Upload
lambert-stanley
View
215
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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?