Project 2105 License Group (2105LG) Approved Meeting Summary – September 11, 2003

 

 

Call to order: Patti Kroen, Facilitator at 9:00 a.m.

 

Attendees:  See Attachment 1 for list of attendees. Participants approved the September 11, 2003 meeting agenda after clarifying that the FS draft proposed ‘4(e) recommendations’ are actually proposed ‘license conditions’.  The 2105LG approved the August 28, 2003 meeting summary after considering and rejecting a suggested addition from Mike Willhoit because no one else remembered the statement occurring during the meeting.

 

Action Items – Review:

Action Item #46: Revisions to LAWLAF table will be presented during this meeting (see discussion below). 

 

Action Item #47:  Number and location of buoys on Bucks Lake has been determined.

 

Action Item # 49:  Wayne Dyok distributed proposed language (Attachment 2) to insert at bottom of page 5-1 of the Shoreline Management Plan.  PG&E will review the proposed language and provide suggested revisions for consideration if necessary.

 

Action Item #51:  Bruce discussed minor adjustments for compromise levels during this meeting (see discussion below).

 

Discussion on LAWLAF Modeling:

The Facilitator acknowledged a problem with County distribution from LAWLAF and reported that she had since forwarded the missed e-mails and files to Wayne Dyok.  Bruce McGurk reviewed his latest modeling efforts and reported that the model appears to be functioning correctly.  The Facilitator distributed an e-mail containing a detailed description of the pulse flow calculations for whitewater flows (Attachment 3).  Bruce has corrected the water use for pulse flows to count only the flow above minimum instream flow plus ramping amount and calculated that pulse flow water requirement is approximately 500 acre-feet per flow event.  The pulse flows do not impact Lake Almanor water levels except possibly during critically dry years if Belden is near its minimum dependable capacity requirement. 

 

Bruce reviewed the LAWLAF effort to develop a pulse flow that mimics a natural winter flow to benefit biological and channel processes while still allowing for a ‘shelf’ on the downside ramp to allow for whitewater boating.  John Gangemi representing American Whitewater described the difficulty in boating during reduced-light winter months and the potential for a boater to ‘overtake’ the earlier released higher pulse flows in an effort to complete the run in daylight hours.  He suggested that not many boaters would likely take advantage of such a winter boating opportunity except potentially in March as daytime air temperatures begin to warm.    Bob Baiocchi representing the Anglers Committee noted that while the existing license has a provision for pulse flows he recalls the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) once questioned the benefit of such flows.  PG&E noted that flushing flows have and will occur as the result of spill and gate exercising events.  Bob suggested the 2105LG consider post license studies to identify what measures are working and what measures should be adjusted or discontinued.  The 2105LG has discussed the inclusion of adaptive management strategies within the settlement agreement.  Mike Taylor reminded the 2105LG that LAWLAF was not managing for trout only but had considered timing of flows to coincide with high flows in the tributaries to achieve maximum benefit for channel processes and riparian habitat as well.

 

Additional LAWLAF Table Development:

Bruce distributed and explained a table comparing 33-year flow volumes under the various scenarios modeled (Attachment 4).  He also distributed the Seneca reach flow scenarios evaluated and revised end-of-month storage and elevation graphics for the current proposals (Attachments 5 and 6).  He indicated that the pulse flows account for about 4,500 acre-feet of net additional flow each normal and wet year.  He corrected an error on the table for scenario 4(b) that should include two days summer boating in Belden.  Plumas County corrected an error in their proposed dry year August target from 823,000 acre-feet to 859,000 acre-feet.  Bob Baiocchi asked what impact Rock Creek-Cresta flow changes will have on Lake Almanor.  Tom Jereb responded that there should be no effect since it comes from power generation: PG&E is reducing Rock Creek-Cresta generation on the shoulder periods to account for increased instream flow requirement.

 

Robert Hughes distributed a set of graphics showing exceedance curves that depict the percent of the time that a particular end of month storage value would be met (Attachment 7) and the 2105LG discussed the value of presenting data in this format.  The 2105LG discussed the higher lake levels indicated on the tables and concluded it was likely the result of reduced power production from Butt Valley powerhouse and changes in operations since 1980s. Bob Baiocchi asked if releases from Butt Valley Dam had been considered.  The 2105LG briefly reviewed their previous discussions regarding the IFIM study results, the existing habitat conditions, including existing cold water temperatures and indicated their consensus agreement to not have any additional releases from Butt Valley except for possible flushing flows in the future based on sediment monitoring results.  After considerable discussion the group concluded that the sediment in the channel is in good balance and should not be disturbed.  PG&E noted they intend to monitor the existing gage periodically, assuming it is not a barrier to fish.  Bob Baiocchi requested the Butt Creek gage data and PG&E agreed to provide that information.

 

Plumas County reiterated their most important interest is in maintaining high lake levels and avoiding economic impacts due to lower levels.  PG&E referred to their studies contained within the license application that evaluated visitor levels versus historic lake levels and found no correlation.  PG&E also looked at property values and concluded that these probably would show some incremental rise with steady, high lake levels but questioned that as a goal.  Bill Dennison noted that access is also an important concern at low levels and Tom Jereb pointed to several proposed improvements within the application that address this concern.  Bill added that in reviewing tax receipts versus water levels, they noted an approximate 10% drop during times of low lake levels.

 

The 2105LG discussed the scenarios and a revised summary table (Attachment 8) and Mike Taylor noted that LAWLAF did as it was instructed by evaluating ‘bookends’ and working toward a solution that could work for the collaborative.  The 2105LG requested Bruce to re-run the scenarios, using the corrected values discussed earlier and adjusting carryover to be consistent for each of the proposals.  LAWLAF requested data in support of County-proposed lake levels to include with other attributes on the summary table.  The 2105LG expect to conclude their discussions on flows at their next set of meetings.  Scott Tu also indicated a consultant would be available at the September 17^th meeting to provide a presentation on the dissolved oxygen study.  Jerry Mensch requested that access on Seneca reach and the proposed wetland/riparian article he submitted be added to the agenda for the September 18^th 2105LG meeting.

 

Revised Lake Level Article:

PG&E proposed the water year type determination begin in January with monthly updates until May.  During multiple dry or critically dry years, PG&E proposed to consult with agencies and interested parties.  PG&E remains uncomfortable with delivering the monitoring information for Canyon Dam and Prattville requested by Plumas County to enable the County to maintain a running mass balance and file complaints as quickly as possible if necessary.  Dave Steindorf asked about notification of pulse flow releases from Canyon Dam and PG&E responded that they could provide notification of intentional pulse releases.  PG&E will propose additional language revisions to the Lake Level article (including revised numbers from Bruce’s most recent modeling efforts) for review. 

 

USFS Whitewater Flow Perspective:

Michael Condon distributed a draft river flow management article (Attachment 9) and noted the shift by the FS in their approach to whitewater boating within the 2105 Project.  The 2105LG reviewed the draft and discussed several sections of the text including timing of the analysis and potential initiation of flows and suggested ‘put-in’ and ‘take-out’ location improvements.  The group requested clarification on the FS perspective of the canyon’s carrying capacity.  The FS will prepare an on-water carrying capacity estimate.  Concern was expressed for the off-water carrying capacity also and an evaluation during the opening of trout season was suggested to provide good information on use in the canyon.  PG&E noted their inability to commit to facility improvements for at least five years and asked if any other interested party could make a commitment. 

 

PG&E distributed an alternative to the FS article (Attachment 10) and explained that it calls for a three-year test flow with data evaluation.  Initiation may not occur until 2007 when the data from Rock Creek-Cresta are available.  Tom Jereb asked participants for initial reactions to the alternative language.  Bob Baiocchi responded that he would take the language to his group and get a decision from them.  Jerry Mensch reiterated his desire to see the data first before making a commitment to initiate whitewater flows and Plumas County added their need for time to consider the alternatives.  PG&E requested clarification from the FS on their position on the James Lee campground and the Belden campground as well as their policy on dispersed campsites within the Belden reach and their ability to partner on site improvements.  Michael Condon agreed to research the questions and report back to the 2105LG.  The 2105LG agreed that the Whitewater sub-group should meet to revise article language and the FS agreed to draft language that melds the two alternatives for consideration.

 

FS Draft Proposed License Conditions:

Michael Condon distributed a document containing USFS 4(e) recommendations in the form of proposed settlement language (Attachment 11).  He noted that the FS has dropped it’s expected percent partnering contribution from PG&E to 40% and expects to turn the campgrounds and boat ramps over to PG&E after the upgrades. The FS would retain ownership since the facilities are located on FS land.  The initial estimate for the proposed improvements is $18 million however the FS has asked their engineers to re-calculate and trim where possible.  The 2105LG discussed the recommendations and PG&E asked for documentation of the FS policy regarding funding of FS improvements near FERC licensed projects.  Michael will research the issue and report back to the 2105LG.  PG&E proposed to withdraw from the Eastside campground proposal and use those dollars to fund the FS proposal.  The 2105LG discussed alternatives including a reduction in the FS campground RV upgrades to allow for continued tent camping use coupled with a reduction in the Eastside campground, and a proposal to give the Eastside campground site to the County for private or County recreational use and development.  The FS agreed to drop the day use area proposed for across the highway and the CDFG requested the addition of language regarding the use of bear-proof boxes.  PG&E agreed to go to upper management to see of there is any room for adjustment to the $24 million budget ceiling for recreation.

 

The Facilitator distributed two additional handouts (Attachments 12 and 13) to inform the continued discussion of temperature effects and flows within the Belden Reach at the next 2105LG meeting.  Plumas County distributed copies of a proposed water quality monitoring and protection article (Attachment 14) that include Plumas County proposed redline/strikeout revision to funding language.  PG&E is developing revisions to this article and will distribute at the next 2105LG meeting.

 

PG&E provided an update on fish tissue sampling reporting preliminary results from Butt Valley and Belden reservoirs and the Belden reach are very good based on EPA and CDFG mercury levels.  PCB levels for fillet samples are below the 10-ppb screening level.  Whole fish analysis is yet to be completed.

 

Next Steps - Focus for Next Meeting:

The Facilitator reviewed the draft section assignments (Action Item #25) and progress to date:

Water temperature: Not started.  PG&E intends to develop a draft by September 18^th 2105LG meeting.

Lake Level/Flow: PG&E will revise first draft based on results from modeling for September 17^th 2105LG meeting.

Water Quality: PG&E will propose revisions to the first draft by September 18^th 2105LG meeting

Recreation River Flow Management: Whitewater sub group will meet to review revised language provided by FS that includes melded alternatives proposed by FS and PG&E and provide recommendation for 2105LG.

Shoreline and Recreation Management: PG&E will have draft language available by September 18^th 2105LG meeting.

 

The 2105LG agreed to add a meeting on September 17, 2003 at the Rio Lindo PG&E office in Chico.  The meeting agenda will include continued discussion of flow proposal development and modeling results with information from Bruce McGurk and Scott Tu, dissolved oxygen presentation and discussion.  The room is in use until 10 am so the 2105LG agreed to the later start time. The 2105LG agreed to also meet on September 18, 2003 to focus on the recreation management article language and work toward resolution on as much as possible that can be forwarded to FERC by the 2105LG-imposed end of September deadline.  The September 18^th agenda will also include items raised by Jerry Mensch.

 

 

Action Items

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

Due Date: September 17, 2003

 

q      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.

 

q      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.

 

q      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.

 

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

Due Date:  September 29, 2003.

 

q      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.

 

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

Due Date:  September 18, 2003.

 

 

Upcoming 2105LG meeting dates and locations:

 

Date                                                                                                 Location

September 17            2105LG                                    PG&E office, Rio Lindo, Chico, 10am-3:30pm

September 18            2105LG                                    PG&E office, Rio Lindo, Chico, 9am-3:30pm

September 29            2105LG                                    PG&E office, Rio Lindo, Chico, 9am-3:30pm

 

 

Attachment 1:                     List of Attendees

                       

Bob Baiocchi                         Anglers Committee

Michael Condon                     USFS

Wayne Dyok                         MWH

John Gangemi*                      AW

Robert Hughes                       CDFG

Tom Hunter                          Plumas County

Tom Jereb                             PG&E

Brian Kempkes*                    AAAWWFC

Patti Kroen                            Kroen

Bob Lambert                          2105 Committee

Bruce McGurk                       PG&E

Mike Meinz                            CDFG

Jerry Mensch*                       CSPA

John Mintz                            PG&E

Stu Running                           PG&E

Steven Schoenberg                 USFWS

Aaron Seandel                        2105 Committee

Sharon Stohrer                       SWRCB

Mike Taylor                           USFS

Scott Tu                                 PG&E

Harry Williamson                    NPS

Bill Zemke                              PG&E

 

 

* Via telephone

 

 

Attachment 2:

INSERT AT BOTTOM OF PAGE 5-1 OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

Exceptions to the zoning classifications are potential lake accesses at Bailey Creek and the Town of Chester (Feather River Rock).  PG&E would approve these proposals as exceptions to the SMP if the environmental impacts associated with the impacts can be mitigated. 

 

 

Attachment 3:  (E-mail communication between Bruce McGurk and John Gangemi regarding boating flows)

 

Hi John -

    Agreed that we know there is no request for a boating release in summer in Seneca.  Access and boating difficulty make the selection of Belden a better choice in terms of those factors.

 

    The mean Min. stream flow for the boating months of all years for Belden is about 170 cfs.  the mean boating flow is 700, so that is a 6 hr-increment assoc. w/ boating of 530 cfs over the min instream flow.  530 x 0.0825 converts it to hourly AF = 43.7 AF/hr, and x 6 gives us 262.4 AF/6 hr.  Summer ramping requirements are often pretty conservative, and you are right that about doubling it accounts for the ramp on both sides.  That comes up to about 525 AF/boating release.  if there are 5 months with 1 each, I get 2,625 AF per year. 

 

    I just realized I got confused in my earlier message to you, and attributed the pulse flow criterion of only occurring in wet and normal years to boating.  That is wrong, of course.....boating changes magnitude in CD and Dry, but it happens in all 33 years.  I just recounted, and we have 13 wet, 6 normal, 4 dry, and 10 CD years.  At 2625 AF/year, with 33 years that is about 87 TAF.  That is at least close to the model's 98 TAF that happens when I only change boating. The difference could be from the interplay of the higher boating flows in Normal and Wet years with the distribution of wet and normal versus the dry and CD years - 19 versus 14???

 

    The other set of calcs in my earlier writeup are conversions associated with trying to account for a single day's increased flow of 530 AF in a model that is calculating by month.  For 30 days of min. flow and 1 boating flow in that 30 days, I have to add 1/30 of the boating increment in cfs to get the factor to add to the min. flow to accurately keep a monthly water balance.  In a wet June case, the min is 225 and the boating flow is 750, so it is 1/30 x 525 cfs.  To avoid assuming the boating-based increment is continuing for the whole day, I have used a 0.52 factor from earlier work looking at ramps and starting min. flows which vary by month to get to the mean flow per day, which is about 9 cfs over the min flow.

 

    When I plug the 1 day/month into the model, it adjusts the June 225 cfs up by 9 cfs to 234 cfs, running a month, or 18 af/day x 30, which is 540 af/month and is a reasonable match for what we calculated above (525 AF/ boating release) for the per event AF use.  Other months show 22 af/day due to a lower base flow, and in 31 day months, that shows a budget of 682 AF/month.  this is another spot that could account for the difference between the envelope calculation of 87 TAF versus the model value of 98 TAF over the 33 years.

 

    So, at the moment, I think my calcs are right.... but if I have fallen into a logic trap along the way, I certainly want to be called on it!....  well, maybe not WANT to, but at least need to..... in that we are trying to base good decisions on what this thing tells us!

 

regards

b   

Bruce McGurk
PG&E Water Management
email: bjmo@pge.com  phone: 415-973-4420
pager: 510-539-3324  cell: 925-698-4683

-----Original Message-----
From: John Gangemi [mailto:jtgangemi@centurytel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 3:02 PM
To: McGurk, Bruce J; dsteind@telis.org; pkroen@pacbell.net; rwhughes@dfg.ca.gov; mftaylor@fs.fed.us; SSTOHRER@waterrights.swrcb.ca.gov
Subject: Re: water use for boating flows

Bruce:
Thanks for looking more closely at the calculations in the model.  For the record, there is no specific request for WW flows in the Seneca Reach.  AW et al. is willing to forego releases in Seneca in exchange for a WW schedule in Belden.  We have made that abundantly clear since Feb. of 2003.

With that said I still have some problems with your calculations on acre feet per release.  I compute 372 acre feet per 6 hour 750 cfs release. That does not account for ramping.  But I would not expect ramping to more than double the acre feet consumed per release.    Perhaps I am doing my calculations incorrectly.  Please provide me with the formula to convert  cfs to acre feet.

Also, I don't quite understand why you would do the following:

The resultant value is then multiplied by the # of days per month that boating occurs and divided by the number of days in a month so that the actual mean daily boating flow increment (including ramping and the time at base flow) is spread out over the # of days in a month.

Why is it necessary to spread it out over the # days in a month?

At 02:24 PM 9/10/2003 -0700, McGurk, Bruce J wrote:

John, Dave, et al -
        Robert and I went over the model logic for boating flows in the Upper North Fork model, and I can report that it is calculating flows correctly.  in months where boating flows occur, it reads in the boating flow and the # of flows/month (which are user switches in the header).  It then subtracts out the monthly mimum flow (because the boating flow is on top of the monthly min - avoids double counting - Dave's question earlier yielded that refinement), and it then approx. halves the result from the subtraction to account for the ramping plus the 6 hrs at the peak.  The resultant value is then multiplied by the # of days per month that boating occurs and divided by the number of days in a month so that the actual mean daily boating flow increment (including ramping and the time at base flow) is spread out over the # of days in a month.
        The model calculates that going from 0 days boating in Seneca to 1 day in each of 5 months over 33 years, 16 of which are normal or wet and would have boating, takes 98 thousand AF, or a bit over 6 TAF/boating year.  When I do back-of-the-envelope parallel calcs and increment from about 200 minimum to 750 cfs, and then add to the increment about an equal amount for the ramp, it comes to about 1100 AF/flow event.  Then total that up over the 5 months and 16 wet or normal years, I come up with about 85 TAF.  
        So, I think it is about right.... agreeing that there is some slop in the adjustment value because the "halving" I do is an estimate because the actual # varies depending on month and water year type, and I don't want to have to refine it more than that.... the "half" is in the middle of the coefficient spread.
        I think John and Dave may have been thinking that the differences in the Mass Change column for no boating/boating totals in the Power Water tab, Comparison of 33 yrs table, was PER YEAR.  They would be dead on right that I was blowing smoke if that was the case...... 
        So, as far as I can tell....via the model and envelope calcs, this is an accurate total. 
we can talk more Thursday if needed
regards
b

Bruce McGurk
PG&E Water Management
email: bjmo@pge.com  phone: 415-973-4420
pager: 510-539-3324  cell: 925-698-4683

John Gangemi
Conservation Director, American Whitewater
482 Electric Avenue
Bigfork, MT     59911
phone/fax: 406-837-3155/3156
email: jtgangemi@centurytel.net
www.americanwhitewater.org

Attachment 4:  Comparison of Total 33-year Flow Volumes (hardcopy available on request)

 

 

Attachment 5:  Project 2105 – LAWLAF Flow Scenarios for Evaluation – Seneca Reach (hardcopy available on request)

 

 

Attachment 6:  End-of-month Storage and Elevation graphics for current proposals (hardcopy available on request)

 

 

Attachment 7:  Lake Almanor Elevation exceedance curves (hardcopy available on request)

 

 

Attachment 8: 

 

Upper North Fork Project

Comparison of flow proposals on physical, biological, and social attributes of the Seneca Reach

Revised September 10, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Bolded numbers indicate percentages past peak of WUA (Weighted Useable Area) curve.

 

Hydrologic Processes (Natural Flow Regime):  Evaluation is based on how closely the flow regime approached the natural flow regime without the project.

 

Temperature:  Does the flow regime meet temperature requirements for proper timing of biological processes as well as avoiding negative impacts caused by summer maximum temperatures?

 

Angling:  A subjective evaluation made by anglers on site taking into account stream depth, velocity and the difficulty associated with catching a fish.  A measure of angler satisfaction.

 

Fish Habitat: Spawning:  Percent of maximum Weighted Useable Area.

 

Fish Habitat: Juvenile:  Percent of maximum Weighted Useable Area.

 

Fish Habitat: Adult:  Percent of maximum Weighted Useable Area.

 

Macroinvertebrates:  Percent of maximum Weighted Useable Area.

 

Power Generation:  Percent power loss at Butt Valley and Caribou Powerhouses as compared with existing operating practices.

 

Reservoir Elevation Drop: Wet:  Changes in elevation were taken from or interpolated between elevation changes associated with mean daily discharges appearing in a table from a memorandum from the 2105 Committee to Bruce McGurk dated July 15, 2003.  It is recognized that the estimate of reservoir decline for a given discharge does not necessarily reflect actual reservoir operation.  In effect the total annual stream discharge for a given flow has been converted to a hypothetical change in reservoir elevation.

 

Reservoir Elevation Drop: Normal:  Changes in elevation were taken from or interpolated between elevation changes associated with mean daily discharges appearing in a table from a memorandum from the 2105 Committee to Bruce McGurk dated July 15, 2003.

 

Reservoir Elevation Drop: Dry:  Changes in elevation were taken from or interpolated between elevation changes associated with mean daily discharges appearing in a table from a memorandum from the 2105 Committee to Bruce McGurk dated July 15, 2003.

 

Reservoir Elevation Drop: Critically Dry:  Changes in elevation were taken from or interpolated between elevation changes associated with mean daily discharges appearing in a table from a memorandum from the 2105 Committee to Bruce McGurk dated July 15, 2003.

 

Native Molluscs:  The degree to which the flow schedule cleanses attachment and grazing areas of organic and inorganic debris and distributes individuals to new habitat areas.

 

Spawning Substrate Cleansing:  Does the flow schedule provide for cleansing and replenishment of trout spawning gravels?

 

Woody Debris:  Degree to which variations in discharge and wetted area facilitate the distribution of large woody debris.

 

Spawning Gravel Recruitment:  Evaluation based on the probability that the magnitude and variance in flow will entrain sediment delivered by tributary streams, cause some bank erosion, and winnow spawning sized gravel from landslide and dry ravel materials.

 

Coldwater Pool Depletion:  The degree to which the cold water pool in Lake Almanor is depleted during the summer.  Range of difference between flow proposals is 2100 acre feet.

 

Riparian:  Degree to which annual flow variations alter the wetted perimeter providing selective habitat types for a variety of plant communities.

 

Riparian in Association with Birds and Mammals:  Degree to which annual flow variations alter the wetted perimeter providing selective habitat types for a variety of birds and mammals.

 

Hyporheic Processes:  Movement of oxygenated water through gravel bars is critical to the health of organisms occupying interstitial space between bar substrate.  A component of stream biological health.  Increasing discharge will facilitate hyporheic processes.

 

 

 

Attachment 9:  River Flow Management – FS proposal (Hardcopy available on request)

 

 

Attachment 10:  Recreation River Flow Management – PG&E proposal (Hardcopy available on request)

 

 

Attachment 11:  2105 Preliminary Recreation License Conditions (Hardcopy available on request)

 

 

Attachment 12:  Temperature graphics for Belden Reach with and without Prattville modifications (Hardcopy available on request)

 

 

Attachment 13:  NFFR Daily Mean Temperatures calculated for above Caribou powerhouses, East Branch and Lower Butt Creek above the confluence with NFFR (Hardcopy available on request)

 

Attachment 14: 

Article      Water Quality Monitoring and Protection

 

 

1.0       Goals

 

1.1       The intent of this article is to monitor and protect the water quality of Lake Almanor, Butt Valley Reservoir, and the Upper North Fork Feather River for the use and enjoyment of the public and for aquatic resources.

 

2.0       Water Quality Monitoring Plan                

 

2.1       Within 90 days after acceptance of a new license, the Licensee shall file a water quality monitoring plan with the Commission.  The water quality monitoring plan shall be developed in consultation with the California State Water Resources Control Board, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Water Resources, and Plumas County (collaborative water quality monitoring group).  The water quality monitoring plan shall include Lake Almanor, Butt Valley Reservoir, Belden Forebay, the Upper North Fork Feather River from Lake Almanor to a point one mile downstream of the Belden Powerhouse tailrace, the Seneca bypass, the Belden Bypass, and tributaries to Lake Almanor.  At a minimum, the plan shall include the parameters to be monitored, monitoring locations, and monitoring frequency. 

 

3.0       Water Quality Monitoring Plan Implementation

 

3.1       The Licensee shall contract with the California Department of Water Resources or other party acceptable to the collaborative water quality monitoring group, to implement the water quality monitoring plan and prepare an annual report on the plan. 

 

4.0       Annual Meeting

 

4.1       Within 60 days after transmittal of the annual report, the Licensee shall convene a meeting to review the results of the report and revise the monitoring plan as necessary.   Monitoring Plan revisions shall be filed with the Commission prior to implementation of the revised plan. 

 

5.0       Protection Measures

 

5.1       If adverse water quality effects are identified in Lake Almanor, Butt Valley Reservoir, Belden Forebay, the Upper North Fork Feather River, the Seneca bypass, or the Belden Bypass, the Licensee shall consult with the collaborative water quality monitoring group to determine the reason for the adverse water quality.  The Licensee shall file a plan for protecting and mitigating the adverse effects if the collaborative water quality monitoring group determines that the Licensee’s project operations or maintenance are responsible for the adverse water quality. The plan shall be developed in consultation with the collaborative group.  If the collaborative group does not agree on the cause and responsibility for the adverse water quality, the State Water Resources Control Board shall determine responsibility for mitigating the adverse water quality. 

 

6.0             Funding

 

.1                The Licensee shall contribute matching funds up to $20,000 per year to sample and test the water quality in Lake Almanor, subject to there being matching funds provided by, or on behalf of Plumas County.  The Licensee shall fund up to $?????? for additional water quality sampling in Lake Almanor, Butt Valley Reservoir, Belden Forebay, the Upper North Fork Feather River, the Seneca bypass, and the Belden Bypass. The annual contributions shall be adjusted annually according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

 

---