|
|
Project 2105 License Group (2105LG) Approved Meeting Summary – February 28, 2003 |
Call to order: Patti Kroen, Facilitator at 9 a.m.
Attendees: See Attachment 1 for list of attendees. Attendees approved the February 28, 2003 draft Agenda and the February 13, 2003 meeting summary after making one change to the first sentence under “Update From PG&E on Informal Meeting” deleting “a subgroup, including” and replacing “and others interested in” with “on”.
The facilitator reviewed action items yet to be completed. The LAWLAF Committee is scheduled to deliver completed attribute tables and supporting text at the March 27th 2105LG meeting. PG&E will report back in March on the results of their investigations into easements on or near Section 17 near Westwood. John Mintz brought copies of the Recreation Resource Management Plan (RRMP) for distribution and Wayne Dyok reported that he has provided a sample settlement agreement to PG&E, thus completing their action items.
Whitewater Flows in Belden Reach
David Steindorf representing American Whitewater (AW) provided a handout to the participants outlining a recreation flow proposal for the Belden reach patterned after the Rock Creek-Cresta settlement (see Attachment 2). He explained that the proposal is designed to meet the needs of recreational boaters and protect the on-water recreational use designated in the Basin Plan. He identified three tasks that would need to be completed in addition to the whitewater flows: 1) removal of encroaching vegetation at five or six key areas, 2) removal of the fish weir below Gansner Bar which presents a hazard to boaters, and 3) improvement of access, specifically the need for parking and improvements at ‘put-in’ site.
David corrected two numbers in the table on the first page of the handout: under “User Day Triggers” the numbers for Sept and October under “Down” should both be 60 not 80. He explained that the ‘value lost and benefit gained’ numbers were determined to be $30/MWh for lost power with a value to the whitewater user of $100/day. He acknowledged that the whitewater user figure may be higher than other comparable studies but pointed out that the Belden Reach is special with documented historic whitewater boating activity with flows potentially available year round before the Project facilities were built. PG&E agreed with the cost estimate of approximately $8-9,000/release day but believes the user value should be closer to $50/day. David described the reach as well suited to whitewater activity based on its length, skill level variety, and accessibility and suggested coordination be worked out with the releases on Rock Creek-Cresta to lessen the whitewater boater pressure on that reach.
The FS indicated their willingness to work with the whitewater community but could not support flows during the months indicated on the handout because preliminary data from Rock Creek-Cresta indicates sensitive species impacts may be occurring. The FS also feels the recreational setting along Caribou Road is different than at Rock Creek-Cresta and increased activity would create safety issues. The FS added that they might consider fall or spring pulse flows but would not support summer flows. DFG indicated they are inclined to support the FS concerns, may be able to support fall flows and would like to review study results from Rock Creek-Cresta before making a decision. CSPA pointed out that the conclusions valid in the Rock Creek reach may not apply in the Belden reach and added that the Belden reach is a highly valued resource for anglers who would be displaced during summer days when whitewater flow releases occurred. CSPA stated that they cannot support any decision on this issue without the data and information needed to understand the impacts to the biologic community as well as the impacts to other recreational users and they support additional studies to begin as soon as possible.
SWRCB staff echoed a similar desire to protect ecological resources but indicated that the Basin Plan’s Contact Recreational Use of the NFFR is specific in its designation of kayaking and canoeing as on-water uses. Adequate data must be provided to demonstrate non-attainability of a use before SWRCB can rule out any beneficial uses designated in the Basin Plan for the Upper North Fork Feather River. PG&E noted that the studies for Rock Creek-Cresta are expensive, roughly $500,000/year so they would like to wait for results from those studies and discuss the transferability of that information to the Belden reach before initiating any more studies. CSPA responded that they were unwilling to wait five years for the studies to conclude and noted that studies such as they are requesting for the Belden reach will be necessary to make decisions within the context of NEPA and CEQA. DFG suggested that much of the information gathered from Rock Creek-Cresta would be applicable and proposed an adaptive management approach with flexibility to re-visit the issue when data is available to support a decision.
FS reiterated their land management authority for the area and stated that their internal management direction is to oppose whitewater flows in the Belden reach. Their concerns also extend to opposing the flows needed to complete such studies. They could live with a re-opener in the settlement agreement that allows reconsideration of whitewater flows in Belden reach if study data from Rock Creek-Cresta show no impacts. SWRCB staff stated that scientific data must be provided to demonstrate the response of aquatic biota to flow releases and ramping rates that are alleged to cause impacts to amphibians or other species. Basin Plan use designations carry the weight of law, and without data to initiate a de-designation of the on-water recreation beneficial use, SWRCB must protect that use in their balancing of the beneficial uses on this river. SWRCB staff emphasized that studies are underway on other rivers, and a $1 million dollar grant has been awarded to conduct a comprehensive study that will evaluate biological responses to both natural and manufactured pulse flows. SWRCB suggested that PG&E participate in this study. However, SWRCB staff clearly stated that reach-specific studies should be conducted now. PG&E noted that a meeting is scheduled for March 19th to look specifically at the study results from Rock Creek-Cresta and suggested the discussion be tabled until after that meeting. PG&E added that they are not closing the door on any season but would like to have a chance to convene a small group to discuss the transferability of information from Rock Creek-Cresta to Belden Reach after the March 19th meeting and report back to the 2105LG.
Agreements
· 2105LG agreed to table discussion of additional whitewater flow studies on the Belden reach until after March 19th meeting to discuss study results from Rock Creek-Cresta.
q Action Item 9: PG&E will meet with sub-group to discuss transferability of data between Rock Creek-Cresta and Belden reach.
Due Date: April 2003
Chester Access
Bill Dennison representing Plumas County presented a proposal to construct a marina and channel at Chester using the existing gravel pit as the marina and gravel excavated from the channel to help offset the cost to construct the project while providing for continued business operation by the private gravel mine operator. California Waterfowl expressed some concerns about the impact such a project would have on duck hunters who currently walk along the shoreline that would be bisected by the proposed channel. PG&E reported that they had originally looked at such a project and concluded the costs to be from $16-20 million. In addition, preliminary geotechnical reports suggested the potential to encounter a basalt layer of unknown thickness at shallow depths. PG&E, Plumas County and the current gravel operator will meet to discuss this proposal.
Action Item
q Action Item 10: PG&E, Plumas County and the current gravel operator will meet to discuss this proposal and report back to the 2105LG.
Due Date: April 2003
FS Facilities at Lake Almanor
The FS acknowledged PG&E’s agreement to improve handicap access to the jetties, construct a boat ramp extension and complete beach improvements and suggested that PG&E also enter into a partnership with the FS for campground improvements at FS properties. The FS pointed to their agency budget cuts as partly responsible for decisions by the FS to allow FERC licensees to take over FS recreation facilities in some recent instances. The FS stated that it is their intention to keep the Belden reach campgrounds within the FS however they may be interested in PG&E taking over the Lake Almanor facilities. PG&E responded that they have a fixed budget of $21 million for this project so while they are willing to work with the FS, this would represent a significant change to the proposed RRMP and there would likely need to be adjustments made someplace else. PG&E asked the FS to prepare a proposal for consideration.
Parking at Caribou
CSPA asked if additional parking could be provided and PG&E responded that there is no suitable alternative location. PG&E is proposing some improvements to the walkway around Caribou powerhouse. CSPA also noted that the campground closed before the end of the fishing season and it would be nice if the Butt Valley launch could be utilized year round.
DFG Fish Stocking Program Reimbursement
DFG estimated that the state spends approximately $100,000/year stocking fish in Lake Almanor and proposed that PG&E consider reimbursing the state for the stocking program. PG&E reiterated their position that state taxes paid by PG&E should cover such programs but encouraged DFG to prepare a proposal with specific information for consideration.
Alternate Sites
Plumas County plans to provide language to be included in the settlement agreement that addresses the need for PG&E to identify alternative sites in the event proposed recreation development or enhancement locations are found to cause environmental or cultural impacts such that would preclude them from development.
Catfish Beach
Plumas County has an interest in accelerating the improvements at Catfish Beach ahead of the planned schedule. PG&E said they might be able to do all of the improvements to Catfish Beach by trading with other improvements currently scheduled for the first phase.
Dispersed Use in Belden Reach
NPS noted the dispersed use in the Belden reach and asked about survey work to determine whether use levels were appropriate. PG&E has collected some data and the FS responded that they feel the current level of use is appropriate and would like to maintain the current, low-impact experience. They believe expanding improvements would increase use to an undesirable level and change the overall experience sought by users. CSPA suggested the FS think more regionally and consider using the old James Lee campground.
PG&E’s archaeologist responded to questions related to the cultural resources survey work conducted in the project area. She explained that the areas proposed for development have been surveyed and she is currently having staff revisit a couple of locations to confirm they are clear. She also noted that PG&E has completed traditional cultural properties survey work for the area of potential effect (APE). The FS indicated their archaeologist would like to meet with PG&E regarding potential impacts within the fluctuation zone. PG&E and FS archaeologists will meet to discuss.
Action Item
q Action Item 11: PG&E and FS archaeologists will meet to discuss FS concern for potential fluctuation zone impacts.
Due Date: April 2003
Safety Issues - MOU:
PG&E provided some background information relative to the draft Memorandum of Understanding between PG&E and Plumas County Sheriff. Tom Jereb described a number of meetings and letter exchanges that began over a year ago when the Plumas County Sheriff informed PG&E that they could no longer fund hazard marking within the project. FERC’s position is that addressing safety on reservoirs is the licensee’s responsibility so PG&E and Plumas County Sheriff drafted the MOU to identify hazard marking requirements and communication protocols. Plumas County Public Works outlined some concerns with the draft MOU in a letter provided by Tom Hunter (see Attachment 3). In his letter, Tom identifies several issues including a desire to have all natural hazards marked, better definition of suitable markers, and a request for the preparation and distribution of bathometric maps showing obstructions at various water levels at all ramps, campgrounds, resorts, etc. The Public Works also requested that beacons be provided on the islands and the peninsula tip and flyovers be conducted to locate floaters and snags to be removed from the reservoir.
PG&E responded that the MOU could be revised to address some of Public Work’s concerns however, PG&E is reluctant to increase the marking program to include every natural hazard and provide the public with the misperception that PG&E is responsible for normal public awareness of natural hazards and individual safety precautions. PG&E will continue to work on the MOU with the Plumas County Sheriff.
Action Items
q Action Item 12: PG&E will continue to work on the MOU with the Plumas County Sheriff and try to address Plumas County Public Works concerns.
Due Date: May 2003
LAWLAF Committee Update:
Mike Taylor reported that the LAWLAF Committee is making excellent progress and is on track to provide the 2105LG with attribute tables and supporting text at the March 27th meeting. LAWLAF has not considered any flow scenarios yet and PG&E is still evaluating Plumas County’s flow proposal. Once the attribute tables and rationale statements are complete, the committee will develop several flow scenarios to be run through PG&E’s operations model.
Focus for Next Meeting:
The 2105LG had agreed to consider holding the March meetings in Chester. The participants discussed the desire to maintain public involvement in the Chester area but agreed that the Chico location was a good compromise with everyone driving some distance. They agreed to meet in Chico for the March meetings and consider holding an April or May meeting in Chester.
Upcoming meeting dates and topics are as follows:
March 13 Water quality, temperature and erosion. Prattville modifications.
March 27 LAWLAF attributes and justification statements
April 10Hamilton Branch and hydrology
Attachment 1: List of Attendees
Marvin Alexander 2105 Comm.
Fred Binswanger Westwood Chamber of Commerce
Michael Condon USFS
Bill Dennison Plumas Co. Sup.
Jerry Duffy Dyer Mtn.
Wayne Dyok MWH
Mark Hennelly California Waterfowl Association
Robert Hughes DFG
Tom Jereb PG&E
Patti Kroen Kroen
Ken Kundargi DFG
Mike Meinz DFG
Jerry Mensch CSPA
John Mintz PG&E
Jeremy Peconom Honey Lake Maidu
Carolyn Rech DFG
Steve Robinson MMC
David Steindorf Chico Paddleheads/American Whitewater
Sharon Stohrer SWRCB
Mike Taylor USFS
Janet Walther PG&E
Harry Williamson NPS
Bill Zemke PG&E
Attachment 2: Recreation Flow Proposal – Belden Reach
Recreation Flow Proposal
Belden Reach
This recreational flow proposal is designed to meet the beneficial use needs for recreational boating opportunities as outlined in the basin plan.
1. Identify critical areas of vegetation encroachment in the river channel and determine a method for removal.
2. Removal of fish weir below Gansner Bar.
3. Assess needs for access. (Primarily put-in).
1. Recreational Flows. For the purposes of improving and enhancing public recreation, Licensee shall implement, as early as possible but no later than one year after issuance of the New Project License, the following recreational flow schedule and other provisions presented in Table B, Recreation Flow Schedule.
Month |
Release amount in Cubic Feet per Second (cfs) |
Release Days per Month |
User Day Triggers |
|||||
|
|
Dry * |
Normal ** |
Dry Start |
Dry Cap |
Normal Start |
Normal Cap |
Belden Reach |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Normal /Dry Up |
Down |
|
June |
700cfs |
800 cfs |
1 day |
2 days |
1 day |
4 days |
80 |
60 |
|
July |
600 cfs |
700 cfs |
1 day |
2 days |
1 day |
4 days |
80 |
60 |
|
Aug |
600 cfs |
600 cfs |
1 day |
2 days |
1 day |
4 days |
80 |
60 |
|
Sep |
600 cfs |
600 cfs |
1 day |
2 days |
1 day |
4 days |
80 |
60 |
|
Oct |
600 cfs |
600 cfs |
0 |
0 |
1 day |
4 days |
80 |
60 |
* Dry and Critically Dry years
B. Recreation Flow Calendar. An annual recreation flow calendar will be established with initial recreation flow days occurring on the first full weekend of the month. If Licensee is required to make a June Pulse Flow release, such release shall be scheduled coincident with a June recreation flow day(s). An annual planning meeting will be held each year in March. This meeting will discuss expected water year type, results of monitoring efforts, Licensee maintenance needs that may conflict with recreation flow releases, and other issues relevant to on-water recreation.
C. Flows Schedule. Recreation flow releases from Belden dam will be made to alleviate carrying capacity issues with the Rock Creek/Cresta release. Increases or decreases in the number of recreation flow releases as a result of monitoring will be made to the recreation flow calendar on weekends starting with the second weekend of the month.
D. Recreation Flow Postponement. Licensee may postpone up to one weekend of recreation flow releases in July and one weekend of recreation flow releases in August during heat waves provided Licensee gives a 48-hour notice to the recreation community. Postponement will be based on projected Heat Storm conditions defined as a stage three alert. Postponed recreation flow releases will be made up on the next available weekend in the same month or rolled into the following month if no weekends are available. Also in the event of an emergency that would preclude the release of a scheduled flow, Licensee shall provide as much notice as possible and arrangements for the rescheduled day or days.
E.
Triggers for Adjustments. Observed boater use in boater days will
be monitored to determine whether release days should be added or
subtracted. A boater day is defined as use of the Belden reach for any
part of a given day. Boater use data will be collected on each scheduled
recreation flow release days. A day of recreation flow will be
added to the recreation flow schedule the next year after 100% exceedance of
the up-trigger is met for each day in a particular month of that year. A
day of recreation flow will be subtracted from the recreation flow schedule for
the next year after 100% exceedance of the down-trigger are not met in a
particular month of that year. Days will be adjusted to the same month in
which use is monitored. Recreation flow releases will not decrease below
1 release per month, unless unacceptable adverse ecological impacts are
observed. Flow release days will not be added or subtracted during the
initial 3 years after issuance of the license to allow for the biologic
monitoring in item (V.2) below.
F. Ramping Rates. Initial Ramping Rates will be as defined in the Section II.5.A . Subsequent ramp rate adjustments made by the ERC and FS, and approved by FERC if necessary, will come out of the total volume of water released during the recreation flow release, except in dry years, provided that Licensee shall not be required to provide additional flow if the ramping time for dry years increases by more than a factor of 2.
2. Recreation and Pulse Flow Biological Evaluation. Licensee shall prepare, in consultation with the ERC and FS, a Flow Evaluation Plan and file such plan with FERC within one year of issuance of a New Project License. This Plan will be designed to evaluate the effects of recreation and Pulse Flow releases on aquatic biota, and the metrics to be used in this determination. If, after 3 years of data collection and assessment, either beneficial, neutral, or no significant adverse effects (as determined by the ERC and FS) are observed, recreation flow release days will be added as supported by on-water recreational use monitoring in item V.1.E above. Days will be adjusted after that period as supported by ecological and on-water recreationaluse monitoring
A. By April 10, a preliminary forecast shall be made of the dates and flow targets of scheduled recreational releases from the Belden Forebay Dam. The forecast shall be updated by May 10, with weekly updates if changes occur, thereafter through October 15.
Licensee shall make a Good Faith effort to make scheduled recreation streamflow releases on the days when such releases are forecast to occur. The Licensee has the discretion to cancel scheduled releases up to 48 hours prior to the release during Heat Storm conditions (see Section V.1.D, Recreation Flow Postponement). All provisions for recreation streamflows are subject to the safe operability of the Project facilities and equipment necessary to provide such streamflows. Licensee shall make a Good Faith effort to maintain the operability of such Project facilities and equipment and shall not schedule discretionary outages of such Project facilities and equipment in conflict with providing the recreation streamflows described below. The flow information may be made available to the public via a third party. The flow information protocols described above may be modified upon mutual agreement of Licensee, FS, AW, and acceptance by FERC.
Attachment 3 Plumas County Memo regarding Safety MOU (sent as separate PDF file)