Project 2105 License Group (2105LG) Approved Meeting Summary – November 24, 2003



Call to order: Patti Kroen, Facilitator at 8:30 a.m.


Attendees:  See Attachment 1 for list of attendees. Participants approved the November 24, 2003 meeting agenda and the Facilitator reminded participants that any items not completed would carry over to the next meeting scheduled for the following day.  Bill Dennison requested that the discussion on recreation be prioritized.  The 2105LG approved the meeting summaries as revised and distributed for October 17 and October 23, 2003 without further revisions. 


Action Item Review:

The 2105LG reviewed the pending action items (Attachment 2) as follows:

#25:      In progress with the intention of completing draft review at this meeting

#33:      Completed, language provided for review at this meeting

#50:      Need to confirm with John Mintz, PG&E

#57:      Completed

#59:      Capacities are covered in table included in draft settlement language

#63:      Tom Jereb will report on upper management discussion during review of recreation settlement language

#70:      Jerry Mensch has withdrawn these items from settlement discussion and will expect resolution from FERC

#75:      In progress; add SWRCB to list of agencies

#76:      Draft language provided or review at this meeting

#77:      Completed

#78:      No comments received from American Whitewater; Dave Steindorf will investigate and report to 2105LG

#79, 80, 81, 82:       Completed

#83:      Completed; results will be provided at this meeting

#84:      Completed

#85:      PG&E reviewed fencing and vehicle barrier needs in Conservation Zone and reported a breakdown of costs associated with rock barriers for the east side ($2,500), west side ($5,000), at Chester ($2,300); some fencing south of Chester ($12,000).  Tom Jereb reported that some of this work is currently underway and considers the initial amount budgeted ($20,000) plus $5,000/year to be adequate to cover the costs.

#86:      This issue will not be included in the settlement agreement but Dave Steindorf requested that dialogue continue to identify a process to address the Caribou facilities.  Mike Taylor confirmed that the buildings are included in a use permit with the Forest Service and Tom Jereb added that PG&E intends to maintain the buildings for future use as necessary.

#87:      Revised language will be discussed at this meeting

#88:      Not completed (see discussion below regarding the Prattville modification)

#89:      Completed

#90:      Revised language will be discussed at this meeting

#91:      Will be discussed at this meeting

#92:      Compilation completed and distributed to 2105LG.  Draft will be discussed at this meeting.



Loose Fish Considerations – Report from Sub-Group:

Mike Taylor reviewed the LAWLAF group’s discussion of remaining fish issues.  He noted that fifteen issues were discussed and none resulted in substantial revisions to the draft agreement language; the LAWLAF recommended that individual parties pursue revisions through their separate letters to FERC. Specifics of the discussion included the following:

Vegetation Removal

No consensus was reached regarding the merits of vegetation removal and there was general agreement that no options suggested were viable nor would be effective over the long term. 

Spawning Gravel Addition

The LAWLAF felt that no additional gravel placement should be considered at this time since gravel cleansing and movement is expected to be accomplished through flow management and current conditions suggest gravel in place is sufficient and habitat is not limiting.  Pulse flows should make gravel maintenance more predictable and the group agreed that monitoring would be useful in determining any adjustments needed.

Large Woody Debris (LWD)

LAWLAF acknowledged that little of the desirable size and species of LWD is currently available in the stream reaches however did not recommend adding any at this time.

Fish Habitat Structures

LAWLAF did not recommend pursuing placement of fish habitat structures.


After discussion, the issue of bass entrainment and release downstream does not appear to be a problem and should not affect downstream fisheries.

Fish Planting

PG&E agreed to fund expanded planting in Lake Almanor and will continue to fund fish stocking on the Belden reach.

Temperature Issues

The 2105LG discussed temperature issues later in this meeting (see discussion below).

Pulse Flow Frequency & Monitoring

Frequency and timing of pulse flows will consider potential impacts to hardhead and rainbow trout spawning and be sized and timed to accommodate spawning activities.  Amphibians would be added if they appear in the area.  US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) expressed concern that the monitoring not be tied solely to pulse flows since conditions regarding flows could change over the license term.


Water Quality – Report from Sub-Group

Charles White with PG&E explained that the sub-group recommends a Part A and Part B for water quality monitoring language.  He described the sampling protocols suggested for each section and the 2105LG discussed the current and anticipated future role for Department of Water Resources (DWR) in sampling within the 2105 Project waters.  PG&E explained that their sampling sites do not always match DWR collection sites. For example PG&E conducts bacteria sampling near recreation facilities while DWR conducts their bacteria sampling at other locations away from concentrated recreational uses.  PG&E suggested that the programs should be evaluated to eliminate overlapping sampling.  Plumas County expressed concern that the sampling schedule must be funded with or without DWR involvement and believes that PG&E should be responsible for all monitoring within Project waters.    SWRCB added that the monitoring program should include at a minimum those constituents designated as needed to be monitored by SWRCB.


The 2105LG discussed what actions would be taken if monitoring indicated the need for mitigation measures.  PG&E noted that any mitigation actions needed would be developed in concert with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and implemented by the responsible parties.  The 2105LG discussed the odor issue below Canyon Dam and PG&E described their intention to vary the release levels from Canyon Dam by switching between upper and lower gates.  FWS expressed concern regarding a fixed date for the switch between gates and suggested that the timing might change from year to year depending on weather conditions.  PG&E intends to conduct a six-year test to evaluate the appropriate release gate combination and timing.  Additional language was added to the draft settlement to clarify that the concern is with concentrations of iron, manganese and sulfates, resulting in the unwanted odor.


Charles White presented a series of charts summarizing the water quality data collected by DWR over the past decade and mentioned that DWR has never produced a report summarizing the results of their water quality monitoring efforts.  He noted that detection limits have changed during that time, however the results indicate that the concentrations of dissolved ammonia, total phosphorous, nitrates, silver, arsenic, chloride, sodium, and sulfate all show reading well below regulatory criteria.  Iron and manganese tend to vary with season and depth while mercury levels appear highly variable early in the data collection, then the concentrations reported were much lower and more stable, suggesting that it may be the result of changes in testing techniques.  DWR believes that the elevated aluminum levels occur in the watershed naturally.  PG&E suggested that this data supports their proposed monitoring frequency.  Plumas County noted their primary concern is along the east shore of Lake Almanor where the eroding shoreline has the potential to affect septic systems.


Plumas County agreed to most of the provisions in the water quality monitoring.  They requested a three-year water quality monitoring frequency and reiterated their perspective that PG&E is responsible for monitoring Project waters and if a problem is discovered, determining if it is Project related. PG&E noted that they had revised the monitoring protocol to accept all requested edits from SWRCB with the exception of the three-year frequency for sampling water column chemistry, which PG&E feels is too often given the results of DWR monitoring for the last 10 years.  PG&E and Plumas County agreed to continue the discussion after the meeting to see if a compromise could be reached. 



Water Temperature – Report from Sub-Group

Scott Tu reported on the progress of the Prattville intake model study and noted that PG&E does not have management approval on the Prattville modification or other additional control measures.  The final report on Prattville is expected on January 9, 2004 with a discussion on the report scheduled for the Project 1962 ERG January 20, 2004 meeting.  If the 2105LG can get a report on Prattville to FERC in February 2004, FERC will likely include it in the draft 2105 EIS/EIR.  The 2105 draft water temperature language is unclear regarding continued temperature monitoring for the Seneca reach however such monitoring is included in the Rock Creek-Cresta Water Temperature Monitoring Plan and will be attached as an element of the draft PM&E.  Scott provided a brief review of the results from the Prattville intake model study and the benefits derived from the Project 2105 features.


The 2105LG discussed the timing of the model study and associated reports and determined that the water temperature language will be deleted from the 2105 draft settlement language at this time.  FERC will be informed that water temperature is an unresolved issue awaiting additional information expected in January 2004. 



Draft 4(e) Conditions Preview

Mike Taylor described the contents of the FS draft 4(e) letter, noting there are approximately 50 license conditions included of which about 25 are standard FS boilerplate.  The majority of the remaining conditions are the same as contained within the 2105 draft settlement language with a few coming from the El Dorado Irrigation District and Pit 3,4, and 5 settlement agreements.  He noted that the letter does not currently include extensive rationale and he is not comfortable remaining silent on the issue of water temperature so additional language will be inserted prior to submittal.



Settlement Agreement Section Review and Resolution:

Boilerplate Language:

The 2105LG reviewed the SWRCB comments to the boilerplate settlement language (see Attachment 5) and agreed to make suggested changes to Section 1.2.3 regarding SWRCB’s role in the collaborative.  The 2105LG discussed Section 2.7 regarding license term request.  PG&E noted that the application requests a 50-year license term.  The participants discussed the desire of some to coordinate the license terms for all hydroelectric projects within the watershed and considered the potential to extend the Rock Creek-Cresta (1962) license term to coincide with a 40-year term for 2105.  Participants that signed the 1962 settlement agreement expressed concern in supporting any changes to that license.  The 2105LG discussed the potential advantages to staggering license expiration dates and the FS agreed that staffing issues may make a 3-5 year lag between license expirations desirable.  The 2105LG did not reach consensus on the appropriate license term to request and agreed to list this issue as unresolved.


Other SWRCB comments were noted by PG&E and will be considered.


The 2105LG agreed that the settlement implementation schedule would be tied to license issuance rather than license acceptance.  Section 4.5.3 was revised to reflect the inability of Plumas County to bind future County boards to fund appropriations.


Recreation Facilities Development:
Tom Jereb reported that he had discussed the revised Recreation Facilities proposal with PG&E upper management and received approval to continue discussions with the 2105LG.  He provided a summary of the proposal as revised during the last 2105LG meeting (Attachment 3) and explained that the shaded sections represent proposals not included in PG&E’s original proposal.  The table does not include operation and maintenance (O&M) dollars. Tom noted that with the $20,994,500 included on the table plus O&M, proposed gate modification work required, and potential Prattville improvements the total costs are approximately $50 million.  Plumas County requested one change on the table to include thinning of trees at the Almanor Scenic Overlook to improve the view.  The 2105LG agreed to the revised recreation settlement agreement items.  John Mintz will revise the recreation section of the settlement agreement language to reflect the agreement for review at tomorrow’s meeting.


Streamflow Management

Plumas County suggested that shoreline erosion causes an environmental impact that PG&E needs to address; they requested a conference call with PG&E to further discuss the issue.


The consolidated draft settlement agreement document dated October 31, 2003 (Attachment 4) that was distributed in advance of this meeting was projected on the screen and the 2105LG began to review and edit the sections.  Grammatical edits were reviewed and discussed.  The 2105LG agreed to delete the first alternative description of ramping rates in favor of the second option. 



Next Steps - Focus for Next Meeting:

The 2105LG agreed to continue reviewing and editing the consolidated draft settlement language document on the following day. 




Action Items

q      Action Item 93:  Continue review and edit of draft settlement agreement document dated November 24, 2003.

Due Date: November 25, 2003



Upcoming meeting dates and locations:

    Date                                                                 Location

November 25                      2105LG                 PG&E Rio Lindo Office, Chico 9:00am – 4:00pm.

December 8                        2105LG                 PG&E Rio Lindo Office, Chico 9:00am – 4:00pm.



Attachment 1:                     List of Attendees


Bill Dennison                        Plumas County Supervisor

Wayne Dyok                        MWH

Robert Hughes                      CDFG

Tom Hunter                         Plumas County 

Tom Jereb                            PG&E

Patti Kroen                           Kroen

Bruce McGurk                      PG&E

Mike Meinz                           CDFG

Jerry Mensch (phone)            CSPA

John Mintz                            PG&E

Nancee Murray (phone)         CDFG

Steven Schoenberg                 USFWS

Dave Steindorf                       Chico Paddleheads

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:  Action Items




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


December 18, 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


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


v     Action Item 5:  PG&E will investigate easements currently held within and near Section 17.

Due Date:  March 2003


February 13, 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


v     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


v     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


v     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


v     Action Item 14:  Plumas County and PG&E will meet to discuss and clarify the water quality testing agreement.

Due Date:  April 2003


March 27, 2003


v     Action Item 15: LAWLAF to prepare a map indicating the nine sections

Due Date:  April 8, 2003


v     Action Item 16: LAWLAF to develop a list of principles (such as adaptive management, water year type, etc.)

Due Date:  April 8, 2003


v     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


v     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


v     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


v     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


v     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

v     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


May 8, 2003

v     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


v     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



May 22, 2003

v     Action Item 26:  Christi Goodman will confirm status of the web site with Plumas County staff, post approved meeting summaries and protocol on the web site, and distribute the correct web address to the 2105LG.  PG&E will direct inquiries about the 2105LG to the Plumas County web site. 

Due Date: June 12, 2003


v     Action Item 27: Wayne Dyok will draft letter to FERC requesting delay in noticing REA.  After 2105LG review and approval, PG&E will send the letter on behalf of 2105LG.

        Due Date:  Draft to Facilitator by May 27; target mailing date ASAP.


v     Action Item 28: Convene a Task Force to consider the whitewater flow issue and determine the information necessary to make a decision.

Due Date:  Task Force will meet at 9:30 am on June 10 at the Plumas Forest Service Office in Oroville.


v     Action Item 29: PG&E will provide scope of work for Thomas Payne and Associates’ information gathering efforts and notify the 2105LG of next fishery group meeting.

Due Date:  June 12, 2003; notify as appropriate.


v     Action Item 30: Participants review and provide comments on Wetland and Riparian proposal.

Due Date:  June 22, 2003.


June 12, 2003

v     Action Item 31:  Facilitator will provide Bob Lambert with approved meeting summaries for posting to the 2105 Committee website. 

Due Date: June 2003 and then on-going


v     Action Item 32: Tom Jereb will follow-up by telephone with John Mudrie of FERC regarding the letter requesting delay.

Due Date:  June 26, 2003.


q      Action Item 33: Coordinate with DWR, SWRCB, Lassen National Forest, Plumas County, PG&E and 2105 Committee to resolve issues related to the water quality monitoring program and prepare language for inclusion in the 2105 license and settlement agreement. (This action item replaces Action Item #18).

Due Date:  Meeting scheduled for August 11, 2003.


June 26, 2003

v     Action Item 34:  PG&E will notify 2105LG as soon as decision has been made regarding the filing of Hamilton Branch Amendment. 

Due Date: ASAP


v     Action Item 35: Tom Hunter will check with Plumas County Planning regarding any plans for airport runway expansion.

Due Date:  August 15, 2003.


v     Action Item 36: John Mintz will make the text revisions to the SMP; Christi Goodman will complete the map task and forward maps to John.  PG&E will review zoning inconsistencies provided by Christi and provide comments via e-mail. John Mintz will make the text revisions to the RMP.

Due Date:  August 15, 2003.


v     Action Item 37: Harry Williamson will provide suggested text revision indicating that whitewater flow is an issue under consideration for insertion in the RMP.

Due Date:  July 31, 2003.


v     Action Item 38: PG&E will develop a draft hazard-marking plan and distribute to 2105LG for review.

Due Date:  July 24, 2003.


July 24, 2003

v     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


v     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.


v     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.


v     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.


July 31, 2003

v     Action Item 43:  LAWLAF will provide revised tables including results of the latest modeling efforts from PG&E at the August 15th 2105LG meeting.  LAWLAF will also provide additional rationale for flow recommendations, quantifying whenever possible. 

Due Date: August 15, 2003


v     Action Item 44: PG&E will distribute electronic copies of the boilerplate documents.

Due Date:  August 15, 2003.


v     Action Item 45: FS will distribute to the collaborative any documents that would be helpful to understanding the FS recreation proposal.

Due Date:  Before August 15, 2003.


August 15, 2003

v     Action Item 46:  LAWLAF table will be revised to include the existing 35cfs and PG&E’s original proposed 75cfs.  Angling satisfaction will also be reviewed based in the angling study that was performed.  Bruce McGurk will run the model using County lake level constraints and provide impacts on power generation.  Scott Tu will provide temperature impacts and Stu Running will complete the tables for habitat values. 

Due Date: September 11, 2003


v     Action Item 47: Verify number and location of buoys at Bucks Lake.

Due Date:  September 11, 2003.


v     Action Item 48: Use Bruce McGurk’ s model to determine the effects of the proposed Lake Almanor water levels on successive dry years.

Due Date:  August 28, 2003.


v     Action Item 49:  Plumas County will provide additional language describing consideration for marina development within conservation zone.

Due Date:  September 11, 2003.


q      Action Item 50: Investigate consistency of conservation zones to Red River Deed.

Due Date:  September 11, 2003.


August 28, 2003

v     Action Item 51:  Bruce McGurk will make minor adjustments in both lake levels and flows in his model to achieve a compromise and report back to the 2105LG. 

Due Date: September 11, 2003


v     Action Item 52:  Scott Tu will evaluate temperature effects of the County proposal.

Due Date:  September 11, 2003.


v     Action Item 53:  LAWLAF will further develop summary table.

Due Date:  September 11, 2003.


v     Action Item 54: PG&E will provide additional clarifying language for sections 5.1, 6.1, and 9.1 of the draft Lake Level Article.

Due Date:  September 11, 2003.


September 11, 2003

v     Action Item 55:  Provide Butt Creek gage data (PG&E). 

Due Date: September 17, 2003


v     Action Item 56:  Re-run scenarios using corrected values and adjusted carryover (PG&E).

Due Date:  September 17, 2003.


q      Action Item 57:  Provide data to support County-proposed lake levels for inclusion in attributes table (County).

Due Date:  September 17, 2003.


v     Action Item 58:  Provide revised language for Lake Level article to include revised modeling calculations (PG&E).

Due Date:  September 17, 2003.


q      Action Item 59:  Prepare on-water carrying capacity estimate (FS).

        Due Date:  September 18, 2003.


v     Action Item 60:  Provide clarification on FS position regarding James Lee and Belden campgrounds, dispersed camping the Belden reach, and ability to partner on sites (FS).

Due Date:  September 18, 2003.


v     Action Item 61:  Whitewater sub group revise draft recreation river flow management article to meld two proposed alternatives.

Due Date:  September 29, 2003.


v     Action Item 62:  Document FS policy regarding funding of FS improvements near FERC licensed projects (FS).

Due Date:  September 18, 2003.


q      Action Item 63:  Check with upper management for any room to adjust the  $24 million recreation budget ceiling.

Due Date:  September 18, 2003.


v     Action Item 64:  Provide suggested revisions to Water Quality Monitoring and Protection article (PG&E).

Due Date:  September 18, 2003.



September 17, 2003

v     Action Item 65:  Re-run the models using suggestions discussed at today’s meeting and provide revised lake level/flow article language (PG&E).

Due Date: September 18, 2003


v     Action Item 66:  Provide revised lake levels for Bruce to use during modeling re-runs (Tom Hunter)

Due Date:  September 17, 2003.


v     Action Item 67:  E-mail electronic versions of the Flow, temperature/DO, and water quality monitoring articles to the 2105LG (Facilitator)

Due Date:  September 17, 2003.


September 18, 2003

v     Action Item 68:  Discuss proposed boating flow options with Anglers Committee and American Whitewater (Whitewater sub group) and explore possible solutions the collaborative can live with.

Due Date: September 23, 2003


v     Action Item 69:  PG&E will provide FWS with data used for determining accretion flow at the end of Seneca Reach and provide information to assist in understanding the process used and the resulting proposed flows (PG&E)

Due Date:  September 26, 2003.


q      Action Item 70:  Contact Jerry Mensch to clarify his thoughts on trail access and wetland issues (FS)

Due Date:  September 29, 2003.


q      Action Item 71:  Discuss potential to support 40 or 50-year license term (stakeholders)

Due Date:  September 29, 2003.


September 29, 2003

v     Action Item 72:  Wayne Dyok will draft language to address timing of needed modifications to allow for permitting within a specific time period. 

Due Date: October 17, 2003


v     Action Item 73:  Bruce McGurk will convert the language to a volume of water for pulse flows (total acre-feet rather than cubic feet per second) and work with the FS to draft language that provides some flexibility to provide varied types of pulse flows. 

Due Date:  October 17, 2003.


v     Action Item 74:  Bruce McGurk will evaluate stage levels and recommend appropriate ramping rates.

               Due Date:  October 1, 2003.


q      Action Item 75:  Wayne Dyok and Stu Running will provide draft language for monitoring activities to a sub-group including Michael Condon or Mike Taylor, Steve Schoenberg, Eric Theiss, and Mike Meinz for review and inclusion in the Rationale Document.

Due Date:  September 29, 2003.


q      Action Item 76: 2105LG to review the recreation document and provide suggested revisions for the next meeting.

Due Date:  October 17, 2003


October 17, 2003

q      Action Item 77:  Bob Lambert will provide brief summary of documents to be posted on 2105 web site for approval of 2105LG. 

Due Date: October 23, 2003


q      Action Item 78:  PG&E will revise the flow language related to formation of a TRG to include relevant membership language from the Rock Creek-Cresta settlement agreement and other protocol language as appropriate based on 2105LG discussion.  Whitewater community will provide proposed revisions to the document for consideration in advance of the next meeting if possible.

Due Date:  October 23, 2003.


q      Action Item 79:  PG&E staff will meet with FWS to resolve information needs.

               Due Date:  October 23, 2003.


q      Action Item 80:  Wayne Dyok will provide suggested revisions to the boilerplate language to PG&E for incorporation into a redline/strikeout version that includes comments from FS and DFG.  Revised version will be distributed to the 2105LG for concurrence.

Due Date:  October 23, 2003.


q      Action Item 81:  Review Maidu proposal for discussion at next 2105LG meeting.

               Due Date:  October 23, 2003.


q      Action Item 82:  LAWLAF to meet and discuss remaining ‘loose’ fish issues.

               Due Date:  November 7, with and additional meeting on November 14 if necessary.


q      Action Item 83:  John Mintz will revise budget chart to incorporate the reductions and provide to 2105LG.  Tom Jereb will take trimmed recreation budget to upper management for consideration of additional funding.

               Due Date:  October 23, 2003.


October 23, 2003

q      Action Item 84:  PG&E will distribute the redline/strikeout version of boilerplate language incorporating all of the proposed changes to the 2105LG for concurrence.

Due Date: November 24, 2003


q      Action Item 85:  PG&E will confirm how estimate was developed for fencing associated with wildlife Habitat Enhancement effort and revise section to incorporate suggestions from today’s meeting.

Due Date:  November 24, 2003.


q      Action Item 86:  PG&E will revise Land Use/Aesthetics section to address timing concerns and include language to describe a process for addressing fate of Caribou facilities.

               Due Date:  November 24, 2003.


q      Action Item 87:  PG&E will revise water quality section and sub-committee will meet to address unresolved issues.

        Due Date:  November 10, 2003.


q      Action Item 88:  PG&E will draft placeholder water temperature language for review at a meeting on November 14th

               Due Date:  November 14, 2003.


q      Action Item 89:  Harry Williamson will confer with FWS to coordinate comments on settlement agreement.

               Due Date:  November 24, 2003


q      Action Item 90:  John Mintz will revise the Recreation Management Plan and chart used at the last meeting to summarize various reductions agreed to by the 2105LG and distribute to the 2105LG for review.

               Due Date:  November 24, 2003.


q      Action Item 91:  Wayne Dyok will provide draft language to describe the individual oversight proposed and the intent to assure all terms of the license are upheld to PG&E for review.

Due Date:  November 24, 2003.


q      Action Item 92:  PG&E will provide a consolidated document that includes all of the draft sections developed to date and will include recent revisions reflecting recommendations from sub-group meetings scheduled for November.

Due Date:  November 17, 2003.



 Attachment 3:  UNFFR Recreation Settlement Agreement Items (Available on request



Attachment 4Project 2105 Relicensing Settlement Agreement, Draft October 31, 2003 (Available on Request)



Attachment 5: SWRCB Comments on “Boilerplate” draft Settlement Agreement language



UNFFR – SWRCB Comments on “Boilerplate” draft Settlement Agreement language


After review of the draft “boilerplate” language developed by PG&E for the Project No. 2105 Settlement Agreement (October 22, 2003), SWRCB staff provides the following comments by section:


Section 1.2.3 – As written, this section mischaracterizes the nature of the SWRCB’s participation in the collaborative discussions and in a Settlement as the final end product.  The SWRCB did not agree “to engage in discussions to resolve issues and agree on PM&E measures . . ..”  Accordingly, the SWRCB should be deleted from the list of parties in the first sentence of this section.  In addition, SWRCB staff recommend that clarifying language be added to define the SWRCB role; we suggest the following:


SWRCB staff has participated in the 2105 Collaborative in order to provide the parties with guidance concerning the SWRCB’s regulatory requirements and in furtherance of the SWRCB’s policy to promote voluntary settlement agreements.  However, the SWRCB cannot prejudge the Licensee’s request for water quality certification in connection with this relicensing proceeding and therefore could not execute this settlement agreement.


Section 2.2, Table 1 – As written, Item (a) and Item (e) are not consistent with the list title, Subjects Resolved by this Settlement.  Data has not been provided yet to support the feasibility of Prattville Intake modifications to maintain cold freshwater habitat in the Belden reach and downstream as Project 2105 flows are delivered to the Rock Creek and Cresta reaches.  Recognizing that streamflow adjustments may be required to meet water quality standards in the NFFR, the issues of (a) streamflow for fish and other aquatic biota and for (e) water quality associated with Project operations will need to be qualified with statements regarding the anticipated study information and affirmation that modifications will be implemented and monitored for validation.  As an alternative to adding qualifying language, Items (a) and (e) could be moved from Table 1 to Table 2 (Disputed Subjects Not Resolved by this Settlement).


Section 2.7 – The proposed term of 40 years for a new License is inconsistent with the intent of the Licensee and other signatories to the Rock Creek-Cresta Settlement Agreement (RC-C, section 2.8).  In that agreement, all parties concurred that expiration dates of the Rock Creek-Cresta License, the UNFFR License, and the Poe License should be coordinated to provide opportunity for the use of a watershed approach to relicensing in the next relicensing effort(s) (± 2034 AD).  FERC supported this concept.  On pages 26 and 27 of its order approving the parties’ settlement agreement and issuing a new license, FERC expressly stated:  “In Section 2.8 of the agreement, the signatories agree to a 30-year license term, but also agree that they do not object to a longer license term as needed to make the project license expiration date coincide with the expiration of new licenses anticipated for Project Nos. 2105 and 2107.  In order to facilitate parallel timing for expiration of these licenses, a 33-year license appears appropriate.”  FERC issued the license for a 33-year term.  The term requested for the New Project License for Project 2105 should be 30 years as contemplated, in good faith, by all previous signatories.


Section 4.4.3 – The discussion of Administrative Remedies available to a Party that brings a challenge to conditions in the 401 Certification is misleading.  Language correctly presents the two possible paths that may be taken, however only one option is available in any challenge and that path is determined by the circumstances of the issuance of the 401 Certification.  If initial certification action is taken under the authority delegated to the Executive Director of the SWRCB, any aggrieved person must file a petition for reconsideration by the SWRCB before filing any challenge in court.  If the SWRCB takes the initial certification action, SWRCB regulations do not provide for reconsideration by the SWRCB, and any challenge should be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction.   SWRCB staffs suggest that the language in this section be reviewed and consideration be given to more explicitly stating the possible remedy for each given situation.




Sharon Stohrer

Environmental Scientist

State Water Resources Control Board


November 17, 2003