Project 2105 License Group (2105LG) Approved Meeting Summary – November 25, 2003
Call to order: Patti Kroen, Facilitator at 9:00 a.m.
Attendees: See Attachment 1 for list of attendees. Participants approved the November 25, 2003 meeting agenda as a continuation of yesterday’s meeting focusing on the review and edit of Project 2105 Relicensing Settlement Agreement Draft November 24, 2003.
Settlement Agreement Section Review and Resolution:
Attachment 2 reflects the changes in redline/strikeout format tentatively agreed to by the 2105LG. The following briefly describes additional information discussed during the document review:
Revised to reflect unresolved issues not included in the settlement agreement: 1) shoreline erosion, 2) water temperature, with an explanation to FERC indicating the timetable for additional information and resolution, and 3) license term.
Plumas County is considering support for a 40-year license term and the Forest Service (FS) indicated that while not an advocate for the 40-year term, would not object. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and American Whitewater expressed concern about the commitment made in the Rock Creek-Cresta license to align the license terms within the watershed. California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) does not support extension of the Rock Creek-Cresta license term but expressed concern over workload if all licenses expire simultaneously.
The revised language provides flexibility to adjust flow levels if a better level is determined to achieve gravel maintenance goals. CSPA agreed to notify agencies if spawning is observed and allow the agencies to notify PG&E.
American Whitewater expressed concern that the Belden block loading proposal may not prevent Rock Creek-Cresta from exceeding ramping rates. This matter will continue to be addressed within the Rock Creek-Cresta ERC.
FS expressed concern that they have no authority to approve actions and the belief that SWRCB is the controlling agency. CSPA stated they will not give up their legal right to express their opinions within the TRG format outlined and the 2105LG discussed the role that the TRG would take in providing recommendations to FS and SWRCB.
Language related to objectives was deleted and will be included in the rationale document to be developed. The 2105LG discussed the concept of peer review and agreed to describe the anticipated use of expert consultation as needed by the TRG. The 2105LG discussed language changes to reflect the lack of FERC authority over the TRG and agreed to leave other similar language in the document and allow FERC to modify as needed.
PG&E explained that the use triggers were developed in the same manner as for the Rock Creek-Cresta agreement based on an average value of $50/day/boater and the cost of providing the water by the licensee. American Whitewater argued that the cost may be lower than estimated and the value of the resource to boaters may be higher. PG&E noted they had received approval for the triggers an included on the table and would not request reconsideration by upper management. FS is also concerned if the triggers are changed since the numbers are based on their estimates of carrying capacity for the reach. Triggers may become an unresolved issue.
2105LG requested a definition for ‘emergency’. PG&E will develop and distribute for consideration of inclusion.
Plumas County requested a sentence be added to describe typical operation of Lake Almanor.
Plumas County agreed to the water quality sampling schedule of once every five years monitoring cycle with the caveat that a provision be added for increased sampling interval to once every three years if water quality sampling data indicate increasing trends or if a parameter with historically low measurements show an increase that exceeds criteria. PG&E agreed to schedule a presentation in Chester on the DWR data that was presented to the 2105LG and to answer questions from local residents and interested parties.
PG&E agreed to joint cooperation with Plumas County on water quality sampling but contracting efforts between Plumas County and DWR to continue DWR sampling efforts will remain the sole responsibility of Plumas County.
The 2105LG discussed whether dollar amounts included in the settlement agreement are subject to escalation. PG&E will revise the document to indicate which amounts represent escalated dollars and which do not.
Plumas County requested it be noted that the County feels the budget indicated is too low.
Plumas County expressed concern that if the FS fails to fund their portion of the facilities development program, needed recreation facilities will not be constructed. PG&E agreed that if FS is unable to secure any matching funds, PG&E would develop the third loop of the East Shore campground. PG&E also agreed to complete the Almanor Beach expansion if not covered by FS matching funds.
Recreation triggers were discussed and National Parks Service expressed comfort that the triggers are realistic and consistent.
The 2105LG discussed the need for annual reports from Plumas County to PG&E to document how funding for shore patrol is spent for auditing purposes.
The 2105LG discussed language to describe oversight and meeting structure and agreed to keep the language related to periodic meetings within the individual sections describing the actions and monitoring efforts to focus the meetings and participants on specific issues and license articles. No additional language will be added and PG&E will continue to notice meetings to interested stakeholders and parties to the agreement as dictated by the specific license article.
The 2105LG discussed the upcoming schedule as follows:
December 1 (or as soon as possible): Tom Jereb will contact FERC and advise them on the status of the 2105LG settlement agreement.
December 8: Final editing meeting. Revised settlement agreement document will be distributed to the 2105LG in advance of the meeting and participants are encouraged to keep further edits to minimum required to ‘live with the agreement’.
Week of December 15: Signing meeting – preferred dates 12/18 or 12/19 (Goal is to achieve signing prior to Christmas)
January 15: PG&E required to reply to Dec. 1 comments to FERC: ‘drop dead’ date for final signed agreement
January 20: Joint Rock Creek-Cresta/2105LG meeting on Prattville information
January 23: 2105LG meeting on water temperature information
q Action Item 94: Bill Dennison will work to identify location in Chester for signing party Dec. 18 or 19.
Due Date: December 8, 2003
Upcoming meeting dates and locations:
December 8: 2105LG PG&E Rio Lindo Office, Chico 9:00am – 4:00pm.
December 18 or 19: 2105LG To be determined, Chester lunch signing party
January 20: Joint Rock Creek-Cresta/
2105LG Meeting on Prattville information
January 23 2105LG Meeting to discuss water temperature information TBD
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
Dave Steindorf Chico Paddleheads
Mike Taylor USFS
Charles White PG&E
Harry Williamson NPS
Bill Zemke PG&E
Attachment 2: Redline/Strikeout Project 2105 Relicensing Settlement Agreement Draft November 24, 2003 (Provided Separately)