CA. Hydro Project Threatens Fishing River

Under Federal Energy Regulation Commission Application P-12053,
Nicholas Josten of Idaho filed an application to construct a
hydroelectric plant upon the South Fork of the Pit River, located in
rural Modoc County in 2003. This project proposes to generate
electrical power for a maximum of 2200 households.

As partners, the South Fork Irrigation District of Likely, California
and Barry Swenson of Alturas Ranches who is financing the studies and
arranging for the financing of the million plus dollar project,propose
to divert 100 cubic feet from a river that hardly runs 45 cubic per
second during average years along a three mile strech of scenic roadway
that runs alongside Jess Valley Road. The river is home to the
endangered redband trout and the project site is proposed to sit on a
31 acre peice of BLM property, situated between two private residences
and in the midst if a small residential area.

Swenson, a multimillionaire Silicon Valley Builder and Land Developer,
dba Green Valley Corporation, and a sixty percent stakeholder in the
South Fork Irrigation District, owns much property in Santa Clara,
Monterrey, Marin, Alameda, Fresno, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Yuba,
Sutter, Sonoma and Modoc Counties and builds major hotels and
commercial buildings. He started acquring property in Modoc County in
1997.

Swenson's website indicates a philosophy: "Our vision is to work as a
team wisely utilizing our land and resources. We will choose our
projects focusing on urban in-fill sites, and building renovation being
sensitive toward agriculture, green belts, and raw coastal land. Our
intention is to stay connected to nature and community of the area we
work and live in," however Swenson and his representatives have not
discussed this matter with landowners despite promises to meet.


To facilitate the project, the developers propose to divert the water
from the river through an existing South Fork Irrigation Distict Canal
which is located within the heart of the Modoc National Forest and
prior to entry into West Valley Reservoir, will transport the water
through piping to the West Valley Reservoir Dam through two generators
to be installed at that site. From there, they propose to spill the
water down Short Creek, returning it into the Pit River, three miles
downstream from where it was initially diverted. The water will not
enter the West Valley Reservoir or raise its water tables as it is
considered "renewable energy" and will bypass the Reservoir.

The proposal desires to leave five cubic feet per second within the
three mile of river stretch which is diverted with the exception of an
eight week period of time during the spring high rains. To mitigate
swampy and drained areas, they propose to dredge the river to faciliate
a man
made canal approximately three and one half half feet to five feet in
width to accomodate fish life, which will replace the fifteen to thirty
feet wide expanses of the river.

The intended diverted areas include the open, scenic areas which can be
seen by the road and will dramatically change the landscape of the area
as well as the native fish habitat, especially in the rolling meadow
area owned by private property owners, including land which
has been preserved by a local property owner for community recreational
use and areas that have historical and cultural value as Hammawi Indian
Tribe hunting sites.

An initial study was contracted by the developers to a consultant who
was asked by Fish and Game to conduct a study of the river conditions
during the migration of redband trout spawning and only during a
certain time of the year, specifically spring, when the rains were
highest. That study concluded fish could exist within 7.5 cfs of water
however mentioned that there were barrier areas within the river
through which they would be unable to pass. One of those areas was the
large privately preserved meadow area along Jess Valley Road, which is
privately owned and would
essentially be drained. California Department of Fish and Game
stipulated that 7.5 cfs was adequate to leave as a mandatory bypass
within the river, based upon the limited study, though photographic
evidence
indicates this is not feasible in that stretch of the river.

The man made canal in place of a river will eliminate fly fishing in
that stretch of the river especially within the wide public accessible
stretches of the river. Contact with the Department of Fish and Game
and the Developer as how to to facilite the 7.5 cfs within the
river,included discussions of how to alter the lands of the private
property owners in order to make it feasible, including how to fund the
alterations with state public funds and using state public resources.

The developers feel the private land owners have development
opportunities upon the river and are offering to build a bridge across
the river in order to avoid land depreciation as a result of the
project. Property owners do not wish development upon that particular
part of the parcels and intend to preserve this only open stretch upon
the river. Currently, one property owner is the process
of establishing a conservation easement upon the property which would
prohibit development upon their ownership of the riverfront property
and would preserve it for the public for generations to come.

Currently, the only choices offered to property owners regarding the
state of their properties is to accept drained, swampy land, a man made
canal or to expend personal and financial resources to oppose the
project
to it's end.

Due to a 1934 agreement with the State of California, that mentions no
bypass regulations, the South Fork Irrigation District has repeatedly
stated that they have the right to drain the river of the water to
acquire their 38 cubic feet per second diversion into the West Valley
Reservoir from the months of November lst through April 15th. This is
facilitated at a steady rate, rather than an escalating rate when the
spring rains create a strong flow in the river. The South Fork
Irrigation District representatives have repeatedly stated they can
drain the river at any given time due to their interpretation of that
agreement.

That agreement with the State of California which was post 1914 had no
mention of bypass regulation which makes it applicable to the
conflicting California public trust laws which exist within Fish and
Game Codes.

Those laws require all operators of dams to maintain a healthy fish
environment in river areas around their dams. The Department of Fish
and Game have the legislation to enforce these laws, however state they
are
reluctant to enforce the laws because local District Attorneys often
will not charge the matters when brought before them. They state it is
too financially costly to utilize the services of the California State
Attorney General.

As a result, this year, during low rainfalls in February, the river was
diverted to 1.5 cubic feet per second and reduced to a mudbed. Fish
and aquatic life perished or went downstream.
Photographs evidencing this can be viewed at
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bruzzo.../ph//my_photos
which presents a photograph chronology of the river condition from July
of 2004 through April l, 2005 and the effects upon the river as a
result of the South Fork Irrigation District's irrigation diversion.

Subsequently, the Department of Fish and Game has taken no action
regarding this nor intends to take any action, according to Redding,
California Fish and Game officials. It is apparent they have not taken
action in the past, as well, for on approximately 622 different days
from
1940 to 2002, the river was diverted and drained below 5 cubic feet per
second.

In 1982, this proposal was brought to the Federal Energy Regulation
Commission by the South Fork Irrigation District to build this specific
project, however, as with the Lassen County Municipal District and the
Boise Ranchers project which occurred last month,it was determined to
be infeasible due to high costs to produce the power and in the matter
of Lassen County Municipal District, low demand for private electrical
power at this time.

The South Fork Irrigation District abandoned the initial application,
then reentered into a new application with Nicholas Josten of Geosense,
of Twin Falls, Idaho, after he picked up the abandoned application in
2001.

The South Fork Irrigation District is not listed as a principal in the
project within the FERC or State of California Water Resource Board
applications despite the fact they are a public utility, subject to
disclosure laws and compliance with the Brown Act. In November, they
stated to a landowner, "We are glad the project is no longer ours and
the other guy is doing it."

During a landowner meeting with the developers in April of this year,
they admitted being principals in the project. They have met with
governmental agencies in respect to this project and information
regarding those meetings of the South Fork Irrigation District not
noticed to landowners.

Though the State of California has no power shortage at this time and
there is no grid infra-structure resources remaining to import surplus
power to Southern California, Josten has no quantified
agreements with any power company and has stated he will seek power
buyers after the permit is issued stating he can sell the power out of
state, if he cannot find a power supplier within the State of
California. Federal "Purpa" laws require local power companies to
purchase "green power" at higher costs and if enforced by the State of
California, Modoc County residents could very well see a higher power
cost if the Surprise Valley Electrification Corporation is
required to purchase this power.

The economic benefit to the community is minimal, at this point. It is
proposed to be installed on Federal public Bureau of Land Management
and National Forest Land which will produce no tax assessments for the
value of property owned, with the exception of the equipment to be
installed, which is estimated by the developer to be $500,000. As the
South Fork Irrigation District is considered a government entity, the
portion of the project which is theirs is not taxable, only the portion
belonging to the private partners. This tax initially equates to
$5,000 a year maximum if the equipment is reported as belonging to the
private partner and will decrease as the value of the
equipment depreciates with age.

It is unlikely there will be any taxable revenue to the State from the
project (the personal partner's share) until the million plus dollar
project is paid for, due to depreciation and
operational costs offsets and is further reduced due to the public
entity status of the South Fork Irrigation District. Again, any
revenues that go to the South Fork Irrigation District will not be
taxable and most likely would be taxed by the State of California and
not the County.

The revenue generated from this project appears to be less than the
construction of the assessment of one home within this area, as the
site for one of the power plants is scheduled to be constructed within
an approximately 31 acres of BLM land which is sandwiched between
private land parcels which are zoned for three acre residential
parcels.

Conservation of the river side of the properties is a major goal of the
local landowners and development of the areas of the river that can be
seen from County Road 64 is not an objective of the landowners. The
intent is to leave the open areas of the river accessible for public
use as they have been through generations.

If land values drop as a result of this project, then the project will
cost the county revenue through lower assessed tax rates. One home is
scheduled for construction within the diversion reach area, however the
landowners are postponing building at this time to determine the
ramifications of their project. This one home alone would bring the
County $2,800 minimum, taxable revenue and in the future, property tax
revenue for the installation of five fishing cabins (to be installed
upon the road on the other side of the river) consistent room tax
revenue and revenue to the local area through the use of community
businesses by individuals who visit the small fishing village.

The project is planned to go through the National Forest campground at
the Old Blue Lake Road, which may discourage sports camping and
recreational hiking and fishing activity at that site. A significant
concern is the possibility of mosquito impovstation in swampy areas of
the riverbed though that could be mitigated at county cost through a
mosquito abatement program.

The developers state they will hire one part time employee to conduct
maintenance on the project, which will be facilitated through the South
Fork Irrigation District. The plans for the plant are that it will be
self automated. Therefore, any and all jobs as a result of this
project will only be temporary during the initial construction, if the
project hires local labor and doesn't use the already available
resources of the developer, Barry Swenson, who owns his own commercial
building company which is familiar with the building of large projects.
Most of the construction will require highly trained and skilled
individuals and will be very technical in nature especially if blasting
of explosives through rock are required to install the facilities.

Construction will require expanding the irrigation canal to facilitate
100 cubic feet per second of water to be diverted from the river. The
canal has been poorly maintained through the years and has breached on
several occasions, the last time in November of 2004, when sediment
rolled from the breach into the South Fork, damaging water quality and
destroying fish habitat.

Evidence of prior breaches are readily visible around the area of the
diversion canal and indicate a direct trail into the riverbed.

The developers propose to line the canal with felt to avoid further
breaches, though in their last repair of the November breach, lined the
canal with viscene.

Piping will be installed across the project line to the dam. Two metal
sheds will facilitate generators and Francis turbine engines at both
facilities. One will be located on Jess Valley Road and will be visible
from the roadway at the site of the South Fork Irrigation Bridge.

The conditions of the river, as it is proposed around the Old Blue Lake
Road, will be insufficient for fire fighting resources to be able to
draw water from the river to protect local homes. Landowners who reside
on the river have been denied small domestic use water permits in order
to store water, to water drought plagued vegetation and use water from
the river for personal use due to the allocation being used up. This
includes installing an infrastructure to protect themselves from fire.

The California State Water Resource Control Board has stated all
allocations of water have been filled with the exceptions of the months
of November through April, when the risk of fire is at its lowest.

The conditions of the river, at certain areas, including the meadow
area, will be swampy and muddy unless the landowners concede their
right to owning property on a river and allow the small man made canal
be constructed. The swampy conditions will create health hazards and
mosquito infestation, which would amplify the possibility for disease
to both humans, wildlife and domestic animals. The developers have not
addressed the human health hazards of their project.

High transmission wires that will be "raptor friendly" will be
installed up the canyon leading from Jess Valley Road to the West
Valley Reservoir. The definition of "raptor friendly" power lines is
unknown as it was not specified by the developer in their plans

The developers have discounted National Institute of Health Studies
that indicate high transmission wires can have an adverse affect upon
heart rate, production of melatonin and interfere with coils on hearing
aids. The majority of residents residing in the area of the project are
retired or planning to reside on their properties during retirement.

According to the FCC, high voltage wires also interfere with
communications equipment such as telephones,radios and cellular
telephones.

It should be noted the majority of residents who reside by the river
are either of retirement age or intend their residences to be
retirement homes and are individuals vulnerable to those problems.

Despite an everconstant breeze that flows through the canyon area that
amplies and echoes sound through the canyon, the developers claim that
sound from the turbine engines and generators will not be an issue and
if it becomes an issue, they will insulate the metal shed after the
construction.

The developers have argued this hydroelectric plant is necessary to
protect fish habitat and needed to increase the amount of bypass flow
to protect the natural resources, in accordance with the
1934 decision that has no bypass flow even though the SFID, as
principals in this project could voluntarily follow California state
laws and allow more inflow into the water during the irrigation
diversion. It has been stated the project is needed to effectively and
economically maintain their diversion canal as they don't currently
have the financial resources to install screens and ladders on their
current penstocks or felt lining at the bottom of their canal despite
the fact they have filed for yet another large power project at the
other end of the reservoir, the Moon Lake Project under FERC number
P-12575 and have documented to the government they have the financial
resources to build that multi million dollar project.

Their proposal to build the man made canal and conduct the riparian
work includes funding and resources from state or federal government
grants to facilitate the private project.

The project studies do address overgrazing of the riparian areas. Local
residents will have to fence part of the river area as South Fork
Irrigation Representatives advised they cannot control the grazing
practices of their members upon the river.

The project will pay the irrigation costs of maintenance, water and a
watermaster for the South Fork Irrigation District as the involved
ranches now pay $1.53 an acre, yearly, for water and share a
proportionate share of the costs of their own independent watermaster.

Landowners and local residents are protesting this project and have
placed signs and banners up and down the canyon expressing their
opposition toward the project, joined in their effort by Cal Trout,
Northern California Council of Fly Fishers, Golden West Women Fly
Fishers, the Pit River Tribe and many individuals statewide.

A scoping meeting regarding this project will be held on June 15th, to
be publicly announced in the next several weeks. We encourage Modoc
County residents to attend, listen to the proposed project plans and
submit their opinions either for the project or in opposition to the
Modoc National Forest who has been charged with the responsibility of
scoping, noting and addressing public concern and determining the
effects of the project for future licensure consideration.

Please send letters to Modoc National Forest, 800 W. Twelth Street,
Alturas California 96101 with your opinions to this project. Opinions
must be project specific to be considered as part of the NEPA scoping
process.

This is the Federal Register notice on this project with contact names
and numbers.

Notice of Site Visit, Scoping Meetings, and Soliciting Scoping Comments


[Federal Register: May 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 29302-29303]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20my05-84]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Site Visit, Scoping Meetings, and Soliciting Scoping Comments

May 12, 2005.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric exemption application
has been filed with the Commission and is available for public
inspection.
a. Type of Application: Exemption of a Major Hydropower Project 5
MW or Less.
b. Project: West Valley A&B Hydro Project No. 12053-001.
c. Date Filed: July 18, 2003.
d. Applicant: Mr. Nicholas Josten.
e. Location: On the South Fork of the Pit River in Modoc County,
California. The project would be located on approximated 31 acres of
federal lands, managed by Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM).
f. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2705, 2708.
g. Applicant Contact: Mr. Nicholas Josten, (208) 528-6152,
, 2742 St Charles Ave, Idaho Falls, ID 83404.
h. FERC Contact: Susan O'Brien, (202) 502-8449 or
.
i. FS Contact: Jayne Biggerstaff, (530) 283-7768 or
.
j. BLM Contact: Phil Rhinehart, (530) 233-7907 or
.
k. Deadline for filing scoping comments: July 11, 2005.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Scoping comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's

Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) through the Commission's eLibrary
using the ``Documents & Filing'' link.
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document

on that resource agency.
l. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready
for environmental analysis at this time.
m. The proposed project would consist of two developments, West
Valley A and West Valley Alternative B-1. Alternative B-2 has been
deleted from the proposed project (applicant's response to
deficiencies, filed October 25, 2004).
West Valley A run-of river development would have a capacity of 1.0

MW and consists of: (1) An existing concrete diversion structure; (2)
an existing intake structure; (3) 11,600 feet of open canal; (4) a
proposed concrete overflow structure; (5) a proposed 2,800 feet of new
canal; (6) a proposed penstock; (7) a proposed powerhouse; (8) a
proposed tailrace pipe; (9) a proposed transmission line; and (10)
appurtenant facilities. The applicant estimates that the total average
annual generation would be 3,300,000 kWh.
West Valley Alternative B-1 run-of-river development would have a
capacity of 1.36 MW and consists of: (1) The existing West Valley Dam
and outlet works; (2) a new bypass valve attached to the existing dam
outlet pipe; (3) a proposed penstock; (4) a proposed powerhouse; (5) a
proposed tailrace canal; (6) a proposed transmission line; and (7)
appurtenant facilities. The applicant estimates that the total average
annual generation would be 4,730,000 kWh.
n. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
"eLibrary" link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits
in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance,
contact
FERC Online Support at or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item g. above.
You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
o. By Letter of Understanding executed on April 18, 2005, the
Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will be
cooperating agencies regarding the Commission's actions on the West
Valley Project,

[[Page 29303]]

including consultation, submission of additional information requests,
and cooperation in the preparation of scoping and environmental
documents. The FS and BLM will make independent decisions to determine
whether, and under what conditions, to authorize the construction,
operation and maintenance of the hydropower project on Federal lands.
This scoping process will also satisfy the scoping responsibilities

of the FS and BLM, as required by National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the agencies' regulations. The FS and BLM will conduct
ongoing consultation with the affected and interested Indian Tribes in
order to meet FS and BLM consultation commitments.
p. Scoping Process: The Commission intends to prepare a single
environmental document in accordance with NEPA. The environmental
assessment (EA) will consider both site-specific and cumulative
environmental effects and reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action.
Site Visit: Commission staff, along with FS, BLM, and the applicant

will conduct a site visit to the proposed project area on Wednesday,
June 15, 2005. All interested parties and individuals are invited to
attend. Please note that the site visit may involve extensive walking.
Participants in the site visit will need to provide their own
transportation (carpooling will be encouraged) and bring their own
lunch/water. Anyone planning to attend the site visit needs to contact
Susan O'Brien at (202) 502-8449 or by June 9,
2005. The time and location of the site visit is as follows:

Public Site Visit

Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2005.
Time: 9 a.m.-3 p.m. (PDT).
Place: Meet at Likely Fire Hall (in parking lot), Route 395,
Likely, California.
Scoping Meetings: Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings
in the project area to ensure all interested parties have an
opportunity to attend. All interested resource agencies, non-
governmental organizations, Native American tribes, and individuals are

invited to attend one or both of the meetings. The times and locations
of these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Public Scoping Meeting

Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2005.
Time: 10 a.m. (PDT).
Place: Likely Fire Hall, Route 395, Likely California.

Evening Pubic Scoping Meeting

Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2005.
Time: 6:30 p.m. (PDT).
Place: Likely Fire Hall, Route 395, Likely California.
Copies of the Scoping Document (SD) outlining the subject areas to
be addressed in the EA were mailed to all parties on the Commission's
mailing list and will be available at the scoping meetings. Copies may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link [see item (n.) above]. The Scoping meetings

and site visit are posted on the Commission's calendar located on the
Internet at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
along with other related information.
Objectives: At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EA; (2)

solicit from the meeting participants all available information,
especially empirical data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage
statements from experts and participants on issues that should be
analyzed in the EA, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in
support of, the staff's preliminary view; (4) determine the resource
issues to be addressed in the EA; and (5) identify those issues that do

not require a detailed analysis.
Procedures: The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and
become part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the
project.
Individuals, organizations, resource agencies, and Indian tribes
with environmental expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the
meetings and to assist Commission staff in defining and clarifying the
issues to be addressed in the EA.
q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according

to the following Hydro Exemption Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
will be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major milestone Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Scoping Document............. May 2005.
Site visit and Scoping Meetings.... June 14-15, 2005.
Scoping Comments due............... July 11, 2005.
Additional Information Request August 2005.
(AIR).
AIR Response due from Applicant.... November 2005.
Notice that application is ready November 2005.
for environmental analysis.
Comments, Terms and Conditions due. January 2006.
Reply Comments due................. March 2006.
Environmental Assessment Issued.... April 2006.
Ready for Commission's decision on June 2006.
the application.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-2532 Filed 5-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

A website to get more information on this project is at:


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/=ADsouthforkpitriver/