Project 2105 License Group (2105LG) Approved Meeting Summary

August 24, 2005

 

Call to order: Patti Kroen, Facilitator at 10:00 a.m.

 

Attendees, Agenda, and Past Meeting Summary:  See Attachment 1 for list of attendees that signed in.  The attendees introduced themselves and approved the meeting agenda with one addition. PG&E informed the 2105LG that FERC has requested a rationale document for the April 2004 Settlement Agreement, Appendix B items.  Other than this request, FERC asked for clarification of acreage values but gave no indication of NEPA document status. PG&E will take the lead in preparing the rationale document, using the FS 4(e) rationale document as a starting point, and will circulate it to the 2105LG by September 15^th for comments and discussion at the next 2105LG meeting and prior to FERC submittal.  The 2105LG discussed the level of detail to be included and agreed that the document should provide a ‘high level’ view with succinct descriptions for each item included in Appendix B of the Settlement Agreement. PG&E will prepare a schedule for document development and suggested it could take several months to complete the document. FERC did not provide a deadline for submittal.  The Facilitator distributed copies of the July 29, 2005 draft meeting summary indicating suggested revisions.  The 2105LG approved the summary as revised (Attachment 2). 

 

Action Item:            PG&E will prepare a rationale document for the April 2004 Settlement Agreement Appendix B actions, using the FS 4(e) rationale document as a starting point, and will circulate it to the 2105LG by September 15^th for comments and discussion at the next 2105LG meeting. 

 

Discussion of Protocol and the Media

The Facilitator distributed copies of an article (Attachment 3) that appeared in the Sacramento Bee and other publications and The Anglers Committee stated the article represented a breach of the 2105LG protocols.  The Facilitator noted she had received several comments agreeing with The Anglers Committee and provided the relevant section from the protocols referencing media communications as:

            “Participants who disagree with decisions, topics discussed or direction taken by the collaborative will not try the proposal in the media outside the collaborative process as a means of influencing decisions or discrediting collaborative participants.”

 

Plumas County contended that the meeting reported on in the article was an open meeting with Congressman Doolittle and the information in the article was already available to the public. Although Bill Dennison acknowledged that he was misquoted, he has not provided, nor does he intend to provide clarification to the Sacramento Bee on the errors contained within the article.  Dennison indicated that the statements were not in quotation, thus was an interpretation of his comments and he has found it seldom worthwhile to expect such corrections from a major newspaper. The Anglers Committee took exception to Doolittle’s characterization in the article of some stakeholders as “zealots and environmental extremists” and the co-chairman of the Save Lake Almanor Committee’s description of California Trout as “the enemy”.  Dennison stated that Plumas is not responsible for statements by any legislator and those concerned should be addressed directly with the congressman.

 

Dennison stated that he does not accept the allegation that any comments in the Sacramento Bee article on behalf of Plumas were a breach of protocol.

 

At least two attendees stated that the 2105LG meetings are public and public members, legislators and newspaper representatives cannot be expected to follow the groups protocol.

Representatives of Save Lake Almanor Committee acknowledged that while they have attended 2105LG collaborative meetings, they were unaware that the protocols applied to them.  The Anglers Committee clarified that they are in favor of a solution that shares cold water in the entire Feather River system but the thermal curtain is not their preferred option at this time.  They asked if a dispute resolution process is included in the protocols and the Facilitator responded that a process is included for issues in dispute but is not clear if it covers process disputes: she will confirm and report back to the 2105LG.  The Forest Service noted that while all 2105LG participants originally agreed to follow the protocols, they have become less effective with the increasing number of new meeting participants and noted that the group appears to have developed more of a ‘win-lose’ approach in recent months rather than working toward solutions that everyone can live with.  The FS expressed hope that the CEQA process would lead to better understanding of the regulatory process for evaluating alternatives.

 

Plumas responded that collaborative effort led us to the development of the April 23, ’04 Settlement Agreement and that 2105LG can continue to build on that foundation to reach a consensus on an appropriate alternative in the water temperature issue.

 

 

CEQA Update

PG&E reported on the recent field trip they conducted of the project that was attended by SWRCB staff and their consultants.  The consultants asked questions about the various alternatives evaluated by the 2105LG, visited proposed locations for actions included in the Settlement Agreement, and asked about additional detail related to the Watershed Restoration and Improvement Alternative.  The 2105LG suggested that the PowerPoint presentation provided by Jim Wilcox at the July 29^th 2105LG meeting should be forwarded to SWRCB as additional information for the consultants’ use.  The Facilitator will forward a copy of the presentation to SWRCB.  PG&E noted that no CEQA schedule has been distributed but suggested that one will likely be included in the Notice of Preparation (NOP), expected at the end of August.  The NOP will also include information about the daytime and evening public scoping meetings to be held in Chester on September 27^th.  Plumas County noted that the local newspaper is a weekly and the meeting notice for publication should be provided with enough time to alert the residents well in advance for planning purposes.

 

The 2105LG discussed the potential format for the CEQA scoping meetings, with the Facilitator describing some possibilities based on her experience.  She suggested that anyone wishing to verbally comment at the meeting should also bring a written copy of the comments for submittal into the record to ensure accuracy and completeness.  The format will likely include an informal workshop arrangement with tables arranged by topic area, allowing the public to ask questions and discuss their concerns directly with the SWRCB consultants.  Plumas expressed dissatisfaction with and opposition to a process that does not permit public statements by all of the attendees and stated a need to assure that this is not the manner in which the Scoping Session’s are to be held.

 

 

Water Temperature Modeling – Poe Project Technical Sub-Group Activities

PG&E described efforts currently underway in the Poe relicensing collaborative to model various actions designed to achieve water temperature moderation in the Poe reaches downstream of the Upper North Fork Feather River Project.  The Poe participants are currently evaluating a ‘footnote’ to an agency-prepared flow schedule proposal, which triggers additional flow releases up to 400-500cfs when water temperatures increase within the Poe reach by a set amount, measured on an hourly average.  The 2105LG was updated on the efforts of the Poe collaborative because additional flow releases included in the footnote as well as others proposed by stakeholders in the Poe collaborative have the potential to affect projects upstream of the Poe Project, including the Upper North Fork Feather River Project.

 

ERC and the Condition 4D Document Submittal

PG&E reported on a dispute resolution process initiated within the Rock Creek-Cresta ERC by CSPA regarding the submittal of the Condition 4D document to FERC by PG&E without ERC review and comment.  As a result of the dispute resolution, PG&E will write a letter to FERC identifying the Condition 4D document as a PG&E-only product and will solicit comments on the document from the ERC.  PG&E will reply to the comments received from the ERC but did not provide a timetable for completion.  A second dispute resolution meeting to resolve both procedural and technical issues is scheduled for early September.  There was misunderstanding between members who had attended the dispute resolution meeting, as to whether, or not PG&E had agreed to call the document a Draft, or Final.

 

Watershed Restoration and Improvement Alternative Cost Calculations

The Facilitator distributed revised tables prepared by Jim Wilcox as requested by the 2105LG, outlining the East Branch, North Fork Feather River Restoration Program priority projects and associated costs (Attachment 4).  The 2105LG discussed the changes made and identified additional explanatory information that is needed to describe how the priority projects are linked to the 2105 project.  The 2105LG asked if the costs are in 2005 dollars and which projects are currently funded.  Leah Wills offered to forward those questions and additional suggested revisions and clarifications to Jim, who was unable to attend the meeting.  Leah explained that the priority projects represent those that are ready to begin, while some of the lower priority projects are in areas with more developed use and thus require significant efforts with landowners before they will be ready to start restoration activities.  Leah will work with Jim, Brian Kempkes, and PG&E staff to develop explanatory text to accompany the tables and to develop supporting information for each of the bulleted rationale statements included in the alternative description document. Photos from Jim’s PowerPoint presentation will be added as an appendix.  Information will be included to try and quantify expected benefits from the restoration efforts such as increases in trout/mile, anticipated local water temperature reductions, etc. The 2105LG requested that a revised draft document be available in advance of the September 22^nd 2105LG meeting so that the collaborative could discuss it and revise if necessary prior to submittal at the CEQA scoping meeting for consideration as an alternative.  Plumas County will submit their recently released Watershed Plan to FERC for inclusion in their comprehensive plan consistency review.

 

Action Item:            Leah Wills will work with Jim Wilcox, Brian Kempkes, and PG&E staff to develop explanatory text to accompany the Watershed Restoration and Improvement Alternative tables and to develop supporting information for each of the bulleted rationale statements included in the alternative description document. Photos from Jim’s PowerPoint presentation will be added as an appendix.  Information will be included to try and quantify expected benefits from the restoration efforts such as increases in trout/mile, anticipated local water temperature reductions, etc.

 

Future Meeting Schedule – Next Steps

PG&E provided an update on the development of the Marvin Alexander Beach and Day-Use Area and noted that they have moved forward with design and are waiting for SHPO comments.  It was also noted that PG&E would need to seek FERC approval to construct it under the existing license.  CDFG may require a Streambed Alteration Permit and has asked PG&E to file an application for consideration.  PG&E also noted that repair work will begin on the Canyon Dam tower structure soon and a barge will be placed in the lake to assist in that effort.

 

The 2105LG agreed to the following meeting schedule:

 

Full 2105LG

September 22            Chico

October 20            Chico

November 18            Chico

 

 

Attachment 1:                    List of Attendees

Bob Baiocchi                        Anglers Committee

Kim Davis                            Senator Sam Aanestad’s office

Bill Dennison                        Plumas County

Wayne Dyok                        MWH

Lorena Gorbet                      MCDG

Tom Hunter                         Plumas County

Tom Jereb                            PG&E

Brian Kempkes                     Anglers Committee

Patti Kroen                           Facilitator

Bob Lambert                        2105 Committee

Bruce McGurk                      PG&E

Willie Preston                       Assemblyman LaMalfa’s office

Stuart Running                       PG&E

Fred Shanks                          Property Owner at Lake Almanor

Mike Taylor                          USFS

Scott Tu                                PG&E

Janet Walther                        PG&E

Mike Wilhoit                         2105 Committee

Leah Wills                            Plumas County

 

 

Attachment 2

Project 2105 License Group (2105LG) Draft Meeting Summary

July 29, 2005

 

Call to order: Patti Kroen, Facilitator at 10:00 a.m.

 

Attendees:  See Attachment 1 for list of attendees that signed in.  The attendees introduced themselves and approved the meeting agenda. The Facilitator distributed copies of the June 22, 2005 draft meeting summary and noted there was one suggested revision indicated in redline/strikeout on the handout.  Jim Wilcox requested a revision to indicate that the contract with Plumas County is with the Feather River CRM and not him.  With those revisions, the 2105LG approved the summary (Attachment 2).  The Facilitator also distributed a comment letter (Attachment 3) received from the Anglers Committee with the request that it be included in the formal record of the collaborative. The Facilitator explained that by distributing it to the 2105LG during the meeting, the comment letter becomes part of the meeting summary.

 

Review of ‘24 Alternatives’ Document

PG&E distributed a document titled “Rock Creek-Cresta Project, FERC Project No. 1962 License Condition 4D Report on Water Temperature Monitoring and Additional Reasonable Water Temperature Control Measures, July 2005” and explained that the information contained in the document represents PG&E’s last 20 years’ water temperature work in the Feather River watershed.  The document includes monitoring data and, while it is a requirement of the Rock Creek-Cresta license and as such will be filed with FERC and used by the ERC of the Rock Creek-Cresta proceedings, it is also expected to provide valuable information for use in both the 2105 and the 2107 relicensing efforts.  Plumas County expressed concern that the document has been forwarded to FERC without first circulating it to the ERC as a draft document.  PG&E noted that according to the Rock Creek Cresta license, it was not a requirement to circulate the Condition 4D Report to the ERC for comment prior to filing with FERC. An electronic version of the document is very large and therefore is not included as an attachment to this summary. Copies of the bound document are available from PG&E on request.

 

The 2105LG reviewed the document, which PG&E explained is organized into three parts to target the needs of different readers.  Part 1 of the document includes an executive summary and a brief description of potential water temperature control alternatives for the reader seeking a general overview of the report and its findings.  Part 2 is a detailed report with a more comprehensive presentation of the background for the report, the studies performed, alternatives considered and conclusions. Part 3 consists of references and detailed study results used in preparation of the report.  PG&E noted that the referenced documents have been provided to the participating technical experts through other filings.

 

PG&E concluded that none of the 24 alternatives provide a reasonable control measure for attaining the 20°C water temperature goal.  The 2105LG discussed what is meant by the term ‘reasonable’ and noted it should include cost, siting, feasibility, environmental constraints, etc.  The report will be reviewed and used by the Rock Creek-Cresta ERC to make an affirmative determination if there are any reasonable measures to achieve the 20°C water temperature goal.  The 2105LG discussed the potential to receive contradictory directions from mandatory conditioning agencies and questioned if that happens, who the ultimate authority would be. It was noted that FERC typically defers to the state water board on water quality issues.  The Anglers Committee asked PG&E if they feel it is unreasonable for PG&E to provide cold water to the river and PG&E responded that it is not unreasonable if a feasible alternative is found.

 

Watershed Restoration Presentation

Jim Wilcox with the Feather River CRM provided a slide presentation on the CRM’s efforts in the upper Feather River watershed to restore hydraulic function.  He described the characteristics of the North Fork Feather River watershed and described the loss of floodplain connection, vegetative structure, biological processes, physical inputs, and chemical processes within the upper watershed meadows.  The presentation included ‘before’ and ‘after’ photos of CRM projects and included thermal images taken by low altitude helicopter flights that highlight variations in surface water temperatures within the creeks surveyed.  Cross-sections highlighted the extensive down cutting occurring in selected creeks that result in the isolation of the current creek from its remnant channels and the original floodplain. Jim explained how the restoration efforts utilize a pond and plug technique to redirect creek flow and eliminate the deeply gullied channels.  Incised channels that could not be effectively treated with the pond and plug technique are treated with the addition of vegetation, vanes, and placed wood to restore habitat and function. 

 

The presentation included graphs that indicate a rebound of groundwater levels and flow duration increases post restoration activities.  The presentation also included preliminary data that indicate fish population numbers in Cottonwood Creek have increased post implementation in addition to positive responses in water temperature, riparian habitat and terrestrial species.  The 2105LG discussed the positive benefit of reduced sedimentation input to downstream reaches and the potential for additional sub-surface water storage in the upper watershed and subsequent delayed release of that water downstream.  The preliminary conclusion of the CRM is that upper watershed rehabilitation using techniques that become self-sustaining provides benefits to water quality (temperature and sedimentation), riparian habitat, aquatic species, and aesthetics.  Jim noted that additional data and monitoring is needed to quantify both local and potential downstream water temperature benefits.

 

 

Review Alternative D Document

The 2105LG sub-group tasked to further develop draft language describing the ‘Alternative D’ or off-site mitigation alternative provided copies of the North Fork Feather River Watershed Restoration Alternative (Attachment 4).  The 2105LG reviewed and suggested revisions to the document based on their discussions during the meeting.  It was agreed that “Alternative D” would henceforth be referred to as “Watershed Restoration and Improvement Alternative.” The FS suggested that the alternative should focus on habitat restoration and identify the full range of potential benefits rather than be limited to water temperature benefits.  The 2105LG discussed the cost calculation options provided by the sub-group and agreed more time is needed to discuss and further develop this portion of the alternative.

Development of Recommendations to CEQA Process

The 2105LG agreed that the draft alternative text without the cost calculations should be forwarded to SWRCB to be included in the Notice of Preparation currently being developed by the CEQA contractor to initiate the CEQA scoping process. 

 

The 2105LG will continue to work on the cost calculations and forward additional information to SWRCB at a later date. To provide a better estimate of the total costs to be expected under the Watershed Restoration and Improvement Alternative, Jim Wilcox agreed to use the list that he had provided and add all of the potential costs, including monitoring and long-term maintenance. Jim will attempt to provide those estimates by the middle of August. 

Once completed the Facilitator will forward the completed list 2105LG for approval and then to SWRCB as part of the Watershed Restoration and Improvement Alternative.

 

CEQA Update and Preliminary Schedule

PG&E provided the following update on the CEQA process forwarded by SWRCB who was unable to attend the meeting: 

Progress is underway by the CEQA contractors in the review of a partial set of documents related to the project.  Additional information has been requested and SWRCB awaits hydrology data, temperature and water quality models and the final report of the 24 alternatives from PG&E.  PG&E noted that much of the additional information has been sent to SWRCB and the remaining modeling information will be sent the first week of August.  SWRCB staff plans to hold a CEQA Scoping Meeting/Workshop in Chester on Tuesday, September 27^th   at Chester Memorial Hall.  The program will be held during the afternoon and evening to assist interested parties that wish to attend.  A detailed Notice of Preparation will be issued at the end of August and will include a notice of the public meetings, which will also be noticed in the local newspaper.  Completion of the final schedule for EIR development and the CEQA compliance process remains dependent on the receipt of data and models requested. 

 

Future Meeting Schedule – Next Steps

The 2105LG discussed progress in the development of the Marvin Alexander Beach.  PG&E has contacted FERC to determine if additional environmental documentation is necessary in advance of project development.  The 2105LG discussed the possibility that additional permits may be required.  CDFG will investigate if a Streambed Alteration permit would be necessary for construction of this settlement agreement project.  PG&E noted that they prefer to complete this recreational day-use area as an interim project in 2005 under the existing FERC license and added that no construction activity is anticipated within Lake Almanor or the shoreline fluctuation zone. Bill Dennison said that Plumas requests that the name “Marvin Alexander Beach” be used, just as noted in the April 23, 2004 Settlement Agreement and not be changed to “Marvin Alexander Day Use Area”. He noted that if this change is being suggested as a means of stopping over-night camping that “NO CAMPING” signs be posted.

 

Responding to a request for this information, PG&E distributed a schedule of meetings associated with the Pacific Forest and Watershed Lands Stewardship Council and noted that the website www.stewardshipcouncil.org contains additional information about this group. 

 

The 2105LG agreed to the following meeting schedule:

 

Full 2105LG

August 24            Chico

September 22            Chico

 

 

Attachment 1:            List of Attendees

Dawn Alvarez               USFS

Bob Baiocchi               Anglers Committee

Kim Davis                   Senator Sam Aanestad’s office

Bill Dennison               Plumas County

Wayne Dyok                MWH

Lorena Gorbet             MCDG

Tom Hunter                Plumas County

Tom Jereb                   PG&E

Patti Kroen                  Facilitator

Bob Lambert               2105 Committee

Bruce McGurk             PG&E

Lori Powers                 CDFG

Stuart Running             PG&E

Aaron Seandel              2105 Committee

Fred Shanks                 Property Owner at Lake Almanor

Mike Taylor                 USFS

Scott Tu                       PG&E

Jim Wilcox                   Feather River CRM

Bill Zemke                   PG&E

 

 

Attachment 3

 

Plan for a curtain to cool Feather River takes heat

By Jane Braxton Little -- Bee Correspondent Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, August 12, 2005 Story appeared in Metro section, Page B3

 

CHESTER - Opponents of a $55 million project proposed for Lake Almanor met with Congressman John Doolittle on Thursday to deliver a message aimed at state water officials.

Installing devices to shunt cold water downstream will destroy the fisheries at Almanor and Butt Valley reservoirs, and it won't accomplish the goal of lowering the water temperature in the Feather River 25 miles downstream, said Plumas County Supervisor Bill Dennison.

The proposal is the most contentious of 24 plans being considered to alter water temperatures.

Doolittle, R-Roseville, told nearly 100 Almanor residents he would help them persuade the State Water Resources Control Board to abandon the proposal.

At issue is Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s plan to construct a thermal curtain as big as 14 football fields in Lake Almanor and two smaller curtains in Butt Valley Lake to draw cold water from the lake bottoms into the Feather River to improve habitat for trout and other cold-water species.

PG&E is in the process of relicensing its hydroelectric facilities at Almanor and Butt Valley reservoirs. One of the requirements imposed by the water board is reducing the river temperature to about 68 degrees Fahrenheit.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will not renew the utility company's licenses without a certificate from the water board verifying compliance with a 1978 plan designating the Feather River as a cold-water fishery.

After investing over $3 million in an analysis of the thermal curtain proposal, PG&E announced in November that it would not recommend the project. But it has continued to include the thermal curtain as one of 24 alternatives to meet the water board's order to attain colder water in the Feather River below Belden.

In their summary of the alternatives for the water board, PG&E officials said none is "reasonably acceptable."

The meeting with Doolittle was designed to bolster opposition before the state water board begins studying the environmental effects of all 24 alternatives.

Among the harshest critics of the thermal curtains are Mountain Maidu Indians, whose villages and gravesites now under Lake Almanor would be moved to construct one curtain near the west shore.

Building the 1913 Almanor dam that flooded their homes was a catastrophe, said Melanie Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Maidu tribe.

"Now the powers that be propose to literally dredge up our human remains and cultural artifacts" in violation of state and federal laws, she said.

Wendi Durkin, who has lived in Chester most of her life, called Lake Almanor the community's economic mainstay. "Without our lake, we don't have anything left," she said.

Doolittle rallied the crowd by blaming "zealots" and "environmental extremists" for threatening the Almanor and Butt Valley reservoir fisheries. Dick Fording, co-chairman of the Save Lake Almanor Committee, named California Trout Inc. as "the enemy."

Contacted after the meeting, Brian Stranko, executive director of the San Francisco-based organization, said Cal Trout has no position on the thermal curtain. It signed the agreement calling for reduced temperatures in the Feather River, he said, but is not involved in how to achieve them.

Instead of thermal curtains, Dennison and other Almanor residents favor restoring the watershed of the Feather River above PG&E's dams, one of the 24 alternatives included in the review. A coalition of landowners and agency officials has been working for 20 years to repair stream banks and reduce erosion in the headwaters of the river.

Watershed restoration is a "sensible alternative" that has proved effective in cooling waters and improving fish habitat, Dennison said. He proposed using upstream restoration to mitigate temperatures in the Belden reach.

The State Water Resources Control Board is scheduled to begin gathering data for its environmental review at a Sept. 27 meeting in Chester.

Attachment 4

Table #1- EAST BRANCH, NORTH FORK FEATHER RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM- Alternative ‘D’ Priorities:

 

Priority 1 Project Reaches:

   ¹ All costs are estimates.  Costs reflect only survey, design, permitting and construction expenses.

 

Priority 2 Project Reaches:

   ¹ All costs are estimates.  Costs reflect only survey, design, permitting and construction expenses.

 

 

Projects Completed 1985-2005

 

Program Coordination

Activities	Funding/Year	Period	Total
Coord., monitoring, education	$125,000	0-15 years	$1,875,000
Coord., monitoring, education	$75,000	16-40 years	$1,875,000
Maintenance (5% of 1st Priority Total)	$16,906	0-40 years	$   676,250
Total			$4,426,250