Project 2105 License Group (2105LG) Approved Meeting Summary – December 8, 2003 (Meeting continued on December 15, 2003)
Call to order: Patti Kroen, Facilitator at 9:00 a.m.
Attendees: See Attachment 1 for list of attendees. Participants approved the December 8, 2003 meeting agenda. The Facilitator noted that Sharon Stohrer and Charles White had provided comments to the November 24 and November 25, 2003 meeting summaries and those revisions had been distributed to the 2105LG for review. Bill Dennison suggested the notes be revised to read ‘loop’ instead of ‘look’ in the recreation discussion. The 2105LG approved the November meeting summaries as revised and distributed without further revisions.
Settlement Agreement Section Review and Resolution:
The 2105LG agreed to review the 11-30-03 draft document from front to back and work through participants’ comments. PG&E will clean up the document format and add page numbers to the table of contents once the document language is determined finished by the 2105LG. Revisions made during the meeting are reflected in the version attached to this summary (Attachment 2). Comments and revisions included the following:
Introduction:
The signatories will be identified once the document language is finalized and added at that time. Several global changes were agreed to such as a change from ‘signatories’ to ‘Parties’ throughout the document. The 2105LG reviewed language suggested by PG&E to define ‘emergency’ (Attachment 3) and after minor revisions, agreed to include it in the definitions. They also discussed apparent inconsistencies with the language related to descriptions of the ERC and agreed to remove references to the ERC and add a definition for the TRG.
Section 2.2:
Section 2.3:
The 2105LG agreed to add SWRCB to item (c) and change ‘recommend’ to ‘support’. PG&E requested additional specifics on where Plumas County believes erosion is a problem and agreed to discuss the details of this issue with Plumas County further. The Facilitator will contact CSPA to add details to their unresolved issues described in an e-mail from Jerry Mensch (Attachment 4) related to wetland and riparian habitat, angler access on Seneca Reach, and whitewater flow effects on temperature in the Belden Reach.
Sections 4.3, 4.4.2, 4.4.3:
The 2105LG discussed how the paragraphs in these sections repeat information and Tom Jereb noted that the PG&E attorney had suggested substantial revisions to clarify these sections under 4.4.1. He distributed copies of the suggested revisions for review. The 2105LG agreed on the need for a section to describe a mechanism for additional parties to become signatories to the agreement. A new section will be drafted and added as 4.12.
Section 6.2:
The 2105LG suggested deleting this section and PG&E agreed to confirm this action with their attorney.
Section 6.3:
PG&E will check if this section addresses the future water temperature data issue.
Appendix A – Section 1:
Changes suggested by Mike Meinz were discussed and adopted for Paragraph 3(a). The title for Paragraph 3(b) was changed to ‘Pulse Flow Monitoring’. The 2105LG discussed the 90% deviation allowance needed to accommodate 15-minute streamflow readings when meeting minimum streamflow requirements and agreed on revised language. Oak Flat Powerhouse was added to the discussion of ramping rates in Paragraph 6 and ‘minimum streamflow’ was deleted from options described in Paragraph 6(b). Further discussion focused on the recreation flows and whether these should also be exempt from consideration. AW suggested a compromise wherein the increase in volume would be no more than 10%. PG&E agreed that this limitation would be appropriate for recreation flows but not for pulse flows which extend for a period of days.
The 2105LG discussed the desire to limit the reallocation of water to those values included on tables A-1 and A-2 and PG&E noted that there may be some problems with this language so Tom Jereb will discuss the suggested revision with Bruce McGurk.
Section 2:
The 2105LG discussed recommended revisions provided by AW via e-mail from John Gangemi and previously distributed to the 2105LG (Attachment 5), including language describing how the public would be involved in the TRG. The 2105LG revised the section to reflect that the public would have the ability to provide comments at TRG meetings in a structured format to be further defined by the TRG itself. The 2105LG discussed AW’s interest that a consistent standard be applied to all beneficial uses of the river when evaluating impacts from a specific use. Language was suggested and discussed and the group agreed to add language in Appendix B to further describe the 2105LG intent with regard to this subject.
The 2105LG discussed Table B and PG&E described the method used to calculate use standards that would trigger increasing recreation flow days. The standards are based on the cost of providing the water for power generation ($.03/kwh) versus the benefit to the boaters at $50.00/boater day. Tom Jereb also described how carrying capacity was factored into the determination of the standards and noted that the FS estimated carrying capacity for this reach to be approximately 200 boaters. The 2105LG discussed the belief that this reach would not see much raft use so the carrying capacity of 200 rafters would not likely be reached. PG&E suggested that this reach of the river would not provide the same experience for boaters as the Rock Creek-Cresta Reach and thus less people will come however, AW does not agree with this conclusion. The FS suggested the calculation should assume that boaters would use kayaks instead of rafts for this reach and the carrying capacity should be adjusted to 100 users with the TRG reviewing whether the standard is appropriate after the three-year study period. Additional compromises were discussed and AW stated that they could not sign the settlement agreement without lower standards to trigger additional boater flows. PG&E noted that the angling community would not likely accept lower standards and expressed concern with balancing economics with social benefits. Tom Jereb agreed to review the standards with upper management and the Facilitator agreed to review the potential for lower standards with CSPA. AW agreed to consider moving the standards to Table 2 as an unresolved issue and accepting the rest of the settlement agreement.
Section 3:
The 2105LG agreed to shorten Paragraph 7 to reflect the addition of a definition for Emergency. Bruce McGurk explained that the 48-hour notice described in this section may not be possible and asked that the phrase ‘or as much advance notice as possible’ be inserted. The 2105LG agreed with this revision and added a paragraph that discusses recreation flow information.
Section 4:
No changes were suggested for Section 4.
Section 5:
The Goal paragraph was revised and the 2105LG discussed the process of selecting locations for sampling. The 2105LG discussed concerns related to water quality contained in an e-mail from Aaron Seandel (Attachment 6). Data will be collected by DWR and given to PG&E for report preparation. The report will need to be finalized by March 15 with a 30-day comment period, resulting in an annual meeting to discuss results to be held between April 15 and April 28. SWRCB requested that arsenic be added to the water column testing protocol and Wayne Dyok agreed to discuss the need to sample arsenic in sediments with Charles White. Table 3 was revised to reflect the need to sample BTEX at the surface only.
Next Steps - Focus for Next Meeting:
The 2105LG agreed to continue reviewing and editing the consolidated draft settlement language document, focusing on the recreation section, on December 15. Plumas County and PG&E will further discuss the issues included in an e-mail from Bill Dennison (Attachment 7) off-line.
Action Items
q Action Item 95: Continue review and edit of draft settlement agreement document dated December 8, 2003.
Due Date: December 15, 2003
The continuation meeting to review and revise the rest of the draft settlement agreement language was held at the Sacramento offices of MWH on December 15, 2003 from 9:00am – 3:00pm. The attendees are included as Attachment 8 to this summary and the revisions agreed to at that meeting are shown in the draft document provided as Attachment 9 to this summary. Bill Dennison and Bob Lambert will provide additional grammatical edits to the Facilitator who will insert their suggested revisions and distribute the revised document to the 2105LG for review during the week of December 22. The 2105LG agreed that PG&E would forward the revised settlement agreement to FERC as soon as possible after the December review with an accompanying cover letter indicating PG&E’s intention to secure signatures from the 2105LG during the first two weeks of January.
Upcoming meeting dates and locations:
Date Location
January 20 Joint 1962 ERG/2105LG To be determined.
January 23 2105LG Water Temperature To be determined.
Attachment 1: List of Attendees
Danny Bernardini Enterprise Record
Bill Dennison Plumas County Supervisor
Michael Condon USFS
Wayne Dyok MWH
John Gangemi AW
Tom Jereb PG&E
Patti Kroen Kroen
Bruce McGurk (phone) PG&E
Mike Meinz CDFG
John Mintz PG&E
Nancee Murray (phone) CDFG
Sue Norman (phone) USFS
Lisa Randle PG&E
Aaron Seandel 2105 Committee
Dave Steindorf Chico Paddleheads
Sharon Stohrer SWRCB
Mike Taylor USFS
Harry Williamson NPS
Bill Zemke PG&E
Attachment 2: Draft Settlement Language, December 8, 2003
Attachment 3: Definition of Emergency
Emergency: An event that is largely out of the control of Licensee and requires Licensee to take immediate action, either unilaterally or under instruction by law enforcement or other regulatory agency staff, to prevent imminent loss of life or substantial property damage. Emergencies typically arise from natural events such as landslides, storms, or wildfires, but electrical transmission or generation equipment failure, automobile or boating accidents, water impoundment/conveyance damage, and other unforeseen occurrences can all cause or contribute to emergency conditions.
Attachment 4: E-mail from Jerry Mensch (Available on Request)
Attachment 5: E-mail from John Gangemi regarding revisions to draft settlement agreement language (available on Request)
Attachment 6: E-mail from Aaron Seandal regarding revisions to draft settlement agreement language (available on Request)
Attachment 7: E-mail from Bill Dennison regarding relicensing and sewer system around Lake Almanor (available on Request)
Attachment 8: List of Attendees
Michael Condon (phone) USFS
Bill Dennison Plumas County Supervisor
Wayne Dyok MWH
Tom Jereb (phone) PG&E
Patti Kroen Kroen
Bob Lambert 2105 Committee
Bruce McGurk PG&E
Mike Meinz CDFG
John Mintz PG&E
Mike Taylor USFS
Mike Wilhoit 2105 Committee
Harry Williamson NPS
Attachment 9: Draft Settlement Language, December 15, 2003