LIST OF ENCLOSURES (Page 1 of two pag 1. Letter to Chairman, Federal Power Commission from Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 23, 1968 (Appendix A-1) 2. 3. 4. Letter to Chairman, Federal Power Commission from Letter to Chairman, Federal Power Commission from Letter to Chairman, Federal Power Commission from Letter to Chairman, Federal Power Commission from Letter to Chairman, Federal Power Commission from Letter to Chairman, Federal Power Commission from Letter to Chairman, Federal Power Commission from Letter to Secretary, Federal Power Commission from Letter to Chairman, Federal Power Commission from Letter to Secretary, Federal Power Commission from Missouri Department of Conservation, dated October 8, 1968 (Appendix D). LIST OF ENCLOSURES (Continued) (Page 2 of two pages) 5. Letter to Federal Power Commission from the Empire District Electric Company, dated July 6, 1970 Letter to F. Stewart Brown, Chief, Bureau of Power, Letter to F. Stewart Brown, Chief, Bureau of Power, 6. Internal memorandum from the Head, Recreation, Fish, This statement concerns the licensing of a hydroelectric project located on the Tule, Little Tule, Fall and Pit Rivers In Shasta County, California. The project is owned by the Facific Gas and Electric Company and was originally constructed in 1921 and rodified in 1946. The Supreme Court in 1.P.C. v. Laion Dectric Co., 381 U.S. 90 (1965) (Taum Sauk) all Trika the Commission's Ticensing jurisdiction as including projects located on tributaries of navigable waterways, if the pover generated affects interstate commerce. This is one of many constructed projects which have been and are being licensed pursuant to "Taum Sauk." In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, comments were solicited from Federal and State agencics. The applicant was given the opportunity to respond to these comments and to submit its own environmental statement. Copies of these comments are appended to this statement. The project was inspected by a representative from the Commission's regional office and was studied by the Commission's Pureau of Power. Notice of the license application was published in the Federal Register and in a local newspaper. No private citizens or conservation groups responded. According to the reports of the interested Federal and State agencies, the project has not created any serious environmental problems and it is not expected to do so in the future. Since the project has been in cxistence for several decades, the issuance of a license is expected to have a new environmental impact only if the project is modified. In this case, no immediate modification of the project works or of its mode of operation is proposed. Commission Staff has recommended insertion in the license of a special condition requiring the licensee to consult with State and Federal agencies to develop a schedule of water releases best suited to the operation of the project and the maintenance of downstream aquatic life. Changes in the operation of the project could be made depending on the outcome of these studies. The Commission Staff has also recommended an article to insure that the licensee comply with the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970. Other environmental matters concern the construction of recreation facilities and the improvement of water fowl nesting areas on the project waters. Both of these problems can be adequately dealt with by conditions in the license requiring the licensee to take appropriate action for the enhancement of recreation, fish and wildlife. Currently, there are no historic properties listed in the National Register established under the provisions of Public Law 89-665 (80 Stat. 915), in the vicinity of the project. No feasible alternatives to the licensing of this project have been suggested. According to the applicant for license, it is possible that the alternative sources of power might themselves have adverse environmental impact. A balancing of economic and environmental considerations appears to indicate that issuing a license will not have adverse effects. Removal of the project at this time was not suggested by any governmental agency or private group and would probably have a disruptive effect on the ecology of the river basin. Very truly yours, Enclosure No. 50514 Arnold H. Quint Commission Staff Counsel |