DOE/EIS-0232
Summary
Proposed Action
Need for the Proposed Action
Purpose of the Proposed Action
Public Involvement
Alternatives
Affected Environment
Environmental Consequences
1.0 Purpose and Need
1.1 Proposed Action
1.2 Need for the Proposed Action
1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action
1.4 Statutory and Other Legal Constraints
1.5 Public Involvement
1.6 Relationship of the 2004 EIS to Other Actions and NEPA Processes
1.6.1 Relationship to Interior's CVPIA PEIS
1.6.2 Relationship to EPAMP EIS
1.6.3 Relationship to Trinity River Studies
1.6.4 Relationship to CALFED Bay/Delta Program
1.6.5 Relationship to the Westernwide Resource Acquisition
Planning Public Process
1.6.6 Relationship to FERC's NOPR and EIS on Transmission
Services
1.6.7 Relationship to the California State Law on Electric
Utility Industry Restructuring
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including the No-Action Alternative
2.1 Background and Current Marketing Activities
2.1.1 Existing Programs and Power Marketing Activities
2.1.2 Sierra Nevada Region/PG&E Integration
2.1.3 Sales Contract Expiration
2.2 Components of Program Alternatives
2.2.1 Selection of Components for Consideration
2.2.2 Issues Not Incorporated into Alternatives
2.2.3 Components Incorporated into Alternatives
2.3 Description of Alternatives
2.3.1 Final EIS Refinements Affecting the Structure of Alternatives
2.3.2 Overview of the Five Alternatives
2.3.3 No-Action Alternative
2.3.4 Maximize Hydropower Peaking Alternative
2.3.5 Baseload Alternative
2.3.6 Renewable Resource Acquisition Alternative
2.3.7 Preferred Alternative
2.3.8 Environmentally Preferred Alternative
2.3.9 Analysis of Allocation to Customer Groups
2.4 Summary of Environmental Impacts
3.0 Affected Environment
3.1 Geography and Topography
3.1.1 Central Valley Basin
3.1.2 Trinity Basin
3.1.3 Truckee Basin
3.2 Facility Description of Central Valley and Washoe Projects
3.2.1 Trinity River Division
3.2.2 Shasta Division
3.2.3 American River Division
3.2.4 West San Joaquin Division
3.2.5 East Side Division
3.2.6 Other Divisions
3.2.7 Washoe Project
3.2.8 Sierra Nevada Region Transmission
3.3 Hydropower Resources Operations and Constraints
3.3.1 Trinity River Division
3.3.2 Shasta Division
3.3.3 American River Division
3.3.4 West San Joaquin Division
3.3.5 East Side Division
3.3.6 Washoe Project
3.3.7 Other Obligations Affecting Hydropower Availability
Preference Sales
3.4 CVP Water Resources
3.4.1 Lewiston Reservoir
3.4.2 Keswick Reservoir
3.4.3 Lake Natoma
3.4.4 Tulloch Reservoir
3.5 Fisheries
3.5.1 Lewiston Reservoir
3.5.2 Keswick Reservoir
3.5.3 Lake Natoma
3.5.4 Tulloch Reservoir
3.6 Terrestrial Environment
3.6.1 Central Valley Basin
3.6.2 Trinity River Basin
3.6.3 Regulating Reservoirs
3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species
3.7.1 Central Valley and Trinity River Basins
3.7.2 Species of Special Concern
3.7.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern Present at
Regulating Reservoirs
3.8 Recreation
3.8.1 Lewiston Reservoir
3.8.2 Keswick Reservoir
3.8.3 Lake Natoma
3.8.4 Tulloch Reservoir
3.9 Cultural Resources
3.9.1 Introduction
3.9.2 Lewiston Reservoir
3.9.3 Keswick Reservoir
3.9.4 Lake Natoma
3.9.5 Tulloch Reservoir
3.10 Utility Systems Description
3.10.1 Utility System Integration
3.10.2 Sierra Nevada Region's Customers and Loads
3.10.3 Utility Economic Conditions
3.11 Socioeconomic Resources
3.11.1 Economic Regions
3.11.2 Environmental Justice
3.11.3 Northern and Central California Region
3.12 Air Resources
3.12.1 California Air Quality
3.12.2 Pacific Northwest Air Quality
3.12.3 Desert Southwest Air Quality
3.13 Water Consumption Associated with Non-CVP Powerplants
3.14 Waste Production Associated with Non-CVP Powerplants
3.15 Land Use Associated with Non-CVP Powerplants
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.1 PROSIM Hydrologic Model
4.2 PROSYM Production Cost Model
4.2.1 Modeling the No-Action Alternative
4.2.2 Modeling the Peaking Alternative
4.2.3 Modeling the Baseload Alternative
4.2.4 Purchase Assumptions and Approaches Applicable to the Baseload
and Peaking Alternatives
4.2.5 Modeling the Renewables Alternative
4.2.6 Modeling the Preferred Alternative
4.2.7 Modeling Allocation Options
4.2.8 Effects on Capacity and Energy
4.3 CVP Water Resources
4.3.1 Water Temperature
4.3.2 Pool Fluctuation
4.4 Fisheries
4.4.1 Approach
4.4.2 Impacts
4.5 Terrestrial Environment
4.5.1 Approach
4.5.2 Impacts
4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
4.6.1 Approach
4.6.2 Impacts
4.7 Recreation
4.7.1 Approach
4.7.2 Impacts
4.8 Cultural Resources
4.8.1 Impacts Assessment and the Area of Potential Effects (APE)
4.8.2 Potential Impacts Associated with Project Alternatives
4.8.3 Potential Impacts by Project Facility
4.8.4 Summary of Impacts
4.9 Socioeconomic Resources
4.9.1 Approach
4.9.2 Power Costs
4.9.3 Environmental Justice Impacts
4.9.4 Regional Economic Impacts
4.10 Air Resources
4.10.1 Approach
4.10.2 Air Quality Impacts
4.11 Water Consumption Associated with Non-CVP Powerplants
4.11.1 Approach
4.11.2 Impacts
4.12 Waste Production Associated with Non-CVP Powerplants
4.12.1 Approach
4.12.2 Solid Waste Impacts
4.13 Land Use Associated with Non-CVP Powerplants
4.13.1 Approach
4.13.2 Land-Use Impacts
4.14 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
4.15 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
4.16 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity
4.17 Direct and Indirect Effects
4.18 Cumulative Effects
5.0 Environmental Consultation, Review, and Permit Requirements
6.0 References
7.0 List of Preparers
8.0 List of Recipients
9.0 Acronyms
10.0 Glossary
Technical Appendices
A - Statutory and Legal Framework
A.1 Legislative History
A.2 Statutory Authorities
A.2.1 Authorization
A.2.2 Reclamation Law
A.2.3 The Energy Policy Act of 1992
B - Sierra Nevada Region Customer Groups and Economic Regions
C - Renewable Technology Cost Information Matrix
C.1 Data Sources
C.2 Comprehensive Characteristics Matrix
C.3 Summary Matrices
C.4 Economic Normalization
D - Hydrological Assumptions
E - Recreation Resources Along River Reaches and the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta
E.1 Sacramento River
E.1.1 Upper Reach
E.1.2 Middle Reach
E.1.3 Lower Reach
E.2 Trinity River
E.3 American River
E.4 Stanislaus River
E.5 The Delta
F - Archaeological and Historical Resources
G - Incremental Power Resources
H - Air Quality Regulatory Structure
H.1 Federal Air Quality Regulations
H.2 California Air Quality Regulations
H.3 Pacific Northwest States Air Quality Regulations
H.4 Desert Southwest States Air Quality Regulations
H.5 EPA Proposal for More Restrictive Ambient Air Quality Standards
I - Energy Generation for PROSYM Cases
J - Stage Contents Relationships for Regulating Reservoirs
K - Power Costs for Utility, Agriculture, and Other Customers
L - Socioeconomic Impacts in Specific Economic Regions
L.1 San Francisco Bay Area Economic Region
L.2 Sacramento Economic Region
L.3 Shasta County Economic Region
L.4 Kern County Economic Region
M - Projected Air Resource Impacts
M.1 Annual Emissions
M.2 Seasonal and Diurnal Emission of Pollutants
M.3 Difference Between Average and Adverse Years
N - Land Use, Water Quality, and Solid Waste Impact Factors
N.1 References
N.2 Acronyms Used in Tables
O - 2004 Power Marketing Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Comments and Lead Agency Responses
O.1 Written Comments Received
O.1.1 State of California, Department of Parks & Recreation
O.1.2 Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance
O.1.3 Sacramento Municipal Utility District
O.1.4 City of Palo Alto
O.1.5 Northern California Power Agency
O.1.6 City of Redding
O.1.7 Tuolumne Public Power Agency
O.1.8 Bay Area Rapid Transit District
O.1.9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
O.2 Comments Received at the June 13, 1996, Public Hearing
O.2.1 R.M. Hairston & Company on behalf of Bay Area Rapid
Transit District
O.2.2 Sacramento Municipal Utility District
O.2.3 City of Palo Alto
P - Contractor Disclosure Statements
P.1 Battelle (Pacific Northwest Laboratory)Alto
P.2 R. W. Beck
P.3 Woodward-Clyde Consultants
P.4 Water Resources Management, Incorporated
Figures
S.1 The Tent Stakes Approach for Examining the Limits of the Alternatives
1.1 Sierra Nevada Region Marketing Area
1.2 The Tent Stakes Approach for Examining the Limits of the Alternatives
1.3 Relationship of Other Internal and External Environmental Processes to the 2004 EIS
2.1 Components Relationships Study Process
2.2 Alternative Formation
2.3 Melded Costs for CVP Peaking Plus Renewable Resource
3.1 Central Valley and Trinity River Basins of California
3.2 Sierra Nevada Region Power and Water Resources
3.3 Sierra Nevada Region's Principal Transmission Facilities
3.4 Historical Annual CVP Generation from 1979 to 1995
3.5 Forecasted Monthly CVP Generation and Instantaneous Capacity in 2005
3.6 Example of Daily Flow Fluctuations for CVP
3.7 Natural Gas and Coal Price Projections
3.8 Northern and Central California Subregions and Counties Used in Economic Impact Analysis
3.9 Distribution of Low-Income Population in Northern and Central California, 1990
3.10 Distribution of Minority Population in Northern and Central California, 1990
3.11 1995 Regional Population Distribution in Northern and Central California
3.12 Northern and Central California Population Trend Projections, 1990-2010 Employment and Industry
3.13 1995 and 2005 Total Employment in Northern and Central California
3.14 1992 and 2005 Northern and Central California Total Industrial Output by Major Industry
3.15 California Air Basins
3.16 California Nonattainment Areas for Ozone
3.17 California Nonattainment Areas for Carbon Monoxide
3.18 California Nonattainment Areas for PM10
3.19 California Nonattainment Areas for Nitrogen Dioxide, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Sulfates
4.1 Relationship of the PROSIM and PROSYM Models to the Impact Analyses
4.2 Greatest Magnitude of Simple Thermal Impact Based on Thermal Analysis of Regulating Reservoirs
4.3 Estimated Benchmark Temperature Fluctuations at Keswick Reservoir
4.4 Keswick Pool Elevation for September in an Average Year
4.5 Keswick Pool Elevation for September in an Adverse Year
4.6 Financial Flows Within a Regional Economy
4.7 Economic Impact Modeling Process Used to Estimate 2005 Impacts
4.8 Aggregated Power Costs for Alternatives and Allocation Cases
4.9 Example of Disaggregated Cases
4.10 2005 Impacts on Industrial Output by Alternative in the Northern and Central California Economic Region
4.11 2005 Employment Impacts by Alternative in the Northern and Central California Economic Region
4.12 2005 Regional Labor Income Impacts by Alternative in the Northern and Central California Economic Region
4.13 Example of How Disaggregated Cases Would Affect Socioeconomic Outcomes
4.14 Increase in the No-Action Alternative Air Pollutant Emissions for an Adverse Water Year Compared to an Average Year
4.15 Change in Pollutant Emissions from No-Action Alternative Levels for an Average Water Year
4.16 Hourly Difference in Nox Emissions During July for Each Alternative
4.17 Differences in Estimated Wastewater Production Among Alternatives in Comparison with the No-Action Alternative
4.18 Estimates of Solid Waste Production
4.19 Land-Use Impacts Relative to the No-Action Alternative
J.1 Lewiston Stage Contents Relationship (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
J.2 Keswick Stage Contents Relationship (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
J.3 Natoma Stage Contents Relationship (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
J.4 Tulloch Stage Contents Relationship (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
K.1 Power Costs for Agriculture Customers (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
K.2 Power Costs for Other Customers (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
K.3 Power Costs for Utility Customers (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
K.4 Power Costs for Total Customers (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
L.1 2005 Regional Output Impacts by Alternative in the Bay Area
Economic Region (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
L.2 2005 Regional Employment Impacts by Alternative in the Bay
Area Economic Region (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
L.3 2005 Regional Labor Income Impacts by Alternative in the
Bay Area Economic Region (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
L.4 2005 Regional Output Impacts by Alternative in the Sacramento Region (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
L.5 2005 Regional Employment Impacts by Alternative in the Sacramento Region (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
L.6 2005 Regional Labor Income Impacts by Alternative in the Sacramento Region (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
L.7 2005 Regional Output Impacts by Alternative in the Shasta County Region (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
L.8 2005 Regional Employment Impacts by Alternative in the Shasta County Region (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
L.9 2005 Regional Labor Income Impacts by Alternative in the Shasta
County Region (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
M.1 Seasonal Variation in Power Demand for Sierra Nevada Region's Customers (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
M.2 Diurnal Variation in Power Demand for January, April, July, and October (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
M.3 NOx Emissions for an Average Weekday in July (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
M.4 Diurnal Variation in Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions for an Average
Weekday in April (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)
S.1 Summary of 2004 EIS Alternatives S.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts 2.1 Initial 63 Components 2.2 Summary of EPAMP PMI Provisions and Environmental Findings 2.3 Summary of 2004 EIS Alternatives 2.4 Summary of Impacts Resulting from Each Alternative in Comparison with the No-Action Alternative 2.5 Summary of Environmental Impacts 3.1 Power Resources of the Central Valley Project 3.2 Fish Species of Central Valley Rivers and Reservoirs 3.3 Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species Within the Central Valley and Trinity River Basins 3.4 Federal and State Candidates for Protection as Threatened and Endangered Species Within the Central Valley and Trinity River Basins 3.5 Resource Categories Modeled in PROSYM 3.6 Monthly Load Forecasts for Each Customer Group 3.7 1990 Population Characteristics of Northern and Central California 3.8 Percent of Plants in Each State Using Cooling Water Sources 4.1 Transmission Limits 4.2 Estimated 2005 Load-Carrying Capacity (MW) Available from CVP Hydropower 4.3 CVP Hydropower and No-Action Alternative Resource Price Assumptions 4.4 Assumptions for Renewable Resource Price Forecasts 4.5 Keswick Reservoir Estimated Energy Input for September 15 4.6 Annual and Hourly Range of Pool Fluctuations in Regulating Reservoirs 4.7 Allocation of Capacity to Sierra Nevada Region's Customer Groups and Economic Regions 4.8 Impacts on Kern County Farm Profits by Crop Under Overall Power Costs 4.9 Powerplant Emissions Factors 4.10 Impact Factors for Use in Wastewater Analysis 4.11 Impact Factors for Ash Production 4.12 Impact Factors for Land-Use Analysis C.1 Renewable and Emerging Technology Comprehensive Matrix C.2 Table C.1 Entries Included to Produce Tables C.3 and C.4 C.3 1995 Renewable and Emerging Technology Summary Matrix in Mixed Dollars C.4 2005 Renewable and Emerging Technology Summary Matrix in Mixed Dollars C.5 1995 Renewable and Emerging Technology Summary Matrix in 2005 Dollars C.6 2005 Renewable and Emerging Technology Summary Matrix in 2005 Dollars F.1 Cultural Properties Surrounding Lewiston Reservoir (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) F.2 Cultural Properties Surrounding Keswick Reservoir (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) F.3 Cultural Properties Surrounding Lake Natoma (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) F.4 Cultural Properties Surrounding Tulloch Reservoir (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) G.1 Marginal Heat Rates and Incremental Market Resources (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) H.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) H.2 Emission Levels for Designation as a Major Source (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) H.3 California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) I.1 Energy Production (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) K.1 Power Cost Calculations (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) M.1 Change in Pollutant Emissions from No-Action Alternative Levels for an Average Water Year M.2 Increase in the No-Action Alternative's Air Pollutant Emissions for an Adverse Water Year N.1 Impact Factors Selected for Use in the Analysis (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) N.2 Reported Impact Factors for Pulverized Coal Powerplants (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) N.3 Reported Impact Factors for Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Coal Powerplants (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) N.4 Reported Impact Factors for Coal Gasification, Combined-Cycle Powerplants (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) N.5 Reported Impact Factors for Hydroelectric Powerplants (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) N.6 Reported Impact Factors for Simple-Cycle Combustion Turbine Powerplants (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) N.7 Reported Impact Factors for Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Combustion Turbine Powerplants (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) N.8 Reported Impact Factors for Agricultural Residue Burning Powerplants (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) N.9 Reported Impact Factors for Municipal Solid Waste Burning Powerplants (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) N.10 Reported Impact Factors for Wood Waste and Forest Products-Fired Powerplants (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) N.11 Reported Impact Factors for Geothermal Powerplants (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) N.12 Reported Impact Factors for Solar Generation (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) N.13 Reported Impact Factors for Wind Generation (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT) N.14 Reported Impact Factors for Nuclear Powerplants (NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT)