2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 

The Technical Working Groups were made up of representatives of the interested parties and addressed specific resource issues, such as fishery resources, recreation, and cultural resources. The purpose and function of the Technical Working Groups was further defined in the final Communication and Process Protocols adopted by the Plenary Group. 

The Technical Working Groups were self-governing, by consensus, and responsibilities of each Technical Working Group included: 

• Establishing rules, procedures, and a schedule within the overarching structure and schedule established by the Plenary Group;
• Developing study plans and methodologies for the resource issues assigned to it by the Plenary Group; and
• Developing PM&E measures for the resource issues assigned to it by the Plenary Group once studies have been conducted.

Third-Party Facilitator

Technical Working Groups could also choose to use the third-party facilitator. The third-party facilitator could ensure that all group Participants had an opportunity to be heard, that the meetings were productive and efficient, and that meeting summaries were prepared. The third-party facilitator were selected and paid for by SMUD. However, the third-party facilitator sought to further the interests of all Participants, not just the interests of SMUD.

Decision-Making

Participants sought agreement on studies needed, study methodologies, appropriate PM&E measures, and other issues. Decisions were made by consensus among the Participants at scheduled Plenary Group or Technical Working Group meetings. Consensus means that all Participants to a given decision can "live with" the decision. Absent specific language to the contrary, the agreements reached by the Plenary Group or Technical Working Group Participants are not intended to create contractual obligations. However, the success of this relicensing depends on all Participants acting in good faith, and it is expected that when a Participant indicates agreement to a decision, the other Participants can rely on that Participant to support such decision within its own organization and throughout the licensing process.

In making decisions and reaching agreements, the Plenary Group or Technical Working Group Participants used the entire record of information available, including public input, existing sources of information and the results of the studies conducted by SMUD.

Dispute Resolution

Participants in the Plenary Group and Technical Working Groups made good faith attempts to reach agreements, as described in "Decision Making." If consensus regarding a particular issue was not achieved after reasonable efforts, the issue was considered to be in dispute. When a Technical Working Group issue was in dispute, the dispute was referred to the Plenary Group. When the Plenary Group had an issue in dispute, initial attempts at resolution occurred as internal focus groups meeting separately, with the facilitator if needed. If internal forms of dispute resolution failed, the Participants could have arranged for a FERC facilitator/mediator or a third-party facilitator/mediator, if the Participants determined that such action would help resolve the dispute. In disputes on PM&E measures not resolved by the time SMUD submitted its license application to FERC, the preliminary draft EA prepared by SMUD presented the disputed PM&E measures in the form of alternative measures.

Technical Working Group meetings were open to the public.

All Meetings were Subject to the Meeting Ground Rules/Guidelines

[Top of Page]

© 2006-2008 Sacramento Municipal Utility District