Project 2105 License Group (2105LG) Approved Meeting Summary – March 27, 2003
Call to order: Patti Kroen, Facilitator at 9 a.m.
Attendees: See Attachment 1 for list of attendees. Sharon Stohrer noted that she intends to submit revisions to the draft March 13, 2003 meeting summary. The facilitator will circulate the revised summary to the 1205LG participants for review after receipt of Sharon’s comments. Participants approved the March 27, 2003 meeting agenda and the revised February 28, 2003 meeting summary. Wayne Dyok requested that PG&E develop a timeline or schedule for this collaborative to follow in order to get to a settlement agreement in the time available. Tom Jereb responded that the collaborative participants should develop a schedule for themselves. The group began a general discussion on how best to approach various tasks such as this and agreed that subcommittees could be identified to handle tasks ranging from development of a schedule to the actual drafting of settlement language. The group decided to table the schedule discussion until after finishing the approved agenda items.
The facilitator reviewed action items yet to be completed. PG&E is investigating easements on or near Section 17 near Westwood. Plumas County is working on a formal response to the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between PG&E and Plumas County Sheriff.
PG&E intends to meet with a subgroup of interested participants to discuss transferability of data between Rock Creek Cresta and Belden Reach. PG&E reported that results from Rock Creek Cresta studies were presented at a meeting of the ERC on March 19th. Early indications are that the amphibian data may be fairly transferable but the stranding appears to be somewhat reach-specific. PG&E reported that the macroinvertebrate study approach for Rock Creek Cresta would change because 2002 results indicate significant impact in drift analysis. They intend to do more benthic macroinvertebrate community sampling in 2003. After some discussion, the 2105LG decided to let the Rock Creek Cresta ERC get a little further along before discussing transferability of their results within the 2105LG.
The meeting with PG&E, Plumas County and the gravel operator has not been scheduled. PG&E and FS archaeologists have discussed potential fluctuation zone impacts. PG&E, SWRCB, Plumas County and USFS are selecting sites for water quality sampling during breaks of this meeting and will identify agreed upon locations at the next 2105LG meeting.
Report from Lake Almanor Water Level and Flow (LAWLAF) Subcommittee:
Mike Taylor began the briefing on LAWLAF activities. He reminded the participants that the subcommittee was tasked with identifying the drivers or attributes of the ecosystem and then developing potential flow scenarios for consideration by the 2105LG. He explained that the subcommittee divided the project waters into nine separate segments and developed an attribute table for each section. Three sections are reservoirs: Lake Almanor, Butt Valley Reservoir and Mountain Meadows Reservoir and the other six are river reaches: Hamilton Branch Reach, Upper Butt Creek Reach, Lower Butt Creek Reach, Upper Belden Reach (from Caribou Powerhouse to the confluence with the East Branch), Lower Belden Reach (below the East Branch), and Seneca Reach. The attribute table identifies primary and other drivers of the reservoir or reach by month presented in Physical, Biological, Species of Concern, Lake level/Social, and Management sections. Each attribute is justified in an accompanying document of rationale statements. The facilitator distributed the attribute tables and justification statements developed by LAWLAF for Butt Valley Reservoir and Upper Belden Reach (see Attachment 2).
Mike explained that LAWLAF has not ranked the attributes and the number of dots does not necessarily indicate greater or less importance. He added that the rationale statements define why that attribute was selected and will provide important documentation for NEPA analysis and decision support. LAWLAF has not yet addressed the question of how the project may or may not be meeting the needs of a particular attribute, however the rationale statements may include a statement of condition.
The 2105LG discussed the Butt Valley Reservoir attribute table and rationale statements and suggested an additional black dot in October for Angling and decided to keep Aesthetics as a row in the table rather than a footnote.
Initial review of the Upper Belden Reach attribute table resulted in a suggestion to add a row for Camping/Swimming/Recreation with dots in June through October. The Upper Belden Reach rationale statements were discussed and participants suggested that the Power Generation statement be re-written to reflect existing conditions and provided the following replacement language: “Capacity is controlled by existing Oak Flat capacity and Fish and Game Agreement.”
The facilitator distributed a packet containing the remaining attribute tables and rationale statements completed by LAWLAF (see Attachment 3) and suggested the participants review them before the next meeting. The subcommittee will complete the Lake Almanor table and statement document at their next meeting and distribute to the 2105LG on April 8. Aaron Seandel suggested a map indicating the nine sections would be helpful and LAWLAF agreed to produce a map for distribution as well.
The 2105LG discussed how the LAWLAF subcommittee should proceed from the attribute tables to the development of flow recommendations. The participants agreed that rather than developing a competing flow schedule and setting up positional conflicts, a preferable approach would draw specific information from the application documents relevant to identified attributes and use professional interpretation to arrive at a flow schedule that addresses the important drivers. Jerry Mensch asked if the group was going to use adaptive management and suggested LAWLAF start by identifying principles or concepts that provide some guidance. Dave Steindorf suggested that the attributes be separated by whether or not the existing project conditions meet the attribute needs. After discussion, the 2105LG agreed that LAWLAF would need to identify a starting point and then proceed reach by reach to develop a flow proposal. Then PG&E can model the flow proposal to determine the impacts on power economics and lake levels. The 2105LG directed the LAWLAF subcommittee to develop a ‘straw’ streamflow schedule for Belden and Seneca reaches and relate the attributes to data contained in the application documents. Prior to this, they will develop a list of principles (such as adaptive management, water year type, etc.). PG&E will then run the economic analysis and analyze the impact to lake levels.
The next LAWLAF subcommittee meeting is April 1 in Davis. An additional meeting is scheduled in Davis on April 8.
q Action Item 15: LAWLAF to prepare a map indicating the nine sections
Due Date: April 8, 2003
q Action Item 16: LAWLAF to develop a list of principles (such as adaptive management, water year type, etc.)
Due Date: April 8, 2003
q Action Item 17: develop a ‘straw’ streamflow schedule for Belden and Seneca reaches and relate the attributes to data contained in the application documents.
Due Date: April 8, 2003
Focus for Next Meeting:
The 2105LG noted that some participants had stopped attending meetings and confirmed the need to continue to reach out and keep all stakeholders informed and at the table so there are no surprises down the road.
The next 2105LG meeting is scheduled for April 10 in Chico. Topics to be discussed at the April 10 meeting include the following:
Shoreline Management Plan: (Wayne Dyok will develop proposed changes with Plumas County)
Water Quality Monitoring Program Proposal: Wayne Dyok distributed a Proposal for Water Quality Monitoring Program (see Attachment 4) and asked that the participants review it and discuss it at the April 10 meeting.
Draft Seneca Flow Schedule: From LAWLAF
Summary of Additional Water Quality Testing: Coliform testing sites and Hamilton Branch
Wetlands and PG&E Land Management: Jerry Mensch will provide proposal for consideration
Collaborative Schedule: Wayne will provide information to facilitator who will work with Tom Jereb to draft proposal
The April 24th 2105LG meeting will be held in Westwood and will focus on the Hamilton Branch and hydrology. The participants discussed public involvement at the meeting and suggested that the 2105LG hold their technical meeting from 9:00 am to 2:00 pm followed by a more public presentation lead by PG&E with a question and answer period. Both meetings would be open to the public.
Upcoming meeting dates and topics are as follows:
Date Location Topics
April 10 Chico See above discussion
April 24 Westwood Hamilton Branch and hydrology
May 8 Chico
Marvin Alexander 2105 Comm.
Fred Binswanger Westwood Chamber of Commerce
Jerry Duffy Dyer Mtn.
Wayne Dyok MWH
Elizabeth Frantz PG&E
Christi Goodman Plumas County
Tom Jereb PG&E
Patti Kroen Kroen
Jerry Mensch CSPA
Steve Robinson MMC
Aaron Seandel 2105 Comm.
David Steindorf Chico Paddleheads/American Whitewater
Sharon Stohrer SWRCB
Mike Taylor USFS
Scott Tu PG&E
Janet Walther PG&E
Charles White PG&E
Harry Williamson NPS
Bill Zemke PG&E
Attachment 2: Butt Valley Reservoir and Upper Belden Reach
Attachment 3: Attribute Tables and Rationale Statement
Attachment 4: Proposal for Water Quality Monitoring Program – Project Application