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 Scott Out/Cape Horn Dams In With Generation Scott Out/Cape Horn In Dams Out With Dams In Without In Without With Generation Generation Generation* 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 Scott Out/Cap ape Horn In With Dams In With Generation Dams Out With Generation Generat ation Scott Dam Remains Scott Dam am Removed Scott Dam Removed Cape Horn Remains Cap ape Horn Remai ains Cape Horn Removed Shared Objectives: 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
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 Shared Objective: Improving fish passage & habitat on the Eel River sufficient to support recovery of native anadromous fish populations, including passage at existing dam locations
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 Shared Objectives: 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
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 Shared Objective: Minimizing or avoiding adverse impacts to water supply reliability, fisheries, water quality, and recreation in the Russian River and Eel River basins
Water Supply Russian River & Lake Mendocino Alternatives Scenario 2 Raise Lake Mendocino FIRO Coyote • Scott Dam Removed (Hybrid) with Fish Valley • Seasonal PVP Diversions Modeling Scenarios Current Operations Flow EIR Operations 5 Dam 6 Baseline: Existing • Russian River flows based Climate (n=1) Current on Fish Flow Project Operations 1 Baseline FC: Future Potter Valley Project Alternatives Climate (n=4) • Lake Mendocino PVP Revised Scenario 4: Existing Scenario 4B: Existing Operations based on Operations 2 Climate (n=1) Climate (n=1) FIRO Scenario 2: Existing Climate Run-of-the- (n=1) Scenario 4B River 3 Scenario 2FC: Future Climate (n=4) • Revised PVP Operations Scenario 5: • Russian River flows based Preliminary PVP Scenario 1: Existing Scenario 3: Existing on Fish Flow Project analysis, Decommission 4 Climate (n=1) Climate (n=1) Existing • Lake Mendocino Climate Operations based on FIRO
Recommend
More recommend
