HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.05.21 BOS Correspondence - FW_ Supplemental_Additional Information submitted in FERC P-2107-000 by Pacific Gas & Electric Company,et al.
From:Schuman, Amy
To:Alpert, Bruce;Bennett, Robin;Clerk of the Board;Connelly, Bill;Cook, Holly;Cook, Robin;Kimmelshue, Tod;Lucero, Debra;Paulsen, Shaina;Pickett, Andy;Ring, Brian;Ritter, Tami;Rodas,
Amalia;
Sweeney, Kathleen;Teeter, Doug
Subject:BOS Correspondence - FW: Supplemental/Additional Information submitted in FERC P-2107-000 by Pacific Gas & Electric Company,et al.
Date:Friday, February 5, 2021 1:25:32 PM
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, February 5, 2021 12:55 PM
Subject: Supplemental/Additional Information submitted in FERC P-2107-000 by Pacific Gas & Electric Company,et al.
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
On 2/5/2021, the following Filing was submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Washington D.C.:
Filer: Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Winston & Strawn LLP (as Agent)
Docket(s): P-2107-000
Lead Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Filing Type: Supplemental/Additional Information
Description: Pacific Gas & Electric Company submits Letter to Clarify Additional Comments Submitted for the Poe Hydroelectric Project under P-2107.
To view the document for this Filing, click here https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_num=20210205-
5143__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!QshZCbeboF2u4V7aZ0bLli4voFjrhPW0Eandz7LuNwpOMXeq_XJejfo3PcS3f8ZFeHBkzPqeDUA$
To modify your subscriptions, click here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!QshZCbeboF2u4V7aZ0bLli4voFjrhPW0Eandz7LuNwpOMXeq_XJejfo3PcS3f8ZFeHBky373UFI$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not respond to this email.
Online help is available here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.ferc.gov/efiling-help.asp__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!QshZCbeboF2u4V7aZ0bLli4voFjrhPW0Eandz7LuNwpOMXeq_XJejfo3PcS3f8ZFeHBk0ccYlNY$
or for phone support, call 866-208-3676.
K IMBERLY O GNISTY
Partner
(202) 282-5217
kognisty@winston.com
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
February 5, 2021
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
Re:Poe Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2107-CA
Response to Additional Comments on PG&E’s Poe Hiking Trail Feasibility Study
Dear Secretary Bose:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), owner of the Poe Hydroelectric Project
No. 2107 (Project), submits this letter to clarify additional comments submitted in response to
PG&E’s submission of the Poe Hiking Trail Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) on July 30,
1
2020, to satisfy Article 407 of the Project license.Specifically, additional comments were filed
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) on December 18, 2020, and by Michael
Taylor on December 22, 2020. The USFS and Mr. Taylor support construction of a Poe Hiking
Trail in the vicinity of the Project’s bypassed reach because, each alleges, a trail already exists
and the costs to construct the trail would be reasonable.
The USFS states that an “abandoned trail already exists”and Mr. Taylor asserts that the
trail “follows a historic mining access trail and historic ditches,” which results in three miles of
connected trail when the brush from these paths and ditches is removed. These assertions
suggesting the presence of an existing, usable trail are inconsistent with the Feasibility Study
conducted by Butte County Resource Conservation District (RCD). The Feasibility Study found
the proposed alignment of the Poe Hiking Trail does not correspond with any existing or historic
2
trail that is suitable for recreational use.The Feasibility Study estimated that “trail
construction” would be required for approximately 80% of the conceptual three-mile-long
3
alignment. The Feasibility Study characterized the remaining 20% of the alignment as existing
4
trail that is suitable for recreational use after necessary improvements are made. Thus, no
section of the proposed alignment of the Poe Hiking Trail is suitable for “public recreational
5
access” in its current condition.
1
Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 165 FERC ¶ 62,172 (2018), amended on reh’g, 167 FERC ¶ 61,047 (2019).
2
Poe Hiking Trail Feasibility Study, Project No. 2107, submitted July 30, 2020, pg. 5.
3
Id. at pg. 6.
4
Id. at pgs. 5-6.
5
Id.
February 5, 2021
Page 2
The USFS and Mr. Taylor also assert that the Poe Hiking Trail could be constructed at a
reasonable cost. While both commenters insist that PG&E’s cost estimates are high, neither
identifies any particular issue with PG&E’s itemized cost estimates. In fact, Mr. Taylor’s letter
confirms the need for numerous components of PG&E’s cost estimate, including the cost of
studies to evaluate sensitive species and other resource impacts as a result of trail construction
and the cost of stone bridges at trail crossings. Similarly, the USFS states that RCD’s lower cost
estimate is “in line with trail construction and maintenance costs for recent Forest Service trail
projects.” However, the USFS would not be the entity responsible for constructing and
maintaining the Poe Hiking Trail if it were required as part of the Project license. Instead,
PG&E would be responsible for the costs of constructing and maintaining the trail for the term of
the license and therefore PG&E’s estimates are based on its reasonable expectations regarding
the cost to construct and maintain the trail.
Finally, the USFS argues that the Poe Hiking Trail should be required because it “will
address public recreation demand for hiking trails on the \[Plumas National Forest\] and in Butte
County.” To support its assertion that there is strong demand for trails in the Plumas National
Forest (PNF), the USFS relies on and attaches to its filing a 2020 report summarizing 2015
National Visitor Use Monitoring surveys for the PNF, which show that hiking/walking in the
PNF, as a whole, had a 39% participation rate. The USFS also asserts that the Poe Hiking Trail
would provide access to additional activities in demand in the PNF, as a whole, including fishing
(25.3% of visitors) and wildlife viewing (22.5% of visitors).
PG&E disagrees with the USFS’ use of visitor statistics that refer to the entire PNF to
support its assertion that there is unsatisfied demand for the Poe Hiking Trail in particular. The
PNF encompasses over one million acres of land and includes many hydroelectric projects,
including projects with storage reservoirs that have reservoir-based recreation and trails linking
components of reservoir-based recreation such as campgrounds. The USFS report does not
appear to include a single visitor survey taken at Bardees Bar, the Poe Beach area, the Poe
Powerhouse Beach area, Sandy Beach, or any area proximate to Project areas or the Project’s
bypassed reach.
In contrast, PG&E’s surveys during the relicensing proceeding did not show any demand
6
for a new hiking trail in the area of the bypassed reach. As such, PG&E proposed, and the
license includes, requirements for PG&E to improve recreation sites that are utilized by visitors
in order to optimize recreation in the Project area consistent with the Commission’s recreation
policy set forth in 18 C.F.R. § 2.7.The Project license requires significant improvements to the
Sandy Beach area, the Bardees Bar area, the Poe Beach area, and the Poe Powerhouse Beach
6
See, e.g., FERC Final Environmental Assessment, issued March 29, 2007, pg. 146 (“since most of the activities
currently enjoyed are not facility-dependent, and visitors have indicated that they prefer the undeveloped nature of
the sites, PG&E does not believe that there is a high demand for additional recreational facilities in the Poe bypassed
reach”) and pg. 164 (“PG&E reported that none of the surveyed visitors to the Poe bypassed reach participated in
bicycling or mountain bicycling, and less than two percent of them participated in hiking” and “even with \[ \]
increases \[in recreation demand\], usage would be relatively low.”)
February 5, 2021
Page 3
area. In addition, the USFS’ section 4(e) conditions for the Project, which have been
incorporated into the Project license, include a requirement to construct a trail to the Poe
Reservoir on lands administered by the USFS that are located within the FERC boundary for the
7
Rock Creek-Cresta Project No. 1962.
Notably, the USFS did not include in its section 4(e)
conditions for the Project a requirement for a trail along the conceptual route of the Poe Hiking
Trail or the Bardees Bar Trail. The USFS is free to develop the Poe Hiking Trail itself on lands
it administers, particularly if it believes such a trail currently exists, is inexpensive to construct,
and is in such high demand.
For the reasons described herein, PG&E continues to believe there is insufficient
evidence of a need for the Poe Hiking Trail in the area of the bypassed reach and such a trail is
infeasible given the significant cost to build a safe and environmentally acceptable trail in such
challenging terrain. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact PG&E’s
Senior License Project Manager, Steve Bauman, at (415) 973-7410 or steve.bauman@pge.com.
Sincerely,
/s/ Kimberly Ognisty
Kimberly Ognisty
1901 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 282-5217
kognisty@winston.com
Counsel for Pacific Gas and Electric Company
7
As noted in the transmittal letter for the Poe Hiking Trail Feasibility Study, Commission staff disagreed with this
USFS condition, as well as other recreational enhancements such as the release of whitewater boating flows.
However, these requirements were included in the Project license because they were mandatory section 4(e)
conditions and PG&E is responsible for funding these recreational enhancements even though FERC disagrees with
them.
AmericasActive:15400575.2