CSPA
North Fork
Feather River
FERC Project No. 2105-068
Subject: North Fork Feather River
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:54:15 +0000
From: BOB BAIOCCHI <cspa@psln.com>
Organization: CSPA
To: CSPA via email
United States of America
Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Upper North Fork Feather River Project, FERC Project No. 2105-068
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Licensee
Butt Creek and North Fork Feather River Watershed
Plumas County, California
Commission Staff's Order Modifying and Approving Post-Remediation
Fishery Mitigation Plan - July 14, 1998
Request by the California Sportfishing Protection for Rehearing and
Amendments to Commission Order of
July 14, 1998
On July 14, 1998, the Commission's staff issued Order Modifying and Approving Post-Remediation Fishery Mitigation Plan at the Upper North Fork Feather River Project No. 2105. The project is located on Butt Creek and the North Fork Feather River in Plumas County, California.
The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance hereby petition the
Commission for rehearing and relief for said order of July 14, 1998 as
follows:
1. The CSPA was a party of record for the seismic remediation work at
Butt Valley Dam by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Many other
non-governmental parties were parties of record for the seismic
remediation work at Butt Valley Dam. We reference the Commission's
records.
2. According to the Commission's staff notice and order of July 14,
1998, on March 20, 1998, PG&E filed its post-remediation fishery
mitigation plan with the Commission for the Upper North Fork Feather
River Project. The plan was required by a letter, dated August 22, 1996,
from the Regional Director of the Commission's San Francisco Office, who
authorized the start of seismic remediation work.
The Butt Valley Dam Remediation Project was highly controversial among
residents of Plumas County, and non-governmental organizations in
California. We reference the Commission's records.
3. According to the Commission's staff notice and order of July 14,
1998, by letters dated February 5, 1998, PG&E transmitted copies of the
draft post fishery mitigation plan to the California Department of Fish
and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their review and
comment. PG&E did not receive any comments on its plan according to the
Commission's notice and order of July 14, 1998.
4. According to the Commission's staff notice and order of July 14,
1998, PG&E desires to collect additional fisheries information, a creel
survey and a spawning survey, prior to formulating its final
recommendations for fishery mitigation at the project. The Commission's
staff claims that implementation of the additional sampling would better
allow the Commission's staff to identify any impacts that may have
resulted from the remediation work, including the identification of
appropriate mitigation measures. The Commission's staff also claimed
that PG&E's request to conduct additional studies and to use the
information gained to develop its final fishery mitigation plan is
reasonable and should be approved.
5. The Commission's staff stated in its Order of July 17, 1998 that
PG&E's proposed schedule does not provide for agency review of the final
fishery mitigation plan prior to its filing with the Commission's staff
for approval. The Commission's staff claimed that in order that they may
have the benefit of the agencies comments on the final mitigation plan,
PG&E's schedule should be adjusted such that a draft plan is filed with
the agencies by August 31, 1998 for their review and comment. The final
plan, including any agency comments, should be filed for the approval of
the Commission's staff by October 31, 1998.
However, the Commission's staff concluded in the Order of July 14,
1998, that PG&E's post-mitigation fishery plan as described in the Order
is reasonable and should be approved.
6. Mr. Joseph Morgan representing Director Carol L. Sampson of the
Commission's Office of Hydro Licensing concluded in the Order that
PG&E's post-remediation fishery mitigation plan, filed on March 20,
1009, is approved; that PG&E's shall file a draft final fishery
mitigation plan with the CDFG and the USFSW by August 31, 1998; and that
the final plan, including any agency comments, should be filed for
Commission's staff approval by October 31, 1998.
Mr. Morgan of the Commission's staff also concluded that the Order
constitutes final agency action, and that request for rehearing by the
Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the
Order of July 17, 1998, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.713.
Request for Relief by the
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
1. The Commission's staff did not allow stakeholders and parties of
record to take part in providing their comments and recommendations to
the Commission regarding the post-remediation fishery mitigation plan.
This is unfair and unreasonable since all of PG&E's hydro projects in
the North Fork Feather River watershed of California are highly
controversial among the public, local and state agencies, and
non-governmental state-wide and national groups. i.e. PG&E's Rock Creek
- Cresta Project No. 1962, including FERC Project No. 2105.
The CSPA believe the Commission's staff violated the due process rights
of stakeholders and parties of record when the Commission's staff
excluded stakeholders and parties of record from participating in the
development of the post-remediation fishery mitigation plan.
The CSPA request that the Commission and its staff to honor the due
process rights of stakeholders and parties of record in allowing them to
participate in the development of the post-remediation fishery
mitigation plan. The Commission and its staff should allow stakeholders
and parties of record to participate in the public process of making
comments and recommendations to the Commission and its staff regarding
the development of the post-remediation fishery mitigation plan.
Consequently the order should be amended to allow due process rights of
the stakeholders and parties of record to make comments and
recommendations to the Commission' staff who made the unfair and
unreasonable order of July 14, 1998.
2. The Commission's staff did not allow the California State Water
Resources Control Board to take part in providing its comments and
recommendations to the Commission regarding the post-remediation fishery
mitigation plan. The California State Water Resources Control Board has
a duty and resposibility, under the laws of the State of California, to
protect the beneficial uses of the waters of the State of California in
matters before the Commission. The Commission's staff excluded the
California State Water Resources Control Board from participating in the
matter of comments and recommendations concerning the development of the
post-remediation fishery mitigation plan.
The CSPA request that the Commission and its staff to honor the due
process rights and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act authority of the
California State Water Resources Control Board and amend the order of
July 14, 1998, in allowing the California State Water Resources Control
Board to participate in the development of the post-remediation fishery
mitigation plan.
3. The Commission's staff did not allow Plumas County to take part in
providing its comments and recommendations, under State of California
law and duties, to the Commission, regarding the post-remediation
fishery mitigation plan.
The CSPA request that the Commission and its staff to honor the due
process rights of Plumas County and amend the order of July 14, 1998 in
allowing Plumas County to participate in the development of the
post-remediation fishery mitigation plan.
4. The CSPA request that the Commission and its staff hold a formal
public meeting, with timely public notice, in Plumas County for the
expressed purpose of stakeholders, parties of record, and the public,
making comments and recommendations to the Commission and its staff
regarding the development of the post-remediation fishery mitigation
plan. The Commission and its staff should allow sufficient time for all
stakeholders, parties of record, and the public, to make comments and
recommendations at said formal public meeting. This request is fair and
reasonable, and in the public interest.
5. The Commission and its staff should require PG&E to submit to all
stakeholders and parties of record copies of it's post-remediation
fishery mitigation plan for their review and comment. This request is
fair and reasonable, and in the public interest.
6. The CSPA request the opportunity to submit comments and make
recommendations to the Commission and its staff upon reviewing PG&E's
post-remediation fishery mitigation plan. This will mean amending the
Commission' staff order of July 14, 1998.
None of the stakeholders and parties of record, excluding the
California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, were allowed to participate in the development of of the
post-remediation fishery mitigation plan. The request by the CSPA is
fair and reasonable, and in the public interest.
Respectfully Submitted
________________________________________
Robert J. Baiocchi, Consultant
For: California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
P.O. Box 357
Quincy, CA 95971
Bus Tel: 530-836-1115; Fax: 530-836-2062
July 23, 1998
Service List
The Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
(the original and 15 copies)
Carol L. Sampson, Director
Office of Hydro Licensing
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Mark Madrid, Supervisor
Plumas National Forest
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 11500
Quincy, CA 95971
Michael Jackson, Esquire
Water Counsel
Plumas County
P.O. Drawer 207 - Quincy, CA 95971
Jim Crenshaw, President
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
1248 East Oak Avenue, Suite D
Woodland, CA 95695
Maureen Rose
Friends of the River, Inc.
California Hydro Reform Coalition
128 J Street, 2nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814-2207
Kevin Lewis, Chairman
Shasta Paddlers
4641 Hornbeck Lane
Anderson, CA 96007
John Gangemi, Conservation Director
American Whitewater Affiliation
782 Swan River Road
Big Fork, MT 59911
Dave Steindorf
Chico Paddleheads
12428 Centerville Road
Chico, CA 95928-8320
Hydro Reform Coalition
1025 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 720
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tom Van Gelder, Chairman
Lake Oroville Fish Enhancement Committee
5360 Treasure Hill Drive
Oroville, CA 95966
Jim Edmondson, Executive Director
California Trout
9770 Sombra Terrace
Shadow Hills, CA 91040
Richard Roos-Collins
Cal Trout Attorney
Natural Heritage Institute
114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Gary Taylor
Energy and Power
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130
Sacramento, CA 95821-6240
Banky Curtis, Regional Manager, Region II
California Department of Fish and Game
1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Jerry Mensch
Environmental Services
California Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Jim Canaday, 401 Coordinator
Division of Water Rights
California State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000
Terry Morford, Hydro Manager
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Mail Code N11C
P.O. Box 770000
San Francisco, CA 94177
Interested Parties (numerous)
For further information contact Bob Baiocchi at either 530-836-1115 or
at e-mail address: cspa@psln.com