October 28, 2015 Yuba River Development Project Slide 1 Licensee Response to Relicensing Participant Tunnel Closure Proposal Yuba County Water Agency Yuba.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Washington Department
Advertisements

Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Columbia River Mainstem Dams Project PNNL.
LOWER YUBA RIVER ACCORD Monitoring and Evaluation Program Redd Surveys Casey Campos PSMFC.
Middle Fork Project AQ 6 – Fish Passage Technical Study February 3, 2009.
Major Incident Process
Riparian Zone Habitat Assessment Vegetation and More.
Aquatic Habitat Guidelines - Stream Restoration Guidelines
San Joaquin River Bedload Sampling summary January 4 and 5, 2011 April 1 and 2, 2011 Ledger Island.
Assessment of gravel transport characteristics of the upper Santa Ana River Scott Wright and Toby Minear USGS California Water Science Center Sacramento,
Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project Update on Proposed Project.
River Studies. Outline of Events During your river field work you will be visiting two different sites in the lower course of the river. At each site.
Northeast Corridor Greenway Acquisition – Mitigation Feasibility Study Results City Council Workshop June 24, 2014.
Examples for Mitigation Category 1 and 2 Streams.
A Preliminary Evaluation of the Potential Downstream Sediment Deposition Following the Removal of Four Dams on the Klamath River Yantao Cui 1, Christian.
Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project (FERC No. 2079) Recreation Technical Working Group Meeting July 21, 2008.
Restoration of Chamberlain Creek Amy Clinefelter Riparian Wetland Research Program Restoration of Chamberlain Creek Amy Clinefelter Riparian Wetland Research.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Route 110 over Route 27 Design-Build Project (PIN , D900027) Town of Babylon, Suffolk County Request.
Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project (FERC No. 2079) Recreation Technical Working Group Meeting March 6, 2008.
Reservoir and Diversion Data CBRFC Stakeholder Forum July 31, 2012.
Yuba County Water Agency Yuba River Development Project (FERC Project No. 2246) - Relicensing Public Meeting - August 13, 2011.
Modern Urbanized Stream Water Quality Improvement Technologies Creating a Net Zero Water Quality Impact Solution in the Natural Environment.
Dam Hazard Consequences Assessment
Blind Pass Project Update Bayous Preservation Assoc. February 9, 2011.
2012 Instream Flow Study Agency Meeting on 2012 Draft Study Descriptions January 24,
Water Supply Planning Initiative State Water Commission November 22, 2004.
Suggested Guidelines for Geomorphic aspects of Anadromous Salmonid Habitat Restoration proposals G. Mathias Kondolf.
Middle Fork Project Flow and Temperature Modeling (Status Report) November 4, 2008.
Elk Creek Wood Replacement Phase Two Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, 2009 Katie Halvorson.
Natural Riparian Resources Water Landscape & SoilVegetation.
Rehabilitation of Flat Creek, Teton County, Wyoming; Planning, design and implementation A cooperative effort between: Trout Unlimited, Jackson Hole Chapter.
Middle Fork Project Project Description April 25, 2006.
1 Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project (FERC No. 2079) Recreation Technical Working Group Meeting February 19, 2008.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Superstructure and Bridge Replacements in Regions 2 & 9 Design-Build Project (PIN , D900022) Herkimer,
1 Potential Project Betterments to be studied further during Relicensing June 20, 2006 Stakeholder Meeting Middle Fork American River Hydroelectric Project.
Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project Plenary Meeting February 8, 2010.
Chapter 33 Dam Construction. Objectives After reading the chapter and reviewing the materials presented the students will be able to: Give reasons why.
Claytor Lake Debris Study. Hydro Environmental Services of Kleinschmidt Associates  Shoreline Management Plans (SMP)  Aquatic & Terrestrial Habitat.
Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Uranium Mining on Drinking Water Sources in the Roanoke River Basin Assessment Approach Presentation to Roanoke River.
Channel and Habitat Monitoring in the Countyline Reach of the Lower White River Presented by Sarah McCarthy and Terry Butler River and Floodplain Management.
Dry Creek Fish Habitat Enhancement Feasibility Study Current Conditions Summary.
Timeline Impaired for turbidity on Minnesota’s list of impaired waters (2004) MPCA must complete a study to determine the total maximum daily load (TMDL)
Subcommittee on Hydrology/ACWI New Extreme Storm Work Group Status and Plans.
Prepared by: Burnham – Floodplain Study October 23, 2009 Presented by: Marty Spongberg, PhD, PE, PG AMEC Geomatrix, Inc.
Travis Ball, PE USACE Seattle Hydraulic Engineering Section 2 May 2014 HWY 530 Landslide: Hydraulic Modeling in Support of County, State, and Federal Long-Term.
April 2006 Middle Fork Project Relicensing Process April 25, 2006
Water Balance/Operations Modeling Yuba River Development Project FERC Project 2246 Relicensing Wednesday, May 9, 2012.
Are Kootenai River White Sturgeon Bad Parents or Have We Just Messed Up Their Habitat?
M ODESTO I RRIGATION D ISTRICT | T URLOCK I RRIGATION D ISTRICT FERC PROJECT N O Don Pedro Project Relicensing.
Design Guidance for Low-water Crossing in Gravel Rivers Xing Fang Lamar University.
YCWA Flood Management for Relicensing 9/24/14 9/24/20141.
Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project Plenary Meeting January 4, 2010 Handout #3.
11/31/08 South Feather Power Project (FERC Project No. 2088) PM&E Proposal January 31, 2008 Plumas National Forest, Oroville, CA.
Nehalem River Basin: Technical Assistance for Watershed Data Synthesis, Restoration, and Outreach Priorities 4/16/2008.
Rebuilding the System Reducing the Risk California Water Plan Plenary Session October 22-23, 2007.
Central Valley Flood Protection Board Meeting – Agenda Item No. 8A Informational Briefing Presented By Board Staff and CH2MHill Consultants Model Funded.
PCWA Study Plan Physical Habitat Characterization Study Plan –Geomorphology Study Plan –Riparian Habitat Mapping Study Plan –Aquatic Habitat Characterization.
Design and Implementation of Large Wood Structures at Twelvemile Creek Prince of Wales Island Tongass National Forest The Nature Conservancy TEAMS Enterprise.
Aug 11, 2015 Yuba River Development Project Slide 1 Licensee Response to Relicensing Participant Tunnel Closure Proposal Agency/NGO Yuba River Development.
Middle Fork Project Relicensing Process Plan April 25, 2006.
APPLICATION NO LEVEE DISTRICT No. 1 Of SUTTER COUNTY STAR BEND SETBACK LEVEE SUTTER COUNTY April 17, 2009.
Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration & Fish Passage Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Impact Report Information Presentation to YBFEPT July.
Reservoir and Flow Routing Model Transect Data Collection Water Resources Study Planning Meeting January 25, 2012 Prepared by 1.
Middle Fork American River Project Recreation Resources Technical Working Group Meeting October 5, 2009.
Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project Plenary Meeting February 2, 2009 Handout #5.
Snohomish County Surface Water Management R2 Resource Consultants
Department of Forestry 2004 Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines
Crow/Quartz Creek Instream Large Wood Recruitment
Middle Fork Project Overview of 2008 Technical Study Plan Implementation April 21, 2008.
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Presentation transcript:

October 28, 2015 Yuba River Development Project Slide 1 Licensee Response to Relicensing Participant Tunnel Closure Proposal Yuba County Water Agency Yuba River Development Project (FERC Project No. 2246) - YCWA’s Feedback on Agencies/NGOs’ August 26, 2015 NBB Reach LWM and Sediment Proposal -

October 28, 2015 Yuba River Development Project Slide 2 Agenda  Issue  Summary of Agencies/NGOs’ New Bullards Bar Reach Large Woody Material (LWM) Pilot Study  YCWA’s Estimate of Cost for LWM Pilot Study  Summary of Agencies/NGOs’ New Bullards Bar Reach Sediment Pilot Study  YCWA’s Estimate of Cost for Sediment Pilot Study  Next Steps

October 28, 2015 Yuba River Development Project Slide 3 Issue  YCWA does not believe that the cost for adding LWM or sediment to the New Bullards Bar (NBB) Reach (i.e., the 1.7-mile-long segment of the North Yuba River from New Bullards Bar Dam to the confluence with the Middle Yuba River) is warranted based on the potential benefits. YCWA believes the costs would be very high, and the benefits low because periodic high flows would leave the majority of any added LWM or sediment high and dry as the high flows recede, or the high flows would flush the material out of the reach.  Agencies/NGOs believe that adding LWM or sediment to the NBB Reach does warrant the benefit. Agencies/NGOs believe the LWM and sediment would remain in the useful areas of the stream, providing additional salmonid spawning habitat and enhancing riparian recruitment.  One possible way to resolve the differing perspectives is to perform pilot studies that would inform a decision regarding the fate of LWM and sediment if they were placed in NBB Reach. To that end, the agencies/NGOs proposed pilot studies on August 26. YCWA’s initial feedback was that the sediment pilot study lacked some key details (e.g., monitoring locations and methods), and YCWA thought the studies would be very expensive. YCWA said it would spend some time to cost out the pilot studies, and then there could be further discussion.

October 28, 2015 Yuba River Development Project Slide 4 LWM Pilot Study Proposal  At 8/26/15 meeting, agencies/NGOs proposed a LWM pilot study in NBB Reach:  Within 5 years of license issuance, place in the NBB Reach (NYR below NBB Dam) 100 pieces of LWM (≥25’ in length and ≥1’ in diameter), with root wads if possible, collected from the surface of NBB Reservoir or from other sources agreed to by agencies. Mark each piece. Take photos from standard locations at each LWM placement area. 90 pieces without anchors placed in the water channel or in the floodplain, as widely dispersed along NBB Reach as possible 10 pieces with anchors placed at two locations (5 pieces at each site) to be selected by YCWA, FS, CDFW and SWRCB  After LWM is placed, monitor the LWM placement areas after each spill of 2,000 cfs or greater, as soon as feasibly possible and safe, for a total of 4 monitoring events. During each monitoring event: 1) estimate pieces of LWM remaining at placement area; 2) survey NBB Reach to find the LWM; and 3) document changes at LWM anchored sites.  Within 1 year of final monitoring, consult with FS, BLM, CDFW, SWRCB, FWN and other interested parties on results and use of new flood control outlet. Based on cost, feasibility and benefits, agencies and YCWA collaborate on future management actions (e.g., no additional action, additional pilot study, or long-term management actions).

October 28, 2015 Yuba River Development Project Slide 5 YCWA’s Estimate of Cost  Assumptions for placing the 90 unanchored pieces of LWM ($1,119,000):  All 90 LWM pieces from NBB Reservoir in first year with no cost for pieces, and $15,000 to control the pieces at the site on the reservoir  All LWM pieces placed by Chinook helicopter with an average of 3 pieces carried per each trip, average of 5 hrs per trip from NBB Reservoir to placement site and for placement, and hourly helicopter cost of $7,000 (i.e., will take ~nineteen 8-hr days for one helicopter to place the 90 pieces)  2 staff on ground at LWM storage area for hook-up of LWM pieces, and 2 staff on ground at site to assist in placement at LWM placement area, take initial photos, etc. at $90/hr/staff  Assumptions for placing the 10 anchored pieces of LWM ($274,000):  All 10 LWM pieces from NBB Reservoir in first year with no cost for pieces, and $5,000 to control the pieces at the site on the reservoir  All LWM pieces placed by Chinook helicopter with an average of 2 pieces carried per each trip, average of 5 hrs per trip from NBB Reservoir to placement site, and hourly helicopter cost of $10,000 (i.e., will take three 8-hr days for one helicopter to place the 10 pieces)  2 staff on ground at LWM storage area for hook-up of LWM pieces, and 2 staff on ground at site to assist in placement and anchoring of LWM, take initial photos, etc. at $90/hr/staff, and $10,000 cost for anchoring material  Assumptions for permitting, monitoring and reporting ($146,000):  $50,000 for permitting (assumes at least Section 1602 and 404 permit needed) and $20,000 for complying with permit requirements  Four monitoring events with 2 staff person per event, and five 10-hr days in field per event at $90/hr/staff  $40,000 for final report preparation  Total = $1,539,000

October 28, 2015 Yuba River Development Project Slide 6 Sediment Pilot Study Proposal  At 8/26/15 meeting, agencies/NGOs proposed a sediment pilot study in NBB Reach:  Within 5 years of license issuance, map channel geometry at NBB spillway pool to determine critical velocities to move stockpiled sediment at that site; develop plan in consultation with FS, BLM, CDFW, SWRCB, FWN and others to place 5,000 tons of sediment (0.25” to 6” in diameter) at the site; place the sediment with portion of sediment marked; conduct evaluation to document size and extent of stockpile; and establish standard photo points at stockpile and at 3 downstream locations.  After sediment placed, monitor the stockpile and the 3 selected sites after each spill of 2,000 cfs or greater, as soon as feasibly possible and safe, for a total of 4 monitoring events. Also, monitor areas of downstream deposition. During each monitoring event: 1) survey change to stockpile; 2) survey NBB Reach to find sediment depositions; 3) quantify amount of sediment retained at two LWM anchored sites; and 4) describe habitat changes (e.g., gravel bar formation and riparian recruitment) at sites to be determined.  Within 1 year of final monitoring, consult with FS, BLM, CDFW, SWRCB, FWN and other interested parties on results and use of new flood control outlet. Based on cost, feasibility and benefits, agencies and YCWA collaborate on future management actions (e.g., no additional action, additional pilot study, or replenish the sediment stockpile each year).

October 28, 2015 Yuba River Development Project Slide 7 YCWA’s Initial Estimate of Cost  Difficult to cost due to uncertainties, but YCWA best guess at this time is below using a helicopter for placement  Assumptions for placing the 5,000 tons ($7,735,000):  Map spillway pool and determine critical velocities to move stockpiled sediment for $40,000  Purchase 5,000 tons of sediment at $25/ton  $10,000 to develop plan to place sediment (assumes plan is to use helicopter)  Place 5,000 tons of sediment by Chinook helicopter with an average of 14 tons carried per each trip, average of 3 hours per trip from sediment stockpile to placement site, and hourly helicopter cost of $7,000 (will take one hundred and thirty-four 8-hr days for 1 helicopter to place sediment)  2 staff on ground at sediment laydown site, and 2 staff on ground at site stockpile site to assist in placement, take initial photos, establish initial stockpile dimensions, etc. at $90/hr/staff  $15,000 to consult and select 3 downstream monitoring sites  Additional costs related to transport to and stockpile material at undetermined location; repair any public roads damaged by increased heavy traffic; other unknowns not estimated at this time  Assumptions for permitting, monitoring and reporting ($216,000):  $50,000 for permitting (assumes Section 1602 and 404 permit needed) and $30,000 for complying with permit requirements  Four monitoring events with 2 staff person per event, and one hundred and thirty-four 8-hr days in field per event at $90/hr per staff  $40,000 for final report preparation  Total = $7,951,000

October 28, 2015 Yuba River Development Project Slide 8 Next Steps  The estimated costs and underlying assumptions in this presentation are YCWA’s: other parties are free to use whatever assumptions and costs they feel are appropriate. YCWA is not asking Relicensing Participants to modify their proposals based on this presentation.  YCWA is doing some additional research regarding costs for the pilot studies, including looking at USACE’s costs for the sediment injection effort below Englebright, and will report back.  YCWA proposes that, after YCWA finishes its investigations, YCWA and Relicensing Participants discuss the pilot studies more (schedule next discussion at November 9 Process Team meeting).