Project 2105 License Group (2105LG) Approved Meeting Summary – August 28, 2003

 

Call to order: Patti Kroen, Facilitator at 9:00 a.m.

 

Attendees:  See Attachment 1 for list of attendees. Beverly Oggle and Kenny Holbrook, representing the Maidu Tribe were in attendance and described their plan to open a Maidu cultural center or museum in Plumas County.  They would like to locate the center near a highway or town and are interested in working with PG&E. Humbug Valley was mentioned as a possible location.  PG&E responded that there are currently five such museums in the area and consolidation with one of those would be a more appropriate focus.  Noting the limited space available at existing facilities, the Forest Service and Plumas County expressed interest in continuing this discussion with the Tribe.

 

Participants approved the August 28, 2003 meeting agenda and noted the limited availability of Bruce McGurk for the discussion of water levels and flow modeling.  The 2105LG approved the August 15, 2003 meeting summary with the correction that Mike Meinz representing CDFG participated via telephone.

 

Action Items – Review:

Action Item #33Water quality monitoring program is on the agenda for this meeting (see discussion below).

 

Action Item #42: Revisions to Natural Hazards Safety Plan regarding buoys and Attachment A were finalized and sent to Plumas County Sheriff for final review.  PG&E confirmed that Bucks Lake is included in the safety plan but does not go into the 2105 license.

 

Several other outstanding action items require output in the form of modeling run results from Bruce McGurk and Scott Tu.  LAWLAF will meet before the next 2105LG meeting to review the results, complete the summary tables and prepare to discuss the information with the 2105LG.

 

PG&E reported that on August 25, 2003 FERC issued a “Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions” (Attachment 2).  The scheduled is included in the notice.  The 2105LG discussed the importance of maintaining their deadline to have closure by the end of September and acknowledged the work ahead.

 

Jerry Mensch inquired as to the status of his riparian habitat proposed license article.   Tom Jereb responded that PG&E is analyzing the request as it relates to conservation language in their Plan of Reorganization (POR) but will not consider mitigating for habitat loss resulting from project construction (pre-project baseline).  Jerry suggested the impacts are ongoing and should be addressed in this license.  Tom indicated he could not commit PG&E to any easements at this time due to the higher commitment under the POR but agreed to take the issue back to his management for reconsideration.  He suggested if we ultimately cannot agree, this issue should be placed on the ‘agree to disagree’ list.

 

Discussion on LAWLAF Modeling/Table Development:

Bruce McGurk reviewed his latest modeling efforts provided to the 2105LG including revising the lake operation target date to August 31.  He described the winter pulse flows modeled to occur over 1 or 2 days during each of the months of January, February and March in wet years and during January and February in normal years.  The pulse flow would ramp up to a certain level, peak and then after starting down, would pause for a period of time to allow a winter whitewater boating opportunity.  The pulse flow levels would be monitored to ensure an appropriate flow to clean but not wash away gravels.

 

Bruce indicated that the County proposal could meet PG&E’s irrigation release requirement during wet and normal years but it may be harder during dry and critically dry years.  The 2105LG discussed the possibility of adjusting the delivery schedule to Lake Oroville and Wayne Dyok confirmed that DWR has no incentive to re-negotiate the delivery schedule so the probability is slim.  Bruce will complete his analysis and the 2105LG gave him permission to make minor adjustments in lake levels to achieve a compromise to discuss at the next 2105LG meeting.  Tom Jereb added that he must have certainty that PG&E can meet their irrigation release requirement before he can agree with the proposal and noted that agreement within the 2105LG has not been reached on the shaped 75cfs flow.

 

After Bruce completes his analysis, Scott Tu will evaluate the temperature effects of the County proposal.  Bruce noted that the threat of reaching minimum lake level targets and stopping releases is small and is not expected to happen often.  The 2105LG noted that the Lake Level article would need to be revised to include a provision for multiple dry years and language regarding water temperatures.  Bruce will fill in the LAWLAF summary table sections related to power generation under the various scenarios.  He will also work with the wet year data and consider what the ramifications would be if he ran only normal year numbers.

 

Mike Taylor distributed a revised LAWLAF summary table based on suggestions made during the last 2105LG meeting (Attachment 3).  The 2105LG reviewed the revised draft and noted that if the pulse flows were included in the County proposal, the results would be more favorable for a number of attributes.  Wayne Dyok noted that angler access to the river might be just as critical a factor in satisfactory experience as flow levels.  Both the Belden and Seneca reaches have blackberry encroachment and few roads into Seneca further thwart anglers seeking fishing access.  The 2105LG suggested the angling attribute be evaluated in a less subjective manner and LAWLAF agreed to meet to further refine the summary table.

 

Revised Lake Level Article:

The 2105LG discussed a revised Lake Level Article (Attachment 4) and suggested revisions to address concerns related to temperature, water rights, and dissolved oxygen (DO).    Tom Jereb noted that model study results on temperature and DO might not be available in time for decisions regarding the settlement agreement.  Regarding a potential appeal of USFS 4(e) conditions, Michael Condon noted that under the new process USFS will not initiate NEPA on the 4(e) conditions but rather submit them as recommendation to FERC where NEPA would be conducted.  Any appeal would then be to FERC and not to USFS.

 

PG&E expressed concern that they retain all of their existing water rights under the settlement agreement and will not agree to anything that may reduce those rights.  PG&E needs language included that makes it clear any settlement agreement cannot override the Western Canal delivery requirement.  Plumas County is seeking some comfort that PG&E can follow whatever target is ultimately set in the agreement.  The 2105LG noted that a placeholder might be needed for work on Prattville intake modification.  PG&E will provide additional clarifying language for sections 5.1, 6.1, and 9.1.

 

Bob Baiocchi believes there should be mandatory lake levels in Lake Almanor and Butt Valley Reservoir.  Tom Jereb pointed out that the 2105LG is well on the way to an agreement regarding Lake Almanor reservoir levels and he showed the operating curve for Butt Valley.  He described the role of Butt Valley as a regulating reservoir and showed the current operation typically results in a 10-foot range for surface elevations during the summer with weekly variation of approximately 3-5 feet.  The winter operating minimum is lower to allow flexibility.  The boat ramp extends to 4119 feet, which is well below the normal summer and winter operating levels.  Tom noted that keeping Butt Valley Reservoir high also assists in moving cold water through the reservoir.  Belden Reservoir varies approximately 5-10 feet on a daily basis.

 

Water Quality Monitoring:

 Aaron Seandel reported on the July 11^th meeting between PG&E, Plumas County, SWRCB and DWR to discuss SWRCB standards and a water quality monitoring program.  They suggested that DWR should retain a lead role for this effort and any sampling plan initiated should be evaluated annually.  They also discussed how data would be stored and made available to interested parties.  The current unresolved issue is the dollar amount or contribution to be expected from each source.  The current annual cost is between $40,000-50,000 and Plumas County requests clarification of the basis for the current PG&E commitment.  The 2105LG also has an interest in future water quality beyond simply monitoring to include solutions if issues arise.  Another meeting of the sub group is planned for October 20 to continue development of the proposed plan.

 

Wayne Dyok distributed a draft Water Quality Monitoring and Protection article for review (Attachment 5). PG&E agreed that it is responsible for project-related water quality issues and suggested the specific dollar amount be left blank for now.  Tom Jereb said the plan might need to be a Part B item that gets broader involvement than just the Licensee, consistent with responsibilities of others.

 

Oversight Discussion:

The 2105LG discussed the need for the license to accommodate ongoing issue discussion for whitewater flow evaluation, water quality, and recreation facilities.  PG&E does not see a need for a fisheries group and is not interested in an adaptive management approach to flows.  Their experience with Project 1962 ongoing studies suggests high costs with low potential to draw sound conclusions.  The 2105LG agreed to revisit the list at a future meeting.

 

SMP – Sensitive Habitats:

PG&E displayed a map of Lake Almanor showing areas that have historically been available for lake spawning fish.  Spawning occurs in April-June and the current operations have accommodated this spawning with the amount of habitat available not dependent on reservoir elevation.  The map will be incorporated into the SMP to help identify areas of possible concern in the event of future development proposals.  PG&E is also seeking input from fishing groups and CDFG regarding additional information to add to the map.  Plumas County suggested that PG&E go back to the public and advise them of changes to the SMP before it is filed with FERC.

 

Next Steps - Focus for Next Meeting:

The Facilitator reviewed the draft section assignments and progress to date:

Water temperature: Not started

Lake Level: First Draft

Water Quality: First Draft

Flow Schedule: LAWLAF in progress

Whitewater reserve clause: USFS working on internal position.  First Draft.

Shoreline and Recreation Management: In progress by PG&E

 

PG&E noted that some language might be needed in the agreement to address modification to Canyon Dam outlet.  He added that PG&E is considering structural changes to allow supplemental releases at Belden Dam if flow releases are higher than capacity at Oak Flat Power House.

 

The Facilitator reminded participants that the next 2105LG meeting is scheduled for September 11, 2003 at the Holiday Inn in Chico.  The meeting agenda will include continued discussion of LAWLAF flow proposal development and modeling results with information from Bruce McGurk and Scott Tu, USFS whitewater flow position, and the FS proposed 4(e) recommendations.

 

The 2105LG calendared an additional meeting for September 18, 2003.

 

 

Action Items

q      Action Item 51:  Bruce McGurk will make minor adjustments in both lake levels and flows in his model to achieve a compromise and report back to the 2105LG. 

Due Date: September 11, 2003

 

q      Action Item 52:  Scott Tu will evaluate temperature effects of the County proposal.

Due Date:  September 11, 2003.

 

q      Action Item 53:  LAWLAF will further develop summary table.

Due Date:  September 11, 2003.

 

q      Action Item 54: PG&E will provide additional clarifying language for sections 5.1, 6.1, and 9.1 of the draft Lake Level Article.

Due Date:  September 11, 2003.

 

 

 

Upcoming 2105LG meeting dates and tentative locations:

 

Date                                                                               Location

September 11            2105LG                                    Holiday Inn, Chico, 9am-3:30pm

September 18            2105LG                                    TBD, 9am-3:30pm

September 29            2105LG                                    PG&E office, Rio Lindo, Chico, 9am-3:30pm

 

Attachment 1:                    List of Attendees

                       

Bob Baiocchi                        Anglers Committee

Michael Condon                    USFS

Bill Dennison                        Plumas County Supervisor

Wayne Dyok                        MWH

John Gangemi*                     AW

Kenny Holbrook                   Tasmam Koyom Foundation

Robert Hughes                      CDFG             

Tom Hunter                          Plumas County

Tom Jereb                            PG&E

Patti Kroen                           Kroen

Bob Lambert                        2105 Committee

Bruce McGurk*                    PG&E

Jerry Mensch*                      CSPA

John Mintz                           PG&E

Bevery Oggle                        Maidu Tribe

Stu Running                          PG&E

Aaron Seandel                       2105 Committee

Sharon Stohrer*                     SWRCB

Mike Taylor                          USFS

Scott Tu                                PG&E

Steve Wald                            Hydro Reform Coalition

Mike Willhoit                          2105 Committee

Bill Zemke                             PG&E

 

 

* Via telephone

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2:

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

NOTICE OF APPLICATION READY FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND SOLICITING COMMENTS,

RECOMMENDATIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND PRESCRIPTIONS

(August 25, 2003)

Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the

Commission and is available for public inspection.

a. Type of Application: New Major License

b. Project No.: 2105-089

c. Date filed: October 23, 2002

d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company

e. Name of Project: Upper North Fork Feather River Project

f. Location: On the North Fork Feather River, in the vicinity of the community of

Chester, Plumas County, California, T28N, R7E. The project occupies 1,500 acres of land administered by the Forest Supervisors of the Lassen and Plumas National Forests.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. ''791 (a) - 825(r)

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Randal Livingston, Lead Director, Hydro Generation

Department, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 770000, N11C, San Francisco, CA 94177, (415) 973-6950.

i. Commission Contact: Any questions concerning this notice should be addressed to John Mudre, e-mail address    john.mudre@ferc.gov, or telephone (202) 502-8902.

j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions: December 1, 2003.

All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426.

 

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.

Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions 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) under the "e-Filing" link.

k. This application has been accepted, and is ready for environmental analysis at this time.

l. The existing Upper North Fork Feather River Project consists of three dams and reservoirs, five powerhouses, tunnels and penstocks connecting the reservoirs to the powerhouses, 230kV and 115kV transmission facilities, and various roads, recreation facilities, and administrative facilities. Project reservoirs include Lake Almanor (1,142,251 acre-feet), Butt Valley Reservoir (49,891 acre-feet), and Belden Forebay (2,477 acre-feet). Powerhouses include Butt Valley Powerhouse (41 MW), Caribou No. 1 Powerhouse (75 MW), Caribou No. 2 Powerhouse (120 MW), Oak Flat Powerhouse (1.3 MW), and Belden Powerhouse (125 MW). The Applicant proposes no new facilities, but proposes to add 33.73 acres of lands of the Plumas National Forest to the project because of historical and future project use of these lands.

m. A copy of the application is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary (FERRIS) 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 FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov 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 h above.

n. The Commission directs, pursuant to Section 4.34(b) of the Regulations (see

Order No. 533 issued May 8, 1991, 56 FR 23108, May 20, 1991) that all comments, recommendations, terms and conditions and prescriptions concerning the application be filed with the Commission within 98 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments must be filed with the Commission within 143 days from the date of this notice.

 

Anyone may obtain an extension of time for these deadlines from the Commission only upon a showing of good cause or extraordinary circumstances in accordance with 18

CFR 385.2008.

All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title "COMMENTS", "REPLY

COMMENTS", "RECOMMENDATIONS," "TERMS AND CONDITIONS," or

"PRESCRIPTIONS;" (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.

o. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

Notice of application ready for environmental analysis August 25, 2003

Terms and Conditions in response to REA Notice due December 1, 2003

Reply comment due date January 15, 2004

Notice of the availability of the draft EIS March 31, 2004

DEIS comments due May 31, 2004

Notice of the availability of the final EIS September 15, 2004

Linda Mitry

Acting Secretary

20030825-3053 Issued by FERC OSEC 08/25/2003 in Docket#: P-2105-089

 

 

 

Attachment 3:

 

Upper North Fork Project

Comparison of flow proposals on physical, biological, and social attributes of the Seneca reach

August 28, 2003

 

 

* Bolded numbers indicate percentages past peak of WUA (Weighted Useable Area) curve.

 

Hydrologic Processes (Natural Flow Regime):  Evaluation is based on how closely the flow regime approached the natural flow regime without the project.

 

Temperature:  Does the flow regime meet temperature requirements for proper timing of biological processes as well as avoiding negative impacts caused by summer maximum temperatures?

 

Angling:  A subjective evaluation made by anglers on site taking into account stream depth, velocity and the difficulty associated with catching a fish.  A measure of angler satisfaction.

 

Fish Habitat: Spawning:  Percent of maximum Weighted Useable Area.

 

Fish Habitat: Juvenile:  Percent of maximum Weighted Useable Area.

 

Fish Habitat: Adult:  Percent of maximum Weighted Useable Area.

 

Macroinvertebrates:  Percent of maximum Weighted Useable Area.

 

Power Generation:  Percent power loss at Butt Valley and Caribou Powerhouses as compared with existing operating practices.

 

Reservoir Elevation Drop: Wet:  Changes in elevation were taken from or interpolated between elevation changes associated with mean daily discharges appearing in a table from a memorandum from the 2105 Committee to Bruce McGurk dated July 15, 2003.  It is recognized that the estimate of reservoir decline for a given discharge does not necessarily reflect actual reservoir operation.  In effect the total annual stream discharge for a given flow has been converted to a hypothetical change in reservoir elevation.

 

Reservoir Elevation Drop: Normal:  Changes in elevation were taken from or interpolated between elevation changes associated with mean daily discharges appearing in a table from a memorandum from the 2105 Committee to Bruce McGurk dated July 15, 2003.

 

Reservoir Elevation Drop: Dry:  Changes in elevation were taken from or interpolated between elevation changes associated with mean daily discharges appearing in a table from a memorandum from the 2105 Committee to Bruce McGurk dated July 15, 2003.

 

Reservoir Elevation Drop: Critically Dry:  Changes in elevation were taken from or interpolated between elevation changes associated with mean daily discharges appearing in a table from a memorandum from the 2105 Committee to Bruce McGurk dated July 15, 2003.

 

Native Molluscs:  The degree to which the flow schedule cleanses attachment and grazing areas of organic and inorganic debris and distributes individuals to new habitat areas.

 

Spawning Substrate Cleansing:  Does the flow schedule provide for cleansing and replenishment of trout spawning gravels?

 

Woody Debris:  Degree to which variations in discharge and wetted area facilitate the distribution of large woody debris.

 

Spawning Gravel Recruitment:  Evaluation based on the probability that the magnitude and variance in flow will entrain sediment delivered by tributary streams, cause some bank erosion, and winnow spawning sized gravel from landslide and dry ravel materials.

 

Coldwater Pool Depletion:  The degree to which the cold water pool in Lake Almanor is depleted during the summer.  Range of difference between flow proposals is 2100 acre feet.

 

Riparian:  Degree to which annual flow variations alter the wetted perimeter providing selective habitat types for a variety of plant communities.

 

Riparian in Association with Birds and Mammals:  Degree to which annual flow variations alter the wetted perimeter providing selective habitat types for a variety of birds and mammals.

 

Hyporheic Processes:  Movement of oxygenated water through gravel bars is critical to the health of organisms occupying interstitial space between bar substrate.  A component of stream biological health.  Increasing discharge will facilitate hyporheic processes.

Attachment 4:

 

Article      Lake Almanor Water Levels

 

 

1.0       Goals

 

1.1       The intent of this article is to provide a structure to operate Lake Almanor for ecological, cultural, aesthetic, social, economic, and recreational values while maintaining the Licensee’s operational flexibility.

 

2.0       Water Level Measurement                      

 

2.1       Lake water level is defined as surface water elevation expressed in P. G. & E. datum and measured at Canyon Dam.  P. G. & E. datum is 10.2 feet lower than the United States Geological Survey (USGS) datum.  All elevations noted within this article are P. G. & E. datum.

 

3.0       Water Year Type

 

3.1       Minimum stream flows vary depending on the magnitude of the annual runoff from the river basin.  Water years have been separated into four water year types based on the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) records of annual inflow to Lake Oroville (Oroville) from 1930-1999: Wet, Normal, Dry, and Critically Dry (CD).  Licensee shall determine water year type based on the predicted unimpaired inflow to Oroville and spring snowmelt runoff forecasts provided by Licensee and DWR each month from March through May.  The water year types are defined as follows:

 

Wet:                        Greater than or equal to 5,679 thousand acre feet (TAF) inflow to Oroville.

Normal:                        Less than 5,679 TAF, but greater than or equal to 3,228 TAF inflow to Oroville.

Dry:                        Less than 3,228 TAF, but greater than or equal to 2,505 TAF inflow to Oroville.

CD:                        Less than 2,505 TAF inflow to Oroville.

 

Licensee shall make a forecast of the water year type on or about March 10^th and operate for the remainder of that month and until the next forecast based on that March forecast.  New forecasts will be made on or about the tenth of April and May after the snow surveys are completed, and operations will be changed as may be appropriate.  The May forecast shall be used to establish the water year type for the remaining months of the year until the next March, when forecasting shall begin again.  Licensee shall provide notice to FS, FERC, and the ERC of the final water year type determination within 30 days of making the determination.

 

4.0       Lake Almanor Water Levels

 

4.1       Under normal conditions during wet and normal water years, the Licensee shall operate the project from midnight May 31^st to midnight on Labor Day to maintain Lake Almanor water levels at or above elevation 4485 feet. 

 

4.2       In the case of a dry water year, the Licensee shall operate the project from midnight on May 31^st to an elevation of 4485 feet or above.  The Licensee shall be allowed to decrease water levels to 4483 feet on Labor Day.

 

4.3       In the case of critically dry water years, the Licensee shall maintain a minimum lake level of at least 4482 feet on May 31^st.  The Licensee shall be allowed to decrease water levels to 4480 feet on Labor Day.

 

5.0            Temporary Modifications

 

5.1       Temporary modifications to the minimum water levels noted above may occur upon agreement between the Licensee, California State Water Resources Control Board, California State Department of Fish & Game, U. S. Forest Service, and Plumas County for any of the following conditions:

 

5.1.1       The California Independent System Operator (ISO) or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) determines an extreme and unforeseen power shortage exists, and drawing down Lake Almanor would alleviate the shortage; or

5.1.2       Changes are required by regulatory agencies having jurisdiction; or

5.1.3            There is a threat to life or damage of property; or

5.1.4            A natural disaster or “Act of God” occurs that threatens the integrity of the project; or

5.1.5            Substantial maintenance or repair work on project facilities is required; or

5.1.6            The flow release at Canyon Dam is insufficient to satisfy both the minimum flow and minimum lake water level requirements.

 

6.0            Exercise of Water Rights

 

6.1            The Licensee has certain water rights associated with the waters in Lake Almanor and also is required to meet certain water right requirements to the Western Canal District.  The Licensee needs to meet the requirements of the water rights.  The operation of the Project shall be allowed to meet these requirements while maintaining the lake level to the previously noted levels between May 31 and Labor Day.

 

7.0            Maximum Lake Levels

 

7.1            The Licensee shall not exceed the 4494-foot elevation.

 

8.0            Implementation

 

8.1       The Licensee shall implement this license article within one week after acceptance of a new FERC License by Licensee.

 

9.0            Monitoring

 

9.1            The Licensee shall make available on a seven day delayed basis

9.1.1       Lake Almanor water levels and storages.

9.1.2       Releases made at Canyon Dam

9.1.3       Releases through the Prattville Tunnel

 

10.0            Annual Meeting With Plumas County

 

The Licensee shall meet annually with a committee appointed by the Plumas County Board of Supervisors.  These meetings shall be held in early spring to inform the committee about the likely lake levels that will be realized in the summer.  The committee may include the local Board member, County staff, and local appointed residents, not to exceed (4) four persons.

 

 

Attachment 5:

 

Article      Water Quality Monitoring and Protection

 

 

1.0       Goals

 

1.1       The intent of this article is to monitor and protect the water quality of Lake Almanor, Butt Valley Reservoir, and the Upper North Fork Feather River for the use and enjoyment of the public and for aquatic resources.

 

2.0       Water Quality Monitoring Plan               

 

2.1       Within 90 days after acceptance of a new license, the Licensee shall file a water quality monitoring plan with the Commission.  The water quality monitoring plan shall be developed in consultation with the California State Water Resources Control Board, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Water Resources, and Plumas County (collaborative water quality monitoring group).  The water quality monitoring plan shall include Lake Almanor, Butt Valley Reservoir, Belden Forebay, the Upper North Fork Feather River from Lake Almanor to a point one mile downstream of the Belden Powerhouse tailrace, the Seneca bypass, the Belden Bypass, and tributaries to Lake Almanor.  At a minimum, the plan shall include the parameters to be monitored, monitoring locations, and monitoring frequency. 

 

3.0       Water Quality Monitoring Plan Implementation

 

3.1       The Licensee shall contract with the California Department of Water Resources or other party acceptable to the collaborative water quality monitoring group, to implement the water quality monitoring plan and prepare an annual report on the plan. 

 

4.0            Annual Meeting

 

4.1       Within 60 days after transmittal of the annual report, the Licensee shall convene a meeting to review the results of the report and revise the monitoring plan as necessary.   Monitoring Plan revisions shall be filed with the Commission prior to implementation of the revised plan. 

 

5.0            Protection Measures

 

5.1       If adverse water quality effects are identified in Lake Almanor, Butt Valley Reservoir, Belden Forebay, the Upper North Fork Feather River, the Seneca bypass, or the Belden Bypass, the Licensee shall consult with the collaborative water quality monitoring group to determine the reason for the adverse water quality.  The Licensee shall file a plan for protecting and mitigating the adverse effects if the collaborative water quality monitoring group determines that the Licensee’s project operations or maintenance are responsible for the adverse water quality. The plan shall be developed in consultation with the collaborative group.  If the collaborative group does not agree on the cause and responsibility for the adverse water quality, the State Water Resources Control Board shall determine responsibility for mitigating the adverse water quality. 

 

8.0            Funding

 

8.1            The Licensee shall contribute up to $80,000 (2004 dollars) annually and Plumas County shall contribute $20,000 (2004 dollars) annually to implement the water quality monitoring plan.  The annual contributions shall be adjusted annually according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).