Feasibility Study Report of Potential Licensing Proposal for the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feasibility Study Report of Potential Licensing Proposal for the Potter Valley Project

May 14, 2020

Today’s Presentation

The Potter Valley Project Ad Hoc Connections with Partnership Work Overview of Feasibility Study Report Alternatives Considered Journey to Project Plan Project Plan Addressing Water Supply & Fisheries Restoration Next Steps Before FERC Formal Submittals to FERC

Potter Valley Project

Congressman Huffman’s PVP Ad Hoc Committee

Members Committed to Co-equal Goals and Principles

• Improve Fish Passage and Habitat on Eel River…
• Minimize/Avoid Impacts to Water Supply, Fisheries, Water Quality & Recreation in

both Basins

Critical in developing Shared Objectives for Two-Basin Solution Partnership Shared Objectives key for evaluation of alternatives and selection of Project Plan Technical work for Fish Passage and Water Supply also important

Shared Objectives for the Two-Basin Partnership

(1) Minimizing or avoiding adverse impacts to water supply reliability, fisheries, water quality, and recreation in the Russian River and Eel River basins (2) Improving fish passage and habitat on the Eel River sufficient to support recovery of native anadromous fish populations, including passage at existing dam locations (3) Reliance on best available science and engineering analyses to evaluate options for restoration, water delivery, and hydroelectric generation under a new license (4) Collaboration on funding (5) Active participation of tribes and other stakeholders supportive of the Shared Objectives (6) Economic welfare of the Russian River and Eel River basins (7) Continued hydroelectric generation (8) Protecting tribal cultural, economic, and other interests in the Eel and Russian River basins

PG&E Decision Not to Relicense – Partnership Formed

Benefits of Ad Hoc Committee

• Co-equal Goals
• Relationships
• Technical Work Products

Small Window of Opportunity FERC process best chance for Two-Basin Solution Partners recognize big and difficult issues

• Governance
• Technical
• Financial
• Others

Two-Basin Solution Partnership Agreement

Discussions resulted in “Planning Agreement” Proposal May 2019 Amended Planning Agreement (included Humboldt County) Amended again to include Round Valley Indian Tribes Paramount to the Agreement: Shared Objectives

June 2019 Filing and Acceptance by FERC

Partners filed Pre-Application Document & Notice of Intent

• Affirmative statement to relicense Project
• Commitments of Partners
• Multi-year schedule through April of 2022

FERC issued Notice of Continuation of Relicensing First Order of Business – Complete Feasibility Study

Consultant Team – Study

Solicitation Selection – familiarity, experience and availability Scope of Work – Series of Technical Memos

• Tiered off of and built upon Ad Hoc Committee working groups’ products

Tight timeframe and limited budget

Overview of Feasibility Study Report

Prepare Feasibility Study

• Regional Entity
• Project Plan
• Fisheries Restoration Plan
• Application Study Plan
• Financial Plan

Preparation of Technical Memos

October 2019 – April 2020:

• Review of Existing Information
• Alternatives Analysis (examples, only)

Ecological Tradeoffs Fisheries Restoration Strategies Disposition of Dams Fish Passage

• Evaluate Capital Improvement Needs
• Inform Application Study Plan
• Economic Analysis
• Reporting

Technical Memos Draft Feasibility Study Report

Project Plan Alternatives Screening

Dams In With Generation Scott Out/Cape Horn In With Generation Dams Out With Generation Scott Out/Cape Horn In Without Generation* Dams In Without Generation* Scott Dam Remains Scott Dam Removed Scott Dam Removed Scott Dam Removed Scott Dam Removed Cape Horn Remains Cape Horn Remains Cape Horn Removed Cape Horn Removed Cape Horn Remains Generation Remains Generation Remains Generation Remains Generation Removed Generation Removed * “Without Generation” alternatives did not comply with the Shared Objectives and could not be relicensed through the FERC process. These were dropped from further consideration.

Project Plan Alternatives Evaluated

Dams In With Generation Scott Out/Cap ape Horn In With Generat ation Dams Out With Generation Scott Dam Remains Scott Dam am Removed Scott Dam Removed Cape Horn Remains Cap ape Horn Remai ains Cape Horn Removed

Minimizing or avoiding adverse impacts to water supply reliability, fisheries, water quality, and recreation Improving fish passage & habitat on the Eel River sufficient to support recovery of native anadromous fish populations, including passage at existing dam locations Continued hydroelectric generation

Shared Objectives:

Journey to the Project Plan

Many long, honest and difficult discussions Shared Objectives

• Reliance on best available science and engineering analyses as the basis for evaluating options for

restoration, water delivery, and hydroelectric generation pursuant to a new license

• Economic welfare of both basins
• Collaboration on funding
• Protecting tribal, cultural, economic, and other interests in both the Eel and Russian River

basins.

Strong belief that we are better together

Project Plan

FERC Project Plan Elements

• Scott Dam Removal
• Lake Pillsbury Sediment Management
• Lake Pillsbury Vegetation Management
• Van Arsdale Diversion Modifications
• Cape Horn Dam Fish Passage Modifications
• Revised Operational Plan

Non-FERC Element (example)

• Potter Valley Irrigation District Water Supply

Scott Dam Removal, Sediment Management and Vegetation Management

Fish Passage Alternatives Assessed

• Trap and Haul, fish ladder, natural fishway, floating surface collector, tributary collector
• Scott Dam removal/Lake Pillsbury sediment and vegetation management

Assessment Results

• Scott Dam removal/Lake Pillsbury sediment & vegetation management = lowest life-cycle cost & best fish passage
• Concerns regarding Scott Dam operational costs and risks
• Detailed studies still required to analyze water supply reliability

Preliminary Cost Estimate Range

• Scott Dam Removal: $30M to $120M
• Sediment Management: $25 to $100M, Vegetation Management: $25 to $100M
• Total

al: $80M to $320M Improving fish passage & habitat on the Eel River sufficient to support recovery of native anadromous fish populations, including passage at existing dam locations

Shared Objective:

Van Arsdale Diversion and Cape Horn Dam Modifications

Van Arsdale Modifications

• Shift timing and magnitude of Van Arsdale water diversions to the winter and spring months
• Increase capacity from 240 CFS to approximately 300 CFS
• Reduce fish entrainment and improve bypass

Cape Horn Dam Modifications

• Upstream fish ladder modifications
• Modifications for downstream fish passage

Preliminary Cost Estimate Range

• Van Arsdale Modifications: $5M to $20M
• Cape Horn Dam Modifications: $5M to $20M
• Total

al: $10M to $40M

Minimizing or avoiding adverse impacts to water supply reliability, fisheries, water quality, and recreation in the Russian River and Eel River basins Improving fish passage & habitat on the Eel River sufficient to support recovery of native anadromous fish populations, including passage at existing dam locations Continued hydroelectric generation

Shared Objectives:

Operational Changes, Powerhouse Upgrades and Licensing Costs

Amend Project Operations Plan

• Seasonal diversions in the winter and springs months
• Increase flow rate through fish screen at the Van Arsdale Diversion facility
• Similar to water Supply Scenario 2 developed by the Ad Hoc Committee

Other Costs

• Powerhouse Upgrades: $2M to $10M
• Relicensing: $8M to $20M
• Total

al: $10M to $30M

Total FERC Project Plan Costs

• Total

al: $100M to $400M (rounded)

Non-FERC Project Plan Elements

Potter Valley Water Supply

• Construction of pumping and pipeline system to provide

water from Lake Mendocino to the Potter Valley Irrigation District

• Seasonal pumping of stored water in Lake Mendocino to

Potter Valley

• Potential water storage projects in Potter Valley
• Tributary, valley floor, aquifer storage and recovery
• Estimated Cost: $30M to $120M

Minimizing or avoiding adverse impacts to water supply reliability, fisheries, water quality, and recreation in the Russian River and Eel River basins

Shared Objective:

Water Supply

Scenario 2

• Scott Dam Removed
• Seasonal PVP Diversions
• Russian River flows based
• n Fish Flow Project
• Lake Mendocino

Operations based on FIRO

Scenario 4B

• Revised PVP Operations
• Russian River flows based
• n Fish Flow Project
• Lake Mendocino

Operations based on FIRO

Modeling Scenarios Russian River & Lake Mendocino Alternatives Current Operations Lake Mendocino FIRO (Hybrid) with Fish Flow EIR Operations5 Raise Coyote Valley Dam6 Potter Valley Project Alternatives Current Baseline: Existing Climate (n=1) Operations1 Baseline FC: Future Climate (n=4) PVP Revised Operations2 Scenario 4: Existing Climate (n=1) Scenario 4B: Existing Climate (n=1) Run-of-the- River3 Scenario 2: Existing Climate (n=1) Scenario 2FC: Future Climate (n=4) PVP Decommission4 Scenario 1: Existing Climate (n=1) Scenario 3: Existing Climate (n=1) Scenario 5: Preliminary analysis, Existing Climate

Feasibility Study Alternatives Development

Water Supply Scenarios

• Scenario 2
• Scenario 4b

Fish Passage, Sediment Management and Infrastructure Scenarios

• Dam Retention/Removal
• Lake Pillsbury Sediment Management
• Adult Fish Passage
• Juvenile Fish Passage
• Van Arsdale Diversion Modifications’
• Powerhouse Modifications

Conceptual approach of integrating Water Supply Scenarios with other Options to create Feasibility Study Alternatives.

Project Plan Fisheries Restoration Actions

Volitional Passage Above Scott Dam Minimize Impacts of Sediment on Biota and Habitat Restore Natural Processes (hydrology, geomorphology, water quality) Improve Cape Horn Dam Fish Passage Improve Van Arsdale Flow Bypass and Fish Screens

Ecological & Fisheries Responses to Project Plan

(Huffman Ad Hoc Water Supply Scenario 2)

Parameter Eel River Russian River Water Quality Geomorphic Function Riparian Habitat Aquatic Insects and Fish Energetics Salmonid Flow/Habitat Relationships Fish Passage Non-Native Predators Herpetofauna Lamprey Salmonid Productivity Below Scott Dam Salmonid Productivity Above Scott Dam Positive Neutral or Unclear Negative

Chinook Salmon Response to Project Plan

Spring Juvenile Outmigration

• Natural higher flow and warmer water = natural
• utmigration timing & better survival

Fall Adult Migration

• Lower flow = restricted passage & limited early

season spawning – dry years may be problematic

Productivity of Habitat Above Scott Dam

• 100 miles of habitat = greater juvenile life history

diversity and population resiliency

Productivity of Habitat Below Scott Dam

• Varies by water year – little change most years

Steelhead Response to Project Plan

Juvenile Rearing and Smolts Below Scott Dam

• Natural lower flow and warmer water = reduced carrying

capacity, survival, productivity

Juvenile Rearing and Smolts Below CHD

• Minor changes in summer water temperatures = small change in

productivity

Adult Spawning, Juvenile Rearing, and Smolts Above Scott Dam

• 200-300 miles of habitat
• Coldwater historical habitat = increased productivity
• Access for summer run steelhead = increased genetic diversity

Salmonid Productivity & Project Plan

“In conclusion, any potential declines in both Steelhead and Chinook Salmon population productivity resulting from dam removal would be compensated for by the increased productivity resulting from access to the extensive, high- quality, coldwater habitats in the upper Eel River and tributaries upstream of Scott Dam.”

• Stillwater Sciences Team

Source: NMFS, 2016

Upper Eel River Intrinsic Potential Habitat

Non-Native Predator Response to Project Plan

Scott Dam/Lake Pillsbury removal reduces habitat for Pikeminnow & Bass Access to habitat above Scott Dam reduces

• verlap between predators and salmonids

Lower flow & warmer water below Scott Dam could increase interactions between predators and salmonids Predation risk remains high at CHD/Van Arsdale

Additional (not in FERC filing) Fisheries Restoration Actions

Focal Species/Life Stage/Habitat

• Fall-run Chinook Salmon (spawning and

incubation) in the mainstem Eel River, tributaries, and estuary

• Coho Salmon (juvenile summer and winter

rearing) in cold, low-gradient tributaries to the South Fork Eel and Van Duzen rivers, mainstem river corridors, and the estuary

• Winter-run Steelhead (juvenile summer and

winter rearing) in the mainstem, tributaries, and estuary

• Summer-run Steelhead (juvenile summer and

winter rearing and adult holding) in the Middle Fork Eel and Van Duzen rivers

• Pacific Lamprey in the mainstem and tributaries.

Woodman Creek Panoramic Photo: Anthony Llanos

Next Steps - CDFW Grant for Feasibility Study Phase 2 (March 2020 to June 2021)

Analyze Project Plan

• Develop restoration strategies outside PVP
• Sediment supply, storage, modeling, and

management

• Revegetation of Lake Pillsbury footprint

Infrastructure Modifications

• Scott Dam and Cape Horn Dam
• New infrastructure

FERC Study Plans

• Modify existing PG&E Study Plans
• Develop new Study Plans

Next Steps before FERC (May – July 2020)

Partners filed Feasibility Study Report on May 13

• For information only
• No sufficiency review, hearing, or decision on proposed Project Plan at this time

FERC will request public comments on the proposed modifications to PG&E’s Study Plan that FERC approved in 2018

• Comments likely due around June 28

FERC will revise the approved Study Plan, to be implemented by Partners

Next Steps before FERC (August 2020 - )

On current schedule, Partners will:

• File Initial Study Report this September, to summarize results of PG&E’s studies

through 2018

• Conduct second year of studies in 2021
• File draft license application in November 2021
• File final license application in April 2022

Schedule subject to adjustment based on funding for relicensing studies and process

Potential Licensing Proposal, Not a Commitment

Planned Project based on the Shared Objectives

• Protecting tribal, cultural, economic, and other interests
• Reliance on best available science and engineering analyses
• Improving fish passage and habitat on the Eel River
• Continued hydroelectric generation
• Economic welfare of both basins and collaboration on funding
• Minimizing or avoiding impacts to water supply reliability, fisheries, water quality & recreation

Moving Forward - Active participation of tribes and other stakeholders supportive of the Shared Objectives

• Initiation of a FERC relicensing process
• Very preliminary technical information at this time
• Several technical and economic issues need further study
• Studies and stakeholder input will shape the project moving forward
• Parties are committed to working with other interested parties to become equal partners in the

process

Proposal will become a commitment only when license application is submitted and approved

Formal Submittals to FERC

FERC is not accepting mail due to Covid-19 Stakeholders must use FERC’s online system, https://www.ferc.gov/docs- filing/ferconline.asp Once registered in online system, stakeholder may e-File and e-Serve their comments on Feasibility Study Report and subsequent steps