|
Project 2105 License Group (2105LG) Approved Meeting Summary – May 8, 2003 |
Call to order: Patti Kroen, Facilitator at 9 a.m.
Attendees: See Attachment 1 for list of attendees. Participants approved the May 8, 2003 meeting agenda.. One revision to the April 24, 2003 meeting summary with made to page 4 under the Cultural Resources discussion: the PG&E presenter was Lynn Compos, not Elizabeth Frantz. The April 10 meeting summary was corrected to identify Aaron Seandel, representing Plumas County and not PG&E as the lead participant for coordinating the water quality monitoring proposal. Action Item 18 was revised to read: “Plumas County will arrange to meet with DWR, Lassen NF, 2105 Committee, SWRCB, and PG&E to discuss water quality monitoring proposal and coordination and provide draft proposal to 2105LG.” The April 10, 2003 and April 24, 2003 meeting summaries were approved as revised.
The facilitator distributed two documents: “Agreements – 2105LG” and “Action Items – 2105LG” (Attachments 2 and 3) and explained that these represent all the agreements made and the action items identified by the collaborative participants through April 24, 2003. She reviewed action items yet to be completed. PG&E is sending letters to private property owners near Westwood to gain access to PG&E property for recreation use. Plumas County, 2105 Comm., PG&E, USFS and SWRCB are scheduled to provide a proposed water quality monitoring plan amendment at the May 22, 2003 2105LG meeting.
The ERC team is still working on how to interpret and use the data from Rock Creek Cresta studies so until those questions are answered it is premature to speculate on the transferability of that data to the Belden Reach. The 2105LG suggested that this action item may be unproductive for this process but an agreement to remove it should be deferred until representatives of the whitewater interests are in attendance. Plumas County has arranged for a meeting on May 9, 2003 between the County, PG&E and the gravel operator to discuss the marina and channel-dredging concept.
PG&E is looking at the proposed Seneca reach scenarios and considering lake level, power production, and water temperature and the LAWLAF Subcommittee continues to craft flow scenarios focusing next on Belden and Lower Butt Valley. The subcommittee is also drafting a document that should provide a framework and language for the ultimate agreement crafted by 2105LG for submittal to FERC.
Proposed language for inclusion in the Shoreline Management Plan is being reviewed by Plumas County and the County plans to meet with PG&E to formalize suggested revisions, including the supplemental aquatic habitat data requests submitted by CSPA.
Schedule, Document Framework and Template:
The Facilitator distributed a proposed schedule (Attachment 4) and explained that it had been constructed using the available time remaining between now and the agreed on target date of June 30, 2003. PG&E distributed two documents from FERC, “Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, Scoping Meetings and Site Visits and Soliciting Scoping Comments” and “Scoping Document 1” (Attachments 5 and 6). The FERC two-day site tour will be focused on Lake Almanor on May 19th and downstream on May 20th. A public scoping meeting is scheduled to begin at 7 pm on May 20th in Chester and the agency scoping meeting will be held in Chico on May 21st beginning at 10 am. Wayne Dyok noted that FERC is expected to do an EIS on this project and additional information requests are possible. He expects a draft NEPA document in January 2004 so it is important for the 2105LG to come to a settlement agreement in time to be analyzed as an alternative in that document. He suggested October would likely be the latest the 2105LG could submit a settlement agreement to FERC to ensure analysis. He added that there would likely be little chance for extensions or an interim license and the conditions included in the license will either be firm or involve adaptive management. The 2105LG suggested sending a letter to FERC informing them of the progress of the 2105LG to reach a settlement agreement and asking them what the final date is that they will accept a settlement proposal for analysis. Participants noted a discrepancy in the comment deadline identified in each FERC document and suggested that June 20, 2003 is the correct date.
The 2105LG discussed the proposed schedule and the use of the Rock Creek Cresta Settlement Agreement as the template for this agreement. The Facilitator pointed out that according to the schedule various ad-hoc groups are tasked with providing language for incorporation into the settlement agreement and the 2105LG needs to discuss how to draft the complete agreement including those sections, in the short time available. The Facilitator suggested that while the various sub-groups craft language or continue to model scenarios, some parts of the settlement agreement can be started by identifying and retaining language already in the Rock Creek Cresta Settlement Agreement that is appropriate for this agreement. The document sections can include placeholders for sections that are under development by others (such as the revisions to the Shoreline Management Plan). Copies of the Rock Creek Cresta Settlement Agreement were distributed to the participants (Attachment 7).
The 2105LG reviewed the three parts of the Rock Creek Cresta Settlement Agreement: the Agreement which could be very similar for this agreement, Appendix A that includes the license conditions, and Appendix B that includes the settlement issues not under FERC jurisdiction. Wayne Dyok noted that the NOAA Fisheries and the US Fish and Wildlife Service have been working on a model settlement agreement, based on the Rock Creek Cresta Settlement Agreement and experience gained over the past two years. Their template should be available in a week or so and he suggests the group use that as the model language. Wayne will provide the model to the 2105LG.
The participants identified the following major elements of the settlement agreement:
Ø Recreation Facilities and Shoreline Management
Ø Lake Level and Operation
Ø Temperature (by reach)/Water Quality
Ø Flow Schedule (includes hydrograph, geomorphic, fish, aquatics, and riparian considerations)
Ø Recreation Streamflow
Ø Wetlands/Wildlife
The 2105LG suggested that the water quality element would be relatively straightforward and should not require too much time to draft. The cultural resource issues may be dealt with in a separate agreement since the Native Americans have not warmed to the concept of a collaboratively developed settlement agreement. PG&E will work on drafting the ‘boilerplate’ language for the Agreement with input from Wayne Dyok on NOAA/USFWS model language. PG&E will also start on license language for the recreation element.
The 2105LG discussed the rationale document that accompanied the Rock Creek Cresta Settlement Agreement and noted the rationale document for this project would include the attribute tables and rationale statements developed by LAWLAF. LAWLAF is also working on the introduction to what will be Appendix B of the settlement agreement. The Facilitator distributed the first two pages of the document (Attachment 8) so the 2105LG could view the format and direction of the subcommittee.
The participants briefly discussed deferring the Hamilton Branch portion of the effort until PG&E makes a decision to include the Hamilton Branch in the 2105 license. They acknowledged that if Hamilton Branch is not filed, there might still be elements that can go into Appendix B of this settlement agreement. Tom Jereb confirmed that if Hamilton Branch were filed, PG&E would be prepared to move quickly into collaborative discussions.
The following assignments and some anticipated due dates were identified for draft settlement agreement section development:
I. Water Temperature (Prattville) Mike Taylor/Sharon Stohrer
II. Lake Level/Operations Wayne Dyok (Lake Level in June, Operations May 22)
III. Recreation Facilities John Mintz
IV. Water Quality Plumas County (May 22)
V. Flow Schedules – Seneca & Belden LAWLAF
VI. Recreation (boating) Streamflow Agenda Item to see if agreement
VII. Wetland/Wildlife Jerry Mensch/Steve Robinson/Mike Fry/Mark Williams (May 22)
VIII. Shoreline Management Plan Plumas County/John Mintz
IX. Cultural (?)
The 2105LG suggested that the issue of recreation (boating) streamflows needs to be on a 2105LG agenda for discussion because there is some question as to whether the collaborative agreed to support whitewater flows as proposed. The Facilitator will confirm that whitewater flow interests will be available for this discussion at the May 22, 2003 2105LG meeting. Text revisions to the Shoreline Management Plan and the Recreation Management Plan and the draft water quality monitoring and coordination proposal (settlement agreement elements) were also identified as agenda items for that meeting.
LAWLAF Scenario Development Update:
The subcommittee is currently developing flow scenarios for the Belden reach while PG&E is modeling the scenarios developed for Seneca. The initial modeling effort involves using 1980 as a normal year and evaluating the monthly scenarios under three conditions: everything over 35 cfs released comes from generation; everything over 35cfs released comes from storage; and a 50/50 split. Preliminary results for one scenario indicates that with all over 35 cfs from storage, the resulting June lake level drops two feet while the reduction in lake level is one foot under the 50/50 condition. The model has not been run for wet or dry year conditions. Once the runs are completed for lake level and power generation effects, the temperature modeling will be run. PG&E reminded participants that the modified Prattville intake study results would not be available until the end of May.
CSPA asked when concerns regarding the water temperatures in Butt Valley Reservoir would be addressed. PG&E proposed that the logical sequence is to first confirm that the Prattville modification works and that the 20º C temperature goal is met. If the goal is not met, then evaluate options to address the Butt Valley Reservoir temperature issue. CSPA added that part of the goal is to preserve cold water in Lake Almanor and if we can reduce the warming in Butt Valley, then less cold water will need to be drawn from Lake Almanor. The 2105LG discussed the possibility that a study plan and approach to evaluate the Butt Valley temperature issue could be included in the 2105 settlement agreement in the same manner that the Prattville study was included in the Rock Creek Cresta settlement agreement.
Plumas County/PG&E MOU:
Bill Dennison distributed the proposed MOU and an e-mail (Attachments 9 and 10) and discussed the County’s desire that the MOU be included in the license. PG&E responded that they could not agree to the MOU as written, including Section 5 – Indemnification language, and provided the following comments to the suggested actions included in Section 1. Regarding subsection:
1.6 PG&E agrees to produce one map (it is in process) for distribution as described in 1.3.
1.7 Lake Almanor has a nighttime speed limit that should meet this concern. PG&E does not intend to install lighted buoys at Lake Almanor or any of its reservoirs.
1.8 PG&E believes all of the snags of concern have been removed. CSPA added that snag removal may impact fish habitat and favors lower speed limits in areas of concern as an alternative to future snag removal.
1.9 PG&E does not intend to initiate helicopter reconnaissance on Lake Almanor or any of its reservoirs.
Bill Dennison responded that Plumas County would review the suggestions and continue discussion with PG&E.
Hamilton Branch Follow-Up:
Steve Robinson reported that the Mountain Meadows Conservancy is requesting sediment sampling and testing in Mountain Meadows Reservoir to determine what constituents have been washed into the reservoir. He said the concern is focused on the results of recent fecal coliform studies indicating elevated levels from incoming streams. The Conservancy is concerned that with reservoir drawdown, these constituents could pose a health risk to recreationists in contact with the sediments or dust. The 2105LG discussed the fate of fecal coliform in the ecosystem and how the water column sampling provides the best indicator of constituents potentially affecting human health in this environment. Constituents of concern that are typically found in blowing sediments are not common to this watershed. Steve Robinson will report the results of the discussion to the Conservancy board and follow-up if necessary.
Tom Jereb provided additional information on the Hamilton Branch including distribution of the 1989 Agreement between DFG and PG&E, “Certificate of Approval” from the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD), the “Mountain Meadows Wetland Enhancement Project” agreement with California Waterfowl Association, and the Mountain Meadows Area and Capacity curve (Attachments 11 through 14). The 2105LG discussed the operational constraints included in the DSOD certificate regarding the removal and installation of the flashboards. PG&E noted they are conducting a bathymetric survey this year in that portion of the reservoir that is greater than five feet deep.
The Facilitator reminded participants that the next 2105LG meeting is scheduled for May 22 in Chico. The agenda is expected to include an update from LAWLAF on preliminary flow scenario modeling results, a discussion of the whitewater flow proposal and review of text revisions for inclusion in the settlement agreement. The 2105LG agreed to schedule additional meetings for the following dates: July 10 and July 24 in Chico, July 31 in Chester. PG&E requested the group move their June meetings to another location, possibly the USFS in Oroville, due to a scheduling conflict at the Rio Lindo facility. A notice will be sent to inform participants of the meeting location.
Action Items
q Action Item 23: Wayne Dyok will provide the NOAA Fisheries/USFWS settlement agreement model template to the 2105LG participants.
Due Date: As soon as available
q Action Item 24: PG&E will work on drafting the ‘boilerplate’ language for the Agreement with input from Wayne Dyok on NOAA/USFWS model language.
Due Date: June 26
q Action Item 25: Draft sections will be developed based on the following assignments:
o Water Temperature (Prattville) Mike Taylor/Sharon Stohrer
o Lake Level Wayne Dyok
o Operations Wayne Dyok
o Recreation Facilities John Mintz
o Water Quality Plumas County
o Flow Schedules – Seneca & Belden LAWLAF
o Wetland/Wildlife Mensch/Robinson/Fry/Williams
o Shoreline Management Plan Plumas County/John Mintz
Due Date: Varies
Upcoming 2105LG meeting dates and topics are as follows:
Date Location Topics
May 22 Chico Whitewater flow proposal discussion
From LAWLAF subcommittee:
1. Preliminary flow scenario model analysis
From Water Quality subcommittee:
2. Draft proposal for water quality monitoring and coordination
From Shoreline subcommittee:
3. Text revisions to proposed SMP
From Recreation subcommittee:
4. Text revisions to RMP
5. MOU between Plumas County Public Works and PG&E
June 12, June 26 Oroville?
July 10, July 24 Chico
July 31 Chester
Attachment 1: List of Attendees
Fred Binswanger Westwood Chamber of Commerce
Kathy Brown USFWS
Michael Condon USFS
Bill Dennison Plumas County
Jerry Duffy Dyer Mountain
Wayne Dyok MWH
Christi Goodman Plumas County
Tom Jereb PG&E
Patti Kroen Kroen
Jerry Mensch CSPA
Steve Robinson MMC
Stuart Running PG&E
Aaron Seandel 2105 Comm.
Mike Taylor USFS
Scott Tu PG&E
Janet Walther PG&E
Mike Willhoit 2105 Comm.
Bill Zemke PG&E
Attachment 2: Agreements – 2105LG
Agreements – November 25, 2002
· Accepted by consensus the Facilitator Committee’s recommendation to hire Ms. Kroen.
· Meetings will be documented in summary format to include substantive discussion points, agreements made and action items identified.
· Participants could educate their constituents on efforts of the collaborative to reach agreement and provide their own views but not represent the views of other stakeholders.
· Any proposed press release will first be approved by the 2105LG.
· After the participants have approved meeting summaries, the summaries can be distributed. This distribution protocol would also apply to other documents.
· New participants would be provided with and expected to comply with the Protocols and violations of the protocols would be discussed within the group on a case-by-case basis.
· Goal and objective of the 2105LG is to achieve a settlement agreement.
· The group might need to prioritize to determine what can be done in the limited time available.
· Additional study requests should be reasonable and with the license deadline in mind.
· The group approved the following vision statement:
“The goal of the Upper North Fork Feather River relicensing group is to identify and evaluate project impacts on affected social, economic, and natural resources, and develop and propose project conditions that equally consider the uses of the affected resources consistent with existing applicable laws and regulations as well as current and anticipated societal values.”
· Use sub-committees to help move issues to resolution. Subcommittees populated with technical expertise will be used to focus issues and possible solutions for recommendations to the full group.
· Stakeholders are responsible for reading the documents – everyone needs to read the Project Resource Summary.
· The group will be known as 2105 License Group or 2105LG
Agreements – December 18, 2002
· Whenever possible, meeting materials will be provided to the Facilitator at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting for distribution to participants who plan to teleconference into the meeting. Participants planning to teleconference in need to notify the Facilitator at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting to receive materials.
· Participants agreed to use the Resource/Time Matrix.
· The facilitator will provide a draft meeting summary within seven days of the meeting. Participants will provide comments and/or revisions to the summary within seven days of receipt from the facilitator.
· The group agreed to receive revisions to meeting summaries after the seven-day deadline in the form of an amendment to the meeting summary if a participant felt a revision was necessary.
· The participants agreed to finalize the process protocol document without further changes.
· The group agreed to use the Rock Creek Cresta settlement agreement as a model for development of this settlement agreement.
· PG&E and Plumas County agreed to disagree on who is responsible for constructing and maintaining a non-motorized trail along the east side of Lake Almanor.
Agreements – February 28, 2003
· 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.
Agreements – March 13, 2003
· Agreed that individual pieces of the settlement agreement might be tentatively agreed to but nothing would be finally agreed to until all of the sections were drafted.
· Agreed that the Red River Company Deed is not an issue that can be resolved in this relicensing forum.
Agreements – April 10, 2003
· The participants agreed that June 30, 2003 is the target date for a draft agreement ready for submittal to FERC in July.
Attachment 3: Action Items – 2105LG
ACTION ITEMS – 2105LG
November 25, 2002
v Action Item 1: Mike Taylor of the Protocols Sub-Committee will draft additional language to revise the draft protocols to include an additional ‘not for attribution’ statement to be included under the personal conduct section of the protocols, and a discussion about the meeting summary/document distribution. Participants will review the revised protocol prior to the December 18th meeting and provide specific comments at the December 18th meeting.
Due Date: December 11, 2002
v Action Item 2: Mike Taylor of the Protocols Sub-Committee will accept agreed-upon revisions and then further revise the draft protocols as discussed during this meeting. Participants will review the revised protocol prior to the January 27th meeting and provide specific comments at the January 27th meeting.
Due Date: January 27, 2003
v Action Item 3: Mike Taylor of the Protocols Sub-Committee will accept revisions agreed to during this meeting and further revise the document with the minor changes agreed to in this meeting. Wayne Dyok will provide additional proposed language.
Due Date: February 13, 2003
v Action Item 4: LAWLAF will continue to develop Resource/Time Matrices for each geographic element within the 2105 Project to include ecosystem and social/economic drivers related to lake level and flow and will provide 2-3 sentences on each explaining why included. Further, the Committee will use a representative lake and river reach to step through the complete process as a test of this approach and report back to the full 2105LG.
Due Date: March 27, 2003
q Action Item 5: PG&E will investigate easements currently held within and near Section 17.
Due Date: March 2003
v Action Item 6: PG&E will confirm adequacy of road to Butt Valley Powerhouse.
Due Date: March 2003
v Action Item 7: Wayne Dyok will provide PG&E with sample settlement agreement.
Due Date: February 28, 2003
v Action Item 8: John Mintz will provide copy of Recreation Management Plan to all participants.
Due Date: February 28, 2003
February 28, 2003
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
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
v Action Item 11: PG&E and FS archaeologists will meet to discuss FS concern for potential fluctuation zone impacts.
Due Date: April 2003
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
March 13, 2003
v Action Item 13: PG&E will take the lead and set up a meeting between Plumas County, USFS, and PG&E on fecal coliform sampling site selection for Summer 2003 testing.
Due Date: April 2003
q Action Item 14: Plumas County and PG&E will meet to discuss and clarify the water quality testing agreement.
Due Date: April 2003
v 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
April 10, 2003
q Action Item 18: Plumas County will arrange to meet with DWR, Lassen NF, 2105 Committee, SWRCB, and PG&E to discuss water quality monitoring proposal and coordination and provide draft proposal to 2105LG.
Due Date: May 22, 2003
q Action Item 19: Plumas County and PG&E will review the proposed Shoreline Management Plan and suggest specific text revisions.
Due Date: May 22, 2003
q Action Item 20: PG&E will look at the proposed scenarios and consider lake level, power production, and water temperature. This will be done using a monthly excel model, simulating years 1970-2000. PG&E will also run a temperature model to look at the lake and downstream affects.
Due Date: May 8, 2003
q Action Item 21: LAWLAF will continue development of flow scenarios for Belden Reach and then lower Butt Valley.
Due Date: May 22, 2003
April 24, 2003
q Action Item 22: PG&E will provide copies of the various operating agreements related to Hamilton Branch to the 2105LG participants.
Due Date: May 22, 2003
Attachment 4: Proposed Schedule
Proposed Schedule
April 24 Hamilton Branch
May 8 From LAWLAF subcommittee:
1. Template for document language
2. Preliminary analysis of Seneca flow scenarios (lake level, power production, water temp)
Tasks: Discuss subcommittees needed to complete agreement and additional meeting schedule
May 22 From LAWLAF subcommittee:
1. Belden Reach and lower Butt Valley flow scenarios
From Water Quality subcommittee:
2. Draft proposal for water quality monitoring and coordination
From Shoreline subcommittee:
3. Text revisions to proposed SMP
From Recreation subcommittee:
4. Text revisions to RMP
5. MOU between Plumas County Public Works and PG&E
Tasks: Develop boilerplate sections for settlement agreement
June 12 From LAWLAF subcommittee:
1. Recommendations for Seneca flow
2. Preliminary analysis of Belden Reach and lower Butt Valley flow scenarios (lake level, power production, water temp)
Tasks: Compile draft sections into admin draft agreement
June ?
June 26 Final review of draft document
June 30, 2003 TARGET FOR DRAFT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Attachment 5 – Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, Scoping Meetings, and Site Visits, and Soliciting Scoping Comments (April 25, 2003)
Attachment 6 – Scoping Document 1 (April 2003)
Attachment 7 – Rock Creek – Cresta Relicensing Settlement Agreement (undated)
Attachment 8 – Upper North Fork Project: Project Goals, Strategies and Measures (April 30, 2003)
Attachment 9 – Memorandum of Understanding Between the County of Plumas and Pacific Gas and Electric Company: Marking of Potential Natural Hazards and Speed Limit Restrictions on Lake Almanor, Butt Valley Reservoir and Bucks Lake (draft undated)
Attachment 10 – E-mail from Bill Dennison to Tom Jereb (May 7, 2003)
Attachment 11 – Agreement Between the California Department of Fish and Game and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (December 14, 1989)
Attachment 12 – Certificate of Approval – Division of Safety of Dams (October 21, 1974)
Attachment 13 – Mountain Meadows Wetland Enhancement Project (May 14, 1996)
Attachment 14 – Area and Capacity Curves