The Anglers Committee did not attend the 2105 June 22nd meeting. For that reason the following are the comments of The Anglers Committee. I have reviewed the draft meeting summary for the 2105LG meeting for June 22, 2005.

The Anglers Committee may sign the Settlement Agreement with certain disclaimers. The Anglers may not sign the Settlement Agreement, but challenge the provisions of the Settlement Agreement on valid legal and administrative grounds. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission did not approve the Settlement Agreement yet. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has not issued a water quality certification for the relicensing of the Upper North Fork Feather River Project 2105 yet.  The proposed Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Section 401 Water Quality Certification Process has not been submitted for public review and comments yet. Consequently the Settlement Agreement is not a valid legal document that dictates how the entire North Fork Feather River watershed must be managed by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company at the present time.

At the recent Poe Project 2107 meeting, PG&E was advocating holding the Poe Reach of the North Fork Feather River hostage because the Settlement Agreement for lake levels at Lake Almanor is alleged by PG&E to control the Poe Reach of the river. We disagree. That matter must be considered before any valid settlement agreement is approved by FERC and incorporated into a FERC license and also approved by the SWRCB and incorporated into a water quality certification by the SWRCB. 

We have reviewed the East Branch North Fork Feather River Restoration Program being sponsored by Plumas County for off-site mitigation to be paid for by the PG&E.

The Anglers Committee believes and recommend the number one priority must be on-site mitigation measures because there is a significantly number of costly projects that are being proposed by PG&E to reduce water temperatures in the river.  It would be unreasonable for PG&E to walk away from providing cold water for the river in lieu of funding off-site mitigation to satisfy Alternative D and Plumas County.

Secondly, I have reviewed the list of projects shown under Plumas County’s East Branch North Fork Feather River Restoration Program. It is clear that Plumas Corp would do the work. I have been involved in opposing two (2) of Plumas Corp projects that are not shown on the list. The Bear Creek Project in the headwaters of Fall River, and a proposed project proposed to divert water from Jamison Creek to a local golf course. Jamison Creek is a rainbow trout spawning tributary to the Wild and Scenic Middle Fork Feather River.  As a consultant I represented the Fall River Wild Trout Foundation on the Bear Creek Project. I also am representing The Anglers Committee and also I am working with Dr. Joseph Abbott on the proposed Jamison Creek Project.

In addition, the historic major problem in the East Branch NFFR watershed was the effects to water quality resulting from sedimentation from timber harvesting, and also resulting from other type of activities affecting water quality resulting in sedimentation in the watershed, including mining on Spanish Creek.

I do not believe that PG&E has a duty and responsibility to repair damages in the East Branch NFFR watershed. That responsibility is that of the US Forest Service for approving timber-harvesting projects; the timber industry for the related results to water quality resulting from logging for profit with resulting sedimentation impacts; and the mining industry for impacts to water quality from mining activities for profit. Consequently Plumas County should be seeking money from the US Forest Service; the timber industry; and the mining industry to repair the damages caused to water quality in the East Branch NFFR watershed.

In conclusion, 2105LG meetings should not be held in Butte County or Sacramento County. Meetings for the 2105LG group should held in Plumas County where the Upper North Fork Feather River Project is located. Decisions being discussed and made by the 2105LG group will affect the people who live in Plumas County. Consequently I recommend and urge the sub-group and full 2105LG meetings planned on July 11, July 18, July 29, August 24, and September 22 are held in both the Plumas County seat at Quincy and also Chester near Lake Almanor. I do not understand why Plumas County would agree to 2105 meeting outside of the county when said discussions and decisions will affect the people that live in Plumas County, and the people that know the NFFR watershed. If properly advertised, more people would most likely attend meetings held in Quincy and Chester. Some of the PG&E staff people (Bruce McGurk, Scott Tu, and Stuart Running) could also attend said meetings in Quincy and Chester via teleconference calls, like I have been doing. In addition to satisfy my travel disabilities, I most likely would attend 2105 meetings in Quincy. That recommendation would be consistent with the ADA. I recommend Quincy for future 2105LG meetings.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments to the 2105LG Group. Please amend the draft-meeting summary and include my comments into the final meeting summary. Thank you.

Bob Baiocchi, President

The Anglers Committee

The Baiocchi Family, Agent

June 29, 2005