Project 2105 License Group (2105LG) Approved Meeting Summary – July 24, 2003
Call to order: Patti Kroen, Facilitator at 9:00 a.m. Bill Dennison updated the group on Christi Goodman’s condition and indicated that she has had surgery at the University of Iowa Hospital, is in good spirits and expects to be released in about a week. Both Jerry Mensch and Robert Hughes were released from the hospital and have returned home. Jerry may participate in today’s meeting by telephone and Robert indicated he might attend in the afternoon. Scott Tu has just returned from Iowa and is not expected to attend today. The 2105LG extended their collective best wishes to all for a quick and full recovery.
Attendees: See Attachment 1 for list of attendees. Participants approved the July 24, 2003 meeting agenda and discussed the location for the next 2105LG meeting, currently scheduled for Chester. Bill Dennison confirmed teleconferencing capability for the Chester Courthouse meeting location and will provide directions. The 2105LG agreed to hold the July 31, 2003 meeting in Chester and the August 15, August 28, September 11 and September 29 2105LG meetings in Chico. Tom Jereb will check on room availability for these meetings.
The 2105LG approved the June 26, 2003 meeting summary without revision. Bob Lambert reported that the 2105 Website is up and the address is www.project2105.org.
Action Item # 5: Related to easements has been removed from consideration due to the decision not to file the Hamilton Branch amendment. PG&E continues to collect water quality data in Mountain Meadows.
Action Item #19: Suggested revisions to the Shoreline Management Plan will be reviewed at this meeting – see discussion below.
Action Items #24 and 25: Related to drafting sections for the proposed settlement agreement will be discussed later in this meeting – see discussion below.
Action Item #32: Regarding the 2105LG request to FERC for delay, Tom Jereb indicated that John Mudre with FERC was in receipt of the request and it is under consideration. PG&E reported that they received FERC Additional Information Requests (AIRs) including 16 items that were due in 30 days and one additional item due in 60 days. The 30-day response submittal has been forwarded to FERC and copied to interested parties. PG&E will provide the water quality and flow data CD (not included in the distributed copies) to the 2105LG by request. Plumas County (4), SWRCB (2), CDFG, and USFS requested copies of the data CDs. The 60-day submittal is due to FERC in August and is expected to take FERC some time to review, potentially providing additional time to the 2105LG schedule.
Action Item #33: Regarding resolution of water quality monitoring program issues, a meeting is scheduled for August 11 with a report to the 2105LG on August 15.
Action Items #35 and 36: Regarding airport expansion plans, Tom Hunter will follow up on this and report back to the 2105LG. John Mintz reported that he had not received the more detailed map sections expected from Plumas County. Tom will follow up on the transfer of electronic map files to John Mintz. PG&E will perform consistency review after receiving the files. Some text revisions will be discussed at this meeting – see discussion below.
Action Item #37: Regarding draft language for insertion in settlement agreement and amendment to PG&E’s application regarding the consideration of whitewater boating flows, Harry Williamson has provided draft language for an Amendment to License Application Section E126.96.36.199 and the Whitewater sub-sub group expects to develop draft Settlement Agreement language to be provided to the 2105LG. The Whitewater sub-sub group is meeting in the field tomorrow and Mike Taylor indicated the FS has a policy issue to resolve internally regarding whitewater flows.
Action Item #38: PG&E has drafted and distributed a draft hazard-marking plan in support of this action item to be reviewed at this meeting (see discussion below).
Text Revisions to Shoreline Management Plan (SMP):
The Facilitator distributed copies of text revisions and a draft Enforcement Section for the Lake Almanor Shoreline Plan (Attachment 2). After noting that the consistency review will be completed after the detailed zoning maps are received, John Mintz led the discussion of the proposed revisions to the SMP. The 2105LG accepted all draft changes suggested on the handout and included the following suggestions/inclusions:
Include language that states the intent to establish office in area where information on permitting needs would be made available to the public.
Page 4-3: Use of the term ‘Westside’ may be confusing. Revise to ‘west of Bailey Creek’.
Review Plumas County suggestion to strike out language related to maximum size limit (page 3.15).
Enforcement Section: PG&E described the draft section and reminded the 2105LG that the SMP applies only to Lake Almanor and was developed to address the development and resource issues on a reservoir such as Lake Almanor. It is not intended to cover Butt Valley however it is possible that a SMP may be considered necessary for Butt Valley at some time in the future.
Bill Dennison requested that wherever the term ‘permit’ is used that ‘/agreement’ be added to clarify the distinction between required permits and agreements associated with the Red River Lumber Co. Deed. Alternately, a footnote could be used to explain how permit is used within this document to include both permits and agreements. Plumas County also inquired if the dock and buoy owner identity and contact information collected in the PG&E database is available to the Sheriff. PG&E agreed to share the information with the Sheriff. The 2105 Committee suggested that more consistent enforcement is necessary related to lawns, irrigation systems and tree removal by property owners. Wayne Dyok offered to send sample language from another license to John Mintz.
PG&E will make revisions and distribute revised draft for review so that the 2105LG can finalize at the August 15th 2105LG meeting. The group also discussed the need for future coordination on marina and boat dock planning and potential changes to the Big Cove area.
The 2105LG reviewed the July and August meeting schedule as follows:
July 25 Whitewater Sub-sub group Roger’s Flat, 9:30am – 3:00pm
July 31 2105LG Chester, 9am-3pm
August 11 Water Quality Monitoring TBA
August 12 LAWLAF Oroville, 9am-3pm
August 15 2105LG Chico, 9am-3pm
August 19 Whitewater Sub-sub group Rancho Cordova, 9am-3pm
August 28 2105LG Chico, 9am-3pm
Review of 2105LG Participant Scoping Comments:
The participants reviewed the highlights of their comment letters submitted in response to the Scoping Document released by FERC. All letters received by FERC are posted and can be reviewed by accessing the FERC Website. After review, the 2105LG noted that the majority of the issues are being resolved within the collaborative and no surprises were identified.
Discussion of LAWLAF Presentation:
The Facilitator reminded the 2105LG that comments received from Plumas County on the June LAWLAF presentation had been distributed via e-mail and she provided hard copies of those comments contained in a memo from Tom Hunter dated July 15th (Attachment 3). She also reviewed the goal of the LAWLAF committee and their choice of the term ‘recommendations’ to describe the flow schedules resulting from revisions to ‘bookend’ flow schedules and model run results. The LAWLAF intended the recommendations be used for discussion and subject to revision by the collaborative. Lake level was considered very carefully as one of many attributes or physical, biological, social and management drivers of the system that the LAWLAF included in the attribute tables and rationale statements developed early in their discussions.
Plumas County reiterated their concern with any flow that deviates from 75 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Bruce McGurk reviewed the 10 questions contained in the Plumas County memo and provided responses as follows: He agreed that the numbers calculated for lake elevation change with different flow regimes appears correct and that a general rule of thumb is approximately 1 foot elevation change for every 25,000 acre feet. He noted that several creeks flow into the Seneca Reach and the accretion values could vary from 20 to 150 csf. He explained that the range of annual means is from 35 to 50 csf and the majority of accretion occurs in the lower portion of the reach. The accretion values were factored into the percent PHABSIM or usable habitat calculation. The 2105LG discussed the role of PHABSIM and IFIM curves when considering instream flow needs.
Bruce noted that the County and PG&E share an objective to have the reservoir as high as possible in the summer and described the operational changes PG&E has implemented in recent years to have Almanor as high as possible in June and generally in line with Plumas County objectives. He agreed to run the proposed County flow revisions and the LAWLAF recommendations using critically dry criteria in all years to compare lake levels and report results to the 2105LG before the July 31st meeting. Jerry Mensch requested that the Plumas County proposal be accompanied by documentation to support any changes suggested.
The group will use the August 31st date as the reasonable target rather than September 15th and agreed that the subjective notation “minimized impacts on reservoir elevations” will be removed. Bruce agreed to provide a new chart showing the past 33 years and the mean for the three different water year types. He also identified and corrected an error that was discovered charging whitewater flow for total rather than the incremental increase the pulses represent. The pulse flows are proposed for release down the Belden Reach and it is currently assumed little change to Lake Almanor elevations would result.
Tom Jereb reminded the 2105LG of his requirement to periodically exercise full water rights and the need for some relief in the event of successive dry years. Bruce expressed 80% confidence in the ability to meet the 145,000 acre-feet irrigation requirement with LAWLAF recommendations.
The 2105LG agreed to continue this discussion at the July 31st 2105LG meeting.
Natural Hazard Safety Plan:
The Facilitator distributed hard copies of the Draft Natural Hazard Safety Plan, which was distributed electronically for review in advance of this meeting (Attachment 4). Bill Dennison provided suggested changes and PG&E agreed to consider the suggestions and provide responses to the August 15th 2105LG meeting. PG&E will also consider including Butt Valley Reservoir in the document.
The Facilitator reminded participants that the next 2105LG meeting is scheduled for July 31, 2003 at the Courthouse Annex in Chester. The meeting agenda is expected to include continued discussion of LAWLAF recommendations and an update on the Whitewater sub-sub group. The Facilitator reminded the group of the need to begin document preparation and that the July 31st meeting would include an update and review of the document sections. Wayne Dyok distributed copies of a sample article section he has been developing for Lake Almanor Water Levels for review (Attachment 5).
The document sections and assignments are:
Water Temperature Tu/Taylor
Lake Level Dyok
Water Quality Goodman/Seandel
Flow Schedule LAWLAF
SMP/RMP Mintz/Plumas County
Boilerplate sections PG&E
She noted that the Whitewater flow subcommittee is scheduled to meet on July 25th and expect to have recommendations for the August 15th 2105LG meeting. The 2105LG discussed whether the LAWLAF committee needed to continue meeting or if the flow schedules should simply be discussed in the larger 2105LG. The flow schedules will be discussed in the 2105LG meetings and the LAWLAF will finish the rationale document that was started several months ago.
Mike Taylor suggested that the 2105LG discuss potential oversight needs for 2105 license compliance. Tom Jereb suggested that this project might not need an oversight process such as in place on Rock Creek-Cresta because little adaptive management is planned for this project. Sharon Stohrer and other participants identified temperature control measures among those resource areas that may require adaptive management and monitoring with an oversight program under a future license. The 2105LG agreed to discuss oversight at the August 15th 2105LG meeting. The August 15th agenda will also include a discussion of the specific zoning issues and potential inconsistencies identified during review of detailed County maps to finalize the RMP/SMP.
q Action Item 39: PG&E will provide the water quality and flow data CD (not included in the distributed copies) to Plumas County (4), SWRCB (2), CDFG, and USFS.
Due Date: ASAP
q Action Item 40: PG&E will make revisions to enforcement section and distribute revised draft SMP for review so that the 2105LG can finalize at the August 15th 2105LG meeting.
Due Date: August 15, 2003.
q Action Item 41: PG&E (Bruce McGurk) will run the proposed County flow revisions and the LAWLAF recommendations using critically dry criteria in all years to compare lake levels and report results to the 2105LG before the July 31st meeting. Also provide a new chart showing the past 33 years and the mean for the three different water year types.
Due Date: July 30, 2003.
q Action Item 42: PG&E will consider the suggestions to the Natural Hazard Safety Plan and provide responses to the August 15th 2105LG meeting. PG&E will also consider including Butt Valley Reservoir in the document.
Due Date: August 15, 2003.
Upcoming 2105LG meeting dates and tentative locations:
July 25 Whitewater Sub-sub group Roger’s Flat, 9:30am – 3:00pm
July 31 2105LG Chester, 9am-3pm
August 11 Water Quality Monitoring TBA
August 12 LAWLAF Oroville, 9am-3pm
August 15 2105LG Chico, 9am-3pm
August 19 Whitewater Sub-sub group Rancho Cordova, 9am-3pm
August 28 2105LG Chico, 9am-3pm
September 11 2105LG Chico, 9am-3pm
September 29 2105LG Chico, 9am-3pm
Attachment 1: List of Attendees
Bill Dennison Plumas County Supervisor
Wayne Dyok MWH
John Gangemi* American Whitewater
Robert Hughes CDFG
Tom Hunter Plumas County
Tom Jereb PG&E
Patti Kroen Kroen
Ken Kundargi CDFG
Bob Lambert 2105 Committee
Bruce McGurk* PG&E
Jerry Mensch* CSPA
John Mintz PG&E
Lisa Randle PG&E
Stu Running PG&E
Steven Schoenberg FWS
Aaron Seandel 2105 Committee
David Steindorf Chico Paddleheads
Sharon Stohrer SWRCB
Mike Taylor USFS
Mike Willhoit 2105 Committee
Bill Zemke PG&E
* Via telephone
Attachment 2: Draft Changes to SMP and Draft Enforcement Section
Draft Changes to paragraphs in Lake Almanor SMP in Response to Suggested Text Edits Comments from Plumas Count
July 22, 2003
P. 3-11, 3.4.1 Zoning, 2nd paragraph:
COMMENT: “Incorrect” (The incorrect seems to be referring to depiction of R-C zones on Figure 3-1)
The recreation zone depicted on Figure 3-1 is a commercial zone that allows dwelling units in association with a commercial facility.
P.3-12 COMMENT: “Warden”.. replaces marshal
In addition to the normal setback requirements, the county fire warden must approve building plans, including setback plans for each lot.
P. 3-12 COMMENT: “w/o plumbing or electrical” (needs to be added).
Following the California Building Code, the county does not require permits for open decks less than 30 inches above grade, or for structures not exceeding 120 square feet in size that do not have plumbing or electrical service.
P.3-15 COMMENT “when not in conjunction with construction” (needs to be added)
For ground-disturbance activities not directly part of a building or other constructed project, a grading permit is generally required when an excavation is more than 2 feet deep, or involves a cut slope of greater than 5 feet in height, or for excavation volumes greater than 50 cubic yards.
P. 3-15 COMMENT: strike out of word “most” and add “outside private opportunity areas” at end of sentence.
In accordance with Plumas County Code, travel trailers, campers, motor homes, or tents may be used for temporary seasonal habitation for a period not to exceed 120 days in a calendar year on privately owned lands outside of Prime Opportunity Areas. Prime Opportunity Areas are designed on the county general plan and generally include the built up areas of Chester, the commercial recreation zones, and higher residential zoned areas around Lake Almanor.
P. 4-3 COMMENT: “Westside, Bailey Creek, LACC plus or minus 1700 units, golf course, resort prepared application in process with lake front at Walker Ranch.”
This text appears to be Plumas County’s planner’s notes listing of the resorts discussed above in the paragraph. Does not appear to be a need to add this text list at end of paragraph.
P.5-13 COMMENT: in consultation with F &G
The Licensee will remove dead or hazard trees above the high water level as determined appropriate by the Licensee. If such trees are below the high water mark, Licensee will consult with the California Department of Fish and Game.
P.5-19 COMMENT: cite county website
Changed Sentence (P.5-18):
In addition, the Licensee proposes to provide periodic mailings of the flyer information sheets to APOs and will provide the County with electronic and hardcopy versions for possible distribution via County’s website and offices.
Draft Lake Almanor Shoreline Plan (SMP) Enforcement Section (7/22/03)
One of the underlying goals of the SMP is to protect and enhance the natural, environmental, cultural and scenic resources on lands and waters within the Project boundary. The Licensee believes that most Lake Almanor adjacent property owner’s (APO’s) appreciate the importance of maintaining, protecting, and improving existing shoreline resources and will continue to comply with SMP authorizations and management policies. Violations of these policies, though, do sometimes occur. Violations include any failure to comply with the provisions of these authorizations or policies, or failure to obtain or to comply with shoreline and dock policies and procedures before undertaking construction or other activities.
Licensee has developed a wide variety of measures to help ensure compliance with SMP procedures and policies. These measures include:
· public outreach activities to help make sure all APOs and members of the public are aware of shoreline procedures and polices,
· a permit tracking program,
· a system of standard dock and buoy identification numbers visibly posted on permitted structures,
· annual field reconnaissance of the shoreline,
· a enforcement program to deal with non-compliance activities, and
· on-site SMP seasonal staff.
One important method of achieving compliance is through information dissemination. The concept is based on the premise that if the affected public has access to and is made aware of the shoreline policies and program in a consistent manner, a high degree of compliance can be achieved. This can be done by helping APOs, agencies, and members of the public become aware of the SMP program, permit conditions, and shoreline policies. Through use of onsite staff and the ongoing Licensee public outreach and involvement activities, Licensee will undertake a wide variety of information dissemination actions including; 1) involvement in community forums, 2) providing brochures and flyers to local real estate agents, local Chamber of Commerce and business organizations, county offices, neighborhood associations, and 3) providing periodic direct mailings of shoreline policy information to APOs.
Permit and Licensee Tracking Program
Licensee uses a database tracking program for each permit issued that lists pertinent information about the shoreline property, including the past and present authorizations, results of annual and periodic site inspections, and future action items and follow-ups. The database program is updated on an on-going basis and provides instant access to permit information for each APO. This computer program provides the means, in the office or in the field, to track, monitor, and help follow compliance of APO activities. The database also serves as an index and file locator for the official individual permit files maintained by Licensee Corporate Real Estate Department staff.
Dock and Buoy Numbering
Licensee will continue the very successful program of posting large visible permit numbers on all authorized docks and buoys on Lake Almanor. The number posting system provides a quick, on-the-spot indexing system that provides the means to easily access information in the permit-tracking database. This numbering system helps ensure compliance since these unique and official numbers are required to be posted on all permitted docks and buoys. It also provides a means for other APOs, members of the public and agency and Licensee staff a common “address” locator to which they can note and pass on any issues or concerns of compliance. In addition, the official assigned number helps to signify to all members of the public that actual compliance has been achieved for the shoreline structure.
Annual Field Reconnaissance
Licensee conducts annual shoreline field inspections by boat that provides recorded and, when appropriate, photographic information on the shoreline conditions and structures adjacent to Lake Almanor shoreline lots. This field information is tied to field location reference information (i.e. APN or dock numbers) within the permit-tracking database. This annual inspection provides a very effective means of monitoring the shoreline for compliance and other shoreline conditions that may need further attention or follow up.
If the Licensee discovers a non-complying action, there are several techniques and actions that can be used to achieve compliance. First after the non-complying action or activity is identified, the permittee or alleged offender can be contacted by telephone by the Licensee representative to inform the party of the non-compliance and remedy actions. These calls frequently are enough to achieve resolution in most non-compliance matters. If the telephone calls do not work, a formal letter or personal visit can be made to the non-complying party to again inform the party of the non-compliance and remedy actions. If no success is achieved by these methods, then the Licensee has several options depending on the circumstance. Optional actions that can be undertaken individually or collectively include:
· Revocation, or threat of revocation of permit, or suspension of permit or licensee privileges,
· Formal demand for site restoration or cessation of ongoing non-compliance activities,
· Direct Licensee removal of non-conforming facility or structure, and
· Notification and assistance, as applicable, from County Sheriff’s or Planning Department office, and
· Legal action.
In addition to the enforcement program outlined above, the Licensee is continuing its consultations with Plumas County regarding the possibility of using the county ordinance and enforcement program for certain shoreline policies that are a logical extension of existing county enforcement, zoning, and health and safety provisions and services. This includes the enforcement of the prohibition of motorized vehicular access below 4,500 –foot elevation and possibly could pertain to other shoreline activities such as prohibitions on certain types of recreational or other uses.
On-Site SMP Seasonal Staff
As part of the new license, Licensee is proposing to have a seasonal staff member present in the Lake Almanor area to assist APOs, county officials, and others in the administration and compliance with shoreline policies and other land related issues. Having more on-site presence will allow the Licensee to notice non-compliant activities or construction sooner than under current conditions and be able to more quickly and effectively respond to violations.
Attachment 3: July 15, 2003 Plumas County Memo Regarding LAWLAF Scenario
DATE:July 15, 2003
TO: Bruce McGurk, P. G. & E.
RE: LAWLAF Scenario
1. Bruce, the LAWLAF proposal uses different flow regimes for different water year types. Our calculations indicate the following:
Year type: Mean: Acre Feet: Elev. Change:
Critical/Dry 71 cfs 51,500 2.35'
Dry 86 cfs 62,400 2.7'
Normal 93 cfs 67,500 2.9'
Wet 115 cfs 83,400 3.6'
35 cfs 25,400 1'
75 cfs 54,400 2.3'
Are these values correct?
2. What is the accretion of inflows to the NFFR in the Seneca Reach? In other words, if 75 cfs is released at Canyon Dam, what flow is realized at Caribou?
3. You have noted that the May 31st elevation of 4483.65 (875,000) presents a possibility of potential flooding. We need to fully understand what is meant by this comment. What past years has flooding occurred. 1995 was close, but Butt Lake was shut down for repairs. We believe that in April, P. G. & E. knows within reasonable certainty what water is stored in the watershed and can operate the lake accordingly.
Furthermore, the 33 year record shows that in the 18 wet normal years, nine of those years exceeded 4490 on May 31st.
4. The LAWLAF proposal uses May 31st and September 30th as key County requests. Actually, the County used September 15th to capture the Labor Day weekend. The month of September shows significant drops in lake elevation. Can you show elevations for September 15th, or should we use August 31st as a more reasonable target date?
July 15, 2003
Bruce McGurk, P. G. & E.
5. We do not understand why the County proposal is depicted as shown. The rate of fill should be nearly the same for all proposals which is accomplished for all but the County’s.
6. The rate of fall of lake level also is different, especially for the County’s. Please explain why and address the critical/dry year drop to 500,000 acre feet.
7. There are no lines for December 31st to January 31st.
8. There is a note below the LAWLAF scenarios stating “minimizes impacts on reservoir elevations”. What does this refer to?
9. Can you provide a new chart showing the past 33 years and the mean for the three different water year types. Hopefully, these lines will follow the prevalent shape but show much higher lake levels, especially since 1986.
10. After reviewing several of the valuable information, the 2105 Committee is recommending that the flow regime for Seneca 2 critical/dry with the following minimums is preferred:
Memorial Day Labor Day
Wet/Normal 4485 4485
Dry 4485 4483
Critical/Dry 4482 4480
The 75 cfs mean with higher flows in spawning months mimics the natural hydrograph and provides better than 70% values for the fish. It is also important to note that the Seneca Reach is not a heavily fished area, and the benefits to the lake level have significant benefits for the fish in Lake Almanor, which is heavily fished. Of course, there are other recreation and socioeconomic benefits in the lake.
We would request that you throw out the present yellow County lines and establish a chart with the Seneca 2 critical/dry and our minimums to establish its merits and faults.
Natural Hazard Safety Plan
Upper North Fork Feather River Project, FERC No. 2105
Bucks Creek Project, FERC N. 619
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Licensee) is the licensee of the Upper North Fork Feather River Project (FERC No. 2105), which includes Lake Almanor, and the Bucks Creek Project (FERC No. 619), which includes Bucks Lake. The Licensee has developed this Natural Hazard Safety Plan (Plan) in cooperation with the County to outline the procedures under which the Licensee will place and maintain hazard markings on Lake Almanor and Bucks Lake. The Licensee will incorporate this Plan into the Public safety Plans on file with the FERC’s San Francisco Regional Office for the Upper North Fork Feather River Project and Bucks Creek Project.
1.1 – The general locations of potential natural hazards at Lake Almanor and Bucks Lake known to Licensee are shown on Attachment A to this Plan. Licensee will place and maintain suitable markers at the locations shown on Attachment A. Attachment A may be modified by Licensee from time to time as necessary and appropriate.
1.2 - Licensee will maintain signs at boat ramps accessible to the general public at Lake Almanor and Bucks Lake which warn the public that reservoir water levels change as a result of electric power operation and advise users to watch for shallow areas and submerged objects.
1.3 - The Licensee is working cooperatively with resource agencies, local officials and interested parties on the relicensing of the Upper North Fork Feather River Project. As a part of ongoing discusses, the Licensee anticipates developing a bathometric base map of Lake Almanor showing the known hazards listed in Attachment A to assist in the public’s understanding of the natural hazards in Lake Almanor. When this map is completed, the Licensee plans to make it available to the public at all boat ramps and campgrounds on Lake Almanor accessible to the general public, the Chester Chamber of Commerce, and Licensee’s website.
2.1 - Plumas County Ordinance Section 10-1.06 limits boating speeds on Reservoirs to five (5) miles per hour (a) within 200 feet of the shoreline or any boat landing; (b) within 300 feet of any buoy or boom; and (c) one-half hour after sunset until one-half hour before sunrise. Licensee will be responsible for maintaining signs at public boat launches on Reservoirs advising the public of this ordinance.
2.2 - Historically, resort owners at Lake Almanor and Bucks Lake have placed speed limit markers near resort facilities. Licensee does not object to this continued practice but will not maintain such buoys. Resort owners will continue to be responsible for such buoys and for requesting Sheriff authorization prior to placement of such buoys at any locations not previously authorized.
2.3 - Licensee will place speed limit markers as appropriate at developed Project recreational facilities under its FERC license.
SECTION 3 – MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
3.1 – County will continue to patrol Lake Almanor and Bucks Lake as it deems necessary for general law enforcement purposes. These patrols will not have responsibility for locating or marking snags or other hazards. However, County may notify Licensee’s designated representative of any hazards discovered during such patrols and may also place temporary markers on such newly discovered potential hazards. In the event of an emergency, County may contact the Caribou Powerhouse at (530) 283-4990 or (530) 283-4330.
3.2 – County has provided its general concurrence under 14 CCR § 7003 for the placement of markers/buoys by Licensee as described in this Plan.
3.3 – Licensee will provide the California Department of Boating and Waterways with a copy of this Plan and any future changes to Attachment A.
SECTION 4 – NOTIFICATION
4.1 – Licensee and County have agreed to designate a representative to assist in the implementation of this Plan. Initial representatives will be as specified below. These representatives may be changed at any time upon written notification to the other party.
Corporate Real Estate Plumas County Sheriff’s Department
350 Salem Street 1400 East Main Street
Chico, CA 95928 Quincy, CA 95971
Attn: Mark Sanford Attn: Bob Butler
(530) 894-4653 (530) 259-5777
Inventory of Potential Natural Hazards
Lake Almanor (FERC Project No. 2105)
1. Tip of Peninsula, 1 – 8 buoys, depending on reservoir level.
2. Lassen View Resort, near Hamilton Branch Boat Ramp, 1 buoy.
3. Bird Rock, along the east shore near stumpy beach, 1 buoy.
4. Floating Snag along east shore north of Dorado Inn, 1 buoy.
5. Lake Almanor Campground, 0 – 4 buoys, depending upon reservoir level.
6. Fox Point, 1 – 2 buoys, depending upon reservoir level.
7. Fox Island, 3- 8 buoys, depending upon reservoir level.
8. Goose Island, 1 – 8 buoys, depending upon reservoir level.
9. Lake Almanor West Country Club at the point, 0 – 1 buoy, depending upon reservoir level.
10. Jet Ski Cove Island, 1 buoy.
11. North Shore Island, 3 – 6 buoys, depending upon reservoir level, to be place along the west side of the island.
Bucks Lake (FERC Project No. 619)
1. East of Lakeshore Resort, 0 – 1 buoys, depending upon reservoir level.
2. East of mouth of Haskin Bay, 0 – 1 buoys, depending upon reservoir level.
3. West of mouth of Haskin Bay, 1 buoy.
4. In front of PG&E lease Cabins on Mile High Rd, 0 – 2 buoys, depending upon reservoir level.
5. Bucks Lake Overlook, 1 buoy.
6. Indian Rock, 1 buoy.
7. Cove northwest of Indian Rock, 1 buoy.
8. Between Sundew Campground, Sandy Point Day Use Area, and Mill Creek Campground – 1 - 5 buoy.
9. Left and Right Hand Creek, 1 buoy.
10. Rainbow Point, 2 buoys.
11. Northeast of the tip of Rainbow Point, 0 – 1 buoy, depending upon reservoir level.