1 / 27

Optimizing Trout Habitat and Costs in Little Grass Valley Reservoir: A PM&E Proposal

This proposal outlines measures for maximizing trout habitat and balancing costs within the South Feather Power Project. It details the various proposals, their impact on capital costs and generation loss, and aims for consensus among stakeholders for sustainable management of the reservoir. The document includes specific recommendations for streamflow regimes, fish screen installations, monitoring programs, and elevation adjustments to support trout habitat while minimizing economic implications. By focusing on data-driven decision-making and collaboration with relevant agencies, the goal is to ensure a harmonious balance between environmental conservation and cost-effectiveness in the project.

justis
Download Presentation

Optimizing Trout Habitat and Costs in Little Grass Valley Reservoir: A PM&E Proposal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. South Feather Power Project(FERC Project No. 2088) PM&E Proposal January 31, 2008 Plumas National Forest, Oroville, CA

  2. Agenda • Background • FS/CDFG Proposal • SFWPA’s Revised Proposal • Questions

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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%

  7. 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

  8. 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)

  9. Balancing Trout Habitat and Costs

  10. Balancing Trout Habitat and Costs

  11. Balancing Trout Habitat and Costs

  12. Balancing Trout Habitat and Costs

  13. Balancing Trout Habitat and Costs

  14. Balancing Trout Habitat and Costs

  15. Lost Creek Trout Habitat % of Maximum Static WUA FS/CDFG SFWPA

  16. Lost Creek Trout Habitat

  17. 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

  18. SFWPA’s ProposalSFFR - Little Grass Valley Dam FS/CDFG SFWPA

  19. SFWPA’s ProposalSFFR - South Fork Diversion Dam FS/CDFG SFWPA

  20. SFWPA’s ProposalSlate Creek - Slate Creek Diversion Dam FS/CDFG SFWPA

  21. SFWPA’s ProposalLost Creek - Lost Creek Dam FS/CDFG SFWPA

  22. SFWPA’s ProposalSFFR - Forbestown Diversion Dam FS/CDFG SFWPA

  23. Clarification of Non-Flow Items • Lost Creek Diversion Fish Screen • FYLF and Riparian Monitoring

  24. 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

  25. Comparison of Generation Losses

  26. Comparison ofCapital Costs • ? Need to Talk

  27. Questions?

More Related