NID statement Agreement Disagreement Auburn Ravine: During irrigation and nonirrigation



Similar documents
APPENDIX F. Baker County. Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P Turbidity Monitoring Plan

HCP Team Meeting. November 18, icfi.com

Section 2. Mono Basin Operations

Prattsville Berm Removal Project. 1.0 Project Location

CalSim-II Hydrological Data Extension of Recent Historical Period

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS Volume 1. Current Practices for Instream Flow Needs, Dissolved Oxygen, and Fish Passage

UTILITIZATION OF ECOHYDROLOGIC MODELS IN FLOODPLAIN FISH PASSAGE AND HABITAT RESTORATION EVALUATION

San Diego Integrated Regional Water Management Implementation Grant Proposal Economic Analysis Flood Damage Reduction Costs and Benefits

COMPLIANCE REPORT MUDDY HOLLOW CULVERT REMOVAL FILE NUMBER 25358N

Black Canyon Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. P Proposed Fish Passage Study Plan September 2012

3.4 DRAINAGE PLAN Characteristics of Existing Drainages Master Drainage System. Section 3: Development Plan BUTTERFIELD SPECIFIC PLAN

LDPCSD Water Supply Emergency Response Plan Status Update

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

The Basics of Chapter 105 Waterways and Wetlands Permitting in PA

TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C.

Mokelumne River Regional Water Storage and Conjunctive Use Project - MORE WATER

2012 Annual Report Adding water to Upper French Creek Photo by Peter Thamer

Post-Flood Assessment

9.1. Adequacy of Available Data and Monitoring Efforts

Walla Walla Bi state Stream Flow Enhancement Study Interim Progress Report. Department of Ecology Grant No. G

FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM AWD FLOWS THROUGH FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AREA July 16, 2012

Adoption of an Interim 602(a) Storage Guideline. Final Environmental Assessment

Greater Los Angeles County Region

Floodplain Connectivity in Restoration Design

RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAGOONS

1. Water Line Maintenance 2. Sanitary Sewer Maintenance 3. Spill/Leak/Overflow Control, Response, and Containment

DRAFT Public Outreach Document for What s an SSMP?

Community Workshop 5. Overarching Goals for Machado Lake Ecosystem and Wilmington Drain Multi-Use Projects

Gold Ray Dam Interagency Technical Team Meeting

APPENDIX C INLETS. The application and types of storm drainage inlets are presented in detail in this Appendix.

Resolving complex issues with large scale river restoration; a case study: the San Joaquin River in California

NOTICE TO STATE WATER PROJECT CONTRACTORS

Draft Photo Documentation Update for Proposition 13 Grant Agreement No. San Diego Region McClellan-Palomar Airport Water Quality Treatment Facility

FLOOD PROTECTION BENEFITS

Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA)

URBAN DRAINAGE CRITERIA

General Permit for Activities Promoting Waterway - Floodplain Connectivity [working title]

The answers to some of the following questions are separated into two major categories:

WATER STORAGE, TRANSPORT, AND DISTRIBUTION Multi-Dam Systems and their Operation - J.J. Cassidy MULTI-DAM SYSTEMS AND THEIR OPERATION

Section 19. Basin-wide Mitigation Action Plans

ROSE CREEK WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC, HYDRAULIC, SEDIMENT TRANSPORT, AND GEOMORPHIC ANALYSES TASK 1 EXISTING DATA AND INFORMATION SUMMARY REPORT BACKGROUND

Flood Risk Management

Flood Risk Management

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF TWIN FALLS

Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forests 2013 Flood: Long-term Recovery in a Changed Landscape

Colorado Water Bar December 13, 2012

Untreated (left) and treated (right) Sierra Nevada forests in Amador County, CA. Photos: Sierra Nevada Conservancy

Chehalis River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Capital Budget Approved by Legislature in June 2013

Year Post Restoration Monitoring Summary Rock Creek Project Monitoring and Analysis conducted by Bio-Surveys,LLC. Contact: strask@casco.

CLACKAMAS COUNTY ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION. Lower Carmel River Floodplain Restoration and Enhancement Project

121 FERC 62,167 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. Public Utility District No. 1 of Project No Chelan County

Methodology for Merit Order Dispatch. Version 1.0

Standard Operating Procedures for Flood Preparation and Response

TARP Section 2.2 Stormwater BMP Screening for Validation

IUCN Guidelines to Avoid Impacts of Water Resources Projects on Dams and Other Water Infrastructure

Swannanoa River Flood Risk Management Study

Columbia River Project Water Use Plan. Monitoring Program Terms of Reference

TESTIMONY OF RONNIE LUPE, TRIBAL CHAIRMAN THE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE FORT APACHE INDIAN RESERVATION, ARIZONA SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

Development of Technical Data For Long Term Flood Solutions For the Red River Basin

Environmental Construction Operations Plan (ECO Plan) Framework

RESTORING streams to reduce flood loss

Neversink River East Branch

Index. protection. excavated drop inlet protection (Temporary) Block and gravel inlet Protection (Temporary)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Icicle Creek Fish Passage Evaluation for The Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery

PROPOSED REHABILITATION SAN CARLOS IRRIGATION PROJECT FACILITIES. Pinal County, Arizona. Scoping Information and Opportunity to Comment

The Budget: Effectively Implementing The 2014 Water Bond

Plan Groundwater Procurement, Implementation and Costs, prepared for the Brazos River Authority, July 2005.

River Wensum Restoration Strategy Swanton Morley Restoration Scheme Reach 14a

Outlet stabilization structure

A. Flood Management in Nevada

Appendix H Dredging and Stream Channel Restoration

City of Paso Robles Community Development Department Construction Site Storm Water Quality Requirements

NAPA COUNTY WATERSHED SYMPOSIUM

REFERENCE. All National Grid personnel who plan and perform work involving protected water resources are responsible for:

Yuba River Development Project FERC Project No. 2246

Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency Potential in California

Transcription:

NID statement Agreement Disagreement Auburn Ravine: 1. NID will not divert the natural flow during times when the flow as measured at NID s Highway 65 gage is less than 8 cfs provided that during those times NID is not inhibited by a planned or unplanned outage from being able to import water from alternate conveyance facilities (i.e. Bear River Canal, Combie-Ophir Canal). In no circumstance will NID divert all the natural flow without prior consultation with CDFW and notification to FWN. Expressed as an equation: During the Irrigation Season (April 15 October 14) When the flow measured at NID s Auburn Ravine at Highway 65 gaging station (BR200) is =< 8 cfs; NID will import an amount of water >= than what is being diverted at the Auburn Ravine I diversion (BR100) + the Hemphill diversion (BR220) + pump customers (1.5 cfs) in the ravine. If BR200 =< 8 cfs; then NID import from PG&E s system (YB132 and/or YB259) and/or import via North Ravine will be >= BR100 + BR220 + 1.5cfs Non-irrigation Season (October 15 April 14): When the flow measured at NID s Auburn Ravine at Highway 65 gaging station (BR200) is =< 8 cfs; NID will import an amount of water >= than what is being diverted at the Auburn Ravine I diversion (BR100). If BR200 =< 8 cfs; then NID import from PG&E s system (YB132 and/or YB259) and/or import via North Ravine will be >= BR100 NID will pass any future instream flow of PG&E s under their new FERC License for During irrigation and nonirrigation season, an instream flow of 10 cfs shall be maintained at the Hwy 65 gaging station. Some of this water may come from PG&E's instream flow requirements (which NID will pass). Some of this during outtages or low flow times may need to be imported from PG&E's system or North Ravine.

the Drum-Spaulding Project through both the Auburn Ravine I and Hemphill diversions. During periods when NID is operating under a Post-1914 Water Right Curtailment Order from the SWRCB it will exercise its right to divert under its pre-1914 right in Auburn Ravine regardless of the flow at the Highway 65 gage. However; to ensure a portion of the flow remains in the Ravine, the available natural flow will be proportionality split with the amount being imported into the Ravine (i.e. If there is 10 cfs of natural flow and 25 cfs of import; 28% of the natural will remain in the Ravine (10/10+25). 4/17/15 Protestants would also like a minimum flow contribution; NID is not agreeable and feels a commitment to forego diversion under its water right is a commitment of water. Hemphill: a. To provide greater opportunities for outmigration, during the period the dam is in place, a portion of the north side of the dam will be kept at a lower elevation so that in times of low flow the water will be concentrated to the north side and will have greater depth and velocity then if spread across the width of the entire dam. b. In the fall of 2014 or as soon as practicable, NID will modify the apron of the diversion dam to allow for a more concentrated flow to be directed to the north bank to create an area of greater depth and velocity for passage during times of low flow. The timing of NID being able to complete the modification may be influenced by regulatory permitting and hydrologic conditions. Suspended March 2015; unable to acquire the necessary permit. c. Installation of a fish ladder and screen (if applicable) will be completed by NID after (1) Alternatives study is complete and a decision has been made on which alternative is going to be implemented. (2) Depending on legal Department does not support temporary short term fix. Effort should be focused on permanent long term solution to fish passage. NID will consult with the Department and NOAA (if they choose to participate) to determine the best alternative for fish passage, considering target species and life stages.

authority, parties will seek support and/ or grant funding to assist in the project cost. Doty Ravine: NID will actively support Placer County to replace the culvert on Garden Bar Road. Agreed Coon Creek: At the Camp Far West diversion NID will allow any required instream flow released by any upstream entity to pass downstream. Deer Creek Instream flow: Deer Creek Diversion Dam to Tunnel Diversion Dam Water Year Types wet, above normal, below normal and dry 5 cfs April 15 December 31 3 cfs January 1 April 14 Water year types critically dry and extreme critically dry 3 cfs year around During periods when NID is operating under a Water Right Curtailment Order from the SWRCB, the Instream flow will be 3 cfs for all water year types; and 5 cfs during October 14 November 30 in wet, above normal and below normal water year types. Below the Tunnel Diversion Dam 2.5 cfs year around for all water year types Agreed Current and historic leakage water has contributed to maintaining critical habitat downstream for many years such that this is now the baseline condition. NID needs to quantify the leakage that currently occurs and maintain that habitat, not simply allow any required instream flow released by any upstream entity to pass downstream. Moreover, in the event the current diversion facility is repaired or modified, NID will need to maintain existing habitat and/or mitigate for its loss.

For any State regulatory or NID Board of Directors mandatory use restrictions on District customers, the instream flow will be reduced proportionally at each location (i.e. If there is a mandatory use restriction of 30%, the instream flow requirement will be 30% less.). If at any time NID is prevented from releasing water from Scott s Flat Reservoir due to a planned or unplanned outage; NID will utilize water from the Deer Creek Diversion Dam to the extent water is available to make the instream flow release. With the diversion dam at spill elevation there is approximately 40 acre feet of water available. Compliance: Deer Creek Diversion Dam existing gage (DC183); daily readings Between Deer Creek Diversion Dam and the Tunnel Diversion Dam fixed hydraulic control in the structure near the head of the Newtown Canal ; daily readings Bear River below Combie 4/17/15 - Agreement has not been reached. Protestants: Instream flow 12 cfs in wet, above normal and below normal water year types; 5 cfs in dry, critical dry and extreme critically dry water year types. Gravel augmentation where access can be obtained. Large Woody Debris placement. NID: Will pay $25,000 towards a restoration project No agreement has been reached here. Department staff believes 5 cfs is an inadequate instream flow requirement. Regardless of what was discussed during negotiations, no negotiated agreement was reached on minimum instream flows. Department staff used the results of the 2D modeling to show that the percent of usable habitat will increase with flow increases. The Department s original proposal was 17 cfs in Wet, Above Normal, Below Normal, and Dry water year Types, and 8 cfs in Critically Dry water year types. The Departments recommends placement of large woody material and gravel enhancement in this reach to address the starvation of both of

these habitat elements from this reach. NID should develop a plan that is acceptable to the Department and the State Water Board that details the location of placement, quantity needed, frequency of replenishment for both wood and gravel. NID will submit that plan to the Deputy Director for the Division of Water Rights for approval. Other All water right protests that overlap in area with the FERC relicensing (Middle Yuba, Canyon Creek, Texas Creek, Clear Creek, Fall Creek, Trap Creek, Rucker Creek, South Yuba and Bear River (to Combie)) will be resolved by the FERC relicensing proceeding. Agreed Water Year Types: Water year types shall be defined as: Comment [1]: DFW believes this additional language should be added. We believe we are all in agreement on Water Year types, and would like to memorialize that in our agreement. Table 1. Water Year Types for Determining Minimum Instream Flows. DWR Forecast of Total Unimpaired Runoff in the Yuba River at Smartville Water Year Type in Thousand Acre-Feet or DWR Full Natural Flow Near Smartville for the Water Year in Thousand Acre-Feet 1 Critically Dry 616 to 900 Dry 901 to 1,460 Below Normal 1,461 to 2,190 Above Normal 2,191 to 3,240 Wet Greater than 3,240 1 DWR rounds the Bulletin 120 forecast to the nearest 1,000 acre-feet. The Full Natural Flow is provided to the nearest acre-foot, and Licensee will round DWR s Full Natural Flow to the nearest 1,000 acre-feet.

In each of the months of February, March, April and May, the water year type shall be based on California Department of Water Resources (DWR) water year forecast of unimpaired runoff in the Yuba River at Smartville as set forth in DWR s Bulletin 120 entitled Water Year Conditions in California. DWR s forecast published in February, March and April shall apply from the 15 th day of that month to the 14 th day of the next month. From May 15 through October 14, the water year type shall be based on DWR s forecast published in May. From October 15 through February 14 of the following year, the water year type shall be based on the sum of DWR s monthly (not daily) full natural flow for the full water year for the Yuba River near Smartville as made available by DWR on the California Data Exchange Center (CDEC) in the folder named FNF Sum. (Currently these data are available at: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/stages/fnfsum). If DWR does not make the full natural flow for the full water year available until after October 14 but prior to or on October 31, from 3 days after the date the full natural flow is made available until February 14 of the following year, the water year type shall be based on the sum of DWR s monthly full natural flow for the full water year as made available. If DWR does not make available the final full natural flow by October 31, the water year type from November 1 through February 14 of the following year shall be based on DWR s May Bulletin 120.