October 28, 2002 License Group Meeting Summary

Review of invited participants: Those stakeholders unable to attend for unknown reasons include Lassen County Board of Supervisors, California Sport Fishing Alliance, Anglers Against Whitewater, Susanville Indian Rancheria, Greenville Rancheria, Honey Lake Maidu and USF&WS.

Experience from past Collaborative meetings—Bob Hawkins; USFS

Key points: a) Agree on a protocol. Include “expected outcomes” to avoid disappointment and “buyer’s remorse.” b) Obtain the services of an experienced facilitator. c) Don’t avoid tough issues. Should not spend so much time on easy issues and find that there is too little time to resolve the larger differences. d) Recognize that there are two types of participants—technical and “decision-makers.” The technicians can develop the data, but the final resolution must include the decision-makers for each stakeholder. Suggested that we have a policy plenary committee with two representatives from each group. e) Agree on how the group will disagree. Suggested that settlement should not fail, just because of the disagreement of one stakeholder.

Failure to bring a facilitator on board early can delay the process by as much as a year and a half, based on Rock Creek-Cresta experience.

Protocol: formation of a protocol was deemed a high priority. A sub-committee (Mike Taylor (USFS), chair, John Mintz (PG&E) and Mike Meinz (F&G) were appointed. Mike Taylor (USFS) submitted a draft protocol document that the committee will use to develop a proposal for the next meeting. Sharon Stohrer indicated that there is specific language that must be included in the document for a representative of the SWRCB to participate. She will provide those details to Mike Taylor.

Facilitator: The committee believes that it is mandatory that the facilitator has a background in the subject matter. Three or four names were suggested as potential facilitators to be considered based on ability to meet timeline, cost objectives of the committee, and familiarity with the terms, many of the laws, ordinances and potential controversies that surround relicensing of hydroelectric facilities. PG&E, Forest Service and Plumas County to share costs based on a percentage. The tentative plan is for Bill Dennison to send out meeting notices, PG&E will make arrangements for agreed meeting locations and PG&E and Plumas County staff will combine to write the meeting minutes in consultation with the facilitator.

Individual Presentations: Each participant was asked to briefly describe the goals of their organization, so that we can evaluate our commonalities.

DFG: Fish and Wildlife issues; Lake Level recreation use and its impact on the resource. Mike Meinz distributed a handout of the Upper North Fork ecosystem attributes; (page 5 table of values) and the months of their relevance:

Dominate Elements for Developing and Instream Flow Regime, UNNFR 2105

Notes: 1) Bold X indicates primary drivers

2) Nutrient considers both organic and superfine sediment movement

3) Braiding at the mouth of the tributary channels can preclude fish passage

Mike indicated the importance of the development of an in-stream flow regime that mimics the Natural Hydrograph.

USFS: Mike Condon and others indicated that as a Federal Stakeholder, the Forest Service has 4e conditions that will be incorporated into the license, but they have not yet been formulated. USFS also wishes to develop an in-stream flow regime that mimics the natural hydrograph. In addition, they seek provisions for a land management plan, maintenance of the ecology, recreation opportunities and facilities, Lake Level agreements, irrigation/ flood control, power generation and safety.

State Water Resource Control Board: Sharon Stohrer said that the board is very interested in: project compliance with the Clean Water Act and water uses, beginning at the top of the project and down to Lake Oroville. (Ultimately, beginning with Mountain Meadows, but currently beginning with Lake Almanor and NFFR.; multiple project effects and monthly drivers on the designated beneficial uses of the Lake and the River; wildlife habitat; restoration of water quality in all waters not currently in compliance with published standards; power generation; flow regimes discussed by DFG; natural gravel recruitment; ramping rates for white water; maintenance of a healthy aquatic system in Lake Almanor and Butt Reservoir; consideration for issues outside the FERC 2105 project area.

UNFFR Beneficial Uses include: municipal and domestic water supply, power, contact recreation, non-contact recreation , cold water habitat

Lake Almanor Beneficial Uses include: Power generation, recreation, warm water habitat and cold water habitat.

Mountain meadows Conservancy: Steve Robinson provided the following list of goals/concerns:

1. Improve instream flows into reservoir either through agreements with local landowners or water districts. The Westwood Community Service District owns some water right to Goodrich Creek.

2. Stream diversion and loss of water table due to unsound land management practices. 3. Every stream in the reservoir watershed has been diverted or channelized.

4. Loss of meadow lands in mountain Meadows due to over grazing and loss of water table because of land management practices.

5.The loss of lakeside habitat and how it can be restored. This should also take into account that the restoration of PG&E lands will also protect Honey Lake Maidu sites.

6. How the above will affect the water quality and quantity in Mountain Meadows Reservoir and the Hamilton Branch?

7. Water levels of Mountain Meadows Reservoir how much is truly held in the Reservoir and what the best level for year?

9.Water Quality of Mountain Meadows Reservoir and Hamilton Branch of the Feather River and what can be done to improve it.

10. Impact of the Dyer Mt. Project on all PG&E land and waters in Hamilton Branch.

The conservancy would like to work with PG&E to improve upstream and lakeside habitat, which will allow for higher water table levels and better water holding capacity.

PG&E: Tom Jereb said that the utility company desires safe, flexible and reliable power generation and transmission in an environmentally responsible and culturally sensitive manner that meets all State and Federal regulations and laws. PG&E is seeking issue resolution through a post application collaborative process.

Tom added that the final application for relicensing of project 2105 was submitted to FERC on 10/23 and Hamilton Branch Hydroelectric facilities were included. He indicated that the document was 9,000 pages and weighed 70 lbs. All stakeholders should receive their copy within a couple of days. Comments are due 60 days from the application date—late in December.

Under discussion about concern that the inclusion of Hamilton Branch will delay the final 2105 license, Tom indicated that PG&E is committed to submit an amendment by mid-2003 and have a draft completed in early 2003. He said that is not the intent of PG&E to delay the final license implementation.

National Park Service: Harry Williamson noted that NPS participates in this process under the mandate of the Federal Power Act, and Lake Almanor’s strategic location as a gateway community to the Lassen National Park. Concerns include assessment of the broad range of recreational opportunities down river, and improvements vs. capital outlay in relation to recreational monitoring triggers. He wants consideration of the natural hydrograph to identify recreation opportunities forgone due to the dam. These loses do not need to be mitigated. Fisheries should be recognized, with the understanding that there also may be other recreation opportunities. Harry said that there were many recreation areas proposed, but that they should not be constructed unless needed. These are to be based on a “triggering” proposal that need more discussion and final resolution.

He is favor of up-grading the existing facilities. A comprehensive forest and basin plan should be utilized. NPS also recognizes the importance of power generation.

Since the power generation was being asked by Tom Jereb of each presenter, it was resolved at this point that all stakeholders present, understood that importance.

Plumas County seeks: a lake level agreement for economic stability in the region, and for protection of water quality; Recreational access for the public; mitigation of lakeshore erosion and understanding by PG&E that under current water quality standards, public responsibility and the fact that the lake level has been raised 22 feet since they received “the right to erode” from some landowners that they should assist in mitigating this continuing erosion; a comprehensive Recreation Plan implementation and the need for improved and expanded facilities; Safety plan that addresses public and resident needs beyond the limited scope of asset protection for PG&E; agreement that PG&E should be implementing some of the agreed upon recreation proposals prior to finalization of the license.

Seeks a balanced use of the resource for boating, fishing and power generation. Recognition of the potential for Feather river boating opportunities year-round. Use of the USFS Land Management Plan and a Basin Plan; healthy fisheries; the right for everyone to be at the negotiating table; a balance in water level and the need for a timely post-filing agreement.

Forest Community Research: Leah Wills said that FCR plays a support role in the form of research and “think tank” capabilities. They are interested in creation of appropriate TMDL’s, review of Indian issues including archeology and Indian allotment repatriation, provision of facilitation and watershed analysis to meet diverse goals of committee. Wishes to explore ramifications and utility of Plumas National Forest as a designated municipal watershed for sustainable municipal water supply.

A review of our goals/concerns resulted in the development of the following list of “commonalities.”

We agreed that we must look at total “interests” as well as “positions” to resolve our differences.

We asked the question: What process is needed to bring details forward to finalize and achieve goals ? Considering that we cannot pursue every detail of the license, which topics should be pursued? DFG suggested that the formation of a document by which to facilitate engagement is the subject of this meeting. Mike Willhoit suggested that we need to determine our major differences early and resolve as many as possible. Jerry Duffy said that we should determine what can be accomplished under ideal water conditions, but also be realistic about the problems to be encountered in “down years.”

Vision Statement and Mission Goals Committee

It was agreed that we should develop a Vision Statement and Mission Goals. A Vision Statement Committee was appointed as follows: Mike Condon, chair; Steve Reynolds, Jerry Duffy, Christi Goodman and Tom Jereb. The committee is to present a draft to the committee prior to the November 25 meeting, so that it can be finalized on that date.

Facilitator Committee

A committee of Bill Dennison, Tom Jereb and Christi Goodman was appointed to propose one or more facilitators for our future meetings and that the final selection by the committee should be no later than in time for our January 2003 meetings.

· Report from the three committees—Protocol, Vision Statement and Facilitation—Attempt to take action on each.

· Discuss and agree on the implementation of a Lake Water Level and Flow Committee to develop details of the topic.

· Each stakeholder to present the preliminary comments expected on the final PG&E application.