PG&E's Hesitation Casts Shadow on Eel-Russian Diversion Plan

MendoFever - February 14, 2024

By Sarah Reith

Cape Horn Dam from the Road - Photo by Sarah Reith

The plan to continue a diversion from the Eel River into the Russian after the Potter Valley dams are removed hit a snag last week, when PG&E balked at the proposed permitting strategy. PG&E owns and operates the hydropower facility, and is eager to get rid of it in the wake of mechanical failures and a report of earthquake hazards at Scott Dam, which impounds Lake Pillsbury. But a regional coalition of local governments, CDFW, and conservation organizations is planning for life after dam removal by designing a method to continue diverting water when the Eel River is high.

There are two partially designed alternatives for the diversion facility, one of which has garnered an open legal threat from a national river conservation non-profit.

Proponents of the diversion are trying to cajole PG&E into including their plan as a possible alternative when the utility submits its decommissioning plan to FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The proponents had hoped that PG&E would ask FERC to grant them a non-power generating license to build the diversion, at the same time that PG&E was removing the dams, also under a FERC permit. 

But in a meeting at the end of January, PG&E announced that the utility won’t include the request for a non-power generating license in its decommissioning proposal. PG&E did include the initial plan for the diversion in its draft decommissioning proposal to FERC late last year, along with an outline of its own proposal to remove all the hydropower infrastructure.

Last week, at a meeting of the IWPC, outside counsel Scott Schapiro told anxious water users that he doesn’t think this is the end of the line for the diversion proposal.

“The meeting with PG&E has been characterized by some as the end of the earth, and I don’t think that’s what it is,” he opined. “What PG&E determined was that there were aspects of our proposal which did not align with their goals of timing. In particular they were concerned that the non-power license mechanism would ultimately slow down the permitting for their dam removal. For that reason they don’t want to include the non-power license in their proposal…They still want to collaborate with us on permitting. But they don’t want the non-power license to be part of their proposal,” possibly because it is more complicated for the utility to pass costs along to ratepayers without a direct order from FERC.

Governor Gavin Newsom’s California Salmon Strategy for a Hotter Drier Future mentions the removal of the Eel River dams, saying, “Dam removal could reopen hundreds of stream miles of prime salmon and steelhead habitat.” It also mentions the diversion plan, which is backed by CDFW, California Trout, Humboldt County, Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission, Round Valley Indian Tribes, Sonoma County Water Agency, and Trout Unlimited. While the report focuses on restoring habitat for salmon, Schapiro found encouragement for Russian River water users, as well, because he thinks the governor’s plan includes preserving salmon in the Russian River as well as the Eel.

But he said that under the permitting pathway now under consideration, proponents of the diversion will have to seek permits from state agencies, which he fears could result in a delay between PG&E taking out the dams and proponents building the diversion. He presented a scenario.

“The simplest way to do this project, not the best for us, but the simplest, is that PG&E gets permission from FERC to decommission the project completely,” he told the assembled members of small water districts. “FERC gives a series of rules on how that’s done and what the end conditions have to be. PG&E takes that order to the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission), and says here’s what we’re going to do. Please make sure we can collect money from our ratepayers. The PUC says OK. PG&E then goes and does all the work…Then step two, we come in, and we apply to all of the state agencies that we need to get permits from to build our project. That’s the easiest way. It doesn’t involve us having to touch anything until PG&E is done. We’re not involved in any federal permitting. The problem is, it creates a lot of space between PGE& taking its facilities out and us having our facilities. It also subjects us to a permitting process that could be a year or ten years, or state regulators who never approve our permits, and as a result, the diversion never starts up again.”

Tom Johnson, a consultant who is working with the IWPC on negotiations with FERC and PG&E,  gave a presentation on the two diversion alternatives, which are designed by the Arcata-based firm McBain Associates. Sonoma Water received a $2 million grant from the Bureau of Reclamation to bring the designs to a certain level of detail. Decision makers will receive a draft copy of McBain’s report on February 23, and on March 19, they will decide which alternative they want to have fully designed. Neither design has received a comprehensive geotechnical analysis or sediment modeling at this early stage. Johnson gave a very rough preliminary cost estimate.

“They’re both around $40 million,” he said. “However, at this early phase of design, there are big uncertainties attached to this cost,” from minus 50% to plus 100%, putting the estimate in the $20 million to $80 million range.

One of the potential designs is a roughened channel within the riverbed, lined with large boulders. It would be about 800 feet long, and, at a 3% grade, would deliver water into the tunnel using gravity. A day after the IWPC meeting, Scott Harding, a stewardship associate with American Whitewater, a river conservation organization, wrote to FERC objecting to the roughened channel, claiming that it violates the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by interfering with the free flow of the river by altering the makeup of the riverbed. He cited a legal case from 2019, where the California Attorney General sued Westlands Water District over its participation in planning to raise Shasta Dam, adding that, “This precedent suggests that departments and agencies of the state and local governments involved in planning of the roughened channel alternative for the New Eel-Russian Facility may have similar legal exposure.”

The other alternative is a pump station, which would be just upstream of where Cape Horn is now. Johnson expressed confidence that both diversion designs would be able to handle the powerful flows of the Eel River in wintertime. And he was careful not to come out in favor of one or the other.

“There is no silver bullet,” he warned. “Both of these options will have drawbacks. They’ll be either more difficult to construct or more expensive or more expensive to operate or something. What is a benefit of one will be a drawback of the other, and vice versa. Neither will be perfect.”

Preserving water supplies

PRESS DEMOCRAT - January 14, 2024

Letter to the Editor

EDITOR: Congressman Jared Huffman wrote about opportunities to invest tens of billions of dollars for a sustainable water future and billions more for repairing old crumbling water infrastructure (“Investing in sustainable sources of water,” Dec. 31).

Great that our water infrastructure is being addressed, but Huffman is one of the advocates for removing Scott Dam, which creates Lake Pillsbury, and Cape Horn Dam, which creates Van Arsdale reservoir, aka the Potter Valley Project. Why remove a water system that has been in place for over a century, a system that sustains our communities? The water is vital to Sonoma, Mendocino and Marin counties.

Currently the most widely accepted plan is to divert water from the Eel River only during “high flows.” With no high flows and no reservoirs, science and common sense tells us that the Russian River will go dry.

Use the tens of billions of dollars for infrastructure improvements to help fish migration, keep the dams, keep the reservoirs, store valuable water and use it sustainably. Huffman wants to remove these reservoirs and dams rather than upgrading and repairing them.

The economic impact of dam removal is overwhelming, as well as the impact it will have on each of us, our communities and the environment.

Pay attention to who you vote into office.

PAT BURNS

Healdsburg

California Gov. Newsom backs dam removal projects aimed at sustaining salmon populations

CBS Bay Area News - January 30 2024

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is pledging to fast-track more than half a dozen projects by the end of his term to remove or bypass dams that have blocked salmon from returning to the state's chilly mountain streams and acting as the keystone of a complex ecosystem that sustains both economies and spiritual beliefs for tribes.

Newsom — now in his second term and seen as a potential Democratic presidential candidate beyond 2024 — has worked hard to stake a claim as the nation's most environmentally-conscious governor. But his record has been dogged by criticism from environmental groups who say his water policies benefit big agriculture at the expense of salmon and other species of fish in danger of becoming extinct.

Millions of salmon once filled California's rivers and streams each year, bringing with them key nutrients from the ocean that gave the state an abundance of natural resources that were so important to indigenous peoples that they formed the foundation of creation stories central to tribes' way of life.

But last year, there were so few salmon in the state's rivers that the officials closed the commercial fishing season.

Frustrated by the criticism leveled against him and his administration, Newsom on Tuesday released a plan outlining his strategy to protect salmon — a plan that includes a heavy helping of projects that would remove or bypass aging dams that prevent from returning to the streams of their birth to lay eggs.

"These are tangible. And so much of the work we do is, you know, you can't see it, you can't feel it," Newsom told The Associated Press in an interview near the banks of the Elk River in Eureka near a recently completed project that returned some agricultural land to a flood plain habitat for salmon. "But when you see a dam being removed and you come back a few months later — a year or two, five years later — and you see real progress."

Newsom's salmon strategy includes a promise to complete an agreement by the end of the year to remove the Scott Dam and replace the Cape Horn Dam along the Eel River that have blocked salmon access to 288 miles (463 kilometers) of habitat. Once completed, the Eel would be the longest free-flowing river in the state, flowing north through the Coast Ranges before emptying into the Pacific Ocean near the town of Fortuna.

By next summer, Newsom said he would complete plans for the removal of the nearly 100-year-old Rindge Dam along Malibu Creek in western Los Angeles County that would give steelhead another 15 miles (24 kilometers) of spawning and rearing habitat. And by 2026 — the last year of Newsom's term — he promised to complete the infrastructure necessary to remove the Matilija Dam in Ventura County along a tributary of the Ventura River.

These projects have already been announced and are in the early stages of development. Newsom's plan, however, puts on record his goal to either complete them or have them approved by state regulatory bodies before he leaves office.

"I got three more years. And I want to put it all out there," Newsom said.

Newsom's embrace of some dam demolitions comes as the largest dam removal project in U.S. history got underway in earnest last week when crews blew a hole in the bottom of the Copco No. 1 dam along the Klamath River near the California-Oregon border. It's one of four dams set to be removed along the Klamath.

In addition to demolishing dams, Newsom is trying to bring attention to some of the $800 million he has signed off on in recent years for projects that return some creeks and streams to their natural state so that salmon can live there.

Monday, Newsom trudged through thick mud to visit a project along Prairie Creek in Redwoods National Park. The creek had been converted to a ditch, with steep rock walls preventing the water from spilling into a flood plain where baby salmon can eat and grow before heading out to the ocean. The goal is to get the baby fish to stay longer in this creek so they can grow larger before heading out to the ocean — making it more likely they will return.

Newsom watched as Kate Stonecypher, a graduate student at Cal Poly Humboldt, pulled juvenile coho salmon and steelhead trout from the river that had been tagged with a tracking device. Researchers are still studying the results. But early indications have been positive. Fish from the creek were later found to travel 50 miles (80 kilometers) to Humboldt Bay.

But the biggest criticism of Newsom's environmental policies have not been a lack of restoration projects, but a lack of water in the rivers. Newsom's salmon strategy includes a controversial proposal to seek voluntary agreements with major farmers over how much water they can take out of the rivers and streams. Some environmental groups, including the San Francisco Baykeeper, have called this plan "astonishingly weak."

San Francisco Baykeeper Science Director Jon Rosenfield said California has already done lots of habitat restoration projects, but they have failed to result in significant boosts salmon populations.

"Without the essential ingredient of a river, which is the flow of water, fish ... are not going to survive," he said. "The governor is out there promising actions that are not adequate to restore the population."

He also pledged to continue to work with native tribes, who often refer to the rivers where salmon live as their church. Newsom formally apologized to Native American tribes four years ago for how the state had treated them historically. And he has committed to partnering with them to conduct much of the work around salmon habitat.

Monday, Frankie Myers, vice chair of the Yurok Tribe, told Newsom the tribe's work on Prairie Creek had changed the community by restoring the tribe's purpose.

"This goes beyond that apology. This is about restoration," he said.

PG&E formalizes plan to eliminate Mendocino National Forest lake in landmark move

Link to Article

The Loss of Lake Pillsbury....the Latest from the Russian River Water Forum

Mendo Fever

by Monica Huettl - October 20, 2023

At the most recent meeting of the Russian River Water Forum Planning Group, members discussed PG&E’s “non-binding acceptance in concept” of the Proposal to take over the Potter Valley Project diversion facilities, the importance of Lake Pillsbury, and the seismic vulnerability of Scott Dam and downstream communities.

On October 5 the Russian River Water Forum Planning Group met in Ukiah, facilitated by Ben Gettleman and Jim Downing of Kearns & West. For those who want to catch up on the prior meetings and the Eel River/Russian River issues (see links at the end of this article).

Janet Pauli, Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission, informed the group that PG&E has responded to the New Eel-Russian Facility Proposalsubmitted at the end of July by the Proponant team of MCIWPC, Sonoma Water, and the Round Valley Indian Tribes. PG&E provided a statement including a “non-binding acceptance in concept” of the proposal. The proposal includes two alternatives to the existing Cape Horn Dam. PG&E will include the proposal in its initial surrender and draft decommissioning plan to be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on November 15, 2023. The draft plan will also include PG&E’s proposal to remove Cape Horn Dam and will be posted for public review and comment. 

Pauli said, “We were pleased that PG&E thought enough of our proposal to accept it, non-binding acceptance . . . This is a huge step forward.” The proposal will have to receive support from the National Marine Fisheries Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife and from representative governmental and non-governmental entities from the Russian and Eel River basins. There were questions on which of the government agencies and NGOs were to be included on the approval list. The Proponents will be putting together that list by talking with Planning Group members and the caucuses. Pauli said, “Because PG&E accepted, it’s the beginning of the next phase of the story.”

Issues to be resolved include financing for the project, design studies for the diversion alternatives, and water rights. Grant Davis of Sonoma Water said, “There have only been preliminary meetings with PG&E,” and that water rights are “one of the more exciting parts of the discussion.” A presentation from the Water Rights Working Group is scheduled for the November Planning Group meeting.

Carol Cinquini and Frank Lynch of the Lake Pillsbury Alliance presented their case for saving the lake. They believe dam removal will harm people and ecosystems of the Eel and Russian Rivers. Lake Pillsbury is the recreational gem of the Mendocino National Forest. The lake basin is teeming with wildlife.

Lynch said that Lake Pillsbury provides immediate access to water for fire responders. Lake Mendocino is 20 minutes away by air for the planes to fill up. If Lake Pillsbury is lost, it could affect domestic wells, as the groundwater is recharged by the lake storage water. There is a huge amount of uncertainty for the community. They would like to see a cost-benefit analysis of dam removal versus dam rehabilitation. Advocates for dam removal point to the successful removal of dams and restoration of habitat on the Klamath River. Lynch said that the Eel and Klamath are not comparable, as the Klamath has year-round flow, while the Eel does not. 

Cinquini said, “In the worst-case scenario, we want to be made whole again. We will aggressively pursue mitigation and compensation for adverse impacts to Lake Pillsbury property owners, homeowners, and businesses. We will continue to work with Lake County and other agencies on mitigation planning where our interests align, and we will actively engage in the FERC decommissioning process.”

Lake County Supervisors Eddie EJ Crandall and Bruno Sabatier showed a video and spoke on the regional benefits of Lake Pillsbury, which they say stores water to support agriculture worth $743 million per year, and supplies drinking water from the Potter Valley Project to 600,000 people downstream in inland Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin Counties. They estimate it could cost as much as $1 billion to remodel the Potter Valley project and restore the habitat of the upper Eel River.

Crandall said that mitigation must be implemented. He wants to establish a fire protection measure, establish water rights, and water storage. If the dam is removed, the restoration of vegetation needs to be done correctly, along with building roads and safety measures. The sediment load built up behind the dam needs to be addressed. Climate change and drought mean water storage is more vital than ever. 

Sabatier said “The fire season is longer by 75 days. . . .It’s very real what we’re experiencing, let’s not fight about what we’re experiencing.” Speaking of water storage, “Right now we have a known quantity. We’re choosing to throw that away and move forward as if it’s a foregone conclusion rather than continuing to have the conversation.”

In the video, Lake County’s Tax Collector, Patrick Sullivan, said “We need a solution that demonstrates concern for Lake County. There is a potential loss of over $40 million in property values, with resulting property taxes, sales tax, occupancy tax, and other entities paying taxes. . . . PG&E should be responsible for the costs, but there is already an effort to evade responsibility.” Comprehensive restoration costs could exceed the costs of dam removal. Adding fish passage might have been more cost-effective. Lake County will face a loss of revenue, an increased burden on a rural county already strained. 

Crandall is seriously concerned about fire danger after talking to fire-fighting hotshots who said they need Lake Pillsbury as a water source during fires. The fire retardant that’s dropped from planes has been the subject of lawsuits, and if CalFire is prohibited from using the fire retardant, then the lake water becomes critical.

Sabatier said there are only two tule elk herds in national forests in California, one of which is the thriving herd at Lake Pillsbury. Without the lake, destination tourism will be lost. 

Crandall wants to know if PG&E is going to restore the habitat. The state has billions to build new water storage. Why remove existing water storage?

Sabatier said “Lake County is here to plead” for more studies before moving forward. Lake Pillsbury is in Lake County, yet the RRWF is issuing press releases, and making plans without consulting Lake County.

Guinness McFadden, MCIWPC, said “Lake County may be pretty poor financially, but they’ve got a couple of Supervisors who can really speak. I appreciate you guys.” McFadden said PG&E admitted their studies are incomplete. “The dearth of the fish can’t be blamed on Lake Pillsbury. These people have a religious fervor, only a small percentage of the Eel River water is diverted. If you watch the video A River’s Last Chance, it goes through multiple reasons why the salmon counts are down.”

Sabatier said, “We all know the power of PG&E. . . . Currently, PG&E is requesting a rate increase while they plan to do the least possible.” Lake County forgave PG&E $20 million in fines after the fires. The utility uses lawyers to its advantage, for example, the transfer assets to a new entity called Pacific Generation. Sabatier added, “This is something we have to keep an eye on so they can’t sneak away without liability.”

Vivian Halliwell, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, thanked the Lake County group for their presentation and said they raised some issues she wasn’t aware of. But she cautioned that PG&E is right to be concerned about the seismic issues at Scott Dam, as the utility will be responsible if something happens. PG&E wants to get out from under the cost of seismic retrofit on a money-losing project. In reference to the economic concerns, Halliwell said, “It’s pretty bad for everybody. . . . We’ve had fishing closed in the ocean off of the Eel River for about 35 years now, for commercial and very limited sport. That was a really valuable fishery for numerous ports up and down the Coast, including Ft. Bragg in Mendocino County, where I used to fish out of years ago.” 

Halliwell’s colleague, Andy Colonna, questioned why PG&E is not sitting at the table with the Planning Group. With regard to the seismic concerns about Scott Dam, Colonna said “If you look under the Bartlett Fault, it’s underneath that dam, it’s a really big fault. And USGS, not even PG&E, the USGS, has claimed it’s a mega-thrust fault, so it will multiply the effects. So a 6 point whatever will be like a 9 in its impact. I live on the lower end of the Eel. If the feces hits the fan up there, that 65-foot wave of water is realistically going to come right down, all the way into just below Eureka. We’re already sitting on the San Andreas that comes out of Cape Mendocino. . . . So I would love to see the thing stay as it is, but it really isn’t safe. . . . Now you guys are attached to that lake, and I can understand why. I’m also attached to the lower Eel, and you can understand why. I think we’re all going through separation anxiety. . . . “ 

Charlie Schneider, of CalTrout, suggested looking at upstream storage. The Lake Pillsbury area has several opportunities that can be developed into upstream storage that will help recharge the river and groundwater.

Glenn Spain, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, said the proposal calls for NMFS to require minimum restoration of instream flows. Minimum restoration is not enough. We want and need optimum flows there. How are the Russian River interests going to pay for the Eel River water in a continued diversion? “If there’s going to be a viable agreement to continue a diversion, there has to be a payment that goes into Eel River restoration.” Spain urged the Lake County Supervisors to get in touch with the Klamath River Renewal Corporation to see its successful models for restoring recreational and economic opportunities and for fire suppression. Spain said, “Don’t go into this without a plan.”

Crandall, replied that as a member of the Robinson Rancheria Tribe, he can empathize with Eel River interests need to be made whole, but “We would think the headwaters would be as important as the rest of the Eel River.” He thanked the group for listening to each other with respect and concluded, “PG&E just basically threw the piece of meat on the ground and are expecting everyone to fight over it.”

The next Planning Group meeting is November 2, 2023.

Here is a link to the recording of the October 5 Planning Group meeting.

Side Note regarding Congressman Mike Thompson’s efforts: Thompson wrote to the US Forest Service and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, asking both agencies if they have statistics on how Lake Pillsbury is used in fire-fighting, and whether they have contingency plans in place should Scott Dam be decommissioned. USFS replied that they consistently use Lake Pillsbury and water downstream to fight fires, as does CalFire. CalFire replied that it does use Lake Pillsbury, but more often uses Clear Lake to fight fires. CalFire noted that the land around Lake Pillsbury is mostly the responsibility of the USFS and that removing Lake Pillsbury should not adversely impact CalFire’s ability to fight fires in the region. Thompson forwarded his letters and responses to FERC, where they can be found on the FERC E-Library.

Brief report on the Russian River Resiliency Subcommittee kick-off meeting on September 26, 2023: The purpose of this subcommittee is to “develop sustainable project concepts (beyond the PVP) that will improve insight on water availability, address water supply reliability, and reduce demand, with the aim of improving water supply reliability in the Russian River watershed under drought and climate change conditions.” The three co-chairs of the Resiliency Subcommittee are Jaime Neary, Russian Riverkeeper, Jay Jasperse, Sonoma Water, and Adam Gaska, Redwood Valley County Water District. Kearns and West has generated a Matrix of existing water saving projects, as a collaboration hub for the region, and to prevent duplication of effort. The subcommittee will work with the Russian River Confluence on finding grants for water conservation projects and encouraging citizen participation with community outreach activities, modeled on the Keep Tahoe Blue organization. Here is a link to the slides and a recording of the July 26 meeting.

Lake County discusses value of Scott Dam/Lake Pillsbury at the Russian River Water Forum · 10-05-2023

On October 5, 2023 Lake County Supervisors and the Lake Pillsbury Alliance gave concurrent presentations to Russian River Water Forum discussing the regional benefits of Lake Pillsbury and potential impacts if Scott Dam is decommissioned.

Click here to watch Lake County’s Scott Dam/Lake Pillsbury video.

What Is the Fate of Lake Pillsbury If Scott Dam Is Decommissioned?

Photo by Mike Nelson

Mendo Fever

Monica Huettl - September 8, 2023

Continuing our coverage of the Russian River Water Forum efforts to find solutions for Russian River water security and restoration of Eel River fisheries, we are taking a look at Lake Pillsbury. The Eel River groups have wanted to remove Scott Dam and Lake Pillsbury for years. The Russian River groups are mainly concerned with keeping some form of diversion tunnel facilities operational and have not taken a stand on the Lake Pillsbury issue.

The Lake Pillsbury Alliance was formed in 2019, around the time that PG&E was working through the FERC relicensing process. When PG&E decided not to renew the hydroelectric license, the company became unresponsive to hearing from Lake Pillsbury residents. 

Frank Lynch and Carol Cinquini, second and third-generation cabin owners and lifetime recreational users of the Lake Pillsbury area, contacted four homeowners’ associations around the lake and formed a 501(c)(3) organization so that Lake Pillsbury’s interests could be part of the discussions. They tried to get a seat on Congressman Jared Huffman’s ad hoc committee but were denied. The County of Lake tried to join the Two Basin Partnership but was also denied. Lynch says Lake County’s interests have been marginalized for years. 

Lynch said the Ad Hoc, Two Basin Partnership and the RRWF were “stacked with interests against Lake Pillsbury.” All of the Eel River groups are actively advocating for dam removal. The Russian River groups are concerned with maintaining the diversion. Cinquini’s take is that anything concerning Scott Dam and the Lake Pillsbury basin area is considered PG&E’s problem.

One of the many Bald Eagles found at Lake Pillsbury [Photo and permission to use by Walt Leonard]

Lynch said RRWF Planning Group member Eddie Crandall, Lake County Supervisor, was “helpful in getting us a seat on the RRWF Planning Group. Lake County wrote a letter in support of our membership.” Cinquini and Lynch then lobbied for a seat at the table, explaining how their stakeholders deserved consideration because they would be the most directly impacted if Scott Dam was removed. Cinquini added, “We wanted to be part of the process, we respect the process. We know we are a minority voice.”

The studies done by the Two Basin Solution focused on water supply and fisheries, but Lynch and Cinquini assert that none were done to assess the impacts to the Lake Pillsbury basin communities and ecosystems if Scott Dam was removed. The Two Basin Partnership’s Phase II Feasibility Studies are located on Huffman’s Ad Hoc website and earlier Feasibility Studies are located on the Two Basin Partnership website. 

Cinquini pointed to the various studies and discussions that analyzed capital costs of dam removal and water storage, including possibly raising Coyote Dam at Lake Mendocino, removing Cape Horn and Scott Dams, and building new infrastructure and water storage facilities. The less expensive solution of remodeling and renovating the existing dams was not considered. Cinquini said “None of the studies take a holistic approach to problem solving, looking for win-win solutions for everybody.”

While Lake Pillsbury has few permanent residents, the area is heavily used by the four homeowner communities and other recreational users year-round. The beauty of Lake Pillsbury is its remoteness. It’s off-the-grid, off-the-beaten track, and attracts people who want to be immersed in nature. In the summer, there are thousands of people camping on the weekends, and many families spend weeks in homes and cabins on both private and federal lands. Cinquini said, “Lake Pillsbury is well-used and well-loved.”

Without the lake, would there be continuing resort/camping opportunities in the same location along the Eel River? Perhaps a deep river with big swimming holes, and opportunities to kayak and fish? Lynch says without Scott Dam, the river would probably dry up in the late summer, leaving unconnected pools of water. When Cape Horn Dam and Van Arsdale Reservoir were built in 1907, there wasn’t enough water in Van Arsdale to send through the diversion tunnel, so Scott Dam was created in 1922 to store more water.

There has been talk for years of decommissioning Scott Dam. With the changes that would bring, Lynch said PG&E has not offered any compensation or assistance to business owners and residents if Lake Pillsbury is removed, “PG&E offered zero help. They referred us to FERC.”

Congressman Mike Thompson, representing Lake County, “has shown interests in our position, but no tangible help has been forthcoming,” according to Lynch. Jared Huffman doesn’t represent Lake County, and he hasn’t included any assistance for the Lake Pillsbury community in his statements.

Some in the RRWF are saying Lake Pillsbury isn’t needed for fire protection. Lynch said, “Without Lake Pillsbury as a resource, the community around the lake would be 100% vulnerable. Water from Lake Pillsbury has been used to fight fires in five counties. It is used to fill fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and tanker trucks. Without Scott Dam, the river would not be deep enough in fire season for them to dip into. Suggestions that water from Lake Mendocino, Blue Lakes and Clear Lake be used are not feasible. They are too far away from the National Forest.”

The environmental groups have shown concern about pike minnow, an invasive species found in Lake Pillsbury. Lynch said, “The pike minnow is a non-native fish that was introduced years ago. It’s a dominant species that is already found in the Eel River. People blame Lake Pillsbury, but we would like to see the pike minnow gone. Lake Pillsbury is not to blame for the pike minnow’s existence.”

Another expensive problem connected with dam removal is what to do with the sediment. Some estimates claim that half of the 21 million cubic yards of sediment could wash away and clog up downstream habitat if Lake Pillsbury is removed. Lynch said “The costs for removal of sediment are going to be exorbitant.”

The two sides on the Russian River Water Forum are focused on a diversion that represents less than 2% of the Eel River water supply. Once Scott Dam is gone, they are now talking about building a new reservoir in Potter Valley for water storage. Lynch says it would be so much cheaper to modify the existing dams to improve the fish passage. Cinquini asks us to think about the cumulative capital cost of all of the plans.

Lake Pillsbury is the recreational anchor of the Mendocino National Forest. Lynch has talked to Forest Service representatives, who expressed concern about fire protection and loss of habitat if Scott Dam is removed. Lynch said, “It will change the dynamic of the National Forest and would be a tragic loss.”

Inquiries to the offices of Congressman Mike Thompson, Lake County Supervisor Eddie Crandall and PG&E’s media center, asking for comment about the impact of dam decommissioning on the Lake Pillsbury Community have not received a response.

PG&E Proposes Reducing Russian River Flow and Transferring Potter Valley Project to Subsidiary

MENDO FEVER - July 18, 2023 by Sarah Reith

Fly fishing on the Russian River south of Frog Woman Rock [Picture by Matt LaFever]

The Potter Valley Project has two deadlines for public comment coming up next month. One is a proposal for a flow variance, which takes into account recent developments with the embattled water diversion facility.

The other is garnering statewide interest in PG&E’s request to transfer its non-nuclear generating assets to a subsidiary called Pacific Generation. That includes all its hydropower projects, some of which, like the one in Potter Valley, are running under expired licenses and are slated for decommissioning. Potter Valley has not been able to generate electricity since December of 2021, due to a broken piece of equipment in the powerhouse.

Agencies and members of the public have until August fourth to comment on PG&E’s request to reduce flows into the East Fork of the Russian River from 75 cubic feet per second to 25, with flexibility to reduce the flows to 5 if water temperatures below Scott Dam exceed 60 degrees Fahrenheit or 16 degrees Celsius. This is a mitigation measure to protect salmon, which require cold water. PG&E says its request includes provisions for water temperature monitoring, which the National Marine Fisheries Service as well as the Round Valley Indian Tribes have requested.

Five cfs is what the Russian River has gotten in severe drought years. But PG&E is reducing the storage capacity of Lake Pillsbury, in response to a recent revelation that Scott Dam is more susceptible to seismic risk than was previously known. To that end, the spillway gates on top of the dam remain open, though typically they would have been closed in April. Water is only being released through the needle valve at the bottom of the dam.

According to Sonoma Water, Lake Pillsbury currently holds 51,965 acre-feet, which is a little higher than it was this time last year, in spite of a dramatically wet winter. 

Water is released from the reservoir for three different uses: The East Fork, which serves fisheries and human water users in the Russian River watershed; the Potter Valley Irrigation District, which has a contract with PG&E for up to 50 cfs; and the fisheries in the Eel River. The current request does not address the amount of water that would be released for the Potter Valley Irrigation District. According to Janet Pauli, a longtime Potter Valley advocate, the district is currently using about 20 cfs on an on-demand basis, though its contract has not been curtailed.

PG&E has requested flow variances every year since 2006, when its license was finalized with custom mitigation measures designed by regulatory agencies. Its most recent request states that it is developing a proposal for a long-term flow regime that will comply with environmental requirements in both watersheds as the spillway gates remain open.
PG&E has stated publicly that it intends to remove both Scott Dam and Cape Horn Dam, unless it can find a buyer that can operate the project. Sonoma Water Agency, which gets the lion’s share of water from Lake Mendocino, is trying to figure out how to continue the diversion without the dams. Removal of the two dams is estimated to cost between $118-236 million. The cost would be borne by ratepayers.

But the project could be in place for years. The license for the Kilarc-Cow Creek hydro project in Shasta County expired in 2007. PG&E filed an application to surrender the license in 2009. That project consists of two powerhouses, three dams, and an assortment of penstocks and spillways in two watersheds, each about 80 square miles. Now, ranchers and irrigators, who have water rights tied up in the project, have filed a motion to intervene in PG&E’s request to transfer the expired license to a newly-formed subsidiary. According to an article in an industry publication last year, “PG&E seeks to transfer its non-nuclear generation assets into the subsidiary company and then sell a minority stake in Pacific Generation.” The company believes that “would provide an efficient source of equity financing to help PG&E fund wildfire risk mitigation and clean energy investments.” PG&E would maintain majority ownership and its employees would continue to operate its assets.

But the Cow Creek water users told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that “the Commission should not approve transfer of the now-long expired license unless and until Pacific Generation has demonstrated its capacity to safety and effectively accomplish license surrender and project decommissioning, without adverse impacts on landowner interests or the environment. In deciding whether to approve the transfer, the Commission should also consider whether the proposed transfer of the license would further delay or otherwise interfere with the license surrender and project decommissioning.”

The California Hydropower Reform Coalition also weighed in, noting that the proposed transfer would be “the single largest transfer of FERC-issued licenses in California history.” Eight of the 22 projects are undergoing relicensing, and three are in the process of surrendering their licenses. The Coalition requested and was granted a thirty-day extension of the public comment period.

The Coalition’s 87-page filing includes testimony by Chris Shutes,  Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, a member organization. He doesn’t think PG&E has done a good job taking care of its assets, and argued that allowing it to transfer the licenses would give it further excuse to slow-walk long-deferred maintenance and decommissioning on a number of projects.

He listed PG&E’s bankruptcies, inadequate insurance, and “patterns of delay, short-term fixes over long-term reliability, and inadequate consideration of public safety” as reasons to be leery of the utility’s assurances. 

His supporting examples included PG&E’s costly forty-year delay in rebuilding or decommissioning a powerhouse on the Feather River; a 24-year delay in restoring the Battle Creek Restoration Project;  and Scott Dam’s seismic liabilities.

Earlier this year, the Division of Safety of Dams downgraded Scott Dam’s safety assessment from satisfactory to fair, based on the Gannett Fleming engineering firm’s findings of seismic deficiencies.

After establishing similarities among three small hydro projects that are deteriorating, costly to maintain, and, in the case of Scott Dam, potentially dangerous, Shutes urged the Commission not to transfer the Potter Valley Project’s license to Pacific Generation, writing that “the Potter Valley Project is itself a set of both short-term and long-term liabilities.”

The deadline to file comments about PG&E’s proposal to transfer the licenses to its subsidiary Pacific Generation is August 12th. 

Instructions for commenting on proposals before FERC and signing up for notices:

Potter Valley Project docket No. 77-313

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.  Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission’s eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.  Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp.  You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments.  For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY).  In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.  Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:  Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC  20426.  Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:  Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.  The first page of any filing should include the docket number P-77-313.  Comments emailed to Commission staff are not considered part of the Commission record.

This filing may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the "eLibrary" link.  Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document.  You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects.  For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, for TTY, call (202) 502-8659.  Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.