sep

23-

Sep

30-

Sep

Water Surface Elevations (feet) 

1977 Base 1977 Settlement

1988 Base 1988 Settlement

1992 Base 1992 Settlement

End of Month Target Elevations

Figure 3-12. Union Valley reservoir modeled base and Proposed Action water 

surface elevations from July to September 30 for 1977, 1988, and 

1992. (Source: CDFG, 2007, as modified by staff) 
3-78 

Rubicon and Buck Island Reservoirs 

HEC-ResSim modeling of the effects of the Proposed Action on the reservoir 

levels at Rubicon and Buck Island reservoirs showed that fluctuations of the water 

levels of these two reservoirs would still occur and be somewhat similar to existing 

conditions. Existing conditions for the past 8 years at these reservoirs are shown in 

figures 3-13 and 3-14. Many of these fluctuations, especially early in the May through 

September 10 period as shown in figures 3-13 and 3-14, are due to rapidly varying 

inflow to the reservoirs. These high elevation reservoirs have limited storage capacity 

and are affected by changes in the inflow to the reservoirs, normally driven by 

snowmelt. However, these graphs do show a relatively stable water surface elevation 

during low inflow conditions which normally start during July and extending through 

the recreational season. In addition, the manual installations of the gates at these 

reservoirs normally occur in early June or July and are removed in mid- to late 

September or October. Not provided in the graphs are overwintering reservoir 

elevations at Rubicon reservoir. Modeled elevations during the winter period are 

similar to existing operations and did not fall below elevation 6,532 feet, 5 feet above 

the proposed minimum pool elevation. 

Rubicon Reservoir (May 1 - September 10)

6,534

6,536

6,538

6,540

6,542

6,544

6,546

6,548

1-May 15-May 29-May 12-Jun 26-Jun 10-Jul 24-Jul 7-Aug 21-Aug 4-Sep

Water Surface Elevation (feet) 

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

 

Figure 3-13. Rubicon reservoir modeled elevations between May 1 and September 

10 for 1992 to 1999. (Source: CDFG, 2007, as modified by staff) 
3-79 

Buck Island Reservoir (May 1 - September 10)

6,426

6,428

6,430

6,432

6,434

6,436

6,438

1-

May

11-

May

21-

May

31-

May

10-

Jun

20-

Jun

30-

Jun

10-

Jul

20-

Jul

30-

Jul

9-

Aug

19-

Aug

29-

Aug

8-

Sep

Water Surface Elevation (feet) 

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Figure 3-14. Buck Island reservoir modeled elevations between May 1 and 

September 10 for 1992 to 1999. (Source: CDFG, 2007, as modified 

by staff) 

Gerle Reservoir 

HEC-ResSim modeling of the measures in the Proposed Action analyzed its 

effects on the reservoir levels at Gerle reservoir and showed that fluctuations of the water 

levels of this reservoir would still occur. This is partly because Gerle reservoir operates 

as an afterbay for Loon Lake Powerhouse and as a forebay for the canal leading to Robbs 

Peak reservoir and powerhouse. Many of the variations in the early part of the May 1 to 

September 10 period (see figure 3-15) are the result of limited storage capacity and rapid 

variations in inflow similar to the Rubicon and Buck Island reservoirs. These graphs also 

show that the licensee would not be able to maintain the reservoir at elevation of 

5,225 feet, the trigger elevation for consulting with the Agencies.31

 

31For model simplicity purposes, the transition between Gerle Creek reservoir 

and the Gerle Creek canal was modeled as an uncontrolled outlet. However, in 

actuality, there are gates at the headworks to the Gerle Creek canal, and it is expected 

that SMUD would use these gates to help regulated the elevation of Gerle Creek 

reservoir at or above 5,225 feet during the summer recreation season, and at or above 

5,228 feet during the August through October period so that brown trout can access 

spawning areas in Gerle Creek. 
3-80 

Gerle Creek Reservoir (May 1 to September 10)

5,218

5,220

5,222

5,224

5,226

5,228

5,230

5,232

1-

May

11-

May

21-

May

31-

May

10-

Jun

20-

Jun

30-

Jun

10-

Jul

20-

Jul

30-

Jul

9-

Aug

19-

Aug

29-

Aug

8-

Sep

Water Surface Elevations (feet) 

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Elevation 5,225

Figure 3-15. Gerle Creek reservoir modeled elevations between May 1 and September 

10 for 1992 to 1999. (Source: CDFG, 2007 as modified by staff) 

Junction and Brush Creek Reservoirs 

Both of these reservoirs serve as afterbays and forebays for downstream and 

upstream powerhouses. In the past, SMUD has operated them with water variations of 

approximately 20 feet per day during peaking operations. HEC-ResSim modeling of 

the Proposed Action indicates that this type of variation would continue to occur, 

largely the result of continued daily peaking operations and the limited storage capacity 

of the reservoirs. 

Slab Creek Reservoir 

HEC-ResSim modeling of the effects of the Proposed Action’s measures on 

reservoir levels at Slab Creek reservoir shows that daily fluctuation at this reservoir 

would occur, but would be likely to be less than existing conditions. Existing daily 

fluctuations at this reservoir are normally about 6 feet, with only a few days per year 

over 7 feet. Figure 3-16 provides representative short interval data of historical and 

modeled water surfaces in Slab Creek reservoir for July 1 through September 30, 1999. 
3-81 

This figure shows a substantial decrease in the daily fluctuation of Slab Creek reservoir 

and that water levels remain above elevation 1,830.32 

Slab Creek Reservoir (July 1 - September 30)

1,828

1,830

1,832

1,834

1,836

1,838

1,840

1,842

1,844

1,846

1,848

1,850

1-Jul 11-Jul 21-Jul 31-Jul 10-Aug 20-Aug 30-Aug 9-Sep 19-Sep 29-Sep

Water Surface Elevations (feet) 

Historical Settlement Agreement (Modeled) Elevation 1,830 

Figure 3-16. Slab Creek reservoir historical one hour and modeled half hour 

elevations between May 1 and September 10 1999. (Source: CDFG, 

2007; CDEC, 2007, as modified by staff) 

 

32For model simplicity purposes, coordinated operations between Slab Creek 

reservoir and Chili Bar reservoir was simulated using the implicit storage balance option 

within HEC-ResSim. In addition, the target elevation for Slab Creek reservoir was set 

at a constant elevation of 1,843 feet. The reservoir fluctuation depicted in the model 

output is primarily a result of these modeling simplifications. It is expected that the 

daily fluctuation in Slab Creek reservoir water surface elevations (absent affects from 

the Iowa Hill development) will be similar to historical operations. 
3-82 

Flow and Water Level Monitoring—Flow and water level gages are in place on 

many project-affected reaches and reservoirs (tables 3-23 and 3-24). 

Table 3-23. Existing streamflow gages in the UARP area. 

(Source: SMUD, 2005, USGS, 2007) 

Existing USGS Gage No. Gage name 

11427960 Rubicon River below Rubicon dam, near Meeks Baya

11428400 Little Rubicon River below Buck Island damb

11429500 Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam 

11430000 SFRR below Gerle Creek 

11441500 SFSC near Ice House 

11441800 Silver Creek below Junction dam near Pollock Pines c

11441900 Silver Creek below Camino dam 

11442700 Brush Creek below Brush Creek dam near Pollock Pines 

11443500 South Fork of the American River near Camino a

 measures flows below 10 cfs, does not measure dam spillage. 

b

 measures flows below 2 cfs, does not measure dam spillage.

c

 measures flows up to 40 cfs, does not measure dam spillage.

Table 3-24. Existing reservoir gages in UARP area. 

(Source: SMUD, 2005, CDEC, 2007) 

Existing USGS No. 

Existing DWR 

Abbreviation Reservoir Name 

NA RBL Rubicon 

11429350 LON Loon Lake 

11429600 GLL Gerle Creek 

11441100 ICH Ice House 

11441001 UNV Union Valley 

11441760 JNC Junction 

11441890 CMI Camino 

11442690 BHC Brush Creek 

11443450 SLB Slab Creek 

Currently, SMUD maintains these gages and conducts monitoring and other 

procedures under the supervision of, and in conjunction with USGS. Under Proposed 

Article 1-10, Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation Gaging, SMUD would maintain 
3-83 

gages at almost all the current locations to monitor stream flows and reservoir levels as 

well as conduct gage installation, rating, and measurements. 

PG&E’s existing and proposed compliance point for flows released from Chili 

Bar is the existing USGS gage no. 11444500 (SFAR near Placerville). Under Proposed 

Article 2-8, Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation Gaging, PG&E also proposes to 

monitor the water level of Chili Bar reservoir to insure compliance. 

Our Analysis 

We have reviewed the existing gaging and determined that SMUD would need to 

modify the current gaging in order to demonstrate compliance with the proposed 

minimum streamflow schedules in several of the downstream reaches. 

Measuring flows below Rubicon dam. USGS gage no. 11427960 (Rubicon 

River below Rubicon dam) is a measuring device located in the outlet pipes of Rubicon 

dam and computes flow up to 10 cfs and does not measure flow from the spillway. An 

auxiliary, but non-recording gage is located about 1,300 feet downstream from the dam 

at a point where flow from spillway has rejoined the channel. Currently, the recording 

gage is suitable for measurement of the 6 cfs or natural flow minimum flow existing 

requirement. However, the proposed minimum flows are above 10 cfs during the 

March through June period of most water year types, as shown in table 3-36. To 

demonstrate compliance with the proposed minimum streamflow schedule, SMUD 

would need to establish a means to measure outflow in excess of 10 cfs and this might 

be possible by converting the existing downstream non recording gage to a fully 

operational and recording gage station. In addition, according to SMUD, the current 

maximum low level outlet capacity is 18 cfs, so SMUD would need to modify the outlet 

pipe and or structure to allow compliance with streamflows of 20 cfs (April) or 35 cfs 

(May) during below normal (BN), above normal (AN), or Wet water years. However, 

SMUD would need to install a gage downstream of the confluence of the channel from 

spillways on the main and auxiliary dams and the low level outlet to monitor the 

recommended pulse flow event of at least 600 cfs for 3 consecutive days. Because the 

Rubicon dam and reservoir are in the Desolation Wilderness Area, SMUD would need 

Forest Service approval of any construction of a gage or modifications to the dam, gage, 

or other likely changes 

Measuring flows below Buck Island dam. USGS gage no. 11428400 (Little 

Rubicon River below Buck Island dam, near Meeks Bay) is a water stage recording Vnotch sharp-crested weir near the low level outlet of the dam. This gage currently 

measures up to 2 cfs and does not measure flow from the spillway and is suitable for 

measuring the present minimum flow requirement of 1 cfs. Because the proposed 

minimum flows are above 2 cfs during the March through June period of most water 

year types, as shown in table 3-37, SMUD would need to establish a means to measure 

outflow in excess of 2 cfs and up to 8 cfs such as modifying the existing weir 

measurement structure. 
3-84 

Measuring flows below Gerle Creek and Robbs Peak dams. USGS gage no. 

11430000 (SFRR below Gerle Creek, near Georgetown) is a water stage recorder 

located about 600 feet downstream of the confluence with Gerle Creek and about 1.2 

miles downstream from Gerle Creek dam. Currently this gage measures both minimum 

flows and spillage over the dam. This gage is also used to also measure minimum flows 

from Robbs Peak dam which is located about 1.1 miles upstream on the SFRR. SMUD 

states that manual staff gaging downstream of each dam is currently used in conjunction 

with the SFRR gage data. A rectangular weir staff gage is located at the base of Robbs 

Peak dam that provides gage data to correctly adjust releases from both Robbs Peak and 

Gerle Creek reservoirs. The gaging data is currently used to measures flows released 

from each dam during low flow period. Accretions in the reaches below these two dams 

during the summer months are not substantial between the dams and the existing gage. 

It would be difficult to install new flow gaging stations in the area below these two 

dams because of the general stairstep boulder/bedrock nature of the stream channels. 

Installation of gages at this location would have both short-term and long-term 

environmental consequences (e.g., potential erosion and sedimentation, destabilization 

of existing slopes, disturbance of aquatic and riparian habitat, potential degradation of 

the local visual quality, and potential disturbance of cultural sites). Plans for the gaging 

stations could provide site-specific details regarding how these effects would be 

addressed. Consultation with USGS for the development of these gage sites, if part of a 

new license, would help ensure future compliance with USGS standards for flow 

measurement. 

Measuring flows below Junction dam. USGS gage no. 11441800 (SFSC below 

Junction dam, near Pollock Pines) is located in the outlet pipe from Junction dam. 

Currently this gage does not measure flow above 40 cfs and does not have the ability to 

measure flow over the spillway. SMUD states that the low level outlet pipe from 

Junction dam has a maximum capacity of 138 cfs. Minimum flows in excess of 40 cfs, 

as shown in table 3-44, are proposed for the months of April, May, and June in some 

water years. In order to demonstrate compliance with the proposed minimum 

streamflow schedule, , SMUD would need to establish a means to measure flow in 

excess of the current 40 cfs, such as modifying the existing measurement structure. 

Measuring flows below Loon Lake dam, Ice House dam, Camino dam, Brush 

Creek dam, and Slab Creek dam. USGS gage no. 11429500 (Gerle Creek below Loon 

Lake dam, near Meeks Bay) is a water-stage recorder and V-notch sharp-crested weir 

about 0.3 miles below the dam. USGS gage no. 11441500 (SFSC near Ice House) is a 

water stage recorder with concrete control, located about 0.4 mile downstream from the 

dam. USGS gage no. 11441900 (Silver Creek below Camino dam) is a water stage 

recorder located about 0.4 miles downstream from the dam and measures low flow and 

dam spillage. USGS gage no. 11442700 (Brush Creek below Brush Creek dam, near 

Pollock Pines) measures flow in the outlet pipe from Brush Creek dam. According to 

SMUD, the low level outlet pipe from Brush Creek dam has a maximum capacity of 

145 cfs. USGS gage no. 11443500 (SFAR near Camino) measures flow with an 
3-85 

acoustic velocity meter approximately 1000 feet below the dam. Currently these gages 

measure both minimum flows and spillage over the dams and would be sufficient to 

measure the proposed minimum streamflow schedules, including the proposed pulse 

flows and/or recreational streamflows. 

Operation of reservoir water level elevation gages. Currently, SMUD operates 

and maintains all of the water level gages listed in table 3-24, and SMUD reports the 

water levels on an hourly basis to the DWR.33. This type of monitoring is needed as 

part of project operations, to coordinate multiple reservoirs, powerhouses, tunnels and 

other structures within the project area and would be expected to be continued. The 

effects of the Iowa Hill development would include changes in the water-level 

fluctuations in Slab Creek reservoir, with a general withdraw of water during the night 

and increased inflow during the day during generation. 

Measuring flows below Chili Bar dam. USGS gage no. 11444500 (SFAR near 

Placerville) measures flow with a water-stage recorder approximately 700 feet 

downstream of the dam. Currently this gage measures both minimum flows and 

spillage over the dam and would be sufficient to measure any reasonable flow regime, 

including possible recreational streamflows. 

Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation Gaging Plan 

Under Proposed Article 1-10, Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation Gaging, 

SMUD would, within 1 year after license issuance, develop and submit to the 

Commission for approval a streamflow and reservoir elevation gaging plan that meets 

the USGS standards and includes include a minimum of 10 streamflow gage locations 

(see table 3-23) and nine reservoir elevation compliance gaging locations (see table 3-

24). This plan would be approved by the Water Board prior to filing with the 

Commission. SMUD would detail in the plan the maintenance and operation of all of 

the above mentioned streamflow and reservoir elevation gages, with the exception of 

USGS gage no. 11430000 (SFRR below Gerle Creek). This gage would be replaced by 

new gages, one below Gerle Creek reservoir and one below Robbs Peak reservoir. 

As part of the Settlement Agreement, SMUD also proposes to: (1) install and 

maintain simple staff gages at the put-ins for the Slab Creek and Ice House recreational 

boating runs and perform an investigation to determine whether telemetry equipment 

can be installed at Rubicon River below Rubicon dam and Little Rubicon River below 

Buck Island dam to monitor conditions and/or control operations both within 2 years of 

licensing; and (2) provide real time information at 15 minute intervals for all streamflow 

and reservoir elevation gages. 

Under Proposed Article 2-8, Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation Gaging, PG&E 

would, within one year after license issuance, develop and file for approval from the 

 

33The data are available online at http://cdec.water.ca.gov/reservoir.html. 
3-86 

Commission a stream flow and reservoir elevation gaging plan, which would meet 

USGS standards. This plan, which would be approved by the Water Board prior to 

filing with the Commission, would address compliance streamflow gaging below Chili 

Bar dam at the existing USGS gage no. 11444500 (SFAR near Placerville) and in water 

level compliance at Chili Bar reservoir. 

The Placer County Water Agency recommends that SMUD implement a gaging 

system of SMUD’s facilities that would verifiably and effectively monitor, report, and 

limit the rate of water diversion at SMUD’s diversions facilities in the Rubicon River 

watershed. To effectively perform these functions, gaging would be required at the 

diversion gage locations shown in table 3-25 and real time telemetry reporting 

capability installed, maintained, and made available to PCWA and other resource 

agencies. 

Table 3-25. Existing diversion structure gages in Rubicon River watershed 

area of the UARP. (Source: SMUD, 2005) 

Existing USGS Gage Number Gage Name 

11427940 Rubicon–Rockbound tunnel 

11428300 Buck Island–Loon tunnel

11429340 Loon Lake powerhouse

11429300 Robbs Peak powerhouse

Our Analysis 

SMUD and PG&E already monitor, or in some cases provide assistance to the 

USGS for monitoring and recording, many hydrological indicators, such as reservoir 

water level and stream gaging sites in the project area. Daily and, in many cases, hourly 

or shorter interval data recording allows SMUD and PG&E to manage its facilities for 

hydroelectric generation and document environmental compliance within the terms of 

its existing license. The configuration of future flow and water level monitoring gages 

would depend on the operating conditions that may be specified in new licenses. 

Developing a coordinated gage installation plan, in consultation with resource and land 

management agencies, as well as USGS, would ensure that any new gages necessary to 

measure the flows and water levels that may be specified in a new license would 

provide accurate data consistent with applicable USGS standards. It also would provide 

the justification for the type of new gage (i.e., a gage with real-time, telemetry 

capabilities, or a gage without such capabilities) that is installed at each site to be 

documented, and any needed modifications to existing streamflow or reservoir elevation 

gages. Other specific details of the streamflow gaging and reservoir elevation plans are 

discussed below. 

Currently, real time reporting is not available on any diversion structures located 

within the Rubicon River watershed area of the UARP area. Proposed Article 1-10, 

Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation Gaging, does not include gaging at the diversion 
3-87 

structures listed in table 3-25. Although the installation of real-time telemetry and other 

equipment to monitor, report, and limit the diversion flow at these structures, as 

suggested by Placer County, would provide information on quantity of water diverted 

from these structures, we see no nexus between the requested gaging and this 

relicensing proceeding. In fact, this would seem to be a matter that would fall under the 

jurisdiction of the Water Board. 

Public Information Services 

Under Proposed Articles 1-25 and 2-14, Public Information Services, SMUD and 

PG&E would provide real-time streamflow and reservoir level information to the public 

via staff gages in the reservoirs, websites and toll free telephone numbers. 

Our Analysis 

Staff gages for recreational boating at the put-ins for Slab Creek and Ice House 

boating runs. Staff gages at these sites would allow boaters to observe the actual water 

level before launching on these whitewater runs. These gages would be roughly 

calibrated to flow levels that are too low, too high, or suitable for recreational boating 

activities. This measure is discussed in more detail in section 3.3.6.2, Recreational 

Resources. 

Telemetry equipment on gages on the Rubicon River below Rubicon dam and on 

the Little Rubicon River below Buck Island dam. As is the case with possible 

modification to the existing gage, or replacement of the gage below Rubicon dam, 

SMUD and the Forest Service would need to concur that telemetry equipment is 

economically and technologically feasible, and whether it could be installed consistent 

with law, regulations, and policies applicable to Desolation Wilderness Area. 

Provide real-time information at 15 minute intervals for all stream flow and 

reservoir elevation gages within the UARP area. Currently, real-time reporting is not 

available to the public on any streamflow gaging sites within the UARP area. Hourly 

real-time reservoir levels are available on the CDEC website. Real-time information for 

all streamflow and reservoir elevation locations can normally be easily and 

inexpensively collected in either 1-hour or 15-minute intervals and made available to 

the public and would allow the public, operators of downstream projects, such as Chili 

Bar Project and the Middle Fork American River Project, and others to coordinate their 

activities and operations based on this information. 

Chili Bar streamflow and reservoir gaging plan. Flow compliance monitoring for 

releases from Chili Bar reservoir would necessitate the continuing operation of gage no. 

11444500 located below Chili Bar dam. Currently this is not a real-time USGS gage, 

but flows and gage heights at one hour intervals are presently available on the CDEC 

website for this streamflow gage. Reservoir level compliance would entail likely 

upgrade of the current system that PG&E uses to monitor the water level within Chili 

Bar reservoir. 
3-88 

UARP-Only Alternative

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed. Minimum flows, pulse flows, ramping rates, streamflow and reservoir 

elevation gaging, and public information services would be as described in the Proposed 

Action. As a result, the effects of the UARP-only Alternative would be the same as 

discussed under the Proposed Action with the exception that Slab Creek reservoir would 

not experience the daily and weekly fluctuations from the operation of the pumped 

storage project. 

Effects of Project Operations on Water Quality 

Operation of the Projects has the potential to affect water temperatures, water 

quality, and algae. The available information that serves as the basis for our analysis 

regarding the effects of project operations on water temperatures is not consistent 

between reaches. SMUD used water temperature observations and the SNTEMP model 

(Theurer et al., 1984) to simulate the effects of altered flow regimes on water 

temperatures in the Ice House, Camino, and Slab Creek dam reaches; and it used 

CE-QUAL-W2 (Wells, 2000) to simulate the effects of the proposed Iowa Hill 

development on water temperatures within Slab Creek reservoir. Water temperature 

was not modeled for the other UARP or Chili Bar Project-affected reaches and our 

analysis is by necessity based on observed temperatures. 

The results of hourly temperature measurements made during 2000 to 2004 are 

used to represent existing conditions for all reaches. We compare the mean temperature 

for each day (i.e., 24-hour period), which we refer to below as “mean temperature”, to 

20.0°C as an indicator of whether thermal conditions fully support cold water fishes. 

The lack of directly comparable information as discussed above, resulted in our using 

two approaches to evaluate the effects of flows on water temperatures, depending on 

whether or not modeling had been done. For the reaches that were modeled, our 

analysis focuses on the applicants’ water temperature simulations for 2002, a BN water 

year. To determine the potential effects of proposed operations on water temperature in 

project reaches that were not modeled, we consider the changes in the proportion of 

total flow for BN years that would be supplied by the corresponding dam release (as 

opposed to the percentage provided by natural accretion). The existing minimum 

streamflow schedules referred to in our analysis are shown in tables 3-4 through 3-10 in 

section 3.3.2.2, Water Quantity. A summary of the temperatures in 2000–2004 referred 

to in our analysis are shown in table 3-16, and the elevations of the low water intakes 

and outlets are shown in table 3-15 in section 3.3.2.1, Water Quality. In addition, we 

evaluate the effects of proposed minimum flows and operation of the proposed Iowa 

Hill development below using the results of SMUD’s CE-QUAL-W2 simulations. The 

results of our analyses of these issues are summarized in table 3-26, and discussed 

below. 
3-89 

Table 3-26. Summary of general water temperature characteristics for the UARP and 

Chili Bar Project affected reaches under existing and proposed minimum 

instream flows and proposed Iowa Hill operations.a

 (Source: Staff) 

Reach Existing Operations b Proposed Operations c

Rubicon Warm late spring to summer releases. In 

comparison to dam release temperatures, 

major warming in May and June 

transitioning to minor to moderate 

cooling in July, which continues through 

September. Frequently >20°C in portions 

of the reach in July and August. 

Temperatures slightly reduced compared 

to existing conditions in May and June, but 

negligible change in July–September. 

Buck Island Warm late spring to summer releases. 

Moderate to major warming within the 

reach during May–June, transitioning to 

minor cooling in July, which continues 

through September. Frequently >20°C 

throughout the reach in July and August. 

Temperatures slightly reduced in May and 

June, but negligible effects in July–

September. 

Loon Lake Cool releases through mid-September. 

Moderate warming in May, major 

warming in June–August, and minor 

cooling in late September. Remain 

<20°C throughout the bypassed reach. 

Temperatures moderately reduced in June 

and July, and slightly reduced in May and 

August. 

Gerle Creek Moderate warming in May–July followed 

by minor warming in August and minor 

cooling in September. Remain <20°C 

throughout the bypassed reach. 

Temperatures somewhat reduced during 

May through mid-August, and slightly 

increased in September. 

Robbs Peak Moderate warming in May–July, minor 

cooling in August, and moderate cooling 

in September. Remains <20°C in most 

years, but frequently >20°C in Dry years. 

Temperatures somewhat reduced during 

May through mid-August, and slightly 

increased in September. 

Ice House Cold May–September releases. Major 

warming May–September. Infrequently 

>20°C in July and August in the lower 

half of the reach. 

Based on temperature simulations for a 

BN year, temperatures would be reduced 3 

to 4°C in June and reduced about 2°C in 

July. The cooling effect would be smaller 

at both the upper and lower ends of the 

reach, although temperatures would likely 

remain <20°C throughout the entire reach. 

Junction Cool May–September releases. Major 

warming May–September. Rarely >20°C 

at lower end of reach in July. 

Temperatures substantially reduced in 

May–July, maintaining <20°C. 

Temperatures slightly increased in August 

and September of AN and Wet water years 

due to lower minimum flow releases. 
3-90 

Reach Existing Operations b Proposed Operations c

Camino Moderate release temperatures. Major 

warming in May–September. At the 

lower end of the reach, >20°C frequently 

in July, occasionally in June and August, 

and rarely in May. 

Based on temperature simulations for a 

BN year, temperatures at the lower end of 

the reach would be reduced substantially 

in May–July, and remain virtually the 

same in August and September. 

Temperatures would be >20°C less often 

than under the existing conditions. 

SFAR At the upper end of the reach warm 

inflows from both the SFAR and Camino 

dam reach resulting in >20°C frequently 

in July and August, occasionally in June, 

and rarely in September. 

Minimal to no measurable effects on 

temperatures. 

Brush Creek Major warming in May–July and 

moderate warming in August–September. 

Remains <20°C throughout the bypassed 

reach. 

Temperatures somewhat reduced 

throughout the reach. 

Slab Creek Moderate release temperatures. In the 

reach upstream of White Rock 

powerhouse, major warming in May–

September. In the lower portion of this 

section, frequently >20°C in June–

August. 

Based on temperature simulations for a 

BN year, temperatures substantially 

reduced at the lower end of the reach, 

although temperatures of >20°C could 

continue to occur in June–August. 

Pumping/generation cycling of the 

proposed Iowa Hill development would 

result in slightly cooler conditions (<1 °C) 

within Slab Creek reservoir and the 

streamflow releases from Slab Creek dam. 

Chili Bar Major warming in June–September and 

moderate warming in May. The lower 

end of the reach is rarely >20°C. 

Temperatures slightly reduced May–

September, likely to levels that remain 

<20°C. 

a

 General trends based on mean temperatures. 

b

 For Existing Operations, effects are presented as a comparison to release temperatures from the 

respective dam. 

c

 For Proposed Operations, effects are presented as a comparison to existing conditions. 

Our Analysis 

Rubicon Dam and Buck Island Dam Reaches 

The thermal regime of releases from both Rubicon and Buck Island reservoirs, 

which do not thermally stratify, have the same general seasonal pattern as in the 

Rubicon River inflow to Rubicon reservoir. The mean daily temperatures at the 

upstream end of the Rubicon dam reach are about 3 to 6°C in early May, increase to 

about 12°C in mid- to late June, rapidly increase to over 20°C in mid-July, then 

gradually cool after mid-August. Warmer temperatures occur earlier in the season 

during Dry water years. The temperature of releases from Buck Island dam into the 
3-91 

Little Rubicon River follow the same general pattern as the Rubicon dam releases, but 

they are about 1.5 to 3°C warmer in late spring to early summer, and slightly (<1°C) 

warmer in late summer. 

The Rubicon dam and Buck Island dam reaches experience similar changes in 

water temperature. Based on mean daily temperatures, both reaches experience 

substantial warming (increases of about 1.5 to 3.5°C) in May and June, a transition from 

warming to cooling in July, and cooling in August and September. These 

characteristics are closely linked to the relationship between accretion and release flows. 

Typically, accretion flows account for more than 90 percent of the total flow during 

May and June, but less than 15 percent of the total flow in August and September. 

Downstream of the confluence of the two rivers, water temperatures tend to closely 

follow those of the Little Rubicon River. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, the primary objectives for the Rubicon River 

downstream of Rubicon dam and Buck Island dam reach are to provide cold freshwater 

habitat for healthy trout and mountain yellow-legged frog populations, and less 

conducive conditions for California roach, speckled dace, and golden shiners. The 

Settlement Agreement also attempts to reduce elevated aluminum concentrations that 

may adversely affect aquatic organisms. 

Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, would increase minimum 

streamflow releases from both dams during May and June, but would not change 

releases during July through September, with the exception of releasing 1 cfs when 

natural flows are less than 1 cfs (tables 3-36 and 3-37, see section 3.3.3, Aquatic 

Resources, below). Based on our analysis, we conclude that the proposed minimum 

streamflow releases would slightly lower May and June water temperatures in both 

bypassed reaches, but not change water temperatures during July through September. 

Although the settlement parties indicated that the proposed flow regime is intended to 

address the elevated aluminum concentrations in Rubicon reservoir, there is no evidence 

that they would substantially reduce aluminum concentrations nor is there any evidence 

that the aluminum concentrations are project related. In order to conclusively determine 

whether aluminum concentrations are reduced in the reservoir, aluminum concentrations 

would need to be monitored after the new flow regime is implemented. 

Loon Lake Dam Reach 

Mean daily temperatures typically remain below 20°C in the bypassed reach 

between Loon Lake dam and Gerle Creek reservoir. Loon Lake dam releases are made 

from the low-level outlet, which is at a depth of 83 feet below the reservoir’s normal 

maximum level, resulting in mean daily release temperatures of about 4 to 6°C in early 

May, slowly and steadily increasing to about 12°C by late August to mid-September. 

During drawdown of Loon Lake in the late summer of some years, mean daily 

temperatures of reservoir releases increase to 15 to 17°C at a faster rate. Within this 

bypassed reach, mean daily temperatures increase about 1.5°C in May, about 5°C in 
3-92 

June and August, about 7°C in July, and decrease in late September. Much of this 

warming of the cool deepwater releases from Loon Lake appears to result from ambient 

air temperatures and solar insolation within 2 miles of the dam. Thermal characteristics 

of the Loon Lake dam reach appear be highly influenced by the cool late spring and 

summer releases from the dam and accretion from tributaries and other sources. 

Typically, releases account for less than 10 percent of the total flow during May, about 

30 percent of the total flow in June, about 70 percent of the total flow in July, and 

90 percent of the flow in August and September. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, the primary objectives for the Loon Lake dam 

reach are to provide cold freshwater habitat for healthy rainbow trout, brown trout, and 

mountain yellow-legged frog populations. Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, 

would increase minimum streamflow releases during May through September of most 

years, with the largest increases occurring in May and June (table 3-38, see section 

3.3.3, Aquatic Resources, below). Based on our analysis, we conclude that the proposed 

minimum streamflow releases would slightly lower May and August water 

temperatures, and moderately lower water temperatures during June and July. 

Gerle Creek Dam and Robbs Peak Dam Reaches 

Streamflow releases from both Gerle Creek reservoir and Robbs Peak reservoir, 

which do not thermally stratify, have mean daily temperatures that do not exceed 20°C 

in most years, although releases from Robbs Peak dam frequently exceed 20°C in July 

and August of Dry water years. Mean daily temperatures of releases from Gerle Creek 

dam are about 5 to 7°C in early May, increase to about 12°C in mid- to late June, and 

increase to their peak of about 15 to 18°C in late August or early September. Warmer 

temperatures occur earlier in the season during Dry water years, resulting in 12°C as 

early as late May. The temperature of releases from Robbs Peak dam into the SFRR 

were warmer and much more variable than Gerle Creek dam releases, which are highly 

influenced by deep-water releases from Loon Lake, reaching their peak mean daily 

temperatures of 18 to 22°C in late July to August. In 2001, a Dry water year, mean 

daily temperatures of Robbs Peak dam releases exceeded 20°C continuously from July 

14 through August 16, indicating that coldwater fishes are not fully supported. 

Based on differences in mean daily temperatures within the Gerle Creek and 

Robb Creek releases, the temperatures of streamflow releases from Gerle Creek dam 

and Robbs Peak dam increase about 1.5 to 2°C during May through July before 

reaching the Gerle Creek/SFRR confluence. In August, these reaches tend to transition 

from increasing to reducing temperatures as a result of ambient air temperatures 

becoming cooler. The cooler ambient air temperatures lower mean daily temperatures 

about 0.5 to 1.5°C in September. Inflow from the Gerle Creek dam reach had little 

effect on temperatures with the largest effects being an increase of about 0.5°C in 

September. These thermal characteristics are closely linked to release temperatures 

from Gerle Creek dam, which are sometimes affected by drawdowns of Loon Lake and 

Robbs Peak dam. 
3-93 

Under the Settlement Agreement, the objectives include providing cold 

freshwater habitat for healthy mountain yellow-legged frog populations in the Gerle 

Creek dam reach, and providing cold freshwater habitat for healthy mountain yellowlegged frog and foothill yellow-legged frog populations in the SFFR downstream of 

Robbs Peak dam. Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, would increase 

minimum streamflow releases from both Gerle Creek dam and Robbs Peak dam during 

May through September, with the largest increases occurring in May and June (tables 3-

39 and 3-40, see section 3.3.3, Aquatic Resources, below). Based on our analysis, we 

conclude that the proposed minimum streamflow releases would somewhat lower water 

temperatures during May through mid-August, and slightly increase water temperatures 

in September. We anticipate that the largest reduction in temperatures would occur in 

the SFRR because the proposed minimum streamflow releases are more than four times 

the current requirements in May and June. 

Ice House Dam Reach 

Mean daily temperatures generally remain below 20°C in most of the SFSC 

bypassed reach between Ice House dam and Gerle Creek reservoir. Releases from the 

Ice House dam low-level outlet, which is at a depth of approximately 122 feet below the 

reservoir’s normal maximum level, are drafted from the hypolimnion of Ice House 

reservoir, resulting in mean daily release temperatures of about 5 to 7°C from May 

through September. About two thirds of this reach flows through a large area that was 

burned by the Cleveland Fire in 1992 and that is not fully revegetated. Water 

temperature increases are moderate upstream of the area that was burned, but they are 

substantial within the burned area. Between the dam and about 0.5 mile upstream of the 

burn, mean daily temperatures increased about 2 to 3.5°C in May through August and 

about 1°C in September, although temperatures remain below 12°C. 

Between the dam and the lower end of the reach, mean daily temperatures 

increase about 11 to 12°C in June through August, and about 7°C in May and 

September. The monitoring results indicate that mean daily temperatures occasionally 

exceed 20°C in the area affected by the burn in July and August, and that they nearly 

reach 20°C in June of some years. Thermal characteristics in the Ice House dam reach 

are highly influenced by the cool spring through summer releases from the hypolimnion 

of Ice House reservoir, the open unshaded burn area, and accretion from tributaries and 

other sources. Based on required minimum flows for BN water years, dam releases 

account for about 15 to 20 percent of the total flow in May and June and about 50 

percent of the total flow in July through September. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, one of the primary objectives for the Ice House 

dam reach is to provide temperatures that allow for management of native coldwater 

fish species and improve habitat conditions for foothill yellow-legged frog populations. 

Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, would substantially increase minimum 

streamflow releases during May through July of all years, and August and September of 

CD and Dry water years (table 3-42, see section 3.3.3, Aquatic Resources, below). 
3-94 

These higher minimum streamflow releases would reduce water temperatures 

throughout much of the bypassed reach. 

Comparison of simulated daily mean and daily maximum temperatures indicates 

that the existing hypolimnetic releases result in cooler than existing conditions 

throughout much of the reach. Simulated temperatures for existing conditions were as 

much as 15°C cooler (7°C for existing versus 22°C for natural) just downstream of the 

dam, about 3 to 4°C cooler than existing temperatures near the middle of the reach, and 

virtually the same at the lower end of the reach. Comparison of simulated temperatures 

for the existing and proposed operations suggests that proposed operations would result 

in mean temperatures in June that about 3 to 4°C lower than under existing operations 

and about 2°C lower in July. This cooling effect would be smaller at both the upper and 

lower ends of the reach. However, it appears that mean daily temperatures of 20°C or 

less would be maintained throughout the entire reach. Recovery of vegetation in the 

burn area is expected to slowly increase shading of this reach and thereby reduce input 

of solar energy and somewhat lower temperatures in the lower half of the reach through 

any new license term. 

Junction Dam Reach 

Mean daily temperatures rarely exceed 20°C in Silver Creek between Junction 

dam and Camino reservoir, the Junction dam reach. At Junction dam, releases to the 

bypassed reach are typically provided through the low-level outlet, which is at a depth 

of 115 feet below Junction reservoir’s normal maximum level. Mean daily release 

temperatures are about 4 to 7°C in early May, increase to about 7 to 11°C by early June, 

and remain in that temperature range through September. Considerable warming occurs 

in the reach, as is evidenced by mean daily temperatures just upstream of Camino 

reservoir averaging about 5°C higher than at the release in May and September, and 7 to 

8.5°C higher in June through August. Limited monitoring conducted during July 

through September of 2004 indicates that release temperatures increase by about 1°C 

within 0.5 miles of the dam. 

It appears that the water temperature in this reach is primarily controlled by the 

quantity and temperature of releases from Junction dam, and accretion from tributaries 

and other sources in the reach. Based on accretion and required minimum streamflow 

releases for BN water years, releases account for about 25 to 30 percent of the total flow 

during May and June and about 55 to 60 percent of the total flow in July through 

September. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, an objective for the Junction dam reach is to 

provide temperatures that allow for management of native coldwater fish species and 

improve habitat conditions for foothill yellow-legged frog breeding. Another objective 

is to reduce the presence of an unidentified algae species that has proliferated 

throughout the reach. Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, would increase 

minimum streamflow releases from Junction dam during May through July of all water 
3-95 

year types, in August of Dry and CD water years, and September of CD water years 

(table 3-44, see section 3.3.3, Aquatic Resources, below). 

In addition, this proposed article would somewhat reduce minimum streamflow 

releases from Junction dam in August and September of AN and Wet water years. We 

anticipate that the large increases in May through July minimum streamflow releases 

would substantially reduce temperatures in the reach. We anticipate that the proposed 

reduction of minimum streamflow releases for August and September of AN and Wet 

water years would increase temperatures in the reach, although this warming effect is 

expected to be minimal since the proposed reductions in streamflow are small. Mean 

daily temperatures under the proposed minimum streamflow releases are expected to 

remain below 20°C, although water temperatures have not been monitored recently 

during AN or Wet water years so there is a possibility that mean daily temperatures 

could exceed 20°C. We anticipate that warmer water temperatures would occur in 

edgewater habitat that has slower velocities and is not thoroughly mixed with the main 

flow of the river. 

In order to maintain mean daily temperatures of no more than 20°C in the 

Junction dam reach, Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, also includes a clause 

that would require SMUD to release a block of water for temperature control in Wet 

water years. If water temperature measured in Silver Creek immediately upstream of 

Camino reservoir exceeds a mean daily temperature of 20oC in July, August, or 

September of a Wet water year, SMUD would be required to release additional water 

into Silver Creek below Junction dam as directed by the Agencies. A block of water 

shall not exceed 1,044 acre-feet for July, 491 acre-feet for August, or 475 acre-feet for 

September. Within 1 year of license issuance, SMUD would, in consultation with the 

Agencies, develop a plan for the block of water that addresses, at a minimum: 

notification protocols for temperature exceedances, emergency temperature operation 

contingencies, and ecological monitoring needs associated with use of the block of 

water. Reserving the block of water, monitoring water temperatures at the lower end of 

the Junction dam reach, and developing a plan for notification protocols and ecological 

monitoring needs associated with the block of water would facilitate making informed 

decisions of how best to manage the block of water to provide the most cost-effective 

improvement of ecological resources, if necessary. 

During the settlement process, pulse flows were strongly considered for this 

reach to address the stagnant conditions that contribute to excessive algae growth and 

limit movement of spawning gravels. However, to conserve water for hydroelectric 

generation and recreational interests, minimum streamflows that follow the shape of the 

unimpaired hydrograph and are higher than the current minimum streamflows were 

included in the settlement instead, in hopes that they will address these undesirable 

ecological conditions. In their rationale for the Settlement Agreement, both the Forest 

Service and CDFG indicate that they expect the higher minimum streamflows to 

suppress unknown algae species in the reach. The Settlement Agreement includes an 
3-96 

adaptive management approach to address this issue, which we discuss in section 

3.3.2.2, Algae Monitoring and Adaptive Management. 

Camino Dam and SFAR Reaches 

Streamflow releases from Camino dam have the potential to affect water 

temperatures in Silver Creek from Camino dam to the SFAR confluence (Camino dam 

reach) and in the SFAR from this confluence to Slab Creek reservoir (SFAR reach). 

Monitoring results indicate that mean daily temperatures exceed 20°C in the lower end 

of the Camino dam reach and in the SFAR reach (see table 3-16). Mean daily 

temperatures of streamflow releases from Camino reservoir, which does not thermally 

stratify, are about 7-10°C in early May, increase to about 8 to 11°C throughout most of 

June through September, but generally remain below 12°C. Between Camino dam and 

the SFAR confluence, mean daily temperatures increase about 6°C in May and 

September and about 8.5 to 10°C in June through August. Evaluation of mean daily 

temperatures for the 2000 through 2004 monitoring period show that exceedances of 

20°C occurred at the lower end of the Camino dam reach on nearly 70 percent of the 

days in July, about 20 percent of the days in June and August, and occasionally 

(<5 percent of the days) in May. 

At the confluence of the lower end of the Camino dam reach and the SFAR, the 

SFAR contributes very warm water, as documented by mean daily temperatures 

exceeding 20°C on nearly 90 percent of days in July and 60 percent of days in August. 

The SFAR temperatures are increased by higher temperature inflow from the Camino 

dam reach in May and June, and slightly reduced by cooler conditions in the Camino 

dam reach in July and August. In September, Camino dam temperatures have 

negligible effects on SFAR temperatures. Overall, this results in mean daily 

temperatures immediately downstream of the confluence of Silver Creek with the SFAR 

that exceed 20°C frequently in July and August, occasionally in June, and rarely in 

September. A short distance upstream of Slab Creek reservoir, Camino powerhouse 

discharges much cooler water into the SFAR, resulting in mean daily temperatures that 

are generally 10 to 15°C during late spring through early fall, with rare exceedances of 

20°C in July and August. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, the objectives for the Camino dam reach 

include providing temperatures that allow for management of native fish and improve 

conditions for foothill yellow-legged frog breeding, and providing good water quality to 

improve bioassessment composite metric scores, particularly in the lower portion of the 

reach. SMUD and the parties involved in the settlement do not provide their objectives 

for the SFAR reach, which also is affected by Camino dam releases. 

Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, would substantially increase 

minimum streamflow releases from Camino dam during May through July of all water 

year types, in August of Dry and CD water years, and September of CD water years 

(table 3-46, see section 3.3.3, Aquatic Resources, below). In addition, this proposed 
3-97 

article would somewhat reduce minimum streamflow releases from Camino dam in 

August and September of AN and Wet water years. 

Simulated temperatures for the BN year of 2002 suggest that the proposed 

minimum flows would reduce mean daily temperatures in Silver Creek upstream of the 

confluence with the SFAR about 5°C in May and June, and about 3°C in July, but still 

remain above 12°C from mid-May through September. It appears that mean daily 

temperatures at the lower end of the Camino dam reach would seldom exceed 20°C in 

May though July of BN water years. Proposed operations would remain virtually the 

same for August and September of BN water years, and thus the thermal regime would 

remain the same. Mean daily temperatures would occasionally exceed 20°C in August. 

In 2001, a Dry water year, mean daily temperatures for the lower end of the Camino 

dam reach exceeded 22°C in June, July, and August. The proposed increased minimum 

streamflow releases would reduce these temperatures, although it is not evident whether 

these reductions would lower temperatures to less than 20°C, since water temperatures 

were not simulated for a Dry year. Temperature monitoring would need to be 

conducted at this site to determine if the new flow regime reduced mean daily 

temperatures to less than 20°C. If mean daily temperatures continue to exceed 20°C, 

the licensee could determine whether further increasing minimum flows could reduce 

temperatures to acceptable conditions. We discuss the effects of warmer termperatures 

on life stages of trout in section 3.3.3.2, Environmental Effects, in Aquatic Resources. 

SMUD addressed the possibility that the proposed minimum flows would not 

reduce mean daily temperatures to acceptable levels by including a provision to use a 

block of water to further reduce Camino dam reach temperatures in Wet years. 

Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, includes a provision to adaptively use up 

to 1,044 acre-feet for July; 491 acre-feet for August; or 475 acre-feet for September. If 

water temperature measured in Silver Creek immediately upstream of the SFAR 

confluence (USGS gage no. 11442000, SMUD station SC-1) exceeds a mean daily 

temperature of 20oC in July, August, or September of a Wet water year, SMUD would 

be required to release additional water into Silver Creek below Camino dam as directed 

by the Agencies. Within 1 year of license issuance, SMUD would, in consultation with 

the Agencies, develop a plan for the block of water that addresses, at a minimum: 

notification protocols for temperature exceedances, emergency temperature operation 

contingencies, and ecological monitoring needs associated with use of the block of 

water. 

Reserving the block of water, monitoring water temperatures at the lower end of 

the Camino dam reach, and developing a plan as to notification protocols and ecological 

monitoring needs associated with the block of water would facilitate making informed 

decisions of how best to manage the block of water to provide the most cost-effective 

improvement of ecological resources, if necessary. However, we note that our analysis 

indicates that mean daily temperatures could potentially exceed 20°C at the lower end 

of the Camino dam reach under the proposed minimum streamflow release schedule in 
3-98 

water year types other than just Wet water years, for which this adaptive process is 

reserved. 

Although the proposed minimum streamflow releases would increase the 

quantity of water contributed by the Camino dam reach and reduce the temperature of 

those contributions, their effect on water temperatures in the SFAR reach would likely 

be negligible due to the much greater contributions of flow from the SFAR. 

Brush Creek Dam Reach 

Mean daily temperatures typically remain below 20°C in Brush Creek between 

the diversion dam and Slab Creek reservoir, the Brush Creek dam reach. Dam releases 

from the low-level outlet, which is at a depth of 140 feet below the reservoir’s normal 

maximum level, result in mean daily release temperatures of about 7-10°C in early May, 

increasing to about 12-14°C by mid-June, and reaching their peak of about 13-15°C in 

August. Mean daily temperatures for the lower end of the bypassed reach were very 

similar to those measured in the creek just upstream of Brush Creek reservoir, 

suggesting that they were near their equilibrium with ambient conditions. This is likely 

due to the reach’s steep gradient with frequent small waterfalls, along with minimal 

accretion during the summer. Annual maximums of mean daily temperatures for the 

lower end of the reach ranged from about 16-20°C. 

The existing license requires June through September minimum streamflow 

releases from Brush Creek dam ranging from 2 to 3 cfs or the natural flow, whichever is 

less. Under Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, corresponding minimum 

streamflow releases would be increased to a range of 3 to 9 cfs or natural flow, or 1 cfs 

if natural inflow is less than 1 cfs (table 3-47, see section 3.3.3, Aquatic Resources, 

below). This flow regime was developed with an emphasis on managing for native 

aquatic species. The mean trout biomass present in Brush Creek is well below the 

recommended objective, so the objective of minimum streamflows is to increase 

biomass by increasing the available stream habitat via streamflow regime manipulation. 

Increasing the summer minimum streamflow releases would provide more cool water at 

the upper end of the bypassed reach, and is therefore expected to result in somewhat 

cooler temperatures throughout the reach. Providing minimum streamflow releases of 

1 cfs when the natural flow is less than 1 cfs is expected to somewhat reduce 

temperatures, at least in the upper end of the bypassed reach. 

Slab Creek Dam Reach 

Mean daily temperatures frequently exceed 20°C in the lower portion of the 

SFAR between Slab Creek dam and Chili Bar reservoir (the Slab Creek dam reach). 

Slab Creek dam releases are made from the low-level outlet, which is at a depth of 

170 feet below Slab Creek reservoir’s normal maximum level. This results in mean 

daily release temperatures of about 7 to 11°C in early May, increasing to about 12°C by 

late May to early June. Temperatures reach their peak of 14 to 16°C in June, and 

generally remain at 10 to 15°C through September. Mean daily temperatures at 
3-99 

Mosquito Bridge, located near the middle of the reach length, average about 3.5 to 

4.5°C higher than at the release point in May through August and are about 2°C higher 

in September. In the lower end of the reach, Rock Creek contributes its flow, which is 

typically warmer than Mosquito Bridge site flows. Just upstream of the White Rock 

powerhouse (located at the lower end of the Slab Creek dam reach) mean daily 

temperatures are generally 18 to 24°C in June through August. Mean daily 

temperatures exceeding 20°C are common at this site in June, July, and August. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, the objectives for the Slab Creek dam reach 

include providing temperatures that allow for management of native fish and improve 

habitat conditions for foothill yellow-legged frogs and hardhead, and providing good 

water quality to improve bioassessment composite metric scores, particularly in the 

lower portion of the reach. Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, would 

substantially increase minimum streamflow releases from Slab Creek dam during May 

through September of all water year types (tables 3-48 and 3-49, see section 3.3.3, 

Aquatic Resources, below). 

Simulated mean daily temperatures suggest that the proposed minimum 

streamflows would substantially reduce temperatures at the lower end of the Slab Creek 

dam reach. SMUD also provided longitudinal plots of the range of mean daily 

temperatures simulated for flow releases of 30 to 270 cfs. These plots suggest that 

mean daily temperatures at the lower end of the reach would generally be about 10 to 

15°C in May, 14 to 21°C in June, 19 to 22°C in July, 17 to 21°C in August, and 13 to 

19°C in September. These simulations suggest that mean daily temperatures could 

exceed 20°C, which we use as an indicator of providing the designated coldwater 

habitat, in the lowermost one-third of the reach in June and July and the lowermost mile 

in August. Because water temperature modeling was only done for a BN water year 

type, it is not possible to use model simulations to assess conditions for other water year 

types. However, the proposed minimum streamflow releases are substantially higher 

than the existing required minimum flow releases, so we anticipate that a substantial 

reduction in warming would also occur in other water year types. 

Construction and Operation of Iowa Hill Development 

SMUD’s Proposed Action includes construction and operation of the Iowa Hill 

development, which would use the existing Slab Creek reservoir as a lower reservoir 

and a new 6,400 acre-foot upper reservoir on top of Iowa Hill (section 2.4.1, Proposed 

Project Facilities). Operation of the proposed Iowa Hill development has the potential 

to affect the thermal regime of Slab Creek reservoir and the SFAR directly downstream 

of the Slab Creek dam. In order to evaluate this potential effect, SMUD used version 

3.2 of CE-QUAL-W2, a 2-dimensional (vertical and longitudinal) hydrodynamic water 

quality model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterway Experiment 

Station and Scott Wells (Cole and Buchak, 1995; Wells, 2000), to simulate water 

temperatures for the period of April 1 through October 1 of 2003, a BN water year. 
3-100 

A pumping/generation cycle was developed for a heavy use scenario using 

output from the CHEOPS UARP operations model. Under this scenario, the general 

pattern of operation is to pump water up to Iowa Hill reservoir at night (approximately 

midnight to 5 am), and release generation flows from Iowa Hill reservoir during the 

daytime (approximately 7 am to 8 pm). The temperature analysis repeated this daily 

pattern of pumping and generation from April 2 through September 29. Simulated 

mean water column temperatures for Slab Creek reservoir near the dam were a little 

cooler (as much as 0.87°C cooler and averaged 0.39°C cooler) for the heavy use 

scenario than the without Iowa Hill development scenario. The range of these 

differences was very close to the absolute mean errors computed for the calibrated 

vertical profiles from the nearest site to the Slab Creek dam (0.28 to 0.55°C). The 

combination of these factors suggests that pumping/generation cycling of the proposed 

Iowa Hill development would result in cooler water being discharged from the proposed 

Iowa Hill reservoir during the daytime that would cause minimal cooling within Slab 

Creek reservoir and the streamflow releases from Slab Creek dam. 

Chili Bar Dam Reach 

Mean daily temperatures occasionally exceed 20°C in the lower portion of the 

SFAR reach between Chili Bar dam and Folsom Lake, the Chili Bar dam reach. Chili 

Bar dam water is released from the low-level outlet, which is at a depth of about 73 feet 

below Chili Bar reservoir’s normal maximum level. This results in mean daily release 

temperatures of about 8 to 12°C in early May, increasing to their peak of about 16 to 

17°C in late June to early July, and generally remaining above 12°C through September. 

Water temperatures increase at a similar rate throughout the reach’s length. Between 

the Chili Bar dam and the lower end of the reach mean daily temperatures increase 

about 2 to 2.5°C in May, June, and September and about 3 to 3.5°C in July and August. 

It appears that the thermal characteristics in this reach are primarily controlled by the 

quantity and temperature of releases from Chili Bar dam and ambient conditions. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, the primary objectives for the Chili Bar dam 

reach include providing habitat for healthy foothill yellow-legged frog populations, and 

reducing or eliminating water quality conditions that encourage algae growth in the 

Chili Bar dam reach. Proposed Article 2-1, Minimum Streamflows, would substantially 

increase the current minimum streamflow releases of 100 cfs from Chili Bar dam during 

May through September of all water year types (table 3-51, see section 3.3.3, Aquatic 

Resources, below). We base our analysis of the effects of the proposed minimum 

streamflow schedule on the assumption that the heat load downstream of the dam would 

remain virtually the same as it is under existing conditions. This leads us to conclude 

that the proposed minimum streamflow releases would slightly lower May through 

September water temperatures, probably to mean temperatures of less than 20°C. 
3-101 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. Project operations at all reaches and reservoirs, with the 

exception of Slab Creek reservoir would remain unchanged from those described in the 

Proposed Action. As a result, effects of the UARP-only Alternative on water 

temperature and algae would be the same as those described under the Proposed Action, 

without the effects discussed for the Iowa Hill development. 

Effects of Project Construction and Maintenance on Water Quality 

Construction of project facilities and maintenance of existing facilities have the 

potential to adversely affect water quality. 

Under Proposed Article 1-11, Canal and Penstock Emergency and Maintenance 

Release Points, SMUD would, within 1 year after license issuance, file with the 

Commission a plan approved by the Forest Service and the Water Board, to evaluate 

canal and penstock emergency and maintenance release points to determine if 

improvements can be made to minimize potential adverse water quality effects when the 

release points are used. SMUD also would consult with CDFG and FWS in the 

development of the plan. Upon Commission-approval of the plan, SMUD would 

implement the recommendations contained in it. 

Iowa Hill Development 

Under Proposed Article 1-42, Water Quality and Water Pollution, SMUD would 

consult with the Agencies, Central Valley Water Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

and other resource agencies with authority over public trust resources within the area of 

potential effects (APE) from construction and operation of the proposed Iowa Hill 

development. Prior to initiating any construction activities, SMUD would provide 

detailed design plans and a proposed timeline for construction to appropriate state and 

federal regulatory agencies, and obtain all necessary permits. These permits would 

include but not be limited to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, 

Waste Discharge Requirements, section 404 Permit, section 401 Certification, 

Streambed Alteration Permit and/or other authorizations or certifications as determined 

necessary under state or federal law. 

Prior to undertaking activities on National Forest System lands, SMUD would 

file with the Commission a storm water pollution prevention plan that is approved by 

the Forest Service, the Water Board, and CDFG. During construction, operation and 

maintenance of the project, SMUD would prevent water pollution by implementing 

management practices identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and other 

requirements identified by the Forest Service, the Water Board, and Central California 

Water Board. All equipment for construction of the tunnel would be staged at least 100 

feet from the SFAR. After construction activities are completed, all material used 

within the river bed would be removed, including siltation fabric. 
3-102 

Our Analysis 

In order to conduct some necessary project maintenance activities, SMUD needs 

to drain the associated project canals/penstocks. Some of the agencies including the 

Forest Service and CDFG expressed concern as to potential adverse water quality 

effects that could result from using some release points to drain Gerle canal and the 

project’s penstocks. SMUD would evaluate ways to minimize the potential for adverse 

water quality effects to result from emergency and/or planned use of the release points 

along Gerle canal and project penstocks. We anticipate that this evaluation would focus 

on the potential for erosion and sideslope failure, which could result in substantial 

increases in turbidity and degradation of stream habitat in the vicinity of the release 

points. We conclude that developing a plan that designates preferred canal/penstock 

drainage structures and release points to be used for draining project canals/spillways 

during maintenance would minimize adverse effects to water quality, particularly 

turbidity, and aquatic biota. 

Construction of the proposed Iowa Hill development could potentially result in 

substantial adverse effects on water quality and related resources. Pathways by which 

this could occur include, but are not limited to, increasing erosion along and into surface 

waters, suspending sediments during construction of the new intake in Slab Creek 

reservoir, and introducing substances used during construction such as fuel, oil, and 

concrete. The risk of these events could be limited through implementation of best 

management practices including scheduling, minimizing in-water work, erosion control 

practices, managing stormwater runoff, and restricting areas that equipment is allowed 

and where it is maintained. SMUD would develop detailed plans and a proposed 

schedule for its construction of the proposed Iowa Hill facilities before initiating 

construction activities. It would develop the plan in consultation with the appropriate 

federal and state agencies, and obtain all necessary permits and authorizations. We 

anticipate that conditions in these permits and authorizations along with the proposed 

storm water pollution prevention plan would provide reasonable assurance that water 

quality and aquatic habitat are not directly or indirectly adversely affected by SMUD’s 

construction activities. We conclude that implementing Proposed Article 1-42, Water 

Quality and Water Pollution, would provide reasonable assurance that water quality and 

aquatic resources would not be adversely affected by construction of the proposed Iowa 

Hill facilities. 

Effects of Recreational Activities on Water Quality 

Recreational use concentrated around UARP and Chili Bar Project reservoirs and 

stream reaches has the potential to act as a source of human pathogens to surface waters 

in the area, which could lead to increased risk of adversely affecting human health. As 

recreational use of the area increases and additional recreational facilities are developed 

and used there could be increased contamination of surface waters. 
3-103 

Our Analysis 

A recent study of fecal coliform bacteria concentrations in six UARP reservoirs 

indicates that fecal coliform concentrations have recently exceeded the upper allowable 

limit at three sites in Union Valley reservoir (see table 3-20). SMUD states that the 

most plausible source of this contamination is recreation at the Forest Service’s Camino 

Cove, Fashoda Beach, and Jones Fork campgrounds, which are near the sampling 

locations. 

Under the Proposed Action, SMUD would increase the potential for recreational 

access throughout the UARP area, particularly near the reservoirs and Slab Creek dam 

reach. Increased recreational use would add to the potential for contamination from 

human waste in these areas. SMUD proposes to address sanitation along with other 

recreation-related issues by annually paying the Forest Service to provide operation, 

maintenance, and administration of developed recreational sites, facilities, or uses that 

are adjacent to or in the vicinity of UARP reservoirs and facilities (see section 3.3.6.2, 

Specific Recreation Site Improvements). SMUD also would prepare a recreation 

management plan that addresses whitewater recreational needs, including sanitation, in 

the Slab Creek dam reach, as discussed in section 3.3.6.2, Recreation Streamflows. 

Providing an appropriate level of operation and maintenance for recreational facilities, 

as proposed, would limit the potential for contamination from human waste, although 

there still would be a risk of creating conditions that could be hazardous to human 

health. We discuss the need to monitor this risk in section 3.3.2.2, Water Quality 

Monitoring. 

A recent study indicates that fecal coliform bacteria concentrations have 

substantially exceeded their upper allowable limits at four sites in the Chili Bar dam 

reach (see table 3-20). Under the Proposed Action, PG&E would not add substantial 

new boating opportunities to the reach downstream of Chili Bar dam. Therefore, we 

expect negligible changes in coliform concentrations to result from implementation of 

the proposal. We discuss the need to monitor bacteria as an indicator of this risk in 

section 3.3.2.2, Water Quality Monitoring. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. Development and maintenance of recreational facilities in the 

UARP vicinity would be virtually the same as those described in the Proposed Action. 

As a result, effects of the UARP-only Alternative on human pathogens would be the 

same as those described under the Proposed Action. 

Water Temperature Monitoring 

To document the effects of altered project operations on water temperatures in 

the UARP and Chili Bar reaches, SMUD and PG&E would need to monitor water 

temperatures at numerous locations. 
3-104 

Primary Stream Flow and Reservoirs 

Under Proposed Articles 1-5(9) and 2-4(5), Monitoring Program, both SMUD 

and PG&E would develop a water temperature monitoring plan. The applicants would: 

(1) consult with the agencies and BLM on development of the plan within 3 months of 

license issuance; (2) provide a draft plan to these agencies for a minimum 90-day 

review period; and (3) file a Water Board-approved plan with the Commission within 

1 year of license issuance. For the UARP, the plan would include using continuous 

recording devices to monitor water temperatures at a minimum of 17 stream stations 

associated with the project (table 3-27) from March 15 through September 30 in each 

year of the new license. Based on review of the annual data and consultation with the 

Agencies, monitoring could be required at up to five additional water temperature 

monitoring stations. If SMUD demonstrates that the resulting thermal regime(s) 

reasonably protect the designated cold freshwater beneficial use, they may be able to 

cease temperature monitoring at some stations. Proposed Article 1-5(9) would also 

reserve the potential to recommend monitoring of water temperature profiles in 

reservoirs if the Agencies determine that reservoir temperatures are a controllable factor 

that may resolve stream temperature issues. If this should occur, vertical profiles would 

be monitored seasonally in the applicable reservoir(s) during multiple water year types 

to provide data necessary for decision making. Water temperature data would be used 

to determine the need for adaptively managing project operations as described in section 

3.3.2.2, Effects of Project Operations on Water Quality. 

Table 3-27. Recommended continuous stream temperature monitoring stations under 

the Settlement Agreement.a

 (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Reach Recommended Monitoring Stations 

Rubicon dam Immediately downstream of Rubicon dam, 

Downstream of Little Rubicon River confluence (at the project 

boundary) 

Buck Island dam Immediately downstream of Buck Island dam 

Loon Lake dam Immediately downstream of Loon Lake dam 

Gerle Creek dam Immediately downstream of Gerle Creek dam 

Robbs Peak dam Immediately downstream of Robbs Peak dam, 

Downstream of confluence with Gerle Creek (at Project boundary) 

Ice House dam Immediately downstream of Ice House dam, 

Immediately upstream of Junction reservoir 
3-105 

Reach Recommended Monitoring Stations 

Junction dam Immediately downstream of Junction dam, 

Immediately upstream of Camino reservoir dam 

Camino dam Immediately downstream of Camino dam, 

Immediately upstream of confluence with SFAR 

SFAR None 

Brush Creek dam Immediately downstream of Brush Creek dam 

Slab Creek dam Immediately downstream of Slab Creek dam, 

Approximately 1⁄2 mile upstream of White Rock powerhouse, 

Downstream of White Rock powerhouse to measure powerhouse 

outflow temperatures 

Chili Bar dam Immediately downstream of Chili Bar dam, 

Upstream of the confluence with Dutch Creek, 

Immediately upstream of Camp Lotus, 

Immediately upstream of the confluence with Greenwood Creek 

a

 All of the monitoring stations associated with the Chili Bar dam reach are included in Proposed 

Article 2-4(5), Monitoring Program; whereas, all of the other designated monitoring stations are 

recommended for the UARP under Proposed Article 1-5(9), Monitoring Program. 

For the Chili Bar Project, the plan would include using continuous recording 

devices to monitor water temperatures at a minimum of four stream stations associated 

with the project from March 15 through October 15 in each year of the new license. Up 

to two additional stream temperature monitoring stations may be added based on need 

determined through review of the annual data and consultation with the Water Board, 

CDFG, FWS, and BLM. Requirements for monitoring temperature could be altered 

based on demonstration of the need for additional monitoring. Under Proposed Article 

2-4(5), Monitoring Program, PG&E would seasonally monitor vertical temperature 

profiles in Chili Bar reservoir during multiple water year types if the Water Board, 

CDFG, FWS, and BLM determine that reservoir temperatures are a controllable factor 

that may resolve temperature issues in the reach downstream of Chili Bar dam or if 

impoundment chemistry dictates a need for additional temperature considerations. We 

conclude that if PG&E demonstrates that the thermal regime under the new license 

reasonably protects the cold freshwater beneficial uses there would be little value in 

continuing to monitor temperature at these stations. 
3-106 

Edgewater of Streams and Reservoirs 

As a component of the evaluation of habitat for amphibians and aquatic reptiles, 

Proposed Article 1-5(3), Monitoring Program, SMUD would use a minimum of six 

micro-thermographs to monitor water temperatures in stream margin habitats associated 

with known or suitable foothill yellow-legged frog breeding sites in the reaches 

downstream of the Camino and Slab Creek dams. Under Proposed Article 1-6(9), 

Adaptive Management Program, the Agencies would have the opportunity to use the 

results of this temperature monitoring effort along with the results of the associated 

monitoring of the foothill yellow-legged frog to determine whether the water 

temperature used is an indicator of breeding initiation, which is currently set at 12°C as 

a 7-day running average of mean daily temperatures in the proposed license article, 

should be increased or decreased. Proposed Articles 1-6(1) and 1-6(2) would use the 

selected temperature indicator of breeding initiation, results of monitoring water 

temperatures in the SFSC immediately upstream of Junction reservoir and the SFAR 

immediately downstream of Slab Creek dam, and documentation of the foothill yellowlegged frog to adaptively manage scheduled high flow releases to the Ice House dam 

reach and Slab Creek dam reach. 

As a component of Proposed Article 1-40, Aquatic Resources, for the proposed 

Iowa Hill development, SMUD would monitor temperatures between May and 

September in edgewater of Slab Creek reservoir at locations approved by the Forest 

Service, CDFG, and the Water Board. These data in combination with monitored 

locations of hardhead would be used to confirm that the effects of proposed Iowa Hill 

development pump-discharge operations on the distribution of hardhead. 

Our Analysis 

SMUD and PG&E conducted substantial monitoring and modeling of water 

temperature for relicensing of the Projects. This information provides the basis for our 

evaluation, in which we conclude that the proposed operations would generally reduce 

spring through summer stream temperatures in most of the reaches affected by the 

UARP and Chili Bar Project. These effects on temperatures would enhance the quality 

of habitat for desired aquatic-dependent communities. 

Monitoring water temperature immediately downstream of the UARP dams, as 

proposed, would document thermal conditions at the upper end of the UARP bypassed 

reaches under any new project operations. Monitoring at the other sites listed in table 3-

27 along with up to five additional sites would document thermal conditions 

downstream of confluences, and in critical locations within the Ice House dam, Camino 

dam, and Slab Creek dam reaches. We see little value in using a thermograph to 

monitor water temperature immediately upstream of the Camino reservoir dam, since 

temperatures also would be monitored immediately downstream of the dam. Instead, 

we assume that SMUD intended that water temperature be monitored immediately 

upstream of Camino reservoir, which would provide data to evaluate the extent of water 
3-107 

temperature changes in the Junction dam reach. Monitoring temperature in the Ice 

House dam reach just upstream of Junction reservoir and in the SFAR immediately 

downstream of Slab Creek dam would provide the temperature data necessary to 

determine whether scheduled geomorphic pulse flow or recreational flow releases to 

these reaches may need to be adaptively managed to protect foothill yellow-legged frogs 

and other biological resources. See section 3.3.4.2, Environmental Effects, Special 

Status Amphibians and Reptiles, for our evaluation of these proposed measures. 

Including the option to monitor temperature profiles in UARP reservoirs is 

expected to provide limited benefit in terms of the ability to use any cold water 

available in the reservoirs to further improve thermal conditions in UARP stream 

reaches. The results of SMUD’s 2002 to 2004 monitoring of reservoir temperatures 

provides evidence that there is virtually no cold water available in the Rubicon, Buck 

Island, Gerle Creek, Robbs Peak, and Camino reservoirs (table 3-15). Because 

substantial temperature data were collected within the past 10 years (DTA, 2005a), 

sufficient data likely already exist to answer most questions about coldwater availability 

in the other UARP reservoirs. Therefore, the existing temperature data could be used, 

as appropriate, to evaluate coldwater availability prior to collecting any additional 

reservoir temperature data. We conclude that development and implementation of the 

water temperature monitoring plan referred to in Proposed Article 1-5(9), Monitoring 

Program, would document spring through summer water temperatures in UARP 

bypassed reaches under any new project operations, and help confirm that desired fish 

and amphibian communities are supported, although there would be little benefit in 

monitoring temperatures in UARP reservoirs. 

Monitoring the timing of amphibian breeding and larval periods along with water 

temperature in areas used by foothill yellow-legged frogs for breeding could provide 

data that would lead to a better indicator of the onset of foothill yellow-legged frog 

breeding. We discuss this further in section 3.3.4.2, Environmental Effects, Special 

Status Amphibians and Reptiles. 

Monitoring water temperature immediately downstream of the Chili Bar dam, as 

proposed in Proposed Article 2-4(5), Monitoring Program, would document thermal 

conditions at the upper end of the Chili Bar reach under any new project operations. 

Monitoring at the other three designated sites downstream of the Chili Bar dam with up 

to two additional sites would document thermal conditions in critical locations within 

the Chili Bar dam reach. Because this reach is not managed for coldwater fishes and 

results of PG&E’s 2002 to 2004 temperature monitoring study show that little cold 

water is available in Chili Bar reservoir (table 3-15), we conclude that requiring PG&E 

to conduct additional monitoring of Chili Bar temperatures would not be warranted. We 

conclude that development and implementation of the water temperature monitoring 

plan referred to in Proposed Article 2-4(5), Monitoring Program, would confirm that 

the temperature range would be suitable for the desired fish communities and 

amphibians under any new project operations. 
3-108 

Iowa Hill Development 

Simulations of the operation of the proposed Iowa Hill development suggest that 

operation of the development could lead to water temperatures in Slab Creek reservoir 

that are generally slightly cooler than occur currently. Because the model simulates 

conditions for a complete cross-sectional area of the reservoir, it is possible that water 

temperatures could be influenced even more along the edge of the reservoir. 

Monitoring water temperatures along the edge of the Slab Creek reservoir, per Proposed 

Article 1-40(2), Aquatic Resources, would provide data that could be used along with 

information about the distribution of hardhead to confirm that Iowa Hill development 

operations do not adversely affect hardhead by causing them to relocate to less desirable 

areas in the reservoir, including in front of the new intake structure for the Iowa Hill 

development where they could become entrained. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. Therefore there would not be a need for monitoring water 

temperature in edgewater of Slab Creek reservoir. 

Water Quality Monitoring 

Water quality data indicate occasional seasonal exceedances of several water 

quality criteria. In addition, arsenic and mercury concentrations in fish exceed 

screening values set to protect anglers. Changing project operations has the potential to 

alter water quality conditions. Increasing the carrying capacity for recreational access 

could potentially elevate fecal coliform concentrations. In order to document that water 

quality standards are met under any new license, and concentrations of metals are at 

safe levels for humans who consume fish from the project area, it would be necessary to 

monitor water quality and body burdens of metals in fish. 

Under Proposed Articles 1-5(10) and 2-4(6), Monitoring Program, both SMUD 

and PG&E would develop a draft water quality monitoring program plan. Within 3 

months of license issuance, the applicants would consult on the development of the plan 

with the Agencies, Central Valley Water Board, and BLM for the UARP. This plan 

would address monitoring water chemistry, physical properties, and bacteria. The plan 

would provide detail on field sampling (locations, sampling frequency, handling 

methods, and QA/QC); and define the laboratory analyses and associated method 

detection limits for all constituents and parameters to be monitored. Following 

consultation, and within 6 months of license issuance, the applicants would submit the 

draft plan for review and approval by the Chief, Division of Water Rights, Water Board 

and then file the final plan with the Commission. The plan(s) could be modified 

pursuant to adaptive management program needs as recommended by Central Valley 

Water Board, CDFG, FWS, BLM, (and the Forest Service for the UARP plan), and 

approved by the Water Board and the Commission. 
3-109 

SMUD and PG&E would sample water chemistry to demonstrate seasonal 

conditions at all reservoir and stream locations described in the January 8, 2003 version 

of the Water Quality Study Plan that was approved by the plenary group for UARP and 

Chili Bar Project relicensing efforts. Laboratory analyses would use methods approved 

by EPA that are adequately sensitive to detect constituent levels for determination of 

compliance with recognized state and federal criteria. Table 3-28 describes the strategy 

and schedule for various water chemistry and physical properties of this recommended 

seasonal plan. Conditions at representative locations would be monitored by making in 

situ measurements of water temperature, DO, pH, specific conductance, and turbidity; 

collecting and analyzing water samples for minerals, nutrients, metals, hardness, and 

petroleum products; and measuring Secchi depths (reservoirs only). 

Table 3-28. Recommended strategy for monitoring water chemistry and physical 

properties under the Settlement Agreement.a

 (Source: Settlement) 

Monitoring Type Parameters Monitoring Sites Frequency/Duration 

In situ at representative 

locations

Water temperature, DO, 

pH, specific 

conductance, and 

turbidity 

UARP bypassed 

reaches and the SFAR 

downstream of Chili 

Bar dam 

Seasonally in spring 

(April–May), summer 

(August), fall 

(November), and winter 

(January–February, as 

accessible) each year 

after license issuance 

In situ at 1-meter 

intervals vertically 

Water temperature, DO, 

pH, specific 

conductance, and 

turbidity 

Loon Lake, Gerle 

Creek reservoir, Ice 

House reservoir, Union 

Valley reservoir, 

Junction reservoir, 

Camino reservoir, Slab 

Creek reservoir, and 

Chili Bar reservoir 

Seasonally in spring 

(April–May) and fall 

(October–November) 

each year after license 

issuance 

General chemistry at 

representative 

locationsb

Minerals, nutrients, 

metals (total and 

dissolved fractions), 

hardness, and 

petroleum products 

UARP dam release 

points from reservoirs, 

representative sites 

along all UARP 

bypassed reaches 

greater than 1 mile 

long, and at least three 

representative sites 

along the SFAR 

between Chili Bar dam 

and the confluence with 

Greenwood Creek. 

Seasonally in spring, 

summer, fall, and 

immediately following 

the second or third 

measurable rain event 

of the fall–winter 

period, once every 

5 years beginning in 

year 3 after license 

issuance 
3-110 

Monitoring Type Parameters Monitoring Sites Frequency/Duration 

General chemistry at 

the surface and near 

bottom at multiple 

representative 

locationsb

Nutrients, minerals, 

hardness, metals (total 

and dissolved 

fractions), and 

petroleum products 

At the surface and near 

the bottom at multiple 

representative locations 

in each UARP 

impoundment and Chili 

Bar reservoir 

Seasonally in spring, 

summer, fall, and 

immediately following 

the second or third 

measurable rain event 

of the fall–winter 

period, once every 

5 years beginning in 

year 3 after license 

issuance 

Water clarity b Secchi depth Loon Lake, Ice House 

reservoir, Union Valley 

reservoir, and Slab 

Creek reservoir 

Seasonally in summer 

and fall once every 5 

years after license 

issuance 

a

 All of the monitoring sites associated with the Chili Bar dam reach are recommended for the Chili 

Bar Project; whereas, all of the other designated monitoring sites are recommended for the UARP. 

b

 After a minimum of three data sets have been collected, if the data demonstrate that exceedances are 

not occurring at specific locations, the frequency may be reviewed to determine if it can be 

modified. 

SMUD and PG&E would also seasonally monitor bacteria in a manner consistent 

with the Basin Plan objectives for protection of the REC-1 (water contact recreation) 

beneficial uses at a minimum of 15 shoreline recreational locations within the UARP 

boundary and 8 shoreline recreational locations in the Chili Bar Project-affected reach. 

By May 31 of each designated sampling year, the licensees would select sampling 

locations for the upcoming season based on criteria that include known swimming and 

other water contact recreational areas, and potential sources of pathogen introduction to 

the water column in the immediate vicinity. Sampling would be conducted at each of 

the selected sites by collecting five near-shore samples during a 30-day period that 

spans either the Independence Day Holiday or the Labor Day Holiday, using the five 

samples in 30-day methodology or other protocol as amended in the Basin Plan. 

Bacterial monitoring would be conducted annually for the first 5 years after license 

issuance. Then, monitoring could be decreased in frequency to every other year at 

UARP reservoirs and Chili Bar Project sites where no exceedances of Basin Plan 

objectives for protection of REC-1 designated waters are identified during years 1-5, but 

would continue annually through the life of the license at reservoirs where data 

demonstrate bacterial concentrations that present risks to human health. 

SMUD proposes to consult with the Central Valley Water Board, and the 

Agencies for selection of UARP sampling locations. Candidate monitoring sites would 

include developed recreational sites and frequently used dispersed sites at reservoir and 

riverine locations. The UARP bacterial monitoring sites would include a minimum of 

four annually rotating stations at Union Valley reservoir swim areas; and a minimum of 
3-111 

two beach locations each at Buck Island reservoir, Loon Lake, Ice House reservoir, and 

Gerle Creek reservoir, along with three other selected stations. 

For the Chili Bar Project, PG&E would consult with the Water Board, the 

Central Valley Water Board, CDFG, FWS, and BLM for selection of sampling 

locations. Candidate monitoring sites would include developed recreational sites and 

frequently used whitewater boating take-out sites along the Chili Bar dam reach. Chili 

Bar bacterial monitoring sites would include a minimum of four swim beach sites 

including the Coloma and Camp Lotus areas, along with four other selected sites. 

Under Proposed Articles 1-5(10) and 2-4(6), Monitoring Program, SMUD and 

PG&E also propose to monitor potential uptake of mercury, copper, lead, and silver 

through the aquatic food chain resident in impoundments affected by the UARP and 

Chili Bar Project. They would determine the target species and number of individuals, 

sampling strategy, and analytical methods through consultation so that they are 

consistent with the Water Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program needs. 

They would collect and analyze fish tissue samples for bioaccumulation once every five 

years. Collection of these samples would begin in the second year after license issuance 

and continue through the term of any new license. 

For the UARP, SMUD would consult with the Agencies, the Central Valley 

Water Board, and the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

Resident fish species would be collected from Loon Lake, Gerle Creek reservoir, Ice 

House reservoir, Union Valley reservoir, Camino reservoir, and Slab Creek reservoir 

and samples would be prepared and analyzed for concentrations of mercury, copper, 

lead, and silver. Under Proposed Article 1-6(8), Adaptive Management Program, the 

Agencies may request that SMUD conduct additional studies of metals bioaccumulation 

if comparing the results of metal testing to published scientific information leads to 

suspicion that the health of aquatic species are adversely affected. 

For the Chili Bar Project, PG&E would consult with the BLM, FWS, CDFG, the 

Water Board and the Central Valley Water Board, and the state Office of Environmental 

Health Hazard Assessment. Resident fish species from Chili Bar reservoir would be 

collected and samples would be prepared and analyzed for concentrations of mercury, 

copper, lead, and silver. Proposed Article 2-4(6), Monitoring Program, also includes 

monitoring of an invasive algae species in the Chili Bar dam reach. We discuss the 

algae component of this proposed article along with proposed monitoring of algae at 

UARP sites in section 3.3.2.2, Algae Monitoring and Adaptive Management. 

Our Analysis 

Our review of available water quality information (section 3.3.2.1, Water 

Quality) indicates that UARP- and Chili Bar-affected waters typically comply with the 

applicable federal and state standards for most water quality parameters. However, 

available information indicates that waters affected by the Projects sometimes do not 

satisfy the applicable criteria for DO, pH, fecal coliform bacteria, and several metals. 
3-112 

Sampling results from a study of bioaccumulation of several metals in fish residing in 

project reservoirs indicate that arsenic and mercury exceed screening values set to 

protect anglers who consume their catch. One of the objectives used while developing 

proposed operations and environmental measures was to maintain water quality 

adequate to protect beneficial uses and meet state water quality standards. Monitoring 

water quality and body burdens of metals in resident fish under any new project 

operations could confirm that the aforementioned objectives are met. 

SMUD and PG&E’s proposed approach for monitoring water chemistry and 

physical properties would document compliance with water quality standards, including 

support for the targeted aquatic ecosystem. Proposed Articles 1-5(10) and 2-4(6), 

Monitoring Program, designate the general parameters that would be sampled and 

provides the schedule and general locations for each sampling effort. Specific 

parameters and locations of sampling would be presented in the proposed monitoring 

plan, which would be developed in consultation with appropriate agencies. 

Implementation of this plan would provide data to annually document seasonal 

variation in DO concentrations, pH, specific conductance, and turbidity in UARPaffected stream reaches and impoundments. SMUD and PG&E’s proposal also would 

document concentrations of nutrients, minerals, hardness, metals, and petroleum 

products at 5-year intervals, which could be used to evaluate long-term trends. We note 

that concentrations of minerals are primarily controlled by geologic and hydrologic 

characteristics and many of the waters affected by the UARP and Chili Bar Project have 

little potential for contamination from petroleum products. Therefore, monitoring of 

each of these parameters at each monitoring location would likely provide little 

incremental benefit. 

SMUD and PG&E’s proposed approach to select specific metals and monitor 

bioaccumulation of the specified metals in aquatic organisms at 5-year intervals would 

ensure that results of this sampling effort are consistent with the Water Board’s 

approach and would facilitate evaluation of changes in fish body burdens of these 

metals. However, we note that biomagnification of silver is unlikely (Howe and 

Dobson, 2002). 

SMUD and PG&E’s proposed approach to select and monitor 15 shoreline 

recreational locations within the Project boundary would document near worst-case 

bacteria concentrations at locations of greatest concern. 

We conclude that Proposed Articles 1-5(10) and 2-4(6) would provide water 

quality regulators with sufficient data to document compliance with water quality 

standards under any new project operations and identify any trends in risks to the health 

of humans and wildlife. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. As a result, the need for monitoring water quality and 
3-113 

bioaccumulation of metals for the UARP-only Alternative would be the same as those 

described under the Proposed Action. 

Algae Monitoring and Adaptive Management 

Relicensing studies indicate that under existing conditions algae are abundant in 

some reaches of the Projects, particularly in the lower end of the Junction dam reach 

and the Chili Bar dam reach. In addition, there are anecdotal accounts of an exotic 

invasive species of diatom, Didymosphenia geminata, in the Chili Bar dam reach. 

Specific objectives of the Settlement Agreement include reducing or eliminating 

conditions that encourage algae growth in the Junction and Chili Bar dam reaches. We 

evaluate the effects of project operations on algae and water quality above in section 

3.3.2.2, Effects of Project Operations on Water Quality. In this section, we discuss 

monitoring algae and adaptive management associated with algae. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, SMUD and PG&E would monitor algae. For 

the UARP (Proposed Article 1-5(6), Monitoring Program), SMUD would develop an 

algae species identification and monitoring plan in consultation with the Agencies. 

SMUD would provide a draft plan to these agencies for a minimum 90-day review and 

approval period, and implement the plan upon its approval. Under the plan, SMUD 

would collect, identify, and archive samples of the species of algae inhabiting the 

stream channel of the Junction dam reach using a lab selected in consultation with the 

Agencies. SMUD would collect additional baseline samples from the SFRR 

downstream of Robbs Peak dam, Camino dam reach, and Slab Creek dam reach. 

Additional sites or reaches may be added should algal species be deemed to have 

negative effects upon the aquatic ecosystem. The Settlement Agreement does not 

specify the proposed monitoring period for the UARP. However, because SMUD did 

not provide costs for this measure we assume that SMUD only plans to monitor algae 

under Proposed Article 1-5(6), Monitoring Program, in 1 or 2 years within license 

issuance. 

Under Proposed Article 1-6(7), Adaptive Management Program, SMUD would 

adaptively manage algae based on results of monitoring algae in the Junction dam reach, 

SFRR downstream of Robbs Peak dam. If the new streamflow regime does not reduce 

algae growth in the Junction dam reach or SFRR downstream of Robbs Peak dam 

within 2 years of license issuance, SMUD would reduce or eliminate the excessive algae 

growth using a method approved by the Agencies. If any future pervasive algal growths 

are identified in any UARP-affected stream reaches, and the Agencies determine the 

algae needs to be reduced or eliminated, SMUD should reduce or eliminate the algae 

growth using a method approved by these agencies. 

As a component of Proposed Article 2-4(6), Monitoring Program, PG&E would 

annually monitor for the presence/absence of the diatom Didymosphenia geminata, an 

invasive algae in the Chili Bar dam reach. This monitoring would be done in 

conjunction with the other water quality monitoring. 
3-114 

Our Analysis 

SMUD has documented dense growth of green-colored algae in the Junction dam 

reach of Silver Creek that is abnormal. Excessive algae growth can substantially alter 

hydraulics and sediment transport and thereby adversely affect other aquatic plants, 

macroinvertebrate, and amphibian communities. In addition to these issues, CDFG 

indicates that it has observed Didymosphenia geminata nearby in the Middle Fork 

American River. In the past two decades, D. geminata has substantially expanded its 

geographical range in the United States and across much of the world, and has 

increasingly been found to form excessive growths in streams (EPA, 2006; IUCN, 2007; 

Kilroy, 2004). In some streams, D. geminata covers more than 90 percent of available 

substrates, and the dense mats can cover miles of stream length. These dense mats trap 

sediments and may suppress the native algae and invertebrate communities. In Rapid 

Creek, located in the Black Hills of South Dakota, brown trout populations have 

experienced severe declines that have been correlated to dense growths of D. geminata

(SDGFP, 2006). 

Given the extent of algae growth in the Junction dam reach and the potential for 

D. geminata to adversely affect the aquatic ecosystem, we conclude that it is important 

to determine the algae species present and their general level of abundance in this reach 

under the new flow regime. This information could be used to determine whether the 

new streamflow releases effectively reduce the extent of algae in the Junction dam 

reach. We conclude that the combination of Proposed Articles 1-5(6), Monitoring 

Program, and 1-6(7), Adaptive Management Program, would provide information to 

determine whether any new flow regime substantially reduces algae growth in the 

Junction dam reach and determine if D. geminata is present in the reach. Although 

algae does not appear to be a problem in the other UARP-affected stream reaches, 

Proposed Articles 1-5(6), Monitoring Program, and 1-6(7), Adaptive Management 

Program, would provide information to confirm that there are no algae-related problems 

in selected UARP-affected stream reaches. SMUD’s proposal to monitor algae could 

also determine whether D. geminata is present in the other monitored UARP-affected 

stream reaches. 

Given the extent of algae growth in the Chili Bar dam reach, and the potential for 

D. geminata to adversely affect water quality and the aquatic community, we conclude 

that it is important to periodically evaluate whether D. geminata has become established 

in this reach. We conclude that this could be accomplished by developing and 

implementing the plan in Proposed Article 2-4(6), Monitoring Program. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. Monitoring and adaptive management requirements for algae 

would remain unchanged from those described in the Proposed Action. As a result, 
3-115 

effects of the UARP-only Alternative on algae would be the same as those described 

under the Proposed Action. 

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects 

Water temperatures have been affected by natural events, and water and land 

management practices in the Rubicon River Basin to the SFAR Basin. Impoundment of 

water by the project dams generally results in higher spring through fall temperatures 

near the surface of the reservoirs than would occur in the same reach if the stream was 

still free-flowing. Using low-level outlets for streamflow releases has substantially 

reduced water temperatures immediately downstream of some dams (e.g., Ice House 

and Loon Lake developments). However, diverting water around stream reaches tends 

to increase spring through summer temperatures in the bypassed reaches. Similarly, 

UARP’s diversion of water from the Rubicon River Basin to the SFAR Basin has 

reduced flows in the Rubicon River Basin and thereby increased the potential for 

streamflow warming in the basin. 

Fires have cleared much of the upland and riparian vegetation in portions of the 

UARP area, resulting in reduced shading of the streams and reservoirs. In the lower 

portion of the Ice House dam reach, the 1992 Cleveland Fire substantially reduced 

stream shading and thereby substantially increased stream temperatures. Riparian 

vegetation has recovered well along the stream banks, which has somewhat increased 

shading and reduced stream temperatures. Recovery of upland vegetation is expected to 

occur through any new license term and thereby increase stream shading and further 

reduce stream temperatures. 

EID operates the El Dorado Project, which diverts up to about 165 cfs of water 

around a 22-mile-long section of the SFAR to its domestic water supply system and the 

El Dorado powerhouse, located a short distance further downstream than the river’s 

confluence with Silver Creek. This has resulted in an incremental increase in spring 

through summer temperatures in the river between the confluence and the El Dorado 

powerhouse. Under a new FERC license issued for the El Dorado Project in 2006 

(FERC, 2006), minimum flow releases from EID’s dam to the SFAR were substantially 

increased resulting in a reduction in the aforementioned incremental increase in spring 

through summer temperatures. The UARP and Chili Bar Project proposed increased 

minimum streamflows would tend to reduce spring through summer temperatures in 

most of the UARP- and Chili Bar Project-affected stream reaches. The operation of the 

proposed Iowa Hill development would reduce water temperatures emanating from Slab 

Creek reservoir by less than 0.5°C. This change would have no observable effect on 

water temperatures in Chili Bar reservoir or the Chili Bar dam reach. Under the 

Proposed Action, these cumulative effects are expected to provide a thermal regime that 

would support the designated beneficial uses including a coldwater habitat for resident 

fish and amphibians. 
3-116 

Water quality in the UARP and Chili Bar Project-affected reaches is generally 

good, although it currently does not always satisfy the Basin Plan water quality 

objectives for bacteria and some chemical parameters. Numerous factors, including 

mining, land management, water-resource projects, development, and water-oriented 

recreation, have all incrementally adversely affected water quality, particularly fecal 

coliform concentrations in heavily-used areas of reservoirs and in the Chili Bar dam 

reach and metals in several of the UARP and Chili Bar Project reservoirs. Additional 

increases in development and recreation are expected to further increase the potential 

for water quality degradation. In contrast, expansion of the Hangtown Creek 

Wastewater Treatment Plant in Placerville is expected to somewhat reduce bacteria and 

nutrient loadings from Weber Creek to the SFAR. EID’s recent replacement of a 

damaged and unstable section of the El Dorado Project’s canal with a 2-mile-long 

bypass tunnel is expected to reduce canal failures and resulting erosion and 

sedimentation that have occurred historically. Under the Proposed Action, SMUD 

would implement an erosion and sedimentation control plan and a storm water pollution 

prevention plan during the construction phase of the Iowa Hill development. 

Implementation of these plans is expected to minimize adverse effects on water quality 

during construction. The cumulative effects of these actions would be an overall 

improvement in water quality. 

3.3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

None. 

3.3.3 Aquatic Resources 

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment 

Fisheries Resources 

Table 3-29 lists fishes known to occur in the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage 

basin in the vicinity of the UARP and/or Chili Bar Project. 

Table 3-29. Fishes in the UARP and Chili Bar Project study area. (Sources: DTA and 

Stillwater Sciences, 2005c,d,e) 

Common Name Scientific Name Statusa

Sacramento-San 

Joaquin 

Drainageb

Fall-run Chinook salmonc Oncorhynchus tshawytscha -- Native 

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss MIS Native 

Kokanee salmon Oncorhynchus nerka -- Introduced 

Brown trout Salmo trutta MIS Introduced 

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis MIS Introduced 
3-117 

Common Name Scientific Name Statusa

Sacramento-San 

Joaquin 

Drainageb

Lake trout (mackinaw) Salvelinus namaycush -- Introduced 

Lahontan cutthroat troutd Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi FT Introduced 

Pacific lampreye Lampetra tridentata -- Native 

Sacramento hitch Lavinia exilicauda exilicauda -- Native 

California. roachf Lavinia symmetricus symmetricus CSC Native 

Hardhead Mylopharodon conocephalus CSC Native 

Sacramento pikeminnow Ptychocheilus grandis -- Native 

Sacramento speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. -- Native 

Carp Cyprinus carpio -- Introduced 

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas -- Introduced 

Sacramento sucker Catostomus occidentalis -- Native 

Sacramento tule perch Hysterocarpus traski traski -- Native 

Prickly sculpin Cottus asper -- Native 

Riffle sculpin Cottus gulosus -- Native 

Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis -- Introduced 

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus -- Introduced 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus -- Introduced 

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui -- Introduced 

a

 Status: FT – Federally Threatened; CSC - CDFG species of concern; MIS - listed by the Eldorado 

National Forest as a management indicator species. 

b

 Native or introduced into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage Basin. Prior to the California Gold 

Rush in 1848, all of the steams and natural lakes in the UARP area were fishless, with the exception 

of the lower 0.83 mile of Brush Creek, the lower 3.30 miles of Silver Creek, and the SFAR. 

Therefore, while considered native to the Drainage, any fish currently present in these formerly 

fishless areas should be considered ‘introduced’ in these areas. 

c Excess hatchery stock planted in Folsom may migrate into reach downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

d Stocked upstream of the Project area. 

e Pacific lamprey no longer occur upstream of Nimbus dam, which is below Folsom dam. 

f Some reports prepared by the licensees refer to the Sacramento roach, which is a subspecies of 

California roach. To minimize confusion, we will refer to Sacramento roach as California roach 

throughout this document. 
3-118 

Reservoirs 

To determine fish species composition in the project reservoirs, sampling was 

conducted at multiple sites in five project reservoirs (Loon Lake, Ice House, Union 

Valley, Junction, and Slab Creek). Camino reservoir was not sampled due to safety and 

access constraints. Gerle Creek reservoir was surveyed to provide the Forest Service 

with information for trout management, and Chili Bar reservoir was surveyed since 

there was no historical fish survey information available. Rubicon, Buck Island, Robbs 

Peak and Brush Creek reservoirs and Rockbound Lake were not surveyed because there 

was no historical data, or there was no indication these areas supported fish that could 

be significantly affected by reservoir operations. Table 3-30 presents results from 

historical reports and reservoir surveys in 2002/2003. 

Table 3-30. Fish species present in UARP and Chili Bar Project reservoirs reported 

during historical and relicensing studies. (Sources: DTA and Stillwater, 

2005c,e) 

Common Name 

Rubicon Buck Island Loon Lake Gerle Creek Robbs Peak Union Valley Ice House Junction Camino Brush Creek Slab Creek Chili Bara

Rainbow trout y y  y y   y y y  

Brown trout y y   y y   y y  { 

Brook trout y y y y y y y y 

California golden trout y 

Kokanee salmon  y y y 

Lake trout (mackinaw)  

Lahontan cutthroat trout y 

Hardhead  { 

California roach  { { y y 

Sacramento pikeminnow { {

Sacramento speckled dace y 

Golden shiner y 
3-119 

Common Name 

Rubicon Buck Island Loon Lake Gerle Creek Robbs Peak Union Valley Ice House Junction Camino Brush Creek Slab Creek Chili Bara

Sacramento sucker    y  { 

Sacramento tule perch y 

Riffle sculpin y 

Mosquitofish y 

Green sunfish y y y 

Smallmouth bass  y {

Note: y indicates historical, { indicates relicensing studies, and  indicates historical and 

relicensing studies.

a

 In 2003, CDFG collected several Sacramento pikeminnow and a smallmouth bass from Chili Bar 

reservoir. However, PG&E did not collect either of these fish from Chili Bar reservoir during their 

sampling in 2002/2003. 

Trout (brown and rainbow) dominated the fish collected from Gerle Creek, Ice 

House, and Loon Lake reservoirs (table 3-31). Trout were less dominant in lower 

elevation reservoirs, although kokanee salmon comprised 20 percent of the fish 

collected from Union Valley reservoir. Trout only accounted for 18 percent of the fish 

collected from Junction reservoir and less than 10 percent of the fish collected from 

Union Valley, Slab Creek, and Chili Bar reservoirs. The fish community was most 

diverse in Union Valley reservoir, which was dominated by smallmouth bass. 

Sacramento sucker were dominant in the Junction, Slab Creek, and Chili Bar reservoirs. 

Table 3-31. Number and composition of fish captured in reservoirs of the Projects 

using gill netting and beach seining, October to November 2002 and 

October 2003. (Source: DTA and Stillwater, 2005c) 

Species 

Loon 

Lake 

Ice 

House 

Gerle 

Creek 

Union 

Valley Junction 

Slab 

Creek 

Chili 

Bar 

Total (number 

captured) 

85 55 64 110 57 74 44 

Rainbow trout (%) 8 20 0 6 0 0 0 

Brown trout (%) 46 69 92 0 18 7 7 

Lake trout (%) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Kokanee salmon (%) 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 

Hardhead (%) 0 0 0 0 0 39 23 

Sacramento 

pikeminnow (%) 

0 0 0 0 1 0 
3-120 

Species 

Loon 

Lake 

Ice 

House 

Gerle 

Creek 

Union 

Valley Junction 

Slab 

Creek 

Chili 

Bar 

Sacramento sucker (%) 2 0 0 15 82 53 70 

Smallmouth bass (%) 0 0 58 0 0 0 

California roach (%) 44 11 8 0 0 0 0 

SMUD conducted intensive gill net, snorkel, and trawl surveys of Slab Creek 

reservoir to characterize the locations of greatest fish abundance in late fall (November 

2003), spring (May 2004), and summer (July and August 2004). Results of this study 

indicate that hardhead, Sacramento sucker, and Sacramento pikeminnow use both the 

upper and lower reaches of the reservoir. Brown trout and rainbow trout also use the 

upper reservoir, but were not observed in the lower reservoir. The fish captured in the 

lower reservoir consisted primarily of Sacramento suckers and hardhead with a single 

Sacramento pikeminnow. More fish were captured at the 10- to 25-foot and 50-foot 

depths than at 100-foot sampling depths, although all three species were captured at 

each of the three sampling depths. Most of the juvenile fish captured in September 

2004 were captured in the lower reservoir near the location of proposed Iowa Hill 

intake, and consisted of 79 percent hardhead and 21 percent Sacramento pikeminnow. 

CDFG stocks fish into several of the UARP reservoirs, and in Wrights Lake 

located on SFSC upstream of Ice House reservoir. Between 1995 and 2004, CDFG 

stocked nearly 1.5 million fish, about 0.5 million of which were catchable size. The 

species and size of fish stocked into each of the reservoirs varies depending on 

management goals for the reservoir and availability of fish. CDFG typically stocks 

rainbow trout in Rubicon reservoir, Rockbound Lake, Loon Lake, Union Valley and Ice 

House reservoirs. Brown trout are stocked in Ice House reservoir and Wrights Lake, 

and kokanee salmon in Union Valley reservoir. 

Streams 

SMUD and PG&E used a variety of historical information to determine which 

fish species were known to exist in the stream reaches in the project area (table 3-32). 

These data show that rainbow, brown, and brook trout have historically (post-Gold 

Rush) been present in most of the stream reaches evaluated, and Sacramento sucker and 

riffle sculpin have occurred in several of the lower elevation reaches. SMUD and 

PG&E conducted fish population surveys in October of 2002, 2003, and 2004 using 

electrofishing or snorkel surveys in reaches that depth or flow made electroshocking 

impractical. Figures 3-17 through 3-20 display the location of each of the stream 

segments where these fish population surveys were conducted, and table 3-33 displays 

results of these surveys. Sacramento suckers were observed in six of the 13 reaches 

surveyed, all six were lower elevation reaches. These results indicate that the reach 

downstream of Chili Bar dam has the most diverse fish community, followed closely by 

the Slab Creek reach and then the SFAR reach. 
3-121 

Table 3-32. Fish presence in project stream reachesa observed during historical and relicensing studies

(Source: DTA and Stillwater Sciences, 2005d) 

Common Name 

Rubicon dam 

reach 

Buck Island dam 

reach 

Loon Lake dam 

reach 

Gerle Creek dam 

reach 

SFRR upstream 

of Robbs Peak 

Robbs Peak dam 

reach 

Ice House dam 

reach 

Junction dam 

reach 

Camino dam 

reach 

SFAR reach 

Brush Creek dam 

reach 

Chinook salmonb Rainbow trout  {    {      Brown trout {   {     Brook trout y y y 

California roach { { y y  

Hardhead  Sacramento pikeminnow  Sacramento speckled dace {  Golden shiner { 

Sacramento sucker     

Prickly sculpin 

Riffle sculpin y y y 

Green sunfish 

Bluegill 

Smallmouth bass 

Note: y indicates historical, { indicates relicensing studies, and  indicates historical and relicensing studies. a No fish population information (either historical or 2002-2004) is known to exist for Rubicon tunnel outlet reach or Rob Likely fall-run Chinook stocked into Folsom Reservoir. 
3-122 

77*

(86

667

 



# " #9 3 9 , 93,

93.

 
93,

#9,

#93

#93

#93

#9,

 
#93

#9 3


  # "

 


#"



  # "

	
!

7"





#"

	
 #

"
!

$ 

%&#





#9 3

 66
668

667

7
668

667

&8
5	
	85$
	/

	8$8$
	/

	8$	%	
	
$
	/

	8$
$
	/




"
E
	C-
$
	/


	$>

	


 

Figure 3-17. Stream segment sampling reaches—UARP northeast area. (Source: SMUD, 2005, as m

by the staff) 
3-123 





	


# "


	
#"

	
 # "

 
 # "


6766

*7*(6:

667

#93

#9, #93


#93

9,

9 3

9 3

*
!7*

667


(;*7667

&8
5	
	85$
	/

	8$8$
	/

	8$	%	
	
$
	/

	8$
$
	/




"
E
	C-
$
	/


	$> 	


 

Figure 3-18. Stream segment sampling reaches—UARP southeast area. (Source: SMUD, 2005, as m

by the staff) 
3-124 


#9 





#9,

 
 # "





" 
 # " // (	 " 


9(.

(9(+


9(1

$!' 	#


9(+


9 3


#9,


9,


#93

	 


668667

(
668667

&8
5	
	85$
	/

	8$8$
	/

	8$	%	
	
$
	/

	8$
$
	/




"
E
	C-
$
	/


	$> 	

 

Figure 3-19. Stream segment sampling reaches—UARP southwest area. (Source: SMUD, 2005, as m
3-125 

"

#
$
















)


"		 

" #
$ 
) 
"		 




 9 3


 9 ,


 9 .


!



&8
5	
	85$
	/

	8$8$
	/

	8$	%	
	
$
	/

	8$
$
	/




"
E
	C-
$
	/


	$>

77;

667

	


 


 

(# 




%





%'


Figure 3-20. Stream segment sampling reaches—UARP western area. (Source: SMUD, 2005, as mo

by the staff) 
3-126 

Table 3-33 summarizes the results of the applicant’s 2002 through 2004 fish 

population studies and estimates of trout density and biomass in project streams. All 

study segments contained rainbow trout and most contained brown trout; these were the 

dominant species in most of the stream segments sampled. Stream segments where trout 

were not dominant include sites in the lower Rubicon dam reach (RRD-F2), Buck Island 

dam reach (BID-F1), lower Ice House dam reach (IHD-F2), SFAR reach (SFAR-F1), 

lower Slab Creek dam reach (SCD-F2), and at a study site in the reach downstream of 

Chili Bar dam (CB-F2). SMUD’s studies reported that average condition factors34 for 

both rainbow and brown trout were close to 1.0 for all 3 years (i.e., 2002-2004), 

indicating that trout are generally in good condition in the reaches sampled. 

SMUD evaluated the longitudinal distribution of fish in the Slab Creek dam reach 

by snorkeling 14 sites located between 3.65 and 7.64 miles downstream of Slab Creek 

dam (i.e., between 0.21 and 4.2 miles upstream of Chili Bar reservoir) in October 2004. 

SMUD did not evaluate the fish community within the first 2.5 miles downstream of the 

dam due to accessibility and safety concerns. Figure 3-21 displays the location where 

each fish species was observed. In total, nine species were observed in the reach, seven 

of which were observed during the 2004 longitudinal study. The distribution of fish 

species was consistent with longitudinal trends expected with increasing temperature 

downstream of Slab Creek dam. At the uppermost sample site, rainbow trout were 

dominant, and subdominant species included brown trout, Sacramento sucker and 

sculpin. Diversity of fish species was higher at downstream sample sites with the 

addition of transition zone species including hardhead, Sacramento pikeminnow, and 

California roach. The most abundant species was California roach followed by hardhead. 

Only one smallmouth bass (250 to 275 mm) was observed in the reach. SMUD reported 

that the cryptic marking and benthic nature of sculpins may have caused them to be under 

represented due to the difficulty in observing them while snorkeling. 

Aquatic Habitat 

Reservoirs 

SMUD and PG&E conducted a study to evaluate reservoir habitat that could affect 

warmwater or reservoir spawning fishes in project reservoirs. Based on the historical or 

suspected fish species present, Loon Lake, Ice House, Union Valley, Junction, Slab 

Creek, and Chili Bar were studied. Camino was excluded due to access and safety 

 

34Condition factor, or K, is a calculation used as an indicator of overall health of a 

fish, where K = 105

weight/length3. 
3-127 

Table 3-33. Summary information from 2002 to 2004 stream fisheries studies. (Source: DTA and Stil

2005d, CDFG, 2007) 

Stream Reach And Segment (Site ID) Dominant Species 

Dominant 

Trout 

Mean Rainbow Trout 

Biomass 

(lbs/acre) 

Rainbow Trout Age 

Classes 

B

Rubicon dam reach upstream of Rubicon Springs (RRD-F1) 

Rainbow trout Rainbow 11.3 YOY to 2+ Y

rec

Rubicon dam reach at Miller Cr. Confluence (RRD-F2) 

Speckled dace and 

California roach 

Brown 0.9 YOY to 1+ YO

Little Rubicon River Buck Island dam reach (BID-F1) 

Golden shiner Rainbow 0 YOY to 2+ 

Gerle Creek Loon Lake dam reach at Wentworth Springs (LLD-F1) 

Brown trout Brown 19.5 YOY to 2+ 

Gerle Creek Loon Lake dam reach at Rocky Basin Cr. Confluence (LLD-F2) 

Brown trout Brown 40 No YOY or 2+ in 

2002 and 2003, only 

2 YOY in 2004 

Gerle Creek below Gerle dam reach (GCD-F1) 

Rainbow trout Rainbow 11.5 YOY to 2+ (most 

YOY) 

SFRR upstream of Robbs Peak reservoir (--) 

Rainbow trout Rainbow 7 YOY to 1+ (most 1+) 

SFRR Robbs Peak dam reach (RPD-F1) 

Rainbow trout Rainbow 23 YOY to at least 2+ Y

dis
3-128 

Stream Reach And Segment (Site ID) Dominant Species 

Dominant 

Trout 

Mean Rainbow Trout 

Biomass 

(lbs/acre) 

Rainbow Trout Age 

Classes 

B

SFSC Ice House dam reach downstream of Silver Cr. Campground (IHD-F1) 

Rainbow trout Rainbow 10.6 Good distribution of 

YOY and 1+ 

Y

SFSC Ice House dam reach at Bryant Springs (IHD-F2) 

Sacramento sucker Rainbow 

/Brown 

3 YOY to 2+ 

Silver Cr. Junction dam reach, 2 miles downstream of dam (JDF1) 

Rainbow trout Rainbow 7.5 Most YOY 

Junction dam reach upstream of Sugar Pine Cr. (JD-F2) 

Rainbow trout Rainbow NC YOY to 3+ (moderate 

recruitment of YOY 

and good 

distribution1+ to 3+) 

Silver Cr, Camino dam reach downstream of Tent Canyon (CD-F1) 

Rainbow trout Rainbow NC YOY to 3+ O

Silver Cr. Camino dam reach at Camino tunnel adit access (CD-F2) 

Rainbow trout Rainbow NC YOY to 4+ with peak 

in 2+ 

Brush Creek dam reach (BCD-F1) 

Rainbow trout Rainbow 14.7 YOY to 3+ with 

strong recruitment of 

YOY 

YO

re
3-129 

Stream Reach And Segment (Site ID) Dominant Species 

Dominant 

Trout 

Mean Rainbow Trout 

Biomass 

(lbs/acre) 

Rainbow Trout Age 

Classes 

B

Slab Creek dam reach upstream of Rock Cr. powerhouse (SCD-F2) 

Speckled 

dace/hardhead in 

2002; riffle sculpin 

in 2003 

Rainbow 4.65 Peak at YOY T

Downstream of Chili Bar reach at Old Flume Memorial (CB-F1) 

Rainbow trout, 

sculpin along 

margins 

Rainbow NC- Low percentage of 

YOY 

Downstream of Chili Bar reach at Coloma State Park (CB-F2) 

Sacramento sucker, 

sculpin along 

margins 

Rainbow NC Peak at 125 mm (ages 

not discussed) 

Downstream of Chili Bar reach downstream of Camp Lotus (CB-F3) 

Rainbow trout, 

sculpin along the 

margins 

Rainbow NC Peak at 200 mm (ages 

not discussed) 

Downstream of Chili Bar reach at Weber Cr. Confluence (CB-F4) 

Rainbow trout, 

sculpin along 

margins 

Rainbow NC Peak at 175 mm (ages 

not discussed) 

Notes: -- – no data  mm – millimeter  NA – not applicable  NC – not calculated  YOY – young-of-the-year a Size not given. 
3-130 

Note: Solid black circles indicate species observed in 2004, and open circles indicate species observed 

in 2002 and 2003 surveys. Dashed line is the water temperature relationship. 

Figure 3-21. Species presence by river mile in Slab Creek dam reach. (Source: 

DTA and Stillwater Sciences, 2005d, figure 4.14-6) 

constraints. Primary characteristics, including water-level fluctuations, physical 

shoreline habitat, number of tributaries and potential barriers to upstream fish migration, 

and shoreline fish spawning habitat were evaluated for each of these reservoirs. Note 

that we describe existing water level fluctuations in greater detail in section 3.3.2.1, 

Water Quantity (and erosion discussed in section 3.3.3.1, Geology and Soils).

Most of the shoreline of Junction, Slab Creek, and Chili Bar reservoirs is steep, 

but little erosion occurs along these shorelines due to bedrock and large-sized substrate 

along with dense vegetation along Chili Bar reservoir. Most of Loon Lake’s shoreline, 

which is predominantly flat to moderately sloped, is also stable. In contrast, Ice House 

and Union Valley reservoirs have substantial mild erosion along their shorelines. 

Emergent vegetation is sparse along the shoreline of Ice House, Junction, and Union 

Valley reservoirs. Considerable emergent vegetation occurs in Chili Bar reservoir, and 

moderate levels of emergent vegetation occur in Loon Lake and Slab Creek reservoir. 

No potential upstream fish migration barriers were identified for Loon Lake, Ice 

House, or Junction reservoirs. Potential barriers were identified for the other three 

reservoirs, although most of these barriers are not expected to preclude all fish species 

from entering the tributaries. 
3-131 

Streams 

SMUD and PG&E evaluated stream habitat in numerous reaches affected by the 

Projects by conducting on-the-ground and aerial surveys during 2002 and 2003. This 

included on-the-ground mapping of seven reaches and aerial mapping of six reaches that 

were not safely accessible by foot or where ground surveys were not feasible. For both 

on-the-ground and aerial surveys, habitat units were delineated and categorized by 

habitat type, and then the percent of each habitat type was determined. The ground 

surveys recorded the type of substrate and cover, quantity of trout spawning gravel, 

large woody debris, potential upstream migration barriers for trout, and tributaries. The 

potential migration barriers were further evaluated to determine if they are absolute 

barriers to upstream trout migration or likely passable at anticipated high flows during 

spring runoff and/or winter storms. The results of these stream mapping and barrier 

evaluations are summarized in table 3-34. 

Table 3-34. Summary characteristics for UARP and Chili Bar Project stream 

reaches. (Sources: DTA and Stillwater Sciences, 2005f, 2004a) 

Reach (miles) 

Cascade/High Gradient 

Rifflea

/Low Gradient Rifflea/ 

Run/ Pool/ Pocket water % 

Spawning 

Gravel 

(sq ft/ mile) 

Large Woody 

Debrisb 

(#/ mile) 

# Trout 

Migration 

Barriers c

# of 

Tributaries 

Rubicon River 

Rubicon damd (5.8)

9.1/1.3/6.6/39.2/41.6/0.8 1,908 136 9/6 9 

Rockbound dam 

(0.3) 

13.5/11.7/28.9/8.8/37.2/0.0 0 329 4/2 0 

Little RR Buck 

Island dam (2.5) 

9.3/2.0/12.9/14.8/61.0/0.0 2 96 5/3 5 

Gerle Cr Loon Lake 

dam (9.3) 

10.4/7.8/18.9/25.9/35.9/1.1 3,932 194 7/3 2 

Gerle Creek Gerle 

Creek dam (1.2) 

18.1/0.0/4.6/1.1/36.7/39.4 1,606 7 0/0 4 

SF Rubicon Robbs 

Peak dam (5.6) 

25.2/11.5/18./15.8/25.2/3.4 -- -- 2/1 -- 

Silver Cr. Ice House 

dam (12.3) 

1.4/3.3/43.6/42.2/9.5/0.0 407 66 0/4 25 

Silver Cr. Junction 

dam (8.3) 

23.9/4.0/17.4/27.5/23.9/3.3 -- -- 3/1 -- 

Silver Cr Camino 

dam (6.0) 

16.3/2.8/2.6/14.0/59.0/5.6 -- -- 1/0 -- 

Brush Creek dam 

(2.3) 

17.0/10.6/21.9/19.2/31.3/0.0 134 42 19/8 0 

SFAR Slab Creek 

dam (8.0) 

4.9/13.3/18.9/28.8/26.1/8.0 -- -- 0/0 -- 

SFAR Downstream 

of Chili Bar dam 

(20.0) 

8.1/15.7/21.8/37.0/16.3/1.2 -- -- 0/0 -- 
3-132 

Note: -- indicates not reported. 

a

 High gradient riffle has slope of greater than 4 percent. Low gradient riffle has slope of 4 percent or less. 

b

 The minimum requirements used to define large woody debris were 6 inches in diameter and 3 feet in 

length where the total length was greater than or equal to one-half the channel width. 

c

 Number before “/” is the number of migration barriers (other than the dam) to trout throughout the year. 

Number after “/” is the number of additional seasonal barriers that appear to be passable by trout at 

typical high flows during spring runoff and/or winter storms. Estimates for reaches where aerial mapping 

was done were made using aerial videography. 

d

 Values for this reach include the Rubicon River from the base of Rubicon dam to the confluence with 

Miller Creek. 

The estimated quantity of trout-spawning gravel for the seven ground-surveyed 

reaches ranges from zero to 3,932 square feet per mile. SMUD reports that virtually no 

spawning gravel occurs in the Rockbound dam and Buck Island dam reaches, but this is 

likely due primarily to geological features at these locations such as the predominance 

of relatively unweathered exposed bedrock. In contrast, more than 1,500 square feet of 

spawning gravel per mile occurs in the Loon Lake dam, Rubicon dam, and Gerle Creek 

dam reaches. Moderate volumes of spawning gravel exist in the Ice House dam and 

Brush Creek dam reaches. 

The density of large woody debris ranged from 7 to 329 pieces per mile (table 3-

34). The Gerle Creek dam reach had much less large woody debris than the other six 

reaches evaluated. 

The applicants’ trout barrier analysis revealed few year-round and seasonal 

barriers to upstream trout migration in the lower elevation reaches. The largest number 

of barriers to upstream passage was reported for the Brush Creek dam reach. Hardhead 

have relatively poor swimming abilities in cool water in comparison to trout, thus 

hardhead may have additional velocity barriers that permit the passage of salmonids 

(Moyle, 2002). 

SMUD and PG&E sampled macroinvertebrate communities and assessed water 

quality by using measures of stream benthic macroinvertebrate community and 

physical/habitat characteristics to evaluate the biological integrity of stream ecosystems 

consistent with the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (CDFG, 2003). They 

collected data at 30 sites in 13 reaches of the UARP during fall of 2002 and 2003, and at 

6 sites in the reach downstream of Chili Bar dam in 2003 and 2004 

About half of the distinct taxa identified at most UARP study sites were 

Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly), or Trichoptera (caddisfly). The overall 

number of mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies made up more than 40 percent of the 

organisms for the majority of the UARP study sites. However, mayflies, stoneflies, and 

caddisflies made up a much smaller percentage of the organisms at most of the sites 

downstream of the Chili Bar dam. The lowest percentage of organisms that were 

mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies occurred a short distance downstream of the Chili 

Bar and Junction dams, where they comprised about 6 and 14 percent of the total 

organisms, respectively. 
3-133 

Composite metric scores, which are indicators of biological integrity, were below 

average immediately downstream of the three largest UARP storage dams (Loon Lake, 

Ice House, and Junction) and generally increased with distance downstream of the 

reservoirs. Similarly, elmid beetles (riffle beetles of the family Elmidae) and perlid 

stoneflies (Calineuria californica), most of which are relatively long-lived taxa that 

require a full annual cycle or more for their development, are absent just below these 

reservoirs with increasing numbers further downstream. These factors suggest potential 

impairment immediately downstream of the Loon Lake, Ice House, and Junction dams, 

but recovery further down the corresponding reaches. Conversely, benthic 

macroinvertebrate composite metric scores decrease with distance downstream in the 

Camino and Slab Creek reaches, suggesting a decline in water quality at the lower ends 

of these reaches. Composite metric scores for the reach downstream of Chili Bar dam 

are consistently lower than at reference sites in the North Fork American and Cosumnes 

rivers, although this is partially due to the larger substrate in the upper end of the reach. 

Oligochaetes are dominant and taxonomic richness and diversity are generally low in 

this reach, particularly at the upper end. 

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects 

This section evaluates the environmental effects of the Proposed Actions on the 

aquatic resources of the Projects. Environmental measures are considered to have a 

significant effect if they interfere with reproduction, recruitment, or survival of fish to 

the degree that they adversely affect the species at the population level; cause water 

quality characteristics to become suboptimal for fish compared to reference conditions; 

or result in decreases in benthic macroinvertebrate diversity in project reaches. 

While historically the upper reaches of the UARP area were fishless, under the 

terms of the Settlement Agreement, the resource agencies chose trout (rainbow or 

brown trout) and hardhead biomass amounts as indicators of favorable ecological 

conditions in the project areas. Specific indicators used include components articulated 

in the “Fish Community Assessment Metrics” (SMUD, 2004a), or biomass numbers. If 

the Fish Community Assessment Metrics, or existing biomass numbers are less than 

expected for Northern Sierra trout biomass numbers (according to Gerstung, 1973), the 

goal for the reach is to improve biomass to meet those numbers. 

Table 3-35 compares existing rainbow trout biomass (and brown trout on some 

reaches) by reach, survey reach number, and measured stream width from 2002–2004 

SMUD surveys with the trout biomass goals taken from Gerstung (1973) (CDFG, 

2007). Agency objectives for each reach are also included in the table. 
3-134 

Table 3-35. Rainbow trout and brown trout biomass by reach from 2002–2004 

SMUD Surveys, with agency objectives for trout biomass in each 

reach. 

Reach Name (site #) Objective 

Existing Mean Biomass 

for Rainbow Trout 

(lbs/surface acre) 

Rainbow Trout Biomass 

Goala (lbs/surface acre) 

Rubicon River below 

Rubicon dam (RRD-F1) 

Increase RT 11.3 24 

Rubicon River below 

Rubicon dam (RRD-F2) 

Increase RT 0.9 33 

Little Rubicon River 

below Buck Island dam 

(BID-F1 (upper) 

Reduce or 

eliminate golden 

shiners and 

increase RT 

0 Reduce or eliminate 

golden shiners and move 

toward 33 RT 

Gerle Creek below Loon 

Lake dam (LLD-F1) 

Increase RT and 

maintain BN 

19.5 Combined biomass of RT 

and BN–24 

Gerle Creek below Loon 

Lake dam (LLD-F2) 

Increase RT and 

maintain BN 

40 Combined biomass of RT 

and BN–24 

Gerle Creek below Gerle 

dam (GCD-F1) 

Increase RT and 

maintain BN 

11.5 Combined biomass of RT 

and BN–24 

SF Rubicon upstream of 

Robbs Peak dam 

Increase RT 7 33 

SF Rubicon below 

Robbs Reak dam 

(RPD-F1) 

Increase RT and 

maintain BN 

23 Combined biomass of RT 

and BN–24 

SF Silver below Ice 

House dam (IHD-F1) 

Increase RT 10.6 RT-24 

SF Silver below Ice 

House dam (IHD-F2) 

Increase RT 3 24 

Silver Creek below 

Junction Dam (JD-F1) 

Increase RT 7.5 24 

Silver Creek below 

Junction dam (JD-F2) 

Increase RT Use Fish Community 

Assessment Metricsb

 

Silver Creek below 

Camino dam (CD-F1) 

Increase RT Use Fish Community 

Assessment Metrics b

 

278 catchable trout per 

milea 

Brush Creek (BCD-F1) Increase RT 14.7 35 
3-135 

Reach Name (site #) Objective 

Existing Mean Biomass 

for Rainbow Trout 

(lbs/surface acre) 

Rainbow Trout Biomass 

Goala (lbs/surface acre) 

SFAR Below Slab Creek 

dam (SCD-F2) 

Provide healthy 

age class 

distribution of 

transitional fishery 

(coldwater to 

warmwater) 

4.65 RT; Age class 

distribution that 

represents healthy 

population of hardhead. 

Use Fish Community 

Assessment Metrics b

13 rainbow trout; use 

electrofishing and 

snorkeling for hardhead 

SFAR Below Chili Bar 

dam (CB-1 and F4) 

Provide healthy 

age class 

distribution of 

transitional fishery 

(coldwater to 

warmwater) 

Use Fish Community 

Assessment Metrics b

rainbow trout and 

hardhead 

Note: RT = rainbow trout, BN = brown trout. 

a Gerstung (1973)

b SMUD (2004a)

Minimum Streamflows 

The proposed minimum streamflow schedule would apply to the Rubicon River 

below Rubicon dam, Little Rubicon River below Buck Island dam, Gerle Creek below 

Loon Lake dam, Gerle Creek below Gerle Creek dam, SFRR below Robbs Peak dam, 

SFSC below Ice House dam, Silver Creek below Junction dam, Silver Creek below 

Camino dam, Brush Creek below Brush Creek dam, and the SFAR below Slab Creek 

dam. 

The proposed schedules specify minimum streamflows by month and water year 

type for each of the specified stream reaches, and allow the licensees a 3-year period 

after the license is issued or 3 years after completion of necessary facility modifications, 

whichever is later, to adjust operations to meet the required minimum streamflows. 

During this time period, daily mean streamflows may vary up to 10 percent below the 

amounts specified in the minimum streamflow schedules, provided that the average 

monthly streamflow in any given month equals or exceeds the required minimum 

amount for the month. After the applicable period, the licensees would meet the 

minimum streamflow requirements specified in the minimum streamflow schedules. 
3-136 

The minimum streamflow schedules are separated into five water year types: Wet, 

AN, BN, Dry, and CD. For the Proposed Action, SMUD would determine water year type 

based on the predicted unimpaired inflow to Folsom reservoir and spring forecasting 

information provided by DWR Bulletin 120 report of water conditions in California each 

month from February through May. The water year types are defined as follows: 

• Wet = greater than or equal to 3.5 MAF 

• AN = greater than or equal to 2.6 MAF but less than 3.5 MAF 

• BN = greater than 1.7 MAF or equal to but less than 2.6 MAF 

• Dry = greater than 0.9 MAF or equal to but less than 1.7 MAF 

• CD = less than 0.9 MAF 

• SD = any year that is immediately preceded by a Dry or CD year or any Dry 

year that is immediately preceded by any combination of two Dry or CD 

years. Applies to flows below Chili Bar dam only. 

In our analysis of the potential effects of the proposed minimum streamflow 

schedules on aquatic resources, we refer to the results of water temperature monitoring 

shown in table 3-16, in section 3.3.2.1, Water Quality, and the summary characteristics of 

the stream reaches presented in table 3-34 and Agency objectives for aquatic resources 

shown in table 3-35. 

Rubicon River below Rubicon Dam 

Historically, the high-elevation Rubicon River was fishless. Rainbow trout, 

brown trout, California roach and speckled dace now inhabit the reach. Rainbow trout 

biomass observed at sample sites in this reach were low, with 11.3 pounds per surface 

acre in the upper sample site (RRD-F1), and 0.9 pounds per surface acre in the lower 

site (RRD-F2) (see table 3-33), below the management goal of 24, and 33 pounds per 

surface acre, respectively. Spawning gravels in the reach are comparatively high, with 

1,908 square feet per mile. 

Resource agency objectives for this reach are to increase rainbow trout habitat, 

and “de-emphasize” California roach and speckled dace populations. Settlement 

Agreement Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, calls for a minimum 

streamflow schedule that varies by water year and month, in an attempt to more closely 

mimic a natural hydrograph (table 3-36). 

Our Analysis 

The presence of warm, slow moving water likely accounts for the fact that 

California roach and speckled dace are dominant over trout in this reach. Both rainbow 

and brown trout both appear to be reproducing here, with age classes of rainbow trout 

up to 2+, and brown trout up to 3+ (see table 3-33). According to PHABSIM analysis 

conducted by CDFG (CDFG, 2006a), approximately 100 percent of rainbow trout 
3-137 

available Weighted Usable Area35 (WUA) for spawning in this reach of the Rubicon 

River occurs at 60 cfs (figure 3-22). In the Settlement Agreement, the May flow in a 

BN water year (beginning of rainbow trout spawning) was set at 35 cfs, which provides 

84 percent of available WUA for rainbow trout, and provides 40 to 55 feet of wetted 

perimeter. After the May minimum streamflow was established, the unimpaired 

hydrograph was used to shape the streamflow regime for the remainder of the BN water 

year. For CD water years the minimum May streamflow was set at 48 percent WUA, 

since during natural conditions, fish would have had less habitat available during these 

dry years. 

Table 3-36. Proposed minimum streamflow schedule (cfs) for the Rubicon River 

below Rubicon dam. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Month CD Dry BN AN Wet 

July–February 6 or NF 6 or NF 6 or NF 6 or NF 6 or NF 

March 6 or NF 8 15 15 15 

April 8 12 20 20 20 

May 10 15 35 35 35 

June 6 or NF 8 15 15 15 

Note: If Natural Flow (NF) measured in the Rubicon River above Rubicon reservoir is below 1 

cfs, the minimum streamflow would be 1 cfs. In CD water year types, if the useable 

storage in Rubicon reservoir is less than 60 acre-feet and the licensee cannot maintain 1 

cfs due to lack of NF into and storage in Rubicon reservoir, SMUD would notify the 

Agencies at least 30 days prior to not meeting the streamflow. After notification of the 

Agencies, SMUD may reduce minimum flows below 1 cfs, but at no time would the 

minimum streamflow be less than the NF into Rubicon reservoir, until sufficient water is 

available to resume prescribed minimum streamflow releases. 

SMUD would maintain an over-wintering minimum pool of 6,527 feet in elevation in 

Rubicon reservoir once the reservoir begins to freeze for the protection of aquatic species. 

Below an elevation of 6,527 feet, streamflow releases from Rubicon reservoir would 

equal the lesser of the applicable flow listed in the table or the NF into Rubicon reservoir. 

Proposed increases in minimum stream flows are expected to benefit the rainbow 

trout population by creating more available spawning habitat during April, May, and 

June in all water year types. Increasing flows during these months would slightly lower 

water temperatures in the stream during May and June resulting in temperatures that 

would benefit the preferred trout species, but that are less favorable for California roach 

and speckled dace. 

 

35Weighted Usable Area is the amount of usable habitat available for a given fish 

species. 
3-138 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Flow (cfs)

WUA

Adult

Juvenile

Spawning

Figure 3-22. Weighted usable area for rainbow trout in the Rubicon River 

downstream of Rubicon dam. (Source: CDFG, 2006b) 

Little Rubicon River below Buck Island Dam 

Historically, the Little Rubicon River reach was fishless, and currently rainbow 

trout and golden shiners are found in the reach. There is a lack of spawning habitat for 

trout (less than 5 square feet in the entire reach), and there are 9 potential fish migration 

barriers. Without the current constant 1 cfs flow release, the high-elevation river would 

likely freeze in the winter, with limited habitat available only in deeper pools, and the 

river would be intermittently dry in the summer months. Water temperatures during 

March to April are near 0oC, and during the summer the lower portions of the reach can 

reach 26oC, near lethal temperatures for rainbow trout. These conditions result in low 

flow, warm water conditions during the summer that are more favorable for golden 

shiners, an exotic species that were likely introduced into the reach as baitfish. 

Agency objectives for fish in this reach are to reduce or eliminate golden shiners, 

and increase existing populations of rainbow trout. The minimum streamflow schedule 

was developed by taking the Rubicon River minimum streamflows, and adjusting them 

by watershed area. There are approximately 26.5 square miles in the Rubicon River 

watershed, and approximately 6 square miles in the Little Rubicon River watershed, 

therefore the minimum flow regime was determined by dividing the Rubicon River 

minimum flows by 4.4. The proposed minimum flows are presented in table 3-37. 
3-139 

Table 3-37. Proposed minimum streamflow schedule (cfs) for the Rubicon River 

below Buck Island dam. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Month CD Dry BN AN Wet 

July to February 1 1 1 1 1 

March 1 2 3 3 3 

April 2 3 5 5 5 

May 2 3 8 8 8 

June 1 2 3 3 3 

Notes: Compliance point, USGS gage 11428400, located at the outlet structure on Buck 

Island dam. If Natural Flow (NF) measured in Highland/Rockbound Creek above 

Buck Island reservoir is below 1 cfs, the minimum flow would be 1 cfs. In CD 

water year types, if the useable storage in Buck Island reservoir is less than 60 

acre-feet and the licensee cannot maintain 1 cfs due to lack of NF into and storage 

in Buck Island reservoir, SMUD would notify the Agencies at least 30 days prior 

to not meeting the streamflow. After notification of the Agencies, the licensee 

may reduce minimum flows below 1 cfs, but at no time would the minimum 

streamflow be less than the NF into the Buck Island reservoir, until sufficient 

water is available to resume prescribed minimum streamflow releases. 

Our Analysis 

Few fish inhabit this reach of the Little Rubicon River. Sampling at two sites in 

2002 and 2003 yielded only 5 rainbow trout in total. In 2002, 12 golden shiners were 

captured, and in 2003 over 200 young-of-the-year golden shiner were captured. These 

young fish may have originated in the Buck Island reservoir. The small amount (less 

than 5 square feet) of spawning gravels present for trout along with the 9 passage 

barriers render this reach unproductive for trout at almost any flow. The proposed 

minimum streamflow schedule provides for increased flows from March through June 

in all but CD years. In CD years flows would be increased during April and May. The 

volume of watershed runoff that enters the reach as accretion during these months is 

significantly greater than the proposed increase in minimum flows, which would likely 

mask any potential benefit of the increased releases. Increases in minimum flow, 

particularly during May and June may benefit trout by lowering streamflow 

temperatures in the reach slightly; however, given the lack of available spawning 

gravels, this benefit may be limited to preventing pools in the stream from drying and 

providing rearing habitat. 

Gerle Creek below Loon Lake Dam 

Brown trout, a non-native but desirable fish species, and rainbow trout are 

relatively abundant in this reach (see table 3-31) and support an important recreational 

fishery. Agency objectives for Gerle Creek flows below Loon Lake dam are to 

emphasize rainbow trout and brown trout fisheries, reintroduce some similarity to the 

natural hydrograph to restore ecosystem processes that have been altered by project 
3-140 

operations, and to inundate banks to a greater degree than present to move fines and to 

improve riparian condition. 

The Settlement Agreement proposed minimum streamflow schedule is shown in 

table 3-38. To facilitate fish passage to Gerle Creek below the reservoir, the Settlement 

Agreement also contains a provision (Proposed Article 1-8, Fish Passage at Gerle 

Creek) that specifies that the reservoir level at Gerle Creek reservoir be maintained at an 

elevation that provides fish passage into Gerle Creek from August through October. 

Table 3-38. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for Gerle Creek below 

Loon Lake dam. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Month CD Dry BN AN Wet 

October–November 7 11 16 20 23 

December 8 13 18 22 26 

January 12 15 19 23 28 

February 14 18 22 27 32 

March 19 24 30 37 44 

April 23 32 40 49 58 

May 25 32 40 49 58 

June 10 16 22 27 32 

July 5 14 22 27 32 

August–September 5 10 14 17 20 

Note: Compliance point, USGS gage 11429500, located on Gerle Creek approximately 0.3 mile 

downstream from Loon Lake dam. 

Our Analysis 

The proposed minimum streamflow schedule was developed to accomplish 

several objectives. These include increasing available habitat for brown trout and 

rainbow trout, particularly during their respective spawning seasons; providing cold 

freshwater instream habitat; ensuring low terraces and flood-prone areas are inundated 

during the growing season; and providing flows that will reduce encroachment of 

riparian vegetation in the channel. Allowing flows to vary among seasons and more 

closely follow flow patterns of an unimpaired flow regime would help to accomplish 

these objectives. 
3-141 

Brown trout typically spawn during a natural low-flow period of the year in 

October and November, and rainbow trout spawn during April through June. Results of 

CDFG’s WUA analysis (CDFG, 2006b) for rainbow trout and brown trout are presented 

in figures 3-23 and 3-24. The current 8 cfs minimum flow provides 85 percent, 98 

percent and 77 percent WUA for rainbow trout adult, juvenile, and spawning, 

respectively, and 92 percent, and 100 percent, and 77 percent WUA for brown trout 

adult, juvenile, and spawning, respectively. The Proposed Action would increase flows 

and available WUA for all life stages of rainbow trout and brown trout spawning in all 

water years, with the exception of brown trout spawning in CD years, where WUA 

would decrease slightly in October and November. 

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

Flow (cfs)

WU

A

Adult

Juvenile

Spawning

Existing flow

Figure 3-23. Rainbow trout composite WUA for Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam. 

(Source: CDFG, 2006b; memorandum from R.W. Hughes, P.E., 

Associate Hydraulic Engineer, Fisheries Engineering Team, CDFG, to S. 

Lehr, Associate Fishery Biologist, Sacramento Valley Central Sierra 

Region CDFG, dated October 9, 2006) 
3-142 

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

Flow (cfs)

WUA

Adult

Juvenile

Spawning

Existing flow

Figure 3-24. Brown trout composite WUA for Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam. 

(Source: CDFG, 2006b; memorandum from R.W. Hughes, P.E., 

Associate Hydraulic Engineer, Fisheries Engineering Team, CDFG, to 

S. Lehr, Associate Fishery Biologist, Sacramento Valley Central Sierra 

Region CDFG, dated October 9, 2006) 

The proposed increases in minimum streamflows would result in increased 

channel size and wetted perimeter downstream of the meadow section of Loon Lake 

reach of Gerle Creek, where channel mapping showed that increased flow would add 

habitat along the sides of the stream that may serve as a nursery for juvenile trout. 

Increased flows during the spring months would result in inundation of stream 

margin habitats and primary flood terraces that would occur under an unimpaired flow 

regime. Such variations in streamflows and inundation are anticipated to increase the 

health of riparian vegetation and increase functioning of the riparian ecosystem by 

promoting stream bank stability and water quality, reducing the potential for erosion, 

increasing storage of nutrients and water, and providing forage and habitat for wildlife. 

Currently, Gerle reservoir levels below 5,228 feet have been found to block 

passage of brown trout upstream to spawning grounds in Gerle Creek. Gerle Creek has 

been identified as an important and unique brown trout fishery by sports anglers that 

recreate in the Crystal Basin. By ensuring that fall reservoir elevation levels stay above 

5,228 feet between August and October, the brown trout using the reservoir would be 

able to access Gerle Creek for their spawning run. 
3-143 

Robbs Peak Dam Reach and Gerle Creek below Gerle Dam 

Rainbow trout and non-native brown trout populations inhabit the Gerle Creek 

dam reach. Agency goals for fish are to increase biomass of rainbow trout and maintain 

that of brown trout in Gerle Creek, and improve cold freshwater habitat. 

The proposed minimum flows are presented below in table 3-39. Minimum 

streamflows for this reach are currently measured as combined flows below the 

confluence of Gerle Creek and SFRR. 

Table 3-39. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for Gerle 

Creek below Gerle dam. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Month CD Dry BN AN Wet 

October 5 9 10 10 10 

November 4 4 6 6 6 

December 4 5 6 6 6 

January to February 5 6 6 6 6 

March 7 10 12 9 9 

April 9 12 15 9 9 

May to June 9 12 15 15 15 

July 7 10 13 15 15 

August 5 9 12 12 12 

September 5 9 10 10 10 

Our Analysis 

Currently brown trout and rainbow trout are present in this short reach, providing 

valued opportunities for anglers. The existing minimum flows in this reach range 

between 4 cfs (CD, Dry, and BN years) and 7 cfs (during May through Oct of AN and 

Wet years). The current 4 cfs flows provide only 59 and 76 percent of WUA for brown 

trout and rainbow trout, respectively (figures 3-25 and 3-26). The proposed minimum 

flows would provide higher streamflows during the spring, which would increase the 

WUA available for rainbow trout spawning and adults, which may lead to increased 

production in the reach. The proposed minimum flows provide for increased flows 

during the fall brown trout spawning season as well, which could benefit production in 

the reach. The proposed flow releases more closely resemble an unimpaired 

hydrograph, which would likely benefit the production of healthy riparian vegetation 

and improve channel morphology. 
3-144 

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Flow (cfs)

WUA %

Adult

Juvenile

Spawning

Figure 3-25. Brown trout composite WUA for Gerle Creek below Gerle dam. 

(Source: CDFG, 2006b; memorandum from R.W. Hughes, P.E., 

Hydraulic Engineer, Fisheries Engineering Team, CDFG, to S. Lehr, 

Associate Fishery Biologist, CDFG, dated October 9, 2006) 

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Flow (cfs)

WUA %

Adult

Juvenile

Spawning

 

Figure 3-26. Rainbow trout composite WUA for Gerle Creek below Gerle dam. 

(Source: CDFG, 2006b; memorandum from R.W. Hughes, P.E., 

 Hydraulic Engineer, Fisheries Engineering Team, CDFG, to S. Lehr, 

Associate Fishery Biologist, CDFG, dated October 9, 2006) 
3-145 

South Fork of the Rubicon River below Robbs Peak Dam 

Agency objective for the fisheries resources in this reach are to increase rainbow 

trout production and maintain production of brown trout. Current minimum flow 

releases for this reach are 1 cfs for all months and water years, except that in AN and 

Wet years 3 cfs are released from May through October. The proposed minimum 

streamflow schedule is presented below in table 3-40. 

Table 3-40. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for the SFRR 

below Robbs Peak dam. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Month CD Dry BN AN Wet 

October 3 3 3 3 3 

November 1 2 3 3 3 

December 1 3 4 4 4 

January 2 5 7 7 7 

February 2 5 8 8 8 

March 3 7 11 9 9 

April 4 9 13 10 10 

May to June 4 9 13 13 13 

July 3 5 6 13 13 

August 3 5 6 11 11 

September 3 5 6 6 6 

Our Analysis 

The proposed minimum streamflow schedule would establish a more natural 

hydrograph compared with the existing 1 or 3 cfs releases. The Agency goal for 

fisheries in this reach is to increase rainbow trout and maintain brown trout biomass. 

Table 3-41 shows the percent WUA for all water types for rainbow trout for the 

proposed minimum flows. For all water year types there will be more juvenile and adult 

trout habitat available under the proposed flow regime than there would be under the 

unimpaired hydrograph or under the existing flow regime. The increased flows are also 

anticipated to decrease the potential for entrainment at the entrance to the Robbs Peak 

powerhouse tunnel. If this is found not to be successful based on monitoring results, the 

adaptive management program described in Proposed Article 1-6, Adaptive 

Management Program of the Settlement Agreement includes, but is not limited to, 

mitigation for the entrainment by installing a partial-flow fish screen in the SFRR 

upstream of Ice House Road, or other appropriate mitigation measures that are approved 

by the Forest Service, CDFG, and the Water Board. 
3-146 

Table 3-41. Percent WUA for all water year types for rainbow trout for SFRR 

below Robbs Peak dam. (Source: CDFG, 2007) 

Month 

Water Year 

Type 

Flow 

Range Percent WUA Benefiting Life Stage 

October to 

December 

CD 1–3 53–86 

(no PHABSIM for 1 cfs) 

Adult 

 Dry 2–3 53–86 Adult 

 BN, AN, Wet 3–4 86–93 Adult 

January to March CD 2-3 53–86 Adult 

 Dry 5-7 98 Adult 

 BN 7-11 90-98 Adult 

 AN, Wet 7-9 90-98 Adult 

April CD 4 93/85 Adult/spawning 

 Dry 9 90/98 Adult/spawning 

 BN 13 69/100 Adult/spawning 

 AN, Wet 10 85/99 Adult/spawning 

May to June CD 4 93/81/100 Adult/spawning/juvenile 

 Dry 9 90/98/90 Adult/spawning/juvenile

 BN, AN, Wet 13 69/100/82 Adult/spawning/juvenile

July CD 3 86/72/99 Adult/spawning/juvenile

 Dry 5 98/85/99 Adult/spawning/juvenile

 BN 6 100/90/97 Adult/spawning/juvenile

 AN, Wet 13 69/100/82 Adult/spawning/juvenile

August CD 3 86/99 Adults/juveniles 

 Dry 5 98/99 Adults/juveniles 

 BN 6 100/97 Adults/juveniles 

 AN, Wet 11 80/85 Adults/juveniles 

September CD 3 86/99 Adults/juveniles 

 Dry 5 98/99 Adults/juveniles 

 BN, AN, Wet 6 100/97 Adults/juveniles 
3-147 

The PHABSIM modeling showed the May minimum streamflow of 13 cfs would 

inundate some areas of the primary flood terrace in the reach, which is anticipated to 

benefit riparian vegetation during the growing season, thus improving riparian cover in 

the reach. 

The proposed increase in winter flow releases from Robbs Peak reservoir would 

help maintain the wetted width of the channel, which would help to minimize freezing 

and the chance of significant ice formation, and increase available overwintering habitat 

for adult and juvenile trout. 

Minimum streamflows for this reach and Gerle Creek below Gerle dam are 

currently combined and measured below the confluence of Gerle Creek and SFRR. 

Therefore current the streamflow gaging in this reach is inadequate to determine actual 

flows. Installation of a stream gage as proposed in Proposed Article 1-10, Streamflow 

and Reservoir Elevation Gaging, would ensure minimum streamflows are being 

released. 

South Fork of Silver Creek below Ice House Dam 

The Ice House dam reach of SFSC was historically fishless; however, it now 

contains naturalized populations of rainbow trout, brown trout and, in the lower reaches, 

Sacramento sucker. Currently the watershed in the lower portion of the reach is not 

forested because of a wildfire that swept through the area in 1992. The trout biomass is 

well above average in the upper portion of Ice House dam reach, while the lower 

portion of the reach exhibits below average trout biomass, which may be related, in part, 

to a combination of habitat features and high mean daily temperatures during summer 

months in SFSC. Water released from Ice House dam originates in the hypolimnion of 

Ice House reservoir and remains cold throughout the year, with summertime 

temperatures of about 7oC. In the summer, temperatures in the lower portions of this 

reach are often 20o to 21oC, outside the optimal range for rainbow trout. While stream 

flow strongly influences stream temperature in the reach, high summer temperatures in 

the lower segment of the Ice House dam reach are also likely due to the loss of 

vegetation shading throughout most of the reach as a result of the 1992 wildfire. 

Agency objectives for minimum flow releases to SFSC below Ice House dam for 

fisheries include providing peak flows to ensure bedload is moved through this reach; 

providing out-of-bank flows to inundate the lower terrace and floodplain to maintain the 

riparian ecosystem and keep the banks stabilized; providing temperatures that allow for 

management of native coldwater fish species. The goals for improving rainbow trout 

biomass at study sites in the reach are listed in table 3-35. Currently, rainbow trout 

biomass in the SFSC below Ice House dam is below agency objectives for the reach. 

The proposed minimum streamflow schedule is presented in table 3-42. 
3-148 

Table 3-42. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for SFSC 

below Ice House dam. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Month CD Dry BN AN Wet 

October 5 10 15 15 15 

November 5 7 8 8 8 

December 5 8 11 11 11 

January to February 6 12 18 18 18 

March 8 16 24 24 24 

April 15 28 41 41 41 

May 30 46 68 68 68 

June 25 31 46 46 46 

July 21 21 30 30 30 

August 14 14 15 15 15 

September 10 10 15 15 15 

Note: Compliance point, USGS gage 11441500, located on SFSC approximately 

0.4 mile downstream from Ice House dam. 

Our Analysis 

The proposed minimum flow regime would more closely simulate the snowmelt 

period in the spring and provide quality habitat coinciding with the life history of native 

fish and amphibians. Figure 3-27 and table 3-43 show the percent WUA that would be 

available under the proposed flow regime. The minimum streamflow schedule was 

developed with the goal of maximizing both rainbow trout adult habitat and spawning 

habitat, particularly in May. 

The Agencies state the recommended minimum streamflows were referenced 

against the PHABSIM transects to ensure that inundation of the primary flood terraces 

and bank margins would occur. This would benefit riparian vegetation during the 

spring by promoting initial scouring, sediment and nutrient deposition, and seed 

dispersal (CDFG, 2007). 

As stated in section 3.3.3.2., water temperature modeling shows the proposed 

minimum flows would result in cooler June and July conditions than existing minimum 

flows, and mean daily temperatures of 20°C or less would be maintained throughout the 

entire reach. Simulated temperatures were as much as 15°C cooler (7°C versus 22°C 

existing) just downstream of the dam, about 3 to 4°C cooler near the middle of the 

reach, and virtually the same at the lower end of the reach. Bell (1991) reports an 

optimal range for rainbow trout of 12 to 19°C, while Moyle (2002) reports an optimal 

growth range of 15 to 18°C, therefore cooler temperatures would benefit rainbow trout 

populations in the reach. 
3-149 

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

Flow (cfs)

WUA

Adult

Juvenile

Spawning

Figure 3-27. Rainbow trout composite WUA for the SFSC below Ice House dam. 

(Source: CDFG, 2006b; memorandum from R.W. Hughes, P.E., 

Hydraulic Engineer, Fisheries Engineering Team, CDFG, to S. Lehr, 

Fishery Biologist, CDFG, dated October 9, 2006) 

Table 3-43. Percent WUA for all water year types for rainbow trout for SFSC below 

Ice House dam. (Source: CDFG, 2007) 

Month 

Water Year 

Type 

Flow Range 

(cfs) Percent WUA Benefiting Life Stage 

October CD 5 44/73 Adults/juveniles 

 Dry 10 48/76 Adults/juveniles 

 BN, AN, Wet 15 65/88 Adults/juveniles 

November to 

December 

CD 5 Below 44 Adults 

 Dry 7 to 8 Below 44 Adults 

 BN, AN, Wet 8 to 11 Below 44 to 53 Adults 

January to 

February 

CD 6 Below 44 to 53 Adults 

 Dry 12 57 Adults 

 BN, AN, Wet 18 74 Adults 

March CD 8 Below 44 Adults 

 Dry 16 68 Adults 
3-150 

Month 

Water Year 

Type 

Flow Range 

(cfs) Percent WUA Benefiting Life Stage 

 BN, AN, Wet 24 87 Adults 

April CD 15 65 Adults 

 Dry 28 93 Adults 

 BN, AN, Wet 41 100 Adults 

May CD 30 95/97 Adult/spawning/juvenile 

 Dry 46 99/84 Adult/spawning 

 BN, AN, Wet 68 96/71 Adult/spawning 

June CD 25 89/100/99 Adult/spawning 

 Dry 31 97/96/100 Adult/spawning 

 BN, AN, Wet 46 99/84/97 Adult/spawning 

July CD 21 81/99/96 Adult/spawning 

 Dry 21 81/99/96 Adult/spawning 

 BN, AN, Wet 30 95/97/100 Adult/spawning 

August to 

September 

CD, Dry 10 to 14 48/76 to 63/86 Adult/juvenile 

 BN, AN, Wet 15 65 Adult/juvenile 

Silver Creek below Junction Dam 

The Junction dam reach was historically fishless, but now supports reproducing 

populations of rainbow trout and brown trout. Agency objectives for establishing 

minimum flows in Silver Creek below Junction dam include providing temperatures 

that allow for management of native fish and address foothill yellow-legged frog 

breeding, to establish some similarity to the natural hydrograph, and to provide 

connectivity of flows from the SFSC below Ice House dam through Silver Creek below 

Junction dam. The existing biomass for rainbow trout for this reach is 7.5 pounds per 

surface acre, below the resource agency biomass objective of 24 pounds per surface 

acre. The proposed minimum streamflow regime (table 3-44) was designed to increase 

instream habitat to improve the rainbow trout biomass and move it closer to the 

objective. Currently, SMUD releases between 5 and 20 cfs during various flow years. 
3-151 

Table 3-44. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for Silver Creek 

below Junction dam. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Month CD Dry BN AN Wet 

October 5 10 15 15 15 

November 5 7 20 20 20 

December 5 8 20 20 20 

January to February 6 12 20 20 20 

March 8 16 25 25 25 

April 15 28 42 42 42 

May 30 46 68 68 68 

June 25 31 50 59 59 

July 21 21 30 35 35a

August 14 14 15 18 18a

September 10 10 15 18 18a

a

 SMUD would be required to release additional water into Silver Creek below Junction 

dam annually in July, August and/or September in Wet water year types for temperature 

control upon approval of the Agencies. A block of water would not exceed the acrefeet of water as follows: July, 1,044 acre-feet; August, 491 acre-feet; September, 475 

acre-feet. Details of the block of water release flows are described in Proposed Article 

1-1, Minimum Streamflows. 

Our Analysis 

The proposed minimum streamflows provide for increased flows through the 

reach for most all months and water year types. The minimum streamflow regime 

maximizes WUA for adult rainbow trout during most water years, although it decreases 

WUA available for rainbow trout spawning WUA when compared to existing 

conditions (figure 3-28). Table 3-45 displays the percent WUA for all water year types 

for rainbow trout for Silver Creek below Junction dam for the proposed minimum flow 

releases. The increase in streamflows during May through July would likely 

substantially reduce stream temperatures in the reach, which could benefit trout 

spawning, however the decrease in flows during August and September of AN and Wet 

years may slightly increase temperatures. However these warmer temperatures would 

most likely occur in edgewater habitat in lower portions of the reach (see discussion in 

section 3.3.2.2, Water Temperature) and would not likely have an impact on adult fish. 
3-152 

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Flow (cfs)

WUA %

Adult

Juvenile

Spawning

Figure 3-28. Rainbow trout WUA for Silver Creek below Junction dam. (Source: 

DTA and Stillwater Sciences 2004b) 

Table 3-45. Percent WUA for all water year types for rainbow trout for SFSC below 

Junction dam. (Source: DTA and Stillwater Sciences, 2004b) 

Month 

Water Year 

Type Flow (cfs) Percent WUA Benefiting Life Stage 

October CD 5 <36/<86 Adult/juvenile 

 Dry 10 54/98 Adult/juvenile 

 BN 15 71/99 Adult/juvenile 

 AN 15 71/99 Adult/juvenile 

 Wet 15 71/99 Adult/juvenile 

November to 

February Dry 7 41 Adult 

 BN 20 83 Adult 

 AN 20 83 Adult 

 Wet 20 83 Adult 

CD 8 46 Adult 
3-153 

Month 

Water Year 

Type Flow (cfs) Percent WUA Benefiting Life Stage 

March CD 8 46 Adult 

 Dry 16 74 Adult 

 BN 25 90 Adult 

 AN 25 90 Adult 

 Wet 25 90 Adult 

April CD 15 71/90 Adult/spawning 

 Dry 28 93/100 Adult/spawning 

 BN 42 100/90 Adult/spawning 

 AN 42 100/90 Adult/spawning 

 Wet 42 100/90 Adult/spawning 

May CD 30 95/100 Adult/spawning 

 Dry 46 100/85 Adult/spawning 

 BN 68 98/61 Adult/spawning 

 AN 68 98/61 Adult/spawning 

 Wet 68 98/61 Adult/spawning 

June CD 25 90/99/94 Adult/spawning/juvenile 

 Dry 31 95/99/91 Adult/spawning/juvenile 

 BN 50 100/79/84 Adult/spawning/juvenile 

 AN 59 100/68/81 Adult/spawning/juvenile 

 Wet 59 100/68/81 Adult/spawning/juvenile 

July CD 21 85/97/96 Adult/spawning/juvenile 

 Dry 21 85/97/96 Adult/spawning/juvenile 

 BN 30 94/100/91 Adult/spawning/juvenile 

 AN 35 97/96/89 Adult/spawning/juvenile 
3-154 

Month 

Water Year 

Type Flow (cfs) Percent WUA Benefiting Life Stage 

 Wet 35 97/96/89 Adult/spawning/juvenile 

Aug-Sept CD 14 68/98-100 Adult/juvenile 

 Dry 14 68/98-100 Adult/juvenile 

 BN 15 71/99 Adult/juvenile 

 AN 18 79/98 Adult/juvenile 

 Wet 18 79/98 Adult/juvenile 

Currently, the coldwater releases from Junction dam in summer months create a 

mean daily temperature range between approximately 8°C at the dam and 20°C at the 

bottom of the reach. Bell (1991) reports an optimal range for rainbow trout of 12 to 

19°C, while Moyle (2002) reports an optimal growth range of 15 to 18°C. As stated in 

section 3.3.3.2, the large increases flow in May through July would substantially reduce 

temperatures in the reach, which may benefit trout in the reach. Reducing flows during 

August and September of Wet and AN years would likely only slightly increase 

temperatures. 

Monitoring water temperatures and releasing blocks of water as described in 

Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, would provide a larger influx of cooler 

water, helping to maintain instream temperatures below 20°C and protecting trout in the 

stream. 

Silver Creek below Camino Dam 

Agency objectives for minimum flows in this reach are to provide habitat for 

healthy macroinvertebrate populations and foothill yellow-legged frogs in the entire 

reach, provide connectivity of flows from SFSC below Ice House dam through Silver 

Creek below Junction and Camino dams, provide temperatures that allow for 

management of native fish, and provide good water/habitat quality, resulting in 

improved bioassessment composite metric scores for rainbow trout, particularly in the 

lower reach. The proposed minimum streamflow schedule is presented in table 3-46. 

Our Analysis 

Flows in this reach were shaped to mimic the natural hydrograph, with decline of 

discharges during the summer that result in decreasing water depths and warmer water 

temperatures in order to facilitate reproduction of the foothill yellow-legged frog in the 

reach (CDFG, 2007). The flow regime was also developed to provide continuous 

streamflows from Silver Creek below Junction dam to improve habitat for rainbow trout 

in the reach. 
3-155 

Table 3-46. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for Silver Creek below 

Camino dam. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Month CD Dry BN AN Wet 

October 5 10 15 15 15 

November 5 7 20 20 20 

December 5 8 20 20 20 

January–February 6 12 20 20 20 

March 8 16 25 25 25 

April 15 28 42 42 42 

May 30 46 68 68 68 

June 25 31 50 59 59 

July 21 21 30 35 35a

August 14 14 15 18 18 a

September 10 10 15 18 18 a

a

 SMUD would be required to release additional water into Silver Creek below Camino dam 

annually in the months of July, August, and/or September in Wet water year types for 

temperature control upon approval of the Agencies. A block of water would not exceed these 

amounts: July, 1,044 acre-feet; August, 491 acre-feet; and September, 475 acre-feet. Details of 

the block of water release flows are described in proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows. 

Based on snorkel surveys, there are an estimated 137 rainbow trout per mile in 

this reach (CDFG, 2007), and the stated goal for this reach is 278 adult fish per mile. 

The proposed minimum streamflows regime in this reach would result in an increase in 

available WUA for rainbow trout adults and spawning habitat during most months in all 

water years, although habitat for rainbow trout juveniles will decrease somewhat due to 

the higher flow regime (figure 3-29). The increase in habitat for adult and spawning 

rainbow trout is greater than the loss of juvenile habitat, thus the net result is anticipated 

to be that production of trout in the reach would likely increase. 

As discussed in section 3.3.3.2, instream temperatures exceeded 20oC in the 

lower end of the reach nearly 70 percent of the time in July, 20 percent of the time in 

June and August, and occasionally in May. The proposed streamflow release schedule 

would reduce mean daily temperatures approximately 5oC in May and June, about 3oC 

in July. It would likely keep stream temperatures below 20oC from May through July in 

BN years, which would benefit rainbow trout in the reach during those months. 

However it is not clear if the increased streamflows in other years would lower 

temperatures below 20oC, particularly in July and August. Monitoring water 

temperatures and releasing blocks of water as described in Proposed Article 1-1, 

Minimum Streamflows, would provide a larger influx of cooler water, helping to 

maintain instream temperatures below 20°C, thereby keeping temperatures closer to the 

preferred levels for trout in the stream. 
3-156 

Rainbow Trout WUA

Silver Creek Below Camino Reservoir

 Dam

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Flow (cfs)

WUA %

Adult

Juvenile

Spawning

Figure 3-29. Rainbow trout WUA for Silver Creek below Camino dam. 

(Source: DTA and Stillwater Sciences 2004b) 

Brush Creek below Brush Creek Dam 

Historically, Brush Creek was fishless except at its confluence with the SFAR. 

Naturalized populations of rainbow and brown trout now occupy the stream. This reach 

has the highest productivity, in terms of fish per mile, of any of the other streams 

surveyed in 2003, and it appears there is strong recruitment of YOY fish for both trout 

species, with a distribution of older age classes up to the 3+ age group. The presence of 

multiple age classes indicates the rainbow and brown trout populations in the reach are 

reproducing in the reach. 

Agency objectives for this reach are to manage flows to benefit native aquatic 

species. The Agencies recommended a mean rainbow trout biomass objective of 

35 pounds per surface acre. The current mean biomass present in Brush Creek is 

14.7 pounds per surface acre, so the recommended minimum streamflows were 

developed to increase biomass by increasing the available stream habitat. The proposed 

minimum streamflow schedule is presented in table 3-47. 
3-157 

Table 3-47. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for Brush Creek 

below Brush Creek dam. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Month CD Dry BN AN Wet 

October 4 or NF 4 or NF 4 or NF 4 or NF 4 or NF 

November 6 or NF 7 or NF 8 or NF 9 or NF 9or NF 

December–May 6 or NF 7 or NF 8 or NF 9 or NF 10or NF 

June 6 or NF 7 or NF 8 or NF 9 or NF 9 or NF 

July 5 or NF 5 or NF 5 or NF 5 or NF 5 or NF 

August 4 or NF 4 or NF 4 or NF 4 or NF 4 or NF 

September 3 or NF 3 or NF 3 or NF 3 or NF 3 or NF 

Notes: NF=natural inflow. In all months and all water year types, if natural inflow is 

below 1 cfs, the minimum flow would be 1 cfs. Compliance point, USGS gage 

11442700, located on the Brush Creek dam outlet structure. 

Our Analysis 

Current minimum streamflow releases from Brush Creek dam range from 2 to 

3 cfs from June through October, and 4 to 6 cfs from November through May. The 

proposed minimum flow regime varies from 3 to 12 cfs from June through October, and 

6 through 10 cfs from November through May (or natural inflow, or 1 cfs if natural 

inflow is less than 1 cfs). 

The proposed minimum flows are increased over existing releases in all water 

years and months, except for the month of September in wetter years, where is it 

unchanged. Based on analysis of rainbow trout WUA, these proposed flows will 

increase available habitat for adult, juvenile, and spawning rainbow trout in Brush 

Creek compared to the existing conditions (figure 3-30). An increase in available 

habitat is anticipated to increase production of trout to meet agency biomass objective 

for this reach. 

South Fork of the American River below Slab Creek Dam 

The existing flow regime in the Slab Creek dam reach supports a wide variety of 

fish species. The reach is located within a transitional zone where the stream fish 

community comprises both coldwater and coolwater species. Trout are dominant in the 

upper portion of the reach, while hardhead, a special status species, are found as part of 

a native transition zone fish community (sucker-pikeminnow-hardhead) in the lower 

portion of the reach. The primary cause of this is rising water temperatures from 

upstream to downstream. 
3-158 

Rainbow Trout WUA

Brush Creek Below Brush Dam

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Flow (cfs)

WUA %

Adult

Juvenile

Spawning

Figure 3-30. Rainbow trout WUA for Brush Creek below Brush Creek dam. (Source: 

DTA and Stillwater Sciences 2004b) 

The Agencies’ objectives for fisheries resources in the SFAR below Slab Creek 

dam are to provide habitat for hardhead, and to provide temperatures that allow for 

management of native fish (hardhead and rainbow trout); to reduce non-native species, 

such as bullfrogs and bass; to reestablish some similarity to a natural hydrograph; and to 

maintain streamflows in the SFAR above Slab Creek reservoir below Slab Creek dam. 

The proposed minimum flow releases schedule is presented in tables 3-48 and 3-

49. Because the higher spring flows would require SMUD to modify facilities, there is 

a minimum streamflow regime for years 1 to 3 of the new license that is within the 

capability of the existing facility, and then the minimum streamflows increase once 

appropriate facility modifications are made to accommodate the flows. 

Our Analysis 

The coldwater releases from Slab Creek reservoir facilitate a coldwater trout 

fishery in the upper portion of the reach, although there is a warmer water “transition 

zone” fishery above Slab Creek reservoir. The summer flow regime creates warmer 

water conditions in the lower portion of the reach that do not sustain a significant trout 

population. The existing biomass for rainbow trout in this reach is 4.6 pounds per 

surface acre, below the agency biomass objective of 13 pounds per surface acre. The 

proposed flow regime is designed to improve instream habitat to increase the trout 

biomass and move it closer to the desired objective. 
3-159 

Table 3-48. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for SFAR below Slab 

Creek dam, years 1–3. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Month CD Dry BN AN Wet 

October–

February 

63 63 70 80 90 

March 63 101 110-130-150-180 110-130-150-180 110-130-150-180 

April 100 101-132-156-183 188-197-213-222 188-197-213-222 188-197-213-222 

May 109 164-145-126-107 229-236-247-263 a

 229-236-247-263a 229-236-247-263 a

June 90 90 228-193-158-123 228-193-158-123 228-193-158-123 

July 77 90 90 90 90 

August 63 70 70 70 70 

September 63 63 70 70 70 

a Or maximum capacity of the valve, whichever is less. 

Note: In months with more than one minimum streamflow, SMUD would maintain each minimum 

streamflow listed for 1 week prior to reducing to the next minimum streamflow for the month. 

Minimum streamflow would be measured at USGS gage 11443500, located approximately 500 

feet upstream from Iowa Canyon Creek. 

Table 3-49. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for SFAR below 

Slab Creek dam, years 4 through term of license. (Source: SMUD 

and PG&E, 2007) 

Month CD Dry BN AN Wet 

October–

February 

63 63 70 80 90 

March 63 101 110-130-150-180 110-130-150-180 110-130-150-180 

April 100 110-130-150-183 222-236-247-263 222-236-247-263 222-236-247-263 

May 109 164-145-126-107 272-286-297-303 272-316-367-395a

 272-337-387-415a

June 90 90 255-210-165-120 324-256-188-120 352-274-197-120 

July 77 90 90 90 90 

August 63 70 70 70 70 

September 63 63 70 70 70 

a

 Or maximum capacity of the valve, whichever is less. 

Note: In months with more than one minimum streamflow, SMUD would maintain each minimum 

streamflow listed for 1 week prior to reducing to the next minimum streamflow for the month. 

Minimum streamflow would be measured at USGS gage 11443500, located approximately 

500 feet upstream from Iowa Canyon Creek. 
3-160 

Rainbow trout spawning in the reach occurs in pocket gravels, pool-tail crests 

and small lateral bar areas that increase in availability and area with higher flows. 

Results of licensee’s WUA analysis of flows in this reach are presented in table 3-50 

and figure 3-31. The proposed release schedule would increase releases from the dam 

during the all months. Increasing minimum streamflows would provide increase 

available rainbow trout WUA compared to the existing flow regime (figure 3-31). The 

WUA analysis predicted rainbow trout spawning habitat would increase as flow 

increases to a point where the flow inundates the entire channel and additional spawning 

habitat is not available 

Table 3-50. Percent WUA for all water year types for rainbow trout for SFAR below 

Slab Creek dam. (CDFG, 2007) 

Month 

Water 

Year 

Type 

Flow 

Range 

Percent 

WUA Benefiting Life Stage 

CD 63 80 Adult rainbow trout 

Dry 63 80 Adult rainbow trout 

BN 70 83 Adult rainbow trout 

AN 80 89 Adult rainbow trout 

October thru February 

Wet 90 92 Adult rainbow trout 

CD 63 80 Adult rainbow trout 

Dry 101 95 Adult rainbow trout 

BN 180 100 Adult rainbow trout 

AN 180 100 Adult rainbow trout 

March 

Wet 180 100 Adult rainbow trout 

CD 100–109 81–82 Rainbow trout spawning 

Dry 107–183 81–82 Rainbow trout spawning 

BN 222–263 93–95 Rainbow trout spawning 

AN 222–263 93–95 Rainbow trout spawning 

April/May 

(years 1–3) 

Wet 222–263 93–95 Rainbow trout spawning 

CD 100–109 81–82 Rainbow trout spawning 

Dry 107–183 81–82 Rainbow trout spawning 

BN 263–303 95–96 Rainbow trout spawning 

AN 263–395 95 Rainbow trout spawning 

April/May 

(years 3 thru license term) 

Wet 263–415 95 Rainbow trout spawning 
3-161 

Month 

Water 

Year 

Type 

Flow 

Range 

Percent 

WUA Benefiting Life Stage 

CD 90 75 Rainbow trout spawning 

Dry 90 75 Rainbow trout spawning 

BN 123–228 84–94 Rainbow trout spawning 

AN 123–228 84–94 Rainbow trout spawning 

June 

(years 1–3) 

Wet 123–228 84–94 Rainbow trout spawning 

CD 90 75 Rainbow trout spawning 

Dry 90 75 Rainbow trout spawning 

BN 120–255 84–92 Rainbow trout spawning 

AN 120–324 84–97 Rainbow trout spawning 

June 

(years 3 thru license term) 

Wet 120–352 84–97 Rainbow trout spawning 

CD 77 85/87 Rainbow trout juveniles / adults 

Dry 90 80/92 Rainbow trout juveniles / adults 

BN 90 80/92 Rainbow trout juveniles / adults 

AN 90 80/92 Rainbow trout juveniles / adults 

July 

Wet 90 80/92 Rainbow trout juveniles / adults 

CD 63 90/80 Rainbow trout juveniles / adults 

Dry 70 88/83 Rainbow trout juveniles / adults 

BN 70 88/83 Rainbow trout juveniles / adults 

AN 70 88/83 Rainbow trout juveniles / adults 

August/September 

Wet 70 88/83 Rainbow trout juveniles / adults 

The proposed flow schedule would also restore to the reach a flow regime that 

more closely resemble a natural hydrograph, with increase in flows during the spring 

(March through June), and decreasing flows later in the year. This decline in the 

hydrograph during June is anticipated to serve as an important cue for hardhead 

spawning. Details on hardhead spawning are not yet fully understood, however they 

mainly spawn in spring, when the hydrograph is declining (Moyle, 2002) therefore the 

proposed flow regime may facilitate hardhead spawning in the reach. 

Higher spring flows in BN, AN, and Wet years would redistribute spawning 

gravels to maintain trout habitat and transport some large woody debris downstream. 

Because approximately 75 percent of this reach is low gradient, large woody debris and 

spawning gravels should frequently settle into niche areas. 
3-162 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390

Flow (cfs)

WUA %

Adult

Juvenile

Spawning

Figure 3-31. Rainbow trout WUA in the SFAR below Slab Creek dam. 

(Source: DTA and Stillwater Sciences, 2004b) 

Modeling the proposed release flows indicates that mean daily temperatures are 

the lower end of the reach would be substantially reduced compared to existing 

conditions (section 3.3.2.1, Water Resources, Water Quality), extending downstream 

the range of temperatures preferred by rainbow trout. Mean daily temperatures would 

generally be 10 to 15oC in May, 14 to 21oC in June, 19 to 22 oC in July, 17 to 21 oC in 

August, and 13 to 19 oC in September. While in years when temperatures above 20 oC 

would be less optimal for rainbow trout, they would still support hardhead (optimal 

temperatures for hardhead appear to be 24 to 28oC (Moyle, 2002). 

South Fork of the American River below Chili Bar Dam 

Flow fluctuations can affect aquatic resources in this reach by influencing the 

potential for fish stranding, causing changes to fish habitat, benthic macroinvertebrate 

populations, changing stream flow time-of-travel, and affecting fish access to and use of 

tributaries of the SFAR. This reach showed a low overall abundance of fish; however, 

low number of juvenile fish observed may not necessarily indicate spawning limitations 

in this reach. The sampling methods used (snorkeling) were appropriate to document 

the abundance of adult fish, but the snorkeling surveys may likely have underestimated 

the true abundance of juvenile fish present as juvenile fish are difficult to observe. The 

proposed minimum streamflow schedule is presented in table 3-51. 
3-163 

Table 3-51. Proposed minimum streamflow (cfs) schedule for SFAR below Chili Bar 

dam. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Month SD CD Dry BN AN Wet 

September–October 150 185 200 250 250 250 

November–March 150 185 200 200 200 250 

April 150 200 250 250 300 350 

May 150 200 250 250 350 500 

June 200 200 250 250 350 500 

July 150 185 200 250 300 350 

August 150 185 200 250 300 300 

Our Analysis 

Fish abundance is low in this reach. The specific mechanisms causing low fish 

abundance are unclear but flow fluctuations above the typical base flow reduce the 

quantity of suitable habitat for all species and life stages studied. The flow fluctuations 

cause disturbance and subject fish to stresses that may limit feeding behavior, making it 

more difficult to forage for food during these daily high velocity events and increasing 

risks of stranding during rapid dewatering as flows decrease. 

The current flow fluctuation regime in this reach does not appear to have 

significant effects on most metrics of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the 

base flow channel, although overall benthic macroinvertebrate abundance appears to be 

low and benthic macroinvertebrates decrease in numbers in the flow fluctuation zone. 

In areas of the stream channel with periodic exposure to air due to flow fluctuations, 

total taxa richness, total insect taxa, total Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera 

(stonefly), or Trichoptera (caddisfly) taxa, and individuals per square foot of benthic 

macroinvertebrates decrease as the period of time the substrate is exposed increases. 

The Settlement Parties report the minimum streamflow regime would reduce the 

difference between daily high and low flows, and increase wetted perimeter. This 

would provide more stable and suitable habitat for benthic macroinvertebrate 

colonization and for fish, which will likely result in greater productivity in the reach. If 

the standing crop of benthic macroinvertebrate were increased, it would likely lead to a 

reduction in the energetic demands on foraging fish, and thereby support fish growth in 

the reach. 

Ramping Rates 

Significant rapid flow reductions in a stream channel have the potential to strand 

fish in areas of the channel that are relatively low-gradient, or where pockets or side 

channels exist in the river channel. Smaller juvenile fish (less than about 2 inches long) 

are most vulnerable to potential stranding due to weak swimming ability and preference 
3-164 

for shallower, near-shore areas with slower velocities in a stream channel. Up-ramping 

flows generally do not affect fish stranding; however, the magnitude of flow change 

both upward and downward can affect fish behavior and habitat use, as well as affect 

production of benthic macroinvertebrates, which are an important source of food for 

most riverine fish species. Rapid changes in flow also can affect benthic 

macroinvertebrates, which become vulnerable to stranding and drift (leaving the 

substrate and floating downstream). 

Proposed Article 1-3, Ramping Rates, specifies 1 foot per hour ramping rates for 

the following project-controlled releases: 

1. Pulse flows in Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam and SFSC below Ice 

House dam. 

2. Minimum streamflow releases in Silver Creek below Junction dam, Camino 

dam and the SFAR below Slab Creek dam. 

3. Recreational streamflow releases in SFSC below Ice House dam, and the 

SFAR below Slab Creek dam. 

For the SFAR below Chili Bar dam, the proposed ramping rates are shown in 

table 3-52. 

Table 3-52. Proposed ramping rates for the SFAR below Chili Bar dam. (Source: 

SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Ramp Up Ramp Down 

500 cfs per hour for flows between 150 and 

1,000 cfs 

1 foot per hour for flows between 1,000 and 

1,950 cfs 

1 foot per hour for flows between 1,000 and 1,950 

cfs 

500 cfs per hour for flows between 1,000 and 600 

cfs 

250 cfs per hour for flows between 600 cfs and 

150 cfs 

Our Analysis 

Implementation of controlled fluctuations in flows may result in dramatic 

changes over a short term to the wetted perimeter of stream channels. The magnitude 

and temporal progression of the change is a function of the stream channel morphology, 

and extent of flow fluctuation in the reach. Impacts associated with ramping are 

variable, depending on species, life-stage, and in some case, time of day of the ramping 

event. Limiting ramping rates would decrease the potential for such stranding to occur. 

The proposed 1 foot ramping rate is typical for other hydropower projects in the Sierras, 

and has a history of success (CDFG, 2007). 

Studies conducted by SMUD and PG&E in the reach below Chili Bar dam 

indicated that fish stranding potential at most study sites peaked when flows decrease in 

the 400- to 200-cfs and 600- to 400-cfs ranges, with smaller peaks occurring in the 
3-165 

1,400- to 1,200-cfs and 800- to 600-cfs ranges. The Gorilla Rock study site was the 

primary site for stranding impacts at these lower flow ranges and the Camp Lotus site 

was affected largely by the flow fluctuations from 2,400 to 2,000 cfs and 400 to 200 cfs. 

The study concluded that base flows established at or above 600 cfs would minimize the 

impacts of stranding throughout the reach, and minimum flows of 400 cfs could 

significantly reduce losses. 

Proposed minimum flows for most months of the Wet and AN water year types 

are high enough to moderate rates of stranding, and monthly base flows for all other 

water year types should provide an improvement over the existing rate of stranding 

(CDFG, 2007). Adherence to the proposed ramping rates will reduce the effects of flow 

fluctuations on sensitive aquatic species that are vulnerable to sudden changes in flow. 

Pulse Flows 

In an unregulated system, periodic peak flows serve to improve channel 

conditions by shaping and maintaining depositional features, transporting sediments, 

and moving large woody debris, all important elements in maintaining well-functioning 

habitat for aquatic resources. Under natural conditions, periodic high flows would 

move sediments through the river system. Based on geomorphology studies, SMUD 

and the Agencies identified three reaches that would benefit from periodic pulse flows: 

Rubicon River below Rubicon dam, Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam, and SFSC 

below Ice House dam (see section 3.3.1.2, Geology and Soils, for a description of pulse 

flows under Proposed Article 1-2, Pulse Flows). 

Our Analysis 

The addition of pulse flows in these three reaches would simulate peak flows that 

would occur naturally. Such flows help reduce riparian vegetation that is encroaching 

in the channels, which would benefit fish and other aquatic species. Pulse flows also 

serve to sort and clean spawning gravel, increase depth of pools by scour, and form 

exposed bar features, which are important components of healthy aquatic ecosystems. 

In the SFSC below Ice House dam reach, the flushing flows would scour the 

finer sediments in areas where sediment supply has exceeded transport capacity, which 

in turn would restore the channel condition that existed before the deposition of fines 

from the Cleveland Fire. In all reaches where pulse flows are proposed, the channel bed 

would continue to be mobilized more frequently, so that future events that affect the 

channel substrate could be flushed in a more natural period of time. This would help 

improve instream habitat for fish and facilitate increased production towards the desired 

biomass goals. 

Monitoring and Adaptive Management Program 

In order to assess the effects of ongoing project operations under the terms of the 

new license, SMUD and PG&E would develop and implement monitoring plans in 

consultation with the Agencies. Results of the monitoring would be used to determine 
3-166 

the need for measures described in Proposed Articles 1-6 and 2-5, Adaptive 

Management Program. 

Fish monitoring methods include repeating electrofishing and/or snorkeling 

surveys (as conducted in 2002–2003 by the licensee) during late summer/fall for brown 

trout in the Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam reach only, and hardhead sampling in 

SFAR below Slab Creek dam reach only. 

Rainbow trout would be monitored in the Rubicon River below Rubicon dam, 

Little Rubicon River below Buck Island dam, Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam, Gerle 

Creek below Gerle Creek dam, SFRR below Robbs Peak dam, SFSC below Ice House 

dam, Silver Creek below Junction dam, Silver Creek below Camino dam. Brush Creek 

below Brush Creek dam would be surveyed once every 10 years after license issuance. 

Hardhead snorkeling would be conducted in the SFAR below Slab Creek dam from 

immediately downstream of Mosquito Road Bridge to and including site SCD-F2. 

Electrofishing and/or snorkeling for rainbow and brown trout would be 

conducted in the SFAR at two stations. Hardhead detected would be noted. 

The frequency of fish monitoring actions would be as follows: 

• Rainbow trout and brown trout: Years 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, and thereafter for 

2 consecutive years during every 10 years for the term of the license. 

• Hardhead: Years 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16 and thereafter for 2 consecutive 

years during every 10 years for the term of the license. 

The proposed adaptive management monitoring program calls for an 

examination of whether fish are being entrained in the Robbs Peak powerhouse during 

downstream migration. If so, the measure calls for the licensee to implement 

appropriate adaptive management measures as approved by the agencies. 

SMUD and PG&E would develop and implement an aquatic macroinvertebrate 

monitoring plan in consultation with the Agencies. Monitoring would include sites in 

the Rubicon River below Rubicon dam, Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam, Gerle 

Creek below Gerle dam (impaired reach), SFRR below Robbs Peak dam, SFSC below 

Ice House dam (impaired reach), Silver Creek below Junction dam, Silver Creek below 

Camino dam, the SFAR below Slab Creek dam, and the SFAR below Chili Bar dam 

(see figures 3-17 through 3-20). Reference streams that were sampled as part of the 

macroinvertebrate monitoring program during the relicensing would be incorporated 

into the monitoring program if the Agencies determine they are necessary. 

Our Analysis 

SMUD and PG&E have conducted extensive sampling of aquatic resources in 

the project area, and the resources agencies have developed objectives and goals for 

instream resources for each reach affected by project operations (see table 3-35). The 

Proposed Action includes measures intended to improve habitat conditions and increase 
3-167 

biomass of desired populations of fish, amphibians, and invertebrate populations in the 

project area. In the case of minimum flow releases, for example, the post-license 

hydrograph in many reaches will change. Monitoring the response of instream 

resources to the new measures over the term of the license would provide information 

that can be used to inform resource managers whether or not the stated goals are being 

met. 

Analysis of monitoring results would allow for the determination of the need to 

modify proposed measures. Decisions based on monitoring results, new scientific 

information or new technologies would aid in the achievement, or modification where 

appropriate, of goals and objectives established during the Settlement Agreement 

process. 

Currently there is little evidence that fish are being entrained at the Robbs Peak 

powerhouse. Studies performed by the licensee showed that the population of rainbow 

trout in the SFFR upstream of the powerhouse is naturally limited by intermittent 

summer flow, sub-optimal water temperatures, and unfavorable winter conditions (DTA 

and Stillwater Sciences, 2005g). Fish that transit the Gerle Canal from Gerle Reservoir 

may also become entrained in the powerhouse. However the canal provides very little 

suitable habitat for trout and during a canal maintenance drawdown conducted in 

October of 2004 only 97 California roach, 41 brown trout, and 3 rainbow trout were 

captured in the 1.9-mile-long canal (DTA and Stillwater Sciences, 2005g). While 

studies performed during relicensing showed the potential for fish to become entrained 

at Robbs Peak powerhouse is extremely low, the adaptive management program 

nevertheless calls for development of mitigation measures should monitoring indicate 

fish are being entrained there. The development of mitigation to minimize any 

entrainment at Robbs Peak afterbay through the adaptive management program would 

likely protect the few native trout currently in the SFRR, where populations appear to be 

declining. 

Large Woody Debris 

Large woody debris is an important component of a healthy stream ecosystem. 

Large trees and snags that fall into streams play an important role in forming pools, 

metering sediment, trapping spawning gravels, and creating a more complex stream 

environment. Heavier pieces require higher flows for mobilization, and longer pieces 

are more likely to be caught by the stream bank and its vegetation. The presence of 

dams can interfere with downstream movement of large woody debris. 

Under Proposed Articles 1-9 and 2-7, Large Woody Debris, SMUD and PG&E 

would ensure that, provided conditions permit safe and reasonable access and working 

conditions, mobile instream large woody debris continues downstream beyond Robbs 

dam, Junction dam, Camino dam, Slab Creek dam, and Chili Bar dam. At a minimum, 

all sizes greater than both 20 centimeters wide and 12 meters long would be allowed to 
3-168 

continue downstream beyond dams. Smaller sizes would be allowed but would not be 

required to be moved beyond these dams. 

Our Analysis 

Currently SMUD removes woody debris at each of the project reservoirs prior to 

July 15 of each year. SMUD reports this is a necessary procedure due to concerns over 

boating safety and the eventual sinking of the material and resultant clogging of intake 

structures or low-level outlets. The removed woody debris is stockpiled in various 

locations within the project boundary and eventually burned. 

Transporting woody debris that collects in the UARP and Chili Bar project 

reservoirs to the natural stream downriver will result in an enhancement in aquatic 

resource habitat and populations in each of the project reaches included in the plan. 

Iowa Hill Development 

The proposed Iowa Hill development may affect aquatic resources in Slab Creek 

reservoir if operation or construction alters fish habitat by affecting water quality 

(turbidity or temperature), or physically changes shoreline habitat used for rearing or 

spawning through water level fluctuations, or if fish become entrained in the intakes. 

Slab Creek reservoir historically supported three species of fish that potentially 

spawn in reservoirs: kokanee salmon, speckled dace, and smallmouth bass. Kokanee 

salmon and smallmouth bass would have been introduced and recent surveys have not 

documented their persistence in the reservoir. Kokanee salmon and speckled dace 

typically spawn in tributary streams and would not be affected by fluctuation in 

reservoir levels associated with the Proposed Action. The reservoir contains a very 

small amount of spawning habitat for these species. 

Five fish species historically documented in Slab Creek reservoir could 

potentially rear in the reservoir: Sacramento sucker, smallmouth bass, hardhead, 

Sacramento pikeminnow and kokanee salmon. Juvenile pikeminnow, hardhead, and 

suckers are known to rear in the SFAR upstream of Slab Creek reservoir. Juvenile 

suckers would find little rearing habitat within the reservoir due to the lack of emergent 

vegetation. Smallmouth bass may find some habitat in Slab Creek reservoir for rearing, 

since the upper sections of the reservoir contain moderately shallow edges along with 

some woody debris, although the species is not currently documented there. Habitat for 

smallmouth bass may be restricted due to cool water temperatures and the high velocity 

of the water flowing through this section that makes the habitat unsuitable. Kokanee 

salmon would be expected to find rearing habitat in Slab Creek reservoir, although the 

species is not currently documented there. Hardhead are known to inhabit Slab Creek 

reservoir. 

Studies conducted to document fish abundance and distribution in the reservoir 

showed hardhead and Sacramento sucker were the most common, and were observed 

throughout the reservoir. The highest frequency of occurrence for hardhead was along 
3-169 

the shorelines. In spring months, the concentration of hardhead appears to be much 

higher in the upstream segments of the reservoir. In summer, hardhead shift in 

distribution to the lower end of the reservoir, with the highest concentrations occurring 

along the shoreline. In the pelagic (open water) zone, hardhead numbers decrease with 

depth, with the lowest hardhead numbers occurring at the 100 foot depth. Surveys were 

not conducted in water deeper than 100 feet. 

Spawning and rearing habitat for hardhead occurs primarily in streams (Moyle, 

2002). While juvenile hardhead are known to rear upstream of Slab Creek reservoir in 

the SFAR, they also rear in the reservoir since they can utilize woody debris or other 

larger cover objects that occur in the reservoir in place of vegetation. This was 

confirmed by the capture of juvenile hardhead along the margins of Slab Creek 

reservoir. However, even though the reservoir contains their preferred warm-water 

environment (primarily downstream from the inlet of the SFAR) with large cobble and 

boulder substrate, it is missing the preferred habitat characteristics of shallow water and 

densely vegetated shorelines (Moyle, 2002), thus rearing habitat is limited. 

Under Proposed Article 1-40, Aquatic Resources, SMUD would: 

1. For 2 years prior to and 2 years after the Iowa Hill development begins to 

operate, monitor hardhead during all four seasons of the year to establish 

the locations of all life stages in Slab Creek reservoir (including edgewater 

locations) and in the water fluctuation zone upstream on SFAR above and 

below the Iowa Hill development. 

2. Monitor edgewater temperatures of Slab Creek reservoir between May and 

September in locations approved by the agencies to demonstrate that pump 

discharge is not affecting hardhead distribution by reducing temperatures in 

shallow water areas of the Slab Creek reservoir. 

3. Ensure the operation of Iowa Hill would not further reduce water 

temperature below 12°C during the months of June (after the descending 

limb of the hydrograph), July, and August in the Slab Creek dam reach 

below Mosquito Bridge. 

4. Ensure that flow fluctuations in the SFAR below Slab Creek dam do not 

occur as a result of the Iowa Hill development, with the exception of flow 

fluctuations that occur as a result of specific requirements of the license 

(recreational streamflows). 

5. Monitor hardhead using a method approved by the Agencies to determine 

whether entrainment is occurring as a result of the Iowa Hill development. 

If entrainment is occurring, the Agencies reserve the right to establish 

appropriate mitigation measures. 
3-170 

Our Analysis 

Historically, the Slab Creek reservoir elevation levels remained fairly constant 

with a minimal average daily fluctuation of 3.3 feet (DTA and Stillwater Sciences, 

2005b). Under the proposed Iowa Hill development project operations, water elevations 

in the reservoir would increase then decrease 9-15 feet (maximum of 30 feet) on a daily 

basis (DTA and Stillwater Sciences, 2005b). This change in water levels at the 

upstream end of the reservoir could affect fish passage at Brush Creek and Slab Creek 

by limiting connectivity to those coldwater streams when temperatures in the reservoir 

are not optimal for trout, or by making habitat unsuitable that was previously used for 

trout spawning. Although the operation of the Iowa Hill development would increase 

the daily range of fluctuation and the rate of drawdown, it would not change the current 

weekly range of water surface fluctuation in Slab Creek reservoir (i.e., between 1,810 

and 1,850 feet). 

As discussed in section 3.3.1.2, Geology and Soils, the daily drawdown of the 

reservoir would mobilize a small amount of sediment in the upstream portion of Slab 

Creek reservoir, but neither high turbidity nor chronic erosion of sediments in the 

vicinity of the intake/outlet structure would occur in Slab Creek reservoir. The minor 

increase in turbidity that would occur at the beginning of operations would not like 

affect any fish in the vicinity of the intakes. Shoreline in the reservoir is predominately 

steep bedrock, boulder and cobble, and not likely to experience significant erosion 

associated with the increased frequency of reservoir fluctuations. Because the operation 

of the Iowa Hill development would have a less-than-significant effect on turbidity and 

sedimentation in Slab Creek reservoir, and no effect on shoreline erosion, its operation 

would not affect the abundance and composition of near-shore habitat for fishes in the 

reservoir. 

Water temperature modeling results show operation of the Iowa Hill 

development would not significantly alter the thermal regime of Slab Creek reservoir or 

the SFAR (section 3.3.3.2, Water Quality); therefore, there would likely be no effects on 

fishery resources and hardhead due to changes in reservoir water temperatures or for 

about 4.3 miles of the downstream reach 

Trout is a management indicator species (MIS) for the Eldorado National Forest. 

A management indicator species analysis was completed for the Iowa Hill Pumped 

Storage Project (Williams, 2007a). Trout adults and juvenile life stages could be 

affected by the Iowa Hill development as a result of the daily pumping of stored water. 

The proposed Iowa Hill development would have the potential to entrain trout and other 

fish that may be in the vicinity of the intakes. The base of the multi-port intake/outlet 

facility in the reservoir would be located at an elevation of approximately 1,770 feet. 

Although not specifically described, it appears that the top of the intake structure would 

be at approximately 1,785 feet. SMUD states that the typical weekly fluctuation of Slab 

Creek reservoir would be between 1,820 feet and 1,850 feet. Historical records show 

that the reservoir elevation has dropped down to 1,820 feet and even down to 1,810 feet 
3-171 

during 1998 and 1999, and 1,807 feet in 2005. Therefore, the depth of water above the 

Iowa Hill intake structure would normally fluctuate between 50 and 80 feet, although 

during low flow years, it could be 35 feet or less. Trout were only found at the 10- to 

25-foot depths, and hardhead were primarily found at depths of 50 feet or less (DTA 

and Stillwater Sciences, 2005b). This suggests that entrainment of trout into the intake 

would be minimal, since most of the fish are at shallower depths and/or near the 

reservoir margins. 

The highest frequency of occurrence of hardhead was along the shoreline, and 

juvenile hardhead are not expected to occur at the depth of the intake. Because 

hardhead exist at depths of 35 feet, the depth at which the intake structure could be 

located during the pumping phase, there is the potential that hardhead may be entrained 

during the pumping phase. Also, because hardhead can exist even below 35 feet, 

though in reduced numbers, there is the potential that hardhead may be entrained when 

the water depth above the intake structure is deeper than 35 feet. Depending on the 

operations, the potential for entrainment could have substantial effects on the hardhead 

population within Slab Creek reservoir. 

It is unknown whether hardhead upstream from the reservoir would move into 

the reservoir and be entrained. Monitoring using fish tagging may be able to determine 

this. SMUD’s proposal to monitor hardhead distribution, and whether entrainment of 

these fish (or others) occurs as a result of the Iowa Hill development would document 

whether this expectation is borne out. If entrainment is found to occur, the reservation 

of the right of the Agencies to establish appropriate mitigation measures would be 

expected to address entrainment mortality. 

Based on the above information, we find that project-level habitat effects would 

likely contribute to a stable forest-wide habitat trend for trout (Williams, 2007a). 

UARP-Only Alternative

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed. Minimum flows, pulse flows, ramping rates, monitoring and adaptive 

management programs, and large wood debris management would remain the same as 

described under the SMUD’s Proposal. As a result, the effects of the UARP-only 

Alternative on fish populations and macroinvertebrates would be the same as those 

described under the Proposed Action. 

3.3.3.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

None. 
3-172 

3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources 

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment 

Vegetation 

The UARP area encompasses a mosaic of forests, shrublands, grasslands, 

wetlands, agriculture, and other vegetation cover types within parts of the Central 

Valley, Sierra Nevada Foothills, and Sierra Nevada Highlands floristic regions. 

Undeveloped lands support vegetation typical of these regions: coniferous forests in the 

Sierra Nevada Highlands and upper Sierra Nevada Foothills floristic regions, and 

grasslands and oak woodlands in the Central Valley and lower Sierra Nevada Foothills 

regions. 

Upland Vegetation 

Twenty-nine vegetation alliances are found in the project area, including 16 

forested and nine shrubland alliances. Upland vegetation generally reflects the 

topographic and precipitation patterns of the area. Uplands surrounding Rubicon and 

Loon Lake reservoirs are dominated by broad expanses of high-elevation evergreen 

shrubs such as huckleberry oak interspersed with granitic outcrops devoid of vegetation 

and sparse tree cover. Coniferous forests are the dominant upland vegetation type 

beginning just below Loon Lake reservoir and continuing west past the Slab Creek 

reservoir area, including the lands surrounding Gerle Creek, Union Valley, Ice House, 

Junction, Camino, and Brush Creek reservoirs and their associated reaches. White fir, 

red fir, and Jeffrey pine are common dominants near Ice House and Gerle Creek 

reservoirs, giving way to Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and California black oak at lower 

elevations. 

UARP transmission line corridors that traverse coniferous forests are subject to 

large tree removal, which results in a mixed chaparral habitat in such corridors that are 

dominated by shrubs such as mountain whitethorn, wedgeleaf ceanothus, bitter cherry, 

and greenleaf manzanita. At the lower elevations west of White Rock powerhouse, 

however, chaparral becomes a common habitat across the landscape. Typical species in 

chaparral habitats of the project vicinity include whiteleaf manzanita, hoary coffeeberry, 

deerbrush, and western poison oak. 

Upland vegetation at the Iowa Hill development was identified and mapped by 

SMUD in 2003 as part of a focused relicensing study. Mapped sites included proposed 

locations of the upper reservoir and berm, intake structure, transportation and 

construction access routes, temporary spoils sites, laydown areas, and a preliminary 

transmission line route (the precise alignment of the transmission line had not yet been 

established by engineering field surveys). Nearly 520 acres were mapped into five 

different types using the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships classification system. 

The following vegetation types were identified: Sierran Mixed Conifer (397.2 acres), 

Ponderosa Pine (93.2 acres), Mixed Chaparral (15.2 acres), Montane Hardwood 
3-173 

(12.1 acres), and Barren (0.9 acre). Habitat types were further subdivided based on size 

class and canopy coverage. Most of the study area was mature mixed-conifer with 

dense (>60 percent) canopy closure (390.8 acres, 75.4 percent). These stands were 

dominated by Douglas-fir, with black oak subdominant, and ponderosa pine, sugar pine, 

canyon live oak, and incense cedar as common associates. Stands that had been 

selectively logged were predominantly comprised of ponderosa pine, with fewer 

Douglas-fir; these stands were classified as Ponderosa Pine habitat type. Montane 

Hardwood dominated by canyon live oak occurs on the steep, west-facing slope above 

Slab Creek reservoir, and patches of Mixed Chaparral dominated by whiteleaf 

manzanita also occur. A small, partially eroded area near the edge of Slab Creek 

reservoir was characterized as Barren. 

The Chili Bar project area is located on the steep slopes along the SFAR. 

Overall, much of the Chili Bar project area of composed of cismontane woodlands and 

lower montane coniferous forests. Dominant canopy species along south-facing slopes 

include interior live oak, black oak, California buckeye, ponderosa pine, and gray pine. 

Douglas fir and white fir dominate many of the north-facing slopes. Much of the 

understory is dominated by poison oak, scotch broom, California wild grape, and 

Himalayan blackberry. 

Special-Status Plants 

Fifteen special-status plants are found in the project area (table 3-53). Specialstatus plants are not uniformly distributed: a few key habitats support most occurrences. 

Chief among these is the gabbro chaparral near Pine Hill, in the westernmost section of 

the project area. Three federally-listed species, Pine Hill ceanothus (Ceanothus 

roderickii), Pine Hill flannelbush (Fremontodendron decumbens), and Layne’s ragwort 

(Senecio layneae) occur within the Pine Hill area and discussed in section 3.3.5, 

Threatened and Endangered Species. 

A serpentine-soil outcrop in the western half of the UARP supports the only 

known occurrence of Jepson’s onion (Allium jepsonii) in El Dorado County. Key 

habitats elsewhere in the project area include rock outcrops, roadcuts, and chaparral 

near UARP reservoirs and facilities, which support occurrences of Stebbins’ phacelia 

(Phacelia stebbinsii), mariposa phacelia (Phacelia vallicola), Sierra bolandra (Bolandra 

californica), and Pleasant Valley mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. avius). 

Round-leaved sundew (Drosera rotundifolia) occurs in small wetlands immediately 

below Ice House dam and nearby Silver Creek, and in a meadow adjacent to Union 

Valley reservoir. Only Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) and woolly violet (Viola 

tomentosa) are found in the forested habitats most common in the UARP area, and these 

occur in riparian zones and granitic gravel and duff, respectively. 
3-174 

Table 3-53. Summary of special-status plant occurrences documented in the UARP 

area in 2000 and 2003. (Source: SMUD, 2005, PG&E, 2005, as modified 

by staff) 

Scientific Name/Common 

Name Statusa 

Number and General Location of 

Occurrences 

Allium jepsonii 

Jepson’s onion 

Fed: none 

CA: none 

CNPS: 1B 

ENF: none 

1 occurrence. Serpentine outcrop in 

Greenstone Country subdivision 

Bolandra californica 

Sierra bolandra 

Fed: none 

CA: none 

CNPS: 4 

ENF: W 

1 occurrence. Forest near Camino reservoir 

Calochortus clavatus var. 

Avius 

Pleasant Valley mariposa lily 

Fed: SC 

CA: none 

CNPS: 1B 

ENF: S 

3 occurrences. Chaparral and Quercus 

chrysolepis forest near Junction and Camino 

reservoirs 

Ceanothus roderickii 

Pine Hill ceanothus 

Fed: E 

CA: R 

CNPS: 1B 

ENF: none 

1 occurrence. Transmission line corridor near 

Pine Hill 

Chlorogalum grandiflorum 

Red Hills soaproot 

Fed: SC 

CA: none 

CNPS: 1B 

ENF: W 

3 occurrences. Transmission line corridor 

near Pine Hill and Independence Point 

Clarkia biloba ssp. 

Brandegeeae 

Brandegee's clarkia 

Fed: SC 

CA: none 

CNPS: 1B 

ENF: none 

1 occurrence. Roadcut along Slab Creek 

reservoir access road 

Drosera rotundifolia 

Round-leaved sundew 

Fed: none 

CA: none 

CNPS: none 

ENF: W 

3 occurrences. Seepage area south of Ice 

House Dam, Silver Creek, and a wetland at 

Union Valley reservoir 
3-175 

Scientific Name/Common 

Name Statusa 

Number and General Location of 

Occurrences 

Fremontodendron decumbens 

Pine Hill flannelbush 

Fed: E 

CA: R 

CNPS: 1B 

ENF: none 

4 occurrences. Transmission line corridor near 

Pine Hill 

Navarretia prolifera ssp. 

Lutea 

Yellow bur navarettia 

Fed: SC 

CA: none 

CNPS: 4 

ENF: S 

4 occurrences. Transmission line corridor 

between Iowa Hill and Badger Hill 

Phacelia stebbinsii 

Stebbins’ phacelia 

Fed: SC 

CA: none 

CNPS: 1B 

ENF: S 

Numerous occurrences. Three general 

localities in chaparral and rock outcrops near 

Camino and Junction reservoirs 

Phacelia vallicola 

Mariposa phacelia 

Fed: none 

CA: none 

CNPS: none 

ENF: W 

1 occurrence. Rock outcrops near Camino 

reservoir 

Senecio layneae 

Layne’s ragwort 

Fed: T 

CA: R 

CNPS: 1B 

ENF: S 

2 occurrences. Transmission line corridor near 

Pine Hill 

Taxus brevifolia 

Pacific yew 

Fed: none 

CA: none 

CNPS: none 

ENF: W 

4 occurrences. Transmission line corridor 

southeast of Slab Creek reservoir; mouth of 

Brush Creek at Brush Creek reservoir 

Viola tomentosa 

wooly violet 

Fed: none 

CA: none 

CNPS: 1B 

ENF: W 

10 occurrences. Campgrounds at Union 

Valley and Gerle Creek reservoirs, 

transmission line corridor west and southwest 

of Loon Lake reservoir 

Wyethia reticulataEl Dorado 

County mule ears 

Fed: SC 

CA: none 

CNPS: 1B 

ENF: none 

2 occurrences. Transmission line corridor 

near Pine Hill 
3-176 

a Status listings definitions are as follows: 

Federal: 

E = listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

T = listed as threatened under ESA. 

SC = species of concern. 

California (CA): 

R = state listed rare plant. 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS): 

1B = plants considered to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 

2 = plants considered to be rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. 

3 = plants about which more information is needed – a review list. 

4 = plants of limited distribution – a watch list. 

Eldorado National Forest (ENF): 

S = sensitive plants. Plants known to, or have potential to occur on the Forest Service lands that are 

considered valid candidates for federal threatened or endangered classification under the ESA. 

W = a watch list of plants that do not meet all the criteria to be included on the Regional Forester’s 

Sensitive List, but are of sufficient concern that they need to be considered in the planning 

process. 

No sensitive plant species are known or expected to occur within the Iowa Hill 

Development area. No special-status plant species were observed within the Chili Bar 

project boundary during 2004 special-status plant surveys. Potentially suitable habitat 

was found for five special-status species: Big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza 

macrolepis var. macrolepis), Brandegee’s clarkia (Clarkia bibloa ssp. brandegeeae), 

Butte County fritillary (Fritillaria eastwoodiae), Stebbin’s phacelia (Phacelia 

stebbinsii), and oval-leaved viburnum (Viburnum ellipitcum). 

Noxious and Invasive Weeds 

The Noxious and Invasive Weeds Study conducted by UARP in 2000, 2003, and 

2004 identified ten species within the UARP area (table 3-54). Noxious and invasive 

weeds are concentrated in the western part of the project area (primarily in the lower 

transmission line corridor west of White Rock powerhouse), and are especially 

prevalent near development, along roadsides, in agricultural fields, and in annual 

grassland and oak woodland habitats. In this western area, dominance by yellow 

starthistle or medusahead is uniformly associated with disturbed habitats, and roadsides 

are commonly infested with rush skeleton weed. Few weeds occur in the forested 

habitats found in the eastern parts of the project area, even where transmission line 

clearing has resulted in bare soil and sparsely vegetated areas. Burned lands areas along 

the Jones Fork-Union Valley transmission line are a notable exception, supporting 

strong infestations of cheatgrass and ripgut grass. 
3-177 

Table 3-54. Noxious weeds located during 2000, 2003 and 2004 survey efforts. 

(Source: SMUD, 2005, PG&E, 2005, as modified by staff) 

Scientific Name 

Common Name Distribution in Study Area

Aegilops triuncialis 

Goatgrass 

Uncommon to occasional in annual grasslands and along roadsides. Western 

and southwestern sections of the study area 

Carduus 

pycnocephalus 

Italian thistle 

Uncommon to occasional in annual grasslands. Western section of the study 

area 

Centaurea solstitialis 

Yellow starthistle 

Common to dominant in physically disturbed areas, especially roadsides and 

developed areas. Western and southwestern sections of the study area. 

Chondrilla juncea 

Rush skeleton weed 

Occasional along roadsides or in developed areas. Western and southwestern 

sections of the study area 

Cytisus scoparius 

Scotch broom 

Occasional along roadsides and in transmission line corridor. Southwestern 

and upper western sections of the study area 

Genista 

monspessulana 

French broom 

Occasional along roadsides and in transmission line corridor. Southwestern 

and upper western sections of the study area 

Lythrum salicaria 

Purple loosestrife 

One occurrence in wetland/creek. Far western section of the study area 

Bromus tectorum 

cheatgrass 

Occasional in annual grasslands and along roadsides; common in burned areas 

under transmission line. All sections of the study area 

Bromus diandrus 

Ripgut grass 

Occasional to dominant in annual grasslands, less often on roadsides; common 

in burned areas under transmission line. West, southwest, southeast sections of 

the study area 

Taeniatherum caputmedusae 

Medusahead 

Occasional to common in annual grasslands; dominant where physically 

disturbed. Western section of the study area 

Five weeds are found in close association to UARP facilities. Yellow starthistle 

occurs near White Rock access roads and powerhouse, Slab Creek access roads and dam 

areas, Camino reservoir access road and Jaybird powerhouse, and Union Valley 

campgrounds. Scotch broom occurs near White Rock powerhouse access roads, adit, 

and penstock. Goatgrass is found near Slab Creek reservoir access roads, and Camino 

reservoir access road. Italian thistle occurs near White Rock powerhouse and access 

roads, Slab Creek access roads and reservoir, Brush Creek reservoir access road, and 

Camino reservoir access road. Rush skeleton weed is found near Camino reservoir 

access road. 

Four noxious weed species were documented on the site of the proposed Iowa 

Hill development: ripgut grass, cheatgrass, Italian thistle, and rush skeleton weed. 

These weeds are uncommon and concentrated in areas of disturbance such as along 

roads and in clear-cuts. 
3-178 

PG&E identified eight species of noxious weeds within the Chili Bar Project area: 

barbed goatgrass, Italian thistle, yellow starthistle, rush skeletonweed, Scotch broom, 

klamathweed, Himalayan blackberry, and medusahead. Scotch broom dominated 

significant portions within the project area including the reservoir shorelines and roadsides. 

Smaller populations of other noxious weeds, including barbed goatgrass, italian thistle, 

yellow starthisle, rush skeletonweed, klamathweed, and medusahead were observed and 

mapped throughout the project area. In addition, Himalayan blackberry, a non-target, 

invasive weed, was observed throughout the project area, dominating portions of the 

riparian understory and other adjacent areas. 

Riparian Vegetation 

The applicants conducted an overlapping study for both Projects to identify riparian 

vegetation within both project boundaries. About 360 acres of riparian vegetation are 

found in the UARP boundary, mostly in the form of a narrow fringe on the edge of the 

stream channel. Riparian vegetation is sparse or absent in sub-reaches characterized by 

bedrock or boulder banks, but generally occurs elsewhere, wherever there are suitable 

substrates. Nine riparian vegetation alliances are found; however, three are predominant: 

Mountain Alder, White Alder, and Mixed Riparian Hardwoods. Riparian vegetation 

alliances follow predictable patterns based on elevation (table 3-55), with composition 

similar to that reported elsewhere for North and Central Sierra Nevada riparian systems. 

At most sites where riparian vegetation is found, there is evidence of periodic 

regeneration of woody vegetation, based on moderate to high numbers of seedlings and 

saplings, and the presence of relatively young mature shrubs. However, more stable 

conditions and only infrequent replacement may occur at the Robbs Peak dam reach site (less 

than 0.5 mile downstream of dam) and the uppermost Ice House dam reach site (about 1.5 

miles downstream of the dam), where there are dense, mature shrubs, and few seedlings or 

saplings. 

Channel encroachment by woody species is generally not evident. However, at the 

Robbs Peak dam reach site, dense woody vegetation has colonized alluvial bars on both sides 

of the stream, suggesting an absence of recent high flows capable of scouring vegetation. In 

the Loon Lake dam reach just below the dam, there is also limited encroachment by small 

mountain alder and lodgepole pine. The number of herbaceous species is highest in the 

upper reaches where the dominant species are strongly indicative of moist soil conditions. 

The dominant vegetation alliances around Chili Bar reservoir are upland forests 

supporting ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, and canyon live oak. In general the occurrence of 

riparian vegetation along the reservoir is constrained by steep slopes and well-drained 

substrates. Some small areas of riparian-influenced (but often upland) vegetation do occur, 

most often as patches or thin bands of relatively modest gradient. The riparian habitats are 

dominated by tree and shrub-sized shining willow, California sycamore, Freemont 

cottonwood, and white alder, with lesser coverage of black walnut, tree-of-heaven, and 

occasional upland species such as black oak. 
3-179 

Table 3-55. The extent, type, and limitations of riparian vegetation along UARP 

reaches. (Source: SMUD, 2005, PG&E, 2005, as modified by staff) 

Project Reach 

Length 

of 

Reach 

Percent of 

Reach with 

Riparian 

Vegetation

Width of 

Riparian 

Vegetation 

Zone

Dominant 

Riparian 

Vegetation 

Alliance Limiting Factors

Rubicon Dam 4.2 15.4 5–50 feet Mountain 

alder 

Bedrock and boulder 

banks extensive; some 

steep sections 

Rockbound 

Dam 

0.3 None 

detectable 

Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable 

Entirely bedrock 

banks and steep 

Buck Island 

Dam 

2.5 1.5 5–20 feet Mountain 

alder 

Bedrock banks 

extensive, mostly 

steep 

Loon Lake 

Dam 

8.5 94.7 5–200 feet Mountain 

alder 

About a third of reach 

is steep with bedrock, 

but much is lower 

gradient with alluvium 

or glacial till 

Gerle Creek 

Dam 

1.2 97.0 5–30 feet Mountain 

alder 

Small areas of 

bedrock and boulder 

banks 

Robbs Peak 

Dam 

5.9 43.2 5–65 feet Mountain 

alder 

Extensive areas of 

bedrock 

Ice House 

Dam 

11.5 81.5 5–80 feet Mountain 

alder 

Width of riparian zone 

limited by valley form 

Junction Dam 

Reach 

8.3 29.7 5–35 feet White alder Extensive areas of 

bedrock 

SFAR 2.8 27.3 5–70 feet White alder Extensive bedrock 

confinement 

Camino Dam 6.2 42.1 10–85 feet White alder Extensive bedrock 

banks and steep slopes 

Brush Creek 

Dam 

2.2 Not discernible Unknown Unknown Very steep 

Slab Creek 

Dam 

8.0 83.2 10–85 feet White alder Relatively steep 

canyon limits width; 

areas of bedrock and 

boulder banks have 

scant vegetation 
3-180 

The reach of SFAR below Chili Bar dam extends 19.1 miles from the base of 

Chili Bar dam to the normal high water line of Folsom Lake, ranging in elevation from 

960 feet to approximately 470 feet. The reach downstream of Chili Bar contains three 

geomorphic sub-reaches: the Georgia Sub-reach, the Coloma Sub-reach, and the 

Canyon Sub-reach. Of these only the Coloma Sub-reach is confined and line with 

poorly vegetated boulder/cobble complexes, areas that are geomorphically unable to 

sustain well-developed stands of riparian vegetation. 

The near-channel species composition of areas that are vegetated is similar in 

each sub-reach. Overstory dominants are typically white alder, arroyo willow, or 

shining willow, most often 10 to 20 feet in height and fewer than 20 years old, based on 

increment bores. In the Coloma Sub-reach, but rarely elsewhere, Freemont cottonwood

is well represented, either as large trees on high banks, or as occasional young saplings 

(few cottonwood of intermediate size occur anywhere on the reach downstream of Chili 

Bar). Overall, 62 percent of the shoreline of the reach downstream of Chili Bar 

supports riparian vegetation. A total of about 192 acres of riparian vegetation were 

mapped, 167.4 acres (87.3 percent of the total) of which were Mixed Riparian 

Hardwood. Other vegetation alliances mapped were Willow (11.7 acres), Fremont 

Cottonwood (6.5 acres), White Adler (5.8 acres), and Wet Meadow (0.4 acre). 

Wetlands 

The applicants conducted an overlapping study for both Projects to identify 

wetlands within both project boundaries. Wetlands can be found near the three UARP 

storage reservoirs (Union Valley, Ice House, and Loon Lake), and at Gerle Creek, Buck 

Island, and Rubicon reservoirs (table 3-56). Most reservoir-associated wetlands are in 

good condition, dominated by native plant species with few or no weeds. Wetlands are 

located on shorelines and small lakeshore-basin meadows with only slight topographic 

relief at Rubicon, Buck Island, and Gerle Creek reservoirs. Vegetation comprises 

inflated sedge and a few other species. 

Table 3-56. The extent, type, and limitations of wetlands associated with UARP. 

(SMUD, 2005, PG&E, 2005, as modified by staff) 

Reservoir 

Area 

(acres) Types Limiting Factors

Rubicon 15.0 Lakeshore meadows Wetlands mostly restricted to a few shallow 

coves and gradually sloping shorelines. 

Buck Island 8.2 Lakeshore meadows Wetlands mostly restricted to small areas of 

gradually sloping shorelines. Through most 

of the growing season water level varies by 

no more than 6 feet. 

Loon Lake 37.9 Lakeshore meadows, 

and depressions within 

swales 

Wetlands occur in shallow bays and 

associated with swales, but are absent in 

areas of bedrock and areas submerged for 
3-181 

Reservoir 

Area 

(acres) Types Limiting Factors

prolonged periods by deep water. 

Gerle Creek 0.9 Lakeshore meadows Wetlands occur in the relatively narrow 

fluctuation zone on a few gradually sloping 

shorelines. 

Ice House 4.9 Lakeshore meadows Wetlands scarce because of steep slopes and 

extensive areas of bedrock. Little or no 

supplemental hydrology. 

Union 

Valley 

140.0 Lakeshore meadows, 

and sloping meadows 

Wetlands absent on steep slopes without 

supplemental hydrology (drainages) and in 

areas submerged for prolonged periods by 

deep water. Sloping wetlands all begin well 

above reservoir high water. 

Other wetlands within or adjacent to the project areas are located along the 

UARP transmission lines, near the Gerle Canal, and adjacent to the Robbs Peak 

penstock. These include a very large (more than 10 acres) wetland complex at Robbs 

Valley, behind a commercial campground, which includes emergent, shrubs, and 

forested components. The remaining wetlands are less than 025 acre in size. Some of 

these wetlands are proximate to, or intersected by, project service access roads, and two 

appear to be created and maintained by impedance of drainage by these roads. 

No palustrine wetlands were found within the area of the proposed Iowa Hill 

development. Small intermittent drainages on the site are generally intermittently 

flooded and do not fall within the definition of riverine wetlands. At least one small 

drainage located along the proposed transmission line route is a seasonally flooded 

riverine wetland. 

Although NWI wetland maps do not indicate any wetlands along the steep-sided 

Chili Bar reservoir, field investigations conducted in 2004 by PG&E documented 

occasional small herbaceous wetlands within the water fluctuation zone of Chili Bar 

reservoir. In general they are too small to map and exist as thin (less than 7 feet wide), 

steep fringe of hydrophytes that is frequently submerged. According to NWI maps, a 

series of palustrine scrub-shrub and palustrine forested wetlands occur along that reach 

downstream of Chili Bar, mostly within the Coloma Sub-reach. No palustrine emergent 

wetlands occur. 

Wildlife 

The UARP area is comprised of a mosaic of forests, shrublands, grasslands, 

wetlands, agriculture, and other vegetation cover types ranging in elevation from 

roughly 6,500 feet at Rubicon reservoir to less than 450 feet above sea level at Folsom 

Junction, the terminus of the UARP transmission line. These lands support a diverse 
3-182 

terrestrial fauna with an estimated 337 terrestrial wildlife species known or believed to 

occur in the vicinity of the project. 

The proposed Iowa Hill development is located on the southeast slope of the Slab 

Creek reservoir, north of Iowa canyon. In 2003, SMUD conducted a focused study to 

map vegetation and characterize wildlife habitat at the site. SMUD identified and 

mapped nearly 520 acres of existing vegetation with Sierran Mixed Conifer being 

predominant with smaller amounts of Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Chaparral, and Montane 

Hardwood. Based on the type, size, and age-class of existing vegetation, SMUD used 

California Wildlife Habitat Relationship database software to predict the potential 

occurrence of 256 species of terrestrial vertebrates within or adjacent to the study area 

based on a low threshold of habitat suitability. Of the total, 209 species were primarily 

associated with Sierran Mixed Conifer or Ponderosa Pine forest, 26 were associated 

only with Mixed Chaparral, and 46 were associated with adjacent aquatic habitat found 

on Slab Creek reservoir, but not terrestrial habitats. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Twenty-three species of reptiles are known or believed to occur in the UARP 

area and 11 species were observed by biologists conducting relicensing studies during 

2002-2005 including: western fence lizard, northern alligator lizard, gopher snake, 

western aquatic garter snake, and western rattlesnake. Eighteen amphibians and aquatic 

reptiles have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the UARP. Of these, four 

species—foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow-legged frog, California redlegged frog, and western pond turtle—are special-status species. 

Birds 

An estimated 230 species of birds are known or believed to occur in the vicinity 

of the UARP. Biologists engaged in relicensing studies during 2002-2005 observed 150 

of these species. Project reservoirs, streams, and shorelines provide potential foraging, 

resting, and breeding habitat for at least 50 species of waterbirds (i.e., loons, grebes, 

pelicans, cormorants, egrets, herons, geese, ducks, swans, rails, coots, shorebirds, and 

gulls). Of these, 36 species were observed during relicensing studies including: 

common loon, pied-billed grebe, eared grebe, American white pelican, great blue heron, 

Canada goose, wood duck, mallard, blue-winged teal, bufflehead, common merganser, 

ruddy duck, common moorhen, American coot, spotted sandpiper, and ring-billed gull. 

The diverse vegetation types within the UARP area provide habitat for at least 29 

species of raptors (i.e., vultures, hawks, eagles, falcons, owls). Of these, 18 species 

were observed in the project area during 2002-2005 relicensing studies including: 

turkey vulture, osprey, white-tailed kite, bald eagle, northern goshawk, red-tailed hawk, 

American kestrel, barn owl, flammulated owl, great horned owl, and California spotted 

owl. In addition to waterbirds and raptors, the UARP area provides habitat for a 

diversity of upland game birds, pigeons and doves, swifts and hummingbirds, 

woodpeckers, passerines, and other avifauna. 
3-183 

The Chili Bar reservoir is in a steep canyon with no emergent wetland, 

herbaceous vegetation, or low shrub-land along the shoreline to serve as nesting habitat 

for waterfowl. There is no shallow-water wetland or upland grazing that would provide 

suitable foraging. A total of 5 species was observed during the boat surveys that were 

part of the bald eagle study: Canada goose, mallard, American wigeon, wood duck, and 

common merganser. None of these species were observed in large numbers. 

Cavity Nesting Birds 

Population status and trend were monitored by the breeding bird survey (BBS)36

from 1966–2004 within the Sierra Nevada bioregion for four cavity nesting bird species: 

pileated woodpecker, red-breasted sapsucker, Williamson’s sapsucker, and hairy 

woodpecker. 

Pileated Woodpecker—The Sierra Nevada-wide BBS data classify pileated 

woodpecker as “possibly decreasing” (Siegel and DeSante, 1999), with a decrease of –

1.8 percent (range –4.6 to 1 percent) per year in 21 routes. The Regional Credibility 

ranking is “Yellow,” i.e., data with small sample size, low precision, due to low 

abundance on routes. 

Red-breasted Sapsucker—The Sierra Nevada-wide BBS data classify redbreasted sapsucker as “possibly decreasing” (Siegel and DeSante 1999), with a decrease 

of –3.18 percent (range –7.8 to 1.6 percent) per year in 24 routes. The Regional 

Credibility ranking is “Blue,” i.e., data with larger sample size, and at least moderate 

precision and moderate abundance on routes). 

Williamson’s Sapsucker—The Sierra Nevada-wide BBS data indicate an increase 

of 1.6 percent (range –12.8 to 15.9 percent) per year in 6 routes for Williamson’s 

sapsucker. The Regional Credibility ranking is “Red,” i.e., poor, due to small sample 

size. However, this trend is consistent with trends observed at the state and survey-wide 

scales. 

 

36The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is an annual, volunteer-based point count 

survey coordinated by the Biological Resources Division of the USGS and the Canadian 

Wildlife Service. The survey consists of a continent-wide array of roadside point count 

transects, or routes. Each route is 24.5 miles long, and comprises 50 point counts at 0.5-

mile intervals. Expert volunteer observers conduct point counts once each year during 

the peak of the breeding season, recording numbers of every species detected within a 

quarter mile radius. BBS data provide the most extensive, long-term data set available 

on landbird population trends and are therefore tremendously valuable for conservation 

planning (Institute for Bird Populations, 2007). 
3-184 

Hairy Woodpecker—Sierra Nevada-wide BBS data classify hairy woodpecker as 

“definitely stable” (Siegel and DeSante, 1999), with a slight decrease of -0.1 percent 

(range –2.5 to 2.3 percent) per year in 624 routes. The Regional Credibility ranking is 

“Blue. 

Mammals 

An estimated 83 species of native and introduced terrestrial mammals are known 

or believed to occur in the UARP vicinity. Biologists engaged in relicensing studies 

during 2002-2005 observed 32 species. American marten, black bear, mountain lion, 

and mule deer all occur within the project area. In addition to bats, mesocarnivores, and 

large mammals, the UARP area provides habitat for a diversity of insectivores, rabbits 

and hares, chipmunks, tree squirrels, gophers, mice, weasels, skunks, and other 

mammalian species. 

The Sierra Nevada provides roosting and foraging habitat for an estimated 17 

species of bats. Bats can be found in all vegetation types and elevation zones present in 

the project area, foraging extensively on insects taken in flight over aquatic and upland 

locations or gleaned from foliage. Suitable roosts vary by species and include a variety 

of natural (e.g., caves, trees, cliffs) and man-made (e.g., buildings, bridges, 

powerhouses, mines) structures. Five species of bats were captured around existing 

project features: fringed myotis, Yuma myotis, California myotis, big brown bat, and 

Brazilian free-tailed bat. 

Bat trapping and acoustic sampling was performed at the proposed Iowa Hill 

development in 2004. This effort resulted in the capture of two bat species, California 

myotis and big brown bat, and the acoustic detection of bats belonging to the 40 kHz 

Myotis group, which includes: long-legged myotis, little brown bat, and small-footed 

myotis. Of these, only the long-legged myotis is a special-status species. Recorded 

sonograms also suggest the presence of either silver-haired bat or big brown bat, whose 

echolocation characteristics overlap making exact species determination difficult. 

During June and July of 2004, PG&E conducted bat surveys throughout the Chili 

Bar project area. These surveys confirmed the presence of four bat species, Yuma 

myotis, big brown bat, silver-haired bat, and western pipestrelle and indicated the likely 

presence of two additional species, Mexican free-tailed bat and pallid bat within the 

project area (see table 3-56). Of these, the Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) is a 

special status bat species (a federal species of concern and a BLM sensitive species). 

Special Status Wildlife 

Ninety of the wildlife species that may occur in the UARP and Chili Bar Project 

areas are special-status species (table 3-57). Two of these species, valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) and California red-legged frog 

(Rana aurora draytonii), are federally listed species and are therefore discussed in 

section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. The western pond turtle (Clemmys 
3-185 

marmorata) and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumaensis) are the only special status species 

located during relicensing studies conducted by PG&E within the Chili Bar project 

boundary. 

Table 3-57. Special-status wildlife species known or with the potential to occur within 

the UARP and Chili Bar Project areas. (Source: SMUD, 2005, PG&E, 

2005, as modified by staff) 

Common Name (Scientific Name) Status Designationsa

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus 

californicus dimorphus) 

FT 

California horned lizard (Phrynosoma 

coronatum frontale) 

FSC, CSC, CP 

Sage brush lizard (Sceloperus graciolus) BLMS 

Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) FC, CSC, CP, FSS 

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora 

draytonii) 

FT, CSC, CP 

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)

b

 FSC, CSC, CP, FSS 

Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata)b

 FSC, FSS, CSC, CP 

Common loon (Gavia immer)

b

 FSC, CSC, MNBMC 

American white pelican (Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos)

b

CSC 

Double-crested cormorant (Plalacrocorax 

auritus)

 b

CSC 

Great egret (Ardea alba)

b

 CDFS 

Snowy egret (Egretta thula) FSC, USBC 

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias)

b

 CDFS 

Black-crowned night heron (Nyctiorax 

nycticorax)

BLMS 

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) FSC, CSC, BLMS 

Barrow’s goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) CSC 

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)

b

 CSC, CDFS 

White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)

b

 FSC, FP, MNBMC 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

b

 CE, MIS, FP, CDFS 

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneusb

 CSC 

Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus)

b

 CSC 
3-186 

Common Name (Scientific Name) Status Designationsa

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi)

b

 CSC 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

b

 FSC, CSC, FSS, MIS, CDFS, MNBMC 

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) FSC, CT, FSS, USBC, Audubon-Y 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) FSC, CSC, MNBMC, BLMS, Audubon-Y 

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

b

 CSC, FP, BLMS, CDFS 

Merlin (Falco columbarius) CSC 

American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus 

anatum) 

FSC, CE, FP, MNBMC, MIS, FSS, CDFS 

Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)

b

 CSC 

Mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus)

b

 MIS, Audubon-Y 

Blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus)

b

 Audubon-Y 

Greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis 

tabida)

b

CT, FP, FSS 

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) FSC, CSC, MNBMC, USBC, Audubon-R 

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) FSC, CSC, MNBMC, USBC, Audubon-R 

California gull (Larus californicus)

b

 CSC 

Black tern (Chlidonias niger) FSC, CSC, MNBMC 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus occidentalis) 

FC, CE, FSS, MNBMC 

Band-tailed pigeon (Columba fasciata)

b

 Audubon-Y 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) FSC, CSC, BLMS, MNBMC 

California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 

occidentalis)

 b

FSC, CSC, FSS, MIS, MNBMC, BLMS, 

USBC, Audubon-R 

Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) CE, FSS, CDFS 

Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus)

b

 FSC, Audubon-Y 

Long-eared owl (Asio otus) CSC 

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) CSC, MNBMC, USBC, Audubon-Y 

Black swift (Cypseloides niger) FSC, CSC, MNBMC, USBC, Audubon-Y 

Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi) FSC, CSC, MNBMC 

White-throated swift (Aeronautes saxatalis)

b

 Audubon-Y 

Rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) FSC, MNBMC, Audubon-Y 
3-187 

Common Name (Scientific Name) Status Designationsa

Allen’s hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin) FSC, MNBMC, USBC, Audubon-Y 

Calliope hummingbird (Stellula calliope)

b

 Audubon-Y 

Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis)

b

 FSC, USBC, MNBMC, Audubon-Y 

Nuttal’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii)

b

 FSLC, Audubon-R 

White-headed woodpecker (Picoides 

alborlarvatus)

b

FSC, Audubon-Y 

Red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus rubber)

b

 FSC, MNBMC 

Williamson’s sapsucker (Sphyrapicus 

thyroides)

BCC 

Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus b MIS 

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)

b

 FSC, MNBMC, USBC, Audubon-Y 

Little willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii 

brewsteri) 

FSC, CE, FSS, MIS, USBC, Audubon-Y 

Pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis)

b

 FSC, MNBMC 

Yellow-billed magpie (Pica nuttalli)

b

 Audubon-Y 

American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus)

b

 FSLC 

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) FSC, CSC, MNBMC 

Oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus)

b

 FSC, Audubon-Y 

Wrentit (Chamaea fasciata) Audubon-Y 

California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum) FSC, Audubon-Y 

California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris 

actia)

b

CSC 

Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) CSC 

Spotted towhee (Pipilio maculates) CSC 

Purple martin (Progne subis) CSC 

Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) FSC, CT 

Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri) CSC 

Hermit warbler (Dendroica occidentalis)

b

 FSC, Audubon-Y 

Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) CSC, MNBMC 

Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) FSC, CSC, MNBMC, USBC, BLMS, 

Audubon-Y 

Lawrence’s goldfinch (Carduelis lawrencei) FSC, USBC, MNBMC, Audubon-R 
3-188 

Common Name (Scientific Name) Status Designationsa

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

b

 FSC, BLMS, WBWG 

Yuma myotis (Myotis yumaensis)

b

 FSC, BLMS 

Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) FSC, BLMS 

Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) FSC, BLMS, WBWG 

Western small-footed myotis (Myotis 

ciliolabrum) 

FSC, BLMS 

Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) FSS, WBWG 

Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) FSC, CSC, BLMS, WBWG, 

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii) 

FSC, CSC, FSS, BLMS, WBWG 

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) CSC, FSS, BLMS, WBWG 

Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis) FSC, CSC, BLMS, WBWG 

Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare (Lepus 

americanus tahoensis)

b

FSC, CSC 

Sierra Nevada mountain beaver (Aplodontia 

rufa californica) 

FSC, CSC 

Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) CT, FSC, FSS 

Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) FP 

Black bear (Ursus americanus)

b

 MIS 

California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) CT, FSC, FSS, FP 

American marten (Martes americana)

b

 FSC, FSS 

Fisher (Martes pennanti) FSC, CSC, FSS, BLMS 

Mountain lion (Felis concolor)

b

 CSPM 

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

b

 MIS 

Northern river otter (Picoides nuttali) FSC, FSLC 

Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) CSC 

a

 Status: Audubon = Audubon Watch List species (R = Red List: Declining rapidly, have very 

small populations and face major conservation threats; Y = Yellow List: Declining but a 

slower rate than Red List species) 

 BLMS = Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species 

 CDFS = California Division of Forestry Sensitive Species 

 CE = Listed as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act 

 CP = Protected under CDFG sport fishing regulations 
3-189 

 CSC = California Department of Fish and Game Species of Concern 

 CSPM = Specially protected mammal under the California Fish and Game Code 

 CT = Listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act 

 FC = Federal Candidate Species 

 FE = Listed as Endangered under the Federal ESA 

 FP = Fully protected species under the California Fish and Game Code 

 FSC = Federal Species of Concern 

 FSLC = Federal Species of Local Concern 

 FSS = United States Forest Service Sensitive Species 

 FT = Listed as Threatened under Federal ESA 

 MIS = U.S. Forest Service Management Indicator Species 

 MNBMC = FWS designated migratory nongame bird of management concern 

 USBC = United States Bird Conservation Watch List 

 WBWG = Western Bat Working Group designation for high priority bat species 

b

 Species was observed during relicensing studies. 

Bald Eagle—Bald eagles require habitat near large lakes, reservoirs, major 

rivers, or coastal areas that have adequate food, perching sites and nesting or wintering 

habitat. Resident populations of suitably sized fish (>200 mm total length) are often 

required. In California, nest-sites are typically at or near the tops of ponderosa pines or 

sugar pines within 1 mile of key foraging habitat. Bald eagles tend to prefer secluded 

habitat away from human activities. During winter, relatively protected stands near 

diurnal activity areas are important communal roosting habitat. Within the project 

areas, bald eagle nesting has been observed at two reservoirs, Loon Lake and Union 

Valley. Wintering bald eagles could sporadically be found at any of the Projects’ 

reservoirs or reaches; however, no winter roost concentration areas have been identified. 

PG&E conducted bald eagle wintering and nesting surveys in 2003 and 2004, 

respectively; however, no wintering or breeding bald eagles were observed during 

surveys in the Chili Bar Project area. 

Loon Lake Reservoir 

During 2003–2004 surveys conducted by SMUD, adult, sub-adult, and juvenile 

bald eagles were seen frequently during both boat and ground-based surveys at Loon 

Lake reservoir. Eagles were sighted during seven of eight survey days in 2003 and 

during 20 of 23 survey days in 2004. Adults were the most commonly observed age 

class of bald eagles observed at Loon Lake reservoir (71.4 percent of all age classes), 

although no more than two adults were observed on the reservoir during a single survey. 

Sub-adults comprised a large segment of the population (25 percent), relative to the 

number of subadults observed at Union Valley reservoir (8.5 percent). Favored perches 

at Loon Lake reservoir ranged from dominant trees and snags to saplings and shoreline 
3-190 

boulders. Bald eagle nesting had not been observed at Loon Lake reservoir prior to 

relicensing surveys. In 2004, two eaglets hatched from this nest; however, they both 

later died. Nesting was not observed in 2005.

Union Valley Reservoir 

From November 2002 through July 2005, up to four bald eagles were observed at 

Union Valley reservoir at one time; on most visits, the territorial pair were the only 

eagles observed. All age classes of eagles were observed at Union Valley reservoir with 

an age distribution of 83 percent adults, 8.5 percent sub-adults, and 8.5 percent 

juveniles. Numbers of sub-adult and juvenile eagles were highest in winter and fall 

months, corresponding with the expected seasonal influx of wintering bald eagles into 

the Crystal Basin. Table 3-58 shows the breeding productivity of bald eagles at Union 

Valley reservoir. 

Perch structures commonly used at Union Valley reservoir included dominant 

and sub-dominant sugar pines, lodgepole pines, incense cedar, white fir, Jeffrey pine, 

ponderosa pine and various snags that border the reservoir, and occasionally in saplings 

and shoreline boulders. Most perch sites were on the south and east perimeter of the 

reservoir with only two observations of perched birds occurring on the north side of the 

reservoir between Yellowjacket and Wolf Creek campgrounds. Most habitually used 

foraging perches were located less than 20 meters from the shoreline along the west and 

south shores of the reservoir, in the forest stands adjacent to Union Valley dam, and in 

the stands on the Sunset/Fashoda Peninsula and Granlees Point. Night roosts of the 

territorial pair were primarily located on or near Granlees Point and occasionally on the 

Sunset/Fashoda Peninsula. 

Table 3-58. Productivity summary for bald eagles nesting at Union Valley reservoir, 

1986–2005. (Source: SMUD, 2005, PG&E, 2005, as modified by staff) 

Year Status Young Fledged Location 

1986 Successful 1 Wench Creek 

1987 Successful 1 Wench Creek 

1988 Occupied/Success 

Unknown 

Unknown Wench Creek 

1989 Occupied/Unsuccessful 0 West Point 

1990 Occupied/Unsuccessful 0 Wench Creek 

1991 Occupied/Unsuccessful 0 Wench Creek 

1992 Successful 2 Granlees Point nest #1 

1993 Successful 2 Granlees Point nest #1 

1994 Successful 2 Granlees Point nest #1 

1995 Occupied/Unsuccessful 0 Granlees Point nest #1 
3-191 

Year Status Young Fledged Location 

1996 Occupied Unsuccessful 0 Granlees Point nest #1 

1997 Successful 2 Granlees Point nest #1 

1998 Occupied/Unsuccessful 0 Granlees Point nest #1 

1999 Occupied/Unsuccessful 0 Granlees Point nest #1 

2000 Successful Unknown Granlees Point nest #1 

2001 Occupied/Unsuccessful 0 Granlees Point nest #1 

2002 Occupied/Unsuccessful 0 Granlees Point nest #1 

2003 Occupied/Unsuccessful 0 Granlees Point nest #2 

2004 Successful 1 Granlees Point nest #1 

Nesting attempts of known outcome (young fledged) at Union Valley reservoir = 18 

Known young produced at Union Valley reservoir = 11 

Summary 

Young/known outcome at Union Valley reservoir = 0.61 

Osprey—SMUD determined during relicensing studies that ospreys are common 

in suitable habitat throughout the UARP area from early spring through late summer. 

The earliest calendar-year observation of an osprey during relicensing studies was a 

single bird flying over Big Hill on March 26, 2003. Seven active osprey nests with 

undetermined outcome were recorded in the study area in 2002 and four active nests 

were recorded in 2003. At Union Valley reservoir, these nests were located at the top of 

dominant snags, primarily along the south shore within the area burned by the 

Cleveland Fire in 1992, and in the SFSC arm of Junction reservoir. Several of these 

snags fell during the winter of 2002-2003, likely because of rotting combined with high 

winds and snow loading. Nesting was also confirmed at Ice House reservoir and 

suspected but not confirmed at Loon Lake reservoir. 

Northern Goshawk—On the west slope of the Sierra Nevada, the northern 

goshawk breeds from about 2,500 feet in elevation in the ponderosa pine/mixed-conifer 

vegetation types up to approximately 10,000 feet in the red fir and lodgepole pine types. 

They are generally year-round residents in suitable habitat but some limited seasonal 

altitudinal movements may occur. Relicensing studies conducted by SMUD and 

monitoring conducted by the Eldorado National Forest indicate that northern goshawks 

nest in the vicinity of the project and spatial analysis determined that three Protected 

Activity Centers (PACs) (G11_04; G11_06; and G22_12) are within 0.25-mile of 

existing project facilities. PACs were assumed to be occupied and were excluded from 

the area surveyed during protocol surveys of the UARP. Broadcast calling surveys at 

83 call points near existing project facilities failed to elicit a response from any 

goshawks. However, goshawks were observed incidentally at two locations near 

Jaybird Springs Road and these birds may have been associated with PAC G22_09. In 

2004-–2005, broadcast calling surveys at 78 call points associated with the Iowa Hill 

development failed to elicit any responses from goshawks. The nearest designated PAC 
3-192 

to the development is G23_03, located approximately 0.93-mile southeast of the eastern 

end of the proposed transmission line that will service the development. 

California Spotted Owl—The California spotted owl ranges from south of the Pit 

River in Shasta County, throughout the entire Sierra Nevada, and the south and central 

Coast Range as far north as Monterey. Relicensing studies conducted by SMUD and 

monitoring conducted by the Eldorado National Forest indicate that California spotted 

owl nests in the vicinity of the UARP and spatial analysis determined that 14 PACs 

have been designated within 0.25-mile of existing UARP facilities. PACs were 

assumed to be occupied and were excluded from the area surveyed during protocol 

surveys of the UARP. Broadcast calling surveys in 2002 yielded responses from two 

adults and one juvenile in the vicinity of Long Canyon, southeast of Slab Creek 

reservoir. In 2003, responses were obtained from two adults and two juveniles near 

Union Valley dam. Also in 2003, four responses were obtained from adult owls 

presumed to be the pair recorded in 2002 in Long Canyon. All responding birds appear 

to be associated with known PACs. In 2004-2005, broadcast calling surveys at 27 call 

points within 1.5 miles of the Iowa Hill development elicited responses from two adults 

and one juvenile in the vicinity of Long Canyon near the eastern end of the proposed 

transmission line for the Iowa Hill development. This pair is presumed to be associated 

with PAC ED_034. Additional responses were obtained from adult owls (breeding 

status undetermined). One PAC is located within 0.25-mile of the Iowa Hill 

development footprint but no PACs have been designated within 0.25-mile of the 

proposed transmission line. 

Bats—Yuma myotis were captured at the most locations and in the greatest 

number. A large night roost, used primarily by Brazilian free-tailed bats, was 

discovered at White Rock powerhouse. Smaller roosts were found under non-project 

bridges along Ice House Road at the crossings of Tells Creek, Big Silver Creek, and 

Jones Fork Silver Creek, which are located 0.26 to 0.48 mile upstream of the maximum 

surface elevation (high water line) of Union Valley reservoir. A fourth roost was found 

under the Ice House Road Bridge crossing of SFSC, approximately 0.82 mile 

downstream from Ice House reservoir. 

Bat trapping and acoustic sampling was performed at the proposed Iowa Hill 

development in 2004. Acoustic detection identified bats belonging to the 40 kHz 

myotis group, which includes the long-legged myotis, as well as several other bat 

species without special status. 

Black Bear—The black bear is widespread and relatively common throughout 

the Sierra Nevada, from foothill habitats to alpine zones. They generally occur in fairly 

dense, mature stands of many forest habitats, valley foothill riparian habitat, and wet 

meadow. The black bear is a legally hunted species in California with an estimated 

more than 2,200 animals taken in 1999. Suitable habitat for this species is distributed 

throughout most of the project area and bears are known to be common and increasing 

in number in the region. 
3-193 

Mule Deer—Mule deer in the vicinity of the project are considered to be part of 

the Pacific Deer Herd, with the exception of those deer in the westernmost portion of 

the project area. The herd occupies approximately 353 square miles of public and 

private lands within El Dorado County and that portion of Placer County south of the 

Rubicon River. The Pacific Deer Herd has four significant habitat designations: critical 

summer range, fawning habitat, holding areas, and winter range. Based on the existing 

information provided by CDFG and the Eldorado National Forest, the critical summer 

ranges, fawning habitat, and holding areas of the herd occur from the mid to upper 

elevations of the Crystal Basin within the Eldorado National Forest, usually above 

4,000 feet in elevation. These critical areas are found east of Ice House reservoir, north 

and east of Union Valley reservoir and north of Loon Lake reservoir. The known winter 

range of the herd lies mainly on south-facing slopes between 2,000 and 4,500 feet 

elevation and between the SFAR and Peavine Ridge Road from the town of Kyburz and 

westward to Highway 49. The Pacific Deer Herd uses the major east-west trending 

ridges (Poho, Telephone, and Peavine) of the Eldorado National Forest as primary 

migration corridors between high- and low-elevation habitats. The winter range lies 

mainly on south-facing slopes between 2,000 and 4,500 feet elevation. Intermediate 

range generally extends from 4,000 to about 6,000 feet elevation, and is used primarily 

during spring and fall migration. Most of this intermediate range consists of east-west 

parallel ridges used as migration routes, especially Peavine, Poho, and Telephone 

ridges. The summer range lies mainly above 5,000 feet. 

Mountain Yellow-legged Frog—Mountain yellow-legged frogs are generally 

found from elevations of 4,500 feet to over 12,000 feet. In the Sierra Nevada, mountain 

yellow-legged frogs have been documented to occur in ponds, lakes, and small streams. 

Reproduction begins soon after water bodies are free of ice. Breeding and oviposition 

generally occurs in ponds or lakes from April through July, depending upon the 

elevation. Streams may be important to mountain yellow-legged frogs as dispersal 

corridors. Mountain yellow-legged frog tadpoles are likely to be present from June 

through September and adults can be found from June through October. Since water 

temperatures at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada remain relatively cold throughout 

the year, mountain yellow-legged frog tadpoles overwinter 2 to 3 times before 

metamorphosing. The tadpoles spend the winter beneath the ice and do not 

metamorphose until their third or fourth year. 

The nearest known populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs are in the 

headwaters of Highland Creek, at Highland Lake (Highland Creek flows into 

Rockbound Lake), and in Lake Zitella (on a tributary to the Rubicon River), which are 

about 2 miles from the UARP upper elevation reaches. In addition, large populations of 

mountain yellow-legged frogs are found in many of the smaller lakes and ponds in 

Desolation Wilderness, as well as in Lake Aloha (which is located in the higher 

elevation of the Desolation Wilderness northeast of the UARP). 

SMUD and PG&E conducted an overlapping amphibian study within the 

proposed project areas. The elevation of the Chili Bar project is too low to support 
3-194 

mountain yellow-legged frogs; therefore, it was not surveyed. SMUD identified 14 

stream and 17 pond or reservoir margin sites on the UARP sites as potential mountain 

yellow-legged frog habitat, which were subsequently surveyed in 2003. No mountain 

yellow-legged frogs were found. The highest project reservoir (Rubicon reservoir) is 

located at approximately 6,500-foot elevation, which is at the lower end of the mountain 

yellow-legged frog range, and may explain why no mountain yellow-legged frogs are 

found within project reaches and reservoirs. The nearest known populations of 

mountain yellow-legged frogs are at elevations greater than 7,500 feet. Project reaches 

and reservoirs do support some habitat suitable for the mountain yellow-legged frog. 

However, most of the UARP reservoirs are too large, with much of the nearshore habitat 

comprised of bedrock. Because of this, suitable habitat is patchy in distribution. 

Mountain yellow-legged frog populations are typically found in water bodies (lakes or 

streams) that provide deep pools for overwintering, preferably without tadpole 

predators, such as trout. Although all of the reservoirs in the study area have deep 

pools, trout are present in all three of the upper elevation reservoirs (Rubicon, 

Rockbound, and Buck Island). Project stream reaches with high quality habitat occur 

within this elevation range, for example, in the upper reaches of Gerle Creek 

downstream of Loon Lake dam. This particular reach does not currently support 

mountain yellow-legged frog populations, which may be due, in part, to the presence of 

predatory brown trout in Gerle Creek. 

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog—Foothill yellow-legged frogs occur in the Coast 

Ranges from the Oregon border south to the Transverse Mountains in Los Angeles 

County and in most of central and northern California along the west slopes of the 

Sierra Cascade crest. The elevation range of the foothill yellow-legged frog extends 

from sea level to 5,000 ft (1,525 m) in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Egg deposition is 

generally initiated on the descending limb of the spring hydrograph when temperatures 

reach 12-15o

C. Metamorphosis generally occurs within 3 to 4 months. Once breeding 

has occurred, adults and juveniles move upstream into nearby tributaries or to cooler 

microhabitats. 

Foothill yellow-legged frogs have been found along the Upper American River, 

both on the SFAR and Silver Creek. Sightings along the mainstem SFAR extend as far 

upstream as Riverton, and downstream below Slab Creek reservoir. 

SMUD and PG&E conducted an overlapping study within the proposed project 

areas. Studies identified a total of 22 stream sites within the UARP boundary with 

potentially suitable habitat for foothill yellow-legged frogs. SMUD conducted surveys 

at these sites in 2003 and 2004. Foothill yellow-legged frogs were documented at 4 

sites in 2 reaches of the UARP: in the Camino dam reach, approximately 2 miles 

downstream of Camino dam and at the confluence of Silver Creek with SFAR; and in 

the SFAR reach, near Akin powerhouse (part of the El Dorado Project) and near 

Camino powerhouse. Foothill yellow-legged frogs were not found in three reaches (Ice 

House, Junction, and Slab Creek dam reaches) despite the availability of potentially 

suitable habitat, although there was a single foothill yellow-legged frog sighting in the 
3-195 

Slab Creek dam reach by the Forest Service. Ice House dam reach is at the upper 

elevation limit of the foothill yellow-legged frog. 

SMUD and PG&E surveyed the upper 2 miles and the lower 1 mile of Junction 

dam reach in mid-summer 2004. Water temperatures in the upper reaches were too cold 

(~8°C) for breeding. Although temperatures in the lower portion of Junction dam reach 

were suitable for breeding, large algal mats covering suitable egg attachment substrates 

may have prevented successful breeding. No adult frogs were observed in this reach. 

The Slab Creek dam reach is within the elevation range of the species, and water 

temperatures are suitable throughout the reach. Although the Forest Service has 

observed a single foothill yellow-legged frog in this reach, the presence of potential 

competitors and predators (e.g., bullfrogs, crayfish, bass) in this reach may limit foothill 

yellow-legged frog establishment. 

Habitat associations of the foothill yellow-legged frog were similar at the four 

locations where foothill yellow-legged frogs were found. Based on site observations, 

bedrock seeps likely provide important refugia for adults, juveniles, and subadults. 

Evidence of foothill yellow-legged frog breeding was documented at all four sites. 

Successful breeding and subsequent life history stages were documented in Camino 

dam reach and the SFAR reach of UARP, which suggests habitat conditions currently 

exist in these reaches to support eggs, tadpoles, and adults of this species. An analysis 

of suitable habitat for egg deposition and tadpole rearing conducted by the applicants 

confirmed that suitable habitat for egg deposition and tadpole rearing occurs at both 

sites. The study found that egg deposition and tadpole rearing habitat were of moderate 

to high quality at flows of 20 and 50 cfs, but at 100 cfs the habitat had decreased to low 

quality habitat. Under current UARP operation, mean daily flows fall within typical 

reach values of approximately 40 cfs during breeding and rearing periods of May–July. 

Eighteen sites were surveyed for the foothill yellow-legged frog within the Chili 

Bar project area, 15 of which were on a tributary of the SFAR or on the SFAR near a 

tributary. No foothill yellow-legged frogs were observed. Subsequent surveys 

conducted by PG&E in 2004 documented approximately 14 foothill yellow-legged frog 

tadpoles and one adult on Indian Creek, a tributary to SFAR near the town of Coloma, 

approximately 0.5 miles upstream from its confluence with SFAR. 

Western Pond Turtle—Historically, the western pond turtle had a relatively 

continuous distribution throughout California. It is currently found throughout much of 

its historical range, principally west of the Sierra-Cascade crest, from western 

Washington south to northwest Baja California, though in population numbers that are a 

fraction of historical levels. 

The western pond turtle inhabits a wide range of fresh or brackish water habitats 

including ponds, lakes, backwater and low flow regions of streams and rivers, ditches, 

pools remaining in intermittent streams. Sites for basking are an important element. 

Basking substrate includes rocks, logs, banks, emergent vegetation, root masses, and 

tree limbs. Although primarily an aquatic reptile, western pond turtles often spend time 
3-196 

on land. Terrestrial activities include basking, overwintering, nesting, and moving 

between ephemeral sources of water. 

Breeding activity peaks from June to July, but may occur year-round, when 

females begin to search for suitable nesting sites upslope from water. Egg-laying sites 

vary from sandy shoreline to forest soil types. Females excavate a nesting site at least 

four inches (10 cm) deep, and lay from three to eleven eggs. Incubation takes 73 to 80 

days. Along major rivers western pond turtles are often concentrated in areas of optimal 

habitat, often in side channel and backwater areas. Turtles may move to off-channel 

habitats, such as oxbows, during periods of high flows. 

Many of the stream sites surveyed by the applicants in the UARP for the 

California red-legged frog and the foothill yellow-legged frog contained suitable habitat 

for western pond turtle, including undercut banks, emergent vegetation, and basking 

sites, as well as suitable adjacent upslope areas for breeding. Western pond turtles were 

documented in the Slab Creek dam reach, approximately 0.5 miles upstream of White 

Rock powerhouse. 

Within the Chili Bar Project area, western pond turtles were observed in 2003 

along the west bank of Greenwood Creek, near the confluence with SFAR and in 

emergent vegetation in the side channel adjacent to a mid-channel island on the SFAR. 

Additionally, the western pond turtle was observed at two sties along the eastern edge of 

the Chili Bar reservoir in 2004. 

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects 

Riparian Vegetation and Wetlands 

Riparian vegetation and wetlands are subject to flow alterations and large water 

level fluctuations as a result of the proposed Projects’ operations. Diverting flow and 

reducing the intensity of peak flows in project reaches could potentially alter riparian 

vegetation composition, cause encroachment, or cause a decrease in riparian cover. 

Reservoir water fluctuations could potentially reduce wetland abundance and species 

diversity. 

Under the Proposed Articles 1-1 and 2-1, Minimum Streamflows, SMUD and 

PG&E would provide minimum streamflows to project reaches. Additionally, under 

Proposed Article 1-2, Pulse Flows, SMUD would provide pulse flows in three river 

reaches. In order to maximize recreational resources, SMUD would operate the project 

to maintain the reservoir levels as described in Proposed Article 1-23, Reservoir Levels. 

These flows and reservoir levels are described in sections 3.3.2, Water Resources, and 

3.3.3, Aquatic Resources. Under the Proposed Action, minimum flows would be 

released partly to provide benefits to riparian vegetation during spring flows. SMUD 

would release pulse flows in the Rubicon River below Rubicon dam, Gerle Creek below 

Loon Lake dam, and in SFSC below Ice House dam partly to maintain a properly 

functioning riparian community. 
3-197 

Under Proposed Articles 1-5 and 2-4, Monitoring Program, SMUD and PG&E 

would conduct a riparian vegetation monitoring program. They would develop and 

implement a riparian vegetation monitoring plan in consultation with the Agencies with 

monitoring beginning 5 years after license issuance and continuing in years 10, 15, and 

every 10 years thereafter for the length of the licenses. This monitoring program is 

intended to provide an index of changes in riparian conditions over that period of 

modified streamflow, to determine if riparian conditions are in proper functioning 

condition, and to determine if riparian areas are being maintained or are in need of 

restoration. 

Our Analysis 

Maintaining the health of riparian vegetation is important for a number of 

reasons, including promoting streambank stability, reducing erosion, preventing the 

establishment and spread of noxious weeds, improving water quality, and providing 

foraging, hiding, nesting, and denning habitat for a number of wildlife species. 

Wetlands, which are often concurrent with riparian vegetation, especially within project 

reaches, provide many of the same functions. Under natural hydrologic conditions, high 

spring flows seasonally inundate stream margin habitats and floodplains. Additionally, 

peak storm flows would naturally occur at a frequency great enough to scour floodplain 

soils and redeposit sediment, which is needed to rejuvenate habitat for many riparian 

species. The proposed Projects alter the natural hydrograph by diverting flows, 

reducing the frequency and magnitude of naturally occurring pulse flow events, and 

causing large fluctuations in reservoir water levels. Additionally, the locations and 

species diversity of reservoir wetlands are partially determined by reservoir fluctuations. 

The overlapping applicants’ study, Riparian Vegetation and Wetlands Technical 

Report (DTA, 2004a) found that riparian vegetation in the project reaches meets the 

characteristics of “proper functioning condition”. This is defined as having: a diverse 

age structure of vegetation; diverse composition of vegetation; species composition 

indicating maintenance of riparian soil moisture characteristics; streambank vegetation 

comprised of plants or plant communities that have root masses capable of withstanding 

high stream flow events; riparian plants with high vigor; adequate vegetative cover to 

protect banks and dissipate energy during high flows; and, plant communities in the 

riparian area providing an adequate source of coarse and/or large woody debris. 

Although the riparian vegetation in project reaches meets the requirements to be 

characterized as being in proper functioning condition, there is evidence that project 

operations have reduced the quality. Several project reaches show signs of 

encroachment and reduced bank stability, including Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam, 

SFRR below Robbs Peak dam, SFSC below Ice House dam, SFAR below Slab Creek 

dam, and, within the Chili Bar Project, SFAR below Chili Bar dam (CDFG, 2007). 

Within the Gerle Creek reach below Loon Lake dam, the upland species 

lodgepole pine has increased over historic conditions. Additionally, the banks through 

much of the reach are exposed and undercut and there is a high level of fine sediment 
3-198 

bedload. Within Gerle Creek below Gerle dam, riparian vegetation on the upper banks 

is narrow and dependent upon seasonal seepage. Within the SFRR below Robbs Peak 

dam, during the riparian vegetation study, dense woody vegetation colonizing alluvial 

bars occurred on both sides of the stream and herbaceous vegetation was rooted 

underwater, suggesting an absence of recent high scouring flows. In SFSC below Ice 

House dam, signs of bank erosion were observed. In Silver Creek below both Junction 

and Camino dams and in Brush Creek below Brush Creek dam, riparian vegetation is 

limited by natural geology and topography. In SFAR below Slab Creek dam, riparian 

vegetation is narrow in the upper portion of the reach, even in areas of low-gradient 

banks. 

Although spring flows are not being managed purely for the benefit of riparian 

vegetation in all reaches, the proposed minimum flows and pulse flows would be 

beneficial to the health of the riparian vegetation in all reaches by returning to a more 

natural hydrograph. The minimum flows would inundate the stream margins and upper 

streambanks, providing longer duration saturation than existing conditions. Species that 

favor upland conditions, such as the lodgepole pine, would likely die off in favor of 

hydrophytic species that are specially adapted to emerge with high spring flows. 

Additionally, in many cases, low banks would overflow, saturating floodplains and 

expanding the riparian species into a wider channel. In the reaches where SMUD 

proposes pulse flows (the Rubicon River below Rubicon dam, Gerle Creek below Loon 

Lake dam, and SFSC below Ice House dam) naturally occurring spring storm events 

would be mimicked, scouring floodplain soils, redistributing sediment, and reducing 

encroachment. 

Because the effects of the proposed minimum flows and pulse flows on riparian 

vegetation are not definitively known, the proposed riparian monitoring program would 

monitor the changes in riparian condition, including species composition, percent cover, 

and length and width of riparian communities, to compare changes with the baseline 

established in the riparian vegetation study. Monitoring every 5 years for the first 15 

years of a new license, followed by subsequent monitoring every 10 years, would allow 

enough time for riparian vegetation to respond to the proposed flow regimes without 

being confused by short-term changes based on one-time events. If the results of this 

monitoring identify on-going or new adverse effects on riparian functions, this 

information would be used in the proposed Adaptive Management Program (Proposed 

Article 1-6) to provide needed changes or restoration. 

The largest areas of wetlands with the UARP boundary are located at Union 

Valley and Loon Lake reservoirs with smaller areas of wetland located Ice House, Gerle 

Creek, Rockbound, and Rubicon reservoirs. Wetlands at all project reservoirs are 

influenced by project operations; however, reservoir fluctuations are greatest at Loon 

Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House reservoirs. Wetlands at Loon Lake reservoir are 

located in and around shallow bays that are influenced by reservoir fluctuations. At 

Union Valley reservoir, wetland hydrology is influenced by reservoir water level from 

the point of annual high water to the point of annual low water. In 2003, the water level 
3-199 

declined almost 34 feet during the growing season (DTA, 2004a). As reservoir 

elevations decline, wetland areas are exposed and become vegetated except at areas 

exposed during maximum drawdown, which tend to remain unvegetated. According to 

the overlapping applicants’ riparian vegetation and wetland study (DTA, 2004a), 

species richness of wetlands seasonally inundated by the reservoirs was much lower 

than in wetlands that are never inundated. 

Under Proposed Article 1-23, Reservoir Levels, SMUD would maintain reservoir 

levels during the summer months to maximize recreational use. Although reservoir 

fluctuations would continue under the Proposed Action, they would be reduced during 

portions of the growing season in Rubicon, Buck, Loon, Gerle Creek, Ice House, and 

Union reservoirs. It is expected that the increased time of inundation in these locations 

could result in increased species diversity in the wetlands within this zone. It is 

expected that daily reservoir fluctuations at the Slab Creek reservoir would increase due 

to operation of the proposed Iowa Hill development but would be within the current 

weekly range of fluctuation (see section 3.5.3, Water Resources). Slab Creek reservoir 

has steep slopes that greatly limit wetland and riparian vegetation from developing. As 

a result, it is expected that increased reservoir fluctuations would have minimal effect 

on wetlands. 

Like the UARP reaches, the conditions of the reach below Chili Bar dam meet 

the criteria for proper functioning condition (DTA, 2004a). The Freemont cottonwood 

population in the Coloma sub-reach, however, contains large older trees only on high 

banks 8 to 10 feet above the river with infrequent saplings and seedlings. This is 

indicates germination or recruitment is impaired by flow fluctuations because seedlings 

are cued to germinate too high on the banks when flows are high and then face moisture 

stress (and mortality) when flows recede (DTA, 2004a). Under existing conditions, 

flows within the Chili Bar reach fluctuate daily by up to 1000 cfs, as flows at the Chili 

Bar project are dependant upon the upstream operation of SMUD’s Slab Creek reservoir 

and White Rock powerhouse. PG&E proposes to increase the minimum streamflow, 

which would reduce daily fluctuations. Because large fluctuations would continue 

under the Proposed Action, the proposed riparian monitoring program would monitor 

any changes in riparian health and identify on-going or new adverse effects on riparian 

functions. This information would be used in the proposed adaptive management 

program (Proposed Article 1-6, Adaptive Management Program) to provide needed 

changes or restoration. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. Project operations at all reaches and reservoirs, with the 

exception of Slab Creek reservoir would remain unchanged from those described in the 

Proposed Action. As a result, effects of the UARP-only Alternative on riparian 

vegetation and wetlands would be the same as those described under the Proposed 

Action. 
3-200 

Wildlife and Plant Protection Measures 

Several special status plant and wildlife species occur within the UARP 

boundary, including several special status plants, northern goshawk, osprey, California 

spotted owl, special status bats, black bear, mountain quail, cavity nesting birds, and 

mule deer. Yuma myotis is also known to occur near the Chili Bar Project boundary. 

Project operations and maintenance could potentially affect these species, and other 

special status species that may be listed during the term of the license. SMUD and 

PG&E propose a number of measures designed to protect wildlife and plants in the 

project areas. 

The applicants propose to provide wildlife and sensitive plant protection 

measures in Proposed Articles 1-12 and 2-9, Wildlife and Plant Protection Measures. 

Under Proposed Article 1-12, SMUD would: 

1. maintain and operate in working condition all devices and measures for 

wildlife along project canals deemed necessary by the Forest Service, FWS, 

and CDFG. SMUD would provide the Agencies annual reports describing 

the date, location, and species found in project canals. If annual wildlife 

mortality during any 3-year period exceeds three individuals, SMUD would 

develop and implement a Wildlife Exclusion Plan that is approved by the 

Forest Service, FWS, and CDFG; 

2. complete a biological evaluation before commencing any new construction 

or maintenance (including new recreational developments) authorized by 

any new license on Forest Service lands if it may affect a Forest Service, 

FWS, or CDFG sensitive plant or wildlife species or its habitat. The 

biological evaluation would be approved by the Forest Service and 

mitigation measures developed in consultation with the Commission, the 

Forest Service, FWS, and CDFG may be required for the protection of the 

species ; 

3. immediately notify the Forest Service, FWS, and CDFG if any Forest 

Service, FWS, or CDFG sensitive plant or wildlife species is detected prior 

to or during ongoing project construction, operation, or maintenance. If the 

agencies determine that the project activities are adversely affecting the 

sensitive species, SMUD would develop and implement appropriate 

protection measures in consultation with the agencies; 

4. review the current list of special status plant and wildlife species annually, 

in consultation with the Forest Service, FWS, and CDFG, that may occur on 

Forest Service lands in the project area directly affected by project 

operations. For each new species added to the list, SMUD would 

determine, in consultation with the agencies, if the species or its habitat is 

likely to occur on Forest Service lands in the project area, and if so, develop 

and implement a study plan in consultation with the same agencies to assess 
3-201 

the effects of the project on the species. SMUD would then prepare and file 

a report on the study including recommended resource measures and an 

implementation schedule. The report would be reviewed and approved by 

the Forest Service, FWS, and CDFG and then filed with the Commission; 

5. not undertake maintenance under transmission lines within the Pine Hill 

Rare Plant Preserve until consultation with BLM, FWS, and CDFG has 

been completed; 

6. develop an Avian Protection Plan within 1 year of license issuance, 

approved by FWS, that addresses retrofitting the problem project 

transmission lines, to meet the design and siting standards established by 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) standards for avoidance 

or minimization of bird electrocutions and collisions (APLIC, 1996, 1994). 

In addition, SMUD proposes, as part of Proposed Article 1-5, Monitoring 

Program, to develop and implement a bear management monitoring plan in consultation 

with the Agencies to monitoring the effectiveness of measures relating to managing bear 

populations to keep them away from recreational sites, as described in section 3.3.6, 

Recreational Resources. 

PG&E proposes, in Proposed Article 2-9, Wildlife and Plant Protection 

Measures, measures similar to items 2, 3, or 4 above, except the BLM would be a 

consulting and approving agency for BLM lands instead of the Forest Service on Forest 

Service lands. 

Our Analysis 

Project canals and penstocks could potentially affect wildlife migration and cause 

drowning, particularly for mule deer. No deer mortalities have ever been recorded 

within the Gerle canal, however. The canal walls are gradually sloped with gunnite or 

natural rock walls with several shallow areas that can act as escape ramps. The vast 

majority of the project penstocks are greater than 24 inches above ground, which is the 

height identified in the Mule Deer Technical Report (DTA, 2004b) as adequate for mule 

deer passage. Although it appears that project facilities are not causing deer mortality 

or migration impediment, the proposed measure would monitor wildlife mortality and 

ensure that any fencing or crossing structures required by the Forest Service, FWS, or 

CDFG meet design requirements and are functional. 

Proposed and future maintenance activities have the potential to adversely affect 

special-status plant species, particularly within the Pine Hill Preserve. The Pine Hill 

Preserve contains a high concentration of rare plant species because of the serpentine 

and/or gabbro soil formations. Three of these species, Pine Hill ceanothus, Pine Hill 

flannelbush, and Layne’s ragwort are federally listed species that are discussed in 

section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. Project transmission lines, which 

require occasional maintenance clearing, cross through sections of the Pine Hill 

Preserve. Because transmission line right-of-way maintenance includes occasional 
3-202 

disturbance to vegetation and soils, the proposed measure to consult with the BLM, 

FWS, and CDFG prior to conducting maintenance activities within the Pine Hill 

Preserve would ensure that the locations and methods of maintenance are designed to 

minimize effects to rare plant species. 

Additionally, the proposed measures to consult with the Forest Service, FWS, 

and CDFG prior to any new construction or maintenance, notify the agencies if any 

sensitive plant species are identified, and to review the current list of sensitive species 

annually, while subsequently assessing the potential for project effects on the species, 

would protect any special status species that occur either within the Pine Hill Preserve 

or elsewhere within the project boundary. Special status wildlife species, such as 

special status bats, California spotted owls, and northern goshawk, which could be 

affected by project maintenance activities on powerhouses, road maintenance, or 

vegetation management would also be protected by these proposed measures. 

The Bird-Powerline Associations Technical Report (DTA, 2004c) identified 

several transmission lines that do not meet the design and siting standards for avoidance 

or minimization of bird electrocutions and collisions (APLIC, 1996, 1994): (1) the 

Jones Fork-Union Valley 69 kV line with several structures having less than 36 inches 

of clearance between energized jumper wires and grounded cross-arms; (2) the Brush 

Creek 12-kV tap line has inadequate phase-to-phase and phase-to-ground spacing; and, 

(3) high elevation segments of the transmission line from Loon Lake powerhouse to just 

west of Camino powerhouse, including the Jones Fork-Union Valley transmission line 

segment, and an isolated segment near White Rock powerhouse have overhead 

groundwires. The risk of bird electrocution increases when transmission lines do not 

have adequate spacing between conductors or between the lines and the ground,. This is 

especially true for highly susceptible raptors such as special status osprey, northern 

goshawk, and the federally listed bald eagle (discussed in section 3.3.5, Threatened and 

Endangered Species). Additionally, these species are at risk for collision with 

transmission lines with overhead groundwires because their small diameter makes them 

less visible to birds. The proposed measure to prepare an avian protection plan would 

address retrofitting transmission lines to have them meet the APLIC standards. Once all 

transmission lines meet these standards, the potential for avian electrocution or collision 

would be minimized. 

Although the Black Bear Technical Report (DTA, 2004d) determined that the 

project is not affecting black bear denning or harvest, it did identify a concern relating 

to human-bear interactions at recreational sites. As a result, SMUD proposes, in 

Proposed Article 1-19, Specific Recreation Measures, improvements at several 

recreational areas to provide bear proof food lockers and bear proof trash bins (see 

section 3.3.6, Recreation Resources for further discussion). In Proposed Article 1-5, 

Monitoring Program, SMUD proposes a bear management monitoring plan. This plan 

would determine if the proposed human-bear interaction measures are successfully 

keeping bears away from campgrounds or if additional measures would be needed. 
3-203 

Iowa Hill Development 

A biological evaluation has been completed to assess effects of the proposed 

Iowa Hill development on Forest Service sensitive terrestrial species (Lipton, 2007a). 

Although no rare plants are known to exist in the Iowa Hill development area, 

due to the anticipated length of the delay between the rare plant surveys and the actual 

undertaking of construction on the Iowa Hill development, it is possible rare plants 

could become established in the construction areas. Additionally, Forest Service survey 

guidelines require project areas to be resurveyed after a 5-year period. If new surveys 

for sensitive plants are completed prior to the beginning of construction, the surveys 

would locate any new populations of rare plants or any new rare plants species that may 

be added to the current rare plant lists by the time construction begins. If any new rare 

plant locations or habitat information changes as a result of these surveys, the Forest 

Service’s biological evaluation may be amended prior to the beginning of construction 

(Taylor, 2007). 

The proposed Iowa Hill development could directly affect California spotted 

owls through removal of habitat. The project would eliminate up to 141 acres of 

suitable habitat, a portion of which occurs on National Forest System lands. The habitat 

that would be removed is approximately a mile from the nearest known spotted owl 

activity center; however, the incomplete survey visits conducted in 2004 indicated that 

an additional spotted owl nest or roost site may occur in closer to the project, since an 

individual spotted owl was detected within 0.25 mile of the project boundary. 

If spotted owl nesting is occurring in proximity to the project (within 0.25 mile), 

noise associated with construction activities could cause abandonment of a spotted owl 

nest site or could impact nesting success. Removal of vegetation could eliminate 

occupied or potential nesting habitat and would reduce foraging habitat for two spotted 

owl sites (PACs ED 123 and ED034) with activity centers about 1.5 miles of the project 

area. 

At present, the spotted owl population on the Eldorado National Forest is 

estimated to be stationary (FWS, 2006). Given this fact and the findings of the FWS on 

the magnitude of threats to the species (FWS, 2006), the biological evaluation contains 

a determination that the direct and cumulative effects of the project may affect spotted 

owl individuals but are not expected to result in a loss of viability or lead to a trend 

toward federal listing for the California spotted owl (Lipton, 2007a). 

The proposed Iowa Hill development could directly affect northern goshawks 

through removal of habitat. The project would eliminate up to 141 acres of suitable 

habitat, about half of which occurs on National Forest System lands. The habitat that 

would be removed is not known to be used for nesting but protocol-level surveys have 

not been completed. If goshawks are nesting in proximity to the project (within 0.25 

mile), noise associated with construction activities could cause abandonment of a nest 
3-204 

site or impact nesting success. Loss of habitat could also eliminate use of the area by a 

goshawk pair. 

In a status review conducted in 1998, FWS concluded that goshawks remain 

widely distributed throughout their historic range in the western United States and found 

no evidence that goshawk habitat is limiting the population, or that a significant 

curtailment of the species’ habitat is occurring. For this reason, the biological evaluation 

contains a determination that the magnitude of effects associated with the Iowa Hill 

development may affect goshawk individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward 

federal listing or loss of viability for the northern goshawk (Lipton, 2007a). 

The proposed Iowa Hill development would directly affect sensitive bat species 

through removal of potential roosts on 141 acres of land proposed to be cleared for 

project developments. Project construction noise would be likely to impact roosting 

bats over a larger area. Open water created by the upper reservoir could improve 

foraging opportunities for bats along the forested edge of this habitat. Based on the 

information above, the biological evaluation contains a determination that the Iowa Hill 

development may affect individual pallid bats, Western red bats, and/or Townsend’s 

big-eared bats, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of 

viability for these species (Lipton, 2007a). 

The proposed Iowa Hill development would directly affect unoccupied but 

potentially suitable Pacific fisher habitat through removal of 141 acres of land proposed 

to be cleared for project developments. This would have no direct or indirect effects 

upon the species unless it was to recolonize habitat on the Eldorado National Forest. 

Based on this information, the biological evaluation contains a determination that the 

Iowa Hill development project would have no effect upon the Pacific fisher, though 

updating the biological evaluation is recommended prior to construction to ensure this 

determination is still valid (Lipton, 2007a). 

Proposed Article 1-12 would require SMUD to complete a biological evaluation 

before commencing any new construction or maintenance authorized by a new license. 

This requirement is necessary for evaluating the effects of the Iowa Hill development on 

California spotted owls, northern goshawks, sensitive bats, and Pacific fisher. Because 

the existing spotted owl and northern goshawk surveys do not meet survey protocols 

and because these surveys would also be out of date by the time construction of the 

Iowa Hill project begins, additional spotted owl and goshawk surveys would be 

necessary prior to project construction in order to fully evaluate project effects. If new 

spotted owl nest or daytime roost locations or new goshawk nest locations are identified 

within 0.25 mile of project activities prior to the beginning of construction, SMUD 

would develop appropriate mitigation measures under the proposed measure. 

Proposed Article 1-41 requires that prior to initiating construction of Iowa Hill, 

SMUD would purchase an equivalent acreage of land (or a conservation easement for 

an equivalent acreage of land) to be managed as wildlife habitat over the term of the 

license to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat associated with the Iowa Hill 
3-205 

development. The Forest Service and CDFG would determine the in-kind value of 

lands proposed for this purpose. The purchase of an equivalent acreage of land may 

help to offset effects on California spotted owl, northern goshawk, sensitive bat, and 

Pacific fisher habitat if the acquired lands provide similar habitat and/or are occupied by 

these species. This cannot be analyzed, however, without knowing what land would be 

purchased, what habitat types it contains, or which wildlife management goals would be 

applied to the property. 

A management indicator species analysis has been completed to assess the effects 

of the Iowa Hill development on Eldorado National Forest MIS (Lipton, 2007b). 

Mule Deer—The management indicator species analysis contains the following 

conclusions: Deer foraging habitat on the Eldorado National Forest is estimated to have 

increased between 1991 and 1997. Project-level effects would contribute to a decline in 

the amount of deer habitat unless habitat acquired by SMUD as mitigation replaces 

habitat lost through project effects. Project-level effects are not expected to alter deer 

population trends because the project area is not identified as important winter or 

summer range for migratory deer and the area represents a very small portion of 

available deer habitat (Lipton, 2007b). 

Black Bear—The amount of black bear denning/cover habitat on the Eldorado 

National Forest declined between 1991 and 1997. Project-level effects would contribute 

to the declining habitat trend on the Forest. The black bear data infer an increasing 

trend for black bear on the Eldorado National Forest, based on CDFG population 

estimates (CDFG, 2004). Project-level effects are unlikely to influence the black bear 

population trend (Lipton, 2007b). 

Mountain Quail—The amount of mountain quail habitat on the Eldorado 

National Forest increased between 1991 and 1997. Project-level effects would not 

contribute to the increasing habitat trend on the Eldorado National Forest. From 

mountain quail survey data, a stable population trend has been estimated for the Sierra 

Nevada bioregion (Forest Service, 2007). Project-level effects are unlikely to affect 

mountain quail population trends (Lipton, 2007b). 

California Spotted Owl—As discussed above, the amount of spotted owl habitat 

on the Eldorado National Forest declined between 1991 and 1997. Project-level effects 

would contribute to declining habitat trends on the Eldorado National Forest. The 

spotted owl population trend on the Eldorado National Forest is estimated to be stable. 

Project-level effects would reduce nesting and foraging habitat that may contribute 

habitat for one or two spotted owl sites (Lipton, 2007b). 

Northern Goshawk—As discussed above, the amount of northern goshawk 

habitat on the Eldorado National Forest declined between 1991 and 1997. Project-level 

effects would contribute to declining habitat trends on the Eldorado National Forest. 

Goshawk population trends on the Eldorado National Forest remain unknown (Lipton, 

2007b). 
3-206 

Cavity Nesting Birds—Population status and trend is monitored within the Sierra 

Nevada Bioregion for the following four cavity nesting bird species: Pileated 

woodpecker, red-breasted sapsucker, Williamson’s sapsucker, and hairy woodpecker. 

Project-level effects would contribute to decreasing snag habitat trends on the Eldorado 

National Forest (Lipton, 2007b). 

The only special status plant or wildlife species that is known to occur near the 

Chili Bar project boundary is the Yuma myotis. The Yuma myotis has a night roost 

within the UARP White Rock powerhouse, but is expected to occur within the Chili Bar 

project boundary. Although no special status plant or wildlife would be affected by the 

proposed project, the measures proposed by PG&E would protect any special status 

plant or wildlife species that either currently occur or could occur in the future within 

the project boundary from project maintenance activities on powerhouses, road 

maintenance, vegetation management, or any new ground-breaking activities. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. The effects of the proposed project without the Iowa Hill 

development would be the same as with the Iowa Hill development because no specialstatus plant species are known to occur within the Iowa Hill development, no project 

canals or penstocks that would adversely affect wildlife are proposed for the Iowa Hill 

development, and the proposed Iowa Hill transmission line would not be built to meet 

APLIC standards. 

Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management 

Noxious weeds occur throughout the project boundaries. Project operations and 

maintenance activities create dispersal pathways and conditions that are favorable to the 

spread of noxious weeds. Vegetation management and noxious weed control methods 

could control existing populations and prevent new populations from forming. 

SMUD proposes, as specified in Proposed Article 1-13, Vegetation and Invasive 

Weed Management Plan, to file with the Commission, within 2 years of license 

issuance, an Invasive Weed Management Plan developed in consultation with the Forest 

Service, FWS, the appropriate County Agricultural Commissioner, and the California 

Department of Food and Agriculture. Invasive weeds would be those weeds defined in 

the California Food and Agriculture code, and other species identified by the Forest 

Service. The plan would address both aquatic and terrestrial weeds and vegetation 

within the UARP boundary and adjacent to UARP features directly affecting National 

Forest System lands including roads and distribution and transmission lines. 

Monitoring as part of the plan will be done in conjunction with other UARP 

maintenance and resource surveys, so as not to require separate travel and personnel. 

Monitoring information would be provided to the Forest Service as part of the annual 

consultation on affected Forest Service resources described in Proposed Article 1-14, 

Annual Review of Ecological Conditions. To assist with this monitoring requirement, 
3-207 

training in invasive plant identification would be provided to UARP employees and 

contractors by the Forest Service. SMUD also proposes, as specified in the same article 

to file with the Commission and thereafter implement a Vegetation Management Plan. 

The plan would include, among other elements, hazard tree removal and trimming, 

revegetation of disturbed sites, and soil protection and erosion control. 

PG&E proposes similar invasive weed and vegetation management plans, as 

specified in Proposed Article 2-10, Invasive Weed and Vegetation Management Plans. 

The difference in the PG&E proposed plan is that it is intended for BLM lands, with 

consultation with the BLM, instead of Forest Service lands and consultation with the 

Forest Service, as proposed by SMUD. 

Our Analysis 

Ten species of noxious weeds occur within the project boundary, five of which are 

in close proximity to UARP facilities. Noxious weeds have the potential to out-compete 

special status plant species, if they move into special status plant habitat. Project 

maintenance and operations can aid the proliferation of noxious weeds. Project roads can 

act as a method of seed dispersal into areas previously not infested and vegetation 

management within transmission lines can cause disturbance which allows noxious 

weeds to move in. The construction of the Iowa Hill development would also act as new 

disturbance that would create conditions favorable to the establishment of noxious weeds 

if appropriate control measures are not implemented. Finally, project-related recreation 

acts both as a means of dispersal from one project area to another and as a source of 

disturbance, which creates conditions favorable to noxious weed establishment. 

Implementing the proposed invasive weed and vegetation management plans 

would control current populations and future infestations of noxious weeds within the 

project boundary on Forest Service lands. We interpret the proposed Invasive Weed 

Management Plan to be intended for lands within the project boundary that are adjacent 

to project features directly affecting National Forest System lands. Because not all 

project-related noxious weed infestations occur on project lands that affect National 

Forest System lands, expanding the invasive weed and vegetation management plan to 

all lands within the project boundary that are affected by project operations or 

maintenance would result in more complete control of noxious weeds that are affected 

by the proposed project. Currently, there are only small areas of noxious weeds located 

on the proposed Iowa Hill development site, concentrated on currently disturbed areas. 

Construction of the proposed upper reservoir and transmission line would create 

disturbance that would create conditions favorable to the establishment of noxious 

weeds. The proposed vegetation management plan would ensure the areas of 

disturbance that are not permanently lost to project facilities would be revegetated with 

native species and noxious weeds would be controlled. 

Significant populations of the noxious weeds Scotch broom and Himalayan 

blackberry occur on the Chili Bar reservoir shoreline and along roadsides. Project 
3-208 

operations and maintenance activities create conditions that are favorable to the 

existence of noxious weeds. Implementing the proposed invasive weed and vegetation 

management plans would control current populations and future infestations of noxious 

weeds within the project boundary on BLM lands. Because not all project-related 

noxious weed infestations occur on BLM lands, expanding the invasive weed and 

vegetation management plan to all lands within the project boundary would result in 

more complete control of noxious weeds that are affected by project operations and 

maintenance. The proposed vegetation management plan would establish practices that 

would minimize conditions favorable to the establishment of noxious weeds. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed. The project effects on noxious weed proliferation would remain the same 

as for the Proposed Action, except the Iowa Hill development sites would remain 

undisturbed and conditions favorable for noxious weed establishment would not occur. 

Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles 

Minimum Flows 

Foothill yellow-legged frog habitat is found in several project reaches. The 

mountain yellow-legged frog has not been found in project-affected reaches or 

reservoirs during recent surveys, although suitable habitat may be available in higher 

elevations. Western pond turtle occur in the Slab Creek and Chili Bar dam reaches. 

Minimum flows have the potential to affect foothill yellow-legged frog, MLYF, and 

western pond turtle habitat. There is a tradeoff between the potential benefits of higher 

minimum flows creating more foothill yellow-legged frog habitat and the negative 

effects of cooler water during May through September delaying breeding, egg 

development, and tadpole metamorphosis (Kupferberg, 2006). Maintaining the water 

temperatures below 20°C during the summer months (to benefit coldwater fisheries) 

could potentially slow down foothill yellow-legged frog egg and tadpole development 

because it is outside the range of natural conditions for the foothill yellow-legged frog. 

Mountain yellow-legged frogs require stable, coldwater habitats as tadpoles develop 

over a period of 2 to 3years. Additionally, project operations potentially create warm 

edgewater conditions favorable to bullfrogs, a predator of foothill yellow-legged frogs 

and young western pond turtles. 

The applicants propose to provide minimum streamflows to project reaches as 

specified in Proposed Articles 1-1 and 2-1, Minimum Streamflows. 

Our Analysis 

Foothill yellow-legged frogs evolved with wet winters and dry summers, and 

their life cycle is adapted to these predictable, seasonal cycles of peak flow and base 

flow (Mount et al., 2006). Studies from other Sierran rivers have demonstrated that 
3-209 

foothill yellow-legged frog egg masses may be negatively affected by flow fluctuations 

associated with spills, channel maintenance pulse flows, ramping rates, whitewater 

recreational flows, and other operations. Flow fluctuations during the foothill yellowlegged frog breeding season can desiccate egg masses if they are laid during prolonged 

spills and then water levels drop quickly prior to hatching (Mount et al., 2006; 

Kupferberg, 2006). Additionally, egg masses can be scoured by high flows. Tadpole 

stranding, particularly during the late summer-early fall, is also a concern related to 

flow fluctuations. Stable, increased minimum flows may benefit tadpoles during the 

low-flow summer months by providing additional habitat. 

Continuity and connectivity of foothill yellow-legged frog habitat is critical to 

long-term survival of frog populations. Foothill yellow-legged frogs could be adversely 

affected by thermal conditions that create barriers to migration and result in small, 

isolated breeding populations with low resiliency to perturbations. Project-affected 

reaches that are too cold or too warm and project reservoirs may represent dispersal 

barriers and create reproductive isolation. Minimum flows in project reaches affect 

instream temperatures. SMUD proposes minimum flows in the Camino dam reach, 

SFAR reach, Ice House reach, Junction dam reach, and Slab Creek dam reach that could 

decrease instream temperatures, affecting foothill yellow-legged frog populations. 

Additionally, altered flow regimes may also create aquatic habitat conditions that favor 

introduced coldwater species such as brown trout or warmwater species such as 

smallmouth bass and bullfrog that prey on foothill yellow-legged frogs, western pond 

turtles, and/or mountain yellow-legged frogs. 

Although there are no known populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs 

within the project reaches, suitable habitat may be available in higher elevations (e.g., 

upper reaches of Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam). Mountain yellow-legged frogs 

occur mostly within ponds or lakes, but could potentially breed and disperse in 

coldwater project reaches. Trout prey on mountain yellow-legged frog tadpoles, 

therefore managing high-elevation reaches with potential mountain yellow-legged frog 

habitat (Rubicon dam reach, Buck Island dam reach, Loon Lake dam reach, Gerle 

Creek dam reach, and Robbs Peak dam reach) for trout population growth would reduce 

the likelihood of successful mountain yellow-legged frog breeding. Higher minimum 

flows in these reaches, however, are expected to maintain coldwater conditions, which 

is favorable to mountain yellow-legged frog habitat. 

Rubicon and Buck Island Dam Reaches—The mountain yellow-legged frog has 

not been found in these reaches, although Rubicon reservoir is within the range of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog (6,500-foot elevation), and there is potential habitat. The 

nearest known populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs are at elevations greater 

than 7,500 feet, in Highland Creek that flows into Rockbound Lake. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, the primary objectives for the Rubicon dam 

reach and the Buck Island dam reach are to provide cold freshwater habitat for healthy 

rainbow trout and mountain yellow-legged frog populations, and less conducive 
3-210 

conditions for California roach, speckled dace, and golden shiners. Increased minimum 

streamflow releases in both reaches would slightly lower May and June water 

temperatures in both reaches providing cooler and more stable conditions and increasing 

potential habitat for mountain yellow-legged frogs. 

Loon Lake Dam Reach—All of Loon Lake dam reach (8.5 miles) is currently 

considered coldwater habitat. The mountain yellow-legged frog has not been found in 

the Loon Lake dam reach, although the upper end of the reach is within the elevational 

range and there is potential habitat. The absence of mountain yellow-legged frogs may 

be due, in part, to the predatory brown trout population. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, the primary objectives for the Loon Lake dam 

reach are to provide cold freshwater habitat for healthy rainbow trout, non-native brown 

trout, and mountain yellow-legged frog populations, and make the flows more closely 

resemble the natural hydrograph. Increased minimum streamflows during May through 

September, with the largest increases occurring in May and June, would slightly lower 

May and August water temperatures, and moderately lower water temperatures during 

June and July (see section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources), providing cooler and more stable 

conditions and increasing potential habitat for mountain yellow-legged frogs, but also 

for predatory trout. 

Gerle Creek Dam and Robbs Peak Dam Reaches—Mountain yellow-legged 

frogs and foothill yellow-legged frogs have not been found in these reaches, although 

there is potential habitat (CDFG, 2007). Predatory brown trout occur in Gerle Creek 

dam and Robbs Peak dam reaches because the upstream Loon Lake dam reach is 

managed for this non-native sportfish. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, the objectives include providing cold 

freshwater habitat for healthy mountain yellow-legged frog populations in the Gerle 

Creek dam reach, and providing cold freshwater habitat for healthy mountain yellowlegged frog and foothill yellow-legged frog populations in the Robbs Peak dam reach. 

Increased minimum streamflow releases from both Gerle Creek dam and Robbs Peak 

dam during May through September, with the largest increases occurring in May and 

June, would somewhat lower May through mid-August water temperatures, and slightly 

increase September water temperatures. We anticipate that the largest reduction in 

temperatures would occur in the Robbs Peak dam reach due to the proposed minimum 

streamflow releases that are more than four times the current requirements in May and 

June. Therefore, the proposed minimum flows may provide potential habitat for the 

mountain yellow-legged frog that is cooler and more stable than current conditions, 

particularly in upper Robbs Creek dam reach, where optimal temperatures for the 

mountain yellow-legged frog are currently exceeded in the summer months. The 

proposed minimum flows may also provide potential habitat for the foothill yellowlegged frog in the lower end of the reaches. However, these reaches are not within the 

optimal elevation ranges for these species (too low for the mountain yellow-legged frog, 
3-211 

too high for the foothill yellow-legged frog), and the proposed minimum flows would 

also provide more habitat for predatory trout. 

Ice House Dam Reach—Ice House dam reach is at the upper elevation range for 

the foothill yellow-legged frog, and the upper 7 miles of the 11.5-mile long reach is 

considered coldwater habitat. Extant foothill yellow-legged frog populations were not 

found in this reach during relicensing surveys. There are no temperature objectives for 

Ice House dam reach, although under the Settlement Agreement, primary objectives for 

this reach are to provide temperatures that allow for management of native coldwater 

fishes and to not preclude foothill yellow-legged frog breeding if they recolonize the 

reach. 

Increased minimum streamflow releases during May through July of all years, 

and August and September of CD and Dry years (see section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources) 

would further reduce water temperatures and maintain temperatures less than 20°C 

throughout the reach in BN water years. The proposed minimum flows may create 

water temperatures that are too cool to provide potential foothill yellow-legged frog 

breeding and rearing habitat throughout most of the reach. SMUD would conduct 

monitoring, as discussed below under Monitoring and Adaptive Management Programs, 

to determine optimal temperature requirements for the foothill yellow-legged frog. 

Junction Dam Reach—The entire 8.3-mile-long Junction dam reach is 

considered coldwater habitat. Extant populations of the foothill yellow-legged frog 

were not found in this reach during relicensing surveys. Primary objectives of the 

Settlement Agreement are to provide temperatures that allow for management of native 

fishes, provide habitat for healthy foothill yellow-legged frog populations, and provide 

habitat for healthy macroinvertebrate populations in the entire reach. Water 

temperatures in upper 2 miles were too cold to support foothill yellow-legged frog 

reproduction (~8°C) during 2004 amphibian surveys. 

Increased minimum streamflows during May through July of all water year 

types, in August of Dry and CD years, and September of CD years would substantially 

reduce temperatures in the reach, and the proposed reduction of minimum streamflow 

releases for August and September of AN and Wet years would increase temperatures in 

the reach slightly. Mean daily temperatures under the proposed minimum streamflow 

releases are expected to remain below 20°C and may further decrease the amount of 

potential foothill yellow-legged frog habitat. Warmer temperatures are expected in low 

velocity, edgewater habitat that may be used by the foothill yellow-legged frog. 

There are no specified temperature objectives for Junction Creek dam reach 

except during Wet water years, when SMUD would release water blocks to maintain 

mean daily temperatures of less than or equal to 20°C, as measured at the lower end of 

the reach, just upstream from Camino reservoir. In Wet water years, the temperature in 

the lower end of the reach could also be less than optimal for foothill yellow-legged 

frogs because of the water block release could further decrease the amount of potential 

foothill yellow-legged frog habitat. If the water temperature in the Junction dam reach 
3-212 

is exceeded prior to release of the Wet year water block, SMUD would monitor for the 

presence of foothill yellow-legged frogs prior to and after the release of a block of 

water. The monitoring would allow SMUD and the Agencies to implement adaptive 

management measures, discussed below, as needed, to protect foothill yellow-legged 

frogs during water block releases. 

Although surveyors found temperatures suitable for foothill yellow-legged frog 

breeding in lower Junction dam reach in 2004, large algal mats cover the substrate and 

probably prevent successful reproduction. The algal mats are indicative of elevated 

water temperature, nitrate, or other water quality issues and their decomposition reduces 

DO in the water column. The proposed minimum flows may improve water quality in 

the lower end of the reach, and SMUD would develop an algal species identification 

and monitoring plan for the Junction dam, Camino dam, Ice House dam, and Slab Creek 

dam reaches to assess the distribution and possible adverse affects of alga(e) in the 

project-affected reaches. Identification of the alga(e) and changing project operations, 

as needed, to improved water quality could create potential foothill yellow-legged frog 

habitat in lower Junction dam reach if water temperatures are suitable (see section 

3.3.2.2, Water Resources). 

It is also important to consider continuity and connectivity of appropriate thermal 

habitat to potential breeding populations of frogs. An objective of the Settlement 

Agreement is to provide connectivity of flows in the SFSC below Ice House reservoir 

dam through Silver Creek below Junction and Camino dams. If the upper reaches are 

too cold, this may increase the migratory barrier between the two reaches. The 

reservoirs may also be a migratory barrier to foothill yellow-legged frog dispersal. 

SMUD would conduct monitoring, as discussed below under Monitoring and Adaptive 

Management Programs, to determine optimal temperature requirements for the foothill 

yellow-legged frog. 

Camino Dam and SFAR Reaches—The 6.2-mile-long Camino dam reach and the 

2.6-mile-long SFAR reach down to Camino powerhouse would be potentially affected 

by the increased flows. The upper 3 miles of the Camino dam reach is currently 

coldwater habitat; all of the SFAR reach is currently warmwater habitat. SMUD 

surveys in 2003 and 2004 documented breeding populations of foothill yellow-legged 

frog in the Camino dam reach and the SFAR reach. 

Primary objectives of Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, are to 

increase minimum flows in the Camino dam reach to benefit native fishes, improve 

habitat conditions for healthy foothill yellow-legged frog populations, and provide 

habitat for healthy macroinvertebrate populations in the entire reach. There are no 

specified water temperature objectives for the SFAR reach except during Wet water 

years. Within 2 years of license issuance, a telemetry system would be installed to 

provide hourly temperature monitoring data (see section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources). 

Micro-thermographs would be used to monitor the stream margin, edgewater habitats 

that are known or suitable foothill yellow-legged frog breeding sites. 
3-213 

Increased minimum streamflows during May through July of all water year 

types, in August of Dry and CD years, and September of CD years would reduce mean 

daily temperatures in Silver Creek upstream of the confluence with the SFAR May 

through July, but still remain above 12°C from mid-May through September. It appears 

that mean daily temperatures at the lower end of the Camino dam reach would seldom 

exceed 20°C in May though July of BN years, and would occasionally exceed 20°C in 

August. In Dry years, the increased minimum streamflow releases would reduce 

temperatures in lower Camino dam reach although it is not evident whether these 

reductions would lower temperatures to less than 20°C, particularly in July and August 

(see section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources). Therefore, it appears there may be less 

warmwater habitat for foothill yellow-legged frogs in lower Camino dam reach during 

some water years (e.g., BN) after implementation of the new minimum flow, than under 

the current conditions. The SFAR reach would continue to provide warmwater habitat 

for the foothill yellow-legged frog during all water year types because implementation 

of the Camino dam reach minimum flows would have little influence on water 

temperature in this reach due to the relatively large contributions of inflow from the 

SFAR (see section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources).

The proposed minimum flows in the Camino dam reach during the foothill 

yellow-legged frog reproductive season (May through September) would generally be 

less than 50 cfs, except in May of BN, AN, and Wet years (68 cfs) and June of AN and 

Wet years (59 cfs). DTA and Stillwater (2004c) concluded that flows of 20 to 50 cfs 

provided moderate to high quality habitat for foothill yellow-legged frog egg deposition 

and tadpole rearing in the Camino dam and SFAR reaches. They also concluded 

foothill yellow-legged frog breeding and rearing habitat in these reaches decreased to 

low quality at 100 cfs; however, further monitoring may be needed to definitively reach 

this conclusion. For example, in the North Fork Feather River, initial studies (2003-

2004) lead to conclusions that optimal foothill yellow-legged frog breeding and tadpole 

rearing habitat would decrease as instream flows increased above 150 cfs, and that 150 

cfs provided the greatest amount of suitable habitat (GANDA, 2004). Later monitoring 

results (2005-2006) indicated that initial conclusions regarding the relationship of 

foothill yellow-legged frog habitat and flow were not correct, and that at current 

(depressed) population levels habitat did not appear to be a limiting factor at higher 

flows. Foothill yellow-legged frog populations are also depressed in the Camino dam 

reach, and the proposed minimum flows would be expected to provide more foothill 

yellow-legged frog breeding and rearing habitat during all water year types than current 

conditions as long as water temperatures are suitable. 

Low flows have the potential to be over-topped by spill events, turbine trips, or 

fluctuations caused by upstream projects. Higher minimum flows would reduce the 

difference between operational flow fluctuations and normal operating conditions and 

reduce the risk of egg mass desiccation and tadpole stranding from any flow 

perturbations. The proposed minimum flows would also provide a more natural 

hydrograph to initiate timely foothill yellow-legged frog breeding triggers. 
3-214 

During Wet water years, SMUD would also be required to release blocks of 

water into Camino dam reach during July, August, and/or September to maintain 

temperatures less than or equal to 20°C below Camino dam. The water block releases 

may create unseasonal temperature and flow fluctuations that could adversely affect 

developing tadpoles and metamorphs (tadpoles becoming frogs) in both reaches during 

Wet water year types. If the water temperature in the Camino dam reach is exceeded 

prior to release of the Wet year water block, SMUD may be required to monitor for the 

presence of foothill yellow-legged frogs prior to and after the release of a block of 

water. The monitoring would allow SMUD and the agencies to implement adaptive 

management measures, discussed below, as needed, to protect foothill yellow-legged 

frogs during water block releases. 

Brush Creek Dam Reach—All of the Brush Creek dam reach (2.2 miles) is 

considered coldwater habitat. There is potential foothill yellow-legged frog habitat in 

the reach. The primary Settlement objectives for the reach include providing habitat for 

healthy foothill yellow-legged frogs and macroinvertebrates. Under Proposed Article 1-

1, Minimum Streamflows, minimum streamflow releases would be increased to a range 

of 3 to 9 cfs or natural flow, or 1 cfs if natural inflow is less than 1 cfs. The proposed 

minimum streamflows would provide more cool water at the upper end of the bypassed 

reach, and is expected to result in somewhat cooler temperatures throughout the reach. 

Providing minimum streamflow releases of 1 cfs when the natural flow is less than 1 cfs 

is expected to somewhat reduce temperatures, at least in the uppermost part of the upper 

bypassed reach (see section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources). The proposed minimum flows 

would provide more stable flows for foothill yellow-legged frogs during the 

reproductive season, if water temperatures are suitable. SMUD would conduct 

monitoring, as discussed below under Monitoring and Adaptive Management Programs, 

to determine optimal temperature requirements for foothill yellow-legged frogs. 

Slab Creek Dam Reach—Currently, the upper 4 miles of the 8-mile-long Slab 

Creek dam reach are considered coldwater habitat. This reach has the most extreme 

temperature fluctuations of all the reaches in the project, and does not provide 

appropriate magnitude or timing of flows to trigger foothill yellow-legged frog breeding 

(CDFG, 2007). Slab Creek dam reach is designated both cold and warm freshwater 

beneficial uses and should support a transitional community between cold and warm 

water species. Regarding western pond turtle sightings, two young western pond turtles 

were seen in 2003 by Forest Service surveyors downstream from Slab Creek reservoir 

in the SFAR between Rock Creek and Chili Bar reservoir. There is also an unconfirmed 

report of a single foothill yellow-legged frog in Slab Creek dam reach. Additionally, 

the Forest Service observed western pond turtle approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the 

White Rock powerhouse. 

There are no specified temperature objectives for Slab Creek dam reach; 

however, primary objectives for the reach include providing temperatures that improve 

habitat conditions for healthy populations of foothill yellow-legged frogs and hardhead; 

allow management of native fish; and reduce non-native species such as bullfrogs and 
3-215 

bass. Micro-thermographs would be used to monitor the stream margin, edgewater 

habitats that are known or suitable foothill yellow-legged frog breeding sites. As 

discussed below under Monitoring and Adaptive Management Programs, under 

Proposed Article 1-6(9), Adaptive Management Program, the Agencies would have the 

opportunity to use the temperature monitoring results to determine whether the water 

temperature that is currently used is an indicator of breeding initiation (12°C mean daily 

temperature for a 7-day running average), should be increased or decreased. 

Proposed Article 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, would substantially increase 

minimum streamflow releases from Slab Creek dam during May through September of 

all water year types. Modeling indicates that the proposed minimum flows would 

substantially reduce mean daily temperatures at the lower end of the Slab Creek dam 

reach in BN water years to approximately 10-15°C in May, 14-21°C in June, 19-22°C in 

July, 17-21°C in August, and 13-19°C in September. These simulations suggest that 

mean daily temperatures could exceed 20°C in the lower one-third of the reach in June 

and July, and the lowest mile in August during BN water years. The proposed 

minimum streamflow releases would probably reduce warming in other water year 

types although there is insufficient information to quantify these reductions or 

determine the areas where mean daily temperatures would still exceed 20°C (see section 

3.3.2.2, Water Resources). 

The proposed minimum flows would provide a more natural hydrograph and 

would reduce the difference between operational flow fluctuations and normal operating 

conditions. Therefore, the proposed minimum flows during the foothill yellow-legged 

frog reproductive season would reduce the risk of egg mass desiccation and tadpole 

stranding from any flow perturbations and maintain suitable temperatures in the lower 

reach to provide potential foothill yellow-legged frog habitat. 

Current conditions in lower Slab Creek dam reach, including warmwater and 

perennial flow during the summer and early fall favor potential competitors and 

predators such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and bass that prey on foothill yellow-legged frog 

and western pond turtle hatchlings. Increased minimum streamflows in the spring could 

benefit foothill yellow-legged frogs and western pond turtles by dislodging second year 

bullfrog tadpoles from pools. If higher spring flows reduce the survival of overwintering bullfrog tadpoles, foothill yellow-legged frog and western pond turtle habitat 

conditions would improve. 

It is also important to consider continuity and connectivity of appropriate thermal 

habitat to potential breeding populations of frogs. An objective of the Settlement 

Agreement is to provide connectivity of flows in the SFAR above Slab Creek reservoir 

and below the Slab Creek dam. It currently appears that the foothill yellow-legged frog 

population is more robust upstream in the Camino dam reach where July maximum 

water temperatures were approximately 24oC in 2001, 22oC in 2002, and 21oC in 2003. 

If the upper portion of the Slab Creek dam reach is too cold after implementation of the 

proposed minimum flows, this would increase the migratory barrier between the two 
3-216 

reaches (Kupferberg, 2006). Slab Creek reservoir may also be a migratory barrier to 

foothill yellow-legged frog dispersal. SMUD would conduct monitoring, as discussed 

below under Monitoring and Adaptive Management Programs, to determine optimal 

temperature requirements for the foothill yellow-legged frog. 

Operation of the proposed Iowa Hill development has the potential to affect the 

water temperature of Slab Creek reservoir and the SFAR directly downstream of the 

Slab Creek dam. Simulated mean water column temperatures for Slab Creek reservoir 

near the dam were as much as 0.87°C cooler and averaged 0.39°C cooler, and 

streamflow releases from Slab Creek dam also were slightly cooler for the heavy use 

scenario than the without Iowa Hill development scenario (see section 3.3.2.2, Water 

Resources). It is unlikely that these small changes would affect the quality of potential 

foothill yellow-legged frog habitat. 

Iowa Hill Pumped Storage Project—Downstream of Slab Creek Reservoir only 

one foothill yellow-legged frog has been observed in the SFAR in 2004, a distance of 6 

miles downstream of Slab Creek dam. Effects on foothill yellow-legged frogs would 

occur primarily in their habitat downstream, as the reservoir itself is not habitat for 

foothill yellow-legged frogs, but acts as a barrier to habitat connectivity. Operation of 

the proposed Iowa Hill development has the potential to affect the water temperature of 

Slab Creek reservoir and the SFAR directly downstream of the Slab Creek dam, 

although simulated flows from modeling show these water temperature changes are 

minor. Article 140 proposes protective measures that ensure fluctuating flows would 

not dislodge egg masses or tadpoles of any reproductive foothill yellow-legged frogs 

occurring below Mosquito Bridge, and water temperatures would not affect foothill 

yellow-legged frogs by being too cool for their normal development. Implementation of 

best management practices, obtaining all necessary permits and authorizations, and a 

storm water pollution prevention plan would provide reasonable assurances that SMUD 

would protect water quality for foothill yellow-legged frogs. Assuming all of these 

measures are implemented, there should not be adverse effects to any possible foothill 

yellow-legged frog populations downstream, although it is unknown whether these 

measures are effective since the Iowa Hill development has not been implemented. 

Based on this information, the biological evaluation prepared by the Forest Service 

contains a determination that the Iowa Hill development may affect individual foothill 

yellow-legged frogs but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss 

of viability for the foothill yellow-legged frog (Williams, 2007b). 

Due to the anticipated length of the delay between the existing foothill yellowlegged frog surveys and the actual undertaking of construction on the Iowa Hill 

development, conducting new surveys for foothill yellow-legged frogs prior to 

beginning of construction would provide up-to-date foothill yellow-legged frog location 

information. If information analyzed in the biological evaluation changes as a result of 

these surveys, the Forest Service may amend the biological evaluation prior to the 

beginning of construction (Williams, 2007b). 
3-217 

Chili Bar Dam Reach—PG&E surveys in 2004 documented tadpoles and an 

adult frog on Indian Creek, a tributary to SFAR downstream of Chili Bar dam. Western 

pond turtle were found on the mainstem SFAR near Coloma and in Greenwood Creek, a 

tributary. There are no specific water temperature objectives set for the Chili Bar reach; 

however, the primary objectives in the Settlement Agreement include providing habitat 

for healthy foothill yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle, hardhead populations; 

increasing wetted perimeter, and providing more suitable habitat for benthic 

invertebrates; and reducing or eliminating water quality conditions that encourage algae 

growth. 

Proposed Article 2-1, Minimum Streamflows, would substantially increase 

minimum streamflow releases from Chili Bar dam during May through September of all 

water year types. The proposed minimum streamflows would slightly lower water 

temperatures in the Chili Bar dam reach in May through September. We anticipate that 

this would reduce mean daily temperatures so that they no longer exceed 20°C and may 

decrease the amount of potential foothill yellow-legged frog habitat (see section 3.3.2.2, 

Water Resources). 

Currently, flow fluctuations in the Chili Bar dam reach reduce habitat stability 

and consistency, which is necessary for foothill yellow-legged frog egg and tadpole 

development. In the span of 24-hours, flow fluctuations can inundate habitat creating 

depths and flows that are too deep and fast for foothill yellow-legged frogs or suitable 

habitat that is present at high flows becomes dewatered as flows recede. Although flow 

fluctuations under the proposed minimum flows would continue, providing higher 

minimum flows would reduce the difference between daily base and peak flows, which 

would result in more stable foothill yellow-legged frog habitat conditions and a lower 

probability that egg mass desiccation or tadpole stranding would occur. 

During amphibian and reptile surveys, bullfrogs were observed at 7 of the 21 

sites surveyed, including the Chili Bar dam reach near Scott Road. Current conditions 

in the reach, including warmwater and perennial flow during the summer and early fall 

favors potential competitors and predators such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and bass that may 

prevent the successful establishment of the foothill yellow-legged frog and western 

pond turtle. Increased minimum streamflows in the spring could benefit the foothill 

yellow-legged frog and western pond turtle by dislodging second year bullfrog tadpoles 

from pools. If higher spring flows reduce the survival of over-wintering bullfrog 

tadpoles, foothill yellow-legged frog and western pond turtle habitat conditions would 

improve. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. Project operations at all reaches and reservoirs, with the 

exception of Slab Creek reservoir would remain unchanged from those described in the 

Proposed Action, and no special status amphibians or reptiles occur within the Iowa Hill 

site. As a result, effects of the UARP-only Alternative on the foothill yellow-legged 
3-218 

frog and mountain yellow-legged frog would be the same as those described under the 

Proposed Action. 

Pulse Flows 

Immobile foothill yellow-legged frog egg masses and developing tadpoles and 

metamorphs with limited mobility are particularly vulnerable to changes in flow. 

Proposed Article 1-2, Pulse Flows, would require SMUD to provide annual channel 

maintenance pulse flows in the Rubicon dam, Loon Lake dam, and Ice House dam 

reaches within three months after license issuance but not prior to implementation of the 

new minimum flows. Pulse flows would not be implemented in water years when 

natural spills provide flows of equivalent magnitude and duration during spring 

snowmelt runoff or a natural storm that occurs in the months of January through May in 

the specified watershed (for more specific information see sections 3.3.2, Water 

Resources, and 3.3.3, Aquatic Resources. 

Our Analysis 

The Ice House dam reach is the only reach with potential foothill yellow-legged 

frog habitat that may be affected by the proposed channel maintenance pulse flows. 

Studies in other California rivers have found that foothill yellow-legged frogs spend the 

winter months on smaller tributary streams, and migrate to large rivers during the 

spring-fall reproductive season. If in fact, foothill yellow-legged frogs occupy this 

section of SFSC, we assume they would not be in the river when the pulse flows are 

scheduled to coincide with winter storms (December 15 to April 10) because foothill 

yellow-legged frogs occupy tributary stream habitat during the winter months. 

Pulse flows that are scheduled to coincide with spring snowmelt runoff after 

April 10 could occur during the foothill yellow-legged frog reproductive migration, 

breeding, and egg laying periods. However, the proposed pulse flows are within the 

range of natural conditions (450 to 780 cfs; duration 5 days), and to date, the foothill 

yellow-legged frog has not been found in the Ice House dam reach. Foothill yellowlegged frog monitoring would be implemented, and if foothill yellow-legged frogs are 

found in the reach, adaptive management measures would be implemented in 

consultation with the agencies. 

The mountain yellow-legged frog is not known to occur in Rubicon dam, Loon 

Lake dam, and Ice House dam reaches. Therefore, the proposed pulse flows would 

have no effect on the mountain yellow-legged frog. 

There are no pulse flows proposed in the Chili Bar dam reach. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. Pulse flows at all reaches would remain unchanged from those 

described in the Proposed Action. As a result, effects of the UARP-only Alternative on 
3-219 

the foothill yellow-legged frog and mountain yellow-legged frog would be the same as 

those described under the Proposed Action. 

Ramping Rates 

Immobile foothill yellow-legged frog egg masses and developing tadpoles and 

metamorphs with limited mobility are particularly vulnerable to changes in flow. Under 

Proposed Articles 1-3 and 2-2, Ramping Rates, SMUD and PG&E would implement the 

ramping rates described in section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, Ramping Rates. 

Our Analysis 

The proposed ramping rates for pulse flows, minimum instream flow releases, 

and/or whitewater recreational releases have the potential to affect foothill yellowlegged frogs or their potential habitat in Ice House dam, Junction dam, Camino dam, 

and Slab Creek dam reaches. The proposed minimum flows in conjunction with the 

controlled up- and down-ramping rates, would attempt to provide stable flow regimes in 

these reaches to protect foothill yellow-legged frogs during the reproductive season. 

Stable flows during the breeding season are optimal, to avoid egg mass desiccation from 

decreasing flows, egg mass scouring from increasing flows, and tadpole stranding from 

flows receding and draining from isolated pools. Successful implementation of the 

ramping rates would minimize the potential for foothill yellow-legged frog egg mass 

scouring and tadpole and juvenile stranding and displacement. 

The mountain yellow-legged frog is not known to occur within the projectaffected reaches. Therefore, the proposed ramping rates would have no effect on 

mountain yellow-legged frogs. 

The proposed minimum flows in conjunction with the controlled up- and downramping rates, would attempt to provide stable flow regimes in the Chili Bar dam reach 

to protect foothill yellow-legged frogs during the reproductive season. Stable flows 

during the breeding season are optimal, to avoid egg mass desiccation from decreasing 

flows, egg mass scouring from increasing flows, and tadpole stranding from flows 

receding and draining from isolated pools. When the controlled ramping rates are 

successfully implemented, they would minimize the potential for foothill yellow-legged 

frog egg mass scouring and tadpole and juvenile stranding and displacement. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. Ramping rates at all reaches would remain unchanged from 

those described in the Proposed Action. As a result, effects of the UARP-only 

Alternative on the foothill yellow-legged frog and mountain yellow-legged frog would 

be the same as those described under the Proposed Action. 
3-220 

Recreational Streamflows 

The whitewater recreation streamflow releases proposed in Slab Creek dam reach 

and Ice House dam reach (Proposed Article 1-24, Recreation Streamflows) and Chili 

Bar dam reach (Proposed Article 2-15, Recreational Streamflows) may affect foothill 

yellow-legged frogs or their potential habitat. The mountain yellow-legged frog is not 

known to occur in the project reaches. Therefore, the proposed recreational streamflows 

would have no effect on mountain yellow-legged frogs. The proposed recreational 

streamflows below Slab Creek dam and Ice House dam are described in section 3.3.6.2, 

Recreational Resources. 

Our Analysis 

Other studies in northern California rivers have found foothill yellow-legged frog 

egg masses are deposited on the declining limb of the hydrograph (GANDA, 2006). 

This is a natural adaptation to California river systems that experienced predictable 

cycles of high spring run-off followed by low summer base flows prior to hydropower 

developments (Mount et al., 2006). Therefore, uncontrollable and/or untimely 

whitewater recreation streamflows may initiate foothill yellow-legged frog egg 

deposition or site selection that may result in desiccation when the flows recede, or 

detachment of existing egg masses. Developing tadpoles and metamorphs with limited 

mobility are also vulnerable to changes in flow. 

Preliminary research in experimental conditions indicates that the critical 

velocity that tadpoles are flushed out of the substrate is probably between 20 to 40 

centimeters/second (Mount et al., 2006). During the experiments, less than 50 percent 

of the tadpoles that were flushed into higher velocity habitat (10 to 15 

centimeters/second) were able to find low-flow refugia in the substrate or swim crosscurrent to lower velocity areas. Tadpoles that have been flushed out of the substrate or 

stranded in isolated pools are at higher risk of predation from aquatic and terrestrial 

predators, as well as desiccation as isolated pools recede. 

The magnitude of the recreational flow releases proposed for mid-March through 

May 31 are within the range of natural conditions; however, the short-durations of these 

flows are outside the range of natural conditions and may adversely affect foothill 

yellow-legged frog egg masses. Effective implementation of the proposed ramping 

rates when the recreational flow releases occur would be essential to the protection of 

egg masses. If foothill yellow-legged frogs are found in the SFSC and water 

temperatures at SFSC 1 rise above 12°C mean daily temperature for a 7-day running 

average at USGS gage 11441500 (the temperature assumed to initiate foothill yellowlegged frog breeding), or if water temperatures in the Slab Creek dam reach rise above 

12°C mean daily temperature for a 7-day running average at SFAR 6, SMUD would 

cancel the recreational flows unless the Agencies determine that such events are 

compatible with protection of foothill yellow-legged frogs and other biological 

resources. SMUD would provide notice to the Commission, the Forest Service, the 
3-221 

Water Board, and CDFG within 10 days of determining that the above temperature 

trigger has been met in either of these scenarios, causing cancellation of the recreational 

streamflows in either of these reaches. SMUD would provide notice to the Commission 

if the Forest Service, the Water Board, and CDFG approve a modification to the water 

temperature trigger. 

SMUD would attempt to avoid spilling at Slab Creek dam and Camino dam once 

foothill yellow-legged frog breeding has been initiated. If a spill does occur, the 

licensee would make a good faith effort to manage the spill to minimize flow 

fluctuations in the SFAR. If the Agencies determine that spills below Slab Creek dam 

and/or Camino dam are resulting in unacceptable environmental impacts based on 

aquatic species and temperature monitoring, appropriate mitigation measures would be 

developed and implemented upon approval of the Agencies. 

Larger/later developmental stage tadpoles appear less able to withstand 

increasing water velocities than mid-developmental stage tadpoles, and late summer 

pulse flows may have greater negative effects than previously expected (Mount et. al, 

2006). No recreational flow releases are proposed from June 1 through September 30 to 

protect foothill yellow-legged frog tadpoles and metamorphs. 

Studies also indicate that fall recreational flow releases may cause large numbers 

of benthic macroinvertebrates to enter the drift and be exported downstream 

(Kupferberg, 2006). As a result, less insect food may be available for foothill yellowlegged frog metamorphs in the fall, prior to the on-set of winter. If the Agencies 

determine that unacceptable environmental impacts are occurring in the Slab Creek dam 

reach due to October recreational streamflows based on amphibian monitoring, adaptive 

management measures may include but are not limited to cancellation of the October 

recreational streamflows. 

Therefore, implementation of the proposed timelines, ramping rates, monitoring, 

and adaptive management measures would be important to determine if any adverse 

impacts on foothill yellow-legged frogs are occurring as a result of recreational flow 

releases. 

Recreational streamflows have the potential to affect foothill yellow-legged frog 

egg masses, tadpoles, and metamorphs, as described above. No foothill yellow-legged 

frogs were located during relicensing surveys on the mainstem SFAR within this reach 

and habitat was classified as low to moderate. If foothill yellow-legged frogs inhabit 

this reach in the future, amphibian monitoring discussed below would identify any 

adverse effects occurring as the result of streamflow modifications. Subsequently, the 

adaptive management program proposed in Proposed Article 2-5, Adaptive Management 

Program, would provide a mechanism to alter recreational flows in the future if it’s 

determined to be necessary. 
3-222 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. Therefore, recreational streamflows would not increase after 

year 15, and the potential recreational streamflow effects of the UARP-only Alternative 

on the foothill yellow-legged frog and mountain yellow-legged frog would be the same 

as those described under the Proposed Action up until year 15. 

Monitoring and Adaptive Management Programs 

The effects of the proposed minimum flows, decreased water temperature, pulse 

flows, ramping rates, and recreational streamflows on all life history stages of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow-legged frog, and western pond turtle are 

unknown. Therefore, monitoring the response of all life stages of foothill yellow-legged 

frogs, mountain yellow-legged frogs, and western pond turtles over time would be 

necessary to evaluate potential effects of the proposed flow changes, along with 

effective adaptive management changes, as needed. 

Within 1 year of license issuance SMUD proposes to develop an amphibian and 

reptile habitat evaluation and species presence monitoring plan in consultation with the 

Agencies and would implement it following review and approval. SMUD would 

conduct protocol-level surveys for the foothill yellow-legged frog in a sub-sample of 

appropriate habitat types to document species presence and distribution and identify 

amphibian breeding and larval periods in project-affected reaches. The first year of the 

surveys would determine the timing and success of egg laying, tadpole rearing, 

metamorphosis, and size/condition of metamorphs. SMUD would also place microhydrothermographs for future monitoring within the stream margins in the Camino and 

Slab Creek dam reaches. Monitoring sites would include: (1) Junction dam reach; 

(2) Camino dam reach; (3) Slab Creek dam reach; and, (4) Rock Creek, a SFAR 

tributary located upstream of the White Rock powerhouse, from the confluence with 

SFAR to a point 1 mile upstream. Monitoring would occur in the Rock Creek and 

Camino dam reach during spill flows that happen after water temperatures rise above 

12°C mean daily temperature for a 7-day running average in the SFAR. This 

monitoring would determine effects on amphibians, fish, and aquatic reptiles as soon as 

possible after the decline of the spill. 

SMUD proposes monitoring frequency as follows: (1) years 2, 3, 5, 10, 15 and 

thereafter for every 5 years for the term of the license in Junction dam reach; (2) as soon 

as possible after the decline of spill flows in Slab Creek and Camino dam reaches; 

(3) years 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16 and thereafter for 2 consecutive years during every 

5 years for the term of the license in the Camino dam reach; (4) years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 

11, 15, 16 and thereafter for 2 consecutive years during every 5 years for the term of the 

new license in Slab Creek dam reach; and, (5) years 1, 2, 3 in Rock Creek. 

SMUD also proposes to develop, within 1 year of license issuance, an amphibian 

flow fluctuation monitoring plan in consultation with the Agencies and implement it 
3-223 

upon approval in order to determine if flow fluctuations are displacing egg masses or 

tadpoles. SMUD would conduct visual surveys for the foothill yellow-legged frog in 

the Camino dam reach at any time between June and September when streamflows are 

100 cfs or less and the flows fluctuate more than 40 cfs or more over 1 week’s time. 

SMUD would record water velocities and discharge. If possible, SMUD would provide 

advance notice to the Agencies if such fluctuations are going to occur and conduct 

visual surveys before and after the fluctuations. These surveys could be discontinued if 

the Agencies determine that the flow fluctuations could occur without egg mass or 

tadpole displacement. 

Proposed Article 1-5, Monitoring Program, would also require SMUD to 

develop a mountain yellow-legged frog monitoring plan in consultation with the 

Agencies within 2 years of license issuance. Protocol surveys for sensitive species, 

using the procedures of CDFG (2001), would be conducted in a subsample of 

appropriate habitat types to document the presence/absence and distribution of mountain 

yellow-legged frogs. Surveys would focus on the presence/absence of larval stages by 

periodically surveying reaches with known populations during the spring/summer. 

Rubicon reservoir, Rockbound Lake, and Buck Island reservoir would be monitored for 

the mountain yellow-legged frog during years 5, 10, 15, and every 10 years thereafter 

for the term of the license. 

SMUD would also implement an Adaptive Management Program (Proposed 

Article 1-6) within 3 months of license issuance. The program would generally consists 

of: (a) implementation of a monitoring program; and (b) specific adaptive management 

measures that would be implemented if the Monitoring Program and other information 

indicate that the applicable resource objectives identified in the Rationale Report 

(CDFG, 2007) would likely not be met without adjustment of the initial conditions. For 

purposes of the Adaptive Management and Monitoring Programs, each year is a 

calendar year, January through December. Year 1 is the first year that all initial 

streamflows required by the license are implemented by May 1. Specific components of 

the Adaptive Management Program which are associated with special status amphibians 

and reptiles include: (1) cancellation of pulse and recreational streamflows in SFSC due 

to water temperature; (2) cancellation of recreational streamflows in SFAR due to water 

temperatures; (3) avoiding untimely spill events in the Slab Creek and Camino dam 

reaches; (4) cancellation of October recreational streamflows in the Slab Creek dam 

reach if monitoring determines there are unacceptable environmental effects; and (5) 

alteration of the water temperature used as the trigger for foothill yellow-legged frog 

breeding. 

The Chili Bar Monitoring Program (Proposed Article 2-4, Monitoring Program) 

would require PG&E to consult and coordinate with SMUD and the Agencies to 

implement a monitoring program through the term of the new license. Within 1 year of 

license issuance, PG&E proposes to conduct protocol surveys for special status, 

sensitive (foothill yellow-legged frog and western pond turtle), and listed amphibians 

(California red-legged frog), to determine the presence and distribution of special status 
3-224 

amphibians and reptiles and to evaluate the potential effects resulting from streamflow 

modifications. The other Chili Bar survey parameters would be the same as the 

protocol surveys described for the foothill yellow-legged frog, above. The survey area 

would be both banks of the entire reach downstream of Chili Bar dam (from CB-A15 to 

Ponderosa Campground). Monitoring would be conducted in years 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 

15, 16, and 2 consecutive years during every five years for the term of the license. 

PG&E also proposes to implement an Adaptive Management Program (Proposed 

Article 2-5) which would implement the monitoring program and specific adaptive 

management measures if the monitoring program and other information indicate that 

resource objectives identified in the Rationale Report are not being met. 

Our Analysis 

Mountain yellow-legged frogs have not been found in the project-affected 

reaches or reservoirs despite suitable habitat, perhaps due to populations of predatory 

fishes and bullfrogs. However, mountain yellow-legged frogs may use project-affected 

reaches as migratory corridors. Monitoring would determine the presence/absence and 

distribution of foothill yellow-legged frogs, mountain yellow-legged frogs, and western 

pond turtles in project-affected reaches, and help identify potential migration/dispersal 

barriers. The proposed monitoring would also identify the potential effects of the 

proposed changes in minimum flows, operational spills, channel maintenance pulse 

flows, ramping rates, and the recreational streamflow releases on all foothill yellowlegged frog life stages. 

Studies on the North Fork Feather River in northern California (GANDA, 2006) 

concluded that the river water temperatures must meet a strict temperature threshold 

before foothill yellow-legged frogs initiate breeding, and that the absolute flow level 

was not as important to the initiation of egg deposition as the location of the flow on the 

declining hydrograph. Researchers suspect that suitable water temperatures to initiate 

foothill yellow-legged frog breeding may be site-specific, and water temperatures that 

initiate breeding on one river cannot be extrapolated to another (Kupferberg, 2006). 

Monitoring in the stream margin habitats associated with known or suitable breeding 

sites in the Camino dam reach and the Slab Creek dam reach in years 1 to 5 would 

establish the mean water temperature trigger for foothill yellow-legged frog breeding in 

these reaches. 

It is difficult to predict how higher minimum flows and lower water temperatures 

would influence the rate of tadpole development (Kupferberg, 2006). Although cool 

temperatures are required for foothill yellow-legged frog breeding, foothill yellowlegged frogs evolved in relatively low elevation systems with warm summer 

temperatures that facilitate the rapid maturation of young of the year. Cooler 

temperatures during the foothill yellow-legged frog rearing period may slow 

development of foothill yellow-legged frog eggs, tadpoles, and metamorphs to some 

unknown degree. Possible effects include increased risk of predation or displacement 

due to longer periods of immobility or low mobility. The water temperature monitoring 
3-225 

data and the visual survey data would be used to determine how the proposed minimum 

flows would affect other foothill yellow-legged frog life stages. 

If the foothill yellow-legged frog or mountain yellow-legged frog populations are 

negatively affected by changes in flows and ramping rates specified in a new license 

and subsequent water temperature changes, then monitoring could identify these factors 

and could provide a timely adaptive management mechanism(s). The adaptive 

management measures would be implemented as needed, based on monitoring and 

streamflow gaging results, to protect foothill yellow-legged frogs, mountain yellowlegged frogs, and other amphibians and reptiles from detrimental flow releases in the 

project-affected reaches. 

To detect the effects of new license conditions on amphibian populations, lag 

times need to be incorporated into the design and interpretation of monitoring because 

the response of breeding populations may not be detected for years after the new 

discharge regimes have changed conditions for spawning and tadpole rearing 

(Kupferberg, 2006). This is a common problem because many amphibian species have 

greater than 2 years until sexual maturity. The proposed monitoring would provide an 

index of long-term changes in amphibian populations, following sufficient response 

time to streamflow modifications and other potential impacts. 

As discussed previously, PG&E proposes changes in project operations, such as 

minimum flows and recreational flows which could affect special status reptiles and 

amphibians in the Chili Bar reach. Monitoring would determine the presence and 

distribution of these special status species throughout the term of the license. As a 

result, monitoring would identify the effects of changes in streamflow on various life 

stages of special status reptile or amphibian and allow changes to take place through the 

Adaptive Management Program. Because monitoring would occur for 2 years every 5 

years, it would provide index of long-term changes in amphibian populations, following 

sufficient response time to streamflow modifications. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. Monitoring and adaptive management requirements would 

remain unchanged from those described in the Proposed Action. As a result, effects of 

the UARP-only Alternative on foothill yellow-legged frogs, western pond turtles, and 

mountain yellow-legged frogs would be the same as those described under the Proposed 

Action. 

Large Woody Debris 

Large woody debris is a critical component of functional and productive aquatic 

ecosystems and creates habitat for amphibians and macroinvertebrates. The project 

reservoirs trap large woody debris and prevent downstream transport. Currently the 

large woody debris that accumulates in project reservoirs is stockpiled and burned. 
3-226 

In Proposed Articles 1-9 and 2-7, Large Woody Debris, SMUD and PG&E, 

respectively, propose to allow mobile instream large woody debris equal to or greater 

than both 20-centimeters wide by 12-meters long (~8 inches by 39.5 feet) to continue 

downstream of the dams, provided conditions are safe and there is reasonable access 

and working conditions to do so. Smaller sizes may also be moved but SMUD would 

not be required to do so. 

In Proposed Article 1-24, Recreation Streamflows, SMUD proposes, in 

cooperation with the Forest Service, CDFG, and the Consultation Group, to identify all 

the large woody debris that is considered hazardous to boaters. The large woody debris 

would be relocated within the channel, with the Forest Service approval. 

Our Analysis 

The measures to pass large woody debris downstream of the dams would benefit 

foothill yellow-legged frogs and other amphibians and reptiles by providing substrate 

for macroinvertebrates, trapping organic material and sediment, creating pools, and 

slowing water velocity during peakflows. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. Large woody debris management would remain unchanged 

from those described in the Proposed Action. As a result, effects of the UARP-only 

Alternative on foothill yellow-legged frogs and other amphibians would be the same as 

those described under the Proposed Action. 

Secondary Effects of Wildlife and Plant Protection Measures 

Project-related construction, operations, and maintenance activities that occur in 

riparian and aquatic habitats or migratory corridors may directly or indirectly affect 

foothill yellow-legged frogs and mountain yellow-legged frogs. The following 

measures to protect wildlife in Proposed Article 1-12, Wildlife and Plant Protection 

Measures, are applicable to foothill yellow-legged frogs and other Forest Service 

Region 5 sensitive amphibians in project-affected areas. 

SMUD would complete a biological evaluation, including any necessary surveys, 

prior to new construction or maintenance authorized by the license on National Forest 

System lands that may affect a Forest Service sensitive plant or wildlife species or its 

habitat. SMUD would include the Forest Service recommendations and any mitigation 

measures for the protection of sensitive species and/or their habitats in the biological 

evaluation. 

If occurrences of Forest Service sensitive plant or wildlife species are detected 

prior to or during on-going construction, operation, or maintenance of the project or 

during project operations, the licensee(s) would immediately notify the Forest Service 

and FWS. If the Forest Service determines that the project-related activities are 
3-227 

adversely affecting the sensitive species, SMUD would, in consultation with the Forest 

Service and FWS, develop and implement appropriate protection measures. 

Our Analysis 

The wildlife protective measures in Proposed Article 1-12 and 2-9, Wildlife and 

Plant Protection Measures, would protect foothill yellow-legged frogs and other Forest 

Service sensitive amphibians from project construction, operation, and maintenance 

activities that occur on National Forest System lands and have the potential to affect 

individuals, populations, and/or their habitats. Biological evaluations, surveys, and 

mitigations to protect these species would be developed in consultation with the FWS. 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. The wildlife protection measures would remain unchanged 

from those described in the Proposed Action. As a result, effects of the UARP-only 

Alternative on foothill yellow-legged frogs and other amphibians would be the same as 

those described under the Proposed Action. 

Secondary Effects of Recreational Measures 

Project facilities and modifications proposed for recreational resources have the 

potential to affect terrestrial resources. Construction, expansion, and improvement of 

recreational facilities could result in the disturbance and loss of vegetation. 

Recreational fish stocking may increase the abundance and distribution of foothill 

yellow-legged frog and mountain yellow-legged frog predators. 

The applicants both propose recreational enhancements, as specified in Proposed 

Articles 1-19, Specific Recreation Measures and 2-13, BLM Recreation Improvements. 

The specific recreational measures are described in greater detail in section 3.3.6, 

Recreation Resources. Specific measures proposed by SMUD that would result in 

vegetation disturbance include: (1) improvement or relocation of an existing trail on the 

west shoreline of Buck Island reservoir; (2) reconstruction or relocation of two trails in 

the high country near Rubicon development; (3) expansion of the Northshore 

Recreational Vehicle campground in the Loon Lake development; (4) construction of a 

new campground on the south shore of Loon Lake; (5) hardening an additional area of 

the Airport Flat campground within the Gerle Creek reservoir area; (6) extension of the 

Angel Creek trail within the Gerle Creek reservoir area; (7) additional parking area near 

the Azalea Cove campground within the Union Valley reservoir area; (8) expansion the 

West Point campground within the Union Valley reservoir area; (9) completion the 

Union Valley bike trail; (10) construction of access trails from North Union Valley 

Road; (11) construction of access trails from Icehouse Reservoir Lakeshore Road; 

(12) construction and development of the Highland Point day use area within the Ice 

House reservoir area; (13) construction and development of the Upper Silver Creek Ice 

House day use area; (14) extension of the Ice House Mountain bike trail; 

(15) construction of boat launch sites at Slab Creek reservoir at Forebay Road; and, 

(16) construction of boat launch sites near the Slab Creek dam. 
3-228 

Under Proposed Article 1-26, Fish Stocking, SMUD would match the amount of 

fish stocked by CDFG, up to a total of 50,000 pounds for either CDFG or SMUD, of 

fish per year. SMUD would provide a minimum of 25,000 pounds of fish per year. The 

stocked fish would be distributed in Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House 

reservoirs, as directed by CDFG. 

Specific measures proposed by PG&E which would result in vegetation 

disturbance includes a gravel parking area off of Rock Creek Road and a new trail from 

the parking area to Chili Bar reservoir. 

Our Analysis 

Construction and improvements on new and existing recreational areas would 

cause the loss of some vegetation and wildlife habitat and create conditions favorable 

for the spread of noxious weeds. The special status plant, wooly violet occurs in 

numerous places around Union Valley reservoir, including near campgrounds. 

Additionally, increased recreational use could potentially increase human disturbance to 

wildlife. One of the goals of the proposed recreational improvements, however, would 

be to minimized dispersed recreation, which can affect vegetation and wildlife 

susceptible to human disturbance such as California spotted owl and nesting waterfowl. 

The loss of large areas of vegetation would likely have minor effects on wildlife from 

loss of habitat and displacement. The vegetation lost at the remaining areas is minimal 

and would be unlikely to affect wildlife. The proposed wildlife and plant protection 

measures and the noxious weed and vegetation management plans, discussed above, 

would limit potential effects of recreational improvements on special status species and 

the spread of noxious weeds. Recreational fish stocking may adversely affect mountain 

yellow-legged frogs in Loon Lake (elevation 6,410 feet). Union Valley and Ice House 

reservoirs are probably too low in the watershed for fish stocking to affect mountain 

yellow-legged frogs (5,450-foot and 4,870-foot elevation, respectively). Fish stocking 

may also adversely affect foothill yellow-legged frogs in the reaches downstream of 

these reservoirs, particularly Ice House dam reach, due to escapement. 

The expansion of recreational facilities at the Chili Bar project would result in 

the loss of some vegetation and wildlife habitat and create conditions favorable for the 

spread of noxious weeds. The vegetation lost would be minimal and would be unlikely 

to affect wildlife. The proposed wildlife and plant protection measures and the noxious 

weed and vegetation management plans, discussed above, would limit potential effects 

of recreational improvements on special status species and the spread of noxious weeds. 

Fish stocking is not proposed for the Chili Bar dam reach. 

UARP-Only Alternative

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

built. Because no recreational developments are planned for Iowa Hill, the effects 

would be the same as for the Proposed Action. 
3-229 

Bald Eagle 

The state endangered bald eagle currently nests at Loon Lake and Union Valley 

reservoirs. In addition to nesting bald eagles at Union Valley and Loon Lake reservoirs, 

wintering bald eagles can be found throughout the UARP area. No nesting or wintering 

bald eagles were observed during relicensing surveys within the Chili Bar Project 

boundary or the Iowa Hill development. Project operations, maintenance, and 

recreation all have the potential to disturb nesting bald eagles, decreasing their 

productivity. Additionally, electrocution or collisions with project transmission lines 

could injure or kill bald eagles. 

SMUD proposes, as specified in Proposed Article 1-5, Monitoring Program, to 

develop and implement a bald eagle monitoring plan within 6 months of license 

issuance in consultation with the Agencies. The plan would require SMUD to continue 

to monitor bald eagle nest sites in coordination with the Forest Service and FWS to 

ensure that bald eagle nesting is not being affected by project-related activities. 

Additionally, SMUD proposes, as specified in 1-12, Wildlife and Plant Protection 

Measures, to develop an Avian Protection Plan within 1 year of license issuance, 

approved by FWS, that addresses retrofitting the problem project transmission lines, to 

meet the design and siting standards established by APLIC standards for avoidance or 

minimization of bird electrocutions and collisions (APLIC, 1996, 1994). 

Our Analysis 

Bald eagles are sensitive to a variety of human activities, especially during the 

nesting season. If bald eagles are disturbed during nesting or foraging, they have to 

expend additional energy and time being flushed from their nest or locating a different 

foraging area. If the disturbance is great enough, bald eagles may abandon their nests, 

reducing the productivity of that nest territory. Project activities that could disturb bald 

eagles include helicopter flights for inspection and maintenance and project recreation, 

such as boating, fishing, hiking, camping, etc. Each individual nesting bald eagle pair 

has a different sensitivity to disturbance, based on such factors as acclimation and nest 

tree screening. 

SMUD uses helicopters to access remote locations, primarily at the Loon Lake, 

Rubicon, and Buck Island reservoirs, although SMUD may occasionally fly over the 

Union Valley reservoir. The Loon Lake bald eagle nest was first observed in 2003. 

Prior to confirmation of bald eagle nesting, helicopter flights often flew near this 

location; however, since then SMUD observes a 0.5-mile buffer around the nest site. 

As long as 0.5-mile helicopter flight buffers are maintained around all nest sites, it is 

unlikely helicopter flights would adversely affect the bald eagle. 

Extensive recreational facilities are located on Union Valley reservoir, including 

11 campgrounds, three public boat launching ramps, and a paved bike/pedestrian path 

along the east side of the reservoir that passes directly through the nest area at Granlees 

Point. The Forest Service also manages a number of recreational facilities at Loon Lake 
3-230 

reservoir, including developed and undeveloped campgrounds, boat launches, day use 

facilities, OHV areas, and numerous hiking trails including the Rubicon hiking trail that 

passes within 100 meters of the nest tree used in 2004. Several reconstructed, 

expanded, or new recreational facilities are proposed for both Union Valley and Loon 

Lake reservoirs (see section 3.3.6, Recreation Resources), including: (1) expansion of 

the Northshore Recreational Vehicle campground in the Loon Lake development; 

(2) construction of a new campground on the south shore of Loon Lake; (3) additional 

parking area near the Azalea Cove campground within the Union Valley reservoir area; 

(4) expansion the West Point campground within the Union Valley reservoir area; 

(5) completion the Union Valley bike trail; and (6) construction of access trails from 

North Union Valley Road. 

Between 1986 and 2005, the Union Valley bald eagle nest territory produced 

0.61 young/active breeding pair, which is below the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan 

(FWS, 1986) goal of 1 young/active breeding pair. Successful hatching was only 

observed in 2004 at the Loon Lake nesting territory; however, both bald eagle 

hatchlings died when they fell from the nest. The Bald Eagle and Osprey Technical 

Report (DTA, 2004f) suggests that late spring storms with unseasonable freezing 

temperatures and precipitation alternating between rain and snow during nesting season 

is the cause of the low productivity. Although it is likely the nesting bald eagles are 

accustomed to the current level of recreation at Union Valley and Loon Lake reservoirs, 

the Proposed Action would increase recreational facilities and therefore use. Although 

most project recreation occurs during summer months, winter recreation also occurs 

with camping, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and snowmobiling. 

Electrocution and/or collision with project transmission lines also can adversely 

affect bald eagles. As discussed in section 3.3.4.2, Terrestrial Resources, the BirdPowerline Associations Technical Report (DTA, 2004c) identified three transmission 

lines that do not met the design and siting standards for avoidance or minimization of 

bird electrocutions and collisions (APLIC, 1996, 1994): (1) the Jones Fork-Union 

Valley 69-kV line; (2) the Brush Creek 12-kV tap line; and (3) high-elevation segments 

of the transmission line from Loon Lake powerhouse to just west of Camino 

powerhouse, including the Jones Fork-Union Valley transmission line segment, and an 

isolated segment near White Rock powerhouse that have overhead groundwires. The 

risk of bird electrocution increases when transmission lines do not have adequate 

spacing between conductors or the lines and the ground. This is especially true for 

highly susceptible raptors with large wing spans, like the bald eagle. Additionally, bald 

eagles are at risk for collision with transmission lines with overhead groundwires 

because their small size makes them less visible to birds. The proposed measure to 

prepare an avian protection plan would address retrofitting transmission lines to have 

them meet the APLIC standards. Once all transmission lines meet these standards, the 

potential for avian electrocution or collision would be minimized. 

SMUD’s proposal to continue to monitor bald eagle nest sites in coordination 

with the Forest Service and FWS would allow nest productivity numbers to be assessed 
3-231 

to determine if project recreation is adversely affecting bald eagle fledging success. If 

monitoring shows project activities are adversely affecting bald eagles, the adaptive 

management program proposed in Proposed Article 1-6, Adaptive Management 

Program, would allow project activities to be changed. The monitoring, combined with 

making the 0.5-mile helicopter nest buffer official, would minimize adverse effects on 

bald eagles; however, in all, the UARP would be likely to adversely affect bald eagles. 

Bald eagles are not known to occur in the vicinity of the Chili Bar Project. 

Therefore, the Chili Bar Project would not affect bald eagles. 

Habitat Loss and Temporary Disturbance 

The habitat within and adjacent to the proposed Iowa Hill development contains 

habitat for a number of plant and wildlife species, including species such as mule deer, 

California spotted owls, and myotis bats. Construction of the proposed development 

would clear approximately 141.5 acres of land. The loss of this habitat, as well as 

temporary disturbance during construction, could affect wildlife. 

SMUD proposes to mitigate for the loss of wildlife habitat, as specified in 

Proposed Article 1-41, Terrestrial Resources, by purchasing lands prior to construction 

with an equivalent habitat value (or a conservation easement for an equivalent habitat 

value) to be managed as wildlife habitat over the term of the license. The Forest 

Service, FWS, and CDFG would determine the in-kind value of lands proposed to be 

purchased or obtained. 

Our Analysis 

Iowa Hill Development 

Construction of the Iowa Hill development would require the clearing of 

approximately 141.5 acres of land, including approximately 95.4 acres for the upper 

reservoir, berm, and switchyard, 22.3 acres for the transmission line, 3.4 acres for the 

new road, and 20.4 acres of temporary use areas. The upper reservoir, berm, and 

switchyard would result in the loss of upland mixed-conifer forest and the transmission 

line would result in the conversion of mixed conifer forest to non-forested montane 

shrubland habitat. The temporary construction area would be revegetated. No riparian 

vegetation or wetlands would be affected by construction of the proposed development. 

Special status species that would lose habitat as the result of Iowa Hill 

construction include the mule deer and California spotted owl. Construction of the Iowa 

Hill development would generally result in the loss of mule deer thermal cover, 

generally fair hiding cover, and localized areas of good quality forage habitat. 

However, construction of the proposed transmission line would eventually provide 

valuable foraging habitat and hiding cover for mule deer. The upper reservoir would 

cause some habitat fragmentation and hindrance to migrating mule deer. Additionally, 

during construction, noise and activity associated with site construction would 

temporarily cause mule deer to avoid the area surrounding construction. Suitable 
3-232 

California spotted owl habitat exists within the Iowa Hill development habitat; however, 

there are no known nests within the development boundary. Construction of the Iowa 

Hill development would result in the loss of potential foraging and nesting habitat and 

temporary avoidance of the area during construction due to noise and activity. 

Additional species that would lose habitat include the northern goshawk and 

various bat species. No northern goshawks were located within the project during 

relicensing surveys and the closest Protected Activity Center is almost 1 mile away. 

The site does contain potential nesting and foraging habitat; however, which would be 

lost as a result of project construction. Although no special status bats were located 

during relicensing surveys, habitat is suitable for bats utilizing snags, tree bark and manmade structures as roosts. Tree-roosting bat species would lose foraging habitat, 

whereas open water foraging species may benefit from the creation of new habitat. 

SMUD proposes to mitigate for the loss in habitat by purchasing or acquiring a 

conservation easement of equivalent habitat value and managing it as wildlife habitat. 

Although we concur with the proposed measure, we are unable to analyze whether or 

not the proposed measure would adequately mitigate for the lost habitat without 

knowing what land would be purchased, what habitat types it contains, or which 

wildlife management goals would be applied to the property. Once the property is 

purchased or obtained, we could assess its value at that time and ensure that appropriate 

wildlife management goals are met to mitigate for the loss of upland mixed-coniferous 

forest. 

In addition to the proposed land purchase, SMUD proposes several other 

measures that would protect terrestrial resources during Iowa Hill construction. A 

measure contained within Proposed Article 1-12, Wildlife and Plant Protection 

Measures, discussed above, would require SMUD to conduct a biological evaluation, 

including necessary surveys prior to any new construction or maintenance on National 

Forest System lands. Conducting a biological evaluation and nest surveys prior to the 

proposed construction for rare species such as the California spotted owl and northern 

goshawk would ensure that breeding spotted owls or goshawks have not begun nesting 

in close proximity to the project. The standard Forest Service 4(e) condition no. 3-24 

prescribes SMUD to prepare and implement an erosion control plan which includes a 

requirement to revegetate disturbed areas with native plants. Additionally, SMUD 

proposes an invasive weed and vegetation management plan which also would 

implement sediment and erosion control and revegetation efforts, all of which would 

minimize the effects of Iowa Hill construction on wildlife habitat. 

3.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects 

Private land development, public land use, and hydropower development have 

cumulatively affected foothill yellow-legged frogs and mountain yellow-legged frogs in 

the American River Basin due to construction of roads, multiple land use practices, 

facilities and operations, and other development that fragment breeding populations. 
3-233 

Flow releases to benefit coldwater fisheries during the summer and early fall, and 

project reservoirs may isolate foothill yellow-legged frog breeding populations. For 

example, it is likely that foothill yellow-legged frogs located in lower Slab Creek dam 

reach and lower Camino dam reach are reproductively isolated by coldwater water 

releases in upper Slab Creek dam reach and the Slab Creek reservoir (Kupferberg, 

2006). The proposed minimum flow releases would not increase or decrease the current 

population fragmentation. 

Previous management activities on National Forest System lands have reduced 

the amount and suitability of California spotted owl, northern goshawk, sensitive bat 

tree roosting, and Pacific fisher habitat in the Iowa Hill area. These include the 

Independence Cable Timber Sale, vegetation removal for the PG&E transmission line, 

and the Slab Creek Insect Salvage Sale. These Projects have reduced interior forest 

habitat and increased fragmentation of existing spotted owl, goshawk, and fisher habitat. 

These Projects have not substantially altered habitat availability for sensitive bat 

species, however, and, by increasing edge habitats may have improved foraging 

opportunities in some areas. Based on the Eldorado National Forest Schedule of 

Proposed Actions, there are no additional habitat altering activities currently being 

planned within or adjacent to the analysis area. Timber harvest on intermixed private 

timber lands within the area have contributed to a reduction of habitat. These effects, 

combined with the direct and indirect effects of the Iowa Hill development on up to 

141 acres of habitat, would cumulatively reduce the ability of the area to support spotted 

owls, goshawks, and fisher, and would cumulatively affect the amount of foraging 

habitat available for owl site ED123. These effects also would cumulatively reduce the 

amount of bat roosting habitat available; however, as previously described, the presence 

of additional habitat edge and open water could improve foraging conditions for bats. 

Assuming that the project is unlikely to affect maternal roost sites for pallid bats or 

Townsend’s big-eared bats, the project is unlikely to result in substantial cumulative 

effects on sensitive bat species. 

3.3.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

The construction of the Iowa Hill development would result in the permanent 

alteration of 121.5 acres of wildlife habitat, of which 94.5 acres would be permanently 

lost to project facilities. 

3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment 

Five plant and animal species federally listed as threatened or endangered could 

be affected by the proposed Projects. These include the endangered Pine Hill ceanothus 

(Ceanothus roderickii) and Pine Hill flannelbush (Fremontodendron decumbens) and 

the threatened Layne’s butterweed (Seneco layneae), valley elderberry longhorn beetle 
3-234 

(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), and California red-legged frog (Rana aurora 

draytonii). 

Pine Hill Endemic Plants 

The Pine Hill formation, located in the western-most part of the UARP area, 

occurs on a formation of gabbro soils which support a number of rare plants, including 

three federally listed plants: Pine Hill ceanothus, Pine Hill flannelbush, and Layne’s 

butterweed. Two additional species, the endangered El Dorado bedstraw (Galium 

californicum) and Stebbin’s morning glory (Calystegia stebbinsii) have the potential to 

occur within the Pine Hill formation; however, they were not located during specialstatus plant surveys conducted by SMUD, and therefore are assumed to not occur within 

the project boundary. A UARP transmission line crosses the Pine Hill Preserve, which 

comprises the Pine Hill and Penny Lane preserve units identified in the 2002 FWS 

recovery plan for gabbro soil endemics in the Central Sierra Nevada foothills. 

Pine Hill ceanothus is a low-statured shrub that flowers during May–June. It is 

restricted to chaparral in open rocky areas on gabbroic soils of the Pine Hill formation. 

Potential habitat in the UARP area totals approximately 247.5 acres. It occurs primarily 

as a low shrub layer underneath taller native chaparral vegetation, but dense, tall stands 

of older chaparral appear to be less suitable for the species. Pine Hill ceanothus also 

occurs at the edges of road corridors and other periodically disturbed areas, including 

the middle of infrequently used transmission line access roads, and under transmission 

towers. However, it does not appear to tolerate frequently recurring or severe 

disturbance (e.g., OHV use or development). All known occurrences are within the 

bounds of the Pine Hill formation of El Dorado County; they are distributed among the 

northern, central, and southern parts of the formation.

SMUD conducted a detailed study of special-status plants within the project 

boundary, including comprehensive field surveys during 2003 along the UARP 

transmission line near the Pine Hill Preserve. Survey methods followed California 

Native Plant Society guidelines for rare plant surveys. The UARP transmission line 

corridor runs approximately northeast-southwest, traversing private lands proposed for 

inclusion in the Pine Hill and Penny Lane units of the Pine Hill Preserve, but not 

currently protected. One large occurrence of Pine Hill ceanothus, consisting of 

thousands of stems, was located in the transmission line corridor within and near the 

proposed Pine Hill Unit. The plants form a vigorous understory in sparse to dense 

chaparral within the transmission line corridor, and also occur near roads and in 

clearings, including those created for transmission towers and associated vehicular 

access. Because Pine Hill ceanothus is a multi-stemmed plant and roots at the nodes (a 

form of asexual reproduction), it is unclear how many individual plants are present in 

this occurrence. 

Pine Hill flannelbush is a perennial shrub that flowers from late April to early 

July. It is restricted to gabbroic soils of the Pine Hill formation in El Dorado County, 
3-235 

California. It occurs in chaparral and cismontane woodland communities at elevations 

ranging from approximately 1,400 to 2,500 feet. Potential habitat identified in the 

UARP area totals approximately 247.5 acres. Of these, less than 1 acre is currently 

occupied by Pine Hill flannelbush. It most often occurs at the edges of road corridors or 

other periodically disturbed areas. 

The special-status plant surveys located four populations of Pine Hill flannelbush 

within the Pine Hill Unit; these populations appear to be comprised of fewer than 

15 plants, although the number of genetically distinct plants was unclear because the 

species often reproduces asexually. The plants were clustered near roads or in 

clearings, including clearings created for transmission line towers and access roads, and 

the occurrences had not been previously reported in the California Natural Diversity 

DataBase. 

Layne’s butterweed is a perennial herb that flowers from April to July. It occurs 

in chaparral in open rocky areas on gabbroic soils, including disturbed areas, or less 

frequently on serpentine. Potential habitat identified in the UARP area totals 

approximately 247.5 acres. The species most often occurs at the edges of road corridors 

or other periodically disturbed areas, although it does not tolerate frequently recurring 

or severe disturbance (e.g., OHV use or development). Most known occurrences occur 

within and adjacent to the Pine Hill formation of El Dorado County; there are 

occurrences in the northern, central, and southern parts of the formation. There are also 

a small number of records from elsewhere in El Dorado County, Tuolumne County, and 

Yuba County. Known occurrences range in elevation from approximately 650 to 

3,300 feet and primarily occur on privately owned lands. 

The special-status plant surveys located two large, diffuse occurrences of 

Layne’s butterweed within the transmission line corridor, estimated to support several 

hundred to several thousand plants. The plants were clustered near roads and clearings, 

including those created for transmission towers and associated access roads.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle 

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat consists of elderberry thickets located 

in riparian woodlands, oak woodlands, or grasslands within the Central Valley 

watershed below 3,000 feet elevation. Adult valley elderberry longhorn beetles deposit 

their eggs in the bark of living elderberry plants and larvae bore into the pith of stems. 

The beetles' use of elderberries is not readily apparent; often the only exterior evidence 

is an exit-hole created by the larva just prior to pupation. A variety of branch sizes are 

used for larval development and pupation; although, stems 2-4 inches in diameter at the 

exit hole have been reported to be used most often. Infrequently, exit holes have been 

found in smaller branches less than 1.5 inches in diameter, but generally not in branches 

less than 1.0 inch in diameter. Thus, larvae appear to be distributed primarily in large, 

mature plants with stems greater than 1.0 inch in diameter near ground level.
3-236 

SMUD conducted searches for elderberry plants (not valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle presence or exit holes) in the project area via helicopter, automobiles, and on foot 

and included all areas where SMUD had legal access (e.g., ownership/easement rights, 

public lands) within 100 feet (as per FWS protocols for buffer zones) of project features 

below 3,000 feet elevation where valley elderberry longhorn beetles could be directly or 

indirectly affected by project construction (e.g., facility development or expansion, road 

construction), operation (e.g., recreational developments), and maintenance 

(e.g., vegetation clearing). The search area along the transmission line corridor included 

the area within approximately 200 feet of the transmission line centerline (i.e., 400-foot 

total width; this includes the 200-foot defined right-of-way plus the 100-foot-wide 

buffer on each side of the right-of-way). Elderberry shrubs or clumps were located at 

eight sites within the 400-foot-wide search area along the project transmission line 

corridor during 2002 and 2003 surveys. Plants found at these locations were located 

directly beneath the transmission line or immediately adjacent to the line, and in one 

location a large plant was growing entirely within the steel lattice cage of the support 

tower. 

With the exception of the plants found along the UARP transmission line 

corridor, no elderberry plants were found adjacent to existing project facilities (i.e., 

dams, powerhouses, switchyards, appurtenant facilities) below 3,000 feet. Similarly, no 

elderberry plants were found at the site of the proposed Iowa Hill development or within 

the Chili Bar project boundary. Stream reaches below UARP facilities were not 

included in the study area because elderberry plants growing along foothill streams 

generally occur above the high water mark unlike willow and cottonwood. As a result, 

elderberry plants that support the valley elderberry longhorn beetle are not likely to 

occur in stream fluctuation zones.

California Red-legged Frog 

The historical range of the California red-legged frog extended through Pacific 

slope drainages from at least as far north as Sonoma County, California along the coast 

(possibly as far north as Mendocino County, if analyses by Shaffer et al. 2004 are valid) 

and inland from the vicinity of Redding, Shasta County south to Baja California, 

Mexico, including the Coast Range, Transverse Ranges, Central Valley, and west slope 

of the Sierra Nevada Range. Nearly all occurrences were at elevations below 3,500 

feet. Biologists estimate that the California red-legged frog has been extirpated from at 

least 70 percent of its historical range, including an estimated 99 percent of known 

occurrences in the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada. Most of the known remaining 

populations are located in coastal counties from Ventura County north. In the Sierra 

Nevada foothills, very few populations are known to be extant, but there are recent 

records from each of the following counties: El Dorado, Placer, Nevada, Yuba, and 

Butte. 

The California red-legged frog lays eggs from late November to late April in 

quiet water of stream pools, backwaters, ponds, and marshes. Emergent vegetation 
3-237 

(often cattails or bulrushes) serves as attachment sites or braces for the egg masses. 

Larvae remain in these aquatic habitats until metamorphosis, which typically occurs 

between July and September, although over-wintering larvae have been found at some 

sites. The California red-legged frog requires still or slow-moving water for breeding 

and tends to remain in proximity (within 200 feet) of aquatic habitats except when 

dispersing. Occupied sites typically have dense riparian or shoreline vegetation, 

presumably because these are good foraging habitats and afford hiding cover from 

predators. The types of vegetation that seem to provide the most suitable structure are 

willows, cattails, and bulrushes. Hiding cover may also be afforded by partially 

submerged woody debris and undercut banks. Occupied sites also usually include areas 

of deep water (greater than 2.3 feet) and generally do not support populations of 

introduced fishes (such as sunfish, bass, or trout) or bullfrogs. 

Seasonal dispersal of the California red-legged frog may occur upstream, 

downstream, or upslope of breeding habitats. Seasonal movements as far as 1 mile 

between aquatic habitats have been documented, and California red-legged frogs have 

been found in streams more than 2 miles from any possible breeding site. At various 

times, including during summer drought, frogs may use perennial seeps, springs, or 

deep pools in intermittent streams when other aquatic habitat are dry, or may seek 

shelter in existing burrows or the cracks at the bottoms of dry pools. 

SMUD, in collaboration with PG&E, conducted a detailed study identifying 

potential California red-legged frog habitat within 1 mile of the proposed Projects’ 

reservoirs and reaches, up to 5,000 feet in elevation. Potential habitat was initially 

identified at 12 sites (see table 3-59); however, field examinations further refined the 

areas of potential habitat. Following the potential habitat identification, Stillwater 

Sciences conducted protocol-level visual encounter surveys in areas identified as high 

or moderate habitat quality. No California red-legged frogs were located during these 

surveys within either the UARP or Chili Bar Project area; however, two areas of 

potential habitat were not surveyed due to lack of access. 
3-238 

Table 3-59. Description of sites and survey results at sites with potential habitat for 

California red-legged frog. 

Site Location 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Number 

of VES 

Site 

Visitsa

Original 

Suitability 

Ratingb Site Characteristics Conclusions 

UARP 

GC-8: SF 

Rubicon River 

4,987 5 (3 day, 

2 night) 

High Mainly pool with some lowgradient riffle and a minimal 

amount of run/glide. Boulder 

substrate with some silt, 

cobble, sand, gravel and 

bedrock. Ample margin 

vegetation and a large amount 

of aquatic and terrestrial 

cover. 

No frogs of any 

species were found. 

UV-1: Jones 

Fork Silver 

Creek 

4,902 5 (3 day, 

2 night) 

High Mainly run/glide with some 

pool. Sand substrate with 

small amounts of gravel. 

Several side/split channels, 

multiple lateral/point sand 

bars, and a small tributary that 

entered on the left bank near 

the top of the site. Margin 

vegetation (mostly grasses) in 

a majority of the reach 

No frogs of any 

species were found. 

UV-2: Big 

Silver Creek at 

Ice House 

Road 

4,919 None Moderate Some side channel pool 

habitat. Large boulders in 

channel. Water velocity high 

near margins of channel 

Site exhibited less 

habitat complexity 

than UV-1, and 

water velocity was 

unfavorably high. 

UV-3: Tells 

Creek 

downstream of 

Ice House 

Road 

5,065 None High Step-pool, moderate to high 

gradient morphology. Large 

boulders, some backwater 

pools. Downed wood 

Lower suitability 

then UV-1 

SC-3: SFAR at 

Mosquito Road 

Bridge 

1,352 None Moderate Large substrates, shallow 

pools. High Gradient. Little 

vegetation along margin of 

channel 

Site exhibits lower 

suitability than 

expected because of 

high stream gradient 

and limited 

vegetation cover. 
3-239 

Site Location 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Number 

of VES 

Site 

Visitsa

Original 

Suitability 

Ratingb

 Site Characteristics Conclusions 

Chili Bar 

CB-2: Weber 

Creek 

522 4 (2 day, 

2 night) 

Moderate Perennial creek. Primarily 

pool and low-gradient riffle. 

The substrate was mainly 

bedrock, boulder and cobble. 

Abundant margin vegetation, 

grasses and overhanging 

vegetation. Aquatic vegetation 

(especially algae) was very 

thick in some parts. 

California redlegged frogs not 

found. Bullfrogs 

abundant. 

CB-4.1: Stock 

Ponds (A) 

900 4 (2 day, 

2 night) 

Moderate The larger of the two ponds, 

substrate is primarily silt with 

some sand. Some margin 

vegetation and grasses, some 

overhanging vegetation. 

Maximum water depth is 15 

feet; water is very turbid and 

discolored. 

California redlegged frogs not 

found. Bullfrogs 

present. 

CB-4.2: Stock 

Ponds (B) 

900 4(2 day, 2 

night) 

Moderate The smaller of the two ponds. 

Substrate is predominantly silt 

with some sand. Abundant 

margin vegetation, mostly 

forbs, some emergent and 

submerged vegetation, ample 

aquatic vegetation and large 

woody debris. Shallower than 

Pond A. 

California redlegged frogs not 

found. Bullfrogs 

present. 

CB-7B: 

Hastings Creek 

650 5 (3 day, 

2 night) 

Moderate Small, perennial creek with 

split channels. Primarily 

run/glide with some low 

gradient riffle and pool. 

Substrates are mainly cobble 

and gravel. Margin grasses 

and forbs present in all of 

reach, ample willow and alder 

canopying stream. 

California redlegged frogs not 

found. Bullfrogs 

present. 
3-240 

Site Location 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Number 

of VES 

Site 

Visitsa

Original 

Suitability 

Ratingb

 Site Characteristics Conclusions 

CB-8B 

Greenwood 

Creek 

672 5 (3 day, 

2 night) 

Low Small, perennial creek with 

split channels. Mainly pool, 

run/glide and low-gradient 

riffle. Substrates are mainly 

cobble, gravel, and boulder. 

Margin vegetation, terrestrial 

cover, and overhanging 

vegetation are prominent. 

Willow and grasses appear 

dominant. 

California redlegged frogs not 

found. Bullfrogs 

present. 

CB11: Stock 

Ponds 

824 None Moderate Stock ponds with emergent 

vegetation around the edges. 

VES were planned 

but access was not 

granted. 

CB13: Five 

Stock Ponds 

832 None Moderate Stock ponds with emergent 

vegetation (cattails) around the 

edges. 

The site is on 

private property and 

was not accessible. 

a

 Visual encounter survey. 

b

 Original habitat suitability rating of stream sites also reflected suitability for other target 

species: the foothill yellow-legged frog and/or mountain yellow-legged frog. 

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects 

Pine Hill Endemic Plants 

SMUD proposes, as specified in Proposed Article 1-12, Wildlife and Plant 

Protection Measures, to not undertake maintenance under transmission lines within the 

Pine Hill Rare Plant Preserve until consultation with the BLM, FWS, and CDFG has 

been completed. Additionally, they propose to ensure a biological assessment is 

prepared prior to beginning any activities to construct, operate, or maintain, the UARP 

that may affect a species proposed for listing or listed under the federal ESA or its 

critical habitat to evaluate potential effects of the action on the species or its habitat, in 

consultation with the appropriate federal agency. 

Our Analysis 

The Pine Hill Preserve contains a high concentration of rare plant species 

because of the serpentine and/or gabbro soil formations. Three of these species, Pine 

Hill ceanothus, Pine Hill flannelbush, and Layne’s ragwort are federally listed species. 

Project transmission lines cross through sections of the Pine Hill Preserve. SMUD 

maintenance on project transmission line right-of-ways includes vehicle use to access 

towers on existing roads, mechanical removal of trees, and other vegetation clearing for 

fire control and to facilitate access. Vegetation clearing could result in the direct loss of 
3-241 

the listed plants. Additionally, transmission line right-of-way maintenance that 

facilitates access to the right-of-way could increase noxious weed dispersal within the 

rare plant habitat by providing a vector. Noxious weeds could outcompete the rare 

plants, decreasing their available habitat. All three of the federally listed species located 

within the Pine Hill Preserve, however, are currently found in open habitats such as 

transmission lines and road clearings within the UARP area. Transmission line right-ofway maintenance maintains this habitat, which could be beneficial to the three plant 

species. 

Because transmission line right-of-way maintenance includes occasional 

disturbance to vegetation and soils, the proposed measure to consult with the BLM, 

FWS, and CDFG prior to conducting maintenance activities within the Pine Hill 

Preserve would ensure that the locations and methods of maintenance are designed to 

minimize effects to rare plant species. Additionally, SMUD proposes vegetation and 

invasive weed management plans, in Proposed Article 1-13, Vegetation and Invasive 

Weed Management Plan, which are described in detail in section 3.3.4.2, Vegetation and 

Invasive Weed Management. The invasive weed management plan would attempt to 

control current populations of noxious weeds and prevent future populations from being 

established. The vegetation management plan would address transmission line right-ofway-clearing. Although SMUD’s proposal only includes Forest Service land influenced 

by project activities, as discussed in section 3.3.4, Terrestrial Resources, expanding this 

plan to cover all land within the project boundary affected by project activities would be 

appropriate. As a result, this plan would protect the Pine Hill endemic plants from 

noxious weed infestation. The consultation proposed in Proposed Article 1-12, Wildlife 

and Plant Protection Measures, would establish agency-approved maintenance 

activities to maintain the preferred habitat minimizing effects on the federally listed 

plants. Although the Proposed Action would minimize possible effects on these 

species, maintenance activities could still result in the occasional loss of individual 

plants. As such, the UARP is likely to adversely affect the Pine Hill ceanothus, Pine 

Hill flannelbush, and Layne’s ragwort. 

The Chili Bar Project would have no effect on the Pine Hill endemic plants 

because they do not occur within the project boundary. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Because these species are endemic to the Pine Hill Preserve area which, is 

outside the Iowa Hill development area, relicensing the project without the Iowa Hill 

development would have the same effect on Pine Hill endemic plants as discussed for 

the Proposed Action. 

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle 

The federally threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle’s host plant, 

elderberry, is found within the UARP transmission line. If the valley elderberry 

longhorn beetle occurs within these shrubs, it could be affected by right-of-way 
3-242 

maintenance. SMUD does not proposed any measures specifically designed for the 

valley elderberry longhorn beetle; however, it does propose, as specified in Proposed 

Article 1-12, Wildlife and Plant Protection Measures, to ensure a biological assessment 

is prepared prior to beginning any activities to construct, operate, or maintain, the 

UARP that may affect a species proposed for listing or listed under the federal ESA or 

its critical habitat to evaluate potential effects of the action on the species or its habitat, 

in consultation with the appropriate federal agency. 

Our Analysis 

SMUD observed elderberry, the host species for the valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle, at 8 locations during 2002-2003 surveys within the UARP area (DTA, 2004e), 

all either directly underneath or immediately adjacent to the UARP transmission line. 

Although full protocol valley elderberry longhorn beetle surveys were not conducted, 

UARP assumed that the elderberry shrubs found within the project boundary are 

occupied by valley elderberry longhorn beetles. Maintenance activities on the UARP 

transmission line and its right-of-way include tree and vegetation clearing, facility 

inspections, facility replacement, and access road maintenance. All of these activities 

could potentially result in disturbance to elderberry bushes within the right-of-way, and, 

therefore, the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Vegetation management typically does 

not need to clear low-growing trees or shrubs if they are not a safety hazard to the line. 

As part of their draft biological assessment, SMUD proposed to comply with 

FWS’s Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Conservation Guidelines (FWS, 1999), prior 

to conducting any ground or vegetation disturbing activities within the proposed project 

boundary. These guidelines call for protocol level surveys of the area to be disturbed 

for the presence of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle and its elderberry host plant, 

protection measures such as fencing and otherwise identifying elderberry plants, and 

compensation requirements for elderberry plants with one or more stems measuring 1.0 

inch or greater in diameter at ground level that may be directly or indirectly affected. 

Additionally they proposed to provide annual employee environmental awareness 

program workshops to educate employees and key personnel about the known locations 

of special status species and habitats. Although these measures were not included in the 

Proposed Action, implementing them as part of the vegetation management plan 

proposed in Proposed Article 1-13, Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan, 

would effectively protect elderberry shrubs and any valley elderberry longhorn beetles 

located within them within the project boundary from any transmission line 

maintenance activities by clearly delineating them as areas to be excluded from 

maintenance. Additionally, valley elderberry longhorn beetle surveys prior to 

vegetation disturbing activities that comply with the conservation guidelines would 

further protect the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Even with implementation of the 

compliance with conservation guidelines and employee training, adverse effects could 

still occur. Therefore, the UARP would be likely to adversely affect the valley 

elderberry longhorn beetle. 
3-243 

The Chili Bar Project would have no effect on the valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle because elderberry shrubs do not occur within the project boundary. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Because no elderberry plants are found in the Iowa Hill development area, 

relicensing the project without the Iowa Hill development would have the same effect 

on valley elderberry longhorn beetles as discussed for the Proposed Action. 

California Red-legged Frog 

The Proposed Actions that would affect the foothill yellow-legged frog and the 

mountain yellow-legged frog described in section 3.3.4.2, Terrestrial Resources, also 

have the potential to affect the California red-legged frog. 

Our Analysis 

A recovery plan for the California red-legged frog was issued by FWS in 2002. 

Eight recovery units and core areas in the recovery units were identified for focused 

recovery actions. The Action Area is within the largest recovery unit, the Sierra Nevada 

Foothills and Central Valley Recovery Unit, and is between two core areas: Cosumnes 

River to the south, and Traverse Creek/Middle Fork American River/Rubicon River to 

the north. FWS designated critical habitat on April 13, 2006. The nearest designated 

critical habitat is located at Spivey Pond, south of Highway 50, in El Dorado County 

approximately 3.5 miles from the nearest project facility. 

Much of the project area is located at elevations above that which is typical for 

the California red-legged frog and probably not within the historical range of the 

species. At lower elevations suitable habitat exists, but is limited in extent and is almost 

entirely associated with tributaries of project-affected stream reaches, not mainstem 

reaches, and stock ponds outside of the project boundary. None of the UARP reservoirs 

contain suitable habitat for the California red-legged frog. 

The closest known extant occurrence is at Spivey Pond, southwest of the town of 

Pollock Pines, which is approximately 3.5 miles from the nearest project facility or 

affected stream reach, none of which contain suitable habitat for the California redlegged frog. Spivey Pond and other historical occurrences in the Weber Creek drainage 

are also separated from these project facilities and reaches by a highway (U.S. 50) and 

by urban and agricultural areas that may constitute barriers to California red-legged frog 

dispersal. South-north dispersal may also be unlikely because the SFAR lies within a 

relatively deep, steep-sided valley. The mainstem SFAR reach does not constitute 

suitable habitat for the California red-legged frog, although three tributaries of the reach 

might be suitable if bullfrogs were not present. Bullfrogs are also well established in 

stock ponds that were surveyed within the evaluation area. 

The UARP transmission lines span Weber Creek more than 14 miles downstream 

of Spivey Pond. The towers for the lines are located high on the steep valley slopes on 
3-244 

either side of the creek (more than 200 vertical feet above the creek). Therefore, the 

transmission line has no foreseeable effect on aquatic or riparian habitats along Weber 

Creek. Areas with extant, documented California red-legged frog occurrences north of 

the project on Skunk Canyon Creek, and Brushy Canyon Creek are located more than 

25 miles from the action area where project operations have no effect on hydrology or 

habitats. 

As previously discussed in section 3.3.4.2, predators such as bullfrogs have the 

potential to keep the California red-legged frog from becoming established. Flow 

regulation may benefit introduced predatory fishes and bullfrogs, by maintaining flow in 

areas that would otherwise dry up seasonally. The California red-legged frog is known 

to persist in areas where ponds or streams dry up seasonally by dispersing to springs or 

other sources of water, or by aestivating in burrows or in cracks at the bottom of dried 

pools. Minimum streamflows would ensure that naturally intermittent or ephemeral 

streams do not dry in summer and could thus benefit predatory species that are unable to 

survive dry periods (fish and bullfrogs). Predatory bass, crayfish, and bullfrogs were 

found in lower Slab Creek dam reach and are well established in off-channel stock 

ponds and tributaries in the Chili Bar Project area, downstream of UARP. The Slab 

Creek reach is unlikely to dry up even without regulated minimum flows and higher 

proposed minimum flows in the spring could potentially reduce bullfrog populations by 

washing the tadpoles downstream. 

Although California red-legged frogs are not currently known to occur within the 

UARP boundary, if they do become established the proposed amphibian monitoring and 

adaptive management plans (see section 3.3.4.2) would minimize any potential adverse 

effects on California red-legged frogs, and a biological assessment would be required 

prior to any ground-disturbing activities that would potentially affect California redlegged frogs. Therefore, because the California red-legged frog is not known to occur 

within the project boundary, suitable habitat is limited, and monitoring and adaptive 

management would minimize any potential effects should it become established, we 

conclude that the UARP is not likely to adversely affect California red-legged frogs. 

No California red-legged frogs were found within the Chili Bar Project area, 

including tributaries and side stock ponds, during relicensing surveys. The Chili Bar 

dam reach does not contain suitable for California red-legged frog breeding habitat. 

Bullfrogs, a California red-legged frog predator, were found to be abundant in potential 

California red-legged frog habitat (tributaries and stock ponds) during surveys. Flow 

regulation may benefit introduced predatory fishes and bullfrogs, by maintaining flow in 

areas that would otherwise dry up seasonally. The Chili Bar reach, however, is a 

relatively large reach that is unlikely to dry up even without regulated minimum flows 

and tributaries and stock ponds are not subject to project-regulated flows. Additionally 

bullfrogs are well established in off-channel stock ponds and in tributaries. Higher 

proposed minimum flows in the spring could potentially reduce bullfrog populations by 

washing the tadpoles downstream. Therefore, it is unlikely the proposed project would 

contribute to the proliferation of California red-legged frog predators. 
3-245 

Although California red-legged frogs are not currently known to occur within the 

Chili Bar Project boundary, if they do become established the proposed amphibian 

monitoring and adaptive management plans (see section 3.3.4.2) would minimize any 

potential adverse effects on California red-legged frogs and a biological assessment 

would be required prior to any ground disturbing activities that would potentially affect 

California red-legged frogs. Therefore, because the California red-legged frog is not 

known to occur within the project boundary, suitable habitat is limited, and monitoring 

and adaptive management would minimize any potential effects should it become 

established, the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect the California redlegged frog. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed or operated. The Settlement Agreement Articles and other measures that 

would potentially affect California red-legged frogs would remain unchanged from 

those described in the Proposed Action. As a result, effects of the UARP-only 

Alternative on the California red-legged frog would be the same as those described 

under the Proposed Action. 

3.3.5.3 Cumulative Effects 

Private land development, public land use, and hydropower development have 

cumulatively affected the California red-legged frog in the American River Basin due to 

roading, multiple land use practices, facilities and operations, and other development 

that fragment breeding populations. 

Flow releases to benefit coldwater fisheries during the summer and early fall, and 

project reservoirs may isolate California red-legged frog breeding populations. The 

proposed minimum flow releases would not increase or decrease the current population 

fragmentation. 

3.3.5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

None. 

3.3.6 Recreational Resources 

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment 

Regional Setting 

Recreational resources in the region provide for a full range of activities, from 

tourist-based recreation associated with the historical mining towns in the region, to 

rural and wilderness activities, such as hiking, fishing and boating. The primary 

recreational sites in the American River drainage include the Forest Service lands, the 

towns of Coloma and Placerville, and Folsom Lake. 
3-246 

The numerous lakes and reservoirs in the eastern part of the region, which 

includes the project reservoirs, provide a variety of recreational opportunities and 

varying levels of developed facilities for camping and day-use activities. Paved roads 

and boat launches at the larger water bodies in the area provide opportunities for 

motorized boating use. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is also popular in the region. 

There are 12 designated routes or areas for OHV use in the region, most of which are on 

National Forest System lands or state lands. 

Whitewater recreation is another popular recreational activity in the region. 

Within the American and Rubicon river drainages alone, there are at least 20 whitewater 

boating runs, most of which are rated class IV and V and provide high quality 

whitewater recreational opportunities in the spring. The most important whitewater 

recreation resource in the region occurs on the 19.1-mile reach of the SFAR 

downstream of the Chili Bar dam. This section of river is the most popular whitewater 

recreational run in California, with approximately 3,000 to 4,000 visitors per day on 

summer weekends. 

Recreational Resources within the Projects’ Boundaries 

Recreation at the Projects can be separated into three geographic areas: High 

Country, Crystal Basin, and Canyonlands. The High Country consists of the area north 

and east of Loon Lake reservoir. The Crystal Basin includes the area bounded by Loon 

Lake reservoir on the north to Highway 50 on the south, and Union Valley dam to the 

west and Wrights Lake on the east. The Canyonlands geographical area extends along 

the Silver Creek and SFAR drainages from Union Valley dam on the east to Chili Bar 

Project boundary on the west. 

Nearly all shoreline lands surrounding the project reservoirs within the project 

boundary are federal lands managed by the Forest Service and are available for public 

use. Figures 3-32 to 3-35 show the locations of these facilities. 

High Country 

The High Country geographical area (elevation 6,400 feet and above) includes 

Buck Island and Rubicon reservoirs. There are no developed recreational facilities at 

either reservoir because these are remote, hike-in reservoirs. Depending on the timing 

of snowfall and snowmelt, this area is usually accessible to hiking between Memorial 

Day and November 1. 

At Rubicon reservoir, which is located within the Desolation Wilderness 

boundary, motorized public access and campfires are not allowed. The main route of 

access is by way of the Rubicon Hiking Trail from the Loon Lake. Overnight use 

requires a wilderness permit and there are quotas on the number of permits issued. At 

least nine dispersed campsites are present at Rubicon reservoir. 
3-247 

*


#%


&
'%((



)


(













'




*(



+



(
+


,--.	/(


+
/

  		

)

	%& )





$8/	-

	;	-8

$8/	-

"	
	

$8/	-

($	  (	



&C-
	;	-8

$8/	-




$8



*4

#	



(	

$8/	-F+

;	-8$8/	-F3

&C-
	$8/	-

$$8/	-

!!#

)

 !   )

*

 ++)

,*-

)


			


!!&

*&#






- ' (	

   )

Figure 3-32. Recreational facilities at Loon Lake reservoir. (Source: SMUD, 2005, 

PG&E, 2005, as modified by staff) 
3-248 


#%


&
'%((



0%




*(



+


+
/

*

;		

$8/	- ;		

(	

;		

*4#	

	%


<
	8	
%

(	

-
	

$8/	-

#	8	



$8/	-

#/	

*4#	

	


	


			

 

	  	

	 	

  	 	

 %! 	#

& 

"( 

*&! 	#

  

Figure 3-33. Recreational facilities at Gerle Creek reservoir. (Source: SMUD, 2005, 

PG&E, 2005, as modified by staff) 
3-249 


*(

+)((


.(

/







 

	$8/	-

	;	-8$8/	-

#G%$8/	-

  



(	

$8/	-	(	

	 $8/	-

/




-
 	







%

	

	

-

$8

-









$8/	-





$8

$%$8/	- 5	 ;	-8

$8/	-

-
$8/	-

$8/	-*4#	

5	





)7A

$8

)7A
$8/	-

5	$8/	-

$-$8/	- )! 

  


#%
&
'%((

1
-
#

)


(










1
%






			

Figure 3-34. Recreational facilities at Union Valley reservoir. (Source: SMUD, 2005; PG&E, 2005, as 
3-250 

"	
7$8/	-

.-
$8


	7		

$8/	-

<-$8/	-F+

<-*4#	

<-





.-
$8

 %!  )

  



<-	


<-$8/	-F3

<-
-

	
<5	$

	

< -  (	

  %		 $8/	-


#%
&
'%((

1
-
#

)


(2





			

Figure 3-35. Recreational facilities at Ice House reservoir. (Source: SMUD, 2005, PG&E, 2005, as mo
3-251 

Buck Island reservoir is located adjacent to and outside of the Desolation 

Wilderness. The Rubicon OHV Route passes through the project boundary. Many 

OHV visitors camp overnight along the Buck Island reservoir shoreline; there are as 

many as 17 user developed campsites, most of which are close to the water’s edge or 

riparian areas. 

Crystal Basin 

The Crystal Basin area is in the mid-elevation range of the project at 

approximately 4,800 to 6,400 feet. Routes of access to the Crystal Basin include Ice 

House Road from Highway 50 and Wentworth Springs Road from Georgetown, both 

county roads. Crystal Basin includes four project reservoirs, which collectively provide 

most of the reservoir-based recreational use and opportunities at the Projects. Three of 

these four are the primary storage reservoirs of the UARP, including Loon Lake, Union 

Valley and Ice House; the fourth is Gerle Creek reservoir. 

There are 47 project recreational facilities in Crystal Basin, including 

campgrounds, day use areas, boat launches, trails (biking, hiking, and interpretive), a 

scenic overlook, and a chalet. These facilities provide a full spectrum of recreational 

opportunities for overnight and day use activities. All of these facilities are on Forest 

Service-managed lands adjacent to the project. The total developed overnight capacity 

in the Crystal Basin is 5,325 people-at-one-time (PAOT). 

The Loon Lake Chalet is the only project recreational facility available for rental 

year round. The chalet is heavily used, to near-capacity, in winter by visitors who hunt, 

ski, camp and hike in Crystal Basin during the winter. 

Dispersed recreation occurs throughout Crystal Basin. Dispersed day use 

activities typically include hiking swimming, fishing, and some whitewater boating, all 

of which are allowed by Forest Service. Dispersed overnight camping outside of 

designated areas is generally prohibited immediately along the project reservoirs, but 

occurs throughout the Crystal Basin. The Forest Service has closed some unauthorized 

roads in the area in an attempt to discourage prohibited use where it is causing resource 

damage. Visitors continue to access the shoreline areas, such as at the southern 

shoreline of Ice House Reservoir, through locked gates, to gain access and camp along 

the shoreline. 

Canyonlands 

The Canyonlands area includes five reservoirs: Junction, Camino, Brush Creek, 

and Slab Creek and Chili Bar. The Canyonlands area is in the lowest elevation range of 

the project at approximately 1,800 to 4,400 feet. The terrain in this geographical area 

above PG&E’s Chili Bar reservoir is typically steep which makes access difficult and 

there are few roads. The shorelines of the project reservoirs are also typically steep and 

not well suited for recreational use; however, the reservoirs provide angling and some 

boating opportunities. The Canyonlands reservoirs are generally accessible year round. 
3-252 

There are no developed recreational facilities at the Canyonlands reservoirs. 

However, small, informal boat launch sites exist at all but Camino reservoir. These 

sites consist of single-lane paved and unpaved routes leading to the reservoir. 

Recreational Use within the Project Boundary 

SMUD estimates that summer use at the project recreational facilities in the 

Crystal Basin is between 206,500 and 235,000 recreation-days (table 3-60). There are 

approximately 24,000 recreation-days at the project recreational facilities during the 

shoulder season. 

Table 3-60. Estimated recreation days at dispersed recreational sites, 2002–2003. 

(Source: DTA and Louis Berger, 2004a) 

 Summer Winter 

Location Day Use 

Overnight 

Use Total Day Use 

Overnight 

Use Total 

Ice House 2,329 0 2,329 

Union Valley 2,760 2,226 4,986 

Gerle Creek 377 2,416 2,793 

Loon Lake 1,648 15,217 16,865 

Crystal Basin 11,403 2,908 14,311 

SMUD Canyonlands 

reservoir 

4,785 938 5,723 1,911 7,29 2,640 

Chili Bar reservoir 1,313 1,313 

SMUD estimates the annual dispersed use that occured generally within 

0.25 mile of project reservoirs between April 1, 2002, and March 31, 2003, in the 

Crystal Basin was 43,406 recreation-days. Approximately one-third of this dispersed 

use occurred at Loon Lake reservoir during the summer months, and about one-third of 

the total use in the Crystal Basin occurred during the winter season. 

Campgrounds, day-use areas, boat launches, and trailhead parking areas are 

usually filled to capacity during peak times on holidays and some weekends during the 

summer; during the weekdays, occupancy at the recreational facilities is low. 

The reservoirs in the Canyonlands and the High Country are either small in size 

or difficult to access. The visitation to several of the Canyonlands and High Country 

reservoirs is substantial, though less than the reservoirs in the Crystal Basin. 

At project recreational facilities, between 49 and 61 percent of the visitors 

surveyed in 2002–2003 identified changes or improvements they would like to see at 

the facility where they were interviewed. The most common suggestion by far was 

related to restrooms or the need for showers (47 percent). There were also several 

comments from visitors regarding bears raiding campsites and damaging vehicles. 
3-253 

Recreational Facilities Management 

SMUD operates the project to maintain water surfaces in project reservoirs at as 

high an elevation as practicable and with a minimum of fluctuation, from May 1 to 

September 10 of each year, as is consistent with power generation needs. Priority is 

given to water retention in Rubicon and Buck Island reservoirs. In addition, SMUD 

removes and disposes of floating debris in the project reservoirs prior to July 15 of each 

year and removes any trees that may die along the shorelines of the reservoirs. 

UARP boat ramps are available for use at each of the three storage reservoirs 

between Memorial Day and Labor Day under most water year types. During low water 

years or extraordinary circumstances, the storage reservoir levels may render some of 

the boat launches unusable at certain times. 

The Forest Service operates and maintains some of the UARP-related 

recreational facilities through a Special Use Permit issued to a third party 

(concessionaire). Under the terms of the permit, the concessionaire agrees to collect 

fees for operating and maintaining government-owned facilities and returns a portion of 

the gross receipts to the federal government. The concessionaire is responsible for all 

tenant types of maintenance, such as broken infrastructure, utilities, grounds 

maintenance, and enforcing campground/facility rules. In effect, the cost of daily 

operation and maintenance of the facilities is an operating expense borne by the 

concessionaire. The concessionaire can either pay the fees due to the federal 

government under the permit or the concessionaire can provide work-in-lieu of fees. 

Under the latter, the Forest Service coordinates with the concessionaire to accomplish 

facility replacement or improvements at facilities operated under the permit, e.g., 

modifications necessary to comply with the ADA. This allows a portion of the fees 

collected at the site to be used for replacement of and improvements to the facilities, 

though these fees cover only a portion of the costs for replacement and improvements 

needed to the facilities. 

The Forest Service operates the remaining recreational facilities under the Fee 

Demonstration Project. Under this program, the Forest Service collects the fees at the 

facilities, performs operation and maintenance, and uses the fees to offset its costs for 

operation, maintenance and replacement of the facilities. 

PG&E owns most of the land around Chili Bar reservoir, with the exception of a 

few small private parcels and a large tract of BLM-managed by lands. PG&E manages 

the informal public boat ramp at the Chili Bar dam, which is the only site on the 

reservoir that is easily accessible. BLM allows public use of its lands and visitors 

access the reservoir along two steep trails from the north. 

Angling 

All project reservoirs are available to the public for angling. The CDFG carries out 

a stocking program at the UARP storage reservoirs, including Loon Lake, Ice House, and 

Union Valley. The survey data collected by SMUD indicates a high level of participation 
3-254 

in reservoir angling. The boat launches provide access for boating so anglers have access 

to the reservoir surfaces as well as the shorelines. Winter access provided by SMUD’s 

snow removal allows access to boat launches at Ice House and Union Valley reservoirs. 

The reaches below project dams do not receive much angling use, due to the steep 

and rugged terrain, which limits access. The river sections downstream of the Canyonlands 

reservoirs, with the exception of Chili Bar reservoir, lie in deep canyons. Access to the 

river in the canyons is limited to roads leading to project facilities (e.g., Jaybird 

powerhouse) or to a few hiking trails. Access is also restricted along the river by the 

presence of large boulders, steep bedrock banks, or cliffs. Access to the upper project 

reach streams is also limited due to the lack of roads, although a popular OHV road (the 

Rubicon Trail) and a system of trails leading into the Desolation Wilderness area provide a 

greater degree of access than the Canyonland project reaches. 

In general, stream angling in the Sierra Nevada is constrained on unregulated 

reaches by flows that are too high for angling during snowmelt runoff and too low (or even 

dry streambeds) during the late summer. This general condition exists in the project area 

streams where many of the background stream segments upstream of project reaches 

experience very low flows (less than 1 cfs) or dry up during late summer/early fall. 

Whitewater Boating 

There are considerable opportunities for class III-V whitewater boating37 in the 

region, as shown in table 3-61, including the SFAR, one of the most popular whitewater 

runs in the state. 

SMUD found that whitewater boating is feasible on the Slab Creek, Camino, and 

Ice House dam reaches. The other project reaches have low whitewater recreation 

potential due to various attributes such as remoteness, physical barriers or excessive or 

insufficient gradient. During periods when there is sufficient flow resulting from spill 

events, there are days when flows in the boatable range exist on the Slab Creek and 

Camino dam reaches, but this rarely occurs on the Ice House Reach. Boating has been 

documented on the Slab Creek dam reach during past spill events and this dam is known 

to spill in AN and Wet water year types. 

 

37The American Whitewater Scale of River Difficulty: Class I, Easy: Fast 

moving water with riffles and small waves; Class II, Novice: Straightforward rapids 

with wide, clear channels which are evident without scouting; Class III, Intermediate: 

Rapids with moderate, irregular waves which may be difficult to avoid and which can 

swamp an open canoe; Class IV, Advanced: Intense, powerful but predictable rapids 

requiring precise boat handling in turbulent water; Class V, Expert: Extremely long, 

obstructed or very violent rapids which expose a boater to added risk; Class VI, 

Extreme and Exploratory: These runs have almost never been attempted and often 

exemplify the extremes of difficulty, unpredictability, and danger. 
3-255 

Table 3-61. Regional whitewater recreational opportunities. (Source: DTA and Louis 

Berger, 2004b) 

Name of 

Run

Put-In & Take 

Out

Length

(miles)

Gradient

(feet per 

mile) Class

Boating Range 

and (Optimum 

Flow)

Boating 

Season

North Fork American River

Generation 

Gap 

Tadpole Creek to 

Colfax-Foresthill 

Rd. 

12.3 75 IV to V 

0 portages 

600–2,000 

(1,200) 

Spring 

Giant Gap Euchre Bar to 

Colfax-Iowa Hill 

Rd. 

14.5 54 IV to V 

0 portages 

600–2,500 

(1,000) 

Winter, 

spring 

Chamberlain 

Falls 

Colfax-Iowa Hill 

Rd. to ColfaxForesthill Rd. 

4.8 44 III to IV+ 

0 portages 

800–2,500 

(1,500) 

Winter, 

spring 

Ponderosa 

Way 

Colfax-Foresthill 

Bridge to 

Ponderosa Way 

Bridge 

5 21 II+ to III 

0 portages 

500–1,500 

> 1,500 (1,200) 

Spring 

Middle Fork American River 

No. Middle 

Fk. 

American 

River 

Last Chance 

Bridge to Middle 

Fk. American 

12.9 129 V 

7 portages 

600–800 

(600) 

Winter, 

spring 

Tunnel Run Ralston Afterbay 

to Spring Garden 

Rd. 

17 23 IV 

1 portage 

800–1,500 

(1,200) 

Spring, 

summer 

Rubicon River 

Lower Run Ellicott Bridge to 

Ralston Afterbay 

20.3 108 V- to V 

2 portages 

500–1,000 

1,000–2,000 

(1,200) 

Spring 

SFAR 

Lovers Leap Strawberry to 

Kyburz 

9.6 171 V 

3 portages 

500–1,200 

(1,000) 

Spring 

Dugald 

Bremner 

Upper Bridge to 

Girard Cr. 

3.5 191 V 

1 portage 

30–800 

(500) 

Winter, 

spring 

Lower Run China Flat to So. 

Fk. American 

3.3 236 V+ 

2 portages 

350–550 

(400) 

Spring, 

summer 

Kyburz to 

Riverton 

Kyburz to Route 

50 Bridge 

9.6 90 III to IV+ 

IV to V 

2 portages 

700–1,200 

1,200–1,300 

(1,200) 

Spring 
3-256 

Name of 

Run

Put-In & Take 

Out

Length

(miles)

Gradient

(feet per 

mile) Class

Boating Range 

and (Optimum 

Flow)

Boating 

Season

Riverton to 

Peavine 

Route 50 Bridge 

to Peavine Ridge 

Rd. 

3.5 69 III to IV 

0 portages 

700–4,000 

(1,500) 

Spring 

Golden Gate Peavine Ridge 

Rd. to Forebay 

Rd. 

9.4 117 V+ 

5 portages 

700–1,500 

(1,000) 

Spring 

Silver Creek Near Road 

12N25 to Ice 

House reservoir 

1.75 481 V 50–3002 

(150-200) 

Spring 

Silver Creek Camino reservoir 

to SFAR 

9.2 119 V 

8 portages 

600–800 

(600) 

Spring 

Slab Creek Slab Cr. dam to 

White Rock 

powerhouse 

7 89 V 

1 portage 

500–2,000 

(1,500) 

Spring 

Rock Creek Near Dutch Cyn 

to Rock Cr. Rd. 

6.3 110 IV+ 

2 portages 

300–800 

(600) 

Winter, 

spring 

Chili Bar Route 193 to 

Coloma 

5.8 31 III+ 

III to IV 

0 portages 

700–1,500 

1,500–10,000 

(2,000) 

Yearround 

The 19.1-mile reach downstream of the project is the most popular whitewater 

boating run in California, with use levels of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 users per day 

on summer weekends. The reach provides a unique whitewater opportunity because of 

relatively predictable year-round boatable flows and its close proximity to major 

population centers, including Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area. The reach 

also provides opportunities for other recreational activities, including fishing, 

swimming, and gold panning and dredging. 

Inflow to Chili Bar Project during regulated flow periods is controlled 

predominantly by the UARP’s upstream storage and water use. UARP controls the 

major storage and water use in the river system upstream of Chili Bar Project, with a 

storage capacity of more than 425,000 acre-feet. Chili Bar Project encompasses 

approximately three river-miles of the SFAR and operates on a water-available, peaking 

basis. Therefore, flows in the reach downstream of Chili Bar typically fluctuate on a 

daily basis. 
3-257 

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects 

Recreation Implementation Plan 

The Projects include some of the most important recreational resources in the 

region, and they act as a gateway to Forest Service managed lands, including designated 

wilderness. As part of the relicensing process, SMUD and PG&E found that, in general, 

the quality of existing recreational facilities associated with the project is good, with 

some sites showing deterioration as a result of insufficient capital investment, increased 

use, and deferred maintenance. 

As part of the Settlement (Proposed Article 1-15, Recreation Implementation 

Plan), SMUD would develop and execute a recreation implementation plan for the 

project in coordination with the Forest Service within 6 months of license issuance. The 

implementation plan would include a construction schedule for recreational facilities as 

defined in Proposed Article 1-19, Specific Recreation Measures, as well as other details 

including, but not limited to, signage and sign placement, public information 

dissemination and a schedule for design of facilities to be reconstructed. 

The implementation plan would be maintained and updated in conjunction with 

the review of recreational developments as described in Proposed Article 1-18, Review 

of Recreation Developments. SMUD proposes to meet with the Forest Service at least 

every 6 years to consider the condition and needs of all project recreational facilities on 

Forest Service lands, and to agree upon necessary maintenance, rehabilitation, 

construction, and reconstruction work needed. The criteria for project selection would 

depend on the amount and type of use, current recreational facility policy, the condition 

of facilities, effects on surrounding areas. Following the review, the licensee would 

develop a 6-year schedule for maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, in 

consultation with the Forest Service prior to being filed with the Commission. 

Our Analysis 

The proposed recreation implementation plan would increase and formalize 

SMUD’s responsibilities to provide and update recreational resources throughout the 

project area, including those formal and dispersed recreational sites that provide public 

access to the project. The plan would provide a framework for the licensees to 

implement the recreational site improvements and coordinate management of 

recreational resources with the land managers that have jurisdiction over project lands, 

as well as monitor recreational use and needs over the term of any new license. These 

measures would provide improvements to the management and delivery of recreational 

resources and would expand recreational opportunities within the project. 

The proposed plan reflects the unique character and management responsibilities 

of public recreational sites around the Projects. The plan would recognize that, while 

SMUD has no legal authority to redevelop public access sites owned or managed by 

others, they do have some responsibility to ensure reasonable public access to project 
3-258 

lands and waters for those portions of the recreational sites currently within the project 

boundary or proposed to be within the project boundary. The assistance and funding 

included in the plan would improve delivery of recreational services by streamlining 

implementation of the improvement measures, while simultaneously minimizing 

jurisdictional conflicts between the Commission and the various land management 

agencies, and providing a mechanism for earmarking licensees’ funds to specific 

project-related improvements. 

PG&E does not propose to develop a recreation plan. PG&E proposes a few 

specific recreational measures (discussed below) to improve recreational access to the 

project. In its license application, PG&E contends that recreational use is low, safe 

public access is best achieved at the upstream end of the reservoir, and project 

operations limit recreational opportunities near Chili Bar dam. In subsequent sections, 

we generally agree with this assessment. However, we expect that recreational use and 

needs would change over the term of any new license issued for the Chili Bar Project. 

Development of a recreation plan for the project, based on periodic monitoring, would 

help the licensee manage these changes in recreational demand and provide a structure 

to evaluate the adequacy of project recreational facilities to meet future recreational 

demand. Such a plan would be designed to achieve the following objectives: 

(1) promote public safety and increase public awareness of recreational opportunities at 

the Chili Bar Project; (2) maintain reasonable health and safety standards through a 

litter and sanitation management; (3) provide safe and reasonable access to the project 

reservoir; (4) address congestion and conflicts among visitors and resources related to 

recreational activities, if any; (5) provide reasonable recreational facilities for a range of 

recreational opportunities; (6) reduce recreational effects on cultural, terrestrial, and 

aquatic resources; and (7) provide a forum for public and agency input into recreational 

facility needs at the project. 

Specific Recreational Site Improvements 

Developed and informal recreational sites provide primary public access to the 

UARP and Chili Bar Project. Many of the facilities were constructed as part of the 

current license in the 1960s to meet visitor demand. Much of the infrastructure at these 

recreational sites is old, some of which is in disrepair from deferred maintenance and 

some of which has reached its useful life. As visitor demographics and use patterns 

change over the term of any new license, recreational amenities at these sites may no 

longer serve the type of recreational uses that visitors expect. 

Under Proposed Article 1-19, Specific Recreation Measures, SMUD would 

implement numerous and substantial improvements to many recreational sites, as well 

as upgrade and expansion of some informal recreational facilities to provide an 

improved level of service. These proposed measures, summarized in table 3-62, would 

be developed within or immediately adjacent to the project boundary on Forest Service 

lands and all improvements would become Forest Service property upon completion 

and acceptance by Forest Service. Proposed Article 1-19 calls for the SMUD to 
3-259 

improve recreational sites within the project boundary including, survey; design; 

contract preparation and administration; environmental analysis and documentation 

necessary for construction of proposed facilities, including any permits; and preparation 

of “as-built” drawings for those facilities on federal lands. SMUD would be responsible 

for funding the actual capital costs of the improvements, but all capital investment 

would become the property of the Forest Service when they are completed. 

SMUD would also develop a plan to install bear-proof food storage lockers and 

bear-proof trash receptacles at all recreational facilities due to the lack of such 

equipment as identified in the recreational use surveys within 2 years of new license 

issuance. The plan would include a schedule for installing the bear-proof equipment 

within five years of plan approval by the Forest Service and CDFG. 

Proposed Article 1-18, Review of Recreation Developments, also calls for SMUD 

to include the specific recreational facilities listed in Proposed Article 1-19, Specific 

Recreation Measures, within the project boundary. If these facilities are not currently 

within the license boundary, the boundary would be adjusted to include them as detail in 

the Forest Service Preliminary Terms and Conditions, Attachment 1, filed January, 29, 

2007. 

PG&E proposes facility enhancements that would be downstream and outside of 

the project boundary. Specifically, under Proposed Article 2-13, BLM Recreation 

Improvements, PG&E would construct (1) a gravel parking area for three to four 

vehicles off Rock Creek Road; (2) a 36-inch-wide trail that meets a grade of 5 percent 

or less from the parking area to Chili Bar reservoir; (3) a kiosk sign along the trail near 

the beginning of the trailing, explaining the rules of the area; and (4) one picnic table of 

coated wire mesh material in a leveled out area that is outside of the Chili Bar reservoir 

floodplain. 

Our Analysis 

Existing recreational facilities within the project include numerous formal or 

semi-formal public-access sites that have some level of recreational infrastructure 

ranging from minor to substantial, including camping areas and boat launches, trails, 

beaches and many undeveloped, dispersed, or informal sites (see figures 3-33 to 3-36). 

These facilities provide the primary public access to Projects’ land and waters. The 

current conditions of the project recreational facilities range from poor to excellent. 

Examples of poor facility conditions include cracked pavement and broken traffic 

control barriers, short campsite parking spurs, and worn and dated campsite components 

and restrooms. Most of the developed facilities are below ADA accessibility standards; 

however, the more recently constructed facilities have been designed to comply with 

ADA accessibility guidelines. Although most recreational visitors interviewed 

expressed general satisfaction with the condition of the sites, they also noted their desire 

for improvements, such as improved public access when the reservoirs are low, 

additional facilities along the reservoirs, and site improvements throughout the Projects. 
3-260 

SMUD’s proposal to enhance, expand and formalize the sites listed in table 3-62 

would substantially improve public access in the project area. The proposed 

improvements to recreational facilities within the project boundary would be sitespecific, derived from a recreational needs assessment, prepared in consultation with the 

Forest Service and stakeholders, and targeted at either improvements to existing 

facilities or development of informal facilities. In addition, the proposal considers 

recreational needs from a geographical perspective and recommends site improvement 

measures based on the overall need in the project area. This approach would help to 

ensure that certain areas of the project or certain facilities are not over-capitalized and 

that other areas receive appropriate improvements to meet existing and projected needs. 

Table 3-62. SMUD’s proposed recreational site improvements. (Source: SMUD and 

PG&E, 2007, Proposed Article 1-19, Specific Recreation Measures) 

Geographic Area/ 

Recreational site Proposed Plan, Upgrade, or Measure 

Upgrade to 

Forest 

Service/ 

ADA?a

Within How 

Many Years 

of License 

Issuance? 

High Country 

Buck Island 

Reservoir Area: 

North Shoreline

Inventory areas affected by dispersed recreation to 

the northwest and northeast of the dam, and 

develop a dispersed motorized camping area 

(Development Level 2) in these areas. Also 

construct new vault toilet, to be maintained by 

helicopter; identify and mark designated 

campsites; restrict vehicle access to motorized 

trail and designated camping areas only through 

the use of barrier rocks and other natural 

materials, and restore impacted areas; and reroute 

a portion of the Rubicon OHV route away from 

sensitive areas and rehabilitate existing route.

 2 years

Rubicon OHV 

Trail System–Ellis 

Creek Tie to 

Rubicon Trail

Provide improvements at the Ellis Creek staging 

area: trailhead parking, sanitation, and improved 

information (Loon Lake spillway) where 

uncontrolled parking currently occurs; implement 

measures to confine OHVs to this designated 

route using barrier rocks and other natural 

materials; and close and restore user-created 

routes adjacent to Loon Lake shoreline.

 2 years
3-261 

Geographic Area/ 

Recreational site Proposed Plan, Upgrade, or Measure 

Upgrade to 

Forest 

Service/ 

ADA?a

Within How 

Many Years 

of License 

Issuance? 

Crystal Basin 

Loon Lake Area Prepare a Loon Lake Recreation Plan to be 

approved by the Forest Service that addresses 

impacts on the lakeshore zone and islands from 

unmanaged recreation, and the need for additional 

day-use opportunities. Develop sites and/or 

implement measures identified in the plan within 

5 years of license issuance. Detailed elements 

required, as well as additional specific areas to be 

evaluated, are included in Proposed Article 1-19.

 2 years

Loon Lake: 

Pleasant 

Campground

Redesign and reconstruct the 10-unit boat-in 

campground, retaining existing capacity on 

existing footprint. 

● 10 years

Loon Lake: 

Northshore 

Recreational 

Vehicle 

Campground

Upgrade the existing 15-unit campground and 

expand to the east and west to take in areas 

heavily affected by dispersed camping. Target 

capacity will be 35 units. 

● 5 years

Loon Lake 

Campground 

(including 

Equestrian Loop)

Redesign and reconstruct the 62-unit campground, 

retaining existing capacity on existing footprint.

● 8 years

Loon Lake (Group) 

Campgrounds

Upgrade Loon Lake Group Site 1 (30 PAOT) and 

2 (50 PAOT). See Proposed Article 1-19 for 

detailed elements.

● 8 years

Loon Lake Group 

Equestrian 

Campground

Redesign and reconstruct 5-unit (30 PAOT) group 

campground; retain existing capacity on existing 

footprint. 

● 8 years

Loon Lake Boat 

Launch (and Day 

Use Area)

● 8 years

Loon Lake: Red Fir 

Group 

Campground

● 20 years

Loon Lake Chalet ● 8 years

Loon Lake 

(Schlein) 

Sanitation Station

Remove part of the concrete island in front of the 

water tower to reach the control valve from the 

turn out. Lower the control valve, and replace it 

with a lever type control.

● 20 years
3-262 

Geographic Area/ 

Recreational site Proposed Plan, Upgrade, or Measure 

Upgrade to 

Forest 

Service/ 

ADA?a

Within How 

Many Years 

of License 

Issuance? 

Loon Lake 

Trailhead

Opened in 1992, facility components are in good 

condition and not in immediate need of 

replacement. 

● 8 years

Loon Lake: South 

Shore

Develop a new campground (500 PAOT) on the 

South Shore of Loon Lake between the LL Hiking 

Trail Facility and Deer Camp. Construct new 

paved two-lane access road from the existing 

Loon Lake campground to new campground site, 

including new trailhead parking for the Loon Lake 

and Desolation area. This site was previously 

identified as proposed Red Fir campground in the 

“Recreation Plan for Crystal Basin, Project 2101, 

November 1973.”

 20 years

Gerle Creek 

Reservoir Area

Prepare development plan, to be approved by the 

Forest Service, that addresses impacts on the 

Gerle Creek and Airport Flat areas from 

unmanaged recreation, and the need for additional 

day-use opportunities. Develop sites and/or 

implement measures identified in this plan within 

15 years of license issuance. Address sanitation, 

user conflicts, carrying capacity, day-use versus 

overnight camping, vehicle control, boating 

access, and emergency resource protection 

measures.

 2 years

Gerle Creek 

Campground

Redesign and reconstruct the 50-unit campground, 

retaining existing capacity on existing footprint. 

● 5 years

Gerle Creek Day 

Use Area

Site has an accessible fishing pier. See Proposed 

Article 1-19 for specific elements. 

● 5 years

Angel Creek Day 

Use Area

See Proposed Article 1-19 for specific elements. ● 5 years

Airport Flat 

Campground

Harden adjacent dispersed area on the south side 

of Gerle Creek. 

● 10 years

Union Valley 

Reservoir Area

Prepare development plan, to be approved by the 

Forest Service, that addresses impacts on the 

Union Valley area from unmanaged recreation, 

and the need for additional day-use opportunities. 

Develop sites and/or implement measures 

identified in this plan within 10 years of license 

issuance. 

 2 years

Union Valley 

Reservoir

Develop and implement a plan approved by Forest 

Service and CDFG that addresses reservoir 

surface use and hazards. 

 2 years
3-263 

Geographic Area/ 

Recreational site Proposed Plan, Upgrade, or Measure 

Upgrade to 

Forest 

Service/ 

ADA?a

Within How 

Many Years 

of License 

Issuance? 

Azalea Cove 

Campground

Provide paved off-site parking area for 10 

vehicles at the intersection of the existing service 

road and the bike trail; develop a potable water 

source and distribution system; improve shoreline 

adjacent to facility to enhance boating access; and 

provide vegetative screening, and use natural 

materials to restrict indiscriminate pedestrian and 

bicycle traffic within and between campsites and 

use areas.

 5 years

Big Silver Group 

Campground

Upgrade existing facilities offered at this 50 

PAOT group campground.

 20 years

Camino Cove 

Campground

● 15 years

Fashoda 

Campground and 

Day Use Area, 

Jones Fork and 

Lone Rock 

Campgrounds

● 5, 5, 20, and 

20 years

Sunset 

Campground

Redesign and reconstruct the 131-unit 

campground, retaining existing family unit 

capacity on existing footprint, and add a group 

site. 

● 5 years

Sunset Boat 

Launch

● 5 years

Wench Creek 

Campground and 

Group 

Campground

Redesign and reconstruct the 100-unit 

campground and the two, 50 PAOT group sites, 

retaining existing capacity on existing footprint.

● 15 years

West Point 

Campground

Design and construct expansion of the existing 

family campground by 25 units, and add a group 

campground (30 PAOT) adjacent to the facility, 

across the road to meet current Forest Service 

standards. 

● 8 years

West Point Boat 

Launch and Wolf 

Creek 

Campground/ 

Group 

Campground

●

5 and 15 

years
3-264 

Geographic Area/ 

Recreational site Proposed Plan, Upgrade, or Measure 

Upgrade to 

Forest 

Service/ 

ADA?a

Within How 

Many Years 

of License 

Issuance? 

Yellowjacket 

Campground

Redesign and reconstruct the 40-unit campground, 

retaining existing capacity on existing footprint. ● 8 years

Yellowjacket Boat 

Launch ● 5 years

Ice House 

Reservoir Area

Prepare development plan, to be approved by the 

Forest Service that addresses impacts on the Ice 

House area from unmanaged recreation, and the 

need for additional day-use opportunities. Plan 

also would address the whitewater recreational 

opportunities in SFSC, above and below Ice 

House reservoir. Develop sites and/or implement 

measures identified in this plan within 8 years of 

license issuance. 

 2 years

Ice House 

Campground and 

Day Use Area

Redesign and reconstruct the 83-unit campground 

and existing 10-unit day-use area, retaining 

existing capacity on existing footprint. 

●

5 years

Northwind 

Campground

Upgrade facilities at this existing 9-unit 

campground, provide potable water, and address 

needs for lakeshore access. 

●

15 years

Strawberry Point 

Campground

Upgrade facilities at this existing 10-unit 

campground, provide potable water, and address 

needs for lakeshore access. 

●

15 years

Ice House Boat 

Launch

Upgrade facilities and repair damage to boat 

launch parking lot upgrade and pavement. ● 5 years

Ice House 

Sanitation Station

Redesign and reconstruct the facility, on existing 

footprint. ● 5 years

Highland Point 

Day Use Area

Develop Highland Point for fishing access and 

day use. Land acquisition may be required. 

Construct new 10-unit picnic area to include 

detailed elements included in Proposed Article 1-

19.

 5 years

Upper Silver Creek 

Ice House Day Use

Develop parking and day-use facilities to 

accommodate existing unmanaged dispersed day 

use associated with Ice House reservoir and Silver 

Creek. Land acquisition and/or easements may be 

necessary. 

 5 years

Crystal Basin Work 

Center and 

Information Station

Upgrade existing facilities, including existing 

water storage facilities, and construct EPA 

approved fueling station.

 15 years
3-265 

Geographic Area/ 

Recreational site Proposed Plan, Upgrade, or Measure 

Upgrade to 

Forest 

Service/ 

ADA?a

Within How 

Many Years 

of License 

Issuance? 

Big Hill Vista Provide visitor amenities including installation of 

two accessible tables and picnic pads, and 

purchase or retrofit refuse containers for 

accessibility and bear resistance.

●

15 years

Cleveland Corral 

Information Station

Provide visitor amenities. 

● 15 years

Silver Creek 

Campground

When whitewater flows are provided by SMUD, 

redesign and reconstruct the 12-unit Silver Creek 

campground, and provide access on adjacent land 

for whitewater access parking and staging. 

 

Canyonlands 

Junction Reservoir 

Boat Launch 

Improve boat launch (for day use only). 10 years

Dispersed Area - 

Bryant Springs 

Road and SFSC 

Bridge

Improve access trail (construction road) between 

Bryant Springs Road and stream. Provide 

turnouts for parking at take-out site for whitewater 

boating on SFSC.

 10 years

Brush Creek 

Reservoir Boat 

Launch

Prepare development plan, approved by the Forest 

Service, that addresses reservoir access, day use 

opportunities, and facility needs or improvements. 

Develop sites and/or implement measures 

identified in this plan within 8 years of license 

issuance. 

 5 years

Boat Launch at 

Slab Creek 

Reservoir at 

Forebay Road

Prepare development plan, approved by the Forest 

Service, that addresses safe and reasonable 

boating access, impacts from unmanaged 

recreation, and the need for additional day-use and 

overnight facilities. Develop sites and/or 

implement measures identified in this plan within 

5 years of license issuance. 

 2 years

Boat launch at Slab 

Creek Reservoir 

near dam

Prepare development plan, approved by the Forest 

Service, that addresses safe and reasonable 

boating access, impacts from unmanaged 

recreation, and the need for additional day-use 

facilities. Develop sites and/or implement 

measures identified in this plan within 5 years of 

license issuance. 

 2 years
3-266 

Geographic Area/ 

Recreational site Proposed Plan, Upgrade, or Measure 

Upgrade to 

Forest 

Service/ 

ADA?a

Within How 

Many Years 

of License 

Issuance? 

SFAR to Slab 

Creek dam to Chili 

Bar Reservoir 

Reach Put-In

Prepare recreation management plan, approved by 

the Forest Service and BLM, to address 

whitewater recreation needs in the Slab Creek 

dam to Chili Bar reservoir reach. Develop sites 

and/or implement measures identified in this plan 

within 8 years of license issuance. 

 5 years

a Site will be redesigned or upgraded to meet current Forest Service design standards and 

requirements of the ADA. 

PG&E's proposal to provide a parking area off Rock Creek Road, a trail that 

leads from the Rock Creek Road to Chili Bar reservoir, an informational kiosk along the 

trail, and a picnic table at the reservoir would address the demand for day use 

recreational opportunities identified in the recreation needs study. 

The FPA requires the project licensee to provide safe public access to project 

lands and waters and include those lands necessary for project operations in the project 

boundary. In accordance with this law, the Commission requires that the project 

boundary contain the primary recreational facilities used to access project waters, as 

well as the lands necessary to ensure access for the term of the license, and the lands 

necessary to ensure an appropriate buffer between the project and neighboring lands. 

As part of any new license, SMUD and PG&E would provide revised exhibit G (project 

boundary map) for the Projects that would include a detailed description and maps of 

the project boundary. 

Most of the recreational facilities proposed to be included in the project boundary 

are immediately adjacent to the existing project boundary and directly associated with 

recreational sites that provide access to the lands and waters used for hydroelectric 

operations. There is a clear physical nexus between the project and these sites, many of 

which have been developed by SMUD to provide access to reservoir shorelines, boat 

launches, campgrounds or shoreline trails. 

However, a few of the proposed recreational site enhancements listed in table 3-

62 are well outside the current boundary and we note that the Commission does not 

have the authority to require site modification beyond the project boundary. These sites 

include the Airport Campground, Big Hill Communication Site, and Cleveland Coral. 

We discuss each of these sites below and their nexus to the project. 

SMUD built Airport Flat Campground in 1996 as part of the exhibit R 

amendment to the License. It is one of the few licensee-developed facilities away from 

a main reservoir. This site was developed in lieu of expanding Gerle Creek 

Campground as a result of concerns that an expanded Gerle Creek Campground would 

lead to crowding conditions and degradation of the recreational experience. As such, 
3-267 

the Airport Flat Campground was developed to handle recreational demand associated 

with the project. This relationship appears to establish a nexus between the site and 

project operations. 

Big Hill Communication Site is primarily used as a communication, fire 

observation and fire staging area for the Forest Service. The site also includes the Big 

Hill Vista, which SMUD built under the current license. Recreational visitors to the 

area often drive to the top of Big Hill to overlook Crystal Basin and the high Sierra 

Mountains to the east. Although the principal purpose of the site is for Forest Service 

operations, including those recreational specific facilities within the project boundary on 

top of Big Hill would ensure that the site is maintained for public use for the term of any 

new license issued. 

Cleveland Coral Information Center serves as the first public contact facility for 

visitors to the Crystal Basin, providing public information services to nearly 70,000 

visitors annually. The site provides visitors with the best opportunity to find appropriate 

campgrounds and plan the details of their trip to the basin. Therefore, recreational use 

of the site appears to be project related. 

Recreational Access Plan for Slab Creek Reservoir 

Slab Creek reservoir is located deep in the SFAR canyon. The site is difficult to 

access and the parking and staging area at the end of the project road is steep, narrow 

and in disrepair. Nonetheless, SMUD’s whitewater boating study determined that the 

reach is Class IV-V and would be boatable by advanced and expert boaters if sufficient 

flows were available. Under Proposed Article 1-24, Recreation Streamflows, SMUD 

proposes to provide recreational releases below Slab Creek dam, which would attract 

more recreational use to confined staging area. 

Under Proposed Article 1-19, Specific Recreation Measures, SMUD proposes to 

develop a recreation access plan that addresses recreational access to the reservoir. This 

plan would address recreational access during the time of construction of Iowa Hill 

reservoir and the tunnel connecting to Slab Creek reservoir, and when Iowa Hill 

reservoir and associated powerhouse are operational. 

Our Analysis 

SMUD found public access difficulties associated with the Slab Creek run, 

including the lack of suitable sites to develop sufficient parking at the put-in and 

potential take-out locations due to steep terrain, the lack of existing legal public access 

to potential take-out locations, and limited possibility to achieve public access to 

potential take-out locations by securing easements from private landowners. 

Developing an access plan to help provide a reasonable level of public access to these 

facilities would help ensure that boaters could use recreational releases. 
3-268 

Monitoring and Adaptive Management 

Project licenses typically extend from 30 to 50 years. Over such long 

timeframes, recreational use patterns would likely change, potentially causing impacts 

to important environmental resources or reducing the adequacy of existing recreational 

facilities to meet visitors’ needs. In addition, many of the environmental measures 

proposed by the licensee and recommended by the Agencies could alter recreational use 

patterns or have direct adverse affects on habitats that have been established under 

existing conditions. For example, the proposed recreational flow releases could directly 

affect aquatic and terrestrial habitats or could attract an unanticipated number of boaters 

that have not historically visited these areas. 

As part of the Settlement, SMUD proposes a monitoring program (Proposed 

Article 1-5 Monitoring Program) to track changes in important habitats and indicators 

species associated with recreational use, pulse flows and recreational flows. SMUD 

also proposes to enter an adaptive management process to change project operations in 

response to adverse effects on environmental resources observed through the monitoring 

program. 

The Proposed Action calls for SMUD to implement a monitoring program after 

license issuance and through the term of the new license and any annual licenses, in 

coordination with the Agencies. The recreational monitoring component is further 

defined in Proposed Article 1-16, Recreation Survey, under which SMUD would 

conduct a Recreational Survey and prepare a report on recreational resources every 

6 years of the new license. The survey would include, but not be limited to, changes in 

kinds of use and use patterns, levels of use, user preferences in recreational activities, 

kinds and sizes of recreational vehicles, preference for day use versus overnight use, 

carrying capacity information sufficient to indicate changes in capacity, and recreation 

user trends within the project area. 

In addition, Proposed Article 1-25, Public Information Services, calls for SMUD 

to provide data to support the determination of carrying capacity on lands affected by 

the project, including, but not limited to: visitor perceptions of crowding, user 

perceptions of “desired conditions,” user preferences for amenities, capacity conditions 

at developed facilities within or affected by the project, and resource impacts and social 

experience. It appears that this information would be collected as part of the surveys 

discussed above. 

SMUD’s proposed adaptive management measures (Proposed Article 1-6, 

Adaptive Management Program), which are closely tied to the environmental 

monitoring and recreational use survey findings, would include changes to project 

operations if the monitoring program and other scientific information indicates that the 

ecological resource objectives would not likely be met without adjustment. SMUD and 

the consulting agencies would analyze monitoring results and other scientific 

information to determine the effects on applicable ecological resource objectives 

identified in the Settlement Rationale Report. Specific recreation-related adaptive 
3-269 

management measures that SMUD and the agencies would consider include: 

cancellation of pulse and recreational releases in SFSC if foothill yellow-legged frogs 

are found on the creek and water temperatures in the creek become unsustainable for the 

frogs; cancellation of recreational flows in SFAR below Slab Creek dam if water 

temperatures below the dam rise above 12°C mean daily temperature for a 7-day 

running or if October releases adversely affect foothill yellow-legged frogs; implement 

good-faith effort to avoid untimely spill events below Slab Creek and Camino dams 

once foothill yellow-legged frog breeding has been Initiated. 

Our Analysis 

Monitoring recreational use over time would provide environmental and 

recreational use baseline data from which to change project operations to protect 

sensitive environmental resources. As proposed, the recreational measures would 

provide substantial benefits to recreational visitors and the proposed recreational 

releases are generally planned to mimic natural conditions and enhance terrestrial and 

aquatic resources within and downstream of the project developments. Based on what 

is known about the Projects, the proposal appears to simultaneously protect and enhance 

environmental resources while continuing to provide and enhance recreational 

opportunities. 

However, as with any complex system, changes in recreational use patterns or 

project operations could have unanticipated adverse effects on aquatic or terrestrial 

resources. The proposed adaptive management measures would provide a means to 

address these effects over the term of any new license issued. As proposed, SMUD 

would file reports with the Commission summarizing monitoring results. If any 

recreation-related adaptive measures are required during the term of any new license, 

SMUD would file an amendment to the proposed recreation implementation plan with 

the Commission for approval. 

Recreational Site Operation and Maintenance 

Long-term O&M of project recreational facilities helps ensure that the quality of 

the recreational sites is maintained for the term of any new license. Under the current 

license, SMUD has contributed O&M funds annually to the Forest Service and has 

assisted the Forest Service with new capital improvements at its recreational sites. 

Overall, the recreational facilities at the project are generally in fair to good operating 

condition. However, some formal sites and many of the informal sites have deferred 

maintenance needs or receive minimal ongoing services. 

As part Proposed Article 1-21, Recreation Operation, Maintenance, and 

Administration, SMUD proposes to contribute annually to the Forest Service up to a 

maximum of, $1,000,000 (year 2005 cost basis). As part of the Settlement, the Forest 

Service would use the funds to provide for operation, maintenance, and administration 

of those developed recreational sites, facilities, or uses that are adjacent to or in the 

vicinity of project reservoirs and facilities listed in Proposed Articles 1-18, Review of 
3-270 

Recreation Developments, and 1-19, Specific Recreation Measures (either developed as 

part of the original/amended license or affected by operations). The proposal would 

include, but not be limited to, managing use within and immediately adjacent to the 

project boundary, and performing both regular and annual maintenance. In addition, the 

Forest Service would use the funds for the special use permit administration required for 

facilities developed as part of the original/amended license and operated by a 

concessionaire. Work to be completed within these areas would consist of conducting 

patrols, picking up litter, providing public information, enforcing rules and regulations, 

rehabilitating impacted areas, addressing sanitation, maintaining day use sites (such as 

concentrated use areas), maintaining trails, information signs, and regulatory signs, 

responding to fires and other emergencies, assisting in search and rescue, addressing 

resource impacts, and area condition monitoring. 

Our Analysis 

Operation and maintenance measures are essential components of any 

recreational measure to ensure that the facilities are maintained at a level that provides 

reasonable public access for the term of any new license issued. Operations of project 

recreational facilities would include management-type measures to keep the facilities 

clean and safe, such as cleaning restrooms, picking up litter and removing trash. 

Maintenance typically includes keeping recreational facilities in a clean, safe and 

functional order. Such measure may include replacing worn equipment or painting 

buildings, or maintaining lawns and paths. 

As part of its ongoing licensee responsibilities, SMUD may contract with the 

Forest Service to operate and maintain project recreational facilities; however, SMUD is 

ultimately responsible for maintaining project recreational facilities in good and safe 

condition. 

Fish Stocking 

One of the primary recreational activities associated with the project includes 

angling in the large storage reservoirs. CDFG currently stocks these reservoirs to 

improve the recreational fishery, but does not guarantee that stocking would continue 

through the term of any new license. 

Under Proposed Article 1-26, Fish Stocking, SMUD proposes to match the 

amount of fish stocked by CDFG, per direction from CDFG, and distribute the fish 

among Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House reservoirs. SMUD would provide 

between 25,000 and 50,000 pounds per year. 

Our Analysis 

Because reservoir-related angling is one of the most important recreational 

activities associated with the project, particularly in the large storage reservoirs, 

including Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House reservoirs, assisting CDFG in 
3-271 

stocking would help ensure that the recreational fishery is maintained for the term of 

any license issued. 

Trails System Management 

Hiking and camping along the Forest Service-managed trail systems is an 

important recreational use, particularly in Crystal Basin and the high-elevation areas. In 

some cases, the highest reservoirs are in or near wilderness areas with no road access, 

requiring SMUD to carry in project-related equipment. 

As part of Proposed Article 1-19, Specific Recreation Measures, SMUD 

proposes specific trail enhancements including new trails, trail closings, and 

rehabilitation of existing trails, as summarized in table 3-63. 

Table 3-63. SMUD’s proposed trail enhancements. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 

2007, Proposed Article 1-19) 

Location Proposed Trail Enhancements 

Within How 

Many Years of 

License Issuance? 

Buck Island reservoir 

Area: West Shoreline

Improve or relocate existing non-motorized trails 

connecting to the Rubicon Hiking Trail.

2 years

High Country Area 

Trails

Improve selected connecting trails off Rubicon hiking 

trail that access Spider Lake.

2 years

Rubicon Hiking Trail Reconstruct or relocate portions of the trail to meet 

Forest Service standards and facilitate proper drainage, 

including improvement of tread on the portion of the trail 

using the old construction road. Trail width would 

accommodate quads for SMUD’s administrative use only 

up to the wilderness boundary.

2 years

Trail Connecting 

Pleasant Boat-In 

Campground to 

Rubicon Hiking Trail

Reconstruct trail to standard, including tread, vegetation 

clearing, drainage, and signage.

2 years

Angel Creek Trail Extend the trail to tie to the Summer Harvest Trail 

(making a loop trail around the reservoir).

5 years

Summer Harvest Trail Upgrade trail surface to a similar standard (aggregate 

base) as the new trail at Angel Creek Day Use Area. 

Replace missing or damaged interpretive signs as 

needed.

5 years

Union Valley Bike 

Trail

Complete the bicycle trail system around Union Valley 

reservoir.

Ice House Reservoir 

Lakeshore Road

Provide access trails from paved turnouts and/or parking 

pockets along the road to the shore. Restore damaged 

sites between road and shoreline. 

5 years
3-272 

Location Proposed Trail Enhancements 

Within How 

Many Years of 

License Issuance? 

Ice House Mountain 

Bike Trail

Extend the Ice House Mountain Bike Trail (native 

surface) completely around Ice House reservoir, 

including stream and spillway crossings. Construct an 

interconnecting trail between the Ice House mountain 

bike trail and the Union Valley mountain bike trail.

10 years

As part of Proposed Article 1-31, Trails System Management, SMUD proposes 

to file with the Commission a trails system management plan for the trails that are 

needed for project operations and are located on or affect National Forest System lands. 

The licensee would implement the plan upon approval. At a minimum, the plan would: 

(1) include a map showing the location of all trails, both the Forest Service system 

(classified) trails and Forest Service non-system (unclassified) trails associated with the 

project; (2) map trail locations using a global positioning system (GPS), software, pre 

and post-processing standards, collection standards and data dictionary approved by 

Forest Service, to ensure that data collected meet national standards; (3) identify the 

season(s) of use and the amount of use by the licensee for each trail annually; and 

(4) identify the condition of the trails described above, including any construction or 

maintenance needs. SMUD would update the plan every 5 years identifying 

maintenance and reconstruction needs for trails. The licensee would file the plan with 

the Commission after approval by Forest Service. 

For the Chili Bar Project, as part of Proposed Article 2-13, BLM Recreation 

Improvements, PG&E proposes to plan, design, and construct a new hiking trail 

between Rock Creek Road and the Chili Bar reservoir to provide public access and 

formal, safe travel to the reservoir shoreline as previously described under Specific Site 

Improvements. 

Our Analysis 

Trails provide important recreational and hunting access to the federal lands 

adjacent to the project, as well as access to the project from surrounding roads, and, in 

cases, access for SMUD to project developments in the remote high-county areas. 

Although many other types of recreational uses are declining on a national level, 

demand for trail-related activities, such as walking, hiking, and biking appear to be 

increasing. 

Of the numerous recreational and hiking trails that provide access to public lands 

managed by federal agencies near the Projects, many begin along roads or recreational 

sites related to the project. Some of these trails are informal and formed by user groups, 

including the trail on BLM lands from Rock Creek Road to Chili Bar reservoir, and 

many of the short spur trails that access SMUD’s reservoirs from Forest Service roads 

in the Crystal Basin. 
3-273 

As proposed by SMUD and PG&E, the trail-specific measures would provide 

substantial benefits to recreational visitors by extending and formalizing trail access to 

project facilities. The trails would continue to provide a variety of recreational 

opportunities, including walking, hiking, angling, sightseeing and biking access. 

SMUD’s proposed trail plan would help to ensure that the condition of the trail 

system is maintained at an adequate level over time. In addition, the plan would help 

ensure that trail users are educated about permissible and prohibited activities in order 

to avoid adverse effects on aquatic and terrestrial resources in the area. 

PG&E’s proposal to develop a trail on BLM lands to access the Chili Bar 

reservoir would formalize recreational use that already occurs in this area. Currently, 

anglers, picnickers, and other visitors follow an old logging road part way into the 

canyon and follow a user-made trail to the water’s edge. Formalizing this trail would 

help ensure that it is designed to follow natural contours and reduces erosion and other 

impacts that can be associated with informal trials. Based on existing use of the 

informal trial, PG&E’s proposal would also address a clear recreational demand for 

improve trails to the reservoir. Developing the trail and associated facilities in the 

context of a recreational plan for the project, updated periodically with the filing of 

FERC Form 80, would help ensure that the licensee responds to changing recreational 

demand and needs over the term of any license issued. 

Reservoir Levels 

Project operations include substantial drawdown of lake elevations, although 

most of this drawdown does not occur during the primary recreational season. Such 

drawdown can interfere with boat access to the reservoirs and reduce the quality of the 

boating experience. 

Proposed Article 1-23, Reservoir Levels, calls for SMUD to meet or exceed the 

end-of-month reservoir elevation targets for Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House 

reservoirs and attempt to maintain higher levels and reduce daily fluctuations during the 

primary recreational season. These measures are fully defined and considered from an 

operational perspective in section 3.3.2 Water Resources. 

Our Analysis 

Recreational use within the Projects is primarily associated with the project 

reservoirs. Typically, SMUD operates Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House 

reservoirs (the large storage reservoirs in the project) at full pool by mid-June, drops the 

reservoirs consistently through the summer and reaches full drawdown in October. 

During this period, and in most years, most of the public boat ramps are accessible. 

As proposed, SMUD would ensure that the reservoirs would be maintained at a 

higher level than those allowed under current conditions during the primary recreational 

season. This would improve the quality of recreational experience by covering much of 
3-274 

the lake bottom when most of the visitors are at the project and establishing minimum 

standards for lake levels associated with different water years. 

The operation of a pumped-storage project could create hazardous hydraulic 

conditions at the intake/outlet structure in Slab Creek reservoir during operations in both 

the turbining and pumping mode. The minimum operating elevation is 1,800 feet, and 

the intake is located 80 feet below elevation 1,850 feet or elevation 1,770 feet. The 

lowest recorded elevation during the period of record we reviewed was 1,807.8 feet in 

2005. Using that value as the minimum operating elevation and assuming the intake 

structure is 15 feet high, the water depth above the intake during pumping operations 

could be as little as 22 feet. Under the proposed operations, SMUD would release up to 

5,200 cfs when the water surface elevation is at the lowest point of the operating range 

and this release would cause water surface disturbances. The design of the intake for 

the lower reservoir would need to provide for adequate safety features, including boat 

restraining barriers, warning signs, and other guidance to the general public. Such 

designs should use the Commission Guidelines for Public Safety at Hydropower 

Projects to develop adequate protection for the public. The design of such barriers 

should use either physical modeling or computation fluid dynamics modeling to assess 

the zone of potential influence and design preventative measures accordingly. 

Typically, such details38 are developed during the final design stage and are subject to 

review by an external engineering board of review and by the Commission. 

Coordinated Operations 

Currently, boatable flows downstream of the Chili Bar development are 

primarily controlled by operations of the UARP. The lack of coordination leads to 

substantial variability in flows and loss of generation capacity when inflow to Chili Bar 

exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the powerhouse and the project spills. 

Proposed Article 1-4, Coordination with Chili Bar Licensee, calls for SMUD to 

coordinate operations with the licensee of the Chili Bar Hydroelectric Project, in order 

to comply with the minimum stream flows, pulse flows, ramping rates, and recreational 

stream flows for both Projects. Proposed Article 2-3 calls for PG&E to coordinate 

operations with SMUD. 

Our Analysis 

The whitewater runs between Chili Bar dam and Folsom reservoir are of 

regional, if not national importance. Theses river sections are the most heavily boated 

in California, in part because the flows are relatively dependable and extend well into 

 

38Although the location of the intake/outlet structure was provided in exhibit F160 and shown to be near the east shore of Slab Creek reservoir, we did not find a 

detailed drawing showing the structure or any boat restraining barriers. 
3-275 

the summer and falls months and in part because of their close proximity to large 

population centers. Historically, SMUD and PG&E have had limited coordination, 

where PG&E calls SMUD plant operators shortly before upstream releases in order for 

PG&E to decide how low to draw down Chili Bar reservoir. Often, this coordination 

does not work well, causing Chili Bar to spill and providing unpredictable flows in the 

whitewater runs below the Chili Bar dam. As proposed, coordination would provide 

substantial improvements to recreational resources by allowing boaters and other 

recreational users to more closely predict the timing and magnitude of flows and 

helping PG&E avoid lost generation opportunities. 

Recreational Streamflows 

SMUD determined that project operations limit whitewater boating opportunities 

between Slab Creek dam and Chili Bar reservoir, as well as the SFSC downstream of 

Ice House reservoir. In some years, these developments spill intermittently and 

unpredictably, or do not spill at all. 

As part of Proposed Article 1-24, Recreation Streamflows, SMUD proposes to 

provide recreational streamflows in the SFSC downstream of Ice House reservoir 

(tables 3-64 and 3-65). The releases would include a range of flows and durations 

during spring months associated with the water year. The duration and magnitude of 

the proposed flows would be based on the water year, with shorter flow events at lower 

magnitudes occurring during dryer years. 

SMUD proposes to spill water from the Slab Creek dam to provide recreational 

streamflows between 850 cfs and 1,500 cfs in BN, AN, and wet water years within 

3 months of license issuance. These flows would be provided between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. in no fewer than three flow events. 

Table 3-64. Proposed recreational streamflows in the Ice House dam reach the first 

5 years. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Water Year Type May June 

CD 300 cfs for 1 weekend day 

Dry 300 cfs for 1 weekend days 

BN 400 cfs for 2 weekend days/holidays plus 500 cfs for 2 weekend days/holidays 

AN 400 cfs for 2 weekend days/holidays plus 500 cfs for 4 weekend days/holidays 

Wet 400 cfs for 4 weekend days/holidays plus 500 cfs for 5 weekend days/holidays 
3-276 

Table 3-65. Maximum possible recreational streamflows in the Ice House dam reach 

after year 5. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Water Year Type May June 

CD 300 cfs for 2 weekend days 

Dry 300 cfs for 6 weekend days 

BN 400 cfs for 5 weekend days/holidays plus 500 cfs for 2 weekend days/holidays 

AN 400 cfs for 5 weekend days/holidays plus 500 cfs for 5 weekend days/holidays 

Wet 400 cfs for 7 weekend days/holidays or Fridays plus 500 cfs for 9 weekend 

days/holidays or Fridays 

SMUD would monitor the amount and type of boating use for both runs for 5 years. 

For the Slab Creek run, SMUD would prepare a whitewater boating recreation plan at the 

end of 5 years, in consultation with the Forest Service, the Water Board, BLM, and other 

interested parties, describing whitewater recreational use and impacts on aquatic species 

and establishing triggers that would determine if SMUD enhances recreational streamflows 

after the construction of the Iowa Hill development. SMUD would continue to provide 

spring releases as shown in table 66 through year 10 at which time SMUD would 

determine if physical modifications would need to be made to the White Rock tunnel adit 

to continue to provide the proposed October recreational flow releases. After 15 years 

SMUD would provide the recreational streamflow releases shown in table 3-66 whether or 

not the Iowa Hill development is built or the recreational use triggers have been meet. 

Within 2 years of new license issuance, SMUD would also prepare a plan to provide 

easement for access and parking in the immediate vicinity of White Rock powerhouse for 

recreational flow events, as well a management plan to address the whitewater recreation 

needs in the Slab Creek dam to White Rock powerhouse. SMUD would develop and 

implement measures identified in this plan. The management plan would address the 

following elements: use levels and projected future use levels; carrying capacity; sanitation 

and garbage; user conflicts; resource effects along the river and including effects to private 

land; necessary put-ins, take-outs and parking for whitewater activities; emergency 

resource protection measures; public safety, search and rescue needs and other emergency 

response needs; information and educational signing needs; demand for commercial 

services or outfitting, including shuttle services and guiding; on-river boat patrol. 

For the SFSC run, SMUD would annually, in cooperation with the Forest Service, 

CDFG, and other interested parties, identify large woody debris that is hazardous to 

recreation streamflow users. SMUD would relocate the large woody debris within the 

channel, with approval by the Forest Service. 
3-277 

Table 3-66. Proposed recreational streamflows in the Slab Creek dam reach after Iowa 

Hill development is constructed, or year 15 if criteria are met. 

(Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Water Year 

Type March April May October 

CD 850–950 cfs from 10:00 

a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for 4 

weekend days and 

1,400–1,500 cfs from 10:00 

a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 850–

950 cfs from 1:30 to 4:00 

p.m. for 2 weekend days 

 

Dry 850–950 cfs from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 

for 4 weekend days 

and 

1,400–1,500 cfs from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 

p.m. and 850–950 cfs from 1:30 to 4:00 

p.m. for 6 weekend days 

 850–950 cfs from 

10:00 a.m. to 1:00 

p.m. for 2 

weekend days 

BN 850–950 cfs from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for 3 

weekend days/holidaysa

 

and 

1,400–1,500 cfs from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 

and 850–950 cfs from 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. for 9 

weekend days/holidaysa

850–950 cfs from 

10:00 a.m. to 1:00 

p.m. for 6 

weekend days 

AN 1,400–1,500 cfs from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 

and 850–950 cfs from 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. for 12 

weekend days/holidaysa

850–950 cfs from 

10:00 a.m. to 

1:00 p.m. for 6 

weekend days 

Wet 1,400–1,500 cfs from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 850–950 cfs 

from 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. for 12 days, weekend days/holidaysa

850–950 cfs from 

10:00 a.m. to 

1:00 p.m. for 

6 weekend days 

a Priority given to Memorial Day weekend 

Under Proposed Article 2-15, PG&E would maintain minimum recreational 

streamflows below in the SFAR downstream of the Chili Bar dam as shown in table 3-67. 

If the Water Board, California Department of Parks and Recreation, and BLM determine 

there should be changes to the times shown in table 3-67, PG&E would adjust the 

minimum recreational streamflows accordingly provided that inflows to the Chili Bar 

reservoir and Chili Bar reservoir elevations are sufficient to maintain these flows. 
3-278 

Our Analysis 

SMUD’s investigation of all of the reaches below project dams determined that 

whitewater recreation is feasible on the Slab Creek, Camino, and Ice House dam reaches. 

The other project reaches have low whitewater recreation potential due to various attributes 

such as remoteness, physical barriers or excessive or insufficient gradient. During periods 

when there is sufficient flow resulting from spill events, there are days when flows in the 

boatable range exist on the Slab Creek and Camino dam reaches, but this rarely occurs on 

the Ice House reach. The Slab Creek dam reach has received boating use during past spill 

events and this dam is known to spill in AN and Wet water year types. 

SMUD’s proposed spring recreational streamflows releases during years 1 through 

15 would provide reliable boating flows of high difficulty that would enhance whitewater 

boating opportunities at the UARP. SMUD’s monitoring for effect of these flows on 

aquatic species and to determine use would provide SMUD and the Agencies with the 

information necessary to adjust flows in response to environmental effects and user 

demand. After 15 years, however, both the spring and fall flows would be provided 

regardless of the effects on aquatic species or the amount of demand. A review of the 

environmental and use triggers as part of the 10 year monitoring report would be important 

for assessing whether the spring and fall recreational streamflow releases should continue 

after the construction of the Iowa Hill development, or after 15 years if the Iowa Hill 

development is not constructed. 

As proposed, SMUD’s and PG&E’s recreational releases would provide substantial 

recreational benefits for whitewater boaters, especially during dry years when these dams 

would not typically spill. The proposed flows would occur at a magnitude that would 

provide high-quality boating opportunities for a variety of skill levels and for a variety of 

boats and that would be consistent with the results of the recreational use and boating 

studies. 

Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation Gaging 

Accurate and timely stream flow and reservoir levels provide important 

information for recreational visitors planning water-related visits to the project. 

Currently, flow information is provided by SMUD on a public Internet site for a number 

of project related waterways. However, the public information is incomplete and does 

not include flows on many of the project’s creeks and streams. 

As part of Proposed Articled 1-10 and 2-8, Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation 

Gaging, SMUD and PG&E propose to develop and file with the Commission for 

approval a streamflow and reservoir elevation gaging plan within 1 year of license 

issuance that meets USGS standards. SMUD and PG&E would provide copies of their 

respective plans and USGS review results to the Forest Service, the Water Board, 

CDFG, and the Commission. The Chief of the Division of Water Rights would approve 

the plans prior to filing with the Commission. See section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources, 

Water Quantity, for details of the streamflow and reservoir gaging locations. 
3-279 

Table 3-67. South Fork of the American River downstream of Chili bar reservoir dam minimum recrea

year (cfs). (Source: DTA and Louis Berger, 2004c) 

Water Year Type Period Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Super Dry April–Memorial Day 

Memorial Day–Labor Day Labor Day–September October–March 

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m. 3 hrs at 1:00 p.m. 3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

3 h5 h3 h3 h

Critically Dry 

March–Memorial Day Memorial Day–Labor Day Labor Day–September October–February 

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m. 3 hrs at 1:00 p.m. 3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

3 h5 h3 h3 h

Dry March–Memorial Day 

Memorial Day–Labor Day Labor Day–September October–February 

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m. 3 hrs at 1:00 p.m. 3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

3 h5 h3 h3 h

Below Normal 

March–Memorial Day Memorial Day–Labor Day Labor Day–September October November–February 

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m. 3 hrs at 1:00 p.m. 

 3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

3 h6 h3 h3 h3 h

Above Normal 

March–Memorial Day Memorial Day–Labor Day Labor Day–September October November–February 

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 3:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m. 3 hrs at 3:00 p.m. 

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 3:00 p.m.

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 3:00 p.m.3 hrs at 3:00 p.m.

3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.3 hrs at 3:00 p.m.3 hrs at 3:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

4 h6 h3 h3 h3 h

Wet March–Memorial Day 

Memorial Day–Labor Day Labor Day–September October November–February 

3 hrs at 3:00 p.m.4 hrs at 3:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

3 hrs at 3:00 p.m. 4 hrs at 3:00 p.m. 

3 hrs at 3:00 p.m.4 hrs at 3:00 p.m.

3 hrs at 3:00 p.m.4 hrs at 3:00 p.m.3 hrs at 3:00 p.m.

3 hrs at 3:00 p.m.4 hrs at 3:00 p.m.3 hrs at 3:00 p.m.3 hrs at 1:00 p.m.

6 h6 h3 h3 h3 h
3-280 

The measure also calls for SMUD to install and maintain simple staff gages at 

the put-ins for the Slab Creek and Ice House recreational boating runs within two years 

of new license issuance. SMUD would perform an investigation to determine whether 

telemetry equipment can be installed at Rubicon River below Rubicon dam and Little 

Rubicon River below Buck Island dam to monitor conditions and/or control operations. 

If SMUD and the Forest Service concur that such equipment is economically and 

technologically feasible and can be installed consistent with law, regulations, and 

policies applicable to Desolation Wilderness, SMUD would seek necessary approvals 

for such installation and would install this equipment if the necessary approvals are 

received. 

SMUD and PG&E also propose to develop public information services 

(Proposed Articles 1-25 and 2-15, Public Information Services) to provide stream flow 

and reservoir level information on the Internet. 

Elements of SMUD’s stream flow and reservoir level measure would include: 

1. Publication of flow and reservoir level on the Internet. 

2. Notification of recreational streamflow releases at least 7 days in advance of 

the actual releases. 

3. A plan that addresses, at a minimum, information on daily average reservoir 

stage height for the following reservoirs: Rubicon, Loon Lake Ice House, 

Union Valley, Gerle Creek, Brush Creek, and Junction. The plan would 

also address, at a minimum, information on hourly average reservoir stage 

height and storage for Slab Creek reservoir. 

4. A plan that addresses real-time streamflows for the following Projectrelated stream reaches: Rubicon River below Rubicon dam; Little Rubicon 

River below Buck Island dam; Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam; Gerle 

Creek below Gerle Creek dam; SFRR below Robbs Peak dam; SFSC below 

Ice House dam; Silver Creek below Junction dam; Silver Creek below 

Camino dam; Brush Creek below Brush Creek dam; SFAR below Slab 

Creek dam. 

5. The plan would be approved by the Forest Service and the Water Board 

prior to filing with the Commission. Following approval, the minimum 

streamflow schedules from appendix a, section 1, and current water year 

type information would be published on the licensee’s website. Within 6 

months of completion of the information plan described above, the licensee 

would implement the elements described in the information plan. The 

streamflow and reservoir level information plan may be modified upon 

mutual agreement of the licensee, Forest Service, CDFG, and the Water 

Board. 

PG&E’s plan would include: (1) real-time lake stage height and storage 

information for Chili Bar reservoir; (2) installation of up to two simple staff gages for 
3-281 

use by the public; (3) real-time streamflow and reservoir level information that is 

available to the public year-round via toll-free telephone number or other appropriate 

technology approved by BLM; and (4) streamflow information collected consistent with 

the standard USGS gage facilities downstream of the Chili Bar reservoir dam (using 

USGS gage 11444500) on a website that includes 15-minute increments and streamflow 

releases from the past 7 days. 

Our Analysis 

SMUD’s and PG&E’s proposals, including gaging and publication of flow 

information, would provide substantial amounts of new flow and lake level data for 

recreational visitors. This information would be useful in planning and staging waterrelated trips to the project, such as flat water and whitewater boating trips and fishing 

trips. 

Public Information Services 

Public information at the primary recreational sites helps visitors understand 

acceptable and prohibited activities, as well as provide information about important 

cultural and environmental resources in the area. 

As part of Proposed Article 1-25, Public Information Services, SMUD proposes 

to develop public information services that would require SMUD to develop brochures 

and maps, and develop an interpretation and education plan for the project. 

Specifically, SMUD proposes develop and print one or more brochures and maps that 

describe the recreational opportunities, recreational facilities, rules, and responsibilities 

within the area of the project, including the Canyonlands, high country lakes, and 

streams. The brochure would be provided to the Forest Service for review and approval 

prior to completion. The licensee would make the brochure/map available to the public 

free of charge. The brochure/map would be made available continuously and would be 

updated as conditions change. 

SMUD also proposes to develop an interpretive, educational, and public 

information plan within 2 years of license issuance, in consultation with the Forest 

Service and other appropriate agencies and interested parties. At a minimum, the plan 

would include themes, design, audience, delivery methods, and schedule for 

implementation for providing up-to-date information such as: sightseeing, hiking, 

observing wildlife, and utilizing facilities such as boat ramps, campgrounds, and 

beaches. SMUD proposes to coordinate development of this plan with PG&E. 

As part of Proposed Article 2-14, Public Information Services PG&E would 

annually pay $15,000 (escalated by GDP-IDP) to BLM to provide project recreation 

brochures and maps and an interpretive, education, and public information plan. 
3-282 

Our Analysis 

The proposed brochures and map and the interpretive, education, and public 

information plan would improve upon existing public education and interpretation 

information with updated materials that compliment the Forest Service and BLM 

publications. The proposal would help expand recreational opportunities by providing 

visitors with easily accessible information about project resources. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

The effects of project operations on existing and proposed recreational facilities 

would be the same as under the Proposed Action, except that if recreational use triggers 

are met, the provision of enhanced recreational boating flows would require physical 

modifications to the White Rock tunnel in year 15. 

3.3.6.3 Cumulative Effects 

The recreational measures proposed by SMUD and PG&E would improve 

recreational opportunities throughout much of the SFAR Basin. Each proposed measure 

is incrementally small. However, together, the recreational measures would improve 

opportunities in the region, allowing the Projects to adapt to change recreational use 

over time, better using existing recreational resources, and developing new resources 

that address current and foreseeable recreational activities, such as hiking and biking. 

3.3.6.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

None. 

3.3.7 Land Use 

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment 

Land Ownership 

The UARP is located in El Dorado County and the northeastern part of 

Sacramento County, California, within the SFRR, SFSC, and SFAR drainages. The 

project boundary encompasses about 9,432 acres, which includes the seven 

developments as well as the proposed Iowa Hill development (including transmission tiein and access roads) (table 3-68). The Forest Service administers about 64 percent 

(6,048 acres) and BLM administers less than 1 percent (42 acres) of the federal lands 

within the UARP boundary, none of which are in the proposed Iowa Hill development. 

SMUD owns about 34 percent (3,193 acres) of the land. The private owners (Sierra 

Pacific Industries) hold about 2 percent (150 acres) of the land within the project 

boundary. 
3-283 

Table 3-68. Land ownership (acres) within the FERC project boundaries, by 

development.a

 (Source: DTA and Goodavish, 2005) 

Development SMUD Forest Service BLM Private Totals

Loon Lake 253.1 2,041 11.3 2,305.4

Robbs Peak 28.2 188.8 33.5 250.5

Jones Fork 666.6 518.8 1,185.4

Union Valley 2,018.1 2,257.5 6.8 4,282.4

Jaybird 52 336 7.9 395.9

Camino 227.1 0.2 227.3

White Rock 96.6 293.4 42.3 70.3 502.6

Iowa Hill 77.9 185 20 282.9

Total 3,192.5 6,047.6 42.3 150 9,432.4

a

 The Commission charges SMUD annually for the use of federal lands under section 10(e) of the 

FPA for 4,553.41 non-transmission line acres and 359.79 transmission line acres, which is less than 

the total federally owned acres in this table because acreage transferred to the Forest Service in the 

1960s for which SMUD retains occupancy rights is not included in the total. 

The proposed Iowa Hill development boundary including the transmission line 

tie-in would include 282.9 acres of land. The Forest Service administers 185 of these 

acres, and the remaining acres are owned and managed primarily by SMUD (77.9 acres) 

and Sierra Pacific Industries (20 acres). 

BLM owns about 227 acres of undeveloped land in the vicinity of the Chili Bar 

Project. About 48 of those acres are located inside the Chili Bar Project boundary. 

Land Uses 

Industrial Uses 

Industrial uses with the project areas are predominantly related to SMUD and 

PG&E's hydropower operations. These facilities (described in sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.1, 

Project Description) include 12 reservoirs, 12 transmission lines, tunnels, and support 

facilities. 

Recreational Uses 

Rubicon reservoir in the Loon Lake development is surrounded by the 

Desolation Wilderness Area within the Eldorado National Forest, and the Forest Service 

manages the land around the reservoir consistent with wilderness goals and objectives. 

The land within and immediately surrounding Buck Island and Loon Lake reservoirs is 

public land managed primarily for recreational activities, including boating, fishing, 

hiking, horseback riding, camping, and wilderness appreciation. The Rubicon OHV 
3-284 

Trail passes along the north side of Loon Lake and Buck Island reservoir, and users 

camp at informal dispersed campsites near the route. 

SMUD provides formal public recreational facilities and shoreline access 

primarily at four of the reservoirs in Crystal Basin (described in section 3.3.6.1, 

Recreational Resources). Facilities include four campgrounds, a boat launch, a 

wilderness trailhead, and a chalet at the Loon Lake development; two campgrounds, two 

day-use areas, an interpretive trail, and a fishing pier at the Robbs Peak development 

(Gerle reservoir); three campgrounds, a day-use area, a boat-launch, a trail, an 

information station, and a sanitation station at the Jones development (Ice House 

reservoir); and 12 campgrounds, a day-use area, three boat launches, and two sanitation 

stations at the Union Valley development. There are two private resorts, Robbs Valley 

Resort which intrudes on the project boundary at the Robbs Peak development, and Ice 

House Resort in the vicinity of the Jones Fork development. A commercial whitewater 

put-in, a public whitewater put-in, and the Nugget Campground are located along the 

SFAR downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

Recreational use in the Canyonlands at the Jaybird, Camino, and Slab 

Creek/White Rock developments is informal and minimal and generally limited to 

fishing and dispersed camping on Eldorado National Forest lands; boating on Junction, 

Brush Creek, Slab Creek, and Chili Bar reservoirs via informal boat launches (boats are 

not permitted on the Camino reservoir); and OHV use. There are no developed 

recreational facilities at the reservoirs associated with the three developments. The 

downstream reach of the Chili Bar Project is a popular whitewater recreation run. 

The proposed Iowa Hill development would be located within the Eldorado 

National Forest, near Slab Creek reservoir and the communities of Camino and 

Swansboro/Mosquito. No formal recreational facilities are proposed at this 

development. 

Timber Harvesting 

There are an estimated 428,844 acres of land managed for commercial timber 

production on the Eldorado National Forest. Timber-producing land is classified into 

five major forest types: mixed conifer, red fir, ponderosa pine, sub-alpine, and 

hardwoods. Timber harvesting emphasizes regeneration of poorly stocked stands. 

Timber harvesting occurs near each development at Robbs Peak, Jones Fork, Union 

Valley, Jaybird, and the proposed Iowa Hill development, as well as on privately owned 

lands owned by Sierra Pacific Industries adjacent to the project boundary. 

Residential Uses 

Private residential development in the project area is sparse with several 

privately owned parcels abutting the project boundary along the north end of Loon Lake 

reservoir, several parcels in vicinity of Gerle reservoir, two parcels in the vicinity of 

Jones Fork development, several parcels abutting the Union Valley development, one 
3-285 

parcel near the access road to the south of Camino developments, and several parcels in 

the vicinity of the Slab Creek/White Rock development. All of these private-residential 

parcels are zoned as Natural Resource Areas by El Dorado County and may be used for 

rangeland, wildlife management, forestry, water resource development, and or 

residential use supporting one dwelling per 40 to 160 acres. There is also sparse 

residential development to the north and south of the Iowa Hill site, which would be 

constructed on SMUD-owned land currently designated as rural residential with a 

platted lands overlay, on Eldorado National Forest lands, and on Sierra Pacific 

Industries lands designated as Natural Resource. The lands in the Chili Bar Project area 

include rural residential parcels, and several residences are located within 0.75 mile 

downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

Access Roads 

The SMUD operations and maintenance staff use a variety of federal, state, 

county, and private highways/roads to access project facilities. SMUD’s use of these 

roads consists of light and heavy vehicles at varying levels of frequency. All roads 

(about 104) within the UARP were surveyed and identified for existing or potential 

sources of erosion or sediment that may reach a watercourse. SMUD, Sierra Pacific 

Industries, the Forest Service, El Dorado County, or a combination of two or more of 

these jurisdictions maintains these roads. Main access roads to project features and 

project campgrounds that were paved generally had formal drainage systems, 

implemented erosion control measures, and little or no observed erosion and sediment 

transport. Access roads to transmission line towers generally followed the natural grade 

and used water bars for drainage. Ruts were observed on several of these roads, but 

sediment usually did not leave the roadway. In the worst cases, sediment traveled 15 to 

20 feet from the road. Because these roads are typically on the tops of ridges and far 

from streams or rivers, there is little opportunity for sediment reaching watercourses. 

Unpaved roads and trails (surfaced with gravel or native materials) that provide 

access to project features typically have drainage features, including side ditches, water 

bars, and cross culverts. Some of these roads are near watercourses and have the 

potential to transport sediment to the water; however, most of these roads have higher 

usage and appear to be maintained. Very few problem areas were identified. During 

the winter, SMUD plows Ice House Road and several other roads needed to operate and 

maintain the UARP facilities. SMUD also voluntarily plows selected parking areas for 

recreationists in accordance with the Eldorado National Forest's annual snow removal 

plan, and during spring opening of campgrounds. SMUD removes the snow from Ice 

House Road consistent with a use permit issued by El Dorado County. 

The roads that would serve the Iowa Hill development are U.S. Highway 50 

(U.S. 50), Carson Road, Larsen Drive, North Canyon Road, Slab Creek dam access 

road, Slab Creek reservoir access road, Cable Road, and Iowa Hill Road. U.S. Highway 

50 is the primary east-west transportation corridor through the county that serves all of 

the county’s major population centers. Carson Road is a two-lane, east-west roadway 
3-286 

extending from Camino to Placerville. Cable Road is a two-lane road paved up to the 

Sierra Express Drive intersection that runs generally north-south (with many curves). 

The remaining road segment to Iowa Hill Road is loose gravel or dirt. Cable Road 

would serve as the primary access route for the upper reservoir site, and it would be 

graveled from Sierra Express Drive to the Iowa Hill development as part of the project 

improvements. Iowa Hill Road, off of Cable Road, is the access road to the upper 

reservoir site. Iowa Hill Road is a dirt road with no shoulder, and it would be graveled 

as part of the project improvements. Larsen Drive is a two-lane, rural local collector 

that runs generally north-south between North Canyon Road and Carson Road. It also 

connects North Canyon Road to Cable Road. North Canyon Road is a two-lane northsouth local road between Placerville and Camino. Slab Creek dam access road, off of 

North Canyon Road, provides access to the lower reservoir site, and it has a varying 

roadway width and no shoulder. It connects to Slab Creek reservoir access road at Slab 

Creek reservoir. Both Slab Creek dam access road and Slab Creek reservoir access road 

would be upgraded as part of the Proposed Action. 

The Chili Bar Project access road extends to the project facilities east from 

Highway 93. Three privately developed roads lead to shoreline areas that are located on 

project lands including two roads off of Rock Creek Road along the northern shore of 

the Chili Bar reservoir and one road off of Bear Rock Road on the southern side of the 

Chili Bar reservoir. 

Vegetation Management below Transmission Lines 

SMUD currently implements a vegetation management program to maintain the 

vegetation in the transmission line right-of-way. SMUD voluntarily complies with 

California Public Utility Commission rules and regulations regarding power line 

clearances (General Order 95). The purpose of the plan is to sustain an adequate 

distance between overhead transmission lines and vegetation within the right-of-way. 

SMUD mainly uses mechanical methods, such as hand cutting and bulldozing, to clear 

the right-of-way outside the Eldorado National Forest. Recently, the Forest Service 

authorized SMUD to use herbicides in addition to mechanical treatment within the 

right-of-way on National Forest System lands. Herbicides allow for selective treatment 

of vegetation where undesirable plant species, such as noxious weeds, are selectively 

treated, and desirable species, such as low-growing trees and shrubs that provide 

wildlife habitat or food for foraging, are preserved. The reduction of fuels within the 

right-of-way has an added benefit as it creates a fuel break that will contribute to the 

control or containment of a wildfire. 

Fire Risk and Protection 

SMUD conducted a fire risk and protection study that concluded that that fire 

risk is highest in lands within the immediate vicinity of the UARP reservoirs and where 

recreation occurs. Fire risk progressively decreases moving further away from the 

reservoirs. Within the Pacific Ranger District, there are about 28,200 acres in need of 
3-287 

fuels reduction treatment. Projected fuel treatments to reduce fire hazard to acceptable 

levels includes treating areas with a combination of thinning and slashing in the first 

decade, followed by periodic underburning to maintain desired conditions over the next 

five decades. SMUD's study found a positive correlation between human-caused fires 

and proximity to dispersed recreation located on Eldorado National Forest-managed 

lands sites; historically, fires are clustered along roads and surrounding recreational 

areas such as Union Valley, Loon Lake, and Ice House reservoirs. However, available 

data do not allow distinction between the types of human-caused fires. While 

transmission line sag is a fire risk, measures are in place to evaluate and remove hazard 

trees under and adjacent to transmission lines. Removal of these trees on a periodic 

basis minimizes the risk of fire start from the transmission lines. 

While some wildfires in the UARP area have occurred historically, the Eldorado 

National Forest has an active fuels management program in place to minimize fire risk. 

Fires at UARP-related recreational areas are relatively rare, and when they occur they 

are usually small and quickly suppressed. 

Land Management 

Federal 

As noted above, federal lands managed by two federal agencies (Forest Service 

and BLM) account for about two-thirds (6,090 acres) of the acreage within the project 

boundary. 

Forest Service—In 2001 and 2004, the Eldorado National Forest Land Resources 

and Management Plan was amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. 

This was a planning effort to respond to the study of the Sierra Nevada Mountain 

bioregion. The Sierra Nevada Plan addressed the following five management problems: 

(1) old forest ecosystems and associated species, (2) aquatic, riparian, and meadow 

ecosystems and associated species, (3) fire and fuels management, (4) noxious weeds, 

and (5) lower Westside hardwood forest ecosystems. The 2004 amendment established 

management direction and goals; land allocations; desired future conditions; standards 

and guidelines for future management actions; and strategies for inventory, monitoring, 

and research to support adaptive management. 

The goals of the old forest and associated species strategy are to (1) protect, 

increase, and enable desired conditions of old forest ecosystems and conserve species 

associated with these ecosystems while meeting people’s needs; (2) increase the 

frequency of large trees, increase structural diversity of vegetation, and improve 

stability and distribution of old forests across the landscape; and (3) restore forest 

species composition and structure following large-scale, stand-replacing disturbance. 

The aquatic management strategy goals are to maintain and restore (1) water 

quality, (2) species viability, (3) plant and animal diversity, (4) special habitats, 
3-288 

(5) watershed connectivity, (6) floodplains and water tables, (7) watershed condition, 

(8) streamflow patterns and sediment regimes, and (9) stream banks and shorelines. 

The goals for fire and fuels management include reducing threats to communities 

and wildlife habitat from large, severe wildfires and re-introducing fire into fire-adapted 

ecosystems. The long term goals are (1) treating fuels in a way that reduces intensity 

and spread, therefore making fire suppression more effective; (2) treating hazardous 

fuels in a cost-efficient manner to maximize program effectiveness; and (3) actively 

restoring fire-adapted ecosystems. The management of hazardous fuels in and around 

communities combined with strategic placement of treatment across broad landscapes 

can modify wildland fire behavior. 

The Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan was also 

amended in 1998 to include the Desolation Wilderness Management Guidelines. These 

guidelines were developed because of the following issues: (1) increased day use in the 

wilderness due to increasing population in urban areas and improved access at 

wilderness trailheads, (2) the development of more refined methods of managing 

wilderness use, and (3) the national direction for the Forest Service to use land resource 

management plans to create standards and guidelines for consistent wilderness 

management. 

Bureau of Land Management—The BLM’s management plan for the SFAR 

pertains to the management of public lands. This management plan contains a set of 

assumptions that apply to the UARP and the Chili Bar Project. Planning Assumption 

#10 states, “It’s anticipated that there will be no significant changes in water flow in the 

SFAR in the foreseeable future” (BLM, 2004, not seen, as cited in DTA and Goodavish, 

2005). 

The Federal Land Policy and Land Management Act is the organic act of the 

BLM. The act establishes the agency’s multiple-use mandate to serve present and 

future generations. The act requires periodic and systematic inventorying of publics and 

land use planning to project present and future land uses. 

El Dorado County—All lands in the study area owned by El Dorado County are 

located outside the project boundary. Lands in El Dorado County are subject to the 

policies detailed in the El Dorado County General Plan, River Management Plan, Trails 

Master Plan, and Water Agency Water Resource Development and Management Plan. 

In El Dorado County, designations include Rural Residential, Low, Medium and 

High Density Residential, Natural Resource Areas, and Open Space. Rural Residential 

is defined as areas for residential and agricultural development where there is one 

dwelling unit per 10 to 160 acres. Low Density Residential establishes areas for singlefamily residential development in a rural setting with a maximum of one dwelling unit 

per 5 acres. Medium Density Residential is for detached single-family residences with 

larger lot sizes that enable limited agricultural land management activities. There is a 

maximum of one dwelling unit per 1 acre. High Density Residential areas are suitable 
3-289 

for intensive single-family residential development (condominiums, townhouses, 

detached dwellings, and manufactured homes) at densities from one to five dwelling 

units to 1 acre. In the vicinity of UARP, within the Eldorado National Forest boundary, 

both governmental and non-governmental lands are designated as Natural Resources 

Area, which means these areas contain economically viable natural resources and 

protect the economic viability of those resources and those engaged in 

harvesting/processing of those resources, including water resources development. 

Compatible uses may include agriculture, rangeland, forestry, wildlife management, 

recreation, water resources development, and single-family dwellings necessary to 

support compatible uses. The Open Space land use designation includes public lands 

under governmental title (other than those designated as Natural Resources) where no 

development other than that specifically needed for governmental-related open space 

uses is desired. 

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects 

Land Ownership, Management, and Use 

The proposed management plans and associated land management strategies and 

implementation measures could affect land use and land management within the UARP 

area over the term of a new license. There are no measures in PG&E's Proposed Action 

that would affect land use at the Chili Bar Project. 

Transportation System Management Plan 

Under Proposed Article 1-30, Transportation System Management, SMUD 

would (1) develop and implement a transportation system management plan, approved 

by the Forest Service, for roads on or affecting National Forest System lands, 

(2) undertake specific road improvements, and (3) provide to the Forest Service an 

annual snow plowing plan to address public safety and access. 

The proposed transportation system management plan would (1) establish 

SMUD's level of responsibility for project roads with SMUD having primary 

responsibility for non-system roads and for maintenance level 1 and 2 roads and sharing 

levels of responsibility for maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads with the Forest Service; 

(2) include maps showing all roads, a traffic safety and signage plan, drainage crossings, 

easements or right-of-way agreements identifying those roads for which an easements or 

right-of-way agreements are needed; road use by season, conditions of the roads, a 

signage plan, measures to control erosion at the UARP facilities; and identification of 

access points at the UARP; and (3) provision for 5-year plan updated every 5 years to 

identify the maintenance and reconstruction needs for project roads. 

SMUD would also address specific road projects, including (1) improvements to 

North Union Valley Road; Wrights Lake Tie Road to improve the intersection with Ice 

House campground entrance road, and Lakeshore Road within 5 years of license 
3-290 

issuance and close the road to Junction dam to public access and construct a 

turnaround/parking area within 10 years of license issuance. 

Our Analysis 

Some of the Forest Service and other public roads the licensee uses to access 

project facilities for operation and maintenance purposes are also used by the Forest 

Service for administrative and land management purposes, and the public for 

recreational activities. The development of a transportation management plan, in 

consultation with the Forest Service, would enable ongoing maintenance and associated 

planning responsibilities to be clearly defined. Such clarification of maintenance 

responsibilities and implementation of erosion control measures during maintenance 

activities would minimize the potential for road erosion and damage caused by snow 

removal or other factors and other resource damage caused from precipitation and 

increased traffic. We note that any project access road requiring routine maintenance 

would need to be included in the project boundary. Implementation of the specific road 

improvements to those roads constructed by SMUD and used solely for project purposes 

would enhance public safety and access at several highly used recreational facilities. 

Iowa Hill Development 

The construction process of Iowa Hill would begin with updating existing access 

roads to accommodate construction vehicles. Roads that would be updated are Cable 

Road, Slab Creek dam access road, and Slab Creek reservoir access road. The updated 

roads would serve as the main avenues for accessing the upper and lower construction 

areas for the estimated 235 temporary construction workers. The project construction 

would improve the roads that service the project area. Also the project construction 

may enhance the potential for development because of access road improvements and 

regular road maintenance. 

Once operating, we could not expect the two employees and periodic trips by 

supply and maintenance vehicles to generate much project-related traffic at Iowa Hill. 

Trails System Management Plan 

Under Proposed Article 1-31, Trails System Management, SMUD would develop 

a trails system management plan, approved by the Forest Service, for the trails that are 

needed for Project operations and are located on or affect National Forest System lands. 

SMUD would also address specific trails management projects, as described in 

Proposed Article 1-19, Specific Recreation Measures. Section 3.3.6, Recreational 

Resources, contains information on specific elements of the plan and trails projects. 

Our Analysis 

The trail system management plan would identify measures to ensure that safety, 

maintenance, and rehabilitation measures associated with the trails are addressed in a 

consistent manner and so as not to adversely affect environmental resources. Some of 
3-291 

the Forest Service trails the licensee uses to access project facilities for operation and 

maintenance purposes are also be used by the Forest Service for administrative and land 

management purposes, and the public for recreational activities. The trails system 

management plan would provide for ongoing maintenance and improvement of the trail 

system for UARP, Forest Service, and people using the recreational facilities at the 

reservoir. Trails requiring routine maintenance would need to be included within the 

project boundary. 

Iowa Hill Development 

The construction schedule at Iowa Hill does not include initial upgrades of trails 

as the trails are not main avenues for accessing the construction areas at Iowa Hill or 

Slab Creek. The trail usage generated from construction activity would be minimal. 

Trail usage created during operation of the proposed hydropower project would 

be minor.

Facility Management 

Under Proposed Article 1-32, Facility Management, SMUD would develop and 

implement a facility management plan, approved by the Forest Service. The proposed 

plan would include a map showing all UARP facilities, including structures on or 

affecting National Forest System or BLM lands and above-or below-ground storage 

tanks; a description of the type and season of use of each structure; and a description of 

the condition of each structure, and planned maintenance or removal. In addition, every 

five years SMUD would prepare a plan identifying maintenance, reconstruction, and 

removal needs for UARP facilities, including transmission lines.

Our Analysis 

Development and implementation of the proposed facility management plan 

would provide Forest Service or BLM with information on planned maintenance 

activities that might affect federal lands. 

Proposed Project Boundary 

Project boundaries of the UARP and Chili Bar Project would be changed under 

the proposed actions. SMUD proposes to revise the UARP Project boundary to 

encompass the new Iowa Hill development south of Slab Creek reservoir, which covers 

about 283 acres and includes a berm, tunnel, powerhouse, and transmission line. Steep 

terrain limits land use in the area. Currently, lands are used minimally for timber 

production by Sierra Pacific Industries and Eldorado National Forest with limited 

dispersed recreation. SMUD would also include the project recreational facilities. 

PG&E proposes to revise the Chili Bar Project boundary. The existing Chili Bar 

Project boundary includes about 255 acres of PG&E-owned lands from approximately 

50 to 250 feet from either side of the river and extending from 3.2 miles upstream of the 
3-292 

Chili Bar dam to 320 feet downstream of the dam. The PG&E proposed boundary 

would be about 103 acres within the normal maximum water surface elevation at 997.5 

feet mean sea level and would enclose all project works, as well as a 12-foot wide 

corridor for a new proposed hiking trail (the Sand Bar Trail) to provide public access to 

the reservoir shoreline. 

Our Analysis 

The UARP proposed boundary change would not affect land ownership, but 

would change land use in vicinity of the project south of Slab Creek reservoir. Under 

the Proposed Action, existing timber production and recreational use would be 

converted to industrial use. However, because existing land use is limited to timber 

production and dispersed recreation, the environmental effects of the proposed 

boundary change would be minor. Inclusion of the project recreational facilities would 

ensure the ability of the Commission to enforce compliance with the proposed measures 

for recreation facility, road, and trail improvements and maintenance over the term of 

any license issued for the project. 

The proposed Chili Bar Project boundary excludes approximately 152 acres of 

BLM, PG&E, and private lands included in the existing boundary. PG&E does not 

provide any specific information about why the lands are no longer needed for project 

purposes. However, land use and ownership would not be changed, and recreational 

access to the reservoir would be provided through development of the Sand Bar Trail. 

Environmental effects of the proposed boundary on land use and management would be 

negligible. 

Effects of Proposed Iowa Hill Development (Overall) 

The proposed Iowa Hill development would be located south of Slab Creek 

reservoir. The current land uses, including recreation, are minimal due to the steep 

terrain. The SMUD-owned lands have no existing use while the Sierra Pacific 

Industries and Eldorado National Forest lands are management mainly for timber 

production. The construction of the proposed Iowa Hill development would have 

minimal effects on land use and management at UARP. The development of the project 

would not prevent future development of residences on the private parcels around the 

project, but would adversely affect residential parcels, ranging from short-term 

construction-related disturbances to the long-term obstruction of views. However, the 

project may enhance the potential for development because of access road 

improvements and regular road maintenance. 

Vegetative Management Plan 

The proposed vegetation management plan primarily affects terrestrial resources 

and is discussed in section 3.3.4.2, Terrestrial Resources, Vegetative and Noxious Weed 

Management and would address vegetative management under project transmission 

lines. 
3-293 

Fire Management and Response Plan 

Under Proposed Article 1-34, Fire Management and Response Plan, SMUD 

would develop and implement a plan for the prevention, cost sharing, coordination, 

reporting, control, and extinguishing of fires in the vicinity of the Project resulting from 

project operations. The proposed plan would include (1) the identification of fire 

hazard reduction measures to prevent the escape of project-induced fires, (2) the 

locations of exit routes and determination of fire suppression strategies, as well as 

address fire danger and public safety associated with project-induced recreation, 

(3) analysis of emergency response and fire prevention needs including equipment and 

personnel, (4) reporting, (5) lists of the location and availability of fire suppression 

equipment and personnel, and assurances that prevention measures meet water quality 

protection practices, and (6) investigation of project-related fires. 

Our Analysis 

The UARP continues to create a wildfire threat. Recreation at the reservoirs and 

stream reaches, including project facilities and user-created dispersed sites, pose a 

substantial fire risk and that risk will increase as recreational use increases in the future. 

Given the known high incidence of fire starts and previously treated and untreated fuels 

in the area, SMUD should take reasonable preventative and pre-suppression actions at 

its project facilities to help prevent wildfires and create safer conditions for the visitors 

brought to the Crystal Basin by the Project facilities and reservoirs. Implementation of 

the proposed fire management and response plan would improve planning, 

management, and coordination for wildfire protection and prevention measures, as well 

as lead to a reduction in the occurrence and suppression of wildfires that might be 

project-induced. 

3.3.7.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

None. 

3.3.8 Aesthetic Resources 

3.3.8.1 Affected Environment

The UARP is located in El Dorado County and the northeastern part of 

Sacramento County, California. UARP lies on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada 

mountain range. This part of the county is largely undeveloped and retains much of its 

natural character, with scattered rural residences and small communities located along 

major corridors throughout the western slope. Nearly all of the UARP facilities, except 

for the White Rock powerhouse and the section of the UARP transmission line that 

leads from the powerhouse to Folsom Junction, are located on lands within the Eldorado 

National Forest. 

The UARP existing facilities and proposed Iowa Hill development can be placed 

into three aesthetically distinct geographic areas: Desolation Wilderness, Crystal Basin, 
3-294 

and Canyonlands. SMUD identified key view points (table 3-69) associated with 

Eldorado National Forest viewsheds within and near the project boundary to assess the 

existing visual condition of UARP facilities and operations within the surrounding 

forest landscape. 

Table 3-69. Aesthetics resources at UARP, key viewpoints. 

(Source: DTA and Goodavish, 2005) 

Rubicon Trail Sunset / Fashoda Road 

Loon Lake reservoir Union Valley reservoir 

North Loon Lake Road Union Valley Bike Path 

Red Fir Access Road Big Hill Lookout Road 

McKinney Creek Road Ice House-Wrights Road 

Wentworth Springs Road Ice House Reservoir Road 

Gerle Creek Access Road Ice House reservoir 

Gerle Creek reservoir Bryant Springs Road 

Ice House Road Forebay Road 

Wolf Creek Road Highway 193 

Yellow Jacket Road State Scenic Highway 50 

Deer Knob Peavine Road 

Desolation Wilderness 

The Desolation Wilderness lies within the crest zone of the Eldorado National 

Forest. The Eldorado National Forest is managed in terms of visual quality objectives 

(VQO), which are reflected in the 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Service, 1988, not seen as cited in DTA and Goodavish, 2004). The VOQs represent a 

combined rating of the scenic integrity or visual variety of the landscape with a 

sensitivity rating that reflects the number and relative concern of viewers for the scenic 

quality of the landscape. The Desolation Wilderness is characterized by a strongly 

glaciated landscape with peaks that tower above glaciated rocky basins. The UARP 

boundary is excluded from wilderness designations but is required to be managed in a 

manner that is consistent with the adjacent wilderness. Desolation Wilderness is 

managed for a VQO of Preservation that allows only ecological changes to be made, 

where management activities (except for low visual impact recreational facilities) are 

prohibited. Because the facilities at UARP are man-made, the project will never meet 
3-295 

the wilderness Preservation VQO. The Forest Service goal is to move as close to a 

Preservation VQO as is reasonable. 

The UARP facilities within the wilderness are associated with Rubicon reservoir 

and affect views from the Rubicon Trail. As viewed from the trail, the scale and color 

of the main dam blend in fairly well with the surroundings. The auxiliary dam has an 

angular form that contrasts with but does not dominate the characteristic landscape. 

Due to the proximity of the trail to the intake structure, boom, and gaging structure, the 

built facilities are major visible features that contrast with the natural appearing 

wilderness area and dominate views from the trail. Traveling north from the reservoir, 

Rubicon trail splits. Along the northwest trail, the outlet structure, gauging station, and 

cable crossing over the channel dominate the view. The tunnel outlet is gated by a 

chain link fence that detracts from the natural setting. The concrete color and texture of 

the tunnel matches that of the surrounding rocks although the smooth texture and 

geometric form appear unnatural. The light color of the gaging station, contrasts with 

the characteristic landscape. 

Crystal Basin Landscape 

The Crystal Basin lies within the mixed conifer-red fir zone of the Eldorado 

National Forest. Within the Crystal Basin are 5 areas of power generating 

developments: Loon Lake, Robbs Peak, Union Valley, Jones Fork, and Jaybird. Views 

from trails, roads, and reservoirs are affected by the UARP facilities. 

At the Loon Lake development, the main and auxiliary dams at Buck Island 

reservoir have a horizontal form and smooth texture that contrasts with the natural 

setting, whereas the scale and color of the dams reasonably blend well. The Buck 

Island dam, intake, transmission lines, and powerhouse are not obvious to those 

utilizing the Rubicon Trail or the Buck Island reservoir. At Loon Lake reservoir, the 

scale and horizontal line of the main and auxiliary dam contrasts with the natural 

settings surrounding the dam, although the colors blend in well. Looking at these 

features from the reservoir and Red Fir Access Road they are unnatural appearing and 

dominate the view. The main and auxiliary dams at Loon Lake are intermittently 

visible from Rubicon Trail but are obscured by the landforms and vegetation. The Loon 

Lake dike and powerhouse are off the reservoir shoreline and are not visually evident 

from the reservoir, although the angular shape of the powerhouse contrasts the 

surrounding landscape. The powerhouse is visually evident from North Loon Lake 

Road. The intake at Loon Lake is near the shoreline, light in color, and angular in shape 

making it subordinate to the surrounding landscape. The Loon Lake intake can be seen 

easily from the Rubicon Trail and other points on the reservoir. The transmission line 

and substation at this development are hard to see from the reservoir but are noticeable 

from North Loon Lake Road and McKinney Road. One tower is visible from Rubicon 

Trail. 
3-296 

Within the Robbs Peak development, users at Gerle Creek reservoir, the trail to 

Angel Peak, and the Summer Harvest Trail can see the UARP dam and intake. The dam 

and intake area introduce an angular shape and smooth texture into the landscape. The 

color is similar to the granite rock but contrasts with the forested background. 

At the Union Valley development UARP facilities such as the Gerle Creek canal, 

Robbs Peak dam area, and the Robbs Peak penstock can be seen from Ice House Road 

near the Robbs Peak forebay. The Gerle Creek canal and the Robbs Peak dam area do 

not dominate the view but both have contributed to the developed nature of the forebay 

site. Development at the dam area at Robbs Peak includes dam gates, an intake 

structure, fences and gates, cleared areas, and a small building. The dam area also 

consists of angular shapes and light colors which contrast with the surrounding scenery. 

The Robbs Peak penstock forms a dominate line that can be seen briefly from Ice House 

Road. The penstock is also evident from Big Hill Lookout Road, Big Hill Vista, Union 

Valley reservoir, and portions of the Union Valley bike path. 

The Jones Fork penstock, near the Jones Fork powerhouse, is also visible from 

Ice House Road. The penstock is well screened to the east but is visible to the west of 

Ice House Road because of clearing from the road. The penstock is visible where there 

are forest openings at other locations, such as from Big Hill Lookout Road. It is also 

visible in the middle-ground viewed from Big Hill Vista. The penstock is light in color 

and contrasts the soil and dark green surrounding vegetation. 

Along Deer Knob Peavine Road, the Union Valley dam, powerhouse, 

switchyard, and intake can be seen. The dam dominates the view. The powerhouse is 

angular and the color contrasts with the surrounding environment. The switchyard and 

substation are in close proximity to the powerhouse which together dominates the view 

of a confined canyon setting. Two towers of the Union Valley transmission line can 

also be seen from Wolf Creek Road near Deer Knob Peavine Road. 

The Union Valley dam and transmission lines, and the Robbs Peak penstock, 

transmission lines, and powerhouse, can be seen from the Union Valley reservoir. The 

horizontal form of the Union Valley dam is apparent and contrasts with the surrounding 

landscape. The Robbs Peak penstock color blends well with surrounding soil but in 

combination with other surrounding features, such as the powerhouse, it dominates the 

view. The powerhouse is dark in color and contrasts with the light soil surrounding it in 

the foreground view from the reservoir but blends in with the surrounding vegetation 

when viewed in the middleground. Most of the Union Valley transmission lines are 

shielded from view by the forest, although visibility is temporarily increased due to the 

Cleveland Fire, which occurred in 1997. 

From different view points on Ice House reservoir, there are views of the main 

dam, intake, and dikes. The main dam is angular and contrasts with the surrounding 

landscape. When the water level is high, the scale of the dam is relatively small when 

compared to the size of the reservoir; it is noticeable but does not dominate the view 
3-297 

from any location. The intake is only visible to viewers directly in front of it. The dikes 

at Icehouse reservoir are low and similar in color to the surrounding shoreline. 

At the Jaybird development from Bryant Springs Road, the Union Valley dam 

and substation, as well as Union Valley-Jaybird transmission line are visible. From the 

road, the Union Valley dam is large in scale and takes up the view. The substation is 

seen in front of the dam contributing to the dominating view. The Union Valley-Jaybird 

transmission towers are screened by forest vegetation and only visible intermittently 

whereas the transmission lines govern the view around Junction reservoir. 

Canyonlands Landscape 

The Canyonlands lie within the front country zone of the Eldorado National 

Forest. The front country terrain is characterized by rolling uplands and steep rugged 

river canyons. The canyon lands contain the Camino development and the Slab Creek 

reservoir / White Rock development. At the Camino development there are no 

Eldorado National Forest managed viewsheds in the area. Relatively few people view 

the UARP facilities in this area. 

UARP facilities, such as the Camino penstock and powerhouse, and the CaminoWhite Rock transmission lines affect views from Forebay Road (El Dorado County 

Road). The penstock contrasts with the natural setting because it is linear in form and 

does not blend well with the dark green forested hillside. Where the penstock is visible 

from Forebay Road, it dominates the upstream view. From Forebay Road bridge, the 

powerhouse and substation are not easily noticeable. The transmission line corridor 

dominates the view from locations along Forebay Road and where they cross over the 

canyon from the powerhouse to a knoll above the river. 

Within the Slab Creek/White Rock development, the White Rock Spoil pile can 

be seen from State Highway 193. The spoil pile stands out and dominates the view 

because of its geometric shape, color, and size, in comparison to the surrounding forest 

land. 

Reservoir Levels 

SMUD conducted a survey to evaluate visitors’ aesthetic expectations for, and 

satisfaction with, water surface elevations at the Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice 

House storage reservoirs. Visitors were asked about their historical and current use and 

satisfaction with reservoir levels. They were shown three pictures of different reservoir 

elevations, and asked what their level of satisfaction would be if the reservoir looked 

like the picture during their visits. 

Of those interviewed who had visited Loon Lake reservoir before, only 

15 percent said they had been dissatisfied with water levels in the past. Most 

respondents (92 percent) at Loon Lake reservoir were neutral, satisfied, or very satisfied 

with reservoir elevations at or above 6,399 feet (11 feet below full-pool). About half of 

the respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied at an elevation of 6,390 feet 
3-298 

(20 feet below full-pool), but only a quarter of respondents would find the 6,390-foot 

elevation to have a negative effect on their experiences. 

Of those interviewed who had visited Union Valley reservoir before, 38 percent 

said they have been dissatisfied with water levels in the past. Over three-fourths of the 

respondents (78 percent) at Union Valley reservoir were neutral, satisfied or very 

satisfied with the 4,852-foot reservoir elevation (17 feet below full-pool). At elevation 

4,816 feet (54 feet below full pool), 70 percent of the respondents were dissatisfied or 

very dissatisfied with the appearance of the reservoir and 72 percent said their 

experience would be negatively affected. 

Of the respondents who have visited Ice House reservoir before, 34 percent said 

they have been dissatisfied with water levels in the past. Most respondents (88 percent) at 

Ice House reservoir were satisfied with reservoir elevations at and above 5,438 feet (12 

feet below full-pool). At elevation 5,425 feet (25 feet below full-pool), 55 percent of the 

respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the appearance of the reservoir. 

Similarly, 47 percent of respondents said their experience would be negatively affected at 

the 5,425-foot level. 

Proposed Iowa Hill Development 

SMUD identified key observation points (figure 3-36) within and near the 

proposed Iowa Hill development boundary to represent views of the aesthetic 

environment of the UARP facilities and operations as well as assess the aesthetic 

resources of the project. The analysis includes the effects on visual resources due to the 

existence of existing and proposed facilities, their operations, and their noise. Field 

results indicated that views of proposed Iowa Hill development are confined to lots 

located on the canyon side of roads and courts that border the outer edge of the 

subdivision above the SFAR: Deer Canyon Court, Cableview Court, Log Cabin Lane, 

Slab Creek Court, and White Oak Drive. There appear to be no views of proposed Iowa 

Hill reservoir from the “interior” roads of the development. 

Along Deer Canyon Court, the proposed Iowa Hill development would not be 

seen from the road although the road ends in a cul-de-sac where three lots may have 

views of the proposed development. On Cableview Court (no. 1 on figure 3-36), there 

would not be views of Iowa Hill because the area is heavily forested. A view of Iowa 

Hill to the south would be possible from an unmarked road off the side of Cableview 

Court, although vegetation would partly screen the view. Views from Log Cabin Lane 

(no. 2 on figure 3-36) were obscured by forested areas. About 10 lots on the east side of 

the road between Cableview and Slab Creek Courts (no. 4 on figure 3-36), would be 

affected by the proposed Iowa Hill development. Iowa Hill would be visible from the 

backyard of a lot at the north end of Slab Creek Court. 
3-299 

7
	

"

 

!

 	

	

  ( 
  6 6 8

<






$





  










	



=



&

&&'<




	$

	$%
	


'
		$%
	




	$%
	

 	 	%	 # 









	/	-
7	-

7
	



 

<7 



>"	$%
	 6

"	$%
	

>(*77#667;6*!

(6 
(;*7

#
(	$

   	


	8(	$

Figure 3-36. Key observation points in project area. (Source: SMUD, 2005; PG&E, 2005, as modified 
3-300 

A key observation point is located on White Oak Drive (no. 4 on figure 3-36), 

which terminates at an entrance gate to a large lot from which Iowa Hill can be seen to 

the west. The proposed Iowa Hill development can be seen from the gate on Chute 

Camp Road (no. 5 on figure 3-36). Sky Ranch Lane (east and west) heads north and 

veers west, where the proposed Iowa Hill development can be seen (no. 3 on figure 3-

36). It then turns into a private drive where the posted signs ask people to turn around. 

Along Winding Lane, the area is heavily wooded and there is no access to the lot at the 

end of the road. The lot, however, appeared to have a direct view to the north of the 

proposed Iowa Hill development based on the parcel map information. Skyview Drive 

passes under the existing UARP (Loon-White Rock) transmission line, where Iowa Hill 

could be seen from near the transmission line tower along the road. No apparent views 

of the proposed facility were evident from Mace Drive. Forebay Road provides access 

to the east end of Slab Creek reservoir and the Camino powerhouse. From this 

observation point, a view of Iowa Hill and the slope the transmission line was found at 

the last switchback in Forebay Road before descending into the SFAR canyon. 

Project Area Management 

Forest Service 

Management of all National Forest System lands within the project boundary is 

guided by several documents including the Eldorado National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. All of the project lands and lands influenced by project 

operations that are managed under the Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan fall within the Desolation Wilderness, Crystal Basin, or the 

Canyonlands areas. 

The Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan provides 

standards and guidelines for the VQO specified for each management area. VQOs are a 

measure of the degree of acceptable alteration permitted within the natural 

characteristic landscapes and are applied to all project proposals and activities on 

National Forest System lands. The VQOs prescribed by the Eldorado National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forest System lands within the 

UARP facilities boundary are as follows. 

Preservation—The Preservation VQO allows for ecological change only. 

Except for very low visual-impact recreational facilities (such as hiking trails), 

management activities are prohibited. This objective applies to wilderness areas, 

primitive areas, other specially classified areas, areas awaiting classification and some 

unique management units that do not justify special classification. Project facilities that 

fall under the Preservation VQO include Rubicon reservoir and its diversion and tunnel. 

Although the Rubicon reservoir area sits inside the Desolation Wilderness boundary, 

the reservoir itself is not within the wilderness due to congressional exclusion, however, 

the act calls for the excluded lands “.... to be managed in a manner that is consistent 

with the adjacent wilderness.” 
3-301 

Retention—The Retention VQO provides for management activities that are not 

visually evident. Under Retention, activities may only repeat the form, line, color and 

texture frequently found in the characteristic landscape, but changes in their qualities of 

size, amount, intensity, direction and pattern should not be evident. Most of the 

reservoirs and surrounding shorelines associated with the UARP have a Retention 

VQO, including Buck Island, Loon Lake, Gerle Creek, Union Valley, Ice House, Robbs 

Forebay, and Slab Creek reservoirs. 

Partial Retention—The Partial Retention VQO allows for management activities 

that remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat 

the form, line, color, or texture common to the characteristic landscape, but they should 

remain subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic landscape. The area 

surrounding Junction reservoir has a Partial Retention VQO. Portions of Union Valley 

and Ice House reservoirs (and the surrounding area), and the upper development area 

for the Iowa Hill development have a Partial Retention VQO. 

Modification—Under a Modification VQO, management activities may visually 

dominate the characteristic landscape. However, activities of vegetative and land-form 

alteration must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture so 

completely and at such a scale that its visual characteristics are those of natural 

occurrences within the surrounding area character-type. None of the UARP reservoir 

areas are in a Modification VQO. 

Bureau of Land Management 

The BLM-managed land in the UARP boundary is about a 40-acre parcel, 

located at White Rock. Visual Resource Management by BLM is based on the 

agency’s Visual Resource Management system, which involves inventorying scenic 

values and establishing management objectives for those values through the resource 

management planning process. The BLM VQOs are defined by the Eldorado National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The standard intended to decrease 

conflicts with visual management objectives of the National Forests and BLM, yet 

allow continued project operation. The BLM visual management objectives also apply 

to the 48 acres of BLM-managed lands within the Chili Bar Project boundary. 

El Dorado and Sacramento County General Plans 

The general plans for El Dorado and Sacramento counties include goals and 

objectives associated with the protection of visual resources, however there are no 

inventory and assessment systems similar to those of the federal agencies for managing 

visual resources. Therefore, the aesthetic assessment of Project facilities on lands 

outside the Eldorado National Forest (except for BLM lands where the VRM system 

applies) will use the environmental checklist questions from the CEQA Guidelines for 

evaluating any on-going visual or auditory effects of the Project within El Dorado and 

Sacramento counties. 
3-302 

3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects 

Visual Resource Protection Plan 

Under Proposed Articles 1-27 and 2-16, Visual Resource Protection, SMUD and 

PG&E would develop and implement, in coordination with the Forest Service and 

BLM, respectively, visual resource protection plans. The proposed visual resource 

protection plan was designed to improve how well project facilities blend in with the 

surrounding landscape. SMUD and PG&E would file plans with the Commission with 

the Forest Service (for UARP) and BLM approval (for Chili Bar) including proposed 

mitigation and implementation schedules to bring the Projects' facilities affecting visual 

resources into compliance with visual resource standards and guidelines. Enhancement 

measures would include (1) surface treatments with natural appearing materials that 

will be in harmony with the surrounding landscape, (2) use of non-specular conductors 

for the transmission lines, (3) use of native plant species to screen facilities from view, 

(4) reshaping and revegetating disturbed areas to blend well with surrounding visual 

characteristics, and (5) locating transmission facilities to minimize visual impacts. 

Under the plan, SMUD would implement the following specific visual 

enhancement measures: (1) at Rubicon reservoir, paint the metal components of the 

gaging station, intake booms, telemetry facilities, cable crossing and bucket a nonreflective black color and replace the chain link fence with black fencing within 2 years 

of license issuance; (2) at Robbs Peak forebay, paint the railings black, replace the 

chain link fences with vinyl black fences, paint the roof a dark gray color; (3) at Robbs 

Creek, paint the powerhouse facilities the same color as the penstock within 8 years of 

license issuance; (4) at Union Valley dam and substation, sandblast the guardrail to 

remove white paint then repaint with black paint or replace with core-ten guardrail, 

within 13 years of issuance; and replace the chain link fences with vinyl black fence 

with black posts, where powder coated posts are preferred over painted metal; (5) at 

Loon Lake, paint the doors on the substation a dark gray within the first two years, and 

remove the Loon Lake passive reflector (Wentworth Peak) from the skyline to a 

location with a backdrop and camouflage it to blend into the surroundings within 2 

years of license issuance, and paint the roof of the gate shaft with approved colors 

within 2 years of issuance; (6) paint the handrails and guardrails at Gerle reservoir nonreflective black and paint the licensee-owned weather stations with non-reflective black 

paint within 4 years; and (7) at the Jones Fork, paint the penstock to match the color of 

the Robbs Peak penstock with in the first 3 years the license is issued. 

Under Proposed Article 1-44, Compliance with Visual Quality Standards, 

SMUD would develop a design for the Iowa Hill development that meets the visual 

quality standards of the Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

and would provide the Eldorado National Forest with plan specifications and simulated 

views of the design to assist in determining whether the design meets the visual quality 

standards. 
3-303 

Our Analysis 

Some project facilities and operations are visible on the landscape and contrast 

with the surrounding forested setting. Implementation of visual resources plans 

including the proposed measures would help to ensure that project facilities blend with 

the surrounding landscape, yet allow the operation of UARP and Chili Bar Project 

facilities. Painting facilities black will make them less visible from a distance 

considering the facilities are surrounded by dark forested landscapes. Painting the 

facilities or taking action to blend them in with surroundings would enhance aesthetics 

at the project by minimizing the view of project facilities. 

Reviewing any new construction with BLM, prior to any ground-disturbing 

activities would ensure that any new construction at the Chili Bar Project would blend 

with the surrounding landscape. 

Iowa Hill Development 

Under the proposed construction sequence, SMUD would begin construction by 

first improving the existing access roads and clearing approximately 150 acres of land. 

SMUD would then drill and blast to excavate the reservoir and tunnel leading to Iowa 

Hill. After the reservoir and tunnel are complete, SMUD would construct the 

powerhouse and other facilities underground. Construction activity would entail using 

vehicles, trailers, equipment, materials, laborers, earthen debris, and fencing. The area 

would be de-vegetated, re-graded, leveled, barricaded, lined, and filled. Effects from 

construction on the visual resources would last for up to 5 years. The contractor would 

be responsible for implementing dust control measures within the project limits and 

approaches to the construction area. During construction traffic would increase on the 

local roads. Dust and dirt in the area would increase from all the construction vehicles 

as well as the excavation and construction process. The negative impacts would affect 

boaters, anglers, trail users, road users, residents, and any others near the construction 

of Iowa Hill. The level of use in the project area is relatively low and the effects 

associated with dust, dirt, and traffic would be limited to the 4 year construction period. 

The project as proposed does not currently meet Eldorado National Forest VQOs. 

Provision of plan specifications and simulated views of the proposed facilities would 

help to ensure that project facilities meet the VQOs of the Eldorado National Forest. 

The operation of Iowa Hill would vary from day to day. Some days the 

development will not be used at all and other days it may be used heavily. On heavy 

use days, the water level fluctuation would increase then decrease about 9 to 15 feet, 

whereas weekly fluctuation would be approximately 30 feet; however the maximum 

fluctuation in Slab Creek reservoir would not be altered by Iowa Hill. Generally, the 

Iowa Hill reservoir would rise during the day, in response to generation, and fall during 

the night, in response to pumping. The operation of Iowa Hill reservoir would have 

minimal effects on the aesthetic environment. 
3-304 

Reservoir Levels 

Also, under Proposed Article 1-23, Reservoir Levels, SMUD would, within 6 

months of licensing issuance, meet or exceed the end-of-the month reservoir elevations 

for Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House reservoirs as shown in table 3-21 in 

section 3.3.2.2, Water Resources. 

Our Analysis 

Based on the user preference surveys, reservoir levels in BN, AN, and Wet water 

years would satisfy the majority of users of the Loon Lake, Union Valley and Ice House 

reservoirs. At Loon Lake, about 50 percent of the users would be satisfied with end of 

month water surface levels except for all month in CD water years and September in 

Dry water years. At Union Valley and Ice House reservoirs, at lease 75 percent of users 

would be satisfied with end of month water surface levels in July of BN water years and 

in AN and Wet water years. Users would generally not be satisfied with surface water 

levels in CD and Dry water years; however these reservoir levels would be similar to 

the current operations and would not have any additional effect on water surface levels. 

UARP-Only Alternative

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed and the visual impacts on Iowa Hill and the surrounding canyon terraces 

would not occur. The remaining aesthetic enhancements proposed by SMUD would be 

as described under SMUD’s Proposal. 

3.3.8.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

There would be short-term negative effects from construction activity on boaters, 

anglers, trail users and residents in the vicinity of the proposed Iowa Hill development. 

3.3.9 Cultural Resources 

3.3.9.1 Affected Environment 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as 

amended (section 106), requires the Commission to evaluate potential effects on 

properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places 

(National Register) prior to an undertaking. An undertaking means a project, activity, 

or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a 

federal agency, including, among other things, processes requiring a federal permit, 

license, or approval. In this case, the undertaking is the proposed issuance of new 

licenses for the Projects. Potential effects that may be associated with this undertaking 

include any project-related effects associated with the day-to-day operation and 

maintenance of the Projects after issuance of a new license. 

Historic properties are cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register. Historic properties represent things, structures, places, or 
3-305 

archeological sites that can be either Native American or European-American in origin. 

In most cases, cultural resources less than 50 years old are not considered eligible for 

the National Register. Cultural resources also have to have enough internal contextual 

integrity to be considered historic properties. For example, dilapidated structures or 

heavily disturbed archeological sites may not have enough contextual integrity to be 

considered eligible. 

Section 106 also requires that the Commission seek concurrence with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on any finding involving effects or no effects on 

historic properties, and allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an 

opportunity to comment on any finding of effects on historic properties. If Native 

American properties have been identified, section 106 also requires that the 

Commission consult with interested Native American tribes that might attach religious 

or cultural significance to such properties. 

Area of Potential Effects 

Pursuant to section 106, the Commission must take into account whether any 

historic property could be affected by a proposed new license within a project’s APE. 

The APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may 

directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties 

and/or traditional cultural properties (TCPs), if any such properties exist. In this case, 

the APE for the UARP encompasses all lands and waters within that project’s 

boundaries plus the location of the proposed Iowa Hill development. The APE for the 

Chili Bar Project encompasses all lands and waters within the existing licensed project 

boundary, including the access road from Highway 193, the powerhouse and dam, and 

upstream to a point upriver of the UARP White Rock development. It also includes the 

route of PG&E’s proposed Sand Bar hiking trail, which PG&E proposes to bring within 

its proposed license boundary. The SHPO concurred with these respective APEs by 

letters dated April 22, 2003 and November 24, 2004. 

Cultural History Overview 

Over the years, archaeologists have proposed a number of archaeological 

chronologies for the North-Central Sierra Nevada and for the Sacramento 

Valley/foothills regions in which the American River drainage lies. Collectively, they 

can be loosely organized into five general periods characterized by artifacts and other 

remnants of human settlement. 

To date, archaeologists have found no conclusive evidence that humans occupied 

the American River drainage during the Late Pleistocene period, prior to 10,000 BP. 

This appears to have begun to change toward the end of the Early Holocene period 

(10,000 BP-7000BP) in areas to the east of the Sierra crest, as indicated by the presence 

of stemmed projectile points and stone tools. 
3-306 

Archaeologists have found more evidence of human occupations for the Archaic 

period (7000 BP to 3200 BP) to suggest that indigenous peoples were beginning to 

incorporate seeds and other vegetable matter into a diet heretofore based largely on 

meat (and in the foothills area, fish as well). There is also evidence of trade among 

groups in the form of shell ornaments and other “exotic” materials that suggest 

interaction between groups in the Central Valley and groups normally occupying areas 

east of the Sierras. 

During the Early-Middle Sierran period (3200 BP to 600 BP), archaeologists 

believe there was increasing regionalization of Native land use and also regular use of 

certain locales. Although no evidence of permanent habitation above 3,500 feet has 

been found in the American River watershed, scholars generally believe that indigenous 

peoples timed forays above that elevation to take advantage of local resources. Big 

game and acorns appear to have been the staple components of Native diet during this 

period. Toward the end of this period archaeologists have discerned the introduction of 

the bow and arrow—an important technological development for both subsistence and 

warfare. Also during this time, relatively large, dense and increasingly sedentary 

populations began to concentrate in the foothill regions. 

By the Late Sierran period (600 BP to 150 BP; also known as the Late Emergent 

period), there was year-round native occupation in the American River area; there is 

archaeological evidence of village sites in foothill areas, and increasing populations 

would have increased competition for resources. 

Although contact with Europeans began with mid-16th century coastal 

explorations by Spaniards, the effect of European presence did not become evident until 

arrival of Spanish missionaries in 1769. That year initiated a period—extending into 

the early 19th century—during which missionaries implemented a process to aggregate 

and colonize the Native inhabitants through the institutions of missions, presidios and 

pueblos, greatly affecting the demography, social life and culture of the area’s 

indigenous peoples. 

With Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1821, the missions were gradually 

secularized as “ranchos” dependent on Native inhabitants for labor required for farming 

and ranching. The United States’ war with Mexico in the middle 1840s resulted in the 

cession of California in 1848. That same year, discovery of gold initiated EuroAmerican migration into the region on an enormous scale. There soon emerged a need 

for food, shelter and the infrastructure that accompanies thousands of people in a 

developing area. Immigrants from Europe, Asia and elsewhere followed the miners to 

the gold fields to grow crops, raise cattle, harvest timber, and build towns. Roads were 

built over the Sierra Nevada, often following trails utilized by Native populations for 

millennia. 

By 1850, El Dorado County had one of the largest populations in the state. 

Miners, agriculturalists, loggers and merchants all settled in the area. The UARP and 

Chili Bar Project area intersects a number of historic period mining districts, in which 
3-307 

an elaborate network of ditches and flumes were built, beginning in the mid-19th 

century, to provide power for miners. As the call for hydraulic power increased, so did 

the size of the ditches, at first providing water for placer mining and later to the 

expanding agriculture of the region. Grazing emerged as one of the biggest industries 

in the county and surrounding area, even as the gold rush began to decline. The many 

unsettled areas of the Sierra Nevada and foothills drew cattlemen, soon followed by 

sheepherders, including a significant number of Basques. In the 1890s logging, which 

had begun in the area in the mid-19th century, became a major extractive activity in the 

county under the American River Land and Lumber Company and under successor 

companies until the Great Depression. 

Of the many cultural groupings occupying various ecological niches in the Sierra 

Nevada and foothills, those most usually associated with the UARP and Chili Bar 

Project area are the Miwok, Nisenan (Southern Maidu) and Washoe. Travelers and 

explorers in the early 19th century would have encountered these people living within 

their traditional territories. The Coast Miwok and Plains Miwok had for many years 

been affected by missionization and the Mexican ranchos, the Sierra Miwok less so. 

The Nisenan occupied the Sierra foothills below about 3000 feet in the vicinity of the 

American, Bear, Cosumnes and Feather River. The Washoe lived in the vicinity of 

Lake Tahoe, east of the Sierra crest, but traveled extensively to the west. However, 

traditional ways of life were deeply disrupted by the disease, wars with military 

expeditions, enslavement and relocation that attended Euro-American occupation of the 

region in the 19th century and precipitated significant disruption of traditional ways of 

life. Nisenan, Miwok and Washoe communities were displaced from their lands by 

miners, ranchers and others seeking to extract resources from the region. 

By the late 19th century the “Rancheria” emerged as a Euro-American solution 

to problems of displaced Native peoples in California. The rancherias were lands 

purchased by Congressional authorization for displaced and homeless Native 

Americans of various tribal groups. Although the US government terminated 30 

rancherias under the California Rancheria Act of 1958, court decisions forced the 

government to recognize the “tribes, bands, communities and groups” of 17 rancherias 

and restore those Rancherias to their previous status. Among these were the Shingle 

Springs and Auburn Rancherias, whose residents include Nisenan and Miwok families; 

and the Jackson Rancheria, home to a population of primarily Sierra Miwok. Some 

Nisenan and Miwok are affiliated with other Rancherias, such as Sheep Ranch, 

Tuolumne, Chicken Ranch, and Buena Vista. 

The El Dorado Indian Council is among groups without federal recognition that 

represent descendants of the historical tribes affected by displacement and Federal 

Indian policy. The Washoe, after many attempts to regain their lands and establish a 

reservation, were provided with 156 acres of land near Carson City for the Carson 

Indian Colony in 1917; an additional 40 acres were allocated for the Washoe at 

Dresslerville, and the Reno Sparks Indian Colony was allocated for both Washoe and 

Northern Paiute communities. In 1970, in a settlement of a claim against the 
3-308 

government, the Washoe gained another 40 acres near Woodfords in Alpine County, 

California. 

Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources 

Archaeological surveys in and around the UARP began in the 1940s, with 

increasing frequency after passage of the NHPA in the mid-1960s. Many of the surveys 

have been conducted by the Forest Service or its consultants in association with various 

logging and other projects, particularly during the period from the 1970s to 1990s. 

Archaeological surveys conducted between 1999 and 2004 in association with SMUD’s 

relicensing effort combined verification of data from the earlier surveys and systematic 

field investigations of locations not previously surveyed in the APE. These surveys did 

not include the land above the project’s tunnels because there are no project operations 

on the surface at these locations. The archaeological resources inventory report 

prepared for SMUD documented 87 sites in the APE. Forty-seven of the sites consisted 

of prehistoric components (with three of these also having some historic period 

artifacts), while 40 sites dated to the historic period. The prehistoric sites generally 

consist of bedrock mortars and lithic scatters, a few possibly associated with camps or 

other Native American use of the area. The historic-period sites include old roadbeds, 

remnant ditches and dams associated with irrigation, mining remains, and home sites. 

The Forest Service had previously determined five of the prehistoric sites and two of 

the historic sites were ineligible for the National Register. The eligibility of the 

remaining 80 sites has not been formally determined; these “unevaluated” sites are 

considered by the archaeologists, SHPO and SMUD as “potentially eligible” until such 

time as more intensive archaeological investigations may be undertaken. 

Location surveys conducted for SMUD and PG&E in 2004 and 2005 in the Chili 

Bar project APE were accomplished chiefly by boat, due to the steep slopes of the river 

canyon and heavy vegetation. These surveys identified four historic-period 

archaeological sites. PG&E ultimately determined, in consultation with the SHPO, that 

two of these (a mine adit and a hydraulic mining cut with associated equipment pad, 

were ineligible for the National Register. PG&E did not evaluate the third site, known 

as the Chili Bar Toll House Cemetery, because it lies on BLM land outside its proposed 

project boundary. This cemetery consists of a headstone marker and possible cemetery 

pad; information in PG&E’s application associates the grave with Ella Coolidge (who 

died April 24, 1862), daughter of a toll house keeper whose wife was a Native 

American. The fourth recorded resource is an old road alignment from Rock Creek 

Road to Chili Bar reservoir, which features a section of fieldstone wall. PG&E has 

asked the SHPO to concur in its opinion that the road alignment is not eligible for the 

National Register. By letter dated August 9, 2005, the SHPO concurred with PG&E’s 

determination that the road alignment is not eligible. 
3-309 

Traditional Cultural Properties 

The previously-mentioned Chili Bar Toll House Cemetery is the only publiclyknown TCP to have been formally recorded to date in either the UARP or Chili Bar 

Project APE. 

SMUD contacted the Native American Heritage Council in association with its 

relicensing effort. By letter of March 16, 2004, they informed SMUD that a sacred site 

was located in the project, and suggested contact with the El Dorado Miwok Tribe for 

further information. SMUD also commissioned an ethnographic report in its effort to 

identify TCPs in the UARP. The study included a review of existing literature coupled 

with interviews with Tribal elders and others knowledgeable of traditional Sierra 

Miwok, Nisenan and Washoe lifeways in the area of the project. Interviews with 

descendants of 19th and early 20th century Euro-American settlers were also included in 

the study to provide a fuller picture of land use and occupation of the UARP area over 

time. The ethnographic study did not result in identification of specific TCPs (beyond 

the recorded prehistoric sites, which may be considered potential TCPs by virtue of 

their association with area Native American groups). The failure to record specific 

TCPs may be attributable to Native American concerns about potential plundering of 

cultural sites should they be identified. The study did, however, document the tribes’ 

strong sense of association with the area and the continued importance to them of 

gathering plants for instrumental, medicinal, ceremonial and food uses. 

PG&E also contacted tribes, identified by California’s Native American Heritage 

Council as potentially interested in the project, to elicit information or concerns those 

tribes might have regarding TCPs in the Chili Bar Project. Although none of the 

contacted tribes and groups (El Dorado Miwok Tribe; Ione Band of Miwok Indians, 

Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Sierra Native American Council, United 

Auburn Indian Community, and Wilton Rancheria) offered comment, the El Dorado 

Miwok Tribe requested a map of the area depicting the project. 

Historic Buildings and Structures 

Neither project APE contains buildings or structures more than 50 years old and 

both hydroelectric Projects (including project facilities) date to the late twentieth 

century. 

3.3.9.2 Environmental Effects 

Continued project operation and enhancements and new construction could 

affect cultural resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. 

Under Proposed Articles 1-28 and 2-17, Heritage Resources, SMUD and PG&E 

would complete, within 6 months after license issuance, HPMP for the Forest Service 

(for UARP) and BLM (for Chili Bar) approval. Each HPMP would take into account 

Project effects on prehistoric and historic resources, Native American traditional 

cultural values, direct and indirect effects to heritage resources within the APE, 
3-310 

ethnographic studies, historic archaeological studies, and Project recreational impacts to 

archaeological properties affecting National Forest System or BLM lands, as 

applicable. Each HPMP would also provide measures to mitigate the identified 

impacts, a monitoring program, and management protocols for the ongoing protection 

of archaeological properties. The plans would be filed with the Commission, and 

SMUD and PG&E would implement the plans upon approval. 

Under Proposed Articles 1-29 and 2-18, Heritage Resource Discovery, if prior to 

or during ground disturbance or as a result of Project operations, items of potential 

cultural, historical, archeological, or paleontological value are reported or discovered, 

or a known deposit of such items is disturbed on National Forest System or BLM lands 

and licensee adjoining property, a licensee would immediately cease work in the area so 

affected. SMUD or PG&E would notify the Forest Service or BLM, as applicable, and 

would not resume work on ground disturbing activities until it received written 

approval from the land-owning agency. If it deems it necessary, the Forest Service or 

BLM could require SMUD or PG&E to perform recovery, excavation, and preservation 

of the site and its artifacts at the licensee's expense through provisions of an 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act permit issued by the Forest Service or BLM. 

Iowa Hill Development 

The Settlement Agreement also contains a separate provision (Proposed Article 

1-45, Heritage Resources Protection) regarding cultural resources protection for the 

construction and operation of the event that the Iowa Hill development. Under this 

provision if prior to or during ground disturbance or as a result of project operations, 

items of potential cultural, historical, archeological, or paleontological value were 

reported or discovered, or a known deposit of such items was disturbed, SMUD would 

immediately cease work in the area so affected. SMUD would then notify the Forest 

Service and would not resume work on ground-disturbing activities until it received 

written approval from the Forest Service. 

Our Analysis 

SMUD drafted an HPMP that is currently under review in second draft form by 

the Forest Service. Finalization and implementation of SMUD’s HPMP in consultation 

with the SHPO, Tribes, the Forest Service and the Commission would ensure that 

adverse effects on historic properties arising from UARP operations or project-related 

activities over the term of the license would be avoided or satisfactorily resolved. 

Similarly, an HPMP for the Chili Bar Project, prepared and implemented by PG&E in 

consultation with the SHPO, Tribes, BLM and the Commission would ensure that 

adverse effects on historic properties arising from project operations or project-related 

activities over the term of the license would be avoided or satisfactorily resolved. 
3-311 

UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, the proposed Iowa Hill development would 

not be constructed and measures to protect historic properties at Iowa Hill would not be 

necessary; however, SMUD and PG&E would still develop and implement the 

proposed HPMPs to address the potential effects of issuing new licenses for the 

continued operation of the UARP and Chili Bar Project on historic properties. 

3.3.9.3 Cumulative Effects 

The UARP and Chili Bar Project are among a large number of hydroelectric 

projects in central California that affect prehistoric and historic archaeological 

resources located along the American River and its tributaries. These Projects attract 

recreational use around the reservoirs. The increased recreational use resulting from the 

availability of the reservoirs has contributed to both inadvertent and intentional 

destruction of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and of TCPs. While 

continued erosion and recreational use of the American River area would be expected to 

continue to affect archaeological resources and TCPs, the measures included in HPMPs 

for the UARP and Chili Bar Project, as well as measures being or already developed 

and implemented at other hydroelectric projects in the area, would cumulatively reduce 

the rate of destruction of these cultural resources. 

3.3.9.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

In the event of relicensing and pursuant to the NHPA, the Commission would 

execute PAs with the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (should 

they chose to participate) to implement final HPMPs within one year of license issuance 

as a condition of any license for the UARP or Chili Bar Project. Each licensee, the 

Tribes, the Forest Service and BLM would be invited to participate in the respective PA 

as consulting parties. 

Execution of the PAs and implementation of the final HPMPs would ensure 

proper protection and management of significant cultural resources within the Projects’ 

APEs and would also provide satisfactory resolution of any project-related adverse 

effects. 

3.3.10 Socioeconomic Resources 

3.3.10.1 Affected Environment 

The region of influence includes the local area, or El Dorado County as a whole 

and communities in proximity to the UARP, Chili Bar Project, and Iowa Hill 

development, and the regional area, or the Sacramento Primary Metropolitan Statistical 

Area (PMSA), which comprises the economically linked counties of Sacramento, 

Placer, and El Dorado. 
3-312 

El Dorado County 

El Dorado County occupies 1,711 square miles of land and is located on the 

western slope of the Sierra Nevada between the Central Valley of California and the 

state of Nevada. It contains the Eldorado National Forest, which is considered one of 

California’s most prized recreational areas. The northern boundary of the county is 

primarily defined by the Middle Fork American River and the southernmost border is 

shared with Amador County. U.S. Highway 50 runs east/west through El Dorado 

County, while state highways 49 and 89 run north/south through the western and 

eastern portions of the county, respectively. 

Population 

El Dorado County has an estimated population of 176,841 (103.4 persons per 

square mile), an increase of 40.3 percent from the 1990 census, approximately double 

the growth of the entire United States (20.4 percent) and 1.7 times the comparable 

growth for the state of California (U.S. Census, 2005). The population of El Dorado 

County is projected to reach 241,263 individuals by 2025. New home permits, which 

grew by nearly threefold during 1995-2004, will decelerate gradually from a peak of 

2,123 in 2005 to 1,743 in 2025 as constraints on developable land begin to bind 

(California Department of Finance, 2004). 

Employment 

There were an estimated 87,689 full-time and part-time jobs in El Dorado 

County during 2004, a 68 percent gain over the 1990 count. Of the 2004 total, just over 

54,000 jobs were classified as wage and salary as opposed to proprietor’s employment 

(BEA, 2007). 

In contrast to much of the United States, El Dorado County added a significant 

number of manufacturing jobs during the 1990s, but the California Department of 

Finance is projecting a sharp slowdown in that growth going forward. The western 

slope of the county is “emerging as an information technology center” recently 

attracting such businesses as software engineering and research and development. This 

shift is reflected in recent historical growth patterns and in the current population 

projections (California Department of Finance, 2004). 

Much of the job growth is in white collar occupations. Growth in information 

technology jobs, which was virtually flat from 1995-2004 (530 jobs to 540 jobs), is 

expected to accelerate to 710 jobs in 2025. Professional services jobs increased from 

2,000 in 1995 to 5,840 in 2004 and are projected to climb to nearly 12,000 in 2025 

(California Department of Finance, 2004). In 2005 38.9 percent of the work force was 

engaged in management and professional service jobs (U.S. Census, 2005). Jobs in 

health and education and in leisure services will experience similar expansions, but 

farming and construction jobs (300 and 4,960 jobs, respectively) will be relatively 
3-313 

unchanged from the 2004 count, the latter owing to an anticipated slowdown in the 

home construction industry. 

Income and Demographics 

Median household nominal income in El Dorado County was $63,147 in 2005, 

and per capita nominal income is estimated to be $38,652 (U.S. Census, 2005). 

Household income for the county amounted to $6.6 billion in 2004 (U.S. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts). 

El Dorado County’s racial and ethnic composition is less diverse than much of 

California. Most of the residents (89.2 percent) were White, 3.7 percent Asian, 1.2 

percent Native American or Alaska Native, 0.8 percent African American, 0.03 percent 

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, 2.8 percent some other race, and 2.2 

percent two or more races. 

The median age is 39.3 years, and 66.1 percent of the population was between 18 

and 64 years of age. The poverty rate was 7.7 percent compared to 13.2 percent for the 

state as a whole. The housing stock for El Dorado County stood at 77,181 units as of 

January 1, 2004. Single-family homes accounted for 64,227 units, multiple-family 

dwellings accounted for 8,580 units, and mobile homes accounted for 4,374 units. In 

December 2001, the median home price in the county was $215,000 but in 2005 it was 

$542,000 (U.S. Census, 2005). 

Placerville is the county seat of El Dorado County and is located at an elevation 

of 1,866 feet. Incorporated in 1853, Placerville had a population of about 9,900 

individuals as of 2001. Besides Placerville, communities with populations of 1,000 or 

more in the county include South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado Hills, Shingle Springs, 

Pollock Pines Cameron Park, and Diamond Springs. The closest major population 

center outside the county is the city of Sacramento, located about 44 miles to the west. 

Sacramento County 

Employment 

There were 779,572 full and part-time jobs in the county in 2004 with 642,586 

classified as wage and salary. Government jobs (181,118 workers) form the bulk of 

Sacramento County’s employment. Other service jobs, such as retail (83,596 jobs), 

healthcare and social assistance (67,099 jobs), and professional and technical services 

(50,947 jobs), dominate the economy. Construction jobs (55,892 workers) are the 

majority of non-service occupations. During 2001–2004, job growth was a modest 

4.3 percent but this was more than twice the growth for the state of California. During 

the same interval, jobs in educational services, construction, utilities and real estate 

underwent the fastest rate of growth while management of companies and enterprise, 

forestry, fishing and related activities, mining, and manufacturing have each declined. 
3-314 

Income and Demographics 

The inflation-adjusted household income in 2005 in Sacramento was $51,793 

and inflation adjusted per capita income was $24,616. The total household income for 

the county amounted to $43.2 billion in 2004, or 3.4 percent of the total state of 

California personal income. 

Sacramento’s racial and ethnic composition is similar to the state of California. 

Approximately 60.2 percent are White, 13.8 percent Asian, 1.2 percent Native 

American or Alaskan Native, 10.1 percent African American, 0.7 percent Native 

Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, 9.9 percent some other race, and 4.2 percent two 

or more races. 

Sacramento County’s population has a median age of 33.7, and individuals 18 to 

64 years of age accounted for 61.7 percent of Sacramento County’s total population in 

2005. The poverty rate in Sacramento County rose from 11.1 percent in 2003 to 13.6 

percent in 2005. In 2005, the median home value of occupied units was $365,500. 

Placer County 

Employment 

The Projects are expected to affect only small parts of Placer County. Placer 

County’s population has a slightly lower median age than that of El Dorado’s 

population; 38.4 compared to 39.9, but it is still considerably higher than the median 

age of the state of California (34.4). Individuals aged 18 to 64 make up 63.1 percent of 

the total population. Placer County’s poverty rate during 2005 was just 5.5 percent, less 

than half the poverty rate of California and Sacramento County. 

The racial composition of Placer County is comparable to El Dorado County’s, 

with 84.9 percent White, 5.2 percent Asian, 0.9 percent Native American or Alaskan 

Native, 1.1 percent African American, 0.1 percent Native Hawaiian and other Pacific 

Islander, 5.0 percent some other race, and 2.7 percent two or more races. 

The median value for homes in Placer County in 2005 was $492,000, and 

housing in Placer County is 78 percent single-unit. 

Income and Demographics 

Placer County has a higher inflation adjusted median household income than the 

state of California, $62,080 and $53,629, respectively, and the 2005 inflation-adjusted 

per capita income is also higher at $31,853. 

The most common occupations in Placer County in 2004 were in retail trade, 

which employs more than 25,000 workers or 15.6 percent of private sector wage and 

salary employment. Retail trade is followed closely by construction, employing almost 

14 percent of private sector workers. From 2001-2004, there have been no apparent 

significant shifts in employment among industry employment shares. 
3-315 

3.3.10.2 Environmental Effects 

The Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) model was used to derive 

estimates of the socioeconomic costs and benefits of the UARP and the Iowa Hill 

development. The IMPLAN model is an input-output model developed in 1979 by the 

Forest Service and is one of the most widely used input-output models to evaluate the 

impact of changes in policy on regional socioeconomics and to produce socioeconomic 

forecasts. Its primary attribute is that it captures multiplier effects as changes in policy 

create ripples throughout the economy. The effects of policy can be classified as direct, 

referring to changes in production associated with a change in demand; indirect, 

referring to a secondary impact caused by the changing input requirements of 

producers; and induced, referring to changes in household spending as a function of the 

additional employment generated by the direct and indirect effects. IMPLAN’s 

assumptions are limiting in that they restrict production functions to be homogenous 

across all firms within an industry, and linear with constant returns to scale. Output is 

also assumed to be homogenous or undifferentiated by quality, branding, etc. The 

IMPLAN model places no constraints on supply, and it assumes that in- and outmigration maintains the region under study at full employment at all times. While these 

assumptions are not entirely realistic, the model does serve as a sound approximation of 

real world effects of policy changes on the local and regional economies. 

UARP 

IMPLAN model results indicate that UARP-related operation and maintenance 

expenditures directly benefit the local and regional economies. At the local level, 

UARP generates 131 jobs in El Dorado County and additional personal income totaling 

$9.7 million. Total operation and maintenance expenditures within the county produce 

$26.2 million in additional outputs. At the regional level, 186 jobs are associated with 

the UARP adding $13.9 million in personal income. Additional regional output 

amounts to $37.0 million. Non-resident recreational activities in the Crystal Basin 

generate 166 direct jobs and 63 secondary or induced jobs at the local and regional 

levels. These jobs raise personal income by $3.6 million at the local level and 

$1.7 million at the regional level. Whitewater recreation downstream on the SFAR 

downstream of Chili Bar dam generates $33.0 million in revenues and taxes annually to 

El Dorado County. 

Further benefits accrue to Eldorado National Forest and El Dorado County in the 

form of fees and taxes. SMUD subsidizes Eldorado National Forest in the maintenance 

of recreational facilities located at the UARP. These payments amounted to 

approximately $335,000 in 2004. SMUD also contributes to the local infrastructure 

including maintenance of roads, fire fighting, and telephone lines. SMUD has also 

contributed to producing recreation brochures for Crystal Basin and is a contributor to 

one-time projects such as helipad lighting, restoration of the Crystal Basin Information 

Station, lighting design for Loon lake Chalet and reconstruction of the Eldorado 

National Forest lookout at Big Hill. Although SMUD lands are tax-exempt under 
3-316 

California law, SMUD paid $184,000 in property taxes to El Dorado County in 2003 

and has paid approximately $3.0 million through the middle of 2005. 

SMUD lists six specific socioeconomic elements where the baseline operation of 

UARP provides benefits at the local level. 

• Air Quality Benefits—By generating significant amounts of electricity 

without producing any undesirable air emission as a byproduct, the UARP 

has a positive effect on air quality. 

• Summer Recreational Opportunities—The general operational regime of 

storing some of the spring runoff and releasing it in the summer and early fall 

contributes to the whitewater recreation industry on the SFAR. And in years 

with sufficient precipitation, near full reservoirs during the spring and 

summer provide an abundance of flat-water recreation opportunities in the 

Crystal Basin. 

• Access for Winter Recreation—SMUD plows snow during the winter from 

Highway 50 to the Loon Lake Chalet area and creates parking areas along the 

route for winter recreationists. 

• Economic Effects—expenditures by SMUD’s local project operations (Fresh 

Pond) and non-resident visitors to the Crystal Basin area create local jobs, 

direct income, and secondary income. 

• Road Maintenance—SMUD helps maintain the roads it uses to access 

project features, performing paving, repairing road segments, installing 

guardrails, and cleaning out culverts. 

• Grid Stability—the UARP is used to help ensure reliability of the electric 

transmission system within SMUD’s service area and Northern California. 

SMUD indicates that the Proposed Action does not cause any change from 

baseline conditions and therefore would not interfere with the provision of the above 

benefits to the local community. 

Our Analysis 

SMUD’s conclusions regarding employment and income at the local and 

regional levels are drawn from the application of the IMPLAN model to the operation 

of the proposed facility under the Proposed Action. As such, we consider the results to 

be sound. Regarding the six specific socioeconomic elements, the Proposed Action 

would not change baseline conditions, and, therefore, the flow of the above benefits to 

the local area would continue unimpeded. 

Iowa Hill Development 

The Iowa Hill development would have short-term effects during its construction 

and long-term, operational effects. 
3-317 

SMUD identifies and summarizes the local short-term socioeconomic benefits of 

the Iowa Hill development as derived primarily from the creation of short-term 

construction jobs and long-term operations jobs. Secondarily, SMUD indicates that the 

upper reservoir would facilitate access to water for the purposes of fighting forest fires 

by airdrop. Access to the upper reservoir would provide a safer source of water for 

aircraft, which currently must fly through narrow canyons. At the regional level, 

SMUD asserts that benefits would accrue in the form of increased operational 

flexibility, efficiency and reliability; [power] transmission system benefits; and 

environmental benefits. 

Effects of Construction of Iowa Hill 

Input-output analysis was used to evaluate the contribution of the Iowa Hill 

development construction to the El Dorado County economy. The inputs to the model 

were construction cost estimates on capital, materials and supplies, and labor. The 

output of the model is employment and income. The following 10 assumptions served 

as a backdrop to the model: 

1. The region of influence for the construction economic impact analysis is El 

Dorado County. 

2. Construction is anticipated to start July 2009 with operation expected to 

commence in 2014. 

3. Impacts are evaluated for a 5-year construction period. 

4. Total construction expenditures on materials and supplies are estimated to 

be $235 million in 2004 dollars. Of these expenditures, $75 million would 

be spent within El Dorado County. 

5. Average local (within El Dorado County) construction expenditures on 

materials and supplies for a 5-year construction period are $15 million. 

6. SMUD is expected to hire a total of 830 construction personnel over the 

course of the 5-year construction period, for an average of 166 personnel 

working on the project each of the 5 years. 

7. Total construction payroll was estimated at $115 million in 2004 dollars. 

8. About 25 percent of the construction workforce is assumed to be local 

(from El Dorado County). Thus, the average local construction payroll 

over the 5-year construction period is estimated at $5.75 million in 2004 

dollars. 

9. Disposable labor income is 70 percent of total labor income. This means 

that 30 percent of gross income is used for taxes and savings. 

10. The base year of analysis is 2001 but the impacts were adjusted to reflect 

year 2004 price levels. 
3-318 

Each assumption is based on distributions of average expenditures developed for 

the project by Montgomery Watson-Harza. Assumptions 1 through 3 frame the 

geographic market and the length of the construction period. Assumptions 4 through 8 

outline project costs, labor requirements, and source. Table 3-70 partially reproduces 

the cost estimates for materials, supplies, and labor. 

Table 3-70. Iowa Hill development construction cost estimates, 2004. 

Total Cost Average Annual Cost 

Expenditures on materials and supplies $235,000,000 $47,000,000 

Local expenditures on materials & supplies $75,000,000 $15,000,000 

Construction payroll $115,000,000 $23,000,000 

Local construction payroll $28,750,000 $5,750,000 

A more detailed cost estimate is provided in CH2MHill and DTA (2005, 

appendix D) and reproduced below in table 3-71. Total construction costs are projected 

to be $445,130 million 2002$. 

Table 3-71. Iowa Hill development construction cost estimates (millions of 2002$). 

(Source: CH2MHill-DTA, 2005, appendix D) 

Element Cost (millions of 2002$)

1. Mobilization and Water Handling $2,000 

2. Permanent Access Roads $1,650 

3. Upper Reservoir $68,000 

4. Waterways and Intakes $57,000 

5. Powerhouse and Access Tunnels $65,500 

6. Equipment (Installed) $121,300 

7. Transmission Lines and Reconductoring $11,000 

Subtotal $326,450 

Civil Contingency (25% lines 1-5, 7) $51,300 

Equipment Contingency (10% line 6) $12,130 

Licensing, SMUD Project Management and Geotechnical Exploration $55,250 

Total Construction Cost With Contingencies $445,130 
3-319 

Our Analysis 

SMUD provides average project construction expenditures but not statistical 

distributions of estimated costs that would permit the derivation of a range of possible 

employment and income outcomes. The project is relatively small scale such that even 

large deviations from average expenditure estimates would not yield employment and 

income effects that would have a substantial impact on local and regional economies. 

Regarding assumption 8, SMUD estimates that 25 percent of the construction 

labor force would be sourced locally. Given that approximately 10.1 percent of the El 

Dorado county workforce is engaged in wage and salary construction jobs (California 

Department of Finance, 2004), this is a reasonable assumption. 

The construction expenditures, including the payroll for the 166 direct jobs, are 

projected to generate a further 370 indirect and induced jobs, primarily in the service 

sector (i.e., grocery stores, restaurants, gas stations). This projection is derived using 

the IMPLAN model. The projected 370 secondary jobs rests on the assumption that 

about 32 percent of the total expenditures ($75 million out of $235) million would go to 

local suppliers. SMUD does not indicate how it arrived at a figure of 32 percent local 

sourcing. 

Monetizing the local short-term benefits, the IMPLAN model indicates that 

construction of the Iowa Hill development would generate local income on the order of 

$18.9 million per year over the 5-year construction period. There would be $4 million 

in direct income (payments to local suppliers of labor and materials) and $14.9 million 

in secondary income (worker and supplier expenditures on goods and services). SMUD 

asserts that $18.9 million annual additional income represents just 0.3 percent of the 

total 2004 El Dorado County annual personal income of $6.31 billion. 

Effects of Operations of Iowa Hill 

The IMPLAN model was also used to evaluate the long-term employment and 

income benefits for the operational phase of the Iowa Hill development. The Covered 

Employment and Wages data published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics proved 

inadequate for use as inputs to the model, so SMUD substituted an input data set 

composed of actual operations and maintenance average expenditure distributions for 

the SMUD Fresh Pond hydroelectric facility (a similar facility to the proposed Iowa 

Hill development) and SMUD personnel expertise. Expenditures are those devoted to 

labor, materials, and supplies required to operate the project. The total cost in 2004 is 

just slightly more than $3.5 million. Table 3-72 shows Iowa Hill development 

operations expenditure data. 
3-320 

Table 3-72. Iowa Hill operational payroll and operation and maintenance 

expenditures, 2004. (Source: CH2M Hill and DTA, 2005) 

Total Cost 

Cost Spent Within El 

Dorado County 

Cost Spent Within 

Sacramento County 

Payrolla $262,480b $262,480b $262,480b

Other O&M 

Expenditures 

$3,306,000 $1,653,000 $1,983,600 

Totalc $3,568,480 $1,915,480 $2,246,080 

a

 Includes benefits. Payroll shown for El Dorado County is for the two Iowa Hill employees who are 

assumed to be El Dorado County residents while that shown for the Sacramento region is for the 

same two Iowa Hill employees who are also residents of the Sacramento region (El Dorado, Placer, 

and Sacramento counties). 

b

 Total annual O&M labor cost at Fresh Pond was estimated at $10,637,230. Because 2 percent of 

these costs are spent on headquarters staff, only 98 percent is actually associated with Fresh Pond. 

Assuming 81 full-time employees at Fresh Pond, the average labor cost (salary plus benefits) per 

employee is $128,722. Since Iowa Hill operation would have two O&M employees, the labor cost 

for these two additional O&M employees is estimated at $257,400 (or 2 times $128,722). 

c

 50 percent of the other O&M expenditures are spent within El Dorado County. Thus, of the total 

$3,306,000 in other O&M expenditures, $1,653,000 (or 50 percent), is spent within El Dorado 

County. For the Sacramento region, the amount of other O&M expenditures spent within the 

region is $1,9843,600 or 60 percent of the total other O&M expenditures for Iowa Hill in 2004. 

The payroll component accounts for just a small fraction (7.3 percent) of total 

expenditures and would support just two full-time employees sourced from within the 

Sacramento Region (including El Dorado County). The remaining expenditures on 

materials and supplies are assumed to be split 50-50 between El Dorado County and 

other areas and 60-40 between the Sacramento region (including El Dorado County) 

and areas outside. Such a split reflects the same local/regional distribution as do 

operational expenditures at the SMUD Fresh Pond site. 

Using this expenditure data and its geographic distribution as inputs to the 

IMPLAN model generates 12 indirect and induced jobs in addition to the two jobs 

directly generated at the project. These 14 jobs are just a tiny fraction (0.03 percent) of 

the overall employment for El Dorado County, and the annual income generated from 

them ($698,300 direct, indirect, and included) is an even smaller fraction (0.01 percent) 

of the county total personal income. 

The project operation is expected to add $3.5 million in direct output, $670,129 

in indirect output, and $303,162 in induced output for a total of $4.5 million. 

The IMPLAN model is also run for the Sacramento region, inclusive of El 

Dorado County. In this case, the direct jobs generated by the operation of the project 

remain at two but there are 18 indirect and induced jobs created as well. These lead to 
3-321 

$262,500 in direct income and $812,300 in indirect and induced income. These 

outcomes represent insignificant fractions of the total income for the Sacramento 

region. 

In terms of output in the Sacramento Region, the IMPLAN model predicts 

$6.1 million or just 0.01 percent of the total regional output. 

Our Analysis 

As for estimating the effects of construction, use of the IMPLAN model is a 

sound approach to evaluating the effect on labor and income from proposed operations. 

Although the use of expenditure data from the Fresh Pond facility is not ideal, in light 

of the lack of published government data, it is acceptable. The numbers of jobs and 

their associated income and output are extremely small relative to the economies of El 

Dorado County and the Sacramento region as a whole, and the operational phase of the 

proposed project would not carry with it substantial economic benefits. 

Regional and Environmental Benefits 

SMUD lists the benefits of the project to the region and to itself as the provision 

of operational flexibility, efficiency, and reliability; transmission system benefits; and 

environmental benefits. 

Operational flexibility, efficiency, and reliability imply that the project would 

strengthen SMUD’s ability to cover periods of peak power demand without the need for 

additional power generation facilities. SMUD’s UARP provides about 20 percent of 

the power needs to about 180,000 homes in its service area during a normal water year. 

The Proposed Action would support this operation by improving the facility’s ability to 

smooth the delivery of power between peak and off-peak periods. Transmission system 

benefits refer to the reliability and stability of the system in delivering power to 

customers without constructing new transmission lines. Environmental benefits refer 

primarily to improved air quality in the Sacramento Valley that would ensue during 

project operations, and secondarily, SMUD indicates that the Iowa Hill development 

would create a safer source of water for aircraft engaged in fighting forest fires in the 

vicinity to refill their water buckets. Currently, aircraft must fly through narrow 

canyons to refill their buckets 

Our Analysis 

SMUD does not explicitly project that the Iowa Hill development would result in 

lower energy prices to consumers, nor does it relate the smoothing of power delivery to 

socioeconomic benefits such as the potential for increased disposable income, positive 

employment effects, and economic development of the region. Improved regional air 

quality is mentioned as a key socioeconomic benefit of the existing project, but it is not 

quantified in monetary terms. The benefit of facilitated access to water for fire-fighting 

aircraft also is not quantified in monetary terms. Likely, the lack of supporting 
3-322 

empirical data and analysis is a function of the relatively small size of the project. 

While socioeconomic benefits would certainly accrue to the region, the extent of these 

benefits would be negligible from a social accounting perspective. 

Property Values 

The number of jobs created by the project would be small. Because at least 25 

percent of those jobs would be sourced from the local labor market, the Iowa Hill 

development likely would have zero or negligible effects on the overall demand for 

local housing. However, the Iowa Hill development may affect housing amenities in 

the area, particularly scenic views. This section describes the nature of the change in 

scenic views and the potential monetary impact on area housing values. 

SMUD evaluated short- and long-term effects of the Iowa Hill development on 

residential property values from the effects of (1) views of the upper reservoir, 

switchyard, and transmission tie-in; (2) the proximity of the proposed transmission lines 

to nearby properties; and (3) the improved accessibility brought about by the upgrading 

of Cable Road and Iowa Hill Road on the properties to which access is provided. 

Particular attention is paid to the Apple Hill and Swansboro areas (see figure 3-36). In 

both areas property values are rising significantly. It is possible that, owing to negative 

alteration of scenic views and construction of transmission lines, the Iowa Hill 

development could adversely affect or even reverse this trend. In total, there are 70 

properties from which scenic views may be affected by the Iowa Hill development, all 

of which are located within a 3-mile radius of the proposed site (this geographic 

definition is based on standards developed by the Forest Service). 

SMUD concludes that property values in the area would suffer a short-term 

reduction as scenic views are adversely affected by the construction itself. Secondarily, 

high noise levels and reduced air quality during the construction period would also 

reduce housing values. In the long-term, however, SMUD concludes that housing 

values would be unaffected and further, that in the case of 28 properties directly 

adjacent to the Iowa Hill site, improved access through project road improvements 

would support a small increase in property values. 

SMUD’s analysis is qualitative and based on a review of applied academic and 

practical literature on the effects of scenic views and transmission lines on property 

values. Assessment of the Iowa Hill development’s impact on scenic views from 

surrounding properties is derived from a review of the literature on the impact of scenic 

views on property values. The conclusions are supported by the presentation of a series 

of photographs that show the actual pre-construction view and a simulated, postconstruction view. 

In addition, SMUD referenced recent sales data, and conducted interviews with 

local real estate professionals. SMUD identified the changes to the visual environment 

seen from residences in the project area. These study results are supplemented by 

existing academic and applied research on property values, presumably because of a 
3-323 

lack of existing data on property sales in the vicinity of the site and because the project 

represents a new development from which historical comparisons are not available. 

The literature on the impact of scenic views on property values is nearly 

unanimous. Several academic studies reveal that scenic views have an unequivocally 

positive impact on sales price ranging from 1.4 to 16.6 percent. Some studies reviewed 

are clearly not relevant to the project, however, such as the case where ocean views 

offer the highest premium on property values. 

Our Analysis 

Rather than undertake original research, SMUD submitted results based on an 

extensive review of already existing academic and applied property value research. 

Much of this research is based on the use of statistical models that isolate and quantify 

the effect of various attributes on the value of a particular good. When applied in the 

study of property/housing values, these models frequently incorporate attributes such as 

the square footage of the property, its number of bathrooms, lot size, distance from 

major transportation facilities, age, and any other feature(s) that could create variation 

in property values, including environmental attributes such as whether the property 

offers a scenic view and its proximity to infrastructure. This approach is a generally 

accepted methodology and has been featured prominently in the academic literature. 

SMUD reviewed articles taken from both the peer-reviewed academic journals (Land 

Economics, Journal of Real Estate Literature, Journal of Real Estate Research) and 

from private consulting firms and government agencies. 

The property value research described above was supplemented by an analysis of 

project views based on comparisons of actual and simulated photographs for five 

viewpoints located within Forest Service guidelines of 3 miles from the proposed site. 

The actual photographs show the viewpoints as they currently exist and the simulated 

photos show the viewpoints’ likely appearance one year after construction and 10 years 

after construction. Of particular concern are the views of the canyons that surround 

Iowa Hill. According to the photos, the project does not obscure the views of the 

canyons; however, the project includes construction of a berm that is visible from all 

five viewpoints. Also a portion of the proposed switchyard and a portion of the 

proposed transmission lines are visible. The changes in view moderate over time as the 

berm is covered with more mature vegetation and thicker forest cover screens views of 

the switchyard and transmission lines. While the analysis of the photo simulations can 

be considered subjective, the method is a reasonable approach to the analysis. 

Proximity to Transmission Lines 

In addition to the construction of the upper reservoir itself, a 3-acre switchyard 

would be located adjacent to the reservoir, and a new, 2-mile long 230-kV 

transmission line would connect the switchyard to the existing Loon-White Rock 

transmission line. SMUD states that the switchyard would not be visible and would 
3-324 

therefore have no effect on property values in the area, although it does not support 

this position with any data. 

SMUD concedes that the placement of transmission lines would have aesthetic 

effects and possibly health, safety, and noise effects as well. To estimate the monetary 

impact of transmission lines on property values, SMUD relied extensively on research 

conducted by Hamilton and Schwann who examined the impact of transmission lines 

on Canadian properties. The authors found that transmission lines have no statistically 

significant impact on property value past a distance of 656 feet, and SMUD applies this 

result to Iowa Hill. Only 6 properties would lie within 656 feet of the proposed 

transmission lines, and SMUD concedes that they would experience some negative 

impact. But in general, SMUD indicates that any negative impacts on property values 

would be mitigated because the views of the proposed transmission lines would be 

partially obscured by thick tree cover. However, there are two very small (2.5-acre) 

undeveloped parcels that lie partially within the transmission line’s zone of potential 

influence, whose values could be decreased by as much as 33 percent ($1,650). 

In addition to the Canadian study, SMUD refers to several other studies in the 

Montana and in Australia that show distance thresholds to be in the range of 0.31 mile 

to 1.24 miles before negative perceptions of health, safety, and aesthetics begin to erode 

property values. In general, transmission lines were found to have only small impacts 

on property values (on the order of 2 to10 percent for single family homes). Some 

findings suggest that there is no impact on property values and in other cases, 

transmission lines were found to raise property values because they offer owners the 

use of right-of-way for recreational purposes. 

The number, quality and geographic dispersion of the studies reviewed by 

SMUD appear to include adequate representations of the impact of transmission lines 

on property values in the markets studied and are reasonably applied to El Dorado 

County, California. 

Of the 70 properties under study, SMUD concludes that housing values would 

decrease up to 33 percent for two undeveloped properties adjacent and 15 percent for 

two properties just east of the Iowa Hill site. In the Apple Hill area, 16 properties 

would decline by 3 percent in value and in Swansboro, 22 properties would undergo a 

5 to 10 percent decrease. SMUD concludes that the 28 properties adjacent to Iowa Hill 

Road would rise in value by 5 percent because of the slated improvements to the road. 

SMUD believes that the long-term effects of the Iowa Hill development on 

property values would be zero at worst and modestly improved at best as mitigation 

efforts such as re-vegetation of the site help to adjust perceptions over time. SMUD is 

already committed to mitigate the impact on scenic views and under the Settlement 

Agreement would develop a design for the Iowa Hill development that meets the visual 

quality standards of the Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

to ensure adequate protection during utilization of the Forest. Modest (assumed 5 
3-325 

percent) improvement in property values would result from upgrading Cable Road/Iowa 

Hill Road. There are 28 properties affected by this action. 

In sum, SMUD’s conclusions regarding the impact of the Iowa Hill development 

on area property values are reasonable. Because the Project is not expected to affect 

property values by generating increased demand for housing, the conclusions rest 

primarily on the effect of the Iowa Hill development on aesthetics and secondarily on 

the improved access with the upgrading of Cable Road/Iowa Hill Road. SMUD is 

committed to achieving Forest Service standards of visual quality according to the 

Settlement Agreement. 

Effects on Fiscal Conditions and Services 

In this section we address the impact of the project on local government fiscal 

resources in El Dorado County. According to SMUD, El Dorado County’s revenues 

and expenditures increased from approximately $100 million in fiscal year (FY) 1998–

1999 to about $160 million in FY 2002–2003. Major sources of El Dorado County 

revenue are intergovernmental transfers from the federal and state governments, and 

taxes and assessments. Intergovernmental transfers account for approximately half of 

all revenue sources while taxes and assessments account for about a third. Over the 

past 5 years, the proportion of county revenues from taxes and assessments has declined 

from about 32 percent in FY 1998–1999 to 29 percent in FY 2002–2003. On the other 

hand, the proportion of the county’s revenues from intergovernmental transfers has 

increased from about 45 percent in FY 1998–1999 to 51 percent in FY 2002–2003. In 

each FY from FY 1998–1999 to FY 2002-2003, El Dorado County government appears 

to have generated a surplus of revenues over expenditures. 

In the area of the proposed Iowa Hill development, five elements of government 

services were studied, including schools, fire protection, law enforcement, emergency 

response services and hospital use, and available hospital resources. 

Schools—SMUD asserts that, after conversations with local school officials, 

overall enrollment in El Dorado elementary public schools is undergoing a decline and 

that this trend is expected to continue. High school enrollment, on the other hand, has 

been experiencing a slight increase. Further, since the Iowa Hill development is not 

expected to generate any meaningful level of population increase, the capacity of the 

local school system should remain adequate. 

Fire Protection—The majority of the physical space of the Iowa Hill 

development would be located on private SMUD-owned property with some additional 

encroachment on federal lands (Eldorado National Forest). However, the California 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is agreed to provide assistance to the El 

Dorado County Fire Department in the event of a major fire. SMUD disagrees that 

Iowa Hill development would raise the probability of a fire and thus does not attempt to 

quantify its impact on the local budget. However, under Proposed Article 1-34, Fire 
3-326 

Management and Response Plan, SMUD would develop in consultation with state and 

locate fire agencies and implement a fire prevention and response plan. 

Law Enforcement—SMUD claims that, in spite of an anticipated increase in 

theft and vandalism at the site, plus an increase in emergency medical situations, there 

would be no impact on local law enforcement. SMUD plans to deploy its own private 

security personnel at the site during construction. 

Emergency Response—SMUD does not anticipate any significant impacts on the 

county’s emergency response system because it plans to implement construction safety 

plans, particularly with respect to blasting. 

Search and Rescue—The workers at the site would not engage in activities that 

would raise the possibility of the need for additional search and rescue operations. 

Hospital—Because it is a relatively small undertaking, the Iowa Hill 

development would not have any material impact on hospital care in El Dorado County. 

SMUD does not address the potential costs associated with providing hospital services 

for construction workers who may be injured on the job, except to state that in the event 

of such an occurrence, patients would receive treatment in trauma centers located 

outside of El Dorado County. As such, the fiscal impact of the project on El Dorado 

hospitals would be at or near zero. 

Our Analysis 

We have reviewed the information provided on the potential impact to schools in 

El Dorado County and conclude that construction of the project would not result in 

school population growth over the normal growth. Again, the relatively small size of 

the project is consistent with SMUD’s conclusions. 

The fact that there will be human activity involving heavy equipment and 

machinery in the area where there was none before would probably increase the risk of 

fire but given that the state of California has agreed to assist the county in the event of 

such an occurrence, the impact on El Dorado’s fiscal budget would be zero. Therefore, 

SMUD’s neglect of this fiscal impact element is entirely reasonable. 

Since local law enforcement would be assisted by private security, we would not 

expect cost impacts on local law enforcement services. 

There is no reason to doubt that SMUD’s construction safety plan would 

preclude an increase in the county’s emergency response activity or in search and 

rescue hospital services. 

Economic Value of Harvestable Timber 

The Iowa Hill development would permanently eliminate 128 acres of 

timberland and temporarily affect 25 acres during construction. SMUD used prevailing 

market prices for species known to be common to the Eldorado National Forest, and 

applied growth estimates provided by the Forest Service. Assuming all timber is 
3-327 

composed of the most valuable species (Ponderosa Pine), the financial loss associated 

with its removal would amount to $699 per year and a net present value of 

$11,500 (using a 6 percent discount rate). 

Our Analysis 

There was no formal timber inventory or “cruise” of the area. However, it is 

understood that the estimates of the financial losses provided by SMUD are 

conservative, in that they account for the worst possible case. Given that the acreage is 

relatively small and that a full forest inventory of the area is not available, SMUD’s 

approach is sound and its findings reasonable. Construction of the Iowa Hill 

development would have a minor effect on timber harvesting. 

Construction Traffic Impact and Impact on Tourism at Apple Hill 

SMUD provides a worst case scenario for the impact of construction-related 

traffic and then measure these findings against California Environmental Quality Act 

guidelines. The guidelines state that the impact of the Iowa Hill development would be 

significant if it would: 

1. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing 

traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial 

increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to ratio on roads, 

or congestion at intersections); 

2. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard 

established by El Dorado County for designated intersections; 

3. Result in a change in traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic 

levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks; 

4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or 

dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; 

5. Result in inadequate emergency access; 

6. Result in inadequate parking capacity; or 

7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative 

transportation. 

Because the area does not have public transportation facilities and is generally 

not suitable for walking or bicycling, SMUD focused on automobile and truck traffic 

likely to be generated by the project. Of most concern is the impact of traffic on 

tourism at Apple Hill. 

Traffic would be generated by construction workers driving to the site and by 

trucks delivering construction materials and supplies to the site. SMUD assumes the 

worst case scenario, where all construction workers travel to the site from the greater 
3-328 

Sacramento area. They assume 360 daily trips will be generated under the assumptions 

that average vehicle occupancy is 1.3 persons and the peak-level workforce is 235. 

SMUD does not make clear why it chose 1.3 as the average vehicle occupancy but it 

may be assumed that it derives from previous research on journey-to-work habits for 

construction workers in the area. Most if not all of the worker trips generated by the 

construction would occur in off-peak hours assumed to be 5:30 a.m to 6:30 a.m. and 

3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Normal highway peak traffic commute hours are 7:00 a.m. to 

8:00 a.m., and 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Project-related trips overlap with the afternoon 

school bus hour of 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

According to the January 2005 “Iowa Hill Pumped Storage Development 

Socioeconomic Assessment of Construction and Operations Technical Report” (page 

57) the Iowa Hill construction would further generate 25 delivery truck trips per day 

traveling over the same routes used by construction workers during non-commute 

hours. The specific materials and equipment expected to be delivered to the project site 

was not given. SMUD concludes that while there will be additional traffic generated by 

the Project, most of it will occur in off-peak hours and further, since it will occur in offpeak directions (west-east during mornings and east- west during evenings) its impact 

will be minimal. SMUD's studies show that the construction activity would not affect 

the level of service at key intersections except at the Carson Road Eastbound ramp 

during the A.M. period. Assuming that 10 percent of the construction-generated traffic 

uses this intersection to access the site, SMUD concludes that there would be a 

minimum of queuing delays. Queuing problems are not expected to emerge until more 

than 20 percent of construction traffic uses this intersection. In this case, congestion 

could occur on U.S. Route 50, which is the area’s major highway. These findings are 

based on levels of service outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. It is not 

clear why SMUD chooses to assume a 10 percent split between the use of the Carson 

Road interchange and The Old Highway interchange. SMUD further asserts that there 

is sufficient capacity to accommodate the construction traffic in the peak years of 

construction and consequently it will have minimal impact on traffic conditions during 

the off-peak years of construction. 

In spite of the fact that most of the traffic will occur on week days, SMUD 

indicates that construction activities could exacerbate the traffic congestion that 

currently occurs during the annual Apple Hill recreational season. This is because 

while most of the estimated 500,000 visitors to the area during the season come on 

weekends, there is substantial traffic generated on weekdays as well. SMUD does not 

quantify the impact of construction traffic on Apple Hill tourism but given the modest 

level of additional traffic it would be reasonable to assume that Apple Hill tourism will 

not be significantly affected. The report addresses air traffic, emergency access and 

parking and finds no reason to believe that Project-generated traffic would have any 

impact on any of them. Finally, post-construction traffic impacts would be extremely 

minimal because the number of workers during this phase is negligible. 
3-329 

Our Analysis 

SMUD does not appear to have undertaken a rigorous and quantitative study of 

traffic patterns in the Iowa Hill area; however, except for the lack of clarity on the 

reasons for the spit between interchanges, we find the results reasonable. SMUD 

provides a worst-case scenario where it is assumed that all workers and deliveries are 

sourced from the greater Sacramento area and the analysis is conducted during what are 

scheduled to be the peak construction years. Further, SMUD does not support its 

contention that the peak travel hours in the area are different from the peak travel hours 

for construction workers, except to say that the non-construction hours are “normal.” 

Finally, SMUD does not consider the potential adverse effects on the condition 

of the area roads that could result from increased truck traffic, likely because there are 

no weight restrictions on the roads that are most likely apt to serve the trucking needs of 

the project. 

A review of the information provided on traffic supports SMUD’s conclusions. 

We find that because the project would generate only a small number of additional 

vehicle traffic, its impact on total traffic would be minimal. As discussed in section 

3.3.7.2 SMUD would develop and implement a transportation system management plan 

to address traffic safety and road improvements. 

Recreational Impacts 

SMUD indicates that there is little if any recreational activity in the Iowa Hill 

area owing primarily to (1) the lack of water-related recreational opportunities; (2) the 

lack of recreational facilities (campgrounds, trails, etc.); and (3) the unimproved, 4-

mile-long segment of Iowa Hill Road/Cable Road leading to the site from Camino 

which consists of loose gravel/dirt. 

There are, on the other hand, limited recreational activities downstream of the 

Iowa Hill site at Slab Creek reservoir and other places further downstream from Slab 

Creek and Chili Bar. SMUD studies show that recreational use of Slab Creek reservoir 

is low compared to other UARP sites, primarily because at an elevation of 1,850 feet 

with steep topography, access is limited. The area is used primarily by local residents 

who are limited to just two points of access. Construction traffic could impact 

recreation at Slab Creek reservoir by periodically limiting access to the area but the 

SMUD does not foresee any drastic change in the availability of the recreational 

activities at this site during the construction phase of the Project. 

Construction techniques planned for the Project would not affect water levels in 

areas downstream of Slab Creek reservoir, including White Rock powerhouse, the 

SFAR downstream of Slab Creek dam, Chili Bar reservoir, and the reach downstream 

of Chili Bar reservoir. Therefore, recreational activities in these areas such as flat water 

boating will not be affected by the Project and therefore will not have any 

socioeconomic effects. 
3-330 

SMUD reports that the operation of the project could impact recreational use at 

various downstream locations. In particular, 1) the 8-mile reach of the SFAR between 

the Slab Creek dam and PG&E’s Chili Bar reservoir; 2) at Chili Bar reservoir; and 3) in 

the 19.1-mile reach of SFAR between Chili Bar dam and Folsom lake. Since flat water 

boating and swimming at Chili Bar reservoir are currently prohibited, there is no reason 

to consider the socioeconomic impact of the project on them. Recreational activities 

around Chili Bar reservoir such as picnicking, off-highway vehicle use, hiking and 

fishing are not anticipated to be adversely affected by Project operations. 

To simulate the impact on recreational use of downstream facilities, SMUD 

relies upon the CHEOPS model. This is a model of water balance required to meet 

particular monthly and daily power generation schedules. The recreational effects of the 

Project stem primarily from the level of fluctuation in water levels at the reservoir. The 

model predicts that operation of the project will cause water levels the Slab Creek 

reservoir to fluctuate by 6 feet or more approximately 95 percent of the time, more than 

18 feet approximately 5 percent of the time, up to a maximum of 30 feet. In relative 

terms, current water level fluctuations at the Slab Creek reservoir are typically between 

2 and 5.1 feet but on a weekly basis may fluctuate by up to 30 feet. 

Our Analysis 

SMUD concludes that construction techniques employed during the construction 

would preclude any adverse impact on recreation during the construction of the Project. 

There is no basis for argument on a socioeconomic basis and therefore this statement is 

considered valid. 

The recreational impact of the project-operation phase is concentrated in the Slab 

Creek reservoir. According to a visitor survey and use count conducted in summer of 

2002, annual use of the Slab Creek reservoir is 5,100 visitor days per year and that 78 

percent of the users reside locally in El Dorado County. Swimming is the most popular 

activity among visitors while 36 percent reported fishing along streams and rivers in the 

area, and 33 percent fishing directly at the reservoir. Twenty-eight percent reported 

canoeing or kayaking. Other activities were non-water based such as hiking/walking 

(44 percent), wildlife viewing (42 percent) picnicking (31 percent) and photography 

(25 percent). Slab Creek reservoir has limited access at this time, no signing or other 

information to direct the public to the access points, and a lack of facilities and security. 

As these items are provided, recreational use is expected to increase considerably. The 

Slab Creek reservoir access plan and recreation plan would address these needs, 

consistent with Iowa Hill operations needs. The current low use should not be assumed 

into the future. 

SMUD reports that the change in daily water level fluctuations at the Slab Creek 

reservoir during the operation of the project would be 6 feet or more 95 percent of the 

time compared to current fluctuations of between 2 and just over 5 feet for the same 

proportion of the day. SMUD states that the reservoir levels will change more rapidly 
3-331 

than what recreational visitors are used to and goes on to say that without properly 

informing visitors of this development, these fluctuations could pose a safety issue. 

The difference in overall levels, however, is not stark and in isolation will not impact 

swimming or other water-related activities at the site. Nor will they impact non-waterrelated activities at the site. SMUD does not provide empirical support on which to 

base this conclusion either through original research or published literature. And 

because SMUD does not believe recreation at Slab Creek reservoir would be affected, 

there is no accompanying socioeconomic impact statement. 

Implicit in SMUD’s conclusion is that the predicted fluctuations in water levels 

during operations are not materially different from current water level fluctuations at 

the site and further, that recreational activity at Slab Creek reservoir is relatively light 

and owing to Department of Homeland Security concerns, will likely be restricted 

going forward. Given the small amount of recreational activity at Slab Creek, SMUD’s 

conclusion is reasonable. One could argue that even if there were to be a decline in 

recreational use at Slab Creek reservoir, the socioeconomic impact in monetary terms 

would be negligible because 78 percent of visits were from the local area and therefore 

do not contribute to El Dorado County’s tourism services economy to any significant 

degree. 

Impact on Camino Community Lifestyle 

SMUD reaches the conclusion that because the population of the County and in 

particular, the city of Camino will be unaffected by the number of jobs created, there 

would be negligible impacts on public services and lifestyles in the community. This 

section describes the SMUD analyses and conclusions in more detail. 

SMUD is concerned with the impact of the Iowa Hill development on the 

lifestyle of the Camino Community. The effects of the Iowa Hill development are 

measured against elements of the Camino Community Action Plan (CCAP) “that are 

relevant to the construction and operation of the [Project].” These include, 

• Enhance the sense of community, maintain Camino’s natural environmental 

qualities, and small town atmosphere. 

• Minimize traffic hazards/impacts on local roads and on U.S. 50. 

• Improve access to recreational services. 

• Growth should be slow and controlled. 

SMUD reports that the Iowa Hill development is consistent with the relevant 

goals outlined in the CCAP. The Iowa Hill development will not draw increased 

population to the area nor will it cause current residents to leave the area. This 

conclusion is based on the relatively few numbers of workers required for construction 

and operation of the project and further, that the construction and operation of the Iowa 

Hill development is not expected to induce commercial, industrial or residential 
3-332 

development in the area. It follows that the Iowa Hill development would not alter 

Camino’s population growth or composition, nor will it change Camino’s rural, small 

town character. 

SMUD also states that the Iowa Hill development would not significantly alter 

the topography, geology or vegetation of the area, except where the proposed upper 

reservoir and associated facilities and the proposed transmission line would be sited. 

This would preserve the Camino Community’s natural environmental qualities. 

Operation of the Iowa Hill development would not result in air emissions but 

during construction, expectations are that there will be air emissions in the form of dust 

particulates and hydrocarbons. However, the report states that emissions will be 

localized in the vicinity of the upper reservoir and along the dirt road portions of the 

access roads until such time as they are upgraded with gravelling. With respect to noise, 

as discussed in section 3.3.10.2, Air and Noise Quality, construction and operation of 

the project would raise ambient noise levels but as in the case of air quality, it will be 

limited to the immediate vicinity of the site and would not impact the Camino 

community. 

SMUD states that casual visitors to Camino or Apple Hill or motorists on U.S. 

50 would not notice the changes in topography, geology or vegetation caused by the 

Iowa Hill development because intervening topography and vegetation will obscure 

many of the views. SMUD also states that although recreationists at Slab Creek 

reservoir would notice the facilities, these facilities would not stand in stark contrast to 

already existing man-made features of the area and thus would not have a drastic 

impact on the recreational experience. 

Access to recreational services, in particular, those at Slab Creek reservoir could 

be impeded by traffic congestion during the construction phase, but in the operations 

phase, upgrades to the road made during construction will improve access. Therefore, 

while it may be concluded that the Iowa Hill development is inconsistent with CCAP 

objectives regarding recreational facilities in the short-term, it would be consistent with 

these objectives over the long-term. 

SMUD believes that, traffic hazards would develop during the peak construction 

period (months 30-36), and that these hazards could adversely effect the quality of life 

in Camino. Specifically, SMUD concedes that construction traffic could have an 

impact on (1) children walking in the morning to their bus stops on roads that comprise 

the project access routes (if they are walking at or before 6:30 a.m.); (2) vehicles on the 

roads that comprise the project access routes between approximately 5:30 a.m. to 

6:30 a.m., including those attempting ingress or egress to/from residences, those 

transporting children to the bus stops in the morning, and other vehicles on the road; 

(3) the local p.m. school bus trips (3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.); (4) children walking home 

from their bus stops in the afternoon, if walking on roads that comprise the project 

access routes; (5) vehicles on the roads that comprise the project access routes between 

approximately 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., including those attempting ingress or egress 
3-333 

to/from residences, those transporting children to their homes from the bus stops in the 

afternoon, and other vehicles on the road; and (6) the traffic congestion that occurs 

during the Apple Hill season. 

Our Analysis 

Assuming that the results of the IMPLAN model are correct, it is reasonable to 

state that given the small number and temporary nature of the construction workforce to 

be employed during construction of the Iowa Hill development and the even smaller 

workforce required for its operation, the conclusions drawn by SMUD regarding the 

impact on Camino’s population are reasonable. Even the indirect and induced jobs 

generated by the construction will not be sufficient to alter the population of Camino 

because similar to the directly induced construction jobs, many indirect or secondary 

jobs will be filled by workers commuting from the Sacramento region while others will 

be sourced from other areas of El Dorado and perhaps even Placer Counties. Finally, 

traffic hazards created by the project are clearly inconsistent with the objectives of the 

CCAP; however, SMUD is committed to minimize the impact in its Transportation 

Management Plan, which is to be submitted prior to the initiation of the construction 

phase. 

3.3.10.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

The Iowa Hill development will have unavoidable adverse effects on property 

values adjacent to the site both during the construction and operational phase of the 

project. Traffic congestion will have an unavoidable adverse effect during the 

construction phase of the project, particularly in the peak months (30–36). 

Property values in the area immediately adjacent to the site may decline in value 

by as much as 33 percent, and 15 percent for two properties just east of the Iowa Hill 

site. In the Apple Hill area, 16 properties would decline by 3 percent in value and in 

Swansboro, 22 properties would undergo a 5 to 10 percent decrease. 

Traffic congestion on roads leading to the site is likely to worsen during the 

construction phase and in addition, would create hazards for residents of Camino during 

this period. Traffic congestion during the construction phase could also adversely 

impact tourism in the area. 

3.3.11 Air Resources 

3.3.11.1 Affected Environment 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB), as part of the California 

Department of Environmental Protection, is responsible for protecting public health and 

the environment from the harmful effects of air pollution. Pollutants associated with air 

emissions, such as ozone, particulate matter, and nitrogen dioxide, are associated with 

respiratory illness. Carbon monoxide, another air pollutant, can be absorbed through 

the lungs into the bloodstream and reduce the ability of blood to carry oxygen. Sources 
3-334 

of air emissions include commercial facility operations, fugitive dust, on-road vehicles 

and trucks, aircraft, boats, trains, and natural sources such as biogenic and geogenic 

hydrocarbons and wildfires. 

The topography and meteorology of the western slope of the Sierras are the 

important factors in the environmental effects of air quality emissions. Dispersion of 

high pollutant concentrations in downwind areas is hindered by the mountainous 

topography. Frequent inversions, in which warm air overlays cool air, trap pollutants 

close to the ground. In summer, long days, stagnant air, and high temperatures 

facilitate photochemical production of ozone (O3) from precursor air pollutants such as 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Regional transport 

of these precursors from the Sacramento Valley and the San Francisco Bay area result 

in high ozone concentrations. CARB has officially designated the western portion of El 

Dorado County as “ozone impacted” from transport from those areas. 

To reduce harmful exposure to air pollutants, the federal Clean Air Act requires 

the EPA to set outdoor air quality standards for the nation with the option for states to 

adopt additional or more protective standards if needed. CARB has adopted ambient 

(outdoor) air quality standards (AAQS) that are more protective than federal standards 

and has implemented standards for some pollutants not addressed by federal standards. 

An AAQS establishes the concentration above which the pollutant is known to cause 

adverse health effects to sensitive groups within the population such as children and the 

elderly. The goal is for a localized project effects not to cause or contribute to an 

exceedance of the standards. Criteria pollutants for which AAQS have been established 

are ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulfur 

dioxide. California and federal AAQS for criteria pollutants are presented in table 3-73. 

Table 3-73. California and federal ambient air quality standards. (Source: CARB, 

2006). 

Federal Standards 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

California 

Standards Primary Secondary 

1 hour 0.09 ppm 

(180 μg/m3

) 

Ozone (O3) - 

8 hour 0.07 ppm 

(137 μg/m3

) 

0.08 ppm 

(157μg/m3) 

Same as primary 

standard 

24 hour 50 μg/m3

 150μg/m3 Respirable Particulates 

(PM10) Annual mean 20 μg/m3

 -- 

Same as primary 

standard 

24 hour No standard 35 μg/m3 Fine Particulates 

(PM2.5) Annual mean 12 μg/m3

 15 μg/m3

Same as primary 

standard 

1 hour 20 ppm 

(23 μg/m3

) 

35 ppm 

(40 μg/m3) 

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO) 

8 hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm 

None 
3-335 

Federal Standards 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

California 

Standards Primary Secondary 

(10 μg/m3

) (10 μg/m3) 

Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour -- -- 

(NO2) Annual mean 0.25 ppm 

(470 μg/m3

) 

0.053 ppm 

(100 μg/m3) 

Same as primary 

standard 

1 hour 0.25 ppm 

(655 μg/m3

) 

-- -- 

3 hour -- -- 0.5 ppm 

(1300 μg/m3

) 

24 hour 0.04 ppm 

(105 μg/m3

) 

0.14 ppm 

(365 μg/m3) 

_ 

Sulfer Dioxide (SO2) 

Annual mean -- 0.03 ppm 

(80 μg/m3

) 

-- 

Existing Air Quality 

To manage air quality problems, California is divided into 15 air basins, each of 

which is associated with an Air Quality Management District. The UARP study area is 

located across Sacramento and El Dorado counties, which are respectively within the 

Sacramento Valley Air Basin and Mountain Counties Air Basin. El Dorado has its own 

AQMD and Sacramento falls within the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD. The 

proposed Iowa Hill development would lie in western El Dorado County. Chili Bar 

Project facilities are also located in El Dorado County, downstream of the UARP. 

State and National Area Designations 

Both the California and federal governments use ambient air monitoring data to 

classify areas according to their attainment status with respect to criteria pollutants. These 

designations are used to identify areas with air quality problems and help determine wheter 

project emissions would be considered significant under the NEPA and California 

Environmental Quality Act assessments. The three basic designation categories are: 

• Attainment—indicates that ambient air quality is not in violation of the 

established standard for the specific criteria pollutant. 

• Non-attainment—indicates that the ambient air quality violates the established 

standard for the specific criteria pollutant. 

• Unclassified—indicates that there is currently insufficient data for determining 

attainment or non-attainment. 

In addition to the above designations, the California includes a subcategory of the 

non-attainment designation: 
3-336 

• Non-attainment-transitional—given to non-attainment areas that are making 

progress and nearing attainment. 

Sacramento and El Dorado counties are currently in attainment for nitrogen 

dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead, non-attainment for ozone (O3) and particulate matters 

(PM), and in maintenance (previously non-attainment) for carbon monoxide (CO). 

Specifically, both the Sacramento Valley Air Basin exceed the national and state AAQS 

for ozone and the state AAQS for PM10, the Sacramento Valley and PM10. Table 3-74 

presents the study areas’ existing state air quality designations for criteria pollutants. 

State standards are presented as they are more protective than federal standards. 

Table 3-74. California State area designations for criteria air pollutants. 

Air Basin O3 PM10 PM2.5 CO NO2 SO2 VRP 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Basin 

(Sacramento County) 

N N N A A A U 

Mountain Counties Air Basin (Eldorado 

County) 

N N U U A A U 

Note: A – attainment 

 N – non-attainment 

 U – unclassifed 

 O3 – ozone 

 PM10 – respirable particulate matter 

 PM2.5 – fine particulate matter 

 CO – carbon monoxide 

 NO2 – nitrogen dioxide 

 SO2 – sulfur dioxide 

 VRP – visibility reducing particulates 

The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act require federal agencies to conform 

to applicable State Implementation Plans (SIP) for non-attainment areas. SIPs are state 

air quality regulations that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the National AAQS and include emissions limitations and control 

measures to attain and maintain the standards. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Basin 

and the El Dorado Air Basin adopted the 1994 Sacramento Area Ozone Regional Clean 

Air Plan submitted as a SIP for ozone non-attainment. As of 2002, the Sacramento area 

has exceeded its goals for reduction of VOC and met its goal for reduction of NOx 

(SMAQD, 2003). 

EPA has developed two conformity regulations for transportation and nontransportation projects. Transportation projects are governed by the “transportation 

conformity” regulations (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93). Non-transportation projects are 

governed by the “general conformity” regulations (40 CFR Parts 6, 51, and 93) 

described in the final rule for Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to 
3-337 

State or Federal Implementation plans. Since the proposed project is a nontransportation project, only the general conformity rule applies. 

The general conformity rule applies to federal actions occurring in air quality 

regions designated as being in non-attainment for the National AAQS or attainment 

areas subject to maintenance plans (maintenance areas). Federal actions occurring in 

attainment areas are not subject to the conformity rules. The proposed Projects are 

currently designated as serious non-attainment for 8-hour ozone, and as CO 

maintenance (previously nonattainment) areas. Sacramento County is also designated 

as moderate nonattainment for PM10. An air conformity analysis was prepared as a 

supplement to this EIS and is included in appendix A of this document. 

3.3.11.2 Environmental Effects 

Construction of the Iowa Hill development under the UARP would create 

additional air emissions. Operations of the UARP under the No-action, UARP-only, 

and Iowa Hill alternatives would also increase air emissions. The environmental effects 

of air emissions related to the implementation of UARP alternatives are presented in 

this section. A General Conformity Analysis includes all operational and construction 

emissions from each alternative is included Attachment Air-2. 

The potential environmental effects of the Chili Bar Project were evaluated and 

examined for air emissions. The Chili Bar Project has limited reservoir and storage, 

and operation by PG&E is to manage flow releases from upstream of SMUD’s White 

Rock powerhouse. PG&E proposes only minor modifications as needed to implement 

resource management measures, and does not propose changing existing Chili Bar 

operations, thus air emissions resulting from Chili Bar operation would continue to be 

negligible. 

Effects of Construction 

The No-action Alternative and the UARP-only Alternative do not involve 

construction of any kind and thus would not have air emissions effects related to 

construction activities. Only construction activities during development of Iowa Hill 

have potential environmental effects on ambient air quality. 

Construction of the Iowa Hill development under SMUD’s Proposed Action 

would potentially result in effects on air emissions. Short-term air quality may be 

affected by emissions of exhaust pollutants from construction equipment and dust from 

earthmoving activities. Both potential effects would be temporary (limited to the 

construction period) and local (only occurring in the immediate vicinity of the 

construction activity). 

To assess potential short-term effects of construction emissions on ambient air 

quality, SMUD conducted a worst-case screening using an air quality dispersion 

modeling analysis. 
3-338 

The predicted worst-case construction impacts and ambient air quality 

concentrations are shown in table 3-75. 

Table 3-75. Predicted total ambient concentrations during construction period. 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Maximum 

Construction 

Impacts 

(μg/m3) 

Background 

(μg/m3) 

Total 

Ambient 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) 

State 

Standard 

(μg/m3) 

Federal 

Standard 

(μg/m3) 

NO2 1 hour 

Annual 

241 

16.9 

198 

16.9 

439 

33.8 

470 

-- 

-- 

100 

SO2 1 hour 

24 hour 

Annual 

2.7 

0.3 

0.0 

83.6 

45.9 

6.5 

86.3 

46.2 

6.5 

650 

109 

-- 

-- 

365 

80 

CO 1 hour 

8 hour 

503 

114 

2,240 

992 

2,743 

1,106 

23,000 

10,000 

40,000 

10,000 

PM10 24 hour 

Annual 

29.5 

6.6 

52 

16.8 

81.5 

23.4 

50 

30 

150 

50 

PM2.5 24 hour 

Annual 

9.0 

2.0 

40 

9.9 

49.0 

11.9 

-- 

12 

65 

15 

The air conformity analysis estimated construction-related emissions with the 

EPA NONROAD model. The usage of equipment, likely duration of each activity, and 

manpower estimates for each activity for the construction were determined by the 

Engineer. Results of this analysis are presented in table 3-76. 

Table 3-76. Estimated air emissions from construction activities. 

Peak-Year Emissions (tons/year) 

Activity NOX CO VOC SOX PM10 PM2.5 

On-Site Heavy Equipment and Trucks 44.3 18.3 4.0 0.1 3.4 3.2 

Fugitive Dust NA NA NA NA 31.0 6.1 

Vehicles for Deliveries (on-road) 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.02 0.06 0.05 

Worker Travel Vehicles (on-road) 0.1 9.8 1.1 0.01 0.07 0.05 

Total Construction Emissions 44.6 28.7 5.4 0.13 34.5 9.4 

De Minimus Emission Levels Significance 50 100 50 -- 100 100 

Our Analysis 

Development of Iowa Hill would result in air emissions from construction 

equipment, earth moving activities, construction worker’s commutes, material 

deliveries, and earth hauling. Fugitive dust during construction, particularly during 

excavation of the site, would contribute substantially to particulate matter emissions. 
3-339 

Table 3-75 indicates that maximum construction effects during the worst-case 

scenario would still be within the most stringent state standards, despite elevated shortterm emissions at the site. Because PM10 emissions are predominantly caused by 

fugitive dust (table 3-76), staff recommends application of water or chemical dust 

suppressant on unpaved surfaces, combined with vacuum sweeping and water flushing 

of paved surfaces to minimize fugitive dust emissions during construction. 

Additionally, re-planting vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible would 

further reduce fugitive dust emissions. 

Non-road equipment would be required to follow the updated emission standards 

established by EPA’s Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Engine Standard (May 2004) to reduce 

exhaust emissions from construction engines. Staff also recommends limiting diesel 

engine idling, shutting off engines when not in use, and using preventative maintenance 

to keep engines running optimally to further minimize NOx emissions. 

Implementation of these measures would reduce the short-term air emissions 

effects from construction activities. 

Effects of Operations 

The existing UARP produces 1,835,000 MWh of renewable energy by utilizing 

the water cycle. Conventional hydroelectric generation is a reliable, efficient, 

economical, and less polluting source of energy resulting in zero air emissions. 

However, future demand calculations estimate a need for 2,696,000 MWh of energy, 

which would require simple cycle turbine, gas-fired generation to supply 861,000 MWh 

of on-peak generation. Annual emissions for a No-action Alternative have been 

estimated assuming gas-fired generation using a simple cycle turbine. 

The required energy generation and overall emissions from the operation of the 

Proposed Action and UARP-only Alternative have been evaluated based upon best- and 

worse-case emission scenarios with the best-case being all electric generation supplied 

by gas-fired combined cycle turbines and the worst-case scenario being coal fired 

generation. Energy requirements and generation sources for all scenarios are 

summarized in table 3-77. 

Table 3-77. Energy generation and requirements for all project alternatives. 

Energy Generation (MWh) 

Scenario Hydroelectric 

Simple 

Combustion 

Turbine 

Combine Cycle 

Turbine or Coal Total 

No-Action 1,835,000 861,000 -- 2,696,000 

UARP-Only 1,699,000 931,000 66,000 2,696,000 

Iowa Hill 1,443,000 -- 1,253,000 2,696,000 
3-340 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-action Alternative (Baseline Condition), the continued operation 

of existing UARP facilities will not result in any atmospheric emission of criteria 

pollutants or other hazardous material that can affect air quality. The continued 

operation of the existing facilities under the No-action Alternative will, on average, 

result in the annual generation of 1,835,000 MWh of clean energy. 

Future demand need is estimated to be 2,696,000 MWh, which represents an 

increase of 861,000 MWh. This increased demand beyond the generation capacity of 

the hydroelectric project would have to be generated by an additional energy supply. In 

the case of no action, this supply would most likely be a simple combustion turbine, 

which is considered “state of the art” and is most easily permittable. Air emissions 

resulting from simple combustion turbine generation are presented in table 3-78. 

UARP-Only Alternative 

The UARP-only Alternative is identical to the Proposed Action with the 

exception of the Iowa Hill development. The UARP-only Alternative would reduce 

flows available for energy generation, resulting in the annual generation of 1,699,000 

MWh of hydroelectric energy and a deficit of 136,000 MWh from the No-action 

Alternative. Because the Iowa Hill development would not be constructed under this 

alternative, the energy deficit from the new flow regime as well as future energy needs 

would be met by other energy sources, such as power purchase from the energy market, 

a mix of fuel generation sources, gas turbines, etc. These additional sources would 

create emissions that may result in environmental effects. The analysis presented here 

assumes that additional energy requirements would be met through a combination of 

simple combustion turbine and combined cycle turbine (best-case) or coal-fired (worstcase) generation. Air emissions resulting from the UARP-only Alternative are 

presented in table 3-78. 

Proposed Action-Iowa Hill Development 

The Proposed Action would increase flows to project-related streams during the 

spring, thereby decreasing the volume available to generate electricity at UARP 

facilities. SMUD proposed a pumped-storage facility to compensate for this reduction 

in energy generation. The reduction in energy from loss of flow combined with the 

increased energy demand to run the pump-storage results in a loss of 392,000 MWh 

compared to the No-action Alternative. In this case, 931,000 MWh of on-demand 

energy provided by the Iowa Hill development would help meet future energy needs 

when coupled with 1,253,000 MWh from combined cycle turbine or coal-fired energy 

sources. The pumped storage facility would not contribute air emissions because 

reversible turbines would use electricity from a transmission line tied in to the existing 

Camino-White Rock line to pump water into the upper reservoir. Additional air 

emissions would be added only through combine cycle turbine or coal-fired generation 

sources. Air emissions resulting from the Proposed Action are presented in table 3-78. 
3-341 

Table 3-78. Estimated air emissions from operational activities. 

Peak-Year Annual Emissions 

(tons/year) 

Scenario Energy Source NOX CO VOC PM10 SO2 

No-Action Hydroelectric + 

On-Peak simple 

combustion 

turbine 

-- 71.9 35.3 20.7 8.6 10.3 

Combined 

cycle 

turbine 

UARP-only Hydroelectric + 81.0 39.5 23.6 10.0 12.0 

On-Peak simple 

combustion 

turbine Coal 81.4 41.8 23.0 10.6 14.5 

Combined 

cycle 

turbine 

Iowa Hill Hydroelectric 62.7 25.7 23.8 12.5 15.0 

Pump-Storage 

Coal 69.5 68.3 12.5 24.4 63.9 

Our Analysis 

Operation of the existing UARP with conventional hydroelectric generation 

would not contribute air emissions. Environmental effects of air emissions would result 

only from energy generation by additional sources such as simple combustion turbine, 

combined cycle turbine, and coal-fired generation, which are needed to meet estimated 

future demands. Table 3-79 presents net operational air emissions between No-action 

and the UARP-only alternatives and Proposed Action after the implementation of the 

Iowa Hill development in 2014 and compares the net increase or decrease in emissions 

to thresholds levels established in 40 CFR 93.153. 

Table 3-79. Net peak-year emissions due to the UARP-only Alternative and Proposed 

Action following operation of Iowa Hill Development (post 2014). 

Net Annual Emissions (tons/year) 

Scenario Additional Source NOX CO VOC SO2 PM10 PM2.5 

Combined Cycle 

Turbine 

UARP-only 9.1 4.2 2.9 1.6 1.4 1.3 

Coal 9.5 6.5 2.3 4.2 2.0 1.8 

Combined Cycle 

Turbine 

Iowa Hill –9.2 –9.6 3.1 4.7 3.9 3.5 

Coal –2.4 33.0 -8.1 53.6 15.8 14.2 

De Minimis 50 100 50 100a

 100 100 a SO2 de minimus level does not apply to the Projects, as located in attainment area. 
3-342 

Table 3-79 indicates that net emissions of all criteria pollutants would not exceed 

de minimis threshold levels compared to the No-action Alternative. Net increases of air 

emissions between the No-action Alternative and UARP-Only Alternative would be 

substantially lower than threshold levels. In some cases, net emissions from the 

Proposed Action are lower than no action emissions. For instance, use of combined 

cycle turbine in the place of simple combustion turbine generation under the Proposed 

Action would reduce emissions of NOx and CO. Coal-fired generation in the Proposed 

Action would increase emissions of CO, SO2, and PM but would decrease emissions of 

ozone precursors NOx and VOC compared to the No-action Alternative. In general, air 

emissions from additional energy generation would increase compared to zero emission 

conventional hydroelectric generation, net increases under proposed alternatives would 

not exceed thresholds and in some cases the Proposed Action would decrease emissions 

compared to no action. 

3.3.11.3 Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects on air quality for various Project Alternatives to include 

emissions and air quality effects resulting from all operational and construction 

activities of UARP and Chili Bar Project are evaluated, either quantitatively or 

qualitatively. The cumulative effects are mainly resulting from the UARP, while the 

Chili Bar project has negligible effect on air resources. 

3.3.11.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Air quality analysis indicates construction of the Iowa Hill development would 

contribute to air pollutants levels of NOx, CO, and PM10. These effects would be 

limited to worst-case conditions during a short-term construction period. With a 

mitigated construction schedules and on-site control measures, the air emissions would 

not exceed the de minimus levels. 

Among the viable substitute resources to cover the energy supply shortage resulting 

from the project alternatives, the gas turbine plants are likely to be used to supply peak 

energy because they can be started rapidly during periods of high demand. Air 

emissions resulting from these substitute plants can be controlled to meet the 

regulations and conformity requirements. 

3.3.12 Noise Resources 

3.3.12.1 Affected Environment 

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources including 

airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles. The 

magnitude of noise is described by its sound pressure. Because the range of sound 

pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some 

common reference level, the decibel. Sound pressures described in decibels are called 

sound pressure levels. 
3-343 

Sound levels measured using an A-weighted decibel scale are expressed as dBA. 

Throughout this analysis, all noise levels are expressed in dBA. Several examples of 

noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in table 3-80. 

Table 3-80. A-weighted (dBA) sound levels of typical noise environments. (Source: 

FICON, 1992, as modified by staff) 

A-Weighted Overall Level Noise Environment

120 Uncomfortably Loud 

(32 times as loud as 70 dBA) 

Military jet takeoff at 50 feet 

100 Very loud 

(8 times as loud as 70 dBA) 

Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 

80 Loud 

(2 times as loud as 70 dBA) 

Propeller plane flyover at 1,000 feet; 

diesel truck 40 mph at 50 feet 

70 Moderately loud Freeway at 50 feet from pavement edge; 

vacuum cleaner (indoor) 

60 Relatively quiet 

(1/2 as loud as 70 dBA) 

Air condition unit at 10 feet; dishwasher 

at 10 feet (indoor) 

50 Quiet 

(1/4 as loud as 70 dBA) 

Large transformers; small private office 

(indoor) 

40 Very quiet 

(1/8 as loud as 70 dBA) 

Bird calls; lowest limit of urban ambient 

sound 

10 Extremely quiet 

(1/64 as loud as 70 dBA) 

Just audible 

0 Threshold of hearing 

Note: dBA – A-weighted decibel scale 

The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially 

on three things: 

• the amount and nature of the intruding noise; 

• the relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise; and 

• the type of activity occurring where the noise is heard. 

In considering the first of these factors, it is important to note that individuals 

have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some people more than others, 

and some patterns of noise also enter into people’s judgment of whether or not a noise 

is offensive. 

With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance of an 

unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other sources (background 

noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when background noise levels are 
3-344 

approximately 45 dBA generally would be more objectionable than the blowing of a car 

horn in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA. 

The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities of 

individuals. In a 60-dBA environment, normal work activities requiring high levels of 

concentration may be interrupted by loud noises, while activities requiring manual 

effort may not be interrupted to the same degree. 

Time-averaged descriptors are utilized to provide a better assessment of timevarying sound levels. The three most common noise descriptors used in community 

noise surveys are the equivalent sound level (Leq), percentile distributions of sound 

levels (L%), and the day-night average sound level (Ldn). 

The Leq is an energy-averaged sound level that includes both steady background 

sounds and transient short-term sounds. The Leq is equivalent in energy to the 

fluctuating sound level over the measurement period. The Leq is commonly used to 

describe traffic noise levels, which tend to be characterized by fluctuating sound levels. 

The L% indicate the sound level exceeded for a percentage of the measurement 

period. For example, the L90 is the sound level exceeded for 90 percent of the 

measurement period and is commonly used to represent background sound levels. The 

L10 is the sound level exceeded for 10 percent of the measurement period and represents 

the peak sound levels present in the environment. 

The Ldn is another descriptor used to evaluate community noise levels. The Ldn

is a 24-hour average sound level, which includes a 10 dBA penalty added to nighttime 

sound levels (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) because people tend to be more sensitive to noise 

during the nighttime. The day-night average sound level is commonly used to describe 

aircraft and train noise levels. 

For the state of California, noise intensity is also discussed in terms of 

Community Noise Equivalent Level, which presents a weighted average noise level that 

increases the relative significance of evening and nighttime noise. The Community 

Noise Equivalent Level descriptor is used to evaluate community noise levels, which 

includes a 5 and 10 dBA penalty added to evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 

nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) sound levels, respectively, in consideration of 

people’s increased sensitivity to noise during the evening and nighttime periods. 

Existing Noise Environment 

The proposed Iowa Hill development is located in a remote and forested area 

near the communities of Mosquito/Swansboro and Camino, placing it in a rural area 

where a small number of privately-owned residential properties may be affected by a 

change in noise levels. Most of the nearby residences with potential to be affected by 

construction noise are located in Swansboro, approximately one mile northwest of the 

proposed upper reservoir, along the north canyon rim of the SFAR. There are also a 

few homes south of the upper reservoir site (along or near Copperton Road) within one 
3-345 

mile of the upper reservoir, and several more homes are located approximately one mile 

southwest of the upper reservoir site. Residences closest to the upper reservoir site 

include a group of 28 privately-owned parcels along Iowa Hill Road. Some of these 

parcels abut the proposed project boundary for the Iowa Hill development. There are 

no utility services (e.g., electricity, water) in the vicinity of Iowa Hill, therefore current 

and future development is limited. 

Noise Standards 

The El Dorado County General Plan has the following specific policy for 

construction noise: 

• Policy 6.5.1.11—The standards outlined in table 3-81 shall apply to those 

activities associated with actual construction of a project as long as such 

construction occurs between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, and 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekends, and on federally recognized 

holidays. Exceptions are allowed if it can be shown that construction beyond 

these times is necessary to alleviate traffic congestion and safety hazards. 

Table 3-81. Maximum allowable noise exposure for nontransportation noise sources 

in rural regions—construction noise. 

Noise Level 

Land Use Designation Time Period Leq Lmax

7 a.m.–7 p.m. 50 60 

7 p.m.–10 p.m. 45 55 

All Residential (LDR) 

10 p.m.–7 a.m. 40 50 

Commercial, Recreation, and Public Facilities 7 a.m.–7 p.m. 65 75 

(C, TR, PF) 7 p.m.–7 a.m. 60 70 

Rural Land, Natural Resources, Open Space, and 7 a.m.–7 p.m. 65 75 

Agricultural Lands (RR, NR, OS, AL) 7 p.m.–7 a.m. 60 70 

3.3.12.2 Environmental Effects 

Iowa Hill Development 

Effects of Construction 

The construction of the Iowa Hill development has the potential to generate 

noise levels that could be disturbing to residents living in the surrounding area and to 

recreational visitors at the informal boat launch site at the Slab Creek reservoir. 

Under Proposed Article 1-48, Construction Noise, SMUD would provide a noise 

mitigation plan to minimize noise emissions from the construction site. The plan would 

address vehicle idling, and include provisions to provide advance notice of any 
3-346 

materials transport and construction activities within 0.5 mile of the tract where 

construction is occurring; notices to residents indicating the nature, timing, and duration 

of all materials transport and construction activities occurring within 0.5 mile of their 

residences; a noise hot line telephone system for reporting construction noise 

disturbances; monitoring to address compliance with the above measures; and it would 

specify actions to mitigate violation of the above measures. SMUD would provide 

monthly monitoring reports to the Forest Service that includes lists of any complaints of 

noise disturbances. 

Our Analysis 

Noise at the construction sites would be intermittent and the intensity would 

vary. The degree of construction noise may vary depending on the construction phase 

and activities. 

While a large portion of the construction activities for the water conduits and the 

powerhouse cavern would take place underground, construction of the upper reservoir 

atop Iowa Hill would generate noise as earth-moving equipment clear the site and build 

the reservoir berm. SMUD states that most construction work at the Iowa Hill 

development will begin at 6:30 a.m. in order to avoid traffic congestion. Starting 

construction work at this time would reduce local construction-related traffic 

congestion and safety hazards and is allowed under El Dorado County General Plan. 

Blasting for the construction of the Iowa Hill development would exceed the El 

Dorado County General Plan maximum allowable noise limit (60 dB) at several noise 

sensitive sites; however, the blasting would meet federal and industry standards and be 

less disruptive over time as activities progress underground. Traffic due to the 

construction of the Iowa Hill development would not exceed General Plan traffic noise 

limits. 

During the construction period, some of the sensitive sites that are close to the 

project may be exposed to high noise levels. Effective noise control during the 

construction of a project means minimizing noise disturbances to the surrounding 

community. We would expect SMUD to use a combination of mitigation techniques 

including equipment noise controls and administrative measures to provide the most 

effective means to minimize effects of the construction activity noise on people living 

nearby or visiting the Iowa Hill area. 

SMUD would use standard noise mitigation measures to comply with the El 

Dorado County General Plan noise limits. These measures would likely include 

ensuring that all equipment items have the manufacturers’ recommended noise 

abatement measures, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration 

isolators, intact and operational and that all construction equipment is inspected at 

periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise control devices 

(e.g., mufflers and shrouding). Other typical measures would include limitations on the 

duration of certain construction/demolition activities, building temporary noise barriers, 
3-347 

and planning truck routes to minimize backup alarms and keep trucks away from 

residences. 

Development and implementation of a plan to control construction noise would 

minimize but not eliminate the potential effects of noise during construction. 

Neighboring residents and visitors to the Iowa Hill area would hear the construction 

activities during the daytime but to a lesser extent than would occur without 

implementation of noise abatement techniques. 

Effects of Operations 

Operation of the Iowa Hill development has the potential to increase ambient 

noise levels in the Iowa Hill area. Operational noise associated with the Iowa Hill 

development is unlikely to be an issue, however, because noise generating facilities (the 

powerhouse and intake structure) would be located underground. 

Our Analysis 

The stationary noise source (the turbine/generating units) at the proposed Iowa 

Hills development would be placed in an underground powerhouse and would not 

affect noise levels on the surface. Therefore, noise effects associated with operation of 

the proposed project would not be significant. 

Traffic noise would be limited two employees and periodic deliveries and 

maintenance activities and would be minor. Not many sensitive land uses would be in 

the proximity of the proposed Iowa Hills development and the proposed transmission 

alignment. As noted above, most of these areas are mountainous and desolate, except 

for a few small housing developments and ranch homes that are at least 1,000 feet 

away. 

The higher voltages at which modern transmission lines operate have increased 

noise problems. Consequently, these lines are now designed, constructed, and 

maintained so that during dry conditions they would operate below the corona-inception 

voltage, meaning that the line would generate a minimum of corona-related noise. 

Under wet weather conditions, high-tension transmission lines may generate audible 

noises. The audible noise emitted from high-voltage lines is caused by the discharge of 

energy that occurs when the electrical field strength on the conductor surface is greater 

than the “breakdown strength” (the field intensity necessary to start a flow of electric 

current) of the air surrounding the conductor. This discharge is also responsible for 

radio noise, a visible glow of light near the conductor, an energy loss known as corona 

loss, and other phenomena associated with high-voltage lines. The degree or intensity 

of the corona discharge and the resulting audible noise are affected by the condition of 

the air—that is, by humidity, air density, wind, and water in the form of rain, drizzle, 

and fog. Water increases the conductivity of the air and in turn increases the intensity 

of the discharge. Also, irregularities on the conductor surface such as nicks or sharp 
3-348 

points and airborne contaminants can increase the corona activity. Aging or weathering 

of the conductor surface generally reduces the significance of these factors. 

For AC lines and voltages above 400-kV, noise levels of 60 dBA or less at the 

edge of right-of-way can be annoying to the receptors nearby. However, the short 

section of 230-kV line associated with the Iowa Hill development would be designed to 

ensure that corona noise does not exceed 50 dBA at the right-of-way. 

3.3.12.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

During some phases of construction operations, exceedances to El Dorado 

County General Plan Noise Criteria are likely to occur. SMUD is committed to 

employing a combination of mitigation techniques including equipment noise controls 

and administrative measures to provide the most effective means to minimize effects of 

the construction activity noise on people living nearby or visiting the Iowa Hill area. 

However, with a large complex project, the information available during the 

preliminary engineering phase may not allow final decisions to be made on all specific 

mitigation measures, and the extent of these exceedances to noise criteria cannot be 

determined. But they will be temporary and less intrusive because of SMUD’s 

mitigation plan. 

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No-action Alternative (Baseline Condition), the continued operation 

of existing UARP facilities will be of significant importance to air quality in the 

Sacramento region and foothill communities in Placer and El Dorado counties over the 

term of the new license. Operation of the existing UARP facilities does not result in 

any atmospheric emission of criteria pollutants or other hazardous material that can 

affect air quality. The continued operation of the existing facilities under the No-action 

Alternative will, on average, result in the annual generation of 1,835,000 MWh of clean 

energy. 

3.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

Continued operation of the existing Projects would continue to commit lands and 

waters previously developed for energy production. Construction of the proposed Iowa 

Hill development would convert about 185 acres of existing forest land to energy 

production use. This commitment would not necessarily be irreversible or irretrievable 

because removal of the project dams and restoration of disturbed areas could return the 

Projects’ areas to near pre-project conditions. However, given the substantial costs and 

loss of energy, recreational, and socioeconomic benefits, removal of the dams is 

unlikely in the foreseeable future. 
3-349 

3.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM 

USES 

Under all alternatives considered, the Projects would continue to generate power 

for customers of SMUD and PG&E and provide recreation and socioeconomic benefits 

for the duration of any new licenses. The Proposed Actions with staff-recommended 

modifications would provide significant long-term protection and enhancement of 

biological, cultural, and recreational resources in the Upper American River Basin, 

although energy generation at the existing Projects would be somewhat reduced. 

Construction of the proposed Iowa Hill development would provide a new source of 

off-peak energy for use during high peak periods and improved the reliability of energy 

from SMUD. 
3-350 

This page intentionally left blank. 
4-1

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS 

In this section, we analyze the Projects’ use of the water resources of the Upper 

American River Basin to generate power, estimate the economic benefits of the SMUD 

and PG&E facilities, and estimate the cost of various environmental measures and the 

effects of these measures on project operations. 

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECTS 

4.1.1 Economic Assumptions 

Under its approach to evaluating the economics of hydropower projects, as 

articulated in Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division (72 FERC ¶61,027, July 13, 

1995), the Commission employs an analysis that uses current costs to compare the costs 

of the project and likely alternative power with no consideration for potential future 

inflation, escalation, or deflation beyond the license issuance date. The Commission’s 

economic analysis provides a general estimate of the potential power benefits and costs 

of a project and reasonable alternatives to project-generated power. The estimate helps 

to support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest with respect to 

a proposed license. 

For our economic analysis of the UARP alternatives, we used the assumptions, 

values, and sources shown in table 4-1. Similar information for the Chili Bar Project is 

presented in table 4-2. 

Table 4-1. Staff assumptions for economic analysis of SMUD’s UARP Project. 

Assumption Value Source 

Base year for costs and benefits 2007 Staff 

On-peak power value (mills/kWh) $73.80 SMUD 

Off-peak power value (mills/kWh) $55.80 SMUD 

Pump-back power cost (mills/kWh) $55.80 SMUD 

Dependable capacity value ($/MW) $95,960 SMUD 

Period of analysis 30 years Staff 

Term of financing 20 years Staff 

Federal and state tax rate 0 percent SMUD 

Local tax rate 0 percent SMUD 

Insurance ratea

 Staff 

Interest during construction rate 4.1% SMUD 

Discount rate 6.25% SMUD 
4-2

Assumption Value Source 

Long-term bond interest rate 4.4% SMUD 

Return on Equity 6.6% SMUD 

Debt:equity ratio 80:20 SMUD 

a

 Insurance is treated explicitly by SMUD, see table 4-3. 

Table 4-2. Staff assumptions for economic analysis of PG&E’s Chili Bar Project. 

Assumption Value Source 

Base year for costs and benefits 2007 Staff 

On-peak power value (mills/kWh)a $73.80 SMUD 

Off-peak power value (mills/kWh)a

 $55.80 SMUD 

Dependable capacity value ($/MW) a $95,960 SMUD 

Period of analysis 30 years Staff 

Term of financing 20 years Staff 

Federal and state tax rate 34 percent PG&E 

Local tax rateb

 3.18 percent PG&E 

Insurance rate 0.25% Staff 

Discount rate 8.0% PG&E 

Long-term interest rate 7.2% PG&E 

Return on equity rate 11.9% PG&E 

Debt equity ratio 55:45 PG&E 

a

 We adopted the SMUD power value estimates because it provided both peak and off-peak 

values. 

b

 Calculated based on PG&E local tax of $87,000 divided by book value of $2,734,000. 

4.1.2 Current Annual Costs and Future Capital Costs for the UARP and Chili 

Bar Project under the No-action Alternative 

Total annualized current costs for the SMUD No-action Alternative amount to 

$40,749,000 (see table 4-3); the total annualized current costs for the PG&E No-action 

Alternative amount to $2,170,000 (see table 4-4). 
4-3

Table 4-3. Summary of current annual costs and future costs for SMUD’s UARP 

under the No-action Alternative. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007) 

Cost 

Capital and 

One-Time 

Costs 

Annual Costs, 

Including O&M 

Total Annualized 

Costs 

Total original net investment $182,000,000 $12,081,300 

Total relicensing cost $24,000,000 $1,593,100 

Total net investment $206,000,000 $13,674,400 

Future costs $6,758,600 $6,758,600 

Plant operations and maintenance $16,896,500 $16,896,500 

Administrative and general $1,761,900 $1,761,900 

Insurance $1,657,600 $1,657,600 

Subtotal annual costs $27,074,600 

Total $40,749,000 

Table 4-4. Summary of current annual costs and future capital costs for PG&E’s 

Chili Bar Project under the No-action Alternative. (Source: PG&E, 2005) 

Cost 

Capital and 

One-Time Costs 

Annual Costs, 

Including O&M 

Total Annualized 

Costs 

Total original net investment $2,734,000 $398,900 

Total relicensing cost $4,600,000 $671,100 

Total net investment $7,334,000 $1,070,000 

Future costsa

 $554,800 $554,800 

Plant operations and maintenancea $358,200 $358,200 

FERC fees $187,000 $187,000 

Subtotal annual costs $1,100,000 

Total $2,170,000 

a These costs were adjusted by 2.8 percent per year to convert from 2005 to 2007 dollars. 
4-4

4.2 COST OF IOWA HILL DEVELOPMENT 

SMUD estimates the cost to build the Iowa Hill development could range from a 

low of $552,716,000 to a high of $825,362,000. Staff adopted the midpoint of the low 

end and high end cost estimates for use in the developmental analysis. Capital costs and 

annual costs for the Iowa Hill development are summarized by major construction area 

in tables 4-5 and 4-6. 

Table 4-5. Summary of Iowa Hill development capital costs under the Proposed 

Action. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007, Staff) 

Cost Mid-Point Estimate 

Mobilization and water handling $32,136,000 

Permanent access road (lower) $2,764,000 

Upper reservoir $113,878,000 

Waterways and intakes $95,480,500 

Powerhouse and access tunnels $109,727,500 

Equipment (installed) $174,978,500 

Transmission line $18,354,500 

Subtotal $547,319,000 

Licensing, SMUD project management and Geotechnical 

Exploration $64,509,000 

Interest during construction (4.1% annually for 4 years) $63,364,000 

Sales tax on equipment (El Dorado County rate 7.25%) $28,848,000 

Total Construction cost with contingencies $704,040,000 

Table 4-6. Summary of Iowa Hill development annual costs under the Proposed 

Action. (Source: SMUD and PG&E, 2007, Staff) 

Capital Cost 

($) Annual Cost 

($) 

Annualized 

Cost 

($) 

Iowa Hill pumped storage development $704,040,000 $47,536,100 

Additional future costs $1,153,400 $1,153,400 

Additional operations and maintenance 

costs 

 $2,883,400 $2,883,400 

Additional administrative and general 

costs 

 $300,700 $300,700 

Additional insurance costs $641,200 $641,200 

Subtotal additional future annual costs $4,978,700 

Total annual cost $52,514,800 
4-5

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES 

As proposed under the Settlement Agreement and as recommended by staff, the 

environmental measures for the UARP and Chili Bar Project would both reduce 

generation and increase annual O&M costs and capital costs. No effect on dependable 

capacity is anticipated by either utility. 

4.3.1 Cost of Environmental Measures for UARP 

SMUD provided costs for environmental measures in current dollars. Costs are 

taken from the Settlement Plan filed in January 2007, and a cost update reflecting the 

Settlement Agreement submitted on April 11, 2007 (SMUD and PG&E, 2007). Where 

cost information was inconsistent, staff estimated costs. Table 4-7 summarizes the costs 

by major resource area for the UARP-only Alternative39. No staff modifications are 

included in this alternative. Our detailed costs and energy benefit reductions for 

SMUD’s UARP-only Alternative environmental measures are provided in appendix B. 

Additionally, certain costs identified as resulting from SMUD’s 90 percent contribution 

to the implementation of overlapping-issue measures contained in the Chili Bar Project, 

as described in appendix 2 of the Settlement Agreement are summarized in appendix B. 

Table 4-7. Summary of annualized costs for measures included in the UARP-only 

Alternative. (Source: Staff) 

Resource Area Capital Cost 

Annualized O&M 

Cost 

Total Annualized 

Cost 

Geology and soils $758,600 $18,800 $69,100

Water quantity $3,311,900 $94,700 $314,500

Water quality $256,600 $272,200 $289,400

Aquatic resources $429,100 $89,400 $118,000

Terrestrial resources $423,800 $249,700 $277,800

Recreation $37,827,700 $1,457,000 $3,967,900

Land use and aesthetics $5,820,400 $332,500 $718,600

Cultural resources $16,400 $5,500 $6,600

Multidisciplinary $16,400 $486,200 $487,300

Total $48,860,900 $3,006,000 $6,249,200

 

39Under the UARP-only Alternative, the Iowa Hill development would not be 

constructed. 
4-6

Table 4-8 summarizes the costs of the environmental measures by major resource 

area for the Proposed Action (with Iowa Hill development) and Proposed Action with 

Staff Modifications. Because we recommend only minor modifications to several 

proposed environmental measures, the cost of the Proposed Action with Staff 

Modifications for the UARP is similar to the Proposed Action (with Iowa Hill 

development). 

Table 4-8. Summary of annualized costs for measures included in the Proposed 

Action (with Iowa Hill development) and the Proposed Action with Staff 

Modifications.a (Source: Staff). 

 

Proposed Action 

(with Iowa Hill Development) Proposed Action with Staff Modifications 

Resource Area 

Capital 

Cost 

Annualized 

O&M Cost 

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

Capital 

Cost 

Annualized 

O&M Cost 

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

Geology and soils $758,600 $18,800 $69,100 $758,600 $18,800 $69,100 

Water quantity $3,311,900 $94,700 $314,500 $3,038,600 $94,700 $296,400 

Water quality $256,600 $272,200 $289,400 $256,600 $272,200 $289,400 

Aquatic resources $429,100 $89,400 $118,000 $429,100 $89,400 $118,000 

Terrestrial resources $423,800 $249,700 $277,800 $423,800 $249,700 $277,800 

Recreation $37,827,700 $1,457,000 $3,967,900 $37,827,700 $1,457,000 $3,967,900 

Land use and 

aesthetics $5,820,400 $332,500 $718,600 $5,820,400 $332,500 $718,600 

Cultural resources $16,400 $5,500 $6,600 $16,400 $5,500 $6,600 

Multidisciplinary $16,400 $486,200 $487,300 $16,400 $486,200 $487,300 

Total $48,860,900 $3,006,000 $6,249,200 $48,587,600 $3,006,000 $6,231,100 

a The costs for the Proposed Action (with Iowa Hill development) and the Proposed Action with 

Staff Modifications are very similar. Although costs are similar, certain reservoir level constraints 

at small reservoirs with no costs are not endorsed by staff as described in section 5.1.3, Rationale 

for Staff Recommendations in Comprehensive Development. 

Table 4-9 summarizes the costs of the environmental measures by major resource 

area for the Iowa Hill development component of the Proposed Action. Again, the costs 

associated with the Iowa Hill development component of the Proposed Action with 

Staff Modifications for the UARP is similar to the Proposed Action (with Iowa Hill 

development). Our detailed costs for SMUD’s Iowa Hill environmental measures are 

also provided in the last section of appendix B. 

PG&E provided costs for environmental measures in current dollars. Costs are 

taken from the Settlement Agreement filed in January 2007, and a cost update reflecting 

the Settlement Agreement submitted on May 16, 2007 (SMUD and PG&E, 2007). 

Table 4-10 summarizes the costs by major resource area for both the Proposed Action 
4-7

(with Iowa Hill development) and the Proposed Action with Staff Modifications for the 

Chili Bar Project. Our detailed costs and energy benefit reductions for PG&E’s Chili 

Bar Project are provided in appendix B and include a single staff-recommended 

additional measure providing for a recreation plan. 

Table 4-9. Summary of annualized costs for measures associated with the Iowa Hill 

component of the Proposed Action and Proposed Action with Staff 

Modifications.a

 (Source: Staff) 

 

Proposed Action 

(with Iowa Hill Development) Proposed Action with Staff Modifications 

Resource Area 

Capital 

Cost 

Annualized 

O&M Cost 

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

Capital 

Cost 

Annualized 

O&M Cost 

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

Geology and soils $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Water quantity $54,700 $0 $3,600 $54,700 $0 $3,600 

Water quality $54,700 $2,600 $6,200 $54,700 $2,600 $6,200 

Aquatic resources $382,600 $16,400 $41,800 $382,600 $16,400 $41,800 

Terrestrial resources $546,500 $0 $36,300 $566,500 $0 $37,600 

Recreation $27,300 $0 $1,800 $27,300 $0 $1,800 

Land use and 

aesthetics $82,000 $0 $5,400 $82,000 $0 $5,400 

Multidisciplinary $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Socioeconomics $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Total $1,147,800 $19,000 $95,100 $1,167,800 $19,000 $96,400 

a Staff adopted all Iowa Hill development measures and added one measure, so the two alternatives 

are very similar. 

Table 4-10. Summary of annualized costs for measures included in the Proposed Action 

and Proposed Action with Staff Modifications for the Chili Bar Project. 

(Source: Staff) 

 Proposed Action 

Proposed Action with Staff 

Modifications 

Resource Area 

Capital 

Cost 

Annualized 

O&M Cost 

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

Capital 

Cost 

Annualized 

O&M Cost 

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

Geology and soils $1,100 $600 $800 $1,100 $600 $800 

Water quantity $40,000 $30,000 $35,900 $40,000 $30,000 $35,900 

Water quality $5,500 $6,600 $7,600 $5,500 $6,600 $7,600 

Aquatic resources $2,200 $11,500 $11,900 $2,200 $11,500 $11,900 
4-8

 Proposed Action 

Proposed Action with Staff 

Modifications 

Resource Area 

Capital 

Cost 

Annualized 

O&M Cost 

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

Capital 

Cost 

Annualized 

O&M Cost 

Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

Terrestrial resources $12,200 $22,800 $24,700 $12,200 $22,800 $24,700 

Recreation $71,100 $8,500 $18,900 $71,100 $11,200 $21,600 

Land use and aesthetics $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Cultural Resources $10,000 $2,000 $3,500 $10,000 $2,000 $3,500 

Multidisciplinary $25,000 $30,000 $33,600 $25,000 $30,000 $33,600 

Total $167,100 $112,000 $136,900 $167,100 $114,700 $139,600 

4.3.2 Effect of Proposed Operations on UARP and Chili Bar Project 

Several measures affect energy generation. Estimates were made of the effect of 

environmental measures and the Iowa Hill development by applying the CHEOPs 

operations model to optimize and simulate the system. Pulse flows are presented in 

section 3.3.1, Geology and Soils. The minimum instream flows, ramping rates and 

required reservoir levels are presented in section 3.3.3, Aquatic Resources. Recreational 

flows and levels are presented in section 3.3.6, Recreational Resources. 

Staff notes that a reduction of 136,000 MWh40 would result from flows needed 

for environmental and recreational flow requirements at the UARP as shown in table 4-

11 and detailed in appendix B. The Iowa Hill development would add 931,000 MWh of 

super peak energy and 43,000 MWh of off-peak energy as compared to the UARP-only 

Alternative. Staff does not recommend measures beyond the Proposed Action that 

would affect energy generation. SMUD also computed the effect on pump back energy, 

resulting in a loss of 1,230,000 MWh of off-peak energy. The development would 

therefore result in an incremental gross energy decrease of 256,000 MWh when 

compared to the UARP-only Alternative. This pumped storage project would be about 

79 percent efficient and its value is in the ability to move blocks of off-peak energy into 

the on peak period along with other ancillary benefits described in section 4.4. 

Under the UARP-only Alternative, PG&E estimates an energy reduction of about 

709 MWh that would result from flows needed for environmental and recreational flow 

requirements at the Chili Bar Project relative to no action, as shown in table 4-12. If 

SMUD were to build the Iowa Hill development, energy generation would decrease by 

1,000 MWh at Chili Bar relative to no action. 

 

40SMUD estimated 136,000 MWh, including 70,000 MWh of lost on-peak 

generation and 66,000 MWh of lost off-peak generation. 
4-9

Table 4-11. Summary of the energy and capacity effecta

 of environmental and 

engineering measures on the No-action, UARP-only Alternative, Proposed 

Action (with Iowa Hill development), and Proposed Action with Staff 

Modifications for SMUD’s UARP. (Source: Staff) 

UARP Power Benefits 

Effects No Action 

UARP-only 

Alternative 

Proposed Action 

(with Iowa Hill 

Development) 

Proposed Action 

with Staff 

Modifications 

Change in dependable 

capacity (MW) 

0 0 400 400 

Change in super peak gross 

energy generation (MWh) 

0 0 931,000 931,000 

Change in on-peak gross 

energy generation (MWh) 

0 –70,000 –70,000 –70,000 

Change in off-peak gross 

energy generation (MWh) 

0 –66,000 –23,000b

 –23,000b

Total change in gross energy 

generation (MWh) 

0 –136,000 838,000 838,000 

Total change in net energy 

generation (MWh)c

0 –136,000d

 –392,000 –392,000 

a Increases are shown as positive and decreases as negative. 

b Computed as –66,000 MWh in previous column plus 43,000 MWh of new off-peak energy 

associated with the Iowa Hill development. c Net energy change is computed by subtracting the pumping requirements from gross generation. 

d SMUD identifies some level of uncertainty associated with the effect of environmental measures. 

The actual loss of energy generation could range from 127,000 to 136,000 MWh. 

Table 4-12. Summary of the effect of environmental measures on energya and capacity 

for the No-action, UARP-only, Proposed Action (with Iowa Hill 

development), and Proposed Action with Staff Modifications for the Chili 

Bar Project. (Source: Staff) 

Chili Bar Power Benefits 

Effects No Action 

UARP-only 

Alternative 

Proposed Action 

(with Iowa Hill 

Development) 

Proposed Action 

with Staff 

Modifications 

Lost dependable capacity 

(MW) 

0 0 0 0 

Lost on-peak energy 

generation (MWh)a

0 –666 –28 –28 

Lost off peak energy 

generation (MWh)a

0 –43 –972 –972 

Total lost energy generation 

(MWh) 

0 –709 –1,000 –1,000 

a PG&E is still modeling the energy effects. These values are staff estimates as detailed in appendix 

B and are based on presently available information.
4-10

4.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Table 4-13 compares the power value, annual costs, and net benefits of the Noaction Alternative, UARP-only Alternative, Proposed Action (with Iowa Hill 

development), and the Proposed Action with Staff Modifications for the UARP. In 

section 5, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative, we discuss our 

reasons for recommending the Proposed Action with Staff Modifications, and explain 

why we conclude the environmental benefits are worth these costs. The decrease in net 

benefits from $67.14/MWh to $41.18/MWh for the Proposed Action represents a 

decrease of 38.7 percent relative to the unit cost of the No-action Alternative. The 

decrease in net benefits from $67.14/MWh to $41.19/MWh for the Proposed Action 

with Staff Modifications represents a decrease of 38.6 percent relative to the unit cost of 

the No-action Alternative. There is a small difference in net benefit between the 

Proposed Action (with Iowa Hill development) and Proposed Action with Staff 

Modifications. 

If we look at the incremental effect of building the Iowa Hill development by 

subtracting the UARP-only Alternative from the Proposed Action with Staff 

Modifications, we find that the $123,232,800 power benefits slightly exceed the 

$121,243,900 cost resulting in a net benefit of $1,988,900. Although the economic 

benefit of the Iowa Hill development may appear marginal, we agree with SMUD that 

the operational flexibility of pumped storage projects provides an advantage compared 

to other types of generators that compete in the ancillary services market. This 

flexibility includes the ability for pumped storage projects to start up quickly, rapidly 

increase load, switch from pumping to generating, and shape the project’s output to 

meet load requirements. These benefits take on increased importance given SMUD’s 

role as a control area. Without the 400-MW of capacity from the Iowa Hill 

development, SMUD would have to meet future peak generation needs with simple 

cycle peaking plants or than power purchased from the energy market. 

Costs associated with unanticipated geotechnical conditions, higher construction 

costs due to inflation or uncertainties associated with estimated quantities could all 

affect project economics. Similarly, on the benefits side, it is difficult to forecast energy 

prices and capacity values in the year 2015; however, our economic analysis is based on 

current power values. Although our estimate shows that the Iowa Hill development has 

a small positive net benefit, under the policies set relating to Mead Corporation, 

Publishing Paper Division (72 FERC ¶61,027, July 13, 1995), the utility takes on any 

financial risk, and the Commission Staff make no representation as to the Projects’ 

ultimate economic viability. 

Table 4-14 compares the power value, annual costs, and net benefits for the Chili 

Bar Project under of the No-action Alternative, UARP-only Alternative , the Proposed 

Action (with Iowa Hill development), and the Proposed Action with Staff 

Modifications. In section 5, Comprehensive Development and Recommended 

Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the Proposed Action, as well as 
4-11

any staff modifications, and explain why we conclude the environmental benefits are 

worth these costs. The decrease in net benefits from $20.97/MWh to $15.38/MWh for 

the Proposed Action with Staff Modifications represents a decrease of 26.66 percent 

relative to the unit cost of the No-action Alternative. However, the Proposed Action 

with Staff Modifications for the Chili Bar Project has minimal effects (about 

$0.01/MWh) on net benefits when compared to the Proposed Action because staff 

modifications result in only a modest increase in project costs associated with a single 

new environmental measure. If the Iowa Hill development were not constructed, net 

benefits for the Chili Bar Project would rise to $15.47/MWh or about $0.08/Mwh more 

than if it were constructed, excluding the effect of staff modifications. 

4.5 OTHER ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 

In addition to the cost evaluated in sections 4.2 and 4.3, the applicants would 

incur costs associated with measures that are not part of a potential Commission license. 

Costs associated with these measures are external to our developmental analysis. 

Table 4-13. Summary of annual net benefits for the No-action, UARP-only 

Alternative, Proposed Action (with Iowa Hill development), and Proposed 

Action with Staff Modifications for SMUD’s UARP. (Source: Staff) 

 No Action 

UARP-only 

Alternative 

Proposed Action 

(with Iowa Hill 

Development) 

Proposed Action 

with Staff 

Modifications 

Dependable capacity 

(MW) 

400.0 400.0 800.0 800.0 

Value of dependable 

capacity ($) 

$38,384,000 $38,384,000 $76,768,000 $76,768,000 

Super peak generation 

(MWh) 

0 0 931,000 931,000 

On-peak generation 

(MWh) 

1,287,000 1,217,000 1,217,000 1,217,000 

Off-peak generation 

(MWh) 

548,000 482,000 525,000 525,000 

Generation (MWh) 1,835,000 1,699,000 2,673,000 2,673,000 

Value super peak 

generation ($) 

-- -- $82,449,400 $82,449,400 

Value on-peak 

generation ($) 

$94,980,600 $89,814,600 $89,814,600 $89,814,600 

Value off-peak 

generation ($) 

$30,578,400 $26,895,600 $29,295,000 $29,295,000 

Value of generation ($) $125,559,000 $116,710,200 $201,559,000 $201,559,000 

Annual power value ($) $163,943,000 $155,094,200 $278,327,000 $278,327,000 
4-12

 No Action 

UARP-only 

Alternative 

Proposed Action 

(with Iowa Hill 

Development) 

Proposed Action 

with Staff 

Modifications 

Annual power value 

($/MWh) 

$89.34 $91.29 $104.13 $104.13 

Pump back energy 

requirements (MWh) 

-- -- 1,230,000 1,230,000 

Annual cost pump back 

energy ($) 

$0 $0 $68,634,000 $68,634,000 

Annualized cost of plant 

and current 

environmental measures 

$40,749,000 $40,749,000 $40,749,000 $40,749,000 

Annualized cost of new 

Iowa Hill development 

($)a

$0 $0 $52,514,800 $52,514,800 

Annualized cost of new 

environmental measures 

($)b

$0 $6,249,200 $6,344,300 $6,327,500 

Annual cost ($) $40,749,000 $46,998,200 $168,242,100 $168,225,300 

Annual cost ($/MWh) $22.21 $27.66 $62.94 $62.94 

Annual net benefit ($) $123,194,000 $108,096,000 $110,084,900 $110,101,700 

Annual net benefit 

($/MWh) 

$67.14 $63.62 $41.18 $41.19 

a Excluding environmental measures. 

b

 Note that SMUD incorrectly includes the cost of Iowa Hill development environmental 

measures in table 1 of its April 11, 2007, submittal for the UARP-only Alternative, thus our 

environmental mitigation costs are lower. Other minor differences are explained in appendix B. 
4-13

Table 4-14. Summary of annual net benefits for the Chili Bar Project under the Noaction, UARP-only Alternative, Proposed Action, and Proposed Action 

with Staff Modifications. (Source: Staff) 

 No Action 

UARP-only 

Alternative 

Proposed 

Action 

(with Iowa 

Hill 

Development) 

Proposed Action 

with Staff 

Modifications 

Dependable capacity 

(MW) 

7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 

Value of dependable 

capacity ($) 

$672,000 $672,000 $672,000 $672,000 

Generation 

On-peak generation 

(MWh) 

20,736 20,070 20,708 20,708 

Off-peak generation 

(MWh) 

11,555 11,512 10,583 10,583 

Generation (MWh) 32,291 31,582 31,291 31,291 

Value on-peak generation 

($) 

1,530,300 1,481,200 1,528,300 1,528,300 

Value off-peak 

generation ($) 

644,800 642,400 590,500 590,500 

Value of generation ($) $2,175,100 $2,123,600 $2,118,800 $2,118,800 

Annual power value ($) $2,847,100 $2,795,600 $2,790,800 $2,790,800 

Annual power value 

($/MWh)

$88.17 $88.52 $89.19 $89.19 

Annualized cost of plant 

and current 

environmental measures 

$2,170,000 $2,170,000 $2,170,000 $2,170,000 

Annualized cost of new 

environmental measures 

($) 

$0 $136,900 $136,900 $139,600 

Annual cost ($) $2,170,000 $2,306,900 $2,306,900 $2,309,600 

Annual cost ($/MWh) $67.20 $73.04 $73.72 $73.81 

Annual net benefit ($) $677,100 $488,700 $483,900 $481,200 

Annual net benefit 

($/MWh) 

$20.97 $15.47 $15.46 $15.38 
4-14

This page intentionally left blank. 
5-1

5.0 STAFF’S CONCLUSIONS 

5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED 

ALTERNATIVE41

Sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal 

consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. When we 

review a hydropower project, we consider the water quality, fish and wildlife, 

recreational, and other non-developmental values of the involved waterway equally with 

its electric energy and other developmental values. Accordingly, any license issued 

shall be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway 

or waterways for all beneficial public uses. 

This section contains the basis for and a summary of our recommendations to the 

Commission for relicensing the UARP and Chili Bar Project. To decide which 

alternative to recommend, we compare the costs and environmental benefits of the 

alternatives. 

Based on our independent review and evaluation of the proposed Projects and the 

No-action Alternative, we select the Proposed Action (including most of the terms of 

the Settlement Agreement that are within the Commission’s ability to enforce), with 

some modifications by staff, as the preferred alternative. 

We recommend this alternative because (1) issuance of new licenses would allow 

SMUD and PG&E to continue to operate the Projects as a dependable source of electric 

energy for their customers; (2) the electricity generated by the UARP and Chili Bar 

Project (total installed capacity of 1,088 MW and 7 MW, respectively) would avoid the 

need for an equivalent amount of fossil-fuel fired electric generation and capacity, 

continuing to help conserve these nonrenewable energy resources while reducing 

atmospheric pollution; and (3) the recommended environmental measures would protect 

and enhance aquatic and terrestrial resources, improve public use of recreational 

facilities and resources, and maintain and protect historic and archaeological resources 

within the area affected by project operations. 

The Proposed Action includes the construction and operation of the Iowa Hill 

development. Construction of the Iowa Hill development would disturb about 140 acres 

of lands in the Eldorado National Forest and introduce new visual elements to the 

landscape. SMUD proposes in-kind replacement of habitat and construction of an 

underground powerhouse to minimize the effects on wildlife and neighboring land 

owners. Though pumped storage projects use more energy than they generate, we 

 

41In this section “we” means the Commission staff. This is a standard section for 

the Commission’s NEPA documents that presents the Commission staff’s preferred 

alternative and rationale in support of the preferred alternative; it does not necessarily 

reflect the Forest Service’s conclusions. 
5-2

recommend inclusion of the Iowa Hill development in the preferred alternative because 

the pumped storage operations would provide flexibility within SMUD’s generating 

system by using off-peak energy to help meet on-peak energy needs, 

We recommend approving most of the Settlement Agreement terms with some 

minor modifications and making these terms conditions of the licenses to be issued for 

the UARP and Chili Bar Project.42 However, we recommend that many of the plans and 

specific measures for implementation as proposed in the Settlement Agreement be filed 

with the Commission for approval. This would allow Commission staff to monitor 

compliance with the conditions of the licenses and review the results of many of the 

proposed studies and measures. 

By letters dated January 30, 2007, and January 31, 2007, respectively, the Forest 

Service and Interior filed revised preliminary terms and conditions, under section 4(e) 

of the FPA. The revised preliminary terms and conditions are consistent with the 

provisions of the Settlement Agreement, and we discuss them in the context of our 

discussions of the Settlement Agreement measures throughout this draft EIS. However, 

some of the preliminary section 4(e) conditions that have been included in the 

Settlement Agreement are inconsistent with the Commission’s policies. 

The Forest Service specifies in revised preliminary condition no. 47 that SMUD 

provide $1,000,000 annually to the Forest Service for the operation, maintenance, and 

administration of the developed recreational sites, facilities, or uses that are adjacent to 

or in the vicinity of the project reservoirs and facilities listed in preliminary condition 

nos. 44 and 45 consistent with Proposed Articles 18 and 19 in the Settlement 

Agreement. Although we agree that the recreational facilities listed in preliminary 

condition nos. 44 and 45 are project related, this measure is contrary to the 

Commission’s policy on the imposition of funds and cost caps. We note that SMUD 

would be responsible under any license issued for ensuring the safe and useful condition 

of project recreational sites regardless of the cost. Therefore, we include a measure for 

SMUD to implement the proposed maintenance activities in our recommended 

alternative SMUD may choose to contract with the Forest Service to perform the 

required maintenance, but would remain responsible under a new license for ensuring 

that such maintenance is performed. 

Forest Service specifies in revised preliminary condition no. 56 that SMUD 

develop and implement a transportation system management plan for roads on or 

affecting National Forest System lands addressing SMUD’s primary responsibility for 

non-system roads and for maintenance level 1 and 2 roads and the shared levels of 

 

42The precise wording of these staff recommendations may differ from similar 

recommendations made by SMUD and PG&E, or as presented in the Settlement 

Agreement. These wording changes are primarily the result of summarization and are 

not intended to change any of the Settlement Agreement terms that we recommend. 
5-3

responsibility for maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads consistent with Proposed Article 

1-30 in the Settlement Agreement. We understand that the Forest Service seeks to 

ensure that the roads accessing project recreational facilities are maintained. However, 

as written, the measure could involve roads not directly related to project operations or 

facilities. We modified this measure by clarifying that the transportation system 

management plan focus on project access roads that are solely used for project purposes 

within the UARP boundary and would be included in the project boundary. 

BLM specifies in revised preliminary condition Article 2-14 that PG&E pay 

BLM $15,000 annually to provide a project recreation brochure/map and an 

interpretive, education, and public information plan. We conclude that PG&E should 

identify the available whitewater recreational facilities and make the public aware of 

when and how they can access these facilities; however PG&E can choose to have BLM 

prepare and distribute the brochure and associated public information. We do not 

recommend adopting a cost limit. Such cost caps, as noted above, are contrary to 

Commission policy. 

The following discussion summarizes our recommendations and some of our 

rationale for these recommendations. We first list the recommended measures by 

project, and then we discuss our rationale. 

5.1.1 Upper American River Project 

We evaluate numerous recommendations in the resource sections of this draft 

EIS and, given the environmental benefits, we recommend including the following 

measures that SMUD proposes in any license issued by the Commission for the UARP. 

Our recommended modifications to SMUD’s proposed measures are italicized. 

1. Maintain minimum streamflows in Rubicon River below Rubicon dam, 

Little Rubicon River below the Buck Island dam, Gerle Creek below Loon 

Lake dam, Gerle Creek below Gerle dam, SFSC below Ice House dam, 

Silver Creek below Junction dam, Silver Creek below Camino dam, Brush 

Creek below Brush Creek dam, SFAR below Slab Creek dam, SFAR (as 

shown in tables 3-4 through 3-10) within 3 days of determining base water 

year types and operations consistent with DWR Bulletin 120 forecast each 

February through May until 2 days after issuance of a subsequent monthly 

forecast. (Proposed Article 1-1) 

2. Release an additional block of water into Silver Creek below Junction dam 

and below Camino dam annually in the months of July, August, and 

September in Wet water years and not to exceed 1,044 acre-feet in July, 

491 acre-feet in August, and 475 acre-feet in September as directed by the 

Agencies. (Proposed Article 1-1) 

3. Provide annual pulse flow events within 3 months after license issuance but 

not before implementation of the proposed minimum flows in the Rubicon 

river below the Rubicon dam during BN, AN, and Wet water years, using 
5-4

the existing flashboards at the Rubicon tunnel headworks. The goal is to 

provide 600 cfs for 3 days that coincides with winter storm events or spring 

snowmelt runoff in the Rubicon River Watershed if a natural spill of 

3,600 acre-feet or more within 3 consecutive days does not occur. Parties 

will meet annually to coordinate tunnel gate operation, and may develop a 

tunnel gate operation plan for future pulse flows. File a report with the 

Commission by July 31 of each year stating the dates when the pulse flows 

were provided or an explanation of why they were not provided that year. 

(Proposed Article 1-2) 

4. Provide annual pulse flow events (as shown below) in Gerle Creek below 

Loon Lake dam. Schedule pulse flows to coincide with spring snowmelt 

runoff as specified based on month and water year type, below. File a 

report with the Commission by July 31of each year, stating the dates when 

the pulse flows were provided or an explanation of why they were not 

provided that year (Proposed Article 1-2) 

Day BN AN Wet 

Day 1 125 200 600 

Day 2 125 200 600 

Day 3 180 250 740* 

Day 4 125 200 600 

Day 5 125 200 600 

* or maximum capacity of outlet 

works, whichever is less. 

5. Prior to implementing pulse flows in Gerle Creek below the Loon Lake 

reservoir dam, complete a sensitive site investigation that includes 

additional permanent cross-sections that characterize the upper and middle 

Rosgen Level 3 analysis reaches, and mapping unstable banks and downed 

logs that are obstructing streamflow and test pulse flows at levels up to 

740 cfs, or the maximum capacity of the outlet works, to determine the 

appropriate pulse flows to meet desired channel conditions. (Proposed 

Article 1-2) 

6. Provide annual pulse flow events within 3 months after license issuance, but 

not prior to the implementation of the new minimum streamflows, as shown 

below in SFSC below Ice House dam. File a report with the Commission 

by July 31 of each year, stating the dates when the pulse flows were 

provided or an explanation of why they were not provided that year.

(Proposed Article 1-2) 
5-5

Day BN AN Wet 

Day 1 450 550 600 

Day 2 450 550 600 

Day 3 550 650 780* 

Day 4 450 550 600 

Day 5 450 550 600 

* or maximum capacity of outlet works, 

 whichever is less. 

7. Implement a ramping rate of 1 foot per hour for pulse flow releases in Gerle 

Creek below Loon Lake dam and SFSC below Ice House reservoir dam; 

minimum streamflow releases in Silver Creek below Junction dam, Silver 

Creek below Camino dam, and SFAR below Slab Creek dam; and 

recreational streamflow releases in SFSC below Ice House dam and SFAR 

below Slab Creek dam. (Proposed Article 1-3) 

8. Develop and file a plan to coordinate operations with the licensee of the 

Chili Bar Project to comply with the minimum streamflows, pulse flows, 

ramping rates, and recreational streamflows for both projects. (Proposed 

Article 1-4) 

9. Implement a monitoring program including filing a final monitoring plan 

for each element listed in items 10 through 22 below and filing an annual 

report describing the monitoring efforts by June 30 of each year. (Proposed 

Article 1-5) 

10. Develop a plan to (a) monitor rainbow trout fish populations by 

electrofishing and/or snorkeling during late summer/fall in 10 river reaches; 

(b) monitor hardhead by snorkel surveys in SFAR below Slab Creek 

reservoir dam, only, from immediately downstream of Mosquito Road 

Bridge to, and including site SCD-F2; and (c) monitor brown trout in the 

Gerle Creek below Loon Lake reservoir dam. (Proposed Article 1-5) 

11. Develop a plan to conduct aquatic benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring at: 

Rubicon river below Rubicon dam, Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam, 

Gerle Creek below Gerle dam, SFFR below Robbs Peak dam, SFSC below 

Ice House dam, Silver Creek below Junction dam, Silver Creek below 

Camino dam, and SFAR below Slab Creek dam. (Proposed Article 1-5) 

12. Develop a plan to (a) monitor foothill yellow-legged frogs in Silver Creek 

below Junction dam, Silver Creek below Camino dam, SFAR below Slab 

Creek dam, and Rock Creek (tributary upstream of White Rock 

powerhouse) and (b) monitor mountain yellow-legged frogs in Rubicon 

reservoir, Rockland lake, and Buck Island reservoir. (Proposed Article 1-5) 
5-6

13. Develop a plan to visually monitor for foothill yellow-legged frogs in Silver 

Creek below Camino dam in June through September when streamflows are 

100 cfs or less and flows fluctuate more than 40 cfs or more over 1 week’s 

time. (Proposed Article 1-5) 

14. Develop a plan to conduct aerial photo flights and Greenline method at the 

15 intensive field study sites and collect data to document species 

composition, percent cover, and length and width of riparian community. 

(Proposed Article 1-5) 

15. Develop a plan to collect, identify, and archive samples of the species of 

algae in Silver Creek below Junction reservoir dam and additional baseline 

samples in SFRR below Robbs Peak dam, Silver Creek below Camino dam, 

and SFAR below Slab Creek dam and add additional sites or reaches if it is 

determined that the algal species have negative effects on the aquatic 

ecosystem. (Proposed Article 1-5) 

16. Monitor Gerle Creek fluvial, geomorphic properties below Loon Lake dam 

at LL-DG1 and LL-G2 in years 1 and 2 and develop a Gerle Creek 

geomorphology mitigation plan that includes channel stabilization 

recommendations. (Proposed Article 1-5) 

17. Develop a geomorphology monitoring plan providing for establishing 

permanent transects and monitoring channel cross-sections, longitudinal 

profiles, substrate composition, and other geomorphic properties (Rosgen 

Level 3) in representative areas, including the in Rubicon River below 

Rubicon dam, Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam, SFRR below Robbs 

Peak dam, SFSC below Ice House dam, Silver Creek below Camino dam, 

and SFAR below Slab Creek dam. (Proposed Article 1-5) 

18. Develop a water temperature monitoring plan to install and maintain 

continuous recording devices as soon as weather and flow conditions allow 

at 17 locations immediately above and below project dams and at the 

confluence with tributaries and monitor stream temperatures from March 15 

to September 30 in all years or until it can demonstrated that operation of 

the project reasonably protects the “cold freshwater” beneficial use as 

determined by the Agencies. (Proposed Article 1-5) 

19. Develop a water quality monitoring plan addressing water chemistry, 

bacterial content, and metal bioaccumulation, field sampling locations, 

sampling frequency, handling methods, quality assurance/quality control 

methods, and define the laboratory analyses and associated method 

detection limits for all constituents and parameters to be monitored in the 

monitoring program. (Proposed Article 1-5) 
5-7

20. Develop a Robbs Peak powerhouse entrainment monitoring plan to 

determine when and at what flows flow migration is occurring. (Proposed 

Article 1-5) 

21. Develop a bear management plan. (Proposed Article 1-5) 

22. Develop a bald eagle monitoring plan. (Proposed Article 1-5) 

23. Implement an Ecological Resources Adaptive Management Program as 

early as reasonably practicable within 3 months after license issuance 

generally consisting of implementation of a monitoring program (Proposed 

Article 1-5, above) and specific adaptive management measures. (Proposed 

Article 1-6) 

24. Develop and implement a stabilization plan for the Gerle Creek channel 

below Loon Lake dam. (Proposed Article 1-7) 

25. Maintain the reservoir level at Gerle Creek at an elevation 5,228 feet to

provide fish passage into Gerle Creek from August through October 31. 

(Proposed Article 1-8) 

26. Continue to move mobile, instream large woody debris greater than both 

20 centimeters wide and 12 meters in length downstream beyond Robbs, 

Junction, Camino, and Slab Creek reservoir dams. (Proposed Article 1-9) 

27. Develop and file a Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation Gaging Plan that 

meets USGS standards and includes include a minimum of 10 streamflow 

gage locations, 9 reservoir elevation compliance gaging locations, and 

provides for simple staff gages at the Slab Creek and Ice House recreational 

boating put-ins and the installation of telemetry equipment if such 

equipment is economically and technologically feasible, and can be 

installed in a manner consistent with the laws, regulations, and policies 

applicable to the congressionally-designated Desolation Wilderness. 

(Proposed Article 1-10) 

28. Develop and implement a plan to evaluate canal and penstock emergency 

and maintenance release points to determine if improvements can be made 

to minimize potential adverse water quality impacts when the release points 

are used. (Proposed Article 1-11) 

29. Maintain and operate in working condition all devices and measures for 

wildlife protection along project canals, provide an annual report of deer or 

other wildlife found in project canals, and, should wildlife mortality exceed 

3 individuals, develop and implement a wildlife exclusion plan. (Proposed 

Article 1-12) 

30. Before commencing any new construction or maintenance (including but 

not limited to proposed recreational developments), ensure that a draft 
5-8

biological assessment is prepared for the relevant federal agency (FWS or 

NMFS) and filed with the Commission. (Proposed Article 1-12) 

31. Immediately notify agencies if occurrences of sensitive plants or wildlife 

species are detected prior to or during ongoing construction, operation, or 

maintenance of the project and develop and implement appropriate 

protection measures if directed by the responsible agencies. (Proposed 

Article 1-12) 

32. Annually review the current list of special status plant and wildlife species 

(federal ESA or Eldorado National Forest Watch List) and develop and 

implement a study plan to assess the effects of the project on the species as 

necessary. (Proposed Article 1-12) 

33. Consult with BLM, FWS, and CDFG prior to undertaking maintenance 

under transmission lines within the Pine Hill Rare Plant Preserve. 

(Proposed Article 1-12) 

34. Develop and implement an avian protection plan that addresses retrofitting 

transmission lines as described in the Bird-Powerline Associations 

Technical Report to meet the APLIC design and siting standards. 

(Proposed Article 1-12) 

35. Develop and file an invasive weed management plan that provides for 

inventory and mapping of new populations and actions and/or strategies to 

prevent and control known populations or introductions of new populations 

for all land within the project boundary affected by project activities. 

(Proposed Article 1-13) 

36. Develop and implement a vegetation management plan that addresses 

hazard tree removal and trimming, transmission line clearing, habitat 

improvement, revegetation of disturbed sites, soil protection and erosion 

control, revegetation with culturally important plant populations, and use of 

clean, weed free, and preferably locally collected seed for all land within 

the project boundary affected by project activities. (Proposed Article 1-13) 

37. Annually schedule and facilitate a meeting with the Agencies to review and 

discuss the results of implementing license conditions and other issues 

related to preserving and protecting the ecological values affected by the 

project and provide, 2 weeks prior to the meeting, an operations and 

maintenance plan for the year. (Proposed Article 1-14) 

38. Develop and implement a recreation implementation plan including a 

construction schedule for the recreational facilities specified in Proposed 

Article 1-19, and other issues including but not limited to signing and sign 

placement, dissemination of public information, and a schedule for the 

design of facilities to be reconstructed. (Proposed Article 1-15) 
5-9

39. Conduct a recreational survey and prepare a report on recreational resources 

every 6 years from the date of license issuance, including, but not limited 

to, changes in use and use patterns, levels of use, user preferences, kinds 

and sizes of recreational vehicles, carrying capacity information sufficient 

to indicate change in capacity and recreational user trends in the project 

area. (Proposed Article 1-16) 

40. Identify an individual for liaison with the Forest Service whenever planning 

or construction of recreational facilities or other project improvements and 

maintenance activities are taking place with the National Forest. (Proposed 

Article 1-17) 

41. Schedule a meeting with the Forest Service every 6 years to review all 

project recreational facilities described in Proposed Articles 1-18 and 1-19 

and to agree upon the need and timing for maintenance, rehabilitation, 

construction, and reconstruction work. (Proposed Article 1-18) 

42. Keep or include project recreational facilities within the project boundary as 

shown in Attachment 1 and include the listed 34 recreational facilities 

constructed or reconstructed by SMUD in the future within the project 

boundary. (Proposed Article 1-18) 

43. Complete the construction, reconstruction, and restoration to meet current 

Forest Service design standards and the requirements of the ADA including 

all the pre-construction survey, design, permitting, analysis, and 

specifications for the initial recreational projects identified at the time of 

license issuance, including Buck Island development; High Country area 

trails; formal recreational facilities in Crystal Basin at Loon Lake, Gerle 

Creek, Union Valley, and Ice House reservoirs; recreational facilities in the 

Canyonlands at Junction, Brush Creek and Slab Creek reservoirs (as shown 

in table 3-65, in section 3.3.6.2, Recreational Resources). (Proposed 

Article 1-19). 

44. Develop and implement a plan to install bear-proof food storage lockers and 

bear-proof trash receptacles at all recreational facilities identified as lacking 

such facilities. (Proposed Article 1-19) 

45. Maintain, rehabilitate, and reconstruct, including the costs of design and 

administration, and otherwise provide the heavy maintenance necessary to 

keep existing project recreational facilities in serviceable condition as 

determined through the Review of Recreation Developments. (Project 

Article 20) 

46. Provide for the operation, maintenance, and administration of those 

developed recreational sites, facilities, or uses that are adjacent to or in the 

vicinity of the project reservoirs and facilities listed in Proposed Articles 1-

18 and 1-19. (Proposed Article 1-21) 
5-10

47. Provide recreation use data on carrying capacity on lands affected by the 

project, including, but not limited to: visitor perceptions of crowding, user 

perceptions of “desired conditions,” user preferences for amenities, capacity 

conditions at developed facilities within or affected by the project, and 

resource impacts and social experience. (Proposed Article 1-22) 

48. Meet or exceed the end-of-month reservoir elevations for Loon Lake, Union 

Valley, and Ice House reservoirs (as shown in table 3-25, section 3.3.2.1. 

Water Resources, Reservoir Levels). (Proposed Article 1-23) and follow 

procedures and protocols for super dry water years, interim modification, 

conferences on abnormal water years, and reservoir level monitoring and 

adjustments. (Proposed Article 1-23) 

49. Based on the determination of water year type, provide recreational 

streamflows in the SFAR below Slab Creek in BN, AN, and wet water 

years and in Silver Creek below Ice House dam (as shown in table 3-65 in 

section 3.3.6.2, Recreational Resources, Whitewater Boating), and prepare 

and implement a recreation management plan to address the whitewater 

recreation needs in reach from the Slab Creek dam to White Rock 

powerhouse. (Proposed Article 1-24) 

50. Provide real-time streamflow information for 10 reaches via a toll-free 

telephone number and web site and real-time reservoir level information 10 

reservoirs including two simple staff gages for use by the public at each 

reservoir. (Proposed Article 1-25) 

51. Provide a project recreation brochure/map that describes the recreational 

opportunities, facilities, rule, and responsibilities for the project area. 

(Proposed Article 1-25) 

52. Develop and implement an interpretive, education, and public information 

plan. (Proposed Article 1-25) 

53. Provide up to a total of 50,000 pounds of fish per year but not less than 

25,000 pound of fish per year to be distributed among Loon Lake, Union 

Valley, and Ice House reservoirs as determined by CDFG. (Proposed 

Article 1-26) 

54. Meet every 5 years with the Forest Service to review opportunities to 

improve how well project facilities blend in with the surrounding landscape 

and prior to any new construction or maintenance of facilities, prepare and 

implement a plan for the protection and rehabilitation of National Forest 

System visual resources affected by the project as directed by Forest 

Service. (Proposed Article 1- 27) 

55. Implement 10 specific enhancement measures (e.g., painting) to existing 

facilities to improve visual quality. (Proposed Article 1-27) 
5-11

56. Finalize and implement a HPMP including unanticipated discovery 

protocols within 1 year of license issuance. (Proposed Articles 1-28 and 1-

29) 

57. Develop and implement a transportation system management plan for 

project roads used solely for project purposes on or affecting National 

Forest System lands addressing SMUD's primary responsibility for nonNational Forest System roads and for maintenance level 1 and 2 roads and 

the shared levels of responsibility for maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads. 

(Proposed Article 1-30) 

58. Develop and implement a trails system management plan for trails that are 

needed for project purposes and are located on or affect National Forest 

System lands, including a map; the seasons and amount of SMUD's use of 

the trails, trail conditions of the trails, and a provision for identifying 

maintenance and reconstruction needs for trails required for project 

operations every 5 years. (Proposed Article 1-31) 

59. Develop and implement a facility management plan including a map 

showing all project facilities, the type and season of use of each structure; 

the condition of each structure, and (4) provision for a plan every 5 years 

identifying the maintenance, reconstruction, and removal needs of project 

facilities. (Proposed Article 1- 32) 

60. Prepare vegetative management plan prior to any ground disturbing 

activities. (Proposed Article 1-33) 

61. Develop and implement a fire prevention and response plan developed in 

consultation with appropriate state and local fire agencies that sets forth 

SMUD's responsibility for the preventing, reporting, control, and 

extinguishing of fires in the vicinity of the project resulting from project 

operations. (Proposed Article 1-34) 

62. Reserve the Commission’s authority to require fishways as may be 

prescribed by NMFS under section 18 for the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of fishways including measures to determine, ensure, or 

improve the effectiveness of the fishways. (Proposed Article 1-35) 

63. Develop a schedule for implementing the articles included in any license 

issued for the project. (Proposed Article 1-37) 

64. Protect hardhead in the Slab Creek reservoir from the Iowa Hill 

development operations by monitoring populations and entrainment, 

monitoring edgewater temperatures between May and September, 

maintaining a temperature of at least 12°C during the months of June and 

August in the SFAR Slab Creek dam reach below Mosquito Bridge, 

preventing pumped storage related flow fluctuations in the SFAR below 

Slab Creek. (Proposed Article 1-40) 
5-12

65. Prior to initiating construction of the Iowa Hill development, purchase an 

equivalent acreage of land (or a conservation easement for an equivalent 

acreage of land) to be managed as wildlife habitat over the term of the 

license (Proposed Article 1-41) 

66. File a storm water pollution prevention plan at least 90 days prior to 

ground-disturbing activities for construction of the Iowa Hill development. 

(Proposed Article 1-42) 

67. Develop and implement a plan for managing groundwater inflows during 

construction and for groundwater monitoring and management once 

construction is completed. (Proposed Article 1-43) 

68. Develop a design for the Iowa Hill development that meets the VQOs or the 

Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. (Proposed 

Article 1-44) 

69. Develop and implement a plan to address construction noise to vehicle 

idling and advance notification of any material transport and construction 

activities within 0.5 mile of the parcels, including a noise hot line telephone 

system for reporting construction noise disturbances and monitoring 

compliance with the provision of the plan. (Proposed Article 1-48) 

70. Develop and implement a plan for recreational access to the Slab Creek 

reservoir during the construction of Iowa Hill reservoir and the tunnel 

connecting to Slab Creek reservoir and when Iowa Hill is operational. 

(Proposed Article 1-49) 

In addition to the applicant-proposed project-related environmental measures 

listed above, we recommend including the following staff-recommended environmental 

measures in any license issued for the UARP. 

• Provide an annual employee environmental awareness program to educate 

employees and key personnel about the known locations of special status 

species and habitats in the vegetation management plan. 

• Develop and implement a wildlife lands mitigation plan for the 

construction of the Iowa Hill development that identifies the locations of 

wildlife mitigation lands, management goals and objectives, management 

activities that would be implemented and measures to ensure that the 

management goals would be met and include these lands in the project 

boundary. 
5-13

5.1.2 Chili Bar 

We evaluate numerous recommendations in the resource sections of this draft 

EIS and, given the environmental benefits, we recommend including the following 

measures that PG&E proposes in any license issued by the Commission for the Chili 

Bar Project. Our recommended modifications to SMUD’s proposed measures are 

italicized.

1. Maintain minimum streamflows in the SFAR below Chili Bar dam 

provided inflow to the project is greater than the proposed minimum 

streamflows within 3 days of determining base water year types and 

operations consistent with DWR Bulletin 120 forecast each February 

through May until 2 days after issuance of a subsequent monthly forecast. 

The minimum streamflow schedule, the specific factors to be applied, and 

the compliance point for measuring minimum streamflows are provided in 

section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources. (Proposed Article 2-1) 

2. When inflows are greater than the proposed minimum streamflows, 

implement up ramping rates for licensee-controlled streamflow releases of 

500 cfs per hour for flows between 150 cfs and 1,000 cfs and 1 foot per 

hour for flows between 1,000 cfs and 1,950 cfs and down ramping rates of 

1 foot per hour for flows between 1,950 and 1,000 cfs, 500 cfs per hour 

for flows between 1,000 cfs and 600 cfs and 250 cfs for flows between 

600 cfs and 150 cfs. (Proposed Article 2-2) 

3. Develop and file a plan to coordinate operations with the licensee of the 

UARP to enable PG&E to comply with the minimum streamflows, pulse 

flows, ramping rates, and recreational streamflows for both Projects. 

(Proposed Article 2-3) 

4. Implement a monitoring program including a final monitoring plan for 

each element as described in items 5 through 10 below and file annual 

report describing the monitoring efforts by June 30 of each year. 

(Proposed Article 2-4) 

5. Develop a plan to (a) monitor rainbow and brown trout populations by 

electrofishing and/or snorkeling at SFAR below Chili Bar dam and note 

any hardhead detected. (Proposed Article 2-4) 

6. Develop a plan to conduct aquatic benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring 

at SFAR below Chili Bar dam. (Proposed Article 2-4) 

7. Develop a plan to monitor foothill yellow-legged frogs, western pond 

turtles, and California red-legged frogs in the SFAR below Chili Bar dam 

(entire reach from CB-AI5 to Ponderosa Campground on right and left 

banks). (Proposed Article 2-4) 
5-14

8. Develop a plan to conduct aerial photo flights and Greenline method at the 

five intensive field study sites and collect data to document species 

composition, percent cover, and length and width of riparian community. 

(Proposed Article 2-4) 

9. Develop a water temperature monitoring plan to install and maintain 

continuous recording devices as soon as weather and flow conditions 

allow at four locations in the SFAR immediately below Chili Bar dam, 

upstream of Dutch Creek confluence, upstream of Camp Lotus, and 

upstream of Greenwood Creek and monitor stream temperatures from 

March 15 to October 15 in all years or until it can demonstrated that 

operation of the project reasonably protects the “cold freshwater” 

beneficial use as determined by the Agencies. (Proposed Article 2-4) 

10. Develop a water quality monitoring plan addressing water chemistry, 

bacterial content, metal bioaccumulation and algae, field sampling 

locations, sampling frequency, handling methods, quality 

assurance/quality control methods, and define the laboratory analyses and 

associated method detection limits for all constituents and parameters to 

be monitored in the monitoring program. (Proposed Article 2-4) 

11. Implement in coordination with SMUD an adaptive management program 

as early as reasonably practicable within 3 months after license issuance 

generally consisting of implementation of a monitoring program (Article 

2-4, above) and specific Commission-approved adaptive management 

measures. (Proposed Article 2-5) 

12. Develop a geomorphology monitoring plan in coordination with SMUD 

including profile measurements at three cross-sectional transects, 

longitudinal profiles, substrate composition, and other geomorphic 

properties three sampling sites (CB-G1, CB-G2, and CB-G3) to be 

performed every 5 years. (Proposed Article 2-6) 

13. Ensure that mobile instream large woody debris in Chili Bar reservoir of 

sizes greater than both 20 centimeters wide and 12 meters in length 

continues downstream beyond Chili Bar dam using reasonable means that 

include short-term spill flows at the dam (Proposed Article 2-7) 

14. Develop and implement a streamflow and reservoir elevation gaging plan 

that meets USGS standards and approved by the Water Board at a 

minimum addressing compliance gaging at SFAR below Chili Bar dam 

(existing USGS gage no. 11444500 or its successor) and in the Chili Bar 

reservoir. (Proposed Article 2-8) 

15. Annually review the current list of special status plant and wildlife species 

(federal ESA or Eldorado National Forest Watch List) and develop and 
5-15

implement a study plan to assess the effects of the project on the species 

as necessary. (Proposed Article 2-9) 

16. Develop and file an invasive weed management plan that provides for 

inventory and mapping of new populations and actions and/or strategies to 

prevent and control known populations or introductions of new 

populations for all land within the project boundary affected by project 

activities. (Proposed Article 2-10) 

17. Develop and implement a vegetation management plan that addresses 

hazard tree removal and trimming, transmission line clearing, habitat 

improvement, revegetation of disturbed sites, soil protection and erosion 

control, revegetation with culturally important plant populations, and use 

of clean, weed free, and preferably locally collected seed on all land 

within the project boundary affected by project activities. (Proposed 

Article 2-10) 

18. Annually schedule and facilitate a meeting with the Agencies and BLM to 

review and discuss the results of implementing license conditions and 

other issues related to preserving and protecting the ecological values 

affected by the project and provide, 2 weeks prior to the meeting, an 

operations and maintenance plan for the year. (Proposed Article 2-11) 

19. Identify an individual for liaison with the BLM whenever planning or 

construction of recreational facilities or other project improvements and 

maintenance activities are taking place on BLM lands with the Chili Bar 

Project boundary. (Proposed Article 2-12) 

20. Construct or install and maintain (1) a gravel parking area for three to 

four vehicles off Rock Creek Road, (2) a 36-inch-wide trail that meets a 

grade of 5 percent or less from the parking area to Chili Bar reservoir, 

(3) a kiosk sign along the trail near the beginning, explaining the rules of 

the area, and (4) one picnic table of coated wire mesh material in a level 

upland area that is outside of the floodplain. (Proposed Article 2-13) 

21. In conjunction with SMUD, provide real-time streamflow information for 

10 reaches via a toll-free telephone number and web site and real-time 

reservoir level information 10 reservoirs including two simple staff gages 

for use by the public at each reservoir. (Proposed Article 2-14) 

22. Provide a project recreation brochure/map and an interpretive, education, 

and public information plan (Proposed Article 2-14) 

23. Based on the determination of water year type, provide recreational 

streamflows in the SFAR below Chili Bar dam (as shown in table 3-65 in 

section 3.3.6.2, Recreational Resources, Whitewater Boating), provided 

that inflows to the project are sufficient. (Proposed Article 2-15) 
5-16

24. Meet every 5 years with BLM to review opportunities to improve how 

well project facilities blend in with the surrounding landscape and prior to 

any new construction or maintenance of facilities, prepare and implement 

a plan for the protection and rehabilitation of BLM visual resources 

affected by the project as directed by BLM. (Proposed Article 2-16) 

25. Finalize and implement a HPMP including unanticipated discovery 

protocols within1 year of license issuance. (Proposed Articles 2-17 and 2-

18) 

26. Develop a schedule for implementing the articles in any license issued for 

the project. (Proposed Article 2-21) 

In addition to the applicant-proposed project-related environmental measures 

listed above, we recommend including the following staff-recommended environmental 

measures in any license issued for the Chili Bar Project. 

• Provide an annual employee environmental awareness program to educate 

employees and key personnel about the known locations of special status 

species and habitats in the vegetation management plan. 

• Develop and implement a recreation plan. 

5.1.3 Rationale for Staff Recommendations 

This section describes the rationale for some of our recommendations on 

measures that we conclude should be included as conditions of any licenses issued, as 

well as any measures that we do not recommend as license conditions. This section is 

arranged by major resource topic, and within each topic we discuss each of the Projects 

or provide our rationale for recommending or not recommending specific measures. 

Aquatic Resources 

Project operations could affect aquatic habitats and sediment transport in the 

stream reaches. The Settlement Agreement includes a set of measures (Proposed 

Articles 1-1 through 1-6 for the UARP and 2-1 through 2-5 for the Chili Bar Project) 

focused on the ecological health and suitability of reaches downstream of the project 

dams to support native fish, amphibian, and reptile populations. A major goal of the 

proposed streamflows and pulse flows is to simulate the natural hydrograph as much as 

possible during important times of the years to benefit species that are cued to 

spring/early summer snowmelt runoff patterns, lower base flows in the late 

summer/early fall, and winter flows that would provide habitat in most years. 

Minimum Flows 

The minimum streamflow schedules in Proposed Articles 1-1 for UARP and 2-1 

for the Chili Bar Project are major parts of the Settlement Agreement and would 

enhance native fisheries in the stream reaches. In most reaches where accretion flows 
5-17

are low and spawning gravels are present, the proposed increase in minimum stream 

flows and associated reduction in water temperature (mean temperatures below 20°C in 

the summer months) are expected to benefit the native fish populations by creating 

either more available spawning habitat or juvenile habitat during critical life stages in 

the spring or fall. Increasing flows and lowering temperatures during these seasons 

should also result in habitat conditions that are less favorable for California roach and 

speckled dace consistent with Agency objectives. 

The most significant increases in WUA for various life stages of rainbow and 

brown trout would occur in the five reaches already having plentiful or modest amounts 

of spawning gravels. The proposed minimum flows in the Rubicon River downstream 

of Rubicon dam, where spawning gravels are plentiful, would result in 84 percent of 

available WUA for rainbow trout spawning in BN water years and 48 percent in CD 

water year. The slightly reduced temperature in May and June would benefit the 

preferred trout species while creating less favorable habitat for California roach and 

speckled dace, consistent with resource agency objectives. In the Gerle Creek reaches 

downstream of Loon Lake dam and Robbs Peak dam, where the trout fishery is robust, 

the proposed minimum flows would increase the WUA for all life stages, with the 

greatest increase in spawning habitat for trout. In the SFSC downstream of Ice House 

dam, the increased minimum flows would increase WUA for trout adult and spawning 

life stages and the cooler temperatures would benefit rainbow trout population in this 

reach. Finally, in Brush Creek downstream of Brush Creek dam, the proposed 

minimum flows will increase the WUA for all life stages of rainbow and brown trout. 

The Settlement Parties indicate that the proposed minimum streamflows would 

benefit a variety of amphibians, including the foothill yellow-legged frog. However, we 

question some of these potential benefits. In the upper reaches, including Rubicon, 

Gerle Creek, and Robbs Peak, the cooler temperatures that would result from the 

increased streamflow would increase potential habitat for mountain yellow-legged frog 

populations. The proposed minimum streamflows may also provide potential habitat for 

foothill yellow-legged frogs in the lower end of these reaches. However, these reaches 

are not within the optimal elevation ranges for these species (too low for mountain 

yellow-legged frogs and too high for foothill yellow-legged frogs) and the proposed 

minimum flows would also provide more habitat for predatory trout. 

Further, the colder temperatures that would result from increased minimum 

streamflows in the lower elevation reaches, including Camino, Slab Creek, and Chili 

Bar, may not be beneficial to foothill yellow-legged frog tadpole development and 

would also provide more habitat for predatory trout. However, the increased minimum 

streamflows in the spring could benefit foothill yellow-legged frogs and western pond 

turtles by dislodging second-year bullfrog tadpoles from pools. Bullfrogs are natural 

predators of foothill yellow-legged frogs and young western pond turtles. Therefore, if 

higher spring flows reduce the survival of over-wintering bullfrog tadpoles, foothill 

yellow-legged frog and western pond turtle habitat conditions would improve. 
5-18

Increased minimum streamflows during the spring months would also result in 

inundation of stream margin habitats and primary floodplain terraces that would occur 

under an unimpaired flow regime. These variations in streamflows and inundation 

would improve the health of riparian vegetation and increase the functioning of the 

riparian ecosystem by promoting stream bank stability and improved water quality, 

reducing the potential for erosion, increasing storage of nutrients and water, and 

providing forage and habitat for wildlife. 

Reserving a block of water, monitoring water temperatures at the lower end of 

the Junction dam reach and Camino dam reach, and developing a plan for notification 

protocols and ecological monitoring needs associated with the block of water would 

facilitate informed decision-making of how best to manage the block of water to 

provide the most cost-effective improvement of ecological resources, if necessary. 

Pulse Flows and Ramping Rates 

Based on geomorphology studies, SMUD and the Agencies identified reaches 

that would benefit from periodic pulse flows (Proposed Article 1-2) to mobilize and 

flush sediments downstream. Coordinating the provision of pulse flows with natural 

high flow events is reasonable. Our analysis shows that in the reaches where pulse 

flows are proposed (the Rubicon River below Rubicon dam, Gerle Creek below Loon 

Lake dam, and SFSC below Ice House dam) naturally occurring spring storm events 

would be mimicked, scouring floodplain soils, redistributing sediment, and reducing 

encroachment. We conclude that implementation of the pulse flows would help 

improve instream habitat for fish and facilitate increased production toward the desired 

biomass goals. 

Effects associated with ramping are variable, depending on species, life-stage, 

and, in some case, time of day of the ramping event. The proposed minimum flows, in 

conjunction with the controlled up- and down-ramping rates, would attempt to provide 

stable flow regimes in the Chili Bar dam reach to protect foothill yellow-legged frogs 

during the reproductive season. Stable flows during the breeding season are optimal to 

avoid egg mass desiccation from decreasing flows, egg mass scouring from increasing 

flows, and tadpole stranding from flows receding and draining from isolated pools. 

When controlled ramping rates are successfully implemented, they would minimize the 

potential for foothill yellow-legged frog egg mass scouring and tadpole and juvenile 

stranding and displacement. Implementation of the proposed ramping rates in Proposed 

Articles 1-3 for the UARP and 2-2 for the Chili Bar Project would also reduce the 

effects of flow fluctuations on other sensitive aquatic species that are vulnerable to 

sudden changes in flow and would reduce the potential for stranding of fish. 

For the UARP, the major costs for these aquatic resource measures include the 

physical modifications and installation of a larger valve at Rubicon dam and Slab Creek 

dam to facilitate the provision of minimum streamflows, pulse flows, and ramping rates. 

The total annual costs for implementing the minimum flow releases, including the 
5-19

capital cost for the modification to the two project dams and periodic adjustments to the 

minimum release valves at all 10 project dams, would be about $185,100 and 

implementation of the pulse flows would cost about $26,000 annually. The proposed 

minimum streamflow schedule for the UARP would result in a total foregone power 

production cost of $7,821,000. The proposed pulse flows for the UARP would result in 

an additional foregone power cost of $478,000. The improvements to the 60 miles of 

riverine aquatic and riparian habitat and native fish and amphibian populations in the 

eleven downstream reaches would be worth the cost. For the Chili Bar Project, we 

estimate that the annual capital cost and energy losses for the implementation of the 

proposed minimum flow regime and ramping rates would be $19,400 and a foregone 

power production cost of $56,300; the improvement to the aquatic habitat in the Chili 

Bar reach would be worth the cost. 

Large Woody Debris 

The lack of woody debris could affect aquatic habitat in the stream reaches. 

Currently, SMUD collects and stockpiles woody debris to reduce interference with 

recreational boating and prevent debris jams at the dams. Proposed Articles 1-9 for the 

UARP and 2-7 for the Chili Bar Project provide for transporting woody debris that 

collects in the project reservoirs to the natural stream downriver. Ensuring that large 

woody debris is allowed to move downstream through the projects would enhance the 

aquatic habitat for native fish populations in each of the project reaches included in the 

plans. The measures to pass large woody debris downstream of the dams also would 

benefit foothill yellow-legged frogs and other amphibians and reptiles by providing 

substrate for macroinvertebrates, trapping organic material and sediment, creating pools, 

and slowing the water velocity during peak flows. We estimate that the annual cost for 

implementing the woody debris plan for the UARP would be about $14,000 and 

$10,000 for the Chili Bar Project. Implementation of woody debris plans at both 

Projects would be reasonable measures and worth the cost to ensure boater safety and 

improve the habitat for fisheries and sensitive amphibian species in the downstream 

reaches. 

Coordination between the UARP and Chili Bar Project Operations 

Better coordination of project operations between SMUD and PG&E could result 

in fewer spills downstream of the Chili Bar Project and positive effects on special status 

amphibians. Proposed Articles 1-4 and 2-3 provide for coordination between the UARP 

and Chili Bar Project. The whitewater runs between Chili Bar dam and Folsom 

reservoir are of regional, if not national importance. These river sections are the most 

heavily boated in California, in part because the flows are relatively dependable and 

extend well into the summer and fall months and because of their proximity to large 

population centers. Historically, SMUD and PG&E have had limited coordination, 

where PG&E calls SMUD plant operators shortly before upstream releases for PG&E to 

decide how low to draw down Chili Bar reservoir. Often, this coordination has not 
5-20

worked well, causing Chili Bar reservoir to spill and providing unpredictable flows in 

the whitewater runs downstream of the Chili Bar dam. As proposed, coordination 

would occur more frequently and would allow PG&E to improve access to its 

recreational facilities by allowing boaters and other recreational users to more closely 

predict the timing and magnitude of flows and would help PG&E avoid losing 

opportunity to generate. Coordination between UARP and Chili Bar Project would also 

help ensure effective implementation of the Proposed Articles and protection of special 

status amphibians in the Chili Bar dam reach. Development and implementation of the 

plan with detailed protocols to coordinate operations would have annual cost of $13,100 

for SMUD and $10,000 for PG&E. Implementation of the plan would be worth the cost 

because it would not only enhance whitewater boating opportunities in the Chili Bar 

reach and avoid unnecessary harm to special status amphibians but also would increase 

the power generation at Chili Bar. 

Reservoir Levels 

UARP water level fluctuations affect both boaters and fisheries resources in 

project reservoirs. Proposed Articles 1-1, Minimum Streamflows, 1-8, Fish Passage at 

Gerle Creek, and Proposed Article 1-23, Reservoir Levels, for the UARP provide for 

specific water level elevations for protecting fish populations, ensuring the availability 

of boat launch facilities, or enhancing the visual experience at these project reservoirs. 

Loon Lake, Ice House, and Union Valley reservoirs are large lakes with heavy 

recreational use in the summer months. Meeting end-of-month water surface elevation 

targets at these reservoirs in July, August, and September, as called for in Proposed 

Article 1-23, would ensure that at least one public boat launch would be available at 

each reservoir during the peak recreation season and would enhance the overall 

recreational experience of users of these popular reservoirs. Our analysis shows that 

water surface elevation targets proposed in the Settlement Agreement are within the 

historical range of water surface elevations at these large reservoirs for all except SD 

water years, and we conclude that SMUD would be able to meet the end-of-month 

elevations. Therefore, we recommend inclusion of the proposed elevations along with 

the proposed procedures for agency consultation in SD water years, when SMUD would 

have difficulty meeting the end-of-month water surface elevations. Operating the 

project to attain the end-of-month target elevations at Loon Lake, Ice House, and Union 

Valley reservoirs as specified in the Settlement Agreement would not involve any 

additional cost to SMUD because they are within the existing range of reservoir 

fluctuations. 

Although our analysis indicates that SMUD could meet the proposed end-ofmonth elevations at the larger reservoirs, our analysis of water surface elevations at 

smaller storage reservoirs (Rubicon and Buck Island) indicates that SMUD might have 

difficulty controlling water surface elevations during May and June. The high elevation 

Rubicon and Buck Island reservoirs have limited storage capacity and are greatly 

affected by changes in the inflow to the reservoirs, normally driven by snowmelt. 
5-21

Further, the manual control gates are not typically installed until June or early July 

because these high elevation reservoirs are remote and difficult to access. The 

conditions make it difficult for SMUD to control water levels for part of the summer. 

However, once the gates are installed, they can maintain a relatively stable water 

surface elevation during low inflow conditions, which normally start during July and 

extend through the recreation season. We also conclude that SMUD would be able to 

maintain an overwintering minimum pool at elevation 6,527 feet in the Rubicon 

reservoir. 

Fluctuations of the water levels of Gerle Creek reservoir would still occur, partly 

because this reservoir operates as a afterbay for Loon Lake powerhouse and as a forebay 

for the canal leading to Robbs Peak reservoir and powerhouse. Again, many of the 

variations in the early part of the May 1 to September 10 period are the result of limited 

storage capacity and rapid variations in inflow similar to the Rubicon and Buck Island 

reservoirs. However, we expect that SMUD would use the Gerle Creek canal 

headworks gates to regulate the elevation of Gerle Creek reservoir at or above elevation 

5,225 feet during the summer recreation season, and at or above elevation 5,228 feet 

during the August through October period so that brown trout can access spawning 

areas in Gerle Creek. The estimated annual cost of maintaining the water surface 

elevation at 5,228 feet would be $6,800 and would be worth the benefit to fisheries 

resources. 

We also note that the terminology in the Settlement Agreement to make a “good 

faith effort” or “to make every reasonable effort” or implement a measure “as early as 

reasonably practicable” relative to water surface elevations at the smaller reservoirs 

(Rubicon, Buck Island, and Slab Creek) is difficult for the Commission to enforce. 

Attempting to maintain water surface elevations within an historical range (1975 to 

2000) as proposed for the Junction and Brush Creek reservoirs would also be difficult 

for the Commission to enforce. Further, other than noted above, we do not find any 

biological or recreational use basis for meeting the proposed elevations at these small 

reservoirs. For these reasons, we do not recommend including these measures in any 

license issued for the UARP. 

Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation Gaging 

Proposed Articles 1-10 for the UARP and 2-8 for the Chili Bar Project, 

Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation Gaging, provide for a plan to monitor streamflows 

and reservoir elevations. SMUD and PG&E already monitor or, in some cases, provide 

assistance to USGS for monitoring and recording many hydrological indicators, such as 

reservoir water level and stream gaging sites, in the project area. Daily and, in many 

cases, hourly or shorter interval data recordings allow SMUD and PG&E to manage 

their facilities for hydroelectric generation and document environmental compliance 

within the terms of its existing license. 
5-22

As discussed in section 3.3.2.2, SMUD would install new gages or otherwise find 

a means to measure the increased minimum streamflows downstream of Rubicon, Buck 

Island, Gerle Creek, Robbs Peak, and Junction dams. Developing a coordinated gage 

installation plan, in consultation with resource and land management agencies, as well 

as USGS, would ensure that any new gages necessary to measure the flows and water 

levels that may be specified in a new license would provide accurate data consistent 

with applicable USGS standards. SMUD’s and PG&E’s proposals, including gaging 

and publication of flow information, would provide current flow and lake level data for 

the benefit of recreational visitors in planning flat water, whitewater boating, and 

fishing trips. Flow data would also be used to monitor the potential effects of project 

operations on foothill yellow-legged frogs that are vulnerable to sudden changes in 

flow. We estimate that the annual cost for upgrading the gaging stations would be 

$98,200 for SMUD and $6,500 for PG&E. Implementation of streamflow and reservoir 

elevation gaging plans would be worth the cost to ensure compliance with 

recommended the minimum flow and water surface elevation provisions 

Currently, real-time reporting is not available on any non-project diversion 

structures located within the Rubicon River watershed. Proposed Article 1-10, 

Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation Gaging, does not include gaging at these diversion 

structures as suggested by the Placer County Water Agency. Gaging of these diversion 

structures is not necessary to ensure compliance with proposed minimum streamflow 

schedules or reservoir levels; therefore, we do not recommend it. 

Wildlife and Plant Protection Measures 

Project operations could potentially affect special status plant and wildlife 

species such as black bear, mule deer, osprey, and northern goshawk within the UARP 

project boundaries. Proposed Article 1-12 provides for the protection of these wildlife 

and plant species through the implementation of wildlife safety measures at UARP 

canals and transmission lines and rare plant protection measures within the Pine Hill 

Preserve. Additionally, Proposed Articles 1-12 for the UARP and 2-9 for the Chili Bar 

Project provide for review, notification, and/or evaluation of potential effects of the 

UARP and Chili Bar Project on special status species, in consultation with the Forest 

Service or BLM, depending upon which agency lands would be affected. Although it 

appears that project facilities do not directly cause deer mortality or impede migration, 

monitoring wildlife mortality would identify any future need for preventive measures at 

project canals and ensure that any fencing or crossing structures are functional and 

would minimize potential harm to mule deer and other small game in the project area. 

Implementation of the wildlife and plant measures specified in Proposed Article 1-12 

for the UARP would cost $29,900 annually and the benefit to wildlife would be worth 

the cost. An Avian Protection Plan that would address retrofitting UARP transmission 

lines so that they meet the APLIC standards would minimize avian electrocution or 

collision once all transmission lines meet these standards. The development of the plan 
5-23

and retrofitting of existing transmission lines would cost $20,300 annually, and the 

benefit to raptors would be worth the cost. 

UARP transmission lines, which require occasional maintenance clearing, cross 

through sections of the Pine Hill Preserve. Because transmission line right-of-way 

maintenance includes occasional disturbance to vegetation and soils, the proposed 

measure to consult with BLM, FWS, and CDFG prior to conducting maintenance 

activities within the Pine Hill Preserve would ensure that the locations and methods of 

maintenance are designed to minimize effects to rare plant species. Additionally, 

consultation with the Forest Service, FWS, and CDFG prior to any new construction or 

maintenance and identifying any potential effects, would protect any special status 

species that occur either within the Pine Hill Preserve or elsewhere within the project 

boundary. To protect sensitive species, we would add to both SMUD's and PG&E's 

proposed measures annual employee awareness programs to educate employees and key 

personnel about the known locations of special status species and habitat. Although not 

specifically included, including an awareness program as part of the vegetation 

management plan in Proposed Articles 1-13, Vegetation and Invasive Weed 

Management Plans, for the UARP would effectively protect species, such as valley 

elderberry longhorn beetles and elderberry shrubs, within the project boundary from any 

transmission line maintenance activities by clearly delineating them as areas to be 

excluded from maintenance. We estimate that the annual cost for development and 

implementation of the invasive weed and vegetation management plans to be $57,600 

for the UARP and $6,500 for the Chili Bar Project. The benefits of protecting sensitive 

plant and wildlife species, reducing noxious weeds, and educating personnel about 

protocols for identifying and protecting project-related sensitive species would be worth 

the cost of these plans. 

No known special-status species would be affected by the Chili Bar Project. 

Consulting with the BLM, however, annually to update the special-status species list 

and prior to any ground-disturbing activity, as discussed in Proposed Article 2-9, would 

ensure that special status plant or wildlife species that either currently occur or could 

occur in the project boundary are protected. The benefit of protecting special status 

species would be worth the estimated annual cost of $5,000. 

Monitoring Programs 

Aquatic Resources 

Proposed Articles 1-5 for the UARP and 2-4 for the Chili Bar Project, 

Monitoring Program, set forth a comprehensive program of monitoring to document the 

effects of the increased minimum streamflows, pulse flows, and ramping rates on native 

fish populations, aquatic macroinvertebrates, amphibians and reptiles, riparian habitat, 

algae species, geomorphology, water temperature, and numerous water quality 

parameters in the reservoirs and stream reaches. The Settlement Parties have agreed to 

use trout biomass as an indicator of the ecological health of stream reaches and would 
5-24

use the baseline biomass values for monitoring the effectiveness of the proposed flows 

in achieving the trout biomass objectives for each stream reach. They also have 

established permanent monitoring transects for the channel geomorphology monitoring 

to determine the long-term effects of the increased flow in sediment transport and 

channel width. 

Fish Populations 

Project operations could affect fish and amphibian populations in the stream 

reaches. Monitoring the response of native fish populations to the increased minimum 

streamflows over the term of the license would provide information that can be used to 

inform resource managers whether or not the stated resource goals are being met. 

Monitoring the response of all life stages of foothill yellow-legged frogs, mountain 

yellow-legged frogs, and western pond turtles over time would be necessary to evaluate 

potential effects of the proposed flow changes, along with effective adaptive 

management changes, as needed. Mountain yellow-legged frogs have not been found in 

the project-affected reaches or reservoirs despite suitable habitat, perhaps due to 

populations of predatory fishes and bullfrogs. However, mountain yellow-legged frogs 

may use project-affected reaches as migratory corridors. Monitoring would determine 

the presence/absence and distribution of foothill yellow-legged frogs, mountain yellowlegged frogs, and western pond turtles in project-affected reaches, and help identify 

potential migration/dispersal barriers. The proposed monitoring would also document 

the potential effects of the proposed changes in minimum flows, operational spills, 

channel maintenance pulse flows, ramping rates, and the recreational streamflow 

releases on all foothill yellow-legged frog life stages. 

Riparian Habitats and Algae 

Riparian habitat could be affected by flow alterations and large water level 

fluctuations resulting from the proposed projects’ operations. Monitoring riparian 

vegetation every 5 years for the first 15 years of a new license, followed by subsequent 

monitoring every 10 years, as proposed, would allow the riparian vegetation to respond 

to the proposed flow regimes without being confounded by short-term changes caused 

by rare events such as a large flood. The algal species identification and monitoring 

plan for the Junction dam, Camino dam, Slab Creek dam, and Robbs Peak dam reaches 

would assess the distribution and possible adverse affects of alga(e) in the projectaffected reaches. Because of the extent of algae growth in the Junction dam reach and 

the potential for D. geminata to adversely affect water quality and the aquatic 

community, including preventing successful reproduction of foothill yellow-legged 

frogs, it is important to establish baseline information for the new flow regime as to 

species and potential adverse effects that could result from abnormally high densities of 

algae. This information could be used to determine whether the new streamflow 

releases effectively reduce the extent of algae in the Junction dam reach and help 

determine whether there are algae-related problems in other UARP-affected stream 
5-25

reaches. Because of the extent of algae growth in the Chili Bar dam reach and the 

potential for D. geminata to adversely affect water quality and the aquatic community, it 

also is important to periodically evaluate whether D. geminata has become established 

in this reach. 

Geomorphology 

Project operations could affect sediment deposition in some of the project stream 

reaches. Monitoring changes in sediment deposition as specified in Proposed Article 1-

5 for the UARP and 2-6, Sediment Management Plan, for the Chili Bar Project would 

allow SMUD and PG&E, in consultation with the Agencies and BLM, to determine if 

and when to dredge the reservoirs and where to deposit the dredged materials. Based on 

our review of the studies, we conclude in section 3.3.1.2 that pulse flows in the reaches 

where sediments are trapped or deposited would help to transport these sediments 

downstream. The downstream reaches are where sediment most likely would have 

traveled if the impoundment did not exist; however, because any added material could 

threaten the resources of the reach, the development of a sediment management plan for 

the Chili Bar Project would minimize these potential effects and would be worth the 

estimated annual cost of $800 for PGE and $6,500 annual cost for SMUD. This is one 

of several monitoring programs where SMUD would share the cost of implementation. 

Water Quality 

Development and implementation of the water temperature monitoring plan in 

Proposed Articles 1-5(9) and 2-4(5) would document spring through summer water 

temperatures in UARP and Chili Bar Project bypassed reaches and facilitate a 

determination of whether the fish and amphibian communities are supported. 

Monitoring water temperature immediately downstream of the dams, as proposed, 

would document thermal conditions at the upper end of the bypassed reaches and 

provide insight into conditions throughout reaches that experience little change in 

temperature (e.g., Buck Island dam). Monitoring at the other sites listed in table 3-30 

along with up to five additional UARP sites and two additional Chili Bar Project sites 

would document thermal conditions downstream of confluences, and in critical 

locations within the Ice House dam, Camino dam, Slab Creek dam, and Chili Bar dam 

reaches where it is not clear whether the proposed minimum streamflow schedule would 

achieve the temperature objectives.43

 

43We think it likely that SMUD intended to propose monitoring water 

temperature immediately upstream of Camino reservoir rather than upstream of Camino 

dam, which would facilitate evaluating the extent of water temperature changes in the 

Junction dam reach and adaptive use of a block of water to increase minimum 

streamflow releases and thereby reduce temperatures. 
5-26

Monitoring temperature in the Ice House dam reach just upstream of Junction 

reservoir and in the SFAR immediately downstream of Slab Creek dam would provide 

the temperature data necessary to determine whether scheduled high flow releases to 

these reaches may need to be adaptively managed. 

The results of SMUD’s 2002 to 2004 monitoring of reservoir temperatures 

provides evidence that there is virtually no cold water available in the Rubicon, Buck 

Island, Gerle Creek, Robbs Peak, and Camino reservoirs. Because substantial 

temperature data were collected within the past 10 years, sufficient data likely already 

exist to answer most questions about coldwater availability in the other UARP 

reservoirs. Therefore, the existing temperature data could be used, as appropriate, to 

evaluate the availability of cold water prior to collecting any additional reservoir 

temperature data. We conclude that development and implementation of the water 

temperature monitoring plan referred to in Proposed Article 1-5(9), Monitoring 

Program, would document spring through summer water temperatures in UARP 

bypassed reaches under any new project operations and help confirm that desired fish 

and amphibian communities are supported, although we question the benefit of 

monitoring temperatures in UARP reservoirs. 

Monitoring water temperature immediately downstream of the Chili Bar dam, as 

proposed in Proposed Article 2-4(5), Monitoring Program, would document thermal 

conditions at the upper end of the Chili Bar reach under any new project operations. 

Monitoring at the other three designated sites downstream of the Chili Bar dam with up 

to two additional sites would document thermal conditions in critical locations within 

the Chili Bar dam reach. Because this reach is not managed for coldwater fishes and 

results of PG&E’s 2002 to 2004 temperature monitoring study show that little cold 

water is available in Chili Bar reservoir, we question the need for additional monitoring 

of Chili Bar temperatures. However, development and implementation of the water 

temperature monitoring plan referred to in Proposed Article 2-4(5), Monitoring 

Program, would confirm that desired fish communities and amphibians are supported 

under any new project operations. 

Proposed Articles 1-5(10) and 1-6(8) for the UARP and 2-4(6) for the Chili Bar 

Project would provide data to document consistency with water quality standards. We 

conclude in section 3.3.2.2 that geologic and hydrologic characteristics primarily 

control the concentrations of minerals, and many of the waters affected by the UARP 

and Chili Bar Project have little potential for contamination from petroleum products. 

Therefore, we question the need for these parameters at each monitoring location. 

SMUD and PG&E’s proposed approach to select and monitor bioaccumulation of the 

specified metals in aquatic organisms at 5-year intervals would ensure that results of 

this sampling effort are consistent with the Water Board’s approach and would facilitate 

evaluation of changes in fish body burdens of these metals. However, we note that 

biomagnification of silver is unlikely. 
5-27

Sampling near swimming beaches at the popular recreational sites, such as those 

at Union Valley reservoir and in the whitewater reach downstream of the Chili Bar dam, 

shows exceedances of bacteria. SMUD and PG&E’s proposed approach to select and 

monitor 15 shoreline recreational locations within the project boundary would document 

near worst-case bacteria concentrations at locations of greatest concern. 

Once data have consistently documented that specific water quality parameter(s) 

support the corresponding desired aquatic resources, there may no longer be a need for 

monitoring those parameters/sites. Proposed Articles 1-5(10) and 2-4(6), Monitoring 

Program, include clauses that address this issue and would potentially allow SMUD and 

PG&E to reduce monitoring of minerals, nutrients, metals, petroleum products, 

hardness, and bacteria. We conclude that Proposed Articles 1-5(10) and 2-4(6) would 

provide data to document any unanticipated effects on water quality under any new 

project operations and identify any trends in risks to the health of humans and wildlife. 

We note that monitoring through the entire new license term may not be necessary and 

recommend reducing or ceasing monitoring of water quality parameters and sites where 

data consistently demonstrate little or no effect on water quality standards. We 

welcome any comment on our analysis of the need for water quality monitoring. 

Entrainment at Robbs Peak 

Proposed Article 1-5(12) provides for monitoring entrainment at the Robbs Peak 

development. We conclude in section 3.3.4.2 that there is little evidence of fish 

entrainment at the Robbs Peak powerhouse. Studies performed by the licensee showed 

that the population of rainbow trout in the SFFR upstream of the powerhouse is 

naturally limited by intermittent summer flow, sub-optimal water temperatures, and 

unfavorable winter conditions. Fish that transit the Gerle Canal from Gerle reservoir 

may also become entrained in the powerhouse. However, the canal provides very little 

suitable habitat for trout. Although studies performed during relicensing showed that 

the potential for fish to become entrained at Robbs Peak Powerhouse is extremely low, 

the adaptive management program nevertheless calls for development of mitigation 

measures if monitoring indicates fish are being entrained there. The development of 

mitigation to minimize any entrainment at the Robbs Peak afterbay through the adaptive 

management program would likely protect the few native trout currently in the SFRR, 

where populations appear to be declining. 

Terrestrial Resources—Bear Interactions and Bald Eagles 

Human-bear interactions are infrequent but are increasing in the UARP area. 

The proposed upgrades at many of the recreational facilities include bear-resistant 

containers. Implementation of the bear management plan monitoring plan proposed in 

Articles 1-5(13) for the UARP would determine if the proposed bear-proof lockers and 

trash bins are successfully keeping bears away from campgrounds or if additional 

measures would be needed. 
5-28

Bald eagles nest at UARP’s Union Valley and Loon Lake reservoirs and 

wintering eagles occur throughout the UARP area. Neither nesting nor wintering bald 

eagles have been observed at the Chili Bar Project. UARP operations, maintenance, and 

recreation all have the potential to disturb or injure the federally threatened bald eagle. 

Proposed Article 1-5(13) for the UARP, which calls for SMUD to continue to monitor 

bald eagle nest sites in coordination with the Forest Service and FWS, would allow nest 

productivity numbers to be assessed to determine if project recreation is adversely 

affecting bald eagle fledging success. If monitoring shows project activities are 

adversely affecting the bald eagle, the adaptive management program proposed in 

Proposed Article 1-6 would allow project activities to be changed. 

Summary 

The overall Monitoring Program for the UARP is expensive, totaling about 

$448,100 annually, with the development and implementation of most of the individual 

monitoring plans ranging from $6,200 for the monitoring plan for bioaccumulation in 

fish to $110,000 for water quality monitoring. However, noting some exceptions, the 

monitoring program is well-designed, provides specific metrics on which to base the 

effectiveness of proposed fish and wildlife protection measures, and ties directly to 

adaptive management measures by showing whether proposed measures are having the 

intended results. 

We estimate the cost of the monitoring programs specified for the Chili Bar 

Project would be $12,700 annually for PG&E and $102,000 for SMUD’s share of the 

costs of monitoring programs resulting from the overlapping studies. We would expect 

some of these costs to be reduced if the monitoring results demonstrate that project 

operations consistently meet water quality standards or other monitoring objectives and 

monitoring is no longer required. 

Adaptive Management Programs 

Proposed Articles 1-6 and 2-5, Adaptive Management Programs, provide 

specific steps that would be taken if the monitoring program and other scientific 

information indicate that it is likely the intended results of the fish and wildlife 

measures would not be met without adaptive management changes. The specific 

adaptive management changes identified in the Settlement Agreement mostly represent 

a balancing of interests between the protection of native fish, amphibian, and reptile 

populations and recreational boating use within the framework of maintaining good 

water quality in several reaches. Overall, the Proposed Articles provide a reasonable set 

of steps that could be implemented if the proposed measures fail to achieve intended 

results in these reaches. In some cases, implementation of the adaptive management 

measures would reduce energy losses, and in other cases, costs would depend on the 

specific measures developed in response to the monitoring results (e.g., measures to 

address entrainment). 
5-29

Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management 

Invasive weeds occur throughout both project boundaries. For both Projects, 

project operations, maintenance, and recreation can act as a method of seed dispersal 

and create disturbed areas favorable to the spread of invasive weeds. Proposed Articles 

1-13 for the UARP and 2-10 for the Chili Bar Project, Vegetation and Invasive Weed 

Management Plans, provide for the control of noxious weeds and address vegetation 

management, including soil and erosion control, revegetation, and transmission line 

vegetation maintenance. Implementing these plans would control current populations 

and future infestations of noxious weeds within the project boundary on Forest Service 

and BLM lands at the UARP and Chili Bar Project, respectively. 

We understand the proposed invasive weed management plan for UARP to be 

intended for lands within the project boundary that are adjacent to project features 

directly affecting National Forest System lands. Because not all project-related noxious 

weed infestations occur on project lands that affect National Forest System lands, 

expanding the invasive weed and vegetation management plan to all lands that are 

affected by project operations or maintenance within the project boundary would result 

in more complete control of noxious weeds that are affected by the proposed Projects. 

We estimate the annual cost of SMUD's vegetation management plan and invasive weed 

plan to be $57,600. Because most of the project facilities are on or adjacent to National 

Forest System lands, the additional cost of extending these plans to all lands with the 

UARP boundary would be relatively minor. 

Significant populations of the noxious weeds Scotch broom and Himalayan 

blackberry occur on the Chili Bar reservoir shoreline and along roadsides. Project 

operations and maintenance activities create conditions that are favorable to the 

existence of noxious weeds. Implementing the proposed invasive weed and vegetation 

management plans as proposed by PG&E at the Chili Bar Project would control current 

populations and future infestations of noxious weeds within the project boundary on 

BLM lands. Because not all project-related noxious weed infestations occur on BLM 

lands, expanding the invasive weed and vegetation management plan to all lands within 

the project boundary would result in more complete control of noxious weeds that are 

affected by project operations and maintenance. The proposed vegetation management 

plan would establish practices that would minimize conditions favorable to the 

establishment of noxious weeds. The costs associated with these plans for PG&E would 

be $6,500. The benefit of controlling noxious weeds at the UARP and Chili Bar Project 

would justify the costs of these plans. 

Recreation Enhancements 

Recreation Implementation Plan 

The Settlement Agreement includes a suite of proposed articles (Proposed 

Articles 1-15 through 1-26 for UARP and 2-13 through 2-15 for the Chili Bar Project) 

that focus on upgrading, expanding, operating and maintaining recreational facilities 
5-30

and services in response to user demands; monitoring future use; providing additional 

whitewater boating opportunities; providing public information; and fish stocking (at 

the UARP) within the framework of a recreation plan. Proposed Article 1-15, 

Recreation Implementation Plan, would increase and formalize SMUD’s 

responsibilities to provide and update formal and dispersed recreational facilities that 

provide access to the project lands and waters. The proposed plan reflects the unique 

character and management responsibilities of public recreational sites around the 

Projects and recognizes that although SMUD has no legal authority to redevelop public 

access sites owned or managed by others, it has the responsibility to ensure reasonable 

public access to project lands and waters for those portions of the recreational sites 

currently within the project boundary or proposed to be within the project boundary. 

The assistance and funding included in the plan would improve delivery of recreational 

services by streamlining implementation of the improvement measures and providing a 

mechanism for earmarking licensees’ funds to specific project-related improvements. 

Monitoring recreational use over time in a manner consistent with the 

Commission's recreational use and needs assessment (Form 80) would provide 

environmental and recreational use data that would allow SMUD to modify the type and 

quantity of recreational facilities to be commensurate with demonstrated users 

preferences and demand. As proposed, the recreational measures would provide 

substantial benefits to recreational visitors and the proposed recreational streamflows 

are generally planned to mimic natural conditions and enhance terrestrial and aquatic 

resources within and downstream of the project developments. Based on what is known 

about the Projects, the proposal appears to simultaneously protect and enhance 

environmental resources while continuing to provide and enhance recreational 

opportunities. However, as with any complex system, changes in recreational use 

patterns or project operations could have unanticipated adverse effects on aquatic or 

terrestrial resources. The proposed adaptive management measures would provide a 

means to address these effects over the term of any new license issued. As proposed, 

SMUD would file reports with the Commission summarizing monitoring results. If any 

recreation-related adaptive measures are required during the term of any new license, 

SMUD would file an amendment to the proposed recreation implementation plan with 

the Commission for approval. 

The Settlement Agreement does not provide for a recreation plan for the Chili 

Bar Project nor does PG&E propose to prepare a plan. However, PG&E proposes a few 

specific recreational measures to improve recreational access to the project. In its 

license application, PG&E contends that recreational use is low, safe public access is 

best achieved at the upstream end of the reservoir, and project operations limit 

recreational opportunities near Chili Bar dam. In subsequent sections, we generally 

agree with this assessment. However, we expect that recreational use and needs would 

change over the term of any new license issued for the Chili Bar Project. Development 

of a recreation plan for the project, based on periodic monitoring, would help the 

licensee manage these changes in recreational demand and provide a structure to 
5-31

evaluate the adequacy of project recreational facilities to meet future recreational 

demand. Such a plan would be designed to achieve the following objectives: 

(1) promote public safety and increase public awareness of recreational opportunities at 

the Chili Bar Project; (2) maintain reasonable health and safety standards through a 

litter and sanitation management; (3) provide safe and reasonable access to the project 

reservoir; (4) address congestion and conflicts among visitors and resources related to 

recreational activities, if any; (5) provide reasonable recreational facilities for a range of 

recreational opportunities; (6) reduce recreational effects on cultural, terrestrial, and 

aquatic resources; and (7) provide a forum for public and agency input into recreational 

facility needs at the project. We estimate that the annualized cost for the development 

of a recreation plan for the Chili Bar Project would be $2,700, and the benefit of 

coordinating recreational enhancements through such a plan would be worth the cost. 

Project Boundary and Recreational Facilities 

Proposed Article 1-18, Review of Recreational Developments, lists 

34 recreational facilities and specifies including these facilities within the project 

boundary. Most of the recreational facilities proposed to be included in the project 

boundary are immediately adjacent to the existing project boundary and directly 

associated with recreational sites that provide access to the lands and waters used for 

hydroelectric operations. However, three of the sites—Airport Campground, Big Hill 

Communication Site, and Cleveland Coral—are well outside the current boundary. 

SMUD built Airport Flat Campground in 1996 as part of the exhibit R 

amendment to the license, and it is one of the few licensee-developed facilities away 

from a main reservoir. SMUD developed the site in lieu of expanding Gerle Creek 

Campground as a result of concerns that an expanded Gerle Creek Campground would 

lead to crowding conditions and degradation of the recreational experience. As such, 

the Airport Flat Campground was developed to handle existing and future recreational 

demand associated with the project. Big Hill Communication Site was also built by 

SMUD under the existing license; it is primarily used as a communication, fire 

observation and fire staging area for the Forest Service and includes the Big Hill Vista. 

Visitors to the area often drive to the top of Big Hill to overlook Crystal Basin and the 

high Sierra Mountains to the east. Although the principal purpose of the site is for 

Forest Service operations, including those specific facilities within the project boundary 

on top of Big Hill would ensure that the site is maintained for public use for the term of 

any new license issued. Cleveland Coral Information Center serves as the first public 

contact facility for visitors to the Crystal Basin, providing public information services to 

nearly 70,000 visitors annually. SMUD contributed to the construction of both the 

Barracks and the Information Center and continues to support the operation of the 

facility. The facility provides visitors with the best opportunity to find appropriate 

campgrounds and plan the details of their trip to the basin. We find it reasonable to 

include these facilities within the project boundary. 
5-32

SMUD’s proposal to enhance, expand and formalize the sites listed in table 3-65 

(Proposed Article 1-19) would substantially improve public access in the project area. 

The proposed improvements to recreational facilities within the project boundary are 

site-specific, derived from a recreational needs assessment, prepared in consultation 

with the Forest Service and stakeholders, and targeted at either improvements to 

existing facilities or development of informal facilities. In addition, the proposal 

considers recreational needs from a geographical perspective and recommends site 

improvement measures based on the overall need in the project area. The total 

annualized costs of SMUD's proposed upgrades at the 34 developed and proposed 

recreational sites would be $1,720,800. Although upgrading the project recreational 

facilities would be costly, the improvements are scheduled to be implemented during 

the next 20 years, are supported by user data projecting increased use over the term of 

any new license, and would benefit the hundreds of thousands of annual visitors to the 

project area. 

PG&E's proposal to provide a parking area off Rock Creek Road, a trail that 

leads from the Rock Creek Road to Chili Bar reservoir, an informational kiosk along the 

trail, and a picnic table at the reservoir (Proposed Article 2-13) would address the 

demand for day-use recreation opportunities identified in the recreation needs study. 

The annual cost for providing this improved access to the Chili Bar reservoir and reach 

would $15,200 and would be worth the cost by formalizing the existing informal use of 

this popular area. PG&E also proposes to exclude about 152 acres of land from the 

existing project boundary. Although our preliminary analysis suggests that this 

proposed boundary change would have minimal environmental effects, PG&E has not 

demonstrated that the lands it proposes to exclude are no longer needed for project 

purposes and therefore, absent this, we do not make a recommendation regarding this 

issue at this time. 

Recreation Operation, Maintenance, and Administration 

Operation and maintenance measures are essential components of any 

recreational measure to ensure that the facilities are maintained at a level that provides 

reasonable public access for the term of any new license issued. Operations of project 

recreational facilities would include management-type measures to keep the facilities 

clean and safe, such as cleaning restrooms, picking up litter, and removing trash. 

Maintenance typically includes keeping recreational facilities in a safe and functional 

order. Such measures may include replacing worn equipment, painting buildings, or 

maintaining lawns and paths. To the degree that the applicant’s proposal would achieve 

these goals, the licensees’ responsibility to provide reasonable public access to project 

lands and waters would be accomplished. Although we note that any license issued for 

the UARP would be subject to the Commission’s regulations that require licensees to 

keep project recreational facilities in good condition, Proposed Article 20 would provide 

for coordination with the Forest Service; therefore, we recommend including this article 

in any license issued for the UARP. 
5-33

Proposed Article 1-21 specifies that SMUD address sanitation along with other 

recreation use-related issues by annually paying the Forest Service $1,000,000 to 

provide operation, maintenance, and administration of developed recreational sites, 

facilities, or activities that are adjacent to or in the vicinity of UARP reservoirs and 

facilities. These activities include picking up litter, providing public information, 

enforcing rules and regulations, maintaining signage, and other activities associated 

with the effects of recreational use at project recreation facilities on adjacent Forest 

Service lands. An annual cost of $1,000,000 would not be an unreasonable estimate for 

addressing the operation and maintenance needs of 47 recreational facilities that span 81 

miles of river. However, we emphasize that the Commission would not require SMUD 

to maintain non-project recreational facilities on adjacent Forest Service land. In 

addition, as noted earlier, under any new license SMUD would be responsible for 

keeping project recreational facilities in safe and useable condition. If SMUD wishes to 

contract with the Forest Service to operate and maintain project d recreational facilities, 

we would not object as long as SMUD understands that it is ultimately responsible for 

ensuring that its recreational facilities are maintained and that measures that would 

require a licensee to fund recreational facilities, or fund up to a cost cap, are not 

endorsed by the Commission. 

Recreational Streamflows 

The whitewater run below Slab Creek reservoir of Class IV rapids is currently 

used between Ice House and Chili Bar. The Settlement Agreement proposes that 

SMUD use existing facilities and spill at Slab Creek dam to make whitewater flow 

releases in the spring. The Settlement Agreement also calls for more extensive 

releases44 if: (1) the Iowa Hill development is built, or (2) Iowa Hill is not built and the 

trigger for use of the whitewater flows is met by year 10 after license issuance. If 

SMUD does not build Iowa Hill, it would monitor whitewater use during the first 10 

years after the license issuance to determine if the use triggers set in year 5 are 

exceeded. The Settlement Agreement notes that the proposed October flow releases 

would not occur if after 5 years of monitoring the data shows that releasing the 

whitewater flows would have significant effect on environmental resources. 

Given that the reach already draws visitation at the expert level (Class IV), we 

would expect, with interest by outfitters, more use in the reach. However, currently 

there are no recreational use data available to gage how much use would occur. We 

note that the costs associated with providing the more extensive recreational boating 

flows below Slab Creek would be considerable. SMUD estimates its cost to reconfigure 

White Rock tunnel adit in excess of $10,000,000. These capital expenses combined 

 

44The more extensive table of releases would require boating releases during both 

dry and critically dry water years and include up to12 springtime releases and 6 October 

releases. 
5-34

with annual spills would result in an annualized cost of $818,300, and would result in 

$430,000 in foregone energy production at the UARP. 

If the Iowa Hill development is not built by year 5 after license issuance, the 

Settlement Agreement calls for SMUD to consult on a Whitewater Boating Recreation 

Plan describing whitewater recreational use and impacts and setting triggers that would 

determine if SMUD should modify project facilities to allow SMUD to deliver the 

more extensive recreational flows set in the agreement. We fail to see the how building 

the Iowa Hill development relates to the release of whitewater flows and even if the 

development is built we recommend that in any license issued SMUD file this 

whitewater plan. We agree with the Settlement Agreement’s use of use triggers to help 

the parties decide of whether more extensive whitewater releases are reasonable. 

Given the high cost of releasing the more extensive recreational flows set in the 

Settlement Agreement and the unknown level of whitewater use this stretch of the river 

will get, we recommend that in year 10 after license issuance, and based upon the 

Whitewater Boating Recreation Plan, SMUD, after consulting with the interested 

parties, file for Commission approval the whitewater releases they recommend for the 

remainder of the license. At that time, the parties should have the information needed to 

recommend releases that are appropriate given the amount of whitewater use and the 

environmental effects of the releases and whether the use would justify the costly 

modifications to Slab Creek dam. 

Public Information Services 

The proposed brochures and map and the interpretive, education, and public 

information plan (Proposed Articles 1-25 for the UARP and 2-14 for the Chili Bar) 

would improve upon existing public education and interpretation information with 

updated materials that complement the Forest Service and BLM publications. The 

proposal would help expand recreational opportunities by providing visitors with easily 

accessible information about project resources. Real-time information for all 

streamflow and reservoir elevation locations normally can be easily and inexpensively 

be collected in either 1-hour or 15-minute intervals and be made available to the public. 

Based on this information, the public, operators of downstream projects, such the 

Middle Fork American River Project, and others would be able to coordinate their 

activities and operations. Providing the public with this information to enable them to 

coordinate whitewater activities and having real-time flow data would benefit public 

recreation use and would justify our estimated annual cost of $34,600 for the 

interpretive, education, and public information plan and brochures and $13,100 for the 

upgrading gages and providing real-time flow data. 

Flow compliance monitoring for releases from Chili Bar reservoir would 

necessitate the continuing operation of gage no. 11444500, located downstream of Chili 

Bar dam. Currently, this is not a real-time USGS gage, but flows and gage heights are 

available at 1-hour intervals on the CDFG web site for this streamflow gage. Reservoir 
5-35

level compliance would likely entail upgrading the current system that PG&E uses to 

monitor the water level within Chili Bar reservoir. The annual cost associated with 

public information services as specified in Proposed Article 2-1 would be $1,700 for 

PG&E, plus SMUD’s share of $14,200, and would be worth this modest cost. 

Fish Stocking 

Reservoir-related angling is one of the most important recreational activities 

associated with the project, particularly in the large storage reservoirs, including Loon 

Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House reservoirs. Assisting CDFG in fishing stocking 

(Proposed Article 1-26 for the UARP) would help ensure that the recreational fishery is 

maintained for the term of any license issued. We note that recreational fish stocking 

could adversely affect mountain yellow-legged frogs if populations were to become 

established in Loon Lake (elevation 6,410 feet) and may also adversely affect foothill 

yellow-legged frogs in the reaches downstream of these reservoirs, particularly Ice 

House dam reach, due to escapement. However, the level of proposed stocking, which 

is similar to the existing CDFG stocking program, would not be expected to result in 

any additional effect on frogs over existing conditions. The $106,100 annual cost of 

fish stocking is justified based on the large angler demand at these popular reservoirs. 

Trails System Plan 

As proposed by SMUD and PG&E, the trail-specific measures in Proposed 

Article 1-31 would allow SMUD to continue to access the project developments at the 

higher elevations in Crystal Basin where there are no access roads. Although the 

proposed measure would substantially benefit recreational visitors by extending and 

formalizing trial access to project facilities, we would limit SMUD’s responsibility to 

those trails that are solely used for project operations and that are within the project 

boundary. SMUD’s proposed trail plan as modified by staff would help to ensure that 

the condition of the portion of the trail system used by SMUD is maintained at an 

adequate level over time. In addition, the plan would help ensure that trail users are 

educated about allowed and prohibited activities and that use is zoned in a manner to 

avoid adverse effects on aquatic and terrestrial resources in the area. 

PG&E’s proposal to develop a trail on BLM lands to access the Chili Bar 

reservoir in Proposed Article 2-13 would formalize recreational use that already occurs 

on these lands. Currently, anglers, picnickers, and other visitors follow an old logging 

road part way into the canyon and follow a user-made trail to the water’s edge. 

Formalizing this trail would help ensure that it is designed to follow natural contours 

and would reduce erosion and other effects that can be associated with informal trials. 

The estimated annual cost of $15,200 would be justified based on existing use of the 

informal trail. 
5-36

Transportation Management System 

Proposed Article 1-30 for the UARP, Transportation Management System, 

provides for a plan to establish SMUD's level of responsibility for improving and 

maintaining project access roads and perform several specific improvements, including 

reconstructing and surfacing several Forest Service roads that provide access to project 

recreational facilities. Upgrading drainages to meet 100-year storm events and 

implementing erosion control measures during maintenance activities, including snow 

removal, would minimize the potential for road erosion into streams. Upgrading 

existing roads used for access to project facilities and project recreational facilities 

would enhance public safety and access at several highly used recreation facilities. 

Developing and implementing the plan, including annual snow plowing, would cost 

about $279,800 annually. Reconstructing Forest Service access roads would be 

relatively expensive with an annual cost of $290,900 annually but would address several 

public safety concerns affecting thousands of visitors to the recreational facilities at 

Union Valley and Ice House reservoirs. We note that it is the Commission’s practice to 

include only those roads used solely for project purposes that are located within the 

project boundary. Therefore, the transportation management system plan should clearly 

identify the roads either already within or proposed to be included in the project 

boundary that are necessary to access the project recreational facilities and limit 

SMUD’s responsibilities to those access roads or portions of roads that are solely used 

for project purposes. If the identification of the roads or portions of roads that SMUD 

would be responsible for involves fewer roads than envisioned in the proposed measure, 

we would expect a corresponding reduction in the annual cost for repair and 

maintenance. 

Visual Resource Protection 

Proposed Articles 1-27 for the UARP and 2-16 for the Chili Bar Project provide 

for the development and implementation of visual management plans consistent with 

the Forest Service VQCs for the UARP as well as the BLM visual resource standards 

for the Chili Bar Project. The Proposed Articles also provide for meetings with the land 

managing agencies every 5 years to review opportunities to improve how the facilities 

blend with the surrounding landscapes. These plans would provide for short-term 

maintenance activities including painting facilities and for review of future maintenance 

activities to ensure that the facilities do not significantly detract from the natural 

landscape of the area. The annualized capital cost associated with the measures to 

improve the visual quality of existing facilities at the UARP would be $77,200 and the 

annualized for preparation and implementation of the visual resources plan would be 

$5,500 for the UARP. The benefit to the aesthetic resources of the project of 

implementing both the capital measures and the plan would be worth the costs. 
5-37

Cultural Resources 

Proposed Articles 1-23 for the UARP and 2-17 for the Chili Bar Project provide 

for the continued protection of cultural resources through finalization of HPMPs for the 

UARP and Chili Bar Project. Proposed Articles 1-24 for the UARP and 2-18 for the 

Chili Bar Project provide protocols for unanticipated discoveries over the term of any 

licenses issued for the Projects. SMUD drafted an HPMP that is currently under review 

in second draft form by the Forest Service. Finalization and implementation of 

SMUD’s or PG&E’s HPMP in consultation with the SHPO, Tribes, and the Forest 

Service in the case of UARP or BLM in the case of Chili Bar would ensure that adverse 

effects on historic properties arising from UARP or Chili Bar Project operations or 

project-related activities over the term of the licenses would be avoided or satisfactorily 

resolved. We estimate that these measures would cost SMUD about $6,600 annually 

and PG&E about $3,500 annually and the benefit of protecting cultural resources would 

outweigh the costs of these plans. 

Iowa Hill Development 

The Settlement Agreement includes a series of Proposed Articles (1-37 through 

1-50) that set forth SMUD's commitments for resource protection during the 

construction and operation of the proposed Iowa Hill development. These measures 

would address potential effects of the proposed development on native fish in Slab 

Creek reservoir and other environmental resources of the Eldorado National Forest and 

surrounding landscape. 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Erosion Control 

Construction of the Iowa Hill development could affect water quality. Proposed 

Article 1-42, Water Quality and Water Pollution, provides for a plan identifying the 

best management practices for erosion and sediment control and the method of 

installation and removal of a temporary coffer dam in Slab Creek reservoir to prevent 

any construction disturbance to the water quality in the reservoir. We reviewed the 

technical reports and the physical conditions of the reservoir shoreline and conclude that 

the shoreline attributes and location of the intake combined with the use of an 

impermeable liner in the upper reservoir would minimize sediment mobilization and 

shoreline erosion in the Slab Creek reservoir. The proposed storm water pollution 

prevention plan would provide reasonable assurance that water quality and aquatic 

habitat are not directly or indirectly adversely affected by SMUD’s construction 

activities. SMUD also would have an environmental monitor onsite to observe 

conditions. The annual costs associated with the storm pollution prevention plan would 

be $3,600 and would be necessary to protect aquatic resources. 

Groundwater Monitoring 

Proposed Article 1-43, Groundwater, provides for the development and 

implementation of a plan for monitoring groundwater during and after construction of 
5-38

the Iowa Hill development. Operation of the Iowa Hill development could result in 

seepage along the tunnel resulting in soil instability and affecting water quality in the 

water table. SMUD indicates that eliminating all groundwater from entering and exiting 

the water conveyance tunnels would be infeasible. Therefore, implementation of this 

plan would provide information on the effects of the development on groundwater and 

allow SMUD to recommend mitigation to remedy identified effects on groundwater. 

The annualize cost of the groundwater monitoring plan would be $3,600 and would be 

worth the cost to control the effects of the project on groundwater. 

Water Temperature and Fisheries in Slab Creek Reservoir 

Proposed Article 1-40, Aquatic Resources, includes several provisions to protect 

native fish (hardhead) populations in Slab Creek reservoir. These provisions include 

monitoring hardhead populations before and after construction of the pumped storage 

facilities, monitoring water temperatures in the shallow water areas of Slab Creek 

reservoir, ensuring that water surface fluctuations do not occur as a result of project 

operations, and monitoring the entrainment of hardhead. Simulations of the operation 

of the proposed development suggest that the pumping operations could lead to slightly 

cooler conditions in Slab Creek reservoir. We would not expect increases of less than 

1◦C to affect hardhead populations. Monitoring water temperatures along the edge of 

the reservoir would provide data that could be used along with information about the 

distribution of hardhead to document if pumped storage operations are not affecting the 

distribution of hardhead. 

Project operations would typical result in at least 35 feet of water above the Iowa 

Hill intake. As discussed in section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, because most of the 

hardhead are at shallower depths and/or near the reservoir margins, entrainment into the 

intake would likely be minimal. Furthermore, the highest frequency of occurrence of 

hardhead was at shallow depths near the reservoir margin and juvenile hardhead are not 

expected to occur at the depth of the intake. Monitoring hardhead distribution and 

whether entrainment of these fish (or others) occurs as a result of project operations for 

2 years as proposed by SMUD would be justified to document whether this expectation 

is borne out. The annualized cost of monitoring hardhead populations and monitoring 

temperature in the shallow water areas of Slab Creek reservoir would be $25,400 and 

$2,600, respectively. 

Terrestrial 

Construction of the Iowa Hill development would require the clearing of about 

141.5 acres of land. Proposed Article 1-41, Terrestrial Resources, provides for in-kind 

replacement of permanently disturbed vegetation. The upper reservoir, berm, and 

switchyard would result in the loss of upland mixed-conifer forest, and the transmission 

line would result in the conversion of mixed conifer forest to non-forested montane 

shrubland habitat. No riparian vegetation or wetlands would be affected by construction 

of the proposed development. 
5-39

Although we concur with the proposed measure, we note that the specific parcels 

of land that would be purchased, the habitat types they contains, or the wildlife 

management goals that would be applied to the properties have not yet been determined. 

Therefore, we recommend that SMUD develop a wildlife lands mitigation plan that 

identifies the locations of wildlife mitigation lands, management goals and objectives, 

management activities that would be implemented, and measures to ensure that the 

management goals would be met. Because the wildlife lands would be maintained for 

the life of the project, these lands should be included in the project boundary. Our 

estimated annual cost of $1,300 for such plan would be justified to ensure that the 

objectives of the wildlife mitigation are met. 

In addition, the wildlife and plant protection measures for sensitive plant and 

wildlife species, bald eagles, vegetation, and invasive weed management would also 

apply to the Iowa Hill development. Implementing the proposed measure, with Staff’s 

additional recommendation for a final plan, would ensure that the habitat lost due to 

construction of the Iowa Hill development would be mitigated. The annual cost 

associated with the acquisition of lands or easements to replace the permanently 

disturbed wildlife habitat at Iowa Hill would be $36,300. 

Slab Creek Recreation Access Plan 

Proposed Article 1-49 provides that SMUD address access to Slab Creek for 

recreation during and after construction. Public access the Slab Creek whitewater run is 

difficult. The steep terrain and landowner constraints limit suitable sites for parking at 

the put-in and potential take-out locations. Developing an access plan to help provide a 

reasonable level of public access to these facilities would help ensure that boaters could 

use recreational releases. We estimate that the annualized cost of the Slab Creek 

recreation plan would be $1,800, and the benefit of safe access to the proposed 

whitewater releases would be worth the cost. 

Visual Quality Standards 

Proposed Article 1-44 calls for SMUD to provide the Forest Service with the 

design specifications for the proposed Iowa Hill development that would meet the 

VQOs of the Eldorado National Forest. Provision of plan specifications and simulated 

views of the proposed facilities would help ensure that project facilities blend with the 

surrounding landscape of the Eldorado National Forest. The annualized cost associated 

with the visual resource protection plan for Iowa Hill would be $1,800, and the benefit 

of protecting the project’s aesthetic resources would be worth the cost. 

Cultural Resources 

Proposed Article 1-45 provides that SMUD comply with the NHPA, section 106, 

procedures prior to commencing construction on National Forest System lands and to 

follow unanticipated discovery procedures during the construction and operation of the 

project. Unanticipated discovery protocols would protect sites that might be discovered 
5-40

during the construction and operation of the development from unnecessary damage or 

destruction. The annual cost for compliance with cultural resource regulations would be 

included in the cost for the HPMP, and a separate plan for Iowa Hill would not be 

necessary. 

Construction Noise 

Proposed Article 1-48 provides measures to address construction noise. 

Although a large portion of the construction activities for the water conduits and the 

powerhouse cavern would take place underground, construction of the upper reservoir 

atop Iowa Hill would generate noise as earth-moving equipment clear the site and build 

the upper reservoir. SMUD states that most construction work at the Iowa Hill 

development would begin at 6:30 a.m. to avoid traffic congestion. Starting construction 

work at this time would reduce local construction-related traffic congestion and safety 

hazards and is allowed under El Dorado County General Plan. Development and 

implementation of a plan to control construction noise, as proposed by SMUD, to meet 

El Dorado County General Plan noise level limits and Forest Service standards would 

minimize, but not eliminate, the potential effects of noise during construction. 

Neighboring residents and visitors to the Iowa Hill area would hear the construction 

activities during the daytime but to a lesser extent than would occur without 

implementation of noise abatement techniques. The stationary noise source (the 

turbine/generating units) at the proposed Iowa Hills development would be placed in an 

underground powerhouse and would not affect noise levels on the surface. Therefore, 

noise effects associated with operation of the proposed project would not be significant. 

Traffic noise, which would be limited to two employees and periodic deliveries and 

maintenance activities, would be minor. We estimate the annualize cost for the 

development of a noise abatement plan would be $3,600 and would be necessary to 

minimize adverse effects of Iowa Hill construction on noise levels. 

5.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY 

The relicensing of the UARP and Chili Bar Project and the licensing of the Iowa 

Hill development would cumulatively affect water resources, fish and wildlife, 

recreational opportunities, and cultural resources in the American River Basin and the 

SFAR Basin. In addition to the diversions in the UARP and Chili Bar Project, the EID 

operates the El Dorado Project No, 176, which diverts up to 165 cfs of water around a 

22-mile section of the SFAR to its consumptive water system and the El Dorado 

powerhouse, located a short distance downstream of the SFAR’s confluence with Silver 

Creek. This has resulted in an incremental increase in spring through summer 

temperatures in the river between the confluence and the El Dorado powerhouse. The 

UARP and Chili Bar Project-proposed increased minimum streamflows, along with the 

increased minimum streamflows at the El Dorado Project, would tend to reduce spring 

through summer temperatures in most of the UARP- and Chili Bar Project-affected 

stream reaches. The operation of the proposed Iowa Hill development would reduce 
5-41

water temperatures emanating from Slab Creek reservoir by less than 0.5°C. This 

change would have no observable effect on water temperatures in Chili Bar reservoir or 

the Chili Bar dam reach. Under the Proposed Action, these cumulative effects are 

expected to provide a thermal regime that would support the designated beneficial uses, 

including a coldwater habitat for resident fish and amphibians. 

Water quality in the UARP and Chili Bar Project-affected reaches is generally 

good, although it currently does not always satisfy the Basin Plan water quality 

objectives for bacteria and some chemical parameters. Numerous factors, including 

land management, development, and water-oriented recreation, all have incrementally 

adversely affected water quality, particularly fecal coliform concentrations in heavilyused areas of reservoirs and in the Chili Bar dam reach. In contrast, expansion of the 

Hangtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in Placerville is expected to somewhat 

reduce bacteria and nutrient loadings from Weber Creek to the SFAR. The cumulative 

effects of these actions would be an overall improvement in water quality. 

Private land development, public land use, and hydropower development have 

cumulatively affected the California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, and 

mountain yellow-legged frog in the American River Basin due to road construction, 

multiple land use practices, facilities and operations, and other development that 

fragment breeding populations and create habitat for species, such as bullfrogs, that prey 

on California red-legged frogs, foothill yellow-legged frogs, and mountain yellowlegged frogs. Flow releases to benefit coldwater fisheries during the summer and early 

fall and project reservoirs may isolate foothill yellow-legged frog breeding populations. 

For example, it is likely that the foothill yellow-legged frog in lower Slab Creek dam 

reach and lower Camino dam reach are reproductively isolated by coldwater water 

releases in upper Slab Creek dam reach and the Slab Creek reservoir (Kupferberg, 

2006). However, the proposed minimum flow releases would not increase or decrease 

the current population fragmentation. 

The recreational measures proposed by SMUD and PG&E would improve 

recreational opportunities throughout much of the SFAR Basin. Each proposed measure 

is incrementally small. However, together, the recreational measures would improve 

opportunities in the region, allowing the Projects to adapt to change recreational use 

over time, better using existing recreational resources, and developing new resources 

that address current and foreseeable recreational activities, such as hiking and biking. 

The UARP and Chili Bar Project are among a large number of hydroelectric 

projects in central California that affect prehistoric and historic archaeological resources 

located along the American River and its tributaries. These projects attract recreational 

use around the reservoirs. The increased recreational use resulting from the availability 

of the reservoirs has contributed to both inadvertent and intentional destruction of 

prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and of TCPs. Although continued 

erosion and recreational use of the American River area would be expected to continue 

to affect archaeological resources and TCPs, the measures included in HPMPs for the 
5-42

UARP and Chili Bar Project, as well as measures being or already developed and 

implemented at other hydroelectric projects in the area, would cumulatively reduce the 

rate of destruction of these cultural resources. 

5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS 

Under the provisions of section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license 

issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided 

by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. 

Section 10(j) of the FPA states that, whenever the Commission believes that any 

fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the 

requirements of the FPA or other applicable law, the Commission and the agency shall 

attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, 

expertise, and statutory responsibilities of the agency. 

In response to the Commission’s notice soliciting final terms and conditions for 

the UARP and the REA notice for the Chili Bar Project issued on July 28, 2006, as 

extended for both Projects by notice issued on November 16, 2006, NMFS, Interior, and 

CDFG filed letters of comment that included section 10(j) recommendations.45 These 

agencies are also parties to the Settlement Agreement.46 In their letters containing their 

10(j) recommendations, Interior, and CDFG recommend that the Commission approve 

the Settlement Agreement and all the provisions thereof. NMFS did not file revised 

section 10(j) recommendations. Commission staff also recommends that the Settlement 

Agreement provisions that are within the scope of section 10(j) be included as terms of 

any new licenses. Although we adopt Interior, NMFS, and CDFG's fish and wildlife 

recommendations under the Staff Alternative, we note minor modification to three 

measures. 

5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS 

Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the extent to 

which a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans for improving, 

developing, or conserving waterways affected by a project. We reviewed 56 plans for 

the state of California that have been filed with the Commission and determined that the 

following 23 are relevant to the UARP and Chili Bar Project and that there are no 

conflicts with the proposed Projects: 

 

45All three agencies filed letters in response to the initial notice dated October 18, 

2006; October 17, 2006; and October 18, 2006. In its filing, NMFS indicated that 

Interior and CDFG filed revised terms and conditions on January 31, 2007. 

46The Settlement Agreement was filed with the Commission on February 1, 

2007. 
5-43

• California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout. 1988. 

Restoring the balance: 1988 annual report. Sausalito, California. 84 pp. 

• California Department of Fish and Game. 1979. Rubicon River wild trout 

management plan. Sacramento, California. July 1979. 46 pp 

• California Department of Fish and Game. 1979. South Fork Merced River 

wild trout management plan. Sacramento, California. July 1979. 26 pp. 

• California Department of Fish and Game. 1979. Nelson Creek wild trout 

management plan. Sacramento, California. July 1979. 27 pp. 

• California Department of Fish and Game. 1981. Yellow Creek wild trout 

management plan. Sacramento, California. August 1981. 18 pp. and 

appendix. 

• California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, and Bureau of Reclamation. 1988. 

Cooperative agreement to implement actions to benefit winter-run Chinook 

salmon in the Sacramento River Basin. Sacramento, California. May 20, 

1988. 10 pp. and exhibit. 

• California Department of Fish and Game. 1990. Central Valley salmon and 

steelhead restoration and enhancement plan. Sacramento, California. April 

1990. 115 pp. 

• California Department of Fish and Game. 1993. Restoring Central Valley 

streams: A plan for action. Sacramento, California. November 1993. 129 

pp. 

• California Department of Fish and Game. 1996. Steelhead restoration and 

management plan for California. February 1996. 234 pp. 

• California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1998. Public opinions and 

attitudes on outdoor recreation in California. Sacramento, California. March 

1998. 

• California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1980. Recreation outlook in 

Planning District 2. Sacramento, California. April 1980. 88 pp. 

• California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1980. Recreation outlook in 

Planning District 3. Sacramento, California. June 1980. 82 pp. 

• California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1994. California outdoor 

recreation plan, 1993. Sacramento, California. April 1994. 154 pp. and 

appendices. 

• California Department of Water Resources. 1983. The California water plan: 

Projected use and available water supplies to 2010. Bulletin 160–83. 

Sacramento, California. December 1983. 268 pp. and attachments. 
5-44

• California Department of Water Resources. 1994. California water plan 

update. Bulletin 160–93. Sacramento, California. October 1994. Two 

volumes and executive summary. 

• California Department of Water Resources. 2000. Final programmatic 

environmental impact statement/environmental impact report for the 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Sacramento, California. July 2000. CD Rom, 

including associated plans. 

• California State Water Resources Control Board. 1975. Water quality 

control plan report. Sacramento, California. Nine volumes. 

• California—The Resources Agency. Department of Parks and Recreation. 

1983. Recreation needs in California. Sacramento, California. March 1983. 

39 pp. and appendices. 

• California—The Resources Agency. 1989. Upper Sacramento River 

fisheries and riparian habitat management plan. Sacramento, California. 

January 1989. 

• Forest Service. 1988. Eldorado National Forest land and resource 

management plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Placerville, California. December 1988. 752 pp. 

• State Water Resources Control Board. 1999. Water quality control plans and 

policies adopted as part of the state comprehensive plan. April 1999. 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, 

California Waterfowl Association, and Ducks Unlimited. 1990. Central 

Valley habitat joint venture implementation plan: A component of the North 

American waterfowl management plan. Department of the Interior, Portland, 

Oregon. February 1990. 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Final restoration plan for the 

anadromous fish restoration program. Department of the Interior, 

Sacramento, California. January 9, 2001. 

5.5 RELATIONSHIP OF LICENSE PROCESS TO LAWS AND POLICIES 

5.5.1 Water Quality Certification 

Pursuant to 401(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water 

Act) and Commission regulations, SMUD and PG&E are required to file as part of their 

license application a copy of the water quality certificate provided by the state of 

California or proof that such a certificate has been applied for or the requirements 

waived. The applicants applied for section 401 Water Quality Certification for their 

Projects on September 19, 2006, after the Commission’s notice for final terms and 
5-45

conditions (UARP) and REA notice (Chili Bar), which were issued on July 28, 2006. 

State action on the Water Quality Certification will be required by September 19, 2007. 

5.5.2 Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or 

cause the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. 

The FWS lists three plant and three wildlife species potentially occurring in 

vicinity of the UARP and Chili Bar Project that are federally designated as threatened or 

endangered and therefore protected under the ESA. These include the endangered Pine 

Hill ceanothus (Ceanothus roderickii) and Pine Hill flannelbush (Fremontodendron 

decumbens), as well as the threatened Layne’s butterweed (Seneco layneae), valley 

elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), and California redlegged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). 

Our analyses of project effects on these species are presented in section 3.3.5, 

Threatened and Endangered Species, and our final recommendations are presented in 

section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. 

We conclude that relicensing the UARP with the fish and wildlife habitat 

protection and enhancement measures proposed in the Settlement Agreement would be 

likely to adversely affect the Pine Hill ceanothus, Pine Hill flannelbush, the Layne’s 

butterweed, and the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, but would not likely adversely 

affect the California red-legged frog. We will initiate formal consultation with FWS on 

the three plant species and valley elderberry longhorn beetles, and will request 

concurrence on the California red-legged frog. 

We conclude that relicensing the Chili Bar Project with the fish and wildlife 

habitat protection and enhancement measures proposed in the Settlement Agreement 

would have no effect on the Pine Hill endemic plants and the valley elderberry longhorn 

beetle and would not likely adversely affect the California red-legged frog. We will 

request concurrence from FWS on the California red-legged frog, the Pine Hill endemic 

plants, and the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. 

5.5.3 National Historic Preservation Act 

The NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) (as amended) requires federal agencies to 

manage cultural resources under their jurisdiction and authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to maintain a National Register. The law also provides for the creation of 

SHPOs to facilitate the implementation of federal cultural resource policy at the state 

level, and for the responsible federal agency (i.e., agency official) to consult with Native 

American tribes who attach religious or cultural importance to cultural resources under 

their jurisdiction. Section 106 of the Act requires federal agencies to take into account 

the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed in, or eligible for listing in
5-46

the National Register. If the agency official determines that the undertaking may have 

adverse effects on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register, the 

agency official must afford an opportunity for the Advisory Council to comment on the 

undertaking. The relicensing of the UARP and Chili Bar Project is considered an 

undertaking, and the Commission acts as the agency official. 

SMUD and PG&E, under the authority of the Commission, have conducted 

section 106 consultation with the California SHPO, and other interested parties since 

2001. This consultation included scheduled collaborative cultural resource workgroup 

meetings, as well as individual meetings conducted by the applicants. Commission staff 

will be continuing Section 106 consultations. Under the Proposed Action, UARP and 

PG&E would continue to finalize their HPMPs. Each HPMP would provide specific 

guidance to applicant personnel about the treatment of historic, archaeological, and 

traditional cultural resources during the terms of the new licenses. 

5.5.4 Americans with Disabilities Act 

Public recreation facilities must comply with the American with Disabilities Act 

of 1990 (ADA, Public Law 101-336) to the extent possible. The Commission, however, 

has no statutory role in implementing or enforcing the ADA as it applies to its licenses. 

A licensee’s obligation to comply with the ADA exists independent of its project 

license. As recreation facilities are updated, expanded, or newly developed, SMUD and 

PG&E propose to ensure that access needs of the disabled are addressed and comply 

with ADA standards. The proposed recreational measures included are consistent with 

this Act.
6-1 

6.0 LITERATURE CITED 

APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee). 1996. Suggested Practices for 

Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996. Edison Electric 

Institute. Washington, DC. 

APLIC. 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 

1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington, DC. 

BEA (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2007. Regional economic accounts. 

Available at: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/, accessed August 29, 2007. 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington, DC. 

Bell, M.C. 1991. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological 

criteria. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Fish Passage Development and 

Evaluation Program, North Pacific Division, Portland, OR. 

BLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management). 2004. The South Fork American River—A 

management plan, and decision record. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 

Folsom Field Office, Folsom, CA. (not seen, as cited in DTA and Goodavish, 

2005) 

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2006. Ambient air quality standards 

(AAQS). http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs. California Air Resources 

Board, Sacramento, CA. 

California Department of Finance, El Dorado County Economic Forecast 2004 web 

page. http://www.video.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/El%20Dorado04.pdf. 

September 6, 2005. 

CDEC (California Data Exchange Center). 2007. California Data Exchange Center for 

the California Department of Water Resources. Sacramento, CA. Accessed 

from http://cdec.water.ca.gov/reservoir.html on February 13, 2007. 

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2007. Rationale document for 

Settlement Agreement, base case. Filed on January 31. 

CDFG. 2006a. PHABSIM analysis for Rubicon River below Rubicon reservoir dam. 

CDFG. 2006b. Composite WUA analysis for Gerle Creek below Loon Lake dam and 

SF Silver Creek below Ice House dam. 

CDFG. 2004. Bear hunting, final environmental document. State of California, the 

Resources Agency, CDFG Wildlife Programs Branch, Sacramento, CA. 
6-2 

CDFG. 2003. California stream bioassessment procedure (protocol brief for biological 

and physical/habitat assessment in wadeable streams) web page. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/cabw/csbp_2003.pdf, updated 2003, accessed on August 

2, 2006. California Department of Fish and Game, Water Pollution Control 

Laboratory, Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory. 

CDHS (California Department of Health Services). 2002. Incomplete blue book 

regulations only, March 11, 2002 web page. 

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/publications/Regulations/Bluebook3-11-

02.pdf, updated 2004, accessed on August 2, 2006. California Division of 

Drinking Water and Environmental Management. 

CEC (California Energy Commission). 2004. Integrated energy policy report 2004 

update. Sacramento, CA. November 

Central Valley Water Board (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central 

Valley Region). 2004. The water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for the 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, The 

Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin, Fourth Edition, 

Revised September 2004 (with approved amendments). Central Valley Regional 

Water Quality Control Board web page. 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/available_documents/basin_plans/S

acSJR.pdf, updated May 4, 2006, accessed May 5, 2006. Central Valley 

Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

Central Valley Water Board. 2003. 2002 CWA Section 303(d) list of water quality 

limited segment, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, 

Approved by EPA July 2003 web page. 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/2002reg5303dlist.pdf, updated August 

7, 2003, accessed June 14, 2006. 

CH2M Hill and DTA (Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.). 2005. Socioeconomic 

Assessment of Iowa Hill Construction and Operations Technical Report. 

January. 

CH2M Hill and DTA. 2005. Iowa Hill Pumped Storage Development Property Value 

Assessment Technical Report. January. 

CH2M Hill and DTA. 2004. Socioeconomic Impact Technical Report. October. 

Cole, T.M. and E.M. Buchak. 1995. CE-QUAL-W2: A two-dimensional, laterally 

averaged, hydrodynamic and water quality model, Version 2.0. Prepared for 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Instruction Report EL-95-1. 

DTA (Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.). 2005a. Sacramento Municipal Utility 

District Upper American River Project (FERC Project No. 2101) and Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company Chili Bar Project (FERC No. 2155) Water temperature 

technical report. Prepared by Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, 
6-3 

CA. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, CA and 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA. May 2005, Version 3. 

73 pages plus appendices. 

DTA. 2005b. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper American River Project 

(FERC Project No. 2101) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Chili Bar 

Project (FERC No. 2155) Water quality technical report. Prepared by Devine 

Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal 

Utility District, Sacramento, CA and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San 

Francisco, CA. May 2005, Version 5. 98 pages plus appendices. 

DTA. 2004a. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper American River Project 

(FERC Project No. 2101) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Chili Bar 

Project (FERC No. 2155) riparian vegetation and wetlands technical report. 

Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, CA, and Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA. October 2004. 

DTA. 2004b. Mule deer technical report. Prepared for SMUD’s UARP FERC no. 2155. 

Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA. July 2004. 

DTA. 2004c. Bird-powerline associations technical report. Prepared for SMUD’s 

UARP FERC No. 2101. Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA. 

July 2004. 

DTA. 2004d. Black bear technical report. Prepared for SMUD’s UARP FERC No. 

2101. Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA. July 2004. 

DTA. 2004e. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle technical report. Prepared for 

SMUD’s UARP FERC No 2101. Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., 

Sacramento, CA. July 2004. 

DTA. 2004f. Bald eagle and osprey technical report. Prepared for SMUD’s UARP 

FERC No. 2101. Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA. October, 

2004. 

DTA and EES (EES Consulting). 2005. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper 

American River Project (FERC Project No. 2101) Iowa Hill pumped storage 

development water temperature technical report. Prepared by Devine Tarbell & 

Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA and EES Consulting, Seattle, WA. Prepared 

for Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, CA. February 2005. 32 

pages plus appendices. 

DTA and Goodavish (Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. and Martha Goodavish 

Planning and Design). 2005. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper 

American River Project (FERC Project No. 2101) UARP land use technical 

report. Prepared by Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA, and 

Martha Goodavish Planning and Design, Walnut Creek, CA. Prepared for 
6-4 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, CA, and Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company, Sacramento, CA. February 2005. 

DTA and Goodavish. 2004. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper American 

River Project (FERC Project No. 2101) visual assessment of Upper American 

River Project features technical report. Prepared by Devine Tarbell & 

Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA, and Martha Goodavish Planning and Design, 

Walnut Creek, CA. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 

Sacramento, CA, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sacramento, CA. 

September 2004. 

DTA (Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.) and Stillwater Sciences. 2005a. Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District Upper American River Project (FERC Project No. 

2101) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Chili Bar Project (FERC No. 2155) 

flow fluctuation in the reach downstream of Chili Bar technical report. Prepared 

by Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA and Stillwater Sciences, 

Davis, CA. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, 

CA, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA. May 2005 88 

pages plus figures and appendices. 

DTA and Stillwater Sciences. 2005b. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper 

American River Project (FERC Project No. 2101) and Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company Chili Bar Project (FERC No. 2155) Amphibians and aquatic reptiles 

technical report. Prepared by Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, 

CA and Stillwater Sciences, Davis, CA. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal 

Utility District, Sacramento, CA and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San 

Francisco, CA. April 2005, Version 3. 54 pages plus figures and appendices. 

DTA and Stillwater Sciences. 2005c. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper 

American River Project (FERC Project No. 2101) and Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company Chili Bar Project (FERC No. 2155) Reservoir fisheries technical 

report. Prepared by Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA and 

Stillwater Sciences, Davis, CA. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility 

District, Sacramento, CA and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, 

CA. April 2005, Version 2. 19 pages plus figures and appendices. 

DTA and Stillwater Sciences. 2005d. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper 

American River Project (FERC Project No. 2101) and Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company Chili Bar Project (FERC No. 2155) stream fisheries technical report. 

Prepared by Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA and Stillwater 

Sciences, Davis, CA. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 

Sacramento, CA and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA. 

January 2005, Version 2. 43 pages plus figures and appendices. 
6-5 

DTA and Stillwater Sciences. 2005e. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper 

American River Project (FERC Project No. 2101) Iowa Hill pumped storage 

development fish entrainment potential technical report. Prepared by Devine 

Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA, and Stillwater Sciences, Davis, CA. 

Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, CA. February 

2005. 32 pages plus figures and appendices. 

DTA and Stillwater Sciences. 2005f. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper 

American River Project (FERC Project No. 2101) and Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company Chili Bar Project (FERC No. 2155) Stream habitat mapping technical 

report. Prepared by Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA and 

Stillwater Sciences, Davis, CA. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility 

District, Sacramento, CA and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, 

CA. April 2005, Version 3. 16 pages plus figures and appendices. 

DTA and Stillwater Sciences. 2005g. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper 

American River Project (FERC Project No. 2101) and Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company Chili Bar Project (FERC No. 2155) shallow water entrainment 

technical report. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 

Sacramento, CA. 

DTA and Louis Berger. 2004a. Recreation demand technical report. Prepared by 

Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA, and The Louis Berger 

Group, Oakhurst, CA. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 

Sacramento, CA. September 2004. 

DTA and Louis Berger. 2004b. Whitewater boating feasibility technical report. 

Prepared by Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA, and The Louis 

Berger Group, Oakhurst, CA. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility 

District, Sacramento, CA. September 2004. 

DTA and Louis Berger. 2004c. Recreational flow in the reach downstream of Chili Bar 

feasibility technical report. Prepared by Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., 

Sacramento, CA, and The Louis Berger Group, Oakhurst, CA. Prepared for 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, CA. September 2004. 

DTA (Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.) and Stillwater Sciences. 2004a. Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District Upper American River Project (FERC Project No. 

2101) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company Chili Bar Project (FERC No. 2155) 

Fish passage barriers technical report. Prepared by Devine Tarbell & Associates, 

Inc., Sacramento, CA and Stillwater Sciences, Davis, CA. Prepared for 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, CA and Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company, San Francisco, CA. August 2004, Version 1. 32 pages plus 

figures and appendices. 
6-6 

DTA (Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.) and Stillwater Sciences. 2004b. Physical 

habitat simulation technical report. Volume 1. Prepared for Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District Sacramento, CA. August 2004. 

Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. (DTA) and Stillwater Sciences. 2004c. Amphibian 

habitat test flow technical report. Prepared by Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc., 

Sacramento, CA and Stillwater Sciences, Davis, CA. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Special Session on 

Didymosphenia geminata Western Division American Fisheries Society Meeting 

May 15-16, 2006 Bozeman, Montana, United States, Revised post meeting 

update web page. 

http://www.epa.gov/region8/water/monitoring/may06meeting.html, last updated 

September 13, 2006, accessed on February 5, 2007. 

EPA. 2000. Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish 

advisories, Volume 1: Fish sampling and analysis, Third edition. EPA 

823-B-00-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. November 2000. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2006. El Dorado Irrigation District, 

Project No. 184-065, order issuing new license (October 18, 2006). Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.150 pp. 

FERC. 2003. Final environmental impact statement for the El Dorado Irrigation 

District FERC Project No. 184. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC. 

FICON (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise). 1992. Federal Agency review of 

selected airpoint noise analysis issues. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, 

Washington, DC. August 1992. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. Endangered and Threatended Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the California spotted owl as 

threatened or endangered. Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 100, p. 29886–29908. 

May 24, 2006. 

FWS. 1999. Conservation guidelines for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. July 9, 1999. 13p. 

FWS. 1986. The Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Portland, OR. 160pp. 

GANDA (Garcia and Associates). 2006. Identifying climatic and water flow triggers 

associated with breeding activities of a foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) 

population on the North Fork Feather River, California. Prepared for California 

Energy Commission Public Interest Research Program. Garcia and Associates, 

San Anselmo, CA. August 2006. Final. 
6-7 

GANDA. 2004. Results of the 2004 study evaluating impacts of elevated flows on 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) habitat in the Poe Reach, North Fork 

Feather River. Prepared for PG&E. Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, CA. 

December 2004. Final. 

Gerstung, E.G. 1973. Fish population and yield estimates from California Trout 

Streams. Cal-Neva Wildlife. 

Howe, P.D. and S. Dobson. 2002. Silver and silver compounds: environmental aspects, 

Concise International Chemical Assessment Document (CICAD) 44. Available 

at: http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad44.htm, accessed April 

5, 2004. International Programme on Chemical Safety. 

Institute for Bird Populations. 2007. BBS habitat classification: Classifying and 

photographing habitat at breeding bird survey (BBS) point count locations 

throughout the Sierra Nevada web page. 

http://www.birdpop.org/Sierra/bbshab.htm. The Institute for Bird Populations, 

Point Reyes Station, CA. 

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). 

2007. Global invasive species database web page. 

http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=775&fr=1&sts=, last 

updated November 28, 2006, accessed on February 5, 2007. IUCN, The World 

Conservation Union. 

Kilroy, C. 2004. A new alien diatom, Didymosphenia geminata (Lyngbye) Schmidt: its 

biology, distribution, effects and potential risks for New Zealand fresh waters. 

National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd., Christchurch, New 

Zealand. NIWA Client Report: CHC2004-128, November 2004. 34 pp. 

Kupferberg, S. J. 2006. Final letter report regarding Rana boylii in the UARP. Letter 

to J. O. Williams, Fisheries Biologist, Eldorado National Forest, Placerville, CA. 

October 5, 2006. 

Lipton, D. 2007a. Biological evaluation of terrestrial species for SMUD’s proposed 

Iowa Hill development—FERC Project No. 2101-084. U.S. Forest Service, 

Eldorado National Forest, Placerville Ranger District. June 2007. 

Lipton, D. 2007b. Terrestrial management indicator species report for SMUD’s 

proposed Iowa Hill development—FERC Project No. 2101-084. U.S. Forest 

Service, Eldorado National Forest, Placerville Ranger District. June 2007. 

Mount, J., S. Yarnell, S. Kupferberg, and A. Lind. 2006. Pulsed flow effects on foothill 

yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): Integration of empirical, experimental and 

hydrodynamic modeling approaches. Prepared for the California Energy 

Commission by U.C. Davis Center for Watershed Sciences. Contract No. 500-

01-044. 
6-8 

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised edition. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, CA. 502 pp. 

NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 1991. Seafood Safety. Committee on 

Evaluation of the Safety of Fishing Products, National Academy Press, 

Washington, DC. (not seen, as cited in EPA, 2000) 

PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2005. Application of Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company for the Chili Bar Project, FERC Project No. 2155. 

Sacramento, CA. June 21. 

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, 

CO. 

SDGFP (South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks). 2006. Troublesome 

diatom spreads in Black Hills streams. 

http://www.sdgfp.info/GFPnews/News06/07-14-06.htm, accessed on February 5, 

2007. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks. July 14, 2006. 

Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 1999. The draft avian conservation plan for the Sierra 

Nevada Bioregion: conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra 

bird populations. Version 1.0. Available at: 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/sierra.html. Institute for Bird Populations 

report to California Partners in Flight. 

SMAQD (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality District). 2003. Sacramento area 

regional 2002 milestone report. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality District, 

Sacramento, CA. May 2003. 

SMUD (Sacramento Municipal Utility District). 2006. Response to the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission’s December 20, 2005 Request for Clarification and 

Additional Information, Upper American River Project (FERC Project No. 

2101). Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, CA. March 17, 

2006. 159 pp. 

SMUD. 2005. Application of Sacramento Municipal Utility District for the Upper 

American River Project, FERC Project No. 2101. Sacramento Municipal Utility 

District, Sacramento, CA. . July 7. 

SMUD. 2004. Fish community assessment metrics. A handout to the Aquatic 

Working Group. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, CA. (not 

seen, cited in Settlement Agreement Rationale Report). 

SMUD (Sacramento Municipal Utility District) and PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company). 2007. Relicensing Settlement Agreement for the Upper American 

River Project and Chili Bar Project. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 

Sacramento, CA and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA. 

January 2007. 
6-9 

Taylor, M. 2007. Biological evaluation for sensitive plants for the proposed Upper 

American River Project (UARP), FERC special use permit for the Iowa Hill 

pumping station. U.S. Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest. 

Theurer, F.D., K.A. Voos, and W.J. Miller. 1984. Instream water temperature model. 

Instream Flow Information Paper 16. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS84-15. 

Thurow, R.F. and D.J. Schill. 1996. Comparison of day snorkeling, night snorkeling, 

and electrofishing to estimate bull trout abundance and size structure in a secondorder Idaho stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

16(2):314-323. 

Tollefson, L. 1989. Methylmercury in fish: Assessment of risk for U.S. consumers. 

In: The Risk Assessment of Environmental and Human Health Hazards: A 

Textbook of Case Studies. D.J. Paustenback (ed). John Wiley & Sons, New 

York, NY. (not seen, as cited in EPA, 2000) 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. American Community Survey 2005 web page. 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index.html. Last modified March 5, 2007. 

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2007. USGS Surface-Water Data for 

California. Reston, VA. Accessed from 

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/sw, on January 15, 2007. 

USGS. 2005. Water Resources Data, California, water year 2004. Volume 4, Northern 

Central Valley Basins and The Great Basin from Honey Lake Basin to Oregon 

State Line. Water Data Report CA-04-4. April 2005. 

Water Board (State Water Resources Control Board). 2005. Notice of application to 

appropriate water by permit, Applications 31595 and 31596, El Dorado County, 

Rubicon and South Fork American Rivers, California. State Water Resources 

Control Board, Sacramento, CA. May 24, 2005. 

WECC (Western Electricity Coordinating Council). 2005. 10-year coordinated plan 

summary: Planning and operation for electric system reliability. June. 

Wells, S.A. 2000. CE-QUAL-W2 Version 3: Hydrodynamic and water quality river 

basin modeling Proceedings, HydroInformatics 2000, IAHR, CDROM_EM5. 

Williams, J. 2007a. Aquatic management indicator species report for SMUD’s 

proposed Iowa Hill development—FERC Project No. 2101-084. U.S. Forest 

Service, Eldorado National Forest, Placerville Ranger District. June 28, 2007. 

Williams, J. 2007b. Biological evaluation for aquatic species for SMUD’s proposed 

Iowa Hill development—FERC Project No. 2101-084. U.S. Forest Service, 

Eldorado National Forest, Placerville Ranger District. June 28, 2007. 
6-10 

This page intentionally left blank
7-1 

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

James Fargo—Project Coordinator/Engineering (Civil Engineer; M.S., Civil 

Engineering) 

Alan Mitchnick—Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species 

(Environmental Biologist: M.S., Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences) 

John Mudre—Water Resources, Aquatic Resources, and Threatened and Endangered 

Species (Ecologist; Ph.D., Fisheries Science) 

Shana Murray—Recreation Resources, Land Use, and Aesthetics (Outdoor Recreation 

Planner; M.S., Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management) 

Frank Winchell—Cultural Resources (Archeologist; B.A., M.A., Ph.D., 

Anthropology)Patricia Weslowski—Project Coordinator (Preservation Planner; 

Masters of Public Administration) 

Marty Bowers—Cultural Resources (Principal Architectural Historian; M.A., American 

History) 

Sue Davis—Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species (Terrestrial 

Biologist; B.S. Wildlife Management) 

Benjamin Ellis—Recreation Resources (Environmental Planner/Resource Economist; 

M.B.A., Ph.D., Resource Planning; B.S., Biology and Sociology) 

Mike Fusillo—Socioeconomics (Principal Economist; Ph.D. Economics; M.A. 

Economics; Advanced Certification Industry Modeling) 

John Hart—Water Quantity (Hydrologist; B.A., Physics) 

Mark Killgore—Developmental Analysis (Principal Engineer; M.S., Civil Engineering) 

Lucy Littlejohn—Terrestrial Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species (Senior 

Fisheries Biologist; M.S. Marine Science, Department of Ichthyology; B.S., 

Natural Science) 

Marcelle Lynde—Fisheries Resources (Senior Fisheries Biologist; M.M.A., Marine 

Affairs, Marine Resource Management; B.S., Fisheries) 

Tom Mapletoft—Geology and Soils (Engineer/Hydrologist; B.S., Civil Engineering, 

Master of Business Administration) 

Brian Mattax—Water Quality (Aquatic Scientist; B.S., Biology) 

Martin Meyer—Noise Quality (Principal Scientist/M.S. Physics) 

George Perng—Air Quality (Principal Environmental Scientist/M.S. Environmental 

Engineering) 
7-2 

Denise Short—Editorial Review (Technical Editor; M.S., Agriculture, Food, and the 

Environment; B.A., English) 

Leslie Yaukey—Land Use and Aesthetics (Scientist; B.S. Environmental & Natural 

Resources) 
8-1 

8.0 LIST OF RECIPIENTS 

Jeff Hansen 

1966 Cable Road 

Camino, CA 95709 

David Bolster 

1961 Larsen Drive 

Camino, CA 95709 

Mike DeBord 

6090 Keeble Lane 

Camino, CA 95709 

Carol Gleichman 

Advisory Council on Historic Preser. 

12136 West Bayaud Ave, Suite 330 

Lakewood, CO 80228 

John Young 

American Land & Leisure 

434 Antelope Court 

Elverta, CA 95626 

Alan Ehrgott 

American River Conservancy 

P.O. Box 562 

Coloma, CA 95613 

Steve Hall 

Assoc. of California Water Agencies 

910 K Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814-3512 

Rich Gresham 

American River Watershed Group 

251 Auburn Ravine Road, Suite 201 

Auburn, CA 95603 

Dave Steindorf 

American Whitewater 

1325 Deodara Way 

Paradise, CA 95969-4808 

John Gangemi 

American Whitewater Conservation 

482 Electric Avenue 

Big Fork, MT 59911 

Bill Center 

American River Recreation 

Association & Camp Lotus 

P.O. Box 623 

Lotus, CA 95651 

Dennis Rogers 

Building Industry Association of 

Superior California (BIA) 

1536 Eureka Road 

Roseville, CA 95661 

Frank Fryman 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

2800 Cottage Way 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Elizabeth Ayres 

Bureau of Reclamation 

7794 Folsom Dam Road 

Folsom, CA 95630 

Director 

Cal Adventures/U.C. Berkeley 

5 Haas Clubhouse 

Strawberry Cyn Rec Area 

Berkeley, CA 94720 

Lester Snow 

CalFed 

1416 9th St., Suite 1155 

Sacramento, CA 95814 
8-2 

Jim Bramham 

California Association of 4WD Clubs 

117 Otto Circle 

Sacramento, CA 95822 

Director 

California Canoe & Kayak 

12401 Folsom Blvd., Suite 205 

Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 

Valerie Nera 

California Chamber of Commerce 

P.O Box 1736 

Sacramento, CA 95812-1736 

Mike Ammon 

Calif. Dept. of Boating & Waterways 

200 Evergreen, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95815-3896 

Stephen Reynolds 

Calif. Department of Conservation 

1027 10th Street, 4th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Katherine Hill 

Calif. Department of Fish & Game 

1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A 

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 

Nancee Murray 

Senior Staff Counsel 

Calif. Department of Fish and Game 

1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Banky Curtis 

Calif. Department of Fish and Game 

1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

John "Rusty" Areias 

Calif. Dept. of Parks and Recreation 

P.O. Box 942896 

Sacramento, CA 94296 

Jim Micheaels 

Calif. Dept. of Parks and Recreation 

7806 Folsom-Auburn Road 

Folsom, CA 95630 

Ken Simmons 

Calif. Dept. of Parks and Recreation 

P.O. Box 265 

Coloma, CA 95613 

Thomas Hannigan 

Calif. Dept. of Water Resources 

P.O Box 942836, Room 1115-1 

Sacramento, CA 94236 

Gary Hester 

Calif. Dept. of Water Resources 

P.O. Box 219000 

Sacramento, CA 95821 

Gary Heath 

California Electricity Oversight Board 

770 L Street, Suite 1250 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

William J. Keese 

California Energy Commission 

1516 Ninth Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Winston Hickox 

Calif. Environmental Prot. Agency 

1001 I Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 
8-3 

Cheryl Rubin 

Calif. Forest Products Commission 

853 Lincoln Way, Suite 208 

Auburn, CA 95603 

Eva Butler 

California Native Plant Society 

2707 K Street, #1 

Sacramento, CA 95816 

Hans Kreutzberg 

Calif. Office of Historic Preservation 

1416 9th St., Rm 1442-7 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Janice Calpo 

Calif. Office of Historic Preservation 

P.O. Box 942896 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Nathan Rangel 

President 

California Outdoors 

P.O. Box 475 

Coloma, CA 95613 

LaVeta Stelzmiller 

California Republican Assembly 

El Dorado County 

1400 Big Oak Court 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Michael Peevey 

Calif. Public Utilities Commission 

505 Van Ness Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102-3298 

Mary Nichols 

California Resources Agency 

1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Jim Crenshaw 

Calif. Sportfishing Protection Alliance 

1248 East Oak Avenue, Suite D 

Woodland, CA 95695 

Roger Niello 

California State Assembly 

P O Box 942849, Room 2016 

Sacramento, CA 94249-0005 

Alan Nakanishi 

California State Assembly Dist. 10 

State Capitol, Room 5175 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Dave Jones 

California State Assembly Dist. 9 

P.O. Box 942849 

Sacramento, CA 94249-0009 

Bill Deitchman 

California State Parks 

501 El Dorado Street 

Auburn, CA 95603 

Mike Machado 

California State Senate Dist. 5 

State Capitol 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Deborah Ortiz 

California State Senate Dist. 6 

State Capitol, Room 4032 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Helen Melendrez 

California State Senator Rico Oller 

4230 Douglas Blvd. Ste. 300 

Granite Bay, CA 95746 
8-4 

Mark Bergstrom 

California Trout 

870 Market Street, No. 859 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Director 

California Waterfowl Association 

4630 Northgate Blvd., Suite 150 

Sacramento, CA 95834 

Christa Campbell 

Camino Comm. Action Committee 

P O Box 112 

Camino, CA 95709 

Tom Heflin 

Camino Community Advisory Comm. 

2569 Larson Drive 

Camino, CA 95709 

Craig Thomas 

Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation 

6221 Shoo Fly Road 

Kelsey, CA 95667 

John Buckley 

Central Sierra Envir. Resource Center 

P.O. Box 396 

Twain Harte, CA 95383 

Dick Wright 

Chili Bar Outdoor Center 

P.O. Box 554 

Coloma, CA 95613 

Richard De Chant 

Chili Bar Put-In 

P O Box 939 

Kernville, CA 93238-0939 

Jim Summers 

P.O. Box 923 

Camino, CA 95709 

Larry Carr 

4433 Florin Ste. 860 

Sacramento, CA 95823 

Charles Bertolette 

2636 Fairover Drive 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Jon Murray 

133 Blue Jay Drive 

Placerville, CA 95667 

John L. Fonseca 

P. O. Box 463 

Coloma, CA 95613 

Hilde Schweitzer 

P.O. Box 852 

Lotus, CA 95651 

Justin States 

13530 Olympic Drive 

Truckee, CA 96161 

Sue Britting 

P.O Box 377 

Coloma, CA 95613 

Paul Helman 

2710 H Street 

Sacramento, CA 95816-4324 

Ed Knapp 

2516 Audubar Court 

Camino, CA 95709 
8-5 

Christopher Shutes 

Calif. Sportfishing Protection Alliance 

1608 Francisco Street 

Berkeley, CA 94703 

Evert Palmer 

City of Folsom 

50 Natoma Street 

Folsom, CA 95630 

Dr. Trent Saxton 

680 Placerville Dr. 

Placerville, CA 95667-4292 

Al Mosier 

59 Ardsley Circle 

Sacramento, CA 95823 

Stan Eisner 

City of Placerville 

487 Main Street 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Mel Johnson 

City of Sacramento 

1395 - 35th Avenue 

Sacramento, CA 95822 

Lori Lei "Rico" K Ozaki 

City of Sacramento Counsel 

2311 Capitol Avenue 

Sacramento, CA 95816 

Martha Lennihan 

City of Sacramento Counsel 

2311 Capitol Avenue 

Sacramento, CA 95816 

Michael Hanford 

County of El Dorado 

330 Fair Lane 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Randy Angeloni 

County of Sacramento 

10545 Armstrong Avenue, Ste 201C 

Mather, CA 95655 

Dan Crandall 

Current Adventures Kayaking 

P.O. Box 828 

Lotus, CA 95651 

Kerry O'Hara 

Office of the Regional Solicitor 

U.S. Department of Interior 

2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1712 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Jim Lynch 

Devine Tarbell & Associates Inc. 

2720 So Gateway Oaks Dr., Ste. 300 

Sacramento, CA 95833 

John Devine 

Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. 

970 Baxter Boulevard 

Portland, ME 04103 

Dave Lindgren 

Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer 

555 Capitol Mall - 10th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Steve Brown 

Ducks Unlimited 

1760 N. Hunter 

Stockton, CA 95204 
8-6 

Karen McDaniels 

EarthTrek Expeditions 

P.O Box 1010 

Lotus, CA 95651-1010 

Steve Heipel 

EDAW DE&S/Consultant 

2022 J Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Bill King, Ph.D 

EDC BOS-appointed 

Fish & Game Committee 

2681 Cameron Park Drive, Suite 41 

Cameron Park, CA 95682 

G. William King, Ph.D. 

EDC BOS-appointed 

Fish & Game Committee 

2681 Cameron Park Drive, Space #41 

Shingle Springs, CA 95682 

William Hetland 

General Manager 

El Dorado County Water Agency 

3932 Ponderosa Road, Suite 200 

Shingle Springs, CA 95682 

Kathye Russell 

El Dorado Builder's Exchange 

2808 Mallard Lane, Suite B 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Daniel Bolster 

El Dorado County 

3000 Fairlane Court, Suite 1 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Karen Kitchens 

El Dorado County Builders Exchange 

3430 Robin Lane, Ste 7 

Cameron Park, CA 95682 

Brian Deason 

El Dorado County & 

Georgetown Divide RCDs 

100 Forni Road, Ste. A 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Jack Sweeney 

El Dorado County Board of 

Supervisors District 3 

330 Fair Lane 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Chad Miller 

El Dorado County & 

Georgetown Divide RCDs 

100 Forni Road Suite A 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Jeanne Hall 

El Dorado County 

Chamber of Commerce 

542 Main Street 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Doug Leisz 

El Dorado County Citizens for Water 

2399 Kingsgate Rd. 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Harry Dunlop 

El Dorado County Citizens for Water 

1014 Diamante Robles Ct 

Diamond Springs, CA 95619-9731 
8-7 

Louis Green 

El Dorado County Counsel's Office 

330 Fair Lane 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Fred Schaefer 

El Dorado County Water Agency 

3932 Ponderosa Road, Suite 200 

Shingle Springs, CA 95682 

Jon Vegna 

El Dorado County Dept. of Transp. 

2850 Fairline Court 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Richard Nichols 

El Dorado County Grand Jury 

P.O. Box 472 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Thomas Davis 

El Dorado County Indian Council, Inc. 

5901 Lynx Trail 

Pollock Pines, CA 95726 

Doug Noble 

El Dorado County Planning Dept. 

2850 Fairlane Court 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Mark Egbert 

El Dorado County 

Resource Conservation District 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Steven Proe 

El Dorado County 

Taxpayers for Quality Growth 

P.O. Box 141 

Rescue, CA 95672 

George Cuttrell 

El Dorado County 

Dept. of General Services 

345 Fair Lane 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Helen Baumann 

El Dorado County Water Agency, 

Board of Supervisors 

330 Fair Lane 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Duane Wallace 

El Dorado County Water Agency 

East Purveyor 

3932 Ponderosa Road, Suite 200 

Shingle Springs, CA 95682 

Gary Hyden 

El Dorado County 

Airports, Parks & Grounds Division 

3000 Fairlane Court, Suite 1 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Debbie Manning 

El Dorado Hills 

Chamber of Commerce 

P.O. Box 5055 

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 

Wayne Lowery 

El Dorado Hills 

Community Service District 

1021 Harvard Way 

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 
8-8 

Lysa Daniels 

El Dorado Indian Council 

P O Box 120 

West Sacramento, CA 95691 

Ane Deister 

El Dorado Irrigation District 

2890 Mosquito Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Roseanne Chamberlain 

El Dorado LAFCO 

550 Main Street, Suite E 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Earl Withycombe 

Environmental Council of Sacramento 

909 12th Street, Suite 1188 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Dan Kirschner 

Environmental Defense Fund 

5655 College Avenue 

Oakland, CA 94618 

Fred Krupp 

Environmental Defense Fund 

257 Park Avenue South 

New York, NY 10010 

Valerie Zentner 

Farm Bureau, El Dorado County 

2460 Headington Road 

Placerville, CA 95667-5216 

Lillian Brumbelle 

Farm Bureau, Placer County 

10120 Ophir Road 

New Castle, CA 95658 

Denis Lewis 

Farm Bureau, Sacramento County 

8970 Elk Grove Blvd. 

Elk Grove, CA 95624 

Ann Miles 

Federal Energy Regulatory Comm. 

888 First Street, NE PJ-11.6 

Washington, DC 20426 

John H. Clements 

Federal Energy Regulatory Comm. 

888 1st Street NE, Room 101-57 

Washington, DC 20426 

Dr. Frank Winchell 

Federal Energy Regulatory Comm. 

888 First Street, N.E. 

Washington, DC 20426 

Jim Fargo 

Federal Energy Regulatory Comm. 

888 First Street, NE PJ-11.7 

Washington, DC 20426 

Takeshi Yamashita 

Federal Energy Regulatory Comm. 

901 Market Street, Ste 350 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Mark Robinson 

Federal Energy Regulatory Comm. 

888 First Street, NE PJ-11 

Washington, DC 20426 

Hossein Ildari 

Federal Energy Regulatory Comm. 

888 First Street, NE PJ-12.1 

Washington, DC 20426 
8-9 

Rob Ferroggiaro 

Federation of Fly Fishers 

9270 Oakleaf Way 

Granite Bay, CA 95746 

Kathrine Evatt 

Foothill Conservancy 

20123 Shake Ridge Road 

Volcano, CA 95687 

James Marquez 

Foothill Indian Education Alliance 

P.O. Box 1418 

El Dorado, CA 95623 

Foreman Stewart 

Freeland, Cooper & Foreman 

150 Spear Street, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Bernard Carlson 

Friends of El Dorado County 

5864 Dolomite Drive 

El Dorado, CA 95623 

Ronald Stork 

Friends of the River 

915 20th Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Hank White 

Georgetown Divide Pub. Utility Dist. 

P.O. Box 4240 

Georgetown, CA 95634 

Robert Brown 

Georgetown Fire District 

P O Box 420 

Georgetown, CA 95634 

John Lester 

Gold Country Paddlers 

403 Russell Park #5 

Davis, CA 95616 

Mike Bean 

Gold Country Paddlers 

P.O. Box 364 

Coloma, CA 95613 

Mike Barton 

Gold Rush River Rafting 

P.O. Box 1070 

Lotus, CA 95651 

Ray Pethal 

Hangtown Bass Anglers 

5716 Pleasant Valley Road 

El Dorado, CA 95623 

Julie Wentworth 

Ice House Resort 

P.O. Box 839 

Pollack Pines, CA 95726 

Bradley Pearson 

Kit Carson Lodge 

4521 Holiday Hill Court 

Shingle Springs, CA 95682 

Ray Larsen 

Larsen Farms 

2420 Apple Vista Lane 

Camino, CA 95709 

Kim Longworth 

League of Women Voters of Calif. 

801 - 12th Street, Suite 220 

Sacramento, CA 95814-2930 
8-10 

Norm Rupp 

League to Save Sierra Lakes 

P.O. Box 267 

Kirkwood, CA 95646 

Donna Hunter 

Mariah Wilderness Expeditions 

Mayor 

Elk Grove City Council 

8400 Laguna Palms Drive 

Elk Grove, CA 95758 

Bob Salazar 

Mayor 

487 Main Street 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Mayor 

South Lake Tahoe City Council 

1052 Tata Lane 

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 

William C. Hughes 

Mayor 

6237 Fountain Square Drive 

Citrus Height, CA 95621 

Steve Miklos 

Mayor 

50 Natomas Street 

Folsom, CA 95630 

Darryl Clare 

Mayor 

380 Civic Drive 

Galt, CA 95632 

Pam Pratt 

Mayor 

P.O. Box 716 

Isleton, CA 95641 

Heather Fargo 

Mayor 

915 I Street, Room 205 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Gavin Newsom 

Mayor 

401 Van Ness Avenue, 3rd Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102-0917 

Ron Corso 

Mead & Hunt, Incorporated 

904 Farley Court, S.E. 

Vienna, VA 22180-5916 

Deborah Sliz 

Morgan Meguire LLC 

1225 I Street NW Ste. 600 

Washington, DC 20005 

Scott Underwood 

Mother Lode River Trips 

P.O. Box 138 

Coloma, CA 95613 

Linda Church Ciocci 

National Hydropower Association 

One Massachusetts Ave. NW, Ste 720 

Washington, DC 20001 

Steve Edmondson 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

777 Sonoma Avenue, Rm 325 

Santa Rosa, CA 95404 
8-11 

Eric Theiss 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Richard Roos-Collins, J.D. 

Natural Heritage Institute 

100 Pine Street, Suite 1550 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Larry Meyers 

Native American Heritage 

Commission 

915 Capital Mall, Rm. 364 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Stephen Bowes 

Planner 

National Park Service 

1111 Jackson Street, Suite 700 

Oakland, CA 94607 

Veronica Kun 

Natural Resource Defense Council 

6310 San Vicente Blvd., Ste 250 

Los Angeles, CA 91770 

Barry Nelson 

Natural Resource Defense Council 

111 Sutter Street, 20th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104-4540 

Ann Notthoff 

Natural Resource Defense Council 

40 W. 20th St. 

New York, NY 10011 

Steve McCormick 

Nature Conservancy 

201 Mission Street, 4th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

David Guy 

Northern CA Water Association 

455 Capital Mall, Ste. 335 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Jennifer Darcangelo 

Office of Historic Preservation 

1415 - 9th Street, room 1442-7 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

David Moller 

Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

P.O. Box 770000, Mail Code N11D 

San Francisco, CA 94177 

Alan Soneda 

Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

Mail Code N11C, P.O. Box 770000 

San Francisco, CA 94177 

Tom Studley 

Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

3400 Crow Canyon Road 

San Ramon, CA 94583 

John Marin 

Placer County Board of Supervisors 

175 Fulweiler Ave. 

Auburn, CA 95603 

David Breninger 

Placer County Water Agency 

P.O. Box 6570 

Auburn, CA 95604 

President 

Placerville Downtown Association 

P.O. Box 2156 

Placerville, CA 95667 
8-12 

Roger Hilboldt 

Pollock Pines-Camino 

Chamber of Commerce 

6532 Pony Express Trail 

Pollock Pines, CA 95726 

Gary Estes 

Protect American River Canyons 

4135 Eagles Nest Road 

Auburn, CA 95603 

Dudley Reiser 

R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 

15250 NE 95th Street 

Redmond, WA 98052 

Sean Christman 

Rapid Descent Adventures 

P.O. Box 85 

Twin Bridges, CA 95735 

Robert Meacher 

Regional Council of Rural Counties 

801 - 12th Street, Suite 600 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Ray Nutting 

Regional Council of Rural Counties 

330 Fair Lane 

Placerville, CA 95667 

David French 

Regional Council of Rural Counties 

330 Fair Lane 

Placerville, CA 95667 

John Hofmann 

Regional Council of Rural Counties 

801 12th Street Ste. 600 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Gary Carlton 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

11020 Sun Center Drive, #200 

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114 

Greg Vaughn 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

11020 Sun Center Drive, #200 

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114 

Mike Cohen 

River Management Advisory Comm. 

P.O. Box 125 

Coloma, CA 95613 

Donna McMasters 

River Management Advisory Comm. 

P.O. Box 582 

Coloma, CA 95613 

Manny Shaffer 

River Management Advisory Comm. 

P.O Box 516 

Coloma, CA 95613 

Tommy Anderson 

River Management Advisory Comm. 

P.O. Box 597 

Coloma, CA 95613 

Randy Calvin 

River Rat Raft Rentals 

9840 Fair Oaks Blvd. 

Fair Oaks, CA 95628 

Director 

River Riders Whitewater Tours 

1911 Douglas Blvd., Suite 85-345 

Roseville, CA 95661 
8-13 

Danny Lulla 

River Runners, Inc. 

P.O. Box 433 

Coloma, CA 95613 

Lester Clemenson 

Robbs Valley Resort 

P.O. Box 1419 

El Dorado, CA 95623 

Peter Nolan 

Rotary Club of Cameron Park 

P.O. Box 366 

Shingle Springs, CA 95682 

President 

Rotary Club of El Dorado Hills 

P.O. Box 5202 

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 

President 

Rotary Club of Placerville 

2020 Smith Flat Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Dick Horn 

Rotary Club of South Lake Tahoe 

Box 778 

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96156 

Jack Connelly 

Rough & Ready Jeep Club 

5119 Ada Lane 

Sacramento, CA 95838 

Don Nottoli 

Sacramento Board of Supervisors 

700 H Street, No. 2450 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Roger Dickinson 

Sacramento Board of Supervisors 

700 H Street, No. 2450 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Illa Collin 

Sacramento Board of Supervisors 

700 H Street, No. 2450 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Bob Thomas 

Sacramento City Manager 

915 I Street, Rm 205 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Gary Stonehouse 

Sacramento City Planning Department 

1231 I Street, Suite 300 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Terry Schutten 

Sacramento County 

700 H Street, Room 7650 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Karen Ziebron 

Sacramento County Bd of Supervisors 

700 H Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Ron Suter 

Sacramento County Parks Department 

4040 Bradshaw Road 

Sacramento, CA 95827 

Gary Kukkola 

Sacramento County Parks Department 

4040 Bradshaw Road 

Sacramento, CA 95827 
8-14 

Keith DeVore 

Sacramento County Public Works 

827 7th Street, Room 301 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Carol Szuch 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

6201 S Street, Mail Stop B355 

Sacramento, CA 95817-1899 

Susan Peters 

Sacramento Metropolitan 

Chamber of Commerce 

917 Seventh Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Tim James 

Sacramento Metropolitan 

Chamber of Commerce 

917 Seventh Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Leslie Dunsworth 

Assistant General Counsel 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

P.O. Box 15830 

6201 S Street, MS B406 

Sacramento, CA 95852-1830 

Jan Schori 

General Manager 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

P.O. Box 15830 

6201 S Street, Mail Stop B408 

Sacramento, CA 95852 

Jim Shetler 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

6201 S Street, MS B408 

Sacramento, CA 95852-1830 

Robert Olmstead 

Senator Dave Cox, First District 

2140 Professional Drive, Suite 140 

Roseville, CA 95661 

Leo Winternitz 

Sacramento Water Forum 

660 J Street Ste. 260 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Felix Smith 

Save the American River Association 

4720 Talus Way 

Carmichael, CA 95608 

Alan Wade 

Save the American River Association 

2916 25th Street 

Sacramento, CA 95818 

Bob Burrows 

Save the American River Association 

2541 Rio De Oro Way 

Sacramento, CA 95826 

David Hanson 

Project Manager, Relicensing 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

6301 S Street, Mail Stop A454 

Sacramento, CA 95817-1899 

Catherine Fonseca 

Shingle Springs 

Band of Miwok Indians 

P.O. Box 1340 

Shingle Springs, CA 95682 
8-15 

Nicholas Fonseca 

Shingle Springs 

Band of Miwok Indians 

P.O. Box 1340 

Shingle Springs, CA 95682 

Jeff Murray 

Shingle Springs 

Band of Miwok Indians 

P.O. Box 1340 

Shingle Springs, CA 95682 

Russ Kanz 

State Water Resources Control Board 

P.O. Box 2000 

Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 

Michael Alford 

Sierra Club 

7257 Townhall Way 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

John Tillman 

Sierra Disposal 

P.O. Box 1189 

Lotus, CA 95651 

Melinda Eppler 

Sierra Health Foundation 

1321 Garden Highway 

Sacramento, CA 95833 

Brian C. Lee 

Sierra Lions Club 

2004 Harwich Court 

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762-6975 

Tim Feller 

Sierra Pacific Industries 

P.O. Box 1450 

Cedar Ridge, CA 95924 

Steve Barber 

South Fork Dialogue Group 

8035 South Lake Circle 

Granite Bay, CA 95746 

Duane Wallace 

South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Comm. 

3066 Highway 50 

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 

Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger 

State of California 

State Capitol 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Dave Cox 

State Senator, First District 

Carolyn Doty 

Shingle Springs/Cameron Park 

Chamber of Commerce 

P.O. Box 341 

Shingle Springs, CA 95682 

Sharon Stohrer 

Environmental Scientist 

State Water Resources Control Board 

P.O. Box 2000 

Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 

Scott Wilcox 

Stillwater Sciences 

279 Cousteau Place, Suite 400 

Davis, CA 95616 

Lloyd G. Carter 

Streams Natural Resources 

59787 Cascade Rd. 

North Fork, CA 93643 
8-16 

Ellen Day 

Taxpayers Assoc. 

of El Dorado County 

P O Box 13 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Becky Wood 

Teichert Materials 

3500 American Rive Drive 

Sacramento, CA 95864 

Karen Schambach 

The Center for Sierra Nevada Cons. 

6221 Shoo Fly Road 

Kelsey, CA 95643 

Susan Welter 

The River Store 

P.O. Box 472 

Lotus, CA 95651 

Cathy Locke 

The Sacramento Bee 

1835 Prarie Ctiy Road, Suite 500 

Folsom, CA 95630 

Lorraine Hall 

Tributary Whitewater Tours 

20480 Woodbury Dr. 

Grass Valley, CA 95949 

Charlton Bonham 

Trout Unlimited 

1808 B 5th Street 

Berkeley, CA 94710 

Chuck Mills 

Trust for Public Land 

1107 - 9th Street, Suite 1050 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Maryann Owens 

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Phillip Holcomb 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

P.O. Box 1229 

Oakdale, CA 95361 

Jason Anderson 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

P.O. Box 1229 

Oakdale, CA 95361 

Tom Cavanaugh 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

1325 J Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Art Champ 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

1325 J Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Larry Vinzant 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

1325 J Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Michael Walsh 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

1325 J Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 

Jeff Horn 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

63 Natoma Street 

Folsom, CA 95630 
8-17 

James Michael Eicher 

Associate Field Manager 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Department of Interior 

63 Natoma Street 

Folsom, CA 95630 

Jack Gipsman 

Office of General Counsel 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

33 New Montgomery, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Deane Swickard 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

63 Natoma Street 

Folsom, CA 95630 

Thomas Dang 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 300 

Sacramento, CA 95821 

Roger Patterson 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

2800 Cottage Way 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Roderick Hall 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

7794 Folsom Dam Road 

Folsom, CA 95630 

Dave Read 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

2800 Cottage Way 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Cecil Lesley 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

7794 Folsom Dam Road 

Folsom, CA 95630 

Kirk Rodgers 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

2800 Cottage Way 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Rick Johnson 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

7794 Folsom Dam Road 

Folsom, CA 95630 

Jack Mills 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

2135 Butano Dr 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

David Farrel 

U.S. Environmental Prot. Agency 

75 Hawthorne Street, MS-CMD-2 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Shannon Ludwig 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Mike Hoover 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 

Deborah Giglio 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1803 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Peter Epanchin 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite 2605 

Sacramento, CA 95825 
8-18 

Gary Taylor 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite 2605 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Douglas Weinrich 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 

Wayne White 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite 2605 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Michael Morse 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite 2605 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

William Foster 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Mike Taylor 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Beth Paulson 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Vicki Jowise 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Sue Norman 

U.S. Forest Service 

35 College Drive 

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 

Katy Coulter 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Don Yasuda 

U.S. Forest Service 

7887 Hwy. 50 

Pollock Pines, CA 95726 

Kathy Hardy 

U.S. Forest Service 

4260 Eight Mile Road 

Camino, CA 95709-9583 

Gordon Sloane 

U.S. Forest Service 

2730 Savannah Hwy. 

Charlston, SC 29414 

Matt Johnson 

U.S. Forest Service 

7887 Highway 50 

Pollock Pines, CA 95726 

Dilip Paul 

U.S. Forest Service 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Dave Boyer 

U.S. Forest Service 

7887 Hwy 50 

Pollock Pines, CA 95726 
8-19 

Dirk Rodriguez 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Dawn Lipton 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Kristi Schroeder 

U.S. Forest Service 

3070 Camino Heights Drive 

Camino, CA 95709 

Mona Janopaul 

U.S. Forest Service 

201 14th Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

George Elliott 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Suzanne Novak 

U.S. Forest Service 

P.O. Box 96090 

Washington, DC 20090-6090 

Don Errington 

U.S. Forest Service 

7887 Highway 50 

Pollock Pines, CA 95726 

Chuck Mitchell 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Denise McLemore 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Lester Lubetkin 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Ken Pence 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Tim Dabney 

U.S. Forest Service 

7887 Highway 50 

Pollock Pines, CA 95726 

John Berry 

Forest Supervisor 

Eldorado National Forest 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Bradley E. Powell 

Pacific SW Region 5, MRM-Lands 

United States Dept. of Agriculture 

1323 Club Dr. 

Vallejo, CA 94592 

Frank Mosbacher 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Rd. 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Cindy Oswald 

U.S. Forest Service 

4260 Eight Mile Road 

Camino, CA 95709-9583 
8-20 

Jann Williams 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Tony Valdes 

U.S. Forest Service 

7600 Wentworth Springs Road 

Georgetown, CA 95634 

Judy Tartaglia 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Rd. 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Larry Taylor 

U.S. Forest Service 

100 Forni Road 

Placerville, CA 95667 

Ron Hancock 

U.S. Forest Service 

4260 Eight Mile Road 

Camino, CA 95709 

Honorable John T. Doolittle 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2410 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Honorable Doris Matsui 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2310 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-0505 

Honorable Doug Ose 

U.S. House of Representatives 

236 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Brian Jensen 

U.S. Representative John T. Doolittle 

4230 Douglas Blvd, Ste. 200 

Granite Bay, CA 95746 

Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

U.S. Senate 

SH-331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-0504 

Honorable Barbara Boxer 

U.S. Senate 

112 Hart Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Bob Hawkins 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

1323 Club Drive 

Vallejo, CA 94592 

David Keyser 

United Auburn Indian Community of 

the Auburn Rancheria 

661 Newcastle Road, Ste. 1 

Newcastle, CA 95658 

Michael Swiger 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

c/o VanNess Feldman 

1050 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, 7th Fl 

Washington, DC 20007-3877 

Lynda Shoshone 

Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California 

861 Crescent Drive 

Carson City, NV 89701 

William Dancing-Feather 

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and Calif. 

861 Crescent Drive 

Carson City, NV 89701 
8-21 

Susan Davidson 

Water Forum 

660 J Street #260 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Mark Finley 

White Water Photos 

P.O. Box 431 

Coloma, CA 95613 

Troy Tanga 

Whitewater Connection 

P.O. Box 270 

Coloma, CA 95613-0270 

Dan Raleigh 

Whitewater Connection 

PO Box 270 

Coloma, CA 95613 

El Dorado County & 

Georgetown Divide Pub. Utility Dist. 

c/o Bradley Herrema 

Hatch & Parent 

21 E. Carillo St. 

Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

Field Supervisor 

Sacramento Office 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

U.S. Department of Interior 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2605 

Sacramento, CA 98525 

Dan Hytrek 

Attorney 

NOAA, General Counsel Southwest 

501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4470 

Long Beach, CA 9082 

Janet Goldsmith 

Placer County Water Agency 

400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Paul Bender 

Manager 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

P.O. Box 15830 

Sacramento, CA 95852 

Scott Flake 

Program Manager 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

6301 S Street 

Sacramento, CA 95817 

Regional Environmental Officer 

U.S. Department of Interior 

1111 Jackson Street, Office 520 

Oakland, CA 94607 

Kevin Mack 

U.S. Department of Interior 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite E1712 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Luke Miller 

Attorney 

U.S. Department of Interior 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite E1712 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Elizabeth Diamond 

Legal Secretary 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

77 Beale Street, B30A 

San Francisco, CA 94105 
8-22 

Clementine Berger 

Attorney 

U.S. Department of Interior 

2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1712 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Marianna Aue 

Graduate Legal Assistant 

State Water Resources Control Board 

1001 I Street, 14th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Chrissie Lee Bashaw 

Sr. Legal Typist 

Water Resources Control Board 

P.O. Box 100 

1001 I Street, 22nd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 

Joshua Horowitz 

Amador Water Agency 

and Yuba County Water Agency 

c/o Bartkiewicz, Kronick & Shanahan 

1011 22nd Street 

Sacramento, CA 95816-4907 

Jim M. Abercrombie 

General Manager 

Amador Water Agency 

12800 Ridge Road 

Sutter Creek, CA 95685 

Steve Rothert 

Associate Director, Dams Program 

American Rivers 

409 Spring Street 

Nevada City, CA 95959 

Kevin Richard Colburn 

National Stewardship Director 

American Whitewater 

1035 Van Buren Street 

Missoula, MT 59802 

Dan Smith 

Director of Regulatory Affairs 

Assoc. of California Water Agencies 

910 K Street, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

John Beuttler 

Calif. Sportfishing Protection Alliance 

1360 Neilson Street 

Berkeley, CA 94702 

Sidney Mannheim 

Senior Staff Counsel 

California Electricity Oversight Board 

770 L Street, Suite 1250 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Stephan Volker 

Calif. Sportfishing Prot. Alliance, 

Friends of the Eel River, and Pacific 

Coast Fed. of Fishermen’s Assoc. 

c/o Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker 

436 14th Street 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Orlando Foote 

Attorney 

Calif. Generation Coalition 

and Individual Members 

c/o Horton, Knox, Carter & Foote 

895 Broadway 

El Centro, CA 92243 
8-23 

Traci Bone 

California Public Utilities 

Commission 

505 Van Ness Avenue, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

John Whittaker 

Chili Bar Project LLC 

c/o Winston & Strawn LLP 

1700 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 2006-3817 

Eric R. Klinkner 

Assistant General Manager 

Dept. of Water & Power 

150 S. Los Robles, Suite 200 

Pasadena, CA 91101 

Mark Perlis 

Duke Energy North America, LLC 

c/o Dickstein Shapiro Morin & 

Oshinsky LLP 

1825 Eye Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20006-5403 

Jennifer Carville 

Friends of the River 

915 20th Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814-3115 

Steve R. Lavigne 

Duke Energy Trading & Marketing 

257 E 200 Street, No. 1000 

Salt Lake City, TU 84111-2048 

R. Winston Bell, Jr. 

Vice President 

Foothill Conservancy 

20123 Shake Ridge Rd. 

Volcano, CA 95689 

JoAnn Russell 

VP and General Counsel 

Duke Energy Trading & Marketing 

5400 Westheimer Ct., #4G63 

Houston, TX 77056 

Steven G. Lins 

Assistant City Attorney 

City of Glendale 

613 E. Broadway, Suite 220 

Glendale, CA 91206-4308 

Tamara C. Falor 

Esquire 

County of Humboldt 

825 5th Street 

Eureka, CA 95501-1153 

John Steffan 

Imperial Irrigation District 

P.O. Box 937 

333 E. Barioni Blvd. 

Imperial, CA 92251-1773 

Norman Pedersen 

Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power 

c/o Hanna and Morton LLP 

444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2916 

Robert Pettinato 

Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power 

P.O. Box 51111 

Los Angeles, CA 90051-5700 

Ronald S. Nelson 

General Manager 

Nevada Irrigation District 

P.O. Box 1019 

Grass Valley, CA 95945-1019 
8-24 

Jeffrey Meith 

Nevada Irrigation District, 

Solano Irrigation District and 

Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District 

c/o Meith, Soares & Sexton, LLP 

1681 Bird Street 

Oroville, CA 95965 

Willliam T. Grader 

Executive Director 

Pacific Coast Federation of 

Fishermen’s Associations 

P.O. Box 29370 

San Francisco, CA 94129-0370 

William V. Manheim 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

P.O. Box 7442 

San Francisco, CA 94120-7442 

Karl W. Meyer 

Northern California Power Agency 

180 Cirby Way 

Roseville, CA 95678-6420 

Les Nicholson 

Hydro Manager 

Nevada Irrigation District 

28311 Secret Town Rd. 

Colfax, CA 95713-9473 

Randal S. Livingston 

Lead Director 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

P.O. Box 770000 

San Francisco, CA 94177-0001 

Neil Wong 

License Coordinator 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

P.O. Box 770000, N11c 

San Francisco, CA 94177 

Michael Glaze 

General Manager 

Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District 

2310 Oro Quincy Hwy 

Oroville, CA 95966-5226 

PG&E Law Dept. – FERC Cases 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

77 Beale Street 

Room 3120, B30A 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Bruno Jeider 

Sr. Electrical Engineer 

Public Service Dept. of Burbank CA 

164 W. Magnolia Blvd. 

Burbank, CA 91502-1720 

Matthew A Fogelson 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

77 Beale Street 

San Francisco, CA 94120 

David Arthur 

Redding Electric Utility 

P.O. Box 496071 

Redding, CA 96049-6071 

Lon W. House 

Regional Council of Rural Counties 

4901 Flying C Road 

Cameron Park, CA 95682 

Kirby Bosley 

Manager 

Reliant Energy Wholesale Group 

P.O. Box 148 

Houston, TX 77001-0148 
8-25 

Kurt W. Bilas 

Reliant Energy Power Generation 

1901 N Moore Street, Suite 802 

Arlington, VA 22209-1728 

Arlen Orchard, Esquire 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

6201 S Street 

Sacramento, CA 95817-1818 

Charles Sensiba 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

c/o Van Ness Feldman P.C. 

1050 Thomas Jefferson St., NW 

Washington, DC 20007 

Raymond C. Camacho 

Assistant Director of Electric 

Silicon Valley Power 

1500 Woarburton Ave. 

Santa Clara, CA 95050 

Michael Pretto 

Silicon Valley Power 

1500 Warburton Ave. 

Santa Clara, CA 95050-3713 

Terry Davis 

Sierra Club – Mother Lode Chapter 

1414 K. Street, Suite 500 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Robert Isaac 

General Manager 

Solano Irrigation District 

508 Elmira Rd. 

Vacaville, CA 95687-4931 

Catherine Giovannoni 

Southern California Edison Company 

c/o Steptoe & Johnson LLP 

1330 Connecticut Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Michael D. Mackness 

Southern California Edison Company 

P.O. Box 800 

Rosemead, CA 91770-0800 

Michael T. Brommer 

Turlock Irrigation District 

333 E. Canal Drive 

Turlock, CA 95380-3946 

Steve Felte 

General Manager 

Tri-Dam Project 

P.O. Box 1158 

Pinecrest, CA 95364 

Legal Department 

Office of the Solicitor 

U.S. Department of Interior 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20240-0001 

Erica Niebauer 

Office of the Regional Solicitor 

U.S. Department of Interior 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite E1712 

Sacramento, CA 95825-1863 

Chris Watson 

Attorney-Advisor 

U.S. Department of Interior 

1819 C Street, N.W., MS 6513 

Washington, DC 20240 
8-26 

Regional Director 

Pacific Region 

U.S. Department of Interior 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2605 

Sacramento, CA 95825-1886 

Alex Goldberg 

Counsel 

The Williams Companies 

P.O. Box 2400 

Tulsa, OK 74102-2400 

John Bezdek 

Division of Land and Water 

U.S. Department of Interior 

1849 C Street, NW. MS 6412 

Washington, DC 

Martin Bauer 

Bureau of Reclamation 

U.S. Department of Interior 

3310 El Camino Ave., Suite 300 

Sacramento, CA 95821-6377 

FERC Coordinator 

U.S. Department of Interior 

8550 23rd Street 

Sacramento, CA 95826 

Kaylee A. Allen 

U.S. Department of Interior 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite E1712 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Roger Pelote 

The Williams Companies 

12736 Califa Street 

Valley Village, CA 91607-1011 

Curt Aikens 

General Manager 

Yuba County Water Agency 

1220 F Street 

Marysville, CA 95901 

Director 

Calif. Sportfishing Protection Alliance 

P.O. Box 1790 

Graeagle, CA 96103-1790 

Chief 

Calif. Dept. of Parks and Recreation 

P.O. Box 942896 

Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 

Coordinator 

California Dept. of Fish and Game 

P.O. Box 944209 

Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 

MaryLisa F. Lynch 

California Dept. of Fish and Game 

1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A 

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 

California Dept. of Conservation 

801 K Street, MS 24-01 

Sacramento, CA 95814-3500 

California Air Resources Board 

P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812-2815 

Environmental Services Division 

California Fish & Game Commission 

1416 9th Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814-5511 

Attorney General 

Office of the Attorney General 

300 S. Spring St., FL 2 

Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230 
8-27 

Matthew R. Campbell 

California Office of Attorney General 

1300 I Street, #125 

Sacramento, CA 95814-2919 

Ivonne R. Richardson 

El Dorado County 

P.O. Box 472 

Placerville, CA 9566-0472 

Secretary 

Calif. Public Utilities Commission 

505 Van Ness Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94102-3214 

California State Lands Commission 

100 Howe Ave, Suite 100 South 

Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 

Donn Furman 

Exec. Director 

Committee to Save the Kings River 

P.O. Box 4221 

Fresno, CA 93744-4221 

Cherilyn E. Widell 

Director 

Calif. Office of Historic Preservation 

P.O. Box 294896 

Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 

William Robert Alcott 

District Manager 

El Dorado Irrigation District 

2890 Mosquito Road 

Placerville, CA 95667-4761 

Robert J. Reeb 

General Manager 

El Dorado County Water Agency 

330 Fair Ln. 

Placerville, CA 95667-4103 

William Robert Alxorr 

District Manager 

County of El Dorado 

330 Fair Lane 

Placerville, CA 95667-4103 

Regional Engineer 

Federal Energy Regulatory Comm. 

Portland Regional Office 

101 SW Main Street, Suite 905 

Portland, CA 97204-3217 

Edward J. Perez 

Federal Energy Regulatory Comm. 

101 SW Main Street, Suite 905 

Portland, CA 97204-3217 

General Manager 

Imperial Irrigation District 

P.O. Box 937 

Imperial, CA 92551-0937 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200 

Long Beach, CA 90802-4221 

Kathleen A. Smith 

Clerk of the Board 

Placer County Water Agency 

P.O. Box 6570 

Auburn, CA 95604-6570 

Resources Agency of California 

1416 9th Street, Room 1311 

Sacramento, CA 95814-5511 

South Fork Dialog 

P.O. Box 562 

Coloma, CA 95613-0562 
8-28 

William L. Wilkins 

Interim General Manager 

South Fork Dialog 

c/o El Dorado Irrigation District 

2890 Mosquito Rd. 

Placerville, CA 95667-4761 

Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

ARCATA FWO 

1655 Heindon Road 

Arcata, CA 95521-4573 

Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2493 Portola Rd., Suite B 

Ventura, CA 93003-7726 

Regional Director 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Attn: FERC Coordinator 

911 NE 11th Ave 

Portland, CA 97232-4169 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

San Francisco District Office 

333 Market Street, FL 8 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2102 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

2800 Cottage Way 

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

California State Office 

2800 Cottage Way, Suite W1834 

Sacramento, CA 95825-1886 

Field Manager 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

626 E. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 200 

Milwaukee, WI 53202-4618 

District Chief 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Placer Hall 

6000 J. Street, Suite 2012 

Sacramento, CA 95819-6129 

James Canaday 

Senior Environmental Scientist 

Water Resources Control Board 

P.O. Box 2000 

Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 

Kathy Mrowka 

Water Resources Board 

Division of Water Rights 

1001 I Street, FL 15 

Sacramento, CA 95814-2828 

Regional Director 

Attn: LC 705 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

P.O. Box 61470 

Boulder City, CA 8900-1470 

California Department of Water 

Resources 

P.O. Box 942836 

Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 
APPENDIX A 

UPPER AMERICAN RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC No. 2101) 

AND 

CHILI BAR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC No. 2155) 

CALIFORNIA 

CLEAN AIR ACT CONFORMITY ANALYSIS 
This page intentionally left blank.
A-iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................A-1 

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT.................................................................A-1 

1.2 CLEAN AIR CONFORMITY ..................................................................A-2 

2.0 GENERAL CONFORMITY................................................................................A-3 

2.1 ATTAINMENT AND NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS............................A-3 

2.2 DE MINIMUS EMISSION LEVELS........................................................A-3 

2.3 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY...............................................................A-4 

3.0 ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................A-7 

3.1 ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS .............................................A-7 

3.1.1 No-Action Alternative.................................................................A-7 

3.1.2 SMUD’s Proposal: Iowa Hill Development................................A-7 

3.1.3 UARP-Only Alternative ..............................................................A-8 

3.2 EMISSIONS SOURCE DETERMINATION...........................................A-8 

3.3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS..............................................................A-8 

3.4 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS...............................................................A-13 

3.4.1 Operational Emissions from No-Action (Baseline) AlternativeA-13 

3.4.2 Operational Emissions from UARP-Only Alternative..............A-13 

3.4.3 Operational Emissions from Proposed Iowa Hill DevelopmentA-18 

3.4.4 Air Emissions Resulting From SCT for Additional On-Peak 

Generation .................................................................................A-18 

3.4.5 Air Emissions Resulting From CCT or Coal-Fired Unit for 

Additional Off-Peak Generation ...............................................A-19 

3.5 CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY TEST FOR DE MINIMUS LEVELS— 

TOTAL PROJECT-INDUCED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FROM 

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.................................................A-19 

4.0 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................A-23 

ATTACHMENT A—CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ANALYSIS 

ATTACHMENT B—OPERATIONAL EMISSION ANALYSIS 
A-iv 

This page intentionally left blank.
A-v 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2-1. De minimus emission levels for applicable air pollutants.........................A-4 

Table 3-1. Maximum daily construction emissions during peak year 

(pounds per day)......................................................................................A-12 

Table 3-2. Annual construction emissions during peak year (tons per year) ...........A-12 

Table 3-3. Energy generation and requirement for all project alternatives 

(post 2014)...............................................................................................A-14 

Table 3-4a. Peak-year annual operational emissions for the no-action alternative 

(prior to 2015) .........................................................................................A-15 

Table 3-4b. Peak-year annual operational emissions for the no-action alternative 

 (post 2014)..............................................................................................A-15 

Table 3-5a Peak annual operational emissions for the UARP-only alternative 

(prior to 2015) .........................................................................................A-16 

Table 3-5b Peak annual operational emissions for the UARP-only alternative 

(post 2014)...............................................................................................A-17 

Table 3-6. Annual peak-year operational emissions from the SMUD-proposed action 

with Iowa Hill Development (post 2014)................................................A-18 

Table 3-7. Peak-year project-induced annual emissions during Iowa Hill 

construction period (prior to 2015). ........................................................A-21 

Table 3-8. Peak-year project-induced annual emissions following Iowa Hill 

construction period (Post 2014) ..............................................................A-22 
A-vi 

This page intentionally left blank.
A-vii 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CO Carbon monoxide 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

EIS environmental impact statement 

oF degrees Fahrenheit 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FPA Federal Power Act 

GCR General Conformity Rule 

HC hydrocarbons 

kg kilogram 

kV kilovolt 

mmBtu million British thermal units 

mph miles per hour 

MW megawatt 

MWh megawatt-hours 

MWR Morale, Welfare and Recreation 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOx oxides of nitrogen 

NSR non-Attainment New Source Review 

O3 ozone 

Pb airborne lead 

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

Projects UARP and Chili Bar Project 

PM particulate matter 

PM2.5 particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 

um 

PM10 particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter less than 10 

um 

PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

TPY tons per year 

UARP Upper American River Project 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

VOC volatile organic compounds 
A-viii 

This page intentionally left blank.
A-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Office of Energy Projects 

has retained the services of The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger), to perform a 

conformity determination with respect to proposed relicensing to the Upper American 

River Project (UARP or Project No. 2101) and the Chili Bar Hydroelectric Project 

(Project No. 2155). In support of the environmental impact statement (EIS) being 

prepared, Berger is performing a conformity determination for the Projects, pursuant to 

the provisions of 40 CFR 93.150 for General Conformity, to assess emissions that would 

result from construction and operation of the Projects 

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 

The Upper American River Project (UARP or Project No. 2101) is a hydroelectric 

project located in El Dorado and Sacramento County, California within the Rubicon 

River, Silver Creek, and the South Fork of the American River (SFAR) drainages and 

operated by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). The Chili Bar 

Hydroelectric Project (Project No. 2155), operated by the Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (PG&E), is located on the SFAR in El Dorado County, California. The 

Projects have common stakeholders and issues, as well as operational and hydraulic 

interrelationships. The UARP can generate up to 688 megawatt (MW) of power, while 

the Chili Bar Project provides an additional capacity of 7 MW. 

PG&E and SMUD entered into two relicensing cooperation agreements that 

defined the common relicensing issues between the Projects’ overlapping issues. These 

overlapping issues are related to flows into and out of Chili Bar reservoir and operational 

coordination. Both SMUD’s and PG&E’s license applications outlined their proposals to 

continue operating the UARP and the Chili Bar Project in accordance with certain 

existing and interim operational and environmental measures. 

As part of the relicensing process, SMUD proposes to increase electrical capacity 

of the UARP by constructing the Iowa Hill pumped storage development (Iowa Hill 

development). The Proposed Action includes the construction of a new upper reservoir 

atop Iowa Hill and operation of the completed pump-storage facility with capability to 

generate 400 MW of electricity. The existing Project produces an average of 

approximately 1,835,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) of power annually. The Iowa Hill 

development is not expected to significantly change the Project's average annual energy 

production, but by using off-peak energy to pump water to the storage basin and then 

releasing water through the powerhouse during peak periods, SMUD would significantly 

increase the generated energy's value and water use efficiency. 

The DEIS concludes that issuing a new license for the Chili Bar Project as 

proposed by PG&E with staff modifications would best achieve proper use, conservation, 

and comprehensive development of the Chili Bar Project and the Upper American River. 
A-2 

Furthermore, continuing operations of the Chili Bar Project would not substantially 

increase air emissions. As such, an air conformity analysis was performed only for 

alternatives related to the UARP. 

1.2 CLEAN AIR CONFORMITY 

The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Conformity Rules 

require federal agencies to conform to State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Requirements 

and procedures have been established by the US Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and federal agencies to ensure that federal sponsored or approved actions will 

comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and conform to the 

appropriate SIPs. The conformity rules apply to designated non-attainment or 

maintenance areas for criteria pollutants regulated under NAAQS. The SIPs are the 

approved state air quality regulations that provide policies, requirements, and goals for 

the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. SIPs include 

emission limitations and control measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

The EPA has developed two conformity regulations for transportation and nontransportation projects. Transportation projects are governed by the “transportation 

conformity” regulations (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93). Non-transportation projects are 

governed by the “general conformity” regulations (40 CFR Parts 6, 51 and 93) described 

in the final rule for Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or 

Federal Implementation Plans. Since the proposed project is a non-transportation project, 

the general conformity rule applies. 

The general conformity determination and applicability analysis have been 

prepared as supplements to the EIS for the Projects. Air emissions of the proposed 

actions during construction and operation of the Project Alternatives, including UARPonly (without the Iowa Hill development), UARP with the Iowa Hill development, and 

No-Action Alternative, were evaluated for air conformity purposes. 
A-3 

2.0 GENERAL CONFORMITY 

2.1 ATTAINMENT AND NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS 

The General Conformity Rule applies to federal actions occurring in air quality 

regions designated as being in non-attainment for the NAAQS or attainment areas subject 

to maintenance plans (maintenance areas). Federal actions occurring in attainment areas 

are not subject to the conformity rules. A criteria pollutant is a pollutant for which an air 

quality standard has been established under the CAA. Under the requirements of the 

1970 CAA, as amended in 1977 and 1990, the EPA established NAAQS, for six criteria 

pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone 

(O3), inhalable particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). Non-attainment 

designation is based on the exceedances or violations of the air quality standard. A 

maintenance plan establishes measures to control emissions to ensure that the air quality 

standard is maintained in areas that have been re-designated as attainment from a 

previous non-attainment status. 

The proposed Projects would take place in Sacramento County and El Dorado 

County, California. These impact areas are currently designated as serious nonattainment for 8-hour ozone, and as CO maintenance (previously nonattainment) areas. 

Sacramento County is also designated as moderate non-attainment for PM10. The project 

areas are designated as attainment for other criteria pollutants. Thus, ozone (O3), CO, 

and PM10 are the primary pollutants of concern. O3 is principally formed through 

chemical reactions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in 

the atmosphere; therefore, emissions of NOx and VOC need to be included in the 

conformity analysis. 

2.2 DE MINIMUS EMISSION LEVELS 

Threshold (de minimis) rates of emissions for federal actions with the potential to 

have significant air quality impacts are established in 40 CFR 93.153. Under the general 

conformity rule, net emissions resulting from proposed federal action must be compared 

to the applicable de minimis levels on an annual basis. A formal conformity 

determination is required when the annual direct and indirect emissions from a federal 

action, occurring in a non-attainment or maintenance area, equals or exceeds the de 

minimis level. Table 2-1 lists the established de minimis levels for each criteria pollutant; 

de minimis levels for emissions included in the UARP Conformity Analysis are 

highlighted in gray. 
A-4 

Table 2-1. De minimus emission levels for applicable air pollutants 

Pollutant Non-attainment / Maintenance Designation TPY 

Serious 50 

Severe 25 

Extreme 10 

Other non-attainment areas outside ozone transport 

region 

100 

Ozone 

(Precursors VOCs or 

NOx) 

Marginal and moderate non-attainment areas inside 

ozone transport region 

50/100 

Carbon monoxide All 100 

Sulfur dioxide All 100 

Lead All 25 

Nitrogen dioxide All 100 

Particulate matter Moderate 100 

Serious 70 

2.3 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 

Per the provisions of 40 CFR 93.150, federal agencies are required to perform a 

conformity determination when the emissions in non-attainment or maintenance areas 

would total or exceed thresholds emission levels. “Federal action,” as defined in the 

Conformity Rules, means any activity engaged in by a federal agency, or any activity that 

a federal agency supports in any way, provides financial assistance for, licenses, permits, 

or approves, other than activities related to transportation plans, programs, and projects 

developed, funded, or approved under Title 23 USC or the Federal Transit Act (49 USC 

§5301 et seq.). Where the federal action is a permit, license, or other approval for some 

aspect of a nonfederal undertaking, the relevant activity is the part, portion, or phase of 

the nonfederal undertaking that required the federal permit, license, or approval. 

Therefore, the proposed action is defined as activities related to the re-licensing of the 

UARP. 
A-5 

Per the provisions of 40 CFR 93.150, a full conformity determination is required if 

calculated net emissions are above de minimis in non-attainment or maintenance areas. 

Net emissions are estimated as the difference in annual peak-year emissions between the 

action being analyzed and baseline condition, which is the no action alternative in this 

case. 

The proposed action would be subject to conformity requirements if net project 

VOC or NOx emissions above baseline conditions exceed 50 tons per year, or if CO or 

PM net emissions exceed 100 tons per year. Other pollutants do not need to be included 

in the conformity analysis since the area is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for 

all other criteria pollutants. The conformity determination consists of an emission netting 

analysis and comparison with applicability thresholds. The detailed methodologies and 

procedures for air emission calculations and general conformity demonstration are 

described below. 
A-6 

This page intentionally left blank.
A-7 

3.0 ANALYSIS 

The conformity analysis for a federal action examines the effects of the direct and 

indirect net air emissions from all sources compared to baseline conditions. Direct 

emissions are emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors that are caused or initiated 

by a federal action and occur at the same time and place as the action. Indirect emissions, 

occurring later in time and/or further removed in distance from the action itself, must be 

included in the determination if both of the followings apply; the federal agency can 

practicably control the emissions and has continuing program responsibility to maintain 

control and the emissions caused by the federal action are reasonably foreseeable. 

3.1 ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS 

The three alternatives proposed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

Hydropower License (FERC Project Nos. 2101 and 2155) include both construction and 

operations-related activities that may effect air emissions in the Project Area. 

3.1.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the UARP and Chili Bar Project would continue 

to operate under the terms and conditions of the existing licenses, and no new 

environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

This alternative establishes baseline environmental conditions for comparison of net 

emissions produced under the other alternatives. Under the No-Action Alternative, a 

Simple-Cycle Turbine (SCT) system will be added for additional on-peak use. These 

stationary combustion turbines use natural gas to generate shaft power that is converted 

into electricity. 

3.1.2 SMUD’s Proposal: Iowa Hill Development 

As part of the re-licensing process, SMUD proposes to increase electrical capacity 

of the UARP by constructing the Iowa Hill development, which would operate as a 

pumped storage facility. The Iowa Hill development, as proposed, would be an offstream pumped storage project that makes use of the existing UARP Slab Creek reservoir 

as a lower reservoir and creates a new upper reservoir atop Iowa Hill. A proposed 

underground powerhouse would house two or three, equally sized, reversible, variablespeed pump/turbine units with a rated capacity of 400 MW. Under this alternative, 

SMUD would also seek for additional future off-peak generation with either a preferred 

Combined-Cycle Turbines (CCT) combustion system or conventional coal-fired units for 

supplements of energy supply. A Simple-Cycle Turbine (SCT) system will also be added 

for additional on-peak use. 
A-8 

3.1.3 UARP-Only Alternative 

Under this alternative, all components of SMUD’s Proposal would be established 

with the exception of the Iowa Hill development. SMUD would operate the existing 

UARP facilities. Slab Creek reservoir water level fluctuations under this alternative 

would be the same as existing conditions, while the release schedule for the project dams 

would be the same as with the Iowa Hill development. Without the additional 400 MW 

of capacity from the Iowa Hill development, SMUD would have to meet future peak 

generation needs with replacement facilities, additional on-peak simple cycle peaking 

plants, such as a SCT system, or seek an alternative supplemental energy supply. SMUD 

would also add the additional future off-peak generation with either a preferred CCT 

combustion system or conventional coal-fired units during for supplements of energy 

supply. 

3.2 EMISSIONS SOURCE DETERMINATION 

The General Conformity Rule (GCR) requires that potential emissions generated 

by any project-related demolition or construction activity and/or increased operational 

activities be determined on an annual basis and compared to the annual de minimis levels 

for those pollutants (or their precursors) for which the area is classified as non-attainment 

or maintenance. CO, PM, NOx and VOC emissions attributable to operational activities 

and construction were analyzed. 

In estimating construction-related air pollutants emissions, the EPA NONROAD 

model was utilized. The usage of equipment, the likely duration of each activity, and 

manpower estimates for each activity for the construction were determined by the 

Engineer. In estimating operational-related emissions, the EPA-developed AP-42 

emission factors were used if other emissions information was not provided. 

3.3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS 

Construction-related air emissions include potential direct and indirect VOC, NOx, 

CO, and PM emissions generated by construction equipment and vehicles. Emissions 

may result from the use of construction equipment, equipment mobilization, site 

preparation, foundations, exterior masonry work, interior and exterior utilities, structures 

demolition and construction, and exterior pavement around structures. Construction 

activities would involve operations of on-site construction equipment and motor vehicles, 

including construction material delivery trucks and workers’ commuting vehicles, and 

dusts from earth surface handling activities. Since the maximum annual emissions would 

result from all lots being constructed at the same time, the number and type of equipment 

necessary for construction activities were determined in aggregate for the project. 
A-9 

In estimating air emissions from construction activities, the usage of equipment 

and the duration of activities for construction were first determined based on the sizes of 

structures and lots to be constructed. To be conservative, all equipment was assumed to 

be diesel-powered unless otherwise noted. Types of equipment to be used include, but 

are not limited to; bull dozers, rigs, crushers, rock saws, drill, scrapers, concrete batch 

plants, dumpers, excavators, compressors, water tanks, cranes, graders, pavers, backhoes, 

dump trucks, front-end loaders, jackhammers, and vibrators. The resulting air emissions 

were then calculated using the EPA provided guidance and emission factors. 

Because there are no construction activities in either the No-Action Alternative or 

the UARP-Only Alternative, construction-related emissions analysis has been performed 

only for the Iowa Hill development. Operational-related air emissions have been 

analyzed for all proposed alternatives. 

Construction of the Iowa Hill development may affect short-term air quality due to 

construction equipment and vehicle emissions, and fugitive dust from earthmoving 

activities. Both potential effects would be temporary (limited to the construction period) 

and local (only occurring in the immediate vicinity of the construction activity). 

Estimates of construction equipment emissions were based on the estimated hours 

of usage and emission factors for each motorized source for the project. Emission factors 

for NOx , VOC, CO, and PM related to heavy-duty diesel equipment were obtained from 

EPA NONROAD Model (Version 2005c, February 2006) and relevant Vehicle Emission 

Study Reports (EPA). Emission factors are available for hydrocarbons (HC), which 

include all VOC as well as other non-VOC constituents; therefore, HC emissions 

represent a conservative estimate of VOC emissions. 

Emission factors in grams of pollutant per hour per horsepower were multiplied by 

the estimated running time and equipment associated average horsepower provided by 

the EPA to calculate total grams of pollutant from each piece of equipment. Total grams 

of pollutant were converted to tons of pollutant. 

The EPA NONROAD model recommends the following formula to calculate 

hourly emissions from nonroad engine sources: 

Mi = N x HP x LF x EFi

Where: 

Mi = mass of emissions of pollutants. 

N = source population (units). 

HP = average rated horsepower. 

LF = typical load factor. 
A-10 

EFi = average emissions of pollutant per unit of use (e.g., grams per 

horsepower-hour). 

Estimated emissions from construction activities are presented in Attachment A. 

Construction of the Iowa Hill Development will occur in two phases. During the first 

phase, which will last approximately 24 months, material will be excavated from the 

upper storage reservoir and tunnel sites. The second phase, which will extend from 

month 25 to month 49, will include the construction of the upper storage reservoir berm, 

drain structure, and impermeable surface bottom, and the installation of generating 

equipment in the underground facilities. Emissions will be greatest during Phase I due to 

the large volume of material excavated; therefore this phase was evaluated for worst-case 

(peak-year 2009) air emissions. Other years will have lesser emissions from the 

construction sites. 

Heavy construction equipment and truck emissions for the Iowa Hill development 

would be generated from the engine exhaust pipes of diesel construction equipment and 

trucks used for 1) the excavation and transport of materials; 2) the boring and lining of 

underground tunnels and caverns and transport of spoils; 3) surface dust control in upper 

reservoir and stockpiling areas; and 4) delivery of equipment and materials to the 

construction site. 

Fugitive dust emissions from the excavation of the upper reservoir site and the 

tunnels would be associated with excavation and transport of topsoil; ripping and 

transport of weathered rock; blasting, loading, and transport of basin rock; and transport 

of tunnel spoils. In addition, wind erosion of areas disturbed during construction 

activities may contribute emissions. Commuting and delivery motor vehicles operations 

would result in indirect emissions. The activities that are subject to the general 

conformity determination include vehicles’ operations within project areas. Per 

engineering and construction team estimates, motor vehicles operations are assumed to be 

as follows: 

• On-Road (off-site) delivery vehicles would travel at an average speed of 25 

miles per hour, for a total estimated 15 deliveries per working day with 45 

minutes on-site idling time per visit. 

• Each commuter vehicles would make an average round trip of 60 miles within 

project areas at an average speed of 25 mph. 

• Average number of commuting worker vehicles would be 130 per working 

days. 

• There would be 264 working days per construction year. 

Emission factors for motor vehicles were calculated for 2009 for both delivery 

vehicles (heavy duty diesel vehicles) and commuter vehicles (light duty gasoline 
A-11 

vehicles) using the EPA Mobile6.2 mobile source emission factor model associated with 

regional parameters. 

Under the proposal, SMUD would develop and implement an Iowa Hill 

Development Construction Dust and Exhaust Emissions Abatement Plan in consultation 

with interested parties. Under the plan proposed measures would potentially minimize 

exhaust and fugitive dust emissions during construction of the Iowa Hill development, 

including: 

• Operational measures, such as limiting engine idling time and shutting down 

equipment when not in use; 

• Regular preventive maintenance to prevent emission increases resulting from 

engine problems; 

• Use of low sulfur and low aromatic fuel meeting California standards for 

motor vehicle diesel fuel; 

• Regular preventive maintenance to prevent emission increases resulting from 

engine problems; 

• Use of low-emitting diesel engines meeting federal emissions standards for 

construction equipment, if available; 

• Use of either water application or chemical dust suppressant application to 

control dust emissions from unpaved surface travel and unpaved parking 

areas; 

• Use of vacuum sweeping and/or water flushing of paved road surface to 

remove buildup of loose material to control dust emissions from travel on the 

paved access road (including adjacent public streets impacted by construction 

activities) and paved parking areas; 

• Require all onsite haul trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; 

• Limit on-site traffic speeds on unpaved surfaces to 20 mph; 

• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to 

roadways; 

• Re-plant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; and 

• As needed, use gravel pads along with wheel washers or wash tires of all 

trucks exiting Mitigate fugitive dust emissions from wind erosion of areas 

disturbed from construction activities (including storage piles) by application 

of either water or chemical dust suppressant and/or use of windbreaks. 

To determine the potential worst-case (peak-year) construction emissions, the 

engine exhausts and dust emission rates were evaluated for each source of emissions 

according to construction schedule. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 present the estimated worst-case 
A-12 

maximum daily and annual heavy equipment exhaust and fugitive dust emissions with 

proposed measures discussed above for onsite construction activities during peak-year of 

construction. Detailed emissions analyses and procedures for various heavy construction 

equipment, trucks, and fugitive dust emissions are presented in Attachment A. 

The emissions resulting from heavy equipment and trucks during construction 

under the Iowa Hill Alternative, as shown on table 3-2, also represent the net emission 

increases versus the No-Action Alternative, which has no construction-related emissions. 

These net increases for NOx, CO, VOC, and PM are all below de minimus levels and 

meet the conformity thresholds. The SOx emissions shown in the tables are for 

references only, since the Projects are within sulfur dioxide attainment area and are not 

subject to conformity requirement. 

Table 3-1. Maximum daily construction emissions during peak year (pounds per day) 

Emission Source NOx CO VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

On-site heavy equipment and 

trucks 

484.5 197.7 41.3 1.1 35.6 33.1 

Fugitive dust 234.5 46.1 

Vehicles for deliveries (on-road) 11.2 3.3 1.5 0.1 0.4 0.3 

Worker travel vehicles (on-road) 12.0 85.9 9.2 0.1 0.7 0.6 

Total construction emissions 507.7 286.9 52.0 1.3 271.2 80.1 

Table 3-2. Annual construction emissions during peak year (tons per year) 

Emission Source NOx CO VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

On-site heavy construction 

equipment and trucks 

44.3 18.3 4.0 0.1 3.4 3.2 

Fugitive dust 31.0 6.1 

Vehicles for deliveries (on-road) 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.02 0.06 0.05 

Worker travel vehicles (on-road) 0.1 9.8 1.1 0.01 0.07 0.05 

Total construction Emissions 44.60 28.70 5.40 0.13 34.50 9.40 

De minimus emission Levels 50 100 50 100a 100 100 

a

 Sulfur dioxide de minimus level does not apply to the projects 
A-13 

3.4 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS 

The existing UARP produces renewable energy by using available stream flow 

within the two river basins in which the project is located. Conventional hydroelectric 

generation is a reliable, efficient, economical, and less polluting source of energy than 

burning fossil fuels. As water flows downstream, conventional hydro projects store and 

then release the water to convert the potential energy into electricity through hydraulic 

turbines that are connected to generators. The water exits the turbines and is returned to a 

stream. To evaluate air emissions resulting from UARP future operations, the energy 

generations for all Projects Alternatives were evaluated. 

3.4.1 Operational Emissions from No-Action (Baseline) Alternative 

Hydropower, defined by EPA as clean energy, has nearly zero air quality impacts 

during operations (electricity generation). Under the No-Action (baseline) alternative, 

the UARP generates an average of 1,835,000 MWh of emissions-free energy annually. 

Hydropower’s air emissions are negligible for criteria pollutants because no fuels are 

burned. In the UARP relicensing proceeding, SMUD proposes to add 400-MW of 

pumped storage capacity to the existing conventional hydropower generation at the 

project. Unlike conventional hydropower generation, pumped storage generation uses an 

upper and lower reservoir and pumps water to the upper reservoir for use in generating 

power to meet peak loads. So that all the alternatives we evaluate have the same total 

generation, we’ve assumed that under the No-Action Alternative SMUD would meet its 

peak load needs by adding a simple cycle turbine (SCT) system built to generate the same 

additional on-peak energy of 931,000 MWh as the proposed Iowa Hill Pumped Storage 

development and this would contribute air emissions. Additionally, we add 43,000 MWh 

of off-peak energy to the baseline such that the alternative would be directly comparable 

to an alternative with Iowa Hill. The first column of table 3-3 shows the generation from 

the No-Action Alternative and table 3-4a and table3-4b summarize emissions from the 

existing hydroelectric operations and added on-peak SCT generation. The detailed 

emission analysis is included in attachment B. 

3.4.2 Operational Emissions from UARP-Only Alternative 

Under the UARP-only alternative, the existing UARP facilities would operate in a 

manner identical to the Proposed Action, without construction of Iowa Hill development. 

As column 2 of table 3-3 shows, the UARP-Only Alternative would result in the annual 

generation of 1,699,000 MWh of conventional hydroelectric energy, resulting in a 

reduction of about 136,000 MWh from the No-Action Alternative. This reduction in 

generation compared to the No-Action Alternative is caused by the proposed 

environmental measures in the relicensing settlement agreement. We’ve added 

generation in our analysis to replace this energy. 
A-14 

Similar to the No-Action Alternative, operation of the existing UARP facilities 

would not result in any atmospheric emission of criteria pollutants, or other hazardous 

material that can affect air quality. However, without the Iowa Hill Development, 

SMUD would have to meet future peak generation needs by using other resources, or 

purchasing power from the energy market. To account for both the reduction in 

generation from environmental measures and the added peak generation Iowa Hill 

provides we’ve added on-peak SCT generation (1,001,000 MWh47), and by off-peak CCT 

or coal-fired units (109,000 MWh48) (See table 3-3) to the baseline. The replacement 

energy generation from all involved gas turbines or fossil fuel facilities would result in 

regional air emissions associated with operations. Table 3-5a and table 3-5b estimate the 

near-term (prior to 2015) and future (post 2015) emissions related to the UARP-Only 

Alternative’s use of various systems. These emissions are compared to the No-Action 

emissions, to obtain the net emission increases or decreases for the conformity test of de 

minimus levels. 

Table 3-3. Energy generation and requirement for all project alternatives (post 2014) 

UARP Operation 

No Action Plus 

SCT for Peaking 

Proposed Action 

Without Iowa 

Hill 

Proposed 

Action With 

Iowa Hill 

Staff 

Alternative 

Capacity (MW) 688 688 1,088 1,088 

Energy generation: 

Super-peak generation 

(MWh) 

0 0 931,000 931,000 

On-peak generation (MWh) 1,287,000 1,217,000 1,217,000 1,217,000 

Off-peak generation (MWh) 548,000 482,000 525,000 525,000 

Total UARP Hydroelectric 

Generation (MWh) 

1,835,000 1,699,000 2,673,000 2,673,000 

Pump back energy 

requirements (MWh) 

-- -- 1,230,000 1,230,000 

Net UARP Energy 

generation (MWh) 

1,835,000 1,699,000 1,443,000 1,443,000 

Replacement of delta energy 

between no action and 

alternatives

 

 

47Computed by adding the 931,000 MWh of on-peak added to the baseline plus 

70,000 MWh in replacement on-peak energy due to environmental measures. 

48Computed by adding the 43,000 MWh of off-peak added to the baseline plus 

66,000 MWh in replacement off-peak energy due to environmental measures. 
A-15 

UARP Operation 

No Action Plus 

SCT for Peaking 

Proposed Action 

Without Iowa 

Hill 

Proposed 

Action With 

Iowa Hill 

Staff 

Alternative 

On-peak replacement 

(MWh) 

-- 70,000 (861,000) (861,000) 

Off-peak replacement 

(MWh) 

 66,000 23,000 23,000 

 

Replacement subtotal 

(MWh)

-- 136,000 392,000 392,000 

Other supply units: 

Additional on-peak from 

SCT 

931,000 1,001,000 70,000 70,000 

Additional off-peak from 

CCT or Coal 

43,000 109,000 1,296,000 1,296,000 

Other Supply Subtotal 974,000 1,110,000 1,366,000 1,366,000 

Total net energy (MWh) 

under Project Alternative 

2,809,000 2,809,000 2,809,000 2,809,000 

Table 3-4a. Peak-year annual operational emissions for the no-action alternative (prior 

to 2015) 

Peak-Year Annual Emissions (tons per year) 

 

Annual Energy 

Generation 

(MWh) NOx CO VOC PM10 SO2

Hydroelectric 1,835,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

No-Action Sub-total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Table 3-4b. Peak-year annual operational emissions for the no-action alternative (post 

2014). 

Peak-Year Annual Emissions (tons per year) 

 

Annual Energy 

Generation 

(MWh) NOx CO VOC PM10 SO2

Hydroelectric 1,835,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

On-peak generation 

from SCT 931,000 77.7 38.2 22.3 9.3 11.2 

Off-peak generation 
A-16 

Peak-Year Annual Emissions (tons per year) 

 

Annual Energy 

Generation 

(MWh) NOx CO VOC PM10 SO2

Option 1 Combined 

Cycle 43,000 2.2 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.5 

Option 2 Coal-fired unit 43,000 2.4 2.3 0.4 0.8 2.2 

Combined cycle subtotal 79.9 39.1 23.2 9.7 11.7 

Coal-fired unit subtotal 80.1 40.5 22.8 10.1 13.4 

Sources: 

a

 USEPA, AP-42, Volume 1, Fifth Edition, 2005, 1 MWh = 3.41 MMBtu. 

b

 California Energy Commission, November 2001 

c

 SMUD, July 2006. 

d

 Engineering, Construction, Environmental and Consulting Solutions (ECECS) Tech. Paper “Emission 

Comparison: IGCC vs. Conventional Coal vs. Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine,” 2002, for Power-Gen 

International 

e

 SOTA (State of the Art) Manual for Stationary Combustion Turbines (NJDEP, 2004) 

Table 3-5a Peak annual operational emissions for the UARP-only alternative (prior to 

2015) 

Annual Energy Peak-Year Annual Emissions (tons per year) 

Generation 

(MWh) NOx CO VOC PM10 SO2

Hydroelectric 1,699,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Replacement facilities: 136,000 

On-peak SCT 70,000 5.8 2.9 1.7 0.7 0.8 

Off-peak generation 

Option 1 Combined 

Cycle 66,000 3.3 1.4 1.3 0.7 0.8 

Option 2 Coal-fired 

unit 66,000 3.7 3.6 0.7 1.3 3.4 

Combined cycle subtotal 9.1 4.2 2.9 1.4 1.6 

Coal-fired unit subtotal 9.5 6.5 2.3 2.0 4.2 
A-17 

Sources: 

a

 USEPA, AP-42, Volume 1, Fifth Edition, 2005, 1 MWh = 3.41 MMBtu. 

b

 California Energy Commission, November 2001 

c

 SMUD, July 2006. 

d

 Engineering, Construction, Environmental and Consulting Solutions (ECECS) Tech. Paper 

“Emission Comparison: IGCC vs. Conventional Coal vs. Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine,” 2002, 

for Power-Gen International 

e

 SOTA (State of the Art) Manual for Stationary Combustion Turbines (NJDEP, 2004) 

Table 3-5b. Peak annual operational emissions for the UARP-only alternative (post 

2014). 

Peak-Year Annual Emissions (tons per year) 

UARP-Only (without 

Iowa Hill) 

Annual Energy 

Generation 

(MWh) NOx CO VOC PM10 SO2

Hydroelectric 1,699,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Replacement facilities: 1,110,000 

On-peak SCT 1,001,000 83.6 41.0 24.0 10.0 12.0 

Off-peak generation 

Option 1 Combined 

Cycle 109,000 5.5 2.2 2.1 1.1 1.3 

Option 2 Coal–fired 

unit 109,000 6.0 5.9 1.1 2.1 5.6 

Combined cycle subtotal 89.0 43.3 26.1 11.1 13.3 

Coal-fired unit subtotal 89.6 47.0 25.1 12.1 17.6 

Sources: 

a

 USEPA, AP-42, Volume 1, Fifth Edition, 2005, 1 MWh = 3.41 MMBtu. 

b

 California Energy Commission, November 2001. 

c

 SMUD, July 2006. 

d

 Engineering, Construction, Environmental and Consulting Solutions (ECECS) Tech. Paper 

“Emission Comparison: IGCC vs. Conventional Coal vs. Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine,” 2002, 

for Power-Gen International. 

e

 SOTA (State of the Art) Manual for Stationary Combustion Turbines (NJDEP, 2004) 
A-18 

3.4.3 Operational Emissions from Proposed Iowa Hill Development 

Pumped storage projects store water during off-peak periods that can be rapidly 

released to provide energy generation during on-peak periods. Regional power benefits 

from the new development would include those often referred to as ancillary system 

benefits, including spinning reserves, non-spinning reserves, peaking capacity, and grid 

stability. The generation capacity of the Iowa Hill development would reduce the need to 

produce peak energy using fossil fuel-fired plants. Our analysis shows the Iowa Hill 

development would generate about 931,000 MWh during the super-peak period and 

43,000 MWh off-peak. During Iowa Hill pumping operation, turbines would be reversed 

and 1,230,000 MWh of energy from a tie-in transmission line connected to the CaminoWhite Rock Line will pump water into the upper reservoir, thus reducing the net energy 

generation under this alternative to 1,443,000 MWh. Considering this revision to net 

energy production and future super-peak energy demand, replacement energy by other 

forms of electrical generation would be needed as discussed below. 

3.4.4 Air Emissions Resulting From SCT for Additional On-Peak Generation 

Additional on-peak generation of 70,000 MWh would be included in the Iowa Hill 

alternative. The additional on-peak generation would be produced from a natural gas 

SCT and would provide for the replacement on-peak generation due to environmental 

measures. A SCT would contribute emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), SO2, CO, 

ozone, VOC, and particulate matter. These emissions are listed in table 3-6, which 

summarizes the post 2014 annual peak-year emissions for all units associated with the 

Iowa Hill development. The annual emissions prior to 2015 would be the same as 

UARP-only alternative 

Table 3-6. Annual peak-year operational emissions from the SMUD-proposed action 

with Iowa Hill Development (post 2014). 

Annual Energy Peak-Year Annual Emissions (tons per year) 

Generation 

(MWh) NOx CO VOC PM10 SO2

Hydroelectric 2,673,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Electric Water Pumps -1,230,000 - - - - - 

Replacement facilities 

include: 

On-peak SCT 70,000 5.8 2.9 1.7 0.7 0.8 

Off-peak generation 

Option 1 combined cycle 1,296,000 64.8 26.6 24.6 13.0 15.6 

Option 2 coal–fired unit 1,296,000 71.9 70.6 13.0 25.3 66.1 
A-19 

Annual Energy Peak-Year Annual Emissions (tons per year) 

Generation 

(MWh) NOx CO VOC PM10 SO2

Combined Cycle subtotal 70.6 29.4 26.3 13.7 16.4 

Coal-fired subtotal 77.8 73.5 14.6 26.0 66.9 

Sources: 

a

 USEPA, AP-42, Volume 1, Fifth Edition, 2005, 1 MWh = 3.41 MMBtu. 

b

 California Energy Commission, November 2001 

c

 SMUD, July 2006. 

d

 Engineering, Construction, Environmental and Consulting Solutions (ECECS) Tech. Paper 

“Emission Comparison: IGCC vs. Conventional Coal vs. Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine,” 2002, 

for Power-Gen International 

e

 SOTA (State of the Art) Manual for Stationary Combustion Turbines (NJDEP, 2004) 

3.4.5 Air Emissions Resulting From CCT or Coal-Fired Unit for Additional OffPeak Generation 

Additional off-peak generation of 1,296,000 MWh would be included in the Iowa 

Hill alternative. The additional off-peak generation would be produced from a natural 

gas CCT or renewable sources and would provide both pumping energy and replacement 

of off-peak generation due to environmental measures. 

Even, with the best available control technology installed, a CCT would contribute 

emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), SO2, CO, ozone, VOC, and particulate matter. In 

addition to emission from SCT, table 3-6 summarizes the post 2014 annual peak-year 

emissions associated with the Iowa Hill development. The analysis includes replacement 

energy, additional off-peak energy generation, and use of coal-fired units the worst-case 

scenario for comparison. 

Total future emissions resulting from the Iowa Hill development are compared to 

the No-Action Alternative emissions to obtain the net emission increases or decreases for 

conformity test of de minimus levels. 

3.5 CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY TEST FOR DE MINIMUS LEVELS—

TOTAL PROJECT-INDUCED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FROM 

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 

For conformity test purposes, peak-year net increases or decreases in annual 

operational and construction emissions are compared among Project Alternatives (table 

3-7 and table 3-8). 
A-20 

These net emissions represent the difference in emissions between each analyzed 

Alternative and the No-Action and are used to compare with the de minimus levels for 

conformity requirement. Both off-peak replacement generation option 1 – combined 

cycle turbine and option 2 – coal fired unit, are presented in the table for comparing to the 

options used in No-Action conditions. As shown in these tables, the Projects-induced 

emissions would not exceed the de minimis criteria of 50 TPY of VOC or NOx, and 

would not exceed the criteria of 100 TPY of CO or PM, for any of the peak-case years; 

except for a small temporary exceeding of NOx emissions during the worst construction 

year prior to 2015 when both operational and construction emissions are counted. This 

small temporary effect can be mitigated and eliminated by reducing construction 

activities by approximately 10% for the peak construction year and re-scheduling them to 

other years. Therefore, the Projects are determined to be compliance with the general 

conformity rules. 

The SOx emissions shown in the tables are for references only, since the Projects 

are within sulfur dioxide attainment area and are not subject to conformity requirement 

for sulfur dioxide. 
A-21 

Table 3-7. Peak-year project-induced annual emissionsa

 during Iowa Hill construction 

period (prior to 2015). 

Additional Net Peak Annual Emissions (tons/year) 

Supply NOx CO VOC SO2 PM10 PM2.5

UARP-Only 

Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 

Operational CCTb

 9.1 4.2 2.9 1.6 1.4 1.3 

 Coalc

 9.5 6.5 2.3 4.2 2.0 1.8 

Total CCT 9.1 4.2 2.9 1.6 1.4 1.3 

 Coal 9.5 6.5 2.3 4.2 2.0 1.8 

Iowa Hill 

Construction 44.6 28.7 5.4 0.1 34.5 9.4 

 

Operational CCT 9.1 4.2 2.9 1.6 1.4 1.3 

 Coal 9.5 6.5 2.3 4.2 2.0 1.8 

Total CCT 53.7 32.9 8.3 1.7 35.9 10.7 

 Coal 54.1 35.2 7.7 4.3 36.5 11.2 

De Minimus 50 100 50 100 100 100 

Notes: 

a

 Project induced emission equals net change in emissions between the proposed actions and noaction. A positive value equals an increase and negative value equals a decrease in net emissions 

for this pollutant. 

b

 CCT represents the use of combined cycle turbine for off-peak generation for both alternatives 

and simple cycle turbine for on-peak generation in UARP-only Alternative. 

c

 Coal represents the use of coal-fired unit for off-peak generation for both alternatives and simple 

cycle turbine for on-peak generation in UARP-only Alternative. 
A-22 

Table 3-8. Peak-year project-induced annual emissionsa

 following Iowa Hill 

construction period (Post 2014) 

Additional Net Peak Annual Emissions (tons/year) 

Supply NOx CO VOC SO2 PM10 PM2.5

UARP-Only 

Operational CCTb 9.1 4.2 2.9 1.6 1.4 1.3 

 Coalc

 9.5 6.5 2.3 4.2 2.0 1.8 

Iowa Hill 

Operational CCT -9.2 -9.6 3.1 4.7 3.9 3.5 

 Coal -2.4 33.0 -8.1 53.6 15.8 14.2 

De Minimus 50 100 50 100 100 100 

Notes: 

a

 Project induced emission equals net change in emissions between the proposed actions and noaction. A positive value equals an increase and negative value equals a decrease in net emissions 

for this pollutant. 

b

 CCT represents the use of combined cycle turbine for off-peak generation for both alternatives 

and simple cycle turbine for on-peak generation in UARP-Only alternative. 

c

 Coal represents the use of coal-fired unit for off-peak generation for both alternatives and simple 

cycle turbine for on-peak generation in UARP-Only alternative. 
A-23 

4.0 CONCLUSION 

The cumulative emissions and effects on air quality resulting from all operational 

and construction activities of UARP Alternatives were evaluated. Construction-related 

emissions result from development of the UARP Iowa Hill Pump-Storage Facility, while 

operational emissions are associated with generation of additional power under UARP 

alternatives. 

As shown in this analysis, the Projects-induced emissions for all Projects 

Alternatives during both worst-case construction and operational periods would not 

exceed the applicability test de minimis criteria, with an adjusted construction schedule. 

Therefore, the Projects will meet the General Conformity rules for all evaluated 

Alternatives. 

While air quality emission modeling indicates construction of the Iowa Hill 

development would contribute to increases in temporary emissions, increases with a 

mitigated field construction schedule are below de minimis criteria and would be limited 

to worst-case conditions during a short-term period. Overall, total peak-year annual 

construction emissions related to Iowa Hill facility development meet the General 

Conformity requirements because they would not exceed de minimus thresholds. 

Without the Iowa Hill development, viable substitute resources to cover the energy 

supply shortage in the future would be required. Air emissions resulting from these 

substitute plants are also estimated to be below the conformity thresholds based on 

plants’ control measures, including selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and thermal 

efficiency control, to achieve emission reduction to meet the regulations and 

requirements. 
A-24 

This page intentionally left blank. 
GENERAL CONFORMITY ANALYSIS 

ATTACHMENT A

Air Emission Analyses 

Construction Activities for Iowa Hill Development 
This page intentionally left blank. 











GENERAL CONFORMITY ANALYSIS 

ATTACHMENT B 

Air Emission Analyses 

For Operational Activities 
This page intentionally left blank.
Table B-1. UARP/Chili Bar air emissions summary, prior to 2015. 

Emission Factors (Lb/MWha Peak-Year 

Alternative Action Description 

Annual 

Energy 

Generation 

(MWh) NOx CO VOC PM SO2 NOx C

No Action (Baseline) 

Operational emissions 

a) Hydroelectric 1,835,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0a) Hydroelectric 1,699,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0b) Additional on-peak simple cycle combustion turbine 

70,000 0.167 0.082 0.048 0.020 0.024 5.8 2

UARP only (without Iowa Hill) 

Operational emissions 

c) Additional off-peak for energy generation using - Option 1 Combined cycle combustion turbine - Option 2 Coal-fired unit 

66,000 66,000 

0.100 0.111 

0.041 0.109 

0.038 0.020 

0.020 0.039 

0.024 0.102 

3.3 3.7 

3

 Generation sub-total 1,835,000 Sub-total – Option 1 9.1 4

 Sub-total – Option 2 9.5 6

Peak-Y

E

NOx C

a) Heavy equipment and trucks. 44.3 1b) Dust from earth & surface handling. 

UARP with Iowa Hill 

Construction Emissions (Prior to 2015) c) Deliveries and workers’ commuting 

vehicles. 

 0.3 1

 Sub-total 44.6 2

General Conformity Test – Increased Emission 

Proposed Build Alternative versus No

NOx C

UARP only (without Iowa Hill) 

 - Option 1 (CCCT for off-peak) 9.1 4 - Option 2 (Coal unit for off-peak) 9.5 6

UARP with Iowa Hill 

 - During Construction 44.6 2Staff alternative will have the same air emissions as those for Proposed UARP action with Iowa Hill 

References: a USEPA, AP-42, Volume 1, Fifth Edition, 2005, 1 MWh = 3.41 MMBtu 

b California Energy Commission, November 2001 c Engineering, Construction, Environmental and Consulting Solutions (ECECS) Tech. Paper “Emission Comparison: IGCC vs C

Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine,” 2002 for Power-Gen International 

d SOTA (State of the Art) Manual for Stationary Combustion Turbines (NJDEP, 2004) e SMUD, July 2006 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Table B-2. UARP/Chili Bar Project air emissions summary, post 2014. 

Emission Factors (Lb/MWh)

Peak-

Alternative Action Description 

Annual 

Energy 

Generation 

(MWh) NOx CO VOC PM SO2 NOx C

a) Hydroelectric 1,835,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0b) Additional on-peak simple cycle combustion turbine 

931,000 0.167 0.082 0.048 0.020 0.024 77.7 3

No Action (Baseline) 

Operational emissions 

c) Additional off-peak for energy generation using - Option 1 Combined cycle combustion turbine - Option 2 Coal-fired unit 

43,000 43,000 

0.100 0.111 

0.041 0.109 

0.038 0.020 

0.020 0.039 

0.024 0.102 

2.2 2.4 

02

 Generation sub-total 2,809,000 Sub-total – Option 1 79.9 3

 Sub-total – Option 2 80.1 4

a) Hydroelectric 1,699,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0

b) Additional on-peak simple cycle combustion turbine 

1,001,000 0.167 0.082 0.048 0.020 0.024 83.6 4

UARP only (without Iowa Hill) 

Operational emissions 

c) Additional off-peak for energy generation using - Option 1 Combined cycle combustion turbine - Option 2 Coal-fired unit 

109,000 109,000 

0.100 0.111 

0.041 0.109 

0.038 0.020 

0.020 0.039 

0.024 0.102 

5.5 6.0 

25

 Generation sub-total 2,809,000 Sub-total – Option 1 89.0 4

 Sub-total – Option 2 89.6 4

a) Hydroelectric 2,673,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0

b) Electric energy requirements for pump-back operation. 

-1,230,000 0.0 0

UARP with Iowa Hill 

Operational Emissions (Post 2015) 

c) Additional on-peak simple cycle combustion turbine 

70,000 0.167 0.082 0.048 0.020 0.024 5.8 2

 d) Additional off-peak for energy 

generation using - Option 1 Combined cycle combustion turbine - Option 2 Coal-fired unit 

1,26,000 

1,296,000 

0.100 0.111 

0.041 0.109 

0.038 0.020 

0.020 0.039 

0.024 0.102 

64.8 71.9 

27

 Generation sub-total 2,809,000 Sub-total – Option 1 70.6 2

 Sub-total – Option 2 77.8 7
General Conformity Test – Increased Emission 

Proposed Build Alternative versus N

NOx C

UARP only (without Iowa Hill) 

 - Option 1 (CCCT for off-peak) 9.1 4 - Option 2 (Coal unit for off-peak) 9.5 6

UARP with Iowa Hill (Operation) 

 - Option 1 (CCCT for off-peak) -9.2 - - Option 2 (Coal unit for off-peak) -2.4 3Staff Alternative will have the same energy generation and air emissions as those for Proposed UARP action with Iowa Hill. References: a USEPA, AP-42, Volume 1, Fifth Edition, 2005, 1 MWh = 3.41 MMBtu 

b California Energy Commission, November 2001 c Engineering, Construction, Environmental and Consulting Solutions (ECECS) Tech. Paper “Emission Comparison: IGCC vs C

Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine,” 2002 for Power-Gen International 

d SOTA (State of the Art) Manual for Stationary Combustion Turbines (NJDEP, 2004) e SMUD, July 2006 
APPENDIX B 

CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF MEASURES FOR THE 

UARP AND CHILI BAR PROJECT 
This page intentionally left blank. 
B-1 

B.1 CAPITAL COST AND ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR MEASURES FOR 

THE UARP ALTERNATIVES 

In this section, we present the costs of environmental measures associated with the 

UARP alternatives. The latest cost information for the UARP was submitted on April 11, 

2007, by SMUD. The annual operations and maintenance costs were submitted as 50-

year average costs. Normally, it is our practice to request actual cash flows for each 

measure over the first 30 years of any potential new license, compute the present worth, 

and then annualize the present worth to obtain annual operations and maintenance costs. 

To provide continuity with the SMUD submittal, we have opted, in this case, to use its 

average operations and maintenance costs. We include capital, operations and 

maintenance, total annualized costs, and reductions in energy benefits in table B-1. No 

reduction in dependable capacity was identified by SMUD for any environmental 

measures. Because table 1 of SMUD’s April 11, 2007, submittal shows the total 

generation benefits drop by $8,848,800 and table 4 shows the total generation benefit 

drops by $8,914,400, we used the slightly lower value in our analysis to be consistent 

with SMUD’s projected effect on energy generation. We also note that in some cases the 

footnotes, resulting costs, and Settlement Agreement did not always agree. In those 

instances, we made an appropriate entry in the column labeled comments. We show 

corrections to footnotes in italics. We also note when staff does not endorse a particular 

measure. Please note that minor round off errors of $100 may occur because all values 

are rounded to the nearest $100. 
B-2 

This page intentionally left blank. 
B-3 

Table B-1. Summary of capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, annualized costs and reductio

benefits for measures included in the UARP-only Alternative, Proposed Action (with Iowa 

and Proposed Action with Staff Modifications. (Source: SMUD, 2007; Staff) 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

1 Article 1-1. Minimum streamflows. 2 Implement daily minimum 

reservoir release schedule, and provide compliance documentation to FERC annually. 

$0 $5,500 $5,500 $0 Water quantity 

3 Periodic manual adjustments 

to minimum release valves at all 10 project dams.c

$0 $23,600 $23,600 $0 Water quantity 

4 Minimum release at Rubicon 

dam; installation of larger valve required. 

$273,300 $0 $18,100 $710,000 Water quantity 

5 Minimum release at Buck 

Island. 

$0 $0 $0 $134,000 Water quantity 

6 Minimum release at Loon 

Lake. 

$0 $0 $0 $964,000 Water quantity 

7 Combined minimum release at 

Gerle Creek dam and Robbs Peak dam. 

$0 $0 $0 $1,265,000 Water quantity 
B-4 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

8 Minimum release at Ice House 

dam. 

 $0 $617,000 Water quantity 

9 Installation of larger valve at 

Ice House. 

$273,300 $0 $18,100 $0 Water quantity 

10 Minimum release at Junction 

dam. 

$0 $0 $0 $457,000 Water quantity 

11 Minimum release at Camino 

dam. 

$0 $0 $0 $484,000 Water quantity 

12 Minimum release at Brush 

Creek dam. 

$0 $0 $0 $2,000 Water quantity 

13 Minimum release at Slab 

Creek dam; installation of larger valve required. 

$2,076,700 $0 $137,900 $2,648,000 Water quantity 

14 Articles 1-2 and 1-3. Pulse 

flows 

15 Implement pulse flows below 

Rubicon dam, with ramping; capital costs are for physical modifications at tunnel gate to facilitate pulse flows.d

$82,000 $1,500 $6,900 $152,000 Soils and 

geology 
B-5 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

16 Implement geomorphic pulse 

flows below Loon Lake dam, with ramping; capital costs are for site sensitivity investigation and test releases prior to implementation. 

$273,300 $500 $18,600 $126,000 Soils and 

geology 

17 Implement geomorphic pulse 

flows below Ice House dam, with ramping. 

$0 $500 $500 $200,000 Soils and 

geology 

18 Article 1-4. Develop and file 

a plan to coordinate with Chili Bar Licensee on operations and in implementing certain license conditions. 

$32,800 $10,900 $13,100 $0 Water quantity 

19 Article 1-5. Monitoring 

program. 

20 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for trout 

populations.e

$10,900 $39,300 $40,000 $0 Aquatic 

21 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

hardhead populations.f

$10,900 $6,600 $7,300 $0 Aquatic 
B-6 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

22 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

aquatic macroinvertebrates.g

$10,900 $13,100 $13,800 $0 Aquatic 

23 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

foothill yellow-legged frogs.h

$10,900 $37,700 $38,400 $0 Terrestrial 

24 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

mountain yellow-legged frogs.i

$10,900 $6,600 $7,300 $0 Terrestrial 

25 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

riparian vegetation.j

$10,900 $19,700 $20,400 $0 Terrestrial 

26 Investigate fluvial geomorphic 

properties at two sites in Loon Lake dam reach. 

$273,300 $0 $18,100 $0 Soils and 

geology 

27 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

geomorphology.k

$10,900 $10,500 $11,200 $0 Soils and 

geology 
B-7 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

28 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for water 

temperature.l

$131,200 $27,300 $36,000 $0 Water quality 

29 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

physical water quality.m

$10,900 $109,300 $110,000 $0 Water quality 

30 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan 

chemistry water quality.n

$10,900 $54,700 $55,400 $0 Water quality 

31 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

bacterial water quality.o

$10,900 $16,400 $17,100 $0 Water quality 

32 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

metals bioaccumulation in fish.p

$10,900 $5,500 $6,200 $0 Water quality 
B-8 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

33 Prepare and implement 2-year 

monitoring plan for fish entrainment at Robbs Peak powerhouse. 

$327,900 $0 $21,800 $0 Aquatic 

34 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

bears.q

$10,900 $10,900 $11,600 $0 Terrestrial 

35 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for bald 

eagles. 

$10,900 $32,800 $33,500 $0 Terrestrial 

36 Article 1-6. Adaptive 

Management Program.r

$0 $0 $0 $0 Multidisciplinary 

37 Article 1-7. Develop and 

implement Stream Channel Stabilization Plan in Loon Lake dam reach.s

$109,300 $0 $7,300 $0 Soils and 

geology 

38 Article 1-8. Maintain 

elevation of Gerle Creek reservoir to ensure fish passage into Gerle Creek.t

$27,000 $5,000 $6,800 $0 Aquatic 

39 Article 1-9. Implement plan 

to pass large woody debris downstream at Robbs Peak, Junction, Camino and Slab Creek dams. 

$21,900 $12,500 $14,000 $0 Aquatic 
B-9 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

40 Article 1-10. Develop and 

implement a Streamflow and Reservoir Elevation Gaging Plan.u

$655,800 $54,700 $98,200 $0 Water quantity 

41 Article 1-11. Develop and 

implement a plan to evaluate canal and penstock emergency and maintenance release points. 

$32,800 $0 $2,200 $0 Water quality 

42 Article 1-12. Wildlife and 

plant protection measures. 

43 Annually monitor for deer or 

wildlife in Gerle Canal. 

$0 $1,100 $1,100 $0 Terrestrial 

44 If any new construction or 

maintenance may affect Forest Service sensitive plants or wildlife, or ESA species, conduct a biological evaluation; the Forest Service may require measures to protect sensitive species, and a biological assessment and consultations with FWS may be required per the ESA. 

$0 $16,400 $16,400 $0 Terrestrial 
B-10 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

45 Conduct annual review of 

special-status species lists and prepare study plan and perform study, if necessary.v

$0 $11,400 $11,400 $0 Terrestrial 

46 Consult with agencies before 

conducting any O&M under transmission lines within the Pine Hill Pare Plant Preserve. 

$0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 Terrestrial 

47 Develop Avian Protection 

Plan that addresses retrofitting transmission lines to meet design and sighting standards to minimize bird electrocutions and collisions.w

$306,000 $0 $20,300 $0 Terrestrial 

48 Article 1-13. Develop and 

implement a Vegetation and Invasive Weed Management Plan for ENF lands, and monitor annually. 

$43,700 $54,700 $57,600 $0 Terrestrial 
B-11 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

49 Article 1-14. Meet annually 

with resource agencies to review results of implementing all ecological measures, and prepare and share a project O&M plan for that year. 

$0 $32,800 $32,800 $0 Terrestrial 

50 Article 1-15. Develop 

Recreation Implementation Plan, and update every 6 years (cost of updates incorporated into facility review measure). 

$16,400 $0 $1,100 $0 Recreation 

51 Article 1-16. Conduct 

recreation survey and prepare Recreation Report every 6 years.x

$0 $55,100 $55,100 $0 Recreation 

52 Article 1-17. Designate a 

Forest Service liaison. 

$0 $32,800 $32,800 $0 Recreation 

53 Article 1-18. Review 

recreation facilities every 6 years. 

$0 $21,900 $21,900 $0 Recreation 

54 Article 1-19. Specific 

recreation measures. 
B-12 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

55 Prepare and implement a plan 

to install bear-proof food storage and trash receptacle facilities.y

$568,400 $0 $37,700 $0 Recreation 

56 Construct vault toilet at Buck 

Island reservoir. 

$54,700 $0 $3,600 $0 Recreation 

57 Improve hiking trails at Buck 

Island reservoir. 

$10,900 $0 $700 $0 Recreation 

58 Reconstruct or relocate 

portions of Rubicon Hiking Trail. 

$1,639,500 $0 $108,800 $0 Recreation 

59 Reconstruct hiking trail at 

Pleasant Campground. 

$10,900 $0 $700 $0 Recreation 

60 Construct vault toilet at Ellis 

Creek staging area. 

$32,800 $0 $2,200 $0 Recreation 

61 Prepare and implement a 

Development Plan for Loon Lake. 

$371,600 $0 $24,700 $0 Recreation 

62 Reconstruct Pleasant 

Campground. 

$245,900 $0 $16,300 $0 Recreation 
B-13 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

63 Expand and upgrade 

Northshore RV Campground. 

$245,900 $0 $16,300 $0 Recreation 

64 Reconstruct Loon Lake 

Campground (including Equestrian Loop). 

$1,038,400 $0 $68,900 $0 Recreation 

65 Upgrade Loon Lake Group 

Campgrounds. 

$98,400 $0 $6,500 $0 Recreation 

66 Reconstruct Loon Lake Group 

Equestrian Campground. 

$76,500 $0 $5,100 $0 Recreation 

67 Upgrade Loon Lake Boat 

Launch and Day Use Area. 

$21,900 $0 $1,500 $0 Recreation 

68 Upgrade Red Fir Group 

Campground. 

$76,500 $0 $5,100 $0 Recreation 

69 Upgrade Loon Lake Chalet. $437,200 $0 $29,000 $0 Recreation 70 Upgrade Loon Lake Sanitation 

Station. 

$16,400 $0 $1,100 $0 Recreation 

71 Upgrade Loon Lake Trailhead 

facility. 

$16,400 $0 $1,100 $0 Recreation 
B-14 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

72 Construct a new campground 

on the south shore of Loon Lake reservoir. 

$2,951,100 $0 $195,900 $0 Recreation 

73 Prepare and implement a 

Development Plan for the Gerle Creek and Airport Flat areas. 

$98,400 $0 $6,500 $0 Recreation 

74 Reconstruct Gerle Creek 

Campground. 

$453,600 $0 $30,100 $0 Recreation 

75 Upgrade Gerle Creek Day Use 

Area. 

$27,300 $0 $1,800 $0 Recreation 

76 Upgrade Angel Creek Day 

Use Area. 

$306,000 $0 $20,300 $0 Recreation 

77 Upgrade Airport Flat 

Campground. 

$191,300 $0 $12,700 $0 Recreation 

78 Extend Angel Creek Trail (to 

tie into Summer Harvest Trail). 

$273,300 $0 $18,100 $0 Recreation 

79 Upgrade Summer Harvest 

Trail. 

$27,300 $0 $1,800 $0 Recreation 
B-15 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

80 Prepare and implement a 

Development Plan for the Union Valley area. 

$131,200 $0 $8,700 $0 Recreation 

81 Prepare and implement a 

Union Valley Reservoir Boating Management Plan. 

$76,500 $0 $5,100 $0 Recreation 

82 Upgrade Azalea Cove 

Campground. 

$87,400 $0 $5,800 $0 Recreation 

83 Upgrade Big Silver Group 

Campground. 

$109,300 $0 $7,300 $0 Recreation 

84 Upgrade Camino Cove 

Campground. 

$437,200 $0 $29,000 $0 Recreation 

85 Upgrade Fashoda 

Campground. 

$546,500 $0 $36,300 $0 Recreation 

86 Upgrade Fashoda Day Use 

Area. 

$16,400 $0 $1,100 $0 Recreation 

87 Upgrade Jones Fork 

Campground. 

$191,300 $0 $12,700 $0 Recreation 

88 Upgrade Lone Rock 

Campground. 

$87,400 $0 $5,800 $0 Recreation 
B-16 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

89 Reconstruct Sunset 

Campground. 

$983,700 $0 $65,300 $0 Recreation 

90 Upgrade Sunset Boat Launch. $87,400 $0 $5,800 $0 Recreation 91 Reconstruct Wench Creek 

Campground. 

$874,400 $0 $58,000 $0 Recreation 

92 Reconstruct Wench Creek 

Group Campground. 

$218,600 $0 $14,500 $0 Recreation 

93 Upgrade West Point 

Campground. 

$453,600 $0 $30,100 $0 Recreation 

94 Upgrade West Point Boat 

Launch. 

$87,400 $0 $5,800 $0 Recreation 

95 Upgrade Wolf Creek 

Campground. 

$382,600 $0 $25,400 $0 Recreation 

96 Upgrade Wolf Creek Group 

Campground. 

$87,400 $0 $5,800 $0 Recreation 

97 Reconstruct Yellowjacket 

Campground. 

$453,600 $0 $30,100 $0 Recreation 

98 Upgrade Yellowjacket Boat 

Launch and extend boat ramp. 

$109,300 $0 $7,300 $0 Recreation 
B-17 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

99 Extend the Union Valley 

Reservoir bike trail (to loop the reservoir). 

$3,289,900 $0 $218,400 $0 Recreation 

100 Construct access trails and 

restore areas on north side of Union Valley reservoir. 

$453,600 $0 $30,100 $0 Recreation 

101 Prepare and implement a 

Development Plan for the Ice House area. 

$371,600 $0 $24,700 $0 Recreation 

102 Site and construct a new small 

boat-in camping area. 

$98,400 $0 $6,500 $0 Recreation 

103 Reconstruct Ice House 

Campground. 

$546,500 $0 $36,300 $0 Recreation 

104 Reconstruct Ice House Day 

Use Area. 

$191,300 $0 $12,700 $0 Recreation 

105 Upgrade Northwind 

Campground. 

$191,300 $0 $12,700 $0 Recreation 

106 Upgrade Strawberry Point 

Campground. 

$191,300 $0 $12,700 $0 Recreation 

107 Upgrade Ice House Boat 

Launch. 

$21,900 $0 $1,500 $0 Recreation 
B-18 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

108 Reconstruct Ice House 

Sanitation Station. 

$54,700 $0 $3,600 $0 Recreation 

109 Construct access trails and 

restoration along Lakeshore Road. 

$191,300 $0 $12,700 $0 Recreation 

110 Construct a new day use 

facility (Highland Point). 

$453,600 $0 $30,100 $0 Recreation 

111 Construct a new day use 

facility (Upper Silver Creek/Ice reservoir). 

$453,600 $0 $30,100 $0 Recreation 

112 Extend the Ice House 

Mountain Bike Trail (to loop the connector trail to Union Valley reservoir bike trail. 

$1,639,500 $0 $108,800 $0 Recreation 

113 Upgrade Big Hill Overlook 

facility. 

$10,900 $0 $700 $0 Recreation 

114 Improve the informal boat 

launch at Junction reservoir. 

$109,300 $0 $7,300 $0 Recreation 

115 Improve the access area at 

Bryant Springs Road and SF Silver Creek. 

$27,300 $0 $1,800 $0 Recreation 
B-19 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

116 Develop and implement plan 

to improve access at Brush Creek reservoir. 

$131,200 $0 $8,700 $0 Recreation 

117 Develop and implement plan 

for boating access at Slab (upstream end).z

$2,448,300 $0 $162,500 $0 Recreation 

118 Develop and implement plan 

to improve boating access at Slab Creek reservoir (near dam).aa

$338,800 $0 $22,500 $0 Recreation 

119 Article 1-20. Complete 

necessary heavy maintenance as determined via 6-year recreation facility review.bb

$0 $109,300 $109,300 $0 Recreation 

120 Article 1-21. Annually pay 

the Forest Service $1,000,000 for O&M and administration of recreation facilities and to manage use. 

$0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Recreation 
B-20 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

121 Article 1-22. Provide data to 

the Forest Service for carrying capacity. 

$71,000 $0 $4,700 $0 Recreation 

122 Article 1-23. Reservoir 

levels. 

123 Meet specific, summer 

monthly reservoir levels at Loon Lake, Union Valley, and Ice House reservoirs.cc

$0 $0 $0 $725,400 Recreation 

124 Maintain Gerle Creek 

reservoir water surface elevations as high as possible, and with minimum fluctuation, from May 1 through September 10.dd

$0 $0 $0 $0 Recreation 

125 Maintain Slab Creek reservoir 

elevation above 1,830 feet during daylight hours, and restrict daily fluctuations to less than seven feet during daylight hours between July 1 and September 30.dd

$0 $0 $0 $0 Recreation 

126 Maintain the seasonal 

reservoir levels at Junction and Brush Creek reservoirs within historical levels. 

$0 $0 $0 $0 Recreation 
B-21 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

127 Maintain Rubicon and Buck 

Island reservoir water surface elevations as high as possible, and with minimum fluctuation, from May 1 to September 10.dd

$0 $0 $0 $0 Recreation 

128 Monitor reservoir levels and 

prepare report every 5 years. 

$0 $10,900 $10,900 $0 Recreation 

129 Article 1-24. Recreation 

streamflows. 

130 Provide up to 19 days annually 

during March 1 through May 31 and in October of various flows from Slab Creek dam for whitewater boating, with ramping, and use monitoring; capital costs are for physical modifications to facilitate long-term boating flows.ee

$10,930,000 $35,200 $760,700 $322,000 Recreation 
B-22 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

131 Develop and implement a 

whitewater boating management plan for Slab Creek dam reach, including access facilities and a plan for easement for access and parking.ff

$732,300 $0 $48,600 $0 Recreation 

132 Provide up to 16 days annually 

of various flows from Ice House dam for whitewater boating, with ramping, and use monitoring. 

$0 $19,000 $19,000 $108,000 Recreation 

133 Article 1-25. Public 

information services. 

134 Develop and implement plan 

to make project information (streamflow and reservoir levels) available to the public. 

$32,800 $10,900 $13,100 $0 Recreation 

135 Develop and implement an 

interpretive, education and public information plan, and provide a project recreation brochure. 

$109,300 $27,300 $34,600 $0 Recreation 
B-23 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

136 Article 1-26. Annually 

match fish stocking by CDFG, up to 50,000 pounds of fish each year. 

$0 $106,100 $106,100 $0 Recreation 

137 Article 1-27. Visual resource 

protection. 

 

138 Meet with the Forest Service 

every 5 years and review opportunities to better blend project features with landscape.gg

$0 $3,300 $3,300 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 

139 Prior to any new construction 

or maintenance, prepare plan to protect visual resources. 

$0 $5,500 $5,500 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 

140 Improve visual quality of 

Robbs powerhouse and Jones Fork penstock.hh

$0 $0 $0 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 

141 Improve visual quality of 

fencing at Union Valley dam switchyard. 

$360,700 $0 $23,900 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 

142 Improve visual quality of 

weather stations. 

$480,900 $0 $31,900 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 
B-24 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

143 Improve visual quality of 

several other project features. 

$273,300 $0 $18,100 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 

144 Articles 1-28 and 1-29. 

Develop and implement the Heritage Properties Management Plan, and suspend work or operations in the event heritage resources are discovered. 

$16,400 $5,500 $6,600 $0 Cultural 

resources 

145 Article 1-30. Transportation 

system management. 

146 Develop and implement 

Transportation System Management Plan, including a Snow Plowing Plan; update every 5 years.ii

$98,400 $273,300 $279,800 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 

147 Improve three Forest Service 

roads (5.3 miles of north shore road at Union Valley Reservoir, 1.3 miles of lake shore road at Ice House reservoir, and Wright’s Lake tie-in intersection) and add gate at Junction dam road.jj

$4,382,900 $0 $290,900 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 
B-25 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

148 Article 1-31. Develop and 

implement a Trails System Management Plan; update every 5 years.kk

$54,700 $3,300 $6,900 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 

149 Article 1-32. Develop and 

implement a Facility Management Plan; update every 5 years. 

$54,700 $3,300 $6,900 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 

150 Article 1-33. Develop and 

implement a Vegetation Management Plan to rehabilitate inadequately vegetated areas.ll

$32,800 $21,900 $24,100 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 

151 Article 1-34. Develop and 

implement a Fire Prevention and Response Plan.ll

$82,000 $21,900 $27,300 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 

152 Article 1-37. Develop a 

Project Implementation Plan that sets forth a schedule for implementing all articles in the license. 

$16,400 $0 $1,100 $0 Multidisciplinary 

153 Article 1-40. Aquatic 

resources–Iowa Hill development. 
B-26 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

154 Monitor hardhead populations 

in Slab Creek reservoir 2 years before and 2 years after construction of Iowa Hill development. 

$382,600 $0 $25,400 $0 Aquatic 

155 Monitor temperatures in 

shallow water areas of Slab Creek reservoir to determine if Iowa Hill development is affecting hardhead distribution.mm

$0 $2,600 $2,600 $0 Water quality 

156 Maintain 12°C or higher 

temperatures during June, July, and August in SFAR reach below Mosquito Bridge (Iowa Hill development measure).nn

$0 $16,400 $16,400 $0 Aquatic 

157 Article 1-41. Purchase 

equivalent land or conservation easement for inkind replacement of wildlife habitat due to Iowa Hill development.oo

$546,500 $0 $36,300 $0 Terrestrial 

158 Develop a wildlife lands 

mitigation plan for Iowa Hill construction. 

$20,000 $1,300 $0 Terrestrial 
B-27 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

159 Article 1-42. Develop and 

implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for construction of Iowa Hill development.pp

$54,700 $0 $3,600 $0 Water quality 

160 Article 1-43. Prepare and 

implement a Groundwater Management Plan for managing groundwater inflows during construction of the Iowa Hill development and post construction monitoring.pp

$54,700 $0 $3,600 $0 Water quantity 

161 Article 1-44. Develop a 

design for the Iowa Hill development that meets the visual quality standards of the ENF Management Plan.pp

$27,300 $0 $1,800 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 

162 Article 1-45. Heritage 

resources protection.qq

$0 $0 $0 $0 cultural 

resources 

163 Article 1-48. Develop and 

implement a noise attenuation plan for construction of the Iowa Hill development. 

$54,700 $0 $3,600 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 
B-28 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefitsb Discipline 

164 Article 1-49. Develop a 

Recreation Access Plan for Slab Creek reservoir to address access during Iowa Hill development construction and post construction.rr

$27,300 $0 $1,800 $0 Recreation 

165 SMUD labor to manage 

development and implementation of plans, monitoring programs, data management, etc.ss

$0 $461,800 $461,800 $0 Multidisciplinary 

166 Total of all Article 1 

measures under the UARPonly Alternative. 

$48,753,100 $2,850,800 $6,086,300 $8,914,400 

167 Total of all Article 1 

measures under the Proposed Action. 

$49,900,900 $2,869,800 $6,181,400 $8,914,400 

168 Total of all Article 1 

measures under the Proposed Action with Staff Modifications. 

$49,647,600 $2,869,800 $6,164,600 $8,914,400 

a Annualized costs for one-time and capital costs determined as actual costs over a 50-year license term with 6.25 percent SMUD dib Flow-related costs were derived from output of the CHEOPS water balance model, and represent incremental generation value cos

Case due to modifications to system operations at individual facilities. 

c Annual cost based on substantial increase in frequency of dam visits to adjust valves to implement monthly release schedule. 
B-29 

d Estimated capital cost assumes minor modifications to Rockbound tunnel intake gate at Rubicon reservoir. e Annual cost based on $163,950 per year of trout sampling at 13 sites, performed every 2 years out of 5 during the first 16 years, the

thereafter throughout license term. Yearly trout sampling cost based on relicensing study costs 2002-2004. Four of the sites will re

f Annual cost based on $27,325 per year of hardhead sampling, performed every 2 years out of 5 during the first 16 years, then 2 yea

throughout license term. 

g Annual cost based on $54,650 per year of benthic macroinvertebrate at 10 sites, performed every 2 of 5 years during the first 16 ye

thereafter throughout license term. Yearly BMI sampling based on relicensing study costs 2002-2004. One of the sites will require 

h Annual cost based on $81,975 per year of foothill yellow-legged frog sampling at 6 sites in three project reaches, performed at vari

depending on project reach. Yearly sampling based on relicensing studies and PG&E survey protocols, which call for repeat visits Monitoring results may lead to expansion of monitoring program and higher costs. 

i Annual cost based on $54,650 per year of mountain yellow-legged frog sampling at Rubicon Reservoir, Rockbound Lake, and Buc

(spring/summer surveys). Yearly sampling based on relicensing studies and PG&E survey protocols, which call for periodic visits performed by CDFG may result in reduced monitoring costs. 

j Annual cost based on $163,950 per year for aerial photograph mapping and intensive greenline sampling at 15 sites, performed eve

15 and every 10 years for the remainder of the license term. Yearly riparian sampling cost based on relicensing study costs of 200

require helicopter transport. 

k Annual cost based on $87,440 per year of sampling at 8 sites, performed every 5 years through year 15 and every 10 years for the 

term. Yearly geomorphology sampling cost determined from relicensing studies. 

l One time cost associated with installing permanent temperature monitoring instruments at 12 project facilities with linkage to SMU

systems. Annual costs associated with yearly installation of 5 non-permanent instruments. 

m Annual cost based on $109,300 per year of sampling, performed every year of license term. Yearly physical monitoring at 7 projec

seasons/year) and multiple stream sites (four seasons/year) above and below project reservoirs based on costs to perform similar sain 2002-2003. High elevation reservoirs and several stream sites will require helicopter transport. 

n Annual cost based on $273,250 per year of sampling, performed every 5 years of license term. Yearly water chemistry monitoring 

(four seasons/year) and multiple stream sites above and below project reservoirs based on costs (e.g., laboratory costs for total and low detection levels) to perform similar sampling during relicensing in 2002–2003. High elevation reservoirs and several stream stransport. 

o Annual cost based on $32,790 per year of sampling at 15 sites, performed every year the first 5 years then every other year through 

Yearly sampling based on relicensing study costs. Monitoring results may lead to sampling every year, which will increase annual 
B-30 

p Annual cost based on $27,325 per year of sampling at 6 reservoirs, performed every 5 years throughout the license term. Yearly sa

relicensing study costs. Additional studies may be required based on results of sampling. 

q One time and/or annual costs could increase under the adaptive management plan depending on results of monitoring plan. r Adaptive management measure costs are not included because of the uncertainty associated with the need to implement the measur

uncertainty of the nature and extent of the measure. 

s Includes one-time cost of developing study plan to investigate stream stabilization throughout 8.5-mile Loon Lake dam reach and p

investigation (stream stability was not studied throughout Loon Lake dam reach during relicensing). Implementing any remedial ac

future cost and not included in the table. 

t One-time cost associated with study of current passage conditions. Annual cost associated with regular re-evaluations of passage c

term. This measure is estimated to result in no reduction in annual energy benefits. 

u One-time and capital cost is for adding new gaging sites below Gerle Creek dam and Robbs forebay dam ($546,500), and staff gag

reaches and possible telemetry equipment installation below Rubicon and Buck Island dams ($109,300); annual cost is for two stre

and nine reservoir monitoring sites to be added to compliance program, and maintenance of new gages and telemetry equipment in 

v Annual costs associated with performing periodic reviews of new species added to special-status species lists ($5,000). A total cost 

$40,000 per survey) is assumed for special-status species field surveys, distributed equally over the 50-year license term. 

w One time cost estimate includes Avian Protection Plan development and $54,650 per year for 5 years of study. Results of study max Annual cost based on $234,995 for recreation survey and $109,300 for recreation report, performed every 6 years through license ty Capital cost of $21,860 for plan development and $546,500 for implementation. z Capital and one-time costs are for plan development and a new access route from the south side of the reservoir. aa Actual costs may be significantly greater due to steep topography. bb Actual costs may vary significantly from year to year. cc Power generation losses associated with this measure reflect CHEOPS model simulated spill at UARP storage reservoirs. See sect

the likelihood of spill occurring at the storage reservoirs under real time operation. 

dd This reservoir level restriction measure is estimated to result in no reduction in annual energy benefits. 
B-31 

ee Capital cost is based on reconfiguring White Rock tunnel adit to serve as release point for boating flows; this reconfiguration work 

and only if the Iowa Hill development is not built and use triggers have been met. 

ff Actual costs may vary. gg Annual costs are for meetings with the Forest Service only. As a result of the meetings, additional annual costs are likely for meas

facilities into surrounding landscape. 

hh The cost to paint the powerhouse and penstock are not included because SMUD will incur these costs as part of regular maintenanc

license term. 

ii One-time cost only includes development of plan. Plan implementation costs are not included because of uncertain nature of measu

in the plan. Annual costs include road maintenance and snow plowing. 

jj Breakdown of one-time costs: (1) North Union Valley Road cost share portion: $3,278,000, (2) Lakeshore Road: $821,500, (3) W

share portion: $272,500, and (4) Junction Dam Road: $10,930. 

kk One-time cost only includes development of plan. Plan implementation costs are not included because of uncertain nature of meas

in the plan. 

ll Actual costs may vary significantly from year to year. mm Annual costs based on assumption of need to place 6 to 8 temperature sensors throughout Slab Creek Reservoir annually for period 

demonstrate that temperatures in shallow water areas of Slab Creek Reservoir are not affecting hardhead distribution by pump disc

nn Annual costs associated with placing temporary temperature probe in SFAR at Mosquito Road Bridge each year from June through oo Actual cost may vary significantly depending on future land prices in rural Sierra Nevada foothill area. pp One-time cost only includes development of plan. Plan implementation costs are not included because of uncertain nature of measu

in the plan. 

qq Estimated costs for this measure are incorporated into the cost estimates for Articles 1-28 and 1-29. rr One-time cost only includes development of plan. Plan implementation costs are not included because of uncertain nature of measu

in the plan. 

ss Annual cost is based on 2,730 hours of Project Management (2,730 hours x $83.50 direct rate + 64 percent surcharge for overhead) 

Administration (887 hours x $60.43 direct rate + 64 percent surcharge for overhead). 
B-32 This page intentionally left blank. 
B-33 

B.2 CAPITAL COST AND ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR SHARED MEASURES 

FOR THE UARP AND CHILI BAR PROJECTS 

Costs identified in this section will result from SMUD’s 90 percent contribution to 

the implementation of overlapping-issue measures contained in the Chili Bar Project, as 

described in appendix 2 of the Settlement Agreement. The latest cost information for the 

UARP was submitted on April 11, 2007, by SMUD. The annual operations and 

maintenance costs were submitted as 50-year average costs. Normally, it is our practice 

to request actual cash flows for each measure over the first 30 years of any potential new 

license, compute the present worth, and then annualize the present worth to obtain annual 

operations and maintenance costs. To provide continuity with the SMUD submittal, we 

have opted in this case to use its average operations and maintenance costs. We include 

capital, operations and maintenance, total annualized costs, and reductions in energy 

benefits in table B-2. 
B-34 

This page intentionally left blank. 
B-35 

Table B-2. Summary of SMUD’s capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, annualized costs an

annual energy benefits for shared measures included in the Proposed Action and Proposed 

Modifications. (Source: SMUD, 2007 and Staff) 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Cost 

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefits Discipline 

1 Article 2-1. Minimum 

streamflows. 

$0 $0 $0 $0 Water quantity 

2 Article 2-2. Ramping rates. $0 $0 $0 $0 Water quantity 

3 Article 2-3. Develop a plan 

to coordination with UARP Licensee. 

-- -- -- -- Water quantity 

4 Article 2-4. Monitoring 

Program to prepare and implement long-term monitoring plan for fish at two sites downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

$9,800 $7,000 $7,700 $0 Aquatic 

5 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

macroinvertebrates at two sites downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

$9,800 $5,900 $6,600 $0 Aquatic 
B-36 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Cost 

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefits Discipline 

6 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

amphibians and reptiles (FYLF, CRLF, and western pond turtle) in one reach downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

$9,800 $15,100 $15,800 $0 Terrestrial 

7 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

riparian vegetation in the reach downstream of Chili Bar dam 

$9,800 $9,500 $10,200 $0 Terrestrial 

8 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

water temperature at four stations downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

$9,800 $13,500 $14,200 $0 Water quality 

9 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

physical water quality in Chili Bar reservoir and downstream of the Chili Bar dam. 

$9,800 $22,500 $23,200 $0 Water quality 

10 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan 

chemistry water quality in Chili Bar reservoir and downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

$9,800 $9,000 $9,700 $0 Water quality 
B-37 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Cost 

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefits Discipline 

11 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

bacterial water quality in the reach downstream of the Chili Bar dam. 

$9,800 $12,200 $12,900 $0 Water quality 

12 Prepare and implement longterm monitoring plan for 

metals bioaccumulation in fish in Chili Bar reservoir. 

$9,800 $1,800 $2,500 $0 Water quality 

13 Article 2-5. Adaptive 

Management Program.a

$0 $0 $0 $0 Multidisciplinary 

14 Article 2-6. Sediment 

Management Program. 

$9,800 $5,800 $6,500 $0 Soils and 

geology 

15 Article 2-7. Large woody 

debris. 

-- -- -- -- Aquatic 

16 Article 2-8. Streamflow and 

reservoir elevation gaging. 

-- -- -- -- water quantity 

17 Article 2-9. Wildlife and 

plant protection measures. 

-- -- -- -- Terrestrial 

18 Article 2-10. Invasive Weed 

and Vegetation Management plans 

-- -- -- -- Terrestrial 
B-38 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Cost 

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefits Discipline 

19 Article 2-11. Annual review 

of ecological conditions. 

-- -- -- -- Terrestrial 

20 Article 2-12. BLM liaison. -- -- -- -- Recreation 

21 Article 2-13. BLM 

recreation improvements. 

-- -- -- -- Recreation 

22 Article 2-14. Public 

information services. Plan for providing streamflow and reservoir level information. 

$9,800 $13,500 $14,200 $0 Recreation 

23 Pay BLM $15,000 annually to 

provide project related brochure and public education plan. 

 $15,000 $15,000 

24 Article 2-15. Recreational 

streamflows. 

$0 $0 $0 $0 Recreation 

25 Article 2-16. Visual 

resource protection. 

-- -- -- -- Land use and 

aesthetics 
B-39 

Row No. Environmental Measure 

Capital 

Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Cost 

Reduction in 

Annual Energy 

Benefits Discipline 

26 Article 2-17. Heritage 

resources. 

-- -- -- -- Cultural 

resources 

27 Article 2-18. Heritage 

resource discovery. 

-- -- -- -- Cultural 

resources 

28 Article 2-21. 

Implementation schedule. 

-- -- -- -- Multidisciplinary 

29 SMUD labor to manage 

development and implementation of plans, monitoring programs, data management, etc.b

$0 $24,400 $24,400 $0 Multidisciplinary 

30 Proposed Action $107,800 $155,200 $162,900 $0 

Notes: Measures with a dash in the cost columns are not overlapping measures. a Adaptive management measure costs are not included because of the uncertainty associated with the need to implement the measures 

of the nature and extent of the measure. 

b Annual cost is based on 144 hours of Project Management (144 hours x $83.50 direct rate + 64 percent surcharge for overhead) and 4

Administration (47 hours x $60.43 direct rate + 64 percent surcharge for overhead). 
B-40 

This page intentionally left blank. 
B-41 

B.3 CAPITAL COST AND ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR MEASURES 

FOR THE CHILI BAR PROJECT 

In this section, we present the costs of environmental measures associated with the 

Chili Bar Project. The latest cost information for the Chili Bar Project was submitted on 

May 16, 2007, by PG&E. We include capital, operations and maintenance, total 

annualized costs, and reductions in energy benefits in table B-3. No reduction in 

dependable capacity was identified by PG&E for any environmental measures. 

We note that PG&E only made a preliminary estimate of the reduction of energy 

benefits in its May 16, 2007, submittal and estimated the total benefit reduction as 

approximately 1,000 MWh. PG&E currently plans to complete modeling energy effects 

later this summer. We would ask that PG&E provide this information as soon as possible 

but no later than the end of the comment period on the draft EIS. PG&E should provide 

the peak and off-peak energy effects along with the reduction in annual energy benefits 

for each measure that affects energy. This information should be provided for both with 

and without the Iowa Hill development. 

To enable staff to make a preliminary estimate in the draft EIS, we assumed that 

the combined effect of minimum instream flow, ramping and recreational streamflow is a 

loss of 1,000 MWh as per the May 16, 2007, PG&E submittal. We applied the same ratio 

of peak to off-peak generation loss as PG&E previously estimated for its proposal in its 

additional information response dated May 18, 2006. This would result in a loss of 27.8 

MWh of on peak energy and 972.2 MWh of off-peak energy. 

Additionally, the effect of the Iowa Hill development on annual energy change, 

including both on-peak and off-peak energy, should be provided if new modeling shows a 

different result than the 2006 modeling. PG&E made an earlier estimate of this effect in 

its additional information response dated May 18, 2006, and we used this estimate in our 

analysis of the effect of the Iowa Hill development on energy generation and the resulting 

change in benefit. We applied the SMUD peak and off-peak energy rates to PG&E’s 

709-MWh loss due to environmental measures and the additional 291-MWh energy 

decrease due to the Iowa Hill development. That estimate showed that on-peak 

generation would increase by 638 MWh if the Iowa Hill development were to be built, 

and off-peak generation would decrease by 929 MWh, resulting in a decrease of 291 

MWh. Therefore, if the Iowa Hill development were to be constructed, there would be an 

overall energy decrease of 1,000 MWh. If PG&E chooses to use peak, partial peak, offpeak, and super off-peak energy values on a monthly basis, it would need to provide 

complete backup information so that the Commission staff can independently check the 

computations. 
B-42 

This page intentionally left blank.
B-43 

Table B-3. Summary of capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, annualized costs and reductio

benefits for measures included in the Proposed Action and Proposed Action with Staff Mo

Chili Bar Project. (Source: PG&E, 2007 and Staff) 

Row No. 

Environmental 

Measure Capital Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction 

in Annual 

Energy 

Benefits Discipline 

1 Article 2-1. 

Minimum streamflows. 

$0 $0 $0 $56,300 Water quantity Comp

$73.8times 

2 Article 2-2. 

Ramping rates. 

$30,000 $15,000 $19,400 Water quantity Prelim

benefminim

3 Article 2-3. 

Coordination with UARP Licensee. 

$0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 Water quantity 

4 Article 2-4. 

Monitoring Program.b

5 Prepare and 

implement long-term monitoring plan for fish at two sites in the reach downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

$1,100 $800 $1,000 $0 Aquatic 
B-44 

Row No. 

Environmental 

Measure Capital Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction 

in Annual 

Energy 

Benefits Discipline 

6 Prepare and 

implement long-term monitoring plan for macroinvertebrates at two sites in the reach downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

$1,100 $700 $900 $0 Aquatic 

7 Prepare and 

implement long-term monitoring plan for amphibians and reptiles in the reach downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

$1,100 $1,700 $1,900 $0 Terrestrial 

8 Prepare and 

implement long-term monitoring plan for riparian vegetation in the reach downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

$1,100 $1,100 $1,300 $0 Terrestrial 
B-45 

Row No. 

Environmental 

Measure Capital Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction 

in Annual 

Energy 

Benefits Discipline 

9 Prepare and 

implement long-term monitoring plan for water temperature at four stations in the reach downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

$1,100 $1,500 $1,700 $0 Water quality 

10 Prepare and 

implement long-term monitoring plan for physical water quality in Chili Bar reservoir and in the reach downstream of the Chili Bar dam. 

$1,100 $2,500 $2,700 $0 Water quality 

11 Prepare and 

implement long-term monitoring plan for water chemistry in Chili Bar reservoir and in the reach downstream of Chili Bar dam. 

$1,100 $1,000 $1,200 $0 Water quality 
B-46 

Row No. 

Environmental 

Measure Capital Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction 

in Annual 

Energy 

Benefits Discipline 

12 Prepare and 

implement long-term monitoring plan for bacterial water quality in the reach downstream of the Chili Bar dam. 

$1,100 $1,400 $1,600 $0 Water quality 

13 Prepare and 

implement long-term monitoring plan for metals bioaccumulation in fish in Chili Bar reservoir. 

$1,100 $200 $400 $0 Water quality 

14 Article 2-5. 

Adaptive Management Program.c

$0 $0 $0 $0 Multidisciplinary 

15 Article 2-6. 

Sediment Management Program..b

$1,100 $600 $800 $0 Soils and geology 

16 Article 2-7. Large 

woody debris. 

$0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 Aquatic 
B-47 

Row No. 

Environmental 

Measure Capital Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction 

in Annual 

Energy 

Benefits Discipline 

17 Article 2-8. 

Streamflow and reservoir elevation gaging. 

$10,000 $5,000 $6,500 $0 Water quantity 

18 Article 2-9. Wildlife 

and plant protection measures. 

$0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 Terrestrial 

19 Article 2-10. 

Invasive Weed and Vegetation Management Plans. 

$10,000 $5,000 $6,500 $0 Terrestrial 

20 Article 2-11. 

Annual review of ecological conditions. 

$0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 Terrestrial 

21 Article 2-12. BLM 

liaison. 

$0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 Recreation 

22 Article 2-13. BLM 

recreation improvements. 

$70,000 $5,000 $15,200 $0 Recreation 
B-48 

Row No. 

Environmental 

Measure Capital Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction 

in Annual 

Energy 

Benefits Discipline 

23 Article 2-14. Public 

information services. 

$1,100 $1,500 $1,700 $0 Recreation 

24 Article 2-15. 

Recreational stream flows. 

$0 $0 $0 $0 Recreation Prelim

benefminim

25 Article 2-16. Visual 

resource protection. 

$0 $0 $0 $0 Land use and 

aesthetics 

26 Article 2-17. 

Heritage resources. 

$10,000 $2,000 $3,500 $0 Cultural resources 

27 Article 2-18. 

Heritage resource discovery. 

$0 $0 $0 $0 Cultural resources 

28 Article 2-21. 

Implementation schedule. 

$25,000 $5,000 $8,600 $0 Multidisciplinary 
B-49 

Row No. 

Environmental 

Measure Capital Cost 

Annual 

O&M cost 

Annualized 

Costa

Reduction 

in Annual 

Energy 

Benefits Discipline 

29 PG&E labor to 

manage development and implementation of plans, monitoring programs, datamanagement, etc.

$0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 Multidisciplinary 

30 Proposed Action $167,100 $112,000 $136,900 

31 Additional staff 

measure(s) 

32 Prepare a recreation 

plan for Chili Bar Project every 6 years. 

 $2,700 $2,700 Recreation 

33 Proposed Action 

with Staff Modifications 

$167,100 $114,700 $139,300 

34 Iowa Hill 

development effect on Chili Bar generation 

 –$4,800 Comp

$73.8times 

a As per PG&E, costs are current estimates based on initial analysis of the Settlement Agreement and are subject to revision. b Overlapping measure with UARP. c Adaptive management measure costs are not included due to the uncertainty associated with the nature, extent and implementation
B-50 

This page intentionally left blank.