HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.16.25 Board Correspondence - FW_ Request for Rehearing or Appeal submitted in FERC P-803-126 by California Department of Fish and Wildlife,et al.From:Clerk of the Board
To:Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Durfee, Peter; Jessee, Meegan; Kimmelshue, Tod; Kitts,
Melissa; Krater, Sharleen; Lee, Lewis; Little, Melissa; Pickett, Andy; Ritter, Tami; Stephens, Brad J.; Sweeney, Kathleen;
Teeter, Doug; Zepeda, Elizabeth
Cc:Loeser, Kamie; Nuzum, Danielle
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Request for Rehearing or Appeal submitted in FERC P-803-126 by California Department
of Fish and Wildlife,et al.
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 8:10:40 AM
Please see Board Correspondence -
-----Original Message-----
From: 'FERC eSubscription' <eSubscription@ferc.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:05 AM
Subject: Request for Rehearing or Appeal submitted in FERC P-803-126 by California Department of Fish and
Wildlife,et al.
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
On 9/15/2025, the following Filing was submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Washington
D.C.:
Filer: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (as Agent)
Docket(s): P-803-126
Lead Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Filing Type: Request for Rehearing or Appeal
Description: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife submits Request for Rehearing of the 08/15/2025 Order
under P-803.
To view the document for this Filing, click here https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?
accession_num=20250915-5144__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!HDofjEo3lLAwHsN8nuE-
SE19aiQtk8WeizZulCogSN__8vYfwioIDSnPjACbI_1_M8wALLUuUjOODEf31d3lrPzpNK1-sh9B67PD$
To modify your subscriptions, click here:
SE19aiQtk8WeizZulCogSN__8vYfwioIDSnPjACbI_1_M8wALLUuUjOODEf31d3lrPzpNK1-sqn3IEnP$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not respond to this email.
Online help is available here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.ferc.gov/efiling-help.asp__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!HDofjEo3lLAwHsN8nuE-
SE19aiQtk8WeizZulCogSN__8vYfwioIDSnPjACbI_1_M8wALLUuUjOODEf31d3lrPzpNK1-sjuGqhDR$
or for phone support, call 866-208-3676.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Project No.803-124
Request for Rehearing b\California Department of Fish and Wildlife
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to section 313(a)of the Federal Power Act1 and Rule 713 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission’s (the “Commission”)Rules of Practice and Procedure,2 the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”)respectfully submits this request for rehearing of the
Commission’s Order Modifying and Approving Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Monitoring Plan
Pursuant to November 19,2024,Letter,issued August 15,2025,in the above-captioned matter
(“Order”).3 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”)filed its Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog
Monitoring Plan with Contingency Mitigation with the Commission on May 19,2025 (the
“Plan”).
CDFW seeks rehearing of the Order because PG&E’s consultation with the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”)and CDFW on the critical issue of how a significant loss of
foothill yellow-legged frog (“FYLF”)from the 2023 Butte Canal failure and sediment event will
be determined,or whether it even can be determined,had not ended by the time PG&E filed the
Plan on May 19,2025,and in fact is ongoing.
As PG&E explained in the cover letter that accompanied its May 19,2025,filing of the
Plan,the NOV states:
1 16U.S.C.§825/.
2 18 C.F.R.§385.713.
3 192 FERCH 62,090
1
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
To better assess the degree of adverse effect of FYLF in Butte Creek,we are
requiring that you coordinate with the FWS and California DFW to conduct an
ongoing FYLF population assessment to compare with the 2006 monitoring
effort.Within 90 days,you must file a plan for additional FYLF monitoring in
Butte Creek.The plan should also contain a contingency for mitigation of the
Butte Creek FYLF population if monitoring confirms significant loss of FYLF
from the 2023 canal failure and sediment event.The plan must also contain
documentation of consultation with FWS and California DFW.
PG&E included with its May 19,2025,filing,documentation of consultation with FWS
and CDFW,as the NOV required.The documentation reveals that from the start,CDFW had
significant concerns on whether it would be possible for PG&E to determine significant loss,and
these concerns had not been resolved by the time PG&E filed the Plan with the Commission on
May 19,2025.In fact,consultation between PG&E,FWS,and CDFW on this issue is ongoing.
Given this status,CDFW respectfully submits that the Order is in error because it approved the
Plan when the coordination and consultation the NOV required remained incomplete.To correct
this error,CDFW respectfully requests the Commission to allow PG&E,FWS,and CDFW more
time to resolve this matter.Specifically,CDFW requests the Commission to stay the Order for 60
days and 1)during this period,require PG&E to continue its monitoring work as described in the
Plan and continue its discussions with FWS and CDFW on the issue of determining significant
loss;2)require PG&E to report back to the Commission after the 60-day period expires on the
status of its discussions with FWS and CDFW,along with any recommendations,and allow FWS
and CDFW to do the same;and 3)based on this or any additional information,modify the Plan
or Order or require any additional action sufficient to mitigate for the loss of FYLF in Butte
Creek caused by canal failure and sediment event.
2
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
PG&E first met with FWS and CDFW on January 13,2025,to consult on a FYLF plan
and provided FWS and CDFW an initial plan on January 17,2025,approximately two months
after the Commission issued the NOV.CDFW initially raised its concerns regarding mitigation
and defining significant loss in comments on the initial plan that CDFW (Sophia Weinmann)
submitted to PG&E (Andie Herman)on February 5,2025,a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit
1 and incorporated by reference herein.4 The comment below regarding these issues was
included in Ms.Weinmann’s email:
Mitigation -The proposed mitigation should be included in the plan including
performance metrics,mitigation triggers,and how significant loss will be
defined.
o Define significant loss threshold in coordination with [FWS]prior to
approving final plan.
o Suggested options for mitigation -FYLF captive rearing,in-situ rearing,
habitat restoration,vegetation management.When developing mitigation
options,consideration should be given to how activities may impact spring¬
run Chinook salmon.
PG&E submitted the first version of its proposed contingency mitigation analysis,5 which
explains how PG&E intends to determine significant loss,to FWS and CDFW on March 27,
2025.CDFW provided comments to PG&E on its proposed analysis on April 11,2025,at which
time CDFW informed PG&E in writing that CDFW was coordinating internally with a CDFW
statistician,Arthur Barros,to review PG&E’s proposal and CDFW would provide comments as
soon as possible.
4 The excerpt is in the attachment to Ms.Weinmann’s February 5,2025,email under “Overall
Comments.”
5 Section 5.0 in the Plan,pp.5-1 -5-3.
3
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
CDFW provided Mr.Barros’s initial comments on the proposal to PG&E on May 2,
2025.The comment matrix PG&E provided as part of its May 19.2025,filing of the Plan with
the Commission included these initial comments by Mr.Barros.However,CDFW did not have
an opportunity to review how PG&E had incorporated these comments into the Plan,or
otherwise had addressed them,until after PG&E had filed the Plan with the Commission.
CDFW provided PG&E additional comments by Mr.Barros by email dated July 11,
2025,discussed below,which because of the deadline for PG&E’s submittal,were not included
in PG&E’s May 19,2025,filing with the Commission.
CDFW (Anna Allison)raised concerns on the extent to which the Plan incorporated
CDFW’s comments with PG&E by email on August 29,2025,a copy of which is enclosed as
Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference.CDFW’s August 29,2025,email states in part:
...PG&E filed the Plan on May 19,2025,without circulating the final version
along with the comment matrix to the agencies.As a result,Mr.Barros’s
responses to PG&E’s updated analysis that CDFW’s Sophia Weinmann passed on
to PG&E’s Andie Herman and Sky Ramirez-Doble on July 11,2025,by email,
were not included as part of PG&E’s filing.This is significant because Mr.
Barros’s responses demonstrate that CDFW and PG&E were still trying to reach
agreement on modeling methodologies to reliably determine “significant loss”at
the time PG&E filed the Plan,and no agreement has been reached to date.
Without this information,FERC most likely presumed incorrectly that CDFW
was satisfied with the approach PG&E included in the Plan to determine
significant loss....
CDFW’s May 2,2025,comments and PG&E’s failure to circulate the final version of the
Plan with FWS and CDFW before filing it with the Commission was discussed in an earlier
email exchange between CDFW and PG&E on May 1 9,2025,a copy of which is enclosed as
Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein by reference:
CDFW (Anna Allison):
Sky and Andie,
4
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
I see that the FYLF Plan was filed with FERC with a request for FERC to approve
by July 18.CDFW was under the impression the final FYLF plan was going to be
circulated to the agencies prior to filing with FERC.What happened?
Additionally,we did not receive a response to our comments provided on May 2
prior to this filing....
PG&E (Sky Ramirez Doble):
Hi Anna,
It sounds like there was some miscommunication during our last meeting.PG&E
was required to file a FYLF study plan with contingent mitigation with FERC by
May 19,2025.6 As required by FERC in the November 19,2024 NOV,PG&E
consulted with CDFW and USFWS on this plan.This is documented in the cover
letter of today’s filing.PG&E incorporated all comments provided on May 2,
2025.The Comment Matrix,provided as Enclosure 2 of the FERC filing,contains
the documentation of all comments and PG&E’s responses.
Does CDFW have any additional comments on what was filed?PG&E can
provide a supplemental filing with FERC,if necessary....
CDFW provided additional comments to PG&E by email on July 11,2025,mentioned
above and discussed in more detail below.CDFW did not hear back from PG&E until Mr.
Ramirez-Doble’s response to CDFW’s August 29,2025,email on September 9,2025.In his
September 9,2025,email,Mr.Ramirez-Doble acknowledged that “consensus was not reached
on all technical points”and explained “if the agencies feel a filing is necessary to clarify their
position,PG&E respects that.”A copy of this email correspondence is enclosed as Exhibit 4 and
incorporated herein by reference.
PG&E,FWS,and CDFW subsequently met on September 10,2025,to continue
discussion on this issue.7
6 CDFW reminds the Commission that PG&E requested an extension of time until May 19,
2025,to file the Plan,which the Commission granted.
7 At the meeting,CDFW informed PG&E of CDFW’s intent to file a request for rehearing with
the Commission to ensure it is understood that PG&E is still actively consulting with FWS and
CDFW on Section 5.0 of the Plan,and that CDFW would like to continue discussion on the
significant loss issue to see if it is possible to conduct a reliable analysis given the limited data
5
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Pursuant to Rule 713(c)(2)of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure,*8
CDFW seeks rehearing on the following issue:
1.The Order approving the Plan is in error because the NOV clearly required PG&E to
consult with FWS and CDFW to develop the Plan,but consultation between PG&E,
FWS,and CDFW on the primary issue of significant loss had not ended at the time
PG&E filed the Plan with the Commission on May 19,2025,and in fact is ongoing.
ARGUMENT
I.The Order is in error because consultation between PG&E,CDFW and FWS had
not ended at the time PG&E filed the Plan on May 19,2025,and in fact is ongoing,
specifically on the issue of determining significant loss of FYLF in Butte Creek.
In accordance with Rule 713(c)(1)of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure9
CDFW respectfully submits that the Order is in error because consultation between PG&E,
FWS,and CDFW on the issue of significant loss was ongoing at the time PG&E submitted the
Plan to the Commission on May 19,2025,and has not been fully resolved.Comparing the
comments FWS and CDFW provided on the issue of significant loss throughout consultation
with PG&E and Section 5.0 in the Plan shows the Plan does not fully address this issue.Hence,
as stated above,the Order unfairly prejudices CDFW’s interest in protecting FYLF,as the trustee
for California’s fish and wildlife resources.10
A.The Issue Regarding Significant Loss
set we have,and if this cannot be determined to explore with PG&E and FWS other ways to
mitigate for the adverse impacts to FYLF.
8 18 C.F.R.§385.713(c)(2).
9 18 C.F.R.§385.713(c)(1).
10 Fish &G.Code,§§711.7,1802.
6
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
The Plan includes four years of study from 2025 to 2028.The most recent FYLF study
prior to the canal failure and sediment release event was a one-year study in 2006,against which
PG&E would compare its study results.Because the 2006 data set is only one year,it does not
capture trend lines in population increase or loss,and therefore whether the 2006 data being used
for comparison is representative of the population in its best condition is unknown.In addition,
as Mr.Barros explained to CDFW staff in an email dated June 19,2025,because the four-year
2025 to 2028 data set PG&E will produce is limited,it is unlikely PG&E’s data set will produce
trend lines or determine population predictions that would be statistically significant or useful in
determining significant loss,noting the Kupferberg et al.2012 plan referenced in Section 5.0 in
the Plan,1 1 utilizes 50 years of data:
If this first season is considered more of a pilot study,then it could make sense to
settle on methodology once they have some preliminary data and are more aware
of what access to field locations is like,and how much sampling can be done.
However,I think having more details on the intended analysis methods will
provide more guidance on what to be looking for during this first season.Another
issue with the above is that the study has only four?years of data (2025-2028).
Building trend lines or determining population predictors using four years of data
is rough enough (at least in my fisheries related experience),the reference cited
(Kupferberg et al 2012)utilized 50 years of data.Dropping the first of those years
for a “pilot study”style situation could significantly reduce the sample size.
Obviously there are a lot of confounding factors in terms of cost,effort,and time
that I am not privy to,but in general the deficit of details could hurt the usefulness
of the study in the long run.
Let me know if you’d like more of my input after the first field season,I’m
interested to see how PG&E ends up running this.
A copy of this email is enclosed as Exhibit 5 and incorporated herein by reference.
11 See Plan,pp.5-1,5-2,fn2.
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
In addition,while PG&E has offered several different approaches to try to estimate FYLF
population abundance and trends,it has not selected one to be used for the Plan.This is a
problem because not all field methods will support all the models,as Mr.Barros explained in the
email below CDFW (Sophia Weinmann)sent to PG&E on July 11,2025,a copy of which is
enclosed as Exhibit 6,and incorporated herein by reference:
I also wanted to pass along the below comments on the FERC filing from a
CDFW statistician:
•5.1.1 Estimating Population Size
o At the beginning of the section,the authors say “Depending on
analysis needs,life stages detected throughout the monitoring
period,as well as historical data available,population size will be
estimated using one of the following methods or a comparable
alternative”.This is kind of a big red flag for me.Before any field
work is done,the “analysis needs”should be determined since
they will heavily influence the methods required.Also,I would
hope that determining what historical data is available would be
done before the study is implemented as well.
o The “capture-recapture analysis”methods provide very little
detail.There are many different types of recapture methods
(Lincoln-Petersen,Schnabel,Cormack Jolly Seber,etc...).Based
on the authors interest in covariates that influence detection,I’m
assuming they are interested in a CJS model,but which method
will be utilized is very important to pin down,as it will influence
survey methods and assumptions.
o Similarly “repeated counts of all life stages”methods provide very
little detail.The authors cite the “unmarked”R package,but that
package supports several different models and methods for repeat
survey counts,and determining which is most applicable can
determine survey methods.
5.1.2 Population Predictor Variable
o In the methods section the authors have a section providing some
details on habitat assessments and transects,however in section
5.1.2 they note several potential predictors they look to consider,
but don ’t have information on how those variables will be measure
in the field.
8
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
CDFW respectfully submits the Order was in error for the reasons explained above.
Simply put,the Plan was not ready for approval.For this reason,CDFW is requesting the
Commission to allow PG&E,FWS,and CDFW additional time to consult on the contingency
mitigation analysis in Section 5.0 in the Plan to determine if it is possible to reliably confirm
significant loss and if so,how.If this is not possible,CDFW would want to explore with PG&E
and FWS other ways to mitigate for the adverse impacts to the FYLF population in Butte Creek
caused by the canal failure and sediment release event based on the best available information,
including the 2006 data set;the monitoring PG&E has completed;and relevant scientific
literature,including the literature referenced in the letter CDFW sent to the Commission dated
March 24,2025,which documents the impacts fine sediment deposition can have on FYLF.
While CDFW cannot speak for PG&E,it is CDFW’s understanding that PG&E is willing
to continue discussing the significant loss issue with FWS and CDFW.This is evidenced,for
example,by Mr.Ramirez-Doble’s statements in his May 19,2025,email to CDFW (“...Does
CDFW have any additional comments on what was filed?PG&E can provide a supplemental
filing with FERC,if necessary.”);Mr.Ramirez-Doble’s September 9,2025,email to CDFW
(“..,[C]onsensus was not reached on all technical points [and]if the agencies feel a filing is
necessary to clarify their position,PG&E respects that.”);the meeting between PG&E,FWS,and
CDFW on September 10,2025;statements made by PG&E staff during consultation meetings;
and this excerpt from Section 4.0 in the Plan:
After each monitoring season,preliminary data analyses will be conducted to look
for trends that may inform early evaluation of significant loss (see Section 5).
PG&E will inform and involve agencies in review of preliminary data modeling
results to assess whether data trends are showing significant loss,or otherwise.
Results may be incorporated into relevant early adaptive management (e.g.,
mitigation)strategies prior to completing the full monitoring term.
9
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
If a significant loss inference is not made during the monitoring term,PG&E will
meet with USFWS and CDFW after completion of the study and subsequent final
reporting in 2029,to discuss the analysis of significant loss of FYLF with respect
to the canal breach sediment deposition and to determine if mitigation is required.
(Plan,p.4-1.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above,CDFW respectfully requests the Commission to stay the
Order for 60 days and 1 )during this period,require PG&E to continue its monitoring work as
described in the Plan and continue its discussions with FWS and CDFW on the issue of
determining significant loss;2)require PG&E to report back to the Commission after the 60-day
period expires on the status of its discussions with FWS and CDFW,along with any
recommendations,and allow FWS and CDFW to do the same;and 3)based on this or any
additional information,modify the Plan or Order or require any additional action sufficient to
mitigate for the loss of FYLF in Butte Creek caused by the canal failure and sediment event.
Granting CDFW’s request will properly address the Order’s error in approving the Plan before
consultation between PG&E,FWS,CDFW on the issue of significant loss had reached an end.
Respectfully submitted,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE
Zs/Stephen Puccini
Stephen Puccini
Attorney V
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
715 P Street
Sacramento,CA 95819
(916)704-3304
ste hen.puccini wildlife.ca.ov
10
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
EXHIBIT 1
Email with Attachment from Sophia Weimann (CDFW)to Andie Herman (PG&E),et al.dated
February 5,2025
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
Puccini,Stephen@Wildlife
From:Weinmann,Sophia@Wildlife
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Wednesday,February 5,2025 2:47 PM
Herman,Andie
Alber,Leslie@ Wildlife;Allison,Anna@Wildlife;Ramirez-Doble,Sky;Young,Megan;
Cheslak,Edward
Subject:Butte Creek FYLF Plan 2025-2028 Comments
Attachments:CDFW PGE Study Plan Comments.pdf
Hello-
Attached are CDFW’s comments on the Butte Creek FYLF Plan 2025-2028.
Best-
Sophia
Sophia Weinmann
(she/her/hers)
Environmental Scientist
Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs
From:Herman,Andie <AEHb@pge.com>
Sent:Friday,January 17,2025 4:10 PM
To:stephanie_milsap@fws.gov
Cc:Reaves,Brittany L <brittany_reaves@fws.gov>;Alber,Leslie@ Wildlife <Leslie.Alber@wildlife.ca.gov>;Weinmann,
Sophia@Wildlife <Sophia.Weinmann@Wildlife.ca.gov>;Allison,Anna@Wildlife <Anna.Allison@wildlife.ca.gov>;
Ramirez-Doble,Sky <S9RV@pge.com>;Young,Megan <MRY2@pge.com>;Cheslak,Edward <EFC3@pge.com>
Subject:Butte Creek FYLF Plan 2025-2028
WARNING:This message is from an external source.Verify the sender and exercise caution when clicking links or opening
attachments.
Hello,
Thank you all for participating in the first consultation meeting regarding foothill yellow-legged frog on Butte
Creek.As discussed,I am providing the Butte Creek Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Study Plan 2025-2028 for your
consideration.In addition,we revised the Butte Creek FYLF 2024 Monitoring Report based on feedback provided
during our first meeting and have completed the report.I added meeting participants to the distribution of the
monitoring report,and you should receive that in a separate email.
I look forward to our next meeting on February 11,2025.Please feel free to reach out before that meeting with any
questions or comments.Thank you,Andie
Andie Herman |S 530-680-9037 1 E andie.herman@pee.com
Senior Aquatic Biologist -Herpetologist |Pacific Gas and Electric Company
You can read about PG&E’s data privacy practices at PGE.com/i rivacy.
i
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
PG&E Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Study Plan:Butte Creek
2025-2028 Review
1.0 Introduction
Paragraph Comments
1 &2 We would recommend including the numbers of FYLF for each life stage
observed
2 Was BC9 ever surveyed?If not,we would recommend saying the study was
expanded to include six study sites and keeping the explanation of why BC9
was not included.
2.0 Study Site Selection
Paragraph Comments
1 We recommend including sites BC1 and BC2 in the 2025-2028 surveys.
CDFW biologists observed active FYLF breeding near these sites in 2024.
If suitable habitat exists upstream of the spill location,we recommend
including upstream sites to compare FYLF population dynamics at sites that
were not impacted by the spill.
We recommend including sites in tributaries near the 2025-2028 sites.It
appears there are tributaries near BC-6 and BC-8 that could be included as
well as the confluence of Butte Creek and West Branch Butte Creek.Including
these sites would provide a more complete understanding of how FYLF are
utilizing the Butte Creek watershed.
If Bullfrogs are present,we recommend collecting data on the numbers and
life stages of Bullfrogs observed during surveys.
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
3.2 Visual Encounter Surveys
Overall Comments
Paragraph Comments
1 Greatest importance should be placed on egg mass surveys and YOY surveys
given the high probability of loss during the tadpole life stage.
No egg masses were observed at any sites in 2024.To increase the probability
of observing egg masses,an important indicator of breeding population size,
we recommend beginning regular (ideally weekly)monitoring of stream flows
and temperatures beginning in early May.This pre-season monitoring would
enable the team to better anticipate when egg masses will be deposited and
to assess site conditions.We would prefer to see two or more egg mass
surveys done each year to maximize the probability of observing egg masses.
Mitigation -The proposed mitigation should be included in the plan including performance
metrics,mitigation triggers,and how significant loss will be defined.
o Define significant loss threshold in coordination with USFWS priorto approving
final plan
o Suggested options for mitigation -FYLF captive rearing,in-situ rearing,habitat
restoration,vegetation management.When developing mitigation options,
consideration should be given to how activities may impact spring-run Chinook
salmon.
Population Significance -the significance of this FYLF population should be included in
the study plan as this population is part of the proposed critical habitat.
Monitoring term should not start until 2024 and may not be sufficient to see long-term
impacts.The plan should include contingencies for the monitoring term based on
performance metrics in the 2025-2028 surveys.
Have FYLF surveys ever been conducted in the Butte Creek tributaries or in Butte Creek
above the site of the canal breach?
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
EXHIBIT 2
Email from Anna Allison (CDFW)to Andie Herman (PG&E),et al.dated August 29,2025
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
From:Allison,Anna@Wildlife
Sent:Friday,August 29,2025 12:41 PM
To:Herman,Andie <aehb@pge.com>;Ramirez-Doble,Sky <s9rv@pge.com>;Cheslak,Edward <efc3@pge.com>;Young,
Megan <mry2@pge.com>
Cc:Walther,Janet <jmw3@pge.com>;Purdy,Colin @ Wildlife <Colin.Purdy@wildlife.ca.gov>;Kilgour,Morgan@Wildlife
<Morgan.Kilgour@Wildlife.ca.gov>;Bartoo,Aondrea <aondrea_bartoo@fws.gov>;Reaves,Brittany L
<brittany_reaves@fws.gov>;Stephanie Millsap <stephanie_millsap@fws.gov>;Call,Leslie@ Wildlife
<Leslie.Call@Wildlife.ca.gov>;Weinmann,Sophia @ Wildlife <Sophia.Weinmann@Wildlife.ca.gov>
Subject:FYLF Plan Filed BY PG&E to Mitigate Butte Canal Failure for the DeSabla-Centerville Project No.803
Andie etal.,
As you know,on August 14,2025,FERC issued an order approving,with specified modifications,PG&E’s
Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Study:Butte Creek 2025-2028 (Plan)for the DeSabla-Centerville Project No.
803 that PG&E filed on May 19,2025 (Order).PG&E included with its filing a comment matrix (Enclosure
2)and documentation of agency consultation (Enclosure 3).
Paragraph 7 in FERC’s Order describes the statistical analysis and modeling PG&E will conduct under
the Plan to determine whether a significant loss of the foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF)population in
Butte Creek has occurred or is occurring due to the Butte Canal breach.FERC accepted this part of the
Plan without modification notwithstanding the significant concerns CDFW’s statistician,Arthur Barros,
had raised to PG&E regarding this part of the Plan.
CDFW provided Mr.Barros’s initial concerns on the draft Plan to PG&E’s Andie Herman,Sky Ramirez-
Doble,Megan Young,and Edward Cheslak on May 2,2025.PG&E’s responses to these concerns are
included in the comment matrix.However,PG&E filed the Plan on May 19,2025,without circulating the
final version along with the comment matrix to the agencies.As a result,Mr.Barros’s responses to
PG&E’s updated analysis that CDFW’s Sophia Weinmann passed on to PG&E’s Andie Herman and Sky
Ramirez-Doble on July 11,2025,by email,were not included as part of PG&E’s filing.This is significant
because Mr.Barros’s responses demonstrate that CDFW and PG&E were still trying to reach agreement
on modeling methodologies to reliably determine “significant loss”at the time PG&E filed the Plan,and
i
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
no agreement has been reached to date.Without this information,FERC most likely presumed
incorrectly that CDFW was satisfied with the approach PG&E included in the Plan to determine
significant loss.The email correspondence on this issue is attached.
In addition,paragraph 8 in FERC’s Order does not reflect the agreement between the agencies and PG&E
to meet if the monitoring results indicate there has not been a significant loss of the FYLF population.
Paragraph 8 provides that PG&E will only consult with the agencies if PG&E determines significant loss.
CDFW would like to meet with you and your technical team and USFWS to discuss this matter as soon as
possible.There is some urgency because if CDFW needs to raise this matter with FERC,it must do so by
filing a request for a rehearing on or before September 15,2025.
Please provide some dates your team is available to meet as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Anna
Anna Allison
Senior Environmental Scientist Supervisor
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
North Central Region Fisheries
Chico Field Office
(916)272-4373
Anna.Allison@wildlife.ca.gov
2
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
EXHIBIT 3
Email Correspondence between Anna Allison (CDFW),et al.and Sky Ramirez-Doble (PG&E),
et al.dated May 19,2025
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
From:Ramirez-Doble,Sky <S9RV@pge.com>
Sent:Monday,May 19,2025 3:42 PM
To:Allison,Anna@Wildlife <Anna.Allison@wildlife.ca.gov>;Herman,Andie <AEHb@pge.com>;Weinmann,
Sophia@Wildlife <Sophia.Weinmann@Wildlife.ca.gov>;Reaves,Brittany L <brittany_reaves@fws.gov>;Alber,
Leslie@Wildlife <Leslie.Alber@wildlife.ca.gov>;Bartoo,Aondrea <aondrea_bartoo@fws.gov>;Millsap,Stephanie D
<stephanie_millsap@fws.gov>
Cc:Young,Megan <MRY2@pge.com>;Cheslak,Edward <EFC3@pge.com>;Joseph,Matthew <MWJA@pge.com>
Subject:RE:[EXTERNAL]Butte Creek FYLF Study Plan 2025 to 2028 V3 Redline
WARNING:This message is from an external source.Verify the sender and exercise caution when clicking links or opening
attachments.
Hi Anna,
It sounds like there was some miscommunication during our last meeting.PG&E was required to file a FYLF study
plan with contingent mitigation with FERC by May 19,2025.As required by FERC in the November 19,2024 NOV,
PG&E consulted with CDFW and USFWS on this plan.This is documented in the cover letter of today’s filing.PG&E
incorporated all comments provided on May 2,2025.The Comment Matrix,provided as Enclosure 2 of the FERC
filing,contains the documentation of all comments and PG&E’s responses.
Does CDFW have any additional comments on what was filed?PG&E can provide a supplemental filing with FERC,
if necessary.
Kindly,
Sky Ramirez-Doble
He/Him/His
Hydro License Coordinator |Power Generation
Pacific Gas &Electric Company
c:(530)250-7002 e:s9rv(apge.com
From:Allison,Anna@Wildlife <Anna.Allison@wildlife.ca.gov>
Sent:Monday,May 19,2025 1:44 PM
To:Herman,Andie <AEHb@pge.com>;Weinmann,Sophia @ Wildlife <Sophia.Weinmann@Wildlife.ca.gov>;Reaves,
Brittany L <brittany reaves@fws.gov>;Alber,Leslie@ Wildlife <Leslie.Alber@wildlife.ca.gov>;Bartoo,Aondrea
1
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
<aondrea bartoo@fws.ROv>;Millsap,Stephanie D <stephanie millsap@fws.Rov>
Cc:Ramirez-Doble,Sky <S9RV@pge.com>;Young,Megan <MRY2@pge.com>;Cheslak,Edward <EFC3@pge.com>
Subject:RE:[EXTERNAL]Butte Creek FYLF Study Plan 2025 to 2028 V3 Redline
CAUTION:EXTERNAL SENDER!
This email was sent from an EXTERNAL source.Do you know this person?Are you expecting
this email?Are you expecting any links or attachments?If suspicious,do not click links,
open attachments,or provide credentials.Don't delete it.Report it by using the "Report
Phish"button.
Sky and Andie,
I see that the FYLF Plan was filed with FERC with a request for FERC to approve by July 18.CDFW was
under the impression the final FYLF plan was going to be circulated to the agencies prior to filing with
FERC.What happened?Additionally,we did not receive a response to our comments provided on May 2
prior to this filing.
Thanks,
Anna
Anna Allison
Senior Environmental Scientist Supervisor
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
North Central Region Fisheries
Chico Field Office
(916)272-4373
Anna.Allison@wildlife.ca.gov
2
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
EXHIBIT 4
Email Correspondence between Anna Allison (CDFW),et al.and Sky Ramirez-Doble (PG&E),
et al.dated August 29,2025,and September 9,2025
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
From:"Ramirez-Doble,Sky"<S9RV@pge.com>
Date:September 9,2025 at 6:49:28 AM PDT
To:"Allison,Anna@Wildlife"<Anna.Allison@wildlife.ca.gov>
Cc:"Walther,Janet"<JMW3@Dge.com>,"Purdy,Colin@Wildlife"
<CoLin.Purdy@wildlife.ca.gov>."Reaves,Brittany L"<brittany reaves@fws.gov>,"Kilgour,
Morgan@Wildlife"<Morgan.Kilgour@wildlife.ca.gov>,"Millsap,Stephanie D"
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
<stephanie_millsaa@fws.gov>,"Call,Leslie@Wildlife"<LesLie.Call@wildlife.ca,gov>,
"Weinmann,Sophia@Wildlife"<SoDhia.Weinmann(a>wildlife.ca.gov>."Herman,Andie"
<aehb@pge.com>."Cheslak,Edward"<EFC3@pge.com>,"Young,Megan"
<MRY2(a)pge.com>
Subject:RE:[EXTERNAL]FYLF Plan Filed BY PG&E to Mitigate Butte Canal Failure for
the DeSabla-Centerville Project No.803
WARNING:This message is from an external source.Verify the sender and exercise caution when clicking links or
opening attachments.
Hi Anna,
PG&E was surprised by the tone and implication of your email,particularly the suggestion that we
misled FERC.We want to be clear,PG&E did not intentionally omit or misrepresent agency input.
The May 19,2025 filing included a detailed comment matrix and documentation of consultation,
which reflected both areas of alignment and ongoing discussion.We were transparent about the
status of agency feedback at the time of filing.
To clarify the timeline:
The FERC deadline to file the FYLF Plan was May 19,2025.
PG&E submitted the final FYLF Plan on May 19,2025.
The additional comments referenced in your email were received on July 11,2025,well
after the filing deadline.
From a regulatory standpoint,comments intended to influence FERC’s decision should be
submitted directly to the Commission.We understand that consensus was not reached on all
technical points,and if the agencies feel a filing is necessary to clarify their position,PG&E
respects that.
At this point,the Plan has been approved.Any changes from PG&E would constitute a formal
amendment,and we’re not certain that’s the appropriate path forward.That said,we’re open to
continued dialogue and are available to meet Tuesday during the times Brittany noted,
or Wednesday between 2:00 and 4:00 PM,to discuss.
Kindly,
Sky Ramirez-Doble
He/Him/His
Hydro License Coordinator |Power Generation
Pacific Gas &Electric Company
c:(530)250-7002 e:s9rv(ci)pge.com
2
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
From:Allison,Anna@Wildlife <Anna.Allison@wildlife.ca.gov>
Sent:Friday,August 29,2025 12:41 PM
To:Herman,Andie <aehb@pge.com>;Ramirez-Doble,Sky <s9rv@pge.com>;Cheslak,Edward
<efc3@pge.com>;Young,Megan <mry2@pge.com>
Cc:Walther,Janet <jmw3@pge.com>;Purdy,Colin@Wildlife <Colin.Purdy@wildlife.ca.gov>;
Kilgour,Morgan@Wildlife <Morgan.Kilgour@Wildlife.ca.gov>;Bartoo,Aondrea
oondrea bartoo@fws.gov>;Reaves,Brittany L <brittany reaves@fws.gov>;Millsap,Stephanie
D <stephanie millsap@fws.gov>;Call,Leslie@ Wildlife <Leslie.Call@Wildlife.ca.gov>;
Weinmann,Sophia@Wildlife <Sophia.Weinmann@Wildlife.ca.gov>
Subject:[EXTERNAL]FYLF Plan Filed BY PG&E to Mitigate Butte Canal Failure for the DeSabla-
Centerville Project No.803
3
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
This email has been received from outside of DOI -Use caution before clicking on links,opening
attachments,or responding.
Andie et al.,
As you know,on August 14,2025,FERC issued an order approving,with specified
modifications,PG&E’s Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Study:Butte Creek 2025-2028 (Plan)for
the DeSabla-Centerville Project No.803 that PG&E filed on May 19,2025 (Order).PG&E
included with its filing a comment matrix (Enclosure 2)and documentation of agency
consultation (Enclosure 3).
Paragraph 7 in FERC’s Order describes the statistical analysis and modeling PG&E will
conduct under the Plan to determine whether a significant loss of the foothill yellow-legged
frog (FYLF)population in Butte Creek has occurred or is occurring due to the Butte Canal
breach.FERC accepted this part of the Plan without modification notwithstanding the
significant concerns CDFW’s statistician,Arthur Barros,had raised to PG&E regarding this
part of the Plan.
CDFW provided Mr.Barros’s initial concerns on the draft Plan to PG&E’s Andie Herman,
Sky Ramirez-Doble,Megan Young,and Edward Cheslak on May 2,2025.PG&E’s responses
to these concerns are included in the comment matrix.However,PG&E filed the Plan on
May 19,2025,without circulating the final version along with the comment matrix to the
agencies.As a result,Mr.Barros’s responses to PG&E’s updated analysis that CDFW’s
Sophia Weinmann passed on to PG&E’s Andie Herman and Sky Ramirez-Doble on July 11,
2025,by email,were not included as part of PG&E’s filing.This is significant because Mr.
Barros’s responses demonstrate that CDFW and PG&E were still trying to reach agreement
on modeling methodologies to reliably determine “significant loss”at the time PG&E filed
the Plan,and no agreement has been reached to date.Without this information,FERC
most likely presumed incorrectly that CDFW was satisfied with the approach PG&E
included in the Plan to determine significant loss.The email correspondence on this issue
is attached.
In addition,paragraph 8 in FERC’s Order does not reflect the agreement between the
agencies and PG&E to meet if the monitoring results indicate there has not been a
significant loss of the FYLF population.Paragraph 8 provides that PG&E will only consult
with the agencies if PG&E determines significant loss.
CDFW would like to meet with you and your technical team and USFWS to discuss this
matter as soon as possible.There is some urgency because if CDFW needs to raise this
4
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
matter with FERC,it must do so by filing a request for a rehearing on or before September
15,2025.
Please provide some dates your team is available to meet as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Anna
Anna Allison
Senior Environmental Scientist Supervisor
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
North Central Region Fisheries
Chico Field Office
(916)272-4373
Anna.Allison@wildlife.ca.gov
You can read about PG&E’s data privacy practices at PGE.com/p_rivacy.
5
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
EXHIBIT 5
Email from Arthur Barros (CDFW)to CDFW Staff dated June 19,2025
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
From:Barros,Arthur@Wildlife <Arthur.Barros@Wildlife.ca.gov>
Sent:Thursday,June 19,2025 1:07 PM
To:Weinmann,Sophia @ Wildlife <Sophia.Weinmann@Wildlife.ca.gov>
Cc:Bilski,Robyn@Wildlife <Robyn.Bilski@Wildlife.ca.gov>;Call,Leslie@Wildlife <Leslie.Call@Wildlife.ca.gov>
Subject:RE:Butte Creek Notes and Comments
Hi Sophia,
If this first season is considered more of a pilot study,then it could make sense to settle on methodology once
they have some preliminary data and are more aware of what access to field locations is like,and how much
sampling can be done.However,I think having more details on the intended analysis methods will provide more
guidance on what to be looking for during this first season.Another issue with the above is that the study has only
four?years of data (2025-2028).Building trend lines or determining population predictors using four years of data
is rough enough (at least in my fisheries related experience),the reference cited (Kupferberg et al 2012)utilized 50
years of data.Dropping the first of those years fora “pilot study”style situation could significantly reduce the
sample size.
Obviously there are a lot of confounding factors in terms of cost,effort,and time that I am not privy to,but in
general the deficit of details could hurt the usefulness of the study in the long run.
Let me know if you’d like more of my input after the first field season,I’m interested to see how PG&E ends up
running this.
-Arthur
1
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
EXHIBIT 6
Email from Sophia Weimann (CDFW)to Andie Herman (PG&E),et al.dated July 11,2025
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
From:Weinmann,Sophia@Wildlife <Sophia.Weinmann@Wildlife.ca.gov>
Sent:Friday,July 11,2025 10:45 AM
To:Herman,Andie <aehb@pge.com>;Ramirez-Doble,Sky <s9rv@pge.com>
Cc:Reaves,Brittany L <brittany_reaves@fws.gov>;Millsap,Stephanie D <stephanie_millsap@fws.gov>;Allison,
Anna@Wildlife <Anna.Allison@wildlife.ca.gov>;Call,Leslie@ Wildlife <Leslie.Call@Wildlife.ca.gov>;Bartoo,Aondrea
<aondrea_bartoo@fws.gov>
Subject:FYLF at Butte Creek
Good morning-
I wanted to check in and see how the surveys have been going at Butte Creek and West Branch Feather River.I
hope the crew has been staying cool and seeing frogs!
I also wanted to pass along the below comments on the FERC filing from a CDFW statistician:
•5.1.1 Estimating Population Size
o At the beginning of the section,the authors say “Depending on analysis needs,life stages detected
throughout the monitoring period,as well as historical data available,population size will be
estimated using one of the following methods ora comparable alternative".This is kind of a big red
flag for me.Before any field work is done,the “analysis needs”should be determined since they
will heavily influence the methods required.Also,I would hope that determining what historical
data is available would be done before the study is implemented as well.
o The “capture-recapture analysis "methods provide very little detail.There are many different types
of recapture methods (Lincoln-Petersen,Schnabel,Cormack Jolly Seber,etc...).Based on the
authors interest in covariates that influence detection,I’m assuming they are interested in a CJS
model,but which method will be utilized is very important to pin down,as it will influence survey
methods and assumptions.
o Similarly "repeated counts of all life stages ”methods provide very little detail.The authors cite the
“unmarked”R package,but that package supports several different models and methods for
repeat survey counts,and determining which is most applicable can determine survey methods.
•5.1.2 Population Predictor Variable
o In the methods section the authors have a section providing some details on habitat assessments
and transects,however in section 5.1.2 they note several potential predictors they look to consider,
but don’t have information on how those variables will be measure in the field.
Best-
Sophia
1
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
Sophia Weinmann
(she/her/hers)
Sierra Fisheries
Environmental Scientist,
Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs
So;hia.Weinmann@wildlife.ca.ciov
916.767.3380
1701 Nimbus Rd,Rancho Cordova,
CA 95670
www.wildlite.ca_.30v
2
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025
Document Content(s)
20250915_CDFW Request for Rehearing - Order 192 FERC 62,090.pdf ..........1
Document Accession #: 20250915-5144 Filed Date: 09/15/2025