Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.29.21 BOS Correspondence - FW_ Memoranda of Understanding(MOU)_Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) issued in FERC P-619-164 From:Schuman, Amy To:Alpert, Bruce;Bennett, Robin;Clerk of the Board;Connelly, Bill;Cook, Holly;Cook, Robin;Kimmelshue, Tod; Lambert, Steve;Lucero, Debra;McCracken, Shari;Paulsen, Shaina;Pickett, Andy;Ring, Brian;Ritter, Tami; Rodas, Amalia;Sweeney, Kathleen;Teeter, Doug Subject:BOS Correspondence - FW: Memoranda of Understanding(MOU)/Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) issued in FERC P-619-164 Date:Friday, January 29, 2021 8:29:56 AM Please see the email below from FERC. Amy Schuman Associate Clerk of the Board Butte County Administration 25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965 O: 530.552.3300 |D: 530.552.3308 | F: 530.538.7120 Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Pinterest -----Original Message----- From: 'FERC eSubscription' <eSubscription@ferc.gov> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 5:25 AM Subject: Memoranda of Understanding(MOU)/Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) issued in FERC P-619-164 .ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying.. On 1/29/2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Washington D.C., issued this document: Docket(s): P-619-164 Lead Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Filing Type: Memoranda of Understanding(MOU)/Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) FERC Correspondence With Government Agencies Description: Letter providing the final Programmatic Agreement for the proposed relicensing of the Bucks Creek Hydroelectric Project under P-619. To view the document for this Issuance, click here https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_num=20210129- 3000__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!Ss-IwNIt_0WQcApyYUBeCAC6u6b2Fvqgkjqn7-HISGWTIEcRszGm5gBs8lwdF2-T- NNgeKMKZL0$ To modify your subscriptions, click here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!Ss- IwNIt_0WQcApyYUBeCAC6u6b2Fvqgkjqn7-HISGWTIEcRszGm5gBs8lwdF2-T-NNgOQaHiH8$ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please do not respond to this email. Online help is available here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.ferc.gov/efiling-help.asp__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!Ss- IwNIt_0WQcApyYUBeCAC6u6b2Fvqgkjqn7-HISGWTIEcRszGm5gBs8lwdF2-T-NNgpnHiTK8$ or for phone support, call 866-208-3676. Comments and Suggestions can be sent to this email address: mailto:FERCOnlineSupport@Ferc.gov FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 January 29, 2021 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS Project No. 619--164 California Bucks Creek Hydroelectric Project Pacific Gas and Electric Company Reference: Final Programmatic Agreement for Section 106 Compliance VIA Electronic Mail To the Parties Addressed: Enclosed is the final Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the proposed relicensing 1 of the Bucks Creek Hydroelectric Project. The project is licensed to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and is located in Plumas County, California and occupies federal land administered by the U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) within Plumas National Forest. We issued the draft PA and associated Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for review and comment on October 22, 2019, and asked whether the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) wanted to consult on the PA. The Council did not respond; therefore, we conclude that it chooses not to participate in the final PA for this project, which we intend to execute with the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). On November 18, 2019, the Forest Service filed comments, stating that it finds the HPMP meets Forest Service standards and that it will provide for protection of cultural resources. However, the Forest Service did request some additional modifications to the draft PA. On December 18, 2019, PG&E filed comments requesting that Mr. Fred Mankins, President of the Tasmam Koyom Mountain Maidu Tribal Organization be added as a concurring party to the PA. On March 2, 2020, the California SHPO made additional recommendations on revising the draft PA. No other comments were filed on the draft PA or HPMP. In the enclosure, we address each of the comments and recommendations made by the Forest Service, PG&E, and CA SHPO. Vince Yearick, Director, Division of Hydropower Licensing, has signed the final PA. Please sign the appropriate signature page, make a copy for yourself, and file only the page bearing your original signature using the Commission’s eFiling system at 1 The associated Historic Properties Management Plan was sent to the addresses when we issued the draft PA on October 22, 2019. Programmatic Agreement 2 Project No. 619-164 California http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Please select Docket number P-619-164 during the eFiling process. Alternatively, you may deliver your signature page via overnight delivery using the U.S. Postal Service to the following address: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. If filing the signature page using any other carrier, please mail it to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 1225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville Maryland 20852. Upon receipt of all signatures, Commission staff will forward a copy of the executed PA with signature pages to you and to the Council for its records. To expedite the processing of the license application and incorporate implementation of the PA in any license issued for the project, please sign and return the signature page within 30 days of the date of issuance of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Frank Winchell at 202-502-6104. Your assistance in completing this process is appreciated. Sincerely, Timothy Konnert, Chief West Branch Division of Hydropower Licensing Enclosures: Response to Comments and Final PA Programmatic Agreement 3 Project No. 619-164 California Addressees: VIA Electronic Mail Christopher Carlton,Forest Supervisor Deana Bovee, Tribal Chairwoman Plumas National Forest Susanville Indian Rancheria 159 Lawrence Street 745 Joaquin Street, Drawer U Quincy, CA 95971 Susanville, CA 96130-3628 christopher.carlton@usda.gov cjabbs@sir-nsn.gov Kyle Self, Chairperson Benjamin Cunningham, Chairperson Greenville Rancheria Maidu Summit Consortium P.O. Box 279 P.O. Box 682 Greenville, CA 95947-0279 Chester, CA 96020 kself@greenvillerancheria.com www.maidusummit.org Julianne Polanco, SHPO Janet Walther, Sr. Mgr., Hydro Licensing Department of Parks and Recreation and Compliance Office of Historic Preservation Pacific Gas and Electric Company rd 1725 23 Street, Suite 100 245 Market Street Sacramento, California 95816 San Francisco, CA 94105 julianne.polanco@parks.ca.gov jmw3@pge.com Fred Mankins, President Tasman Koyom Mountain Maidu Tribal Organization 29855 Plumb Creek Rd. Paynes Creek, CA 96075 bigwolf_1962@yahoo.com RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT Forest Service The Forest Service made a total of 10 comments on the draft PA which we respond to individually below. nd Comment 1:The Forest Service states that inthe 2Whereas clause of the PA, there are cultural resources within the Project area of potential effects (APE) that remain unevaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and are potentially eligible. This should be acknowledged. This is also where the Project relicensing should be initially identified as an “undertaking” under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the associated implementing regulations found within 36 C.F.R.§ 800. Subsequent citation of 36 CFR 800 will tier from this initial identification of the Project being subject to Section 106 requirements. nd Response: The 2 Whereas clause in the PA is a basic declaratory statement that issuance of a license (which is the undertaking) through the continued operation of the Project may affect historic properties, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(d)(2). This further advances the section 106 process through assessment of adverse effects, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.5, and resolution of adverse effects, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.6. In this case, this results in the agreement document (the PA) and associated treatment measures (the HPMP) for resolving potential Project-related adverse effects to historic properties. Through execution of the PA and implementation of the associated HPMP, and as stated th in the 5 Whereas clause, the Commission ensures, through a phased process, that all properties within the APE would be identified and evaluated for their National Register eligibility, and that any identified adverse effect to a historic property would be resolved. Thus, unevaluated cultural resources would be assessed for National Register eligibility th pursuant to a phased approach expressed in the 5 Whereas clause and carried out through implementation of the HPMP. Such unevaluated cultural resource would also be protected prior to being formally evaluated for the National Register, as provided in the nd associated HPMP. As a result, there is no need for additional language in the 2 Whereas clause concerning unevaluated cultural resources, or a statement that issuance of a license is an undertaking involving this PA. Comment 2: The Forest Service recommends capitalizing the word “Project” throughout the PA for consistency. This was noted elsewhere in the preamble. Response: We have capitalized “Project” throughout the PA. Programmatic Agreement 2 Project No. 619-164 California th Comment 3: The Forest Service notes in the 5 Whereas clause the same points it nd made involving the 2 Whereas clause above that there are unevaluated cultural resources that must be taken into account for future actions associated with the Project and this should be added. The Forest Service acknowledges that the associated HPMP considers unevaluated cultural resources as potential historic properties until such time as they are evaluated and found not eligible for listing in the National Register. ndth Response: See comment above involving the 2 and 5 Whereas clauses. th Comment 4: The Forest Service states that the 8 Whereas clause introduces the full citation of Section 106 and implementing regulations (36 C.F.R. § 800) regarding consultation with the SHPO; however, the regulations have already been cited above in th the 5 Whereas clause. The Forest Service suggests a more linear approach in this regard. Response: We have transferred the full citation of the Section 106 regulations thth from the 8 Whereas clause, to the 5 Whereas clause where the regulations are first cited. th Comment 5: In the 8 Whereas clause, the Forest Service suggests the insertion as follows (in italics) “…the Commission, in consultation with the SHPO, has authorized the Licensee to initiate the Section 106 process…”. Response: 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(4) states that the agency official may authorize an applicant to initiate consultation with the SHPO and notify the SHPO of this authorization; however, it does not require the agency official to consult with the SHPO th when giving this authorization. Thus, we have not modified the 8 Whereas clause in this case. Nevertheless, the Commission does provide notice to the SHPO when such 2 authorization is granted. Comment 6: The Forest Service contends that the utilization of the term “Rancheria” for the Greenville Rancheria, Susanville Indian Rancheria, and Maidu th Summit Consortium is problematic in the 13 Whereas clause. It notes that the 2 For this relicensing, we issued our notice of intent to file a license application, filing of pre-application document (PAD), commencement of the prefiling process, scoping request for comments on the PAD and scoping document, and identification of issues and associated study requests on January 14, 2014. In this notice, we also designated PG&E as our non-federal representative for initiating and carrying out the day-to-day section 106 consultation with the California SHPO. Programmatic Agreement 3 Project No. 619-164 California Greenville Rancheria and Susanville Indian Rancheria are indeed “Rancherias,” and both are also federally recognized Indian tribes. It further contends that the legal term under NHPA for federally recognized tribes is “Indian Tribes;” however, the Maidu Summit Consortium is neither a federally recognized Indian tribe, nor is it a Rancheria. Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to it as a Rancheria. The Forest Service recommends that distinction be acknowledged and revised in the PA, accordingly. Response: We have added the word “Native American organizations” along with “Rancherias” to account for the other non-tribal Native American entities who will be participating in this PA. Nevertheless, as there are only Rancherias involved with this PA, of which all are federally recognized, we will continue to refer to all of them as Rancherias. th Comment 7: In the 14 Whereas clause, the Forest Service asks whether the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) formally declined to participate in the development of this PA. Response: Yes, the Council was notified when the draft PA was sent out and, consistent with our practice, we interpret the Council’s lack of response as their decision to not participate. Comment 8: The Forest Service suggests that the timing of the report required by Stipulation I.B specify that it be filed annually. Response: We believe the filing of a report within 30 days of “every anniversary of the issuance date of the license” as stipulated in Stipulation IB clearly indicates that the reports are required to be filed “annually.” Therefore, no change to the stipulation is necessary. Comment 9: In regard to Stipulations III &IV and to the lands and cultural resources within the boundaries of the Project that are managed by the Forest Service, the Forest Service contends that it should be a full signatory to the PA rather than a concurring party. As it is currently drafted, the Forest Service asserts that it cannot propose amendments or terminate the PA should it find it necessary to do so which would ultimately abrogate its responsibilities under NHPA. Response: It has been our practice not to invite parties outside of the NHPA- required signatories to become signatories to our PAs, to insure that the Commission can Programmatic Agreement 4 Project No. 619-164 California 3 issue licenses in a timely manner.Other than terminating the PA, the Forest Service does have the same rights as a signatory in regard to participation in carrying out the PA (including the HPMP) and having the ability to propose amendments associated with the PA and HPMP. Comment 10: The Forest Service states that for this PA and for any future correspondence, the name of the Forest Supervisor of the Plumas National Forest should be Christopher Carlton. Response: We have corrected the name of the Forest Supervisor to Christopher Carlton. CA SHPO The CA SHPO made a total of eight comments which we respond to individually below. Comment 1: The CA SHPO recommends that a stipulation be added to the PA that addresses a consultation process for amending the area of potential effects (APE), including which consulting parties are included and a timeframe for consultation. Response: Overall, the HPMP provides an in-depth consultation process for all parties involved with the PA, including modifying or amending the APE. Section 6.4 of the HPMP details the duties of the licensee’s employee who serves as the principal cultural resource technical specialist (CRS) for the Project, including determining the APE (in the case of modifying or amending the APE) for any new undertaking or action involving the Project. In determining, modifying, or amending the APE, the CRS is also tasked with conducting the appropriate level of consultation involving the parties associated with the PA. Moreover, a process for amending the APE with appropriate consultation has already been addressed in the HPMP. For these reasons, we do not find it necessary to add another consultation process stipulation to the PA. Comment 2: The CA SHPO recommends that the PA include a process and timeline for parties to review and comment and for the Commission to consider, 3 Our practice on designating only the required signatories to our PAs has also been affirmed some years ago by the ACHP involving the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project in Alaska (FERC Project No. 2170). In a letter dated August 14, 2007, and filed with the Commission on November 15, 2007, the ACHP states that: “FERC alone decides whether or not to add another party as an invited signatory.” Programmatic Agreement 5 Project No. 619-164 California incorporate, or otherwise respond to comments on National Register of Historic Places (National Register) determinations and/or assessments of effects to historic properties. Response: Section 4.2 of the HPMP provides a process for making National Register determinations on cultural resources located within the APE, followed by Section 5.2 which provides a process for assessing Project-related effects. A consultation process involving timelines for parties to review and comment on National Register determinations and assessment of effects is also provided by Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the HPMP. Section 6.4 of the HPMP clarifies that the Commission remains legally responsible for ensuring that all terms of the HPMP are carried out and all findings and determinations are made pursuant to the HPMP by the licensees (PG&E has been designated to act as the lead for the licensees). Nevertheless, PG&E has been delegated by the Commission as the non-federal authority to act on the Commission’s behalf in th carrying out all steps within the HPMP, as stated under the 9 Whereas clause. In addition, Stipulation II.2 of the PA allows the Commission to exercise its legal responsibility to resolve any dispute among the involved parties involving any finding or determinations associated with the HPMP, or otherwise. The HPMP also provides an adequate consultation process among the parties to the PA for all findings and determinations associated with the HPMP, and the PA provides an opportunity for the Commission to review and respond to any comments from the parties, if necessary. For these reasons, another stipulation added to the PA to highlight these procedures and principals is not necessary. Comment 3: The CA SHPO recommends that the PA include a consultation process for the annual reporting stipulation, including a comment period, how comments would be addressed, and the finalization of the annual report. It should also include a provision for holding an annual meeting or phone call with the consulting parties to discuss any comments. Response: We note that Stipulation I.E of the PA provides the basic framework for annual reporting activities conducted under the associated HPMP. Section 6.6 (Annual Reporting and HPMP Implementation Meeting) in the HPMP also provides additional detail involving a process for consultation, including how comments would be addressed, provisions for meetings and telephone calls to discuss comments, and steps to review and finalize the annual report. As a result, there is no need for an additional annual reporting process stipulation in the PA. Comment 4: The CA SHPO recommends that the PA include a stipulation for amending the HPMP without amending the PA, and include a process for doing so. Programmatic Agreement 6 Project No. 619-164 California Response: Section 6.6 in the associated HPMP already provides a process for revising the HPMP at each five-year interval after issuance of the new license independent of amending the PA. Therefore, there is no need for the requested stipulation. Comment 5: The CA SHPO recommends that the PA include a stipulation addressing emergency situations, consistent with 36 C.F.R § 800.12. Response: It is not necessary to add an additional stipulation addressing emergency situations in the PA, as Section 5.2 in the HPMP provides adequate procedures for addressing emergency situations associated with the Project. The procedures will address emergency situations consistent with 36 C.F.R. § 800.12. Comment 6: The SHPO requests that it be provided copies of the written delegation from federal agencies to the Commission for the administrative record and that the Commission describe in what capacity each federal agency is involved. Response: We are only aware of one delegation under section 106 that is applicable to the project. As the lead agency for relicensing non-federal hydropower projects, the Commission delegated authority to the applicant to initiate Section 106 consultation with the SHPO on the Commission’s behalf, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(4). The delegation occurred via Commission Notice issued on January 14, 2014. A copy of the Notice can be accessed on the Commission’s eLibrary. Comment 7: The CA SHPO recommends that a discovery clause be added to the PA, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(c)(6),that references the plan outlined in the associated HPMP, or the process at 36 C.F.R. § 800.13, and specifies the actions to implement in the event of unanticipated discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources. Response: It is not clear why a new clause in the PA to specifically reference the unanticipated discovery plan is needed considering that section 5.3 of the HPMP already includes a requirement to implement an unanticipated discovery plan. The plan conforms to 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(c)(6) and references 36 C.F.R. § 800.13. Therefore, the requested discovery clause was not added to the PA. Comment 8: In the Dispute Resolution stipulation (Stipulation II), the CA SHPO requests that we clarify the meaning of the statement, “The Commission will consult with the objecting party, and with other parties as appropriate, to resolve the objection. The Commission may initiate on its own such consultation to ’remove’ any of its objections.” Programmatic Agreement 7 Project No. 619-164 California Response: This section means that should a party other than the Commission object to a finding of effect or to any other aspect of the implementation of the PA, then the Commission will consult with the objecting party in an attempt to resolve the objection. Should the Commission, on its own, raise such an objection, then the Commission may initiate consultation with the other parties in an attempt to address the Commission’s objection, and if resolution is reached, then the Commission will withdraw its objection. PG&E PG&E requests that Mr. Fred Mankins, President of the Tasmam Koyom Mountain Maidu Tribal Organization be added as a concurring party to the PA. We have added Mr. Fred Mankins as a concurring party to the PA. PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER FOR MANAGING HISTORIC PROPERTIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY ISSUING A LICENSE TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE BUCKS CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN PLUMAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FERC No. 619-164) WHEREAS, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or its staff (hereinafter, "Commission") proposes to issue a new license to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (hereinafter, "Licensee") to operate the Bucks Creek Hydroelectric Project (hereinafter, "Project") as authorized by Part I of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. Sections 791(a) through 825(r) as amended; and WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that issuing such a license may affect properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (hereinafter, "historic properties"); and WHEREAS, the 84.8-megawatt Bucks Creek Hydroelectric Project is located on a tributary to the North Fork Feather River in Plumas County, California and includes: (1) Bucks Lake, Lower Bucks Lake, Grizzly Forebay, Three Lakes, and their respective dams and diversions; (2) the Milk Ranch Conduit and feeder diversions; and (3) the Grizzly and Bucks Creek powerhouses. The Project occupies 1,539.5 acres of federal land within Plumas National Forest, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. WHEREAS the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Bucks Creek Hydroelectric Project, issued on January 28, 2020, and associated Historic Properties Management Plan, Bucks Creek Hydroelectric Project, Plumas County, CA, FERC Project No. 619 (hereinafter, “HPMP”) dated August, 2019, provide a description of the Project’s area of potential effects, historic properties, and anticipated effects identified as of the date of this Programmatic Agreement; and Programmatic Agreement 2 Project No. 619-164 California WHEREAS, the Commission will use a phased process to identify and evaluate historic properties within the Project’s area of potential effects, pursuant to 36 C.F.R § 800.4(b)(2) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (hereinafter, “Council’) regulations (36 C.F.R § 800), implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (15 U.S.C. 306108; hereinafter, "Section 106"), and will continue to identify and assess potential adverse effects on historic properties and resolve any such effects through implementation of this Programmatic Agreement; and WHEREAS the area of potential effects for the Project includes lands enclosed by the Project boundary, and any other area beyond the Project boundary where Project operations or Project-related recreational development or any other enhancements may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any historic properties exist (see section 1.3 and Attachment B of this HPMP); and WHEREAS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (hereinafter, “Forest Service”) manages lands within the Project, and has responsibilities for the issuance of permits under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa to 470ll; hereinafter, “ARPA”) to the Licensee for archaeological work on their lands; and WHEREAS, the Commission has consulted with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (hereinafter, "SHPO") pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.14(b); and WHEREAS, the Commission authorized the Licensee to initiate the Section 106 process pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(4) and under the terms of the HPMP to be carried out under this Programmatic Agreement, to serve as its non-Federal representative for purposes of implementing Section 106 and to carry out reviews for actions having the potential to affect historic properties resulting from the operation and maintenance of the Project over the life of the license; and WHEREAS, the Licensee has participated in the consultation and have been invited to concur in this Programmatic Agreement; and Programmatic Agreement 3 Project No. 619-164 California WHEREAS, the Forest Service has agreed to participate in the Section 106 consultation regarding the Project under the terms of this Programmatic Agreement, and have been invited to concur in this Programmatic Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Commission, as part of its responsibility to make a good faith effort to identify and consult with any Indian tribe that might attach religious and cultural significance to the properties that may be affected by the Project, initially contacted the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, Susanville Indian Rancheria, Estom Yumeka Tribe-Enterprise Rancheria, Tyme Maidu Tribe-Berry Creek Rancheria, and Greenville Rancheria to participate in the licensing process involving the Project; WHEREAS, the Project may affect lands important to the Greenville Rancheria, Susanville Indian Rancheria, Maidu Summit Consortium, and Tasmam Koyom Mountain Maidu Tribal Organization (hereinafter, “Rancherias and Native American organizations”) and the Rancherias and Native American organizations participated in the consultation and have been invited to concur in this Programmatic Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Commission has notified the Council of the development of this Programmatic Agreement and provided the documentation required at 36 C.F.R. § 1 800.11(e), and the Council has declined to formally enter the consultation; and WHEREAS, the Commission will require the Licensee to implement the provisions of this Programmatic Agreement as a condition of issuing a new license for the Project; NOW THEREFORE, the Commission and the SHPO agree that the Project will be administered in accordance with the following stipulations in order to satisfy the Commission's Section 106 responsibilities during the term of the Project’s license. S T I P U L A T I O N S The Commission will ensure that upon issuing a new license for this Project, the Licensee will implement the following stipulations. All stipulations that apply to the Licensee will 1 On the date of issuance for this draft Programmatic Agreement. Programmatic Agreement 4 Project No. 619-164 California similarly apply to any and all of the Licensee’s successors. Compliance with any of the following stipulations does not relieve the Licensee of any other obligations they have under the Federal Power Act, the Commission's regulations, or its license. I. HISTORIC PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN A. Upon issuing a new license for this Project, the Licensee will implement the HPMP. B. The Licensee will, within 30 days of every anniversary of the issuance date of the license, file a report with the SHPO, Forest Service, and Rancherias and Native American organizations of activities conducted under the implemented HPMP. The report will contain a detailed summary of any cultural resources work conducted during the preceding year; if no work was completed, a letter from the Licensee will be prepared to that effect, and will satisfy the intent of this stipulation. II. DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. If at any time during implementation of this Programmatic Agreement and the HPMP, the Licensee, the SHPO, Forest Service, Rancherias and Native American organizations, or any party involved in consultation under the protocols in the HPMP, objects to a finding of effect or to any other aspect of the implementation of this Programmatic Agreement, they may file written objections with the Commission. In the event a written objection is filed with the Commission: 1. The Commission will consult with the objecting party, and with other parties as appropriate, to resolve the objection. 2. The Commission may initiate on its own such consultation to remove any of its objections. B. If the Commission determines that the objection cannot be resolved, the Commission will forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to the Council, with copies to the consulting parties, and request that the Council comment. The Programmatic Agreement 5 Project No. 619-164 California Council shall provide the Commission with its advice on resolving the objection within thirty (30) days of receiving adequate documentation. Prior to reaching a final decision on the dispute, the Commission shall prepare a written response that takes into account any timely advice or comments regarding the dispute from the Council and consulting parties, and provide them with a copy of this written response. The Commission will then proceed with its final decision. C. If the Council does not provide its advice regarding the dispute within the thirty (30) day time period, the Commission may make a final decision on the dispute and proceed accordingly. Prior to reaching such a final decision, the Commission shall prepare a written response that takes into account any timely comments regarding the dispute from the consulting parties, and provide the consulting parties and the Council with a copy of such written response. D. The Commission's responsibility to carry out all actions subject to the terms of this Programmatic Agreement that are not the subject of dispute will remain unchanged. III. AMENDMENT TO THIS PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT Any party to this Programmatic Agreement may propose to the Commission that the Programmatic Agreement be amended, whereupon the Commission shall consult with the other parties to this Programmatic Agreement to consider such an amendment. All signatories to the Programmatic Agreement must agree to the proposed amendment in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(c)(7). The amendment will be effective on the date that the Commission amends the license to incorporate the amended Programmatic Agreement in the license by reference. IV. TERMINATION OF THIS PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT A. If any signatory to this Programmatic Agreement determines that its terms will not or cannot be carried out, that party shall immediately consult with the other signatories to attempt to develop an amendment per Stipulation III, above. If within thirty (30) days (or another time period agreed to by all signatories) an amendment cannot be reached, any signatory may terminate the Programmatic Programmatic Agreement 6 Project No. 619-164 California Agreement upon written notification to the other signatories. B. In the event of termination, the Commission must either (a) execute a new Programmatic Agreement pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.14(b) and § 800.6 or (b) request, take into account, and respond to the comments of the Council under 36 C.F.R. § 800.7. The Commission shall notify the parties to the Programmatic Agreement as to the course of action it will pursue. In either case, the Licensee will be required to continue to implement the provisions of its approved HPMP. V. DURATION OF THIS PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT This Programmatic Agreement shall continue in full force for the term of the license and any subsequent annual license. VI. EXECUTION OF THIS PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT IN COUNTERPARTS This Programmatic Agreement may be executed in counterparts, with a separate page for each signatory. The Commission will ensure that each party is provided with a copy of the fully executed Programmatic Agreement. VII. COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL REVIEWS In the event that another federal agency not initially a party to or subject to this Programmatic Agreement receives an application for funding/license/permit for the Undertaking as described in this Programmatic Agreement, that agency may fulfill its Section 106 responsibilities by stating in writing that it concurs with the terms of this Programmatic Agreement and notifying the Commission, SHPO, and the Council that it intends to do so. Any necessary modification will be considered in accordance with Stipulation III, Amendment. Execution of this Programmatic Agreement evidences that the Commission has satisfied its responsibilities pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, for all individual actions carried out under the license. Provided, however, that unless and until the Commission issues a license Programmatic Agreement 7 Project No. 619-164 California for the Project and this Programmatic Agreement is incorporated by reference therein, this Programmatic Agreement has no independent legal effect for any specific license applicant or Project. Programmatic Agreement 8 Project No. 619-164 California FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION By: Date:________________ Vince E. Yearick Director, Division of Hydropower Licensing Programmatic Agreement 9 Project No. 619-164 California CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER By: Date:________________ Julianne Polanco California State Historic Preservation Officer Programmatic Agreement 10 Project No. 619-164 California CONCUR: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY By: Date:________________ Janet Walther Senior Mgr., Hydro Licensing and Compliance Programmatic Agreement 11 Project No. 619-164 California CONCUR: PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST By: __________________________ Date:________________ Christopher Carlton Forest Supervisor Programmatic Agreement 12 Project No. 619-164 California CONCUR: GREENVILLE RANCHERIA By: __________________________ Date:________________ Kyle Self Chairperson Programmatic Agreement 13 Project No. 619-164 California CONCUR: SUSANVILLE INDIAN RANCHERIA By: __________________________ Date:________________ Deana Bovee Tribal Chairwoman Programmatic Agreement 14 Project No. 619-164 California CONCUR: MAIDU SUMMIT CONSORTIUM By: __________________________ Date:________________ Benjamin Cunningham Chairperson Programmatic Agreement 15 Project No. 619-164 California CONCUR: TASMAM KOYOM MOUNTAIN MAIDU TRIBAL ORGANIZATION By: __________________________ Date:________________ Fred Mankins President