|
Project 2105 License Group (2105LG) Approved Meeting Summary – April 10, 2003 |
Call to order: Patti Kroen, Facilitator at 9 a.m.
Attendees: See Attachment 1 for list of attendees. Participants approved the, April 10, 2003 meeting agenda and the revised March 27, 2003 meeting summary. Bill Dennison suggested that revisions to meeting summaries should reflect what was actually said at the meeting, rather than what someone intended to say. The Facilitator responded that if a presenter wishes material incorporated into the meeting summary verbatim, they should provide a handout to the 2105LG during the meeting. Meeting summary revisions suggested that include prepared notes used during a presentation but not distributed to the 2105LG are discouraged and if such revisions to summaries are accepted will be clearly noted.
Action Items – Review:
The facilitator reviewed action items yet to be completed. PG&E is investigating easements through private property within Section 17 near Westwood. The County maintains a road but there does not appear to be a formal easement. PG&E is working with the landowners to getter define the easement. Plumas County has nearly completed a formal response to the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between PG&E and Plumas County Sheriff. Regarding the status of the Hamilton Branch Amendment, the document is completed and awaiting management approval for release. The decision is part of the plan for reorganization but PG&E expects to make a decision soon. If the document is not distributed soon, the agenda for the next meeting will be modified to remove the discussion of Hamilton Branch.
PG&E intends to meet with a subgroup of interested participants to discuss transferability of data between Rock Creek Cresta and Belden Reach after the Rock Creek Cresta ERC gets a little further along in their discussions of the data. Plumas County will arrange for a meeting between the County, PG&E and the gravel operator to discuss the marina and channel-dredging concept. PG&E, SWRCB, Plumas County and USFS have selected proposed sites for water quality sampling and will identify agreed upon locations at this meeting (see discussion below).
LAWLAF Subcommittee distributed a map indicating the locations of the nine river and reservoir segments used to develop attribute tables and rationale statements (Attachment 2). The Subcommittee has completed the last attribute table and rationale document for Lake Almanor as well as the first draft of a conceptual document that should provide a framework and language for the ultimate agreement crafted by 2105LG for submittal to FERC. The complete set of final attribute tables and rationale statements are provided as Attachment 3.
The 2105LG discussed the collaborative schedule and noted that FERC appears on schedule to hold scoping meetings and a 2-day site tour in mid-May and release Scoping Document 2 in July. The participants agreed that June 30, 2003 is the target date for a draft agreement ready for submittal to FERC in July. The goal is to provide FERC with the collaborative’s recommendation early enough so that it can be reflected in FERC’s environmental document. The Facilitator noted that many of the same participants in this collaborative recently agreed to settlement language for the Rock Creek Cresta relicensing that can be used here, eliminating the need to spend time crafting text common to both. The LAWLAF Subcommittee was encouraged to continue the development of language that can serve as a template for the preparation of other sub-sections of the draft agreement with the understanding that each organization’s objectives may be slightly different.
LAWLAF noted that the Subcommittee is approaching the use of adaptive management as a tool as needed when a definitive action with predictable results cannot be designed due to the lack of sufficient information to define the action. PG&E noted that when adaptive management is involved, the limits or sideboards for actions must be clearly identified. Mike Taylor provided two examples of actions that would use adaptive management: 1) within the Recreation Plan, triggers for implementation are adaptive to consider actual needs as they develop; and 2) the concept of flows for gravel transport and cleaning is understood but the specifics related to number of pulse flows, magnitude, duration and gravel input characteristics are not clear and will require monitoring and perhaps subsequent adjustments to achieve desired conditions.
Agreements
· The participants agreed that June 30, 2003 is the target date for a draft agreement ready for submittal to FERC in July.
Summary of Additional Water Quality Testing:
Charles White presented a map indicating additional sites where water quality testing would be conducted in 2003. Seven and possibly eight sites are located on Lake Almanor with three additional sites on both Butt Valley and Mountain Meadows reservoirs. Five fecal coliform samples will be taken over a 30-day period at each of the sites as required by the Basin Plan. DWR currently tests farther offshore than requested by SWRCB and conducts screening level analyses rather than following the ‘five samples in 30 days’ protocol. The goal is to ensure that the highest use sites that lack sanitation facilities are tested. PG&E has identified the highest use sites through observation and recreation use data. The group agreed that the water quality testing conducted within the project waters by DWR should be coordinated with the data collected by PG&E and Plumas County to avoid duplication.
PG&E described the ‘ultra-clean’ sampling protocol to be used in trace metal analysis and indicated that under the California Toxics Rule, samples collected in 2000 will be re-analyzed using this methodology because hardness of the water samples may have affected the interpretation of results. The draft study plan for this one-time effort is currently being reviewed by SWRCB. PG&E noted that results of the 2000 testing program found silver in Yellow Creek and East Branch but none in Project 2105 reaches and found mercury levels above the criteria in one sample from Butt Valley Reservoir.
Water Quality Monitoring Proposal:
Aaron Seandel discussed a Water Quality Monitoring proposal from Plumas County (see Attachment 4, March 27, 2003 meeting summary) and explained that the current sampling described has been conducted by DWR since 1995. Monitoring at 18 sites on Lake Almanor occurs from April to November and Plumas County would like to see better data coordination. PG&E noted that there are several players involved in water quality monitoring and has agreed to contribute $20,000 annually. Plumas County suggested that the water quality monitoring plan should be included in the relicensing agreement but would rather postpone drafting specific agreement language until after a smaller subcommittee that includes PG&E, DWR, Lassen NF, 2105 Committee, SWRCB, and the County can meet and discuss the proposed plan and monitoring coordination. PG&E distributed a copy of a Settlement Agreement with Plumas County signed in July 2002 wherein PG&E committed to contributing matching funds for water quality monitoring (Attachment 4). Participants acknowledged that the ultimate 2105 settlement agreement will cover licensee commitments under a ‘Part A’ and may include other agreements by non-licensees under a ‘Part B’. PG&E will take the lead in arranging the water quality monitoring subcommittee meeting and will provide a draft proposal to the 2105LG on May 22, 2003.
Action Item
q Action Item 18: PG&E will arrange to meet with DWR, Lassen NF, 2105 Committee, SWRCB, and Plumas County to discuss water quality monitoring proposal and coordination and provide draft proposal to 2105LG.
Due Date: May 22, 2003
Wetlands/Land Management Proposal:
Jerry Mensch distributed a Wetlands and Riparian Protection and Restoration Program (Attachment 5) designed to manage wetland and riparian lands for resource protection, restoration and use. The proposal includes granting conservation easements to a public agency for PG&E lands in Humbug Valley and Mountain Meadows, development of a land management plan including initiation of a management committee, and funding for plan execution including ongoing maintenance. The Rock Creek Cresta settlement includes conservation easements in Humbug Valley and Jerry would like to see a similar wetlands and riparian restoration program included as an element of the Project 2105 settlement. Plumas County noted that easements maintain property on tax rolls but also may result in the restriction of other productive uses. The 2105LG discussed the proposal and while PG&E was receptive to the concept, noted that Native American interests also need to be considered since the entire basin is important to their creation story. PG&E said a similar proposal for conservation buffers around Mountain Meadows is included in the Hamilton Branch Amendment and they would respond to Jerry’s proposal after further review.
Proposed Revisions to Shoreline Management Plan:
Plumas County provided a copy of their comments on the Shoreline Management Plan that was included in the Project 2105 License Application and stated their goal is to ensure values of Lake Almanor are preserved and opportunities for economic development maintained (see Attachment 6). The County noted that the lake level has risen 22 feet since the license was issued increasing erosion concerns for some. Additional County concerns include the ability to burn logs within the fluctuation zone below 4500 feet. PG&E reminded the 2105LG that the proposed Shoreline Management Plan is included in the License application, and noted the statement in the application that the lake level falls to 4466 in the winter is incorrect.
PG&E explained the goal of the Shoreline Management Plan is to balance public and private use with resource protection needs. Four meetings were held before the plan was drafted and a public meeting was held to discuss the draft plan. The primary issues expressed were lake level, the Red River Lumber Company, navigation hazards, consistency in permitting/application process, shoreline erosion and the Clifford deed lots and public access. The plan reviews all agencies with jurisdiction over activities on the shoreline and includes a map that identifies conservation, commercial, recreation and residential zones along the shoreline. It also defines the permitting process for actions proposed.
An Erosion Control Plan is an element of the Shoreline Management Plan. Approximately 7-8% of the Lake Almanor shoreline exhibits a high degree of erosion and these areas coincide with shorelines facing the longest wind fetch, allowing waves to build as wind crosses a uniform surface for a long distance. PG&E has found no water quality impacts associated with erosion and noted a correlation between bass populations and rip rapped areas, the structure providing cover habitat. The 2105LG discussed periodic review of a Shoreline Management Plan that will ultimately be approved by FERC and considered various review cycles, including relating the review to the FERC Form 80 submittal which occurs every six years. The 2105LG suggested that enforcement and education would be assisted if the County also adopted the Plan approved by FERC. PG&E noted that a previous study indicated erosion was not an issue at 4490 lake level but became exacerbated between the 4490 and 4494 level.
PG&E provided the following initial responses to the Plumas County comments:
1. Erosion control – Can work with County to identify additional erosion areas and provide for coordinated public involvement for landowners.
2. Boating hazards – Working cooperatively with County; removed eight tree hazards over past two years.
3. Permitting process – Plan establishes clear requirements and gives a fair and effective process. While PG&E cannot direct or be responsible for other permitting processes such as Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1600 and Corps of Engineers (COE) Section 404; can provide public with permitting ‘fact sheet’, information on web site, and clearinghouse service at the future PG&E Almanor office.
4. Removal of driftwood – No burn rule is based on liability concern and US Fish and Wildlife issues.
5. Lake level telephone line – Lake level information is available on DWR’s web site with an eight-day delay. Current method of providing weekly levels can be improved.
6. Enforcement – PG&E will be funding ½ time sheriff for shoreline issues. Education is first step and could include informational flyers to be distributed in the local community.
7. Spawning areas – CDFG 1600 permits may provide avenue for protection. Areas have not been mapped by PG&E.
8. Conservation zones – Definitions are included in the Shoreline Management Plan
9. Review and update – PG&E suggests 10-year review cycle
The 2105LG discussed the status of a marina proposal for the Bailey Creek area. PG&E has received a request but is neutral at this time. The area is an important spawning area for Lake Almanor fishery and ecologically important to the area.
Action Item
q Action Item 19: Plumas County and PG&E will review the proposed Shoreline Management Plan and suggest specific text revisions.
Due Date: May 22, 2003
Proposed Flow for Seneca Reach:
The LAWLAF Subcommittee started with the Rock Creek Cresta objective statements and has been revising it to describe goals and strategies or actions for Project 2105. The Subcommittee hopes to develop a template for describing broad goals and strategies to make progress toward the goals through an action or series of actions. Once populated, the template will become text or sub-sections of the draft settlement agreement. The Subcommittee hopes to provide the template and examples to the 2105LG at the May 8, 2003 meeting.
The LAWLAF Subcommittee identified nine ‘givens’ for Flow Scenarios (see Attachment 7) and described how they reached agreement. USFS asked that the Subcommittee reconsider the usefulness of basing the flow schedule on real-time runoff from a nearby stream. Lake level was not included in the givens because the Subcommittee wanted to base the flows on the reach attributes and then use the model to predict affects on lake level. The Subcommittee presented six flow scenarios developed for the Seneca Reach (See Attachment 8). Four of the scenarios were constructed using wet, normal, dry, and critically dry assumptions after first evaluating the shape of the natural hydrograph by reconstructing the natural recorded flows from 1906-1912. Then, setting the base flow at 75 cfs in August, filling in the monthly flows based on a percentage of that. The critical dry scenario distributes 75cfs average monthly flow throughout the year with minor variability. The Subcommittee developed two other flow scenarios.
PG&E will look at the proposed scenarios and consider lake level, power production, and water temperature. This will be done using a monthly excel model, simulating years 1970-2000. PG&E will also run a temperature model to look at the lake and downstream affects. This analysis is important to USFS because they must consider all life stages of all native species. LAWLAF was directed to continue development of flow scenarios for Belden Reach and then lower Butt Valley.
Action Items
q Action Item 20: PG&E will look at the proposed scenarios and consider lake level, power production, and water temperature. This will be done using a monthly excel model, simulating years 1970-2000. PG&E will also run a temperature model to look at the lake and downstream affects.
Due Date: May 8, 2003
q Action Item 21: LAWLAF will continue development of flow scenarios for Belden Reach and then lower Butt Valley.
Due Date: May 22, 2003
Focus for Next Meeting:
The next 2105LG meeting is scheduled for April 24 in Westwood. A map was distributed with directions to the meeting. The primary topic scheduled for discussion is the Hamilton Branch Amendment. The 2105LG will hold their technical meeting from 9:00 am to 2:00 pm followed by a more public presentation lead by PG&E with a question and answer period. Both meetings would be open to the public. In the event the Hamilton Branch Amendment has not been distributed, the agenda will be revised and the public notified.
Upcoming 2105LG meeting dates and topics are as follows:
Date Location Topics
April 24 Westwood Hamilton Branch and hydrology
May 8 Chico Draft Water Quality Monitoring Article, Preliminary flow scenario modeling results
May 22 Chico Revisions to Shoreline Management Plan, Preliminary flow scenarios for Belden Reach and Lower Butt Valley
June 12
June 26
Attachment 1: List of Attendees
Fred Binswanger Westwood Chamber of Commerce
Michael Condon USFS
Bill Dennison Plumas County Supervisor
Jerry Duffy Dyer Mtn.
Wayne Dyok* MWH
John Gangemi* American Whitewater
Christi Goodman Plumas County
Robert Hughes DFG
Tom Jereb PG&E
Patti Kroen Kroen
Bruce McGurk PG&E
Mike Meinz DFG
Jerry Mensch CSPA
John Mintz PG&E
Lisa Randle PG&E
Steve Reynolds CGS
Steve Robinson MMC
Stuart Running PG&E
Steven Schoenberg FWS
Aaron Seandel 2105 Comm.
Mike Taylor USFS
Eric Theiss* NMFS
Scott Tu PG&E
Charles White PG&E
Bill Zemke PG&E
* via telephone
Attachment 2: Attribute/Rationale Segments Map
Attachment 3: Final Attribute Tables and Rationale Statements (sent as separate file)
Attachment 4: PG&E/Plumas County Settlement Agreement (hardcopy provided on request)
Attachment 5: Wetlands and Riparian Protection and Restoration Program
Attachment 6 – Comments on Shoreline Management Plan
Attachment 7 – ‘Givens for Flow Scenarios
‘Givens’ for Flow Scenarios:
Attachment 8 – Seneca Flow Scenarios
|
PROPOSED FLOW SENARIOS (cfs) |
O |
N |
D |
J |
F |
M |
A |
M |
J |
J |
A |
S |
|
Flow Regime (Taylor) (wet) |
110 |
140 |
150 |
175 |
215 |
290 |
300 |
310 |
145 |
90 |
75 |
85 |
|
Flow Regime (Taylor) (normal) |
90 |
110 |
120 |
140 |
170 |
230 |
240 |
245 |
120 |
75 |
75 |
75 |
|
Flow Regime (Taylor) (dry) |
65 |
85 |
90 |
105 |
130 |
170 |
180 |
185 |
90 |
75 |
70 |
65 |
|
Flow Regime (Taylor) (critical dry) |
50 |
75 |
75 |
75 |
85 |
85 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
75 |
50 |
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flow Regime (Mensch) (normal) |
75 |
110 |
110 |
110 |
110 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
75 |
75 |
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flow Regime (Meinz) (normal) |
35 |
35 |
35 |
35 |
35 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
75 |
75 |
75 |
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|