m Pacific Gas and
`; oL Compauy Power Generation 245 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Mailing Address
`Mail Code N13E
`June 2, 2015 P. 0. Box 770000
`
`) San Francisco, CA 94177
`Via Electronic Submittal (E-File)
`
`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`888 First Street, N.E. PJ12.2
`Washington, D.C. 20426
`
`RE: Spring Gap-Stanislaus Project, FERC No. 2130 —-CA
`2014 Annual Consultation with USDA Forest Service; Condition No. 5 —
`Consultation and Condition No. 37 — Special Status Species
`
`Dear Secretary Bose:
`
`On April 24, 2009, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued to
`Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) a new License for the Spring Gap-Stanislaus
`Project (FERC No. 2130)(Project). USDA-Forest Service (FS) 4e Conditions are
`appendices to the License. FS 4(e) Condition No. 5 requires PG&E, each year between
`March 15 and April 15, to consult with the FS regarding measures needed to ensure
`protection and utilization of the National Forest resources affected by the Project. Within
`60 days following the consultation, PG&E shall file with the Commission evidence of the
`consultation with any recommendations made by the Forest Service.
`
`Enclosed you will find the notes from the April 2, 2015 consultation meeting. The FS
`reviewed these notes and comments were incorporated.
`
`Please contact me at (415) 973-3773, if you have any questions regarding this filing.
`
`o }J/L/
`
`Jennifer Skobrak, License Coordinétor
`Hydro Licensing
`
`Sincerely, .
`
`Enclosure
`
`cC: Ms. Beth Martinez
`Supervisors Office
`USDA, Forest Service
`Stanislaus National Forest
`19777 Greenley Road
`Sonora, CA 95370
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Spring Gap-Stanislaus Project (FERC No. 2130)
`
`Forest Service 4(e) Condition No. 5-PG&E Annual Consultation Meeting
`
`Thursday, April 2, 2015 — 9:00 am to 2:00 pm
`
`Mi-Wuk Ranger District Office, 24695 Highway 108, Mi-Wuk Village, CA
`
`Note taker: Megan Barker, Cardno
`
`NAME ORGANIZATION
`Larry Wise Cardno
`Mitchell Katzel Cardno
`Adam Rich United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
`(Forest Service)
`
`Jennifer Sorensen Forest Service
`Beth Martinez Forest Service
`Justin T. Smith PG&E
`Jocelyn Beaudette PG&E
`Rich Doble PG&E
`Scott Fee PG&E
`Tracy Weddle Forest Service
`Mary Moore Forest Service
`Steve Holdeman Forest Service
`Margaret Willits Forest Service
`Catherine Percival PG&E
`Mike Bradshaw Forest Service
`Matt Fransz PG&E
`Katie Ross-Smith Cardno
`Megan Barker Cardno
`
`| Miguel Macias Forest Service
`Ron Berry Tri-Dam
`Tim Townsend Tri-Dam
`Jeff Parks State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board)
`Adam Cleary PG&E
`Wayne Lifton Cardno
`
`Beth Martinez (Forest Service) kicked off the meeting with introductions and a safety minute.
`Rich Doble (PG&E) provided an overview of the meeting agenda.
`
`Forest Service 4(e) Condition 35, Spill Channel Management
`
`e Spill Channel Management Plan Progress Report
`
`Mitch Katzel (Cardno), lead for the channel stability and turbidity studies, discussed the Spill
`Channel Management Plan. The plan evaluates if spills affect the stability of the Spring Gap
`spill channel or turbidity in the Middle Fork Stanislaus River near the confluences with the
`Spring Gap and Stanislaus spill channels.
`
`The Spill Channel Management Plan is implemented in three phases: Phase | collects field data
`to determine the nature and extent of turbidity and sediment discharge effects; Phase I
`evaluates turbidity data and spill channel stability; and Phase |1l will involve consultation with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`agencies to if warranted develop long-term mitigation measures. PG&E is currently finishing
`Phase | of the Plan. Phase | data collection for spill channel stability has already been
`completed and Phase | turbidity data collection is expected to be completed this August. Phase
`Il and Phase Ill will be completed in 2016.
`
`In 2014, the maximum spill flows were 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 199 cfs for Spring Gap
`and Stanislaus, respectively. By comparison, in the prior monitoring year (2013) the largest spill
`for Spring Gap was 43 cfs and for Stanislaus was approximately 373 cfs.
`
`The spill channel stability assessments collect and evaluate data from the installed bank erosion
`pins and stream bed cross-section profiles to determine rate of erosion for each year of the five-
`year monitoring period. Results for 2014 at the Spring Gap spill channel revealed that there
`was little change in channel cross-section shape, width, area, or erosion (aggradation or
`degradation) in either the upper or lower monitoring reaches.
`
`Turbidity was monitored using automated turbidity sensors housed in stilling wells that are
`located up- and downstream of each spill channel.
`
`Forest Service asked how often PG&E goes out to service the turbidity instruments. Cardno
`replied that PG&E typically will check and service (new batteries, calibration, etc.) the turbidity
`monitoring sites once a month, but sometimes less frequently in the winter due to weather and
`difficulties accessing some sites with the helicopter. The exact service dates are included in the
`report.
`
`Overall, observed turbidity increases related to spill events on the Spring Gap and Stanislaus
`spills were minor, with an average increase of less than 10 ntu when considered on an
`instantaneous maximum basis, and virtually no difference when considered on an average daily
`basis. There was just one significant turbidity increase registered downstream of a spill channel
`during a spill event; the 50 cfs spill on Spring Gap caused an instantaneous maximum turbidity
`increase of 102.7 ntu. The turbidity increase for that spill on a mean daily basis was just 10 ntu,
`probably because the entire duration of the spill was only four hours.
`
`Comment: Forest Service asked if there were erosion measurement pins that were above the
`elevation of the flow in the spill channels this year. Cardno replied that some pins are installed
`at the bottom of the toe of the slope, which is as low as they can be installed with respect to the
`bottom of the channel, but there are also some pins situated higher up the bank slopes, to about
`three feet from the bottom of the channel. It was generally observed from trash/debris lines and
`scour lines in past monitoring years that there have definitely been flows higher than the toe of
`slope in most of the monitoring years, and there has been some times when some of the higher
`erosion pins situated up the bank hillslope were likely within the water surface elevation in the
`channel.
`
`Forest Service commented that the spill flows this year were probably too low to cause erosion
`where pins are currently located. Forest Service asked if erosion rates would be present at the
`pins if spills were released at a higher flow rate. Cardno responded that spills in previous years
`have probably contacted some of the higher pins and that as an estimate, a 200 cfs release
`could potentially reach the highest pins but there is no actual measurement or confirmation for
`this.
`
`Forest Service asked if pebble counts were being done near the cross sections to see if material
`was accumulating. Cardno answered that pebble counts are not part of the monitoring plan.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cardno added that typically the size of the observed bed materials is a mixture of gravel, sand
`and cobble and that there has never been an observation of material size changing significantly
`in the spill channels.
`
`Cardno explained that turbidity increases or fluctuations are not well-correlated to a specific spill
`event magnitude that defines a threshold when turbidity will increase. Comparing two spill
`events on the Spring Gap spill channel, one in 2013 and one in 2014, with similar discharges,
`had very different turbidity results. The 2014 50 cfs spill event caused a maximum
`instantaneous turbidity of 102.7 ntu, but the 2013 spill of 41 cfs caused a maximum
`instantaneous turbidity of only 0.7 ntu. Cardno explained that there are various factors that
`could cause such a large difference in turbidity levels from year to year even though the spill
`discharges were very similar, including natural recruitment of sediment supply that is available
`to the channel in any given year.
`
`Forest Service asked why such small spills occurred this past year. PG&E answered that the
`Spring Gap penstock to the powerhouse starts a small header box and therefore the lack of
`storage does not have sufficient capacity to generate high flows. Low magnitude spills may be
`generated when water needs to be flushed out of the intake, a unit may have tripped off line, or
`there may need to be a local load redistribution requirement.
`
`FS 4(e) Condition 39, Environmental Monitoring
`
`e 2014 Hardhead Monitoring
`
`Matt Fransz (PG&E) discussed the 2014 Hardhead Monitoring Final Report. The study looked
`at both 2014 annual monitoring results and five-year trends. 2014 was the fifth year of required
`hardhead monitoring under the license and the Hardhead Monitoring Plan; one additional
`snorkel survey is required in 2017. The main objectives of the study were to determine if the
`new flow regime and associated water temperatures were adversely affecting hardhead habitat
`and distribution in the Camp Nine Reach and the lower two miles of the Sand Bar Dam Reach.
`The 2014 hardhead monitoring was conducted by snorkeling monitoring and cast netting.
`Temperature monitoring was conducted at all required locations in conjunction with similar
`temperature monitoring required by the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Monitoring Plan.
`
`With regards to water temperature, the study found that warm-water species (hardhead,
`Sacramento pikeminnow and California roach) generally did better in the drier years of 2013
`and 2014, when the water was warmer, whereas cold-water species (trout and Sacramento
`suckers) did better in the wet years of 2011 and 2012 that experienced higher flows. The
`species composition study found that Sacramento pikeminnow dominated all study sites.
`Overall, the hardhead population was found to be robust and healthy, with multiple age classes
`and recruitment across all years. Additionally, co-adapted native species were present and
`there was no evidence to suggest that the new flow regime was adversely affecting hardhead
`populations.
`
`Results from previously completed study elements indicated that hardhead abundance did not
`appear to be related to algal abundance. Additionally, radiotagging results showed that
`hardhead movement was highly localized. Hardhead did not generally move more than two
`habitat units (i.e. pool vs riffle) in the upstream or downstream direction and no hardhead were
`found to move from the Camp 9 Reach into the lower Sand Bar Reach. Based on these results,
`the new flow regime and associated water temperatures do not appear to affect hardhead
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`habitat and distribution in the Camp Nine Reach and the lower two miles of the Sand Bar Dam
`Reach.
`
`There was some indication that high flows associated with uncontrolled spill events from
`Beardsley Reservoir may temporarily affect populations of native fish, but these populations are
`able to recover rapidly from these disturbances. There was no indication that flows under the
`new license are adversely affecting hardhead. The study indicates that hardhead and the fish
`community in the study area are in good condition (sensu Moyle et al. 1998).
`
`Comment: Forest Service asked what PG&E was planning to do going forward with regard to
`hardhead.
`
`Comment: PG&E responded that the study objectives have been satisfied. Based five years of
`surveys, the new license flows and associated water temperatures do not appear to be
`adversely affecting hardhead habitat and distribution in the Camp Nine Reach and the lower two
`miles of the Sand Bar Dam Reach.
`
`e 2014 Survey Results for Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii)
`
`Larry Wise (Cardno) discussed the 2014 study results for foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) in
`the Camp Nine and Sand Bar Dam Reaches. 2014 was the fifth and final year of required FYLF
`monitoring under the license and the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Monitoring Plan. The purpose
`of the study was to determine if the new stream flow regime was affecting FYLF in Camp Nine
`and Sand Bar reaches. The study also evaluated how the interim water temperature trigger
`should be modified to best protect FYLF.
`
`Cardno first presented the findings of the 2014 monitoring. 2014 was the third consecutive dry
`year and had lower flows than the preceding two years, and higher water temperatures.
`Breeding success was lower than in the previous two years, but much higher than in the two
`wetter years (2010 and 2011).
`
`Cardno then presented results across the five year monitoring period comparing flows, water
`temperatures, and VES results by lifestage. Frog breeding success was quite low in 2010 and
`2011, both wetter years with substantial spill and low water temperatures through the summer
`months. FYLF breeding success was high drier years 2012 to 2014, although success was
`lower in 2014 than in 2012 and 2013. Breeding in the drier water years began in early May and
`water temperatures were optimal for rearing for four to five months. In wetter years, high flows
`and associated cooler water temperatures delayed effective breeding by four to six weeks
`relative to drier years and water temperatures were not optimal for development. This could
`lead to later metamorphosis and reduced overwinter survival.
`
`PG&E monitored three monumented cross sections in 2014, in accordance with license
`conditions. The study found minimal differences in cross sections from 2014 relative to 2003,
`which Cardno noted could have been a result of two different crews collecting data. There was
`some coarsening of the substrate observed in 2014 vs. 2003, but the channel type at all three
`cross sections in 2014 was determined to be a Rosgen B-type channel, the same as the 2003
`classification.
`
`Supplemental Flow Triggers: Cardno reviewed the supplemental flow triggers and whether
`those triggers provided protection to FYLF breeding. The date trigger associated with spill
`years was found to be protective. The peak flow trigger associated with Donnells inflow in years
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`when Beardsley Reservoir is predicted not to spill was found to occur too late to be protective of
`FYLF breeding and would likely result in either the scour of eggs and tadpoles or to delay
`breeding four to six weeks. The temperature trigger to be applied in years when Beardsley
`Reservoir is predicted not to spill also was found to not be protective. The five years of
`monitoring data indicate that the timing of FYLF breeding cannot be reliably predicted based on
`temperature alone.
`
`For FYLF breeding, a temperature of 12°C is generally considered a cue for breeding to begin.
`But within the study area in drier years, breeding seems to begin near the beginning of May,
`even when water temperatures have exceeded 12°C for several weeks prior to this date, and,
`therefore, temperature alone is not a reliable predictor of frog breeding behavior. Based on this,
`a temperature trigger based at Sand Bar Diversion Dam would not reliably predict the onset of
`breeding. The initial temperature trigger did not reliably initiate supplemental flows at a time
`compatible with frog breeding, and an analysis of alternative temperature triggers suggested
`that those would not improve this situation.
`
`Based on this, a date trigger for Supplemental Flows in years when Beardsley Dam is predicted
`not to spill) would be a more protective of FYLF breeding. It is recommended that Supplemental
`Flows be initiated on April 3 in critically dry years, and on February 27 in other years when
`Beardsley Dam is forecast not to spill.
`
`Comment: Forest Service asked what the algae blooms were attributed to. Cardno responded
`that low flow and warm temperatures were likely responsible for causing the algae to bloom.
`
`Comment: Forest Service commented that water year typing can be problematic and
`suggested that it would be beneficial to try to use more local triggers because every location is
`different.
`
`PG&E responded that the water year type designations for this license were different than those
`in other systems. Tri Dam noted that their water year type designations were different than
`those for the Spring Gap-Stanislaus Project.
`
`Comment: Forest Service asked if there will be supplemental flows in 2015.
`
`Comment: PG&E responded that they are going to request that there not be supplemental or
`recreational flow requirements due to the lack of water available in the basin.
`
`ACTION ITEM: PG&E will work with the Forest Service and State Water Resources Control
`Board regarding FYLF recommendations.
`
`Comment: Forest Service commented that the FYLF data might look especially good because
`of the dry years affecting the results disproportionately. He suggested that five years of wet
`year data would have changed the outcome of the results for the worse.
`
`¢ Relief Reach Riparian Vegetation Restoration and Streambank Stabilization
`Project Description — 75% Design Level
`
`Katie Ross-Smith (Cardno) revisited license objectives and plan phases for the Relief Reach
`Riparian Vegetation Restoration and Streambank Stabilization Plan. Cardno provided an
`overview of the historical context and changes that occurred to the meadow, including
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`modifications that changed the known course of the river over the last 70 years. Cardno noted
`that based on the historical aerial photographs that dated back to 1944, there has not been a lot
`of cottonwood recruitment since 1944; occurring in two locations. These locations are on the
`bar on river left where recruitment has recently been observed. The other is on river right where
`overbanking historically occurred. Cardno also explained that a levee was built in this location
`in the early 1960s, and then sometime between 1965 and 1967 the entire reach was bulldozed.
`Other within-channel activities have occurred three additional times since then, primarily in the
`lower portion of the reach.
`
`The background information included in the Relief Reach Riparian Vegetation Restoration and
`Streambank Stabilization Project Description — 75% Design Level (75% Design Report) is
`essentially the same as the plan that was distributed and discussed in October 2014. The
`report distributed in October 2014 identified seven areas for treatment, areas which had
`unstable banks (indicating erosion) and that lacked riparian cover, including the section where
`rip-rap was placed at the upstream end of the reach. Proposed bank stabilization techniques
`included vegetation planting with a focus on the long-term success of the community. Cardno
`explained that designs had already been refined based on previous comments from Forest
`Service and State Water Resources Control Board.
`
`Cardno discussed the proposed treatment strategies. In areas where root wads and wood are
`already present, adding more wood is proposed to deflect flow away from the bank. Treatment
`plans no longer include brush mattresses; only combinations of rock, wood, and vegetation
`material. In response to comments on the October report, all invasive weeds will be removed
`before any native planting. Cardno also discussed options for protecting the treatments when
`cattle are in the area, including temporary or permanent (split rail) fence barriers and alternative
`cattle watering systems on the meadow.
`
`Cardno discussed the Maintenance and Monitoring Plan (MMP) that is included in the 75%
`Design Report. Cardno stated that PG&E would like to modify the MMP that is included in the
`75% Design Report. The changes included tying the monitoring component to the restoration
`success criteria and once the criteria are met, monitoring will no longer be continued.
`Maintenance would continue for the duration of the license, and would include photo points to
`document riparian and stream bank conditions as well as general maintenance of the treatment
`areas.
`
`Comment: PG&E suggested installing a kiosk to inform the public about the restoration and
`bank stabilization work. There have already been some questions from members of the public
`about the nature of the work. PG&E has already received questions about how the restored
`banks will retain integrity during high flow conditions.
`
`Comment: PG&E asked who the CEQA lead on the project is. State Water Resources Control
`Board replied that since Forest Service does the permitting, and PG&E is the applicant, then it
`makes the most sense that the State Water Resources Control Board is the CEQA lead.
`Further discussion offline was suggested.
`
`Cardno emphasized that before this plan is implemented, it has to go through several approvals
`including California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), State Water Resources Control
`Board, Forest Service and then FERC; Cardno discussed the specific timeframe that has to be
`followed. The State Water Resources Control Board reassured PG&E that the time frame
`would work out.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Comment: Forest Service commented that PG&E should utilize source material from inside the
`Project boundary and within Tuolumne County lands. If materials are obtained from Forest
`Service lands, PG&E will need to obtain a Special Conditions Permit and have a signed NEPA
`document, which will delay the project.
`
`State Water Resources Control Board commented that PG&E only needs approval from the
`agencies in the plan by the specified date. The permits will take longer to be obtained. Forest
`Service agreed with the point that State Water Resources Control Board made. PG&E added
`that all comments should still be received by April 15. Cardno added that a year's time has
`been scheduled to obtain the relevant permits.
`
`There was a brief discussion about manure spreading on the meadow and nutrient leaching into
`the project area. PG&E commented that the resort has historically had cattle on the meadow
`and continues to have the right to have them there, but that there might be further discussion at
`some point with the county about the cattle on the meadow. Cardno also mentioned that the
`Stewardship Council also was looking into the issue.
`
`Comment: Forest Service inquired about whether or not it would be necessary to relocate the
`road around Site 2. PG&E responded that they do not anticipate that the road would need to be
`relocated. Forest Service asked how PG&E will change the bank angle without moving the
`road. Cardno responded that if the bank were laid back to a stable slope, it would require laying
`it back substantially. The road is on county property; and the County would need to discuss
`whether the road should be relocated.
`
`Comment: Forest Service asked if the plan included a pedestrian trail reroute during
`construction. PG&E responded that the project will not affect the people walking on the trail
`therefore no trail reroute is necessary. PG&E will work with the Forest Service to get
`information to the public about the project through a kiosk posting.
`
`FS 4(e) Condition 37, Special Status Species
`e Fringed myotis, Myotis thysanodes
`
`Comment: PG&E biologists did not find the presence of any fringed myotis bats during the
`relicensing study. PG&E asked Forest Service if they need to develop a study plan or if the
`Forest Service already has enough information.
`
`ACTION ITEM: Forest Service will look into whether or not PG&E needs to develop a bat study
`plan.
`
`FS 4(e) Condition 41, Invasive Weed Management Plan
`
`Matt Fransz (PG&E) opened the discussion by noting that invasive weed management did not
`occur in Stanislaus last year. Therefore, instead of providing a summary of last year’s activities
`he presented questions to Forest Service on behalf of PG&E’s Botanist, Shannon Johnson.
`
`Comment: PG&E asked the Forest Service when it could expect a final signed pesticide use
`proposal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTION ITEM: Forest Service will look into the signed pesticide proposal.
`
`Comment: PG&E commented that if the proposal is signed; PG&E can move ahead with their
`vegetation management work for 2015.
`
`Comment: PG&E asked whether or not, for pesticide use, it would be sufficient to provide a
`spreadsheet or will they need to fill out separate individual forms with the same information.
`
`Comment: Forest Service responded that they think a spreadsheet would probably be
`adequate.
`
`ACTION ITEM: PG&E will send example spreadsheet of herbicides and a list of questions for
`Forest Service.
`
`Comment: PG&E asked Forest Service if grid cells would be an acceptable method of data
`collection.
`
`Comment: Forest Service responded that grid cells would not be an accepted method of
`documenting treatment.
`
`Comment: PG&E asked Forest Service if it would be possible to get an extension beyond the
`30 days for the report.
`
`Comment: Forest Service responded that they would not grant PG&E an extension beyond the
`30 days. Forest Service has new reporting requirements that need to be completed therefore
`September 30 is a real due date for them.
`
`Comment: PG&E asked Forest Service if a 125 foot buffer applies to all water ways.
`
`Comment: Forest Service responded that 125 foot is a buffer that applies to all waterways and
`that they should be maintained.
`
`Current Water Year
`
`Catherine Percival (PG&E) and Jocelyn Beaudette (PG&E) discussed the current water year
`conditions and predictions for upcoming conditions. The period between-October 2014 and
`March 2015 was the warmest on record. The Sierra snowpack is at four percent of its annual
`average. At the time of this meeting, 2015 is trending toward a dry year (and fourth dry year in
`row); therefore storage and spill releases have been affected. At Pinecrest Reservoir, additional
`runoff is not expected to enter the system and PG&E does not think that they will make 5,610 ft
`water surface elevation this year. There is no snow above Relief Reservoir, and therefore
`additional runoff from snowmelt is not predicted to enter the system; however, Relief Reservoir
`has been kept at almost full capacity. At Lyons Dam, flashboards are currently in place, but
`even without the boards no spill would occur this year. For New Melones, it is predicted that by
`May 1 conditions will be critically dry with conditions similar to the 1976/1977 water year
`conditions. A critically dry condition for the Project is inflows of less than 350,000 acre-feet into
`New Melones.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PG&E is proposing that they make minimum releases through summer because Relief
`Reservoir is almost full. PG&E is going to closely monitor the water year conditions this
`summer, but it is currently expected that the reservoir will be very low at end of year.
`
`PG&E noted that if there is no significant precipitation then Pinecrest Reservoir will not likely
`spill this year. :
`
`PG&E tries to maintain 1,500 acre-feet in Lyons Reservoir to help maintain water potability for
`the Tuolumne Utilities District (TUD). PG&E commented that currently there are state
`restrictions and that conditions are likely going to require a curtailment order effecting reservoir
`elevation.
`
`Comment: State Water Resources Control Board commented that there are healthy and safety
`aspects that apply,-as well. There may be an exception for that particular system.
`
`Comment: PG&E commented that TUD may need to conserve more water and that PG&E
`would not have to drawdown early if they conserved water.
`
`Comment: PG&E commented that the lake level study plan filed with the State Water
`Resources Control Board is currently out for public review until April 15. State Water Resources
`Control Board noted that they are in the process of granting approval but they still need
`comments by that date.
`
`Comment: PG&E noted that if Pinecrest Reservoir does not meet the Labor Day target
`elevation and PG&E is required to meet the minimum flows, a variance may be requested to
`increase flows out of Pinecrest. There are other requirements for TUD and Lyons Reservoir will
`also need to be kept at adequate levels. State Water Resources Control Board asked PG&E
`
`what overdraft requests were going to be made.
`
`ACTION ITEM: PG&E will provide information about overdraft requests when drawdown curves
`are sent to out.
`
`Comment: Forest Service asked about local withdrawals at Pinecrest Reservoir. PG&E
`explained that Pinecrest locals are not authorized to make water withdrawals, but still withdrew
`about 4 acre-feet in 2014.
`
`Comment: Forest Service asked at what elevation the Pinecrest intake would be out of the
`water.
`
`ACTION ITEM: PG&E will provide intake elevation information to the Forest Service.
`
`Comment: Forest Service commented that they have water rights to these waters for intakes as
`permitees and that both intakes have been extended but that it is not known which of the two
`intakes is lower. They also noted that permitees have a well and various spring boxes but that
`these have not been used for some time due to potability concerns.
`
`Comment: PG&E commented that they would like to create public information to inform local
`residences and they would like to collaborate with the Forest Service to create messaging.
`
`ACTION ITEM: PG&E will work with the Forest Service to create public messaging about water
`shortage situations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Comment: Forest Service commented that they have already been notifying their permitees
`and that the sooner the conservation issues are formalized, the better.
`
`Comment: PG&E commented that a couple of storms might fill Pinecrest Reservoir above the
`
`current water surface elevation. If that is the case, the drawdown curves will need to be
`updated.
`
`FS 4(e) Condition 27, Road Management Plan
`
`e Road Management Plan
`
`Justin Smith (PG&E) discussed the 2015 plans for road management. Justin noted that grading
`will be the dominant maintenance activity scheduled in 2015. Grading activities for Fraser
`Campground are scheduled to begin next week.
`
`Comment: Tri-Dam commented that Philadelphia to Fraser Flat will be graded and there will not
`be grading at Strawberry.
`
`Comment: PG&E noted that there was a gentlemen’s agreement to do the grading.
`
`Comment: Forest Service announced that Fraser Flat Bridge is under construction and it will be
`open April 15.
`
`PG&E noted that there was a lot of work done along 4N88/4N85 and that PG&E is still working
`with Forest Service to get permission for upcoming work. PG&E also noted that there is a
`damaged guard rail along 4NO1.
`
`ACTION ITEM: PG&E will inform the Forest Service about details pertaining to the damaged
`guard rail along 4NO1.
`
`Comment: PG&E is still working on the Master Agreement for this year’s road repairs.
`
`Comment. Forest Service noted that project roads are covered in license. Other roads not
`considered project roads need to be on Master Agreement and be included the Permit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`List of Action Items
`
`>
`
`Y
`
`PG&E will work with the Forest Service and State Water Resources Control Board
`regarding foothill yellow-legged frog requirements.
`
`Forest Service will look into whether or not PG&E needs to develop a bat study plan.
`Forest Service will look into the status of the signed the pesticide use proposal.
`
`PG&E will send example spreadsheet of herbicides and a list of questions for Forest
`Service.
`
`PG&E will provide information about overdraft requests when revised drawdown curves
`are developed if necessary. PG&E will provide intake information to the Forest Service.
`
`PG&E will work with the Forest Service to create public messaging about water shortage
`situations.
`
`PG&E will inform the Forest Service about details pertaining to the damaged guard rail
`along 4NO1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`