1. Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region California Department of Water Resources October 18, 2002 Workshop #3 Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation

2. Workshop Purpose and Objectives  Review and Discuss Initial Surface Storage Option Screening  Review Investigation Relationship to Other Programs  Review and Discuss Initial Single Purpose Modeling Results

3. Agenda  Investigation Purpose and Process  Surface Storage Option Screening  Conjunctive Management  Model Modifications and Preliminary Results  Next Steps Workshop #3 October 18, 2002 Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region California Department of Water Resources

4. Participation Principles  Participate -- Attend the workshops  Learn -- Learn about resources, people, roles, and process  Represent -- Bring issues and interests forward from others whose interests you share  Cooperate -- Work with others in the workshops to share information and consider options  Educate -- Report back to others who share your interests

5. Workshop Ground Rules  Commit to Being Fully Present – No cell phones, pagers, voicemail, etc. – Ask for what you need from the meeting process and participants  Honor Our Time Limits – Keep comments and discussion concise – Stay focused on the topic – Use the parking lot for other issues  Respect Each Other – Listen carefully to other participants – Respond to ideas and issues, not individuals  Support Constructive Discussion – Suggest improvements and solutions – Build on others’ ideas – Use “and” instead of “but”

6. Parking Lot  Describe the planning process  Describe participants’ role in document review  Describe the relationship of this Investigation and the Conjunctive Management Program  Describe the relationship of this Investigation and the CALFED watershed program and approaches  Interact with FWUA/NRDC process. Define the relationship/match of objectives with the goals of the Friant/NRDC discussions  TMDL requirements NextWorkshop When Friant/ NRDC Reports are available Today Phase II Objectives

7. Parking Lot (continued)  Investigate the re-operation of Friant  Include information regarding Metropolitan Water District’s/ Friant Water Users regional exchanges  Consider channel maintenance and floodplain integrity  Assume Fish and Game code Section 5937 will be honored –Currently in litigation, can not be included until the litigation is completed Phase II As part of Conjunctive Mgmt. analysis

8. U PPER S AN J OAQUIN R IVER B ASIN S TORAGE I NVESTIGATION – A Two-Phase Investigation Approach Appraisal Study Recommend Feasibility Study Recommend Feasibility Study Phase I Recommended Project Recommended Project Feasibility Study EIS/EIR Feasibility Study EIS/EIR Phase II

9. Investigation Goals and Phase 1 Purpose Statement  CALFED Goals for Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage – Contribute to restoration of San Joaquin River – Improve water quality in San Joaquin River – Facilitate conjunctive water management and water exchanges  Phase 1 Study Purpose Statement “Determine if CALFED agencies should pursue a water storage feasibility study that could meet the CALFED goals for Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage and assist in solving other regional problems.”

10. We Are Here CALFED Agencies Planning Team Stakeholders P l a n F o r m u l a t I o n S t r a t e g y Phase 1 Planning Approach Surface Storage Options Functional Equivalence Options Screening Options Modeling InitialEvaluation Alternatives Development and Modeling Preliminary Evaluation Continuation Recommendation Problems and Opportunities Modeling Tools and Assumptions Model Refinement Phase I Study Purpose GoalsGoalsObjectivesObjectives Continuation Criteria Planning Process Agreements Evaluation Alternatives Development Phase I Investigation Report Friant Enlargement Concept

11. Review and Comment Process  Review Process – Draft materials from team to participants – Workshop discussion – Review comments from participants to team – Revised materials to participants and web site – Formal document review at key milestones  In-Progress Phase 1 Report -- Early 2003  Draft Phase 1 Report -- Mid-2003  Roles – Participants provide oral and written comments – Team incorporates comments or provides rationale for alternate approach/strategy

12. Agenda  Investigation Purpose and Process  Surface Storage Option Screening  Conjunctive Management  Model Modifications and Preliminary Results  Next Steps Workshop #3 October 18, 2002 Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region California Department of Water Resources

13. Surface Storage Options Overview of Phase 1 Approach  Review each surface storage option – Could it be built? – What would it accomplish? – How much would it cost ? – Who would be willing to share in project costs?  Include retained options in preliminary alternatives

14. Surface Storage Options Overview of Phase 1 Approach  Assess preliminary alternatives using traditional planning criteria – Effectiveness – Efficiency – Completeness – Acceptability

15. Surface Storage Options Three-Step Screening Approach  Constructability – Major engineering and environmental issues  Operational Performance – How an option would contribute to Investigation Goals – Compare performance of options  Cost and Acceptability – Compare cost-effectiveness – Evaluate potential acceptability of options

16. Surface Storage Option Review Status  Began with list of options from previous studies – USBR, DWR, local agencies, and NRDC/FWUA  Dropped options that have been authorized  Completed constructability review – Engineering features – Environmental issues of concern

17. Surface Storage Options Constructability Review Engineering Review  Reviewed previous studies – Configurations, water sources, and uses  Conducted preliminary field visits – Site access, construction staging, borrow opportunities – Seismic and geologic conditions  Identified major features – Updated quantities and costs – Considered opportunities for hydropower generation

18. Surface Storage Options Constructability Review Environmental Review  Reviewed previous studies and other literature – Significant features that would be affected – Known and potential environmental conditions  Conducted preliminary field visits  Identified major environmental issues – Botany, wildlife, aquatic biology, land use, recreation  Considered opportunities for mitigation

19. Surface Storage Option Review Initial List of Surface Storage Options Considered  Merced River Watershed – Montgomery  San Joaquin River Watershed – Raise Friant Dam – Fine Gold Creek – Temperance Flat – Enlarge Kerckhoff Lake – Enlarge Mammoth Pool  Big Dry Creek Watershed – Big Dry Creek  Kings River Watershed – Raise Pine Flat Dam – Mill Creek – Rodgers Crossing – Dinkey Creek  Kaweah River Watershed – Raise Terminus Dam – Dry Creek – Yokohl Creek  Tule River Watershed – Raise Sucess Dam – Hungry Hollow

20. Review of Surface Storage Options To Be Dropped Based on To Be Dropped Based on Constructability Review

21. Montgomery Reservoir Potential project – New dam & reservoir on Dry Creek, tributary to Merced River downstream of Lake McClure – Capacity of 241 TAF – Reservoir surface area 8,000 acres – Two-way canal, with pumps, pipeline and siphon Water sources – Merced River, diverted via MID canal from Merced Falls

22. Montgomery Reservoir  Engineering findings – No engineering constructability concerns – Shallow reservoir would elevate water temperature  Environmental findings – Generally undeveloped area – – Potential for vernal pools  Recommendation - Drop – Warm water undesirable to local water users

23. Big Dry Creek Reservoir  Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control Dist.)  Existing facility (Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control Dist.) – 30 TAF flood detention basin – Temporary storage only – Downstream recharge facilities in place  Potential project – Modify dam for up to 30 TAF long-term storage – Add turn-out from Friant-Kern Canal  Water sources – Big & Little Dry Creeks and Friant-Kern Canal

24. Big Dry Creek Reservoir  Engineering findings – Dam designed for temporary storage – Seepage concerns (DSOD & Corps) – Could further enhance ground water recharge   Environmental findings – Potential for vernal pools in reservoir area  Recommendation - Drop for long-term storage – High local interest in conjunctive use opportunity

25. Rodgers Crossing Reservoir  Potential project – Concrete arch dam on main stem of Kings River, just above confluence with North Fork – Two sizes considered from previous studies

26. Rodgers Crossing Reservoir  Engineering findings – Favorable geotechnical conditions  Environmental findings – Both options would affect wild trout stream and Kings River Special Management Area – Both options affect popular whitewater rafting run – Large option would also affect Wild and Scenic River  Recommendation - Drop – High environmental impacts – Low likelihood of public acceptance

27. Dinkey Creek Reservoir  Potential project – Two sizes considered from previous studies

28. Dinkey Creek Reservoir  Engineering findings – Favorable geotechnical conditions  Environmental findings – Extensive wetlands and riparian habitat – Recreation based community – Access to other Sierra recreation areas  Recommendation - Drop – Environmental mitigation may not be possible – Low likelihood of public acceptance

29. Hungry Hollow Reservoir  Potential project – Located on Deer Creek, a tributary of the Tule River – 267-ft high earthfill embankment and 3 saddle dams – 800 TAF capacity  Water sources - Two possible configurations: – Option 1 – Friant Kern Canal  9 mile canal, 3 pump stations – Option 2 – Friant Kern Canal and Tule River  3 mile tunnel from Lake Success, outlet channel to FKC

30. Hungry Hollow Reservoir  Engineering findings – Dam site is above 300 ft of loose, saturated alluvium – Very high construction cost anticipated even without seismic modifications – Local water supply small, pumping would be required  Environmental findings – Low potential for significant environmental impacts  Recommendation – Drop – Seismic stability concerns on foundation

31. Surface Storage Options To Be Carried Forward For To Be Carried Forward For Operational Performance

32. Friant Dam Raise  Raise between 25 ft and 140 ft –Downstream overlay  Additional storage ranges from 132 TAF to 870 TAF  Dike along south rim  Land use impacts increase with dam height  Potential aquatic impacts on San Joaquin River above existing Millerton Lake limit

33. Temperance Flat Reservoir  3 Sites Considered  Retained site at RM 279  Reservoir elevations between 900 ft and 1100 ft  Capacity up to 1,234 TAF  Power replacement  Impacts to whitewater recreation and aquatic biology

34. Fine Gold Creek Reservoir  Dam height ranges from 380 ft to 580 ft  Storage volume ranges from 132 TAF to 780 TAF  Powerplant and pumping plant (pumped storage)  Impacts to native fisheries, botany and wildlife

35.  New Kerckhoff Dam (RM 286) – 5 miles downstream of existing Kerckhoff Dam – Identified during review of Temperance Flat options  Heights range from 400 (el. 1120) to 680 ft. (el. 1400)  Storage volume ranges from 250 TAF to 2,000 TAF  Power plant to replace upstream facilities  Environmental impacts not yet reviewed Kerckhoff Reservoir Enlargement

36. Raise Mammoth Pool  Install spillway gates for surcharge operation  Increase capacity by about 35 TAF  Low potential for environmental impacts  SCE interest not known at this time  Details on existing and proposed facilities not readily available  DSOD has preference for uncontrolled spillways

37. Raise Pine Flat Dam  Increase pool elevation 12 ft.  Increase capacity by 124 TAF  Raise upstream powerplant  Potential to increase net power generation  Moderate environmental impacts

38. Mill Creek Reservoir  Tributary to Kings River downstream of Pine Flat Dam  Main structures  250-ft high dam  5,000-ft tunnel from Pine Flat  Capacity - 200 TAF  Aquatic, botany, and wildlife impacts  Land use impacts –Ranchettes and dude ranch

39. Dry Creek Reservoir  Kaweah River tributary, downstream and north of Terminus Dam  Major features  143-ft high dam  3,210-ft long gravity tunnel from Lake Kaweah  Capacity - 70 TAF  No anticipated unmitigatable environmental impacts

40. Yokohl Creek Reservoir  Kaweah River tributary downstream of Lake Kaweah  2 configurations considered  pumped storage from Friant Kern Canal  diversion from Lake Kaweah  Favorable geotechnical conditions  No unmitigatable environmental impacts anticipated

41. Agenda  Investigation Purpose and Process  Surface Storage Option Screening  Conjunctive Management  Model Modifications and Preliminary Results  Next Steps Workshop #3 October 18, 2002 Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region California Department of Water Resources

42. CALFED P ROGRAMS Programs Established in Record of Decision Water Transfer Watershed Management Water Use Efficiency StorageStorage Water Quality ConveyanceConveyance Levee Integrity Ecosystem Restoration

43. CALFED P ROGRAMS Storage Program Elements  Surface storage projects to be pursued – In-Delta storage – Expand Shasta Reservoir – Expand Los Vaqueros Reservoir  Surface storage projects requiring further consideration – Sites Reservoir – Additional storage in Upper San Joaquin River watershed  Groundwater storage and conjunctive management  Groundwater management

44. CALFED P ROGRAMS Common Assumptions  CALFED is developing a set of common assumptions for use in storage project evaluations  Common assumptions will address – Level of development and water demands – Regulations and operating criteria – Conjunctive management – Conservation and water use efficiency – Other

45. Integrating Conjunctive Management  Phase I decision will be whether to initiate a feasibility study for storage in the Upper San Joaquin River Basin  Decision will be supported by information on: – Costs and potential benefits of surface storage options  How surface storage could meet CALFED goals – Other ways to improve water supply  Conjunctive management  Water use efficiency  Conservation

46. Conjunctive Water Management Program  Program Goals and Approach  Partnership Funding Opportunities  Conjunctive Water Management Integration Strategy

47. Goal and Emphasis Conjunctive Water Management Program  CALFED Goal - Increase statewide water supply reliability through planned, coordinated management and use of groundwater and surface water resources – 500,000 to 1 million acre-feet of conjunctive management  Emphasis - Partnerships with local agencies and stakeholders – Local control and management – Shared technical data and costs

48. Primary Programmatic Principles Conjunctive Water Management Program  Establish local basin-wide planning partnerships  Facilitate local groundwater basin monitoring  Ensure voluntary local implementation and control of projects  Maintain priority for in-basin water needs and compensation for out-of-basin transfers

49. Core Program Conjunctive Water Management Program  Concentration of efforts on assisting local agencies with basin-wide planning to: – Assist in meeting in-basin water needs – Conduct basin monitoring – Support sustainable local water resource management

50. Phased Approach Conjunctive Water Management Program  Memorandum of Understanding – Establish partnerships with local agencies – Coordinate studies to evaluate conjunctive water management options  Stakeholder Involvement – Assessment, education, outreach, ongoing meetings – Convene stakeholder advisory groups to guide the phased implementation process

51. Phased Approach Conjunctive Water Management Program  Integrated Storage Investigation Phase I – Conduct state of the groundwater basin assessment – Develop basin management objectives – Evaluate conjunctive water management options – Initial environmental/ permitting/economic analysis

52. Phased Approach Conjunctive Water Management Program  Integrated Storage Investigation Phase II – Perform project specific feasibility studies – Implement pilot/demonstration projects – Develop final project(s) – Environmental review/documentation

53. Phased Approach Conjunctive Water Management Program  Integrated Storage Investigation Phase III – Final project(s) implementation  Design  Construction  Monitoring  Adaptive management  Reporting

54. Partnership Funding Opportunities Conjunctive Water Management Program  DWR technical staff  Facilitation & mediation consulting services  Technical consultants for study scoping, data collection, evaluations, basin modeling, etc.  Cost sharing for use of local consultants

55. CONJUNCTIVE WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PARTNERS

56. Merced Area GPI MOU signed June 2001 Westlands WD/ Pleasant Valley WD MOU signed March 2001 Kings RCD/ Alta ID/ Consolidated ID/Fresno ID MOU signed May 2001 Chowchilla WD- Red Top City JPA MOU signed February 2001 CWMP PROGRAM PARTNERS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

57. Identifying Conjunctive Water Management Opportunities  Existing Conditions – Coordinate with MOU Partners and USJRBSI Stakeholders  Future Planned and Funded – Projects that are reasonably foreseeable  Possible and / or Likely – Projects identified by stakeholders that are likely to be implemented  Dependent on New Storage – Identification of conjunctive management facilitated by surface storage

58. For More Information Eric Hong (916) 651-9232 ehong@water.ca.govwww.water.ca.gov