HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.19.21 BOS Correspondence - Email from CA Natural Resources Agency RE_ Oroville Dam Citizens Advisory Commission - Feb. 19th Meeting Information
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
Cc:"Williamson, Elizabeth@CNRA"; Gosselin, Paul; Hatcher, Casey
Subject:BOS Correspondence - Email from CA Natural Resources Agency RE: Oroville Dam Citizens Advisory Commission -
Feb. 19th Meeting Information
Date:Friday, February 19, 2021 8:43:03 AM
Attachments:image001.png
2.19.21 - Agenda.pdf
OCAC Meeting 5 Summary.pdf
Good morning Supervisors,
th
Please see the email below and attachment with meeting information for today’s February 19 9am
Oroville Dam Citizens Advisory Commission meeting.
Sincerely,
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
From: Williamson, Elizabeth@CNRA <Elizabeth.Williamson@resources.ca.gov>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 8:40 AM
To: Schuman, Amy <ASchuman@buttecounty.net>
Subject: RE: Oroville Dam Citizens Advisory Commission - Feb. 19th Meeting Information
ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
..
attachments, clicking on links, or replying.
Yes, please! Thank you Amy.
Lizzy
From: Schuman, Amy <ASchuman@buttecounty.net>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 8:39 AM
To: Williamson, Elizabeth@CNRA <Elizabeth.Williamson@resources.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Oroville Dam Citizens Advisory Commission - Feb. 19th Meeting Information
Good morning,
Do you wish/intend that I forward this to the Butte County Board of Supervisors?
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
From: Williamson, Elizabeth@CNRA <Elizabeth.Williamson@resources.ca.gov>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 8:29 AM
Cc: Pearce, James@CNRA <James.Pearce@resources.ca.gov>; Ander, Justin@CNRA
<Justin.Ander@resources.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Oroville Dam Citizens Advisory Commission - Feb. 19th Meeting Information
ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
..
attachments, clicking on links, or replying.
Good Morning,
Bumping up the meeting materials for today’s Oroville Dam Citizens Advisory
Commission meeting that starts at 9am. You should have an email with a
personalized Zoom link. Please let us know if you have any trouble accessing the
meeting. Looking forward to seeing everyone virtually soon.
Best,
Lizzy
Elizabeth Williamson
California Natural Resources Agency
Deputy Secretary for Strategic Initiatives
Elizabeth.Williamson@resources.ca.gov
Stay informed – SIGN UP for California Natural Resources Agency updates
From: Williamson, Elizabeth@CNRA
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 12:28 PM
Cc: Pearce, James@CNRA (James.Pearce@resources.ca.gov) <James.Pearce@resources.ca.gov>;
Ander, Justin@CNRA <Justin.Ander@resources.ca.gov>
Subject: Oroville Dam Citizens Advisory Commission - Feb. 19th Meeting Information
Dear Commissioners,
I hope this note finds you and your families healthy.
The next Oroville Dam Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC) meeting will be held on
Friday, February 19 from 9:00–11:00 a.m. The meeting will be in a virtual format in
accordance with California Governor Newsom’s directives and to protect public
health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Please let me know if you are not able to
attend or if you are planning on having a designee participate.
The meeting’s agenda will focus on downstream flood safety partnership and
DWR's Fire Modernization Program. The meeting will be open to the public to join by
webinar or phone. Full instructions outlining how the public can join the meeting
and participate in public comment will be posted along with the presentation
th
materials on the CAC website. The agenda for February 19 and meeting summary
from the previous meeting are attached to this email.
PLEASE READ—WEBINAR INFORMATION
Because this will be a virtual meeting, we are sharing over some webinar user
information. IT Technicians (James Pearce and Justin Ander) from the Natural
Resources Agency will serve as the operator for the Zoom webinar.
1. You will be joining the webinar as a panelist. This means you will be joining by
video if you wish, and you have the ability to mute and unmute yourself to ask
questions throughout the meeting.
2. If you haven’t already, you will receive a calendar invitation from Zoom
stating that James Pearce at the Natural Resources Department
(James.Pearce@resources.ca.gov) is inviting you to be a panelist at the
webinar; this invitation will have the personalized link that will enable you to
join the meeting as a panelist. Please save this invite to your calendar, it will
be sent to you multiple times via e-mail prior to the meeting.
3. On the day of the meeting, join the webinar through the personalized Zoom
link embedded in your CAC meeting calendar item.
4. Please join the webinar at 8:45 a.m. to ensure there are no technical
difficulties. You will join into a “green room” with the other panelists before the
meeting is opened to the public.
5. We ask that you join the webinar on a computer or device enabled with a
microphone and camera so the other Commissioners and the public can
hear and see you.
6. We ask that you join the webinar from a location that is quiet and has a strong
Internet connection.
7. The meeting will be recorded and a text transcript of the meeting will be
posted to the CAC website.
If you have any questions about the meeting or how to join or operate the Zoom
webinar, don’t hesitate to reach out and someone from our team can personally
walk you through the process ahead of the meeting.
See you all virtually on Friday, February 19 at 8:45 a.m.
Elizabeth Williamson
California Natural Resources Agency
Deputy Secretary for Strategic Initiatives
Elizabeth.Williamson@resources.ca.gov
Stay informed – SIGN UP for California Natural Resources Agency updates
Oroville Dam Citizens Advisory Commission
Meeting #6 Agenda
February 19, 2021
9:00 11:00 a.m.
WEBINAR
Meeting Objectives
Welcome and introductions
Overview of action items tracker, meetings roadmap and Commission report
Update on Dept. of Water Resources Fire Modernization Program
Receive Winter Operations update
Receive downstream flood safety partnership presentation
Listen to public input
Announce next meeting and adjourn
AGENDA ITEM
1 Welcome and Introductions
2 Commission Updates & Reporting
3 Fire Modernization Program
4 Winter Operations
5 Downstream Flood Safety Partnership
6 Public Comment
7 Adjourn
MEETING SUMMARY
Oroville Dam Citizens Advisory Commission
Meeting 5: November 13, 2020
9:00 am 12:00 pm
Virtual Meeting via Zoom Webinar
This meeting summary provides an overview of the November 13, 2020 Oroville Dam Citizens Advisory
Commission (CAC) meeting and focuses primarily on capturing the comments and questions posed by
Commissioners and members of the public. It is organized by agenda topic to assist readers in cross-
referencing the meeting materials. This document is not intended to serve as minutes of the meeting or
a transcript of the discussion. A transcript and materials from the meeting are available on the Oroville
Dam CAC website: https://resources.ca.gov/Initiatives/Oroville-Dam-Citizens-Advisory-Commission
M EETING A GENDA
Welcome and Introductions
Wildfire Updates
Winter Operations and Communications
Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA)
Public Comment
A CTION I TEMS
1. Meeting facilitation consultants, Kearns & West, to produce meeting summary. California
Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), Asm. Gallagher, Sen. Nielsen, Sup. Flores (Sutter County), and
on the Oroville Dam
Citizens Advisory Commission website.
2. DWR will provide real time updates to the Senator and Assemblyman and other Commission
members:
o
activities. (Ted Craddock)
o On whether storm inflows are matching those predicted by the CA-NV Weather Forecast
Center, or whether the hydrology appears to have been impacted more significantly by
the fires.
3. Christina Curry, CalOES, will follow up with CalTrans on the status of their post-fire mitigation
along County highways, including any preventative measures against erosion and mudslides
they may be considering now or for the future (e.g. hydroseeding, replanting)
4. Christina Curry, CalOES, will schedule an update on 911 improvements with Senator Nielsen.
5. DWR will ensure that the IRB recommendations log is either clearly linked to from the Final CNA
Report.
6. The Commission will establish a log to track commitments made as part of public meetings,
regularly update it, and post it on the CAC website. Relevant updates will be reported out at
subsequent CAC meetings.
7. DWR will connect with CNA Ad Hoc Committee members, Ron Stork and Matt Mentink, prior to
the February 19, 2021 meeting to discuss their concerns about the CNA analysis and its
approach toward risk; will report back at the next CAC meeting.
1
8. The CAC will regularly agendize updates on the projects and studies coming out of the CNA.
9. Commission members will provide suggestions to CNRA for how to structure the CAC meetings
to make them as useful as possible.
o Secretary Crowfoot suggested that DWR post background documents on the CAC
website for easy access and to allow Commissioners to prepare in advance of meetings.
10. DWR will present on the following topics at a future CAC meeting:
o
o A holistic look at potential risks to Hyatt identified by the IRB and preventative measures
that have been taken or are being taken to mitigate that risk
o Continue the CNA conversation, including a report back on interim conversations with
Ron and Matt (see above bullet)
o Report on how the Commission will log commitments (the accountability measure)
going forward
11. CNRA will notify Commissioners once the date for the next meeting is confirmed.
A GENDA I TEM 1: W ELCOME AND I NTRODUCTIONS
Secretary Wade Crowfoot welcomed attendees to the meeting and stated that while the virtual format
is not ideal, the work of the Commission is vital and must continue. The meeting is being broadcast live
and is accessible to the public via a link on the CAC website
(https://resources.ca.gov/Initiatives/Oroville-Dam-Citizens-Advisory-Commission).
The Secretary noted that all meeting materials, including the Oroville Comprehensive Needs Assessment
(CNA) Summary, which will be the primary focus of the meeting, are also available on the website. A
summary and transcript of the meeting will be added in coming weeks. The Secretary emphasized that
his priority at these meetings is ensuring that Commissioners and community members have their
questions answered and can make their voices heard.
Senator Jim Nielsen described the CAC as a unique opportunity in state government for the local
community to participate directly in topics of great significance. He added that it enables government
representatives like himself to understand what topics are on the minds of community members and
what should be prioritized in the State budget. He thanked the Newsom Administration for their high-
level of participation in the CAC and noted that it is rare for a Secretary to devote so much time to a
single topic.
Assemblyman James Gallagher also attested to the importance of the CAC continuing to meet and
provide critical input to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). He thanked the Secretary for his
continued attention and described the CNA as a substantial step in the right direction in terms of
addressing the infrastructure needs of the Oroville Dam complex. He looked forward to the conversation
around what the next steps need to be.
As mandated by the requirements set forth in Senate Bill 955 (2018, Nielsen), the Commission is
comprised of representatives from the following agencies and public bodies. Attendance at the
November 13, 2020 meeting is noted in the table below.
2
Agency or Public Body Commissioner (or Alternate) Present
CA Natural Resources Agency (Chair) Secretary Wade Crowfoot X
California State Senate (Vice Chair) Senator Jim Nielsen X
Department of Water Resources Director Karla Nemeth X
Department of Parks and Recreation Director Armando Quintero X
(represented by Matt Teague)
Office of Emergency Services Director Mark Ghilarducci X
(represented by Deputy Director Christina Curry)
Department of California Highway Assistant Chief Steve Dowling
Patrol, Butte County Division
California State Assembly Assemblyman James Gallagher X
Oroville City Council Councilmember David Pittman X
Oroville City Council Mayor Chuck Reynolds
Butte County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Steve Lambert
Butte County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Bill Connelly
Butte County Board of Supervisors Genoa Widener X
Yuba County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Gary Bradford X
Yuba County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Doug Lofton
Sutter County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Mat Conant X
Sutter County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Dan Flores X
X
Lieutenant Steve Collins
Lieutenant Joe Million X
Lieutenant Commander Marc Stokes X
Deputy Andre Licon
A GENDA I TEM 2: W ILDFIRE U PDATES
(OES), and Brian
Marshall, CalOES Fire Chief, reported on recent fire impacts and response, including ongoing mitigation
efforts. Their presentation described:
3
The status of wildfires across the State, which to date have burned 4 million acres and resulted
in 31 fatalities, 10,000 lost structures, and an emergency declaration covering 27 counties, with
a focus on the North Complex Fire that burned 320,000 acres in and around Butte County and
destroyed 1523 single family homes and 51 commercial properties.
CalOES continued commitment to supporting both fire response and recovery
efforts at the local level.
The importance of the mutual aid system, which enabled the State to call on personnel and
resources from around the country to respond to the wildfires.
h and
rescue operations of burnt homes to ensure all residents were accounted for and to determine
whether any hazardous materials were on site.
Active efforts to pre-position water rescue assets near newly burned areas in advance of rain
events and ongoing aerial monitoring of areas which could see large debris flows
The federal disaster declaration, which includes the North Complex fire, makes Butte County
residents eligible to register through FEMA for assistance with losses.
Debris clean-up which is currently in Phase 1 (the clean up of household hazardous waste
removal) and will soon proceed to the removal of debris from parcels.
impacts on the reservoir and recreation area. His presentation described:
The Potters Fire in August, which forced the temporary closure of the spillway. While that fire
was contained, it burned very hot and caused extensive tree damage; as a result, Parks plans to
keep the North Fork and Potters trails closed this winter and then reassess and complete hazard
tree work in the spring.
The North Complex Fire in September, which was slowed by extensive prescribed burns that had
been completed around Loafer Creek; this prevented the fLoafer
Creek Marina, Kelly Ridge, and the City of Oroville where it could have caused significant
damage.
The close coordination between State, local, and federal agencies in addressing damage repair
immediately and the ongoing partnership with PG&E to implement erosion prevention
measures.
Secretary Crowfoot emphasized that the kind of prescribed burns used around Oroville should be
mimicked around the State to prevent and slow down catastrophic fires.
Following the presentation, Commissioners asked for clarification or provided feedback on the
presentation and related topics; input included:
Assemblyman Gallagher asked for more detail around how the State is addressing the risk of
surges of runoff through the drainage and into the reservoir this winter as a result of the fires in
the upper watershed.
o Ted Craddock, Deputy Director, State Water Project, DWR, explained that DWR is
focused on the control of debris as it enters Lake Oroville. DWR will have two vessels on
the lake to collect and monitor debris. They are also working with the County to replace
4
bridges on Craig Access Road, as well as completing miscellaneous erosion control work
on the state-owned lands around the lake.
o Secretary Crowfoot asked DWR to provide real time updates to the Commissioners if
mitigation efforts fail/DWR loses control of debris flows. \[ACTION ITEM\]
Assemblyman Gallagher clarified that he is more concerned with changes in hydrology and
possibility that the burned areas, which may be less absorptive, will result in surges of runoff
into the lake during the winter.
o John Leahigh, Principal Engineer, Division of Operations and Maintenance, DWR,
described his conversations on this topic with the National Weather Service and
California-Nevada Weather Forecast Center, which produces the inflow forecasts for
Lake Oroville. The Forecast Center uses forecast models with parameters that can be
adjusted based on watershed conditions and regularly compare their modeling results
with actual observed inflows. After the Camp Fire, they found that the impact of the fire
on inflows was not as large as they might have expected. However, the scarring in the
Feather Basin was more extensive this year than after the Camp Fire, so they will be
monitoring the situation very closely and making appropriate adjustments to their
model parameters.
o Secretary Crowfoot asked DWR to keep the Assemblyman and Senator updated on
whether the inflows are matching expectations based on the modeling as rains begin. If
changes are significant, DWR should keep the Commissioners updated. \[ACTION ITEM\]
Councilmember Pittman voiced appreciation for all the coordination and assistance provided by
State Parks during and after the fires. He shared that 70 homes were lost around Lake Padrone
and Bear Creek. The residents in that area have implemented their own erosion control
measures, which hopefully will be successful, but the biggest issue has been getting the
domestic water supply systems and power lines back online. He noted that over 4,000 utility
poles were lost. The current inventory of trees needing removal along a one-mile lake is 1000
trees. He is particularly concerned about erosion along the highways, particularly State Highway
162, which cuts along steep hillsides where erosion could take out parts of the road. He
reminded other Commissioners that for most residents in that area, the highway is their only
way in and out. He asked about whether hydroseeding or replanting efforts have been
considered in this specific region and statewide if not now, then for the next season.
o Christina Curry, CalOES, will follow up with CalTrans on the status of their post-fire
mitigation along County highways, including any preventative measures against erosion
and mudslides they may be considering now or for the future (e.g. hydroseeding,
replanting). \[ACTION ITEM\]
o Senator Nielsen stated that reforestation is going to be a necessity. The Senator also
asked for another update from CalOES on the 911 improvements. Tina Curry committed
to scheduling that ASAP. \[ACTION ITEM\]
A GENDA I TEM 3: W INTER O PERATIONS AND C OMMUNICATIONS
John Leahigh, Executive Manager for Water Operations, and Carolina Roberts, Chief, Communications
and Outreach Branch, reported on
communications to the community. Topics included:
Water year 2020 recap.
5
Flood pool requirements, including an enhanced flood pool.
Water year 2021 outlook.
Winter operations communications, including the weekly hƩƚǝźƌƌĻ /ƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ
ƦķğƷĻ and social
media outreach.
There were no Commissioner questions or comments.
A GENDA I TEM 4: C OMPREHENSIVE N EEDS A SSESSMENT
Secretary Crowfoot introduced the Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA), which was recently
concluded; the public version of its final report is now available. He noted that the Community Ad Hoc
Group, which provided a community perspective on the CNA to DWR, was an important part of that
process. He asked Assemblyman Gallagher and Senator Nielsen, who chaired that group, to provide
high-level thoughts on the process.
Assemblyman Gallagher described it as a productive process. While the CNA was a very technical
process, it was important that community representative could ask questions and provide input along
the way. The Ad Hoc Group brought a variety of perspectives and expertise to the table. The
Assemblyman acknowledged that not everything could be addressed within the CNA, so understandably
outstanding concerns exist. He called the CNA a step in the right direction both by advancing early
implementation projects and identifying areas of the infrastructure that need further study. He
emphasized that the CNA is a first step and largely a planning document; the CAC will need to drive
implementation on other measures in the long-term.
Secretary Crowfoot agreed that the CAC will be key to ensuring there is transparent oversight of this
work going forward.
Senator Nielsen agreed with the Assemblyman that the Ad Hoc Group had been a successful venue for
maximum input from the public. He advocated making that kind of forum an established part of public
processes more broadly.
expertise in operations and planning, especially in looking toward changing future hydrology; input from
the Independent Review Board; and feedback from the Community Ad Hoc Group. She stressed that the
CNA is a planning document, produced with the best available information at this particular moment in
time. The document identifies some near-term measures that will be completed to ensure dam safety
now, but just as importantly, it identifies areas where DWR needs to develop additional information in
order to make informed decisions. She asked the CAC to consider how often they want updates on the
ongoing dam safety process and how much information is useful to them.
Director Nemeth also noted that the CNA was a response to conclusions provided in the Independent
Forensic Report that was compiled by independent experts after the 2017 Spillways Incident. A separate
critique of that report was that DWR was too siloed; while those kinds of non-technical
were not addressed in the CNA, Director Nemeth assured the CAC that DWR is tracking and addressing
n, Chief Risk and Resiliency Office for the State Water
Project, was created to focus on planning for extreme events along much longer time horizons. DWR has
also refocused the State Water Project Strategic Plan on public safety and risk mitigation associated with
aging infrastructure.
6
Bruce Mueller, chair of the CNA Independent Review Board (IRB), presented on the CNA process and the
role of the IRB. His presentation included:
.
.
conclusions on the outcomes of the CNA, and IRB perspectives on the DWR process.
Following the presentation, Commissioners asked for clarification or provided feedback on the
presentation and related topics; input included:
Senator Nielsen thanked the IRB. He noted that for decades the risk assessment/infrastructure
management process has frustrated him, observing that state and federal agencies often do not
talk with each other or cross-reference even when they are operating in the same field; this has
prevented them from anticipating problems. He voiced hope that the process used by DWR by
soliciting input from outside experts will be institutionalized and normalized going forward in
the dam industry and other fields unrelated to resources. He noted that the public involvement
was integral as well.
Secretary
recommendations they provided to im
Councilmember Pittman described the CNA report as wonderful and highlighted the deep
review it provides of the relevant activities. He voiced support for having an additional lower
level outlet, observing that if the Hyatt Powerplant were to lose a generator, the ability to
release water from the reservoir at lower levels is significantly reduced. He noted that when the
dam was built, the possibility of a second power plant was considered. He also observed that
there was a fire at the Thermalito Powerplant, which has the same components as the Hyatt
Plant. He asked whether DWR has considered replacing whatever components were at failure
for the Thermalito fire at Hyatt.
o ation program which is reviewing
all the plants in the State Water Project to minimize the risk of what happened at
Thermalito happening elsewhere.
o Secretary Crowfoot asked DWR to provide a presentation at the next CAC meeting on
the fire modernization program with a focus on safety at Hyatt. \[ACTION ITEM\]
o John Yarbrough noted that his upcoming
related to whether an additional lower level outlet is needed and what information will
ultimately feed into that decision.
Supervisor Conant also voiced interest in an alternative spillway or additional powerplant to
address the need to quickly evacuate the reservoir; he also asked for more detail on the
piezometers installation.
o John Yarbrough confirmed that his presentation will cover those details.
Lieutenant Collins asked how often an assessment like the CNA should be completed since it is
o John Yarbrough confirmed that the outcomes of the CNA will be ongoing, since the
report included a long list of recommended studies that DWR plans to implement. In
7
addition, the FERC Part 12 Process, which is a very similar risk assessment in which they
examine the entire facility, occurs every five years.
John Yarbrough, DWR, then provided an overview of the CNA and its outcomes. His presentation
included:
The CNA
CNA
The results of the assessment, which included the conclusion that no dam safety issues that
needed immediate risk-reduction action were identifiable
A description of the FERC Part 12D Safety Inspection and comparison to the CNA.
Next steps, including (1) completion of early implementation projects, (2) design of safety
measures to be implemented in the near term, (3) the deployment of $224 million in capital
investment planned prior to the CAN, (4) implementation of several investigations, studies, and
surveillance enhancements to reduce uncertainty and inform future decision-making, and (5)
integration of CNA me
At the end of the presentation, Secretary Crowfoot observed that the CNA topic will likely need to be
carried over into a subsequent meeting to allow for adequate discussion. He asked that any issues of
particular interest be noted and agendized for the next meeting.
A GENDA I TEM 5: Q UESTION & P UBLIC C OMMENT
Following the presentation, Commissioners and members of the public provided feedback and asked
questions in tandem. Remarks from members of the public are summarized and shared without
attribution below; remarks from Commissioners are attributed and summarized below. For a full
transcript of the exchanges, see transcription or recording of the meeting posted online.
Question (Q): I served on the Ad Hoc Group. After reviewing the 79 recommendations the IRB
provided to DWR, it was clear the impact they had on the CNA process and what they have
included as an appendix to the report to serve as a tool for the rest of the industry.
o Response (R) (John Yarbrough, DWR): The final IRB report is included in the public CNA
report. In addition, all the IRB reports are available on the CNA website in conjunction
with the meeting they were presented at. DWR did not append them all to the final
report in an effort to minimize the total number of pages.
o R (Secretary Crowfoot): DWR should make it clear in the report where people can access
the recommendations.
o Comment (C): I am interested not just the reports but also the recommendations logs,
which are not available on the website. I also suggest that the Commissioners and
facilitation team adopt the same practice for the CAC in terms of creating a log for
recommendations and commitments made at these meetings.
o R (Secretary Crowfoot): There is a lot we discuss at these meetings, and there should be
a way for both Commissioners and members of the public to track commitments and
outcomes. We will discuss with the facilitators. \[ACTION ITEM\]
Q: I served on the Ad Hoc Group and represent Friends of the River. I started working on dam
safety issues related to Oroville as part of a CalFED post-1997 flood Yuba-Feather River Working
8
Group chaired by Yuba Water Agency (YWA); the group included YWA, DWR, and a number of
environmental groups. We met for several years, and ultimately one of our major concerns was
the unsuitability of foundation conditions downstream of the emergency spillway for planned
flood control operations (i.e., not emergency operations but those where DWR was still keeping
river outflows below 250 thousand cfs). We believed there were more risks to using the
emergency spillway than DWR acknowledged, and 2017 demonstrated the unsuitability of
foundation conditions both there and on the main spillway. Maintaining existing flood control
capabilities and the ability to pass the revised probable maximum flood (PMF) is something the
public in the Feather River Basin should be able to expect of DWR. However, DWR essentially did
not consider maintaining that existing competence as a planning objective in the CNA. I was
s from the Ad Hoc Group in which
-based approach and deterministic objectives. That matches with the
risk-based framework that Bruce Mueller of the IRB described and the asset-management
approach used for the entire SWP. That approach makes some sense in the context of a
Reclamation program across the west where they need to decide which projects to spend their
budget on annually. But under a FERC license, there is an expectation that a project works
sufficiently enough to meet objectives, which include meeting the PMF US Army Corps
requirement for Oroville Dam. And this did not appear to be a focus of the CNA. We raised it in
the Ad Hoc Group and expected some revisions to the Report in response but did not see any. I
think as we walk
meet floodwater management standards and be able to pass the PMF with the freeboard it had
in the past. You should note that the potential future projects being considered by the
department address these issues without explicitly saying so (e.g., raising the saddle dam so a
larger PMF can be handled; some of the physical measures that will make it possible for the PMF
to be passed without surcharging the reservoir and causing chaos downstream; walling off Hyatt
so it is not flooded by back flows). None of the underlying reasons for those measures appear in
the CNA, and when asked about these issues at the Ad Hoc Group, DWR was evasive or did not
answer. The objective of the Ad Hoc Group was to educate the community representatives
about the CNA
could explain it to other community members. I do not believe there was enough candor in the
Ad Hoc Group to make
concern is that by choosing an asset management approach, DWR is in effect lobbying FERC not
to force them to make modifications at Oroville so that PMFs can be accommodated. That is
understandable from a Department fiscal-perspective but not from a Feather River Basin
perspective. I would love to have further discussions about this with DWR and CNRA leadership.
o R (Secretary Crowfoot): Thank you for the time you have spent on the Ad Hoc Group and
Feather River issues generally for the last few decades. Clearly, the Ad Hoc Group was
formed so that community members had transparency into CNA process and IRB, and it
sounds like the process created a level of dialogue. I am hearing that you would
advocate a fundamentally different approach to meeting obligations at Oroville, and I
am trying to understand your differentiation between a risk management approach and
what you are advocating with respect to meeting obligations at Oroville. I want to state
that the Ad Hoc intention was not to meet consensus for every item and also to
9
acknowledge that you have outstanding concerns. I would be happy to figure out how to
unpack your concerns in a more detailed discussion.
o R (Director Nemeth): I have respect and reverence for your persistence on these issues,
and as a general proposition, am open to continuing dialogue on the issues you raised.
There is probably a disagreement around the scope of what we were addressing in the
CNA and also some topics that were considered in the CNA but were not driving the
analysis. This includes some of the topics we are considering separately with the Army
Corps in conversations about the flood control manual; and also issues we are
addressing through measures like maintaining a deeper flood pool in the reservoir.
What I understand from your comment is that you disagree with the risk-based
approach and whether that framing generates the right set of questions. I do not think
the risk management approach prevents DWR from considering the issues you raised,
and we would be happy to discuss how we are thinking about those topics and where
dialogue because it is certainly not our
intention to come across as evasive.
o R (Secretary Crowfoot): DWR staff will connect with Ron Stork and Matt Mentink,
together or separately, before the next CAC meeting and report back. \[ACTION ITEM\]
restriction in being able to drain the reservoir in an emergency situation (i.e., if a turbine or two
were out of commission). Can you please expand on that issue and how it is being addressed?
o R (Bruce Mueller, IRB): We had two concerns about the Hyatt pl
to operate: (1) we wanted to make sure that after a major flood event the Hyatt
Powerplant would still be operational. We were concerned that when more water is
released from the spillway, the level of water near the Powerplant rises, which could
result in flooding inside the Powerplant, so it needs to be sealed off. There are actions
DWR can make to improve those seals. (2) If a fire takes out the power lines running out
of Hyatt, there is no way to dissipate energy being generated, and if that energy cannot
be dissipated, the plant cannot generate without a run-away turbine and therefore,
cannot be used as a release outlet. One of the ways we considered addressing this issue
was creating a heat sink at the dam to absorb heat from generation, but it is not feasible
to create a reservoir large enough.
o R (Secretary Crowfoot): At the next meeting, rather than just fire risk related to Hyatt,
we should agendize a more holistic conversations about IRB observations and DWR
responses to risks at Hyatt. \[ACTION ITEM\]
Commissioner Genoa Widener noted that she was also a member of the Ad Hoc Group; she
joined the group late, so she was not present at the first few meetings but was able to watch
them online. She explained that the CNA risk analysis is very technical but that as a member of
the public living underneath the dam, those risk assessments look a little different. I.e.,
a
final CNA report attempts to minimize the perception of risk. In her perspective, the timeline for
future actions prioritizes delivery of project services over safety, and past experience suggests
that both FERC and the Department of Safety of Dam exercise discretion in terms of pushing of
timely completion of any recommendations they make during their inspections. For instance,
inspections have recommended the replacement of piezometers for over a decade and they are
10
only now being installed
Commissioners to keep an eye on the recommendations from the CNA and whether they are
being implemented and the reasoning behind
CNA is a snapshot of this moment in time but the FERC Part 12D studies are done every five
years, and DSOD does inspections annually, so the CAC should track all these recommendations.
Risk assessments and independent assessments were done before 2017, and there was still a
disaster that put tens of thousands of people at risk, and looking back at reports, the same
recommendations were made again and again without being implemented. She applauded the
idea of a recommendations log so there is accountability among the Commissioners of what
they need to be tracking.
o
purpose. He liked the idea of a log to track implementation of these actions over time.
Review of the log should be agendized on a periodic basis. \[ACTION ITEM\]
o Commissioner Widener said she was encouraged by the Ad Hoc Group and CAC and the
associated increase in transparency; these bodies suggest that there is the potential to
change DWR culture to include community perspectives.
o Secretary Crowfoot thanked her and other community leaders for stepping up and
helping to make the CAC a meaningful oversight body.
o Senator Nielsen noted that he pushed to make the CAC a statutorily created body so
that it would exist in perpetuity, rather than fading away like a study group. Putting it in
statue ensure that there is a commitment to continued discussion and defined the
parties who need to be part of that discussion.
C LOSING C OMMENTS
Secretary Crowfoot acknowledged the challenge of providing substantive updates in two to three-hour
meetings. He suggested that DWR continue to populate the website with additional background
documents and asked for Commissioner suggestions about how to make these meetings as useful as
possible. He noted that the next meeting will include a discussion of Hyatt Powerplant safety measures
and a discussion on how to track commitments made by DWR and Commission members going forward.
Senator Nielsen thanked everyone for their persistence and assured them that it is having an impact and
will continue to have an even greater impact into the future.
Assemblyman Gallagher said he wanted to echo many of the other comments made: this body needs to
ensure the implementation of recommendations in the CNA and beyond and the continued dialogue
with members of the community. There are real positives to the CNA early implementation projects,
such as the piezometer installation. The continued investigation into the headworks is already yielding
results; preliminary findings suggest there is sound rock under the headworks. Longer term, the CAC
may need to get into some of the conversations Ron Stork raised. Assemblyman Gallagher interpreted
when the dam was initially built, the designers
expected a second dam at Marysville that was never constructed. The Assemblyman suggested that the
CAC needs to explore what that means for how Oroville is operated (e.g., the assumption that water
should be surcharged over the emergency spillway). The emergency spillway is in better shape than
2017, but in the long term, is there additional infrastructure needed to address the concerns Mr. Stork
11
raised (e.g., the need for a low-level outlet). The Assemblyman observed that the CNA does not
conclude the conversations about facility safety at Oroville. Ultimately, building of trust and success will
be achieved through the CAC. He looks forward to being involved long term.
Secretary Crowfoot announced that they will confirm the next meeting date for the first quarter of 2021
shortly.
The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
12