DOCSLIB.ORG

Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Evaluation Report Term 17

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Evaluation Report Term 17 State Water Resources Control Board Order 5/1/2013 Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Evaluation Report Term 17 April 30, 2015 Prepared by Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Blvd Santa Rosa, CA 95403 LAKE MENDOCINO WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY EVALUATION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Organization of Report ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Project History and Description ........................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Flood Management Operations ....................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Water Supply Operations ................................................................................................................. 5 2.4 Potter Valley Project Operations ...................................................................................................... 7 3.0 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Evaluation Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Stakeholder Outreach ....................................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Description of Model ......................................................................................................................10 3.4 Model Input ....................................................................................................................................10 3.4.1 System Water Gains ................................................................................................................10 3.4.2 System Water Losses...............................................................................................................11 3.4.3 System Operations ...................................................................................................................12 3.4.4 Municipal Water Use ...............................................................................................................12 3.4.5 Agricultural Water Use ...........................................................................................................14 i 3.5 Key Water Balance Model Assumptions ........................................................................................16 4.0 Model Simulation Results And Observations ......................................................................................16 5.0 Recommendations ..............................................................................................................................18 5.1 Recommended Improvements to Reliability Study ........................................................................18 5.2 Near-Term and Long-Term Activities .............................................................................................19 5.2.1 Initiation and Coordination of Water Conservation Programs ...............................................19 5.2.2 Recycled Water Projects in Healdsburg and Ukiah .................................................................19 5.2.3 Leak Detection and Water Loss Audits ....................................................................................19 5.2.4 Initiation of Routine Meetings among Upper Russian River Water Managers .......................20 5.2.5 Improved Frost and Heat Event Forecasting ...........................................................................20 5.2.6 Evaluation of Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) ...............................................20 5.2.7 Development of a New Hydrologic Index................................................................................20 5.2.8 Evaluation of Raising Coyote Valley Dam ................................................................................21 5.3 Additional Demand Management Measures .................................................................................21 6.0 References ..........................................................................................................................................22 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Upper Russian River Watershed Map Figure 2. Lake Mendocino Storage Guide Curve Figure 3. Minimum Instream Flow Requirements per Decision 1610 Figure 4. Cumulative Diversions through Potter Valley Project Figure 5. Water Balance Model Schematic Figure 6. Minimum Instream Flow Requirements with Biological Opinion Interim Changes Figure 7. Municipal Water Use Projections Low Growth Scenario Figure 8. Municipal Water Use Projections High Growth Scenario Figure 9. Upper Russian River Watershed Agricultural Fields circa 2012 Figure 10. Upper Russian River Watershed Current and Projected Total Annual Water Usage Figure 11. Modeling Results – Frequency Distribution of Minimum Annual Reservoir Storage Volumes Figure 12. Modeling Results – Frequency Distribution of Minimum Annual Reservoir Storage Volumes with Climate Change Scenarios LIST OF TABLES Table 1. List of Coordinating Entities Table 2. System Model Evaluation Scenarios Table 3. Water and Land Use Datasets and Records Table 4. Current Municipal Water System Service Populations Table 5. Historical Municipal Water Use (2009-2013) Table 6. Municipal Water Use under Current Conditions (2015) Table 7. Municipal Water Use Projections - Low Growth Scenario Table 8. Municipal Water Use Projections - High Growth Scenario Table 9. Municipal Water Use Projections by River Reach Table 10. Agricultural Irrigation Water Use Crop Duties Table 11. Agricultural Field Acreages by River Reach – Current Conditions iii Table 12. Agricultural Irrigation Water Use by River Reach – Current Conditions Table 13. Frost Protection Water Use Assumptions Table 14. Frost Protection Water Use by River Reach – Current Conditions Table 15. Post-Harvest Water Use by River Reach – Current Conditions Table 16. Projection Assumptions for Crop Land Conversion Table 17. Agricultural Field Acreages by River Reach – Projected 2045 Low Demand Scenario Table 18. Agricultural Field Acreages by River Reach – Projected 2045 High Demand Scenario Table 19. Agricultural Irrigation Water Use by River Reach – Projected 2045 Low Demand Scenario Table 20. Agricultural Irrigation Water Use by River Reach – Projected 2045 High Demand Scenario Table 21. Frost Protection Water Use by River Reach – Projected 2045 Low Demand Scenario Table 22. Frost Protection Water Use by River Reach – Projected 2045 High Demand Scenario Table 23. Post-Harvest Water Use by River Reach – Projected 2045 Low Demand Scenario Table 24. Post-Harvest Water Use by River Reach – Projected 2045 High Demand Scenario LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights Order Approving Temporary Urgency Change dated May 1, 2013 Appendix B. Technical Memorandum on Upper Russian River Water Accounting Model iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This water supply reliability study of Lake Mendocino (Reliability Study) has been completed by the Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) to fulfill a requirement of the May 1, 2013 Order issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). The Reliability Study evaluates the long-term reliability of Lake Mendocino to meet water supply and environmental water demands. Lake Mendocino is administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and was formed by the construction of Coyote Valley Dam (CVD) which is located on the East Fork of the Russian River, about 4 miles northeast of the City of Ukiah in Mendocino County. The Corps coordinates releases from CVD during flood management operations. As the local sponsor, the Water Agency controls and coordinates water supply releases from the CVD in accordance with its water rights permits and Decision 1610. In addition to runoff from within its own watershed, Lake Mendocino also receives water from the Eel River through the Potter Valley Project (PVP), a hydroelectric facility located in the headwaters of the East Fork of the Russian River approximately 11 miles upstream of the reservoir. Due to a recent (2006) implementation of a 2004 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license amendment for the PVP, diversions from the Eel River through the PVP have been cut back significantly, which has resulted in a reduced reliability to annually fill Lake Mendocino to adequate levels to meet downstream minimum instream flow requirements and demands. Since 2006, the Water Agency has had to file five Temporary Urgency Change Petitions with the State Water Board to reduce the minimum instream flow requirements downstream of Lake Mendocino in an effort to conserve lake storage for water supply and fisheries
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BSR History #1
    ar C, 'f t' + t 4 4 \ " • '. ' , . • ' ' Vs'l . 4 y "."'-'-" '- : : * : : . ­ . ' . 'iw, ~ , y p i 1 I 4 t A • ' • - " 'k P+g 1 EfC ' <r THE POTTER VALLEY STORY Potter Valley was or1ginally known as Potter's Valley. F r om t he t i m e o f t h e adv e n t o f t h e f i r s t Ame r i c a n t o v 1 e w i t s b eau t y until the present time, it has been called. the Gem of Mendocino County, Of the twenty-two or so valleys in Mendocino County, it can be consicLered outstanding. I t is not a large valley, being ap­ proximately four mlles wid.e and eight miles long. T h e North Fork o f the Russian River divides the valley's ten thousand acres. T h e headwaters of the Russian River are at the extreme head. of the val­ ley. Th e lower hills of the Mayacamas Mountains of the Coast Range almost surround the valley with the usual upland. at their f eet. The high peaks, a few of which are perpetually snow-covered., can be seen in the d.istance. This combinat1on of valley, upland. and. mountains give a charm and, simplicity that has apparently d.evelop­ ed. a fascination to those who settled. here. Many of the descend.­ ants of the early settlers have for several generations remained here. It is not only the beauty of the area but its f ertility that has earned it the title "grain basket of Mendocino County." The Thomas Potter party, looking for more grazing lancL for Sonoma County cattle, decid.ed.
    [Show full text]
  • (Coyote Valley Dam) in the Upper Russian River System. Storage
    Planning Alternatives for Lake Mendocino (Coyote Valley Dam) in the Upper Russian River System Storage and Water Supply Reliability Study By PABLO TOMAS SILVA JORDAN B.S. (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) 2010 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Hydrologic Sciences in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: _____________________________________ (Samuel Sandoval-Solis, Chair) _____________________________________ (Carlos E. Puente) _____________________________________ (Jay R. Lund) Committee in Charge 2016 1 To Vero, Tomas, Joaquin and the ones to come… 2 “A model is a platform for a disciplined discourse” Professor Uri Shamir 3 Table of Contents List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 6 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 7 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 10 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Research objectives ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of Two Rivers, 2004
    A Tale of Two Rivers Photograph by Michael Amsler Gently Down the Stream: Russian RiverKeeper Don McEnhill out on a recent sampling foray. The Russian, the Eel and why you should care about both every single time you turn on a tap By R.V. Scheide, June 2004 Editor's note: This is the first in a summer-long series about the history, health and impact of the Russian and Eel rivers on the North Bay's environment and citizenry. The Russian River begins as a trickle in the pine-studded hills at the far end of Redwood Valley, a dozen or so miles north of Ukiah. It's not much to speak of, this narrow, meandering rivulet; in some places, it's possible to easily step across from one bank to the other. Fed by the creeks and culverts etched into the hillsides, the stream gradually gains breadth, if not depth, as it courses south, where just past the lumberyards of Ukiah, the main stem joins forces with its east fork, and the Russian River, at least as we commonly perceive it, begins. Picking up speed and volume, the thick band of olive-drab water winds through southern Mendocino County, farms and vineyards suckling its banks, and enters Sonoma County just north of Cloverdale. It cuts through a scenic serpentine canyon and pours into the Alexander Valley, where more thirsty vineyards nestle up to the trough, patchwork swatches of green and gold blanketing the valley floor. Gazing out over this vast, verdant empire, which receives nearly four times the average rainfall of Southern California, it's tempting to think that water is not a problem for us, like it is for, say, Los Angeles, which over the years has developed an unseemly reputation for stealing water from other regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study Report for FERC Projects
    Potter Valley Project FERC Project No. 77 Initial Study Report September 2020 ©2020, Potter Valley Project Notice of Intent Parties California Trout Humboldt County Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Round Valley Indian Tribes Sonoma County Water Agency This Page Intentionally Left Blank POTTER VALLEY PROJECT NOTICE OF INTENT PARTIES Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 77 Initial Study Report September 2020 ©2020, Potter Valley Project Notice of Intent Parties California Trout Humboldt County Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Round Valley Indian Tribes Sonoma County Water Agency This Page Intentionally Left Blank Potter Valley Project, FERC Project No. 77 Initial Study Report TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 FERC Requirements for Proposed Modification to Approved Studies and New Studies .................................................................................................... 1-4 SECTION 2.0 STATUS OF FERC-APPROVED STUDIES AND PROPOSED STUDY MODIFICATIONS .............................................. 2-1 2.1 AQ 1 – Hydrology .......................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 AQ 2 – Water Temperature ........................................................................... 2-5 2.3 AQ 3 – Water Quality ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Integrated Water Management
    RUSSIAN RIVER INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT Raising Coyote Valley Dam Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Study. Term 17 Project. Pablo Silva Samuel Sandoval, Ph.D. Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 – ANR Strategic Initiative Joint Conference Outline 1. Background 2. Methodology i. Lake Mendocino Water Allocation Model ii. Raising Coyote Valley Dam Assessment 3. Results 4. Discussion / Conclusion 5. Communications and Outreach West Fork PVP Project Calpella Lake Mendocino Hopland Cloverdale Healdsburg 1. Background Technical Assessment and Hydrologic Modeling on the Russian River i. Phase 1 (2014 – 2015): • Became the technical advisor for hydrologic, planning and forecasting models of the RRFC – RVCWD. • Provide communication and briefings to RRFC-RVCWD regarding the current and future modeling efforts in the Russian River. ii. Phase 2 ( 2015 – 2016): • Continue Phase 1 status of technical advisor. (Only RRFC) • Water Allocation Model • Evaluate Scenarios: (1) Raising Coyote Valley Dam (CVP) (2) Failure of Imported water from Potter Valley Project (PVP) 2. Methodology PVP • Build a Model • Scenarios: Calpella Lake Mendocino 1)Raising Coyote Valley Dam (CVD) (Coyote Valley Dam) Ukiah 2)Evaluate the failure/influence of Potter Valley Project (PVP) Hopland River Russian Mendocino County CVD Project Background: Sonoma County Cloverdale Two Phases Lake Sonoma – First one finished in 1959 (Warm Springs Dam) Healdsburg (Storage Capacity: 145,000 acre-feet), – Second phase considered 75,000 acre-feet of additional storage capacity (220,000 acre-feet, never completed) Pacific Ocean 2. Methodology: Lake Mendocino Allocation Model West Fork PVP PVP Project Calpella Calpella Lake Mendocino Lake Mendocino (Coyote Valley Dam) Ukiah Hopland Hopland River Russian Mendocino County Sonoma County Cloverdale Cloverdale Lake Sonoma Healdsburg (Warm Springs Dam) Healdsburg Pacific Ocean 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River
    RUSSIAN RIVER AND DROUGHT The Recent Drought in the Russian River Watershed The Russian River recently experienced the worst 12 month drought (Feb. 2013 – Jan. 2014) in the middle of the worst 3-year drought (Feb. 2012 – Jan. 2015) in the historical record (Figure 1). During this 3-year dry period precipitation was 58% below average and was exacerbated by high temperatures1 which caused enhanced drying. Other notable droughts include the 1976-1977 drought and several years during the 1920s. Drought indicators, which help to characterize historical and potentially future droughts in the Russian River watershed, include precipitation, temperature, reservoir levels, climatic water deficit (the thirst of the land), stream flow, and the water available to recharge the water table1. Impacts of the 2012-2015 Drought Figure 1. A historic record of precipitation in • In January 2014, Lake Mendocino was at 40% of target storage the Russian River watershed based on stations in Santa Rosa and Ukiah. The blue bars are the and Lake Sonoma was at 82% of average storage (Figure 2). deviation from the mean and the maroon line is • To maintain reservoir levels, reservoir releases and stream a 36 month running average of precipitation. flows were reduced to some of the lowest levels since flow regulations began. • Many water supply agencies reported lost revenue; some had to increase water rates to cover fixed costs. • Mendocino County livestock, range, pasture and hay producers reported more than a 54% revenue loss and wine grapes reported a $14.7 million loss2,3. • More tributaries went dry by the end of summer contributing to reduced salmon abundance4.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Benefits to Mendocino and Lake Counties from Removing the Dams on the Eel River
    Economic Benefits to Mendocino and Lake Counties from Removing the Dams on the Eel River A Report Prepared by Daniel M. Ihara, Ph.D. & Matthew R. Marshall The Center for Environmental Economic Development (CEED) 1175 G Street, Suite B, Arcata, CA 95521; P.O. Box 4167, Arcata, CA 95518 (707) 822-8347; fax (707) 822-8347; [email protected] for FRIENDS OF THE EEL RIVER P.O. Box 2305, Redway, CA 95560 707-923-2146; fax 707-923-1902; [email protected] Fall 2004 CEED: Economic Benefits to Mendocino and Lake Counties from Removing Dams on the Eel River Preface Restoration of natural ecosystems is not an abstract, purely idealistic and altruistic gesture; rather, restoration of natural ecosystems materially benefits living things, including people, and results in tangible economic and social improvement. This report supplements and complements our study A River in the Balance: Benefits and Costs of Restoring Natural Water Flows to the Eel River. That report focused on the benefits of restoring natural flows downstream of the Potter Valley Project (PVP) dams. This report focuses on the benefits to Mendocino and Lake Counties of physically removing the PVP dams, restoring the affected watershed, and increasing nature-based tourism. Furthermore, this report illustrates the significant magnitude of these benefits and shows how water demands can be more than satisfied by the abundant water resources available in the Upper Russian River basin. Because these benefits from removing the PVP dams and restoring the Eel River have not been analyzed previously, they are the subject of the present report. It is beyond the scope of this report, however, to examine in detail all impacts related to removing the PVP dams and restoring the Eel River: such an examination would more properly belong to a full environmental impact assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Benefits of Alternative Reservoir Operations Watersmart Basin Study Program - Reservoir Operations Pilot Study
    Final Report Economic Benefits of Alternative Reservoir Operations WaterSMART Basin Study Program - Reservoir Operations Pilot Study May 28, 2021 Acknowledgements This work was made possible through funding from the WaterSMART Basin Study Program of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Thanks to Katharine Dahm for initiating this work, and all members of the project team: • Mike Dietl (Project Manager), Vince Barbara, Avra Morgan, Ankur Bhattacharya and Kenneth Richard—Reclamation • Donald Seymour, Devin Chatoian, Chris Delaney, Bradley Elliott, Joan Hultberg, Jay Jasperse, and John Mendoza—Sonoma Water • Dr. Lou Nadeau, Dr. Tess Hubbard, Arleen O’Donnell, Charles Goodhue, Caitline Barber and Zach Finn—ERG • Robert Hartman—Robert K. Hartman Consulting Services Additional thanks to the Prosser Reservoir Test Case Team, especially Laurie Nicholas, and those who participated in the transferability workshop held on November 5, 2020. Members of the Water Management Options Pilot Team are indicated with an asterisk: • Laurie Nicholas, John Hunter, Dan Lahde, and Scott Schoenfeld—Reclamation* • Dan Deeds, Matt Elmer, and Austin Olah—Reclamation • Chad Blanchard, Patrick Fritchel, and Dave Wathen—U.S. Water Master’s Office* • Bill Hauck—Truckee Meadows Water Authority* • Donna Noel and Ali Shahroody—Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe* • Jim Eto and Dan Yamanaka—California Department of Water Resources* • Caleb Erkman—Precision Water Resources Engineering* Finally, we thank the economic roundtable participants whose expertise informed the economic assessment methodologies: • Matthew Bates—California Department of Water Resources • Cameron Speir—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries • Tom Corringham—Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes (CW3E) • Barbara Wyse—Highland Economics • Dagmar Llewellyn and Beau Uriona—Reclamation • Guyton Durnin and Jeremy Cook—HDR, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 1 United States of America 2 Federal Energy
    1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 POTTER VALLEY PROJECT 6 DOCKET NO. P-77-285 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8 9 Ukiah Valley Conference Center 10 200 South School Street 11 Ukiah, California 95482 12 Wednesday, June 28, 2017 13 14 15 The above entitled matter, came on for public 16 meeting, pursuant to notice, at 6:00 p.m. 17 18 MODERATOR: JOHN MUDRE, FERC 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (6:00 p.m.) 3 MR. JOHN MUDRE: My name is John Mudre, I'm on 4 the staff with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I 5 want to welcome everyone here tonight to our scoping meeting 6 for the relicensing of the Potter Valley Project. With me 7 tonight from FERC are Alan Mitchnick. He's a wildlife 8 biologist. I'm a fisheries biologist myself, but I am the 9 project coordinator for the relicensing. Out front, you 10 probably met Carolyn Clarkin. She's with our Office of 11 General Counsel. 12 Like I said, I'd like to welcome everyone here 13 tonight to our meeting, and we'll just go ahead and get 14 started. We're with the Federal Energy Regulatory 15 Commission. It's an independent regulatory agency. We have 16 a five-member Commission, usually. We have three vacancies 17 right now and one more in a couple of days. 18 The Commissioners are appointed by the 19 President, confirmed by the Senate and the Chairman is 20 designated by the President.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Jury Report RESPONSE FORM
    Grand Jury Report RESPONSE FORM RE: Report Titled: Lobbies, Lawsuits and Legislation Report Dated: June 3, 2010 Response Form Submitted By: Janet K.F. Pauli, Chair Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission P.O. Box 1247 Ukiah, CA 95482 Your Response is REQUESTED no later than: September 4, 2010 I have reviewed the report and submit my responses to the FINDINGS portion of the report as follows: • I (we) agree with the Findings numbered: 6, 8, 15,16_________________________________________ • I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the Findings numbered below, and have attached, as required, a statement specifying any portion of the Finding that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons therefore. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, _____________________________________ I have reviewed the report and submit my responses to the RECOMMENDATIONS portion of the report as follows: • The following Recommendation(s) have have been implemented and attached, as required, is a summary describing the implemented actions: Implementation not applicable to the MCIWPC, however we have attached our comments.________________________________________________ • The following Recommendation(s) have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, attached, as required is a time frame for implementation: ________________________________________________ GRAND JURY REPORT RESPONSE FORM PAGE TWO • The following Recommendation(s) require further analysis, and attached as required, is an explanation and the scope and parameters
    [Show full text]
  • City Council/Successor Agency Agenda Item Summary 5
    City Council/Successor Agency Agenda Item Summary Agenda Item: 1 Meeting Date: July 8, 2020 Agenda Section: Staff Contact: Proclamations/Presentations David Kelley, City Manager Agenda Item Title: Presentation by Sonoma Water on the Temporary Urgency Change Petition and Potter Valley Project Status ________________________________________________________________________________________ Recommended Council Action(s): Receive Presentation from Sonoma Water providing an update on Sonoma Water Temporary Urgency Change Petition to the Federal Energy Regulatory Petition and the Potter Valley Project Status. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Background: Sonoma Water was created as a special district in 1949 by the California Legislature to provide flood protection and water supply services. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors acts as Sonoma Water's Board of Directors. Sonoma Water is a separate legal entity created by State law, having specific limited purposes and powers, and separate sources of funding. Sonoma Water is thus different from County departments, which are created by the Board of Supervisors for administrative purposes. Sonoma Water manages and maintains a water transmission system that provides naturally filtered Russian River water to nine cities and special districts that in turn delivers drinking water to more than 600,000 residents in portions of Sonoma and Marin counties. Sonoma Water is a water wholesaler that provides drinking water to the following cities and special districts: City of Cotati, Marin Municipal Water District, North Marin Water District, City of Petaluma, City of Rohnert Park, City of Santa Rosa, City of Sonoma, Valley of the Moon Water District, Town of Windsor. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Summary: On May 13th, 2020, Sonoma Water released a Press Release announcing an ambitious plan to advance restoration of Eel River fisheries while maintaining water security for Russian River basin water users.
    [Show full text]
  • County of Sonoma Agenda Item Summary Report
    Agenda Item Number: 7 County of Sonoma (This Section for use by Clerk of the Board Only.) Agenda Item Summary Report Clerk of the Board 575 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 To: Board of Supervisors and Board of Directors of Sonoma County Water Agency Board Agenda Date: November 13, 2018 Vote Requirement: Majority Department or Agency Name(s): Board Ad Hoc Committee for the Potter Valley Project Staff Name and Phone Number: Supervisorial District(s): James Gore (707) 565-3757 All Lynda Hopkins (707) 565-2241 Title: Resolution in Support of a Two-Basin Solution for the Future of the Potter Valley Project Recommended Actions: Adopt a Concurrent Resolution Supporting a Two-Basin Solution for the Future of the Potter Valley Project Executive Summary: Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E) Potter Valley Project (PVP or Project) is a hydroelectric facility that diverts Eel River water through a tunnel to a powerhouse in the Russian River watershed. After producing power, water is discharged from the powerhouse to the East Fork of the Russian River and then flows into Lake Mendocino. The current license for the Project issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will expire in 2022, and PG&E must file for a new license by April 14, 2020. On May 10, 2018, PG&E sent a letter to the Eel-Russian River Commission publicly announcing its intention to auction the Project. PG&E has also announced its intention to continue with the relicensing while seeking a new owner for the Project. The Board Ad Hoc Committee for the Potter Valley Project recommends the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma Water) adopt a concurrent resolution supporting a Two-Basin Solution for the future of the Project that protects fisheries and water supplies in both the Eel and Russian River Watersheds.
    [Show full text]