11/31/08 south feather power project (ferc project no. 2088) pm&e proposal january 31, 2008...

11/31/08

South Feather Power Project(FERC Project No. 2088)

PM&E Proposal

January 31, 2008Plumas National Forest, Oroville, CA

21/31/08

Agenda

• Background

• FS/CDFG Proposal

• SFWPA’s Revised Proposal

• Questions

31/31/08

Background (1 of 2)

• Application Filed March 2007– 26 PM&E Measures including Flow, Each with Detailed Rationale

• $32 Million - Capital Costs

• $31 Million - Generation Loss– Dry WY - 1.4%– Below Normal WY - 1.7%– Above Normal WY - 1.8%– Wet WY - 1.5%

• Commitment to Continue Collaboration

41/31/08

Background (2 of 2)

• Agreed to Use Agencies’ Process – SFWPA Concerned Process Relied Heavily on Mimicking Unimpaired Hydrograph

• ~10 Meetings Through May 2007

• At May Meeting– SFWPA Commented that Continuing Agencies’ Process Would Probably

Result in Lost Generation of ~15% - Seemed High

– SFWPA Asked Agencies to Identify Where They Felt Impacts Occurred and Why

• Next Meeting took Place on December 19, 2007 – FS/CDFG Proposal

51/31/08

FS/CDFG Proposal (1 of 2)

• SFWPA Understands FS and CDFG Are OK with SFWPA’s Proposed PM&E’s Except

– Use FS/CDFG’s Proposed Minimum Streamflow Regime – Monitor Riparian Vegetation in South Fork and Forbestown Diversion

Dam Reaches

– Monitor FYLF in Forbestown Diversion and Lost Creek Dam Reaches, and Develop Ramping Rate Requirements

– Monitor FYLF in Slate Creek Diversion Dam Reach

– Install Fish Screen at Lost Creek Intake - Unless Study Can Demonstrate Entrainment Not Occurring

61/31/08

FS/CDFG Proposal (2 of 2)

• SFWPA Estimates FS/CDFG’s Proposal Increases Capital Cost by ~50% (~$16 Million) – $500,000 for Adaptive Management– $15,000,000 for Lost Creek Screen– $??? - Ramping Rates, Etc.

• SFWPA Estimates FS/CDFG’s Proposal Increases Generation Loss by ~400% Compared to Application– Dry WY – 15.6%– Below Normal WY – 8.6%– Above Normal WY – 5.4%– Wet WY – 2.7%

71/31/08

SFWPA’s Proposal

• Goals– Keep Little Grass Valley Reservoir near Recent

Historic Elevations

– Balance Enhanced Trout Habitat and Costs, Especially in Dry and Below Normal Water Years

– Provide Reasonable Trout Habitat in Lost Creek

– Provide Slate Creek Minimum Flows Using Existing Outlet Capacity

81/31/08

Little Grass Valley Reservoir

• Reservoir Does Not Completely Fill in 14 of 28 Years, Mostly in Dry and Below Normal WYs– Current License, FS/CDFG Proposal, SFWPA Proposal

• By July 1 (In Years Where Reservoir Does Not Fill):– FS/CDFG’s Proposal - Reduction in Historic Elevation of

3 - 11 feet (Typically ~6 ft)– SFWPA’s Proposal – Reduction in Historic Elevation of

1 - 6 feet (Typically <2 ft)

91/31/08

Balancing Trout Habitat and Costs

Dry Year

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

FLA FS/CDFG SFWPA

Model Run

Hab

itat (%

Un

p)

Habitat (% Unp)

101/31/08

Balancing Trout Habitat and Costs

Below Normal Year

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

FLA FS/CDFG SFWPA

Model Run

Hab

itat (%

Un

p)

Habitat (% Unp)

111/31/08

Balancing Trout Habitat and Costs

Above Normal Year

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

FLA FS/CDFG SFWPA

Model Run

Hab

itat (%

Un

p)

Habitat (% Unp)

121/31/08

Balancing Trout Habitat and Costs

Wet Year

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

FLA FS/CDFG SFWPAModel Run

Hab

itat (%

Un

p)

Habitat (% Unp)

131/31/08

Balancing Trout Habitat and Costs

Overall

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

FLA FS/CDFG SFWPA

Model Run

Hab

itat (%

Un

p)

Habitat (% Unp)

141/31/08

Balancing Trout Habitat and Costs

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

FS/CDFG-Dry

SFWPA-Dry

FS/CDFG-BN

SFWPA-BN

FS/CDFG-AN

SFWPA-AN

FS/CDFG-Wet

SFWPA-Wet

FS/CDFG-Avg

SFWPA-Avg

Model Run/Year Type

Hab

itat

(%

Un

p)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Gen

erat

ion

Lo

ss

Generation Loss

Hab

itat

(%

Un

p.)

151/31/08

Lost Creek Trout Habitat % of Maximum Static WUA

FS/CDFG

SFWPA

161/31/08

Lost Creek Trout HabitatLost Creek Rainbow Trout WUA

using PG&E (2002) HSC simulated to 100 cfs

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Discharge (cfs)

Wei

gh

ted

Usa

ble

Are

a (s

q f

t / 1

000

ft)

Adult (PG&E) Juvenile (PG&E) Fry (PG&E) Spawning (PG&E)

171/31/08

Slate Creek Outlet

• FS/CDFG Proposal Calls for 49 cfs Release in March of Each WY

• Would Occur Mostly in Dry and Below Normal WYs– Dam Frequently Spills in March of Above Normal and Wet WYs– Significant Accretion Occurs in March

• Existing Slate Creek Diversion Dam Outlet Physically Limited to 40 cfs

• SFWPA Proposes 40 cfs Minimum Flow Release in March - and Same Releases as FS/CDFG’s Proposal in All Other Months for All WYs

• Equates to Decrease in Static Weighted Usable Area from 80% to 74% of Maximum WUA in March

181/31/08

SFWPA’s ProposalSFFR - Little Grass Valley Dam

FS/CDFG

SFWPA

191/31/08

SFWPA’s ProposalSFFR - South Fork Diversion Dam

FS/CDFG

SFWPA

201/31/08

SFWPA’s ProposalSlate Creek - Slate Creek Diversion Dam

FS/CDFG

SFWPA

211/31/08

SFWPA’s ProposalLost Creek - Lost Creek Dam

FS/CDFG

SFWPA

221/31/08

SFWPA’s ProposalSFFR - Forbestown Diversion Dam

FS/CDFG

SFWPA

231/31/08

Clarification of Non-Flow Items

• Lost Creek Diversion Fish Screen

• FYLF and Riparian Monitoring

241/31/08

Summary

• SFWPA Wants to Reach Consensus

• Proposal:– Responsive to FS/CDFG’s Proposal – Keeps Little Grass Valley Reservoir near Recent Historic Elevations– Balances Enhanced Trout Habitat and Costs, Especially in Dry and Below Normal

Water Years– Provides Reasonable Trout Habitat in Lost Creek– Provides Slate Creek Minimum Flows Using Existing Outlet Capacity

• FYLF and Riparian Monitoring

251/31/08

Comparison of Generation Losses

SFWPA’s

Final License Application

FS/CDFG’s

Proposal

SFWPA’s

Proposal

Wet -1.2% -2.7% -2.0%

Above Normal

-1.7% -5.4% -3.4%

Below Normal

-2.5% -8.6% -5.0%

Dry -1.8% -15.6% -10.6%

261/31/08

Comparison ofCapital Costs

• ? Need to Talk

271/31/08

Questions?